A CONFERENCE OF THE CATHOLIKE AND PROTESTANTE DOCTRINE WITH THE EXPRESSE WORDS OF HOLIE SCRIPTVRE.

WHICH IS THE SECOND PARTE OF THE Prudentiall Balance of Religion.

VVHEREIN IS CLEARELY SHEWED, THAT IN MORE then 260. points of controuersie, Catholiks agree with the holie Scripture, both in words and sense: and Protestants disagree in both, and depraue both the sayings, words, and sense of Scripture.

WRITTEN FIRST IN LATIN, BVT NOW AVG­mented and translated into English.

ACTS IV. VERSE. XVII.

IF IT BE IVST IN THE SIGHT OF GOD, TO heare you rather then God, iudge yee.

S. Athanasius Apol. de Fuga.

WHAT MVST WE STICK TO, TO GODS words, or these mens Fables?

AT DOWAY, By the widdowe of MARKE WYON, at the signe of the Phenix.

M.DC.XXXI.

The argument of the first booke.

VVHo in more then 260. points of controuersie, speake with the holie Scripture, in the very selfe same or equiualēt words, when it speaketh of those matters expressely and of purpose, and in that sense also, which the words of Scripture of themselues, without anie exposition of man do afforde, and in which sense such words vse to be spoken and vnderstood of men, they, touching those points, agree both in words and meaning with the holie Scripture: And who speake of those points both in such words and sense, as are con­trarie to the foresaied words and sense, they in those points disagree both in words and sense from the holie Scripture. But Catholiks doe that, and Protestants, this. Therefore &c. The Maior semeth to be manifest by it selfe, and is largely proued in the second booke Cap. 1. The Minor is shewed to the eye in all the first booke.

The argument of the second Booke.

VVHo not onely in more then 260. points of controuersie disa­gree from the foresaied words and sense of Scripture, but also are forced openly to reiect some of the words thereof, to blot out some, to call others in question, to change the order of others: to change almost all kinds of the Scriptures speaches, to expound her words by quite different and plaine contraries, to reiect the vnani­mous exposition of holie Fathers, to confesse that some of their opi­nions were long since condemned for heresies, that some are blas­phemous and playne contrarie to Scripture, such contradict not one­ly the words, but also the true sense of Scripture. But Protestants doe thus. Therefore &c. The Maior is manifest by it selfe: and the Minor shewed to the eye in the second Booke.

APPROBATIO.

HOc opus, cui titulus: Collatio doctrinae Catholicorum ac Prote­stantium cum expressis sacrae scripturae verbis, duobus libris com­prehensa, Latino serm one olim editum, & à duobus S. Theol. Doctoribus Parisiensibus approbatum: nunc verò auctum & in Angli­cum sermonem fideliter conuersum, nihil habet fidei Catholicae ad­uersum, aut bonis moribus, sed plurimum valet ad confutationem do­ctrinae haereticorum praesentis temporis, & proinde rectè praeli bene­ficio in lucem edetur. Datum Duaci die 2. Ianuarij 1631.

GEORGIVS COLVENERIVS S. Theol. Doctor & eiusdem Regius, ordinarius ac primarius Professor, in­signis Eccl [...]siae Collegiatae S. Petri Praepositus & Canonicus, Duacen sis Academiae Cancellarius, & librorum Censor.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER, WHEREIN THE SCOPE, MANNER OF PROCEDING, AND PROFIT OF THIS BOOKE IS DECLARED, REQVISITE TO BE READ BEFORE THE BOOKE.

THERE are now diuers years (Gentle Rea­der) since I published the first parte of the Prudential Balance of Religion, in which, by the weights of Prudence and Right Reason I weighed together the Catholik and Pro­testant religion according to their first Founders in our English nation, to wit, S. Austin and Martin Luther: which booke hath neuer since bene answered by anie Prote­stant albeit diuers ministers, and superintendents haue car­ped at it both in Pulpits and printed books, shewing thereby that they wanted no will to answere it, if they could haue performed it. In the preface thereof I pro­mised a second parte, in which I would after the same manner weigh the forsaied religions according to their claimes to the holie Scripture, and the expresse words thereof, which here now I offer vnto thee. The causes why I haue so long differred the publishing of this second par­te, are well enough knowne to them who know me, and not needfull to be known of them who know me not. And therfore I will not trouble thee with the rehearshall [Page] of them, but here propose vnto thee the scope, manner of Proceding, and Profits of this second parte.

2. As a man consisteth essentially of a Soule and Bo­die, and can neither be, nor be imagined without them both: So the true Church of Christ essentially con­sisteth Two things wholy neces­sarieto Christs Church. of his true Doctrine, which is the forme, and (as it were) the soule of his Church, and of lawfull Pastors and People, who teach and embrace his Doctrine, which Pastors and People make (as it were) the bodie of Christes Church. And without both these partes, to wit, Christs true Doctrine, and true Pastors teaching, and People embra­cing it, Christs true Church can no more be, or imagined to be, then a true man can either be, or imagined to be, without both the true bodie and true soule of a man. And albeit the manifest need of both these partes to the true Church of Christ, doth enforce Protestants to make some clame to them both, and to pretend that they haue alvaies had both true Pastors who taught, and People who be­leiued their Doctrine; yet their pretense to this parte of the Church is so weake and slender, as but seldome and vpon mere necessitie they insist thereon. But their grea­test pretense and claime is to the true Doctrine of Christ; and think thereby to proue, that they haue alwaies had true Pastors and People who taught and beleiued their Do­ctrin, as I haue shewed in a Booke of the Author of the Protestant Church and Religion; wherein also I haue con­uinced by ten Demonstrations, (all taken out of the open Confessions of the best learned Protestants both of En­gland and other Countries) that they neuer had anie one Pastor who taught, or man who beleived the very funda­mentall and most substantiall points of their religion, be­fore Luther arose; but that he was first Author, Inuentor, and Father therof, as some of them in plaine termes do call him.

3. And although this Booke haue bene now these ma­nie years published both in Latin and English, and doth by the open confessions of the best learned Protestants [Page] ouerthrow the very foundation of their Church, or ra­ther shew, that it hath no foundation at all besides their owne imagination; yet hitherto no Protestant hath made anie shew of a solid answere vnto it. I saie, no shew of a why D. Pri­deaux lecture is no answer to the Author of Protest. re­ligion. solid answere, because that florish which Doctor Pri­deaux the Kinges diuinitie Reader in Oxford hath made in a lecture, deserueth not the name of shew or shadow of an answer. First, because he nether mentioneth the la­wes of answering my saied booke, which I set downe, and 1 proue by reason, testimonie of holie Fathers, and confes­sion of Protestants, ought to be kept in answering such a booke: And which lawes, I tell him before hand, that vn­les he ether keepe, or refute, I would accounte his answer no solid or lawfull answere, but the babling of one who could neither sufficiently answere, nor yet hould his peace. Secondly, because he maketh no other answere 2 to the manifold and manifest depositions of the best learned Protestants, which I haue my self brought, and clearly confuted by the depositions or testimonies them selues, against which confutation of myne, he replieth nothing, but standeth mute. Thirdly, because he so mise­rably 3 mangleth the answere which I make to their Sophi­sme, wherewith they by pretense of true Doctrin, would proue that they haue alwaies had true Pastors and People who taught and beleiued it, and so pittifully replieth to the saied answere, as he plainly sheweth him self to be a true Heretike, that is, conuicted in his owne iudgement, as I think euerie one, that compareth his lecture with my Booke, will clearly perceiue.

4. But sith the Protestants cheife and almost whole pre­tense of the truth and euer being of their Church, is the pretense of the truth of their doctrin by the Scripture, I will euidently shew, euen by the light of Reason and Prudence, that they haue no reasonable or colourable pre­tense of Scripture: but that it maketh expresly, clearly, and directly against thē, and for Catholiks, almost in all points of cōtrouersie. For whereas there be twoe waies to shew, Twoe waies to proue that. the Scripture is against Protest. [Page] that the holie Scripture is plainely against Protestants; the one by conferring of diuers places together, by bringing the exposition of the holie Fathers, decrees of Councels, and tradition of the Church: the other, by onely compa­ringe 1 the expresse words of Catholiks and Protestāts with 2 Protest. Do­ctrin as clearly contrarie to Scripture as yea is to no. expresse words of holie Scripture touching the same mat­ter; I take not the first way, which hithertoe Catholike writers haue followed, because it is not so fit to the capa­citie of commun people, for whome especially I compose this worke; but the second, which is as cleare, for euerie one that hath reason, to see, as it is cleare to see, that Yea and Yea, of the same matter agree, and that Yea and Nay do disagree.

4. This perhaps may seeme strange, nay impossible to simple Protestants, whose eares haue bene still accusto­med to heare their ministers vaunt, and brag of the word of God, of the Scripture, and Bible, and to auouch that Catholiks haue nothing to alleadge for thē selues but tra­ditions and word of men: But I beseech such to suspend a while their iudgment, and sith they wil haue the Prote­stants doctrin to be tried or iudged by nothing but by Scripture onely, let them grant me these two conditions Two condi­tions to proue the Scripture to be against Protest. 1. Touching the letter. 2. Touching the sense. of trying their doctrin by the Scripture, which the very light of reason, the authoritie of holie Fathers, and the Confession of the best learned Protestants will enforce them to graunt. The first condition is touching the words or letter of the holie Scripture; The second, is touching the sense or meaning of the saied words or letter. For as the holie Scripture consisteth of two partes, whereof the one is the word or letter, the other, is the sense therof, so I require one condition for the word, and an other for the sense.

5. The condition touching the word or letter is, that the words of holie Scripture be taken as they be in the The 1. cōditiō to [...]ching the letter, proued. Bible or booke of God, without anie addition, subtraction, or transposition: breefly without anie chopping or chan­ging whatsoeuer. This condition is so iust and reasonable, [Page] as I think no reasonable man will denie it; and neuertheles I wil proue it. First, because where God alone is Iugde, there 1 it is reason, that all men be silent, and onely harken what 2 God saieth, nor interrupt or corrupt his words. Let vs heare Lib. 1. peccat. c. 20. De vnit. c. 13 Serm. 27. de verb. Apo. (saieth S. Austin) our lord, and not ghesses or suspitions of men. Againe: I beleiue that which I read in holie Scripture, not that which vaine Heretiks say. And other where: There is a contro­uersie risen, let is goe to the Iudge, let the Prophet iudge: yea let God iudge by the Prophet, let vs both hold our peace. And yet againe: let vs not heare: This I say: This thou saiest, but let vs Lib. 6. cont. Iul. c. 4. In Confutat. Latomito. 2. fol. 234. heare, This our lord saieth. Yea Luther writeth: That mans word added vnto Gods word is a couer, nay mans dung, wherwith pure truth is hidden. Moreouer, seing Protestants impose silence to the Church, Councells, Fathers, and all Catholiks in 3 decision of matters of faith, and therin admit onely the written word of God, it were impudencie for them to re­quest to speake. Agayne, if Protestants will mingle their 4 owne words with the words of God, they admit not the onely word of God for iudge of controuersies, but parte­ly also their owne, and make one entire iudge of them both. Finally, Protestants are wonte to crie, that the Scri­ture 5 is the onely, and profest rule of faith; that they will heare Beza cont. Heshus. Daneus Cont. 3. 6. 7. Hospin part. 2 Caluin cont. versipel. & cont. Catha­lon. nothing besides Scripture; that nothing is to be taught but the pure written word; nothing to be beleiued but that which is expressely conteined in the Scripture. Let them heare therefore in these twoe hundred and sixte points, in which I will compare their doctrine with the Scripture, mere Scripture, one­ly Scripture, and let them harken to nothing but Scripture; let all their owne words whatsoeuer be set aside: let the Scriptures pure and onely words shew and iudge, whether Catholik or Protestant doctrin in these 260. points here set downe, be agreable or disagreable vnto it.

6. The second condition touching the sense is: That The 2. condi­tion touching the sense, proued. the pure written word of God may iudge betwixt vs according to the pure sense therof, which (when it is spoken clearly or of purpose to tell: vs what Gods mea­ning is) of it self and according to the vsual acception of [Page] men it doth afford, and this is euident also especiallie, if the Church must not be admitted to be the infallible In­terpreter of the true sense of Scripture. But neuertheles I proue it. First, because Protestants cannot set downe anie 1 condition which is so reasonable or indifferent to both partes. Secondly, because ether the Scripture in matters of controuersie clearly declareth her meaning by her self without any help or exposition of man, or she doth not. If she clearly declare her meaning by her self, then needeth she no help of man at all. For what need she help of others to declare her meaning, who clearly declareth it her self? And vndoubtedly if in any place she clearly declareth her meaning, she doth it in those places, in which she speaketh both clearly, and of set purpose, for to expresse her mea­ning. But if by her self she doe not clearly declare her meaning in matters in controuersie without some help of man (especially without the help of one of the opposite parties who contend about her meaning) certainly she is A iudge must be able by himself to de­clare his mynd. not fitt to be the onely iudge of controuersies, as Pro­testants would haue her. For who will saye, that she alone is fitt to be iudge, who alone and by her self is not able to vtter clearly her mynd? Besids, if the pure word of God 2 may not iudge according to the pure sense which of it self it clearly yeeldeth, but according to a different, nay quite opposite sense, which being conferred, expounded, wrested by man, it is forced to yeeld, who shall assure vs, that Gods sense, and not the sense of man, whose (and not Gods) that conference, inference, and wresting is, is made Serm. 14. de verb. Apost. Tractat. 2. de Cant. c. 17. L. 6. cont. Iu­lian. c. 5. L. 2. de Bap­tismo c. 6. iudge of controuersies? Let mens ghesses (saieth S. Austin) giue place for a time, let vs take in hand diuine weapons. Againe: This is humane inference, not dinine authoritie. The arguments which you bring are humane, these are diuine munitions. And otherwhere: let vs not bring false scales, with which we may weigh what we will and how we will, and saye as we please: This is heauie: This is leight; But let vs bring the diuine scale of the holie Scripture, and in that let vs weigh which is heauiest, or ra­ther let not vs wheigh it, but let vs aknowledg it weighed of God. [Page] Let vs set aside a while mens ghesses or imaginations of the conference or exposition of this or that place of Scrip­ture, let vs not bring deceitfull scales of mans conference, inference or exposition of Scripture, with which we may weigh what we will, and how we will saying according as we please: This is the meaning, That is not the meaning; This followeth, That followeth not; This is true, that is false, againe all which we may oppose those words of S. Austin: This is mans inference, mans conference, mans exposition, mans ghesse, not diuine authoritie, and let vs bring the diuine and sure scale of the pure meaning of Gods pure word, and in that let vs weigh the doctrin of both partes, or rather let vs acknowledge that which is weighed and allowed by God him self in this his scale. Moreouer, if mans help be necessarie to Scripture for the 3 conference and expositiō of the places therof, or inference of that which is to be inferred out of them, so that with­out mans help it can not sufficiently decide questions of faith, I aske of Protestants, what men these must be; whe­ther we or they, or some third, who nether are Catholiks nor Protestants? Sure I am, they will nether admit ours nor other mens expositions of Scripture for their iudge, and I think they wilbe ashamed to exact of vs that we should admit their interpretatiō, especially sith they refuse the conference, inference, and exposition of the holy Councells, and Fathers. Wherfore vnles they will stand to Protestants must be tried by the natiue, and vsual sense of he words, or thy no sense. that sense of Scripture which is no way partial, to wit, which the Scripture it self, by it self, without any conference or exposition of man, giueth, they can name no sense of Scripture which both parties may admit for their iudge: and to refuse all sense of Scripture whervpon both parties may reasonably agree, is plainly to refuse all rea­sonable triall by scripture. For seing the soule and kernel of the Scripture is the sense therof; and that the letter or words is but the shell or bark of it, as is euident and both holie Fathers and Protestants agree, manifest it is, that whosoeuer will not reasonably agree vpon any sense of [Page] the Church, Councells, or Fathers) where it is spoken of set purpose to declare Gods meaning, of it self without any mans exposition, and according to the vsual vnder­standing of men, it doth afford, rather then the quite con­trarie sense, which by the wresting of Protestants it is compelled to carrie. Let but this right reason and true prudence lift vp this Balance, wherein I weigh the Doctrin of Catholiks and Protestants according to holie Scripture in more then 260. points, and I nothing doubt, but it will clearly see and iudge the Catholik doctrin agreable to Scripture and the Protestant, quite opposite and con­trarie. And this is my purpose, Scope, and butte in this 1. The Scope of the first booke And of the second. booke, to which I adde a second, wherin I manifestly shewe that Protestants Doctrin is not onely quite oppo­site in more then 260. points both in words and meaning to the holie Scripture, but also, that they are forced to re­iect many and great partes of the Scripture; to alter that parte which they admit, to weaken all force of Scripture; to say that much of the Scripture was not spoken of cer­taine knowledge, or not according to the meaning of the speaker; to teach, that most weightie sentences of the Scripture were spoken ironically, mimetically, and hyperbolically, to change the most vniuersall propositions of the Scripture into particulers, to limitate speeches not limited by the Scripture; to alter absolute speeches into conditionall; to make causall propositions not causall, to expound words in some sorte, which were spake simply; The contents of the second booke. which were spaken of one time, to interprete them of an other, to make one saying, of many; to vnderstand words that signifie the doing of a thing, of an endeauour to doe it; which signifie working a thing, of the way or meane therto; which signifie that a thing is, to expound that it ought to be: words which signifie a true thing, to ex­pound them of a shew or apparent thing: to expound the words of Scripture of different, yea wholy diuerse, & contrarie matters; to deuise improprietes and all figures of speeches; to feigne friuolous and neuer before heard [Page] of distinctions; to reiect the exposition of the Fathers, Councells, and Church: to confesse, that they teach Do­ctrin damned in ould time for heresie: to frustate the ends of the incarnation and passion of Christ: to take out of the world all vertue and giue free scope to all vice: and finally, to confesse, that much of the Protestant doctrin is con­trarie to holie Scripture. All which clearly shewe, that Protestant leaders doe not onely teach doctrin contrarie to the Scripture, but also do in very deed mock and con­temne it.

8. The manner of my proceeding is this. First I deuide Manner of proceeding in this booke. the matters which are in controuersie according to their order, and in euerie matter I distinguish manie articles which I propose in forme of question: After, I set downe the expresse words of Scripture: Next I bring the decrees of the Councell of Trent, or the Instructions of the Ca­techisme of that Councell: And where I find not their determinations, I alledge the doctrin of S. Thomas, or of D. Stapleton, or Cardinal Bellarmin. Against these, I produce the assertions of one or manie famous Prote­stants directly opposite to the doctrin of the Scrip­ture and of the Catholiks. Lastly, I gather to­gether a summe of the words of the holie Scripture, to­gether with a summe of the sayings of Protestants, that thereby the opposition betwene the doctrin of them both may the better appeare. As for the words of Scripture; Plessie of the Church c. 5. p. 145. Let them bring one text that is cleare and euident and we are readie to yeeld vnto them. I bring not all which might be brought of euerie article, because nether is that necessarie to my purpose, sith God is as much to be beleeued in one word as in manie, ne­ther (as the Councell of Arausica saieth truly) will manie te­stimonies of Scripture auaile any thing with him, to whome few are not sufficient, but I bring those onely testimonies which to me seemed most opposite to the words of Protestants, Nether do I proue, that the words of Scripture, which I cite, be cleare, and vttered of purpose to declare vnto vs Gods mynd of that matter wherof they treate, or do of themselues and according to their accustomed acception [Page] amongst men, manifestly afford that sense in which Pro­testants gayne saye them; because al thefe points are ma­nifest by them selues, and the shifts which Protestants vse to delude them, do manifestly proue them. Nether also do I proue, that Protestants can not at least (touching the most of these Articles) produce any such testimonies of Scripture, which, in expresse words may seeme directly, and without any inference, conference, or exposition of theirs to speake for them, as in these 260. points the te­stimonies which I bring, do speake for vs. First, because this being a denial, it is of it self sufficiently proued, vnles the Protestants can demonstrate their contrarie affirma­tion. Secondly, because this is euident to euerie one who See Tertul. l. de Resur. c. 3. Luther de verb. Caenae, fol. 389. considereth the testimonies brought by Protestāts, which in verie few and almost no matters at all in controuersie betwixt vs and them are such, as of them selues without the addition of some humane principle or illation, they may, so much as seeme, to be directly opposite vnto vs. Which if Protestāts would consider, they should easily see, almost in all controuersies, as much difference betwene our proofes out of Scripture and theirs, as there is be­twixt the expresse word of God and humane discourse. Nether may they saye, that they are not bound to proue Why Protest. are bound to prooue their negatiue points of do­ctrin. those points wherin they contradict vs, because their de­nial needeth no proof; Both because in some contro­uersies they are the affirmers, and we the deniers; as when they say, that God will and worketh sin, tempteth and predestinateth to sin; That Christ was truly a sinner feared 1 his dānation, suffered the paines of hel, the like: In which questions, seing Catholiks proue their denial by expresse words of Scripture, much more ought Protestants by the 2 like expresse words to proue their affirmation. As also, be­cause it is one thing simply to deny or not to beleeue the Catholik affirmation (as euerie Iew, Turk, or infidel doth) an other thing, not onely to denie it or not be­leue it, but also to condemne it as an vntruth contrarie to See Tertul. de Corona. c. 2. Scripture, and to auouche the denial as a truth taught by [Page] Scripture; For albeit a simple denial or not beleefe need no proofe, yet such a mixt denial, as denying the opposite affirmation, affirmeth it self to be auouched by Scripture, and the affirmation to be condemned thereby, hath as great need of proofe out of Scripture, as any other affir­mation whatsoeuer. Moreouer, these denials are articles 3 of faith with Protestants, and as such are put in their Confessions of faith, and therfore ether ought to be proued by Scripture, as other articles are; or they must confesse, that they can not proue out of Scripture the greatest parte of their faith: which principally consisteth of these negatiue articles or denials of our faith.

9. As for Catholiks, for the most parte, I produce the Why one Cath. saying is alledged. words of one onely of the foresaied Authors; because the agreement of Catholiks in matters of faith is wel enough knowne; I might, if I would, haue my self set downe the Catholik doctrin in euerie article in the same words in which the Scripture deliuereth her doctrin of the same: or perhappes haue found the Catholike doctrine proposed by some Catholik [...] Author in the verie same words which the Scripture vseth: But that Protestants should not saye, that it was no maruel if the Catholik doctrin be de­liuered in the Scriptures words by any Author whatsoeuer; or when it is done of purpose, I would not set it downe but in the words of some famous Catholik writer, & those spoaken not of purpose to accomodate their speech to the phrase of Scripture; but spoaken to declare and expresse the Catholik doctrin. And here by we may see that when the Catholik doctrin is to be sett downe most plainly and distinctly by thē who best know it, of it nature it requireth to be deliuered with the very same or the likewords which the Scripture vseth. Whence we may also gather (as I shal herafter) that the Catholik doctrin is in very deed one and the self same with the doctrin of the Scripture.

10. For the like cause I haue alledged the words onely Why manie Prot [...]stants saying [...] alled­ged. of famous Protestants, such as almost all were not onely writers but also Professors of Protestant diuinitie, lest [Page] any should attribute their words to ignorance. And some 1 times I haue cited diuers sayinges of the same Author, 2 partly lest any should think, that such words fell from him vnawares: partely also, because some times they con­tradict 3 the Scripture in so different manners of speech, as if they would that none should be ignorant therof: partely also, to the end, that the Catholik Reader may make choice amongst manie sayings of Protestants, which he iudgeth most opposite to the Scriptures words. Nether yet do I feare, that the multitude of Protestants sayings opposed against the Scripture, may scandalize any weake Catholik; for seing the Scripture most directly contrarie to them, and armed with this sheild, he wil no more regarde the Protestants words then so many barkings of of doggs against heauen, so many cries of Ieves against Christ, so many blasphemies of damned men against God. And if it be wearisome or irkesom to the Catholik Rea­der, to read all the blasphemous speeches of Protestants (as it was to me to write them out) let him runne ouer the Summe which I make of their words, or, by the notes in the margent, chuse which are fittest to his purpose. And thus much for the māner of my proceeding in this booke.

11. The profit of this work is manifould. First, because by it a short and easie way may be taken to make an end The profits of this worke. of all controuersies, and that out of Scirpture alone, as Protestants desire: to wit, by mere rehearsall of the ex­presse 1 words of Scripture, of Catholiks, and of famous Protestants touching 260. articles of controuersie: For if it appeare that catholikes in 260. articles agree both in word and sense with the expresse words of Scripture and these spoken of purpose to declare her meaning vnto vs: and that Protestants in those 260. articles directly contradict the said words and sense of the holie Scripture, no man will doubt, but that all Protestant doctrin (for as it is con­trarie to the Catholik) is also contrarie to the holie Scrip­ture. An other commoditie is, that in this booke are ga­thered 2 those places of Scripture, and they ranked accor­ding [Page] to order of their matters, which in 260. articles di­rectly and in their proper and vsual sense do approue the Catholik doctrin, and condemne the Protestant. A third 3 commoditie is, that hereby are at hand in euerie kind of controuersie such sayings of famous Protestants, as not onely directely crosse the Scripture; but also many of them are so blasphemous against God, against Christ, against the Saints, the Church, Sacraments, Faith, Good works: so opposite to pietie, vertue and religion: so fauo­rable to vice, and all licenciousnes: so repugnant to reason, as some Protestants will deny, and others scarse beleeue, that euer any of theirs taught such doctrin. Whome I re­quest The Authors fidelitie in ci­ting Prote­testants say­ings. to take the paines to looke vpon the bookes and places by me alledged, and then to beleeue their owne eyes. For I not onely gathered their sayings out of their owne bookes, but also, after I had my self gathered them and caused them to be faire copied out, I diligently con­ferred them with their books, and admitted none which he, that read their bookes, did non find to be truly cited out of them. Wherfore I say for my self as Caluin said for him self against Gentilis: There shalbe no colour for them to cōplaine that they are slandered, seing I request that iudgmēt be made of their impietie out of their owne mere words. And they, who haue had to deale with Protestants ether by word or writing, know well how important a thing it is, to be able to conuince them, that they teach that which in in very deed they teach; which may clearly be done by their sayinges here rehearsed.

12. The fourth commoditie of this worke is, thar here­by 4 shall appeare, that almost in all controuersies which betwene Catholiks and Protestants, Catholiks do stick fast to the very words of Scripture, and religiously keepe her letter and forme of speech; and Protestants goe fare from the words, at lest of Scripture and bring in a diffe­rent, yea quite opposit, forme of speech. Nether ought they to think this to be a small fault, both because they boasting of the pure and expresse word of God, ought [Page] also to keep the very letter thereof, and not to reiect it and to vse the contrarie: as also because the Apostle comman­deth to auoide profane nouelties of words, and to keepe the 1. Timoth. 6. 2. Timoth. 1. forme of holesome words which we haue learned of him: which commandment they do not follow, who forsake the Scriptures forme of speech, and embrace the contrarie: and finally, because not onely the sense, but also the words and forme of speech vsed by the Scripture, did proceed from the holie Ghoste, and therefore it is sacrilegious au­dacitie to reiect Gods words and Gods forme of speaking, and to bring in mans words and fashion of speaking quite contrarie. As if these new Ghospelers should teach God how to deliuer his mind, or he ment to speake other­wise by them, then he did by his Prophets, Apostles, and Euāgelists, wherefore their impietie is not to be borne withall who when the Scripture most often and most plainly calleth the beleefe of wicked men or reprobats, faith, and neuer denieth it to be faith, yet dare say, that it Caluin 3. In­stit. c. 2. §. 10. is vnworthie the name of faith: When the Scripture often times and most directly calleth the Eucharist the bodie of Christ, and not once directly denieth it to be his bodie, yet dare say, it is not his bodie. And the like they doe in many other matters, wherin if they controll not the meaning of the holie Ghoste; at least they correct his speech, and reforme it according to the square of their new doctrin. Far otherwise proceeded the holie Fathers, who would not suffer so much as a letter or syllable of the holie Scrip­ture to be altered: And as S. Austin grauely aduertized. Philosophers may speake as they please, but we speake according Lib. 10. de Ciuit. c. 23. to a certaine rule, lest licencie in words breed impious opinions of the thing which they signifie. Yea Protestants them selues some times will seeme to be very carefull of the words and phrases of Scripture. For thus speaketh Luther: If the In Confutat. Latomi. f. 227 Scripture terme any thing sin, beware thou beest not moued by any words of theirs, who (as if they could speake better) deny it to be sin. And Caluin: There is to be taken out of Scripture a 1. Instit. c. 13. §. 3. certaine forme of thinking & speaking, by which all the thoughts [Page] of our mynd and words of our mouth are to be examined. Beza Ad defens. Castell. also: I see that all godlie and learned Diuines haue euer taught, that the holie Ghost gouerned not onely the mynd, but also the tongue and pen: in so much as concerning the wonders of God, not onely nothing can be saied of any mā more truly or more habily, but also nether so grauely nor so properly. Likewise Bucer: Prefat. in Math. No wisdom of the flesh can reach to these misteries of the king­dome of God. Therefore, then we speake most plainly most perspi­cuously and most surely of matters of faith, when we speake ac­cording to the rule and forme of Scripture. And otherwhere: we In Hospin. part. 2. Histor must learne of the Scripture and the holie Ghoste, how to speake and think of euerie matter. Wherefore the holie Ghost his formes of speaking ought not to be corrected according to the iudgment of our reason. Thus they, which if they and theires had fol­lowed, we should not haue had so much speech contrarie to the Scripture.

13. The fift, and that no small, cōmoditie is, that by this 5 worke wilbe taken from ministers all their false pretense of Scripture and of the worde of God, wherewith perpe­tually they crie, that the Catholik faith is grounded onely vpon mens authoritie, and all their doctrin for­south vpon the expresse Scripture and word of God, and In c. 1. Galat. In Assert. art 2. thereby draw the simple people to follow them. The Pope (faieth Luther) hauing no Scripture wherewith to defēd himself, vseth this onely and perpetuall argument against vs. The Church, the Church. Agayne: Our opinion is deliuered by these words of God, the contrarie, by the words of men. And otherwhere. All the Scripture standeth an our sides through all letters and tittles. Caluin: Papists find no weapons in Scripture, yea they In Actor. 9. v. 22. In Antid. sess. 6. c. 8. see it wholy against them. Agayne. I haue the whole Scripture on my side. And Sadeel: Our doctrin doth relie vpon the ex­presse worde of God? And in an other place: we professed in the fift article of our French Confession, that our faith is onely and wholie, and expressly grounded vpon the word of God as it is con­tained De vocat. Ministr. Ad art. 1. abiurat. in the Scripture. Fulk in Ioan. 5. note 2. Papists can not find a iote of Poperie allowed ether by expresse wordes of the Scripture, or by necessarie cōclusiō out of the same. And the like [Page] most vaine pretence, this most impudent boast is most Apol. Anglic p. 20. Pareus praefat lib. de Grat. Caluin epist. 193. Whitak. prae­fat. ad De­monst. manifestly refuted in this booke, wherein is clearly she­wed, that the Catholik doctrin, in more then 260. points denied by Protestants, is in expresse termes and most di­rectly taught and deliuered, by the Scripture, and in the same points the Protestants doctrin condemned: and that these in very deed do relie vpon their owne inferences out of Scripture, their owne conferences of places of Scripture and oppose their owne expositions, glosses, tropes, and figures, against the expresse words and thun­ders of almightie God.

14. The sixt commoditie is, that though some obstinatly 6 will not confesse, that in all these 260. points or in most of them, the Scripture or word of God doth expresly approue the Catholik doctrin and condemne the Prote­stant, yet this he can not denie, but in all these points the holie Scripture both for word and for sense fauoureth more the Catholik doctrin then the Protestant: which if ignorant Protestants would mark, they would not be so easily misled. For as for words, in all these 260. points we Catholiks ad­uantage ouer Protestants. For words of Scripture. vse the very same or equiualent words with the Scripture: what she calleth faith, we call faith: what she calleth the bodie of Christ, we call the bodie of Christ. And so in others: whereas Protestants do the quite contrarie, as hath beene touched before, and shall appeare in the whole booke. And as for the forme of speach, where the Scrip­ture For phrase of Scripture. affirmeth, we affirme; where the Scripture denieth, we deny: And contrarie wise the Protestants affirme, where the Scripture denieth; and deny, where the Scrip­ture affirmeth: as shalbe most euident to him that will read this booke. Besids no parte or parcell of the Scripture for­ceth For partes of Scripture. Catholiks to denie it, but they hould all that Prote­stants account for Scripture and some what more: whereas Protestāts are compelled to reiect manie bookes of those which Catholiks and the holie Church heretofore hath beleeued to be Gods word, and fouly also to mangle and corrupt these bookes which they admit. Moreouer Ca­tholiks [Page] refuse no authenticall edition or translation of the For transla­tions of Scrip­ture. Scripture: but Protestants will sland to no translation. And thus much touching the words of Scripture. As for For the sense of Scripture. the sense thereof: Catholiks in all these 260. points do admit that sense, which the expresse words of Scripture, and they spoaken of purpose to declare Gods mynd doe of them selues proporse: which sense Protestants reiect and force the quite contrarie. Agayne, scarce in any of these 260. articles Catholiks are driuen to any answere which hath any shew of a shift or euasion, because in them (as I saied) they embrace the natiue and proper sense of the words of Scripture: but Protestants in euerie one of them are driuen to sundrie and foule shifts, because they refuse the naturall and plaine sense of Gods word. Besids, Catholiks in all these 260. points dare stand to the iudgment of the expresse worde of God according to that sentence which of them selues with out all helpe, force or pressing of Catholiks they doe pronounce: Protestants dare not in these articles stand to the iudgment of Gods expresse worde, vnles they may wrest, wring, and inter­prete it as they thinke best. Finally, Catholiks in none of all these questions reiect that sense of Scripture, which is deliuered by vnanimous consent of the holie Fathers, Councells, or Church. Protestants refuse it in manie. Seing therefore Catholiks haue the aduantage ouer Pro­testants, not onely for Fathers, Councells, Church, mira­cles, the like, but also that they haue such and so great ad­uantages ouer them in more then 260. points of con­trouersie, both for the expresse worde, and plaine sense of the Scripture, it is plaine willfulnes and carelesnes of saluation to leaue Catholiks for to follow Protestants. I would to God, that Protestants would (as they pretend) follow the expresse word of God, and embrace that Re­ligion Note. which the expresse word of God most fauoureth, reiect that which it most disliketh; and enquire diligently whether the Catholik or Protestant religion can in more points of controuersie proue her doctrin by the pure and [Page] expresse written word of God without the mixture of any word of man, and by the pure sense therof, which of it self it affordeth without any help or exposition of man, when it is spoaken of purpose to declare Gods meaning vnto vs. Let that religion florish and be embraced, which in this conflict ouercomet: let that perish and be reie­cted, which is ouercomen. And what more reasonable then to preferre Gods pure word before that which is not pure, mixt partely of Gods words, partely of mans. What more reafonable, then to preferre Gods direct speech, be­fore mans inference or collection out of his speech? What more reasonable, then to follow rather Gods expresse words, then mans glosses, tropes, and figures? And finally, what more reasonable, then to follow that religion which in more then 260. points of controuersie is grounded vpon the pure word, the direct word, the ex­presse word of God, and hath against it nothing but mans mixt word, mans inference, mans glosses: rather then that which in all those points is condemned by the pure, direct, and expresse word of God, and supported onely by mans mixt word, mans inference, and mans glosses? For example: That the Eucharist is the bodie of Christ, we haue for vs in foure places of Scripture the pure, direct, and expresse word of God, saying: This is my bodie: and against vs there is not so much as once any pure word of God, saing directly and expresly: This is not my bodie. But onely mens inference out of a mixt word, to wit: Christs bodie is in heauen, and can not be in two places; which word is mixt, partely of Gods word, for the former parte, and of mens word, for the latter. And shall we thinke that in a matter of faith, which we can not know but by Gods teaching, his pure and expresse word is not to be preferred before mens inference out of a mixt word, which is in parte mens word? What els can we thinke vnles we will euen in Gods matters preferre men before God.

15. The seauenth cōmoditie is that in this word are dis­couered [Page] all or the most vsuall shifts wherewith Protestāts vse to delude the testimonies of holie Scripture. Which surely is no lesse profitable, then to know the deceits of enemies with whom we are to fight. And as Tertullian saieth: VVoe be to him, who whiles he is in this life, knoweth not De resur. c. 19. the secrets of Heretiks. And these are the especiall profits and commodities which may be reaped by this work; Now let vs remoue certaine scruples or hinderances of the reaping of them.

16. The first scruple may be about the vulgar Latin trās­lation, Obiections or difficulties remoued. which I follow in citing the words of Scripture. But to omit all which Catholiks produce for to proue that translation to be authenticall (because this is no place to treate of that matter) Protestants cōfessions here­of may suffice, which may be seene in the Protestants Apologie for the Rom. Church Treat. 1. Sect. 10. subd. 4. to which I add, that Casoubon writeth. I acknowledg the Latin translation of the bible to be holie Scripture, and I account an vnperdonable fault to so much as doubt thereof: That Iuel. art. 17. sect. 4. saieth: It hath bene euer more generally receaued in the Church: That Beza in Luc. 1. confesseth: That the ancient interpreter did most religiously translate the Scripture. And in Luc. 8. v. 54. That him self had twoe ancient Greek copies which meruailously agreed with the vulgar Latin. And Prefat. in Testam. That the vulgar interpreter had a truer Greek copie then theirs now are. Whitaker also Cont. 1. q. 2. c. 7. graunteth, that the Latin Fathers commend it and iustly. Hounfrey l. 1. de Rat. interpret. affirmeth. That the old In­terpretor seemeth enough addicted to the proprietie of the word. Moreouer Luther and Protestants commonly confesse, that Catholiks haue the word of God that the Fathers vsed the Latin translation in their disputes for mainte­nance of the Catholik faith and confutation of Heresies. Besids Fulk in his preface to the Testament, saieth, that none of them calleth the vulgar translation of the new testament, Papisticall, as though it were translated by Papists, or els made so greatly for Papists when it is rightly vnderstood. Finally the [Page] vulgar Latin translation differeth not from the originall Hebrew or Greek text, but in very few of those places which here I cite; and therefore it wilbe but vayne to cauil here about this matter.

17. The secōd scruple may be, that some times the very why Protest. can not ex­cuse them selues by the Scripture. Scripture contradicteth it self in shew of words, and neuertheles in sense and meaning is neuer repugnant to it self. And therefore it is not so great meruail if Protestāts some time contradict the words of Scripture, nether can it be thereof inferred that the contradict the sense. To this 1 I answer, that the Scripture nether so often, nor in so many and so weightie matters, nor so manifestly and di­rectly contradicteth it self in words, as Protestants doe: Nether need we so many and so incredible shifts for to reconcile the words of Scripture, as Protestants need to reconcile their sayings with the Scripture. Besids, God 2 may speak as he pleaseth, & therefore may for to exercise our faith and studie mingle some shew of contradiction in his words: but Protestants are bound to speak as God speaketh, and not to gaine say so much as his words, as doubtles they would not, if their meaning were not re­pugnant to his. Agayne, we may not out of anie seeming 3 contradiction in Gods words, infer anie opposition in his meaning, because we know, that he can not be contrarie to him self: but we know that Protestants can not be contrarie to Gods meaning, as we see that they be con­trarie to his words: and therefore out of their so frequent, so manifest, so direct contradicting of his words, we iustly inferre, that they also contradict his meaning, as we would inferre the same of anie Heretiks whatsoeuer. Moreouer 4 this cauil will no more help Protestants, then it will help anie other Heretiks, sith there were euer scarce anie, who so often, so plainly, so directly contradicted the expres word of God, as Protestants haue done. And therefore ether we may inferre out of the Protestants contradi­cting the words of God, that they also contradict his true meaning, or we can not inferre that of anie Heretiks [Page] whatsoeuer. But of this more in the second booke cap. 1.

18. The third scruple may be, that perhaps also VVhy they can not ex­cuse them selues by Ca­tholiks. some Catholik writers haue in shew of words contra­dicted the Scripture. But to this I answere that this is to accuse others, not to cleare them selues: Let them first an­swere for them selues, before they recriminate others. And if anie of them will goe about to lay the like fault vpon Catholiks, let him keep these most iust and equal conditions. First, let him not medle with other matters 1 then such as are in controuersie betwixt vs and them, as I touch no other matters. Secondly, let him bring forth 2 in so manie controuersies, so manifest and so direct testi­monies of holie Scripture agreeing with their doctrin both in wordes and sense, and opposite to our do­ctrin, as I haue brought. Thou must proue (saieth Tertullian) as euidently as we proue. Giue me a proof which I demand like to Cont. Prax. c. 11. De vnit. c. 6. 24. mine. And S. Austin: Produce as cleare testimonies as these are which we produce to you. We demande some manifest place which needeth no interpreter. Thirdly, let him shew that the Councell of Trent contradicteth as directly so many and 3 so expres places of Scripture, and that in so weightie mat­ters, as we haue shewed that theire confessions of faith, of which (as they say) they make almost as great account of, as Vorstius prae­fat. Antil­praefat. Syn­tagm. we doe of the Councell of Trent. Fourthly, let him shew, that so many and so famous Catholik writers haue in so many and so great controuersies contradicted the expres propo­sitions or assertions of the holie Scripture, as we haue 4 shewed of the Protestant writers. I say Propositions, or Assertions, because it is a farre greater matter to contradict the proportions of Scripture, in which it pronounceth a thing to be, or not to be; to be such, or not to be such, then to varie onely from some of the words wherewith here or there it signifieth this or that thing. As for ex­ample, it is a farre greater matter to deny the Eucharist to be the bodie of Christ, which the Scripture often times & plainly affirmeth, then not to call it bread as some times [Page] the Scripture doth, but neuer directly saieth that it is bread: Wherevpon Spalatensis l. 5. de repub. c. 6. writeth thus: It is one thing, for a seeming thing to be called by the name of the true thing, which the appearence doth shew; An other, to be said, This is that. The first may and is borne withall in all equiuocall termes, but not the latter. Wherefore let him omit these kinds of matters. Fiftly, let him shew, that Catho­liks 5 haue done thus, not by the way, treating of other matters, but of set purpose, as Protestants haue done, who most often then contradict the Scripture in plaine termes, euen then when they answere it or comment vpon it. Lastly, let him shew, that Catholiks haue beene 6 forced for the maintenance of their doctrin to denie so many bookes, to corrupt so many places of holie Scrip­ture, to deuise, so many and so incredible shifts, as we haue shewed the Protestants haue done, or let him be ashamed to say, that Catholiks are as faultie in this kind, as Protestants be. Moreouer, though they could proue, that some Catholiks haue bene as faultie herein, as they are (which they can neuer proue) yet that would nothing preiudice the Chatholik Church, because her faith is not the doctrin of one or of many Catholiks, but the common of them all: But the Protestant faith is in many points the doctrin of some or of manie of them, euerie one of them making that a point of faith, which him self gathereth out of Scripture, whether his fellows beleeue it, or no. Besids, the Catholik Church, if she find anie thing in the writinges of her children contrarie to holie Scripture, she nether alloweth nor dissembleth it, but commandeth it to be blotted out, as is euident by the Ex­purgatorie Indices; but the Protestant ether approueth or dissembleth the errors of her writers, and so maketh them her owne. VVhy all Cōtradictiōs here related may be ab­iected to the Prot. Church.

19. The fourth scruple may be, that all the Cōtradictions against holie Scripture, which are here rehearsed out of Protestant writers, were not made nor allowed of all Protestants, or of their Church, and therefore all of them [Page] are not to be imputed to all Protestāts or to their Church. I answere. First, that very many of the Contradictions 1 against holie Scripture here set downe are found in their Confessions of faith, and in other writings set forth in their common name: which Contradictions are most iustly attributed to their Church, and these alone suffice to shew, that the very faith and common doctrin of Pro­testants is directly opposite both to the word and sense of holie Scripture. Secondly, almost all these Contradi­ctions 2 are taken out of the writings of the first, the chie­fest, and famousest teachers, guides, and leaders of Prote­stants, and therefore ether Protestants must acknowledge these Contradictions, or reiect the doctrin of their first and chefest Maisters as directly contrarie to Gods word. Thirdly, all the Contradictions or Antitheses here pro­duced, 3 are taken out of famous writers and mainteiners of the Protestant faith, whose doctrin the Protestant Church hath not publikly condemned, nor compelled the Authors thereof to recall it, nor commanded it to be taken out of their writings, and therefore, if not by publike consent, yet by silence and dissembling approueth it, and so (as I saied before) maketh it her owne. Fourthly, Prote­stants 4 obiect to the Catholik Church whatsoeuer any Cotholik writer, though neuer so obscure, hath written: why then may not we better obiect vnto their Church what many and the most famous of their writers haue published? Finally my intention in this workes not to 5 shew the Contradictions of this or that Protestant man or Church against the holie Scripture; but of the Prote­stants in generall, especially of the cheefest and most fa­mous.

But whether the Contradictions of Scripture made by And though they could not yet that would suffice. many and famous Protestant writers, and not condem­ned but dissembled by their Church, be to be obiected to their Church, or no, these points ensuing will suffice to my purpose. First, that the commun fairh of Protestants is in many and weightie articles directly contrarie to the [Page] expresse word and cleare meaning of holie Scripture, as is euident by that which in diuers articles I recite out of their Confessions of faith and other their common wri­tings. The second is, that touching many other matters, 2 that self same doctrin which I cite out of other Prote­stants, is conteined in their Confessions of faith though it be not deliuered there in termes so expresly opposite to the words of holie Scripture, as it is by other Protestants. The third is, that much of that Protestant Doctrin which 3 here if cite as opposite to holie Scripture, is in very deed the common beleef of Protestants, albeit it be not inser­ted in their Confessions. The fourth point is, that those 4 Protestants whose words I alledge, knew the common Apol. Anglic Cont. 2. q. 5. c. 8. L. 3. de Ec­cles. c. 42. doctrin of Protestants, as well as anie who now will denie or reiect that doctrin. The fift is, that Iuel, Whitaker, Feild, and diuers other Protestants auouch, that there is no ma­teriall difference in doctrin amongst the cheefe Protestāts, which ether they must confesse to befalse, or maintaine 5 the doctrin which here I cite out of their cheefest writers. The sixt point is, that housoeuer the doctrin which I cite, 6 is not in all points the Doctrin of this Protestant man or Church, yet it is as I saied Protestant doctrin, taught and maintained by famous Protestants, such as our English Protestants hould communion withall, and account them their brethrē in Christ, And therefore ether let thē defend their doctrin, or refuse their cōmunion. The seuenth point is, that whether all or most of the Protestant doctrin, which 7 here I cite as opposite to holie Scripture, be the cōmon do­ctrin or beleefe of Protestāts, or no, this alone would suffice to my purpose, that the doctrin of the first, chefest, and fa­mousest Protestant preachers and leaders, is in more then Note. 260. points of controuersie quite opposite to the expresse words of holie Scripture. For thereby euerie one may see, that the first & cheefest Protestāt preachers, did not teach the word of God, but the word of the Diuel quite contrarie there [...]o: were not ministers of the word of God, but mini­sters of the Diuel: not Reformers, but Deformers: not [Page] sent of God, but thrust on by the Diuel: not lightned from heaune, but blinded from hel: not Apostles, but Apostatas: not Pastores but wolues: who vnder a most false pretence of the word of God, did most directly im­pugne it, drew Cristians from Gods truth to the Diuels lies, from the lap of the Catholik Church to the den of theues, from the assured path of saluation to the open way of damnation.

Finally I aduertise the Reader, that if at anie time I vse anie sharp words against Protestants, I intend them onely against their teachers and leaders, yet vse I the common name of Protestants, that the rest may know that the crimes which I obiect vnto them, proceed of their do­ctrin, and thereby flie and reiect it, lest they become par­takers of the crimes. I shew them the gulfe of impietie, into which their guides doe lead them: let them not be offended with me, that I set before their eyes the impietie of the doctrin which they are tought, but let them be angrie with their teachers who vnder the most false pretense of Scripture and Gods word, haue thaught them such impious doctrin and so contrarie to Gods words. And I hartely pray God, and euer shal, that he open their eyes, that they may see the most imminent and greiuous danger wherein they stand, and auoide it, & lighten with his true light that zeale which they haue to his word, Rom. 10. lest they perish for euer with them who had zeale but not according to knowledge.

Whether Catholiks or Protestants be the true owners of the holie Scripture?

FIRST CHAPTER.

BECAVSE this question of the true owners How impor­tant this que­stion is. of the holie Scripture is of such moment, as by it may be decided all controuersies, as shall hereafter appeare: and withall the decision thereof is so easie and cleare, as euerie one may perceaue it: and notwithstanding hath not as yet to my knowledge, beene particularly handled of anie, albeit (as we shall see out of Tertullian) it should haue beene handled before anie question of Scripture, I will begin first with it. And because Protestants auouch them selues to be the true owners of the Scripture, I need not proue to them that ether Catholiks or they are the true owners thereof (which the very question doth suppose) but it will suffice against them that I shew, that according to all reason, Catholiks are to be iudged the true owners of Scripture rather then they.

The first proofe hereof I will take from the actuall The first title for Cathol. actual posses­sion. possession of the Scripture, in which Catholiks peacably were, when Luther and the Protestants first began to chalenge the Scripture for theirs. For reason teacheth vs to iudge the Possessor of anie thing to be the true owner of the same, and possession to be a sufficient title of houl­ding it, vnles the contrarie be manifestly proued and con­uinced, as we see dayly in lands and temporall goods: and otherewise the dominion of things would be vncer­taine amongst men. Wherevpon the law teacheth the Possessor to plead possession as a sufficient title, and to [Page 2] say possideo quia possideo: I possesse because I possesse. But Protestants can not manifestly disproue, no nor yet colou­rably impugne the right of the Catholiks possession of the holie Scripture, as shall hereafter appeare. Therefore according to all reason Catholiks vpon this title of their possession are to be iudged true owners of the Scrip­ture.

The second proof I will take from the Catholiks vn­doubted Second title, peacable pos­session. possession thereof, and vnquestioned by Prote­stants for manie ages. That Protestants did not for manie ages call the Catholiks possessions of the Scripture into question, is manifest, by the manie and plaine confessions of Protestants, that their Church was inuisible before Luther for manie ages, which I haue related in my se­cond booke of the Author of the Protestant Church c. 4. And reason teacheth vs to accounte him the true owner of a thing, who without all question or clame of anie, hath hould it peacably for manie ages together. Where­vpon the law alloweth prescription of certaine yeares, after which time expired, it permitteth not the possession to be called in question. Besides, it is no way likelie, that the true Church of God would suffer her self to be be­reaued of so heauenlie a treasure, as is the holie Scripture, and yet not once in anie corner of the world, for manie ages crie after the theefe, or chalenge her treasure, which she did see was held of others. Will men euerie day ven­ture their liues for sauing or recouering a little land or goods, and would not the Church of God (the onely true owner of the Scripture) for manie ages once open her mouth to chalenge so heauenlie a treasure; especial­ly, the Scripture being (as Protestants teach) the onely Martyr in disput. oxon. p. 143. Pareus Coll. Theol. 3. disp. 2. externall infallible meane to attayne faith, and as necessa­rie to the saluation of the Church, as meate is to the life of man? what care had the Church offo great a treasure left vnto here by Christ, what account made she of faith and saluation, if for manie ages she would not so much as chalenge the onely externall infallible and necessarie [Page 3] means to obtayne them? Would the primitiue Church suffer so manie torments and cruell death (as we read in the Ecclesiastical Historie) rather then loose the holie Scriptures, which the Heathens would haue taken from her, and would she afterward suffer Papists to take it from her without muttering one word, or laying clame to it for manie ages together. Moreouer how had she faith, how obtained she saluation, if for maine ages she lost the onely externall, infallible, and necessarie meanes to obtayne them?

The third proof, is that the Catholiks possession of the Scripture is farre more ancient then the Protestāts posses­sion Third title, ancientest possession. thereof. For euident it is, that that Christian Church which is the first and ancientest possessor of the holie Scripture, is the onely true owner of the same: because the Apostles and Euangelists left their writings first and Qui prior est tempore, po­tior est iure. Reg. iuris. onely to the true Church, and gaue her the testament and last will of Christ her sponse, so that the true Chri­strian Church had the Scripture, before anie false Chri­stian Church had it, and likewise certaine it is, that she neuer lost it since it was deliuered vnto her, but as she is the pillar of truth, so she hath faithfully kept this hea­uenly truth deliuered vnto her in writing: and conse­quently is ancienter possessor of the Scripture then anie false Christian Church can be. And this reason the an­cient Christians vsed against Heretiks, as appeareth by these words of Tertullian lib. de Praescript. c. 37. It is my possession. I possesse it of ould. I possesse it first. I am the herie of the Apostles. And lib. 4. cont. Mart. c. 4. I say my Bible is true: Marcion saieth, His. I say Marcions (Bible) is corrupted. Marcion saieth, Mine is corrupted what shall end our contro­uersie, but order of time, giuing authoritie to that which is found to be ancienter, and reiecting that which is later. For in that falsitie is a corruption of trueth, trueth must needs be before falsitie. Thus by their greater antiquitie of their pos­session of the Bible, and also by the greater antiquitie of the Bible it self did the ancient Christians proue against [Page 4] Heretiks both that their Bibles were the true Bibles, and also that they were the true owners of them. But mani­fest it is, that Catholiks are ancienter possessors of the ho­lie Scripture then Protestants be, in so much as we shall see Protestants confesse, that they had the Scripture of Catholiks. Therefore Catholiks are the true owners of the Scripture.

The fourth proof is taken from that there can be no 4. title no be­ginning of possession named. place or time named, where or when Catholiks first be­gan to take possession of the holie Scripture, besides the very time of Christ and his Apostles, who alone could giue true and lawfull possession of the Scripture. Whereas See Author of the Prot. religion l. 2. c. 13. we can name the place and time when Protestants first began to Vsurpe possession of the holie Scripture. Which is long after the time of Christ and his Apostles. And all reason bindeth, vs to accounte them the true owners of a thing, the beginning of whose possession can not be found, but at the very time of the first giuers thereof, ra­ther then those whose possession began manie hundreds of years after.

The fift proof I will ground vpon that the Catholiks 5. title the integritie of Scripture. haue conserued the holie Scripture incorrupt. For theeues and wrong possessors vse to disfigure the thing they haue stolne as much as they can, that it may not be knowne. Besides, the Scripture must needs be contrarie to the vsur­pers, and agreable to the true owners, therefore necessitie forceth vsurpers to alter the Scripture, as false heires are forced to alter the will or testament if they get it into their hands. Wherevpon we see, that scarce euer there were anie Heretiks, who haue not saught to corrupt the Tertul. de prescript. c. 17 38. Scripture, albeit Catholiks cried out against their sacrile­gious impietie. How much more then would Papists haue corrupted the Scripture (especially whiles for manie ages there were no visible Protestants to reproue them) if they had not beene the true owners of the Scripture? But Catholiks haue not in all these ages, in which Protestants were inuisible, corrupted anie parte of the Scripture, as is [Page 5] euident by that Protestants confesse, that Scripture which they had of Catholiks, to be pure and incorrupt. Nether do Protestants obiect to Catholiks anie corrup­tion made by them in the Hebrew or Greek text, and the vulgar Latin they will haue to be ancienter then Papistrie it self. But contrariewise, Catholiks haue euer since the beginning of Protestancie charged Protestāts with manie and greiuous corruptions of holie Scripture. Wherefore thus I argue. All reason teacheth vs to iudge them to be the true owners of a testament, who are the freest from corrupting it. But Catholiks are farre more free from corruptinge the testament of Christ then Protestants: Therefore &c.

The sixt proof I will take from the Protestants graunt, Sixt title: graunt of Protestants. that they had the Scripture from Catholiks. Luther in 16. Ioan. to. 4. Germ. witenb. fol. 227. There is an argument which can very hardly be wrested from the Papists, and which I my self can very hardly answere and refute, especially sith we are forced to giue and graunt them so manie thinges, which are true, to wit, that in Poperie, is the word, the Apostleshippe, and that we receaued the holie Scripture, baptisme, the Sacraments and office of preaching from them, otherwise what should we haue knowne of all these things? And to. 5. in 1. Gal. fol. 293. we had indeed the Scripture and the Sacraments of the Papists. Schus­selburg to. 8. Catal. Haeres. p. 439. VVe denie not, that Lu­ther saieth, that in Poperie is all Christian good, and from thence came to vs. D. Daue of Recusancie. p. 13. VVe hould the Creed of the Apostles, of Athanasius, of Nice, of Ephesus, of Constan­tinople, which the Papists also do hould, and the same Bible which we receaued from them. Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 5. c. 14. Papists haue the Scripture, Baptisme, Catechisme, the articles of faith, the ten commandements, the lords praier, and these things come from thē to vs. Iames Andreas li. cont. Has. p. 316. VVe denie not, that we receaued the Scriptures from you. The like hath Spalatensis lib. cont. Suar. c. 1. n. 34. and others. A question proposed to Protestants. Wherefore I aske the Protestāts, how they had the Scrip­ture of vs? Did we giue it them? Did we sell it them? Did [Page 6] we change it with? Did we relinquish it as a forlorne thing. No one of all these can they proue or affirme with anie apparence. How then get they the Scripture from vs, but as theeues get the true mens goods, and as Turkes and Iews get the same Scripture from vs? If anie say as Andrews and Schusselb. do intimate, that Protestants had the Scripture of Catholiks, as Christians had the ould testament of the Iewes, I answere, that Christians had not the ould testamēt of the Iewes, if by Iewes they meane such as remained Iewes. For Christians had the ould testament of the Apostles, and they of Christ who was lord of the ould and new testament, as they had from him the Sacraments, and all other goods of the Church. Besides, euerie Heretik may pretend this as well as Protestants. Wherefore thus I argue: They whome their aduersaries confesse to haue had the Scripture before them selues, and can tell no lawfull means by which they had the Scripture from them, are according to all reason to be held the true owners of the Scripture, rather then their aduersaries; But such are Catholiks in respect of Protestants. Therefore &c.

The seuenth proof I will take from the open and ma­nifould Seuenth title: other confes­sions of Pro­testant. confessions of Protestants. For first they confesse, that Catholiks are the true Church of Christ, as I haue shewed at longe in my foresaied booke of the Author of the Protestant religion lib. 1. c. 2. to which I add these few. Spalatensis lib. 5. de repub. c. 6. n. 236. The Rom. Church is not gone so farre from the foundation, as that she is to be put wholy out of the membres of the Churches of Christ. lib. cont. Suarem. c. 1. n. 20. I think (as I haue often saied) that the Rom. Church with those that follow here, are the true Church of Christ. D. Featlie in his Refutation of Fisher p. 82. The Rom. Church we acknowledge to be a member, though a sicke and weake one, of the Catholik visible Church. The like hath D. Hall in his booke of ould religion: and his twoe defenders Chal­meley and Batterfeild, whereof the latter in his preface saieth he will demonstrate that the Rom. Church is a true [Page 7] Church. Now certaine it is, that the true Church is the true ower of the Scripture. Secondly, they confesse, that Catholik Pastors are true pastors, as is shewed in the saied booke c. 2. cit. and Caluin in Ezechiel. c. 3. v. 9. saieth, that Papists chalenge the name of the Church, because they pretend a continuall succession. And indeed (saieth he) we are forced to confesse, that they haue the ordinarie ministerie. And who can denie, but the true Pastors of Gods Church are true owners of Gods worde, which they haue authoritie to preach? Thereby, they confesse, that Catholiks are true possessors of the holie Scripture. For thus writeth Luther to. 2. Germ. fol. 279. cited by Scarpius in Eccles. c. 6. VVe confesse, that vnder Poperie are manie Christian goods, yea all Christian good, and that it came from thence to vs. Namely we confesse, that in Poperie, is true holie Scripture, true baptisme, true office of preaching, true Sacrament of the altar, true keyes to forgiue sinnes, true Catechisme. Nay I say that in Poperie is true The kernell of Christiani­tie in Pope­rie. Christianitie, yea the very kernell of Christianitie and manie great Saintes: And Hall, Chalmeley and Batterfeild graunt that Luther wrote thus and seeme to allow it. Luther also to 6. in c. 28. Genes. saieth: we confesse, that Papists haue the Church because they haue baptisme, absolution, the text of the Ghospel, and there are manie godlie men amongest them.

The eight proofe shalbe from the Confession of such 8. title. Con­fession of strangers. as nether are Catholiks nor Protestants. For as Vorstius writeth in Antibell. p. 181. Iewes, Turkes and Pagans do think, that the Christian religion consisteth cheefly in Poperie. And Whitaker Cont. 2. q. c. 2. No other famous Church can be named in these latter times, which was thought to be the Church, and was called the Church, but the Roman Church. Nether let anie think, that such as want faith, can not be sufficient iudges in this matter. For albeit they be not sufficient iudges in the question of the trueth of doctrin, yet are they sufficient in question of facte as this is. And in this Ioseph. lib. Antiq. Eu­seb. l. 7. c. 24. sorte, the Heathens in the time of the ould law iudged betwene the Iewes and the Samaritans: and in the time of the Ghospel, betwene the Catholiks and the Samosate­nians. [Page 8] And as Christians can iudge, what kind of Maho­metans are the true owners of the Alcoran, though they think not the Alcoran to conteyne true doctrin: So may Infidels iudge, what kinde of Christians be true owners of the Ghospel though they beleeue not the Ghospel to be the worde of God.

The ninth proof may be taken from the agreement of 9. title: A­greement with Scrip­ture. the Cath. doctrin both in words and sense with the holie Scripture, as shall appeare in this booke. Which proofe though taken alone doe not conuince that Catholiks are true owners of the Scripture: yet in conuinceth that they are true owners rather then Protestants, who so farre dis­agree from the Scripture both in words and sense.

The tenth proofe shalbe, that Protestants against these 10. title weak­nes of Pro­test. Proofes. so manie and so forcible proofes for the Catholiks, can bring no other proofe for their right to Scripture, then that they haue the true doctrin of Scripture. Which argu­ment taken alone, is (as I shewed at large in my saied booke De Authore, &c. lib. 2. c. 15.) a fond Sophisme or Foularie. First because Schismatiks haue the true doctrin of Scripture, as I there proued by reason, by the testi­monie of holie Fathers, and the confession of Protestants, and yet are no true owners of the Scripture, because they are no true mēbers of the Church, as I there also proued. Secondly, for Protestants to proue that they be true ow­ners of the Scripture, because they haue the true doctrin thereof, is to proue one vnknowne and false thing by an other as vnkowne and false. Which is not to proue at all, because all proofe must be from a thing more knowne. Thirdly they nether proue that they haue the doctrin of the Scripture by expresse words of Scripture, for these are quite against them as shalbe shewed in this booke: nor by plaine inference out of the words of Scripture, as appea­reth by the Catholiks answers vnto all their proofes, nor finally they haue proued any thing before a lawfull iudge: but all their proofes are such as euerie Heretike maketh. Besides, if truth of doctrin doe proue true right to Scrip­ture, [Page 9] it farre more maketh for Catholiks: and no more for Protestants, then for anie other Heretiks.

Out of all which hath beene saied in this Chapter, it is most euident, that if the light of reason may be iudge in this matter, Catholiks must needs be counted the true owners of the holie Scripture, because they haue all the foresaied Titles, then the which both fewer and weaker would make a claime to worldlie matters out of all que­stion: of all which Protestants can pretend none but the last. Secondly it is euident, that if Catholiks be the true If Cath. be true owners of the Scrip­ture, all con­trouersies are ended. owners of the Scripture, the sacred testament of Christ, they are also true owners of the holie Sacraments, of the keyes of heauen to binde and loose sinnes, of the means of saluation, and of all the goods which Christ hath by his will and testament bequeathed to his Church. For vn­doubtedly all these things pertaine to them, to whome Christs testament doth belong. Thirdly it is euident, that if Catholiks be true owners of the Scriptures, Pro­testants be vniust vsurpers of them, as Iewes, Turkes, and Infidels are, and haue no more right to keep or vse them against Catholiks, then theeues haue to vse true mens goods or weapons against them. For cleare it is, that Catholiks and Protestants are opposite Churches, as I haue shewed in the foresaied booke. De Authore lib. 1. c. 2. and lib. 2. c. 6. and that one of them is a false Church, whereas the Scriptures were giuen and belong to one onely Church. Wherefore we may well say to Prote­stants, as Tertullian de Prescript. c. 37. saied to Heretiks of his time: VVho are you, when and whence came you, what doe you in mine, being not mine? By what right Marcion (Luther) doest thou fell my woods? By what licence Valentin (Caluin) doest thou turne away my water? By what authoritie Apelles (Zuingle) doest thou charge my bounds? It is my possession, what doe you strangers here sow and feed at your pleasure? And the same say we to Protestants. Let them first shew, what right they haue to Scriptures, before they argue out of them; let them render vs our weapons, or shew what iust [Page 10] title they haue to them before they fight with them against vs. For as the same Tertull. saieth. c. 15. Here we first stop them, that they are not to be admitted to anie dispute of Scriptures. VVe must see whether they may haue them or no, to whom belongeth the Scripture, that he be not admitted to it, to whom it appertaineth not. And c. 19. The order of the matter did require, that to be first proposed, which alone is now to be disputed? Fourthly whose is the faith, whose is the Scripture? Fourthly it is euident, that if anie Protestant will (not­withstanding all that hath beene saied) iudge, that Prote­stants are the true owners of Scripture, rather then Ca­tholiks, he will giue that iudgment in a matter of such great moment, which he would be ashamed to giue in a question of the least trifle in the world. For who seing that one hath nine titles to a peece of ground, of all which titles his aduersarie hath no pretence, and that he hath as good (if not farre better) shew also of the tenth title, as his aduersarie hath, would not be ashamed to ad­iudge the land to his aduersarie, and cast him out of pos­session, who was actuall possessor when the matter came first in question, was peacable possessor for manie ages, was the ancienter possessor, and of whose possession no Note this. beginning can be found but from the true lord, and from whom his aduersarie hath whatsoeuer he hath, whose lawfull possession thereof all kinde of aduersaries do some time confesse, and put his aduersarie in possession who can pretend no title but that which alone sufficeth not, and which also for better agreeth to the ancient possessor? If anie say, that in wordly matters reason would giue iudgment for the ancient possessor, but not in heauenlie or deuine matters, as the Scripture is, I demand, what Scripture, what worde of God teacheth vs to checke the light of reason concerning the true possession of the Scripture? If none, why then doe we not follow reason in this matter of fact concerning the true possession of Scripture, as well as in others? Besides, this were to grante that the light of reason is in this matter with Catholiks [Page 11] against Protestants: and consequently that to be a Prote­testant, one must first cast away reason, euen in a matter which is vnder the reach of reason, as is, who are the true owners of the Scriptures. Moreouer, the very end of this Balance is no other, then to shew, that if we will follow the light of reason and true prudence, we ought to imbrace the Catholik religion and reiect the Protestant, and that to doe otherwise, is to cast away reason and prudence, and to become vnreasonable and imprudent men, and to say, that Christ hath giuen vs a Religion, which is not onely aboue reason, but euen con­trarie to reason, and that also in matters subiect to rea­son: and that we can not become faithfull men, but we must first become vnreasonable men, not receaue his light of faith, before we put out his light of reason, wherewith he hath made vs like to him selfe and superiours to beasts. Thus we see, how farre, in all reason and prudence, Ca­tholiks are aboue Protestants, for the right claime, or iust possession of holie Scripture: Now let vs see in the rest of this booke how farre also they are aboue them for the letter or wordes of Scripture: and in the second booke how farre they are aboue them for the true sense thereof.

A SVMME OF THE MORE MANIFEST CON­tradictions betwene the expresse wordes of the holie Scripture and of Protestants, with the Chapter and Article where they may be read more at large: which will much serue to vnderstand and remember better those which follow.

CHAPTER II. OF GOD.

SCRIPTVRE: Thou are not a God that willeth iniquitie. God willeth not iniquitie. He willeth iniquitie.

Protestants. God will haue iniquitie to be committed. God willeth iniquitie with a hidden will: He willeth sin: He willeth sin to be done: He would haue Adam to sin, to fall, to reuoult. See more c. 2. article. 1.

Scripture. Our iust lord in the middes thereof, will not doe God doth not iniquitie. iniquitie.

Protestants. God worketh euill in vs: The euils of sin are He doth ini­quitie. done by the effectuall working of God: Dauids adulterie is pro­perly Gods worke, Iudas his treacherie is his proper worke as the vocation of S. Paul: Pharao his crueltie is attributed to Gods counsell in no other sense then the Egiptians fauoure towards his people: God procureth sin it selfe. Se more c. 2. art. 4.

Scripture: He (God) hath commanded no man to doe im­piously. God commā ­deth not to sin. He comman­deth to sin.

Protestants: God biddeth Sathan goe to be a lying spirit: By [Page 13] Gods commandment Sathan is a lying spirit: God giueth him a plaine commandment to deceaue: Sathan was sent to deceaue by the expresse commandment of God. See art. 6.

Scripture. God is not a tempter of euils, and he tempteth no God tempe­teth not to sin. man.

Protestants. God is the author of temptation: God moueth He temp [...]eth to sin. the offenders to sin: pushed the Iewes to kill his Sonne: stirreth vp the theefs will to kill: driueth to sin by tempting: inclineth the wills of wicked men into greeuous sins. See more art. 7.

Scripture: Thou hatest all that worke iniquitie.

Protestants. God is angrie with the elect when they sinne, but God hateth all that worke iniquitie. He hateth not all such. God iustifieth not the im­pious. He iustifieth the impious. neuer hateth them: He hateth all iniquitie, but not all in whome iniquitie is. See art. 9.

Scripture. He that iustifieth the impious, is abhominable be­fore God.

Protestants. Seing God forbiddeth to iustifie the impious Prou. 17. can he be saied to do that rightly, which him self forbiddeth? Rightly: Albeit we be wicked, yet are we accounted of the lord for iust. A wicked man may be pronounced iust according to the Ghospell: Christ can iustifie such as are impious and want all good workes. See more art. 10.

Scripture. Against Aaron (God) being exceeding angrie, God is angrie with the faithfull whē they sin. He is not an­grie with thē. God is plea­sed with good workes. He is not pleased with them. God is serued with good workes. He is not serued with them. he would haue destroied him.

Protestants: God alwaies withouldeth his anger from the faithfull: God is not angrie with sinners. See art. 11.

Scripture. VVe doe these thinges which are pleasing before him: with such hostes God is pleased.

Protestants. God careth not for workes: we foolishly feigne, that God is much delighted with our workes: There is no such God which is delighted with our good workes: To wash dishes and to preach is all one, as for pleasing God. See more art. 13.

Scripture. By fastings and praiers seruing (God) day and night.

Protestants. The true God is not serued with workes: There is one only worship pleasing to God, to wit true faith. God is serued by faith only. Faith is the onely true worship of God. See art. 14.

Scripture. Phinees stoode & pacified, and the slaughter ceased. God is paci­fied by good workes. He is not pa­cified by thē. God will haue his commād­ments kept. He will not haue thē kept.

Protestants. There is no such God that can be pacified with our good workes: The workes which I do according to Gods law, do not pacifie his wrath but prouoke it. See more art. 16.

Scripture. This is the will of God, your Sanctification that you abstaine from fornication, &c.

Protestants. God testifieth that he will not that his commād­ments be kept: will he haue the promises of the law performed of vs? Nothing lesse. He commandeth some thing which he will not haue done: Properly speaking God will not haue his command­ments kept of vs. See art. 17.

Scripture. God hath concluded all into incredulitie, that he God hath mercie on all. may haue mercie on all.

Protestants God hath concluded all (the reprobats) vnder He hath not mercie on all. sin, that he might iustly destroy them: God nether would nor will haue mercie on all. See art. 18.

Scripture. Thou louest all thinges that are, and hatest nothing God loueth all. of that which thou hast made.

Protestants. God cannot be saied to loue all: Albeit he created He loueth not all. all in Adam, yet be loueth not all: God loueth only the elect in Christ, all the rest he iustly hated from all eternitie and will for euer hate. See more art. 18.

Scripture. God will all men to be saued: Not willing that anie God will all to be saued. perish.

Protestants. God will not haue all saued, not euerie one He will not all to be saued saued: It is not true, that God would haue all saued by Christ. God will not haue those that are reprobates to be saued. See more art. 19.

Scripture. Liue I, saieth our lord God, I will not the death of God will not the death of a sinner. He will the death of a sinner. the impious, but that he be conuerted and liue.

Protestants. God willeth the death of a sinner with his vn­searchable will: God createth some to death, to perish, to destru­ction: God predestinated to death whome he would and because he would. See art. 22.

Scripture. God made not death. God made not death. He made death.

Protestants. God is the Author of death: Gods will is the first and vnauoidable cause of the perdition of them that perish: The [Page 15] hidden will of God worketh death in all. See more art. 22. cit.

Scripture. Impious men are not necessarie for him. God needeth not the im­pious. He needeth them. God dāneth men for sin. He damneth not them for sin. God can de all things. He cannot doe all things

Protestants. It is false, that God hath not need of a sinner. See art. 22. cit.

Scripture. Get ye away from me you accursed into fire euer­lasting; for I was an hungred and you gaue me not to eate.

Protestants: God for his mere will damneth men: He dam­neth them that deserue not: There is no other cause of mans dam­nation, then Gods mere pleasure. See art. 23.

Scripture. VVith God all thinges are possible.

Protestants. That saying: All things are possible to God, hath some exception: God hath no absolute power. See more art. 24.

CHAPTER III. OF CHRIST.

SCripture. Who (Christ) was predestinate the Sonne of God Christ, prede­stinate the Sōne of God. Not predesti­nate. Christ made lawes. He made none. in power.

Protestants. That Christ was predestinate the Sonne of God: is Arianisme. See art. 2.

Scripture. Teach them to obserue all things whatsoeuer I haue commanded you.

Protestants. Christ is no lawmaker; no lawgiuer who gaue anie new law to the world. See art. 7.

Scripture. Beare ye one an others burdens, and so ye shall ful­fill Christs Ghos­pell a law. the law of Christ.

Protestants. The Ghospell must not be called a new law. Art. No law. 7. cit.

Scripture. And he hath giuen him power to doe iudgment, Christ a iud­ge. because he is the Sonne of man.

Protestants. Christ is not iudge: He shall not exercise the last No iudge. iudgment as man. See art. 8.

Scripture. For these are the twoe testaments. Twoe testa­ments.

Protestants. There are not twoe testaments. See art. 9. Not twoe. Christ learnt nothing.

Scripture. How doth this man know letters, whereas he hath not learned?

Protestants. Christ was so ignorant, as he learnt, and was He laernt. taught as men are. See art. 10.

Scripture: It was seemly, that we should haue such a high preist, Christ no sinner. holie, innocent, impolluted, separated from sinners. VVho did not sin.

Protestants. Christ was a sinner and that truly: we must not He was a sinner. imagin Christ to be innocent: He confesseth his delicatenes, ouer­whelmed with desperation he gaue ouer calling vpon God. He needed baptisme. See art. 11.

Scripture. This is my beloued sonne, in whome I am well plea­sed. Christ be­loued of God.

Protestants. God made Christ by imputation a sinner, or Hatefull of God. vniust, guiltie, hatefull to God. See art. 11. cit.

Scripture. This commandment (of giuing my life) I re­ceaued Christ com­manded to die. Not commā ­ded. He sufficient­ly redeemed. Not sufficiēt­ly. of my Father.

Protestants. They say: A law was made that Christ should die: But this is against Scripture. See art. 14.

Scripture: The Sonne of man is come to giue his life a redem­tion (in Greek [...]) for manie.

Protestants. They erre saying that Christs death was a suffi­ciēt redemption ( [...]) for the sinnes of all: Christ died not suffi­ciently for all. See art. 16.

Scripture. He hath reconciled in the bodie of his flesh by He redeemed vs by death. death: Pacifiing by the blood of his crosse.

Protestants. Nothing had beene done, if Christ had suffered Not by death. only corporall death: Reason it selfe teacheth, that only corporall death (of Christ) was not sufficient to redeeme them who had deserued death both of bodie and soule. Se more art. 17.

Scripture. Christ did die for the impious. They denie him Christ died for the im­pious and damned. Not for them that bought them, the lord, bringing vpon them selues speedie perdition.

Protestants. Christ did not giue him self for the impious and reprobates. He shed not his blood for the sinnes of the impious & damned. See more art. 18.

Scripture. who is the Sauiour of all men, especially of the Sauiour of all faithfull. VVho gaue him selfe a redemption for all.

Protestants. It is not Christ the Redeemer of all? No. Christ Not Sauiour of all. is the Redeemer only of the elect, and of none els. See more art. 18. and 19.

Scripture. He is the propitiation of our sinnes, and not of our Propitiation for the sins of the world. Not for the sins of the world. His soule went to hel. Not to hel. Entred the dores being s [...]ut. Not being shut. sinnes onely but also for the whole worlde.

Protestants, They speake amisse, who say that by Christs death the sinnes of the whole world were redeemed. See art. 19. cit.

Scripture. Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hel.

Protestants. Christs soule neuer went to the places of hel. Christs soule did not descend to hel. See art. 21.

Scripture. Iesus cometh, the dores being shut, and stood in the midst.

Protestants. Christ by his diuine power did open the shut dores. The dores were not shut in the very instant of his passing. See more art. 23.

Scripture. Hauing a great high preist, that hath penetrated Christ pene­trated the heauen. Not penetra­ted them. Christ praieth for vs. He praieth not for vs. the heauenes, Iesus the Sonne of God.

Protestants. Christ ascended without penetration of quanti­ties. VVe admit no penetration. See art. 14.

Scripture. I will aske the Father. VVho also maketh inter­cession for vs.

Protestants. VVe may not imagin that Christ as a Suppliant praieth for vs. His death and resurrection are in steed of an eter­nall intercession. See more art. 25.

CHAPTER IV. OF ANGELS AND SAINTES.

SCripture. And the Angell of our Lord answered and saied: O Angels pray for vs. Lord of Hostes, how long will thou not haue mercie on Hie­rusalem?

Protestants. The Scripture teacheth not that Angels pray. They pray not. We denie that the holie Angels do pray in particular for our ne­cessities. See art. 4.

Scripture. And he preuailed against the Angel, and was Angels to be praied vnto. Not to be praied vnto. strenghtned, and he wept and besought him.

Protestants. The inuocation of Saints and Angels is impious See art. 8.

Scripture. Our lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the Angels to be bowed vnto. Angel standing in the way with a drawne sword, and he adored him flat to the ground.

Protestants. We must beware that we nether adore nor worship Not to be bowed vnto. Angels: He could not fall downe to the Angel without dimini­shing Gods honour. See art. 11.

Scripture. Nether take thou away thy mercie from vs for God to be praied by the names of Saintes. Not so to be praied. Abraham thy beloued, and Isaac thy seruant, and Israel the holie one.

Protestants. In the Prophets there is not found anie such in­uocation: Heare me o God for Abraham. God is not to be be­sought by the names of Saintes. See more art. 9.

Scripture. For your selues know, how you ought to imitate vs. Saintes to be imitated. Not to be imitated. God prote­cteth vs for the Saintes sake. Not for their sakes. Some Saintes bad power to worke mira­cles. None had such power. Santes re­ceaue men into eternall tabernacles. They do not receaue. Be ye followers of me.

Protestants. These trifles ought not to be sung to the people that they should imitate the Saintes. God requireth that we follow his scripture only, and not the examples of Saintes. See art. 12.

Scripture. I will protect this cittie and saue it for my self and for Dauid my seruant.

Protestants. It is not to be borne, that they say, through Gods liberalitie and Christs grace the merits of Saints do profit vs to protection. See art. 10.

Scripture. And he gaue them power to cure infirmities and to cast out Diuels.

Protestants. God neuer gaue anie man power of working mi­racles ether mediatly or immediatly. See art. 16.

Scripture. Make vnto you freinds of the mammon of iniqui­tie, that when you faile, they may receaue you into the eternall tabernacles.

Protestants. VVe must not vnderstand, that men shall re­ceaue [Page 19] vs into eternall tabernacles. See art. 13.

Scripture. They shalbe priests of God and Christ, and shall Saints reigne with him. reigne with him.

Protestants. The Saints do not reigne with Christ. See art. They reigne not with him. 16.

Scripture. And he that shall ouercome and keepe my workes Saintes rule nations. vnto the end, I will giue him power ouer the nations, and he shall rule them with a rodde of yron.

Protestants. It is an errour, that Angels or the soules of the They rule them not. blessed men are appointed of God to rule and gouerne vs. See art. 16. cit.

CHAPTER V. OF THE SCRIPTVRE OR WORD OF GOD.

SCripture. Paule according to the wisdome giuen him, hath Some things in Scripture. are hard. written, as also in all Epistles, speaking in them of these things in which are certaine hard to be vnderstood.

Protestants. Peter saieth not, that Paules Epistles are obscure, No thing hard. no nor that there are some obscure things in Paules Epistles. No parte of the Scripture is obscure: How can the Scripture be called obscure in anie parte. See more art. 1.

Scripture. Iesus began to preach and say: Doe pennance for The Ghospel preacheth pennance. It preacheth it not. the kingdom of heaune is at hand.

Protestants. The Ghospell properly is not a preaching of pen­nance. The Ghospell preacheth not to vs that this or that is to be done, or exacteth any thing of vs. See more art. 4.

Scripture. If thou will enter into life, keepe the command­ments. Promiseth life conditionally

Protestants. The Ghospell promiseth saluation euen to those Not condi­tionally. that haue no good workes at all. The Ghospel requireth not workes to saluation. See more art. 6. Ghospell not contrarie to the law.

Scripture Doe we then destroie the law by faith? God [Page 20] forbid. But we establish the law.

Protestants. The Ghospell is truly opposite to the law. The law It is contra­rie to it. aad the Ghospell of themselues wholy fight one with the other. See more art. 7.

Scripture. All things must needs be fulfilled, which are writ­ten Moises law commandeth faith in Christ. It comman­deth it not. Traditions to be kept. Not to be kept. in the law of Moises, and the Prophets, and the Psalmes of me.

Protestants. Faith in Christ, the law neuer knew. The law of Moises commandeth not faith in Christ. See more art. 8.

Scripture. Hould the traditions, which you haue learnt, whe­ther it be by word or by our epistle.

Protestants. VVe care not for vnwritten traditions: we ac­knowledge no word but that which is written. See more art. 9.

CHAPTER VI. OF S. PETER, AND THE APOSTLES.

SCripture. Thou art Peter, and vpon this rock will I build Church built vpon Peter. my Church.

Protestants. Peter is not rock, because Christ did not build Not vpon Peter. his Church vpon Peter. See more art. 2.

Scripture. And I say to thee: Thou art Peter. And to thee Keyos giuen to Peter. I will giue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen.

Protestants. Christ called faith the rock, to which rock not to Not giuen to him. Peter, be gaue these key [...]s. See art. 3.

Scripture. I haue praied for thee (Peter) that thy faith faile Peters faith, failed not. It failed. not.

Protestants. For a time surely Peters saith failed whiles he denied Christ. It is a blasphemous speech, that Peter denying Christ did not lese his faith. See more art. 4.

Scripture. And the wall of the cittie hauing twelue founda­tions: The Apostles foundations. and in them twelue names of the twelue Apostles of the lambe.

Protestants. The Apostles were not the foundations. See Not founda­tions. more art. 5.

Scripture. He that heareth you, heareth me. The Apo­stles simply to be heard. Not simply to be heard.

Protestants. The Apostles be not simply to be heard, but to be examined according to the rule of Scripture, S. Paules Ghos­pell or the new testament must haue beene tried by the ould. See more art. 6.

CHAPTER VII. OF THE PASTOVRS OF THE CHVRCH.

SCripture. If my couuenant with the day can be made voide Pastours al­waies. &c. also my couuenant may be made voide with Dauid my seruant, that there be not of him a sonne to reigne in his throne and Leuits and Preists my ministers. Not alwaies.

Protestants. It is false that the externall ministerie must be perpetuall. The Church hath osten no man Pastour. Some short time the Church may be depriued of Pastours. See more art. 7.

Scripture. Thou art Peter &c. And to thee I will giue the Authoritie in the Pastours keyes of the kingdome of heauen.

Protestants. The authoritie is not in the Prelats, but in the Not in them. worde: the Church hath nothing but mere ministerie. See more art. 2.

Scripture. Thou art Peter &c. and whatsoeuer thou shalt One pastor cā excōmunicate bind on earth, it shalbe bound also in heauen.

Protestants. VVe must remember, that this power (of ex­communicating) One cannot. is giuen to no one man, but to the whole com­panie of the Presbiterie. See more art. 3.

Scripture. And he (Paul) walked through Syria and Silicia Pastours can make lawes. confirming the Churches, and commanding them to keepe the precepts of the Apostles and the Auncients.

Protestants. The Church hath no power to make lawes. See They can not more art. 4.

Scripture. The Holie Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule Pastors, ru­lers of the Church. Not rulers. the Church of God.

Protestants. The true nature of a ruler (of the Church) is in no pure man, one or manie. See art. 5.

Scripture. You shalbe called the preistes of the lord. Pasters to be called preists. Not to be so called.

Protestants. Who administer the word and Sacraments amongst the people, nether may, nor ought to be called preists. See more art. 7.

Scripture. But how shall they preach, vnles they be sent? No preaching without mis­sion. Without mis­sion.

Protestants. Euen they who are not lawfully called, may preach the word fruitfully. Euerie Christian man hath authoritie to preach Christ in what place soeuer, where they are desirous to heare. See more art. 8.

Scripture. Moises and Aaron in his preists. Moises a preist. No preist.

Protestants. Moises did not exercise at all the preisthood, but was onely a Prophet. See more art. 10.

CHAPTER VIII. OF THE CHVRCHE.

SCripture. There shalbe made one fould and one pastor. Church, but one onely. Not one one­ly.

Protestants We say that there are twoe societies of men, that is, twoe Churches to the one belong the predestinate; to the other, the reprobate. Christ and the things themselues teach vs, that there are twoe Churches. See more art. 1.

Scripture. VVe are one bodie all that participate of one All those one bodie who participate one Sacramēt. bread.

Protestants. The godlie are no more ioyned in one bodie with Not all those. the wicked, then light with darkenes, Christ with Belial. See more art. 2.

Scripture. The gates of hell shall not preuaile against her: of Church can not faile. It can faile. his kingdome there shalbe no end.

Protestants. It is no meruaile, though the Church be cleane fallen downe long agoe. Antichrist had rooted out the Church euen [Page 23] from the ground. Christes kingdome was cast flat downe. See more art. 4.

Scripture. You are the light of the world: A cittie can not be Church can not be hidde. hidde, situated vpon a mountaine.

Protestants. Often times God will haue no visible Church It can be hidde. on earth. The whole visible Church may faile. See more art. 5.

Scripture. Which is the Church of the liuing God, the pillar Church is in­fallible. and strenght of trueth.

Protestants. The vniuersall Church may erre. The Church Not infal­lible. may erre. The Catholik Church may erre and that most greeuous­ly. See more art. 6.

Scripture. If he will not heare the Church, let him be to thee Church, sim­ply to be heard. Not simply to be heard. as the Heathen and the Publican.

Protestants. VVe must not simply receaue whatsoeuer the Church teacheth. See more art. 7.

CHAPTER IX. OF TEMPLES OR MATERIAL CHVRCHES.

SCripture. Who (Anna) departed not from the temple, by Churches for priuate praier fasting and praiers seruing day and right.

Protestants. Churches are for preaching onely. It is no lawfull Not for priuat praier. end of Churches, that the faithfull may priuatly pray in them. See more art. 1.

Scripture Twoe Cherubins also thou shalt make of beaten Images to be set in Chur­ches. Not to be set in Churches. gold on both sides of the oracle.

Protestants. The Iewes had no manner Image nether painted not grauen in their temple. God abhorreth images. We must not suffer that Images be in Churches. See more art. 3.

Scripture reporteth these words of a Heathen: This Heathens thought idols to be Gods. They thought not so. Paule saieth, that they are no Gods which be made by hands.

Protestants. It is a lie that the Heathens did beleiue the [Page 24] Images of their Gods to haue beene their Gods them selues. See more art. 4.

CHAPTER X. OF BAPTISME.

SCripture. Vnlesse a man be borne againe of water and the Water ne­cessarie to baptisme. Not necessa­rie. Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdome of God.

Protestants. Though water be wanting, yet if the baptisme of one cannot be differred with edification, I would baptize as well with anie other liquour as with water. See more art. 1.

Scripture. Going, teach ye all nations baptizing them Baptisme cō ­manded of Christ. Not cōman­ded of him. &c.

Protestants. Baptisme is of lesse importance, then that the lord should haue greatly cammanded anie thing about it. See more art. 3.

Scripture. Vnlesse one be borne of water and the Holie Baptisme ne­cessarie to saluation. Not neces­sarie. Simon Magus was baptized. He was not baptized. Baptisme pro­fiteth all. Not all. Ghost, he cannot inter into the kingdome of God.

Protestants. Children who die before they be christened, are not shut out of the kingdome of God. See art. 4.

Scripture. Then Simon (Magus) also himself belieued and being baptized he cleaned to Philippe.

Protestants. That Simon Peter, and Simon Magus receaued the same whole baptisme, is most false. See more art. 5.

Scripture: As manie of you as haue beene baptized in Christ, haue put on Christ.

Protestants. Baptisme bringeth no commoditie to those that are not elect. See more art. 6.

Scripture. Christ loued the Church, cleansing it by the lauer Baptisme purgeth sinne It purgeth not sinne. of water in the worde.

Protestants. VVho will say, that we are cleansed by this water? Doest thou thinke that water is the lauer of the soule? No. Baptisme cannot wash away the filth of sinnes. See more art. 7.

Scripture: Be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes. Sinnes was­hed away by baptisme. Not by bap­tisme. All borne in in state of dā ­nation. Not all.

Protestants. Paule was not whashed by baptisme. See ar­tic. 7.

Scripture. We were by nature the children of wrathe, as also the rest. As by the offence of one, vnto all men to condemna­tion.

Protestants. Originall sinne is not imputed to them: the chil­dren of the faithfull are borne Saintes. See art. 9.

Scripture. In what then were ye baptized? who saied: in Ihons Some bapti­zed in Saint Ihons Bapti­sme. Not in that baptisme. Some knew not of the Ho­lie Ghost. They knew of him. baptisme.

Protestants. It is demonstrated, that they were neuer baptized in Ihons outward baptisme. See more art. 11.

Scripture. But they saied to him: Nay nether haue we heard whither there be a Holie Ghost.

Protestants. How could it be that Iewes had heard nothing of the Holie Ghost. Se more art. 12.

CHAPTER XI. OF THE EVCHARIST.

SCripture. This is my bodie which is giuen for you. This is my The Eucha­rist is the bo­die of Christ. It is not his bodie. bloud of the new testament that shalbe shed for manie.

Protestants. The Sacramentall bread is called Christs bodie, although indeed it be not Christs bodie: The Eucharist is not truely the bodie of Christ. Some do vrge that the lords bread is the verie bodie of Christ, but we say the contrarie. See more art. 1.

Scripture. Vnles ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and Christs flesh to be eaten. drinke his blood, ye shall not haue life in you.

Protestants. Christ did not command his bodie to be eaten, Not to be eaten. but symbolicall bread. VVe eate and drinke nothing but bread and wine. Christs corporall flesh can be no way eaten. See more art. 2. His flesh tru­ly meate.

Scripture. My flesh is truely meate.

Protestants. It is farre from the bodie of the lord to be truly Not truly meate. eaten. See art. 2. cit.

Scripture. Drinke ye all of this: For this is the blood of the Blood of the new testamē ­to be drunk. Not to be drunk. The Chalice is the new te­stament. There is sa­crifice. new testament.

Protestants. Christ did not giue the blood of the new testament to drink. See art. 3.

Scripture. This chalice is the new testament in my blood.

Protestants. That Cuppe was not the new testament This Cuppe was not the new testament it self. See more art. 4.

Scripture. In euerie place there is sacrificing, and there is offered to my name a cleane oblation.

Protestants. There is no more Sacrifice remayning in the There is none Church. See more art. 11.

Scripture. This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, The Chalice shed for vs. which (chalice, as is euident by the Greek text) shalbe shed for you.

Protestāts. The chalice was not shedde for vs. See more art. 6. Not shedde for vs. We haue an altar. We haue none.

Scripture. We haue an altar, whereof they haue no power to eate who serue the tabernacle.

Protestants. Paule maketh no mention of an altar. In the Apostolicall writings there is no mention of an altar. Altars haue no place in the time of the Ghospell. See more art. 24.

Scripture. And the whole mul [...]tude of the children of Israel The Paschall lambe sacri­ficed. Not sacrifi­ced. shall sacrifice him (the paschall lambe) at euen.

Protestants. The holie Bible no where teacheth that the pas­chall lambe was immolated and sacrificed. The paschall lambe was no sacrifice. See more art. 13.

OF THE OTHER SACRAMENTS. CHAPTER XII.

SCripture. Whose sinnes you shall forgiue, they are for­giuen. Men can for­giue sinnes. They can not

Protestants. Men do not forgiue sinnes who attributeth re­mission [Page 27] of sinnes to a creature, robbeth God of his glorie. It is proper to God alone to remit sinnes, and so proper, as he commu­nicateth this glorie to none. See more art. 1.

Scripture. Confesse your sinnes one to an other. Sinnes to be confessed to men. Not to be cō ­fessed to thē. Grace by im­position of hands. Not by it.

Protestants. God requireth not this confession to manne. Con­fession of sinnes is forbidden. Nether Christ nor his Apostles would command it. See art. 2.

Scripture. Resuscitate the grace of God, which is in thee by the imposition of my hands.

Protestants. Grace was not giuen by the externall signe (of imposition of hands.) Imposition of hands of it self hath no ef­ficacie, but the effect dependeth of God alone. See more art. 3.

Scripture. Euerie one that dismisseth his wife and marrieth an To marie af­ter diuerce is aduantrie. Not aduan­trie. Men dying are to be auoi­led. other committeth aduoutrie.

Protestants. Who dismisseth his wife for whoredome and mar­rieth an other, doth not commit aduoutrie, See more art. 6.

Scripture. Is anie man sick among you? let him bring in the preists of the Church, and let them pray ouer him, anoiling him with oile.

Protestants. The Preists were commanded, that they should Not to be not anoile those that died. See more art. 7.

CHAPTER XIII. OF FAITHE.

SCripture. This is the worke of God that you beleiue in him Faith is a worke. whom he hath sent.

Protestants. Faith is no worke. It is false, that faith is a Not to worke worke. See more art. 1.

Scripture. And now there remaine Faith, Hope, and Cha­ritie, Faith distinct from Hope these three &c.

Protestants. Who wnderstand not that Faith, Hope, and Not distinct. Charitie are the selfe same thinge, wilbe forced to let passe ma­nie [Page 28] knot [...]es in Scripture vnloosed. See more art. 7.

Scripture. And now there remaine Faith, Hope, and Cha­ritie, Faith infe­rior to Cha­ritie. Not inferior. these three, but the greater of these is Charitie.

Protestants. Faith is greater then Charitie. Faith is better, more worthie, more noble then Charitie. See more art. 7.

Scripture. Of the Princes also manie beleiued in him, but for Faith with­out confessiō. the Pharises did not confesse.

Protestants. True faith can no more be separated from con­fession Not without confession. Faith of Christs God­head helpeth. of mouth, then fire from heate. See more art. 9.

Scripture. These are written, that you may beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God, and that beleiuing you may haue life in his name.

Protestants. To beleiue that Christ is one person, which is Helpeth not. God and man, would helpe none. See more art. 3.

Scripture: Of the Princes also manie beleiued in him, but Faith with­out charitie. for the Pharises did not confesse. For they loued the glorie of man more then the glorie of God.

Protestants. It is impossible to beleiue where charitie wanteth. Not without charitie. True faith can no more be without workes then fire without heate. See more art. 8.

Scripture. Faith without workes, is dead. Faith some times dead. Neuer dead.

Protestants. Who beleiue, that true faith can be dead, beleiue against the Confession of our Church. True faith can neuer be saied to be dead. See more art. 10.

Scripture. VVithout faith it is impossible to please God. Faith neces­sarie to salua­tion. Not necessa­rie. Faith with­out workes saueth not. It saueth. Beliefe doth iustifie.

Protestants: Infants are saued by Gods election albeit they be taken out of this life not only without baptisme but also with­out faith. See more art. 15.

Scripture. What shall it profit, if a man say he hath faith but hath not workes. Shall his faith be able to saue him.

Protestants. Faith iustifieth without good workes. Faith void of good workes is imputed to iustice. See more art. 17.

Scripture. Whosoeuer beleiueth that Iesus is Christ, is borne of God. Abraham beleiued and it was imputed him to iustice.

Protestants. Faith doth not iustifie vs by the worke beleife. Not iustifieth See more art. 18.

Scripture. To him that beleiueth in him who iustifieth the Faith reputed to iustice. impious, his faith is reputed to iustice.

Protestants. The act of beleiuing is not our iustice. Not the Not reputed. act or worke of our faith, that is, our beleife iustifieth vs. See more art. 19

Scripture. Of the Princes also manie beleiued in him, but for Certaine princes belei­ued. They beleiued not. Manie belei­ued. They beleiued not. Faith cause of Saluation. Not cause thereof. Simō Magus beleiued. He beleiued not. Faith by hea­ring. Not by hea­ring. the Pharises they did not confesse.

Protestants. We do not graunt that thoses Princes had true faith. We denie that they truely beleiued. See more art. 20.

Scripture. Ihon. 2. Manie beleiued in his name.

Protestants. Their faith was not true, but hypocrisie. See art. 20. cit.

Scripture. Thy faith hath made thee safe.

Protestants. Faith doth not worke, cause, or procure our Sal­uation. See more art. 16.

Scripture. Simon (Magus) also him selfe beleiued.

Protestants. Some beleiue not at all, as Simon Magus. He was quite faithlesse, indeed he beleiued not. See more art. 21.

Scripture. Faith is by hearing.

Protestants. Faith cometh not by the labour of the preachers. Faith riseth of the Scripture alone, not of the authoritie of the Church: Faith can not be gotten by words. See more arti­cul. 22.

Scripture. For a time they beleiue, and in time of temptation Faith some time lost. they reuolt.

Protestants. True faith can neuer be lost: It cannot be by Neuer lost. anie means, that those who beleiue should leese their faith. See more art. 23.

Scripture reporteth that Christ saied to Thomas: Be S. Thomas faith. not incredulous, but faithfull. And that Thomas saied: Vnlesse I see &c. I will not beleiue.

Protestants. Faith was not vtterly extinct in Thomas. Faith He lost it not. lay in his hart. See more art. 23. cit.

Scripture. He that beleiueth in the Sonne, hath life euer­lasting. Faith rewar­ded.

Protestants. There is noe reward to faith. No reward can be Not rewar­ded. rendred to faith. See art. 24.

Scripture Reporteth that Christ saied to the woman The womans faith, pure. who touched the hem of his garment: Thy faith hath made the safe.

Protestants. It may be that some errour or vice was mingled Not pure. with the womans faith: Perhaps she slipt a litle out of the way. See more art. 25.

CHAPTER XIV. OF GOOD VVORKES IN GENERAL.

SCripture saieth to a sinner beleiuing that there is one Some workes of a sinner, good. God: Thou doest well: and Rahab the harlot was not she iusti­fied by workes?

Protestants. VVhat workes soeuer goe before iustification None good. are euill. What can sinners alienated from God doe, but is exe­crable in his iudgment? See more art. 1.

Scripture. In all these things Iob sinned not with his lips. The iust sinne not in euerie worke. In euerie worke. Good workes sweet before God. Vnsweet.

Protestants. The iust man sinneth in euerie good worke. All saints in euerie good worke do sinne. See more art. 2.

Scripture. Noë offered holocaustes vpon the altar, and our lord smelled a sweell sauour.

Protestants. Our workes stincke before God, if they be called to a strait account. Whatsoeuer we can giue to God, is stenchie. See more art. 3.

Scripture. Remember, how I haue walked before thee in trueth, Some workes, perfect. and in a perfect hart.

Protestants. All our good workes are imperfect: They are None perfect. partely euill. See more art. 4.

Scripture. Phinees stood and pacified and the slaughter ceased, Some workes, iust before God. None iust be­fore hmi. and it was reputed to him vnto iustice.

Protestants. Who make their workes, euen those which they imagin to doe by the grace of Christ, iustice before God, make idols of them. See more art. 5.

Scripture. What is our hope or ioye or crowne of glorie? Are Glorie before God. not you before our lord Iesus in his coming?

Protestants. It can not be, that anie haue glorie before God. Not glorie before him. See more art. 9.

Scripture. He who ioyneth his virgin in matrimonie, doth Some workes better, then others. None better then others. Some workes counselled. None coun­selled. well, and he who ioyneth not, doth better.

Protestants. Before God there is no worke better then other. See more art. 10.

Scripture. As concerning virgins, a commandment of our Lord I haue not, but counsell I giue.

Protestants. There are not some precepts, and others, counsells. See more art. 11.

Scripture. If you will not forgiue men, nether will your Father Some workes necessarie to forgiuenesse. Not necessa­rie. forgiue you your offenses.

Protestants. The pardon which we aske to be giuen to vs, de­pendeth not vpon that which we giue to others. See more ar­tic. 12.

Scripture. Patience is necessarie for you, that doing the will Some neces­sarie to salua­uation. Not necessa­rie. Some profi­table. None profi­table. of God, you may receaue the promise.

Protestants. Good workes are not necessarie to saluation. See more art. 13.

Scripture. Pietie is profitable to all things, hauing promise of the life that now is and of that to come.

Protestants. To teach, that workes are holesome and profi­table is diuellish, and apostaticall from faith: workes are vnprofi­table to Christian iustice and likewise to saluation. See more art. 14.

Scripture. Be ye in nothing terrified of the aduersaries, which Affliction, cause of salua­tion. to them is cause of perdition, but to you of saluation, and this of God.

Protestants. The Scripture no where teacheth, that the affli­ctions Not cause of saluation. which the Saints suffer of the wicked are cause of their saluation. See more art. 15.

Scripture. Possesse you the kingdome prepared for you. For I Workes cause of enioying heauen. Not cause. was an hungred, and you gaue me to eate.

Protestants. None shalbe saued for his workes. The kingdome of heauen is not giuen for good workes. The iust are not rewarded [Page 32] for the workes of iustice which they haue done. See more art. 15. cit.

Scripture. Labour, that by good workes you may make sure Workes make cer [...]aintie of saluation. They make it not. your vocation and election.

Protestants. We are vtterly vndone, if we be sent to our workes when we must seeke the certaintie of our saluation. See more art. 16. Workes cause that God lo­ueth vs. Not cause.

Scripture. The Father him selfe loueth you, because you haue loued me.

Protestants. The obedience which the faithfull giue to him, is not so much a cause why he continueth his loue towards them, as an effect of his loue. See art. 17.

Scripture. When you shall haue done all things that are com­manded We ought to doe good wor­kes. you, say we are vnprofitable seruants, we haue done that which we ought to doe.

Protestants. Thou owest nothing to God but faith: This phrase We ought not. of the law: A faithfull man ought to doe good workes, belongeth not to Christians. See more art. 18.

Scripture: I haue inclined my hart to do thy iustification for We may doe good for re­ward. We may not. euer, for reward.

Protestants. If thou pray, fast, &c. Beware thou doest it not for that end that thou maiest reape anie temporall or eternall pro­fit. See more art. 19.

CHAPTER XV. OF GOOD VVORKES IN PARTICVLER.

SCripture. I say to the vnmaried and to widous: It is good for It is good not to marrie. them if they so abide.

Protestants. It is not good for a man to be single, for it is not It is not good. pleasant, not honest, nor profitable. See more art. 1. Single life, couns [...]lled. No [...] counsel­led.

Scripture. Art thou loose from a wife? Seek not a wife.

Protestants. Paule will haue vniuersally all to be married. [Page 33] God pronounceth the sentence, that he will haue none to be vn­married. See more art. 4.

Scripture. He that ioyneth his virgin in matrimonie, doth Virginitie is a vertue. well, and he that ioyneth not, doth better.

Protestants. Virginitie is no vertue, but a thing indiffe­rent. Not a vertue. We thinke that virginitie is nothing. See more arti­cul. 2.

Scripture. He that ioyneth his virgin in matrimonie doth Virginitie better then marriage. Not better. well, and he that ioyneth not, doth better.

Protestants. Single life in it selfe is much more baser then marriage. To beget children, is the cheefest worke after preaching. See more art. 3.

Scripture. Who departed not from the temple, by fastings and Fasting, ser­uice of God. praiers seruing night and daye.

Protestants. Fasting of it selfe is an indifferent thing. It is a No seruice of God. naughtie superstition, to thinke that fasting is a parte of Gods seruice. See more art. 5.

Scripture. This kinde (of Diuels) is not cast out, but by Fasting dri­veth away Diuels. It driueth thē not. praier and fasting.

Protestants. The ridiculous Papists make fasting an antidote to driue away Diuels. See art. 6.

Scripture: I Daniell mourned the dayes of three weeks, deside­rable Choice of meats, good bread I did not eate, and flesh and wine entred not into my mouth.

Protestants. We hould this distinction of meats to be foolish, Not good. and wicked: Choice of meates vpon certaine dayes S. Paule at­tributeth to the doctrin of Diuels. See more art. 7.

Scripture. I desire, that praiers be made for all men. Praier, to be made for all. Not for all.

Protestants Nether must we pray for euerie one. We must not make praiers for the sinnes of the reprobates. See more ar­tic. 8.

Scripture. It is a holie cogitation, to pray for the dead, that Good to pray for the dead. they my be loosed from sinnes.

Protestants. We detest praiers for the dead. That forme of Not good. praier: God giue the dead a happie resurrection, is to be reiected. Praier in an vnknowne language, good. See more art. 9.

Scripture saieth of one praying in the Church [Page 34] in an vnknowne tongue: Indeed thou giuest thankes well.

Protestants. We detest praiers in an vnknowne tongue. It is Not good. repugnant to Scripture, and contrarie to sense of nature. See more art. 12.

Scripture. Vow ye, and render to our Lord your God. Vowes good. Not good.

Protestants. Vowes are against the ordinance of God; vowes do not become Christians. See more art. 14.

Scripture. If thou will be perfect, goe sell all thou hast, Forsaking of riches, coun­selled. Not counsel­led. and giue to the poore, and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen.

Protestants. The forsaking of goods, hath no commandment nor counsell in Scripture. See more art. 16.

Scripture. Almes deliuereth from all sinne and from Almes deli­uereth from death. Not from death. Penall wor­kes, a parte of pennance. No parte of pennance. death.

Protestants. Almes deliuereth not from temporall death nor from eternall death. See more art. 15.

Scripture If in Tyre and Sidon had beene wrought the mi­racles that haue bene wrought in you, they had done pennance in hairecloth and ashes.

Protestants. Ashes, sackcloth was no parte of pennance. Sac­kcloth and ashes are only an externall signe of pennance. See more art. 18.

Scripture. The child grew, and was strengthned in spirit, Eremiticall life, good; and was in the deserts vntill the daye of his manifestation in Israel.

Protestants. Eremiticall life is clownish, sauage, and farre Not good. from ciuilitie. See more art. 20.

Scripture. God saw their (Niniuites) workes, that they were The Nini­uites pēnance, true. Not true. conuerted from their euill way &c.

Protestants. The pennance of the Niniuites was not true pen­nance. See more art. 19.

CHAPTER XVI. OF SINNE.

SCripture. He that committeth sinne, is of the Diuell. Great sinners are of the Di­uell. Not all.

Protestants. Nether the faithfull who sinne by chance, or of them selues by weaknes; but such as giue them selues to sinne, serue the Diuell and ought to be called Sonnes of the Diuell. See more art.

Scripture. You are euacuated from Christ, that are iustified Sinne putteth out of grace. in the law, you are fallen from grace.

Protestants. Not anie enormious sinne obscureth grace, much It putteth not. lesse extinguisheth it. The faithfull sinne, but fall not from grace. See more art. 6. No murderer hath life. Some murde­rer hath. Iustice stan­deth not with sinne. It standeth with sinne. Sinne to be redeemed with almes. Not to be re­deemed with almes. Sin purged by workes. Not purged by them. Great sinne seperateth from God. Seperateth not. Sinne cause of damnatiō.

Scripture. No murderer hath life euerlasting abiding in him selfe.

Protestants. Dauid (a murderer) was not yet quite spoiled of spirituall life, not yet depriued of iustification. See more art. 6. cit.

Scripture. What participation hath iustice with iniquitie.

Protestants. Sinne dwelleth together with iustice in vs. A worke is partly good, partly euill. See more art. 7.

Scripture. Redeeme thou thy sinnes with almes.

Protestants. Should not Christ haue died in vaine for sinnes, if sinnes could be redeemed with almes? See more art. 8.

Scripture. By mercie and faith sinnes are purged.

Protestants. If purging of sinnes be giuen to mens workes, then is Christ dead in vaine. See art. 8. cit.

Scripture. Nether fornicatours nor adulterers shall pos­sesse the kingdome of God.

Protestants. Sinne shall not drawe vs from Christ, though we commit fornication or murder a thousand times a daye. See more art. 9.

Scripture. Departe from me ye accursed into euerlasting fire: [Page 36] for I was an hungred and you gaue me not to eate.

Protestants. Those that are adiudged to eternall punishment, Not cause of damnation. are not therefore damned because they sinned. Onely incredulitie damneth. See more art. 10.

Scripture. Euerie one of vs for him selfe shall render account Account is to be giuen of sinnes. to God. That euerie one may receaue the proper things of the bodie as he hath done ether good or euill.

Protestants. If workes come into iudgment, we are all dam­ned. Not to be giuen. These sinnes shall not come to account before God. See more art. 11.

Scripture reporteth that Dauid saied of him selfe: I haue Dauid did ill. done ill before thee.

Protestants. Dauid neuer committed sinne: The regenerate He did not ill commit noe sinne. See more art. 12.

Scripture reporteth these words of Dauid: I am he that Dauid him selfe sinned. haue sinned, I haue done wickedly.

Protestants. The elect him selfe doth not sinne, but sinne that Not him self. dwelleth in him. The true faithfull or regenerate doth not sinne. See more art. 13.

CHAPTER XVII. OF IVSTIFICATION.

SCripture. Abraham, was he not iustified by workes? Abraham iu­stified by workes. Not by wor­kes. Man iustified by workes. Not by wor­kes. Sinnes forgiuē for loue. Not for loue.

Protestants. Abraham was not iustified by his good workes. He was iustified by no other thing at all but by faith. See art. 1.

Scripture. Doe you see that by workes a man is iustified?

Protestants. We saye, they are not iustified by workes, we can not be iustified by workes. See art. 1. cit.

Scripture. Manie sinnes are forgiuen her, because she loued much.

Protestants. Not because the woman loued much, therefore her sinnes were forgiuen her. See art. 1. cit.

Scripture: By workes a man is iustified, and not by faith Man not iu­stified by faith onely. By faith one­ly. Some iust be­fore God. None iust be­fore God. onely.

Protestants. We are iustified by faith onely. By faith onely we receaue remission of sinnes. See more art. 2.

Scripture. They were both iust before God.

Protestants. Before God none is iust, none can be iust. Where shall anie such (iust) be found amongst men? See more ar­tic. 3.

Scripture. You are cleane. The blood of Christ cleanseth vs Some cleane. from all sinne.

Protestants. The beleiuers are iust, and yet vncleane. The None cleane. pious man is in him selfe vncleane and filthie. See more art. 4.

Scripture. As farre as the East is from the west, hath he made Sinnes taken from the iu­stified. Not taken frō them. our iniquities farre from vs. There is no iniquitie found in me.

Protestants. In the regenerate there are manie sinnes, and great filth. Innumerable sinnes euen such as are worthie of death, remaine in the regenerate. See more art. 5.

Scripture Before him (God) iustice hath bene found in me. Iustice in mē. No iustice in them.

Protestants. There can be no iustice in vs. There is no inhe­rent iustice in the iudgment of God. See more. 8.

Scripture. To him, that beleiueth in him who iustifieth the Some inherēt thing impu­ted. No inherent thing, impu­ted. Men not cer­taine of grace. Certaine. impious, his faith is reputed to iustice.

Protestants. What is inherent, is not imputed. See more art. 9.

Scripture. Man knoweth not whether he be worthie of loue or hatred.

Protestants. It is lewednes, to say, that none can know by certaintie of faith that he hath obtained grace. See more ar­tic. 10.

Scripture. Ye are fallen from grace. Some fall frō grace. None fall frō grace.

Protestants: It is impossible for those that beleiue to fall from grace. The elect neuer fall from grace. The faithfull neuer fall from the grace of God. See more art. 12.

Scripture. Thou by faith doest stand: Be not highly wise, but VVe must feare. feare.

Protestants: That is not to be suffered, that they exhort vs VVe must not feare. [Page 38] to feare. I cannot be damned, vnlesse Christ be damned. See more art. 13.

Scripture. If the iust man shall turne away him selfe from his Some repro­bates, iusti­fied. Noreprobates iustified. Man prepa­reth his hart. He prepareth it not. iustice and doe iniquitie, in his sinne which he hath sinned in them he shall dye.

Protestants. No reprobate is iustified. The elect only repent and doe good workes. See more art. 14.

Scripture. It perteineth to a man to prepare the harte.

Protestants. In our conuersion to God we haue our selues wholy passiuely. A man is like a blocke in his conuersion. See more art. 15.

CHAPTER XVIII. OF EVERLASTING LIFE AND DEATH.

SCripture. Your reward is very great in heauen. You shall re­ceaue Saluation a reward or re­tribution. No reward or retribution. There is a crowne of iu­stice. No crowne of iustice. Faith alone saueth not. It saueth. Some already suffer the pai­nes of hell. None yet suf­fer the paines of hell. Hell a place of torments. No place. the retribution of inheritance.

Protestants. That he saueth, is mere grace, not a reward or retribution. See more art. 1.

Scripture. There is laied vp for me a crowne of iustice.

Protestants. Paule acknowledgeth nothing in the whole course of saluation, but mere grace. See more art. 2.

Scripture. Shall faith be able to saue him?

Protestants. Faith alone saueth. By faith alone we are saued. See more art. 3.

Scripture. As Sodome and Gomorrha and the citties adioy­ning in like manner hauing fornicated &c. were made an exam­ple, sustaining the paine of eternall fire.

Protestants. It is a false position: that the soules suffer in hell before the bodies. See more art. 6.

Scripture. Lest they also come into this place of torments.

Protestants. We must not imagin, that hell is anie certaine, definite, and corporall place. A locall hell, is a fiction. See more art. 7.

Scripture. Departe from me ye cursed into fire euerla­sting. Hell fire, true fire.

Protestants. They feigne, that the soules of men and diuels Not true fire. are tormented in hell with true and corporall fire. See more ar­tic. 8.

CHAPTER XIX. OF GODS LAW.

SCripture. My yoke is sweet, and my burden light. Gods law pos­sible. Not possible, Some haue kept Gods law. None haue kept it. Some haue loued God with all their hart. None haue loued him so. Gods law in the harts of some. In the harts of none. We pray to fulfill Gods will. We pray not so. Keeping the cōmandments necessarie to life. Not necessa­rie.

Protestants. The law is impossible to be kept. It is impossi­ble to keepe the commandments. See more art. 1.

Scripture. I haue kept thy law. They haue kept thy word.

Protestants. No man performeth the law or euer performed it. See more art. 2.

Scripture faieth of Iosias: He returned to our lord in all his hart, and in all his soule, and in all his power, according to all the law of Moises.

Protestants: There was no Sainte who in this mortall life loued God with all is soule, with all his hart, with all his power. See more art. 3.

Scripture. The law of God in his hart.

Protestants. Euen after regeneration, the word of the law is not properly saied to be in our hart. See more art. 4.

Scripture. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heauen.

Protestants. We do not pray, that we may fulfill the law. See more art. 5.

Scripture. If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the command­ments.

Protestants. Woe be to their Cathecumens, if so hard a con­dition (of keeping the law) be imposed vpon them. See more art. 6.

Scripture. Do we then destroye the law by faith? God forbid: but we establish the law.

Protestants. All the ceremoniall law or the Decalogue is abro­gated It is abroga­ted. from a Christian, because he is dead to it; And to be dead to the law, is not to be bound with the law, but free from it and not to know it. See more art. 7.

CHAPTER XX. OF MANS LAVV.

SCripture. Who, thinkest thou, is a faithfull and wise seruant, Superioritie amōgst Chri­stians. whome his lord hath appointed ouer his familie.

Protestants. Among Christians, there can be no superioritie. Christ is my immediate Lord, I know no other. See more art. 1.

Scripture. To the rest, I say, not our Lord: If anie brother None amōgst them. haue a wife an infidell, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

Protestants. They draw to themselues all the maiestie of God, Man can com­mand that which God doth not. He cannot. Conscience subiect to mās lawes. Not subiect. who chaleng authoritie to make lawes. See more art. 2.

Scripture: Be subiect of necessitie, not only for wrathe, but also for conscience sake.

Protestants. The lawes of Princes bind not the conscience: haue no power ouer the conscience. See more art. 3.

CHAPTER XXI. OF FREE WILL.

SCripture. It shalbe in the arbitrement of her husband, whe­ther There is free will. she shall do it, or not do it.

Protestants. Free vill is a title without the thing. See more There is none art. 1.

Scripture. Without thy counsell I would do nothing, that thy Freedome to good. good might not be as it were of necessitie, but voluntarie.

Protestants. Man after his fall hath no libertie to good. There No freedome to good. is no free will to good. See more art. 2.

Scripture. We are Gods coadiutours. Gods coadiu­tors.

Protestants. Papists make God the first and cheefest cause of all goodnes, and vs coadiutours: Which is craftily to withdraw Not his coad­iutors. themselues from God. See more art. 3.

CHAPTER XXII. OF MANS SOVLE.

SCripture. Feare ye not them who kill the bodie, and are not Mans soule, immortall. able to kill the soule.

Protestants. I giue leaue to the Pope to make articles of faith Not immor­tall. for his followers. Such as are that breade and wine are transsub­stantiated in the Sacrament: That he is Emperour of the world, and an earthlie God: That the soule is immortall, and all those infinit monsters in the Romish dunghill of decrees.

What Propositions, I pray you, shal euer be thought cōtradictions, if these be not: seing there can scarce be de­uised more formall or more direct opposition then is be­twixt the most of these? But because perhaps the vulgar Protestante will say, that he beleiueth not all or most of the Protestants propositions here set downe; albeit this ex­cuse will not suffice him, as I haue shewed in the end of my Preface, yet for his fuller satisfaction, I haue gathered twelue principall articles, which commonly all Prote­stants beleiue, quite contrarie to the expresse word of God.

THE COMMON PROTESTANTS CREED CONSI­sting of twelue Articles quite contrarie to the expresse word of God in the Scripture.

1 PROTESTANTS beleiue, that a man is Lib. 1. c. 16. art. 2. iustified by only faith quite contrarie to the expresse word of God. Ioannes. 2. v. 4. Do you see, that a man is iustified by workes, and not by faith only?

2 Protestants beleiue, that we can not keep Goods commandments, quite con­trarie to his expresse word. Ezechiel 36. v. 27. I will make Lib. 1. c. 18. art. 1. that you walke in my commandments and keepe my iudgments, and doe them.

3 Protestants beleiue, that the keeping of Gods com­mandments is not necessarie to come to life euerlasting quite contrarie to Gods expresse words. Mathew. 19. v. 17. Lib. 1. c. 18. art. 6. If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the commandments.

4 Protestants beleiue, that no men can forgiue sinnes quite contrarie to the expresse word of God. Ihon 20. v. Lib. 1. c. 11. art. 1. 22. Receaue ye the holie Ghost, whose sinnes ye shall forgiue, they are forgiuen them.

5 Protestants beleiue, that we are not bound to confesse our sinnes to men quite contrarie to the expresse word of Lib. 1. c. 11. art. 2. God Ioannes 5. v. 16. Confesse your sinnes, one to an other.

6 Protestants beleiue, that men when they die are not to be anoiled quite contrarie to the expresse word of God. Lib. 1. c. 11. art. 7. Iames 5. v. 14 Is anie man sicke among you? Let him bring in the preists of the Church, and let them pray ouer him auoiling [Page 43] him with oile in the name of our lord.

7 Protestants beleiue, that the blessed Sacrament is not the true bodie and blood of Christ quite contrarie to the Lib. 1. c. 10. art. 1. expresse word of God. Luke 22. v. 19. This is my bodie, which is giuen for you: and Mathew 26. v. 28. This is my blood, which shalbe shed for remisson of sinnes.

8 Protestants beleiue, that the Church of God is not in­fallible in faith, quite contrarie to Gods expresse word. 1. Lib. 1. c. 8. art. 6. Timothie 3. v. 15. Which is the Church of the liuing God, the pillar and ground of trueth.

9 Protestants beleiue, that we must not beleiue Tradi­tions quite contrarie to the expresse word of God. 2. Thes­salon. Lib. 1. c. 5. art. 9. 2. v. 15. Hould the Traditions which you haue learned, whether it be by word or by epistle.

10 Protestants beleiue it is ill done to pray in the Church in an vnknowne language, quite contrarie to the expresse Lib. 1. c. 14. art. 12. word of God. 1. Cor. 14. v. 17. where it is saied of such a one. Thou indeed giuests thankes well.

11 Protestants Beleiue, that there is no sacrifice in the Church quite contrarie to the expresse word of God. Ma­lachie Lib. 1. c. 11. art. 11. 1. v. 11. In euerie place there is sacrificing, and there is of­fered to my name a cleane oblation.

12 Protestants beleiue, that there is no altar in the Church quite contrarie to the expresse word of God. He­brewes Lib. 1. c. 11. art. 12. 13. v. 10. We haue an altar, whereof they haue no power to eate who serue the tabernacle.

THE FIRST BOOKE OF THE CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIKE AND PRO­testant doctrine with the expresse words of the holie Scripture.

FIRST CHAPTER. OF GOD.

Article 1. Whether God willeth iniquitie or sinne.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

PSALME 5. verse. 5. Thou art God will not iniquitie. not a God that wilt iniquitie.

Abacuc. 1. verse. 13. Thine eyes are cleane from seing euill, and thou canst not looke towarde ini­quitie.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Saint Thomas parte. 1. Sum­mae. quaest. 19. art. 9. God will no waye the euill of sinne.

D. Stapleton lib. 11. de Iustificat. c. 8 It is wholy repugnant to Gods nature, to will sinne.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Caluin in c. 3. Gen. v. 1. & 3. None of these things hinder, but God would haue man to fall. that God would haue man to fall, for some certaine cause vn­knowne to vs. And cont. Franciscan. libertin. in opusculis page 441. We saye, that the diuell and man both fell by the will of God vnknowne to vs.

Beza in 2. par. resp. ad acta Colloquij Mōtis Belgartensis p. 177 saieth, that our first parents fell indeed with the will and Man fall with the will of God. decree of God. Agayne. I saied and do saye, that it c [...]me not to passe, but by the decree of God so willing, that our first parents de­priued themselues of their natiue goodnesse. And l. de Praedest. cōt. Castell. volum. 1. Theol. p. 340. hauing obiected to him selfe, that if the causes of damnation come with God his will, then man were out of all fault, and all the fault were in God: he denieth the sequele, and admitteth the antece­dent, and addeth, that God decreeth, and ordaineth the causes of damnation.

Peter Martyr in c. 9. Rom. p. 348. God is saied to hate sinne, God willeth sinne for some other end. He would haue Adam to fall. He would haue Adam to sinne. because he willeth it not for it selfe, but for some other end. And in locis classe 1. c. 14. p. 116. It cannot be doubted, but that God would haue Adam to fall. Zanchius l. 5. de natura Dei. c. 2. Would not God haue Adam to sinne, and vs all together with him to fall into this corruption; by which it cometh to passe, that we cannot but sinne, vnlesse he helpe vs with his grace? He would. Agayne. By this (omnipotent) will he would and ordained the sinne of Adam, that in him all should sinne.

Piscator apud Vorstiū in Parasceue c. 3. Sinnes are done with Gods procuremēt and will that they should be done. God will ini­quitie God will haue iniquitie to be committed. to be cōmitted, albeit he do not delighte in it; as a sick man will drinke a bitter potiō, albeit he be not delighted with it. Because God will declare his iustice and mercie, therefore also he will that sinnes be cōmitted. And apud eundē in Collat. sect. 61. God will He will that sinne be done. not onely that sinnes may be done, but also will that they be done.

The same Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. p. 184 It is false and im­plieth contradiction: that man fell, not with Gods will, but with He will sinne though he be no del [...]ghted with it. his permission. For if he permitted, he also would, not simply and of it selfe, as if he were delighted with sinne, but in some sorte and for some other thing. Page 187. God can will some thing, with [Page 47] which notwithstāding he is not delighted; As for exāple: he is not He willeth wickednes for some other end. delighted with wickednes, & yet permitteth it and that willingly, and therefore willeth it in some sorte and for some other end. And p. 203. It is not ill doctrin to saye; That Gods will is done euen by sinning, that is, euen sinnes are done by Gods will.

Bucanus in Institut. Theol. loco 14. p. 145. Is God not willing God willeth sin with a hidden will. iniquitie? If you take it simply, that God no way will it, the scrip­ture is against that. Wherefore we must expound it so: That God will it not with his allowing or reuealed or signified will, but with his hidden or good pleasing will. And the same hath Pareus lib. 2. de Amiss. Gratiae c. 16.

Melācthon in cap. 9. Rom. This is a misterie vnspeakable, to God willeth sinne. Would Adās fall. Would Adās reuolt. wit, that God willeth sinnes, and yet truely hateth them.

Perkins in Exposit. Symbol. tom. 1. col. 773. God would Adams fall for a good end. Et de praedestinat. col. 128. We must say, that God would haue Adams reuolt to come to passe. And p. 129. Albeit God willeth not sinne simply and for it selfe, yet he doth decree it, and willeth it to come to passe. See more of the like sayings of Protestants if you please in my Latin booke of this matter Chapter. 1. Art. 1.

THE CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS OF THE HOLIE SCRIPTVRE, OF CATHOLIKS, AND OF PROTESTANTS.

The Scripture expressely saieth, that God will not ini­quitie or sinne; nay that he cannot looke toward it. The same saye Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that God would haue Adam to sinne, would haue his fall, his reuolt; that God willeth sinne, willeth wickednes for some other end, will haue iniquitie to be cōmitted though he delighte not in it, as a sick man will drinke a bitter potiō though he take no delighte in it, that the causes of damnation came with Gods will, that he willeth sinne with a hidden and good pleasing will. Which are as directly against the foresaied words of Scrip­ture, as any can be. Nether will it auaile Ptotestants, to saye (as some times they doe) that God willeth sinne, as it is the occasion of some good, to wit, of manifesting [Page 48] his iustice in punishing it, or his mercie in pardoning it. Because, in saying that God willeth sinne, wickednesse, iniquitie, mans fall, mans reuolt, the causes of damnations (as in plaine termes they doesaye) they not onely affirme: that God willeth the act in which iniquitie is, but the very iniquitie, malice, or sinfulnes it self, as is manifest both by the foresaied words, as also because they some times teach (as we shall see hereafter article 5.) that sinne, as it is sinne, is preordinated of God. And in saying, that God willeth iniquitie or sinfulnes it selfe, they directly contradict the aforecited words of holie Scripture. For therein they meane, that iniquitie or sinne is one of those things which are willed of God, which the Scripture di­rectly denieth. Nether is this contradiction auoided by adding, that though iniquitie be willed of God, yet it is not willed of him for it selfe, or as it is iniquitie, but as it is an occasion of some good, because still it is affirmed that iniquitie it selfe is one of the things which are willed of God; as in their owne example; True it is, that a bitter potion is willed of the sicke, though it be not willed of him for it selfe, nor as it is bitter, but as it is a meane to re­couer health. Wherefore in this matter, we must distin­guish twoe questions. The one is simple or absolute: to wit, Whether God will iniquitie or sinne it selfe: To which question the holie Scripture answereth negatiuely, and the Protestants affirmatiuely. The other is a redoubling question, namely, Whether God will iniquitie or sinne, as it is iniquitie or sinne, and for it selfe: To which question both the Scripture and Protestants answere negatiuely, but this their agreement with the Scripture in this second que­stion saueth not their disagreement from it in the former question: which disagreemēt or contradictiō is that which here I vrge. Moreouer, nether man nor the diuell him selfe can will iniquitie, as iniquitie, or for it selfe, because as such, it is a pure priuation of good, and nothing can be willed of any, but as it is good, ether true or apparent good. Wherevpon Saint Denis with the consent of all [Page 49] Diuines and Philosophers saied: None worketh, looking onely De diuin. no­minibus. c. 4. to ill. Finally, to say that God willeth sinne as it is a meane to some good end, is to make him like to them, who as the Apostle writeth, Roman. 3. say: Let vs doe euill that good may follow: whose damnation (saieth he) is iust. Blasphemous therefore it is, and against holie Scripture, that God will iniquitie or sinne, vnder what consideration soeuer he be saied to will it. And so impious this is, as the holie Fa­thers say, that it taketh away Tertull. ex­hortat. ad Ca­stit. c. 2. Pros­per. l. 2. ad Vincent. c. 10 all sinne and iudgment of God, and is more Augustin. l. 1. de ordin. c. 1. blasphemous then to deny Gods pro­uidence: yea some Protestants confesse, that it is contrarie to scripture, as we shall see hereafter. l. 2. c. 25. 30.

ART. II. WHETHER SINNE DOTH please God.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

3. Kings. 11. v. 6. And Salomon did that which was not liked Sinne plea­seth not God. before our Lord.

1. Paralipomenon 21. v. 7. And that which was comman­ded displeased God, and he strake Israel.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Card. Bellarmin l. 2. de septem verbis Dom. c. 4. The greatnes of the sinne, which Christ vndertooke to blot out by his passion, was in some sorte infinite, by reason of the infinit dignitie and excellencie of the person which was offended.

PROTESTANT EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Bucanus and Pareus in the former article: God willeth sinne with his hidden and good pleasing will.

Caluin de Praedestinat. p. 726. Whence therefore shall we Pleaseth God. say that it came to passe, that Pharao should so inhumanly rage, but that it so pleased God, partely for to trie the patience of his people, partely to exercise his power?

Beza de Praedestinat. cont. Castel. val. 1. Theol. p. 376. Gods will dath embrace euen those things which simply he allow­eth [Page 50] not yea reiecteth and punisheth, yet decreeth them and in some sorte, and for some respect is pleased with them. And in Absters. calum. Heshusij. ib. p. 324. We say, that a lie plea­seth God, as it is the iust punishment of them who preferred lies before trueth. And as Smidelin obiected to his face in the Conference at Montebelgard. p. 450. he taught that: In a wonderfull and incomprehensible manner it pleased God and he would, that our first parents should sinne.

THE CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS OF SCRIPTVRE, CATHOLIKS, AND PROTESTANTS.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that sinne pleaseth not, yea displeaseth God: And in like sorte teach Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that God willeth sinne with his good pleasing will: that euen those things which God approueth not, do in some respect please him: that lies do please him as they are punishments to men: that it pleased God, that our first parents should sinne.

ART. III. WHETHER GOD HATE SINNE.

SCRITVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Psalme. 44. v. 8. Thou hast loued iustice and hast hated ini­quitie, God hateth sinne. therefore God thy God hath anointed thee with oile of gladnes aboues thy fellowes.

S. Wisdom. 14. v. 9. But to God the impious and his impietie are odius alike.

Zacharie. 8. v. 17. And thinke ye not euerie man in your hart euill against his freind, and lying oathe loue ye not: for all these things are such as I hate, saieth our Lord.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarmin in psalm. 5. v. 4. God hateth nothing more then sinne.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Peter Martyr in Rom. 9. Seing sinnes haue often times the na­ture of punishment, it is manifest, that God hateth them not as He hateth not sinne. such. Againe: For so much as God is saied to not will or hate sinne, that is to be vnderstood, in so much as perteineth to the law, and scripture, and rule of life reuealed vnto vs. He is also saied to hate sinne, because he punisheth it, and willeth it not for it selfe, but for some other end. Wherefore as he worketh sinne, he hateth it not. The same also meane those, who (as we haue seene in the former article) teach, that sinne pleaseth God.

THE CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS

Scripture expressely saieth that God hateth iniquitie, hateth sinne, and that impietie is odious vn him. The same say Catholiks. Protestants expressely say, that God hateth not sinne as it hath the nature of punishment, nor as it is his worke: that when he is saied to hate sinne, that is to be vnderstood, that he saieth so in Scripture.

ART. IV. WHETHER GOD DOTH worke sinne or inquitie.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Sophonie. 3. v. 5. Our lord in the middes thereof, will not doe God doth not worke sinne. iniquitie.

Isaie. 53. v. 9. Because he hath not done iniquitie, nether was there guile in his mouth.

Prouerbs. 14. v. 22. They erre, that worke euill.

Mathew. 7. v. 18. A good tree can not yeeld euill fruits.

1. Ioan. 3. v. 8. He that committeth sinne, is of the diuel.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Councell of Trent. Sessione 6. Canone. 6. If any shall saye, that God worketh ill deeds as well as good, not onely permis­siuely, but also properly and in themselues: so that, no lesse the treason of Iudas, then the calling of Paule, was his proper worke; be h [...] accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Luther de seruo arbit. to. 2. fol. 459. diuers times saieth, that God worketh euill in vs and by vs: and fol. 433. (as Zan­chius God worketh sinne. confesseth l. de praedestinat. c. 7.) saieth: God worketh good and euill in vs, rewardeth his good, and punisheth his euill deeds in vs.

Melancthon in Rom. 8. printed 1521. As they confesse, God worketh properly adul­dulterie. that the vocation of Paule was the proper worke of God: so we confesse, that they are properly Gods workes, as well those the which are called indifferent, as to eate or drinke, as those, which are euill, as Dauids adulterie. God doth all things not onely per­missiuely, but also mightly, that is, so that Iudas is treacherie is his proper worke, as the vocation of Paule.

Brentius in c. 3. Amos. printed at Francfurt by Peter God doth the euill of sinne. Bruboch. 1551. All things are done by the mightie hand and ef­fectuall working of God, as well the euils of sinne, as the euill of punishment.

Caluin Institut. l. 1. c. 18. §. 3. Now haue I clearly enough shewed, that God is called the Author of all those things which these Censurers will haue to fall out onely by his idle permission. The like he saieth de Praedestinat. p. 727. And ibid. p. 726. Moises clearly affirmeth, that hardnes (of Pharao) to haue Pharoes hardnes, pro­per worke of God. beene the worke of God. Nether surely is Pharao his crueltie at­tributed here in any other sense vnto Gods counsell, then other­where he is saied to giue fauour to his people in the sight of the. Egyptians. And l. 3. Institut. c. 23. §. 1. Whence it followeth, that the hidden counsell of God was the cause of this hardnes of harte.

Beza de Praedestinat. cont. Castell. p. 400. Induration, is the iust worke of God, and the worke of Sathan.

Peter Martyr in lib. Iudic. c. 3. These kind of speeches plain­ly God worketh euerie way euill. teach, that God not onely by permitting, but also by doing, worketh euerie way euill in vs.

Piscator apud Vorstium in Parasceue c. 3. &c. in Amica. Collat. sect. 130. Because God procureth this manifestation of Procureth sinne it selfe. of his iustice and mercie, therefore also he procureth sinnes them [Page 53] selues. God procured that Absalon rauished his father wiues.

Zanchius de Excaecat. q. 1. to. 7. col. 204. It is certaine, Author of induration. that God as iust iudge, was the chiefe Author of this indura­tion.

See more of their like sayings in my Latin booke. c. 1. art. 4.

THE CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS

Scripture expressely saieth, that God will not doe ini­quitie, hath not done iniquitie: that a good tree cannot yeeld euill fruits: that who worketh; who committeth sinne, is of the diuell. The same saye Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that God worketh euill in vs and by vs, punisheth his ill deeds in vs: that Dauids adulterie was the proper worke of God, and Iudas his treason was Gods worke, as well as Pauls vocation: that the euill of sinne is done by the effectuall working of God: that God is the Author of Induration or hardnes of hart the cause of it: that it is Gods worke: that Pharaos crueltie against the Iewes is attributed to Gods counsell in the same sense, that the Egyptians fauour towards them; that God euery way worketh euill in vs: that God it the Au­thor of all those things which Catholike Cēsurers thinke to fall out by his permission: that God procureth sinne it selfe. Which sayings are so blasphemous, as the holie fa­thers affirme, that they make God to be no God: and so Basil. hom. quod Deus nō sit causa mali. contrarie to holie Scripture, as the same Protestants con­fesse it. See l. 2. c. 25. & 30.

ART. III. WHETHER GOD OERDAINE SINNE to be done, and predestinate men to sinne?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Hieremie. 19. v. 5. And they haue builtes the excelses of God ordai­neth not sinne Baalim, which I commanded not, nor haue spaken of, nether [Page 54] haue they ascended into my hart. The same teacheth the Scripture, where it denieth that God willeth sinne.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Councell of Trent Session. 6. Can. 17. condemneth this doctrin. The reprobats are predestinate to euill.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Perkins de Praedestinat. to. 1. col. 127. We say, that A­dams God decreed mans fall. fall came, God not onely foreseing but also willing and de­creing it In Serie causarum. c. 52. It is wicked to say, that God did onely forsee Adams fall, but did not ordaine it by an eternall Ordained it. decree. In Apocal. 1. to. 2. God decreed by a generall will, that men should fall and sinne.

Willet in Synopsi Contr. 8. q. 3. p. 859. The fall of Adam was both foreseene of God & decreed to be, not permitted onely. As Adams fall decreed as Christs death. Christ his death was decreed and determined: so was the fall of A­dam. For the end of Christs death was to restore Adams fall: and if the end be decreed, then those things also which are necessarily referred to that end.

Caluin. 3. Institut. c. 23. §. 8. Adam fell because God iudged it so expedient. Man falleth Gods prouidence ordayning so. De Prouident. p. 736. I acknowledge this to be my doctrin: that Ordained of God. Adam fell not by Gods permission onely, but also by his hidden counsell. Et p. 738. I confesse I wrote so: Adams fall was orday­ned by the secret decree of God. De Praedestinar. p. 704. Let our faith with seemlie sobernes adore a far of the hidden counsell of God, wherwith the fall of men was preordinated.

Beza de Praedestinat. cont. Castell. p. 340. How God is not in fault, if he ordayne the causes of damnation, we th [...]nke it a God ordei­neth the causes of dā nation. question vnexplicable to mans sense. Page. 4▪ 7. We acknow­ledge it to be true, that God hath predestinated whomsoeuer he pleased not onely to damnation, but also to the causes of damna­tion. In Absters. calum. Heshusij p. 319. We say, that Adam could not fall but through the decree and ordination of God. We [Page 55] think, that Adams fall was decreed of God.

Zanchius de Praedestinat. c. 4. to. 7. As well they which Men prede­stinate to blindnes. are blinded are predestinated to blindnes, as they which are deli­uered, from sinne, are predestinated to deliuerie. De Excaecat. q. 5. It is cleare, that God hath predestinated some to exceca­tion. Sinne euen considered as sinne, as it serueth to the glorie of Sinne euen as sinne is preor­deined of God. God not of it nature but by Gods goodnes, so far forth is sinne and the euill of sinne preordayned of God. Which words also Polanus hath l. 4. Syntax. Theol. c. 10. And the same Zanchius l. 5. de natura Dei c. 2. to. 2. This was that which God first de­creeth dāna­tion, and then sinne. God first decreed of the reprobates from all eternitie: to will the euerlasting ordayning of some men to perdition: to this were their sinnes ordained, and to their sinnes, forsaking and deniall of grace.

Piscator apud Vorstium in Parasceue. c. 3. All things Sinne done by a speciall decree of God. are done by the decree of God, euen sinnes themselues, and that by an absolute and speciall decree. c 6. God destinated all and euerie mā to sinne. Et in Amica. Collat. sect. 58. God decreed absolutely and of him selfe, that sinnes should be done. The same Piscator in thesib. l. 2. loco. 12. Reprobation, deniall of grace followeth, this sinnes follow; sinnes, punishment followeth, to all God pre­ordayned the reprobate from all eternitie. See more of their like sayings in the Latin booke c. 1. art. 5.

THE CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS

Scripture expressely denieth, that sinne ascendeth to the hart of God, or that God willeth it. The same, Ca­tholiks.

Protestants expreslely affirme, that God ordayned, de­creed, determined Adams fall: that Adam fell by Gods counsell and because he thought it expediēt, through the decree, and ordination of God: that God ordaineth the causes of damnation, praedestinateth to the causes of dam­nation whom he pleaseth: praedestinateth as well to blindnes or excecation, as to deliuerie from sinne: preor­dayneth sinne as sin, as it is occasion of good: first predesti­nated [Page 56] men to perditiō, and after to sinne: destinateth euery man to sinne, decreeth sinne it selfe to be done by an ab­solute and speciall decree, and that of him selfe. Which do­ctrin is accursed of the Councell of Arausica can. 25. and confessed by some Protestants to be contrarie to Scrip­ture. See l. 2. c. vlt.

ART. VI. WHETHER GOD COMMAND any to sinne.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Ecclesiasticus c. 15. v. 21. He (God) hath commanded no God commā ­deth none to sinne. man to do impiously.

Hieremie 32. v. 35. They haue built the excelses of Baal &c. Which I commanded them not.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Card. Bellarmin. l. 2. Amiss. Grat. c. 8. The Scripture manifestly teacheth that God doth not command sinne.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Caluin de Praedestinat. p. 727. You see, that by Gods Sathan lieth by Gods com­mandment. commandment Sathan is not onely a lying spirit in the mouth of all the Prophets, but &c. De Prouident. pag. 739. What? Where God sendeth for Sathan the minister of his reuenge, and giueth him a plaine commandment to deceaue, is not this diffe­rent from bare permission? And p. 746. God calling Sathan, God biddeth Sathan to lie. biddeth him goe to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the Pro­phets for deceaue Achab.

Beza in Absters. calum. Heshusij pag. 324. God being angrie with the wicked, deliuereth them to Sathan, and that with this commandment, that by lying and all manner of deceit Expressely commandeth him to de­ceaue. he destroy them miserably. Pag. 382. Sathan was sent to de­ceaue Achab by the expresse commandment of God. De Prae­dest. [Page 57] cont. Castel. p. 403. Caluin wrote rightly and truly, that by Gods commandment Sathan solliciteth to these desires, which in regard of Sathan and the wicked, are euill. See more in the Latin booke c. 1. art. 6.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture saieth expressely, that God commanded none to doe wickedly: that he commanded not to build the ex­celses of Baal. The same saye Catholiks.

Protestants expressely saye, that Sathan was a lyer by Gods commandment: that God giueth him a plaine com­mand to deceaue: that God biddeth him be a lying spirit for to deceaue: that God commandeth Sathan to destroy the wicked by lying and all kind of deceit: that God expressely sent him to deceaue: and commandeth him to sollicite men to such desires as in them are euill.

ART. VII. WHETHER GOD TEMPTOR push any to sinne.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Iames c. 1. v. 13. Let no man when he is tempted, say that he God tempteth none to sinne. is tempted of God: for God is not a tempter of euills, and he tempteh no man.

Ecclesiasticus c. 15. v. 12. Say not: He hath made me erre, for impious men are not necessarie for him.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Cardin. Bellarmin lib. 2. de Amiss. Grat. cap. 4. If God did push me to that which is against his law, he should denie him selfe.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dureum. sect. 7. God pushed the [...]indes of the Iewes to kill his sonne. God moueth to sinne.

Zuinglius de Prouident. c. 6. tom. 1. God euen so moueth the iudge to punish the offenders, as he moueth them to sinne.

Bucer in c. 6. Matth. The Scripture is not afraid to make God the Au­thor of temp­tation. God the author of temptation, who some time bringeth the elect into temptation, and that such as they truly fall and sinne.

Caluin. 1. Institut. c. 18. §. 4. Man by Gods iust driuing doth that which is not lawfull for him. De Praedestinat. p. 727. Nether is Sathan the minister of Gods wrathe, onely because he soliciteth soules to naughtie desires, but also because he effectual­ly draweth them.

Beza de Praedestinat. cont. Castell. p. 401. God stirreth vp He stirreth the theefe to kill. He tempteth to sinne. the ill will of the theefe to kill an other.

Peter Martyr in locis classe. 1. c. 15. §. 9. It is no maruell that we can not vnderstand, how it can agree with Gods iustice to punish sinne and yet to driue to it by tempting: for God can do more then we can vnderstand. ibid. p. 1010. We must not denie, that God is the Author of temptations. In Rom. 1. fol 34. Nether must God be accused of iniustice, though he will, incline, Driueth mēs wills into greeuous sin­nes. and driue the wills of wicked men into greeuous sinnes.

THE CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely sayeth, that God is no tempter of euill, that he tempteth none, maketh none erre. The same saye Catholiks.

Protestants expressely saye, that God pushed the Iewes to kill his sonne, moueth the offender to sinne, is the author of temptation, driueth man to that which is vnlawfull, stirreth vp the theefe to kill, tempteth to sinne, driueth into greeuous sinne: that the diuel is Gods mini­ster in soliciting and drawing men to naughtie desires. [Page 59] Which are so contrarie to Scripture, as some times Prote­stants acknowledge it l. 2. c. 30.

ART. VIII. WHETHER GOD MAKE men necessarily sinne.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Genesis 4. v. 7. If thou doest ill, shall not thy sinne forth­with God imposeth not necessitie to sinne. be present at thy dore? but the lust thereof shalbe vnder thee and thou shalt haue dominion ouer it.

1. Cor. 10. v. 13. God is faithfull, who will not suffer you to be tempted aboue that which you are able.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Councell of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 5. defineth that man hath free will in euill.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dureum sect. 1. On whome the holie Some haue necessitie to sinne. Ghost is not bestowed, they haue a miserable necessitie to sinne.

Willet Controu. 18. q. 2. p. 855. Indeed Adam in respect of Gods appointment did sinne necessarily. The same hath Per­kins de Praedestinat. col. 134.

Luther de seruo arbit. to. 2. fol. 460. If God did foresee, that Iudas would be a traitor, Iudas was necessarily a traitor, ne­ther Iudas a trai­tour of neces­sitie. was it in the power of Iudas or of any creature to do other­wise, or to change his will. Fol. 434. This is the highest degree of faith, to beleeue him to be iust, who at his pleasure maketh men Some necessa­rily damned. necessarily to be damned.

Zuinglius de Prouident. c. 6 Nether let any say: The theefe is guiltles, because he slew, God driuing him; For he sinned against Some com­pelled to sinne. the law. But you will say: He was compelled to sinne: I graunt (I say) that he was compelled.

Caluin 3. Institut. c. 23. §. 9. The Reprobats would be ex­cused [Page 60] in sinning, because they cannot a void the necessitie of sin­ning, Reprobates necessited to sinne. especially sith this necessitie is imposed vpon them by Gods appointment: But we denie, that they can be iustly excused, be­cause Gods appointment is iust. De Praedestinat. p. 704. It sufficed to mans iust damnation, to haue fallen of his accord frō the way of saluation in which he was set. But it could not be other wise. What then? Is he therefore faultles?

Beza de Praedestinat. cont. Castel. p. 415. That he saieth Necessarily do sinne. the reprobats doe necessarily sinne, is most true. In 2. parte Res­pons. ad Acta Colloq. Montisbel. p. 178. With an other ne­cessitie Adam is saied to haue fallen necessarily, to wit, what be­longeth to Gods appointement. Gods decree necessitateth to sinne.

Tilenus disput. 8. de Praedestinat. By this decree of God a double necessitie falleth vpon the reprobats, the one sinning, the other of perishing.

Zanchius l. 5. de natura Dei c. 2. We graunt that reprobats by this appointment of God are tyed with the necessitie of sin­ning, and consequently of perishing, and so tyed, as they cannot but sinne and perish.

Piscator l. 2. de the sibus p. 183. It is falsely saied, that it was in mans will not to eate of the fruite of the forbidden tree, that is, Adam neces­sarily sinned. not to transgresse the commandment. And pag. 282. Through the decree of God, man could not but transgresse. Polanus in Disp. priuat. disp. 3. Adam sinned necessarily.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the lust of sinne is vn­der vs, that we haue dominion ouer it, and that God will not suffer vs to be tempted aboue our power. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the wicked do necessa­rily sinne: that the reprobats are tyed by Gods appoint­ment necessarily both to sinne and perish: that it was not in Adās will not to eate the forbidden aple, that through Gods decree he could not but transgresse, that he sinned necessarily and could not doe otherwise: that Iudas was [Page 61] necessarily a traitor and could not change his mind: that God cōpelleth the theefe to sinne. Which are so impious as S. Prosper saieth: He is no Catholike, who saieth that by Ad c. 16. Gallor. Gods predestination, as it were with a fatall necessitie, men com­pelled to sinne are forced to death: and so contrarie to Scrip­ture, as Protestants some time confesse it. lib. 2. cap. 30. And thus much of God touching sinne: Now of God concerning sinners.

ART. IX. WHETHER GOD HATE ALL that worke iniquitie.

SCRITVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Psal. 5. v. 7. Thou hatest all that worke iniquitie. God hateth all workers of iniquitie.

Ecclesiast. c. 12. v. 3. The highest hateth sinners.

Math. 7. v. 23. Departe from me you that worke iniquitie.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D Stapleton l. 3. de Iustificat. c. 8. Sinne of it nature, in whomsoeuer it is, separateth from God, and maketh him in whome it is, hatefull to God.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker. l. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 34. The godlie, though God hateth not all such. they sinne (grieuously) yet are alwaies most assuredly perswaded of Christs loue and will.

Perkins de Praedest. to. 1. God being offended, doth change the effects of grace into the effects of a certaine hatred, not against the faithfull themselues, but against their sinnes. He doth not put away his fatherlie affection, and they are still chil­dren concerning the right of eternall life.

Caluin. 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 12. We see that God wonderfully is angred with his children, which he leaueth to loue, not that in him selfe he hateth them, but because he will terrifie [Page 62] them with some feeling of his wrathe.

Beza de Praedestinat. cont. Castel. p. 409. Albeit the lord God neuer hateth the elect. hate all iniquitie, yet hateth he not all in whome iniquitie is.

Zanchius l. 4. de natura Dei. c. 7. q. 2. God neuer hateth the elect. Agayne. It cannot be, that God at anie time hateth them. And in depuls. calum. to. 7. God is angrie with the elect whem they sinne, but neuer hateth them.

Pareus l. 1. de Amiss. Grat. c. 7. God doth not hate his children when they sinne.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely affirmeth, that God hateth all who worke iniquitie: that he hateth sinners: that who worke iniquitie shall departe from him. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely denie, that God hateth the faithfull when they sinne: that euer he hateth the elect: that the faithfull, though they sinne, are euer assured of Gods loue: that God hateth all in whom iniquitie is. Which are so opposite to Scripture as Protestants some times confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. X. WHETHER GOD IVSTIFIETH, that is, iudgeth him to be iust, who is wicked.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Prouerb. 17. v. 15. He that iustifieth the impious, and he that Iustifier of the impious, adhominable to God. condemneth the iust, both are abhominable before God. Isaie 5. v. 23. Woe to you, who iustifie the impious for giftes. Rom. 2. v. 2. We know, that the iudgment of God is according to veritie.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Card. Bellarmin l. 2. de Iustif. c. 9. A wicked man can­not be truly iustified, that is, pronounced iust, vnles he who pro­nounceth [Page 63] him iust do withall make him iust.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Bucanus loco 31. de Iustificat. q. 18. p. 313. Seing God God iustifieth the wicked. forbiddeth to iustifie the wicked Prouerb. 17. 15. Can he be saied to do that rightly which him selfe forbiddeth? Rightly, because he it aboue all law.

Caluin l. de Caena p. 2. Let vs be assured, that albeit we be God accoun­teth wicked, for iust. wicked and impure, yet we are acknowledged and accepted of the lord and accounted for iust. Et 3. Institut. c. 19. §. 2. It is not in­quired there, how we may be iust, but how being vniust and vn­worthie, we may be held for iust.

Pareus l. 2. de Iustificat. c. 9. What he obiecteth, that a wicked man cannot be truly pronounced iust vnles he be made The wicked may be iud­ged iust ac­cording to the Ghospell. iust, is true of inherent iustice and according to the law: but it is false, that he cannot be pronounced iust with imputed iustice and according to the Ghospell.

Illyricus Praefat. in epist. ad Rom. It is all together contu­melious against Christ, that he cannot by his iustice and efficacie iustifie and saue such sinners as are impious and want all good workes.

Scarpius de Iustificat. Controu. 9. We are called iust by the imputation of Christs iustice: but we are also called vniust for iniustice which is in vs.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely saieth, that it is abhominable be­fore God to iustifie the wicked, and pronounceth woe to him that doeth it, and addeth that all Gods iudgments are according to veritie, which that iudgment is not, that pronounceth the wicked for iust. The same saye Catho­liks.

Protestants expressely saie, that God doth that which him selfe forbiddeth, to wit, that he pronounceth the wicked for iust; that though we be vniust we are held of [Page 64] the Lord for iust; that Christ iustifieth and saueth such sin­ners as are impious; that with imputed iustice the wicked are pronouncd iust.

ART. XI. WHETHER GOD BE ANGRIE with the faithfull when they sinne.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Exod. 4. vers. 14. Our Lord being angrie at Moises, saied &c. God angered at Moises and Aaron.

Deuteronom. 9. v. 20. Against Aaron also being excee­ding angrie, he would haue destroied him.

Michee 7. v. 9. I will beare the wrath of our lord, because I haue sinned to him.

Roman. 2. v. 9. Wrath and indignation, tribulation, and Gods wrath on all that doe euill. anguish vpon euerie soule of man that worketh euill.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Catechismus ad Parochos in orat. Dom. Albeit the act of sinne be past, yet sinne remaineth by guilt and staine, ouer which Gods anger euer hanging doth follow it as the shadow the bodie.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther in c. 42. Gen. to. 6. fol. 575. Nether must we beleiue him, when he is angrie: For in deed Christ, that is, God incarnate is not angrie. Doth he not seeme to be angrie? No surely, he is not angrie. Nor suffer thy selfe to be so persuaded, for it is not true but God but fei­gnedlie an­grie. feigned anger. In c. 3. Galat. to. 5. fol. 336. Follow not the iudgment of reason, which saieth, that God is angrie with sin­ners. Et in argum. Epistolae fol. 272. Thou canst not be saued, vnles thou forget the law, and determine certainly in thy hart Not angrie with sinners. that there is no law or anger of God, but mere mercie and grace for Christs sake.

Caluin. 3. Instit. cap. 4. §. 31. God is not so rigorous in his [Page 65] iudgmēt of chastyzing (the faithfull) as he becometh angrie. §. 32. God alwaies withhouldeth his anger from the faithfull. Item. Neuer angrie with the faithfull. Nether hindreth it, that the lord is often saied to be angrie with his Saintes, when he chastizeth their sinnes. For that is not ment of Gods counsell or affection when punisheth, but of the vehement feeling of sorrow, wherewith they are affected, who su­staine how litle soeuer of his seueritie.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely saieth, that God was angrie with Moises, exceeding angrie against Aaron, had wrath against Micheas, and that wrath and indignation is vpon euerie soule that worketh euill. The same say Catho­liks.

Protestants expressely saye: that God is not angrie with sinners, is not angrie indeed, his anger is not true but feig­ned, hath anger but mere grace and mercie, alwaies with­houldeth his anger from the faithfull, that what is saied of Gods anger against the faithfull is not mēt of his mynd, but of their feeling of his chastisment. Which are so oppo­site to the holie Scripture as euen Protestants some times confesse. See. lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. VIII. WHETHER GOD DOTH punish sinners for sinnes past.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Genes. 3. vers. 17. God saieth to Adam. Because thou hast God punished Adam and Euer for sinne post. heard the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eate, cursed is the earth in thy worke, with much toiling shalt thou eate thereof all the dayes of thy life.

2. Kings. 12. vers. 14. Our lord hath taken away thy sinne, Also Dauid. thou [...]halt not dye. Neuerthelesse because thou hast made the enemies of our lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the sonne that [Page 66] is borne to thee, dying shall dye.

Ihon. c. 5. v. 14. Iesus saied to him: Behould thou art made whole, sinne no more lest some worse thing chance to thee.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarmin. l. 2. de Paenitent. c. 2. We see that the punishment inflicted vpon Dauid, had respecte to that which was past, rather then to that which was to come.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Caluin. 3. Inst. cap. 4. §. 33. Whiles the reprobates are scourged of God with whippes, they begin in some sorte to taste the pu­nishments of his iudgment; But his children are beaten with God punis­heth not his children for sinnes past. rods, not for to paye to God the penaltie of their offences, but to increase thereby in repentance. Wherefore we gather that they respect more the time to come, then the time past. Et §. 30. What I pray you had Christ done for vs, if yet punishment were exac­ted for sinne?

Zanchius de Perseuerant. q. 1. c. 2. This is most certaine, that God neuer imputeth sinne to the elect. The same say others as we shall see hereafter. c. 16. art. 1.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Adam was punished because he had eaten of the aple; and Dauid, because he had made Gods enemies blaspheme. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that Gods children are not punished for sinne past, that no sinne is imputed to the elect. That no punishment is exacted of vs for sinne. And hitherto we haue seene that the Scripture teacheth vs how God carieth him selfe towards sinnes and sinners plaine contrarie to that which Protestants teach: Now we will see the like touching good workes.

ART. XIII. WHETHER GOD REGARD good workes, or be delighted with them.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Genes. 8. v. 20. Noë built an altar to our lord, and taking of all cattle and foules that were cleane, offered holocausts vpon Noes sacrifice a sweet smell to God. the altar, and our lord smelled a sweet sauour.

4. Kings c. 22. v. 2. And he (Iosias) did that was liked be­fore our Lord.

Malachie 3. v. 4. And the sacrifice of Iuda and Hierusalem Sacrifice plea­seth God. shall please our lord.

Actes 10. vers. 4. And he saied to him: Thy praiers and thy almes deeds are ascended into remembrance in the sight of God.

Hebrewes 13. ver. 16. And forget not beneficence and com­munication: for with such hostes God is promerited (Or, as the Greek hath) is pleased.

1. Ihon. 3. v. 22. We do those things which are pleasing be­fore him.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarmin. l. 4. de Iustificat. c. 15 The seuenth testi­monie is taken out of those places (of Scripture) which teach that the workes of the iust do please God. And l. 5. c. 2. He saieth that the sense of the forecited words Hebr. 13. is this: With such hostes God is delighted or God is pleased with such hostes.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther de Captiuit. Babilon. to. 2. fol. 69. Nether can God careth not at all for workes. we any time deale otherwise with God, then by faith in the word of his promise: He careth nothing at all for works nor needeth them, by which we are to deale rather with men and with our [Page 68] selues. Et Postilla in Domini. 1. Aduentus fol 8. God careth Respecteth not yea loa­theth them. not for workes. In festo S. Stephani fol. 376. God respecteth not workes. We foolishly feigne that God is much delighted with our workes, whereas he greatly loatheth them. In festo Assumpt. fol. 435. Truly workes are of no accounte before God. In cap. 1. Ionae to. 4. fol. 411. The Papists haue a conceit of God, as if he were a God that is delighted and may be appeased with our good No God, that is delighted with workes. workes, whereas there is no such God, no such Godhead, which is delighted with these things. And to. 7. Serm. in Hebr. 11. God careth not greatly what kind or what notable workes we doe.

Tindall in Fox his Acts printed 1610. p. 1138. There is no To make water plea­seth God as much as preaching. work better then an other to please God. To make water, to wash dishes, to be a sowter or an Apostle, all is one. To wash dishes and to preach all is one, as touching the deed to please God. Other Protestants (as testifieth Schusselburg. to. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 551. Melancthon. in Respons. ad artic. Bauar. to. 3. and Manlius in locis tit. de Eccles.) saye: God careth not for good workes. And the same also do they thinke, who (as we shall relate hereafter) saye, that, before God, good workes are mere iniquities, filth, stench and dung. For surely God careth not for such things.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that good workes are a sweet sauour before God, are liked of God, please God, are pleasing before God. The like saye Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that God careth not for workes, careth not at all for them, doth not regard or respect them, is not delighted with them, careth not what notable workes we doe, maketh no accounte of them, yea greatly loatheth them: that to wash dishes, to make water, to playe the cobler pleaseth God as well as to be an Apostle.

ART. XIV. WHETHER GOD BE WORSHIPED or serued with good workes.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Isaie. 19. v. 21. The Egyptians shall know our Lord in that day, and shall worshippe him in hostes and in giftes. God worshi­ped by wor­kes.

Luke. v. 2. c. 37. Who departed not from the temple, by fastings and praiers seruing night and day.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Ioan. 4. v. 23. Therefore God is so serued inspirit and trueth, that as this worshippe doth not exclude the outward acts of pietie and workes of charitie towards our neigh­bour, wherewith we worshippe and serue God in iustice, so &c.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther delibertate Christiana to. 2. fol. 5. For we do not Not glorified by workes. glorifie God by working, but by beleeuing. Ibid. cont. Regem Angliae fol. 334. God is serued by faith onely. De bonis ope­ribus Not serued by them. to. 5. fol. 580. Onely faith is the true worshippe of God. In c. 1. Ionae. to. 4. fol. 412. The true God is not serued with workes. There is one onely worshippe pleasing to God, to will true faith.

Tindal in Fox before cited: God is honoured on all sides in Not worshi­ped by wor­kes. that we count him righteous in all his laws and ordinances, and also true in all his promises. Other worshippe of God is none, ex­cept we make an idoll of him. Confession of Basil. art. 13. Faith is the onely true worshippe of God. The like saye other Prote­stants, who (as we shall see hereafter) teach, that good works are sinne before God. For God is not serued or worshipped with sinne, but disserued and dishonored by it.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that God is worshipped and serued with good works. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that God is not glorified by working, that God is not serued by works, that faith is the onely true worshippe of God, that God is serued by onely faith, that onely faith is the worshippe of the true God: that there is no other worshippe of God but to be­leiue him right in all his laws and true in all his pro­mises.

ART. XV. WHETHER GOD DO AC­count those good workes which are not commanded.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Mark. 14. v. 3. and 6. There came a woman hauing an ala­baster box of ointment of pretious spike-nard, and breaking the A worke not commanded, good in Gods sight. alabaster box, she powred it out vpon his head.—But Iesus saied: let her alone, why do you molest her; She hath wrought a good worke vpon me,

1. Corint. 7. 25. And as concerning virgins, a commandment of our Lord I haue not, but counsell I giue.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarmin. l. 2. de Monachis. c. 16. God is worshipped with euerie act of vertue, though not commanded, yet done for God.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Confessio Heluet. c. 16. God liketh not workes and wor­shippes chosen by vs. And Confessio Saxon. c. 17. We teach, that works (as they say) not due, are no worshippe of God.

Luther Postilla in festo S. Ioan. fol. 92. Nothing pleaseth Workes not commanded, not pleasing to God. God, vhich is done without his commandment.

Melancthon in Disput. to. 4. p. 602. Works not comman­ded from heauen, are no worhippe of God.

Caluin 4. Institut. c. 13. §. 2. All voluntarie worships which we deuise without his commandment, are abhominable to God. In Rom. 5. v. 19. They dote, who vaunte to God of their works deuised by themselues, who esteemeth them no more then dung.

Lobechius in Disput. 9. p. 184. Without Gods command­ment, Nor good. a worke though done with neuer so good intention nor for­bidden, nether, is nor can be good.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely affirmeth, that S. Magdalens an­ointing of Christ, though not commanded, was a good worke & gratefull to him: that virginitie is good, though not commanded. The same saye Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that God liketh no worke not commanded by him, that no worke not commanded is any worship of God: that no worke whatsoeuer not commanded of God is good, that what we do without Gods commandment is no more respected of God then dung, and is abhominable to him.

ART. XVI. WHETHER GOD BE PACI­fied with good works.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

[...] 11. and. 13. But Moyses besought the Lord his God pacified by workes. God, saying: why [...] furie angrie against thy people &c. And our lord was pacified [...] the euill which he had spo­ken against his people.

2. Paralipomen. 30. v. 18. and 20. And [...] for them saying &c. Whome our Lord heard, and was pacified to the people.

Psalme. 105. v. 30. And Phinees stood, and pacified, and the slaughter ceased.

Ezech. 43. v. 27. The preists shall make your holocausts vpon the altar, and those which they offer for peace: and I will be paci­fied toward you, saieth our lord God.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Matth. 17. v. 21. Diuers examples in Scrip­ture do teach vs the force and power of fasting ioyned with praier for to pacifie God.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther in c. 1. Ionae to. 4. fol. 411. Papists haue an opinion, that God can be pacified with our good workes, whē as there is no No God, that is pacified by workes. where such a God. In Galat. 2. to. 5. fol. 363. The workes which I do according to Gods law, do not pacifie his wrathe, but pro­uoke it. Workes pro­uoke Gods wrath.

Caluin 4. Inst. c. 15. §. 4. It is the doctrin of the Scripture. that our good works are alwaies stained with much vncleanes, with which God may be iustly offended and angried: so farre are they from purchazing vs his good will, or prouoking his libera­litie towards vs.

Confessio Saxonica c. de remiss. Peccat. It is a dishonor to the Sonne of God, to imagin that any workes are propitiation for sinne The same hath Apologia pro Confess. August. c. de Implet. legis.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth [...] pacified with praier, with zele, wi [...] [...] The same teach Ca­tholiks▪

[...]ants expressely teach contrariwise, that God is not pacified with good workes, that good workes paci­fie not his wrath but prouoke i [...], that our good workes [Page 73] are farre from purchazing Gods fauour. That it is disho­nor to Christ to imagin that good works are propitiation for sinne.

ART. XVII. WHETHER GOD WILL haue his commandments kept.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ezechiel 36. v. 27. And I will make that you walke in my God will haue his com­mandments kept. precepts and keepe my iudgments, and doe them.

Mathew. 12. ver. 50. For whosoeuer shall doe the will of my father that is in heauen, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Acts. 13. v. 22. I haue found Dauid the sonne of Iesse, a man according to my hart, who shall doe all my willes.

1. Thessalon. 4. v. 3. For this is the will of God, your sancti­fication; that you abstaine from fornication &c.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Actor. 15. v. 10. Behould and marke Caluins double bla [...]phemie: He saieth, that God testifieth, that it shall neuer be that his law be fulfilled: He addeth, that God will [...] that it be done, that he will not that his law [...] [...]hen these twoe be saied any thing more absurd [...] paradoxes?

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Caluin in Actor. 15. ver. 10. Nether let vs rashly inquire, God will not haue them kept. whether it can be (that Gods commandments be kept) which him selfe test [...]fieth shall neuer be, and that he will that it neuer be. lib. 2. de lib. arbit. p. 148. We denie not, but that God can giue so great grace to man, as may be equall to the iustice of the law, but because he hath denied that he will do it, we say, that it is sim [...]ly impossible to be done. He will noe haue the law to be kept.

B [...]za in 2. parte Respons. ad Acta Colloq. Montisbel. [Page 74] p. 226. When we heare the promises of the law, will he haue them He comman­deth that which he will not haued one to be performed of vs? Nothing lesse. Therefore he commandeth some thing which he will not haue done, and promiseth also some thing which he will not performe.

Zanchius l. 3. de natura Dei c. 4. q. 10. Often times Gods commandment is one thing, and his will is an other. For God cō ­mandeth Gods com­mandment contrarie to his will. some thing, as to Pharao and to other wicked men, which properly he will not, for if he would, it shoud be done.

Piscator apud Vorstium in Parasceue part. 8. If God will (properly speaking) haue his commandments kept of vs, then can it not be but we should keepe them. And l. 2. Thes. p. 208. God some time doth by word signifie that he will, which indeed he wil­leth not: And. p. 201. Whereby we perceaue, that there is a cer­taine God dissem­bleth, holie dissembling in God, which is lawfull to men, and much more to God who is a most free agent. And loco 12. p. 172. He saieth, that there is holie dissembling, and that Christ dis­sembled. And Grauerus in Absurdis Caluin. c. 5. sect. 34. That is called a good and lawfull dissembling, whē one in outward speech feigneth himselfe to will euill thinges, but in inwarde motion and affection of hart or mynd willeth, and at last, doth good. And of such a dissembling (in God) there is an example Genes. 22. Thus they make some dissembling good, and [...] dissembler, and yet crie out against all aequiuoca­tion. [...] Genes. 20. to. 6. fol. 244. seemeth to make Christ an [...] thus he writeth: That which they terme an officious lye, is [...] fit of our neighbour. So Christ in Luke feigned, that he [...] Sauls daughter saied that Dauid laie in bed.

Beza also 2. part. respons. ad Acta Montisb. p. 174. saieth: There is some good deceit. So God by his will of signe, or that which is outwardly declare, not onely willeth but also comman­deth Isaac to be killed of his father. And Peter Martyr loco. 13. sect. 39. It is some time lawfull to vse good deceit.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that God will make vs to walke in his precepts and keepe his commandments, [Page 75] that it is Gods will that we abstaine from fornication: and that who doth Gods will is Christs brother, sister, and mother. The like saye Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach the contrarie, that God will not haue his commandments kept: that God will not giue sufficient grace to keepe them: that God will nothing lesse then to haue his lawes kept: that God commandeth some thing which he will not haue done, and promiseth some thing which he will not performe. And thus much of God touching good works: Now let vs speake of him as he carrieth him self towards men or mankind.

ART. XVIII. WHETHER GOD LOVETH all men, and hath mercie on all.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Wisdom. c. 11. v. 24. & 25. But thou hast mercie an all, be­cause God loueth all. thou canst do all things, and dissemblest the sinnes of men for repentance. For thou louest all things that are, and hatest no­thing of those which thou hast made. And v. 27. But thou spa­rest all, because they are thine O Lord, which louest soules.

Ihon. 1. vers. 16. For so God loued the world, that he gaue his onely begotten Sonne, that euerie one that beleiueth in him perish not, but may haue life euerlasting.

Rom. 11. v. 32. For God hath concluded all into incredulitie, that he may haue mercie an all.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarmin. l. 2. de Grat. & lib. arb. cap. 5. Nether Would haue mercie on all. must these words (He hath mercie on all, he spareth all) be restrained to the elect; For the reason why God spareth all and hath mercie on all is taken in this place out of creation, because God hath created all, and because he loueth soules and things which he hath made: but this is common to all absolutely.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Controu. 2. q. 1. c. 13. p. 449. Christ loueth not the reprobate.

Beza de Praedestinat. cont. Castell. vol. 1. p. 346. God God loueth not all. cannot be saied to loue all alike, no not to loue all. P. 345. Albeit he hath created all in Adam, yet he loueth, not all. 343. You will therefore saye, he is their father, for so much as pertaineth to creation. I confesse: Therefore say you: He loueth them: But this He loueth the elect onely. I flatly deny. In Colloq. Montisbel. p. God loueth the elect onely in Christ, all the rest he iustly hated from all eternitie and will for euer hate. And in 2. parte respons. ad Acta huius Colloq. p. 106. It is true, that God will not haue mercie an thē. P. 194. This I say, that there neuer was time, nor is, nor shalbe, when God would, willeth, or will hereafter haue mercie an euerie God would neuer haue mercieon all. one. And de Praedestinat. vol. 3. p. 404. God concluded all (reprobats) vnder sinne, that he might iustly destroy them. Which also he saieth in Explicat. Christianismi p. 177.

Zanchius de Praedestinat. to. 7. col. 295. God can haue mercie on all, but because he nether would nor will, therefore &c.

Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. p. 185. I answere, that God would not haue mercie on all.

TH [...] CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that God hath mercie on all, spareth all, loueth all, loueth the world, loueth soules. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants on the contrarie expressely say, that God hath not mercie on all, loueth not all, loueth not, nor euer loued the reprobate, concluded the reprobate vnder sinne for to destroy them iustly.

ART. XIX. WHETHER GOD WOVLD haue all men saued.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Timoth. 2. v. 4. God will all men to be saued, and to come God would haue all saued to the knowledge of the trueth.

2. Peter. 3. ver. 9. Our Lord doth patiently for you, not wil­ling that any perish, but that all returne to pennance.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarmin. l. 2. de Grat. & lib. arbit. c. 3. It is true, that God will haue all saued, with that will which the Diuines rightly call Antecedent.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Cancione vltim. pag. 694. It is a plausible God would not giue life to all. opinion, that God indeed will all to come to life, but it is neare to Pelagianisme. Agayne. He would not giue life to all.

Rainoldus in Apologia Thes. pag. 247. It remaineth, that God will haue saued, not euerie one, but the elect of all God hath not, will to saue all. kinde of men: not simply all, but all giuen to Christ, all the pre­destinate.

Perkins de Praedcstinat. tom. 1. pag. 139. It seemeth, that there is not such a will, or (as they say) a Velleitie in God, with which indefinitly and conditionally he will haue all and euerie mā of all ages to be saued. That antecedent vniuersall will of all and euerie ones saluation in Christ, is feigned. Col. 141. He cal­leth them outwardly by the word preached, whome he will not Would not in earnest haue all saued. haue saued. And col. 144. denieth, that God, would in earnest haue all saued. In Serie causarum cap. 52. It is not true, that God would haue all saued by Christ.

Abbotts orat. 2. deverit. Grat. Christi pag. 28. It followeth therefore, not this, that God would haue all to come.

Caluin de Prouident. p. 750. From that reason, which is the the mother of all errors, riseth that God to thee, who without ex­ception will haue all saued.

Beza ad calum. Iacobi Andreae vol. 3. p. 125. This we graunt, that God will not haue those that are reprobates to be saued, or the death of his sonne to profite them.

Zanchius in Thesibus to. 7. col 280. It can no waies be saied, that God simply and properly would or will all men vniuer­sally to be saued. Et de Praedestinat. cap. 4. He will not haue all saued.

Piscator in Thesibus loco 20. par. 313. Their opinion is im­pious, who affirme, that God will haue saued all and euerie man none excepted, and yet doth not saue all. Et l. 2. loco 12. p. 143. God will not haue euerie one saued.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely affirmeth, that God will all men to be saued, willeth not that any perish, but that all returne to pennance. The same saye Catholiks.

Protestants expressely denie, that God indeed will all to come to life, that God in earnest would haue all saued, that God would haue euerie one saued, that God proper­ly would all to be saued; that he would haue the repro­bates to be saued. Which are so plainly contrarie to Scrip­ture, as some Protestants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. XX. WHETHER GOD WOVLD haue some conuerted who will not conuerte.

SCRITVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Isaie c. 65. v. 2. I haue spred forth my hands all the day to on God would haue some cō ­uerted who will not. incredulous peoples which goeth in a way not good after their owne cogitations.

Prouerb. 1. v. 24. Because I called and you refused: I stretched out my hand, and there was none that regarded.

Mathew. 23. v. 37. Hierusalem, Hierusalem, which killest the Prophets, and stonest them that are sent to thee, how often would I gather together thy children, as the hen doth gather to­gether her chickins vnder her wings, and thou wouldest not.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Math. 23. v. 37. God would recall the Iewes vnto him with a true act of his will, for the hen will not me­taphorically, but properly, gather her chickins to her.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins de Praedestinat. to. 1. col. 121. God will conuersion in some men, onely in approbation, exhortation, and means.

Caluin in Math. 22. v. 37. p. 293. I answere, that the will of God, of which here is spoken, is to be considered by the effect, to wit, because he indifferently calleth all vnto him by the prea­ching of his word, he is rightly saied to gather all vnto him. And he addeth, that he calleth the reprobates, onely by the out­ward voice of men. And 3. Inst. c. 24. §. 17. saieth, that God indeed willeth not this, but is saied to will it figuratiuely and in humane manner, as he is saied to strech out his armes.

Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 418. God will not haue the God will not haue reproba­tes conuerted. reprobates conuerted and saued. And addeth, that they cannot will to be conuerted. And in Respons. ad Acta Colloq. part. 2. p. 208. It is most false and ridiculous to saye, that God will any other to be conuerted but the elect.

Piscator apud Vorstium in Parasceue. ca. 8. God will not Nor them who indeed repent not. the conuersion of them who in deed repent not.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that God would call the [Page 80] Iewes vnto him as a hē her chickins, that he stretched his hands to an incredulous people, that he called them who refused. The same teach Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that God will not the conuersion of them who do not repent: that he will not haue the reprobates conuerted: that he will the elect onely to be conuerted: that he calleth others onely out­wardly by mans preaching, and willeth their conuersion, not properly, but figuratiuely onely.

ART. XXI. WHETHER GOD CALL ALL men vnto him.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Matthew. 11. v. 28. Came yee to me all that labour and are God calleth all. burdened, and I well refresh you. And c. 22. v. 9. Goe ye there­fore into the highe waies, and whomsoeuer you shall finde, call to the mariage.

Mark. 16. vers. 15. Going into the whole world, preach the Ghospell to all creatures.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarmin. de Amiss. Grat. &c. l. 2. 9. The Scripture teacheth that God inuiteth all to him.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins in Casibus conscient. cap. 7. It is euident that the promise of saluation is not to be taken as vniuersall without ex­ception or restriction. God inuiteth not all.

Beza de Praedestinat. cont. Castel. p. 417. Christ doth not inuite simply all vnto him. Et in quaest. & Respons. p. 655. See, with how conuincent reason that vniuersall vocation is re­futed. Vocation is not vniuer­sall. Wherefore not vocation, much lesse that vniuersall ele­ction, can and must be assigned, but onely an indefinite vocation.

Zanchius in Supplicat. ad Senatum Argent. to. 7. col. 57. That God in earnest calleth all, is to be vnderstood accor­ding to his reuealed will, to wit, so farre as he calleth all by the out­ward preaching of the Ghospell, not excluding any, but not ac­cording to his secret will. In depuls. calum. col. 260. The pro­mises Promises per­taine not to all. do not pertaine indeed vnto all, but onely to the elect. And col. 261. There is an other reason, why God doth not giue them (reprobates) faith, nor euer simply promised it to them.

Bucanus in Institut. loco 36. Is not the vocation and re­mission Not remissiō. vniuersall Mathew 11. 28? It is rather indefinite.

Vrsinus in Miscellan. p. 74. If the vniuersall promise be­longed to all men, what a masse of absurditie and impietie would follow?

Pareus in Galat. 3. lect. 43. The promises are vniuersall to the beleiuers, but not vniuersall to the incredulous, for they be­longe not to them. Therefore it sufficeth not to vrge the vniuer­uersall articles, All: Of all.

Stosselius apud Zanchium l. 2. epistolorum. The Ghos­pell Nor the Ghos­pell. belongeth onely to the elect.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Christ called all that are burdered, and commanded to preach to all creatures. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that Gods vocation is not vniuersall, that God in earnest calleth not all: that the promise of saluation is not vniuersall, parteineth onely to the elect, that the Ghospell belongeth onely to the elect. Which are so opposite to the Scripture, as diuers Prote­stants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. XXII. WHETHER GOD OF HIM selfe will the death and damnation of men.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Ezechielis 33. v. 11. Liue I, saieth our Lord God, I will not [Page 82] the death of the impious, but that the impious be conuerted from God willeth not death. his way and liue. c. 18. v. 23. Why, is the death of a sinner my will, saieth our Lord God, and not that he conuert from his wayes and liue? Et ver. 32. Because I vill not the death of him that dieth, saieth our Lord. He made not death.

Wisdome c. 1. v. 13. God made not death, nether doth he re­ioice in the perdition of the liuing.

Tobie 3. 22. For thou art not delighted in our perditions.

Ecclesiast. 15. vers. 11. Impious men are not necessarie for him.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Gard. Bellarmin. l. 2. de Grat. & lib. arb. c. 16. The sinnes of men, and not the onely will of God, are the cause of positiue re­probation, that is, of that act wherewith God will adiudge repro­tes to euerlasting punishment.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Conc. vlt. p. 693. God predestinated to eternall God predesti­nateth to death whome and why he would. Sinne, not the cause of dam­nation. God worketh and willeth death. death whome he would, and because he would. Pag. 694. The onely cause of reprobation, whereof we speake, is Gods will, mynd, and decree.

Perkins de Praedestinat. to. 1. col. 123. Sinne is not the cause of the decree of damnation. See Willet. cont. 18. q. 1. p. 855.

Luther l. de seru. arbit. to. 2. fol. 450. The hidden God wor­keth life, death, and all in all. Agayne. He will not the death of a sinner, to wit, in word, but he willeth it with his vnsearchable will.

Caluin 3. Institut. c. 22. §. vlt. If we cannot giue a reason No reason of reprobation but Gods will. Some created todamnation, and to perish. why God vouchsafeth mercie to his elect, but because it so plea­seth him: nether shall we haue any other thing why he reproba­teth others, them his will. Cap. 21. §. 5. To some eternall life is preordinated, to others eternall damnation; Therefore as euerie one is created to ether end, &c. In Roman. 9. ver 18. Salomon teacheth, shat the wicked were of purpose created for to perish.

Beza in Rom. 9. v. 11. Who gather, that God, in those whom [Page 83] from all eternitie he destinated to reprobation and perdition, was moued thereto by their foreseene incredulitie & ill life, are great­ly deceaued. In Explicat. Christianismi cap. 5. Reprobates he created to the end that he might be glorified in their iust condem­nation. In Colloq. Montisbel. p. 447. He created, ordained, and destinated the reprobates to eternall damnation for causes knowne to him selfe alone. And de Praedestinat. vol. 3. p. 438. God of his mere will, and therefore not for any respect of fore­seene worthines or vnworthines, hath destinated to hatred and perdition whome he would, ether particular men or whole na­tions. And this doctrin, he termeth, the foundation of his faith.

Bucer in Matth. 6. What he saieth, that he will not the death of the impious and of him that dieth, but would rather haue him returne and liue, is to be vnderstood of them onely, whome he hath chosen to be conuerted and liue.

Peter Martyr in Rom. 9. It lesse despleaseth men, if they be God hateth and reproba­teth for his mere will. saied to be predestinated and chosen, then to be saied to be hated and reprobated for Gods mere will without all respect of deserts; and yet there must be the same reason of both. Et libr. de libro arbit. tom. 3. locorum: It seemeth at first sight absurd, that some should be created of God for to perish, yet the Scripture Some created to perish. Gods will the only cause of reprobation. saieth it.

Musculus in locis tit. de reprobis. The cause of reprobation is not to be attributed to the future wickednes of the reprobates, but to the onely will of God.

Piscator in Thesibus lib. 2. p. 182. God made man to fall. It He made men to fall. is false, that God hath not need of a sinner. Page. 235. Nether is this simply true, that God is not the beginning or cause of per­dition. P. 245. Reprobation is absolute, that is, depending of the mere pleasure of God, and not vpon the condition of incredulitie foreseene.

Marlorat in Rom. 9. v. 22. What inconuenience is it to say, Some made to destructiō. that these were made to destruction?

Zanchius de Praedestinat. c. 1. to. 7. They take from God his Some created to death, to be destroied. right, who say that it is false, that God created some to life, others to death, onely that he might shew his mercie in them, and his [Page 84] power and iustice in these. cap. 4. He createth some to this end to be destroied. c. 6.That one is saued or damned, we must needes confesse that Gods will was and is the cheefest. Et apud Schussel­burg. l. 4. Theol. Caluin art. 8. Gods will is the first and vn­auoidable Gods will the first cause of perdition. cause of the perdition of them that perish. And l. 3. de natura Dei c. 4. q. 4. As for that place of wisdome: Death entred into the world by the enuie of the Diuel, and if there be any such others, in which death is attributed to the Diuel as to the Author, we answere, that it doth not follow, that God wil­leth God author of death. not death or is not the author of it; For the same effect may proceed from diuers causes.

Bucanus l. 4. Syntagm. c. 10. The cause efficient and mo­uing, for which the decree of affirmatiue or negatiue reprobation was made of God, is not sinne.—The true and onely mouing cause for which the decree of reprobation was made, is Gods pleasure or free will. See manie more like sayings of Protestants in my Latin booke l. 1. art. 22.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that God of him selfe will not the death of the impious or of him that dieth: yea God sweareth that he will not his death, and the Scrip­ture addeth, that God made not death, that it entred by the Diuel, that impious men are not necessarie for God. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say the contrarie, that God will the death of a sinner with his vnsearchable will: that he is the Author of death: that he created men to perdition, death, and damnation: that he is the beginning, the first & vnauoidable cause of the perdition of them that perish: That he predestinateth to death whome he would and why he would: that sinne is not the cause of the decree of damnation: That sinne is nether efficient nor mouing cause of negatiue or affirmatiue reprobation, but onely the pleasure and free will of God.

ART. XXIII. WHETHER GOD DAMNETH men for sinne.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Matth. 25. v. 41. Then he shall saye to them also that be at God damneth for sinne. his left hand: Get ye away frō me you cursed into fire euerlasting. For I was an hungred and you gaue me not to eate &c.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarmin l. 2. de Grat. & lib. arb. c. 16. The Scriptures euerie where teach, that by the iust iudgment of God euerlasting punishment is rendred vnto sinne.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther l. de seru. arb. tom 2. fol. 461. This most of all offen­deth God damneth men for his mere will. Respecteth not deserts in those that are to be damned. Damneth those that de­serue not. common sense or naturall reason, that God for his mere will doth forsake, harden, and damne men. Fol. 465. Let vs, I pray you, feigne, that God must be such a one as respecteth deserts in them who are to be damned: Shall we not in like manner auouch and graunt, that he respecteth deserts in them who are to be saued? And fol. 466. It is now incomprehensible, how it is iust that he damneth them that deserue not, and yet is beleeued.

Zanchius apud Schusselburg. l. 4. Theol. Caluin art. 8. Here we saye, that there is no other cause of mens damnation, thē Gods mere pleasure. Rennecber. 16. The cause of damnation or reprobation is not to be saught in men, but Gods will is the cheefest and supreme cause thereof. Also Gryneus. 16. Sinnes are Sinne not the cause of dam­nation. not the cause why men are damned. And Spindlerus. 16. Sinne can no way be the cause why men are damned.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that men are damned and [Page 86] adiudged to hell fire for sinne. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say the contrarie, that sinnes are not the cause why men are damned, that can no way be the cause why men are damned, that there is no other cause of mens damnation then Gods mere pleasure, that God damneth those who deserue it not, that he respecteth not deserts in those that he damneth, that he damneth men for his mere will. And thus much of Gods inward and outward acts toward sinne, good works, and mankinde, let vs now see something of his power.

ART. XXIV. WHETHER GOD BE AL­mightie and can doe all things.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Genes. 17. v. 1. Our Lord appeared vnto him, and saied vnto God is al­mightie. him: I am the God almightie.

Iob. 42. v. 2. I know, thou canst doe all things.

Mathew 19. v. 26. With God all things are possible. The same is repeated Marke 10. and 14.

Luke 1. vers. 36. There shall not be impossible with God any word.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarmin. l. 3. de Euchar. c. 2. All diuines write, that Gods power is not absolute God is saied to be almightie, because he can do all that im­plieth not contradiction.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Caluin in Resp. ad Nebulon. p. 730. Caluin euerie where earnestly reiecteth that deuise of Gods absolute power, which the Sophisters prate of in their scholes. Which he repeateth de Praedest. 728. de Prouid. 755. 1. Inst. c. 17. §. 2. & l. 3. c. 23. §. 2. & in c. 25. Isaiae.

Beza cont. Heshusium. vol. 1. p. 299. That saying of thine: All thinges are possible to God, hath some exception. P. 300. You forsouth, shall teach vs, that Gods omnipotencie must not Gods omni­potencie, li­mited. Some things, impossible to God. be tied to that order, which willingly he hath appointed to him selfe. And pag. 302. He saieth, that God can no more put Christs bodie in two places at once, then he can make new Gods. In Colloq. Montisbel. p. 27. God cannot make, that Christs bodie be substantially in many places at one time. Lib. quaest. vol. 1. p. 658 God cannot make, that one and the same bodie be substantially in many places, or in any place not coex­tended to the place. Which also he repeateth Respons. ad Acta Torgens. vol. 3. p. 60.

Peter Martyr Respons. ad Gardiner. obiect. 11. We com­plaine, that you alwaies obiect Gods power, whereas this (Christs To which Gods power doth not ex­tend. Gods omni­potencie not without ex­ception. Beareth not some things. bodie to be at once in manie places) is of that kinde of things to which Gods power doth not extend. And lib. 1. Epistolarum Zanchij pag. 408. We warne the godlie, that Gods om­nipotencie, which we beleiue, is not to be beleiued without all ex­ception.

Sadeel ad art. 14. aburat. We haue shewed, that Christs bodie cannot be really present in many places at once, and that Gods omnipotencie cannot beare this. And yet these men say, that their faith can make present, things that are to come, absent, and farthest of, as Sadeel speaketh Lib. de Sacrament. Man­ducat. p. 300. Beza l. de vnione hypostat. vol. 3. p. 97. & Apol. 1. cont. Saintem, Martyr in locis class. 2. c. 16. §. 12. in Disput. Oxionensi p. 227. & l. 1. epist. Zanchij pag. 411. Whitaker l. 2. cont. Dur. sect. 8. Wherevpon iustly saied Smidelin the Lutheran vnto Bez [...] in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 26. They giue greater power to their faith, then to God.

Tilenus in Syntagm. c. 7. Who pretend, that Christ with Some [...]hings repugne to Gods power. his bodie did penetrate the stone that couered his tombe, or the dores shut, do affirme that which repugneth to the nature of a glorified bodie, and to Gods power in working miracles.

Dareus cited by Smidelin in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 178. & by Schusselburg. l. 1. Theol. Caluin art. 3. Christ could not so much as will, that his bodie were at once in manie places, because [Page 88] he could not performe it. And when C Bellarmin did argue in this sorte: God in the booke of Numbers ca. 5. did giue water power to kill adulteresse weomen; and c. 21. gaue the brasen serpent vertue to cure; therefore he can giue the word of baptisme vertue to change the water: Da­neus answereth Controu. 3. c. 20. in these words: God can not giue that power to any creatures, vnlesse he make them true God cannot make water to kill. and substantiall Gods, and transfuse his power into them.—It is false, that water, Numb. 5. had power to kill, or the brasen ser­pent, Numb. 25. had power to cure. Besides, many Protestants say, that God cannot giue to the Sacraments power to worke grace, nor to men power to forgiue sinnes, or to worke miracles, and such like.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that God is almightie, that he can do all things, that all things are possible to him, and nothing impossible. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say the contrarie, that God hath no absolute power; that the saying of Scripture. All things are possible to God, hath some exception; that his omni­potencie is tied to an order: that he can not put a bodie in manie places at once, or not extensiuely in place: that he cannot giue to water power to kill: that his omnipotēcie beareth not some thing, extendeth not to some thing, and that some things repugne vnto it.

ART. XXV. WHETHER GOD CAN MAKE a Camelle passe through a needls eye.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Marke. 10. v. 25. 26. It is easier for a Camelle to passe through God cā make a Camelle passe through a needls eye. a needles, eye, then for a rich man to enter into the kingdome of heauen.—With men it is impossible. And Matth. 19. This is impossble, but not with God.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarmin. lib. 3. de Euchar. cap. 6. The Pelagians saied, that it was impossble for a Camelle remaining a Camelle, to passe through a needls eye, but not if he were lessened to the smalnes of a thred. This is refuted, because it is not impossible with men, for a Camelle to passe through a needls eye, if he cease to be a Camelle, and be changed into a small thred.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Willet Controu. 13. q. 1. pag. 609. It is not proued out of It is impossi­ble to God. this place, that God cā draw the huge bodie of a Camelle through a needle, remaining still of that bignesse: no more then that it is possible for God to bring a proud rich arrogant man to heauen, his affections not altered: both these are impossible to God. And the same say Spalatensis l. 5. de Repub. c. 6. nu. 179. Bel in his Iesuits Antepaste p. 47. and others.

Beza in Marc. 10. ver. 26. Can God make that a Camelle re­mayning such as it is by nature, may passe through a needls eye? No.

Bucanus in institutio. loc. 48. pag. 797. God can make that a Camelle passe through a needls eye, but not leauing him such as he is by nature, but making him so small as is need­full.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that God can make a Ca­melle passe through a needls eye. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants saie, that God can not make a Camelle passe through a needls eye, as long as he retaineth the bignesse of a Camelle.

ART. XXVI. WHETHER THAT BE possible to God which shall neuer be.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Mathew 3. ver. 9. I tell you that God is able of these stones to God can do that, which shall neuer be. raise vp children to Abraham.

Mathew 26. vers. 53. Thinkest thou, that I cannot aske my Father, and he will giue me presently more then twelue legions of Angels?

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euchar. cap. 2. The Scriptures do most plainly teach, that God can do manie things which he will neuer do.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 25. We say, that God is so almightie, for so much as belongeth to his power considered by it He cannot do that which he hath not de­creed to doe. His power must be mea­sured by his will. selfe, as he cannot do that indeed, which he hath decreed▪ not doe.

Ministri in Colloq. Parisiens. die 5. The omnipotencie of God must be measured according to his will and things which be­longe to his nature. The same insinuateth Caluin 1. Institut. c. 16. §. 3. Where he will not admitt any omnipotencie of God, but onely that, which is effectuall, operatiue, and is con­tinually working.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that God can doe that which he will not doe. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that he can not doe that which he hath decreed not to doe; that his omnipotencie [Page 91] must be measured according to his will; that he hath no omnipotencie but that which is continually working.

ART. XXVII. WHETHER GODS TRVE Miracles be a sufficient testimonie of truth.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ihon. 5. vers. 36. But I haue a greater testimonie then Ihon: Gods mira­cles a sufficiēt testimonie. For the workes which the Father hath giuen me to perfit them, the verie workes themselues which I doe, giue testimonie of me, that the Father hath sent me. Cap. 10. ver. 38. If I doe not the workes of my Father, beleiue me not. But if I doe, and if you will no beleiue me, beleiue the workes.

Luke 11. v. 20. But if I in the finger of God do cast out Diuels, surely the kingdome of God is come vpon you.

Marke 16. v. vlt. But they going forth preached euerie where, our Lord working withall, and confirming the worke with signes that followed.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarmin. lib. 4. de Ecclesiast. cap. 14. A miracle is a sufficient testimonie, and where is a true miracle, there is true faith.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Controu. 2. quaest. 5. cap. 12. pag. 528. I say, No miracle is a sufficient te­stimonie. that out of nether kind of miracles (true or apparent) there can be taken a sufficient testimonie, or a certaine argument ga­thered for true doctrin. Page 529. It is manifest, that God gi­ueth power of working these kinde of miracles to false teachers, that he may tempt them to whome they are sent. Which he repeateth againe page 530. and addeth: Miracles may be wrought to confirme false doctrin. And Controu. 4. quaest. 5. c. 3. pag. 688. I answere, that though they (Papists) did worke [Page 82] true miracles, such as the Diuel cannot imitate, they were not therefore to be beleiued.

Daneus Controu. 4. lib. 4. cap. 14. pag. 784. We denie, True mira­cles not suffi­cient. that true miracles are a sufficient testimonie of true doctrin.

Hospinian. l. de Origine Templorum pag. 140. God per­mitteth the Diuels some times to worke true miracles—God doth this partely to tempt the elect, partely for the greater blind­nesse of the reprobate.

Luther in capit. 7. Matth. tom. 7. fol. 92. I am nothing moued with miracles, albeit in my sight they should raise the dead to life. For all these may deceaue. God also permitteth true miracles to be wrought for punishment of them who care not for truth.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that true miracles are a greater testimonie then S. Ihon: that though we did not beleiue Christ, yet we should beleiue his miracles: that they are Gods confirmation of trueth: that if one in the finger of God cast out Diuels, certainly he preacheth the kingdome of God. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that euen true miracles are no sufficient testimonie or argument of true doctrin; that though we could do true miracles such as the Diuel can­not imitate, yet we were not to be beleiued: that mira­cles may be done to confirme false doctrin: that God giueth to false teachers power to worke true miracles for to tempt men: that they are nothing moued with mira­cles, no though they should see the dead raised to life.

THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF GOD.

I did thinke, that it would not be vngratefull or vnpro­fitable to the Reader, if at the end of euerie chapter I set downe the summe thereof, that thereby he might, as once, perceaue, in how manie and how great matters [Page 93] which haue beene handled in eche Chapter, Pro­testants contradict the pure word of God: and also how like verie false Prophets they plaie the theeues in euerie chapter, and steal some thing.

Caluin in Actor. 22. v. 14. Writeth thus of Catholiks: Papists haue made a new God: They haue coyned for themselues a Whether Ca­tholiks or Protestants make a false God. young God. The same he saieth otherwhere, and manie Protestants: which whether it agree to Catholiks or to them will easily appeare out of that which hath beene saied in this Chapter. For as touching iniquitie or sinne; the God of the holie Scripture and of Catholiks, willeth it not, worketh it not, doth not predestinate nor tempt men vnto it, doth not command necessitate or compell to sinne: But the God of Protestants doth all these, as appeareth out of the. 1. 4. 5. 6. 7. and 8. Article. As concerning sinners; the God of Scripture and Catho­liks hateth all that worke iniquitie, is angrie with the faithfull when they sinne, and punisheth them for sinnes committed: The Protestants God doth none of these, as appeareth by the 9. 11. and 12. Article. As for good workes; the God of Scripture and of Catholiks, is delighted with them, is worshipped with them, accepteth good works not commanded, is appeased with good works, will haue his commandments kept: The Protestants God doth all the contrarie, as is seene by the 13. 14. 15. 16. and 17. Ar [...]i­cle. As touching men or mankind; the Scripture and Ca­tholiks God, loueth all, would haue all saued, would (as a hen her chickins) gather euen thē which will not come, will not the death of a sinner, nor damneth men but for sinne: The Protestants God is quite contrarie; as is euident by the 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Article. And finally concerning power: the Scriptures and Catholiks God is omnipotēt, can do those things which shall neuer be, can make a Ca­mell passe through a needls eye: Such is not the Prote­stants God, as is to be seene by the 23. and 24. Article. Seing therefore so manie and so great properties agree to the Protestants God, quite contrarie to those which the [Page 94] God proposed vnto vs by the holie Scripture and Catho­liks, hath, it is euident, that it is an other and a new God different from the God which the Scripture teacheth: yea that it is (as Caluin speaketh of the Libertins God) an idol, Cont. libert. c. 14. which ought to be more detestable to vs thē all the Pagās idols: or rather, that it is the verie Diuel him selfe. For what other can he be, who willeth iniquitie, will haue men to sinne, worketh sinne, procureth sinne, is author of obduration, is in like sorte author of crueltie as of loue, predestinateth to sinne, preordaineth sinne euen as it is sinne, decreeth by a speciall decree that sinne be done, pusheth to euill by him selfe immediatly and by a peculiar action, necessita­teth & cōpelleth to sinne, cōmandeth to lie and is author of temptation to euill, and consequently is the Tempter and Father of lying (which names the Scripture appro­priateth to the Diuel) who careth not for good workes, is not delighted nor worshipped with them, will not haue Gods commandments kept, who commandeth that which he would not haue done, and promiseth that which he will not performe: who made death, and is the Author of death and damnation, the fontaine of perdi­tion, finally who damneth them that deserue it not, and that for his mere pleasure. These & diuers other qualities before shewed, do plainly declare, who and what one he is, whom Protestants teachers haue proposed to the world to adore as God: who in trueth can be no other, then the very Diuel.

It appeareth also out of that which hath beene rehearsed How manie and great at­tributes Pro­testants take from God. Goodnesse. in his Chapter, that those coyners of a new God, do plaie the theeues, and steale from the true God manie of his principall properties. For they steall away his goodnesse, in saying that he willeth, worketh, decreeth sinne; temp­teth, necessitateth, compelleth to sinne: careth not for good works, nor is worshipped with them. They take away his iustice, in teaching that he hateth not all that worke iniquitie, is not angrie with the faithfull when Iustice. they sinne, imputeth not their sinne to them, will not [Page 95] haue his commandments kept, commandeth that which he will not haue done, and promiseth that which he will not performe. They robbe him of his omnipotencie, Omnipotēcie. whiles they affirme, that there are manie things which he cannot doe. And in place of these admirable vertues, they giue to him the contrarie vices. For in steed of good­nesse, they attribute vnto him malice, wherewith he willeth, worketh, decreeth iniquitie; and predestinateth, necessitateth, and compelleth men vnto it. For Iustice, they giue him Iniustice, wherewith he iustifieth the im­pious remaining impious, and damneth those that de­serue it not. And for fidelitie, they giue him infidelitie, wherewith he promiseth that which he will not per­forme. And thus much of God: Now of Christ, God incarnate.

CHAPTER II. OF CHRIST.

ARTIC. I. WHETHER THE SONNE of God had his life and being of his Father.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

I Hon. 5. ver. 26. For as the Father hath life in him The Sonne hath life of his Father. Is of his Fa­ther. selfe, so he hath giuen to the Sonne also to haue life in him selfe.

Ihon. c. 6. v. 57. I liue by the Father. Cap. 7. v. 29. I know him, because I am of him.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

S. Thomas 1. parte q. 27. art. 2. That which among the diuine persons is begotten, taketh his being of the Father.

D. Stapleton in Ioan. 10. ver. 30. This, that impious man (Caluin) doeth for that purpose, to establish in some sorte his peculier and new doctrin, wherewith he will haue the Sonne to be God of himselfe, and not of the Father.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker ad Ration. 8. Campiani p. 34. This saying (God Christ recea­ued not to be God of his Father. of God) some did afterward so vnderstand, as they affirmed that Christ was not God by him selfe and of him selfe, but receaued that of the Father. Wherein they wholy tooke away the diuinitie of Christ.

Willet Controu. 20. q. 1. pag. 1161. The Father gaue not to [Page 97] the Sonne to be God.—If Christ receiued life from his Father, Receaued not life of his Fa­ther. he could not haue it in him selfe.

Caluin Admonit. ad Polonos in Opuscul. pag. 685.If the Father haue his being of him selfe, the Sonne haue his being of Had not his being of his Father. the Father, the holie Ghost of them both, doe there not arise three natures?

Beza apud Campian. Ration. 8. The Sonne is not begotten Not begotten of the Essence of his Father. of the essence of his Father. Which Whitaker in his answere maintaineth.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that God the Father gaue life to the Sonne, that the Sonne liueth by the Fa­ther, that the Sonne is of the Father. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants teach quite contrarie, that God the Sonne receaued not of the Father to be God, but had that of him selfe, that Christ receaued not life from his Father, that he had not his being of his Father, that he was not begotten of the substance of his Father.

ART. II. WHETHER CHRIST WERE predestinate the Sonne of God.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Rom. 1. ver. 4. it is saied of Christ: Who was predestinate Christ prede­stinate the Sonne of God. the Sonne of God in power.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

S. Thomas 3 part. q. 14. art. 1. Christ was predestinate the Some of God.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Daneus Controu. 1. q. 14. p. 30. He saieth: Christ was pre­destinate Not predesti­nate the Sōne of God. the Sonne of God: Which is Arianisme.

Affelman l. de Praedestinat. §. 7. The matter or obiect of predestinatiō are not Origens soules, nor Christ, as those of Basel, of Herborne, and Maldonat do falsely teach, who are contradi­cted by those of Heidelberg. The same do those Protestants insinuate, who will not haue vs read in the place cited Rom.

1. Predestinate, but, Declared the Sonne of God.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Christ was predesti­nate the Sonne of God. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say the contrarie; that he was not predestinate the Sonne of God, and call it heresie to say so. Which is so contrarie to Scripture, as Saint Austin saieth: Who denieth the Sonne of God to haue beene predesti­nated, Tractat. 105. in Ioan. he denieth him to haue beene man.

ART. III. WHETHER CHRIST AS man be to be inuocated or adored.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Philippen. 2. vers. 10. That in the name of Iesus euerie knee Christ to be worshipped and inuoca­ted as man. bow of the celestials, terrestrials, and infernals.

Mark. 10. v. 47. & 48. The blind man crieth: Iesu Sonne of Dauid haue mercie vpon me. The like Mathew 15. ver. 22. and c. 20. v. 31.

Luke. 23. v. 42. And he saied to Iesus: Lord remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdome.

Mathew. 2. ver. 11. They found the child with Marie his mo­ther, and falling downe adored him. c. 28. v. 9. They tooke hould of his feete and adored him.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarmin l. 1. de Sanctis. c. 12. The Diuines giues hyperdulie onely to the humanitie of Christ and to his Mother.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Zuinglius l. de ver. & fals. relig. c. de Statuis tom. 2. How Not to be worshipped as man. Not to be in­uocated as man. can they be ignorant, that Christ, as he was visible and man, was no way to be worshipped, but as he was God.

Daneus in orat. Domini. pag. 574. Christ is not to be inuo­cated as he is man, but as he is God consubstantiall to his Father.

In Exani. Kemnitij. p. 1447. Who directeth his adoration or inuocation to the humanitie of Christ, is accursed by the mouth of God.—Christs flesh is not by nature God, albeit it be hypo­statically truely vnited to God. Therefore who properly directe their inuocation vnto it, are true Idolaters. Agayne. Christ, as man, is our fellow seruant and one of our brethren, albeit the first begotten. Therefore Christ is not to be adored or inuocated as he is man. Likewise: The flesh of Christ, albeit glorified and abiding vnited in one person, is yet a creature. Wherefore who directeth his adoration vnto-it, blasphemeth God.

Beza in Colloq. Montisbel p. 292. We also denie, that Christs hu­manitie not to be wors­hipped. the humanitie of Christ is to be worshipped. Which also he re­peateth pag. 296. 298. 209. 284. and 301. And p. 284. and 292. We adore all Christ, we direct our inuocation to the Sonne of God, that is, to his diuinitie as the onely proper obiect of reli­gious worshippe, and not to his humanitie. Respons. 3. ad Sel: vol. 2. p. 274. I confesse, that this same man is to be inuocated, but not as man, but as he is God.

Polanus in Sylloge Thesium parte 1. p. 482. Christ is not the proper obiect of adoration, but his diuinitie.

D [...]ines of Neustad, in Schusselburg l. 4. Theol Caluin Christ hea­reth not all in his Huma­nitie. art. 2 [...]. For Christ heareth not all, saueth not all, giueth not the holie Christ by his humanitie, much lesse by his hands or feete. Th [...]se things are proper to his diuinitie, and therefore agree to [Page 100] Christ man, not as he is man, but as he is God.

Diuines of Heidelberg (as reporteth Smidelin in Col­loq. cit. p. 290.) write, that Christ heareth not our praiers in heauen according to his humanitie.

Perkins in Serie Causarum cap. 21. tom. 1. col. 32. Ne­ther could inuocation agree to Christ, vnlesse, as he is man, so he were also God. For adoration is not referred to his humanitie con­sidered by it selfe, but to the diuinitie, to which his flesh is hypo­statically vnited.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Christ was inuocated as he was Sonne of Dauid, and as in the time of his passion he had not yet entred into his kingdome: and that he was adored as he was a child and the sonne of Marie. The same saye Catholiks.

Protestants expressely saye, that Christ as man is not to be inuocated, that according to his humanitie he heareth not our praiers in heauen, that as man he is no way to be worshipped, that Godhead is the onely proper obiect of religious worshippe: that who direct their inuocation or adoration to Christs humanitie blaspheme God, are true Idolaters, blaspheme God, and are accursed by Gods mouth. Which are so opposite to Scripture as Some Pro­testants confesse it. See l. 2. c. vlt.

ART. IV. WHETHER CHRIST AS MAN, or the humanitie of Christ had power to quicken, to remitte sinnes, to worke miracles?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Mathew 9. v. 6. and 8. But that you may know that the Christ as mā had power to forgiue sinnes. Sonne of man hath power in earth to forgiue sinnes.—And the multitudes seing it, were affraied, & glorified God that gaue such power to men.

Ihon. 6. v. 54. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, To giue life. hath life euerlasting.

Acts. 4. vers. 10. In the name of Iesus Christ of Nazareth To worke miracles. whom you did crucifie, whom God hath raised from the dead, in this same this man standeth before you whole.

Hebrews 9. v. 19. For if the blood of goates and of oxen, and the asses, of an heifer being sprincled sanctifieth the polluted to the cleansing of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ who by the holie Ghost offered him selfe vnspotted vnto God, To pu [...]ge from sinne. cleanse our conscience from dead workes to serue the liuing God?

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

S. Thomas 3. parte 416. art. 11. The power of forgiuing sinnes consisteth in Christs diuine nature by authoritie, but in his humane nature it is instrumentally and by ministerie.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins in Galat. 3. v. 5. Not Christ himselfe as man, could As man he could not worke a mi­racle. Not profita­ble as man. worke a true miracle.

Zuinglius l. de ver. & falsa relig. c. de Euchar. to 2. Christ is profitable to vs on that parte wherewith he descended from heauen, not on that whereby he was borne of the immaculate Vir­gin. Agayne: He could be profitable onely according to his diui­nitie. Which he repeateth in Ioan. 6. to m. 4. and there ad­deth: Christs flesh profiteth nothing, nothing at all. His flesh pro­fiteth nothing at all. Had no po­wer to giue life.

Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 276. In the meane time we deny, that Christs flesh is truly viuificall. A gayne: But that there is any power or vertue of quickning in Christs flesh, for which power imparted to it it may be saied viuificall and to quicken, that we deny. And p. 279. The vertue of quickning is so proper to the diuinitie, as it cannot be communicated euen to the flesh of Christ nor to any other creature vnlesse it be turned into the diuinitie. Lib. cont. Brent. col. 1. pag. 527. he denieth that Christs humanitie forgiueth sinnes by vertue of the diuinitie which had giuen this power to it. And p. 545. saieth. Note, that [Page 102] the power of sauing is not attributed to the flesh though assump­ted, but to the diuinitie of which it is assumpted. And in Colloq. cit. p. 228. The raising of the dead is the worke of the diuinitie Nor to raise the dead. onely, which cannot be attributed to the humanitie of Christ.

Daneus Controu. 4. q. 9. p. 195. Christ the Sonne of man li­uing on earth remitted sinnes, but not as man, but as God: as in Remitted not sinnes as mā. the same diuine nature he wrought miracles, not as man.

Sadeel respons. ad Art abiurat. 5. Our life firstly, properly, and precisely proceedeth from the diuine nature. And the di­uines Nor heareth our praiers. of Heidelberg before cited: Christ as man heareth not our praiers in heauen.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the Sonne of man had in earth power to forgiue sinnes, that who eateth his flesh hath life euerlasting, that in the name of Christ cru­cified miracles were wrought, that his blood clenseth our consciences from sinnes. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach the contrarie, that Christ as man was not profitable vnto vs, that his flesh profiteth nothing at all, that it is not viuificall not hath any vertue of quickning, that the diuinitie hath not giuen it any power of forgiuen sinnes, that our life proceedeth pre­cisely from the diuinitie, that Christ as man did not for­giue sinnes, did not worke any miracle, could not worke any miracle, that the raising of the dead cānot be attributed to his humanitie. Which are so contrarie to the Scripture as diuers Protestants do acknowledge it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. V. WHETHER CHRIST AS MAN, or his humanitie were euerie where.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Mathew. 28. v. 6. I know that you seeke Iesus that was cru­cified: Christs bodie not in the Se­pulcher after his resurre­ction. He is not here.

Ihon 11. v. 15. Iesus saied to them plainly: Lazarus is dead, and Not where Lazarus died. Not where [...]e was sought. I am glad for your sake, that you may beleiue, because I was not there. And c. 6. v. 24. When therefore the multitude saw, that Iesus was not there not his disciples, they &c.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Card. Bellarmin l. 3. de Incarnat. c. 11. That Christs hu­manitie is eueriewhere, is against Scripture.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Luther in Defens. verb. caenae to. 7. fol. 394. Christ ma­nifestly Christs bodie in heauen and earth. testifieth, that his bodie is at once in heauen and in earth, or rather present euery where. Which he oftentimes repea­teth. Wherevpon Zuinglius resp. ad Confes. Lutheri to. 2. fol. 446. saieth that Luther affirmeth Christ to be in euerie In eueri [...] place. place, no lesse according to his humane nature, then his diuine.

Brentius apud Bezam lib. cont. ipsum vol. 1. Theol. p. 516. It is necessarie, that wheresoeuer the diuinitie of Christ is, Wheresoeuer his godhead is there also he haue with him his humane nature.

Gerlachius tom. 2. disput. 2. p. 25. We put the humane na­ture of Christ almightie and in all places.

Smidelin in Hospin. part. 2. Hist. fol. 323. The Humanitie of Christ is euerie where. Which he and his followers defen­ded openly in the Conference at Mulbrun and Montbel­gard.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Christ as man was not in the sepulcher after his resurrection, that he was not where Lazarus died, that he was not where the Iewes sought him. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that Christs bodie is euery where, that his humanitie is wheresoeuer his diuinitie is, that his humane nature is in all places. Which is so opposite to Scripture, as manie Protestants confesse it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. VI. WHETHER CHRIST AS MAN be head of the Church?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Corint. 11. v. 3. And I will haue you to know, that the head Christ head of the Church as he is man. of euerie man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.

Ephes. 5. v. 23. Because the man is the head of the woman, as Christ is the head of the Church, him selfe the Sauiour of his bodie.

Philippens. 2. vers. 8. He humbled himselfe, made obedient vnto death, euen the death of the crosse. For the which thing God also hath exalted him, and hath giuen him a name which is aboue all names, that in the name of Iesus euerie knee bowe.

Roman. 14. ver. 9. For this end Christ died and arose againe, that he may haue dominion both of the dead and of the liuing.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton l. 7. de Iustificat. c. 4. Christ not onely as God, but also as man, is head of the Church.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Controu. 2. q. 2. p. 455. I answere, that it is ab­surd, Not founda­tion of the Church as he was man. that the foundation of the Church be visible. The Church was not founded in Christ, as he could be seene, but as he could not be seene. Pag. 456. Christ was not a visible or sensible, but (that I may so speake) a credible foundation. And Controu. 4. q. 1. c. 2. q. 525. Christ was no visible monarch in the Church.

Vallada in Apologia cont. Episcop. Luzon. c. 5. It is grosse Not head of the Church, as man. ignorance to make Iesus Christ head of the Church as he is man, which to this day no diuine durst say.

Zuinglius in Coloss. 1. tom. 4. It is impossible, that a visible man should be head of the Church, seing she is inuisible.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Christ is head of men as he is vnder God, as he is Sauiour of his bodie: that in the name of Iesus all knees shall know because he hum­bled himselfe to death, that he died and rose againe for to haue dominion ouer all. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the Church was not founded in Christ as he was visible: that he was no visible Monarch of the Church: that he is not head of the Church as he is man: that no visible man can be head of the Church.

ART. VII. WHETHER CHRIST AS man was a law maker, made any lawes?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Isaie c. 33. v. 22. thus prophetieth of Christ: For the Lord Christ, law­maker, as mā. is our iudge, the Lord is our lawmaker, the Lord is our King, he will saue vs.

Mathew. 11. v. 30. Christ saieth: For my yoake is sweet, and my burden light. And c. vlt. ver. 19. All power is giuen to me in heauen and earth, going therefore teach ye all nations.—tea­ching them to obserue all things whatsoeuer I haue commanded you.

Ihon. 15. v. 14. You are my freinds, if you doe the things that I commaund you.

1. Cor. 7. ver. 10. But to them that be ioyned in matrimonie, not I giue commandment, but our Lord, that the wife departe not from her husband, and if she departe, to remaine vnmaried, or to be reconciled to her husband.

Galat. 6. v. 2. Beare ye one an others burdens, and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Session. 6. Canon. 21. If any shall say, that Iesus Christ was giuen of God to men as a redeemer to whome they may trust, not as a lawmaker whome to obey, be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Confession of Witenberg. c. de Euangelio: Nether is Christ no law maker. Christ to be made a new lawmaker, seing he nether hath made a new law, nether &c.

Powel Epist. lib. de Adiaphoris. We constantly denie, that Christ is a lawmaker. Which also M. Perkins insinuateth in Galat. c. 6. saying. The Ghospell must no way be called a new law.

Luther in Galat. 1. tom. 5. fol. 228. Christ is no lawmaker. Euerie law­maker, mini­ster of sinne. Euerie law maker is the minister of sinne. fol. 292. The Gospell teacheth, that Christ came not to giue a new law and to giue precepts of manners. In cap. 2. fol. 321. he saieth, that he la­boureth to damne the ould opinion of Christ a lawgiuer and iudge. Agayne: Define Christ rightly, not as the Sophisters and Iustitiamans do who make him a new lawgiuer, who abrogating the ould law gaue a new; to them Christ is an exactor and Tyrant. And in cap. 52. Isaiae tom. 4. fol. 198. They erre, who thinke Christ fra­meth not mā ­ners. Christ to be a lawmaker who frometh manners.

Illyricus in Matth. c. 5. Christ is no law giuer.

Caluin in Antidot. Concil. Sess. 6. Con. 21. We denie, He gaue no new lawes. that Christ is a lawgiuer, who gaue any new lawes to the world. In Math. 5. v. 21. Nether must we imagin Christ a new lawmaker, who added any thing to the eternall iustice of his Father, but we must heare him as a faithfull interpreter. And in v. 43. Christ giueth no new laws.

Beza in Math. 19. v. 19. As if Christ came to make any new law, and not rather to deliuer vs from the curse of the law. In 2. He tought vs not what to do or shun. Cor. 3. v. 6. Christ is the Minister of the Ghospell, not teaching vs what we ought to doe what to shun (which is the perpetuall office of the law) but freely offering himselfe for eternall life to them that beleiue.

Peter Martyr in Roman. 3. But we absolutely denie, that Christ gaue new lawes.

Pareus l. 4. de Inst. c. 4. Christ indeed as God was the giuer and author of the law with his Father, but in flesh he came not as a lawmaker, but as a redeemer.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Christ was a law­maker, that he hath a law, and commandeth some thing, that he imposeth a yoake and burden. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely say the contrarie, that Christ was no lawmaker, no lawgiuer, made no new lawes, that he gaue no precepts of manners, framed not manners, tought vs not what to doe or what to shunne, that euerie lawgiuer is the minister of sinne.

ART. VIII. WHETHER CHRIST AS man be a Iudge?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ihon 5. v. 22. For nether doth the Father iudge any man, but all iudgmēt he hath giuen to the Sonne, that all may honoure the Sonne as they doe honoure the Father. And v. 27. And he hath Christ, iudge, as man. giuen him power to doe iudgment also because he is the Sonne of man.

Acts. 10. ver. 43. And commanded vs to preach to the peo­ple, and to testifie that it is he that of God was appointed iudge of the liuing and of the dead.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

[...]ard. Bellarm. l. 3. de Incarnat. cap. 16. Power of iudging externally and sensibly is giuen to Christ, because he is the Sonne of man.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther in Galat. 2. to. 5. fol. 321. I was so taught from a child, that I waxed paile with feare at the very name of Christ, be­cause I was perswaded that he was a Iudge. Wherefore I haue duble labour to correct this euill. First, to forget that ould inue­terate Christ is no iudge. opinion of Christ a lawmaker and iudge, then to damne and reiect it. And in Galat. 5. tom. 1. Germ. Witenberg: apud Scioppium in suo Ecclesiast. c. 5. When thou thinkest of Christ as a Iudge who will command thee to giue an account of thy life past, then be assured and certaine, that it is not Christ, but the very diuell him selfe. The same doctrin he preacheth Postilla in Dom. 3. Aduentus, and in Die Pentecostes, where also he addeth: If we haue such an imagination of Christ, as that I thinke he is a Iudge, streight waies I feare him, thence it followeth that I become strange from him, and fearfull in the sight of God, so that also I hate him.

Iacobus Andreae apud Bezam respons. ad calum. vol. 3. pag. 131. Some of them are not afraied to say, that Christ shall not exercise the last iudgment as man but as God. And the like thinke all they; who as we shall rehearse hereafter chap. 16. saye, that Christ will not exact any account of our life past. For if he be our iudge, doubtlesse he will exact ac­count of vs.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Christ is appointed iudge of the liuing and the dead, that he hath power to iudge because he is the Sonne of man. Catholiks the same.

Protestants expressely teach, that it is a damnable opi­nion to thinke Christ to be a iudge: that when we thinke of Christ as a Iudge, it is not Christ, but the Diuel him selfe: that if we imagin Christ to be a iudge we fall to hate him.

ART. IX. WHETHER CHRIST HATH made a new testament or couenant?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Hieremie 31. v. 31. Behould the dayes shall come, saieth our Lord, and I will make a new couenant with the house of Israel Christ made a new coue­nant. and the house of Iuda, not according to the couenant which I made with their fathers in the day that I tooke their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. Which words the Apo­stle citeth Hebr. 8. v. 8. and expoundeth them of the coue­nant made by Christ.

Hebrews 8. v. 6. and 7. But now he hath obtained a better A better te­stament. ministerie, by so much as he is mediator of a better testament which is establiished in better promises. For if that former had beene void of fault, there should not certes a place of a second beene sought.

Hebrews 9. v. 15. And therefore he is the mediator of a new A new te­stament. testament, that death being a meane, vnto the redemption of those preuarications which were vnder the former testament, they that are called may receaue the promise of eternall inheri­tance.

Galat. 4. v. 24. For these are the twoe testaments. The one Twoe testa­ments. from mount Sina &c.

Mathew 26. ver. 28. This is my blood of the new testament. And Luke 22. v. 20. This is the chalice, the new tastament in my blood.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa c. 8. Christ at his last supper made his testament, and therefore fulfilled the figure of the ould testa­ment.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Confessions of Swizers cap. 17. Seing there is alwaies one [Page 110] onely God, one mediator of God and men, one testament or coue­nant, There is but one testament. it necessarily followeth &c.

Whitaker Cont. 2. q 2. c. 3. It is one and the same couenant, albeit by reason of the times diuersely made.

Zuinglius in Elencho tom. 2. fol. 31. They are called two Not twoe te­staments. testaments, not that they are twoe different testaments. Fol. 33. Wherefore there is one testament alone, one onely testament. In Serm. 1. Bernen. fol. 532. But seing there are not twoe testamēts, there must be this one.

Caluin 2. Instit. c. 10.§. 2. The conuenant of all the Fathers is so litle differēt from oures in deed and in substāce, that it is wholy one and the same, yet the administration varieth.

Beza in Math. 26. v. 28. They cannot nor must not be called Not twoe co­uenants. twoe couenants, as if indeed they were twoe. Cont. Heshus. vol. 1. p. 283. The ould and the new couenant is one onely and singuler couenant, whether we consider the author, or the matter, or the end and scope of them both.

Peter Martyr in locis clas. 2. c. 16. §. 27. We must needs de­termin, that the couenant betwixt God and man of the ould and new testament is one and the same.

Bucanus Instit. Theol. loco. 22. The twoe testaments are one in substance, or in respect of all causes, efficient, materiall, and finall.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Christ made a new co­uenant or testament, a second, an other, a latter couenant or testament, a new one not according to the ould, a bet­ter testament established in better promises, and that the former testament was not void of fault. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely say, that there is alwaies one testa­ment or couenant, one and the same couenant, wholy one and the same in deed and substance, one and the same according to the Author matter and end, one in respect of all causes materiall, formall, efficiēt and finall▪ that there [Page 111] are not twoe different testaments, that they must not be called twoe, as if indeed they were twoe. Which are so manifestly repugnant to Scripture as diuers Protestants confesse it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. X. WHETHER CHRIST AS MAN were ignorant?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ihon 16. v. 30. The Apostles say to Christ: Now we know Christ knew all things. that thou knowest all things, and thou needest not that any man aske thee.

Ihon 21. v. 17. Peter saied to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I loue thee. And ca. 7. v. 15. And the Knew letters though he had not learnt them. Iewes maruailed, saying: How doth this mā know letters, whereas he hath not learned.

Ihon. 2. v. 24. But Iesus did not commit himselfe vnto them, for that he knew all, and because it was not needfull for him that Knew what was in man. any should giue testimonie of man, for he knew what was in man. And c. 18. ver. 4. Iesus therefore knowing all things that should come vpon him, went forth &c.

Coloss. 2. v. 3. In whome (Iesus Christ) be all the treasures Had all trea­sures of know­ledge. of wisdome and knowledge hidde.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

S. Thomas 3. part. q. 15. art. 3. As in Christ there was no fo­mite of sinne, so there was no ignorance. Et q. 11. art. 11. He knew all particuler things past, present, and to come.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker ad Ration. 8. Campiani. Thou saiest, that Pro­testants Christ was ignorant. teach that Christ was ignorant. And why may they not teach so?

Zuinglius in c. 2. Lucae. Christs soule dayly profited, whereas [Page 112] from the beginning he knew not all things.

Caluin in Math. 21. v. 18. There is no absurditie, if we say that according to his humanitie he knew not what kind of tree Knew not trees. it was. In c. 24. v. 36. It was no inconueniencie, that Christ ac­cording to mans knowledge was ignorant of some thing. In Lucae 2. v. 40. His soule was subiect to ignorance.

Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 177. We must acknowledge, that Christ in the time of his humiliation according to his huma­nitie Was ignorāt of manie things. was for vs ignorant of many things. And p. 250. being asked, Whether Christ according to his soule be searcher of hearts? he answered: No.

Gallastus in l. 2. Irenei. cap. 49. Christ was so ignorat as he He was tought as we be. learnt and was tought as men are.

Daneus Controu. 2. p. 143. Christs soule was truely ignorant and knew not some things.—Christ knew not where Lazarus He knew not Lazarus his graue. Nor figges on the tree. Was subiect to childish ig­norance. his corps was laied.

Pareus l. 5. de Amiss. Grat. c 14. Christ knew not figges on the tree.

Serranus Cont. Hayum parte 3. pag. 289. Luke testifieth, that he was subiect to childish ignorance and forgetfulnesse.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth that Christ knew all things that should come vpon him, that he knew all things, that he knew all men, that he knew whar was in man, that he knew letters though he had not learnt, that in him were all the treasures of wisdome and knowledge. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants contrariwise teach, that Christ as man knew not all things, was ignorant of manie things, was subiect to childish ignorance and forgetfulnes, knew not the hearts of men, knew not where Lazarus his bodie was laied, knew not figges on the tree, knew not what kinde of tree it was, and was so ignorant as he needed to be tought as men are. And this ignorance of Christ Serra­nus lib. cit. pag. 290. calleth the ground of their saluation. [Page 113] Which is so opposith to Scriptures as some Protestants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. XI. WHETHER CHRIST AS MAN were truely a sinner and hatefull to God?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Hebrews 7. ver. 26. For it was seemly that we should haue Christ separa­ted from sin­ners. such a high preist, holie, innocent, impolluted, separated from sin­ners &c.

1. Peter 1. v. 19. You are redeemed with pretious blood, as it were of an immaculate and vnspotted lambe, Christ. And c. 2. v. 22. Who did not sinne, nether was guile found in him.

Mathew 3. c. 17. And be hould a voice from heauen, saying. God well pleased in Christ. This is my beloued Sonne in whome I am well pleased.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

D. Stapleton l. 7. de Iustific. c. 10. It is not onely new, but also a blasphemous kinde of speech, to call Christ a sinner ether by imputation or any way at all. In Math. 26. ver. 39. We must maintaine, that Christ nether had any inconsiderate desire, nor saied any thing that deserued correcting, nor offered vnmeasu­red requests, nor wanted a mild moderation.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Perkins in Cathol. reform. Controu. 4. c. 4. We may with Christ truely a sinner. reuerence to his maiestie in good manner say, that Christ was a sinner, and that truely. And De Serm. Dom in Monte to. 2. col. 212. We may most certainly affirme, that Christ by and for our sinnes was made a sinner, not in but by imputation.

Luther in c. 53. Isaiae to. 4. fol. 222. He is the greatest sin­ner, Christ the greatest sin­ner. so that there is none greater then the Sonne of God. And fol. seq. addeth that, He is wicked, guiltie of death, and vnder [Page 114] the power of the Diuel and hel. In c. 3. Galat. to. 5. fol. 348. All the Prophets saw this in spirit, that Christ was to be the greatest theefe, murderer, adulterer, robber, sacrilegious, so that none euer in the world was greater.—If thou denie him to haue beene a sinner and accursed, denie that he suffered and died. And fol. 350. he calleth it most sweet doctrin and most full of comforte, that Christ for vs was made a curse, that is, a sinner obnoxious Christ not in­nocent. to the wrath of God. And 351. We must not imagin Christ to be innocent, as the Sophisters and almost all the Fathers, Hiero­me, and others haue done. In Psal. 22. to. 3. He seemeth in him selfe to swallow the temptation of blasphemie, which was almost breacking out, as it were floting betwene praise and blasphemie. Postilla in Domin. 2. post Epiphan. He vnciuilly reiected the Vnciuilly re­iected his mo­ther. most modest admonition of his Mother. And maketh our B. Ladie thus complaining of him: He rudely reiecting hath dis­honored me, and with so vnciuill an answere hath shamed me be­fore so many guests.

Illyricus in Confess. Antuerpien. cap. 6. He may be most truely called a sinner, by the most mightie imputation of his Fa­ther. Et in Claue Scripturae part. 5. col. 858. God made Christ Hatefull to God. by imputation a sinner, or iniust, guiltie, hatefull to God. The like he hath part. 2. col. 534. and in 2. Corint. 5. ver. 21 In Math. 3. v. 15. he saieth, that Christ by imputation was the Had need to be clensed. vncleanest of all, and had need to be clensed by baptismes and iustices.

Caluin in 2. Corint. 5. v. 21. How are we iust before God? As Christ was a sinner. In Math. 26. v. 39. he writeth: I con­fesse, that Christ had an abrupt desire. Betwixt violent fluddes of tēptations, he (as it were) wauered with desires, now on one side, now on the other. He correcteth and recalleth a request which sodainly escaped him. This praier of Christ was not thought of, but the force and vehemēcie of sorrow did wrest frō him a speech which by and by was corrected. The same Violence made him for the present forget the heauenlie decree, that for that moment he did not thinke himselfe to haue beene sent on this condition to be the redeemer of mankind. In c. 27. v. 46. But it seemeth absurd, that a speech of desperation should proceed from Christ. The ans­were [Page 115] is at hand. For albeit the sense of the flesh did apprehend de­struction, yet faith abode fast in his harte. In ver. 47. So we see, Ouerwelmed with despera­tion. that he was vexed on euerie side, that being ouerwhelmed with desperation, he gaue ouer calling vpon God. Which was to re­nounce his saluation. In Ioan. 12. v. 27. By flying death, he con­fesseth his delicatenes.

Beza in 2. Corint. 5. ver. 21. Christ was for vs made sinne, that is, a sinner, not in him selfe, but by the guilt of all our sinnes Properly ac­cursed. imputed to him. In Galat. 3. v. 13. In that consisteth our salua­tion, that God properly and without any figure powred all his wrathe vpon his Sonne, properly and not figuratiuely accursed him, [...] in his humanitie he was our pledge, for to receaue vs into grace.

Pareus in Galat. 3. lection. 35. He was made a curse, that is, accursed.

Daneus Controu. de baptismo c. 23. That which he obie­cteth, He had need of baptisme. that it is mere blaspemie, to say that Christ was a sinner, and had need of baptisme, is it selfe most blasphemous.—Christ him hath tought, that as he was made man for our sake he needed this baptisme.

Piscator in Thesib. lib. 2. p. 125. Christ by imputation was Accursed as the damned. truely a sinner, because for sinnes he was a curse, that is, accursed. But none is accursed before God, but for sinne, that is, as he is, or as he is held for a sinner. And p. 619. To be accursed, was common to Christ with all those to whome in the day of iudgment he shall say: God ye accursed into euerlasting fire. Moulins in his Bu­cler of faith art. 17. section. 31. Christ made himselfe culpable for to make vs assoiled. See more of their like speeches in the Latin booke c. 1. art. 11.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Christ was separated from sinners, was innocent, holie, vnpolluted, immacu­late, vnspotted: that he was his Fathers well beloued, Sonne, in whome he was well pleased. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants saye, that Christ was a sinner, the greatest sin­ner that euer was, truely a sinner, most truely a sinner, not innocent, vniust, vncleane, had need of baptisme, had need to be clensed: was hatefull to God, accursed of God, ac­cursed as the damned shalbe at the day of iudgment, was culpable, confessed his delicatenes, had desires not pre­meditated that deserued correction and recalling, floted betweene praise and blasphemie, reeled betweene temp­tations, vnciuily reiected, dishonored, and shamed his mother, was so ouerwhelmed with desperation, that he gaue ouer calling vpon God, which was to renounce his saluation.

ART. XII. WHETHER CHRIST REEV­sed to doe the office of a Redeemer?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Luke 12. v. 51. But I haue to be baptized with a baptisme and Christ desired to die for mā ­kind. how am I strained vntill it be dispatched?

Math. 16. v. 23. Where S. Peter dehorted him from suffe­ring: Turning saied to Peter: Goe after me Sathan: Thou art a scandall vnto me, because thou sauourest not the things that are of God. And c. 26. v. 53. When S. Peter would haue defended him: Iesus saieth to him: Returne thy sworde into his place,—Thinkest thou, that I cannot aske my Father, and he will giue me presently more then twelue legions of Angels.

Ihon 4. vers. 34. Christ saieth: My meate is to doe the will of him that sent me, to perfit his worke. And c. 18. v. 11. The chalice which my Father hath giuen me, shall not I drinke it.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

D. Stapleton in Math. 26. ver. 39. Caluin affirmeth, that Christ, as much as lay in him, refused, and drew back from doing the office a Redeemer: then the which no more greeuous accusa­tion could be laied vpon Christ by any Pagan or Iew.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Perkins in Serie Causarum c. 15. Christ was subiect to this Christ forget his office. weaknes, not to remember the office imposed vpon him by reason of the agonie shaking his sense. And c. 18. A litle before Christs death, sorrow did so trouble his spirit, as for a time it stroake in­wardly a marueilous amazement and forgetfulnes of the office imposed vpon him.

Caluin in Ioan. 12. v. 27. By flying death, he confesseth his Had a destre contrarie to his vocation. delicatenesse. Againe. He recalleth the desire which he acknow­ledgeth to be contrarie to his vocation. In Math. 26. v. 36. Yet is not the question quite answered. For sith we lately saied that all Christs affections were rightly composed, how doth he now cor­rect himselfe? For he doth so submit his affection to Gods will, as if he had exceeded measure. Surely in the first request there ap­peareth As much as was in him he refused to doe the office of a Media­tour. not that milde moderation whereof I spoke, because, as much as lay in him, he refused & forbare to do the office of a Me­diatour. I answere, there was no fault in that whiles the terrour of death was before his eyes there fell vpon him such a darknes, as leauing all others, he laied hould vpon such a desire. Nether is it needfull to dispute here subtilly whether he could forget our salua­tion. Agayne In that moment he did not thinke, that he was sent vpon condition to be the redeemer of man kinde.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Christ so desired to accomplish our redemption, as he was strained vntill he had perfected it, that his meate was to do the will of his Father, that he sharply rebuked S. Peter when he dehor­ted him from suffering, and forbadde him to defend him from it. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that Christ was so weake as to forget the office of our redemption, that for a time he forgotte it: that he fledde death, had a desire cōtrarie to his vocation, refused and forbore to do the office of a Me­diatour, for a time did not thinke that he was sent vpon condition to be the redeemer of mankinde.

ART. XIII. WHETHER CHRIST WAS assured of his saluation?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ihon n. v. 41. And Iesus lifting his eyes vpward, saied, Father Christ knew knew that God did al­waies heare him. That the abo­de in his fa­fathers loue. I giue the thanks that thou hast heard me, and I did know that thou doest alwaies heare me. Chap. 15. v. 10. If you keep my pre­cepts, you shall abide in my loue, as I also haue kept my Fathers precepts and do abide in his loue. C. 16. ver. 28. I leaue the world and goe to the Father. cap. 17. vers. 10. And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee.

Luke 22. vers. 69. But from hence forth the Sonne of man shalbe sitting on the right hand of the power of God. c. 23. v. 43. And Iesus saied vnto him: Amen I say to thee: this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

Acts 2. v. 25. For Dauid saieth concerning him: I foresaw the Lord in my sigth alwaies, because he is at my right hand that I be not mooued.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Promptuar. Quadrages. fer. 4. hebdom, sanct. Christ, touching the state of his soule, feareth not the least forsaking of God.—How can any beleiue, that Christ could haue the least suspition of Gods malediction or forsaking.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther in psalm. 22. to. 3. fol. 330. It followeth, that Christ himselfe suffered the dread and horrour of a conscience troubled, and tasting the euerlasting wrath. fol. 331. Christ was no lesse Christ freigh­ted as the damned are. freighted in soule, then we, or the damned are, whiles they dread and flie God. fol. 333. He was most troubled with wandring fears and most vnquiet affections. And addeth fol. 330. cit. that, In exceeding despaire. Christ was at once both excedingly glorying, and despairing.

Melancthon in c. 26. Matthaei apud Hofmeister in Art. 3. Floted bet­wixt hell and life. Augustan. The third, & that the greatest cause of Christs dread, was a feeling of Gods forsaking and wrath, whereby Christ floted betwixt hell and life.

Caluin in Catechismo c. de fide. Because he presēted himselfe Christs con­sciēce anxious before the tribunall seate of God, for to satisfie for sinners, it was needfull that his conscience should be tortured with this anxietie, as if he had beene forsakē of God, yea as if he had God his mortall enemie. In Math. 26. ver. 37. The depth of horrible destruction did greeuously vexe him to feare & anxietie. In v. 39. It was need­full Feared pro­found death. for him to feare the profound depth of deathe.—Christ was stroaken with the dread of Gods malediction. In Hebrae. 5. v. 7. I doubt not but the Apostle meaneth, that Christ was deliuered Feared to be swalowed of death. Almost per­swaded that he was cast away. from that which he feared, to wit, lest ouercome with euills he should yeeld, or be swallowed with death. And the same repea­teth Beza vpon the same place, and addeth: He was almost persuaded, that he was cast away. And in Luc. 22. v. 44. Nether did Christ wrasle onely with the fears of death as other men d [...]e, but with the dreadfull iudgment of his angrie Father, then the which nothing can be thought more dreadfull. And in this deie­ction of Christ consisteth the summe of our comforte.

Pareus l. 3. de Iustificat. c. 12. When Bellarmin had saied: He cannot feare, who by faith is assured of his saluatiō: Answe­reth: The proposition, vnlesse it be limited, is vniuersally false. Who more sure of his saluation and predestination, that our Sauiour, and yet did he not crie vpon the Crosse and not without feare: My God &c. See more of their like sayings in my Latin booke c. 2. art. 13.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Christ knew that his Father did alwaies heare him, that he did abide in his loue, that he went to his father, that he should sitt on the right hand of the power of God, that he should be in paradise, that God was at his right hand, that he be not mooued. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that Christ suffered the dread of a conscience tasting euerlasting wrath, was freighted in his soule like to the damned, was exceedingly despai­ring, did flote betweene hell and life, was tormented with anxietie as if God were his mortall enemie, was grieuously vexed with the dread of horrible destruction, did feare the profound depth of death and Gods malediction, feared lest he should be ouercomen with euills and swallowed with death, was almost perswaded that the was cast away, was afraied of his saluantion. And yet these men (as we shall see c. 17. art. 10.) auouch, that euerie one of them is assured of his saluation, and account him no Christian or faithfull man, who is not so assured: yea they make assu­rance of saluation an essentiall point of faith. So that they make thēselues farre more assured of their Saluation then they make Christ: and condemne vs for doubting of our Saluation, who make Christ to doubt, feare, and despaire of his.

ART. XIV. WHETHER CHRIST HAD a commandment of his Father to giue his life, or to die for vs?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ihon 10. vers. 18. I yeeld my life, that I may take it againe, No man taketh it away from me, but I yeeld it of my selfe, and Christ com­manded to giue his life. I haue power to yeeld it, and I haue power to take it againe. This commandment I receaued of my Father. cap. 18. vers. 11. The chalice which my Father hath giuen me, shall not I drinke it.

Roman. 5. v. 19. For as by the disobedience of one man manie were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, manie shalbe made iust.

Philippen. 2. v. 8. He humbled himselfe, made obedient vnto death euen the death of the crosse.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

S. Thomas 3. parte quaest. 47. art. 2. Christ receaued a com­mandment of his Father to suffer.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Polanus in Disput. priuat. periodo 1. disput. 36. They say: Not comma­ded to die. A law was made, that Christ should die. But this is against Scrip­ture. For so his merit should not haue beene voluntarie. The same also do other Protestants meane, who ether say, that in euerie proper merit the oblation must needs be not commanded, as Hutterus in Analysi Confess. Augustan. artic. 4. or that it must not be due or of obligation, as Whitaker saieth lib. 9. cont. Dureum sect. 34. Perkins in Cathol. reform. Contr. 5. c. 2. Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 638. and others.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Christ receaued this cō ­mandment of his Father to yeeld his life, that his Father gaue him the chalice of his passion, that he was obediēt to death, and that by his obedience manie are made iust. But (as Polanus himselfe confesseth part. 2. thes. p. 219.) obediēce cannot be so much as imagined, but in regard of the law to which it is afforded. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that there was no law made of Christs death, that if it had beene commanded, his death had not beene meritorious.

ART. XV. WHETHER CHRIST MERITED any thing for himselfe, or had any thing for merit?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Christ exal­ted for his humiliation.

Philippen. 2. v. 8. & 9. He humbled himselfe, made obedient [Page 122] vnto death, euen the death of the crosse. For the which thing God also hath exalted him, & hath giuen him a name which is aboue all names &c.

Hebrews 2. v. 9. But him that was a litle lessened vnder the Angels, we see Iesus because of the passion of death crowned with glorie and honour.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

S. Thomas 3. part. q. 19. art. 3. Christ had by merit the glorie of his bodie, and those things which pertaine to his outward ex­cellencie, as ascension, whorshippe, and such others.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Caluin in Philippen. 2. ver. 9. Nether Christ got nor sought Christ got no­thing for him selfe. any thing for himselfe. In 2. Institut. c. 17. §. 6. To enquire whe­ther Christ merited any thing to himselfe (as the Scholastiks doe) is no lesse foolish curiositie, then temerarious resolution whē they affirme it. With what merits could man obtaine to be iudge of the world, head of Angels?

Daneus Controu. 2. p. 27. The Sententiarians do say, that Christ merited also to him selfe: but we denie it. He merited nothing for for himselfe.

Pareus l. 5. de Iustif. c. 3. It is false, that Christ merited to him selfe exaltation.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Christ was exalted and had a name giuen him aboue all names because he hum­bled him selfe, that he was crowned with glorie because of his passion. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that Christ did not merit his exaltation, did not merit any thing to him selfe, could not merit to be iudge of the world and head of Angels.

ART. XVI. WHETHER CHRIST REDEE­med vs with a sufficient price, or truely merited our redemption?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Cor. 6. v. 20. You are bought with a great price. Christ bought vs with a great price.

1. Timoth. 2. v. 6. For there is one God: one also mediatour of God and men, man Christ Iesus who gaue him selfe a redemption (in Greek [...]) for all.

1. Peter 2. ver. 18. Knowing, that not with corruptible things gould or siluer, you are redeemed from your vaine conuersation With his pre­tious blood. of your fathers tradition, but with the pretious blood, as it were of an immaculate and vnspotted lambe, Christ.

1. Ihon 3. v. 16. In this we haue knowne the charitie of God, because he hath yeelded his life for vs. c. 4. v. 10. He hath loued vs and sent his sonne a propitiation for our sinnes.

Mathew 20. ver. 28. The Sonne of man is come to giue his life a redemption (in Greek [...]) for manie.

Rom. 3. v. 24. Iustified gratis by his grace by the redemption (in Greek [...]) that is in Christ Iesus.

Psalm. 129. v. 7. Because with our Lord is mercie, and with him plenteous redemption.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

S. Thomas 3. part. artic. 2. Christ suffering of charitie and obedience did giue God some thing more then the recompence of the offence of all mankinde did exact.—The passion of Christ was not onely a sufficient, obut also a superaboundant satisfaction for the sinnes of mankinde.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Tindal in Fox his Acts printed An. 1610. pag. 1136. Christ Christ meri­ted not heauē. with all his works did not merite heauen.

Daneus Controu. 2. lib. 5. p. 210. Three necessarie conditiōs of merite do faile in the workes of a creature and of Christ man towards God.—For by the vnion hypostaticall, Christ doth not He did not merit. merite. Page. 200. Christ as man properly merited nothing with God. P. 202. Yea not in this forme of a seruant could Christ me­rite any thing to himselfe, because in this forme he was a cred­ture. But a creature can merite nothing of his Creator.

Caluin 2. Instit. c. 17 §. 1. Truely I confesse, that if any would simply and by himselfe oppose Christ vnto the iudgment of God, there were no place for merite; because there will not be found in man any worth which may merite before God. §. vlt. With what merits could man obtaine to be iudge of the world, and head of Angels? 3. Instit. c. 11. §. 12. It is fondly obiected of him: that the power of iustifying farre supasseth both men and Angels, seing this dependeth not vpon the worth of any creature, but of Gods ordination. If the Angels would satisfie God, they would auaile nothing, because they were not destinated to this end; but this was proper to Christ man, who was subiect to the law for to redceme vs from the curse of the law. And Respons. ad quaest. Sozin: Christ could merit nothing but through the pleasure of God. Et in Ioan. 4. v. 10. When Christ is sated to haue appeased the Fa­ther towards vs, this is referred to our sense. For as we are guiltie to our selues, we cannot conceaue God but as angrie and offended till Christ absolue vs from the guilt.—Wherefore touching the feeling of our faith God beginneth to loue vs in Christ.

Spindlerus apud Scusselburg. l. 4. Theol. Caluin. c. 5. The His death no sufficient re­demption for all sinnes. Lutherans erre in saying that Christs death was a sufficient re­demption ( [...]) for the sinnes of all and euerie man.

Piscator apud Vorstium in Parasceue c. 6. Christ died not sufficiently, much lesse effectually for all.

Welsingius apud Homium in Specim. Controuer. Bel­gic. His blood sa­tisfied not Gods iustice. art. 21. That Christs blood satisfied Gods iustice for our sin­nes, is no where extant, and it is plainly contrarie to the free and iust remission of sinnes, which God hath offered to vs by Christ. And the same say other Protestants, as Caluin re­porteth 2. Instit. c. 17. §. 1. and Beza in Absters. calumn. Hes­husij p. 324.

Slatius apud Homium loc. cit. There is question, whether Christ proper­ly satisfied not. Christ properly satisfied for vs. We denie it. And the same hath Vorstius ib. Who also addeth: That Christ satisfied by a certaine acceptation, not by exact identitie.

Pareus l. 5 de Iustific. c. 3. To merit, is the parte of seruants, To merite, is serutle and sordid. serutle, and sordid.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Christ bought vs with a great price, that he gaue [...], that is, a ransom or price of redemption for vs, that he redee­med vs with his pretious blood: that God gaue his life for vs, sent his sonne a propitiation for our sinnes: that with God there is plentuous redemption. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely say the contrarie: that Christ could not merite heauen, had no place for merit if we res­pect the iudgment of God, did not merite, three condi­tions necessatie to merite wanted in his works, that power of meriting in him depended of Gods pleasure and ordi­nation: That properly he did not satisfie for vs, that his blood did not satisfie Gods iustice, that his death was not a sufficient [...] or ransom for all, that to merite is seruile and sordid.

ART. XVII. WHETHER CHRIST REDEE­med vs by his blood or corporall death?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Coloss. 1. ver. 22. And you, whereas some time alienated and Christ redee­med vs by his death. By his blood, By he obla­cion of his bodie. enemies in sense, in euill works, yet now he hath reconciled in the bodie of his flesh by death. vers. 20. Pacifying by the blood of his crosse whether the things in earth or the things that are in heauen.

Hebrews. 10. v. 10. In the which will we are sanctified by [Page 126] the oblation of the bodie of Iesus Christ once. c. 9. vers. 12. By his owne blood entred once into the Holies eternall redemption being found.

Ephes. 1. v. 6. In whome we haue redemption by his blood the remiss [...]on of sinnes.

1. Peter v. 19. You are redeemed with the pretious blood as it were of an immaculate and vnsported lambe, Christ.

Acts 20. v. 28. The holie Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his owne blood.

Apocalips. 5. v. 9. Thou hast redeemed vs to God in thy blood.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

S. Thomas 3. part. q. 48. art. 5. The price of our redemption is the blood of Christ, or his corporall life which consisteth in blood.

Stapleton in Prompt. Quadrages. fer. 4. Hebdom. Sanct. Caluin putteth not onely an other price beside the corporall death of Christ, but also an other greater and more excellent: Can Christian ears suffer this?

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker lib. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 18. Caluin wrote most truely: Christs death had done no­thing. That nothing had beene done, if Christ had suffered onely cor­porall death.

Perkins de Serm. Dom. to. 2. col. 576. Reason it selfe tea­cheth, Was not suf­ficient. that onely corporall death (of Christ) was not sufficient to redeeme them who had deserued death of bodie and soule.

Willet Cont. 20. q. 3. p. 1088. The bodilie death of Christ was Was not the full price. not in respect of Gods iustice the whole and full price of our re­demption.

Caluin 2. Instit. c. 16. §. 10. Nothing had beene done, if Christ There needed a greater price. had suffered onely bodilie death—There was an other greater & more excellent price, that he suffered in his soule the horrible tor­ments of a damned and lost man.

Bezalib. quaest. vol. 1. Theol. Christ was in the midst of the torments of hell, for to deliuer vs fully from both deathes &c.

Scarpe de Iustif. Cont. 16. Writeth that diuers Protestāts say, that those places of Scripture, in which is saied, that Christ dyed for vs, are to be vnderstood onely of his feeling of the wrath of God, and not of his bodilie death: and that his bodilie death a­uailed nothing to our redemption nor was a parte of the satisfa­ction for sinnes.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Christ hath recon­ciled vs in the bodie of his flesh by death, hath pacified all things by the blood of his crosse, hath sanctifieth vs by the oblation of his bodie, hath found an eternall redemp­tion by his blood, hath redeemed vs by his blood, with his blood, in his blood, hath purchased the Church with his blood. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that nothing had beene done if Christ had suffered onely corporall or bodilie death, that his corporall death was not sufficient to redeeme vs, that there was need of a greater and excellenter price, that his corporall death auailed nothing to our redemption nor was any parte of the satisfaction for sinnes. Which are so manifestly opposite to Scripture as some Protestants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. XVIII. WHETHER CHRIST DIED for the impious and reprobats?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Christ died for the im­pious. For him that perisheth. For the vn­iust.

Rom. 5. ver. 6. For why did Christ, when we as yet were weake, according to the time die for the impious?

1. Cor. 18. ver. 11. And through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish, for whome Christ hath died.

1. Peter. 3. v. 18. Because Christ also died once for our sinnes, the iust for vniust.

2. Peter 2. v. 1. & seq. But there were also false Prophets in the people, as also in you there shalbe lying maisters, which shall bring [Page 128] in sects of perdition, and denie him that hath bought them, the For those that goe to perdition. Lord, bringing vpon themselues speedie perdition—vnto whome the iudgment, now long since ceaseth not, and their per­d [...]tion sl [...]mbereth not.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarmin l. 4. de Amiss. Gratiae c. 7. Our Lord suffered and died for the vniust.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Controu. 2. q. 1. c. 9. p. 437. Christ did not giue Christ died not for the impious. The wicked not redremed by Christ. himselfe for the impious and reprobates. Which he repeateth cap. 13.

Rainolds thesi 4. q. 22. The wicked, albeit they be termed faithfull for their profession of faith, or for temporall faith, yet are they not redeemed or founded in Christ. In Apologia the­sium p. 246. Christ offered himselfe for the elect onely. 247. Redeemed only the elect. The elect onely were redeemed of Christ.

Perkins de Praedestinat. tom. 1. col. 135. Whome at anie time he acknowledged not, he neuer bought or redeemed with the price of his blood. col. 137. Of these, Christ is onely a half-re­deemer, and therefore no redeemer. And de Desertion. col. 1023. Christ is the redeemer onely of the elect, and of none else. So also D. Willet Contr. 9. q. 2. p. 893.

Caluin l. cont. Heshus. p. 849. I would know how the im­pious Not crucified for the im­pious. eate Christs flesh for which it was not crucified: and how they drinke his blood, which was not shed to redeeme their sinnes.

Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 447. Christ died not for the sinnes of them that are damned—He shed not his blood for the remission of the sinnes of the impious and damned. Epist 28. It is false that Christ is the mediatour of the infidels also.

Zanchius in Summa Praelection. to. 7. col. 272. Christ, according to the purpose of his Father, was borne praied, suffered and died onely for the elect. In Depulsion. Calum. col. 253. The Reprobats not redee­med. reprobats were not redeemed by Christ.

Piscator apud Gerlachium Disput. 9. Christ no waye died for the reprobats, other sufficiently or effectually.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Christ died for the im­pious, for the vniust, for those that perish: that he bought lying monsters who bring in sects of perdition, and bring vpon themselues speedie perdition, and whose perdition slumbereth not. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely teach the contrarie, that Christ gaue not himselfe for the impious or reprobats, that the wicked were not redeemed in Christ, that Christs flesh was not crucified for the impious nor his blood shed for their sinnes: that Christ offered himselfe onely for the elect, that they onely were redeemed by Christ: that Christ is redeemer of the elect and of none els, no media­tour of Infidels, was borne, suffered and dyed for the elect onely, that nether sufficiently nor effectually he died for the reprobats. Which are so contrarie to Scripture as ma­nie Protestants acknowledge it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. XIX. WHETHER CHRIST DIED for all?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

2. Corint. 5. v. 14. For the charitie of Christ vrgeth vs, iud­ging Christ died for all. this: That if one died for all, then all were dead, and Christ died for all.

1. Timoth. 2. v 6. Christ Iesus, who gaue himselfe a redemp­tion for all. Chap. 4. v. 10. Who is the Sauiour of all men, espe­cially of the faithfull.

Hebrews 2. v. 9. We see Iesus because of the passion of death crowned wi [...]h glorie and honour, that through the grace of God he might taste death for all.

1. Ioan. 2. v. 2. We haue an aduocate with the Father, Iesus [Page 130] Christ the iust, and he is the propitiation of our sinnes, and not of ours onely, but also for the whole worlds. Ca. ver. 14. The Fa­ther hath sent his Sonne the Sauiour of the world.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent. Sess. 6. c. 9. Howbeit Christ died for all, yet notwithstanding all receaue not the benefit of his death.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins de Praedest. to. 1. col. 144. It is maruailous absurd, Redeemed not all. that Christ on his parte should haue redeemed and reconciled to God all and euerie one, and yet that in the ende manie of these should be damned. De Serm. Dom. to. 2. col. 341. The opinion of vniuersall redemption, is an inuention of mans braine.

Caluin in 1. Ioan. 2. v. 2. cit. Vnder all, he doth not compre­hend the reprobats. In 1. Tim. 2. v. 5. The vniuersall particle must be referred to all kind of men, not to all persons.

Sadeel ad Art. abiur. 7. They speake amisse, who say that by Redeemed not the sinnes of the whole world. Christs death the sinnes of the whole world were redeemed.

Piscator l. 2. Thes. p. 371. Christ died not vniuersally for all men, but for the elect onely—We denie, that Christ died suffi­ciently for all, but not effectually. P. 177. Christ died nor for all, but for some.

Bucanus Instit. Theol. loco 36. Is not Christ the redeemer of all? No. More of their like sayings may be seene in my Latin booke c. 1. art. 19.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Christ died for all that are dead, that he gaue himselfe a redemption for all that he tasted death for all; that he is the Sauiour of all men, the Sauiour of the world, the propitiation not onely of our sinnes but of all the whole world. Catholiks teach the same.

Protestants expressely teach the contrarie, that Christ [Page 131] on his parte redeemed not all and euerie one, that vniuer­sall redemption is an inuention of mans braine: that Christ died not vniuersally for all, redeemed not the sin­nes of the whole world, nether sufficiently nor effectually died for all, died but for some, is not redeemer of all. Which diuers Protestants confesse to be contrarie to Scripture. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. XX. WHETHER THE BLOOD wherewith Christ redeemed vs was putrefied and corrupted?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Acts 2. v. 27. Because thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell, nor Gods holie did not see corrup­tion. giue thy Holie to see corruption.

1. Peter. 1. v. 19. Knowing, that not with corruptible things, gould or siluer, you are redeemed from your vaine conuersation of your fathers traditions, but with the pretious blood, as it were of an immaculate and vnspotted lambe, Christ.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

S. Thomas 3. par q. 34. art. [...] All the blood that flowed out of the bodie of Christ, did rise in Christs bodie, sith it belonged to the truth of his humane nature.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Perkins in Apoc. 1. to. 2. col. 41. The substance of that blood The substāce of Christ blood perished. (of Christ) which was shed, did perish, whatsoeuer the Papists do prate. In Cathol. reform. Cōtr. 10. c. 3. That blood which ranne out the feet and hands and si [...]e of Christ vpon the crosse, was not gathered vp againe and put into the v [...]i [...]es: N [...] the collection was needls, and none knowes what is become of this blood. The same insinuateth Whitaker Contr. 2 q. 1 c. 9. p. 437.

Beza in 2. part. Resp. ad Acta Colloq Montisbel. p. 108. [Page 132] It were curious and profane to enquire what became of that selfe same blood which ranne out of the wounds of Christ, and whether it were taken againe of him when he arose.

Musculus in locis Tit. de Caena: We need not dispute of the blood of Christ, what became of it after it was spilt on the groūd, whether it were taken againe into his glorified bodie, or no.

Schusselbur lib. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 20. reporteth Cu­raeus saying: Christs blood shed for vs on the crosse was long Long since consumed. Putrified. since consumed. And Erastus his companians teaching: That Christs blood which he shed for our si [...]nes, is putrified and no more in being. Germanus Bauarus in Feua [...]dent l. 4. Theo­mach. Caluin. c. 16. The substantiall blood of Christ is not giuen in the Supper, because it was corrupted on the ground. Corrupted.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that we were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the pretious blood of Christ, that God suffered not his Holie to see corruption. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that it is profane to enquire what is become of Christs blood, that long since it is con­sumed, corrupted, not gathered againe, perished, and is no more in being.

ART. XXI. WHETHER CHRISTS SOVLE descended to Hell?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Actes. 2. v. 27. Thou wilt not leaue my soule in Hell. Et v. Was in Hell. 31. Foreseing he spake of the resurrection of Christ, for nether was he left in Hell, nether did his flesh see corruption.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Actor. 2. v. 27. This place doth plainly proue [Page 133] the descent of Christ into Hell in soule, according to the article of Christian beleefe.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker. l. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 23. Caluin defendeth, that Neuer went to Hell. Descended not to Hell. Christs soule neuer went to the places of Hell. And l. 9. sect 27. I beleiue that Christs soule seperated from the bodie not onely did not descend to Hell, but streight mounted to Heauen.

Rogers vpon the 3. Article of Protestants Confession: saieth, that Carlile against D. Smithe pa. 28. 77. calleth this article (of Christ descent into hell) an error and a fable. A fable.

Perkins in Explicat. Symboli to 1. col. 678. If we say that Christ in soule descended into Hell, we plainly take away that manifest opposition betweene the first and the second Adam.

Beza in Actor. 2. v. 27. Who by Hell vnderstand the place which is commōly called Hell, as if the soule of Christ had indeed descended thither, surely are much deceaued.

Serranus cont. Hayum part. 3. pag. 722. Beza desirous to Descent to Hell, a fable. stoppe the way to that Popish fable of the descent of Christs soule into hell &c.

Hemingius in Enchir. Theolog. class. 3. pag. 263. It skil­leth not greatly, to know how Christ descended into Hell, so that with true faith we hould that he deliuered vs from the power of Hell.

Aretius in locis part. 1. fol. 72. Other (Protestants) denie To be taken out of the Creed. all descent of Christ into Hell. Some of them eagerly impugne this descent; for they say, that this sentence is to be taken out of the Creede.

Ministers of Anhalt apud Hospin. in Concordia dis­cordi. fol. 87. The Diuines of Berge haue done well, that through ours and other mens admonitions they haue put out the article of the descent into Hell.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely affirmeth, that Christs soule was [Page 134] in Hell: and our Creed saieth that he descended into Hell: The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely denie, that Christs soule descen­ded to Hell, went to the places of Hell: and say that the descent of Christ into Hell, is a Popish fable: that it skil­leth not greatly to know how he descended into Hell: that some of them eagerly impugne this article of the Creed, and would haue it put out of the Creed, and that some haue put it out. Which is so plaine a contradiction of Scripture as diuers Protestants confesse it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. XXII. WHETHER CHRIST SVF­fered the paines of Hell, of the damned, and the second death of the soule?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Acts 2. v. 24. Whome God hath raised vp, loosing the sorrows of Christ loosed the paines of Hell. Free among the dead. Hell, according as it was impossible that he should be houldē of it.

Psal. 87. v. 6. I am become as a man without helpe, free among the dead.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

D. Stapleton in Promptuar. Quadrages. feria 4. Heb­dom. Sanctae: It is a very diuelish speech and execrable blasphe­mie of Caluin, that Christ in soule suffered the horrible torments of damned and lost man.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 20. Christ suffered the paines of Hell for a time.

Perkins in Explicat. Symboli col. 679. Others so expound: Suffered the paines of Hell. He felt and bore the torments and anguishes of Hell. This is a good and true exposition. Col. 680. Those words: Crucified, dead, and buried, are not to be vnderstood of a common and ordinarie, death, but of an execrable and cursed death, by which Christ su­stained the full wrath of God, yea the anguishes of Hell both in [Page 135] bodie and mynd. De Serm. Dom. col. 575. Christ bore the sinnes The anguis­hes of Hell in mynd and bodie. Suffered the second death. of the elect, together with the punishment due to them, so much as appertaineth to the substance thereof, to wit, the first and se­cond death.

Parkes cont. Willet. p. 114. Luther, Illyricus, Latimer tought that Christ descended into Hell bodie and soule, and there su­stained torments after death.

Willet Cōtr. 20. q. 3. p. 1083. I will shew in what tolerable sense Died in soule. Christ is affirmed to die in the soule. Et pa. 1112. That Hell flames are not eternall in Christ, the worthines of his person obtained.

Luther in Psal. 22. to. 3. fol. 330. Christ suffered that which we should haue suffered for sinne, and which the dāned now suffer. In Gen. 42. to. 6. f 586. I thinke that Christ sustained the sorrows of Hell.—Let vs know, that Christ must haue borne the paine of Hell.

Hutterus in Analysi Confess. Augustan. art. 3. Christ suf­fered the true sorrows of hell.

Lobechius disp. 6. p. 136. Christ suffered the punishment of Suffered the paines of the damned. the desperate and damned, and euerlasting paines.

Caluin 1. Instit. c. 16. §. 10. He suffered that death which God in anger inflicteth vpon the wicked.—He suffered in soule the horrible torments of a desperate and lost man.

In Catechismo c. de fide he asketh: How can it come to passe, that Christ who is the saluation of the world, should be sub­iect to this damnation? and Answereth: He was not so vnder Was subiect to damnation it, as he remained vnder it. In Rom. 10. v. 6. He suffered the hor­rors of hell, for to deliuer vs from them.

Beza lib. Quaest. vol. 1. p. 672. He was in the middest of the torments of hell.

Daneus Cont. 2. p. 165. Bellarmin saieth, that the onely death which Christ suffered in bodie, satisfied God for our sinnes. This is false. For the reward of sinne is death, and that is twoe fould. The Suffered the separation of God from his soule. first is the separation of the soule from the bodie; the second is the separation of God from the soule. Both which Christ suffered, & therefore both death of soule and bodie, and that wholie for vs, and not onely the death of the bodie.

Vrsinus in Catechismo pag. 278. To beleiue in Christ who [Page 136] descended into hell, is to beleiue that Christ suffered in his soule the hellish torments and sorrows.

Polanus in Sylloge thes. par. 3. p. 450. Christ died the eternall death. And Pareus Colloq. Theol. 2. disput. 5. citeth Bren­tius saying. Christ burnt in the flames of hell. More like hel­lish Was burnt in the flames of hell. speeches of theirs are in my Latin booke ca. 1. art. 22. See Rogers vpon the 3. Article of English Confession.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture saieth, that Christ was free among the dead, that he loused the sorrows of hell and could not be held of it. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants say, that Christ suffered the paines, the sorrows, the anguishes of hell, the true sorrowes of hell, hellish torments, that which the damned now suffer, the torments of a desperate and lost man, that he burnt in the flames of hell, was in the middest of the torments of hell, sustained the anguishes of hell both in bodie and mynd: suffered the torments of hell both in bodie and soule: that he suffered the execrable death, the first and secōd death, that death which God in his wrath inflicteth vpon the wicked, the second death of the soule which is sepera­tion from God, that he died the eternall death: that he was vnder damnation.

ART. XXIII. WHETHER CHRIST ENTRED vnto his disciples the doores being shut?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ihon. 20. v. 19. When it was late that day the first of the Sab­boths, Christ entred the doores being shut. and the doores were shut, where the disciples were gathe­red together for feare of the Iews, Iesus came and stood in the mid­dest. Et v. 26. After eight daies, againe the disciples were with­in and Thomas with them, Iesus cometh the doores being shut, and stood in the middest, and saied &c.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Ioan. 20. v. 19. The Euangelist saieth that Christ entred the doores being shut, which words exclude all ope­ning of any entrance.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Willet Controu. 20. q. 2. p. 1079. We graunt that Christs coming in the doores being shut, was miraculous, because one substance gaue place to an other for a time: and after the passing of his bodie, the place remained whole and shut as before, but not in the very instant of passing.

Spalatensis lib. 5. Repub. cap. 6. num. 180. Christ could He opened the dores. truely open himselfe the doores, and streight waies shut them, and in the meane time hould the eyes of his disciples, that they should not see ether the doores open or himselfe enter vntill he was in the middest.

Peter Martyr in dialogo. col. 97. When our Lord would The doores gaue place. enter, the doores of themselues gaue place.

Caluin Admonit. vlt. ad Westphal. p. 805. But if Christ by his diuine power did miraculously open the shut doores, doth it therefore follow that his bodie was infinit?

Beza cont. Westphal. vol. 1. Theol. p. 231. Caluin thinketh He opened the doores. rather that the Euangelist spake of the doores shut, to giue to vn­derstand that of themselues they opened to Christs entrance. In Ioan. 20. v. 19. Ether the doores of themselues opened to Christ, or he passed through the walls.

Piscator in Respons. ad Buscherum. c. 13. As if it were not more probable, that Christ by his diuine power did open the shut doores? More of their like sayings may be seene in my La­tin booke chapt. 2. art. 23.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Christ entred to his di­sciples [Page 138] the doores being shut and when the doores were shut. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the doores were not shut in the instant of Christs entrance, that Christ truely opened the doores, that the doores of themselues opened and gaue place. Which doctrin diuers Protestants confesse to be contrarie to Scripture. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. XXIV. WHETHER CHRIST PENE­trated the Heauens?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Hebrews 4. v. 14. Hauing therefore a great high Preist that Christ pene­trated the Heauenes. hath penetrated the Heauens, Iesus the Sonne of God.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 3. de Euchar. c. 6. It cannot be temerariously saied of the bodie of Christ, that the Heauens were broaken when he ascended to his Father.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Vorstius in Antibellarm. p 402. The question is begged in Did not pe­netrate heauē. all the examples which are bought to proue penetration of quan­tites, whereas in truth no such thing is any where redde in Scrip­ture.

Spalatensis lib. 5. de Republic. cap. 6. num. 182. I admit no penetration.

Gualterus in Ioan. 20. calleth it a monstruous new do­ctrin, to say, that twoe bodies can be at once in the same place.

Tilenus in Syntagm. cap. 8. saieth that Christ ascended without penetration of quantities. And the Ministers in the Conference at Paris 1588. affirmed, that he could not as­cend, but renting and breaking the Heauens.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Christ penetrated the Heauens. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that in Scripture there is no example of penetration, that they admit no penetra­tion that it is a monstruous new doctrin, that Christ as­cended without penetration, and could not ascend but by renting the heauens.

ART. XXV. WHETHER CHRISTS DO IN heauen pray for vs?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ihon 14. ver. 16. And I will aske the Father, and he will giue Christ our aduocate with the Father. Maketh in­cession for vs. you an other Paraclete.

1. Ihon 2. v. 1. But and if any man shall sinne, we haue an ad­uocate with the Father, Iesus Christ the iust.

Rom. 8. vers. 34. Christ Iesus that died, yea that is risen also againe, who is on the right hand of God, who also maketh inter­tercession for vs.

Hebrews 7. v. 25. Whereby he is able to saue also for euer, going by himselfe to God, alwaies liuing to make intercession for vs.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Sanctis c. 20. Christ praieth for all. Et. l. 2. de Missa c. 8. Christ is our onely immediate intercessor with his Father.

Tolet in Ihon. 16. Annot. 35. The holie Fathers teach, that Christ in heauen, as man, praieth his Father for vs; albeit some denie it, but improbably.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Peter Martyr in 1. Corint. 13. But they must know, that [Page 140] Christs intercessiō with the Father for vs, is nothing else, but that Christs inter­cession no­thing but &c he is alwaies present with the Father; and that by his prosence, because he was deliuered to death for vs, Gods mercie towards the elect is most speedily obtained.

Caluin in Ioan. 16. v. 26. But when it is saied, that Christ praieth for vs to his Father, we must not imagin any carnall thing of him, as if falling at his Fathers fect he humblie made Maketh not būble praier. praier: but the vertue of his Sacrifice wherewith he once paci­fied God to vs, being euer of force, this effectuall blood with which he clensed our sinnes, and the obedience which he perfor­med, are a continuall intercession for vs. And in Rom. 8. v. 34. he saieth, that because his death and resurrection are in steed of an eternall intercession, and haue the efficacie of a liuely praier, he is saied to intercede for vs. The like hath Perkins de Serie Causarum to. 1. col. 21.

Bezain Confess. c. 4. sect. 16. Nether therefore may we ima­gin, Praieth not as a Suppliāt. that Christ as a Suppliant praieth for vs, but he reconcileth vs to the Father by the perpetuall odour of his onely sacrifice, and maketh our praiers effectuall before God.

Bucanus in Instit. Theol. loco. 35. Christ, not by a gesture or praier, as casting himselfe at his Fathers feet, doth humbly pray for vs, but both by the merite and vertue of his death, and also by offering our praiers to the Father. The like say others as may be seene in my Latin booke c. 2. art. 25.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Christ in heauen is our aduocate, asketh for vs, maketh intercession for vs. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that Christs intercession is nothing else but his presence with his Father, that he doth not humbly make praier for vs, that his death and resurrection are in steed of praier: that he praieth not for vs as a Suppliant, that he doth not humbly pray for vs.

A SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF CHRIST.

In the former Chapter we shewed that Protestants crie that we make a new God, and that this fault rather falleth vpon them: now we will shew that they obiect the like vnto vs concerning Christ, and that themselfes are faultie therein. M. Perkins in Cathol. reform. Controu. 9. cap. 11. thus writeth of Catholiks: They worshippe an other Christ then we doe. And in Conflictu Christi cum Diabolo tom. 2. col. 130. The Papists Christ, is a feigned Christ. In Apocal. 2. col. 189. The Papists Christ is a false Christ, yea Protestants new Christ. an idol of Christ. But out of that which hath beene re­lated in this chapter, it will appeare, that the Catholiks Christ is the true Christ described vnto vs by the Scrip­ture, and that the Protestants Christ, is a quite different and opposite Christ. For the Christ which Scripture and Catholiks propose, is (as he is man) to be worshipped, to be called vpon, head of the Church, lawmaker, iudge, can forgiue sinnes, worke miracles. None of which things agree to the Protestants Christ.

According to Protestants, Christ as man was igno­rant, most truely a sinner, was afraied of his saluation: but not according to Catholiks: According to Scripture and Catholiks Christ merited some thing for himselfe, truely merited our redemption, and that by his bodilie death or blood, nether was his blood corrupted: but according to Protestants, he merited nothing for him­selfe, merited not our redemption with a iust price, but by acceptation of his Father, nor by his corporall death, but by some greater matter, and his blood was corrupted, nor is now any more in being. According to the Scripture and Catholiks, Christ died for the wic­ked, for the damned, for all, descended into hell, was free from infernall paines, entred to his disciples the doores being shut, penetrated heauen, and there praieth [Page 142] for vs. None of which things agree to the Protestants Christ, and consequently he is a farre different yea oppo­site vnto the true Christ described to vs by the holie Scripture.

Manifest also it is, that Protestants like true theues Protestants take from Christ. steale from Christ his due honour, because the denie that as he is man, he is to be worshipped, to be praied vnto, that he is head of the Church, lawmaker, or Honor. iudge. They robbe him of his power, in denying that as Power. he is man, he can giue life, forgiue sinnes, raise the dead, enter the doores being shut, penetrate the heauens, or worke any true miracle. They bereaue him of his know­ledge, Knowledge. for they denie, that as he is man he knoweth all things, knoweth the secrets of hearts, can heare our ptaiers, knew the kinde of tree, but had need to be tought as men are. They steale away his iustice or Ver­tue: Vertue. for they teach that he was truely and most truely a sinner, that as much as lay in him he refused to doe the office of a Mediatour, that he had vnconsiderate de­sires and contrarie to his vocation, that he behaued himselfe vnciuilly towards his mother, confessed his delicatenesse, let slippe a speech of desperation, nay was ouerwhelmed with desperation and exceedingly des­pairing. They take from him certaintie of saluation, be­cause Certaintie of saluation. they say, that he was afraied of his saluation, and was almost perswaded that he was vndone. They take Worthe. away worthines, in saying that nothing had beene done by his corporall death, but that there needed a greater price, that he could not merite to be iudge of the world, that with all his workes he merited not heauen, that he could not merite our redemption by a worthie price but by acceptation of his Father. Fi­nally they spoile him of his goodnes and merite, because they say that he died not for the wicked, for the re­probate, Mercie, for all, but onely for some few elect, and that now he praieth not for vs in heauen. And if you take [Page 143] away from Christ as man his honour, his power, his knowledge, his iustice, his worthines, his certaintie of saluation, his goodnes, what remaineth of Christ as man, but the bare name of a Sauiour. Whereupon rightly saied Saint Austin: If we diligently consider those things which belonge to Christ, he is onely in name found amongst any Heretiks whatsoeuer. But hitherto hauing treated of God and Christ, now let vs treate of Angels and Saints who happily raigne with him in heauen.

CHAPTER III. OF ANGELS AND SAINTS IN HEAVEN.

ART. I. WHETHER ANGELS AND Saints in heauen do the will of God?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

PSALME 102. ver. 20. Blesse our Lord all ye Angels doe Gods word. his Angels, mightie in power, doing his word. And v. 21. Blesse our Lord all ye his hoastes, you his ministers that do his will. Doe his will.

Mathew 6. ver. 10. Thy will be done, as in heauen, in earth also.

Apocal. 21. v. 27. There shall not enter into it (Heauen) any polluted thing, nor that doeth abhomination and maketh lie.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarmin. lib. 1. de bonis operibus in particul. cap. 6. In heauen the holie Angels obey God readily perfectly and in all things.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Caluin in Coloss. 1. v. 20. In this selfe same obedience, which Angels obe­obedience sa­tisfieth not. (the Angels) giue to God, there is not such exquisite perfection, as it satisfieth God in euerie point and without pardon. And 3. Instit. c. 14. §. 16. Nether the Angels themselues are answerable to that exceeding iustice of God. And c. 17. §. 9. In the sight of God nether the Angels are iust enough.

The same Caluin Concion. 16. in Iob. There is in the An­gels There is fault in the An­gels. follie and vanitie, that is fault.—God found in his Angels that which he may iustly reprehend.—Nether are the Angels of that perfection, in which if it be rigorously examined, nothing may be found worthie of blame.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that the Angels doe Gods word, doe his will, that Gods will is done in heauē, that into heauen entreth nothing that doth abhominatiō or is polluted. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants Expressely teach, that the obedience of An­gels satisfieth not God in euerie point and without pardō: that the Angels answere not to Gods iustice: that they are not iust enough in Gods sight: that in them is follie, vanitie, and fault, that which God may iustly reprehend, that which is worthie of blame.

ART. II. WHETHER THE SAINTS DO alreadie enioye their heauenly felicitie.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Apocal. 7. v. 14. These are they which are came out of great Saints are before the throne of God tribulation, and haue washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the lambe: therefore they are before the throne of God, and they serue him day and night in his temple.

Luke 23. v. 43. And Iesus saied to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Session, 25. saieth. That Saints enioye euerlasting felicitie in heauen, and do reigne with Christ.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther Postilla in Dom. 2. post Trinit. fol. 286. All the The Saints sleepe. Fathers before Christs incarnation went into Abrahams bosome, that is, in death abode with firme faith in this word and slept in it, and therein sleepe euen now vntill the last daye, excepting thē who rose with Christ. And to. 6. in c. 25. Gen. saieth that Saints sleepe and know not what is done. Which otherwhere he often times repeateth.

Caluin in 2. Petri 2. v. 4. Hence we may gather, not onely what paine the reprobate sustaine after death, but also what is the Enioy not yet felicitie. state of the children of God. For they quietly rest in hope of assu­red felicitie, howbeit as yet they enioy it not. In Math. 22. v. 23. For nether God doth affirme, that the soules remaine after death, as if now they enioyned their present glorie and happines, but he differreth their hoppe vntill the last daye. Which he eftsones, re­peateth in Psychopannychia p. 405. and otherwere. Where­vpon Spalatensis l. 5. de Rep. c. 8. n. 113. 115. and 119. confes­seth that Caluin teacheth, that the blessed soules departed Nor their es­sentiall re­ward. out of this world, dot not enioye their essentiall reward, felicitie, and glorie, vntill the last daye. And himselfe n. 103. affirmeth, that that opinion which attributeth perfect felicitie vnto bles­sed soules before the resurrection, hath difficulties which cannot be answered: and n. 120. cōmendeth Caluins opinion in this matter, as pious and learned. And the reason, why he incli­ne [...]h vnto him, he giueth n. 102. in these words: For if bles­sed If Saints wereinglorie, they could heauen vs. Soules be already fully happie, they may easily harken to vs, and request helpe of God. So, that for to bereaue vs of the praiers of Saints, they bereaue them of their heauenlie fe­licitie.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely affirmeth, that the Saints are now before the throne of God, and in his temple, and that the good theefe was in paradise with Christ. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely denie, that Saints enioy their as­sured felicitie, their present glorie and happines, and say that their hope is differred vnto the last daye: that all the Saints sleepe vnto the last day, and know not what is done: that they as yet enioye not their essentiall glorie and feli­citie.

ART. III. WHETHER THE GLORIE OF all the Saints be equall?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

1. Corina. 15. ver. 41. One indeed glorie of the sunne, an other Saints differ in glorie. glorie of the moone, and other glorie of the starres. For starre dif­fereth from starre in glorie: so also the resurrection of the dead.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

C. Bellarm. l. 3. de Iustif. c. 16. The testimonies of the Scrip­ture do teach, that the rewards in heauen are not equall.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 15. v. 32. But if God, in giuing euer­lasting No degrees of reward. life, do not respect the worth of our workes, whence shall we gather these degrees of rewards. Againe: our aduersaries haue deuised this distinction of substantiall and accidentall re­ward: They shall haue the brightnes of the sunne, that is, equally Equall glorie. the greatest glorie.

Pareus l. 5. de Iustif. c. 20. The Papists do feigne diuers de­grees of eternall life. But whence haue they the degrees which they make?

Perkins in Galat. 1. tom. 2. All the elect enjoy equall essen­tiall Equall essen­tiall glorie. glorie.

Caluin in Matth. 20. Some (Protestant) interpreters do gather this summe: Because the heauenlie inheritance is not gotten by merite of workes but is giuen freely, that the glorie of all shalbe equall.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that the dead shall rise as differēt in glorie, as one starre differeth from an other. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that there is no distinction of substantiall or accidentall glorie, that the substantiall glorie of all the elect shalbe equall: that there are no de­grees of euerlasting life, no degrees of reward in heauen, that all shall equally enioy the greatest glorie. Which some Protestants confesse to be repugnant to Scripture. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. XX. WHETHER ANGELS AND Saints in heauen pray for vs?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Zacharie 1. v. 12. And the Angel of our Lord answered and Angels pray for vs. saied: O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not haue mercie on Hierusalem and on the citties of Iuda with which thou hast beene angrie.

2. Machabees 15. v. 12. And the vision was in this manner: And Saints. Onias who had beene the high preist, a good and benigne man stretching forth his hands praied for all the people of the Iewes. v. 14. This is a louer of his brethren and of the people of Israel: this is he that praieth much for the people and for the whole cittie, Hie­remie the Prophet of God.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent sess. 25. cap. de Inuocat. saieth, that their opinion is impious who say that the Saints pray not for vs.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Confession of France art. 24. We beleiue that whatsoeuer Saints pray not for vs. men haue feigned of the praier of Saints, is nothing else but the frauds and deceit of Sathan. The like hath Confes. Heluet. c. 5. and Apol. Confes. August. c. de inuocat.

Willet Controu. 9. quaest. 3. pag. 440. Saints do not pray for vs.

Whitaker ad Rat. 4. Compiani: Whether the Martyrs and Saints in heauen do pray to Christ for vs, we know not.

Zuinglius in Explanat. art. 20. There cannot be alledged out of the Bible any doctrin or exāple, that proueth Saints in heauen to pray for vs.—If as you feigne, they pray for vs, they will moue God nothing. For it is not done from the heart.

Bullinger Decade 4. Serm. 5. The Scripture teacheth not, Angels pray not for vs. that Angels pray. De Origin. cultus Diuorum. cap. 15. It be­cometh not the Saints, taking to themselues the office of Christ, to pray for vs.

Caluin 3. Instit. c. 20. §. 21. What Angel or Diuel euer tould any man any sillable of this praier of Saints which they feigne. In 1. Tim. 2. v. 5. It is a mere fiction bred in the braines, that the dead pray for vs.

Daneus Controu. 7. p. 1311. They request nothing of God, Nether in ge­nerall nor in particuler. ether in generall or in particular, for the necessities of those that liue on earth.

Polanus in Disp. priuat. disp. 25. The Saints departed pray not God for the liuing, ether in generall or in particular.

Vorstius in Antibellarm. pa. 281. We denie, that the holie Angels, and especially the soules of the Iust departed hence, do pray in particular for our necessities.

Pareus in Colloq. Swal. 3. They should sinne, if they They should sinne if they praied for vs. praied for vs. Because they should both accuse God of vnmerci­fulnes, as if he heard not sufficiently Christs praiers; and also should reproue Christ of weaknes and fluggishnes.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that an Angel, and Onias, and Hieremie after their death did pray for the people. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that nether Angels nor Saints pray for vs, that it becometh not them to pray for vs, that they should sinne if they praied for vs, that they do it not frō their heart: that they pray nether in generall nor in particular for vs: that the praier of Saints is a fiction fraude and deceit of the diuell. Which is so opposite to Scripture as some Protestants acknowledge it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. V. WHETHER SAINTS IN heauen care for our matters?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

2. Machabees 15. ver. 12. and 15. And the vision was in this Saints haue care for vs. manner—And that Hieremie put forth his right hand and gaue vnto Iudas a sword of gould, saying: Take the holie sword a gift from God wherewith thou shalt ouerthrow the aduersaries of my people Israel.

1. Cor. 13. v. 8. Charitie neuer falleth away.

2. Peter 1. vers. 15. And I will do my diligence, you to haue often after my decease also, that you may keepe a memorie of these things.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarm. l. 1. de Sanctis c. 18. The Angels pray for vs [Page 151] and haue care of vs in particuler, therefore much more the spirits of holie men.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Tindal in Fox Acts p. 1137. What buildest thou Churches, Saints be not our freinds. foūdest Abbies, Chauntries and Colleges in the honour of Saints, to my Mother, S. Peter, Paul and Saints that be dead, to make of them thy freinds? They need it not, yea they be not thy freinds.

Luther Postilla in Dom. 9. post Trinit. Nether are they thy freinds, but theirs, of whome in their life time they receiued benefit.

Caluin 3. Instit. c. 20 §. 23. For what Saint is to be thought Take no care of vs. to take care of the safetie of the people, Moises giuing it ouer, who whiles he liued farre surpassed all others in this point? In Luc. 16. vers. 19. Here the Papists are fondly subtill, whiles they will proue, that the dead haue care of the liuing, which is a stincking cauill. In Zachar. ver. 12. We know, that the offices of charitie Charitie onely for this life. are restrained to the course of this life. Which also hath Zuin­glius respons. ad Luther. to. 2. fol. 379.

Beza in Lucae 15. v. 10. Who can therefore rightly perswade himselfe or others, that the Soules of Saints in heauen haue care of those things, which are done on earth, or that they know thē, and much lesse, that they ought to be praied vnto?

Pareus in Colloq. Swal. 3. The Scripture denieth, that the Care not for our necessities Saints in heauen know and care for our necessities.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that charitie neuer falleth away, that Hieremie had care of the people after his death. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the offices of charitie are restrained to this present l [...]fe, that Saints in heauen are not our freinds, that they haue no care of vs, or of our neces­sities.

ART. VI. WHETHER ANGELS AND Saints heare our praiers and know our affaires?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Tobie 12. vers. 12. the Angel saieth: When thou didst pray Angels heare our praiers. with teares, and didst burte the dead and left thy dinner, and didst hide the dead by day in thy house, and by night didst burie them, I offered thy praier to our Lord.

Luke 15. vers. 10. So I say to you, there shalbe ioy before the Know our repentance. Angels of God vpon one sinner that doth pennance. And cap. 16. vers. 19. Abraham being dead saieth: They haue Moyses and the Prophets.

Apocal. 4. vers. 1. After these things I looked, and behould a doore open in heanen, and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet speaking to me, saying: Come vp hither, and I Know things to come. will shew thee the things which must be done quickly after these. And c. 19. v. 1. and 2. After these things I heard as it is were the voice of many multitudes in heauen saying Alleluia, praise, and And punish­ments of the wicked. glorie, and power is to our God: Because true and iust are his iud­gements which hath iudged of the great harlot, that hath corrup­ted the eorth in her whordome, and hath reuenged the blood of his seruants of her hands.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Sanctis c. 20. It is not true, that Saints do not know what we aske of them.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker ad Ration. 4. Campiani. It is certaine, that the Saints know not what we doe. Heare not our praiers. Saints do not know what we doe.

Apologia Confess. Augustan. c. de Inuocat. It cannot be saied, that Saints do heare our praier.

Caluin 3. Instit. cap. 20. §. 24. Who tould, that they haue so [Page 153] long eares, that they can stretch them vnto our praiers; so quicke eyes, that they can perceaue our necessities? And in 1. Cor. 13. v. 8. The Saints do not know our estate.

Beza in 1. Ioan. 2. vers. 1. The blessed spirits haue no know­ledge of things done here below. And l. quaestion. & respons. vol. 1. It is easie to refute as a foolish and grosse fiction, that they say, that God reuealeth our praiers to the blessed spirits.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the Angel heard the praier and knew the good deeds of Tobias: that the Angels know and reioyce of the pennance of a sin­ner, that Abraham knew of Moises and the Prophets, that Saints knew the wickednes of the great harlot and Gods punishment vpon her. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that Saints know not what we doe, that they heare not our praiers, perceaue not our necessities, know not our estate, that to say that God reuealeth to them our praiers is a foolish and grosse fiction.

ART. XVII. WHETHER ANGELS OR Saints in heauen do offer our praiers to God?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Tobie 12. vers. 12. cit. the Angel saieth: When thou didest Angels off [...]r our praiers to God. pray with tears, I offered thy praier to our Lord. Apocal. 5. v. 8. And when he had opened the booke, the foure beasts and the soure and twentie Seniours fell before the lambe, hauing euerie one harpes and goulden vials full of odours which are the praiers of saints. And c. 8. v. 3. And an other Angel came and stood before the altar, hauing a goulden censar, and there were giuen to him manie incenses, that he should giue of the praiers of all Saints vpon the altar of gould which is before the throne of God.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Cardin. Bellarmin. lib. 1. de Sanctis cap. 16. Caluin inti­mateth, that not onely the Saints but nether the Angels can offer our prayers to God, which is against most plaine Scrip­ture.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Willet Controuers. 9. quaestion. 3. pag. 440. That Saints They offer not vp our praiers. should offer vp our speciall praiers, and make particuler request for vs to God, is no where found in the Scripture, but rather the contrarie.

Reineccius tom. 4. Armaturae c. 7. The words of the An­gel: Tobiae loc. cit. are spoken after our fashion. For there is no need, that Angels should offer our praiers to the Lord, because God is not farre of.

Caluin 3. Institut. cap. 20. §. 20. Christ hauing entred into the Sanctuarie of heauen till the end of the world, alone doth offer to God requests of the people, which sitteth a farre of in the entrie.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that the Angel offered Tobies praier to God: that the foure and twentie seniors did offer the praiers of holie men before the lambe: that an Angel did offer the praiers of all Saints before the throne of God. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that Angels do not offer our praiers to the Lord: that Saints do not offer our spe­ciall praiers to God: that Christ onely offereth to God the praiers of the people.

ART. VIII. WHETHER ANGELS OR Saints be to be praied vnto?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Genes. 48. vers. 16. Iacob thus praierh: The Angel that Angels praied vnto. deliuereth me from all euils, blesse these children, and be my name called vpon them, the names also of my fathers Abraham and Isaac.

Osee 12. v. 4. And he (Iacob) preuailed against the Angel Iacob praied an Angel. and was strenghned, and he wept and besought him.

Tobie 5. vers. 21. And Tobias answering, saied: well may you walke, and God be in your iourney, and his Angel accompanie you.

Luke 16. ve. 24. Christ ether in a historie or in a parable maketh the rich man thus praying: Father Abraham haue mercie on me. And v. 27. Then Father I beseech the, that thou wouldest send &c. And nether he, nor Abraham condem­neth this praier as impious or idolatrous, but onely reie­cteth it as two late.

Apocalyps. 1. v. 4. 5. S. Ihon thus praieth: Grace to you and peace from him that is, and that was, and shall come, and from the seuen spirits which are in the sight of his throne, and from Iesus Christ who is the faithfull witnesse.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent. Sess. 25. c. de Inuocat. It is good and profitable humbly to call vpon the Saints that reigne together with Christ.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

The English Articles art. 22. The doctrin of the Roma­nists Saints not to be praied vnto. touching inuocation of Saints, is a fonde thing vainly de­uised. In like sorte writeth Confes. Heluet, cap. 5. Wirten­bergica [Page 156] c. de Inuocat. Augustana c. 21. Saxonica c. 22. and Articuli Smalcaldici c. de Inuocat.

Perkins in Serie causarum cap. 21. The inuocation of the Nor Angels. Saints and Angels is much more impious. So in reform. Cath. pag. 251.

Rainolds in his Conference c. 1. sect. 2. calleth it, a most pestilent basiliske.

Melancthon in Disput. to. 4. pa. 531. The inuocation of the dead, is manifest idolatrie.

Beza in 1. Ioan. 2. ver. 1. The Soules in heauen of Saints de­parted this life, cannot be inuocated without impietie. And lib. quaest. & resp. vol. 1. affirmeth, that the inuocation of An­gels and dead Saints, is impious idolatrie. The Like say Pro­testants commonly.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Iacob made praier to any Angel, besought an Angel with teares, that Tobie praied an Angel, that the rich man inuocated Abraham, that S. Ihon praied vnto the seuen spirits which are before the throne of God. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that the inuocation of An­gels or Saints is a found thing vainly deuised, impious, idolatrous, and most pestilent.

ART. IX. WHETHER GOD BE TO BE praied vnto by the names of Saints?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Exod. 32. ver. 11. and 13. But Moises besought the Lord his God praied by names of Saints. God, saying—Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel thy ser­uants, to whome thou swarest by thine owne selfe, saying: I will multiplie your seed as the starres of heauen.

Psal. 131. v. 10. For Dauid thy seruants sake, turne not away the face of thy Christ.

2. Paralipomen. 6. v. vlt. Remember the mercies of Dauid thy seruant.

Daniel. 6. ver. 35. Nether take thou away thy mercie from vs for Abraham thy beloued, and Isaac thy seruant, and Israel thy holie one.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Sanctis cap. 19. In the ould testament men prayed God and alledged the merits of Saincts which were de­parted, that their praiers might be holpen by them.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Confession of Saxonie c. 22. saieth, that in the Prophets, Not to be so praied. there is not found any such inuocation: Heare me O God for Abraham.

Confession of Bohemia art. 2. They teach, that God is to be praied and inuocated by the name of Christ onely.

Caluin 3. Instit. c. 20. §. 21. In Papistrie, God is besought by the names of Saints. Ibid. Their merits are obtruded for to pur­chase Gods good will. The like teach commonly all Pro­testants. So Perkins reform. Catholik Contr. 14. p. 257.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Moises praied God by the names of Abraham, Isaac and Iacob: that Azarias in Daniel did the same: that Salomon praied God for Da­uids sake and for his mercies. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that there is no such kinde of praier in the Prophets: Heare me ô God for Abrahams sake: that God is to be praied vnto onely by Christs name: that to pray God by the names or merits of Saints is vn­lawfull.

ART. X. WHETHER GOD TAKE MER­cie on men for the merits of Saints?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMITH.

3. Reg. v. 4. But for Dauids sake our Lord his God gaue him a God hath mercie for the Saints sake. lampe in Hierusalem, that he might raise vp his sonne after him and establish Hierusalem, because Dauid had done right in the eies of our Lord.

4. Reg. 19. ver. 34. And I will protect this cittie, and I will saue it for my selfe and for Dauid my seruant.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Prompt. Cathol. in Festo Om. Sanctorū: The Scripture by manie exāples doth shew the merits of Saints, by which the godlie are holpen.

C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Missa c. 8. We aske mercie of God by the merits and praiers of Saints, through the mediation of Christ.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Apologia Confess. Augustan. c. de Inuoc. We thinke, that we ought not to trust that the merits of Saints are applied vnto vs, that for them God is reconciled to vs.

Whitaker l. 9. cont. Dur. sect. 38. We know, that you are God hath not mercie for the Saints sake. blasphemous and iniurious to Christ, who pray to Saints that their merits may helpe you.

Caluin 3. Instit. c. 20. §. 21. In Papistrie; Now and then the merits of Saints are obtruded for to get Gods good will.

De vera reform. p. 339. It is not to be borne, that which they say, that through Gods liberalitie and Christs grace, merits of Saints do profit vs for protection and obtayning of fauour.

Perkins ref. Cathol. Cōtr. 14. p. 266. We vtterlie denie that we are helped by merits of Saints ether liuing or departed.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that God did good to [Page 159] Abias Dauids great graundchild for Dauids sake, and be­cause Dauid had done right in Gods sight, that is, for the good deeds or merits of Dauid: that he protected Hie­rusalem for himselfe and for Dauid. The same say Catho­liks.

Protestants expressely teach, that God is not reconciled vnto vs for the merits of Saints: that it is blasphemous to say, that the merits of Saints do helpe vs: that they profit vs not ether for protection, or obtayning of fauour.

ART. XI. WHETHER ANGELS OR SAINTS are to be worshipped with the bowing of our bodie?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Gen. 19. v. 1. And the twoe Angels came to Sodom at euen, and Lot sitting in the gates of the cittie: who when he had seene Angels Worshipped. them, rose vp and went to meete them, and adored prostrate on the ground, and saied: I beseech you my Lords turne into the house of your seruant.

Numbers 22. v. 31. Forewith our Lord opened the eyes of Ba­laam, and he saw the Angel standing in the way with a drawne sword, and he adored him flat to the ground.

Iosue 5. v. 13. When Iosue had seene an Angel and asked him who he was, and the Angel had answered: I am a Prince of the hoaste of our Lord: Iosue fell flat to the ground and adoring, saied &c.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent. Sess. 25. By the Images which we kisse, and to which we put of our hatts, we worshippe the Saints whose images they are.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Confessio Mulhusnia art. 10. We dislike the veneration Not to be worshipped. [Page 160] of Saints. And Heluet. c. 5. We nether adore, nor worshippe, nor inuocate the Saints in heauen.

Perkins reform. Cathol. Controu. 14. c. 2. p. 249. Because No not with ciuill wors­hippe. Angels appeare not now as in former times, not so much as ciuill adoratiō in anie bodilie gesture is to be done vnto them. We denie that anie ciuill worshippe in bending of the knee or prostrating of the bodie is to be giuen to the Saints.

Humfrey ad Ration. 3. Campiani pag. 263. Vigilantius tought that Saints are not to be reuerenced, nor that we ought Not to be re­uerenced. superstitiously to runne to their monuments. We say the same.

Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 6. c. 3. Papists worshippe Angels and the Saints.

Luther postilla in Domin. 23. post Trinit. For what other was the worshippe and reuerence of Saints, but a diuelish thing?

Caluin 1. Instit. c. 12. §. 3. He could not fall downe to the An­gel, without diminishing of Gods glorie.

Bullinger Decad. 4. form. 9. We must be ware, that we ne­ther adore, inuocate, or worshippe Angels. The same say Pro­testants commonly.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Lot seing Angels ado­red prostrate on the ground: that Iosue hearing of an An­gel that he was a Prince of Gods hoaste fell flat on the groūd and adored: that Balaam adored flat to the ground an Angel, and yet was not reprehended therefore ether of the Angel or of the Scripture. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely teach, that it is not lawfull to re­uerence, venerate, adore, worshippe or bow to the Angels or Saints, but it is a diuelish thing. And yet Luther him­selfe thus writeth epist. ad Erphurdienses tom. 7. fol. 500. I do not thinke, that they are to be reiected or condemned, who whorshippe Saints without presuming trust. For whatsoeuer they doe to Saints, they do to Christ. Nether can it be but Christ is partaker of the honour which is giuen to Saints.

ART. XII. WHETHER SAINTS BE TO be imitated of vs?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Cor. 11. v. 1. Be ye followers of me, as I also of Christ.

Philippen. 3. ver. 17. Be followers of me brethren and obserue Saints to be imitated and followed. them that walke so as you haue our forme.

2. Thessalon. 3. v. 7. For your selues know, how you ought to imitate vs.

Hebr. 13. v. 7. Remember your Prelats, who haue spoaken the word of God to you: the end of whose conuersation beholding, imitate their faith.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Lucae. 9. v. 54. The faithfull Christians pi­ously and carefully imitate the examples of the holie Fathers.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther Postilla in Festo S. Ioann. fol. 378. These trifles Saints not to be imitated or followed. ought not be sung vnto the people out of the pulpits in prea­ching, that they should imitate the Saints and follow their foote­steppes. And in ferijs eiusdem fol. 91. An ould error hath gotten possession and force, that we all looke vpon the deeds and liues of Saints, and endeauour to follow them, thinking (like fooles) that this is a great pietie—The way of the Lord admit­teth not examples of Saints, but in all things expecteth the com­mandments of the Lord onely. In die Epiphaniae fol. 130. God Nor their ex­amples. requireth, that we follow his onely Scripture, and not the exam­ples of Saints.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that we must follow [Page 162] Saints and imitate them. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely teach, that Saints are not to be imitated or followed, their examples not to be admitted, that it is an errour to looke vpon the liues of Saints and follow them.

ART. XIII. WHETHER HOLIE MEN receaue vs into euerlasting tabernacles?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Luc. 16. v. 9. And I say vnto you. Make vnto you friends of Holie men receaue vs into Heauen. the mammon of iniquitie, that when you faile, they may receaue you into the eternall tabernacles.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Lucae 16. ver. 9. Christ teacheth, that they to whome we haue done good do receaue vs into eternall taberna­cles, that is, Christ for thē not onely by reason of the good worke, but also for their praiers, giueth vs life euerlasting.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther postilla in Dom. 9. post Trinit. fol. 107. We must They receaue vs not into Heauen. not vnderstand, that men shall receaue vs into eternall taber­nacles.

Illyricus in Claue part. 2. tractar. 6. Pore men are saied to receaue their benefactours into eternall tabernacles, whereas this is the deed of the Father alone for the merit of his Sonne.

Caluin in Lucae 16. vers. 9. citat. He meaneth not, that we must get patrons and intreatours, who by their protection may sheild and defend vs.—But they do fondely and absurdly, who hereupon gather that we are holpen by the praiers or suffrages of the dead.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that holie men to whome we haue done good, do receaue vs into eternall taber­nacles. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that no men receaue vs into eternall tabernacles, that that is the deed of the Fa­ther alone, that we are not to get patrons or intreatours for vs.

ART. XIV. WHETHER ANIE SAINT may be called our hope?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Thessalon. 2. v. 18. For what is our hope, or ioy, or crowne Saints called our hope. of glorie? Are not you before our Lord Iesus in his coming? For you are our glorie and ioy.

Ihon 5. v. 45. Thinke not, that I will accuse you to the Father, there is that accuseth you, Moises, in whome you trust.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de bonis oper. in part. c. 15. The B. Virgin is called our hope, because, after God, we trust especially in her in­tercession.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Caluin in Cōfes. p. 109. Many kinds of praiers were brought Not to be so called. in, which had horrible blasphemies, as when the Virgin is termed of infidels the gate of saluation, our hope.

Beza in Ioan. 2. v. 5. Idolatrie hath so farre preuailed, that they are not ashamed to call Marie, the Queene of heauen, their hope, and saluation.

P. Martyr in 1. Cor. c. 3. They call the B. Virgin their hope, [Page 164] as if they would put their hope in a creature.

Pareus in Colloq. 3. Swal. You salute Marie by the Title of your hope: Which salutation tendeth to the dishonour of God.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the Thessalonians were the hope, ioy and crowne of glorie of the A­postle before our Lord: that the Iews did trust in Moi­ses, and yet were not reprehended therefore. Catholiks say the like.

Protestants expressely say, that it tendeth to the disho­nour of God, is idolatrie and horrible blasphemie to call our bessed Ladie our hope.

ART. XV. WHETHER SAINTS HAD power to worke miracles?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Matth. 10. ver. 1. And hauing called his twelue disciples toge­ther, Some Saints had power to doe miracles. he gaue them power ouer vncleane spirits that they should cast them out, and should cure all manner of disease and all man­ner of infirmitie.

Marke. 3. ver. 15. And he gaue them power to cure infirmities, and to cast out diuels.

1. Corin. 12. v. 9. To one certes by the spirit is giuen the word of wisdome—to an other the grace of doing cures in one spirit, to an other, the working of miracles.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 4. de Eccles. c. 14. How could God more plainly expresse his mynd, then by giuing to one the singular guift of mi­racles?

[...]

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins in Gal. 3. v. 3. God neuer gaue any man the power of Neuer man had power to worke mira­cles. working miracles, ether mediatly or immediatly.

Vrsinus in Catechismo q. 99. The power of working miracles is not transfused into Saints, therefore metaphorically they are saied to worke them.

Beza in 1. Cor. 12. v. 6. But in doing of miracles, if we consider the worke it selfe, Gods power doth worke without any communi­cation at all, which he imparteth not euen to the Angels them­selues. What then will some say? Were the saints of God like stocks & blocks in the working of miracles? No. For ether by their praiers they obtained the miracles of God, or vnderstāding Gods will by inward grace or peculiar reuelation, they declared it: but so, that no power of theirs did in any sorte concurre as efficient cause to the working of the miracles.

Piscator in Thes. l. 2. p. 373. Doth God imparte to any crea­ture the power of working miracles? We denie it: because the power of working miracles is omnipotencie it selfe.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Christ gaue the A­postles power to cure all manner of diseases & infirmities: that to some is giuen the grace of working miracles. Ca­tholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely say, that God neuer gaue to any creature the power of working miracles ether mediatly or immediatly: that he imparteth not to Saints the power of working miracles: that no power in them concurreth as efficient cause to the working of miracles but onely the power that is in God: that all power of working mi­racles is omnipotencie it selfe, and neuer imparted to any creature.

ART. XVI. WHETHER SAINTS DO reigne with Christ?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Apocal. 5. v. 10. Thou hast made vs to our God a kingdome and preists, and we shall reigne vpon the earth.

Apocal. 20. ver. 6. They shalbe preists of God and of Christ, Saints reigne with Christ. and shall reigne with him a thousand years. c. 22. v. 5. Our Lord God doth illuminate them, and they, shall reigne for euer and euer.

Apocal. 2. v. 26. And he that shall ouercome and keepe my Haue power ouer nations. workes vnto the end, I will giue him power ouer the nations, and he shall rule them with a rodde of yron. Cap. 3. vers. 21. He that shall ouercome, I will giue vnto him to sitte with me in my throne, as I also haue ouercome, and haue sitten with my Father in his throne.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sanctis cap. 18. We learne, that the soules of holie men after their death before the resurrection do receaue power ouer nations, and do rule them, and sitte in the throne of Christ, that is, do with him gouerne the whole worlde.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Reineccius tom. 4. Armaturae c. 7. The Saints do not reigne Saints reigne not with Christ. Doe not rule nations. with Christ. The like hath Vorstius in Antibel. p. 298.

Pareus in Collegio Theol. 9. disput. 18. saieth, that it is an errour to say: That as Angels, so the soules of blessed men are appointed of God to rule and gouerne vs. Of the same opinion are all other Protestants, who say, that the Saints in heauē nether know nor care what is done on earth.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Saints reigne with Christ, gouerne nations, sit in Christs throne. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely say, that Saints reigne not with Christ, are not appointed of God to rule and gouerne vs, know not, nor care not what is done on earth.

ART. XVII. WHETHER ANIE SAINT were full of grace?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Luc. 1. v. 28. the Angel saieth to our B. Ladie. Haile full of grace.

Act. 36. ver. 28. Consider therefore brethren seuen men of you Some Saints full of grace. of good testimonie, full of the holie Ghost and wisdome, whome we may appoint ouer this businesse. And v. 8. And Stephen full of grace and fortitude did great wonders.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

S. Thomas 3. part. q. 27. art. 5. The B. Virgin Marie obtai­ned such fulnesse of grace, that she was nighest to the authour of grace.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Illyricus in Lucae 1. v. 28. cit. It is ill translated: Ful of grace: None full of grace. For Christ alone is full of grace and trueth.

Caluin in Lucae. 1. v. 15. expoundeth, Full of grace, Aboue the ordinarie course. Of the same mynd also are other Pro­testants, who ether denie that the Angel saluted our B. Ladie, Full of grace; or denie, that we haue anie inherent iustice or grace in vs, as we shall see hereafter.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that our ladie and S. Stephen was full of grace, and that others were full of the holie Ghost. And Catholiks say the same.

Protestants saye, that Christ alone was full of grace, and that others haue no grace or iustice in them.

A SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF ANGELS or Saints.

It appeareth out of that which hath beene rehearsed in this chapter, that Protestants do farre otherwise describe vnto vs Angels and Saints, then the holie Scripture and Catholiks doe. For according to the Scripture and Ca­tholiks they are perfectly iust and perfectly doe the will of God, but not according to Protestants. In the verdict of the Scripture and Catholiks, they pray for vs, haue care of our matters, heare our praiers: In the opinion of Protestants they do none of these. According to the Scripture and Catholiks, they are to be praied vnto, to be worshipped, to be imitated of vs, and God is to be inuo­cated by their names, who also for their good deeds, their sake doth good vnto vs: but according to Protestants none of all these things belong vnto them. In the doctrin of the Scripture and Catholiks, they enioy their heauenlie felicitie, reigne with Christ, and some of them had power to doe miracles: but in the Protestants Doctrin they ne­ther enioy their heauenly happines, nor reigne with Christ, nor anie of them had or can haue power to worke miracles.

Protestants therefore steale from Angels and Saints Protest. steale from Saints. Power. Virtue. their power, whiles they denie, that they are capable of power to worke miracles: steale away their perfect iustice, in denying that they are perfectly iust or perfectly do the [Page 169] will of God. Robbe them of their honour, because they Honor. denie that we may honour them, imitate them, pray to them, or pray to God in their names. They spoile them Dignitie. of their dignitie, in saying that God doth not any good vnto vs for their merits or good deeds. They bereaue Knowledge. them of their knowledge, in saying that they know not any thing that is done on earth. They robbe them of Charitie. their charitie, because they say, that they pray not for vs ether in generall or in particular, haue no care of vs, not exercise any offices of charitie towards vs. Finally they Happines. take from them their heauenly felicitie, because they teach, that they enioy not that vntill the day of iudgment. And hitherto we haue spoaken of those who are in heauē: now let vs speake of these things which are on earth, and first of the word of God.

CHAPTER IV. OF THE VVORD OF GOD OR SCRIPTVRE.

ART. I. WHETHER ANIE PLACES OF Scripture be hard to be vnderstood.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

PETER 3. vers. 16. As our most deere Some places of Scripture hard to be vn­derstood. brother Paul, according to the wisdome giuen him, hath written to you, as also in all his epistles speaking in them of these things, in the which are certaine things hard to be vnderstood, which the vnlearned and vnstable depraue.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

D. Stapleton in Ioan. 17. v. 20. Catholiks denie, that all the Scripture is plaine and cleare.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Whitaker Controu. 1. q. 4. c. 3. p. 337. Peter saieth not, that Paules epistles are obscure, no nor that there are some obscure things in Paules epistles. And c. 4. p. 340. It is manifest, that the [Page 171] Scriptures are easie to be vnderstood. And he addeth, that the whole will of God which is declared in his whole word and Scrip­tures, and the whole Scripture, is easie. The same he saieth p. 341. Of the whole Scripture, of the vniuersall Scripture, and whole word of God.

Luther l. de seru. arbit. to. 2. fol. 426. It is spred abrode by No place of Scripture hard. the impious Sophisters, that there are some things obscure in the Scripture, and that all things are not laied open. Fol. 427. There is nothing at all left obscure or ambiguous, but all things are brought into most cleare light by the word, and declared to the whole world whatsoeuer is in Scripture. And fol. 440. I speake of the whole Sripture: I will not haue anie parte of it to be saied to be obscure. The like he hath Postilla in festo S. Iacobi fol. 430. and Cont. Cocleum to. 2. fol. 410. Neuer any thing was vttered more simply, more purely, more clearely, more easily, then the word of God. Praefat. Assert. art. The Scripture is by it selfe No booke more cleare then the Scri­ture. the most certaine, the most easie, the most cleare interpreter of it selfe, prouing, iudging, and lightning all things. And in psalm. 37. to. 3. fol. 10. If anie of them say, that we need the Fathers in­terpretation, the Scriptures are obscure: Thou shalt answere: That is false. No booke in the whole world is most clearely writtē then the holie Scripture, which compared to all other bookes, is like the Sunne before all other lights.

Gerlachius disputat. 1. tom. 1. pag. 9. We say, that the whole Scripture is so cleare, as it needeth no interpretation at all.

Zanchius de Scriptura tom. 8. col. 408. How then can the Scripture be saied obscure in anie parte thereof? col. 409. If the Scripture be obscure in no parte (as before we haue shewed) much lesse in those things which are necessarie to saluation. And l. 1. Epistol. pag. 98. The places of holie Scripture, from whence the decrees of Christian religion are drawne, are so plaine and ma­nifest, as they need no more diligent or clearer exposition.

Serranus cont Hayum part. 3. p. 267. saieth, that there is not anie ambiguitie or obscuritie in the matter or words of the Scripture. And p. 269. that the Lord hath plainly laied open in the Scripture all the misteries of our saluation. Manie more of [Page 172] their like sayings may be seene in my Latin booke cap. 4. art. 1.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely saieth, that in S. Paules epistles there be some things hard to be vnderstood. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the Scripture saieth not that there are some obscure things in S. Pauls epistles: that the Scripture, the whole scripture is easie: that the whole scripture is so cleare as it needeth no interpretation at all: that no parte of it is obscure, that all things are cleare whatsoeuer is in the word and declared to the whole world: that the Scripture is the easiest and clearest inter­preter of it selfe: that no booke in the whole world is so cleare as the Scripture, and that being compared to them, it is like the Sunne to other lights. Which are so manifestly contrarie to Scripture as Protestants thēselues sometimes confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. II. WHETHER SCRIPTVRE CAN BE vnderstood without the light of the holie Ghost?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

2. Peter 1. v. 20. Vnderstanding this first, that no prophetie Scripture not vnderstood of our selues. (or exposition) of Scripture is made by priuat interpretation.

Matth. 13. v. 11. To you it is giuen to know the misteries of the kingdome of heauen, but to them it is not giuen.

Luc. 24. v. 45. Then he opened their vnderstanding, that they might vnderstand the Scriptures.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

D. Stapleton l. 11. de Principijs c. 2. The spirit of God, of whome the vnderstanding of the Scriptures is to be asked and [Page 173] giuen, is not to be sought in the Scriptures themselues.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Whitaker l. 1. de Scriptura c. 12. sect. 8. The Scriptures may Scripture not vnderstood by onely rea­ding. without the holie Ghost. be known by onely reading. l. 2. c. 8. sect. 16. I say, that the Scrip­tures may be vnderstood before faith and without faith. Againe, But if thou thinkest, that the Scriptures cannot be vnderstood at all without peculiar lightning of the holie Ghost, thou art in a great errour. And Controu. 1. q. 6. c. 13. For so much as apper­taineth to the knowledge of the letter, the Church hath no pri­uiledge.

Morton. in Apol. part. 2. l. 5. c. 10. Anie one though neuer so Anie may vnderstand the Scripture: so impious, may search the Scriptures to knowledge, though not to wisdome: that is, to the knowledge of truth, though not to the attayning of saluation.

Beza l. de notis Eccles. vol. 3. p. 137. But for to vnderstand what the Prophets and Apostles haue in summe thought and thought of euerie article of our religion, there needeth onely a wit not wholy dull, and knowledge of tōgues, and attētiue reading. And p. 138. Vnderstanding is common to all that haue any iudg­ment, but to knowledge, there is need of the externall illustration of the holie Ghost, by reason of the blindnesse, of mans iudgment. The same say all Protestants who teach (as we haue seene in the former article) that the Scripture is cleare.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that prophecie, that is, vn­derstanding of Scripture, is not made by priuat interpre­tation: that to know the misteries of the kingdome of heauē is giuen to some as a peculiar guift not common to all: that Christs disciples had need to haue their vnderstan­ding opened by him for to vnderstand the Scriptures. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the Scripture may be known by onely reading: that to know what the Pro­phets [Page 174] or Apostles thought of euerie article of our religiō, we need but a meane wit, knowledge of tongues and at­tentiue reading: That Scripture may be vnderstood with­out faith and without any peculiar light of the holie Ghost: that to vnderstand the sense of the letter there is priuiledge of the Church, that neuer so wicked men may know the trueth of the Scripture. Which are so contrarie to Scripture, as diuers Protestants confesse it. See libro 2. cap. 30.

ART. III. WHETHER THE GHOSPEL be a law or containe any law?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Matth. 11. v. 30. My yoake is sweet and my burdē light. c. 28. Christs Ghos­pell cōtaineth laws and pre­cepts. v. 19. Teach ye all nations, baptizing them &c. teaching them to obserue all things whatsoeuer I haue commanded you.

Ihon 15. v. 14. You are my freinds, if you doe the things that I command you.

Galat. 6. v. 2. Beare ye one an others burdens, and so ye shall fulfill the law of Christ. The same is euident by other places which shalbe cited in the two next articles, and by the laws of baptisme and the Euchariste which are in the Ghospel.

Romans 2. v. 16. God shall iudge secrets of men according to my Ghospel.

Apocal. 14. v. 6. And I saw an other Angel flying through the middest of heauen hauing the eternall Ghospell to euangelize to them that sitte vpon the earth—saying with a loud voice: Feare our Lord &c.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 4. de Iustif. c. 2. The Ghospel containeth laws properly so called.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther de votis to. 2. fol. 271. They know not the Ghospell, The Ghospell is no law. whiles they make a law of it. Postilla in Dom. 3. aduentus fol. 36. None of thy workes must follow the Ghospell, for it is not a law which requireth workes, but onely faith, because in it nothing is done, but that Gods grace is offered and pro­mised.

Confessio Wittenberg. c. de Euangelio. Vnlesse ye take the name of the law generally for doctrine, certainly the Ghospell of Christ is not properly a law. The same saieth Pareus in Ga­lat. 6. lect. 71.

Perkins in Gal. 6. to. 2. The Ghospell must no wayes be called a new law. So also Beza cont. Sanct. Apol. 1. p. 305. Mart. in Rom. 7. p. 375. in 8.

Melancthon in Disput. to. 4. p. 490. The ould testament is a law: the new testament is no law. The same say others, as appeareth by what hath beene rehearsed cap. 3. art. 7. and shalbe more in the twoe next articles.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the Ghospell of Christ is a yoake and burden, that therein he commandeth some things, that Christ hath a law; that he commanded the receauing of baptisme and the Euchariste, that men shalbe iudged according to the Ghospell; that the eternall Ghospell commandeth men to feare God. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the Ghospell is no law, no waies to be called a new law, the new testament no law: the Ghospell properly no law vnlesse by law you meane doctrin: that it is no law that requireth workes.

ART. IV. WHETHER THE GHOSPELL doth preach pennance, and good workes?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Mathew 3. vers. 2. Ihon Baptist thus began his prea­ching The Ghospell commandeth pennance. of the Ghospell: Doe pennance: for the kingdome of heauen is at hand.

Matth. 4. v. 17. From that time Iesus began to preach and to say: Doe pennance: for the kingdome of heauen is at hand.

Luc. 5. v. 23. I came not to call the iust, but sinners to pennance. c. 24. v. 26. It behoued Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and pennance to be preached in his name and re­mission of sinnes vnto all nations.

Actes 2. vers. 38. S. Peter thus preached the Ghospell. Doe pennance, and be euerie one of you baptized. And S. Paul c. 17. v. 30. God now denounceth vnto men, that all euerie where doe pennance.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 4. de Iustif. c. 2. The Ghospell threatneth wrath and indignation to them who do not receaue our Sauiour, nor do pennance.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

The Diuines of Targa apud Hospin. in Concordia dis­cordiThe Ghospell properly is no preaching of pennance.fol. 66. If the Ghospell be simply and properly taken for preaching, to wit, of the grace of God in Iesus Christ, then it is no preaching of pennance, but oney a preaching of remission of sinnes. The like teach others ib. fol. 104. And the Diuines of Onely cōman­deth to be­leiue. Berga ib. fol. 140. The Ghospell teacheth and commandeth onely to beleiue in Christ.

Luther Postilla in die Natiuit. fol. 60. We read and heare nothing preached in the Ghospell, but mere grace and mere [Page 177] bountie. In die Ascensionis fol. 264. I often times saied, that the Ghospell cannot abide, that workes be preached, how good or great soeuer they be. And in Inst. de Moise fol. 449. The The Ghospell telleth not what it to be done or omit­ted. Ghospell preacheth not to vs, that this or that is to be done or omitted, or exacteth any things of vs.

The Diuines of Saxonie apud Schusselb. tom. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 803. condemne Maior, because he would haue the Ghospell properly taken to be a preaching of pennance and remis­sion of sinnes.

Kemnitius in locis tit. de Iustif. p. 222. If we say that the Proper do­ctrin of the Ghospell is not of newnesse of life. proper doctrin of the Ghospell is not onely of faith in the free promisses for Christ, but also of newnesse of life or good workes, then streight it followeth, that good workes also enter into iusti­cation as a partiall cause. And pag. 224. Who would haue the the Ghospell properly so termed to containe not onely the promise of grace, but also the doctrin of good workesse, such vnderstand not what they say. For by this means the difference of the law and the Ghospell is confounded.

Liber Concordiae 1. c. 5. p. 594. We reiect as false and perni­cious Doctrin: that the Ghospell properly is a preaching of pen­nance, The Ghospell requireth not workes. and not onely a preaching of the grace of God. The like hath Gesnerus in Compendio loco 15.

Gerlachius to. 2. disp. 13. The law requiring workes properly belongeth not to the Ghospell. Againe. It is truely saied, that not the Ghospell but the law requireth workes.

Lobechius Disput. 9. The word of the Ghospell sheweth not, what is to be done by working, but what we must beleiue.

Caluin in Rom. 10. ver. 8. As the law exacted workes, the Ghospell, requireth nothing else, but that men bring faith to re­ceaue Gods grace. The like hath Beza in Catechismo com­pend. and others.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Ihon Baptist, Christ, and the Apostles begā the preaching of Ghospell by prea­ching pennance: that Christ came to call sinners to pen­nance, [Page 178] that pennance and remission of sinnes are to be preached in his name: that God in the Ghospell denoun­ceth to all mē that they doe pennance. And the Ghospell euery where preacheth good workes. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the Ghospell properly taken doth not preach pennance: that the Ghospell com­mandeth onely to beleiue in Christ; requireth nothing but faith: sheweth not what is to be done or vndone, but what is to be beleiued: that it requireth not workes, cānot abide that workes be preached whatsoeuer they be: preacheth not that this or that thing is to be done, prea­cheth not newnesse of life or good workes, containeth not doctrin of Good workes. Which are so contrarie to Scripture as some Protestants confesse it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. V. WHETHER THE GHOSPELL do reproue sinne.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Rom. 1. v. 17. For the iustice of God is reuealed in it (Gospell) The Ghospell reproueth sinne. by faith into faith. v. 18. For the wrath of God from heauen is re­uealed vpon all impietie and iniustice &c.

Ihon. 16. v. 8. And when he (the Paraclet) is come, he shall argue the world of sinne and of iniustice. The same teach the places cited in the former article, and others wherein the Ghospell commandeth men to abstaine from sinne and threatneth punishment thereto.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton Roman. 1. vers. 18. Absurdly and impiously is saied: that it belongeth not to the ministerie of the Ghospell to reproue sinne.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther Concordiae cap. 5. pag. 593. When the law and The Ghospell reproueth not sinne. the Ghospell are compared together, we beleiue each, and con­fesse, that the Ghospell is not a preaching of pennance repro­uing sinne: but that properly it is nothing els but a most ioy­full message, and a preaching full of comfort not reprouing or terrifying.

Luther Postilla in die Om. Sanct. fol. 441. The law com­mandeth, Dot not threaten. threatneth, and vrgeth: the Ghospell maketh no threats nor pusheth on.

Schusselb. to. 4. Catal. Haeret. p. 209. The Ghospell properly speaking doth reproue no sinne: but this is the proper and most proper office of the law.

Caluin 2. Instit. c. 10. §. 4. The Ghospells preaching pronoun­ceth nothing els, but that sinners through the fatherly goodnes of God are iustified without their merit.

Beza in Rom. 1. v. 18. To reproue sinne, rather belongeth to the ministerie of the law, then of the Ghospell.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that in the Gholpell Gods anger is reuealed vpon all iniustice: that the spirit of the Ghospell reproueth sinne. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that to reproue sinne ra­ther belongeth to the ministerie of the law then of the Ghospell: that the Ghospell properly taken reproueth not sinne, but is nothing els but a message of ioy and comfort: that to reproue sinne is the proper office of the law. Which is so opposite to the Scripture, as some times Protestants confesse it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. VI. WHETHER THE GHOSPELL promiseth saluation with condition of good workes?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Mathew. 19. vers. 17. If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the The Ghospell promiseth saluation v­pon condition of Workes. commandments.

Luke. 13. vers. 3. Vnlesse you haue pennance, you shall all like­wise perish.

Roman. 8. vers. 13. If you liue according to the flesh, you shall die.

Hebrews 10. v. 36 For patience is necessarie for you, that doing the will of God, you may receaue the promise. C. 12. v. 14. Follow peace with all men and holines, without which no man shall see God.

Ihon 3. v. 5. Vnlesse a man be borne againe of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdome of God. c. 6. v. 53. Vn­lesse ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood, ye shall not haue life in you. c. 15. v. 10. If you keepe my precepts, you shall abide in my loue.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 20. If anie shall say, that a man iustified and neuer so perfect, is not bound to keepe the commandments of God and the Church, but onely to beleiue: as if the Ghospell were an absolute and bare promise without con­dition of keeping Gods commandments, be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Apol. Conf. Augustan. fol. 60. Doth not the Ghospell pro­mise remission of sinnes and saluation euen to those that haue no good workes at all? ib. in resp. ad arg. If remission of sinnes do de­pend of the cōdition of our workes, it wilbe altogether vncertaine.

[Page 181] Luther in Colloq. Mensal. apud Vlemberg. causa. 5. The Ghospell promiseth saluation without con­dition of workes. Whosoeuer saieth, that the Ghospell requireth workes to salua­tion, is a lyer.

Perkins in Gal. 3. to. 2. The Ghospell offereth and giueth life freely without condition of anie worke, and requireth nothing but the acceptance of the thing offered.

Willet Controu. 19. quaest. 1. pa. 1012. The Ghospell and the law are twoe distinct things. The law saieth: Doe this and thou shalt be saued: The Ghospell: Beleiue onely, and it sufficeth vnto life.

Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theol. loco 8. The pro­misse of the Ghospell is not conditionall.

Gerlachius to. 2. disput. 13. The promisses of the Ghospell are not conditionall, but absolute in respect of workes.

The Diuines of Saxonie in Colloq. Aldeburg. Scripto. 6. p. 134. The promises of the law are conditionall, because they propose reward with condition of obedience: But the promises of the Ghospell are not conditionall, but free.

Caluin in Antidot. Concil. Sess. 6. Con. 20. In that the Ghospell differeth frō the law, because it promiseth life by faith, and not vnder the condition of workes as the law doth. And 3. Instit. c. 11. §. 17. The promises of the Ghospell are free and relie vpon the onely mercie of God, whereas the promises of the law depend of the condition of workes.

Peter Martyr in Rom. 11. We denie, that Gods testament of remission of sinnes in Christ hath anie condition adioyned.

Pareus l. 4. de Iustif. c. 1. The Ghospell, properly is the doctrine of grace, so it requireth onely the condition of faith. And c. 2. The Ghospell strictly and properly hath promises of saluation vnder the onely condition of faith, and threats of death vnder the onely condition of incredulitie. Those promises and threats alone are proper to the Ghospell and Euangelicall, all others are mixt, partely euangelicall, partely legall.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that if we will enter into [Page 182] life we must keepe the commandements; that patience is necessarie for to receaue the promise: that without ho­lines no man shall see God: that to be baptized and to eate the flesh of Christ is necessarie to life: that vnlesse we haue pennance we shall perish, that if we liue according to the flesh we shall die. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that the Ghospell pro­miseth saluation euen to those that haue no good works at all: that it requireth no good workes to saluation, offe­reth life without condition of anie worke: that the pro­mises of the Ghospell are absolute in respect of workes, are not conditionall: that the Ghosdell requireth onely the acceptance of the thing offered, requireth onely be­leife to life, onely the condition of faith. Which are so contrarie to Scripture as some times the Protestants them­selues confesse it See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. VII. WHETHER THE GHOSPELL be contrarie to the law?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Rom. 3. v. 31. Do we then destroie the law by faith? God for­bidde: The Ghospell not contrarie to the law. but we do establish the law.

Gal. 3. v. 21. Was the law then against the promises of God? God forbidde.

Mathew 5. vers. 18. Do not thinke that I am come to break the law or the Prophet. I am not come to breake, but to fulfill.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

S. Thomas 1. 2. quaest. 17. art. 3. Something is contained in an other by power, as the whole tree is contained in the seed: and after this manner the new law is contained in the ould.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Confessio Heluet. c. 13. The Ghospell truely is opposite to It is cōtrarie to the law the law: For the law worketh wrath and denounceth maledictiō; the Ghospell preacheth grace and benediction.

Illyricus in Sacrae Scripturae part. 2. tract. 1. eol. 10. There are twoe kinds of doctrins, the law and the Ghospell, and they of themselues and of their nature truely contrarie. Col. 11. This su­rely is the key of all the Scripture and Diuinitie, to know that in Twoe maie [...] to heauen & those con­trarie. it is cōtained a twofould kind of doctrine, and a double way of sal­uation, which are of themselues plainly contrarie the one to the other. Col. 39. The law and the Ghospell of themselues wholy fight one with the other: These doctrins fight, but the law being the inferiour yeeldeth to the Ghospell the superiour; and so the one contradictorie falling, the other obideth true. And Tract. 6. col. 547. 551. he saieth, that the Ghospell correcteth the law.

Luther in Gal 4. f. 373. Let the godlie learne, that Christ and the law are twoe contrarie, all together incompatible.

Scusselburg tom. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 446. True it is: En­tire and perfect obedience is necessarie to saluation, for the Lord himselfe hath saied: If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the com­mandments. But contrariwise, there is full power giuen to me to Protestants mittigate the rigour of the law. interprete or mitigate this rigour. Wherefore I interprete and mitigate it thus. Perfect obedience is necessarie to one that is to be saued; to wit, ether his owne or an other mans. And p. 446. saieth, that the Ghospell correcteth and amendeth the sayings of the law.

Caluin 2. Instit. c. 9. §. 4. Paul maketh the iustice of the law and the Ghospell contrarie one to the other.

Vallada in Apolog. cont. Episcop. Luzon. c. 30. Luther speaketh not simply of Moises, but of Moises opposite to Iesus Christ, that is, of the law opposite to the Ghospel. And seing al Protestants thinke, that the doctrin of the law is this: Our keeping of the law is necessarie to saluation, and the do­ctrine of the Ghospell, this: Our keeping of the law is not ne­cessarie to saluation, they must needs all say, that the do­ctrine [Page 184] of the Ghospell is quite contrarie or contradictorie to the doctrine of the law. Whereupon Beza de Praedest. cont. Castel. vol. 1. p. 393. writeth in this sorte: These are contrarie: vnlesse you doe all these things you shall die, and, Al­beit you do them not, yet if you beleiue, you shall liue. Whereof the first, they say, is the doctrine of the law; the second, of the Ghospell.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the faith of the Ghos­pell doth not destroie, but establish the law; that Gods promises are not against the law: that Christ came not to breake the law. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the Ghospell is truely opposite to the law: that the law and Ghospell are twoe doctrins of their nature truely contrarie, plainly contrarie, and fight one with the other: that the Ghospell corre­cteth the law: that the iustice of the law and of the Ghos­pell is contrarie one to the other, and that this is the key of all Protestant diuinitie: and that Protestants haue full power to mittigate the rigour of Gods law. Which are so contrarie to Scripture, as Protestants some times confesse it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. VIII. WHETHER THE LAW OF Moyses did command faith in Christ?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ihon 1. v. 45. Him, whome Moises in the law and the Prophets Moises in the law wrote of Christ. wrote of, we haue found Iesus the sonne of Ioseph of Nazareth. c. 5. v. 45. For if you did beleiue Moises, you would perhaps be­leiue me also. For of me he hath written.

Luc. 24. v. 27. And beginning from Moyses and all the Pro­phets Written of Christ in the law. he did interprete to them in all the Scriptures the things that were concerning him. And v. 44. All things must needs be [Page 185] fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moises, and the Pro­phets, and the Psalmes, of me.

Act. 3. v. 22. Moises indeed saied, That a Prophet, shall the Lord your God raise vp to you of your brethren as my selfe: Him Moises com­manded to beare Christ. you shall heare according to all things whatsoeuer he shall speake to you. c. 26. v. 23. Saying nothing besides those things, which the Prophets did speake should come to passe, and Moises, if Christ were passible &c. See c. 28. v. 23.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. lib. 4. Iustif. c. 4. Euerie where in the Ghospell we read, that diuers misteries were fulfilled in Christ, because it was so written in the law and Prophets.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins in Gal. 3. to. 2. The Ghospell requireth faith in Christ The law knew not Christ. The law of Moises com­manded not faith in Christ. The law tea­cheth not faith in Christ the Mediatour, God and man, which faith the law neuer knew.

Pareus l. 1. de Iustif. c. 16. Faith is no worke of the law: for the law of Moises commandeth not faith in Christ. And l. 2. c. 4. The law knoweth nothing of faith in Christ, of iustifying faith, of faith of remission of sinnes. The like hath Ambing. apud Hospin. in Concord. discordi fol. 140.

Beza de Praedest. cont. Caste l. vol. 1. p. 393. There is no mē ­tion in the law of this benefit (of free redemption by Christ) For the declaratiō of this will belongeth to an other parte of Gods word, which is called the Ghospell.

Apol. Cōf. Augustan. c. de Iustific. The Ghospell preacheth iustice of faith in Christ, which the law doth not teach.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Moises wrote in the law, of Christ, that Moises wrote things concerning Christ: That Moise commanded the people to heare Christ in all things. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the law neuer knew faith in Christ, that Moises cōmandeth not faith in Christ: that the law knoweth nothing of faith in Christ: that in the law there is no mention of free redemption in Christ: that the law teacheth nothing of faith in Christ.

ART. IX. WHETHER ANY VNWRITTEN word or Traditions be to be kept?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

2. Thessal. 2. v. 15. Therefore brethren stand, and hould the tra­ditions Traditions not written to be helde. which you haue learned: whether it be by word or by our epistle.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Coūcell of Trent. Sess. 4. The holie Coūcell doth with equall pious affection reuerently receaue and honour traditions belon­ging to faith or manners, as ether deliuered by Christs mouth or the holie Ghost, and by continuall succession conserued in the Ca­tholik Church.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 3. cap. 10. We care not for vnwritten Not to be helde. traditions. And Contro. 2. q. 5. c. 18. We acknowledge no other word then that which is written. And what doctrine soeuer is not written we hould for bastard doctrine.

Perkins in Cathol. ref. Contr. 20. c. 2. We acknowledge the onely written word of God.

Luther Postil. in ferias S. Stephani. Nothing is to be affir­med Nothing but that which is expressed in Scripture. which is not expressed in Scripture.

Iacobus Andreae l. cont. Hosium. p. 169. That faith is no faith, but an vncertain opinion, which is not grounded vpon an expresse testimonie of Scripture.

Wigand apud Scusselb. to. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 681. Onely [Page 187] those doctrines, whose very words or equiualent for sense are ex­tant in the Scripture, are to be tought and deliuered in the Church.

Caluin in Gratulat. ad Praecentorem pag. 377. Nothing is to be beleiued, which is not expressed in Scripture. And cont. versipellem. pagin. 353. There is no mention of vnwritten tra­ditions.

Beza in Rom. 1. v. 17. Christians acknowledge no other ob­ject of this faith, then the written word of God. Etad Repre­hens. Castell. p. 503. Whosoeuer beleiueth in doctrine of religion that which is not written, I say he embraceth opinion for faith, and an idol for God.

Vallada in Apol. cont. Episc. Luzon. c. 13. In all the holie No speech of an vnwrit­ten word. Scripture there is no speech of an vnwritten word.

Daneus Controu. 7. pag. 1350. The foundation of Christian faith is one onely, to wit, the word of God, and that onely written.

Hospinian part. 2. Histor. Sacram. fol. 23. The Magistrates of Zurich commāded, that hereafter nothing should be proposed or preached in their Church but the pure fined word of God con­tained in the bookes of the Prophets and Apostles.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that traditions, as well they which are learned by word, as they which are lear­ned by writing, are to be obserued. Catholiks teach the same.

Protestants expressely teach, that onely written do­ctrin is to be tought, nothing to be beleiued but what is written, onely the pure fined written word to be tought; no obiect of faith but what is written: nothing to be be­leiued but what is expressed in Scripture, and that in verie words or in equiualent sense, that there is no mention of vnwritten traditions, no speech of vnwritten word: that they care not for vnwritten traditions.

A SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF THE WORD of God or Scripture.

What we haue rehearsed in this chapter doth clearly shew, that Protestants do farre otherwise iudge of Scrip­ture then the Scripture it selfe and Catholiks doe. For the holie Scripture together with Catholiks teacheth that in it are some things hard to be vnderstood, that it cannot be vnderstood without the light of the holie Ghost: that the Ghospell is or containeth a law: that it doth preach pen­nance and good workes, reproueth sinne, promiseth sal­uation vnder condition of good workes, and is not con­trarie vnto the law of God: that the law of Moises com­mandeth faith in Christ: and that vnwritten traditions are to be obserued: And Protestants defend all the con­trarie.

They shew also, that Protestants steale from the Scrip­ture Protestants steale from Scripture. her excellencie wherewith she surpasseth the capa­citie of mans wit: and from the Ghospell, that it contai­neth any law, preacheth pennance or good workes, re­proueth sinne, promiseth saluation vpon condition of well doing, and agreement with Gods law: whereby we see what a libertin Ghospell they bring in, to wit, such as con­taineth Libertin Ghospell of Protestants. no law, preacheth no pennance or good workes, reproueth no sinne, promiseth saluation without all con­dition of well doing, and is quite contrarie to the law of God: And that they steall from the law of Moises that it commandeth faith in Christ; and finally they take away all the vnwritten word of God.

CHAPTER V. OF SAINT PETER AND THE APOSTLES.

ART. I. WHETHER S. PETER WERE first of the Apostles?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

MATHEW 10. v. 2. And the names of the twelue S. Peter first of the Apo­stles. Apostles be these: The first Simon, who is called Peter.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Pontif. c. 18. Peter was put first, by reason his dignitie.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Contr. 3. q. 5. c. 3. Wheresoeuer mention is made Not first. of Peter, if we looke well into the place, we shall find that nothing is giuen to him, which agreeth not to the other Apostles. And Controu 4. quaest. 2. c. Paul maketh himselfe equall to Peter in all points.

Tindal in Fox his Acts p. 1139. S. Paul is greater then Pe­ter by the testimonie of Christ.

Articuli Smalcaldici pag. 345. We giue no prerogatiue to Peter.

Luther in Gal. 2. to. 5. This place clearely sheweth, that all the Apostles had equall vocation and commission. There was al­together equalitie amongst them: no Apostle was greater then an other.

Illyricus in Praefat. lib. de Sectis. It appeareth, that Christ gaue no primacie at all in his Church to any man.

Caluinus in Matth. 20. v. 25. Christ shewed, that in his king­dome No primacie or firstnesse. there was no primacie, for which they contended.

Beza in Matth. 10. v. 2. What if this word (First) were added of some who would establish Peters primacie?

Festus Homius disput. 12. All the Apostles were equall in dignitie, authoritie, title, and power. Againe. Peter had no pri­macie amongst the Apostles.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely saieth, that S. Peter was the first of the Apostles. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely say, that S. Peter had no primacie at all; and suspect that the word, First, is added to the Scripture: they say also, that Saint Peter had nothing which was not common to the other Apostles: that all the Apostles were equall in dignitie, authotitie, title, and power: that there was altogether equalitie amongst thē, and none greater then an other: that S. Paul was equall to S. Peter in all points, nay greater then he by the testi­monie of Christ.

ART. II. WHETHER THE CHVRCH was built vpon S. Peter himselfe?

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Math. 16. v. 18. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter, and vpon The Church built vpon S. Peter. this rock will I build my Church—And I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Promptuar. Cath. in Festo Petri & Pauli S. Chrisostome doth diligently teach, that twoe things were here giuen to Peter: The one, the guift of the Father; to wit the reuela­lation of the word incarnate: The other, the proper guift of the Sonne, to be the rock of the Church.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Controu. 4. q. 2 c. 2. Peter is not the rock, because Not vpon S. Peter. Christ doth not build his Church vpon Peter.

Luther in Matth. 16. to. 5. vpon this, that is, vpon me, not vpō thee. Item. He cannot be vnderstood to build vpon Peter.

Zuinglius l. de vera & falsa relig. cap. de Clauibus. I will build my Church vpon this rock: not vpon thee, for thou art not the rock. Againe: Onely Christ, not Peter, is the rock vpon the which the Church standeth.

Bucer in Matth. 16. Faith in Christ is that rock vpon which the Church is saied to be built, not that man Peter.

Caluin in Math. 16. v. 19. He faigneth, that Peter is called the foūdation of the Church. But who seeth not, that he giueth that to the person of a man, vhich was spoaken of Peters faith?

Beza in Matth. 16. v. 18. But Mathew, or whosoeuer was his interpretour seemeth by this difference of words to distinguish Peter from that rock on which the building relieth.

Zanchius l. de Eccles. c. 9. The opposition of the Fathers is not admitted in this place: vpon this rock, that is, vpon Peter.

Vorstius in Antibell. p. 64. Our men vse to answere, that by the name of Rock, not the person, but the faith or confession of Peter, or Christ himselfe, is to be vnderstood. More of their like sayings may be seene in my Latin booke c. 5. art. 2.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Christ speaking to [Page 192] Peter himselfe, hath in the words which immediatly goe before that clause: vpon this rock &c, as also in the which immediatly follow it, and designing S. Peters person both by his Father, and by his proper name Peter, which he had giuen to him. (Which both in the Syriack tongue in which Christ spoake, and in the Hebrew tongue in which Saint Mathew wrote his Ghospell, is wholy one and the selfe same word that Rock is, and also in the Greek lan­guage is equiualent or synonimall with it, as Protestants confesse, and finally designing him by that pronoune This, saied: vpon this Rock, (which is as much, as is he had saied vpon this Peter) I will build my Church. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that S. Peter is not the Rock of the Church, not the foundation, not he vpon whome the Church is built. Which is so manifest a contradiction of Scripture, as manie Protestants confesse it. See libr. 2. cap. 30.

ART. III. WHETHER THE KEYES OF the kingdome of heauen were giuen to S. Peter himselfe?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Mathew 16. vers. 18. & 19. And I say to thee. That thou The keyes giuen to S. Peter. art Peter—And I will giue to thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Prompt. Cathol. in Festo Petri & Pauli. The power of the keyes was promised by Christ to Peter alone, and therefore it was truely giuen.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Controu. 9. quaest. 5. c. 3. Surely the keyes of the Not to any one men. Church were not giuen to any one singular man, but to the Church it selfe.

Bucher in Matth. 16. This power (of the keyes) is in the whole Church, but the authoritie of administring it, is in the Preists and Bishops: as in ould time in Rome, the power was in the people; the authoritie, in the Senate.

Articuli Smalcaldici. We must needs confesse, that the keyes belong not to the person of any one man, hut to the Church.

Daneus Contr. 3. c. 10. p. 244. Christ called faith the rock: Not to Saint Peter. to which rock, not to Peter, he gaue these keyes and the strength against the power and gates of Hell.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Christ promised, and consequently gaue, the keyes of Heauen vnto S. Peter. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that the power of the keyes is not in the priests and Bishops: that they were not giuen to Peter, nor to any one singular man. Which con­tradiction of the Scripture is so plaine, as some Protestants acknowledge it. See l. 2. c. 30

ART. IV. WHETHER S. PETERS faith failed?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Luc. 22. v. 31. And our Lord saied: Simon, Simon, behould Saint Peters faith failed not. Sathan hath required to haue you for to sift as wheat. But I haue praied for thee, that thy faith faile not.

[...]

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Lucae 22. v. 32. Christ doth in those words manifestly teach, that S. Peters faith should not faile.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Cont. 4. q. 2. c. 2. Whē Bellarmin had saied: Peter lost charitie, but not faith when he denied Christ: answereth: It seemeth, that a greater wound was giuen to his faith then to his Saints Peters faith failed. charitie. Againe: That was surely a short apostasie.

Hutterus in Analysi Cōfess. Augustan. art. 12. It is a blas­phemous speech of Beza, when he writeth: That Peter denying Christ did not loose his faith.

Reineccius to. 1. Armat. c. 22. Peter retained not faith. And to. 3. c. 4. For a time Peters faith surely failed whiles he denyed Christ.

Daneus Contr. 3. c. 10. Bellarmin dreameth, when he saieth, that Peters faith could not faile: For by the deniall which after­ward he made, it appeareth to be false which he impudently affir­meth of the indefectibilitie of Peters faith. The same he hath ibid. lib. 4. cap. 3.

Lambertus and Schusselb. l. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 14. saieth that Peter, when he fell, had not that true faith wherewith we trust in God alone, and the infidelitie preuailed against Peter.

Iunius Contro. 3. l. 1. c. 10. Certainly Peter erred from faith.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Christ praied that S. Peters faith should not faile: which vndoubtedly he ob­tained. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that S. Peter lost his faith, erred from faith, did not retaine faith, did apostotate; that his faith failed, that infidelitie preuailed against him. Which is so open a contradiction of Scripture, as diuers Protestants confesse it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. V. WHETHER THE APOSTLES were foundations of the Church?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Apocalip. 21. v. 14. And the wall of the cittie hauing twelue The Apo­stles founda­tions of the Church. foundations: and in them twelue names of the twelue Apostles of the lambe.

Ephes. 2. v. 20. You are citizens of the Saintes, and the do­mesticals of God, built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Iesus Christ himselfe being the highest corner stone.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Pontif. c. 11. All the Apostles were foun­dations of the Church.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Controu. 4. q. 1. c. 2. It is contrarie to the analogie Not founda­tions of the Church. of faith, that any man should be a foundation of the Church.

Moulin. in his Bucler p. 380. The Apostles were not the foun­dations.

Peter Martyr in locis, clas. 4. cap. 3. §. 4. If we read in the Fa­thers, (as we do in the Apocalips) that there are twelue founda­tions, here foundation is not put for the route of the building, but for great stones which are next to the foundation.

Beza in Ephes. 2. vers. 20. The Apostles and Prophets were builders of this temple, that is, of the Church of God (as also now faithfull Ministers are) but not the foundation it selfe.

Herbrandus in Compend. Theol. loco de Eccles. The Apostles are not the foundation of the Church, but by their do­ctrine of Christ they laied the foundation.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that there are twelue [Page 196] foundations of the Church, and in them written the names of the twelue Apostles: that we are built vpon the foundatiō of the Apostles, Christ being the cheefe corner stone where there is manifest distinction made betwene the foundation on which we are built, and Christ. Ca­tholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely say, that the Apostles were not foundations, that they were not foundations of the Church, but builders: not foundations, but great stones next to the foundation: that no man can be a foundation of the Church. Which are so contrarie to the Scripture, as some Protestants confesse it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. VI. WHETHER THE APOSTLES were simply to be heard or beleiued without examination of their doctrine?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Luc. 10. v. 16. He that heareth you, heareth me. The Apo­stles were simply to be heard.

1. Thessalon. 1. v. 12. We giue thankes to God without in­termission, because that when you had receaued of vs the word of God, you receaued it, not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God. The same also is proued by the testimonies cited in the next article.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton Defens. cont. Whitak. l. 3. sect. 5. It is absurd to iudge of the Apostles doctrine. Antidot. Act. 17. v. 11. Christ hath ioyned his trueth and the Apostles preaching so narrowly, as he saied who heareth you, heareth me: Why then not also: who examineth your doctrine, examineth my trueth?

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Controu. 2. quaest. 5. cap. 11. If the Apostles [Page 197] be not simply to be heard, but to be examined according to the rule Not simply to be heard. of Scripture, and to be receaued so farre forth as they agree with it, and to be reiected, as they differre, much, lesse &c. And l. 2. cont. Dureum sect. 2. When Paul preached to the Berheans, they examined the Scriptures, for to know fully whether those things which Paul tought, agreed with Scriptures. And this their example is allowed with the highest testimonie of the holie Ghost, and proposed to all Christians to be imitated.

Caluin in Actor. 17. vers. 11. The Thessalonians did not take vpon to examin whether Gods trueth were to be receaued or no: onely they examined Pauls doctrine to the line of Scripture. For the Scripture is the true touchstone, by which all doctrins are to be examined. And seing the Spirit of God praiseth the Thessalo­nians, it prescribeth in their example a rule for vs. It was lawfull for the disciples to examine Paules doctrine. And 4. Institut. c. 8. §. 4. The Apostles in their verie name do shew how farre their commission stretcheth: Forsooth, if they be Apostles let them not prate what they list, but faithfullie deliuer his commandments who sent them.

Luther Praefat. Assert. Artic. to. 2. If S. Pauls Ghospell or the new testament must haue beene tried by the ould Scripture whether it were so or no, what did we, who would haue the Fathers sayings, examined by the Scripture?

Daneus Contr. 4. p. 611. It is most false, that he writeth, that the doctrine and sentence of the Apostles was not examined of the disciples and auditours. Yea Christ himselfe commandeth his owne doctrine to be so examined Io. 5. 39.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that who heareth the A­postles heareth Christ: that their word is not the word of men, but the word of God, and as such receaued of such as are faithfull. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the Apostles are not to be heard simply but first to be examined: that all Christians ought to imitate the Betheās in examining S. Pauls doctrine: [Page 198] that the Apostles must not prate what they list: that the Ghospell must be tryed by the ould testament.

ART. VII. WHETHER THE APOSTLES were sufficient witnesses of the trueth?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ihon 15. v. 27. The Spirit of trueth shall giue testimone of me, The Apostles were sufficiēt witnesses. and you also shall giue testimonie, because you are with me from the beginning. c. 21. v. 24. This is that disciple which giueth te­stimonie of these things, and hath written these things, and we know that his testimonie is true. c. 1. v. 7. This man came for testi­monie, to giue testimonie of the light, that all might beleiue through him.

Actes 1. v. 8. You shall receaue the vertue of the Holie Ghost comming vpon you, and you shalbe witnesses vnto me in Hieru­salem, and in all Iewrie and Samaria, and euen vnto the vtmost of the earth. c. 5. v. 32. And we are witnesses of these words, and the Holie Ghost, whome God hath giuen to all that obey him. c. 10. v. 42. Him God raised vp the third day, and gaue him to be made manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesse preordinated of God, to vs who did eate and drinke with him after he rose againe from the dead.

3. Ihon. v. 12. And we giue testimonie, and thou knowest that our testimonie is true.

Exode. 14. v. 31. And they beleiued our Lord, and Moises his seruant.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton Defens. Contr. Whitaker. l. 1. sect. 8. In all these things the Apostles did alledge their testimonie, and them­selues also as witnesses of that trueth which they tought And l. 3. sect. 3. The Apostles were witnesses of their doctrine, and they gaue authoritie to their doctrine. See him Cont. 4. l. 8. c. 9.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Controu. 1. q. 3. c. 11. God alone is a sufficient wit­nesse None but God is a suf­ficient wit­nesse. of himselfe. And l. 3. de Scriptura c. 13. sect. 3. The people did not beleiue Moises for himselfe, but for that diuine and great miracle.—Beleife, was giuen to Moises and Paul, not for them­selues, but for Gods authoritie which appeared in their ministerie. And ib. sect. 1. The testimonie of the Church, as of the Church, is but humane. And Contr. 1. q. 3. c. 11. cit. The iudgment of the Church is humane. The same followeth euidently of that which they saied in the former article. For if the Apostles doctrine must be examined, it is manifest that they are not sufficient witnesses of their doctrine.

The same Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 4. c. 3. Yea after Christs Not the A­postles. ascension and that descent of the Holie Ghost vpon the Apostles, manifest it is, that the whole Church erred about the vocation of the Gentils, and not the vulgar Christians onely, but euen the very Apostles and Doctors.—These were great errours, and yet we see that they were in the Apostles euen after the Holie Ghost had descended vpon them.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely affirmeth, that the Apostles had the holie Ghost giuen them to testifie of Christ: that they were ioyned with the holie Ghost witnesses of Christ: that they were witnesses appointed of God: that their te­stimonie is true: that all may beleiue through Saint Ihon: that the faithfull beleiued God and Moyses. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that none but God is a suffi­cient witnesse of the trueth: that nether Paul nor Moises were to be beleiued for themselues: that the testimonie of the Church is but humane: That the Apostles erred and that greatly euen after the holie Ghost had descended vpon them.

ART. VIII. WHETHER THE APOSTLES learnt anie point of Christian doctrine after Christs ascension?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ihon 16. v. 12. Yet manie things I haue to say to you, but you The Apostles learnt some thing after Christ. cannot beare them now: but when he the Spirit of trueth cometh, he shall teach you all trueth.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Ioan. 16. v. 12. By this testimonie is clearly proued, that Christ tought not all by word of mouth; but that both the Apostles and the Church learnt many things of the Holie Ghost.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 6. c. 10. The holie Ghost did suggest no They learnt nothing. other things then those which Christ had tought.

Caluin in Ioan. 14. vers. 26. Marke what all these things are, which he promiseth that he Spirit shall teach. He saieth: He shall suggest or bring to mind whatsoeuer I haue saied. Whence it fol­loweth, that he shall not be a coyner of new reuelations. And 4. Institut. c. 8. §. 8. That limitation is carefully to be noted, where he appointeth the holie Ghost his office, to suggest whatsoeuer he had tought by worde of mouth.

Beza in Ioan. 14. v. 26. The Apostles nether learnt nor tought any point of Christian and sauing doctrine after the departure of the Lord.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that manie things were tould to the Apostles which they could not beare in [Page 201] Christs time: that the holie Ghost was to be sent to teach them all trueth. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that the Apostles learnt no point of Christian doctrine after Christs departure: that the Holie Ghost reuealed no new thing to them; that he suggested no other thing then Christ had tought.

ART. IX. WHETHER IVDAS WAS TRVELY a disciple, or in the true Church of Christ?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Matth. 10. v. 1. & seq. And hauing called his twelue disciples Iudas was truely a dis­ciple of Christ. together, he gaue them &c. And the names of the twelue Apo­stles be these: The first Simon who is called Peter—and Iudas Isca­riot who also betrayed him. Et c. 20. v. 14. & 47. & Marc. 14. v. 10. & 43. &. Luc. 22. v. 3. & 47. he is called one of the twelue.

Ihon 12. v. 14. One therefore of his disciples, Iudas Iscariot.

Actes 1. v. 17. Iudas, who was the captaine of them that appre­hended Iesus, who was numbred among vs, and obtained the lot of this ministerie. v. 25. Shew of these twoe, one, whome thou hast chosen to take the place of this ministerie and Apostleship, from the which Iudas hath preuaricated—And the lot fell vpon Ma­thias, and he was numbred with the eleuen Apostles.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarm. l. 3. de Eccles. c. 7. Iudas was once of the true Church, for he was an Apostle one of the twelue, and called a Bishop of the Prophet Dauid psal. 108. Which could not be true, vnlesse he had beene of the Church.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Controu. 2. q. 1. cap. 7. I answere, that the repro­bate Iudas neuer of the Catho­lik Church. Iudas was neuer of the true Catholik Church. He held for a [Page 202] time a principall place in the outward societie of the Church, be­cause he was an Apostle, but this made him not of the true Catho­lik Church—But how he was one of the Apostles Austin telleth, Tract. 61. in Ioan. That how he was one in number not in merit; Neuer an Apostle in­deed. Neuer true member of the Church. are in shew not in vertue. But what is in shew, seemeth to be, but is not indeed.

Daneus Controu. 4. c. 2. Iudas Iscariot and Simon Magus were neuer true members of the true Church of God. Of the same opinion are Protestants commonly, who denie that anie reprobate can be in the true Church, as we shall see hereafter c. 8.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Iudas was one of Christs disciples, one of the twelue Apostles, was numbred a­mongst them, obtained the lot of their ministerie, had the place of Apostleship which S. Mathias afterwards had. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that Iudas was neuer of the true Catholik Church, seemed to be one of the Apostles but was not indeed.

ART. X. WHETHER IVDAS WAS a Bishop?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Actes 1. v. 20. For it is written in the booke of psalmes: Be Iudas was a Bishop. their habitation made desert, and be there none that dwell in it: and his (Iudas) Bishoprick let an other take.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

C. Bellarm. cited in the former article. Iudas is called a Bis­hop of the Prophet Dauid.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 7. Iudas was an Apostle therefore no He was no Bishop. Bishop: because the Apostles were no Bishops. The same say other Protestants, who denie that the Apostles were pro­perly Bishops.

THE CONFERENCE.

The Scripture expressely saieth, that Iudas had the of­fice of a Bishop, which an other Apostle tooke: The same say Catholiks.

The Protestants say, that Iudas was no Bishop.

THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF SAINT Peter and the Apostles.

Out of that which hath beene rehearsed in this chapter it clearly appeareth, that the Protestāts in an other māner describe S. Peter and the Apostles, thē the holie Scripture and Catholiks doe. For the Scripture and Catholiks teach that S. Peter was first of the Apostles: that he was the rock on which Christ built his Church, that he had the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, that his faith did not faile: All which Protestants denie. Besides the Scripture and Ca­tholiks say, that the Apostles were foundations of the Church, were simply to heard without examining their doctrine, were sufficient witnesses of trueth; learnt diuers things of the holie Ghost: All which are denied by Prore­stants. Moreouer the Scripture and Catholiks say that Iu­das was truely a disciple and Apostle of Christ, and also a Bishop: which Protestants in like manner denie.

Wherefore Protestants steale from S. Peter his honour, that he is the first of the Apostles; his authoritie, that he is the rock of the Church; and his power of the keyes and stedfastnesse of faith. And frō the rest of the Apostles they steale that they were foundations of the Church, simply to be hearde, sufficient witnesses of truth, and that they learnt any thing of the holie Ghost.

CHAPTER VI. OF PASTORS OF THE CHVRCH.

ART. I. WHETHER THERE BE AL­waies pastors of the Church?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

HIEREMIE 33. v. 21. Thus saieth the Lord: If my Pastours al­waies. couenant with the day can be made voide, and my couenant with the night, that there be no day and night in their time: also my couenant may be made voide with Dauid my seruant, that there be not of him a sonne to reigne in his throne, and leuites and preists my ministers.

Ephes. 4. v. 12. And he gaue Pastours and Doctours to the consummation of the saintes, vnto the worke of the ministeric vnto the edifying of the bodie of Christ, vntill we meete all into the vnitie of faith and knowledge of the Sonne of God.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in 1. Cor. 15. v. 15. Impious Caluin doth bouldly and often times say, that Pastours, Doctours, Prelats, Bishops, Maisters of Churches all vniuersally for manie ages haue wholy straied from the Christian trueth and beene seducers.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther in psal. 129. to. 3. The Church vnder Antichrist had no true ministerie.

Caluin de vera reform. p. 322. Not without cause we auouch Not alwaies. that for some ages the Church was so torne and scattered, that it was destitute of true Pastours. And p. 322. I graunt indeed, that it can neuer come to passe that the Church perish: but when they referre that to Pastours which is promised of the per­petuall continuance of the Church, therein they are much de­ceaued.

Beza de notis Eccles. vol. 3. Forsooth it fell out, that the law­full order was then wholy abolished in the Church, as it is mani­fest that it hath beene now for some ages, not so much being left as the smalleste shadow of the cheifest partes of ecclesiasticall vocation.

Sadeel ad Art. abiurat. pag. 533. It is false, that the externall ministerie must be perpetuall.

Daneus Controu. 3. p. 426. The Church eftsones hath no man Postour. And Controu, 4. p. 757. The true Church hath ofte wanted Prelats.

Lukbertus l. 5 de Eccles cap. 5. We say, that for some short time the Church may be depriued of Pastours.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely saieth, that there shalbe Pastours as long as there shalbe day and night: that Pastours are giuen vntill we meete all in one faith. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the Church may be de­priued of Pastours; that Pastours may perish, that the mi­nisterie must not be perpetuall: that the Church sometime had no true ministerie, was for some ages destitute of true Pastors: that lawfull order was for some ages quite abo­lished in the Church not so much as the slēderest shadow [Page 206] of the chiefest partes of ecclesiasticall vocation being left Which are so plaine against Scripture as sometimes Pro­testants confesse it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. II. WHETHER AVTHORITIE of gouerning the Church be in the Pastours them selues?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Matth. 16. v. 18. & seq. Thou art Peter &c. And to thee I will giue Pastours haue autho­ritie to go­uerne. the keyes of the kingdome of heauen.

Actes 20. v. 28. The Holie Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God.

1. Cor. 4. v. 21. What will you? In a rodde that I come to you, or in charitie and the spirit of mildnesse?

2. Cor. 13. v. 10. These things I write absente, that being pre­sent I may not deale hardly according to the power which the Lord hath giuen me. And c. 10. v. 6. Hauing in readinesse to re­uenge all disobedience.

2. Tim. 1. v. 11. I am appointed a preacher, and Apostle, and Maister of the Gentils.

Hebrews 13. vers. 17. Obey your Prelats and be subiect to them.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Triplicat. cont. Whitaker. c. 13. We see, that Paul putteth the authoritie in the Prelats.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker l. 1. de Script. c. 13. sect. 12. The authoritie is not Authoritie is not in the Pastours. in the Prelats but in the worde, for whose administration the Prelats do serue. Againe: I acknowledge no ruling which the Church hath. All the authoritie is in God and in his word, the Church hath nothing but mere ministerie.

[Page 207] Spalatensis l. 5. de Repub c. 2. n. 40. Church gouernours are most like to Phisitiās. The Phisitian appointeth holesome things, and forbiddeth vnholesome, prescribeth diete &c. but hath no They haue no iurisdi­ction. iurisdiction or cōmand ouer the sick—As it is the Phisitians of­fice to gouerne the sick, that is, without iurisdiction: So it is the office of the ecclesiasticall rectors to gouerne the Church, that is, the faithfull.

Caluin 4. Instit. c. 8. §. 2. We must remember, that what au­thoritie or dignitie the Holie Ghost in the Scripture doth giue to Preists, or Prophets, or Apostles, or Successours of Apostles, all that is giuen not properly to the men themselues, but to the mi­nisterie whereof they are officers, or (to speake brefly) to the word, whose ministerie is committed to them. The same he hath in Ioan. 16. v. 8. in Math. 20. v. 25. and in Iacob. 4. v. 12.

Beza in Math. 20. v. 25. What then, will you say. Haue the No power at all ouer con­sciences. Ministers of the word of God no power at all? None truely they, no not ouer cōsciences for instructiō whereof they are appointed: But they are legats of Christ, to say and doe in his name sacred not ciuill matters, who alone hath all right of commanding, and he commandeth them to be heard as legats, not as maisters.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the power of keyes was giuen to S. Peter: that the Holie Ghost placed Bishops to gouerne the Church: that S. Paul had a rodde and power ouer the faithfull, could deale hardly and punish all diso­bedience, was Maister of the Gentils, and that we ought to be subiect to our Prelats. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that there is no authoritie in the Prelats themselues: that the Church hath no rule but mere ministerie: that Pastours haue no more iurisdiction ouer the faithfull then Phisicians ouer the sick: that they haue no power ouer the consciences, but that all autho­ritie or right of commanding is in God onely and in his worde.

ART. III. WHETHER ANIE ONE PAS­tour haue authoritie to excommunicate?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 16. v. 19. Thou arte Peter—And whatsoeuer thou shalt S. Peter had authoritie to excommuni­cate. And S. Paul. binde vpon earth, it shalbe bound also in heauen.

1. Timoth. 16. v. vlt. Of whome is Hymenaeus and Alexander whome I haue deliuered to Sathan, that they may learne not to blaspheme.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton Cont. 2. q. 1. art. vn. The Ecclesiasticall power first, principally, of it selfe, and immediatly, is in particular persons.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Beza in Conf. c. 5. sect. 43. We must remēber, that this power No one man can excom­municate. (of excommunicating) is giuen to no one man, but to the whole companie of the Presbyterie.

Caluin 4. Instit. c. 11. §. 5. The spirituall power (of excom­municating) must not be exercised at the pleasure of one man, but by the lawfull assemblie. §. 6. This kinde of power was not in one, but in the assemble of the Elders.

Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 5. v. 4. So great an Apostle doth not not take vpon him to excōmunicate of himselfe and alone: which yet the Pope and manie Bishops dare.

Bucanus in Institut. loco 44. In whome must the power of excommunicating be? not in anie one ether Bishop, or ordained of the Bishop.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that power of binding was [Page 209] giuen to S. Peter: that S. Paul excommunicated or deli­uered some to Sathan. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely say, that power of excommuni­cating is in no one mā, Bishop or other: that S. Paul tooke not vpon to excommunicate of himselfe.

ART. IV. WHETHER PASTOVRS OF the Church haue power to command or make lawes?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Actes 15. v. 28. It hath seemed good to the Holie Ghost and Pastours can command. to vs, to lay no further burden vpon you, then these necessarie things: That you abstaine from the things imolated to idols, and blood, and that which is strangled. And ver. 41. And he (Paul) walked through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches, and commanding them to keepe the precepts of the Apostles and the Ancients.

1. Thessalon. 4. v. 11. We desire you brethren, that you worke with your owne hands, as we haue commanded you. And E­pistol. 2. cap. 3. vers. 4. And we haue confidence of you in our Lord, that the things which we command, you both doe and will doe.

1. Cor. 7. v. 12. For to the rest, I say, not our Lord: If any bro­ther haue a wife an infidell, and she consent to Diuel with him, let him not put her away.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 4. de Pontif. c. 17. The Pope and other Bishops can iudge and make lawes.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Caluin in Antidoto Concilij Sess. 6. con. 20. As for laws of They cannot command. the Church, let them looke to them: we acknowledge one law­maker, [Page 210] who can giue rules of life, as we haue our life from him. In actor. 15. v. 28. The sottish Papists, who out of these words would The Church hath no au­thoritie. No power to make lawes. proue that the Church hath some authoritie.

Musculus in locis c. de Magistrat. The Church hath no power to make lawes, but she is commanded to heare and obey.

Luther de Captiuit. to. 2. fol. 76. Nether Pope, nor Bishop, nor any man hath any right to put a tittle vpon a Christian man, vnlesse it be done by his owne consent.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely affirmeth, that the Apostles put precepts and burdens vpon the faithfull, that S. Paul com­manded Christians to keepe them, and that himselfe com­manded diuers things. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the Church hath no au­thoritie of lawmaking, hath no power to make laws, that no Bishop or other can command a Christian man any thing but what he will himselfe.

ART. VIII. WHETHER BISHOPS BE rulers of the Church?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Act. 28. v. 28. The Holie Ghost hath placed you Bishops to Bishops ru­lers of the Church. rule the Church of God.

2. Tim. 1. ver. 11. I am appointed a preacher and Apostle and Maister of the Gentils. 7. c. 5. v. 19. Against a Preists receaue not accusation, but vnder twoe or three witnesses.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent sess. 23. c. 4. Bishops are put of the Holie Ghost for to rule the Church of God.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Spalatensis or Lohetus Respons. ad Marium. cap. 1. The true nature of a head, and the true nature of a ruler, is in no pure No mā ruler of the Church man, one or manie, nether Monarchically nor Aristocratically. Of the same opinion are others as appeareth by what hath beene saied before art. 2. and 4.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Bishops are rulers of the Church, that S. Paul was maister of the Gentils, that S. Timothe was iudge of Preists. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that no pure man one or manie, can be head or true ruler of the Church.

ART. VI. WHETHER DO RVLE THE true Church of God?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Act. 20. v. 28. The holie Ghost hath placed you Bishops to Bishops rule the true Church rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his owne blood.

Ephes. 4. v. 11. And he gaue other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints, vnto the worke of the mi­nisterie, vnto the edifying of the bodie of Christ.

Isaie 62. v. 6. Vpon thy walls, Hierusalem, I haue appointed watch men.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Ttent Sess. 6. c. 1. The Holie Ghost hath put all Bishops of Patriarchall, Primatiall, Metropolitan and Cathe­drall Churches to rule the Church of God which he hath pur­chased with his blood.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Controu. 2. quaest. 2. c. 2. The rule of the Catholik Not the true Church. Church could yet neuer be seene. Againe: The Catholik Curch, which containeth onely good men, can nether be seene, nor comen vnto, nor saluted. And q. 1. c. 10. There are some Prelats, who say and do not, but these are not of the Catholik Church—Bellarmin should remember, that Bishops are Pastors of parti­cular Churches, not of the Catholik Church. Of the same opi­nion are other Protestants, who say, that the true Church of God is inuisible to men, for such a Church cannot be ruled of mē: or denie, that anie reprobates, though they be Pastors, are members of the true Church. For if they were Pastors of the true Church, certainly they should be also members of the same and those principall. And if no re­probates be Pastors of the true Church, nether be any elect: because those Pastors, which are elect, rule no other Church then that, which those which are repro­bate, do. As Saint Peter ruled no other kinde of Church, then Iudas did.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Bishops rule that Church which Christ purchased with his blood: that they edifie the bodie of Christ: and that there are watch men vpon the walls of Hierusalem: But Hierusalem, the bodie of Christ, the Church purchased with Christs blood, is the true Church. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that the rule of the Catho­lik or true Church is inuisible, that she cannot be seene: that noughtie prelats are not of the Catholik Church: that Bishops are not pastors of the Catholik Church.

ART. VII. WHETHER PASTOVRS OF the Church be to be called Preists?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Isaie 61. ver. 6. speaking of the time of Ghospell, saieth: Pastours of the Church are to be cal­led Preists. And you shalbe called the Preists of the Lord. To you it shalbe saied: The Ministers of our God. And c. 66. v. 20. 21. And they shall shew forth my glorie to the Gentils—And I will take of thē to be preists and leuits, saieth our Lord.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa c. 17. S. Austin saieth, that Bishops and Presbyters are properly called Preists.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther de Instit. Ministr. to. 2. fol. 371. Who administer the Not to be called Preists. word and Sacraments amongest people, nether may nor ought to be called preists.

Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 18. §. 14. With what trust dare these sacrilegious follows call themselues preists of the liuing God?

Rainalds in his Conference c. 8. diuis. 4. They who charge vs with falshood and corruption in that we call the Ministers of the Ghospell, Elders; are guiltie themselues of heresie and blas­phemie, in that they call them Preists.

Whitaker l. 9. cont. Dur. sect. 47. The names of Preists or Sacrificers, do no way agree to the Ministers of the new testamēt, but abusiuely and metonymically.

P. Martyr l. cont. Gardiner col. 1075. We call not our Mini­sters, Preists.

Confessio Heluet. c. 18. We giue none of our Ministers the name of Preists.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the Pastors of the Church shalbe called Preists: and that some of the Gentils shal of God be taken to be Preists. The same say Catho­liks.

Protestants expressely say, that Pastors of the Church may not be called Preists, that they call none of them Preists: that it is sacrilege, heresie, and blasphemie to call them preists.

ART. VIII. WHETHER ANY CAN BE a Pastour and preach without mission or calling?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Roman. 10. vers. 15. But how shall they preach vnlesse they None can preach with­out mission. be sent?

Hebr. 5. ver. 5. So Christ also did not glorifie himselfe that he might be made a highe preist.

Ihon 3. v. 28. A man cannot receaue any thing, vnlesse it be giuen him from heauen.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

D. Stapleton in Rom. 10. v. 15. The roote of lawfull preaching, is mission: nether is there any lawfull power of preaching Gods worde, where lawfull mission went not before.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Art. Smalcaldici pag. 353. In case of necessitie, a lay man ab­solueth, In necessitie a lay man ab­solueth. Some may preach with out mission. and becometh Pastor and Minister to an other.

Luther tom. 2. German. fol. 256. A Christian man hath so much power, that not called, he ought to come forth and [Page 215] teach in middest of Christians, when he seeth the teacher there to erre.

Id. l. de Instit. ministr. f. 372. We haue shewed euidently, that euerie one hath authoritie to minister the worde, yea com­mandment, if he see that there is none to teach, or that they teach not aright, who are. The like ib. l. de Iudic. Eccles. 376. & de Captiuit. f. 80. And Postilla in die S. Stephani f. 84. Stephen by his example giueth authoritie to euerie Christian to preach Christ in what place soeuer, where they are desirous to heare.

Herbrand in Disp. 11. Euen they who are not lawfully called may preach the word fruitfully.

Melancthon in disput. to. 4. p. 507. A lay man can absolue, not onely in case of necessitie, but otherwhere.

Iacobus Andreae in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 410. In case of necessitie when Ministers or other men are absent, it is lawfull for a woman to comfort a sick man by preaching, and absolue him of his sinnes. Kemnitius also 2. port. Exam. tit. de Ministris p. 49. saieth that it is lawfull in case of necessitie to preach without lawfull vocation.

Peter Martyr in locis clas. 4. c. 1. §. 15. When a Church is not yet built and men are ignorant of Christian religion, who­soeuer shalbe there by chance who know Christ, they are bound to preach him: nether is ordination to be expected, seing it cannot be had.

Beza de Notis Eccles. vol. 3. Then, wilt thou say, shall it be lawfull for euerie one in the Church to teach? No truely—But where a generall disorder rageth vnder colour of order, nether re­medie can be expected from the authours of this euill, then surely, as when the cittie is on fire, it is the parte of euerie good citizen out of order to bring water and cast vpon the fire: so in this fire of the Church, it is the duetie of euerie pious man according to his power to oppose himselfe to this euill.

Plessie de Eccles. c. 11. We know, that it is saied: How shall they preach vnlesse they be sent: But because when all things are done confusely and out of order, we must not looke that all things may be done rightly, and according to set order and forme. For ether that the Church be admonished that there need reforma­tion, [Page 216] or that anie particular man take care of his saluation, euerie Christian ought to know that he is called to that function by a generall vocation, so that he burne with zeale of the glorie of God and charitie to his neighbour.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that none can preach vnlesse he be sent, none can take any honour vnlesse it be giuen to him: that Christ made not himselfe Preist or Pastour. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that one that is not called may fruitfully preach, that any man may preach in case of necessitie, or when there wanteth a Pastour, or he erreth, or when there is a generall disorder, or men are desirous to heare: that a lay man may absolue in case of necessitie and otherwise also: that in case of necessitie a lay man be­cometh a Minister and Pastour: yea that where men want, a woman may preach and absolue from sinnes. Which are so plainly against Scripture as some Protestants confesse it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. IX. WHETHER A PASTOVR OF the Church may haue also temporall iurisdiction?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Gen. 14. v. 18. and Hebr. 7. v. 3. Melchisedech is saied to A Pastour of the Church may haue temporall iu­risdiction. haue beene both a Preist and King.

Exod. 18. ver. 13. Moises did sit to iudge the people: And yet withall was a preist as we shall shew in the next article. 1. Reg. 1. & 4. Heli is saied to haue beene high Preist and iudge of the people. The same is euidtē of the Machabees.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. It doth not repugne, that [Page 217] the Pope should be both a spirituall Prince, and also a temporall Prince of some prouince.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Zuinglius Art. 36. to. 1. Iurisdiction or administration of He cannot. law which the saied Church men do chalenge, belongeth wholy to the secular Magistrate if he wilbe a Christian. And in explan. art. 36. All administration of law is forbidden to Church men.

Caluin in Luc. 12. v. 13. So is the robberie of the Pope and his men condemned, who though they pretend to be Pastours of the Church, notwithstanding dare take vpon them terrene and pro­fane iurisdiction, which is contrarie to their function. The same he hath 4. Iustit. c. 11. §. 8.

Daneus Controu. 4. pag. 560. Let vs shew, that vnder the Gospell it is not lawfull for Bishops to haue, execute, practise, both ecclesiasticall and politicall iurisdiction.

Polanus in Disput priuat. disput. 13. No man can be at once both a Bishop and a politicall Prince.

Hutterus in Analysi Confes. Augustan. p. 622. It is ma­nifest, that both powers cannot agree to one and the same man at one time.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Melchisedech was at once both King and Preist: that Moises was both iudge and preist: the same of Heli and the Machabees Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely say, that all temporall iurisdictiō belongeth to the ciuill Magistrate: all temporall admini­stration of law is forbidden to Church men, that the same man cannot haue ecclesiasticall and temporall iurisdictiō, the same man cannot be both Bishop and Prince.

ART. X. WHETHER MOISES WERE a Preist?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Psal. 98. v. 6. Moises and Aaron in his Preists, and Samuel Moises was a Preist. among them that inuocate his name.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. Moises was both a soue­raigne temporall Prince and a high preist, as is euident it out of the Scripture.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 5. c. 4. Nether did Moises exercise at all He was no Preist. the preisthood, but was onely a Prophet.

Iuel in defens. Apol. Part. 6. c. 11. diuis. 4. Whether Moises were a Preist or no, we are not certaine.

Daneus Cont. 4. p. 561. I answere that Moises had not nor, exercised both the functions of Preihstood and Magistrate; but onely the functions of a Magistrate and Prophet. The same saied Hunnius in Colloq. Ratisbon. sect. 2. Where he ad­deth, that he sacrified as a Prophet, not as a Preist.

Chamier l. 1. de Pontif. p. 71. I graunt, that Moises as supe­riour to Aaron, but as Magistrat, not as Preist.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture saieth plainly, that Moises was a Preist as it saieth that Aaron was one. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainly say, that Moises was no preiste; exercised no preisthood.

THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF PASTOVRS.

What we haue rehearsed in this Chapter doth shew, that Protestants do propose farre other kinde of Pastours to vs then the holie Scripture and Catholiks do: For the Scrip­ture together with Catholiks teacheth vs, that Pastours are perpetuall, haue in themselues authoritie to rule the Church, that one single Pastour hath power to excom­municate, that they haue authoritie to command and make lawes, be true rulers of the Church, do rule the true Church, be to be called Preists, cānot be made nor preach without lawfull calling, may haue also temporall iurisdi­ction, and finally that Moises was a Preist: All which Pro­testants denie.

They also shew that Protestants steale from the Pastors of the Church their perpetuitie, their authoritie, their power to excommunicate in particular, their authoritie to command and make lawes, their true power of ruling, or ruling the true Church, their name of Preists and tem­porall iurisdictiō: and finally from Moises, his Preisthood. And thus much of Pastours: now of the Church.

CHAPTER VII. OF THE CHVRCH.

ART. I. WHETHER THE CHVRCH be one?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

I HON 10. v. 16. There shalbe made one fould and One Church. one Pastor.

Rom. 12. v. 5. So we being manie, are one bodie in Christ.

Ephes. 2. v. 16. That he may reconcile both in one bodie to God by the crosse.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton Controu. 1. quaestion. 2. artic. 1. The Ca­tholik doctrine is, that there is one onely Church which we pro­fesse in the Creed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Controu. 2. quaest. 1. cap. 7. pag 432. There Twoe Churches. must needs be one Church of the wicked, an other of the good. And cap. 14. pag. 453. Where (Austin) saieth, that which we say, that there are twoe societies of men in the world, that is, twoe Churches. To the one, belonge the predestinate; to the other, the reprobate.

[Page 221] Humfrey ad Ration 3. Campiani. We haue shewed, that This, and that. Caluin and our Churches put not onely that inuisible Church, but also this which is visible and apparent by her notes.

Morton in Apol. part. 1. l. c. 1. The question is, whether that Church which in our Creed we beleiue and professe to be one holie and catholik be inuisible, and necessarily distinct frō any visible Church. Protestants affirme: Papists denie. And cap. 3. Manie are in the visible Church who haue nothing to doe with the in­uisible. Therefore there must be admitted some inuisible Church, out of which they are, distinct from that, in which they are.

Magdeburgenses Centuria 1. l. 2. c. 4. col. 171. Christ and Twoe Churches. the things themselues teach vs, that there are twoe Churches

Gesnerus in Compendio doctrinae loco 24. Thē will there be twoe Churches, one visible, the other inuisible? We must needs distinguish betwene the visible congregation of them that are called, embrace the Sacraments, and professe the pure word of God, and betwene the true faithfull and elect.

Vrsinus in Catechismo p. 343. The militant Church is twoe­fould, visible, and inuisible. The visible is the companie of those that agree in doctrine, hauing manie members dead or not re­generate: The inuisihle, is the companie of the elect and rege­nerate.

Daneus Cont. 4. p. 707. But if this man be of that opinion, Twoe Churches. that Austin doth not acknowledge twoe Churches, the one visible in which euen the reprobate are, an other inuisible in which onely, those are who are predestinated of God to saluation, he is much deceaued.

Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 124. One distinction separateth the true and internall Church of Christ, which wholy consisteth of the elect and true beleiuers, from the extern [...]ll companie of pro­fessors, which often times hath manie reprobates: albeit also it may be not without cause called the true Church of Christ, by reason of professing true doctrine.

And seing all Protestants deuide the Church into visible and inuisible, and do not onely professe, that the inui­sible Church is a true Church, but also sometimes call the visible, a true Church, properly so termed, and the sp [...]use [Page 222] and bodie of Christ, as I shewed l. de Authore Protestant. Eccles. 2. cap. 6. they must needs confesse, that they make Visible and inuisible Church di­stinct. In partes. twoe true Churches militant, which in their opinion differ in partes or members, in definition, and in manie proprieties. For according to them, the partes or mēbers of the inuisible Church, are onely iust and predestinate men: partes or members of the visible Church, are both iust and vniust, predestinate and reprobate. The definition of the inuisible Church, is this: A Societie in iustifying faith and predestination: The definition of the visible, this: In Definitiō. A Societie in profession of true faith and lawfull vse of Sacraments. The inuisible, is knowne onely to God: The visible, to God and mē also. Against the inuisible, the gates In Proprie­ties. of hell cannot preuaile: against the visible, they may. She cannot be led into error, at lest not into fundamentall error: This may. She cannot wholy perish, this may. She is beleiued of Protestants in the Creed, not this. She hath no visible notes whereby she may be distinguished from other Societies, this hath. If therefore both these Societies be true Churches before God, there must needs be twoe true militante Churches. For one cannot differ from it selfe, in partes, definition, and in so manie and so great pro­prieties.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainly saieth, that Christs fould is one, that Christians are one misticall bodie. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants plainly say, that there are twoe Churches, a twoefould Church, one of the wicked an other of good: or one of the predestinate an other of the reprobate: that there is this and that Church, visible and inuisible.

ART. VII. WHETHER BAD MEN MAY be in the true Church?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 13. ver. 47. The kingdome of heauen is like to a net cast B [...]d men in the Church. into the sea, and gathering together of all kinde of fishes. Which when it was filled, drawing it forth and sitting by the shore▪ they chose out the good into vessels, but the badde they cast out. So shall it be in the consummation of the world.

Matth. 3. v. 12. Whose fanne is in his hand, and he shall cleane Chaffe in Gods flore. purge his flore; and will gather his wheat into the barne, but the chaffe he will burne with vnquenchable fire.

1. Cor. 6. v. 15. Know you not that your bodies are the mem­bers of Christ? Taking therefore the members of Christ, shall I make them the mēbers of an harlot? God forbidde. c. 10. v. 17. For All Commu­nicants, one bodie. being manie, we are one bread, one bodie all that participate of one bread. The same is euident by what hath beene saied before of Iudas.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton Controu. 1. q. 2. art. 5. The orthodoxall sentence is, that the true Church which we beleiue in our Creed, consisteth of good and badde.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 1. cap. 7. The Church consisteth of the The bad no members of the Church. good onely. The bad are not members of the true Church. c. 11. The godlie are no more ioyned in one bodie with the wicked, then light with darknesse, Christ with Belial. c. 13. In the triumphāt Church are onely good, so likewise in the militant. Et q. 5. c. 3. The wicked Belonge to the Church. belong not to the Church of God.

Rainalds thes. 4. The wicked are no parte of the bodie of Christ, therefore nether of the Church. And in Apologia thes. pag. 244. The Church proposed in the Creed, containeth onely Saintes.

[Page 224] Apologia Conf. Augustan. de Eccles. The wicked cannot be the Church.

Luther in Psal. 118. tom. 7. Who hath not true faith, is not a Pertaine not to the Church. Saint and iust, pertaineth not to the holie Church.

Caluin 4. Instit. c. 1. § 7. None are admitted into that which is indeed the Church before God, but they who by grace of adop­tion are the Sonnes of God.

Peter Martyr in locis clas. 4. c. 1. §. 1. We auouch, that such Not partes of the Church. men (wicked) are not indeed and before God partes of the Church. In 1. Cor. 1. Onely Saintes are truely and before God of the Church, the wicked in onely shew and not indeed belonge to the Church.

Daneus Cont. 4. p. 706. That which is the true Church, con­sisteth of Saintes alone.

Volanus l. 3. cont. Scargam. Confesse, that in name onely, In name onely mem­bers of the Church. and not indeed (as thou falsely thinkest) they are reputed amongst the members of the Church of God, who being by nature goates are hidden vnder the name of Christs sheepe in his flock. And he addeth, that such are worthily, iudged to couer themselues with the vaine and vnprofitable maske of the Church.

Musculus in locis tit. de Eccles. Not so much as the name of the Church is to be giuen to the wicked and reprobate.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that badde men are in the Church as badde fishes in the net, and as chaffe in the flore: that the bodies of those Christians who commit fornicatiō, are members of Christ: that all who eate of one Eucharisticall bread, are one bodie. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely teach, that badde mē are not mem­bers of the true Church, pertaine not to the holie Church, are not indeed & before God partes of the Church, onely in shew, and not indeed belonge to the Church, in name onely and not indeed are reputed among the members of the Church, couer thēselues with the vaine maske of the Church, deserue not so much as the name of the Church: [Page 225] that they are not ioyned in one bodie with the godlie, are no parte of the bodie of Christ: That the Church, the Church proposed in the Creed, the Church indeed and before God, the true Church, consisteth onely of good men and Saints.

ART. III. WHETHER REPROBATES may be in true Church?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

The parables cited in the former article of the net and Reprobates in Gods net, in his flore, and his disciples. the flore, and the example of Iudas shew manifestly, that reprobates may be in the true Church.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton Cont. 1. q. 2. art. 1. The Catholik doctrine is, that there is but one Church which we professe in our Creed, and that she consisteth of the elect and reprobate.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 7. We say, that the Church consi­steth Reprobates not of the Church in­deed. not of reprobates, but of onely predestinate. Agayne. A re­probate may seeme to be of the Church, but he cannot be indeed of the Church. And q. 5. c. 3. That is a false Church, which consi­steth of reprobates.

Rainalds in Apol. Thes. p. 170. I determine, that the elect alone are contained in the Church of the Creed.

M. Perkins. de praedest. tom. 1. col. 154. A reprobate is but in Onely in shew members of the Church. shew onely a member of Christ.

Abbats in Diatribam Thomsoni c. 8. Reprobates are not reputed in the Church.

Caluin in 1. Ioan. 2. v. 19. Ihon plainly pronounceth, that they Neuer mem­bers of the Church. who falle away, were neuer members of the Church.

Beza in Confes. cap. 5. sect. 8. As for the rest (Beside the elect) they are not be numbred among the members of the Church, albeit they were Apostles.

Daneus Cont. 4. p. 689. The true Church of God containeth onely his elect.

[Page 226] Pareus Colloq. Theol. 1. disput. 12. The reprobate are not truely and indeed of the Church, nor belonge vnto it before God. Not truely of the Church.

Sadeel in Refutat. Posnan. c. 4. Reprobates pertaine not to the true Church. And Musculus in the former article, will not so much as the name of the Church to be bestowed vpon the reprobates.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that those who are to be be cast out and to be burnt with vnquenchable fire, that is, reprobates, are in the kingdome of heauen and in the flore of God, that is, in his Church. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely teach, that reprobates are not in the Church, not in the true Church, not in the Church of the Creed, not indeed, not before Good: that the Church, the true Church containeth onely the elect: that the re-reprobates onely in shew and apparence can be of the Church, that they deserue not the name of the Church that she is a false Church which consisteth of the re­probates.

ART. IV. WHETHER THE CHVRCH continueth euer?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Mathew 16. vers. 18. Thou art Peter, and vpon this rock Church, in­uincible. will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it.

Luke 1. v. 33. And he shall reigne in the house of Iacob for Shall haue no end. euer, and of his kingdome there shalbe no end.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton Cont. 1. q. 3. art. 2. The Church of Christ con­tinueth to the end of the world.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Apologie of the Church of England. Longe agoe hath The whole Church cleane fallen downe. the Bishop of Rome willed to haue the whole Church depend vpō himselfe alone: wherefore it is no meruaile though it be cleane fallen downe longe agoe. Agayne. When we likewise saw, that all thinges were quite troden vnderfoote by these men, and that nothing remained in the temple of God but pittifull spoiles and decaies, we reckoned &c.

Cartwright in Whitgifts Defense p. 217. When Antichrist Rooted out from the ground. had rooted out the Church euen from the ground &c.

Luther in c. 49. Genes. tom. 6 The Pope hath extinguished the Church.

Caluin cont. Sadolet. p. 132. The matter came to that passe, that it was cleare and manifest both to the learned and vnlearned, Christ king­dome flat downe. that the true order of the Church thē perished, Christs kingdome was cast flat downe, when this principalitie (of the Pope) was erected.

Beza in Conf. c. 5. sect. 29. But for that horrible tyranie (of the Popedome) which ouerthrew the whole Church and whicb almost alone doth stay her renewing we &c.

Daneus in l. Augustini de Haeres. c. 95. About the yeare of our lord 574. arose this destruction, plague, and tyranie of the Rooted out from the foundation. whole Church, which after rooted out the kingdome of Christ from the foundation.

Chassanio l. 2. de Ecclesia p. 151. It is false: That the Church shall neuer be broken of. More of ther like sayings may be seene in my 2. booke of the Author of the Protestant re­ligion c. 1. Where also c. 2. I haue refuted their euasions.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the gates of hell shall not pre [...]aile against the Church. that there shalbe no end of the kingdome of Christ. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the whole Church was [Page 228] cleane fallen downe long agoe: that nothing remained in the temple of God but pittifull spoiles & decaies: that the Church was rooted out from the ground: the Church ex­tinct, the whole Church ouerthrowne, the whole Church destroied: that the kingdome of Christ was cast flat downe and rooted out from the foundation: which are so con­trarie to the Scripture as sometimes Protestants confesse no lesse. See lib. 2. cap. 30.

ART. V. WHETHER THE CHVRCH BE alwaies visible.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Matth. 5. vers. 15. Christ thus speaketh to his disciples or Church can­not be hiddē. Church: You are the light of the world. A cittie cannot be hidde situated vpon a mountaine.

And c. 18. v. 17. And if he will not heare them, tell the Church, And if he will not heare the Church, let him be to thee as the Hea­then and the Publican.

Isaie 62. v. 6. Vpon thy walles, Hierusalem, I haue appointed Wacth mē for euer in the Church. wachmen, all the day and all the night for euer they shall not hould their peace.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton Cont. 1. q. 3. art. 1. The Church which we are to beleiue, must necessarily alwaies be visible. There must alwaies be a visible Church.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 2. c. 1. Their (Papists) opinion is, that Militant Church inui­sible. the militant Church is alwaies visible. But we teach, that the whole Church, that is, the Catholik, is inuisible, not onely the triumphant parte, but also the militant. Et q. 4. c. 1. We confesse, that there is alwaies on earth some number of them who piously [Page 229] worshippe Christ, and hould the true faith and religion: but we say, that this member is not alwaies visible. Their (Papists) opi­nion is that there is perpetually some visible Church on earth.

Caluin in Praefat. Instit. Papists will haue the forme of the Church not apparent. Church to be alwaies apparent and visible: we on the contrarie affirme, that the Church may consist of no apparent forme. Et in Catechismo c. de fide. She is not alwaies seene with eyes, dis­cerned by markes.

Daneus Cont. 4. l. 3. c. 12. Oftentimes God will haue some vi­sible Oftentimes no visible Church. Church on earth, oftentimes none. And l. 4. c. 8. The true Church may some time faile to be visible.

Scarpe de Iustif. Cont. 5. The members of the visible Church The whole visible Church may faile. In the vtter­most extent▪ may faile, yea the whole visible Church, as such.

Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 136. Whence it followeth, that the visible Church of Christ, not onely in a great parte, but euen whole, taken in the vttermost extent, may for sometime faile from the true faith, and be wholy obscured. Againe. The externall Church of Christ may be obscured and faile. More of their like sayings may be seene in my foresaied booke c. 4.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainly teacheth, that the Church of Christ cannot be hidden, and biddeth vs to tell and heare her. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainly teach, that there is not alwaies a vi­sible number of those who piously worshippe Christ, that the Church may haue no apparent for me, is not alwaies seene with eyes, sometimes faileth to be visible: that the whole visible Church, as such, may faile: that the whole visible Church taken in her vttermost extent may faile from the faith: that God oftentimes will haue no visible Church on earth. Which are so opposite to Scripture as Protestants sometimes confesse it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. VI. WHETHER THE CHVRCH be infallible in faith?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Isaie. 59. vers. vltim. This is my couenant with them, saieth Gods spirit euer in the mouth of the Church. our Lord: My spirit that is in thee, and my words that I haue put in thy mouth, shall not departe out of thy mouth, and out of the mouth of thy seede, and out of the mouth of thy seeds seede, saieth our Lord, from this present for euer.

Mathew. 16. vers. 18. And the gates of hell shall not preuaile Gates of hell preuaile not against her. against it.

Ioan. 16. v. 13. But when the Spirit of trueth cometh, he shall teach you all trueth.

1. Tim. 3. ver. 15. Which is the Church of the liuing God, the The pillar of trueth. pillar and ground of trueth.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton Controu. 4. qu. 2. art. vnico. The Church in her determinations of faith is euer must certaine and infallible.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 4. cap. 3. God hath not promised to his The vniuer­sall Church may erre. In necessarie matters. The whole Church. Church, that she should not erre. The vniuersall Church may erre. The whole Church may erre. It is euident, that the true Church may for a time erre euen in necessarie matters. Yea after Christs ascension and that descent of the Holie Ghost vpon the Apostles, it is manifest, that the whole Church did erre about the vocation of the Gentils, and not onely the common sorte of Christians, but euen the very Apostles and Doctors. And quaest. 5. cap. 17. The Church may for a time erre in some fundamentall points.

Beza de notis Eccles. vol. 3. If some particular Church may erre euen in some principall head of Christian religion, and yet [Page 231] leaue not therefore to be a true Church: why may we not say the same of all particular Churches taken not onely seuerally but all together, for this is the Catholik Church? And the margēt The Catholik Church, and in fundamen­tall points. The whole Churrh. saieth: Some errors may creepe into the Church euen in some fundamentall head of saith.

Daneus Controu. 4. l. 3. c. 17. The whole Church, all Pastors generally may erre. The whole Church may be deceaued, slippe, and erre.

Author Resp. ad Theses. Vademont. p. 503. The Catholik And grie­uously. Church may erre, and that sometimes most grieuously. The like they teach commonly.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Gods spirit and his word shall neuer departe from the mouth of the Church: that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her; that the Holie Ghost teacheth her all trueth: that she is the pillar and ground of trueth. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely teach: that the Church, the true Church, the vniuersall Church, the whole Church may erre most grieuously and in some fundamentall and neces­sarie matters: that the whole Apostolik Church euen after the descent of the Holie Ghost did erre. Which is so re­pugnant to holie Scripture, as sometimes Protestants con­fesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. VII. WHETHER THE CHVRCH be to be heard simply in all things?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Matth. 18. v. 17. If he will not heare the Church, let him be Church, sim­ply to be heard. to the as the Heathen and the Publican.

Luc. 10. v. 16. Who heareth you, heareth me, and who despi­seth you, despiseth me.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton Cont. 4. q. 2. art. 3. We must simply and abso­lutely obey the voice of the Church in doctrine of faith.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 3. c. 3. We must not simply receaue what­soeuer Not simply to be heard. the Church teacheth; but whatsoeuer she is commanded of God to teach, and proueth by Gods authoritie. And q. 5. c. 5. The Church is to be heard, not simply in all her sayinges, decrees, sen­tences and commandments. The same he hath Cont. 2. q. 4. c. 2. and l. 1. de Scriptura c. 11.

Bucanus in Inst. Theol. loco. 43. Must we simply heare the voice of the Church, and receaue whatsoeuer she teacheth? No.

Reineccius to. 4. Armat. c. 3. We must beleiue the Church in Not simply to be beleiued. all things, not taken simply and absolutely, but relatiuely and with condition, as farre as according to Scripture and out of that she proposeth diuine trueth.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture simply and absolutely biddeth vs to heare the Church, and saieth that who heareth her, heareth Christ. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants denie, that she is simply to be heard or obeyed.

ART. VIII. WHETHER TRVETH, IN respect of vs, do relie vpon the Church?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Timoth. 3. ver. 15. Which is the Church of the liuing God, Church the pillar of trueth. the pillar and ground of trueth.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton. Controu. 4. quaest. 2. artic. vnico. The Church, according to the ordinarie course, is for faithfull men the pillar of all reuealed trueth, and for faith it selfe, the ground. For the faitfull relie vpon the teaching of the Church as an vnmouable pillar.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Contru. 2. q. 4. c. 2. The trueth of faith doth not Not pillar in regard of vs. relie vpon the Church as a foundation, no not in regard of vs. Trueth doth not relie vpon the authoritie of the Church. Againe. If the trueth of faith did relie vpon the authoritie of the Church in respect of vs, who then &c.

Bucer in Disp. Cantabrig. It is manifest enough that no Sustaineth not trueth. Church is to be termed the pillar and ground of trueth, as if she did sustaine and conserue trueth.

Melancthon in locis c. de Signis Eccles. to. 3. Faith doth not relie wpon the authoritie of the Church.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the Church is the pillar and ground of trueth. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the Church doth not sustaine or conserue the trueth: that faith relieth not vpon her authoritie: that trueth doth not relie vpon her au­thoritie as a foundation, no not in regard or respect of vs.

THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF the Church.

What hath beene repeated in this Chapter doth make manifest, that Protestants describe vnto vs a Church [Page 234] quite different from that which the holie Scripture and Catholikes propose. For the Scripture and Catholiks teach that the Church is but one: Protestants say there are twoe Churches. They say she containeth both badde and reprobates, that she endureth for euer, is alwaies visible, infallible in faith, is simply in all things to be heard, and is the pillar of faith touching vs: All which points Pro­testants denie.

They also make manifest, that Protestants steale from the Church a great parte of her, to wit, the badde and reprobate faithfull, and manie of her chiefe properties, namely, vnitie, perpetuitie, continuall visibilitie, infalli­bilitie, and our dependencie vpon her in beleife. And thus much of the Church: Now of Temples or materiall Churches.

CHAPTER VIII. OF TEMPLES OR MATERIALL CHVRCHES.

ART. I. WHETHER THE CHVRCHES be also for priuat praier?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

KINGS 3. cap. 8. ver. 41. Moreouer also the stranger, Place of praier for a strāger, which is not of thy people Israel, when he shall come from a farre countrie for thy name—and shall pray in this place, thou shalt heare in heauen in the firmament of thy habitation, and shalt do all things for which the stranger shall inuocate thee.

2. Paralipomen. 6. vers. 21. Whosoeuer shall pray in this For whom­soeuer. place, heare out of thy habitation, that is, from the heauens, and be propitious.

Mathew 21. vers. 13. It is written: my house shalbe called a house of praier.

Luc. 2. v 37. Who departed not from the temple, by fastings For S. Anne. and praiers seruing night and day. c. 24. v. 53. And they were al­waies in the Temple, praising and blessing God.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Cardin. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Santis. cap. 4. The Churches [Page 236] of Christians are rightly instituted for to pray also priuate praiers.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Tindal in Fox Actes 1610. pag. 1138. Churches are for prea­ching For preaching onely. onely. And Fox addeth: This article containeth nether errour nor honestie.

Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 327. Nether is this a lawfull end Not for priuat praier. of Churches, that the faithfull pray priuaty in them.

Luther in Festo Dedicat. Templi fol. 447. The people which beleiue in Christ are all iust and subiect to no law, especially Not dedi­cated to praier. that pertaineth to ceremonies of temples: And therefore, now amongst them, there is no temple dedicated to praier.

And hereupon Protestants in Confes. Heluet. c. 23. bidde them beware, that they wearie not the people with to long praier: And in Confess. Argentinen. cap. 21. They detest our long paier, as also doth Caluin in Matth. 6. ver. 7. and finally in their Synod at Dordrach art. 46. they define that publik euening praiers are not to be brought in, where they are not in vse: and to be taken away where they are. So well these men loue praiers in Churches.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Gods Church is the house of praier for all people, a place of praier where the stranger may make his praier and be heard: that Anna night and day praied in the temple: that the Apostles were alwaies in the temple praising God. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that Churches are onely for preaching, that is no lawfull end of Churches to pray pri­uatly in them: that Christians haue no temple dedicated to praier, and forbidde long, and euening praier in Churches.

ART. II. WHETHER CHVRCHES BE to be adorned?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Exod. 35. is described the wonderfull adorning of the ta­bernacle Churches are to be adorned. made by Gods commandment: and 3. Reg. 6. the most rich ornaments of the temple made by Salomon.

Psalme 25. v. 8. I haue loued the beautie of thy house.

Marc. 14. v. 15. Say to the maister of the house that the Maister saieth: where is my refectorie, where I may eate my Paske with my disciples? And he will shew you a great chamber, adorned, and there prepare for vs.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Ioan. 12. v. 3. Sumptuous d [...]cking and hono­rable adorning, when they are done in the honour of God and for his worshippe, ether in the adorning or magnifencie of Churches, or in solemne administration of Sacraments, doe please God.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins in Problemate c. de ornatu templorū. The errour Not to be adorned. (of adorning temples) began to be strange in Constantins time: and the Fathers thē being caried away with the custome do exact the adorning of temples.

Caluin in Math. 26. v. 11 Let vs not deuise sumptuous wor­shippes of God with the Papists. In Ioan. 12. v. 6. Surely God ca­reth not for externall pompe—wherefore they are preposterous interpreters, who out of Christs answere do infer, that costly and magnificall worshipps do please God.

Tigurini apud Hospin. part. 2. Hist. fol. 24. The ornaments of Churches belonge not to the true worshippe of God.

Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 327. It is not onely superfluous, but also vaine and superstitious, and in parte ethnicall also and [Page 238] Iewish, to make great and vnprofitable expenses in adorning Churches, as euerie where vseth to be done in Poperie. For that theatricall brauerie is contrarie to the simplicitie of Christian religion.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that God himselfe com­commanded the tabernacle to be adorned, that Salomon by his instinct adorned the temple, that Dauid loued the beautie of Gods house: that Christ made choice of a great and adorned chamber, wherein he should celebrate the Eucharist. The same say Catholiks.

Protestāts expressely say, that the adorning of Churches is an errour, superfluous, vaine, superstitious, ethnicall and Iudaicall, and contrarie to Christian religion: that ma­gnificall and costlie worships please not God.

ART. III. WHETHER IT BE LAWEFVLL to put the Images of Angels or Saintes in Churches?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Exod. 25. v. 18. God thus commandeth: Two Cherubins Images in the Temple. also thou shalt make of beaten gould on both sides of the Oracle. And vers. 22. And I will speake to thee ouer the Propitiatorie and from the middest of the two Cherubins, which shalbe vpon the arke of testimonie, all things which I will cōmand the children of Israel by thee.

3. Reg. 6. vers. 23. And he (Salomon) made in the Oracle two Cherubs of oliue trees of ten cubits in height. And v. 27. And he put the Cherubs in the middest of the inner temple.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Session. 25. c. de Inuocat. The Images [Page 239] of Christ and other Saintes are to be had and kept, especially in Churches.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Iuel. art. 14. sect. 2. The Iewes had no manner of Image, nether painted nor grauen in their temples.

Luther in Deuteron. 7. to. 3. I do not much loue images, and would they were not in Churches.

Zuinglius l. de ver. & fals. relig. c. de Statuis. Images must Not in tēples be taken out of Churches.

Sadeel ad Art. 59. Abiurat. God abhorreth images.

Peter Martyr in locis tit. de Cult. Imaginum §. 22. We must not suffer, that Images be had in Churches.

And in this point the Protestants doctrine is well enough knowne by their deeds: yea some of them goe so farre as they denie that we may paint any Images of Christ or the Saints. For thus saieth Leo Iudae in Zuinglius to. 2. f. 627. If Christ and his Saints be in heauen, it is wickednes euen to make their images. With whome agreeth Zuinglius ib. 630. Hof­fman also ib. f. 631. saieth: That good man thinketh, that images may be kept and suffered, so that none do adore or worshippe thē. But this opinion is contrarie to the testimonies of Scripture, wherein the Lord commandeth that we shall not make them. The same intimateth Confessio Heluet. c. 4.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that God commanded twoe Images of Angels to be made and put in the Oracle: that Salomon made twoe others, and put them in the middest of the inner temple. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that God abhorreth images, that they are not to be suffered in Churches, no that the Images of Christ and his Saintes are to be made: that the Iewes had no manner of Images in their temple.

ART. IV. WHETHER THE HEATHENS or Idolaters did thinke their Idols to be Gods.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Exod 32. v. 8. God himselfe thus speaketh vnto Moises: They haue made to themselues a molten calfe, and haue adored, and immolating hostes vnto it, haue saied: These are thy Gods, Israel, that haue brought thee out of the land of Egypt.

Actes 19. v. 26. Demetrius a Heathen hath these words: Heathens thought theirs Idols to be Gods. Sirs you see and heare, that this same Paul by persuasion hath auerted a great multitude, not onely of Ephesus, but almost of all Asia, saying: That they are no Gods which be made by hands.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Imagin. c. 13. It is false, that the Heathens did not thinke the idols to be Gods.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Caluin 1. Instit. c. 11. §. 9. Nether are the Heathēs to be thought They thought not so. to haue beene so blockish, as that they knew not, that God was an other thing then stones and stockes.

Daneus Controuer. 7. p. 1394. It is a lie, that the Heathens did beleiue the Images of their Gods to haue beene their Gods themselues.

Zuinglius in Resp. ad Valentin. to. 1. f. 247. The Heathens did no more account their Idols to be Gods, then now we vse to account of our Images. The like say Peter Martyr Controu. Gardiner. col. 396. and Sadeel ad art. 59. abiurat.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely teacheth, that the idolaters did say, that their molten calfe was their God, that Demetrius a [Page 241] Heathen reprehēded S. Paul, because he tought, that they were no Gods which were made by mens hands. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that the Heathēs did not thinke stocks or stones to be their Gods: that it is a lie, that they thought the images of their Gods to be Gods themselues. And yet these men, who against the plaine testimonie of Scripture do defend the Heathens, do accuse the Catho­liks that they make Images their God.

THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF TEMPLES or materiall Churches.

Out of that which we haue rehearsed in this Chapter, it appeareth, that Protestants haue other kind of temples, then the Scripture and Catholiks haue. For the Scripture and Catholiks teach, that temples or Churches are also for priuat praier, that they are to be adorned, and that images of Angels or Saintes are to be put in them: all which Protestants denie: and consequently they robe the Churches of one of their ends for which they are insti­tuted, and of their ornaments and holie Images.

CHAPTER IX. OF BAPTISME.

ART. I. WHETHER WATER BE necessarie to Baptisme?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

I HON 3. v. 5. Vnlesse a man be borne againe of Water neces­sarie to bap­tisme. water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdome of God.

Ephes. 5. v. 26. As Christ also loued the Church & deliuered himselfe for it, that he might sanctifie it, cleansing it by the lauer of water in the word.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent sess. 7. com. 2. If anie say, that true and naturall water is not necessarie to baptisme, be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Beza Epistola 2. vol. 3. Theol. Though water be wanting, if Not neces­sarie. the baptisme of one cannot nor ought to be differred with edifi­cation, surely I would as well baptize with any other liquor as with water.

Polanus in Sylloge Thes. part. 2. p. 556. The externall and sensible matter of baptisme, is water, and that wanting an other liquor proportionable.

Festus Homius in Disput. 45. We do not greatly denie, but [Page 243] where no water can be had, there some other liquor which hath the some vse that water hath, and is very proportionable thereto, may be vsed in the place thereof.

Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 367. Bellarmin and his do more restraine this essence of baptisme, then our men are wonte to doe; Whiles he auoucheth, that pure water and that solemne forme: In the name of the Father &c. is simply in all places and times pre­cisely necessarie. Agayne. Extraordinarily and in some most rare and vnusuall cases, we do not deny, but that some other kind of liquor, which hath the same vse that water hath, may be vsed. The same teacheth Luther in Colloq. Mensal. cap. 15. and Riuet iudgeth it probable tractat. 3. sect. 3. Nether is it disli­ked by Saddel ad Artic. abiurat. 11.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture plainely saieth, that vnlesse one be borne againe of water, he cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen: that Christ cleanseth his Church with the lauer of water. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that water is not simply neces­sarie: that extraordinarily and in case of necessitie one may baptize in other liquor as well as in water: that where water wanteth, an other liquor proportionable may suf­fice. Which is so euident a contradiction of Scripture, as Protestants themselues sometimes confesse it. See lib. 2. cap. 30.

ART. II. WHETHER INVOCATION of the holie Trinitie, be necessarie in baptisme?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Matthew 28. ver. 19. Going teach ye all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the Holie Ghost.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Catechismus ad Parochos cap. de baptismo. Pastors shall teach, that this is the perfect and absolute forme of baptisme: I baptize the in the name of the Father &c. and afterward addeth, that this forme doth especially pertaine to the sub­stance of baptisme.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther l. de Captiuit. Babil. tom. 2. fol. 75. Howsoeuer bap­tisme [...]s Not necessa­rie. giuen, so that it be not giuen in the name of a man but in the name of God, it truely saueth: Nay I doubt not, but if one take it in the name of the Lord, albeit a wicked Minister do not giue it in the name of the Lord, that he is truely baptized in the name of the Lord.

Zuinglius ad Struthionem to. 2. f. 312. Nether am I igno­rant, that the Apostles did not acknowledge these words (In the name of the Father &c.) for such, as without them baptisme could not stand. De baptismo ib. fol. 65. It is euident, that these words of Christ, which he vseth Mathew c. 28. are not so to be taken, as if they were a certaine forme of baptisme. And fol. 77. It shall appeare, that Christ would not, that in baptizing we should vse this forme of words: I baptize thee in the name of the Father &c.

Caluin de ver. reform. p. 235. Papists disputing about the forme of baptisme, stand vpon the bare pronunciation of the words, as if Christ, when he commanded the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holie Ghost, had prescribed them I know not what magicall charme.

Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 366. According to our mens opinion nothing els is required to the essence a baptisme, but the plunging of that man into the water, who is mynded publikely to professe Christ. p. 367. About the forme (of baptisme) if that must be essentiall, here we plainly disagree. For indeed it no way consisteth in that pronuntiation of words, but in the immersion [Page 245] of the man or the sprinckling of him with water done in the name of Christ or of the holie Trinitie.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely teacheth, that Christ commanded to baptize in the name of the holie Trinitie. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants plainly teach, that inuocation of the holie Trinitie is not essentiall to baptisme: that baptisme how­soeuer giuen in the name of God, nay though it be not giuen in Gods name, so it be taken in Gods name, is true baptisme: that baptisme may consist without inuocation of the holie Trinitie: that Chtist prescribed no certaine forme of words, nor would that we should vse the fore­saied words whiles we baptize: that to stand vpon it, is to make it a magicall charme. Which contradiction of Scrip­ture is so cleare, as some Protestants confesse it: As you may see infra l. 2. c. 30.

ART. III. WHETHER BAPTISME BE necessarie by necessitie of precept?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 28. v. 19. Going teach ye all nations, baptizing them Baptisme ne­cessarie by cōmandment. in the name of the Father &c.

Act. 2. vers. 38. Be euerie one of you baptized in the name of Iesus Christ for remission of your sinnes.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Session. 7. Can. 5. If anie shall say, that baptisme is free, that is, not necessarie to salua­tion be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Cont. q. 47. c. 2. It is lawfull to abstaine from bap­tisme, Not necessa­rie by com­mandment. so there be no contempt or scandall in the fact.

Casaubon Epistola ad Card. Perron. Manie (Protestants) put baptisme amongst those things, which whether they be ab­sent or present it skilleth not much.

Bucer in Math. 9. I answere, that baptisme as an externall thing is of lesse importance, then that the Lord should haue greatly commanded anie thing about it.

Zuinglius de Baptismo tom. 2. fol. 96. Baptisme is a cere­moniall thing, which the Church may well omit or take away.

OEcalampadius l. 2. Epist. pag. 363. It is an externall thing, which the law of Charitie may dispense with.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely teacheth: that Christ and the Apo­stles commanded baptisme. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants plainely teach, that Christ did not greatly commande any thing about baptisme: that the Church may well take it away: that we may abstaine from it, so there be no contempt or scandall: and that it skilleth not much whether we haue it or want it.

ART. IV. WHETHER BAPTISME be necessarie to saluation in necessitie of means?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ihon 3. vers. 5. Amen, Amen, I say to thee: Vnlesse a man Baptisme a necessa [...]ie meane to sal­uation. be borne againe of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdome of God.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent. Sess. 6. c. 4. Which transferring (from iniustice to iustice) after the promulgation of the Ghospell, cannot be done without the lauer of regeneratiō, or desire thereof.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 6. cap. 8. The saluation of infants doth Not a neces­sarie meane. not depend of the Sacraments. And l. 8. cont. Dureum. sect. 73. Who now exclude infantes dying before baptisme from life, speake against Scriptures, against Gods mercie, and against the ancient custome. And he saieth that Protestants reiect the Catholik doctrine of necessitie of baptisme, as impious and inhumane.

Confession of Scotland. pag. 159. We detest and reiect his (Popes) cruell iudgment against infants dying without bap­tisme: and the absolute necessitie of baptisme which he putteth.

Caluin in Marci 16. v. 16. We say that baptisme is not simply necessarie, but in regard of our obedience. And 4. Instit. cap. 15. §. 12. Children, who dye before they be christened, are not shut out Childrē saued without bap­tisme. of the kingdome of God.

Beza cont. Westphal. vol. 1. p. 256. If anie mans childe die be­fore he be christened, we doubt not of his saluation. And in 2. part. resp. ad Acta Colloq. Montisbel. p. 128. The question is, whether baptisme be simply and absolutely necessarie to salua­tion, which I, with all right beleiuers do denie.

Peter Martyr in Thes. pag. 1008. Christians children are saued, howbeit they dye before they be baptized.

Daneus Cont. de baptismo cap. 4. We accurse them, who bring in absolute necessitie of baptisme. Et c. 8. It is blasphemie, that baptisme is precisely necessarie to saluation.

Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 368. Our men openly disclaime from Papists that vrge the absolute necessitie of baptisme.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely teacheth, that the water of baptisme in necessarie for one to enter into the kingdome of God. Catholiks say the same.

Protestāts plainely teach, that Baptisme is not necessaire to saluation; not simply not absolutely, not precisely ne­cessarie: that infants are saued without baptisme: and that the contrarie doctrine is against Scripture, impious, inhu­mane, and to be detested.

ART. V. WHETHER SIMON MAGVS receaued, or reprobates receaue whole and intire baptisme.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Act. 8. ver. 13. Then Simon also himselfe beleiued, and being baptized, he cleaued to Philippe. Simon Magus was baptized.

Actes 2. vers. 38. S. Peter speaketh without distinction of elect or reprobates. Be euerie one of you baptized in the name of Iesus Christ: And vers. 41. They therefore that receaued his word were baptized. So cap. 8. vers. 12. They were baptized men and weomen.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Iustificat. cap. 14. Simon Magus conuerted by Philippe and bapsized, did follow Philippe, as Luke writeth.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Beza cont. Illyric. vol. 2. Theol. p. 144. What thou writest, that Simon Peter and Simon Magus receaued the same whole Not fully baptized. baptisme, is most false. And p. 131. We do not acknowledge, that the Sacraments are intirely receaued of the incredulous. In Col­loq. [Page 249] Montisbel. p. 118. I graunt, that the intire sacraments are offered not onely to the godlie but also to the vngodlie, but not receaued intirely of the vngodlie. And in 2. part. Resp. ad acta Colloq. Montisbel. p. 91. The whole sacrament is not receaued of the vnworthie. Besides ib. p. 110. he sayeth, that the in­warde ablution of the Holie Ghost is an essentiall parte of baptisme: And p. 41. & seqq. & in Colloq pag. 355. & seqq. oftentimes repeateth, that the blood of Christ is the prin­cipall and most essentiall parte of baptisme: And will not that the reprobates receaue ether inward ablutiō or the blood of Christ: And therefore will not that reprobates receaue the whole essence of baptisme. Moreouer in 2. parte cit. p. 76. he writeth thus: We say, that Baptisme is the seale of remission and generation, but not in euerie one, nor alwaies. And in his opinion, it is essentiall to baptisme to be this kinde of seale and consequently baptisme is not true essentiall baptisme in euerie one.

Peter Martyr cont. Gardiner. col. 970. writeth, that Baptisme consisteth of water and remission of sinnes: Which remission he will not haue to be giuen to repro­bats. And therefore col. 853. saieth: If one would speake ex­actly, he should say, that the impious do not receaue the whole sacrament but onely one parte thereof.

Piscator in Respons. ad Buscherum c. 10. The faith of the receauer pertaineth to the substance of the Sacrament But they will not admit that reprobates haue faith, and therefore haue not the whole substance of the Sacrament.

Besides, Sacramentaries commonly teach, that Christ is the matter and substance of the Sacraments, and na­mely of the Eucharist: So expressely teacheth Caluin l. de Caena p. 2. and 4. Instit. c. 17. § 11. Peter Martyr cont. Gar­diner. col. 655. 755. Confessio Heluet. c. 19. and Consessio Basileensis art. 20. But they denie, that the impious or re­probates receaue Christ, and consequently must say, that nether the impious nor the reprobates receaue intire bap­tisme or Eucharist. Whereupon Bucer apud Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 147. saied; That such impious as are quite im­pious, [Page 250] receaue nothing but bread and wine. And the like they must say of baptisme, and consequently they should re­baptize such as were quite impious when they were bap­tized, as not receauing the whole substance of baptisme; without which baptisme is no true baptisme. Which may be also confirmed by that which Pareus saieth: Colloq. Theol. 1. disput. 15. That Sacraments nether signifie nor seale, and much lesse do giue, any thinge to the incredulous. Such therefore as were incredulous when they were baptized, ought to be baptized againe, as not hauing receaued ether the signe or seale of baptisme.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the reprobate Simon Magus was baptized, and that diuers others were bap­tized without making any distinction betweene the elect or reprobates amongst them. The same say Catholiks. Protestants expressely say, that Simon Magus had not whole baptisme: that the impious or reprobats do not re­ceaue the whole sacraments: that if we will speak exactly we must say, that the impious receaue but a parte of the Sacrament.

ART. VI. WHETHER BAPTISME BE effectuall in the reprobates, or profit them anything.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Gal. 3. v. 27. For as manie of you as are baptized in Christ, haue Baptisme effe­ctuall in eue­rie one. put on Christ.

Act. 2. v. 38. S. Peter speaketh thus without anie distin­ction of elect. or reprobate. Be euerie one of you baptized in the name of Iesus Christ for remission of your sinnes, and you shall receaue the guift of the Holie Ghost.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Iustificat. cap. 14. All infants are truely iustified by baptisme. And lib. 2. de Grat. cap. 16. Originall sinne is truely remitted to many reprobates by the grace of baptisme.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Caluin de Rat. Concordiae p. 664. The Sacraments to the elect are helpsto saluatiō, others they profit nothing. De Cōsens. Profiteth no­thing to re­probates. Sacramentor. p. 754. Wediligently teach, that God doth not indifferentlie put forth his power in all that receaue the Sacra­ments, but onely in the elect. And p. 761. The Sacraments profit not indifferently all, but onely the elect of God. Devera reform. p. 325. Who admit others (beside the elect) to baptisme, do profane it. And addeth pag. 349. that baptisme, was not ap­pointed for the reprobate.

Beza in Colloq. Motisbel. pag. 385. Whome God hath not elected, albeit they were baptized a thousand times with the ex­ternall baptisme of water, yet faith and the Holie Ghost would Baptisme ef­fectuall onely in the elect. neuer be giuen to them. And ib. and other where often: The power of baptisme sheweth it selfe onely in the elect. And in 2. part. resp. ad acta Colloq. Montisbel. p. 89. Faith and grace of baptisme is not giuen to all infants that are lawfully baptized. Manie thou­sand infants baptized and not regene­rated. Which he repeateth p. 90. and 97. And in Colloq. cit. pa. 393. Manie thousande of infants receaue baptisme, who yet are neuer regenerated. Whereupon ib. p. 377. he writeth thus: We can onely probably affirme, that infants who are baptized, receaue the fruite of adoption.

Zanchius de Praedest. c. 6. to. 7. maketh this conclusion. To those, who are not elect baptisme bringeth no cōmoditte, nor the praiers made for them of the Church. And in Confess. c. 15. to. 8. We beleiue, that all are baptized with water; but the elect onely with the spirit.

Musculus in locis tit. de Baptisme. None, I thinke, is so [Page 252] madde, as to say, that the Holie Ghost doth, euē in the reprobates whiles they are baptized, worke the effect of his grace which is ap­pointed for the elect and faithfull.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that whosoeuer are baptized in Christ, do put on Christ: that euerie one (without distin­ction of elect or reprobate) may be baptized for remission of sinnes. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that Sacraments profit onely the elect and giue nothing to others: that baptisme is ap­pointed for the elect alone: that the reprobate though they were baptized a thousand times should not receaue grace: that manie thousands of infantes are baptized and not regenerated: that onely the elect are baptized with the Spirit and that the cōtrarie is madnesse. Which is so oppo­site to Scripture as the holie Fathers pronounce that he is no Catholik who saieth, that baptisme doth not take Prosper ad c. vlt. Gallor. away sinne in the baptized reprobats: and manie Pro­testants confesse it to be cōtrarie to Scripture. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. VII. WHETHER BAPTISME CLEANSETH or washeth away sinnes?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ephes. 5. v. 26. Christ loued the Church, and deliuered him­selfe Baptisme cleanseth. for it, that he might sanctifie it, cleansing it by the lauer of water in the word.

Tit, 3. v. 5. According to his mercie he hath saued vs by the Saueth. lauer of regeneration, and renouation of the Holie Ghost.

1. Peter 3. vers. 21. Whereunto baptisme being of the like sorte Remitteth sinnes. now saueth you also.

Act. 2. v. 38. Be euerie one of you baptized in the name of Ie­sus Washeth sinnes. Christ for remission of your sinnes. c. 22. v. 17. Rise vp; and be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Catechismus ad Parochos. c. de baptismo: This must be first deliuered: that sinne, whether it be originally contracted frō our first parēts, or committed of vs, though it were so haynous as scarce could be imagined, is remitted and forgiuen by the admi­rable vertue of this Sacrament of baptisme.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 9. We do not get health by the out­ward baptisme. Etib. c. 9. God forbidde, that any attribute that Baptisme auaileth not. to the outward Sacrament, which belongeth to spirituall grace. Etib. q. 6. c. 3. Baptisme of it selfe auaileth infants nothing to saluation, nor infuseth faith or any grace into them.

Perkins in Gal. 3. to. 2. col. 171. Baptisme indeed saueth, but Saueth not. not baptisme of water.

Willet Cont. 12. q. 3. p. 567. Baptisme is not a remedie against Giueth not grace. originall sinne. 569. Baptisme doth not conferre grace.

Luther de Captiuit. Babil. c. de baptismo. Baptisme iusti­fieth Profiteth not. none, nor profiteth anie. ib. cōt. Cocleum f 408. No parte of Iustification can be attributed to baptisme.

Melancthon in locis edit. 1522. Sacraments do not iustifie. Which he repeateth l. cont. Anabaptistas.

Zuinglius de baptismo to. 2. fol. 62. Baptisme is giuen and receaued for their sakes who hould the same faith with vs, not for his sake who is baptized: for in him, that outward signe can worke nothing. Fol. 70. Externall baptisme which is done by water, Helpeth not. helpeth nothing to ablution of sinnes. Etf. 56. Some cried, that externall things are wholy vnprofitable to saluation, and that no trust is to be put in them, scing they are vaine and altogether vnprofitable. And surely they saied well, if they had not passed the bounds of charitie and modestie. Fol. 97. Baptisme cannot Washeth not sinnes. wash away the filth of sinne, nor washeth away sinne: It is no­thing but a sacramentall signe whereby Gods people is bound to one faith and religion. 98. Baptisme maketh vs no whit the Maketh no vs better. [Page 254] better. And l. de ver. & fal. relig. fol. 91. Some thinke that bap­tisme ether wipeth away sinnes, or is a signe and certification of their wiping away: both which say what they please, not what the word of God hath tought. And in Rom. 4. tom. 4. The signe of baptisme is not receaued for to confirme faith, for to purge sinnes. Confirmeth not faith. And apud Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 31. Sacraments are onely badges of Christian societie, and helpe nothing to saluation. Fi­nally l. de Peccato originall. to. 2. f. 122. he saieth: How foo­lish then should he seeme, who for the words (of Scripture) would auouch that by baptismall water we are washed from sinnes?

Caluin 4. Instit. c. 15. §. 10. Now it is cleare, how false it is, that by baptisme we are loosed and exēpted from originall [...]inne. §. 2. Who will say, that we are cleansed by this water? In Cate­chismo Is no lauer of the soule. Washeth not. pag. 36. Doest thou thinke, that water is a lauer of the soule? No. In Admonit. vlt. ad Westphal. p. 812. What if bap­tisme wash vs, how is the onely blood of Christ otherwhere called our ablution? p. 855. If they inferre, that the filth of the soule is purged by the corruptible element of water, the sunne of iustice it selfe wilbe darkened. In Actor. 22. v. 16. Paule was not washed by baptisme, but recedued a new confirmation of the grace which he had obtained. In Rom. 4. v. 12. We denie, that men are iustified by baptisme. In Ephes. 5. v. 26. We must beware, to thinke, that water purgeth the filth of the soule.

Beza in Catechismo vol. 1. Theol. pag. 693. Doth water wipe away sinne? No. In Colloq. Montisbel. p. 366. The soule is not washed with water, but the bodie onely. p. 377. The baptisme Infants not renouated when they are baptized. of water is not the lauer of regeneratiō and renouation, but onely signifieth and representeth it. Et 357. We thinke it absurd, that infants are renouated ether at that verie time when they are bap­tized, or befoee they be of discretion and haue knowne and appre­hended Christ by faith. Which also he hath in 2. part. resp. ad Acta p. 322. Where also he saieth. p. 91. I saied and do yet say, that the renouation of infants who come to be men, is not to be restrained to the time of their baptisme giuen to them ether in their infancie or their youth, but that it beginneth frō that time when by actuall faith they apprehend Christ. Which he repea­teth p. 106. And apud Grauerum in Absurdis Caluin. c. 4. [Page 255] sect. 20. I nether saied that all, or anie children are regenerated at the time of baptisme. Which also teacheth Musculus in locis tit. de baptismo. So that they will not haue children to be regenerated ether by baptisme, or whē they are baptized.

Zanchius l. 4. de tribus Elohim c. 5. Water is onely a signe of regeneration.

Piscator in Thes. loco. 25. Ananias saied to Paul: Rise, and be baptized and washe away thy sinnes, not that his sinnes were to be washed away by baptisme, which cannot be washed away but by the blood of Christ.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that the Church is sanctified and cleansed by the lauer of water: that we are saued by the lauer of regeneration: that baptisme saueth vs: that we are baptized for remission of sinnes: that by baptisme sinnes are washed away. The same say Catholiks.

Prorestants plainely say, that baptisme iustifieth not, sa­ueth not, auaileth nothing to saluation, infuseth not faith or anie grace: that it worketh nothing in him who re­ceaueth it: maketh vs no whit better, cleanseth not sinne, purgeth not sinne, washeth not sinne, wipeth not sinne away: confirmeth not faith, certifieth vs not of remission of sinne; is onely a badge of Christian societie, a signe whereby men are bound to on faith and religion; that children are not regenerated ether by baptisme or at the time when they are baptized: finally that baptisme profi­teth none, but is a vanie and vnprofittable thing. What Christians, I pray the, are these, who make this account of their Christendome: And these sayings are so repugnant to Scripture as sometimes Protestants confesse it. See l. 2. cap. 30.

ART. VIII. WHETHER IN BAPTISME euen sinnes to come be pardoned?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Act. 8. v. 21. S. Peter speaketh thus to Simon Magus al­ready Sinnes to come not for­giuen in bap­tisme. baptized: Doe pennāce therefore frō this thy wickednesse, and pray to God if perhaps this cogitation of thy hart may be remitted thee.

1. Cor. 5. v. 5. S. Paul commandeth a Corinthian baptized, for incest, to be deliuered to Sathan, that his spirit may be saued in the day of our Lord.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de baptismo. c. 18. Catholiks gather that the efficacie of baptisme doth not extend it selfe vnto the time to come, but onely to the time past: for it pardoneth sinnes com­mitted and not yet remitted.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Perkins in Serie Causarum c. 33. In baptisme once admini­stred, Sinnes prē ­sent and to come forgiuen in baptisme. is giuen remission of sinnes not onely past and present, but also of those that are to come all your life time. The like he hath in Galat. 3. to. 2.

Whitaker lib. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 101. Who are baptized, are baptized in Christs death: but Christs death auaileth to wash away, not onely those sinnes which goe before baptisme, but also those which follow in all the life time. The like he hath Cont. 2. q. 5. 7. p. 515.

Willet Cont. 12. q. 6. p. 579. Baptisme is a seale of remission of sinnes for the confirmation of our faith, euen of those which are committed after baptisme, as well as of sinnes done before—Therefore baptisme sealeth vnto vs the remission of all our sin­nes, going before or following after.

Bezal. Quaest. & resp. vol. 3. p. 344. Baptisme therefore doth not abolish onely sinnes past? Yea the fruite thereof stretcheth through the whole life of the faithfull. And in Hebr. 10. v. 11. Whosoeuer is sprinkled with blood of Christ, is deliuered for euer from sinnes past and to come. Et Epist. 5. The fruit of baptisme, is the sealing of adoption, the ablution from sinnes both past and to come.

Daneus de baptismo cap. 18. tom. 2. Howsoeuer that grace and remission of sinnes be sealed vnto vs, it pertaineth as is re­ferred in all Christs sacramēts to blot out all our sinnes past, pre­sent, and to come.

Zanchius in sua Confessione cap. 18. to. 8. For baptisme is not giuen in remission onely of originall or sinnes past, but of all for all the life time.

Festus Homius in Disp. 44 Remission of sinnes, not onely of those which were committed before baptisme, but also of those which are to be committed all the life, is sealed in baptisme vnto the faithfull. More of their like sayings may be seene in my Latin booke c. 9. art. 8.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely teacheth, that a baptized man must doe pennance for remission of such sinnes as he commit­teth after baptisme: that a baptized man was deliuered to Sathan, that his soule might be saued. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants plainely teach, that in baptisme is giuen re­mission of sinnes past, present, and to come: that baptisme auaileth for sinnes that follow all the life time: that bap­tisme is a seale of remission of sinnes as well committed after as before: that whosoeuer is once sprinkled with Christs blood, is deliuered for euer of all sinnes past and to come: that in baptisme is giuen and sealed to the faith­full remission of all sinnes to be committed all their life time. Which is to oppen a brode way to all wickednesse. And whereas Protestants haue falsely saied that, the Pope [Page 258] giueth pardons for sinnes to be done: we see, that they Protestants pardon, to sinne. manifestly giue such pardon to all and euerie one that is baptized or iustified with them.

ART. IX. WHETHER THE CHILDREN of the Faithfull be borne and abide in state of dam­nation vntill they be baptized?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ephes. 2. v. 3. And we were by nature the children of wrath, Children of faithfull borne in state of damnation. as also the rest.

Rom. 5. v. 12. As by one man sinne entred into this world, and by sinne death, and so vnto all men death did passe. v. 15. For if by the offence of one manie died. v. 18. Therefore as by the offence of one, vnto all men to condemnation: so also by the iustice of one vnto all men to iustification of life. The same also is cleare by the places before cited for the necessitie of baptisme.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton. in 1. Cor. 7. v. 14. It is a new and profane pa­radoxe of Caluin: that the children of Christian parents are borne the sonnes of God.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins de baptismo tom. 1. col. 842. Baptisme doth not Not in sote of damnation. make the children of Christian parents the sonnes of God, but onely doth seale vnto them the couenant of grace, and certifieth them that they are comprehended in it. In Gal. 2. v. 15. Originall sinne, which is hidden from beginning in them, is not imputed to them. The children of the faithfull are borne Saints.

Willet Cont. 12. q. 3. p. 565. The children of the faithfull are Are holie. holie already euen before they be baptized.

Zuinglius in 1. Co. r 12. tom. 4. The children of Christians are In the Church with in the Church and bodie of Christ, euen before they be Chri­stened.

Caluin 4. Instit. cap. 16. §. 31. Who are borne of faithfull pa­rents, Are Saints. are by supernaturall grace Saints. §. 32. Streight after they are borne, they are had and acknowledged of God for children. In Actor. 8. v. 37. I say that the children of the godlie, are borne Members of Christ. children of the Church, and from the wombe reputed members of Christ. And de ve [...]. reform. pag. 349. he stretcheth this fa­uour not onely to the immediat children of faithfull pa­rents, but also manie generations after, and as he saieth 4. Instit. c. 16. §. 9. to the thousand generation. And seing, that there is no man in the world, who is a thousand genera­tions from Noe, he must say, that all children whosoeuer, at lest all the elect, are borne saints and in state of grace & saluation.

Beza l. cont. Heshus. vol. 1. Theol. p. 307, The children of Are Saints. the faithfull are saints before God euen from the wombe. The like hath Confessio Heluet. cap. 20. Gallica artic. 35. Peter Martyr in locis Class. 2. c. 8. and others commonly, as also may appeare by what hath beene saied before art. 4.

Nay sometimes they say, that euen the children of In­fidels are borne in state of grace and saluation.

Zuinglius de baptismo to 2. f. 91. Infants which are borne Infidels Chil­dren in state of saluation. of infidels I leaue to the iudgment of the almightie and iust, albeit I can finde no cause of damnation in them. De Peccato orig. f. 119. Of Christians children, we are sure that they are not dāned for originall sinne, albeit to cōfesse plainely, that opinion seemeth more probable to vs which we taught, to wit, that we must not rashly condemne the children of Heathens. In Elencho fol. 36. We impiously condemne not onely children of Heathens, but also of Christians. And de Ratione fidei fol. 540. We rashly con­demne the children of Christiā parents, yea of Heathen parentes.

Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 542. In this point the Protestāts do not wholy agree, but ether say that all children whatsoeuer are through Christs grace saued, as Zuinglius and manie more: or at least all elect children whether they be borne of faithfull or other parents though not baptized, are saued, as the most Pro­testants say. And he addeth: These mens opinion is much more secure; but the sentence of the former is more gentle and probable [Page 260] enough, and therefore not roshly to be condemned.

Hermingius in Enchiridio class. 3. p. 322. If the children of Infidels die without baptisme, we must leaue them to Gods iudg­ment. The same also followeth out of that which Caluin loco cit. Beza ad reprehens. Castel. vol. 1. p. 502. and others say, that childrē of faithfull parents are sanctified and com­prehended in the couenant of life vnto the thousand generation.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the children of the faithfull are by nature or natiuitie the children of wrath as others are: that death passed vnto all: that condemna­tion passed vnto all. The like say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that Christian children are sonnes of God before they be christened: that they are borne Saints: that originall sinne is not imputed to them: that they are holie, within the Church, and bodie of Christ before they be baptized: Saints by supernaturall grace, members of Christe from the wombe, borne children of the Church, and from the wombe Saints before God. Likewise they say of Infidels children, that they finde no cause of condemnation in them, that they are rashly and impiously condemned: that all children whosoeuer, or at least all elect children, though not baptized, are saued: that such as come of faithfull, though after a thousand genera­tions are sanctified and comprehended within the coue­nant of life. Which are so contrarie to Scripture as some­times Protestants confesse it. l. 2. c. 30. and S. Austin saieth: L. 3. de Anima. c. 9. Do not beleiue, do not say, do not teach, that infants dying be­fore they be baptized, may attaine remission of originall sinne, if thou wilt be a Catholik.

ART. X. WHETHER THE BAPTISME of S. Ihon and of Christ were the same?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Marc. 1. v. 8. S. Ihon saieth: I haue baptized you with water, S. Ihons bap­tisme differēt from Christs. but he shall baptize you with the Holie Ghost.

Act. 19. ver. 2. (S. Paul) saied to them: Haue ye receaued the Holie Ghost, beleiuing? But they saied to him: Nay, nether haue we heard, whether there be a Holie Ghost. But he saied: In what then were you baptized? Who saied: In Ihons baptisme. vers. 5. Hearing these things they were baptized in the name of our Lord Iesus.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Councel of Trent Sess. 7. Can. 1. de baptismo: Isanie shall say, that Ihons baptisme had the same vertue that the bap­tisme of Christ, be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Whitaker ad Ration. 8. Campiani: saieth of the baptisme of S. Ihon and Christ. It was the same ceremonie, the same do­ctrin, Not different▪ the same grace.

Willet Cont. 12. q. 7. p. 585. Ihons baptisme was not diuers frō Christs baptisme, but was all one with it in propertie and effect.

Zuinglius de ver. & falsa relig. c. de baptismo. It is altoge­ther one baptisme, whether you call it Ihons, or Christs. Et de Bap­tismo to. 2. f. 75. It will appeare, that that outward baptisme of water which Iohn vsed agreeth with the externall baptisme of Christ and the Apostles, and that there is no difference at all be­tweene them.

Caluin in Luc. 3. v. 3. It is false, that the baptismes of Ihon and Christ were diuers.

Beza lib. quaest. & respons. pag. 344. I say, that indeed it was one onely and the same baptisme, administred first of Ihon, and [Page 262] after by Christs commandment.

Bucanus in Inst. Theol. loco. 47. What differ the Baptisme of Ihon Baptist and of Christ? Not in Author, not in substance, not in doctrine, not in signe or ceremonie, not also in effector or sig­nification. More of their like sayings in my Latin booke c. 9. art. 10.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that S. Ihons Baptisme was giuen in water, Christs baptisme in the Holie Ghost: that S. Ihons baptisme was not giuen in the name of the Holie Ghost, in so much as they who had beene Baptized with it, knew not that there was a Holie Ghost: that they who had beene baptized with S. Ihons baptisme were baptized againe with Christs baptisme. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that S. Ihons and Christs bap­tisme was all one ceremonie, one doctrine, one grace: was not diuers, but all one in propertie and effect, altogether one: that there was no difference at all betweene them, not diuers, one onely and the same, not different in Au­thor, substance, doctrine, signe, ceremonie, effect or signi­fication.

ART. XI. WHETHER THOSE EPHESIANS, whereof is spoaken Actor. 19. had beene baptized with S. Ihons baptisme?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Act. 19. v. 3. But he (S. Paul) saied: In what thē were ye baptized? The Ephesiās baptized with S. Ihons bap­tisme. Who saied: In Ihons baptisme. v. 5. Hearing these, they were bap­tized in the name of our Lord Iesus.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Actor. 19. v. 5. We must beleiue and stedfastly beleiue, that those twelue Ephesians had beene before baptized of Ihon.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker lib. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 70. I denie, that those men They were not baptized with S. Ihone baptisme. whereof Luke maketh mention in the Actes, were baptized againe.

Caluin 4. Institut. c. 15. §. 18. I denie, that they were baptized againe.

Zuinglius de Baptismo to. 2. f. 80. Behould an other argu­ment, whereby it is demonstrated, that those (Ephesians) were neuer baptized in Ihons outward baptisme. Resp. ad Hueber. f. 104. If thou hadst had any consideration of those things, thou wouldst neuer haue come to that madnesse, to say that these dis­ciples had beene baptized of Ihon.

Beza in Actor. 19. v. 2. We must needs say, that there is not treated of any peculiar historie of twelue men, who were ether baptized or rebaptized of the Apostle, or of baptisme.

Sadeel ad Art. 10. Abiurat. We no where read, that Ihons disciples, after his death following Christ, were rebaptized of the Apostles.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the saied Ephesians were first baptized with the baptisme of S. Ihon, and after with the baptisme of Christ. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely say, that they were not baptized againe, were not baptized with Ihons baptisme, and that it is madnesse to say it: that in the foresaied place of the Acts, there is no speech of baptisme or baptizing. Which are so contrarie to Scripture, as Protestants sometime con­fesse it. See lib. 2. cap. 30.

ART. XII. WHETHER THE FORESAIED Ephesians had heard of the Holie Ghost.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Act. 19. v. 2. And he (S. Paul) saied to them: Haue ye recea­ued The Ephesiās had not heard of the holie Ghost. the Holie Ghost, beleiuing? But they saied to him: Nay: nether haue we heard whether there be a Holie Ghost.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

D. Stapleton in Actor. 19. v. 5. S. Paul saied to these Ephe­sians, because they had answered, that they had heard nothing of the Holie Ghost; In what then were you baptized?

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Caluin in Actor. 19. v. 2. How could it be, that Iewes had heard They had heard of the holie Ghost. nothing the Holie Ghost? Surely hence we gather, that Paul spoake not so much as in generall of the Holie Ghost, and there­fore there is a figure in the word Ghost.

Beza in Actor. 19. v. 2. It were most absurd to beleiue, that they who had beene baptized of Ihon, and professed themselues disciples of Christ, were ignorant that there was anie holie Ghost.

Bucanus in Instit. loco. 47. What those twelue men denie, that they had heard that there was a Holie Ghost, is not to be vnderstood of the being or person of the Holie Ghost, but figura­tiuely of the visible manner of powring downe his guifts.

Reineccius to. 4. Armaturae c. 18. If demaund and answere had beene simply made of the Holie Ghost in respect of his person and grace, it would follow, that they had had no knowledge of the person of the Holie Ghost: But the consequent is absurd.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that the saied Ephesians had [Page 265] not so much as heard that there was a Holie Ghost. Ca­tholiks say the same.

Protestants plainely say, that it could not be that they had not heard of the Holie Ghost: that it is absurd, most absurd to thinke that they were ignorant of the Holie Ghost.

THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF BAPTISME.

The things which we haue in this Chapter rehearsed, do clearly shew, how differently Protestants beleiue of baptisme from the Scripture. For the Scripture together withe Catholiks teacheth, that water and the inuocatiō of the holie Trinitie be necessarie to baptisme: that bap­tisme is necessarie by necessitie both of precept and of meane to saluation: that Simon Magus and reprobats re­ceaue whole baptisme: that baptisme is effectuall in the reprobates: that baptisme cleanseth sinnes, but pardoneth not sinnes that are to be done: that children of the faith­full are in state of damnatiō before they be baptized: that Christs baptisme is different from S. Ihons baptisme: All which Protestats denie.

They shew also, that Protestants play the theiues with baptisme, and steale from it the necessitie of water and of the inuocation of the holie Trinitie: the necessitie of pre­cept and meane to saluation: the integritie and efficacie thereof in the reprobates; the vertue of cleansing sinnes in anie whomsoeuer; the difference and excellencie aboue the baptisme of S. Ihon: which being taken away, Christs baptisme remaineth onely in name; and they likewise Christians in name onely. Thus much of Baptisme: Now of the Eucharist.

CHAPTER X. OF THE EVCHARISTE.

ART. I. WHETHER THE EVCHARIST, or that which Christ after his last supper gaue with his hands vnto his Apostles, was his bodie and blood?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

MATHEW 26. v. 26. Christ saied of that which with his hands he gaue to his Apostles to eate: This is my bodie. The same is Marc. 14. v. The Eucha­rist is the bo­die of Christ. 14. And Luc. 22. ver. 19. This is my bodie which is giuen for you. And 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. This is my bodie which shalbe deliuered for you. Moreouer Ihon. 6. ver. 15. he saieth: The bread which I will giue, is my flesh for the life of the world.

Mathew 26. v. 28. Christ saieth of that which he gaue The blood of Christ. his Apostles to drinke: This is my blood of the new testament, which shalbe shed for manie vnto remission of sinnes. Marc. 14. v. 24. This is my blood of the new testament that shalbe shed for manie. Luc. 22. v. 20. This is the Chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shalbe shed for you. 1. Cor. 11. v. 25. This chalice is the new testament in my blood.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent sess. 13. c. 3. The Apostles had not yet re­ceaued the Eucharist of the hands of our Lord, and yet he truely affirmed that to be his bodie which he gaue. And cap. 4. Because Christ truely saied, that that was his bodie which he offered vnder forme of bread, therefore &c.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Iuel in Denfense of the Apologie part. 2. c. 10. diuis. 1. p. Not the flesh of Christ. 209. The bread of the Sacrament is one thing, and the flesh of Christ is an other—There is great difference betweene the bread of the Sacramēt and the flesh of Christ. Art. 8. sect. 5. The sacra­mentall bread is called Christs bodie, although indeed it be not Not indeed his bodie. Christs bodie. So also art. 21. sect. 1.

Bel in his Iesuits Antepast. p. 44. The meaning of Christ is Not his reall blood. not: This is my naturall bodie, and my reall blood.

Spalatensis l. 5. de Repub. c. 6. n. 108. The holie bread, is not Not the bodie of Christ. the bodie of Christ. n. 112. The bread is called the bodie of Christ, not that it is the bodie of Christ.—The Eucharist, though it be Not truely. called the bodie of Christ; Yet it is not truely and really the bodie of Christ. ibid. pag. 165. It is false to say: The bread is the bodie of Christ.

Melancthon epist. ad Com Palatin. apud Hospin part. 2. Not the true bodie of Christ Histor. f. 260. Paul doth not say, as they of Breme do; Bread is the substantiall bodie of Christ: nor as Hes husius doth: Bread is the true bodie of Christ.

Hospinian himselfe lib. cit. f. 261. The bread of the Supper Not his sub­stantiall bodie is not the substantiall bodie of Christ. Which he repeateth fol. 254. The verie like words of the Heluetians her rehearseth f. 161. & 153. of the Tigurins 161. of the Strasburgians f. 100. of the Witenbergians fol. 292. of Hardenberg. 297. and of Engelhard fol. 25.

Zuinglius l. de Caena to. 2. f. 283. These words of Christ: This Not corporall flesh. is my bodie, can no way be vnderstood of substātiall and corporall [Page 268] flesh. Which he hath againe l. de relig. c. de Euchar. and in Subsidio to. 2. fol. 247. And Sermon. 1. Bernen. f. 532. As if (the Apostle) should say, this is the meaning of those things which we haue tould. It is not flesh which is set afore vs, albeit now I haue vouchsafed it that name, nor likewise blood, but bread and drinke.

OEcalampadius in Hospin. lib. cit. f. 41. Not without follie Not the selfe same bodie. would we binde men to confesse, that this selfe same bread is the bodie of Christ. And f. 118. Some do vrge that the Lords bread is the very bodie of Christ: But we say the contrarie. Not his verie bodie.

Bucer in Hospin. l. cit. fol. 191. Nether is bread the very bodie of Christ, but a Symboll of it. And 192. All acknowledge that bread and wine are symbols, and not the very things themselues of this great misterie.

Peter Martyr cont. Gardiner. col. 147. The Sacrament of Not lawfull to say: This is &c. the Eucharist being shewne, it is not lawfull for them to say of it all: This is my bodie. Col. 359. Manifest it is, that the Euchari­sticall bread is not properly the bodie of Christ. And in Dialog. col. 137. This is my bodie, is thus to be expoūded: This, to wit that which was shewed, signifieth my bodie.

Caluin in Math. 3. ver. 16. The bread of the holie Supper, is Not Christs bodie. called the bodie of Christ, not that it is it, but because it testifieth to vs, that it is truely giuen to vs for meate.

Beza in Catechismo sect. 9. This bread and this wine are Not our spi­rituall food. they not our spirituall food? No: but they signifie to vs that, from which life euerlasting proceedeth. And lib. quaest. quaest. 207. pag. 356. So if you properly vnderstand this saying it wilbe no lesse false, that bread is the bodie of Christ, then that a gourd As false that it is his bodie as that a gourd is a man. Not Christs true bodie is a man.

Daneus Cont. de Euchar. c. 10. That Sacramentall bread is not the true and reall bodie of Christ. The bread which Christ reached to the Apostles, was not the true bodie of Christ. And c. 1. Whēce it followeth, that the signes remaine signes and seales, and neuer become the thing it selfe which is signified, to wit, the true flesh and true blood of Christ.

Volanus l. 1. cont. Scargam. p. 793. Surely bread is not that Not the na­turall bodie. true and naturall bodie of Christ, albeit it be called, but sacramē ­tally his bodie.

[Page 269] Musculus in locis tit. de Signis. The bread of the lords Not the verie bodie. Supper is not the verie bodie of Christ.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the Eucharist or that which our Sauiour after his last supper gaue with his hands to his Apostles to eate and drinke; was his bodie & blood; and to put vs out of doubt, what bodie and blood, he added: His bodie giuen for vs, deliuered for vs: His blood of the new testament, and shed for remission of sinnes: And other­where that the bread which he would giue vs, was his flesh which he would giue for the life of the world. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the bread, the holie bread, the bread of the Sacrament, the Sacramētall bread, the lords bread, the bread of the supper, the bread of the holie supper, the bread of the lords supper, the bread which Christ reached to his Apostles: the Symbols, the Signes: the Eucharist, the sacrament of the Eucharist, the Eucharisticall bread, is not the bodie of Christ, not his very bodie, not his bodie it selfe, not his true bodie, not his substantiall bodie: not flesh, not Christs true flesh, an other thing and much different from Christs flesh; not the thing it selfe of this misterie, not our spirituall food: that Christs words can no way be vnderstood of Christs substantiall flesh, that his meaning is not; This my naturall bodie: That the Eucharist being shewed we may not say if it: This is my bodie: that though it be called Christs bodie, yet it is not his bodie. Which are so directly contrarie to the Scripture as many of these men sometimes confesse it as shalbe seene cap 30. of the 2. booke. But because they do not onely contradict the Scripture in denying the Eu­charist to be the bodie of Christ, which the Scripture so often and clearly affirmeth, but diuers other waies also, I will likewise set them downe.

[Page 270] Secondly therefore, they contradict the Scripture, in saying that the Eucharist is nothing but a simple cere­monie, onely bread, onely a type or figure, onely a seale or signe of the bodie and blood of Christ, which the Scripture so oftentimes saieth, is his true bodie and blood.

Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 5. c. 19. Sacraments are onely seales of Onely aseale. those goods which are proposed to vs in the word.

Cartwright in disput. Oxonien. apud Martyrem p. 134. Onely a signe. The Eucharist is onely a signe.

Spalatensis l. 5. de Rep. c. 6. n. 113. The bread is not the bodie of Christ indeed, but onely a signe of it.

Perkins de Caena to. 1. col. 858. The bread is called the bodie, Onely a signe and seale. whereas it is onely a signe and seale of the bodie.

Melancthon as Luther reporteth in Hospin. part. 2. Hi­stor. A simple ce­remonie. fol. 194. Accounted the Eucharist no better then a simple ceremonie.

Confessio Czinge. in Syntagmate pag. 196. The (Eucha­risticall) Hath onely the name. signes, haue not the substance of the things signified, but onely their names.

Helueti in Hospin libr. cit. fol. 153. The bread, is not the Onely a signe. verie bodie of Christ, but onely a signe and Sacrament of it.

Iuel art. 10. sect. 1. p. 313. The bread in it selfe, is very naturall Very naturall bread. bread. art. 21. sect. 1. p. 443. The misticall bread is not Christ him­selfe, but onely a sacrament of Christ.

Zuinglius de Caena to. 2. f. 286. The bread is onely a figure, Onely a figure wherewith is signified that bodie which we ought to remember. f. 291. This drinke was nothing else indeed but wine. 293. Nothing Nothing els but a signe. Nothing but bread and wine. else but a signe and figure. And. 296. The Apostles themselues neuer called this bread the bodie of Christ, but onely bread. And in Respons. ad Lutherum fol. 431. It is nought els but bread.

OEcolampadius apud Zuinglium to. 2. fol. 503. These par­ticles (This, that) we denie not to be certaine & infallible tokens, No hing but commō bread. but such they are, as teach that here is nothing els but common bread. And ibid. 510. The drinke is a pure and bare creature, and nought els beside.

Caluin de administr. Caenae. p. 41. Let vs account it enough, Nothing but a note and signe. if bread and wine be giuen vs for a note and signe.

[Page 271] In admonit. vlt. ad Wesphal. p. 826. What other is the bread As the Doue was the Holie Ghost. and wine of the Supper, then a visible word? Cont. Heshus. pag. 861. The bread of the Eucharist in the same maner is called the bodie of Christ, as the doue is called the holie Ghost. And 4. In­stit. c. 17. §. 14. The Supper is nothing els, but a visible testificatiō of that promise which is Ioan. 6. to wit, that Christ is the bread of life which came from heauen.

Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 42. The disciples saw, that Mere bread and wine. Christ held bread, and that it was mere bread and wine which he gaue with his hands. Cont. Illy ric. col. 2. Theol. p. 149. I say, No better then water of baptisme. that the water of baptisme is as well the blood of the Lord, as that bread is his bodie. Cont. Heshus. vol. 1. p. 308. The bread is no otherwise the bodie, and wine, no otherwise the blood, then the water of baptisme is blood. And in 1. Corint. 5. vers. 7. The No otherwise then the pas­call lambe. Pascall lambe is called Christ in the selfe same manner, that that bread is saied to be the bodie of Christ, which was giuen for vs.

Daneus Cont. de Euchar. cap. 13. The Fathers will haue the Onely symbol and signe. bread and wine to be onely symbols and signes of the true and es­sentiall bodie and blood of Christ.

Peter Martyr apud Coccium to. 2 l. 6. art. 1. The bread and Onely type and signe. wine, are onely types and signes of the bodie and blood of Christ. And hereupon, albeit, as Zanchius confesseth in Resp. ad Arian. col. 876. the Roman Church doth keepe baptisme and the Supper, or as Caluin speaketh, the halfe parte of the Supper is remaining in Poperie, yet neuerthelesse they sometime terme our Eucharist, a Crust of bread, as doth Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 2. c. 16. and Perkins de Sermon. Dom. col. 554. Sometimes, a small crust of bread, as Caluin Admonit. vlt. p. 800. cont. Versipel. p. 358. in Math. 19. v. 13. Sometimes, a Crust, as Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 6. c. 3. Beza in Confess. c. 7. sect. 11. Sometimes, a gobbet of bread, as Whitaker in place last cited: Sometime, a most profane crust, as Beza li. quaest. vol. 3 p. 355. Sometime, a cake and crust, as Peter Martyr orat. 1. Tigurin. Sometime, a wafer of pastie, as the same Martyr cont. Gardiner. col. 422.Thus reproachfully they terme that, which in their owne opinion is the lords Supper, or at least the halfe parte thereof; but no meruaile if they so [Page 272] speake so of our Eucharist, who say, that theirs, is nothing els but bread, nothing but common bread, nothing but a bare creature, nothing but a bare signe or figure, nothing but mere bread and wine. But farre otherwise saied Christ, that his Eucharist was his bodie giuen for vs, his blood shedde for remission of sinnes, and not as Protestāts say onely a signe, onely a seale, onely a figure, onely a tokē, onely a testificatiō, onely a symbol, onely a type of Christs bodie, which onely hath the name of Christs bodie, onely a simple ceremonie; and no otherwise the bodie of Christ, Then the Pascal lambe was Christ; the doue, the Holie Ghost; or the water of baptisme, the blood of Christ.

Thirdly they contradict the Sripture, in saying, that the Eucharist is onely figuratiuely and in some sorte the bodie and blood of Christ, which the Scripture in the places cited simply and absolutely saieth to be his bodie and blood, and addeth Ihon 6. v. 55. My flesh is truely meate, and my blood truely drinke. Which is most clearly opposite, to mere figuratiuely.

Spalatensis l. 5. de Repub. c. 6. n. 45. The wine in the Chalice is the blood of the lord onely ostensiuely or in shew, that is, figura­tiuely Onely figu­ratiuely. and typically. And num. 115. The Eucharist, is not Christ substantially, but onely significantly and figuratiuely. And 118. It is but figuratiuely and typically called the bodie of Christ.

Perkins in Cathol. ref. Cont. 11. c. 2. We take the bread to By resem­blance and no otherwise. be the bodie of Christ sacramentally by resemblance, and no other­wise. And Cont. 10. cap. 4. These words must not be vnderstood properly, but by a figure.

Rogers on the 28. Article of Protest. Confess. pag. 174. Abhominable be the Popish errours, that substātially and really the bodie and blood of Christ is contained in the Sacrament Eu­charisticall.

Iuel art. 5. sect. 10. p. 255. As Christ is herbes or milke, euen so, As he is herbs or milke. As manna. and none otherwise, he is bread or flesh. Art. 8. sect. 25. p. 303. As the bread is Christs bodie, euen so was manna Christs bodie.

Vsher in his Answere to a Chalenge p. 58. Nothing in this Not substan­tially. world is more plaine, then when our Sauiour saied: It was his [Page 273] blood, he could not meane it to be substantially. And ib. pag. 60. Not really. The things which he honoured with those names, cannot be really his bodie and blood, but figuratiuely.

Whitaker l. 2. cont. Du. sect. 10. The bread is the true bodie Metonimy­cally. of Christ, and the wine the true blood of Christ, but mistically, metonymicall, Sacramentally.

Melancthon apud Hospin. lib. cit. fol. 69. This is my blood, is a metonimie, as if you should say: The ensigne or Maze is the Roman Empire.

Caluin cont. Heshus. p. 844. Bread may truely be saied, to Symbolically. be symbolically the true bodie of Christ. Which also he hath Admonit. vlt. ad Westphal. pag. 836. Where also pag. 821. he saieth: It appeareth, that to them bread was symbolically the bodie. and p. 830. In some sorte it is the bodie. And 4. Instit. c. In some sorte. 17. §. 23. The bread is figuratiuely the bodie. And cont. Heshus. Improperly. l. cit. p. 847. Could he more clearly testifie, that bread is impro­perly called the bodie of Christ, in respect of likenes?

Beza respons. ad Selneccer. vol. 2. pag. 270. The names But metony­mically. of the bodie and blood, are but metonymically giuen to the bread and wine.

Daneus Cont. de Euchar. c. 10. The bread is tropically called Tropically. the bodie of Christ.

Peter Martyr l. cont. Gardin. col. 293. We say, that speach: Not properly. This is my bodie, is not proper, but metaphoricall and tropicall. And in Hospin l. cit. f. 259. The words: This is &c. cannot be taken simply and without a figure.

Peucer apud Hospin. in Concordia discordi fol. 206. The Not simply. consecratea bread and chalice are the bodie and blood of Christ Relatiuely. relatiuely, as figures and signes.

Wolfius in Schusselburg. l. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 22. The Significantly. bread is the bodie, and the wine the blood of Christ, significātly, no other waies then a keye deliuered is a house. More of their mere figuratiue expositiōs of these words may be seene in my Latin booke l. 2. c. 20. But by that which here we haue rehearsed, it clearly appeareth, that what the Scripture simply saieth is the bodie and blood of Christ, Protestāts say, is onely ostensiuely or in shew, onely figurasiuely, by [Page 274] resemblance and no otherwaies, but metonymically, not properly no otherwise then a keye is a house, is the bodie and blood of Christ.

Fourthly, they cōtradict the holie Scripture, in that they denie, that Christs bodie is present in the Supper, in the Eucharist, in the Eucharisticall bread, or in the Sacrament: in which according to Christs words it was so present, as he badde his Apostles take it with their hands and eate it.

The Pseudosynod of London in Hospin. part. 2. Histor. d. 220. No faithfull man ought to beleiue or professe the reall Reall presence not to be be­leiued. Christs bodie not in the Sa­crament. Not present in substance. and substantiall presence of Christs flesh in the Eucharist.

Whitaker in Respons. ad Demonstr. Sanderi pag. 741. Christs bodie is not in the Sacrament; nor in infinite Sacra­ments.

Iuel Defens. Apol. p. 221. Thus is Christs bodie present, not really, nor in suhstance, but onely in misterie. Agayne. As Christ is present in the one Sacrament (of Baptisme) euen so and none otherwise, is he present in the other (of the Eucharist) which Absent in bodie. he repeateth p. 264. And p. 234. Christ is present in maiestie, absent in bodie. 272. By abuse of speech, they say the bodie of As the people in the Cuppe. Christ is laied vpon the table. 273. As people is in the Cuppe: so is Christs blood in the Cuppe. The like he hath. artic. 8. diuis. As he dieth in the Sacra­ment. 1 And art. 12. diuis. 14. As Christ dyeth in the Sacrament: so is his bodie present in the Sacrament.

Perkins in his Ref. Cathol. Contr. 10 ca. 1. We hould and Present as a thing to the name. teach, that Christs bodie and blood are not present with the bread and wine in respect of place of coexistence, but by Sacramentall relation or this manner: When a word is vttered, the same comes to the eare, and at the same instāt the thing signified comes to the mynde, and thus by relation the word and the thing spoaken of, are both present together.

Zuinglius in Respons. ad Propos. Eckij to 2. fol. 576. of this proposition: The true and liuelie bodie of Christ and his blood are present in the Sacrament if the Altar: Maketh this Not present in the Sacra­ment. censure: This proposition is nether pious nor Christian. Serm. 1. Bernae fol. 527. Three articles of Christian faith directly fight [Page 275] against the presence of the bodie and blood of Christ in the Sup­per. Not in the Supper. Present by cō ­templation. In Respons. ad Lutherum fol. 363. By contemplation Christ is in the Eucharist. 420. As for substance, there is no­thing present besides bread and wine. 456. We willingly graunt and confesse, that Christs bodie is in the Supper in the same man­ner As our bodies are in heauen. that our bodies are now in heauen. And in epist. ad Prin­cipes fol. 546. Seing all this presence is nothing without the spe­culation Present by speculation. of faith, it belongeth to faith, that these things are, or be made present. And apud Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 102. I By contem­plation. beleiue, that in the Supper of the Eucharist, Christs true bodie is present by contemplation of faith, that is, that they who giue thāks to the Lord for the guifts giuen vs in his Sonne, do acknow­ledge him to haue taken true flesh, truely to haue suffered in it, truely to haue wiped away our sinnes with his blood: and so that all the matter done by Christ is made as it were present by con­templation of faith. But that Christs bodie should be really and in substance present, we do not onely denie, but auouch to be an error.

Tigurini in Hospin. part. 2. fol. 161. The sacramentall vnion By significa­tion. wholy consisteth in significatiō. And in Scusselburg. l. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 21. The bodie and blood of Christ are by mere imagi­nation By mere ima­gination. in the Sacrament of the Supper. And Carolstadius ib. art. 20. The bodie of Christ is not in the Supper. Christ is not in Not in the Supper. the Sacrament nether can be in it.

Caluin 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 30. Whereas our Mediatour is euerie where whole, he is alwaies present to his seruants, and in the Sup­per affor deth himselfe present in a speciall manner: but so as he is whole there, not wholy, Totus nō totum. because in his flesh he is con­tained in heauen, vntill he come to iudgment. In Defens. 2. cont. Westphal p. 774. I saied, that Christs bodie is exhibited Not present in substance. effectually in the Supper, not naturally: according to vertue, not according to substance. Se more ib. p. 778. 779 In Consens. de re Sacrament. art. 25. It must needs be, that Christs bodie be As farre frō vs, as heauen from carth. as farre distant from vs, as heauen is from earth. Which Beza often times repeateth, as cont. Brent. vol. 1. pag. 574. De hypostat. vnione pag. 638. lib. quaest. & resp. pag. 673. Resp. ad Andream pag. 130. Apol. 1. cont. Sainctem. p. 302. Resp. [Page 276] ad Repetit. eiusdem. c. 10. p. 50. also Daneus cont Kemnit. c. 30. and others.

Beza cont. Heshus. vol. 1. p. 278. We say not, that Christs Not present in the bread. bodie is present in the bread. Respons. ad Acta Torgensia vol. 368. We may easily vnderstand and declare out of the word the sacramentall manner of presence, to wit, such as the thing signi­fied Present as the abiect is the thought. is offered to the vnderstanding to be knowne and approued; and by faith to be embraced and applied to the beleiuer. And epist. 76. What this presence is, we clearly vnderstand and per­ceaue out of the word of God: to wit, such as the thing thought vpon is present to our thought; and the thing beleiued, is present to faith. And as Grauerus in Absurdis Caluin. cap. 3. §. 43. saieth. This presence he plainely putteth in imagination. Present in imagination.

Zanchius in Hospin l. cit. f. 316. Touching the presence of Christs bodie in the Supper, I protest, that I do not willingly dis­pute No ward of presence in the Scripture. of it, because I read no word of it in Scripture. The like he hath l. 2. Epist. p. 69. and 89.

Peter Martyr in Schusselburg. l. 3. Theol. Caluin. art. 8. I remoue the presence of Christs bodie from the Eucharist. And l. Presence re­moued from the Eucharist. cont. Gardiner. col. 815. The presence of Christs bodie in heauen directly feighteth with the presence thereof in the Sacrament. col. 994. If besides signification he will that there is a reall pre­sence; No presence besides signi­fication. that we altogether denie. More of their like speaches may be seene in my Latin booke. c. 10. art. 1. But by these it is cleare, that they say that Christs bodie is not in the sa­crament, is not present in the Sacrament, is not in sub­stance present, is absent in bodie, is not in the Sacrament nor can be in it: is not in the Supper according to substāce, is not present in the bread, is remoued from the Eucharist: that there is no word in the scripture of the presence of Christs bodie in the Supper: that his blood is in the chalice as the people are there, that he is no otherwise in the Eu­charist then in baptisme: that he is not there otherwise then a thing is present to our cogitation, or a thing to the name thereof, or our bodies are now present in heauen, finally onely present by speculation and mere imagi­nation.

[Page 277] Fiftly they contradict the Scripture, by saying that no other thing is receaued in the Eucharist or Supper, then in baptisme, or in the simple word.

Caluin cont. Heshus. p. 860. There is no cause, why Christ No more pre­sent in the Supper then in baptisme. Then in the word. should be saied to be more present in the Supper, then in baptisme. p. 847. Surely there is a plaine solution: That God giueth not more to the visible symbols, then to the word. Therefore commu­nication is no lesse truely giuen vs by the Ghospell, then by the Supper. 4. Instit. c. 14. §. 14. He is deceaued, who thinketh, that any thing more is giuen him by the Sacraments, then which of­fered by the word of God he receaueth by true faith. §. 17 There is no other function of the Sacraments, then of the word of God. And c. 16. §. 5. he saieth, that the Sacrament is inferiour to the word.

Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 136. There is the same recea­uing of Christ in the Sacrament, which is in the simple word. In 2. part. respons. ad Acta Colloq. p. 109. Nothing more is to be sought in the Sacraments, then in simple word. l. cont. Heshus. p. 287. Nothing more is giuen in the Supper, then in baptisme, or in the preaching of the word.

Bucer in Hospin. l. cit. p. 161. The memorie of this bodie may More in the word then in the Sacramēt. be refreshed by the bread, but more fully by the word.

Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 11. This is the summe: that we vn­derstand the bodie and blood of Christ to be offered to vs no lesse by the words of God then by Sacraments. In Disput. Oxonien. pag. 225. We receaue no lesse the bodie and blood of Christ in the word of God, then in this Sacrament. And cont. Gardiner. col. 1041. I denie not that that is our speach: Christs bodie is receaued no lesse in words then in the Sacraments. Nether am I afraied to say, that we come much better to them by words, then by Sa­craments.

Willet Cont. 11. q. 3. c. 557. There is the same substance of both Sacraments.

Iuel art. 5. diuis. 5. The word of God is the bodie and blood of Christ, and that more truely then is the Sacrament. Art. 21. diu. 1. As Christ entreth into vs by a minister, by his word, euen so he entreth into vs by the Sacrament of his bodie, and no other­wise. [Page 278] Defense of the Apol. p. 221. As Christ is present in the one Sacramēt, euen so and no otherwise, is he present in the other.

Hereupon Apologia Confess. Augustanae. cap. de vsu Sacrament saieth, that the Sacrament is as it were a pi­cture of the word. Melancthon in Disputat. tom. 4. pag. 513. The Sacrament is like a picture of the promise. And lib. contr. Anabaptistas: As the will of God is shewed in the worde or promise, so also it is shewed in the Sacrament as in a picture. And oftentimes they say that there is no other presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist, then there is in the simple word, as you may see in Beza Apol. 1. cont. Sanctem p. 297. in Hospin l. cit. fol. 36. 39. and in Concordia discordi f. 205. So that they plainly say, that Christ is no more present in the Supper then in baptisme, no more cōmunicated in the Supper thē in the Ghospell: no more receaued in the Sacramēt them in the word: that there is the same receauing of Christ in the Sacrament and in the simple word, nothing more giuē in the Supper them in preaching, no more offered by the sacrament then by the word: yea that the Sacrament is inferiour to the word, the memorie of Christs bodie more fully refreshed by the word, then by this Sacra­ment: that we may better come to Christs bodie by words, then by this Sacrament. Which are so contrarie to Scripture, as sometimes themselues confesse it. See lib. 2. cap. 30.

Sixtly they contradict the holie Scripture, whiles they say, that they Iewes receaued Christs bodie before it was borne, as truely as we receaue it in the Eucharist.

Willet Cont. 11. q. 2. p. 544. We do hould, and constantly af­firme The Fathers no lesse re­ceaued the bodie of Christ thou we. and teach, that the Fathers in the law receaued no lesse the substance of Christ by faith in their Sacraments, then we do in ours.—Christ was as well exhibited to them in their Sacraments, as he is in ours.

Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 96. He was as present in their Sacraments, as he is to vs in ours. p. 69. The Fathers were no lesse partakers of the bodie and blood of Christ, then we are in the Lords Supper. Respons. ad Acta, Colloq. p. 119. The Fathers as [Page 279] truely receaued Christs true bodie and true blood, in the word and in their Sacraments, as we by the instrument of the same faith now receaue them.

Peter Martyr cont. Gardiner. col. 150. The Fathers in the ould testament did no lesse then we eate and drinke the bodie and blood of Christ, for so much as pertaineth to the thing it selfe.

Seuenthly they contradict the holie Scripture, in say­ing that the Eucharist is a symbolicall, mysticall, and Sacra­mentall bodie of Christ, which the Scripture plainely saieth to be his true bodie.

Zuinglius de ver. & falsa relig. c. de Euchar. to. 2. f. 208. We are here compelled plainely to confesse, that this selfe same which Christ gaue with so great diligence and maiestie, is his sym­bolicall Christs sym­bolicall bodie Sacramentall bodie. bodie. Respons. ad Luther. ib. fol. 514. It is easie to vn­derstand, that this bread which Christ giueth vs, is Christs sa­cramentall bodie, that is, the signe of his bodie, in that manner and forme of speach wherewith shewing the statue of Cocles, we say: Behould Cocles that stout champion of his countrie. Epi­stola ad Principes fol. 548. The bread is made the sacramentall bodie of Christ. Againe: Our aduersaries say that Christs na­turall and substantiall bodie is giuen; we say, his sacramentall. Hereupon the contention. And in Hospin. l. cit. fol. 143. We are forced, will we nill we, to confesse, that these words: This is Misticall bo­die. my bodie, are thus to be vnderstood: that is: A sacrament of my bodie: or, This is my sacramentall or mysticall bodie.

Oecalampadius in Beza Resp. ad Repet. Sanctis. pag. 48. That bread is a symbolicall bodie.

Zanchius lib. 1. Epistolarum pag. 280. These three bodies Misticall bo­die. of Christ we reade in the holie Scriptures, His true and na­turall, his Misticall, which is the Church, and sacramentall, which is bread.

Daneus Cont. de Euchar. c. 10. Austin confesseth, that the Onely Sacra­mentall bodie. bread is onely the sacramentall bodie of Christ, but not his na­turall bodie. Againe: The bread which Christ gaue to his Apo­stles, was his sacramentall bodie.

Vrsinus in Miscellaneis. p. 172. There is a bodie of Christ [Page 280] properly so called, and a sacramentall, which is the Eucharisticall bread. Thus we see, how plainly they say, that the Eucha­rist is Christs symbolicall bodie, his sacramentall bodie, his mysticall bodie, and not his true bodie. Which him­selfe saieth most plainly to be his true bodie, that very bodie which was giuen and deliuered for vs.

Finally we see, how manie wayes the Caluinists do contradict the expresse word of God in this one matter. First, in expressely denying the Eucharist to be the bodie of Christ, which the Scripture so often and so plainely affirmeth: Secondly, in saying that it is onely a signe or figure of Christs bodie, which the Scripture plainely and often saieth is his true bodie. Thirdly, in saying that it is but onely figuratiuely his bodie, which the Scripture simply and absolutely saieth is his bodie. Fourthly, in saying, that Christs bodie is but figuratiuely, or by faith and imagination in the Eucharist: Which the Scripture directly affirmeth to be the substance of the Eucharist. Fiftly, in saying that Christs bodie is no more receaued in the Eucharist, then in the simple word; whereas Christ, bidde vs take and eate his bodie in the Eucharist, but not in his word. Sixtly, by saying that the Fathers in the ould law receaued Christs bodie in their Sacraments, as truely as we do in the Eucharist: when as they were neuer bidden to take and eate Christs flesh in their Sacra­ments, as we are in the Eucharist. Finally, in saying that the Eucharist is Christs symbolicall, sacramentall, and my­sticall bodie; which the holie Scripture saieth is his bodie, which was giuen and deliuered for vs.

ART. II. WHETHER CHRISTS FLESH be to be eaten, and his blood to be drunke?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 26. ver. 26. Take ye and eate: This is my bodie. ver 28. Christs bodie and blood to be eaten and drunck. Drinke ye all of this: For this is my blood &c.

[Page 281] Ihon 6. v. 53. Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, Truely. and drinke his blood, you shall not haue life in you. Et 56. My flesh is truely meate, and my blood is truely drinke.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Math. 26. v. 28. For to perfect the new te­stament and couenant, of which Christ speaketh, betwixt vs and him, no spirituall eating or drinking of the bodie and blood of Christ sufficeth, but there is plainely required an externall, reall, and corporall receauing of them both.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Zuinglius l. de Relig. c. de Euchar. to. 2. Christs flesh eaten, Christ flesh eaten pro­fiteth not. profiteth nothing at all. Which he often repeateth in Exegesi fol. 333. 334. 336. 346. and in Ioan. 6. to. 4. in so much as Hos­pin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 181. writeth, that Zuinglius euerie where inculcateth, that Christs flesh eaten profiteth nothing. And c. cit. de Euchar. Nether do we thinke, that they are to be Not be eaten spiritually. heard, who determin thus: we eate the true and corporall flesh of Christ, but spiritually: for they do not see, that it can not stand to­gether, to be a bodie and to be spiritually eaten. Againe: What is giuen to be eaten, is Christs bodie, but symbolicall. In Exegesi fol. 329. Christ did not command his bodie to be eaten, but sym­bolicall bread. Respons. ad Luther. fol 435. We eate and drinke We eate and drinke no­thing but bread and wine. nothing but bread and wine. In Apol. f. 370. We teach, that the onely signe of Christs bodie is eaten in this Eucharisticall Supper. Respons. ad Billican: fol. 264. We are taught, that Christs corporall flesh can be no way eaten. And as Hospin. lib. cit. fol. 181. saieth: Zuinglius euerie where inculcateth, that the true and reall flesh of Christ cannot be eaten so much as spiritually: and that to eate Christs flesh is nothing els but to beleiue.

Oecolampadius in Hospin. l. cit. f. 75. Flesh eaten profiteth nothing, but the spirit. And in Schusselburg. lib. 1. Theol. Caluin Mistica artic. 22. I do not read in the Euangelists, that [Page 282] they bidde receaue and eate Christs bodie.

Carolstadius in Scusselburg l. cit. art. 28. This I know, that Christ neuer gaue his bodie that we should receaue it: For he saieth: My flesh profiteth you not.

Tigurins in Schusselburg lib. cit. artic. 23. His flesh on earth profited for to accomplish our saluation, now it profi­teth no more.

Peter Martyr cont. Gardiner. col. 146. It is farre from the Christs bodie not to be true­ly eaten. He gaue not his bodie but bread. He exhibited not his bodie in substance. bodie of the Lord, to be truely eaten.

Confessio Czengerina c. de Caena p. 193. Yea after the pro­nouncing of Christs words, Christ gaue bread to the Apostles, and not his bodie.

Caluin defens. 2. cont. Westphal. pag. 774. I saied, that Christs bodie was exhibited effectually in the Supper, not natu­rally: according to vertue, not according to substance.

Beza Resp. ad Acta Torgens. vol. 3. p. 68. What is eaten with the mouth, auaileth nothing to eternall and spirituall life.

Perkins in Cathol. reform. Cont. 10. c. 3. Though the bodie may be bettered with spirituall food of the soule, yet cannot the soule be fedde with bodily food.

Polanus in Grauer in Absurdis Caluin. cap. 3. Those words of Christ: Take, eate, are not spoaken of Christs bodie for nether The words not ment of his bodie. tooke he that into his hands, nether brake, nor gaue it to his disciples. And albeit sometimes they say in words, that they eate the bodie of Christ: yet they adde, that to eate is nothing but to beleiue, as we haue already repeated out of Zuinglius, and haue cited more places of their like say­ings in my Latin booke c. 10. art. 2. or by word Body, or Flesh, they vnderstand not Christs true body or flesh, but some other thing, as the same Zuinglius doth Respons. ad Luther. tom. 2. fol. 390. In Exegesi fol. 350. and 333. and in Explicat. art. 18. tom. 1. fol. 37. In like sorte, how beit some­times in words they say, they eate the substance of Christs bodie, yet Beza confesseth Apolog. 1. cont. Sainctem pag. 294. that vnwillingly they vse the name Substance, and as he addeth Respons. 3. ad Selneccer pag. 271. Manie of them refuse it, and not without cause, and that is euident by the [Page 283] words now cited out of Caluin, and more by Bullinger in Hospin. part. 2. fol. 344. Where he saieth: Who knoweth not, that we are of their number, who do not admit this (word Substance) nor euer would admit it.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Christ gaue to his A­postles his bodie to be eaten, and his blood to be drunke: that vnlesse we eate his flesh, we shall not haue life: that his flesh is truely meate. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that Christs flesh eaten pro­fiteth nothing, nothing at all: that Christs true flesh, can­not be eaten spiritually, can be no way eaten; that it is farre from Christs bodie to be truely eaten: that Christs bodie is not exhibited in the Supper according to the substance thereof: that those words: Take, eate, are not spoaken of Christs bodie: that Christs neuer gaue his bo­die to be receaued, the Euangelists neuer commanded vs to receaue and eate it: that what is giuen to be eaten, is Christs symbolicall bodie, is but symbolicall bread, is no­thing but bread and wine, onely a signe of Christs bodie: that Christ gaue bread to the Apostles, and not his bodie. Which are so cōtrarie to the holie Scripture, as themselues sometimes confesse it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. III. WHETHER CHRIST GAVE the blood of the new testament to be drunke?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Mathew 26. v. 28. Drinke ye all of this: For this is my blood The blood of the new testa­ment to be drun [...]k. of the new testament.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Mathew 26. vers. 28. Christ professeth, [Page 284] that what we drinke in the chalice, is the blood of the new te­stament.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Zuinglius in Subsidio to. 2. fol. 245. Christ did not giue the Not the blood of the new te­stament. blood of the testament to drinke. Which he repeateth againe. And of the same opinion all the rest are, who ether denie that Christ gaue his true blood to drinke, as we haue seene in the former chapter, for Christs true blood, is the blood of the new testament: or denie, that the Eucharist is the testament, as we shall heare art. seq.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Christ gaue the blood of the new testament to be drunke. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants expressely denie it.

ART. IV. WHETHER THE EVCHARIS­ticall Chalice be the testament of Christ?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. The Chalice was the new testament.

Luc. 22. v. 20. Christ saieth: This is the chalice, the new te­stament in my blood.

1. Corinth. 11. vers. 25. This chalice is the new testament in my blood.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarm. l. 1. de Euchar. c. 11. As for the figure which they put in the word, Testament, I say there is none there: and he auoucheth, that the Eucharist is properly the testament of Christ.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Iuel art. 10. sect. 1. Nether was that cuppe in deed and really the It was not ths new te­stament. new testament. So also art. 12.sect. 16.

Willet Cont. 13. q. 1. p. 595. The wine in the cuppe was not the new testament. 596. The blood is not the testament.

Peter Martyr in Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 257. Nether the cuppe it selfe, nor the liquor contained in it, is indeed the testament.

Zuinglius in Subsidio to. 2. fol. 245. This cuppe was not the blood of the testament, nor the testament itselfe. De Caena fol. 291. The blood of Christ, is not the new testament, and much lesse can we say, that this drinke is the new testament, howbeit it be called by this name. And the reason, why against the ex­presse word of God, he denieth the chalice to be the te­stament of Christ, he giueth l. de Relig. c. de Eucharist. in these words: If the cuppe be the testament, it followeth, that it is the true and sensible blood of Christ.

Oecolampadius apud Zuinglium to. 2. fol. 499. It must needs be, that this chalice or cuppe be the signe of the couenant or new testament, not the new testament itselfe indeed.

Beza in Lucae 22. v. 20. edit. An. 1565. Wine is called the couenant it selfe, whereas it is onely a symbol or badge of the co­uenant, or rather of that wherewith the couenant is made, to wit, of the blood of the Lord. In Colloq. Montisbel. pag. 38. I maruail, that you call the Supper of the Lord, a testament, which seemes very strange to me. The Supper of the Lord is not the te­stament itselfe, but onely a parte of the testament, that is, the seale thereof. The Cuppe cannot be the testament.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the chalice of the Eu­charist is the new testament. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely say, that nether the chalice nor the liquor therein contained is the new testament: that [Page 286] nether the wine nor the blood of Christ is the new testa­ment: that the Cuppe cannot be the new testament, but is onely a symbol or badge thereof or rather of the blood wherewith the testament was made: That the Lords Sup­per is not the testament, and that it were strange to call it so. Which contradictiō of Scripture is so euident as diuers Protestants confesse it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. V. WHETHER AT THE VERIE time of Christs celebration of the Eucharist, his bodie was giuen and deliuered and his blood shedde for vs?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Luc. 22. v. 19. And taking bread he gaue thanks, and brake, Christs bodie was giuē and his blood shed at Supper. and gaue to them saying: This is my bodie which is giuen for you. And S. Paul 1. Corinth. 11. vers. 24. in Greek hath, which is broken: as also S. Mathew 26. vers. 28. S. Mark. 14. v. 24. S. Luke c. 22. v. 20. speake of the blood, or of the Chalice, in the present tense: Which is shedde.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Math. 26. v. 28. Those words: Which shalbe shedde for you, are to be redde in the present tense according to all the Euangelists in the Greek text, and the sense is: which is now distributed for you, and is by reall participatiō sprinkled and inwardely powred into euerie one of you.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Iuel art. 17. sect. 4. Christ gaue his bodie to be broken, and his blood to be shedde not at his last supper, but onely vpon his crosse, and not where else.

Spalatensis l. 5. cap. 6. sect. 229. saieth, that the forecited words, can be no way true of the present time.

[Page 287] Peter Martyr cont. Gardiner. col. 354. But I pray you, tell vs once, what that is which remaineth and is broken? If you say, Not giuen or shedde at the Supper. Accidents; you wilbe laughed at by children: If you say. The bodie of Christ: you wilbe blasphemous. Col. 812. But who will say, that Christ himselfe or his bodie is broken in the Supper.

Moulins in his Bucler part. 2. pag. 91. Christ did not say, that his blood was shedde in the Eucharist. Pag. 87. He spea­keth of a shedding which was not yet made, but to be made at his death.

Bucanus in Institution. loco 48. Which is giuen: is not saied but by change of time present for that which is streight to come, for, Which shalbe giuen, to wit, on the crosse, not in the Eucharist.

Reineccius to. 4. Armaturae c. 19. Christ vsed the time pre­sent for the future. The same saieth Caluin Admonit. vlt. p. 836. Beza in Math. 26. v. 28. Tilenus in Syntagm. c. 61.Mi­cronius in Hospin. part. 2. f. 236.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that at the verie present time of the celebration of the Eucharist, Christs bodie is giuen, Chrysostom, Theophilact, Oecum. in 1. Cor. 10. is deliuered, is broken, and his blood is shedde for vs. And the holie Fathers declare how it is most true. The Catho­liks say the same.

Protestants expressely say, that it is blasphemie to say, that Christs bodie is broken in the Eucharist: that his bo­die is not brokē in the Supper: that his blood is not shedde in the Eucharist: that Christ saied, which is giuen, for, which shalbe giuen, and tooke the present time for the future. Which are so cōtrarie to the Scripture, as diuers Protestāts confesse it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. VI. WHETHER THE CHALICE of the Eucharist was shedde for vs?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Luc. 22. vers. 20. This is the Chalice, the new testament in my blood, which (Chalice, as is euident in the Greek text) shalbe The Chalice shedde for vs. shedde for you.

CATHOLIKS EXPR [...]SSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Math. 26. v. 28 Keeping the grammaticall and right sense of the words of S. Luke, as they are in Greek, where the Chalice it selfe is saied to be shedde in remission of sin­nes, by the name of the Chalice we must needs vnderstand not wine, but blood in the chalice.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker ad Ration. 1. Campiani. The Chalice was not Not shedde for vs. shedde for vs: And yet he confesseth; that if we stick to the words (of the Euangelist) we must ether say, that the Chalice was shedde for vs, or we must make false Greek.

Beza in Lucae. 22. v. 20. These words cannot be vnderstood of the wine, much lesse of the Cuppe.

Musculus in locis titul. de Caena: But if in Luke we reade: Which is shedde for you, that is not referred to the Cuppe, but to the blood. Againe: I thinke, that the word of Shedding in Saint Luke, is not to be referred to th [...] Cuppe of the Sacrament, but to the blood.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that the Chalice was shedde for vs, as is manifest by the Greek text, which alone Pro­testants account authenticall: in so much as not onely Lu­theran [Page 289] Protestants confesse it, but also D. Willet though a a Caluinist. For thus he writeth Controu. 13. quaest. 1. pag. 595. The Paticiple shedde, agreeth with the Cuppe, not with my blood: as the Euangelist saieth: The Cuppe was shedde. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the chalice was not shedde for vs; that these words cannot be vnderstood of the Cuppe: that the word Shedde in S. Luke is not referred to the Cuppe: Which contradiction of Scripture is so plaine, as manie Protestants confesse it, nor can it he auoided by any better colour then by changing the Greek text, or by saying that Saint Luke wrote false Greek, who yet was an excellent Grecian as is euident by all his writings.

ART. VII. WHETHER BREAD BE NE­cessarie to make the Eucharist?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 26. v. 26. And whiles they were at supper, Iesus tooke bread, and blessed and brake, and he gaue to his disciples and saied: Bread neces­sarie to the Eucharist. Take ye ad eate: This is my bodie.

Ioan. 6. vers. 51. If anie man eate of this bread, he shall liue for euer: and the bread which I will giue is my f [...]h for the life of the world.

1. Cor. 10. v. 16. The bread which we breake, is it not the parti­cipation of the bodie of our Lord?

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

S. Thomas 3. part. q. 74. art. 4. There must needs be bread of wheate, without which the Sacrament is not made.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Beza Epist. 2. vol. 3. Where there is no vse of bread or wine, [Page 290] or no plentie at sometime, may no Supper of the Lord be cele­brated? yes it may be well celebrated, if that which is in steed of Bread not necessarie. bread and wine, ether by common, vse or by occasion of the time, be taken in place of bread and wine. Which very words are re­peated by Hospin. part. 1, Histor. c. 2.

Tilenus in Syntagmate c. 61. In these countries in which there is no plentie, no vse of wheaten bread or wine pressed out of of grapes, we doubt not but the Sacrament may be well cele­brated, if that be vsed for this Symbol, which there is in steed of bread and wine.

Bucanus in Institut. Theol. loco 48. What if bread, such as we haue, and wine wante in any countrie, with what signes is the Supper to be celebrated? With those earthlie elements and corporall meats, which all men in that countrie vse for bread and wine, meate and drinke. So also teacheth Homius Disput. 47. nether is it disliked of Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 10. Caluin also apud Bezam epist. 25. alloweth other drinke in steed of wine in places where wine wanteth.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that the Eucharist is to be made of bread. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants plainely say, that bread is not necessarie: That where bread wanteth, there it may be made of other meats.

ART. VIII. WHETHER THE EVCHARIST may be made of azime or vnleauened bread?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 2. ver. 17. is saied, that Christ celebrated the Eu­charist the first day of the Azimes: Et Marc. 14. v. 12. The first Christ vsed azime bread. day of the Azimes when they sacrificed the Pasche: & Luc. 22. v 7. the day of the Azimes wherein it was necessarie that the Pasche should be killed. Now in the dayes of the Azimes it [Page 291] was forbidden Exod. 12. and 13. that there should be anie leauen bread amongst the Iewes, and commanded, that he should die, who in that time had eaten leauen bread.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

S. Thomas 3. part. q. 74. art. 4. The custome of celebrating in azime bread, is more agreable to reason.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Beza l. quaest. & respons. vol. 3. I say freely, that there is a To vse azime is a blemish: sauoureth Iudaisme. duble blemish in those Churches, which rather vse azime then leauen bread. For that sauoureth Iudaisme, and is lesse agreable to our daily meat.

Lobechius Disput. 12. thus writeth. The Zuinglian Cal­uinists Leauē bread, necessarie. despising azime bread with a Pharisaicall pride, yea cursing it, do thrust leauen bread vpon the Church vnder opinion of necessitie.

Pareus Colleg. Theol. 9. disput. 26. It must be houshould bread, for analogies sake.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that Christ instituted the Eu­charist, the first day of the Azimes, when there was no leauen bread to be found amongst the Iewes but onely azime: And Beza himselfe loc. cit. confesseth, that Christ celebrated the Eucharist in azime bread. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that we ought to make the Eucharist rather of leauen bread then of azime, that to make it of azime, is a blemish, sauoureth Iudaisme, and is to be accursed.

ART. IX. WHETHER THE BREAD and wine of which the Eucharist is made, be to be blessed?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Mathew 26. vers. 26. Iesus tooke bread, and blessed and Bread and wine, blessed. brake; and he gaue to his disciples, and saied: Take ye and eate: This is my bodie.

1. Cor. 10. v. 16. The chalice of benediction which we do blesse, is it not the communication of the blood of Christ?

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Math. 26. v. 26. An other circumstance is, that he blessed the bread and chalice.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Zuinglius l. de Caena to. 2. f. 294. They should not vse the The word of Blessing not to be vsed. words of Benediction and Blessing in this place. (1. Cor. 10. cit.) For commonly the vse to be taken for the word of Consecrating.

Caluin in Math. 26. v. 26. Mathew and Marke vse the word of Blessing; but seing in place thereof we read in Luke the word Blessing, for Thanks gi­uing. [...], there is no doubt of the sense; and seing also, that in the Chalice they adde the word of thankes giuing, they clearly in­terprete their former speach. Whereby the ignorance of Papists is more ridiculous, who expresse their blessing with the signe of the crosse, as if Christ had vsed an exorcisme.

Musculus in loc. tit. de Missa. To blesse, is not to consecrate, but to giue thanks, and to speake well of one; that I may not say, that nether Mathew, nor Marke, nor Paul haue vsed the word of Nether Mathew nor Paule vsed the word Blessing. Blessing in this matter. Of the same opinion are others, who will haue the word [...] in S. Mathew, to signifie nothing but thanks giuing. And so haue the Bibles of K. Edward and of Q. Elizabeth 1562. translated it.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Christ blessed the bread, and that we blesse the Chalice. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that blessing of bread is an exorcisme, that by, blessing, nothing is ment but thankes giuing, that we should not vse it here, that nether Ma­thew nor Paul vsed it in this matter. Which contradiction of the Scripture is so cleare, as some Protestants confesse it. See l 2. c. 30.

ART. X. WHETHER THERE OVGHT to be made any preparation to the receauing of the Eucharist?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Cor. 11. v. 28. But let a man proue himselfe, and so let him eate of that bread, and drinke of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily, eateth and drinketh iudgment to himselfe.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 17. The Catholik Church teacheth, that preparation to the Eucharist is not faith alone, but true pennance and confession of sinnes, if a man after baptisme be fallen into mortall sinne.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther Postilla in die Pascae fol. 241. We taught, that it Preparation of no moment is of no moment and of no valew at all, whatsoeuer we prepare of our selues to receaue the Sacrament, as they did who by their [Page 294] confession and by other workes would make themselues worthie to receaue the Sacrament. Which is a horrible error and abuse. Et. f. 242. We haue condemned them, and not without cause, who endeauour by their workes to come worthily.

The same Luther lib. de Captiuitat. Babilon. tom. 2. Onely erro­neous cons­ciences wor­thily commu­nicate. cap. de Eucharist. Out of these things we conclude, who do worhily communicate: to wit onely they who haue sadde, affli­cted, troubled, confounded, and erroneous consciences. Which doctrine Whitaker defendeth ad Ration. 8. Campiani pag. 41. Againe: By which thou seest, that to haue Masse wor­thily The more wicked, the nearer to grace. no other thing is required but faith. And apud Fabri­tium in artic. 20. Augustan. By how much the wickeder thou art, by so much the sooner God giueth thee grace. And in psalm. 5. tom. 3. fol. 172. I will say one thing rashly and bouldly: In this Blasphemers, most gratefull to God. life, there are none nearer to God, then these haters and blas­phemers of God, nor anie more gratefull or louing children. Which also Whitaker mantaineth loco citat. And Con­cione de Praeparat. ad Euchar. An. 1518. The best disposition Worst dis­posed, best disposed. is no other, then that wherewith thou art worst disposed: and on the contrarie, then thou art worst disposed, when thou art best disposed.

Schusselburg Catal. Haeret. tom. 8. pag. 216. Papists do Faith suf­ficeth. impudently denie, that faith is a sufficient preparation to re­ceaue the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Kemnice. 2. part Exam. tit. De preparat. p. 178. Faith alone is a sufficient Praeparation. The like hath Caluin 4. Instit. c. 14. §. 26.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainly saieth, that a man must proue or pre­pare himselfe to receaue the Eucharist: that who recea­ueth it vnworthily, receaueth his iudgment. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that we must not make our selues worthie by workes; not endeauour by workes to come worthily: that they onely communicate worthily [Page 295] who bring troubled and erroneous consciences: that we need nothing but faith: that the best disposition is to be ill disposed: that haters and blasphemers of God are nearest vnto him and most gratefull: that the more wic­ked one is, the sooner God giueth him grace: that faith is a sufficient preparation to the Eucharist.

ART. XI. WHETHER THERE BE ANIE Sacrifice in the Church?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Malachie 1. v. 11. From the rising of the sunne to the going Sacrifice in the Church. downe great is my name among the Gentils, and in euerie place there is sacrificing, and there is offered to my name a cleane obla­tion. cap. 3. vers. 3. He shall purge the Sonnes of Leui, and will streyne them as gould and siluer, and they shalbe offering sacri­fices to our Lord in iustice.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent. Sess. 24. c. 1. Christ in his last supper, that he might leaue a visible sacrifice to his beloued Church, as the nature of man requireth, offered his bodie and blood to God the Father vnder the formes of bread and wine.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Cont. 4. q. 1. c. 2. There is now no more Sacrifice No Sacrifice in the Church remaining in the Church.

Caluin in 1 Cor. 9. v. 19. The Lord instituted no Sacrifices in which holie Ministers should be occupied. And because the Protestants opinion in this matter is well enough knowne, I will rehearse no more of their sayings.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that in the Church there is Sacrifice and offering of a cleane oblation, and Sacrifice in iustice. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that there is no more Sacri­fice in the Church. And yet Whitaker Controu. 3. quaest. 6. pag. 2. 615. writeth thus: Without Preisthood there is no Church. And Vallada Apologia cont. Episcop. Luzon. c. 26. No man denieth, but the celebration of the Eucharist is a true Sacrifice.

ART. XII. WHETHER THERE BE AN altar in the Church?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Hebrew [...] 13. v. 10. We haue an altar, whereof they haue no Christians haue an altar. power to eate which serue the tabernacle.

Isaie 19. ver. 10. In that day there shalbe an altar of our Lord in the middest of the land of Egypte, and a title of our Lord to the border thereof.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 24. c. 1. The Apostle Paul writing to the Corinthians, when he saieth, that they who are polluted with participation of the table of Diuels, cannot be made par­takers of the Table of our Lord, by a table in both places vnder­standeth an altar.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Caluin in 1. Corinth. 9. vers. 19. There are no altars to They haue nō [...]tar. sacrifice.

[Page 297] Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 350. Paul maketh mention Paul speaketh not of an altar. of a table of the Lord, and not of an altar. Ad Repetit. Sanctis c. 4. I confesse, there is no altar in the Christian Church. And l. Quaest. & Resp. vol. 3. In the Apostolicall writings there is no mention of an altar, but onely of a table of the Lord.

Peter Martyr in Rom. 11. Altars haue no place in the time of the Ghospel. Herein also the Protestants doctrine is well knowne.

THE CONFERENCE

Scripture plainely saieth, that we haue an altar. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say that we haue no altar, that Paul maketh no mention of an altar, that there is no mention of an altar in the writings of the Apostles.

ART. XIII. WHETHER THE PASCHAL lambe was sacrificed?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Marc. 14. v. 12. And the first day of the Azimes, when they Pascal lambe sacrificed. sacrificed the Pasche.

Exod. 12. ver. 6. And the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall sacrifice him (Pascal lambe) at euen.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent. Sess. 24. c. 1. The multitude of the children of Israel did sacrifice the ould Pasche in remembrance of their going out of Egypt.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins in Cathol. reform. Controu. 11. c. 5. The Paschal No sacrifice. [Page 298] lambe was a sacrament, but no sacrifice. The same hath Ples­sie l. 2. de Missa c. 2.

Reineccius to. 4. Armaturae c. 19. The holie Bible no where Not sacri­ficed. teacheth, that the Paschal lambe was immolated and sacrificed.

Tilenus in Syntagmate c. 64. We do not graunt, that the Paschal lambe was a sacrifice properly called: yea Moises expres­sely denieth, that it was a sacrifice.

Pareus in Colloq. Theol. 9. disput. 27. The Minor is false: That the Paschal lambe was a sacrifice properly called.

Beza in Marci. 14. v. 12. I vsed the word of Killing, rather then of Sacrificing, that the domesticall bankets of the Pasche might be distinguished from those Sacrifices which in the temple were done of the Preists.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the Paschal lambe was sacrificed. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely say, that it was not sacrificed, that it was no proper sacrifice, that it was a domesticall ban­ket: that Moises expressely denieth, it to be a Sacrifice. Which is so repugnant to Scripture, as same Protestants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF the Eucharist.

Out of all which hath beene rehearsed in this chapter, it is cleare, how different an Eucharist Protestants haue from that which the holie Scripture proposeth. For the Scripture, and Catholiks with it, teacheth, that the holie Eucharist is the true bodie and blood of Christ, that it is his testament: that Christs flesh is to be eaten, that whilest the Eucharist was instituted Christs bodie was giuen and his blood shedde for vs: that the chalice was shedde in remission of sinnes; that bread is a necessarie matter of the [Page 299] Eucharist: that vnleauened bread is a couenient matter, and that we must prepare our selues to receaue the Eucha­rist. Moreouer the Scripture teacheth, that there is a Sa­crifice and altar in the Church, and that the Paschal lambe (which was a figure of the Eucharist) was sacrificed: all which Protestants do denie.

It is cleare also, that Protestants do steale from the What Protest. steale from the Eucharist. Eucharist the trueth of the bodie and blood of Christ, the nature of his testament, the necessitie of bread, the conue­niencie of vnleauened bread to make it of, and necessitie of our preparation to receaue it. They steale also eating and drinking from the flesh and blood of Christ, & obla­tion and shedding of them when the Eucharist was in­stituted. And from the Church they steale both Sacrifice and altar, and sacrificing frō the Paschal lambe. And thus much of the Eucharist: Now of the other Sacraments.

CHAPTER XI. OF THE OTHER SACRAMENTS.

ART. I. WHETHER PREISTS CAN forgiue sinnes?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

MATHEW 16. v. 19. And I will giue to the the keyes Preists can forgiue sinnes. of the kingdome of heauen—And whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth, it shalbe loosed in heauen.

Math. 16. v. 19. Amen, I say vnto you, what­soeuer you shall binde vpō earth, shalbe bound also in heauen: and whatsoeuer you shall loose vpon earth, shalbe loosed also in heauen.

Ihon. 20. v. 24. And he saied to them: receaue ye the Holie Ghost: Whose sinnes you shall forgiue, they are forgiuen them, and whose you shall retaine, they are retained.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent. Sess. 14. Can. 9. If anie shall say, that the Sacramentall absolution of the Preist is not a iudiciall act, but a bare ministerie of pronouncing or declaring that sinnes are forgiuen, be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins Galath. 4. tom. 2. The Pope challengeth to They cannot. [Page 301] himselfe proper and iudiciall power of forgiuing and reteining sinnes.

Zuinglius in Art. 51. to. 1. Who attributeth remissiō of sinnes to a creature, robbeth God of his glorie, and is an idolater.

In resp. ad Luther. to. 2. f. 430. These words: whose sinnes you shall forgiue &c. haue not that sense, as if Christ in speaking thē would giue his disciples power to forgiue sinnes. In Exposit. fidei They cannot certifie a man of forgiuenes of his sinnes. ib. f. 557. Wherefore all these things seeme friuolous: I absoluethee, I certifie thee, that thy sinnes are forgiuen. This is deceit and mere trifles. Et in Hebr. 6. to. 4. he saieth, that Christ spooke the words cited out of Math. 18. by hyperoche, or ouerlashing.

Bullinger in Marci. 2. Men do not forgiue sinnes, but teach that they are or haue beene forgiuen in Christ by faith.

Caluin in Ioan. 20. v. 22. He made the Apostles onely wit­nesses or preachers of this benefit (of remission of sinnes) And 4. Instit. c. 11. §. 1. For Christ gaue not this power properly to men, but to his word, whereof he madde men ministers.

Beza in Confess c. 5. sect. 27. We must beleiue, that nether They cannot properly binde or loose. Pastors, nor Doctors can properly binde, or loose anie, or open the kingdome of heauen to anie. For it is proper to God alone to remit or retaine sinnes, and indeed so proper, as he communicateth this glorie with none at all.

Zanchius de Eccles. c. 9. to. 8. Power of forgiuing sinnes is not giuen properly to the Apostles themselues or to others, but to their Ministerie or to the Ghospell. For they do not properly forgiue sinnes, but the Ghospell bringeth remission of sinnes to those that beleiue.

Daneus Cont. 4. c. 9. Christ gaue power of forgiuing sinnes to his Apostles, as to Ministers that do onely declare his benefit towards faithfull men, not as such that worke and effect the for­giuenesse of sinnes.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the keyes of the king­dome of heauen are giuen to pastours of the Church: that what they loose or forgiue on earth, is loosed or forgiuen [Page 302] in heauen: that the Holie Ghost was giuen them that by vertue of him they might forgiue sinnes. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say: that God communicateth power of forgiuing sinnes to none at all; that it is idolatrie to attribute this power to anie creature: that Ministers of the Ghospell do not properly loose any, that they forgiue not sinnes, but onely declare it; that they are onely wit­nesses & declarers of this benefit: that vertue of forgiuing sinnes is giuen to the Gospell, not to men. Which is so plainly against the Holie Scripture, as some Protestants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. II. WHETHER WE MVST CON­fesse our sinnes to men?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Iames 5. v. 16. Confesse your sinnes one to an other. Sinnes are to be confessed to men.

Actes 19. v. 18. And manie of them that beleiued came con­fessing and declaring their deeds.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 14. Can. 6. If anie shall denie that Sacramentall Confession was instituted, or is necessarie by Gods law, be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

French Confession art. 14. Auricular Confession was forged Not to be conf [...]ssed to men. in Sath [...]ns shoppe: It is a deuise of men.

Willet Controu. 14. q. 6. p. 736. It is not necessarie to make confession at all to men.

Confessio Argentinensis c. 20. Nether Christ nor the A­postles would commana it.

Luther in Postilla Epiphaniae. God requireth not this con­fession [Page 303] to men. Serm. de 10. Leprosis tom. 7. Confession of sin­nes is forbidden.

Caluin in Refutat. Cathalani. The lawmade of auricular Law of con­fession, diue­lish. confession, is diuelish: It is an intolerable corruption, if you search into it from the beginning and foundation.

Iuel defens. Apologie part. 2. c. 6. diuis. 1. Thus much onely we say: That priuat confession to be made vnto the Minister, is nether commanded by Christ, nor necessarie to saluation.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely commandeth, that we confesse our sinnes to men, and telleth that the first Christians did con­fesse their sinnes. That same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that it is not necessarie to confesse to men, that nether Christ nor his Apostles com­manded it, that God requireth it not: that it is forbidden, is a diuelish law and deuise of man and of Sathan.

ART. III. WHETHER GRACE BE GIVEN by Imposition of hands?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

2. Tim. 1. v. 6. I admonish thee, that thou resuscitate the grace Grace giuen by imposition of hands. of God, which is in thee by the imposition of my hands.

Actes 8. vers. 18. And when Simon had seene, that by the imposition of the handes of the Apostles the Holie Ghost was gi­uen, he offered &c.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 23. Can. 4. If anie shall say, that by holie ordination the Holie Ghost is not giuen: be he accursed. Et ib. c. 3. saieth, that by holie orders grace is giuen.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Caluin in 2. Tim. 1. ver. 6. cit. The question is, whether grace Not giuen by imposition of hands. were giuen by the externall signe (of imposition of hands.) To which questiō I answere: As often as Ministers were ordered, they were commended to God by the praiers of the whole Church, and by this means grace was obtained of God for them, but not giuen them by vertue of that signe. The same Caluin in Actor. 8. v. 15. Luke here speaketh not of the common grace of the Spirit, wherewith God doth regenerate vs for sonnes to himselfe, but of especiall guifts. In c. 6. v. 6. Hence we gather, that imposition of hands, sith it was vsed of the Apostles, is a comelie and seemlie rite, but yet hath not of it selfe any efficacie or vertue, but the force and effect dependeth of God alone.

Beza Apologia altera cont. Sainctem vol. 2. p. 325. In the Ministerie, the ceremonie of imposition of hands, doth not make a Minister, as you verie ignorantly vse to vrge, but testifieth to the Church, that he is already made. And l. quaest. & respons. vol. 3. pag. 347. We must hould, that there were neuer any Mi­nisters of the Church made by imposition of hands: but who had beene lawfully called to the Ministerie, were so put as it were in possession of their function. Of the same opinion are they, who thinke that Imposition of hands is not necessarie to Ministers, as Brentius in Apol. pro Confes. Writemberg c. de ordine. Herbrandus Disput. 11. Beurlinus in Refutat. Soti c. 67. Conciliabulum Parisiens. An. 1565. artic. 7. and much more they, who forbidde imposition of hands, as Pseudosynodus Dordracensis An. 1574. art. 23. in these words: The brethren concluded, that Imposition of hands is to Imposition of hands, for­bidden. be omitted.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the grace of God and the Holie Ghost are giuen by Imposition of hands. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that grace is not giuen by imposition of hands: that it hath no efficacie or vertue, but that the effect is of God alone: that by it pastours are not made, yea that it is not necessarie to them, but to be omitted.

ART. IV. WHETHER HANDS BE TO BE imposed vpon them that haue beene baptized?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Act. 8. v. 16. and 17. For he (Holie Ghost) was not yet come Hands im­posed vpon the baptized. vpon anie of them: but they were onely baptized in the name of our Lord Iesus. Then did they impose their hands vpon them and they receaued the Holie Ghost.

Act. 19. v. 5. and 6. Hearing these things, they were baptized in the name of our Lord Iesus: and when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the holie Ghost came vpon them.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Actor. 8. v. 17. In these words is descricbed an other Sacrament of the Church different from the baptisme; which is called Imposition of hands by reason of the forme which Luke here telleth that the Apostles vsed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Caluin in Actor. 8. v. 17. cit. Let vs remember, that Impo­sition Imposition of hands is now a vaine fan­sie. of hands was the instrument of God, at what time he be­stowed the visible graces of his Spirit vpon his seruants: but since the Church hath wanted such riches, it is onely a vaine fansie. And 4. Institut. c. 19. §. 6. he calleth Catholiks, Stage players, because they say they imitate the Apostles in imposing hands vpon those that are baptized.

Gualterus in Actor 8. homilia 58. We know, that out of [Page 306] this place, Papists haue brought in the Sacrament of Confirma­tion, but it is so ridiculous, as &c.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the Apostles imposed their hands vpon those that were baptized. The same Catholiks say.

Protestants expressely say, that it is a vaine fansie and ridiculous to impose hands vpon those that are baptized.

ART. V. WHETHER MATRIMONIE be a Sacrament?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ephesians 5. v. 31. For this cause shall man leaue his father Matrimonie a Sacrament. and mother, and shall cleaue to his wife, and shalbe twoe in one flesh. This is a great Sacrament; but I speake in Christ and in the Church.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councell of Trent Sess. 24. can. If anie shall say, that Ma­trimonie is not truely and properly one of the seauen Sacraments of the Euangelicall law instituted by Christ our Lord, but inuēted of men in the Church, nor giueth grace; be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Confessio Heluet. c. 19. We confesse, that Matrimonie is a No Sacramēt. profitable institution of God, but not a Sacrament. In like sorte the English Confession art. 25.

Iewel defens. Apolog. p. 185. Marriage of it selfe is nether Of itselfe, not good. good nor ill.

Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 64. What more foolish, then to make a Sacrament of Matrimonie?

[Page 307] Caluin 4. Instit. c. 19. §. 34. What sober man would euer haue thought, that Matrimonie was giuen for a Srcrament. And o­thers, as we shall see hereafter c. 15. art. 2. say, that Matri­monie is nothing, nor maketh a man any whit the better.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that Matrimonie in Christ & the Church, that is, among Christians, is a great Sacra­ment. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that Matrimonie is no sacra­ment, that it is follie and madnesse to make it a sacrament: that of it selfe it is not good, is nothing, nor maketh a man better. Which contradiction of Scripture is so manifest, as same Protestants confesse it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. VI. WHETHER ONE WIFE BEING diuorced one may marrie an other?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Luke. 16. vers. 18. Euerie one that dimisseth his wife, and No marriage after diuorce. marrieth an other, committeth aduoutrie: and he that marrieth her that is dimissed from her husband, committeth aduoutrie.

Marc. 10. v. 11. Whosoeuer dimisseth his wife, and marieth an other, committeth aduouttie vpon her. And if the wife dimisse her husband, and marrie an other, he committeth aduoutrie. v. 6. Which God hath ioyned together let no man separate.

1. Cor. 7. v. 10. But to them that be ioyned in matrimonie, not I giue commandment, but our Lord, that the wife departe not from her husband, and if she departe, to remaine vnmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband. And. v. 39. A woman is bound to the law so long time as her husband li [...]eth: but if her husband sleepe, she is at libertie, let her marrie to whome she will, onely in our Lord.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Councel of Trent. Sess. 24. Can. 7. If anie shall say, that the Church doth erre, when it taught and doth teach according to the Euangelicall and Apostolicall doctrine, that the bande of Matrimonie cānot be broken for the adulterie of one of the mar­ried parties: and that nether, no not the innocent partie which gaue no cause of the adulterie, can marie againe whiles the other partie liueth: be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRMI.

Willet Controu. 15. quaest. 2. pag. 782. For fornication, our New mar­riage after fornication. Sauiour hath granted libertie both to dissolue matrimonie, and to marrie againe.

Confessio Saxonica. cap. 18. Marriage is not forbidden to the innocent partie, when the cause being knowne, she is pro­nounced free.

Confessio Scotica. We detest his (Popes) crueltie against the innocent reiected by diuorce.

Pseudosynod of Midelburg An. 1581. art. 57. If anie for adulterie haue separated himselfe from his wife, and will not be reconciled againe with her, and desire leaue of a new marriage, the Presbyterie (the adulterie being first proued) shall declare, that it is lawfull by the word of God.

Luther in 1. Cor. 7. to. 5. What if the one partie will not be recōciled to the other, but will abide separated, and the other, not able to containe, should be enforced to marrie, what should be doe, may he marrie with an other? I answere, that without doubt And other offences. he may. Againe: If the husband would teach or force his wife to steale, to adulterate, or committe any other crime against God, it is the same reason of diuorce with the other, that vnlesse they be reconciled, a new marriage may be made. Furthermore. What if the second marriage did not fall out right, that the one partie should vrge the other, the husband the wife, or contrariewise, to liue wickedly like Pagans, or if the one would flie from the other [Page 309] vntill the third or fourth marriage were made, may he marrie of wife as often as she is such as we haue spoaken of, so that he haue at once ten or more fugitiue wiues? And againe shall it be lawfull A woman may haue ten husbands li­uings. for the wife to haue ten or more husbands who all are fled from her? I answere, that we cannot stoppe S. Pauls mouth, who, as often as it is needfull, will vse his doctrine: his words are cleare. The like he hath ib. Sermon de matrimonio, where also fo. 123. he addeth: If the Mistresse will not, let the Maide come.

Bidembachius in Consensu Iesuitarum & Christian. p. 1588. Who reiecting his wife for whordome, marieth an other, doth not commit adulterie.

Beza in Confess. c. 5. sect. 39. To whome diuorce is lawfully Mariage law­full after di­uorce. graunted, if reconcilement cannot be procured within the time appointed, to them we giue leaue to marrie a new. And epist. 10. he writeth, that Bucer and most of the Protestāt Churches in Germanie giue leaue to marrie a new for leprosie: to whome (saieth he) we leaue their iudgment free, as is reason.

Perkins de Serm. Dom. to. 2. col. 261. By reason of whor­dome Whordome dissolueth mariage. marriage is dissolued. The same is the common do­ctrine of Protestants, as you may see more in my Latin booke art. 6.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that euerie one and who­soeuer dimisseth his wife and marrieth an other commit­teth aduoutrie: that a woman parted from husband must be reconciled to her husband or remaine vnmarried: that she is bound to the law of marriage so longe as her husbād liueth: that man cannot separate those whome God hath ioyned. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that who hauing put away his wife for adulterie, marrieth an other, doth not com­mit aduoutrie; that one may marrie againe for aduoutrie, for malitious forsaking, for deniall of coningall dutie, for incitation to wickednesse, for leprosie; that whordome [Page 310] dissolueth marriage, that one may haue ten or more fugi­tiue wiues at once: that if the Mistresse will not, the Maide may be called.

ART. VII. WHETHER THEY WHO lie a dying are to be anointed with oile?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Iames 5. v. 14. Is anie man sick among you? Let him bring in the preistes of the Church, and let them pray ouer him, anoiling The sick are to be anointed with oile. him with oile in the name of our Lord, praier of faith shall saue the sicke, and our Lord shall lift him vp, and if he be in sinnes, they shalbe remitted.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 14. Can. 2. If anie shall say, that the holie anoiling of the sicke giueth not grace, nor remitteth sinnes, nor lightneth the sicke, but that is now ceased, as if in ould time is had beene onely the grace of curing: be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Confessio Saxonica art. 19. That which is now called extreme Not to be a­nointed with oile. vnction, is now a spectacle full of superstition. Confess. Heluet. c. 19. calleth it a deuise of man. Et Confess. Writemberg. An vnprofitable and idle ceremonie.

Caluin 4. Institut. c. 19. §. 18. Of the same nature is the anoi­ling of the sick, to wit, an histrionicall hipocrisie; It pertaineth not now to vs.

Beza in Confess. c. 7. sect. 11. The sacrament of anoiling, is idle and vaine, and now altogether superstitious.

Hospinian part. 2. Histor. f. 23. The preists were commanded, that they should not anoile those that dyed, for that was super­stitious and contrarie to the expresse word of God.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that those thall lie a dying, are to be anoiled with oile, and it promiseth remission of sinnes to them. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that this anoiling pertaineth not to vs, that it is hypocrisie, an idle, and vaine cere­monie, and contrarie to the expresse word of God.

ART. VIII. WHETHER THE SACRA­ments of the ould law were of equall vertue with oures.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Hebr. 10. v. 1. For the law hauing a shaddow of good things to Sacraments of the ould law shadows of the new. come, not the very image of the things &c.

Coloss. 2. vers. 17. Let no man therefore iudge you in meate or in drinke, or in parte of a festiuall day, or of the new moone, or of the Sabboths, which are a shaddow of things to come, but the bodie Christs.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Councel of Trent Sess. 7. cap. 2. If anie shall say, that the very sacraments of the new law, do not differ from the Sacra­ments of the ould law, but because they be other ceremonies and ether rites, be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dureum. sect. 39. Paul expressely tea­cheth, Equall to the Sacraments of the new law. that the Israelites had the same sacraments in substance which Christ deliuered vnto vs.

[Page 312] Confessio Heluet. c. 19. For so much as belongeth to that which is the cheefe and the substance in the sacraments, the sa­craments of both people were equall.

Lutherus l. de Captiuit. to. 2. fol. 75. It cannot be, that the new sacraments do differ from the ould sacraments.

Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 14. §. 23. The Apostle speaketh not more honorably of them, then of these. In the sacraments he ma­keth them equall to vs. Whatsoeuer he gaue vs in the Sacra­ments, the same the Iewes in ould time receaued in theirs, what vertue ours haue, the same also they felt in theirs.

Beza ad Repetit. Sanctis c. 8. p. 30. Vnlesse with the Apo­stle, you make the ould sacraments the same indeed, there wilbe litle or no difference at all betweene the true God, and the false God of Marcion.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that the Sacraments of the ould law differed from the sacraments of the new, as much as a shaddow differeth from the image or from the bodie it selfe. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that in substance they were the same, were equall, did not differ, that what vertue we receaue in our Sacraments the Iewes felt the same in theirs.

THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF the other Sacraments.

The things which haue be declared in this chapter do euidently demonstrate, how differently Protestāts thinke of the other Sacraments from the holie Scripture. For the Scripture together with Catholiks teacheth, that Preists forgiue sinnes, that sinnes are to be confessed to men: that grace is giuen by Imposition of hands, that hands are to be imposed vpon those that are baptized: that [Page 313] Matrimonie is a Sacrament, that one wife being put away it is not lawfull to marrie an other: that those who lie a dying are to be anointed with oile: that our Sacraments are more excellent then those of the ould law. All which are denied of Protestants.

They also shew, that Protestants in this matter also keepe their ould custome, and steale from Preists power to forgiue sinnes; steale away the necessitie of confessing sinnes to men: from the baptized they steale imposition of hands, and from the imposition of hands, vertue to giue grace: from Matrimonie also they steale the nature of a Sacrament, and the indissolubilitie thereof, from those that die, their anoiling, and from all our Sacraments their excellencie and vertue aboue the Sacraments of the ould law. And thus farre of the Sacraments: Now touching Faith.

CHAPTER XII. OF FAITH.

ART. I. WHETHER FAITH BE A WORKE, or to beleiue, be to doe?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

I HON. 6. v. 28. 29. They saied therefore to him: Faith is a worke. what shall we doe that we may worke the workes of God? Iesus answered and saied to them: This is the worke of God that you beleiue in him whome he hath sent.

Act. 16. vers. 30. The Gailer saied to S. Paul and Hilas: Maisters, what must I doe that I may be saued: But they saied: To beleiue, is to doe. Beleiue in our Lord Iesus, and thou shalt be saued and thy house.

Iames 2. v. 19. Thou beleiuest, that there is one God. Thou doest well.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Ioan. 6. v. 30. The worke of faith, because it is a worke of man wherewith he beleiueth and giueth glorie to God, is an actiue and free worke.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther de Captiuit. Babilon. to. 2. fol. 71. Faith is no worke. Faith is no worke.

[Page 315] Caluin in Ioan. 6. v. 29. It is euident enough, that Christ speake improperly, when he called faith a worke.

Beza ib. They are very ridiculous, who out of this place do inferre, that faith is a worke.

Pareus l. 4. de Iustif. c. 17. It is false, that we are iustified by the worke of faith, or that faith is a worke.

Tilenus in Syntagmate c. 40. But nether (if we will speake) properly) can faith be called a worke.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely saieth, that faith is a worke of God or a diuine worke: that to beleiue, is to doe. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that faith is no worke: that they are ridiculous who say faith is a worke: that it is false that faith is a worke.

ART. II. WHETHER FAITH BELEIVETH any thing besides Gods promises?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ioan. 17. v. 3. And this is life euerlasting, that we know thee, Faith know­eth God and Christ. Beleiueth the resurrection of Christ. Vnderstan­deth the creation. Beleiueth Ie­sus the Sonne of God. the onely true to God, and whome thou hast sent Iesus Christ.

Rom. 10. vers. 9. For if thou confesse with thy mouth our Lord Iesus, and in thy hart beleiue that God hath raised him vp from the dead, thou shalt be saued.

Hebr. 11. v. 3. By faith, we vnderstand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.

1. Ioan. 5. v. 5. Who is he that ouercometh the world, but he that beleiueth that Iesus is the Sonne of God?

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 12. If anie shall say, that [Page 316] iustifying is nothing els but a trust of the mercie of God forgiuing sinnes for Christ; be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther in Genes. 15. to. 6. f. 178. Surely faith, is nothing els, Faith, no­thing but an assent to the promises. nor can do any thing els, but assent to the promises. Postilla in Epist. Dom. 3. Aduentus fol. 31. Faith is nothing els, then a firme, constant, perseuerant trust farre from all doubt and wa­uering, of Gods grace and good will to endure for euer. A trust of Gods grace.

Melancthon in Coloss. 1. Faith signifieth not knowledge of the historie, for such is in the Diuels, but an assent wherewith we embrace the promise.

Hutterus in Analysi Confess. Augustan. art. 4. To beleiue Nothing but a full trust. in Christ, is nothing els, but with full trust of mynd to relie vpon the Euangelicall promises of free pardon of sinnes, and out of them to promise vndoubtedly to himselfe Gods grace, saluation, and euerlasting life, for the merit and redemption wrought by Christ. Againe: There is one onely and the same obiect (of faith) in respect whereof it is saied to saue, to wit, the onely promise of Gods mercie of free pardon of sinnes, by and for Christ.

Gerlachius Disput. 17. to. 2. There is no other obiect of iu­stifying faith properly and specially so termed, then the word of the Ghospell of the grace and mercie of God and merit of Christ.

Lobechius Disput. 22. Others do erre in the obiect of faith Gods whole word not the obiect of faith. which they make the whole Scripture for the obiect of iustifying faith.

Bucer in 1. Timoth. 4. v. 15. Faith is nothing els, but a firme persuasion of saluation gotten by Christ.

Beza in 1. Tim. 4. v. 15. Faith is nothing els, but a firme per­suasion of our election in Christ. In Confess. 4. sect. 5. Faith is not that, wherewith onely we beleiue God to be God, and his word to be true, for the Diuels haue this faith. c. 7. sect. 8. Faith is not an historicall knowledge of things reuealed by God, but a certaine testimonie which the Spirit giueth to the harts of all the elect, that they are chosen of God. And in breui Confess. [Page 317] p. 82. That indeed is it which we call faith so much commended in the Scripture, to wit, when a man certainly perswadeth him­selfe that the promises of saluation and life euerlasting do pecu­liarly belong to himselfe.

Zanchius de Perseuerant to. 7. col. 172. What other thing is faith, then a certaine persuasion conceaued of the free good will of God towards vs in Christ?

Serranus cont. Hayum part. 3. p. 211. Faith is wholy about the promises. The like hath Caluin 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 8. and de vera reform. p. 318. and others.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that that is iustifying faith wherewith we beleiue the true God and Christ Iesus: Wherewith we beleiue the resurrection of Christ, the creation of the world, and Christ to be the Sonne of God. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely saye, that iustifying faith is not that wherewith we beleiue the sacred historie of Christ, wherewith we beleiue things reuealed of God, where­with we beleiue Gods word to be true: but that it is all about the promises, hath no other obiect then the pro­mises, is nothing but an assent to the promises, is no­thing but a trust of grace, nothing but a persuasion of saluation.

ART. III. WHETHER BELEIVE THAT Christ is God, be iustifying faith, or profiteth anie man?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ioan. 20. vers. 31. And these are written that you may beleiue To beleiue Christ to be the Sonne of God, saueth. that Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God, and that beleiuing, you may haue life in his name.

1. Ioan. 4. ver. 15. Whosoeuer shall confesse, that Iesus is the [Page 318] Sonne of God, God abideth in him and he in God. The like is 1. Ioan. 5. v. 5. and Rom. 10. v. 9. cit. in the former article.

Math. 16. v. 17. When S. Peter had saied: Thou art the Sonne of the liuing God, Iesus answering saied vnto him: Blessed art thou Simon Bariona.

Act. 8. v. 37. When S. Philip had saied to the Eunuch: If thou beleiue with all thy hart, thou maiest: he answering, saied: I beleiue that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Card. Bellarm. l. 1. de Iustificat. cap. 8. This faith which re­gardeth Christs diuinitie, is that which giueth iustice and life euerlasting.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther Postilla in Dom. 5 post. Pasca fol. 263. Here we To beleiue that Christ is God and Mā helpeth none. see, that to beleiue in Christ is not to beleiue that Christ is one person which is God and man, for that would helpe none. F. 260. What is it then, to beleiue in Christ? It is not to beleiue that he is God, or that he ruleth in heauen equally with God, for this manie others beleiue. In Gal. 3. to. 5. f. 346. It is a feigned faith, which Beleefe of all the Misteries of our redēp­tion is a feig­ned faith. heareth of God, of Christ, and of all the misteries of the incarna­tion and redemption, and apprehendeth these things heard.

Hutterus in Analysi Confess. August. art. 4. Iustifying faith, is not anie whatsoeuer, but a faith of Iesus Christ, not wherewith we beleiue Christ or that there is a Christ—The Epi­stle to the Hebrews in he whole eleuenth chapter putteth the ob­iect of it diuers and manifould, but faith cannot, nor must not be saied to iustifie in regard of them all.

Zuinglius in Ioan. 2. to. 4. Manie beleiue Christ to be the Sonne of God, that he was borne, suffered, and raised from death: but this faith iustifieth not.

Sadeel in Resp. ad Artic. abiurat. 33. It is not sufficient, if I beleiue that Iesus Christ came into the world, suffered death, rose againe, and ascended into heauen: For this historicall faith [Page 319] will not saue me. Of the same opinion are other Protestants, as appeareth by their words cited in the former article, as also because they denie that the Catholik or (as they speake) historicall faith wherewith we beleiue what God hath reuealed generally to all, is iustifying faith, and likewise because they will haue iustifying faith to be onely a speciall trust, which euerie elect man hath of Gods fauour towards himselfe.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the faith of the diui­nitie of Christ, maketh God to abide in vs, and vs in God, that it maketh men blessed, is that which sufficieth to baptisme, and which giueth life. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely say, that faith wherewith Christ, is beleiued to be God and man helpeth none: that that faith wherewith all the misteries of our redemption are beleiued, is a feigned faith: that it is no iustifying faith wherewith we beleiue Christ, or that he was borne, suf­fered, and rose againe.

ART. IV. WHETHER IVSTIFYING faith be one?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ephes. 4. v. 5. One Lord, one faith, one baptisme. Faith is bu [...] one.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Iustif. c. 5. There are not manie faithes: For there is but one faith by reason of one and the same formall obiect, whereby all things are beleiued.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Scharpe de Iustif. Contr. 1. Iustifying faith according to Faith is twoe­fould. [Page 320] the diuersitie of the subiect, is twoe fould; one of Infants, an other of men. The faith of Infants can nether haue knowledge nor ap­plication of the promises of grace, as in men it hath, yet Infants haue their notions stirred vp by the Holie Ghost.

Polanus 2. part. Thes. tit. de Fide p. 611. Infants, albeit Infants haue a different faith from men. they haue not the same faith in all points that men haue, by reason of the weaknesse of their organs; yet they haue some thing correspondent to it, which the Holie Ghost worketh immediat­ly in them according to their capacitie and strenght, for their iustification.

Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 16. §. 19. I will not rashly say, that In­fants are indued with the same faith which we feell in our selues. Et §. 21. If hauing receaued baptisme, they departe this life before they come to years of discretion, God reneweth them by the ver­tue of his spirit in a manner vnknowne to vs, which himselfe alone knoweth.

Beza in Explicat. Christianismi vol. 1. p. 186. Faith is in a manner twoefould. One wherewith Christ is knowne in common and as it were generally, to wit, wherewith we assent to the historie of Christ and the propheties written of him, which faith is some­times giuen euen to the reprobates: An other, which is proper and peculier to the elect. In Colloq. Montisbel. pag. 402. The learnedest Diuines of our age, do not say, that faith it selfe is actually infused into the mynd of Infants, but onely some begin­ning thereof, and as it were some seed or roote. Wherefore Ia­cobus Andreae ib. fol. 403. saieth: Your worshippe (if I haue well vnderstood you) discourseth of a double kinde of faith, whereof A double kinde of faith the one is ioyned with vnderstanding; the other is esteemed of you like to seede.

Kemnice in 2. part. Exam. Concil. Trid. p. 92. denieth, that Infants haue the same faith which men haue, but some other thing, which (saieth he) we nether well vnderstād, nor can expresse by words what it is, yet we call it faith, because Scripture calleth that instrument wherewith the kingdome of heauen is gotten, faith.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture as plainely saieth, that there is but one faith, as it saieth that there is but one God, one baptisme. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that faith is twoefould, that Infants haue some things correspondent to faith, that they haue not altogether the same faith that men haue: that they are renewed in a manner vnknowne to vs, that they haue onely a beginning root, or seed of faith, that we know not what it is which they haue in steed of of our faith: that there is a twoefould faith, one with vn­derstanding, an othet without: that there is one faith of Infants, an other of men: one of the elect, an other of reprobats.

ART. V. WHETHER ALL THE ARTI­cles of faith may be beleiued without the Holie Ghost?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Math. 16. v. 17. Flesh and blood hath not reuealed it to thee, Faith not without the holie Ghost. but my Father which is in heauen.

1. Corint. 12. v. 3. No man can say: our Lord Iesus, but in the Holie Ghost.

2. Cor. 3. v. 5. Not that we be sufficient to thinke any thing of our selues as of our selues: but our sufficiencie is of God.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

D. Stapleton lib. 8. Princip cap. 2. It is an errour: that anie can beleiue all the articles of faith by onely humane faith.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 4. c. 1. We may in some sorte know all [Page 322] the doctrine of Scripture, and haue historicall faith by the All articles may be be­leiued with­out the holy Ghost. ministerie of the word, so that we know all the articles of faith and iudge them to be true, and that without internall light of the Holie Ghost, as manie wicked men and the Diuels doe.

Perkins in Gal. 2. to. 2. fol. 89. The Papists define iustifying faith, that is a guift of God wherewith we beleiue the articles of faith and all the word of God to be true. But this faith the diuels haue. The same say Melancthon and Beza cited in the former article and others, who teach that diuels may haue the same Catholik, or (as they speake) historicall faith, wherewith the misteries of faith are beleiued, which Christians haue. Wherevpon thus writeth Pareus in Gal. 3. lection. 32. Without trust, it would be onely historicall faith, which euen hypocrites haue, yea the Diuels themselues, who know and beleiue the Ghospell, to be true.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that flesh and blood reueale not the diuinitie of Christ, but the heauenlie Father: that none cā call Iesus Lord but in the Holie Ghost: that of our selues we are not able so much as to thinke any good. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that without the light of the Holie Ghost we can iudge all the articles of faith to be true: that it is not a guift of God te beleiue all the articles of faith and all Gods word to be true, but that the diuels themselues do beleiue so much.

ART. VI. WHETHER FAITH BE DI­stinct from Hope and Charitie.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Cor. 13. ver. 13. And now there remaine Faith, Hope, Cha­ritie, Faith is di­stinct from Hope and Charitie. these three, but the greater of these is charitie.

Ibid. ver. 2. If I should haue all faith so that I could remoue [Page 323] mountaines, and haue not charitie, I am nothing.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in 1. Corint. 2. v. 12. We beleiue S. Paul, not Caluin, that these, faith, hope, charitie, are three. They are three, they are distinct, they are not one and the same; there is one nature of faith, an other of hope, an other of charitie.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Zuinglius l. de ver. & fals. relig. c. de Merito to. 2. But who Faith, all one with Hope and Charitie. vnderstand not, that faith, hope, and charitie are the selfe same thing, to wit, this trust in God, wilbe forced to let passe manie knots in Scripture vnloosed. Againe: If hope saue, and faith saue, faith and hope shalbe the same thing. And soone after: Faith and charitie must be the same thing. Nether let here anie mer­ueill and feare, that these three Theologicall vertues are con­founded of vs. Surely we haue learned this out of Scripture, that vnlesse euerie one of these vertues be each other, it is quite no­thing, much lesse a vertue. Et c. de Euchar. Faith is hope and trust. In Resp. ad Luther. f. 397. The same nature and of spring is of faith and loue, yea both these are one & the selfe same thing. The like he hath in 1. Cor. 13. to. 4. And generally all Pro­testants confound faith with hope, in that they say, (as we shall see hereafter art. 14.) that faith is trust, and trust ether is strong hope, or (as we shall heare P. Martyr there teach) differeth not from hope.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that Faith, Hope, and Cha­ritie, are three things. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that they are the selfe same thing, that they are confounded, that each one of them is the other.

ART. VII. WHETHER FAITH BE greater then Charitie?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

1. Cor. 13. v. 13. And now there remaine Faith, Hope, Charitie, Faith lesse then Chari­tie. these there, but the greater of these is charitie.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

S. Thomas in 1. Cor. 13. v. 13. These three remaine now, but charitie is greater then all.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Confessio Augustana c. de discrim. ciborum in Melan­cthon. to. 3. The doctrine of Iustice by faith must be eminent in Faith aboue workes. the Church, that faith which beleiueth sinnes to be remitted for Christ, be placed farre aboue workes. Et c. de bonis operibus. Amongst good workes, the chiefest and highest worshippe of God, is faith it selfe.

Tindal in Fox p. 1144. We can shew vnto God no greater The diuinest of all Gods guifts. honour, then to haue faith and trust in him.

Perkins in Hebr. 11. Hence we gather, that faith is more diuine, then all the rest of Gods guifts.

Peter Martyr in locis clas. 3. c. 3. §. 6. Faith, as it is a worke, surpasseth by manie degrees other workes.

Luther in Galat. 3. to. 5. fol. 346. If charitie be the forme of faith as they dote, streight waies I am forced to thinke, that charitie is the chiefest and greatest parte of Christian religion, and so I leese Christ. In c. 4. fol. 382. Who so teach faith, as they attribute more to charitie then to faith, they greatly dishonour Christ, and wickedly depraue his word. De Captiuit. Babil. to. 2. The most ex­cellente worke of all. The chiefest. f. 74. Faith is the most excellent worke of all workes. Postilla in Feria S. Ioannis fol. 93. Whatsoeuer the Ghospell teacheth or commandeth of workes, it so teacheth and commandeth, as it [Page 325] maketh faith the chiefe. Et in Dom. Quinquagesim. f. 207. More noble then Charitie Faith is more worthie, better, and more noble then charitie.

Herbrandus in Compendio Theol. loco. de Iustificat. Faith is the chiefest and hardest worshippe which we can giue to God.

Lobechius Disput. 9. Faith hath the first and highest degree amongest all goods.

Reineccius to. 4. Armaturae c. 18. Yea faith is greater then Greater then Charitie. Aboue Cha­ritie. charitie.

Caluin in 1. Cor. 13. v. 13. If we sift all the effects of faith and compare them, faith wilbe found to be superiour in manie points. Yea charitie it selfe, as the Apostle teacheth 1. Thessa­lon. 1. is the effect of faith, but without doubt the effect is infe­riour to the cause.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Charitie is greater thē Faith. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that faith is to be placed aboue workes, is greater, nobler, better then charitie, more diuine then the other guiftes of God: that charitie is inferiour to faith.

ART. VIII. WHETHER FAITH MAY BE without Charitie or good workes?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ioan. 12. v. 42. Of the Princes also manie beleiued in him, but Faith with­out workes. for the Pharisees they did not confesse, that they might not be cast out of the Synagogue. For they loued the glorie of men more then the glorie of God.

1. Cor. 13. v. 2. If I should haue all faith, so that I could remoue mountaines, and haue not charitie, I am nothing.

Iames 2. v. 14. What shall it profit my brethren, if a man say, he hath faith, but hath not workes?

[Page 326] Dauid also when he abused the wife of Vrias and pro­cured him to be slayne, had not charitie towards his neighbour nor towards God, whome he so greatly offen­ded: Nor S. Peter had charitie to Christ, when he denied and foreswore him. In whome at those times faith was without good, yea with verie euill workes.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent. Session. 6. cap. 15. We must teach, that by euerie mortall sinne, the grace of iustification is lost, though not faith.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Concion. vlt. p. 695. Who thinke, that true faith Faith neuer void of good workes. may be idly, or void of good workes, do beleiue against the Con­fession of our Church.—That is a false faith, which is not ioyned with the keeping of the commandments.

Iewel in Defense of the Apologie. p. 304. Yea say: Faith True faith without workes. without workes is neuerthelesse a true and reall faith. Verily, so is fire without heat a true and reall fire.—If the wicked without good workes haue a true and reall faith, then may you also say, that the Diuel likewise hath a true and reall faith. This faith is no faith. It is onely an imaginarie and Mathematicall phantasie.

Apologia Confess. Augustanae c. 3. Our aduersarie teach, Not with mortall sinne. that faith may be with mortall sinne. c. 5. They dreame that faith can stand with mortall sinne. C. de resp. ad argumenta. Faith without good workes, is hypocrisie. Liber Concordiae Lutheran. cap. 3. True faith is neuer alone, but alwaies it hath charitie and Neuer with­out Charitie. hope with it.

Luther Postilla in Dom. 2. post Trinitat. It is impossible to beleiue, where charitie wanteth. In die Ascens. Where faith is sincere, it cannot be without workes. In festo Sancti Nicolai. As fire cannot want heat and smoke, so cannot faith be with­out charitie.

Zuinglius in Math, 19. to. 4. It is impossible, that iustifying [Page 327] faith be without workes. True and iustifying faith can no more be without workes, then fire without heat.

Bucer in Epitom. doctrinae Argentin. art. 8. True faith in Christ can neuer be without liuelie trust in God, and firme hope of euerlasting life, and burning loue both towards God and men. No more without Cha­ritie then Christ with­out his Spirit.

Caluin in Antidot. Concilij Sess. 6. They shall no more se­perate faith from charitie, thē Christ from his Spirit. In. 1. Ioan. 4. v. 7. Away with that foolish fiction of informed faith; for if any deuide faith frō charitie, he doeth, as if he went about to take away heat from the sunne.

Beza in 1. Cor. 13. v. 2. Iustifying faith, which apprehendeth Thou the sunne with­out heate. Gods mercie in Christ, in thought may be deuided from charitie, but not indeed. In 1. Timoth. 4. v. 1. Who separateth faith from the effects of the Spirit of Christ, that is, from mortification of sinne and viuification of iustice, therein testifieth himselfe to be an infidell.

Pareus l. 3. de Iustif. c. 15. Faith cannot be without charitie. l. 4. c. 9. Loue canno more be seperated from faith then brightnesse from the sunne.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that faith may be without loue, without charitie, without workes, yea with adul­terie, with murder, with deniall of Christ. And the same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that faith, true and reall faith cannot be voide of good workes: that it is impossible to beleiue without charitie: that faith can no more be sepe­rated from charitie, then fire from heat, the sunne from light, or Christ frō his Spirit: That faith without workes is a false faith, an imaginarie fansie, hypocrisie: that it is a dreame to say, that faith may be with mortall sinne. Which contradiction of the Scripture is so manifest, as sometimes Protestants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. IX. WHETHER FAITH MAY BE without confession of mouthe?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ihon. 12. v. 41. Of the the Princes also manie beleiued in him, Faith with­out Confessiō of mouth. but for the Pharises they did not confesse, that they might not be cast out of the Snagogue.

S. Peters faith neuer failed, as before is shewed, and yet he confessed not, yea denied and foreswore Christ. Marke 14.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Iustif. c. 15. S. Austin atributeth the same faith to them who did confesse Christ openly, and to them who durst not confesse: Nether can it be doubted, but the faith of them who confessed, was true faith in Christ. Therefore also the faith of them, who confessed not, was true.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Cont. 4. q. 6. c. 2. True faith can no more be sepe­rated from confession of mouthe, then fire from heat, or the sunne Not without Confession of mouth. from light and his beames. Surely it is not true faith, which bree­deth, not confession. Againe: If it yeeld and be ouercomen with feare, it is not true faith,

Caluin in Rom. 10. v. 10. Nether can anie beleiue with, but he will confesse with mouthe.

Zanchius in Confess. c. 17. to. 8. We beleiue, that true faith cannot want plaine confession of truth, where it needeth.

Volanus lib. 3. cont. Scargam. pag. 1071. God giueth true faith to none, hut he openly and freely praiseth Christ setting aside all feare, and confesseth him securely to be his Lord and Sauiour.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that diuers beleiued in Christ who yet for feare did not confesse him; that Peters faith failed not, though he did not confesse, yea denie Christ. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants plainely say, that none can beleiue with hart, but he confesseth with mouth; that true faith can no more be separated from cōfession then fire from heat, or the sunne from his beames: that if it confesse not, it is not true faith, that God giueth faith to none, but he opēly and freely confesseth.

ART. X. WHETHER FAITH WITHOVT good workes be dead?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Iames 2. v. 20. Faith without workes is dead. v. 17. So faith if it haue not workes, is dead in itselfe. v. 26. For euen as the bodie Faith with­out workes is dead. without the spirit is dead, so also faith without workes is dead.

1. Cor. 13. v. 2. If I should haue all faith, so that I could remoue mountaines, and haue not charitie, I am nothing.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. c. 7. It is most truely saied, that faith without workes is dead and idle.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Apologia Eccles. Anglic. c. 301. True faith is liuelie, and cā in no wise be idle. Iewel ib. p. 302. A dead faith, is no true faith. Confessio Belgica art. 24. It cannot be, that this holie faith be idle in a man.

Whitaker Concion. vlt. Who thinke, that true faith can be [Page 330] idle, or dead, or void of good workes, beleiue against the Confes­sion True faith cannot be dead. of our Church.

Luther in Gal. 2. to. 5. The Papists and fanaticall fellows do so vnderstand, that faith albeit true, if it haue no workes, is no­thing worth. This is false. And Postilla in die Epiphaniae, con­demneth as a point of Papistrie: Faith with out workes, is vnprofitable.

Herbrandus in Compendio loco de Fide. True faith can neuer be, nor be saied to be dead.

Morlinus apud Schusselburg to. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 168. It is a blasphemous speech: Faith without workes is nothing, is worth nothing, hath no vertue or efficacie. p. 169. Who saieth, that faith without the presence of workes is nothing, simply saieth with the Papists: That faith informed with good workes doth iu­stifie a man. p. 178. It is a horrible obscuring and deprauing of Paul: that faith without the presence of workes is nothing.

Schusselburg to. 8. Catal. Haeret. p. 513. This proposition is blasphemous: Faith in the moment of iustification is nothing if it be there without workes.—Is it a dead thing as some impious men affirme? God will quaile and beat downe this blasphemie in them who do not repent. p. 514. The speech of Iames is not to be wrested to the act of iustification. For here faith, though it be without Faith in the moment of iustification, not dead, though it be without workes. workes, and bring with it no merits or workes in the sight of God, yet it is not dead—In this strife, albeit faith espie none of her good workes, yet is she not dead, albeit she be fainte and weake.

Bucer in Ioan. 12. Surely I thinke, that the faith of these Princes (a foresaied) albeit weake, yet was true and liuelie. The same saieth Pareus l. 1. de Iustificat. c. 15.

Caluin in Antidoto Concilij Sess. 6. Can. 28. I denie not, Faith liuelie, euen in most grieuous sin­nes. that some seed of faith remaineth in a man euen in most grieuous falls. That, how litle soeuer it be, I confesse to be a parcell of true faith, and liuelie also.

Zanchius in Confess. c. 27. to. 8. The faith of the elect al­waies liueth.

Contra remonstrantes in Collat. Hagae. 396. It is not saied here: If faith be defiled with any (grieuous) sinne, that [Page 331] that faith is dead: for so no man should haue liuelie faith. Of the same opinion are all Lutherans, who say, that faith before and without good workes doth iustifie: and Sa­cramentaries also, who teach that iustification of faith re­maineth in the faithfull, what sinnes soeuer they commit. For faith saieth doth not iustifie or giue life whiles it is dead, but onely whiles it is liuelie, if it iustifie without good workes, yea with verie ill workes, cleare it is, that it is not dead or idle, but liuelie without good, or with ill workes.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that faith without good workes is dead, is dead in it selfe, is dead as a bodie without the soule: that all faith without charitie, is nothing. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that faith without workes is not dead, is not nothing, is not vnprofitable: that though it be defiled with great sinnes, yet it is not dead: that it nether can be, nor cā be saied to be dead: that in grieuous falls it is liuelie, euen in those Princes who loued the glorie of men more then the glorie of God.

ART. XI. WHETHER THE FAITH whereof S. Iames speaketh be true or iustifying faith?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Iames 2. vers. 22. Seest thou, that faith did worke with his Saint Iames speaketh of iustifying faith. (Abrahams) workes, and by the workes the faith was consum­mate, and the Scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham beleiued God, and it [...]as reputed him to iustice. Et v. 24. Do you see, that by workes a man is iustified, and not by faith onely?

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l 1. de Iustif. cap. 15 many waies proueth that S. Iames speaketh of iustifying faith.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker l. 1. cont. Dureum sect. 13. That Iames denieth He speaketh of a diuelish faith. vs to be iustified by faith onely, is to be vnderstood of a vaine, feigned, dead, imaginarie, and diuelish faith. The like hath Iewel cited before art. 8.

Zuinglius in Iacob. 2. to. 4. saieth S. Iames speaketh of a counterfeit, emptie, and vaine faith.

Caluin in Iacob 2. v. 17. & 19. He speaketh not of faith. In v. Of a dead image of faith 14. He speaketh of a dead image of faith, of a false profession.

Beza in Iacob. 2. v. 14. It is not true faith, but a dead image.

Peter Martyr in locis clas. 3. c. 3. §. 23. Iames maketh mentiō of a dead faith, but that is no faith.

Pareus l. 4. de Iustif. c. 18. For Iames deuideth not iustifica­tion He remoueth faith from iustification. betweene faith and workes (as the Sophisters would) but wholy remoueth faith, as a dead thing, from iustification.

THE CONFERENCE

Scripture plainely saieth, that S. Iames spooke of faith which did worke with the workes of Abraham, which was consummate by his workes, wherewith Abraham did beleiue, which was reputed to him for iustice, and by which a man is iustified but not alone. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants say, that the faith whereof S. Iames speaketh was not iustifying faith, was not faith, was not true faith, was a vaine, feigned, imaginarie, and diuelish faith, was a counterfeite and dead image of faith.

ART. XII. WHETHER ANIE FAITH be full or perfect and of some account in the sight of God?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Mathew 15. v. 28. Then Iesus answering saied to her: O Wo­man Some faith great. Full. great is thy faith.

Act. 6. v. 5. And they chose Steuen a man full of faith and of the Holie Ghost.

Rom. 4. v. 18. Who contrarie to hope beleiued in hope. Et v. 19. Strong. And he was not weakened in faith.

2. Cor. 8. v. 7. In all things you abuond in faith. Aboundant.

Heb. 10. ver. 22. Let vs approch with a true hart in fulnesse of faith.

Iames 2. vers. 22. And by the workes the faith was consum­mate. Consummate.

1. Petri 1. v. 7. That the triall of your faith much more pre­tious Pretious. then gould, which is proued by the fire, may be found vnto praise.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Rom. 4. v. 2. The act of faith wherewith the vnderstanding is captiuated vnto the obedience of Christ, is an act of notable vertue.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Iacobus Andreae in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 106. Faith is Faith is im­perfect. imperfect, and no man beleiueth so firmely as he is bound to doe.

Caluin. 3. Instit. c. 11. §. 7. Faith, albeit of it selfe it be of no Of no worth. worth or value, iustifieth vs bringing Christ: as a pitcher filled with money doth enrich a man. In Math. 9. v. 22. We see, that faith hath need of pardon, for to please God. In Act. 6. v. 8. Ne­ther must we imagin any perfection of faith, because he (Saint [Page 334] Steuen) was saied to be full of faith.

Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. pag. 28. It neuer came in our Not perfect. mynd to say, that there was any perfect faith in any.

Peter Martyr in locis classe. 3. c. 3. §. 6. Which I say, not, that I thinke, that we are iustified by faith as it is a worke, for it is defiled with many spottes of our infirmitie. c. 4. §. 8. If faith it selfe be considered as it is worke, we cannot be iustified by it, sith it is a worke lame and inperfect and farre worse then the law re­quireth; but we are saied to be iustified by it as by it we apprehend and applie to our selues the promises of God and iustice & merits of Christ. Imagin a most filthie hand leprous and of some beggar, Like a most filthie and le­prous hand. with which he receaueth almes of the giuer, surely that beggar is not holpen of the filthinesse or leprosie of his hand, but of the almes which he taketh with what kinde of hand soeuer. And in Roman. 11. he compareth our faith, to a weake, leprous, and scabbie hand.

Pareus de Iustificat. c. 7. It is not absurd: that with faith is Sinfull. mingled sometimes distrust or incredulitie which is a sinne, and that so by an accident faith is sinne. Againe: Faith iustifieth, as a beggar by a scabbie hand receaueth almes.

Pareus in c. 31. Enchiridij S. Augustini. If we consider how Not worthie the name of vertue. faith is of it selfe and in vs, it is imperfect, lame, polluted, and de­filed and mingled with infidelitie, so that it is not truely worthie of the name of vertue. Of the same opinion are all Protestāts who as we shall see in the next chapter thinke that all our good workes are defectuous and sinfull. For in this, the same reason is of faith and good workes.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that some faith is great, full, abundant, consummate, in hope against hope, nor weake, and more pretious then tried gould. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that euerie faith is imperfect, none perfect, none of anie worth or value, euerie one needeth pardon, is sinne, is defiled with manie spots, [Page 335] worse then the law requireth, lame, polluted, defiled with infidelitie, like a most filthie, leprous, and scabbie hand, and not truely worthie of the name of vertue.

ART. VIII. WHETHER FAITH BE CON­summate or perfected by good workes of charitie?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Iames 2. v. 22. Seest thou, that faith did worke with his wor­kes, Faith perfe­cted by wor­kes. and by workes the faith was consummate?

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

S. Thomas 2. 2. quaest. 4. artic. 3. Charitie is called the forme of faith, in that by charitie the act of faith is perfected and formed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther in Gal. 2. to. 5. f. 296. The true Ghospell is: that workes Workes no perfection of faith. or charitie are not the ornament or perfection of faith.

Bullinger Decade 3. Serm. 9. That opinion is altogether vnworthie of a Christian, which affirmeth, that our faith is per­fected by workes, that is, that by workes is supplied that which wanteth to faith.

Caluin in Iacob. 2. v. 22. Faith is saied to haue beene perfe­cted Faith not per­fected by workes. by workes, not that it taketh its, perfection thence but be­cause thereby it is proued to be true. The same say other Pro­testants commonly.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that faith is consummate or perfected by workes. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that faith is not adorned or [Page 336] perfected by workes: that workes do not perfect faith: that faith taketh not her perfection from workes.

ART. XIV. WHETHER BY FAITH WE do onely know that we are iustified?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Luc. 7. v. 50. And he (Iesus) saied to the woman: Thy faith Faith maketh safe. hath made thee safe: goe in peace.

Rom. 1. c. 17. The iust liueth by faith. The same is Galat. 3. Giueth life. Hebr. 10. & Abacuc. 2.

Rom. 3. v. 30. For it is one God, that iustifieth circuncision Iustifieth. by faith and prepuce by faith. c. 5. v. 1. Being therefore iustified by faith, let vs haue peace towardes God.

Act. 26. vers. 18. That they may receaue remission of sinnes, and lot among the saints by the faith that is in me.

Gal. 2. ver. 16. We also beleiue in Christ Iesus that we may be Saueth. iustified by the faith of Christ.

Ephes. 2. v. 8. By grace you are saued through faith.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Iustif. c. 17. Let vs proue that true faith, is not (as our aduersaries would) a bare and sole apprehension of iustice, but a cause, and that it hath vertue of iustifying.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Zuinglius in Exposit. Fidei to. 2. f. 557. We say, that sinnes Faith onely make [...]h vs certaine of forgiuenesse. are remitted by faith; whereby we meane nothing els then to say, that onely faith maketh a man certaine of the remission of his sinnes. De Prouidet. c. 6. to. 1. f. 371. Iustification and Saluation are attributed to faith, whereas they proceed onely from Gods election and liberalitie, and faith followeth the election, so that who haue it, may know as it were by a signe and pledge that they are elected. Et in Rom. 8. to. 4. If we will speake properly, ele­ction Faith saueth not. [Page 337] saueth, not faith: but because faith is a certaine signe that thou art an elect, it is attributed to faith, which pertaineth to election.

Sutclif. l. 2. de Eccles. c. 6. The iustice, wherewith we are iust Iustification dependeth of no act of ours. before God doth not depend of anie temporall act of man, but of the eternall decree of God, and is then indeed when a man begin­neth to beleiue. The like hath Perkins in Serie Causarum c. 57. Abbots in Diatribam Tomsoni c. 4. He should remember, that before God we are actuallie iustified from all eternitie: in We are iusti­fied from all eternitie. Faith per­swadeth vs of our iustifica­tion. whome yet this is not reuealed and manifested but in due time.

Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. loco 8. When we say: we are iusti­fied by faith, we meane, that by faith we are certainely perswa­ded, that God imputeth iustice to vs, or remitteth our sinnes for the satisfactiō and obedience of Christ. Of the same opiniō are they, who (as we shall see in the next article) denie, that faith is necessarie to iustification or saluation. For that sheweth, that in their opinion faith hath no other fun­ction in iustification, then to know it and to make vs cer­taine thereof. And perhaps for this cause, they both call faith an apprehension of iustice, and define it to be aknow­ledge of Gods will towards vs (as Caluin doth 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 6. and in Cathecismo c. defide) or a persuasion of iustification or saluation, as do Bucer and Beza cited art. 2. For know­ledge or persuasion doth no way cause the thing, but onely maketh vs certaine of it.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that we are iustified by faith, receaue remission of sinnes by faith: that we liue by faith, are saued by faith, that faith maketh vs safe. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that we are actually iustified from all eternitie, that our iustification dependeth of no temporall act of ours: that our iustification is then reuea­led whē we begin to beleiue: that to be iustified by faith, is to be perswaded that God imputeth iustice to vs: that [Page 338] sinnes to be remitted by faith, is nothing els, but men to be made certaine by faith that their sinnes are remitted.

ART. XV. WHETHER FAITH BE NE­cessarie to iustification or saluation?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Marc. 16. v. 16. He that beleiueth not, shalbe condemned. Faith neces­sarie to salua­tion.

Ioan. 3. v. 18. He that doth not beleiue, is already iudged, be­cause he beleiueth not in the name of the onely begotten Sonne of God. Et v. 36. He that is incredulous to the Sonne, shall not see And iustifi­cation. life, but the wrath of God remaineth vpon him.

Hebr. 11. v. 6. Without faith, it is impossible to please God.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. c. 7. Without faith none was euer iustified.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Willet Cont. 12. q. 5. p. 574. Christ dwelleth in Infants by his Not necessa­rie to iustifi­cation. Holie Spirit, though they haue no faith. The same he repea­teth Contr. 13. q. 1. p. 592. Et Cont. 12. cit. p. 569. Infants haue nether faith nor charitie.

Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 6. c. 3. Baptisme infuseth not faith or any grace into Infants.

Perkins Cathol. reform. Contr. 16. c. 1. pag. 271. Though a Desire to be­leiue, is suffi­cient. desire to repent, and to beleiue, be not faith and repentance in nature, yet in Gods acceptation it is, God accepting the will for the deed. p. 272. Now if any shall say, that without a liuelie faith in Christ none can be saued: I answere, that God accepts the de­sire to beleiue for liuelie faith, in the time of temptation and in the time of our first conuersion. p. 273. Certaine it is, that God in sundrie cases accepts of this desire to beleiue, for true faith indeed, See Rogers on the 25. Art. p. 147.

[Page 339] Zuinglius de Prouidentia to. 1. fol. 370. It is not generall. Faith not ne­cessarie to saluation. that who hath not faith is to be damned. Againe: As for the damnation of the incredulous, they onely are vnderstood, who heard and beleiued not, of others we cannot iudge. De Peccato orig. to. 2. f 118. That (who beleiueth not shalbe damned) is not to be vnderstood absolutely, but of thē who hauing heard the Ghospell would not beleiue. Et in Exposit. Fidei to 2. fol. 659. Heathens may be saued. he saieth, that in heauen we shall find Hercules, Theseus, Numa and such like Pagans; and his opinion therein de­fend the Tigurins in their Confession of faith: Bullinger in the Preface thereof. Gualter in Praefat. operum Zuinglij, & in Apologia pro eodem. And the same doctrine of the saluation of Pagans mantayne Erasmus, Thommer, Har­denberg, Tossanus and other Protestants as Schlusselburg reporteth l. 3. Theol. Caluin art. 7.

Bucer in Math. 19. Furthermore, out of that that Infants Infants saued without faith. want faith, nothing lesse is concluded, then (which some thinke) that therefore they please not God, nor are Saintes.

Musculus in locis tit. de baptismo. Infants are saued by Gods election, albeit they be taken out of this life not onely with­out baptisme, but also without faith.

Caluin in Math. 19. v. 14. That they auouch, that we are no other waies reconciled to God and made heires of adoption, then by faith, that we confesse of such as are of discretion, but for so much as pertaineth to infants this place conuinceth it to be false. Et 4. Instit. c. 16. §. 29. & 31. & li. cont. Seruet. p. 647. he wri­teth, that that sentence: Euerie one that beleiueth not the Sōne of God, abideth in death, belongeth not to infants.

Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 407. Albeit the children of Christans want faith, yet is not baptisme vnprofitable to them.

Daneus Controuers. de Baptismo c. 10. He asketh, what No faith needfull to Infants. faith it is which we require in the baptisme of Infants: I an­swere, None.

Peter Martyr in Schlusselburg. l. 1. Theol. Caluin art. 18. The children of faithfull parents are saintes by the mere mercie of God, though they haue not true faith in Christ.

Hungari apud Grauer. in Absurdis Caluin cap. 4. sect. 25. The [Page 340] children of Christians cannot be properly saied to haue faith; yet all that are predestinate amongst them are saued and obtaine the kingdome of heauen.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that who beleiueth not, shalbe condemned, is already iudged, shall not see life, that the wrath of God abideth vpon him, and that it is impossible to please God without faith. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that Christ dwelleth in In­fants though they haue no faith; that they please God, are saued, are Saintes without faith: that the sentence of condemnation against incredulous belongeth nether to infants, nor to such as haue not heard the Ghospell: that a man may be saued with desire of faith, though he haue no faith indeed: that in diuers cases God accepteth the desire of faith for liuelie faith: that diuers Pagās are saued. Which are so contrarie to Scripture as diuers Protestants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. XVI. WHETHER FAITH DO IN­deed iustifie, or be a true cause of iustification?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

The holie Scripture in the places cited before artic. 14. Faith is a true cause of Iustification and Saluatiō. saieth, that we are iustified by faith, receaue remission of sinnes by faith, liue of faith, are saued by faith.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. cap. 8. Faith is the beginning of mans saluation, the foundation and roote of all iustification.

[...]

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Confessio Belgica art. 22. Properly speaking, we meane not, Faith it selfe doth not iu­stifie. that faith it selfe, by it selfe, or of it selfe doth iustifie vs, as which is onely as it were an instrument, with which we apprehend Christ our iustice.

Whitaker ad Demonstrat. 10. Sanderi. Faith is not cause No cause of saluation. of our saluation.

Perkins in Galat. 3. Faith doth not cause, worke, or procure Saluation de­pendeth not of faith. our Saluation. In Serie causarum cap. 57. Saluation dependeth not of our faith. The same hath Sutclife cited art. 14.

Illyricus in Claue Scriptur. part. 2. tract. 6. col. 551. Faith, the word, and Sacraments are saied to saue vs, whereas God alone doth such things. col. 552. It is often saied: Thy faith hath made thee safe, whereas the onely mercie of God and his omnipotencie apprehended by faith doth that. Whereupon he addeth, that Faith no true cause salua­tion. in the Scripture; Effects are often times attributed to not true, or not to principall causes.

Zuinglius in Elencho to. 2. f. 34. Here is a diffcultie: Hou faith doth make blessed or iustifieth—But whatsoeuer seemeth hard to loose, flieth a sunder with a small stroke of the figure synechdoche. For faith is taken for the election, the predestination, and vocation of God, all which goe before faith.

Bucanus in Instit. Theol. loco 31. Nether the worke nor act Faith doth not iustifie vs of faith doth iustifie vs, but Christ himselfe whome we apprehend by faith.

Pareus l. 1. de Iustif. c. 17. It cannot be saied with out plaine ab­surditie, and falsitie, that we are iustified by faith or out of faith, as by an efficient or formall cause. Againe: By no means that efficiencie or vertue of iustifying can be ascribed to faith, without absurditie and falsitie.

Tilenus in Syntagmate c. 41. This speech: Faith doth iusti­fie vs, is figuratiue and metonymicall, and hath this sense: God iu­stifieth the beleiuer for the merit of Christ, which the beleiuer by onely faith apprehēdeth. c. 56. Baptisme goeth before saluatiō, but causeth it not, which we giue not to faith properly, but onely me­taleptically.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that Faith truely causeth iu­stification and saluation. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that faith is no cause of our saluation, nether worketh not procureth our saluation: that our saluation dependeth not vpon our faith: that faith doth not iustifie vs: that without absurditie and fal­sitie it cannot be saied faith is ether efficient, or formall cause of iustification, or hath vertue of iustifying.

ART. XVII. WHETHER FAITH BEING alone and without good workes can iustifie?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Iames 2. v. 14. What shall it profit my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not workes? Shall faith be able to saue him? v. 24. Do you see, that by workes a man is iustified, and Faith alone doth not iu­stifie nor saue not by faith onely. The same proue the places before cited, which affirme that faith without workes is dead.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. c. 7. Faith doth not perfectly v­nite to Christ, nor maketh a liuelie member of him, vnlesse to it be adioyned hope and charitie.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Confessio Belgica art. 24. We are iustified by faith in Christ, and that also before we haue done any good workes.

Luther in Gal. 2 to. 5. fol. 310. This faith, doth iustifie before Iustified be­fore workes. and without charitie. fol. 312. It is an errour and impietie to say, that infused faith doth not iustifie, vnlesse it be adorned with Faith with­out charitie doth iustifie. the workes of charitie. Et in Disput. to. 1. f. 371. vnlesse faith be without anie euen the least workes, it doth not iustifie, nay it is [...] [...]a [...]th.

[Page 343] Liber Concordiae Lutheran. c. 3 We reiect and condemne, That faith doth not iustifie without good workes, and so good The presence of workes is not needfull. workes to be necessarily required to iustification, and that with­out their presence a man cannot be iustified.

Illyricus in Claue Scripturae part. 2. tractat. 6. It is falsely saied: That faith is neuer without good workes, if it be ment of their actuall, and not onely potentiall presence especially in the first iustification. Againe: God iustifieth the impious euen not working: Therefore in iustification good workes do not onely not cooperate, but nether are they present.

Schlusselbug to. 7. Catal. Haeret. pag. 837. Our proposition Faith with­out workes iustifieth. remaineth strāge: That faith in the first iustification of a wicked sinner, is without all good workes actually present.

Wigandus in Schlusselburg lib. cit. p. 792. Faith must needs be first, and then workes follow, albeit we cannot discerne the time. For Luthers sentence is certaine: Faith iustifieth before it doth good workes. Et p. 764. The absence of our good workes doth Absence of workes hin­dreth not iu­stification. not hinder God to impute iustice by Christ.

Authour de Iustif. to. 5. doctrinae Iesuit. p. 241. The holie Scripture describeth manie iustified in whome is no good worke seene but onely faith: Againe: These and the like examples do clearly shew, that in the beginning faith is truely without good workes, and that it so voide of good works is imputed to iustice, and receaueth remission of sinnes. See more of their like say­ings hereafter cap. 14. art. 12. For the same beleiue, as well the Lutherans (who hould that the presence of good workes is not necessarie to iustification) as Caluinists, who teach that iustification of faith remaineth in the faithfull euen in most grieuous sinnes.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely sayeth, that faith without workes profiteth not, saueth not, is dead: that a man is not saued with faith onely. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that faith iustifieth before we doe any good worke, without and before charitie, with­out [Page 344] euen the least good workes, without good workes actually present, without the presence of good workes: that in iustification good workes are not so much as pre­sent: that manie are iustified in whome no good workes are seene: that faith void of good workes is imputed to iustice and receaueth remission of sinnes.

ART. XVIII. WHETHER FAITH DO iustifie as it is Beleife, or as it beleiueth or knoweth?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ioan. 17. v. 3. This is life euerlasting, that they know thee the Faith iusti­fieth as it is a knowledge. onely true God, and whome thou hast sent, Iesus Christ.

1. Ioan. c. 5. ver. 1. Whosoeuer beleiueth, that Iesus is Christ, is borne of God. v. 5. Who is he that ouercometh the world, but he that beleiueth that Iesus is the Sonne of God?

Rom. 4. v. 3. Abraham beleiued God, and it was reputed him to iustice. c. 10. vers. 9. If thou confesse with thy mouth our Lord Iesus, and in thy hart beleiue that God hath raised him vp from the dead, thou shalt be saued.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. cap. 6. They are disposed to iustice, whilst stirred vp and holpen by Gods grace, conceauing faith by hearing, they are freely moued to God, beleiuing these things to be true which are reuealed and promised.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Willet Controu. 19. pag. 983. Faith doth not iustifie vs by Faith iusti­fieth not as it is a Beleife. As it is a Beleife. But as it is a Petition. the worke of beleiuing. As it is an act of beleiuing onely, it iusti­fieth not.

Feild l. 3. de Eccles. c. 44. Speciall faith hath sundrie actes, but to this purpose specially two: The one, by way of petition hūbly [Page 345] intreating for acceptation and fauour: the other, in the nature of confortable assurance, consisting in a persuasion, that that is graunted which was desired. Faith by her first act obtaineth and worketh our iustification: by her second act she doth not acti­uely iustifie, but finding the thing done, certifieth and assureth vs of it.

Zuinglius l. de ver. & falsa relig. cap. de Merito. Faith in As it is a Trust a Con­fidence. Scripture is taken manie waies. First for beleife, then for sted­fastnes, next for trust in God; and of this onely it must be vnder­doost; That faith saueth. Respons. ad Confess. Lutheri f. 507. To say that this kind of faith and assent, bringeth any comfort, securitie, peace, tranquillitie or saluation to our soules, were false and most foolish.

Hemingius in Enchirid. classe 1. pag. 109. It is manifest, that none is saued by onely knowledge. Whereupon euerie one seeth, that iustifying faith is not onely the knowledge of the hi­storie of Christ.

Lobechius Disput. 22. Sauing faith is saied to iustifie, not by the foundation, as it is a knowledge and assent in the mynd and trust in the will, but by reason of the end or obiect, which is Christ. And of the same opinion are other Protestants, as appeareth both by their words related before art. 2. & 3. and also because they teach, that iustifying faith, is not the Catholik faith wherewith we beleiue the misteries of faith, but a speciall trust or confidence, wherewith euerie elect faithfull man assureth himselfe of the remission of his sinnes; or at least, that it includeth this trust. Herevpon Confessio Saxon. c. 4. saieth: By faith is signified a trust re­sting Prot [...]stants faith is Trust. on the Sonne of God. Which is repeated c. 7. & 16. Lu­ther Praef. in Epist. ad Rom. to. 5. Faith is a trust of the mercie of God towards vs. Ministri Saxonici in Colloq. Aldeburg. fol. 30. Faith, in this matter we vnderstand to be trust relying vpon Christ. Zuinglius Respons. ad Confess. Lutheri to. 2. fol. 506. Faith, is no other thing, then a certaine and solid trust in God onely.

Caluin in Antidoto Concilij 6. Can. 12. It pleaseth not the reuerend fathers, that faith is a trust wherewith we embrace [Page 346] the mercie of God remitting sinnes for Christ, But it pleaseth the Holie Ghost. And in like sorte, others. But as Peter Martyr saieth in 1. Cor. 13. Hope differeth not from trust, so farre as I thinke can be gathered out of the Scripture: And con­sequently, their iustifying faith, is not beleife, but hope.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely teacheth, that faith iustifieth as it be­leiueth God: as it knoweth God and Christ, as it beleiueth Christ to haue risen from death, as it beleiueth Christ to be the Sonne of God. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that faith iustifieth not as it is an act of beleiuing, as it is an assent or knowledge, or der­suasion: that as it is an assent it bringeth no good to our soules; but onely as it is a petition or trust.

ART. XIX. WHETHER FAITH IT SELFE can be imputed to iustice?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Rom. 4. ver. 3. Abraham beleiued God, and it was reputed him Faith impu­ted to Abra­hā to iustice. And to others to iustice. v. 5. But to him that worketh not, yet beleiueth in him that iustifieth the impious, his faith is reputed to iustice. v. 9. We say, that vnto Abraham faith was reputed to iustice. The same is Gal. 3. v. 6.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Rom. 4. v. 3. That act of beleiuing (In A­braham) was an act of iustice.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Iustif. c. 17. That it selfe is iudge▪ iustice, and therefore faith doth not apprehend iustice, but faith it selfe in Christ, is iustice.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins in Galat. 3. tom. 2. The act of beleiuing is not our iustice.

Peter Martyr in Rom. 4. vers. 3. cit. Nether are they to be Act of faith not imputed to iustice. heard, who so expound this sentence, that they take faith ment by Paul to be an act, as if this were the meaning: God imputed to iustice that act of Abraham wherewith he beleiued, as if he ac­counted it for iustice.

Beza in breui Confess. vol. 1. Theol. p. 81. Paul saied, that we are iustified by faith onely, and line by it alone, that is, are hap­pie; not as if faith properly were our iustice or life, but because by onely faith we embrace Christ, and surely know him to be our iu­stice and life.

Sadeel ad Art. abiurat. 44. Not the act or worke of our faith, Beleife iusti­fieth not. that is, our beleife, iustifieth vs.

Piscator in Thes. l. 2. pag. 119. It is vnproperly saied: Faith is imputed to the beleiuer to iustice.

Pareus l. 1. de Iustific. c. 17. Faith is saied to be accounted for iustice or imputed to iustice, not absolutely but relatiuely, by reason of her obiect, which she regardeth and apprehendeth, that is, Christ with his iustice. Againe: It is cleare, that faith to be im­puted to iustice, is nothing els, but to seeke and receaue iustice or iustification in the death and resurrection of Christ. And no meruaile that they denie that faith can be imputed to iu­stice, seing they say it is so vitious and defectuous, as we haue seene art. 12.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that the very beleiuing of Abraham, the faith of Abraham, the faith of the beleiuer is imputed to iustice. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that our beleiuing doth not iustifie vs, that the act of Abrahams beleiuing was not imputed to iustice; that the act of beleiuing is not our iu­stice [Page 348] that faith is not properly iustice: that faith is vnpro­perly saied to be imputed to iustice: that faith to be impu­ted to iustice, is nothing els, but by faith to receaue iu­stice. Which is so repugnant to Scripture, as some Prote­stants confesse it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. XX. WHETHER FAITH BE proper to the iust?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Ihon. 2. v. 23. And when he was at Hierusalem in the Pasche Manie ill mē Beleiue in Christ. vpon the festiuall day, manie beleiued in his name, seing his signes which he did. But Iesus did not commit him selfe vnto them, for he knew all.

Ioan. 12. v. 42. Of the Princes also manie beleiued in him, but for the Pharises they did not confesse—For they loued the glorie of men more then the glorie of God.

Iames 2. v. 19. is saied to a wicked beleiuer: Thou belei­uest that there is one God. Thou doest well.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

D. Stapleton l. 8. de Iustif. cap. 32. The Scripture euidently witnesseth, that faith was in manie without, charitie, repen­tance, and other vertues.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Whitaker Concion. vlt. That which is called faith in the im­pious Impious haue no true faith. or those who professe faith for a time, is nothing els, but ether bare knowledge, or ghesse, or opinion, or imagination, or an image of faith, true faith it is not.

Rainalds thes. 4. But the impious, are not faithfull. Are not faithfull. Nor true be­leiuers.

Abbots in Diatribam Tomsoni c. 15. Do they seeme to thee to be true beleiuers or iustified, who loued more the glorie of men then of God? Yea if we speake properly, they are not so much as beleiuers.

[Page 349] Caluin in Math. 13. v. 20. We must know, that none are par­takers of true faith, but those, who being sealed with the spirit of adoption, call vpon God with their hart. Et 3. Instit. cap. 12. §. 9. We acknowledge onely the faith of those that are godlie.

Peter Martyr in 1. Corinth. 13. We do not graunt, that those The foresaied Princes did not beleiue truely. Princes (Ioan. 12. cit.) had true faith. Et in Rom. 11. We denie, that they truely beleiued.

Musculus in locis tit. de necessit. fidei: We speake not of that faith, which is rather opiniō then faith; Such was their faith of which Ihon speaketh c. 2. cit. The Lord did not approue their faith, because it was not true.

Zanchius de Perseuerant. c. 2. to. 7. Considering both their owne and the Churches iudgment, they are saied truely to beleiue, but in the sight of God they beleiue not truely—Like to these were those whereof Ihon 2. saieth: Manie beleiued in him but Iesus &c. As if he had saied: They thought they had beleiued truely, but Christ saw that this did not beleiue truely, and there­fore he did not commit himselfe to them. Againe: This faith is in Gods sight hypocrisie alwaies. Such was the faith of them, of whome is saied Ihon. 2. Manie beleiued &c. And in like man­ner is this place of S. Ihon expounded by Caluin 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 12. by Gualter in Ioan. 2. and by others.

Volanus l. 3. cont. Scargam. pag. 1069. The wicked haue no true faith, but a feigned and dissembled faith. Et p. 1071. Of this faith were they destitute, who are saied of Ihon to haue beleiued, but not confessed for feare of the Pharises.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that manie Princes who con­fessed not Christ, and loued the glorie of men more then of God, did beleiue in Christ: that manie beleiued in Christs name, whome Christ trusted not: that a euill man doth well in beleiuing. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that the foresaied Princes did not beleiue, had not true faith, were no beleiuers: that those whome Christ trusted not, did not beleiue in the [Page 350] sight of God, that their faith was not true, not sincere, but hypocrisie: that onely the godlie and the adopted sonnes of God are partakers of true faith: that the faith of the impious and wicked, is feigned, dissembled, an ima­gination, or image of faith, not true faith: that the impious are not faithfull.

ART. XXI. WHETHER FAITH BE proper to the Elect?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Act. 8. ver. 13. Then Simon (Magus) also himselfe beleiued, Simon Ma­gus had faith and being baptized he cleeued to Philippe: Seing also signes and very great miracles to be done, he was astonished with admiratiō.

Heb. 6. v. 4. For it is impossible for them that were once illu­minated, Also some reprobates. haue tasted also the heauenlie guift, and were made par­takers of the Holie Ghost &c. and are fallen, to be renewed againe to pennance.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

D. Stapleton in Actor. 8. v. 13. Simon Magus had true faith.

Card. Bellarm. l. 3. de Iustificat. c. 14. Faith is not proper to the elect.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 48. True faith is proper to the the elect. In Concion. vlt. In no reprobate, true faith is found.

Zuinglius in Math. 19. tom. 4. The Scripture sometimes Simon Ma­gus had no faith indeed. Beleiued not all. saieth, that some beleiued who professed faith, which indeed they had not, as appeareth of Simon Magus in the Actes. In exposit. Fidei to. 2. fol. 558. There are some who beleiue not at all, as were Iudas and Simon Magus.

Caluin in Actor. 8. v. 3. c. The mynd (of Simon) was wrapped in dissimulation of faith.

[Page 351] Beza cont. Illyric. vol. 2. p. 131. Simon Magus was quite faith­lesse. Was quite faithlesse. In Colloq. Montisbel. p. 379. Indeed he wanted faith, in­deed he beleiued not.

Volanus l. 3. cont. Scargam. p. 1070. Scarga foolishly attri­buteth true faith to Simon Magus.

Daneus Contr. de Baptismo c. 14. He obiecteth, that Simō Magus lost faith, and that other Apostates did the like: But I denie, that they haue, or euer had true faith.

Pareus l. 3. de Iustif. c. 14. Simon was an hypocrite, beleiuing onely with mouth, not with harte. And he addeth: Nether ma­keth it any matter, that Luke absolutely saieth, that he beleiued. And as for reprobats.

Caluin 3. Institut. c. 2. § 11. None are illuminated vnto faith, None but the predestinate haue faith. Faith pecu­liar to the E­lect. but they who are predestinated to saluation. In Confessione p. 106. I acknowledge, that faith is a peculiar guift giuen to the elect alone.

Beza in Conf. c. 4. sect. 20. Faith is the guift of God proper and peculiar to the elect alone.

Bucer in Matthaei. 16. They are safe for euer, who once haue gotten true faith.

Musculus in locis: titul. de fide. Faith in Christ is onely of the elect.

Zanchius de Praedestinat. c. 4. to. 7. The reprobates neuer Reprobates neuer beleiue truely. truely beleiue in Christ. And the same is the common do­ctrine of the Protestants.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that the reprobate Simon Ma­gus did beleiue, was baptized, cleeued to Philippe, and was astonished at the miracles wrought by S. Philippe: that euen they who cannot be recalled to pennance, were once illuminated. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants plainely say, that Simon Magus did not be­leiue at all, was wholy faithlesse, indeed wanted faith, indeed beleiued not, had not true faith, beleiued onely with mouth not with hart: that onely the elect are illu­minated [Page 352] vnto faith: that reprobates neuer truely beleiue: and that it maketh no matter that the Scripture absolu­tely saieth the contrarie. These are so opposite to Scrip­ture as some Protestants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. XXII. WHETHER FAITH BE by hearing?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Rom. 10. ver. 15. Faith then is by hearing: and hearing is by Faith is by hearing. the word of Christ.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. c. 6. They are disposed to iustice, whiles stirred vp and holpen by Gods grace, conceauing faith by hearing, they are freely moued to God.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker l. 1. de Scriptura c. 11. sect. 4. All true faith cometh Faith not by preachers. from the Scripture, not by the labour of the Preachers. Againe: All the Fathers with one voice teach, that faith riseth of the Scriptures onely, not of the authoritie of the Church. Et c. 13. sect. 8. Reading maketh that we may know the Scriptures and the do­ctrine of the Scriptures. Et Cont. 145. cap. 8. Faith riseth of the Of the Scrip­ture onely. Scripture alone. And in the same place thus expoundeth the aforesaied wordes of the Apostle: By hearing, that is, by the sense of the Scripture rightly vnderstood.

Zuinglius in Exegesi to. 2. fol. 347. We do not thinke, that faith, can be gotten by words, but that faith being mistresse, the words which are proposed, may be vnderstood. De Prouidentia cap. 6. tom. 1. When Paul writeth to the Romans, that faith is Not by out­ward hearing by hearing; after the same manner, he attributeth that to the nearer and more knowne cause to vs, which belongeth onely [Page 353] to the Holie Ghost, not to outward preaching. The like words hath Oecolampadius apud Schlusselburg. libro. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 1.

Caluin in Ioan. 5. vers. 9. 3 Christ is not otherwaies rightly knowne but by the Scripture.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Faith is by hearing, and addeth there also, that it is not without a Preacher. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that faith is not other­waies then by Scripture, that it is by onely Scripture, by reading: that it is not by the labour of the preachers, not by the authoritie of the Church; that it is by the Holie Ghost and not by externall preaching: that it cannot be gotten by words.

ART. XXIII. WHETHER FAITH IS, or can euer be lost?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Luke 8. vers. 13. For they vpon the rock: Such as when they Some beleiue for a time. heare, with ioye receaue the word, and these haue no rootes: because for a time they beleiue, and in time of temptation they reuoult.

Ioan. 20. vers. 29. Then he saieth to Thomas: Be not incre­dulous, S. Thomas lost his faith. but faithfull. And v. 25. Thomas saied: Vnlesse I see &c. I will not beleiue.

1. Tim. 1. v. 19. Certaine haue made shipwrak about faith. c. 4. Others leese faith. v. 1. In the last times certaine shall departe from the faith. c. 6. v. 10. Certaine haue erred from the faith.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Ioan. 20. v. 28. The Ghospell doth plainely [Page 354] teach, the Fathers plainely confirme, that Thomas was incre­dulous and an infidell.

C. Bellarm. l. 3. de Iustif. c. 14. Faith once had, may be lost.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dur. sect.ect 48. True faith, which is proper to the elect, can neuer be lost. Et Contr. 2. q. 5. c. 7. We say, that True faith, neuer lost. faith once gotten, can neuer be lost.

Perkins in Gal. 1. to. 2. Where this faith truely is, it is neuer extinguished or quite abolished.

Willet Contr. 19. q. 3. p. 1010. Our sentence is: that he which once hath receaued a true liuelie faith, can neuer finally fall away; nether can that faith vtterly perish or faile in him.

Caluin in Ioan. 20. vers. 28. thus writeth of S. Thomas: Faith was not in him vtterly extinct. Faith, which seemed to be S. Thomas lost not his faith. abolished, lay as it were ouerwhelmed in his hart. In Math. 13. v. 10. It is impossible, that faith which he hath once grauen in the hart of the godlie, should vanish and perish. In Lucae 17. v. 13. Liuelie faith neuer dieth. Et 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 21. We auouch, that the roote of faith is so putt out of a faithfull brest, that her light is neuer so putt out or choaked but that it lieth as it were vnder the embers.

Beza in Ioan. 6. v. 37. True faith and proper to the elect neuer falleth indeed quite away. In Colloq. Montisbel. p. 380. Who is once indued of God with true faith, can neuer leese it more. In Confess. c. 4. sect. 20. I affirme, that he who once in all his life felt a certaine testimonie of true faith, ought to be secure, that it not onely remaineth, but also shall remaine to the end, euen then when those times shall come, as it seemeth to be vtterly wanting.

Zuinglius in Lucae 9. to. 4. None can fall from true faith. None can fall from faith.

Bullinger Serm. 5. de Fide: True faith can nether faile nor be extinguished.

Zanchius de Perseuerant. to. 7. col. 128. It followeth, that no true Christian euer failed from faith, or can faile.

Pareus de Iustif. l. 3. c. 15. Faith which faileth, is not true faith but apparent and hypocriticall.

Piscator apud Vorstium in Parascene cap. 9. It cannot [Page 355] be by any means, that those which beleiue should leese their faith.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth: that S. Thomas for a time was incredulous, not faithfull, did not beleiue: that some reuolt from faith, departe from faith, make shipwrak of faith, erre from faith. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that faith in S. Thomas was not quite extinct; that it lay hidde in his hart: that true faith can neuer be lost, neuer extinguished or quite abolished, that liuelie faith neuer dieth: that none can falle from time faith: that who once hath felt true faith may be sure that it will euer remaine with him, euen then when it seemeth to be vtterly wanting: that who beleiueth can by no means leefe faith. Which are so opposite to Scrip­ture, as some Protestants confesse it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. XXIV. WHETHER REWARD be giuen to Faith?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ioan. 3. v. 36. He that beleiueth in the Sonne hath, life euer­lasting, Reward to faith. but he that is incredulous to the Sonne, shall not see life, but the wrath of God remaineth vpon him.

Ioan. 16. v. 27. For the Father himselfe loueth you, because you God loueth vs because we beleiue. haue loued me, and haue beleiued that I came forth from God. c. 20. v. 29. Blessed are they, that haue not seene and haue beleiued.

Math. 15. v. 28. O Woman: great is thy faith. Be it done to the as thou wilt. Or as S. Mark hath c. 7. v. 29. For this saying, Goe Faith obtai­neth the pro­mises. thy way. The Diuell is gone out of thy daughter.

Hebr. 11. v. 33. Who by faith ouercame kingdomes, obtained promises.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Ioan. v. 30. The act of faith, because is is an [Page 356] act of man, wherewith he beleiueth and giueth glorie to God, is an actiue and free worke, and therefore may be rewarded as A­brahams faith was rewarded.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Zuinglius in 2. Cor. 5. tom. 4. Not that there is reward of No reward of faith. workes, or of faith but &c.

Caluin in Ioan. 6. v. 29. Faith is a passiue worke (if I may so speake) to which no reward can be rendred.

Piscator in Thes. loco 16. It is quite repugnant to faith, to be meritorious. Of the same mynd are they, who, as we re­ported before, say that faith is defectuous, sinfull, pollu­ted, and like to a leprous and scabbie hand. For boubtles such a thing deserueth no reward.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that they who beleiue are blessed, haue euerlasting life, as they who beleiue not, haue eternall death: that men are loued of God because they beleiue: that the womans daughter was cured by her faith: that by faith Saintes obtaine the promises. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that there is no reward of faith, that no reward can be rendred to it: that merit is quite contrarie to the nature of it.

ART. XXV. WHETHER THE FAITH OF them who touched the hemme of Christs garment, or theirs who touched the shaddow of S. Peter, and napkins of S. Paul, was pure and good?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 9. v. 21. She saied within her selfe: If I shall touch onely [Page 357] his garment, I shall be safe; But Iesus turning and seing her saied: The Hemor­roissa her faith was good. Haue a good hart daughter, thy faith hath made thee safe. c. 14. v. 36. And they besought him, that they might touch but the hemme of his garment, and whosoeuer did touch were made hole.

Act. 5. v. 15. And the multitude of men and weomē that beleiued Who touched Christs hem. in our Lord was more increased, so that they did bring forth the sick into the streets, and laied them in bedds and couches, that when Peter came, his shaddow at least might ouer shaddow any of them, and they all might be deliuered from their infirmities.

Act. 19. v. 11. And God wrought by the hand of Paule miracles And S. Pauls napkins. not common, so that there were also brought from his bodie nap­kins or hankerchefs vpon the sick, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Math. 9. v. 21. Christ himselfe affirmeth that this fact of hers, proceded of faith, sauing: Thy faith hath made the safe: and health streight following this fact, doth shew eui­dently, that she thought this and touched Christ garment vpon an excellent and strong faith.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Caluin in Math. 9. v. 21. It may be, that some errour and vice Some errour in the wo­mans faith. was mingled with the womās faith. Againe: That she fluck in his garmēt rather then by praier offered her selfe to be cured of him, perhaps she slipt a litle out of the way through incōsiderate zeale. In Math. 14. v. 36. cit. It is credible, that they were somewhat su­perstitious, Some what superstitious. seing they restrained Christs grace to the touching of his garment.

Daneus Cōtr. 4. p. 1348. He supposeth that they who did those Erroneous. things (Math 9. Act. 5. & 19. cit.) did not erre, which is false, al­beit sick persōs were heard of God, cured of their diseases. Againe: God did not approue the manner which they chose. Whose very words repeateth Hospin. l. de origine Templorum p. 132.

Confessio Heluet. c. 4. Who will beleiue that a shaddow or image of a bodie could bring any profit to the godlie?

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely teacheth, that Christ both by word and deed approued the faith of the woman which re­uerently touched the hemme of his garment: that he both suffered others to touch the hemme of his garment and by miracles allowed their fact: and that by great mi­racles approued their faith who touched the shaddow of Saint Peter or the napkins of Saint Paul. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants plainely say, that perhaps there was some errour or vice in the faith of the woman who touched the hemme of his garment, and that she slipt a litle out of the way: that they were superstitious who touched our Sauiours garment: that they erred who touched his gar­mēt or the shaddow of S. Peter, or napkins of S. Paul, and that God did not approue their manner of doing: that none will beleiue that a shaddow can do any good to the godlie. Which are so opposite to Scripture as Protestants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF FAITH.

By those things which haue beene rehearsed in this chapter, plainely appeareth, how different a faith Prote­stants haue from the Scripture. For the Scripture together with Catholiks teacheth, that faith is a worke or action; that it beleiueth all the articles of faith or words of God, that it cannot be had without the holie Ghost, that it is but one, and distinct from hope and charitie, and inferiour to charitie: that it may be without confession of mouth, and without charitie or good workes: that without good workes it is dead, and without them iustifieth not: that it iustifieth as it is beleife: that indeed it iustifieth: and that we do not onely thereby know that we are iustified: that it selfe may be imputed to iustice, that sometimes it is perfect [Page 359] and is of great value before God: that it is necessarie to iu­stification and saluation: that it is not proper to the iust or elect: that it is gotten by hearing, that it may be lost: and that reward is giuen to it. All which Protestāts do denie.

It appeareth also, that Protestants play the theiues euē What Protest. steale from faith. towards faith which they would seeme to esteme and and aduance more then all men, and steale from it, that it is a worke or action, that it beleiueth all things reuealed of God, that it is distinct from hope and charitie, that it is one, that it iustifieth as it is beleife, that it iustifieth indeed, that it is necessarie to iustification and saluation, that it can be perfect, that it can be imputed to iustice, that it can be rewarded, that it is a vertue or truely worthie of the name of vertue. And if we take from Faith the nature of a worke or act, the beleiuing of all that is reuealed of God, the vnitie and distinction from hope and charitie, all per­fection, power of iustifying, necessitie to iustification and saluation, worthinesse of reward, nature of iustice or ver­tue, and finally the very name of vertue, we scarce leaue the name of Faith much lesse the thing it selfe. Nether one­ly do they steale so many and so great good properties frō Faith, but also attribute manie ill, which are contrarie to the nature of it: As that it is polluted with infidelitie, like to a scabbie or leprous hand, need pardon, and is sinne. Such a Faith foresooth it is which in steed of the Catho­lik Protest. faith, is true infide­litie. faith described to vs in the Scripture, Protestants haue brought into the world, which is true infidelitie, and she­weth what kinde of men the Authours thereof are. And thus farre of Faith▪ Now of good workes.

CHAPTER XIII. OF GOOD VVORKES IN GENERALL.

ART. I. WHETHER ANIE WORKES OF a Sinner before he be iustified, may be good?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

IAMES 2. v 25. Rahab the harlot, was not she iu­stified A Harlot did good workes. by workes? Et v. 19. it is saied to a Sinner: Thou beleiuest that there is one God. Thou doest well.

Luc. 7. v. 47. Manie sinnes are forgiuen her, be­cause A sinner doth well in beleiuing God. she hath loued much. Et c. 18. v. 13. The publican standing a farre of knocked his breast, saying, God be mercifull to me a sinner. I say to you this man went downe into his house iustified more then he. And other place teach that pennance and good workes go before iustification, as we shall see he­reafter.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 7. If anie shall say, that all workes which are done before Iustification, in what sorte soeuer they are done, are true sinnes, or deserue the hatred of God; be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins in Gal. 3. to. 2. We are tought that the actiōs of those The actions sinners are sinne. that are not regenerate, are sinnes. So Rogers on the 10. and 13. article. Apologia Confess. Augustanae c. de Tradition. It is false, that he who out of grace doth the workes cammanded, doth not sinne. c. de Iustif. It is false, that men doing the precepts out of grace do not sinne.

Confessio Heluet. c. 15. We must be iust before we do good workes.

Lutherus Postilla in Dom. post Natiuit. The Lord defineth All workes before iustifi­cation are euill. Are sinnes. in the Scripture: what workes soeuer go before iustification, are euill and of no moment.

Lobechius Disp. 22. The workes of those that are not iusti­fied, cānot please God, but in his iudgmēt are accounted for sinnes.

Bucer in Disput. Cantabrig. pag. 714. What good worke Prouoke Gods wrath. soeuer we seeme to doe before iustification, is indeed sinne and pro­uoketh Gods wrath against vs.

Peter Martyr in Rom. 11. All workes that are done before iustification, are sinnes.

Caluin in Antidoto Conc. sess. 6. c. 9. What workes do they tell vs of, that are before iustificatiō? Posteritie will scarce be per­suaded, that there was so much blockishnesse in Poperie, that they would set any worke before iustification, albeit they denied that it merited so great a good. Et 3. Inst. cap. 14. §. 7. What can sinners Execrable be­fore God. alienated from God doe, but is excrable in his iudgment?

Bezal. Qnaest. & resp. vol. 1. p. 676. It is foolish to say, that there are any good workes of them which are not iustified.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture plainely saieth, that a horlot was iustified by her workes, that to an other manie sinnes were forgiuen because she loued much: that a Sinner in beleiuing God doth well: that the Publican did manie good workes be­fore he was iustified. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that before iustification no workes are good, all are badde, are sinnes, execrable be­fore God, and prouoke Gods wrath againe the workes.

ART. II. WHETHER EVERIE GOOD worke of the Iust be sinne, or the iust sinne in euerie good worke?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Iob 1. v. 22. In all these thinges Iob sinned not with his lippes, Iob sinned not in some speeches. nether spoake he any foolish thing against God. cap. 23. v. 11. My foote hath followed his steppes, I haue kept his way, and haue not declined out of it.

3. Reg. 15. v. 5. Because Dauid had done right in the eies of our Dauid decli­ned not but in some things. Lord, and had not declined from all things which he commanded him all the dayes of his life, except the matter of Vrias.

1. Cor. 7. v. 28. But if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned, and if a Virgin marrie, she hath not sinned. v. 37. He sinneth not, if she marrie.

2. Peter 1. v. 10. Doing these things, you shall not sinne at any Doing some things we sinne not. time. Apoc. 3. v. 4. But thou hast a few names in Sardis, who haue not defiled their garments.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Councell of Trent Sess. 6. c. 11. It is manifest, that they are against true doctrine, who say that the iust man sinneth in euerie act at least venially, or (which is more intolerable) that he de­serueth eternall paines.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Whitaker l. 2. de Peccato orig. c. 3. Inherent concupiscence We sinne in euerie act. maketh, that we sinne in euerie action of ours, euē good. Againe: We teach, that the iust do alwaies sinne mortally by nature of the thing and the acts themselues. Et ad Ration. 8. Campian. All good acts are sinnes. [Page 363] All good actions are sinnes, in Gods iudgment, mortall; if God pardon them, light: This Luther saied, and he saied truely.

Tindal in Fox his Act. p. 1139. There is no deed so good, but that the law damneth it.

Luther de Ration. Confitendi to. 2. fol 26. Euen our good Good workes are sinnes. workes, if God iudge them according to rigour, and not pardon them with mercie, are damnable and mortall. De Captiuit. Ba­bilon. fol. 80. Yea good workes are found to be sinnes. In Assert. art. 31. fol. 109. The iust sinneth in euerie good worke. f. 110. He teacheth to sinne, who denieth a good worke to be sinne. In Confutat. Latomi fol. 220. All iustice is vncleane; euerie good worke sinne Tomo 5. in Gal. 1. f. 227. Let there be workes, so it be knowne that before God they be sinnes. 228. The workes of the law must needs be sinnes, otherwise certainly they would iustifie. In c. 2. f. 231. Workes of the most holie law of God are so farre from giuing iustice, as that they are sinnes and make a man worse before God. De bonis operibus fol. 581. Let a man know, All our a­ctions are no­thing but dā ­nable sinnes. that all his life and actions are nothing but damnable sinnes in the iudgment of God. Postilla in Dom. 4. post Pascha: With all thy workes which thou doest, thou canst do nothing els but sinne. Postilla in Natali Christi f. 374. Christ teacheth, that all that is ours is nothing but sinne before God.

Illyricus apud Schlusselburg. tom. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 155. All Saints in euerie good worke do sinne. Hitherto our men disputed against Papists: that all Saints in euerie good worke do sinne.

Wigandus ib. p. 719. For this verie imperfection and pollu­tion good works of themselues are sinnes.

Caluin 3. Instit. cap. 17. §. 11. There was neuer any worke of a pious man, which if it were examined by the seuere iudgment of God, was not damnable. In Refutat. Serueti pag. 655. Because God pardoneth vs like his children, thereupon he by pardon im­puteth free iustice to workes, which of themselues are vniust.

Beza in Conf. c. 4. sect. 19 If God in all rigour would examine The best workes are mere pollu­tions▪ euen the excellentest workes of men, nothing e [...]s would be deter­mined of them, then that they are mere pollutions of Gods guifts. Et l. q. & resp. p. 674. If you examine the best workes of the most holie men according to the rule of the law, I say they are sinnes.

Bullinger Decad. 3. serm. 10. We say, that the good workes of the faithfull are sinnes.

Serranus cont. Hayum. part. 2. p. 188. Whatsoeuer is of mā, is euill, is sinne, what shewsoeuer it hath of vertue.

Ianius Cont. 4. l. 3. c. 2. All the workes of a man though iu­stified, are sinnes in themselues.

Pareus l. de Iustif. c. 15. The workes of the iust, if they be exa­mined of God according to the rigour of the law, are mere sinnes. Et c. 20. The iust sinneth euen in well doing. We sinne in well doing.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth: that Iob in some things did not sinne with his lippes, did not decline from Gods way, that Dauid declined not from all things that God com­manded except the matter of Vrias: that men sinne not in marrying: that doing some things we shall not sinne. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that in euerie good act we sinne: that the iust in euerie act sinneth: that all Saints sinne in euerie good worke: that in well doing we sinne: that good workes are sinnes: that good workes are of them­selues damned, of themselues in iust, of themselues mortall sinnes: that euen the workes of Gods most holie law make a man worse before God: that euerie act in the iudg­ment of God is nothing but damnable sinne, mere sinne, nothing but sinne, nothing but pollution of Gods guifts.

ART. III. WHETHER WORKES OF the Iust be a sweet smell before God?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Gen. 8. vers. 20. Noë offered holocaustes vpon the altar, and A sweet sauour. our Lord smelled a sweet sauour.

Numbers 29. ver. 21. And shall offer an holocaust for a most A sweet [...]dour. sweet odour to the Lord.

[Page 365] Apocal. 8. vers. 3. And an other Angel came and stood before the altar, hauing a goulden censor: and there were giuen to him Incense. manie incenses, that he should giue of the praier of all Saints vpon the altar of gould which is before the throne of God: And the smoake of the incenses of the praiers of the Saintes ascended from the hand of the Angel before God.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 4. de Iustif. cap. 20. The Scripture eueriewhere praiseth the workes of the iust, and saieth, they are pleasing to God and accepted as a sweet odour.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther in Disp. de Mysterio Trinit. to. 1. fol. 418. God ex­acteth Iustice of the the law is dung before God. Vncleane. the ciuill iustice of the law, and in earnest commandeth it, though he know that before him it is dung.

Wigandus in Methodo Doctrinae c. 12. Our good workes are vncleane, are dung.

Vrbanus Regin. in Interpr. loc. com. to. 1. f. 43. Our workes Filthie. generally art filthie.

Illyricus in Claue Scripturae part. 2. tract. 6. saieth, that Our workes are rifraffe, or outcasts, vertly vncleane and that they need cleansing,

Schlusselburg to. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 55. Paul will haue all his righteousnesse to be accounted reiected and contemned as dung and outcasts; and Isaias a defiled cloute.

Caluin in Refut. Serueti p. 651. Whē I teach, that workes are Stinke before God. alwaies mingled as it were with some dreggs, so that they stincke before God if they be called to a streit account, he saieth, that I blaspheme against the Spirit. The like he hath de vera Ref. p. 317. Et 3. Instit. c. 14. §. 16 The Scripture teacheth, that all our iustices do stincke in the sight of God, vnlesse they draw some good smell from the innocencie of Christ. Et c. 12. §. 4. Workes, if they be iudged according to their worth, are nothing but pollution and filth. Et concione 158. in Iob: Whatsoeuer we can giue to God, is stenchie.

Bucer in Epitome Doctrinae Argent. art. 9. All Saints account for nothing and dung, what good soeuer they did.

Pareus l. 1. de Iust. c. 19. The Apostle simply opposeth the iustice of faith, or by faith, or the iustice of Christ and God with which alone he wilbe found in Gods iudgment, against all his workes pre­sent, past, and to come; accoūting them all farre lesse, for nothing, for dung. Againe: Hitherto the Apostle casting away all his workes as dung, is no more blasphemous, then the whole Prophe­ticall Church was blasphemous, calling all her iustices a defiled cloute, which is as filthie a thing. Let Bellarmin goe now and crie blasphemies, that we call his workes and iustices, dung. Et l. 2. c. 12. saieth: That inherent iustices euen in the state of grace, are filth, euen all, in the rigour of Gods iudgment.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely faieth, that the good workes of the Iust are a sweet odour, a most sweet odour, a smoake of incense before God. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the good workes of the Iust in the sight of God are filth, dung, nothing but pollu­tion, filth, and dung: that they are stenchie, do stinck be­fore God if they be thoroughly examined; that inherent iustices are filth.

ART. IV. WHETHER THE GOOD workes of the Iust be perfectly, wholy, and intirely good?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Isaie 38. v. 3. Ezechias praieth in these words: I beseech Ezechias walked in a perfect hart. thee Lord, remember I pray thee, how I haue walked before thee in trueth, and in a perfect hart, and haue done that which is good in thine eyes.

3. Reg. 11. vers. 4. Nether was his hart perfect with our Lord Also Dauid. his God, as the hart of Dauid his father. cap. 15. vers. 4. Because [Page 367] Dauid had done right in the eyes of our Lord.

1. Ioan. 4. v. 12. If we loue one an other, God abideth in vs, and Charitie per­filed. his charitie in vs is perfited. c. 2. v. 5. But he that keepeth his word, in him in verie deed charitie of God is perfited.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 4. de Iustif. c. 10. All Catholiks teach, that the workes of the iust are simply and absolutely iust, and in their, manner, perfect; though not in that perfection, but that they may increase.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dureum. sect. 89. There is no intire good No intire good in this life. of ours in this life. l. 9. sect. 34. Our workes are manie waies vi­tious, and are not answerable to the perfection of Gods law. Ad Ration. 8. Campiani. In euerie action of man, though notable, Some vice in euerie act. there is some vice, which wholy marreth the action, and maketh it odious to God, if it be examined by the weight of his iustice.

Perkins in Gal. 5. ver. 17. The workes of the regenerate are in In parte euill. parte euill.

Confessio Wittembergens c. de Bonis operibus. All the Imperfect. good workes, which we doe, are imperfect, nor one can bear the seueritie of Gods iudgment.

Confessio Augustana. c. de operibus. The new obedience is farre from the perfection of the law. And Apologia eius­dem cap. de Implet. legis: Our workes are vncleane and need mercie.

Confessio Heluet. c. 16. There are manie thinges vnworthie Haue manie imperfections of God, and very manie imperfections are found in the workes of Saints. The like hath Confessio Belgica art. 14. and Scoti­ca Defiled. art. 15.

Luther in Gen. 15. to. 6. Thy workes are alwaies defiled imper­fect, and polluted.

Kemnice 1. part. Exam. tit. de Iustif. Inherent iustice in this life is onely begunne, imperfect, and vncleane.

Zuinglius in Marci 10. tom. 4. In the iudgment of God all Impure. our workes, though neuer so good, wilbe found impure and vn­cleane.

Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 7. ver. 19. We do nothing, how good Spotted. and holie soeuer it seeme to be, which indeed is not spotted with manie vices. Againe: As workes come from vs, they are dis­graced with infinit filth.

Caluin l. de lib. arb. p. 141. There was neuer anie good worke, Lame. which euerie way pure and perfect, wholy wanted any spot. In Math. 5. v. 12. What good worke soeuer cometh from the best mē, is lame and vitious. In Actor. 6. v. 11. The workes of Saints haue alwaies some fault mingled with them. The like he hath often times.

Beza in Confess cap. 4. sect. 19. So great is Gods goodnesse, that he doth not onely not dislike our workes though most im­perfect, but also so farre alloweth them as he vouchsafeth them reward.

Vrsinus in Catechismo q. 62. Our best workes in this life are imperfect, and consequently defiled with sinne.

Pareus lib. 4. de Iustif. cap. 10. They proue that the workes of Saints are imperfect, and consequently sinnes. c. 15. The workes of the Iust haue an imperfect goodnesse, their goodnesse what­soeuer is polluted with the filth of our flesh, like as water passing through a filthie channell. Et Prooemio in l. 5. The good workes of the iust are not absolutely good, but alwaies polluted with in­habiting sinne.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that the good workes of the Iust are good and right in the eyes of God: that the charitie of those who loue one an other, and keepe Gods word, is perfect: that Ezechias walked before God in a perfect hart, that Dauids hart was perfect before God. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, rhat the good workes of the Iust are farre from perfection: that there are manie [Page 369] imperfections in them: that they are imperfect, most im­perfect, lame, vitious, not wholy pure, imperfectly good, haue no perfect goodnesse, are not absolutely good, not absolutely or simply iust, defiled with manie vices disgra­ced with infinit filth, polluted as water running through a filthie channell in parte ill, and sinnes, and that there is no intire good of ours in this life.

ART. V. WHETHER THE GOOD workes of the Iust be iust or iustice in the sight of God?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Deuter. 24. v. 13. But if he be pore, the pledge shalt not lodge To restore a pledge is iu­stice before God. Phinees zeale was iustice. Noe Daniel and Iob had iustice. Iustice in Daniel. with the that night; but forth with thou shall restore it vnto him—that thou mayest haue iustice before our Lord thy God.

Psal. 105. v. 30. And Phinees stood, and pacified, and the slaughter ceased, and it was reputed to him vnto iustice.

Ezech. 14. ver. 14. And if these three men shalbe in the middest thereof, Noë, Daniel, and Iob: they by their iustice shall deliuer their owne soules, saieth the Lord of hostes.

Daniel 6. ver. 22. My God hath sent his Angel, and hath shut vp the mouthes of the lyons, and they haue not hurt me, because before him iustice hath beene found in me.

Luc. 1. v. 75. That without feare being deliuered from the hand of our enemies, we may serue him, in holines and iustice before him all our dayes.

Hebr. 11. v. 33. Who by faith ouercame kingdomes, wrought Saints worke iustice. iustice.

1. Ioan. 3. v. 12. Because his workes were wicked, but his brothers, iust.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton l. 6. de Iustif. cap. 8. The iustice of good workes done in faith is true iustice before God.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther in Disp. to. 1. f. 390. God rewardeth iustice, which he Our iustice is wickednesse. accounteth wickednesse and iniquitie. Et in c. 53. Isaiae to. 4. The iustice of Christians is onely in reputation iustice, but not for­mally.

Kemnice in locis tom. 2. tit. de Argumentis: To restore a pledge to the pore, is truely a good and iust worke, but not such as if it be examined according to the rigour of the law deserueth the title of iustice.

Caluin in Antidoto Concil. Sess. 6. c. 8. How farre is that Not iustice. Nether who­ly nor in parte. newnesse which is begunne in this life, from iustice. Againe: Will they bring me one place, which witnesseth, that God approueth the begūne newnesse of life for iustice, ether wholy or in parte? In c. 11. ver. 183. It procedeth from free imputation, that workes get the Farre from true iustice. name of iustice, which otherwise would be farre from the trueth of iustice. In Rom. 3. v. 27. The law of faith leaueth no iustice No iustice. in workes whatsoeuer they be. In c. 11. v. 6. As often as grace is named, the iustice of workes is brought to nothing. Et 3. Instit. c. 17. §. 9. There is no worke which is not so defiled by it owne cor­ruption, that it retaineth not the honour of iustice. Againe: workes are iudged iust, aboue their worth.

Pareus l. 1. de Iustif. c. 19. Who make their workes, euen those which they imagin to doe by the grace of Christ, iustice or merits of iustice before God, make idols of them, and so in trueth make of them dung, and dung-hill Gods. l. 2. c. 10. Hou should it be true and absolute iustice, which faileth in manie things? l. 3. c. 8. That inherent iustice of charitie and workes, is so vncertaine and doubtfull, as in trueth it is none at all in the iudgment of God. Et l. 4. c. 20. Whether God examine our iustice according to him­selfe, or according to the rule of the law, it is found to be in­iustice.

Ministri Electorales in Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 421. Nether Not to be called iustice. can our workes be called iustice before God.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that the good workes of the Iust, are iust, are iustice, are iustice before God: that by him they are reputed for iustice: that the iust shall de­liuer their soules by their iustice. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that the good works of the Iust are far frō trueth of iustice, retaine not the honour of iustice, are not true and absolute iustice: that before God they are nether wholy nor in parte iustice: that the law of faith leaueth no iustice in workes: that by grace the iustice of workes is brought to nothing: that truely there is no iustice in the iudgment of God: that God accounteth our iustice, iniustice wickednesse, iniquitie: that who make good workes done by grace to be iustice before God, make them idols and dunghill Gods.

ART. VI. WHETHER IN THE GOOD workes of the Iust there can be any worth or worthinesse?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Philippens. 1. v. 26. Onely conuerse yee worthie of the Gho­spell Conuersation worthie of the Ghospell. We are wor­thie of the lot of Saints. of Christ.

Coloss. 1. v. 12. God the Father hath made vs worthie vnto the parte of the lot of the Saintes in the light.

1. Thessal. 2. v. 12. As you know in what manner we desiring and comforting you, haue adiured euerie one of you (as a father his children) that you would walke worthie of God, who hath called you into his kingdome and glorie.

3. Ihon. v. 6. Whome, thou shalt do well, bringing on their way in manner worthie of God.

Apoc. 3. v. 4. And they shall walke with me in whites, because Saints wor­thie to walke with Christ. they are worthie.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Ioan. 4. v. 14. This place teacheth the force and worth of workes which come of the Holie Ghost, against the the wicked. Heretiks of our time.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther de Seruo arb. to. 2. f. 453. In merit or Reward, ether No worth in our workes. we meane of the worth, or of the sequele: If you meane worth, there is no merit, no reward.

Hemingius in Enchir. Classe 1. p. 122. If we must iudge of Vnworthie of the sight of God. workes according to their worth, they are vnworthie to come in the sight of God.

Caluin in Rom. 9. v. 11. The worth of workes is not regarded, which is none at all. 3. Institut. c. 17. §. 8. If we must set a price of workes according to their worth, we say, they are vnworthie to come in the sight of God. Et in Antidoto Concil. Sess. 6. c. vlt. They giue a false worthinesse to workes, as if they please without forgiuenesse.

Bezal. Quaest. vol. 1. p. 674. I say, that these workes of the regenerate, do please, not for anie worth of theirs, but for the mere grace of the Father. The like hath Bucanus in Institut. Ioco 32.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that we may conuerse wor­thily to the Ghospell of God, walke worthily of God: bring on others worthily of God: that some are made worthie to the parte of Saintes: that some are worthie to walke with God in white. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that there is no worth at all in good workes, that they are vnworthie to come in Gods sight.

ART. VII. WHETHER LIFE EVER­lasting or reward be promised or giuen to good workes or good workers?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Mathew 20. vers. 8. Call the worke men, and pay them Hire giuen to workes. their hire.

1. Tim. 4. v. 8. Pietie is profitable to all things, hauing promise Life to come promised to pietie. of the life that now is, and of that to come.

Apoc. 2. v. 7. To him that ouercometh, I will giue to eate of the tree of life.

2. Paralipomen. 15. vers. 7. For there shalbe reward to Reward to workes. your worke.

Math. 25. v. 34. Come ye blessed of my Father, possesse you the The Kink­dome giuen for workes. kingdome prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungred, and you gave me to eate &c.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 5. de Iustificat. c. 3. The Scripture in expresse words saied, that this reward is giuen to the worke, not to the promise onely.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Zuinglius in Lucae 13. to. 4. Workes are not the things, to Saluation not giuen to wor­kes. Nor heauen­lie rewards. which God giueth euerlasting safetie.

Author libri de Iustif. to. 5. doctrinae Iesuiticae p. 240. It must not be demanded nor granted, that heauenlie rewards are giuen to good workes.

Pareus l. 5. de Iustif. c. 3. I say that it is a false glose: Call the Nor life euer­lasting. workmen, giue them their hire, that is, giue the workmen life euerlasting. Againe: I denie also, that (life euerlasting) is giuen to workers.

Ministers of Saxonie in Colloq. Aldeburg. pag. 162. You [Page 374] neuer reade in the Scripture: That euerlasting life is giuen to good workes.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that hire is giuen to workmē, that to him that ouercometh is giuen to eate of the tree of life; that to pietie is promised both this life and the next: that there is reward to workes. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that life euerlasting is not giuen to workmen; that it is a false glose, Giue the work­men their hire, that is, giue workmen life euerlasting: that God giueth not eternall life to workes, that he giueth not heauenlie rewards to workes.

ART. VIII. WHETHER GOOD WORKES of the Iust be meritorious before God?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Eccles. 16. v. 15. All mercie shall make place to euerie man, Merit in good workes. according to the merit of his workes.

Hebr. 13. ver. 19. And beneficence and communication do not God prome­rited. forgette, for with such hostes God is promerited.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. c. 16. We must beleiue, that no­thing is wanting to those that are iustified, whereby fully they may not be iudged to haue truely merited life euerlasting in due time by the workes which are done in God, so they departe hence in grace.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Confessio Wittenberg. c. de Iustif. Before the tribunall of [Page 375] God, where true and eternall iustice and saluation is handled, No place at all for merits. there is no place at all for the merits of men.

Confessio Belgica art. 15. We do good workes, but not to Merit is va­nitie. merit any thing by them. For what can we merit?

Confessio Scotica art 15. Whosoeuer brag of merit of their workes, brag of vanitie.

Perkins Cathol. reform. Contr. 5. c. 1. We renounce all per­sonall All personall merit renoun­ced. merits, that is, all merits within the person of any mere man. c. 2. It must needs be a fanaticall insolencie for any man to imagin, that he can by his workes merit eternall life, who cannot We cannot merit bread merit bread.

Luther de Seruo atbit. tom. 2. fol. 480. There is no me­rit at all.

Zuinglius in Exposit. Fdiei to. 2. f. 558. It is manifest, that the names of Merit and Reward are in the holie Scripture, but in steed of a liberall guift.

Caluin 3. Instit. c. 16. §. 2. We take from men the opinion of meriting. c. 7. §. 3. The workes of Gods seruants perpetually de­serue Not one drop of merit. rather shame, then praise. In Rom. 4. v. 2. Who then of vs will chalenge one drop of merit? In Gal. 6. ver. 8. I say, that they are not onely vnworthie of the basest reward, but wholy worthie to be damned.

Beza in Ioan. 1. v. 9. Where are merits which we may bring be­fore Away with the name of merit. God? Et l. Quaest. vol. 1. p. 681. Away with the name of me­rit, which is directly contrarie to grace. Et 690. Thou shall not find in any place of the Scripture the name of merit.

Scarpe de Iustific. Contr. 15. We say, that the workes of the Nether con­digne nor cō ­gruoue merit. faithfull in Gods sight are no way meritorious ether condignely or congruously.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that euerie one shalbe rewar­ded according to the merit of his workes: that God is pro­merited by good workes. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants say, that there is no merit at all, not a drop of merit in our workes, that we cannot merit bread, not [Page 376] the basest reward, that our works are no way merito­rious nether condignely nor congruously. Which some Protestants confesse to be contrarie to Scripture. See libro. 2. cap. 30.

ART. XI. WHETHER THE IVST may glorie in God of their good workes.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Cor. 1. v. 30. He that doth glorie, may glorie in our Lord. We may glo­rie in God. c. 9. v. 15. It is good for me to die rather, then that any man should make my glorie void.

Galat. 6. vers. 4. Let euerie one proue his owne workes, and so in himselfe onely shall he haue glorie, and not in an other.

2. Thessalon. 2. versus 19. and 20. For what is our hope or ioy, or crowne of glorie? Are not you before our Lord Iesus in his coming? For you are our glorie and our ioye.

2. Corinth. 1. v. 12. For our glorie is, the testimonie of our In the testi­monie of our conscience. concience.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Rom. 3. ver. 21. Abraham had workes by which he might glorie before God.

Cardinal. Bellarmin. libro quinto de Iustification. cap 5. Faith excludeth all their glorying who glorie in them­selues, as if they, could worke iustice by their owne strength, and had of themselues all the good which they haue; but it excludeth not the glorying of them who glorie in our Lord.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther postilla in Natali Dom. fol. 374. There is no cause No glorie in anie worke. why we should glorie neuer so litle in these (works) but rather that we should blush.

Caluin in Com. 4. vers. 2. Abraham had not whereupon to glorie before God. In cap. 3. vers. 27. Without doubt he saieth that glorying is excluded, because we can bring forth nothing that is our owne, which is worthie of the approbation or commen­dation of God. Againe: When we come to the rule of faith, all All glorying in workes cast downe. glorying of workes is cast downe. The like he hath 3. Instit. c. 14. §. 16. and 17.

Peter Martyr in Rom. 3. The will of God taketh great care All glorying excluded. of this, that all glorying be excluded from vs. Againe: Seing God will haue glorying excluded, it is cleare how much they erre who maintayne merits. In c. 4. It cannot be that any haue glorie be­fore God.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that we may glorie in God: that euerie one shall haue glorie in himselfe: that they to whome we haue done well shalbe our glorie before God: that our glorie, is the testimonie of our conscience. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that all glorie of workes is cast downe: that all our glorying is excluded: that we can haue no glorie before God: that in workes there is neuer so litle wherevpon to glorie, but rather to be ashamed.

ART. X. WHETHER ALL GOOD workes be equall before God?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Mathew 22. vers. 38. Thou shalt loue thy Lord thy God The greatest command­ment. from thy whole hart &c. This is the greatest and first command­ment.

Luc. 10. v. 42. Marie hath chosen the best parte. The best parte. Well, and better.

1. Cor. 7. v. 38. Therefore both he who ioyneth his Virgin in matrimonie, doth well: and he who ioyneth not doth better. cap. 12. v. vlt. And yet I shew you a more excellent way. cap. 13. v. 13. And now there remayne faith, hope, charitie: these three, but the greater of these is charitie.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

D. Stapleton in 1. Cor. 7. v. 38. To ioyne in marriage is good, not to ioyne, is better. Could the latter be preferred before the for­mer in more plaine words?

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Tindal in Fox his Actes pag. 1138. There is no worke better No worke better then other. then an other to please God: To make water, to wash dishes, to be a souter, or an Apostle, all is one. To wash dishes, and to preach, all is one, as touching the deed to please God.

Luther de votis to. 2. f. 291. Let vs not distinguish betweene All workes equall with God. workes, they are equall with God, wich are great and litle with vs and amongst themselues, In Psal. 14. to 3. In faith all workes are equall. Againe: To one that beleiueth in God, all is one, whe­ther he fast, or pray, or serue his brother. For he knoweth, that he serueth and pleaseth God equally in all things, whether they be great or litle workes, pretious or base, short or long.

De bonis operibus to 5. [...]. 578. In this faith all workes are made equall. Then falleth downe all difference of workes, whether [Page 379] they be great or litle, long or short, manie or few. For workes are not gratefull to God in themselues but for faith. Ib. in c. 3. Petri fol. 468 Before God there is no worke better then other, but by faith all are made equall.

Confessio Heluet. c. 29. It is most certaine, that these works which in true faith are done of parents, by the dueties of marriage and housekeeping, do please God no lesse then praiers, fasting, and almes.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that in Gods commandments there is one which is the greatest: that in workes there is the best parte, good and better, greater and excellenter. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that before God all workes are equall, no worke exceedeth an other, that all please God equally: that to wash dishes pleaseth God as much as to preach, to be a sowter, as much as to be an Apostle: that the dueties of marriage please God no lesse then pray­ing, fasting, and giuing of almes.

ART. XI. WHETHER ALL GOOD workes be commanded of God?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

1. Cor. 7. v. 25. As concerning virgins, a commandment of Some good worke not commanded. our Lord I haue not, but counsail I giue. v. 36. But if anie man thinke that he seemeth dishonoured vpon his virgine for that she is past age, and if it must be so, let him do that he will. He sin­neth In the free choice of men. not if she marrie.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Monachis c. 8. It is the sentence of all Ca­tholiks, that there are manie true and proper Euangelicall coun­sails, [Page 380] which are nether commanded nor indifferent; but gratefull to God and commended of him.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Confessio Scotica art. 14. We affirme, that those wholy Onely com­manded workes are good. No counsails. are good workes, which by faith are done according to his com­mandment.

Luther l. de votis tom. 2. fol. 272. Religious men are pur­suaded of this sacrilegious and blasphemous opinion of counsails and precepts. Againe: The counsails which they imagin, are for the most parte those whereof Christ speaketh Math. 5. to which adde virginitie and continencie. But that all these are not coun­sails but necessarie commandments, this proueth first of all &c. In cap. 9. Isaiae to. 4. The Turke is better then these, who haue brought in this horrible errour of counsails. De bonis operibus to. 5. fol. 577. There is no worke good, but that which God hath commanded.

Hutterus in Analysi Conf. Augustan. pag. 413. Wherefore workes cannot nor must not be called truely good, but such as are commanded of God. p. 415. Away with that detestable madnesse, which the Papisticall Sophisters haue most bouldly bewrayed in making commandments and Euangelicall counsails.

Caluin in 1. Cor. 9. v. 18. We do not acknowledge any worke to be good and acceptable to God, which is not contained in the law of God; 4. Instit. c. 13. §. 12. There is none so small a word vt­tered of Christ, which we must not necessarily obey. In Math. 5. v. 44. How preposterous and vnsauourie the inuention of coun­sails is, appeareth &c.

Beza in 1. Cor. 7. v. 25. I willingly auoid that false distinction betwixt precepts and counsails.

Daneus Controu. 5. pag. 949. There are not some precepts; other, counsails.

Volanus l. 1. cont. Scargam. p. 1005. Those which they call Counsails are precepts. counsails of Christ, Christ himselfe plainely teacheth to be his earnest precepts, which all must obey.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that virginitie is not comman­ded of God, but counsailed of the Apostle: that one with­out sinne may marrie his virgin or not marrie her. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely teach, that virginitie is necessarily commanded; that there is no worke good but that which is commanded: that there are no counsails distinct from precepts: that the counsails are precepts: that they are madde, worse then Turkes, and blasphemous, who di­stinguish betweene counsails and precepts. Which are so plaine against Scripture as diuers Protestants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. XII. WHETHER GOOD WORKES be necessarie to iustification?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 6. v. 15. But if you will not forgiue men, nether will your Some good worke neces­sarie to iusti­fication. Father forgiue you your offenses.

Ioan. 15. vers. 10. If you keepe my precepts, you shall abide in my loue.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Session. 6. Can. 9. If any shall say, that a sinner is iustified by onely faith, so as he vnderstand that no­thing els is required to cooperate to the grace of iustification, and that it is not needfull in anie sorte that he be disposed and pre­pared by motion of his will, be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Confess. Argentinensis. c. 3. Whereas now some yeares it was [Page 382] tought, that mans workes are required to his iustification, our men haue tought that all iustification is to be ascribed to Gods good will and Christs merits.

Confessio Bohemica art. 6. We teach, that men freely by Iustification obtained without workes. Christ, by faith in Christ through mercie are iustified, and obtaine saluation and remission of sinnes, without any worke or merit of man.

Apologia Confess. Augustanae c. de Respons. ad argum. tom. 3. Melancthonis: Doth not the Ghospell promise saluation Iustification promised to those who haue no good workes. Presence of good workes not necessarie. and remission of sinnes euen to them who haue no good workes at all?

Liber Concordiae Lutheran. in Declarat. artic cap. 3. It is false, if anie say, that faith cannot iustifie without good workes: or that the presence of good workes is necessarie to faith for to iu­stifie: or that the presence of good workes is necessarie to iustifica­tion, or in the moment of iustifying.

Luther de libertate to. 2. f. 5. Our faith maketh, that none None haue need of wor­kes to be saued. haue need of the law or workes for to be iustified or saued. f. 6. A Christian needeth no workes for to be iustified or saued. Postilla in Dom. post Natale. Nothing els is required to iustification, then to heare and beleiue Christ Iesus our Sauiour. And as Kem­nitius in Schlusselburg. to. 7. pag. 530. saieth: Luther clearly prof [...]sseth, that workes are pernitious with that addition which he calleth Leuiathan, to wit, if they be saied to be necessarie to iustification and saluation.

Ministers of Saxonie in Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 164. Who­soeuer Workes not necessarily present in the time of iusti­fication. saieth, that our good workes are necessarily present in the moment of iustification, he swarueth from the word of God, from the confession and Apologie of Auspurg, and from the doctrine of Luther.

Herbrandus in Compendio Theol. loco de Iustificat. What excludeth that word: Onely? Not workes onely from the efficient cause if iustification, and from worth and merit; but also from all cause without which not, and from all necess [...]rie of pre­sence in the act of iustification. For without workes, a sinner be­leiuing in Christ is iustified. Otherwise iustifi [...]ation would be al­waies vncertaine, and so we should doubt of it. Againe: To iusti­fication, [Page 383] there is need of no other thing, but onely of faith. Onely faith needfull to iu­stification. Those that haue no good workes may be iustified. Presence of good workes not necessarie.

Kemnitius in Schlusselburg. to. cit. p. 711. It is false, con­contrarie to the Apologie it selfe, that none can be iustified who hath not good workes. p. 716. It is false, if I say that faith doth not iustifie vnlesse it haue good workes actually present.

Morlinus in Schlusselburg. to. cit. p. 171. It is simply a false proposition: The presence of good workes is howsoeuer necessarie in the act of iustification. Et 173. It stands for an inuincible trueth, if the presence of good workes be accounted as necessarie in the act of iustification, it is dung and losse. Manie more like sayings of Lutherans may be seene in Schlusselburg to. cit.

Rainolds in Apologia Thesium p. 263. Good workes are Not required to iustifica­tion. not required to iustification.

Caluin in Math. 6. v. 12. The pardon which we aske to be giuē to vs, dependeth not vpon that, which we giue to others. The like sayings of theirs we repeated in the former chapter art. 17. and shall hereafter also c. 17. art. 1. and 2.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that God will not pardon our sinnes, vnlesse we pardon others: that we shall abide in his loue if we keepe his precepts. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that the pardon which me aske of God dependeth not vpō that which we giue to others: that our workes or good workes are not required to iusti­fication: that we may obtaine remission of sinnes without anie worke: that the Ghospell promiseth remission of sinnes euen to them who haue no workes at all: that faith can iustifie without good workes: that the presence of good workes is not necessarie in the moment of iustifica­tion: that we haue no need of workes to be iustified: that workes are pernitious if they tought necessarie to iustifi­catiō: that faith iustifieth though it haue no good workes actually present: that sole faith, excludeth euen the neces­sitie of the presence of good workes, when we are iusti­fied.

ART. XIII. WHETHER GOOD WORKES be necessarie to saluation?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 5. v. 21. For I tell you, that vnlesse your iustice abound Our iustice necessarie to saluation. Likewise our conuersion. And keeping of the com­mandments. Patience ne­cessarie. And Holines more then that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdome of heauen. c. 18. v. 3. Amen, I say to you, vn­lesse you be conuerted and become as litle children, you shall not enter into the kingdome of heauen. c. 19. v. 17. If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the commandments.

Hebr. 10. v. 36. Patience is necessarie for you, that doing the will of God, you may receaue the promise. c. 12. v. 14. Follow peace with all men and holines, without which no man shall see God.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 4. de Iustif. c. 7. We say, that good workes are necessarie for a iust man to saluation.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

The Confession of Bohemia and the Apologie of the Confession of Auspurg cited in the former article, denie good workes to be necessarie to saluation.

Tindal in Fox his Acts p. 1143. We need not to labour for We need not labour for heauen. all these things (to be Christs heires and to haue heauen) for these we haue already.

The English Translatour of Luthers cōmentaries vpon the Epistle to the Galathians: For if there haue beene since the Good workes not necessarie to saluation. time of Luther, and be yet some, which openly defend that workes be necessarie to saluation, where he before so mightly hath taught the contrarie, what then would these haue done, if Luther had not beene? Who also forewarned vs of the same, prophecying▪ that after his times the doctrine of iustification would be almost ex­tinguished in the Church.

Liber Concordiae Luther. in Declar. art. c. 4. Those propo­sitions of necessitie of good workes to saluation, take away com­fort Not necessa­rie to salua­tion. from troubled and afflicted consciences, giue occasion of doubting of the grace of God, and are manie wayes dangerous. Againe: Those propositions of the necessitie of good workes to saluation, are not to be taught, defended, painted: but rather to be hissed out, cast out of our Churches as false and not sincere.

Luther in Gal. 1. to. 5. f. 286. The false Apostles did teach, that Doctrine of false Apostles beside faith in Christ the workes of Gods law are necessarie to sal­uatiō. l. de votis to. 2. f. 281. Thou now vnderstādest, why I saied so oftentimes, that nether vowes nor our workes are necessarie to iustice and saluation. And as Schlusselburg. to. 7. Catal. Haer. pag. 312. reporteth: This forme of speech: God workes are neces­sarie Cast out of Luthers Churches. to saluation he caused to be blotted and taken out of same mens writings, and made a publike disputation of the same, and therein cast it out of his Churches, and sent it back againe to the Popes market: or as Illyricus and Gallus ibid. pag. 567. write: In publick disputation held at Wittemberg 1536. he more then fiue times iterated this speech: That proposition good workes be Condemned. necessarie to saluation, we will haue to be condemned, abrogated, and quite shut out of our Churches and scholes. The like saieth Scheptius cited in Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 153. 349.

The Ministers of Saxonie in Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 6. and 7. condemne this proposition: Good workes are necessarie to Popish, and impious do­ctrine. saluation. and p. 129. say, that it is Popish, scandalous, dange­rous, and impious, contrarie to the word of God, the Conf [...]ssion of Auspurg and writings of Luther: to which purpose they cite manie of Luthers sayings: p. 134. they say, it breedeth de­speration. Popish para­dox. p. 151. is the onely foundation of the Popes kingdome. p. 349. a Popish paradox.

Schlusselburg. tom. 7. Catal. Haeret. pag. 69. Good workes Popish speech are necessarie to saluation, is especially the speech and phrase of Papists, and the foundation of all Popish and Antichrists workes. This foundation standing, all Poperie standeth. If therefore we Foundation of Poperie. shalbe so madde as to admit this proposition, we shall take away all distinction betwene vs and Poperie, all our religion wilbe [Page 386] condemned, we iustly accounted Schismatiks, accursed, and ether compelled to recant our doctrine, or to be damned for euer. And to the same purpose he citeth manie famous Lutherans.

Morlinus in Schlusselburg. to 4. Catal. Haeret. pag. 229. I am assured, that it is the doctrine of Sathā, if any say or thinke, Doctrine of Sathan. that to a sinner, as he is now after his fall, workes are any way ne­cessarie to saluation. To which Poach addeth p. 266. that, it is doctrine of Sathan, to say that good workes are necessarie to saluation, ether in the law or in the Ghospell, or in anie parte whatsoeuer of Christian doctrine.

Illyricus Praefat. in Epistol. ad Rom. Workes are not any Not any way necessarie. way necessarie to saluation.

Hunnius de Iustif. p. 187. This proposition, wherewith it is saied, that workes are necessarie to saluation, I iudge to be cast out of the Church, howsoeuer it be painted or coloured.

Herbrandus in Compendio Theol. loco de bonis ope­ribus: Let this proposition: God workes be necessarie to saluation, be cast away. The same say manie other Lutherans, whome I name in my Latin booke c. 13. art. 13.

Confessio Heluet. cap. 16. We do not thinke, that good God workes not necessarie workes are so necessarie to saluation, that without them no man is euer saued. And to this Confession subscribed the Pro­testant Churches of England, Scotland, France, and Flan­ders, as is reported in Syntagmate Confessionum.

Caluin in Antidoto Concilij Sess. 6. Can. 20. In that the Ghospell differeth from the law, that it promiseth life not vpon condition of workes, as that doth, but for faith.

Preus l. 3. de Iustif. c. 12. Whence we vnderstand, that workes Not absolu­tely necessa­rie. are not absolutely necessarie to saluation. l. 4. c. 1. We thinke euen the thiefe, who in all his life hadde done no good, when in his ago­nie he fled to Christ, being preuented by death, to haue beene saued with out workes. Et. c. 2. Without new obediēce the promise of life may be sure to the beleiuers. And in Gal. 6. lect. 73. They Contrarie to the Ghospell. (Interimists) did hould no few points of doctrine contrarie to the Ghospell, of seuen Sacraments, of workes necessarie to sal­uation &c.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that patience is necessarie to attaine the promises: that without holines none shall see God: that vnlesse our iustice be greater then that of the Pharises we shall not enter into the kingdome of heauen: that if we will haue life, we must keepe the com­mandments. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that workes are not necssarie to saluation, not absolutely necessarie: that the thiefe was saued without workes: that the Ghospell promiseth sal­uation without condition of workes: that doctrine of necessitie of workes to saluation is Popish, is the foun­dation of all Poperie, the doctrine of Antichrist and Sa­than. Which are so opposite to Scripture, as sometimes Protestants confesse it. See l. 2. c. 30.

ART. XIV. WHETHER GOOD WORKES be profitable or auaile any thing to iustification and saluation?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Tim. 4. v. 8. Pietie is profitable to all things, hauing promise Good workes profitable. of the life that now is, and of that to come. The same teach other places cited in the former article, and others to be cited in the next article.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Catechismus ad Parochos. cap. de Oratione. By deuout praiers we appease God, by almes we redeeme the offenses of men, by fasting we wash away the filth of our owne life. And albeit euerie one be profitable against all kinde of sinnes, yet &c.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Apologie of the English Church: We say, we haue no meed No meed in workes. (in Latin, praesidium) at all by our owne workes and deeds, but appoint all the means of our saluation to be in Christ alone.

Confessio Argentinensis c. 3. It is cleare, that our workes Workes helpe nothing to iustice. Of no momēt. helpe nothing to this, that of iniust we become iust.

Confessio Belgica art. 24. Workes proceding from the true roote of faith are of no moment of all for to iustifie vs.

Whitaker ad Ration. 8. Campiani. God, in iustifying vs, Of no recko­ning. makes no reckoning at all of our workes.

Tindal in Fox his actes p. 1143. All that thinke, that good Profit no­thing. workes helpe or profit any thing to get the guift of saluatiō, they blaspheme against God, and robbe God of honour. Which Fox also maintaineth.

Luther l. de votis to. 2. f. 279. To teach, that workes are hole­some Not profi­table. or profitable, is diuelish and Apostaticall from faith, seing faith alone is necessarie and profitable. In 1. Petri. 1. to. 5. fol. 453. All which tend to that end, that we may learne, that we cannot be holpen by workes. In c. 40. Isaiae in Schlusselburg tom. 7. Catal. Haeret. fol. 320. When workes are condemned, they are Vnprofitable. so condemned, as vnprofitable to Christian iustice, and likewise to saluation. Postilla in Dom. 3. post Pascha fol. 257. Nether will anie workes helpe thither, he meaneth to iustification. In die Ascēsionis f. 267. Workes do nothing at all for pietie and iusti­fication. Doe nothing. In dom. 13. post Trinit. Albeit I had all the workes of Abraham, Noë, and all the beloued fathers, they would profit me nothing. In Dom. 13. he saieth, that workes profit a man no­thing. In festo S. Annae, that they doe nothing. Et Serm. de 10. Leprosis to. 7. he writeth: Let him know, that his workes are not necessarie and profitable to himselfe, but onely to his neigh­bour. Nor yet content to haue taught, that good workes are vnprofitable, he addeth that they are pernitious to saluation. For thus writeth Hospin. in Concordia discor­di c. 20. Rorarius sheweth, that Luther alwaies vsed this propo­sition: Good workes pernicious to saluation. Good workes are pernitious to saluation. And the same [Page 389] confesse the Ministers of Saxonie in Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 205. and Luther himselfe intimateth in c. 40. Isaiae to. 3. in these words: The iustice and wisdome of the flesh is condemned, as vnprofitable, yea pernitious to obtaine iustice and saluation. For by iustice of the flesh, he vseth to vnderstand good workes. And so Schlusselburg in the place now cited vn­derstood him.

The Ministers of the Elector. in Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 293. speake thus: Amsdorfius hath written, and after him or Pernitious to saluation. by him Flac [...]ius: workes are not onely not necessarie but also per­nitious to saluation: (and his words are at large related by Coccius to. 1. p. 1113.) Besides they adde p. 121. that the saied Amsdarfius wrote a booke with this title: Good workes are hurt­full to saluation: And that no man may say, that Amsdorfius spoake or wrote this onely of the trust of workes, himselfe decla­reth, saying: That good workes euen according to their nature or Perni [...]ious euen of their nature and substance. substance as they are commanded of God, are pernitious to salua­tion. And the same euasion reiecteth also Hospinian in place before alledged. Kemnitius also in Schlusselburg to. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 529. confesseth, that in their Church this doctrine is spread: The good workes of the iust are pernitious to saluation. The same confesseth liber Concordiae c. 4. Hut­terus in Analysi Confess. Augustan. disput. 13. Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theol. loco. 10. Reineccius tom. 4. Armaturae c. 15.

Lubeccenses apud Schlusselburg to. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. The law vn­profitable to iustification. 607. The law is not onely not necessarie to iustification, but al­together vnprofitable.

Gerlachius to. 2. disput. 14. The morall now since the fall of man is so vnprofitable to iustifie and saue, as &c.

Caluin in Resp. ad Sadolet. p. 126. Surely we denie, that in iustifying mans workes are worth a haire. Againe: we denie that workes haue any thing to doe in iustifying a man. In Rom. 8. v. 3. The law hath no force at all to giue iustice.

Coccius tomo 1. pag. 1113. repeateth these words of Rather hin­dreth. Luther out of his Sermon in Natali Christi: It is now made euident, that to this new natiuitie worke nothing but ra­ther [Page 390] hinder, precepts, laws, doctrine, free will, good workes, in­nocent life &c.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that pietie is profitable to all things, and hath promise of the life to come. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that good helpe nothing to iustification or saluation, are not worth a haire; haue no­thing to doe there: that they are not profitable, worke nothing to saluation, profit nothing to saluation: that they are vnprofitable, yea pernitious to iustice and salua­tion, and that of their owne nature as they are comman­ded of God: and that to teach that workes are profitable, is diuelish, and Apostaticall from faith.

ART. XV. WHETHER GOOD WORKES be a cause of saluation?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 25. v. 23. Because thou hast beene faithfull ouer a few Workes cause of entrance into ioye. And of pos­sessing the kingdome. things, I will place the ouer maniethings; enter into the ioy of thy Lord. Et v. 34. Possesse you the kingdome prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an hungred, and you gaue me to eate.

Rom. 8. v. 10. The bodie indeed, is dead because of sinne, but the spirit liueth because of iustification.

2. Cor. 4. v. 17. For that our tribulation which presently is mo­mentarie and light, worketh aboue measure excedingly an eter­nall Tribulation worketh glo­rie. weight of glorie in vs. Et c. 7. v. 10. The sorrow that is accor­ding to God, worketh pennance vnto saluation that is stable: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

Gal. 6. v. 8. He that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall Life reaped of sowing in spirit. reape corruption: but he that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit shall reape life euerlasting.

Philippens. 1. v. 27. And in nothing be ye terrified of the ad­uersaries, Men worke their salua­tion. which to them is cause of perdition, but to you of salua­tion, and this of God. Et c. 2. v. 12. With feare and trembling worke your saluation.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton l. 8. de Iustific. c. 34. Good workes are truely and properly the cause ether of reconciliation or of saluation.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker lib. 2. de Scriptura cap. 14. sect. 5. The iust The iust not rewarded for for workes. are not rewarded for the workes of iustice which they haue done.

Perkins in Serie Causarum c. 57. Saluation dependeth not of workes, but of our faith.

Luther in Gal. 2. to. 5. f. 308. Thus are we deliuered from sinne, Saluation de­pendeth not of workes. Life not giuen for workes. Nons saued for workes. iustified, and life euerlasting is giuen vs, not for our merits and workes, but for faith. In Catechismo f. 687. Surely our workes do nothing to saluation.

Illyricus in Claue part. 2 tractat. 6. None shalbe saued for his workes.

Herbrandus in Compendio theol. loco de bonis operi­bus: Life euerlasting is giuen to vs freely by Christ, and not for our good workes.

Zuinglius in Ioan. 5. tom. 4. Workes do not saue, do not Workes saue not. iustifie.

Caluin in Rom. 4. v. 16. If the heauenlie inheritance come to Heauen co­meth not by workes. Affliction no cause of salua­tion. Workes not in parte cause of saluation. No true cause vs by workes, faith will fall, the promise wilbe abrogated. In Philippen. 1. ver. 28. Certainly the Scripture no where teacheth, that the afflictions, which the Saintes suffer of the wicked, are cause of their saluation.

Beza in Confess. c. 4. sect. 19. For these things are not so to be vnderstood, as if our workes were cause of our saluation ether wholy or in parte.

Peter Martyr in Rom. 9. God workes are no true cause of eternall saluation.

[Page 392] Zanchius l. 5. de Natura Dei cap. 2. q. 7. The workes of the godlie are no true causes of euerlasting happines; but onely the meanes by which (as it were) by degrees the elect are mercifully ledde into the euerlasting and heauenlie cittie.

Pareus libr. 4. de Iustificat. cap. 7. Our aduersarie con­cludeth false: that the kingdome of heauen is giuen for good workes.

Tilenus in Syntagmate cap. 48. Good workes in respect of No cause at all. saluation, can be no cause at all.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely teacheth, not onely that we shall possesse the kingdome of heauen because we haue done good workes, that we shall reape life euerlasting of the spirit, that the soule liueth for iustification, that sorrow ac­cording to God worketh saluation, that afflictiction wor­keth glorie and is cause of saluation: but also in the same manner saieth, that the elect shall possesse heauen because they haue done good deeds, as it saieth, that the reprobats shall goe into euerlasting fire because they haue done ill deeds: So it saieth, that the soule liueth for iustification, as it saieth, the bodie dieth for sinne: In like sorte it saieth, that sorrow according to God maketh saluation, as it saieth, that sorrow of the world worketh death: Euen in the same sorte it saieth, that of sowing in spirit we shall reap life euerlasting, as it saieth, that of sowing in flesh we shall reape corruption: And in the same kind of speach saieth, that persecution is cause of saluation to those who suffer it, as it saieth, that it is cause of damnation to those who make it. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that affliction is not cause of saluation: that the heauenlie in heritance cometh not to vs by workes: that the life is not giuen for good workes: that we are not rewarded for good workes, not saued for workes: that saluation dependeth not of workes: that workes are no way cause saluation, are no cause of it ether [Page 393] wholy or in parte. Which do so plainely contradict the Scripture, as therefore Illyricus is forced to reproue the Scripture. For this he writeth in Claue tractat. 6. cit. tit. de varia bonorum operum praedicat. col. 551. We heare, that toto great effects and praises, yea euen saluation it selfe is at­tributed (of the Scripture) to good workes. It manifestly ap­peareth, that very often to much paise is giuen(by Scripture)to good workes, which doth not agree to them, nor is to be attri­buted, if we will speake exactly, truely, and properly. Behould how plainely he saieth, that Scripture attributeth to great effects vnto good workes, attributeth saluation vnto them, attributeth very oftentime to much praise vnto them, and such effects as agree not to them, nor are to be be attributed to them if we will speake truely. But surely if the Scripture attributeth to much to good workes, and that which doth not agree to them, and which is not to be attributed to them if we will speake truely, the Scripture in so doing, doth falsely. But whether the Scrip­ture or Illyricus know better what is to be attributed to good workes, let Christians iudge.

ART. XVI. WHETHER GOOD WORKES be a testimonie of iustice and predestination?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Ioan. 2. ver. 5. But he that keepeth his word, in him in By good workes we know we are in God. That we are translated from death. God workes make election sure. very deed the charitie of God is perfited: in this we know that we be in him. cap. 3. ver. 14. We know, that we are tran­slated from death to life, because we loue the brethren. And ver. 21. If our hart do not reprehend vs, we haue confidence to­wards God.

2. Peter 1. vers. 10. Wherefore brethren labour the more, that by good workes you may make sure your vocation and election.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Rom. 9. ver. 11. If we beleiue Saint Peter, the certaintie of our saluation, and consequently of the election, is concluded in doing of good workes, not in the onely purpose of God.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Confessio Wittenbergensis C. de Confess. We know, that Workes make but doubt and despaire. if we looke vnto our workes, we should not onely doubt, but also despaire of our saluation.

Ministri Electorales in Colloq. Aldeburg. pag. 427. We No certaintie by good. must certainely determine out of the word of God deliuered and proposed vnto vs, and not out of the feeling of infused newnesse of life, as it were by an effect, that by faith freely for and by Ch [...]ist we haue remission of sinnes.

Caluin 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 38. If we must iudge by workes, how God is affected toward vs, I confesse that we can haue but a small ghesse all it. De necessitate reform. pag. 47. What shall man A small ghesse by workes. Matter of doubt and despaire. Of trembling. find in his workes, but matter of doubting, and at length of despairing? And in Antidot. Concili. Sess. 6. cap. 8. As long as we looke what we are, we must tremble before God: so farre are we from hauing certaine and vnshaken hope of eternall life. In Rom. 4. v. 14. We are vtterly lost and vndone, if we be sent to our workes, when we must seeke the cause or certaintie of our saluation. In 1. Ioan. 3. v. 22. Woe to vs, if we looke to our workes, Nothing but matter of feare. which haue nothing in them but matter of feare.

Pareus lib. 1. de Iustificat. cap. 10. The trust of remission of sinnes, nether dependeth nor riseth of a good conscience. l. 3. c. 2. Our faith and trust doth reape nothing of our owne disposition, but feare of deceit, doubt, and anxietie. Et l. 4. p. 625. Of our owne Of doubt and anxietie. accord we graunt, that if faith must relie vpon inherent iustice, we must not onely doubt of grace and iustice, but also perpetually tremble.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that we know that we are in God by keeping of his word: that we know we are tran­slated from death to life because we loue our brethren: that we haue trust toward God if our hart do not repre­hend vs: that we make our vocation and election certaine by good workes. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that by workes we haue no certaine trust: that trust nether dependeth nor riseth of a good conscience: that by workes we cannot haue anie small ghesse how God is affected towards vs: that we are vndone if we must seeke the certaintie of our saluation out of workes: that in workes is nothing found but mat­ter of doubting and despairing: that if we looke to them, we must not onely doubt but despaire of saluation.

ART. XVII. WHETHER GOOD WORKES be a cause why God loueth vs?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ioan. 16. v. 27. For the Father himselfe loueth you because God loueth vs because we loue Christ. Because we keepe his cō ­mandments. you haue loued me, and haue beleiued that I comeforth from God. cap. 15. ver. 10. If you keepe my precepts, youe hall abide in my loue, as I also haue kept my Fathers precepts, and do abide in his loue.

Act. 10. v. 36. In euerie nation, he that feareth him and worketh iustice, is acceptable to him.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Ioan. 16. v. 27. Christ plainely saieth that his disciples loue was a cause, why God loued them with this kind of loue.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Caluin in Ioan. 15. v. 10. The obedience, which the faithfull Good workes no cause of Gods loue to­wards vs. giue to him, is not so much a cause why he continueth his loue towards them, as an effect of his loue. Et in cap. 16. v. 17. We are here saied to be loued of God whiles we loue Christ, because we haue a pledge of his fatherlie loue.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely teacheth, that God loueth vs, be­cause we loue and beleiue in Christ: that God continueth his loue towards vs, if we keepe his commandments. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that our obedience is no cause why God continueth his loue towards vs; that we are not loued of God because we loue Christ.

ART. XVIII. WHETHER WE OVGHT to do good workes?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Luc. 17. v. 10. When you shall haue done all things that are We ought to doe good workes. commanded you, say: we are vnprofitable seruants, we haue done that which we ought to do.

1. Ioan 2. v. 6. He that saieth, he abideth in him, ought euen as he walked, himselfe also to walke. Et c. 3. v. 16. And we ought to yeeld our liues for the brethren. Et c. 4. ver. 11. If God hath so loued vs, we also ought to loue one an other.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 20. If anie shall say, that a man iustified and neuer so perfect, is not bound to the keeping of the commandments of God and the Church, but onely to beleiue; be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Tindal cited in Caluinoturcismo l. 4. c. 22. Thou owest no­thing We owe no­thing to God but faith. to God but faith, that thou maest confesse Christ Iesus, and beleiue him to haue risen from the dead: for so thou shalt be safe; in all other things God hath made it free to the to follow thine owne will.

Luther Postilla in Dom. 3. Aduentus f. 39. All workes be­sides God requireth nothing but faith. Workes are indifferent. faith are to be done to our neighbour; because God requireth nothing of vs but faith, with which we giue him his honour. In Gal. 2. to. 5. f. 223. Christ hath so abrogated the workes of the law, as they may be held indifferently, but they bind no more. Againe: We are not tyed to any externall worke at all, but free to any We are free to all workes. To all things. worke towards any man, at any time or manner whatsoeuer.—A Christian is wholy free to all things, doing or omitting as the oc­casion serueth or wanteth. Psal. 5. to. 3. f. 171. Take this rule: where Luthers rule of doing good. the Scripture commandeth a good worke to be done, do thou so vnderstand, that it forbiddeth thee to do a good worke. Et apud Kemnitium in locis part. 2. tit. de operibus p. 73. This phrase of the law: A faithfull man ought to do good workes, belongeth A Christian ought not to doe good. not to Christians. And apud Schlusselburg to. 7. Catal. Hae­ret. p. 193. We fight as well against good workes, as against sin­nes. And l. de votis apud Coccium to. 1. p. 1113. The doctrine Luther figh­teth against good workes. of workes is necessarily the doctrine of diuels. Postilla in Natali Christi. ib. Good workes are a couer of filthinesse and hypocrisie. Et Serm. de Nouo testamento seu de Missa: Let vs beware Bewareth of good workes. of sinne, but much more of good workes and laws, and let vs at­tend to Gods promise and faith.

Ministri Electorales in Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 286. haue these words: Gallus affirmed, that Luther could hardly beare these propositions: Good workes are necessarie: A Christiā ought A Christian ought not do doe good workes. to do good workes. Et p. 128. Gallus, Otto, and manie other men do openly and bitterly reiect as false and improper this speach: Good workes are necessarie; and denie, that Christians ought to doe good workes.

Liber Concordiae c. 4. Some haue disputed, that good workes Good workes are free. are not necessarie, but free and voluntarie. And some haue ear­nestly contended, that new obedience is not necessarie in the iustified.

Melancthon in Resp. ad Art. 24. Bauar. to. 4. Some (Pro­testants) New obe­diēce not due. denie this proposition: New obedience is due: because it is voluntarie.

Illyricus apud Schiusselburg. to. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 271. condemneth Maior, because he teacheth, Good workes are necessarie to saluation, by reason of debt. Et in Apologia. cont. No debt. Tiletan. c. 6. All the obedience which Christ properly requireth of those that are to be saued, is onely to beleiue in him, and to runne to free bankets, to which we are inuited of him.

Pareus l. 4. de Iustific. c. 1. confesseth, that this is the do­ctrine Good workes pertaine not to the king­dome of Christ. Belonge to Satan. We must pray to haue no good workes. of the rigid. Lutherans: Good workes and new obediēce partaine not to the kingdome of Christ but to the world: Christiās with their good workes belong to Sathan; good workes are so farre from being necessarie, as that they hinder saluation and be perni­tious: We ought to pray God, that we perseuere to the end in faith without all good workes. And the same speaches of theirs are repeated out of Colloq. Aldeburg by Coccius to. 1. p. 1113.

Zuinglius l. de Relig. c. de Merito: The Prophets do ve­hemently vrge to good workes; but whom? those that beleiue not well.

Caluin in Ioan. 6. v. 29. This alone doth God aske of vs, that God requireth onely faith. we beleiue.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that we ought to do the workes which are commanded vs, that we ought to walke as Christ walked, that we ought to giue our liues for our brethren, that we ought to loue one an other. The same say Catholikes.

Protestants expressely say, that a Christian ought not to doe good workes: that good workes are indifferent, [Page 399] free, voluntarie, not necessarie; and compell no more: that a Christian is indifferent to all good workes, not tyed to doe good workes: that good workes are not necessarie in nature of debt, new obience not due: that all the obe­dience which God requireth of vs, is to beleiue: that he requireth nothing of vs but to beleiue, this onely that we beleiue: that onely those who beleiue not well are to be vrged to good workes; that we owe to God nothing but faith, and that in all other things God hath left vs free to follow our owne will: that good workes pertaine not to the kingdome of Christ, but of the world: that Chri­stians with good workes belong to the Diuel: that we must praie to perseuere without good workes: That when the Scripture biddeth vs doe workes, we must vnderstand that it forbiddeth vs to doe them.

ART. XIX. WHETHER GOOD WORKES may be done for rewards?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Psal. 118. v 112. I haue inclined my hart to do thy iustification Dauid did good for re­ward. And Moises. For euer, for reward.

Hebr. 11. vers. 26. By faith, Moises being made great, denied himselfe to be the sonne of Pharaos daughter, rather chosing to afflicted with the people of God, then &c. For he looked vnto the remuneration. c. 12. v. 2. looking vpon the author of faith and And Christ. consummatour Iesus, who, ioy being proposed vnto him, sustained the crosse, contemning confusion.

1. Corinth. 9. vers. 25. And euerie one that striueth for We striue for an incorrup­tible crowne. the maistrie, refraineth himselfe from all things: and they certes that they may receaue a corruptible crowne, but we an in­corruptible.

Philippens. 3. v. 13. Stretching forth my selfe to those that are For a prize. before; I pursue the marke, to the prize of the supernall vocation of God in Christ Iesus.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Session. 6. cap. 11. It is manifest, that they are contrarie to the doctrine of true religion, who say that the iust sinne in all their workes, if stirring vp their sloth, and encorraging themselues to runne their race, in them, with this especially that God be glorified, they do also looke wnto eter­nall reward.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Tindal in Fox his Acts p. 1144. They that for feare of hell Not for ioyes of heauen. or for the ioyes of heauen do serue God, do a constrained seruice, which God will not haue.

Luther de libert. Christiana to. 2. f. 10 If thou pray at all, Not for eter­nall profit. fast &c. beware thou doest it not for that end that thou m [...]est reape anie temporall or eternall profit. Deseruo arb. f. 453 Yea Nor for the kingdome of heauen. if they did good for to obtaine the kingdome, they should neuer obtaine it, and should belong rather to the impious, who with a noughtie and mercenarie eye seeke those things euen in God which are for themselues. Postilla in Dom. 9. post Trinit. Good Not for eter­nall life. workes are not to be done for the cause of eternall life. Againe: All good workes must be done altogether freely, and no fruite or profit must be sought by them. How can we do any thing for ob­taining the inheritance, which already we possesse by faith? And Not for the prize. in Festo Om. Sanctorum. We must not exercise pietie for this cause, that we may get the prize. The like he hath Serm. in Hebr. 11. tom. 7.

Vrbanus Regius in locis com. tom. 1. fol. 359. saieth that good workes are not to be done, for anie respect of merit or reward. Not for re­ward.

Apologia Confess. Augustan. c. 20. Paul with his whole speach condemneth all workes, if they be done, that for them we may obtaine life euerlasting. Not for life euerlasting.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that we may do good for re­ward, for remuneration, for ioy, for an incorruptible crowne, for a prize. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that we may not do good for anie eternall profit, not for the kingdome of heauen, not for the ioyes of heauen, not for eternall life, not to ob­taine the inheritance, not for the prize, not for respect of reward.

ART. XX. WHETHER GOOD WORKES be to be done for the glorie of God?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Cor. 10. v. 31. Whether you eate or drinke, or do anie other All workes to be done for Gods glorie. thing, do all things vnto the glorie of God.

Mathew 5. v. [...]5. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good workes, and glorifie your father which is in heauen.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent cited in the former article: Workes are to be done especially that God be glorified.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Confessio Argentinensis. cap. 6. Nothing is to be rec­koned Nothing is the dutie of a Christian but what is pro­fitable to others. among the duties of a Christian man, but that which is somewhat profitable to our neighbour. The same hath Bucer in Math. 5.

Luther de libertat. Christian. to. 2. fol. 9. A Christian in all his workes ought to be imbued with this opinion, and onely [Page 402] looke to this, that he serue and profit others in all things he doeth, Hath nothing before his eyes but the profit of others. hauing nothing before his eyes, but the necessitie and commoditie of his neighbour. Fol. 10. What worke soeuer is not directed to this onely end, that it be done ether to chastize the bodie, or to-pleasure our neigbour, (so that he aske nothing against God) is not good nor Christian. lib. de votis fol. 280. A faithfull conscience doth apprehend and teach, that his good workes are Doth good onely for the profit of others. Before God we must cease from workes. Good workes not to be dire­cted to God. No good worke but what is pro­fitable to mā. to be done freely onely for the profit of his neighbour, and to ex­ercise the bodie.

In 1. Petri 1. to. 5. fol. 449. In Gods sight we must cease from workes, but towards our neighbour we must be diligent at them. Postilla in Dom. 4. post Trinitat. fol. 289. Workes are to be directed to mā onely, and not to God. In Natali Dom. f. 56. after he had saied, that reason can not find out his doctrine, he putteth this example thereof: Who could thinke with him­selfe, that there are no good workes, but such as are profitable to our neighbour, or are referred to this end? In Dom. 14. fol. 319. Those onely are good workes, which serue and profit our neigh­bour. Nether it is to be meruailed, if they teach, that good workes are not to be done for Gods glorie, seing (as be­fore is shewed) they teach, that God is nether worshiped nor delighted with thē, that in his sight they be stenches, dung, mere iniquitie, and sinne.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely biddeth, vs to do all our workes for the glorie of God, that God may be glorified with them. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that in doing good workes we must onely looke to this, haue this onely before our eyes, that we profit our neighbour: that euerie good worke is to be directed onely for chastizment of our bodie or profit of our neighbour: that it is not amōg the dueties of a Christian man, which profiteth not our neighbour: that before God we must cease from workes: that our [Page 403] workes are to be directed to man onely, and not to God. Which sometimes Protestants themselues confesse to be contrarie to Scripture. See l. 2. c. 30.

THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF GOOD workes in generall.

The things which we haue rehearsed in this chapter, do clearly shew, that Protestants teach farre otherwise of of good workes then Scripture doth. For the holie Scrip­ture, and Catholiks with it, teacheth, that good workes of the iust are not sinnes, are a sweet sauour before God, are intirely good, are iust or iniust, worthie, meritorious, vnequall, not all commanded of God, profitable and ne­cessarie to iustification and saluation, cause of saluation, testimonie of iustice and election, a cause why God loueth vs: that we ought to do good workes, and for Gods glorie, and that we may also do them partly for reward. All which are denied of Protestants.

They also shew, that in this matter of good workes What Protest. steale from goost workes. (if in anie whatsoeuer) Protestants playe the thieues and steale. For from the workes of sinnes they steale all goodnesse; And from the workes of the iust they steale intire goodnesse, true goodnesse, true iustice, sweetnes, worth and merit before God, who iudgeth of them as they are indeed. They steale away also their necessitie and vtilite of iustifying and sauing, their causalitie of salua­tion o [...] of Gods loue towards vs, their force of testifying iustification or election, our obligation to do them, and the end for which they are to be done, to wit, reward and Gods glorie. And consequently they take out of the world, all true vertue or iustice, and the sweetnes there­of, and also the worth, the commoditie, the efficacitie, the testification, and end: and in their steed bring in mere sinnes, mere iniquities, stenches, dung, vnpleasant to God, vnworthie of God, and vnprofitable to vs, yea hurthfull [Page 404] and pernitious. And yet these men take it in euill parte to be called enemies of good workes, or that they speake contemptuously of them. But how (I pray you) can they speake more contemptuously of good workes, they Protest. ene­mies of good workes. callling them, ill, sinnes, mere sinnes, mere iniquities, mere pollutions, stenches, and dung in the sight of God, who iudgeth no otherwise of them then they are indeed? Or how can they be greater enemies of good workes, then by taking away or denying that there are any true good workes in the world, and by putting in their places their quite contraries, that is euill workes, and sinnes? And hitherto of good workes in generall: Now of them in par-particular.

CHAPTER XIV. OF GOOD VVORKES IN PARTICVLAR.

ART. I. WHETHER IT BE GOOD not to marrie?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

CORINT. 1. cap. 7. vers. 8. But I say to the vn­married Good, to abide vnmarried. and to woddows: it is good for them, if they so abide, as I also. And vers. 1. It is good for a man not to touch a woman. vers. 26. It is good for a Not no touch a woman. man so to be.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Monachis. cap. 9. Paul absolutely pro­nounceth, that it is good not to touch a woman.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Caluin in 1. Cor 7. v. 1. The Lord calleth it euill to want a Ill to want a wife. wife. In Gen. 2. v. 18. Maniethimke, that single life is good for them, and therefore lest they should be miserable they abstaine A wicked. suggestion of Sathan. from marriage. But let the faithfull learne to oppose this sentēce of God against the, wicked suggestions of Sathan.

Peter Martyr in thesibus. p. 1002. It is not good for a man Not honest to be single. to be single, for it is not pleasant, not honest, not profitable.

And hereupon they condemne the vow of chastitie or single life.

Luther de votis to. 2. fol. 273. Vowed chastitie is quite con­trarie Vow of cha­stitie, con­trarie to the Ghospell. Imptous. to the Ghospell.

Zuinglius de Relig. c. de votis. All vowes of chastitie are impious.

Caluin in Refutat. Cathalani prg. 384. The vow of single life, is a rebellion against God.

Perkins in Galat 2. tom. 2. The vowes of perpetuall counti­nencie, pouertie, and regular obedience, are indeed the state of abhomination.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture plainely saieth, that it is good to abide single, and not to touch a woman. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that it is euill to want a wife, that it is a wicked suggestion of Sathan to abstaine from marriage, that it is not good to be single: and that the vow of chastitie or single life, is nought.

ART. II. WHETHER VIRGINITIE BE a vertue, or a good that is honest.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Cor. 7. v. 35 after the Apostle had exhorted to virgi­nitie Virginitie is honest or ver­tuous. and single life, he saieth: And this I speake to your profit, not to cast a snare vpon you, but to that which is honest, and that may giue you power without impediment to pray our Lord.

Et v. 34. And the woman vnmarried and the virgin thinketh Holines in bodie and spirit. Better then marriage. More blessed. on the things that pertaine to our Lord that she may be holie both in bodie and in spirit. ver 38. He that ioyneth his virgin in matrimonie, doth well; and he that ioyneth not, doth better. v. 40. But more blessed shals be be, if she so remayne.

[Page 407] Math. 19. v. 12. There are Eunuchs, which haue gelded them­selues Desired for heauen. for the kingdome of heauen.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

S. Thomas 22. q. 152. art. 3. Virginitie is a speciall vertue, hauing it selfe to chastitie, as magnificence to liberalitie.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker ad Ration. 8. Campiani: Virginitie is not simply Virginitie is not simply good. good. Againe: Of them who can alwaies keepe virginall cha­stitie, virginitie is to be desired, not altogether, but for those trou­bles which ordinarily follow marriage.

Tindal in Fox his Actes p. 1141. Keeping of virginitie and Virginitie in the religious is diuelish. A thing in­different. It is nothing. chastitie of the religious, is a diuelish thing.

Apologia Confess. Augustanae cap. de votis: Obedience, pouertie, single life, are things indifferent.

Bidenbachius in Consensu Iesuit. & Christian. p. 769. We thinke, that virginitie, widdowhood, and marriage are nothing.

Caluin in Math. 19. ver. 12. It is a foolish imagination, that No vertue. single life is a vertue; for of it selfe it pleaseth God no more then fasting, nor deserues to be reckoned among the dueties which he requireth of vs. Et de vera reform. p. 321. Nether is virginitie praised, as if of it selfe it were a vertue.

Beza in Confess. cap. 4. sect. 16. There is a thirde kinde of Of it selfe ne­ther good nor badde. workes, which of themseues are nether properly good nor badde. Of this kind is fasting, sobrietie, and desire of keeping virginitie in those who haue the guift of continencie. And c. 5. sect. 39. Ne­ther virginitie nor marriage we reckon amongst those things, which simply and of thēselues make vs better and more gratefull to God.

Daneus Contr. 5. p. 1045. Virginitie is no vertue, but a thing No vertue. indifferent. And generally all Protestants when the Apo­stle calleth virginitie, good, in Greek [...], will not haue [Page 408] him vnderstood of a good that is honest or vertuous, but onely of a good that is profitable.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that virginitie is honest: that it is a holines in bodie and soule: that it is better and hap­pier then marriage: and that it is to be desired for the kingdome of heauen. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants plainely say, that virginitie is a thing indif­ferent, is nothing, not simply good, not good of it nature, not of it selfe a vertue, not simply good, not a vertue, not wholy to be desired, not required of God, and in the reli­gious, a diuelish thing.

ART. III. WHETHER THE STATE OF virginitie be better then the state of marriage?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Cor. 7. v. 38. He that ioyneth his virgin in matrimonie doth Ʋirginitie better then marriage. well, and he that toyneth not, doth better. ver. 40. More blessed shall she be, if she so remaine.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 24. Can. 10. If anie shall say, that it is not better and happier to abide in virginitie or single life, then to marrie; be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker ad Ration. 8. Campiani: Virginitie is neuer better Not better. then marriage, but in some sorte; Marriage is often times simply better then virginitie.

Willet Controuers. 15. quaest. 5. pag. 806. Virginitie is Not more holie. not a more holie and cleane thing in it selfe then marriage is: be­fore [Page 409] God in themselues nether is more holie then ether.

Confessio Witten bergēsis C. de votis: We must not thinke, Not more excellent. that this kinde of (single) life, is of selfe before the iudgment seat of God more excellent and more holie then marriage.

Luther Serm de Matrimonio to. 5. f. 126. Single life in it Much more baste thou marriage. Marriage a most diuine state. selfe is much more baser then marriage. And fol. 124. he calleth marriage a diuine life, & in 1. Cor. 7. f. 107. the highest religion and most spirituall state, & 107. truely heauenly, spirituall, and diuine state, if it be compared with this spirituall state. Againe: We conclude, that marriage is like gould, and this spirituall state, dung. In Genes. 2. to. 6. fol. 26. To beget children, is after prea­ching To get chil­dren is the cheifest worke of the word of God, the cheifest worke. And in c. 21. fol. 257. Married mens life consisteth in the highest degree of spi­rituall life.

Vrbanus Regius in locis to. 1. f. 345. Preaching of the word Virginitie in it selfe baser then mar­riage. of God maketh the state of virginitie better then marriage by reason of greater impediments, which yet in it selfe is baser.

Bindebachius in Consensu cit. p. 799. If you consider these kinds of life (virginitie and marriage) by themselues they are indifferent, and before God nether is more holie then the other.

Caluin in 1. Cor. 7. v. 35. Here thou hast twoe things worth noting: The one is, to what end single life is to be desired, to wit, not for it selfe, nor because it is a perfiter state. In like manner Beza vpon the same place.

Serranus cont. Hayum part. 3. p. 159. If marriage be the Nothing bet­ter then mar-marriage. seminarie of mankind if the ornament, if the stay, as all the Poli­titians euer taught, can ther be any thing better or more excellent in life then marriage.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that virginitie is better and more happie then marriage. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants express [...]ly teach, that virginitie is not a per­fecter state thē marriage; not more holie, not more excel­lent: that it is baser then marriage, much baser: that mar­riage is the high [...] religion, most spirituall state, and that [Page 410] in this life nothing is better or more excellent then mar­riage. What religion (I pray you) haue these men, whose cheife religion and most spirituall state, is marriage, and who account nothing in this life better then marriage, & to beget children the cheifest worke beside preaching?

ART. IV. WHETHER GOD WOVLD haue men to liue single?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Cor. 7. v. 7. I would all men to be as my selfe. Et v. 27. Art God exhor­teth all to single life. thou loose from a wife, seeke not a wife.

Math. 19. v. 12 He that can take, let him take.

Apocalips. 14. v. 4. These are they which were not defiled with weomen. For they are virgins. These follow the lambe whether soeuer he shall goe.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in 1. Corinth. 7. vers. 8. The Spirit of God by the mouth of the Apostle exhorteth to constant virginitie and single life.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther in Disput. to. 1. f. 383. The word: Increase and multi­plie, All commā ­ded to in­crease. is naturally ingrafted and necessarily imposed generally vpon all that are men. De votis to. 2. f. 272. Plainely Christ did not counsaill (virginitie) but rather discouraged. In 1. Cor▪ 7. to. 5. f. 105. Paul will haue vniuersally all to be married. Serm. de Ma­trimonio S. Paul will haue all mar­ried. f. 119. Increase and multiplie, is not a precept, but more thē a precept. He is a baud, that flieth marriage. Epistola in Wof­gangum. to. 7. f. 505. God pronounceth the sentence, that he will God will haue none vnmar­ried. haue none to be vnmarried, but multiplie. He that will liue vn­married, plainely fighteth against God—To take a wife, and to eate and drinke, both alike are inforced by necessitie, and God [Page 411] commandeth a like both to be done. Et Epistol. ad Equites Teu­to. 2. To marrie, as necessarie as to eate or drinke. Church men commanded to marrie. Preists com­manded to marrie. Germ. Ienen. fol. 214. The word of God commandeth Church men to marrie wiues.

Confessio Augustana c. de Coniugio: Paul saieth that such a one is be chosen Bishop, as is a husband. Et Apologia eius­dem cap. 15. They bidde ws shew a precept which commandeth Preists to marrie, as if Preists were not men.

Melancthon Resp. ad Acta Ratisbon. to. 4. Paul will haue a Preist to be married.

Zuinglius in Paraenesi ad Heluetos to. 1. f. 114. The holie Ministers commanded to marrie. And Bishops Scripture is so farre from forbidding Ministers of the Church to marrie, that it commandeth it more then once. fol. 115. When they heare Paul in so expresse words commanding that a Bishop be married to a wife, &c.

Bullinger in 1. Timoth. 3. A Bishop is minister of the word: but he must be husband of a wife, in that he is a Bishop, and must commend holie marriage to others and terrifie them from for­nication.

Caluin in 1. Cor. 7. v. 25. Seing the Scripture saieth Genes. 2. that male and femall were created together, it seemeth equally Single life not commen­ded to anie. and without exceptiō it calleth all to marriage, at least single life is not commanded or commended to anie. In 4. Instit. c. 12 §. 24. Paul reckoneth marriage amongst the vertues of a Bishop. Et c. 13. § 3. This is indeed to tempte God, to striue against nature which To striue a­gainst his flesh is to tempt God. Desire of vir­ginitie accur­sed of God. he hath giuen, and to despise his present guifts as if they belonged not to vs.

Sadeel ad Artic. 53. abiurat. This so great affectation of vir­ginitie and single life, which God at last did accurse, was so [...]suall with the Fathers, as &c.

Zanchius in Thesibus to. 8. It is against Gods command­ment, that a yong man who hath need of marriage, should remaine vnmarried: and simply that a woman should be wn­married.

Whitaker Controuers. 2. quaest. 5. cap. 7. When Bellarmin had saied: Vigilantius taught that Church men ought to be married: answereth. If vigilantius ment the lawfull mar­riage of Pastours, he was in the right.

[Page 412] Tindal in Fox his Actes p. 1139. A preist must haue a wife for twoe causes. The one &c.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth: that God by the mouth of the Apostle would haue all men to be a he was, that is, vn­married: that such as were vnmarried he exhorted, to re­maine so: that Christ exhorted all to single life who could take it; that in heauen there is a speciall reward for virgins. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that Paul would haue all men to be married, would haue a Preist or Bishop to be mar­ried, that Christ terrifieth men from virginitie: that God will haue no man vnmarried: that he as much comman­deth to marrie as to eate or drinke: that to increase and multiplie is more then a precept: that God hath accursed the affectation of virginitie: that single life is commended to none. And thus much of virginitie.

ART. V. WHETHER FASTING BE A vertue or worshippe or seruice of God?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Luc. 2. v. 37. Who departed not from the temple, by fastings Fasting is ser­uice of God. and praiers seruing night and daye.

Math. 6. ver. 17. When thou dost fast, anointe thy head, and wash thy face, that thou appeare not to men to fast, but to thy Father who is in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret, will Rewarded of God. repay the.

Math. 4. ver. 15. But the dayes will come, when the kingdome shalbe taken away from them, and then they shall fast.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Lucae 2. vers. 37. This place teacheth, that [Page 413] fasting belongeth to the seruice of God, as praiers doe.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins in Cathol. reform. Contr. 6. pag. 132. Fasting is a Fasting of th same nature that eating is. Helpeth no­thing to heauen. Profiteth no­thing. Mens fa­sting no bet­ter then beasts thing indifferent, of the same nature with eating and drinking, and of it selfe conferreth nothing to the obtayning of the king­dome of heauen, no more then eating and drinking doth.

Humphrey ad Ration. 3. Campiani p. 263. We graunt, that it is true which Sanders saieth of the Iouinianists and our men: That fasting, or abstinence from certaine meats profit nothing.

Luther in Ionae 3. to. 3 fol. 422. God esteemeth as much the fastings and haireclothes of beasts as of men, and contrariwise. What cares God for sackcloth, fasting and hairecloth?

Caluin in Math. 16. v. 18. Fasting of it selfe is an indifferent A thing in­different not required of God. No seruice of God. thing, not of those kinde of things which God requireth and ap­proueth. In c. 4. ver. 1. In that they perswade themselues, that fa­sting is a meritorious worke, and a parte of pietie or of Gods ser­uice, it is a noughtie superstition. In Act. 14. v. 23. Let vs not putt anie seruice of God in fasting, seing that of it selfe it is nothing nor is of account with God, but as it is referred to an other end. In Of no mo­ment. Instit. l 4. c. 12. § 16. Nether doth Luke putt anie seruice of God in f [...]sting.—Of it selfe it is of no moment. c. 19. We must take great heed, that fasting be not accounted a kinde of Gods seruice.

Beza in Confess c. 5. sect. 40. We commend not true fasts as a kinde of Gods seruice.

Peter Martyr in locis loco 10 §. 23. There is an other abuse, No seruice of God. that there be some who attribute holines to fasting, as if there were anie seruice of God in it: Whereas indeed fasting is onely an exercise, which of it selfe hath no sanctitie.

Pareus in Collegio Theol. 1. disput. 18. Fasting of it nature No vertue. is no morall vertue. For temperance is a morall vertue, not be­cause it abstaineth from meat or drinke, but because it moderatly vseth meat and drinke.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that S. Anne did serue God [Page 414] by fasting and praier: that God rewardeth those that fast that Christ will haue his to fast. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that fasting is no part or kinde of Gods seruice: that it is an indifferent thing of the same nature that eating: that it conferreth nothing to get heauen, that it is nothing, is onely an exercise: that God maketh no more account of mens fastings then of beasts: that God requireth it not, nor approueth it.

ART. VI. WHETHER FASTING BE A preseruatiue against the Diuel?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 17. v. 21. But this kind (of Diuels) is not cast out but Some diuels cast out by fa­sting. by praier and fasting.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Stapleton in Mathew. 17. ver. 28. Praier and fasting must be added as a most soueraigne antidote to driue away these kinde of Diuels.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Caluin in Math. 17. ver. 21. cit. The ridiculous Papists make No Diuels cast out by fasting. fasting an antidote to driue away diuels.

Illyricus in Claue part. 2. tractat. 6. col. 535 thus expoun­deth the foresaied words of Scripture: This kinde &c. that is, they cannot be cast out, but by earnest praier proceding of ear­nest repentant and penitent hart; and so he giueth no vertue to fasting.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that certaine Diuels are not cast out but by fasting and praier. The same say Catholiks. [Page 415] Protestants plainely say, that it is ridiculous to make fa­sting an antidote against Diuels.

ART. VII. WHETHER CHOICE OF meates be lawfull or vertuous?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Daniel 10. v. 3. In those dayes I Daniel mourned the dayes of Daniel vsed choice of meats. three weeks, desiderable bread I did not eate, and flesh and wine entred not into my mouth.

Math. 3. v. 4. And his (S. Ihons) meate was locusts and wild And S. Ihon Baptiste. honie: Luc. 1. v. 15. And wine and sicer he shall not drinke. c. 7. ver. 33. For Ihon baptist came nether eating bread nor drinking wine. The like is saied of the mother of Sampson Iudic 13, v. 4. and of the Rechabits Hieremie. 35.

Rom. 14. v. 21. It is good not to eate flesh, and not to drinke Good, not to eate flesh or drinke wine. wine, nor that wherein thy brother is offended or scandalized or weakened,

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm de bonis operibus in part. l. 2. c. 7. If Ionadab could for euer forbidde his children and nephews wine, and both his commandment and their obedience pleased God, why cannot our mother the Church forbidde her children some meates for a time, so that both the Churches precept and our obedience please God.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker ad Ration. 9. Campiani: It is madnesse, to haue Madnesse, to vse choice of meates for religion. Foolish and wicked. No seruice of God. anie choice of meates for religion sake.

Perkins in Cathol. Contr. 12. cap. 2. We hould this distin­ction of meates both to be foolish and wicked.

Confessio Argentinensis c. 9. We haue omitted that choice of meate which was commanded vpon certaine dayes which Saint [Page 416] Paul attributeth to the doctrine of Diuels.

Caluin in Luc. 1. v. 15. We must not imagin a seruice of God No seruice of God. Fond super­stition. in o [...]stayning from wine.

Beza in Confess. cap. 5. sect. 41. This choice of meats, which some make a seruice of God, we doubt not with the Apostle to call a diuelish and most fond superstition.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture express [...]ly saieth, that Daniel many days ab­stained frō fle [...]h, wine, and desiderable bread: that S. Ihon Baptiste nether eate bread, nor drunke wine or sicer that it is good not to eate flesh nor to drink wine. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely say, that the choice of meats is superstitious, foolish, madnesse, wicked and diuelish do­ctrine: that there is no seruice of God in abstinence from wine. And thus much of Fasting.

ART. VIII. WHETHER IT BE LAWFVLL to pray for all?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Timoth. 2. vers. 1. I desire therefore first of all things, that We must pray for all men. obsecrations, praiers, postulations, thanks giuings, be made for all men.

Exod. 32. v. 32. Moises thus praieth for the idolatrous people: Moyses praied for all. Ether forgiue this tr [...]spasse, or if thou do not, strike me out of the booke that thou hast written.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Septem verbis Dom. c. 1. saieth that Christ vpon the crosse praied for Pilat, and the chiefe Preists, Scribes, and people of the Iews.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Rainolds in Apologia thesium. p. 245. Nether must we pray We must not pray for eue­rie one. for euerie one. For we are forbidden to pray for them that sinne to death. Wherefore where we are bidden to pray for all the world: All, designeth all kinds, not all of euerie kinde.

Beza in Ioan. 5. ver. 16. Hereof it followeth, that no sinnes Not for re­probates. are veniall to the reprobates, and therefore we must not make praiers for the sinnes of the reprobates.

Daneus in orat. Dom. p. 593. saieth that: Thy will be done, belongeth not properly to reprobates, as if we praied God that they quietly and willingly submitt themselues to God and doe and execute his will, out of their harte, faithfully and obediently.

Piscator in Thesibus lib. 3. loco 11. We ought to pray for all Nor for those that sinne to death. that are aliue, they onely excepted, whome we see do sinne to death. The same also saieth Bucanus in Instir. loco. 17. to which he addeth loco 37. that a man must not pray for the obdurated, or those that sinne against the Holie Ghost.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that we must pray for all, and that Moises praied for the idolatrous people amongst whome manie were reprobates. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that we must not pray for all, not for reprobates, not for those that sinne to death, not for the indurated, not for those that sinne gainst the Holie Ghost.

ART. IX. WHETHER IT BE LAWFVLL to pray for the dead?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

2. Mach. 12. vers. 43. And (Iudas) making a gathering, sent twelue thousand drachmes of siluer, to Hierusalem, for sacrifice [Page 418] to be offered the for sinnes of the dead. Et ver. 16. It is therefore a A holie thing to pray for the dead. holie and healthfull cogitation to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sinnes.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent. Sess. 25. c. 1. The Catholik Church tea­cheth, that the soules detained in Purgatorie are holpen by the suffrages of the faithfull.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Iewel art. 18. sect. 3. p. 433. This kinde of praier (for the dead) It is supersti­tions. is mere superstitious, and vtterly without warrant of Gods word.

Confessio Seotica generalis: We detest his (Popes) praiers Detestable. for the dead.

Caluin Epistola 366. That forme of praier: God giue the One may wish well to the dead but not pray. dead a good and happie resurrection, because it is not fitting to the rule of good praier, is to be reiected: yet I do not denie, but that one may make such a wish.

Brentius in Dom. 12. post Trinit. Albeit we may wish all happines to the dead, yet praier for them is vaine.

Confessio Witten bergen. c. de Memoria de functorum. Charitie requireth, that we wish all rest and happines in Christ vnto the dead: But there is no testimonie of Propheticall and Apostolike doctrine, that they be holpen by our praiers.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the people of God vnder the law offered sacrifices for the dead, which Caluin also confesseth 3. Instit. c. 5. §. 8. and that it is a holie and health­full thing to pray for them that they be loosed from their sinnes. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that it is lawfull to wish good to the dead, but that to pray for them is vaine, supersti­tious, and detestable. And yet Luther Serm. de de Diuite [Page 419] & Lazaro to. 7. f. 268. de Captiuit. Babylon. f 72. and cont. Catharin. f. 151. Et in Hospin. Concordia discor. f. 225. Apo­logia Confess. Augustan. c. de vocabulis Missae. Agenda, Anglica apud Bucerum p. 427. 449. Zuinglius art. 60. Vr­banus Regius and others, allow praying for the dead.

ART. X. WHETHER IT BE LAWFVLL to pray for that which God hath not promised?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 26. ver. 39. Christ thus praieth: My Father, if it be Christ praied for that which was not pro­mised to him. And S. Paul. And Abra­ham and Dauid. possible, let this chalice passe from me.

2. Cor. 12. vers. 8. For the which thing thrice I besought our Lord, that it might departe from me, and he saied to me: My grace sufficeth the. In like sorte Abraham praied for Sodom Gen. 18. Dauid for the life of his child 2. Kings 12. & Hie­remie for the sauing of Hierusalem Hier. 32. and yet had no promise of that for which they praied.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. de bonis operibus c. 9. Sometime the praier is meritorious and not impetratorious, as when a iust man of cha­ritie asketh that which perhaps is not expedient for him, as when S. Paul praied thrice that the prick of the flesh might be taken from him—In praier is not required faith wherewith we certainly beleiue that absolutely God will do that which we aske.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins reform. Cathol. Contr. 4. pag. 79. That which we are to aske God in praier, we must beleiue it shall be giuen vs as we aske it.—It is a rule of Gods word requiring that in euerie pe­tition we bring a particular faith whereby we beleiue, that the thing lawfully asked shalbe giuen accordingly.

Tindal in Fox his Acts pag. 1139. To aske of God more [Page 420] then he hath promised, cometh of a false faith, and is plaine ido­latrie. Idolatrie, to pray for more then God hath promised

Melancthon in Disput. to. 4. p. 487. As often as thou callest vpon God in any busines, first of all thinke certainly that thy praiers are heard for the Sonne of God. Vnlesse this faith goe be­fore, thy praier is vaine. ib. p. 555. Let faith assure vs, that our Praier for corporall goods euer heard. Euerie good man assured to be heard. No praier to be made with out Gods promise. praier for corporall goods is heard, and neuer frustrate.

Illyricus in Marci 5. v. 28. Euerie godlie man in praying per­swadeth himselfe by the word and promise of God, that in his pe­tition he is heard, no lesse then if he heard God answering with a cleare voice, that he had heard him.

Luther Postilla in Dom. 5. post Phasca fol. 261. Who pray without a promise of God, they imagin that God is angrie with them, whome by praiers they endeauour to appease.—There God heareth not, and our praeier and labour is lost.

Daneus in Exam. Kemnitij c. 29. We ought to aske nothing Nothing to be asked but what is pro­mised. of God, but what he hath promised.

Caluin in Iacobi 1. v. 6. As we cannot pray, but the word must goe before, so must we beleiue before we pray. For by praying we testifie, that we hope for the grace which he hath promise.—Wherefore it is faith which relying vpon Gods promise, assu­reth vs to obtaine that which we aske.—This is a notable place, for to refute that doctrine of Poperie, to wit, that we must pray with doubt and vncertaine opinion of successe. The like he hath. 3. Instit. c. 20. §. 15.

Confession of Saxonie cap. 22. The praier which is without faith, that is, where a man assureth not himselfe that God allo­weth and heareth his praier, is vaine.

Apologia Confessio. Augustanae cap. de Tradition. Of our praier we must be assured, that it is effectuall, that it is heard.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Christ praied for the taking away the cuppe of his passion; S. Paul for taking away the pricke o the flesh; Abraham for Sodom, and the like; and yet they had no promise nor particular faith, [Page 421] that they should obtayne those things. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely say, that it is lost labour and ido­latrie, to pray for anie thing which God hath not promi­sed: that we ought not to pray for any thing which God hath not promised.

ART. XI. WHETHER ANIE OBTAINE some thing of God for his owne or his praiers worth?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Ioan. 3. vers. 21. If our hart do not reprehend vs we haue We obtaine because we keepe the cō ­mandments. Good heareth the iust. confidence toward God, and whatsoeuer we shall aske, we shall re­ceaue of him, because we keepe his commandments.

1. Peter 3. v. 12. The eyes of our Lord are vpon the iust and his eares vnto their praiers.

Iames 5. vers. 16. The continuall praier of a iust man auai­leth much.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. lib. 1. de bonis operibus c. 9. Scripture in diuers places witnesseth, that iustice is required in him that praieth for to obtaine assuredly.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther Postilla in Dom. 5. post Pascha fol. 263. Whence None heard for his wor­thinesse. it followeth, that none receaueth any thing of God for his owne worth or the worth of his praier. Thy worthines doth not helpe thee, thy vnworthines doth not hinder thee. Of the same opi­nion are other Protestants, who denie that there is any worth in vs or in our workes.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that a good conscience bree­deth confidence in God: that they who keepe Gods cō ­mandments receaue what they aske: that Gods eares are vnto the praiers of the iust; that a iust mans praier auaileth much. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely say, that the worthinesse of him that praieth, profiteth nothing: that no man obtaineth any thing of God for his owne or his praier worthinesse.

ART. XII. WHETHER IT BE LAWFVLL to pray publikely in the Church in an vnknowne tongue?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Cor. 14. ver. 17. the Apostle thus saieth of one that pu­blikely praied in the Church in an vnknowne tongue: For Praying in a strāge tongue is good. thou indeed giuest thanks well.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in 1. Corint. 14. v. 17. The Apostle condemneth not, but approueth praier in an vnknowne tongue.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Scotica Confessio generalie: We detest his (Popes) praiers It is detesta­ble. in an vnknowne tongue. The like hath Cōfess. Austria art. 14. & Heluet. c. 22.

Iuel art. 3. sect. 1. saieth, that it is not onely repugnant to the Repugnant to Scripture and commō sense. Scriptures of God, but also contrarie to the sense of nature.

Caluin 3. Instit. cap. 20. §. 33. Who can sufficiently wonder at the vnbridled licence of the Papistes, who feare not to roare out their praiers in an vnknowne tongue?

[Page 423] Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 14. vers. 17. The Apostle in this his saying doth not approue the action. But saieth. Thou giuest thāks well, because the words vttered by thee, being of the Holie Ghost, cannot but haue a good sense. Et in ver. 14. The idiots are repre­hended, Praying in Latin, is re­prehended. Not to be suf­fered. who pray in Latin, Pater noster.

Aretius in locis part. 3. fol. 21. It is manifest, that a strange tongue is not to be suffered in Christs Church.

Beza in Respons. ad Acta Colloq. Montibel. part. 2. p. 26. Doth not the Apostle in expresse words forbidde to pray in a Forbidden. tongue which is not vnderstood of those that are present?

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that he who praieth in the Church in a strange tongue, giueth thanks well: The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that such kinde of praier is to be condēned, and expressely forbidden of the Apostle.

ART. XIII. WHETHER WE BE COM­manded to say our Lords praier?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Luc. 11. ver. 1. & 2. One of his disciples saied to him: Lord teach We are com­manded to say our Lords praier. vs to pray, as Ihon also taught his disciples. And he saied to them: when you pray say: Father &c.

Math. 6. vers. 9. Thus therefore you shall pray: Our Father &c.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de bonis operibus cap. 4. Our Lords praier excelleth all other formes of praier, in authouitie, breuitie, per­fection, order, efficacie, necessitie.—In necessitie, because there is no other forme of praier which all Christians in the very words are commanded to keepe and vse but this.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Bucer in Mat 6. Note, pray in this manner, not these words, Not com­manded. as the common people hitherto was foolishly perswaded, thinking that they had praied well, when they had mumbled vp these words—Nether are we here taught in what words we should pray, but what we ought to aske with hartie desire.

Caluin in Math. 6. v 9. Christ biddeth not his disciples pray in these words, but onely sheweth them whither they ought to re­ferre all their desires and praiers.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Christ commanded that whē we pray we say: Our father. The same say Catholiks.

Protestāts expressely say, that Christ taught vs not to say these words, that he taught not what words we should pray withall: that it is a foolish persuasion to thinke that the recitall of our our Lords praier, were a good praier. Which is so contrarie to Scripture as some Protestants cō ­fesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. XIV. WHETHER IT BE LAWFVLL to vow any thing to God?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Psal. 75. v. 12. Vow ye, and render to our Lord, your God. Lawfull, to vow.

Isaie 19. v. 21. it is saied of the time of Ghospell: And they shall vow vowes to our Lord, and pay them.

Eccles. 5. vers. 3. If thou hast vowed anie thing to God, differre not to pay it. But whatsoeuer thou hast vowed, pay it.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Monachis. c. 17. Vowes haue neuer ceased in Christs Church since the promulgation of the Ghospell.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Tindal in Fox his Actes p. 1138. Vowes are against the or­dinance Vnlawfull. of God. Which Fox there mantaineth.

Luther de Ratione Confitendi to. 2. fo. 28. I for my parte could wish, that there were no vowes at all among Christians be­sides these which which we made in baptisme. De Captiuit. Ba­bylon. fol. 77. One thing here I adde, which I would that I could perswade all men, that is, that all vowes whatsoeuer were taken away and auoided. fol. 78. It is not a litle contrarie to Christian Contrarie to Christian life. life, that a vow is a certaine ceremoniall law, a humane tradi­tion or presumptiō, from which the Church is freed by baptisme.

Vrbanus Regius de Noua & vet. doctrina tom. 2. fol. 26. Iudaical. That rite of vowing was Iudaical, and is now abolished as sacri­fices are.

Zuinglius in Explanat. art. 30. I speake of vowes in generall, Contempte of God. that by Christ they are abolished. To vow, is a curiositie, con­tempte, and abasing of God, and exaltation of men.—Wherefore Sinfull. seing vowes proceed of perfidiousnesse, and fight against God, they are sinnes.

Peter Martyr l. de votis col. 1337. Vowes do no more conti­nue, the Ghospell being now reuealed and brought in. And 1383. Become not Christians. I saied indeed and recall not, but make good, that vowes do not become Christians.

Daneus Contr. 5. p. 1020. God no where hath commanded or prescribed that any thing should be vowed vnto him.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that Christians shall vow to God, and exhorteth them to vow and to pay their vowes. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that vowes are against Gods ordinance, that they fight against God, proceed of perfidiousnesse, are sinnes,nnes, humane presumption, curio­sitie, contempt of God, and that God neuer appointed [Page 426] them: that they are abolished, continew no longer, be­come not Christians, and that it were to be wished, that they were all taken away.

ART. XV. WHETHER ALMES DELIVER from death and sinne?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Tob. 4. v. 11. Almes deliuereth from all sinne, and from death. Almes de­liuer from sinnes and death. c. 12. v. 9. Almes deliuereth from death, and that is it which pur­geth sinnes, and maketh to find mercie and life euerlasting.

Luke 11. v. 41. Giue almes, and behould all things are cleane vnto you.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Promptuar. Morali Dom. 1. post. Pente­cost. By the liberalitie of almes we oftentimes auoid the iust punishments of sinnes, and manie assaults of the Diuel.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Aretius in locis part. 1. f. 90. Almes deliuereth not from tē ­porall Nether from temporall nor eternall death. Not from sinne. death, nor also deliuereth from eternall death.

Confessio Wittenbergens. c. de Eleemosyna: What need had there beene of the passion of Christ to blot out sinnes, if they be blotted out by the merit of almes?

Apologia Confess. Augustanae c. de Resp. ad argumen­ta: We will not say that (speech of Tobie) is an hyperboll, al­though it must be so vnderstood, lest it detract from the praises of Christ.

Vallada in suo Apologia cap. 22. This manner of speech of Tobie is hyperbolicall.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that almes deliuereth [Page 427] from death and sinne; The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that it deliuereth not ether from temporall or eternall death: that if it did deliuer from sinne, Christs death had not beene needfull.

ART. XVI. WHETHER IT BE LAWFVLL to sell all, and giue it to the pore?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 19. v. 21. If thou wilt be perfect, goe sell all that thou Perfect men must giue all to the pore. hast, and giue to the pore, and thou shalt haue treasure in heauē. v. 27. Then Peter answering, saied to him: Behould we haue left al things, and haue followed thee.

Act. 4. v. 32. Nether did anie one say, that ought was his owne, of those things which he possessed, but all things were common vnto them.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Mathei 19. v. 21. It was the errour of Vi­gilantius, and it is now of Caluin and of all Heretiks to denie, that voluntarie pouertie is a meane and instrument of greater perfection,

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Apologia Confessio. Augustanae. cap. penult. The forsa­king Forsaking of goods not counsailed. A humane tradition. Not Catho­like doctrine. of goods hath no commandment nor counsaill in the Scrip­ture. Againe: It is a mere humane tradition and vnprofitable worshippe.

Confessio Wittenbergens. c. de votis: The kinde of vowing single l [...]fe, pouertie and obedience agreeth not with the true Ca­tholik doctrine.

Perkins in reform. Cathol. cap. 8. p. 166. The second is the vow of pouertie and monasticall life, in which men bestow all Against Gods will. they haue on the pore and giue themselues wholy and onely to [Page 428] praier and fasting. This vow is against the will of God. The like he hath in Casibus Conscient. col. 1125.

Morton l. 1. Apologiae c 40. Your doctrine (of giuing all) Sauoureth heresie. sauoureth rather heresie, then religion.

Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 5 c. 7. Monks and Iesuits nether mar­rie Is Anabap­tisticall. wiues, nor haue anie thing proper, but haue all things cōmon: But this, to haue all things common, is Anabaptisticall.

Melancthon in locis tit. de Paupertate: The Ghospell ne­ther counsaileth nor commandeth to leaue our goods, vnlesse they be taken from vs, nether counsaileth it nor commandeth to make things common.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that to giue all to the pore is a meane of perfection: that the Apostles forsake all: and that the first Christians had all things commō. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the Scripture counsai­leth not to forsake our goods: that it is a mere humane tradition: that it agreeth not with true Catholik doctrine; that it rather sauoureth heresie then religion: that to haue all things common, is Anabaptisticall.

ART. XVII. WHETHER PENNANCE BE commanded to all?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Act. 17. v. 30. God now denounceth vnto men, that all euery Pennance cō ­manded to all where doe pennance. c. 20. v. 21. Testifying vnto Iews and Gentils pennance towards God and faith in our Lord Iesus Christ. And To Iewes and Gentils. c. 8. v. 22 it is saied to Simon Magus. Do pennance from this thy wickednesse.

Luc. 24. v. 27. It behoued Christ to suffer, and to rise againe To all natiōs. from the dead the third day, and pennance to be preached in his name, and remission of sinnes vnto all nations.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 3. de Paenitent. cap. 2. Who haue committed a mortall sinne, are bound by Gods law to doe pennance.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins in Apoc. 2. to. 2. This precept of repentance, is not giuē Pennance not commanded to euerie one. seuerally to euerie one, but onely to the Church of God, or to that people which at last shalbe the Church.

Caluin de Praedest. pag. 706. God is saied to will life, as he God willeth not pennance to all but by word. willeth pennance. But this he willeth, because by his words he in­uiteth all to it. And of the same mynd are others, who say, that God willeth not the saluation of any but of the elect onely, otherwise then by his word; For if indeed he will not haue the reprobate do pennance, but onely in word or shew, surely nether doth he command them to do pē ­nance, otherwise then in word, and in outward shew.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that God denounceth pennāce to all men euerie where, to Iews and Gentils, to all Na­tions, to Simon Magus. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that God commandeth not pennance to euerie one, but onely to his Church, or to these who at last shalbe his Church: that he doth not will pennance to all but onely in word.

ART. XVIII. WHETHER CHASTISMENT of the bodie be a parte of pennance?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 11. v. 21. Woe be to the Corozain, woe be to thee Beth­saida. For if in Tire and Sidon had beene wrought the mi­racles [Page 430] that haue beene wrought in you, they had done pennance in Bodily cha­stizment a parte of pen­nance. hairecloth and ashes long agoe.

Iob. 42. v. 6. I reprehend my selfe, and do pennance in imbers and ashes.

Ionas. 3. v. 6. And he rose vp out of his throne, and cast away his garment from him, and was clothed in sackcloth and sate in ashes. And he cried and saied in Niniue from the mouth of the King and his Princes, saying: Men and beasts and oxen and cat­tell, let them not taste any thing nor feed, and let them not drinke water. And let men and beasts be couered with sackclothes.

Ioel. 2. v. 12. Conuert to me in all your harte, in fasting, and in weeping, and in mourning.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Math. 11. erv. 21. It is conuinced out of this place, that pennance properly consisteth not onely in change of life and repentance, but also in penall workes.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Willet Contr. 14. q. 1. p. 711. Ashes, sackoth, was no parte of No parte of pennance. repentance, but an outward testification of their inward griefe.

Whitaker Praefat. ad Demonstrat. Sanderi. I saied, that pennance did not consist in certaine externall punishments, but in inward griefe conceaued of the remembrance of sinne, and in amendment of life.

Caluin in Math. 11. ver. 21. Pennance is here described by ex­ternall Christ regar­deth notmuch corporall pen­nance. signes, whereof then there was solemne vse in the Church of God: not that Christ insisteth much vpon this vpon this point, but he accomodateth himselfe to the capacitie of the common people. Et Concione 158. in Iob: Sackcloth and ashes are onely an ex­ternall signe of pennance.

Beza in Math. 11. v. 21. cit. Which custome (of casting ashes vpon themselues) was after word trāslated to those whome they called Penitents, I wish it had beene done with more iudgment and better successe.

[Page 431] Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 439. Painfull workes, are onely outward, and oftentimes deceitfull and feigned signes of pennāce. Wherefore they are not partes of true pennance.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that pennance in sackcloth and ashes is good: that God biddeth vs to conuert to him in fasting, weeping, and mourning: that the Niniuits did pennance in sackcloth and ashes, and Iob in embers and ashes. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that Christ did not much in­sist vpon sackcloth and ashes: that they are no partes of pennance, but onely an outward signe thereof: that pen­nance consisteth not in outward punishment: that the custome of casting ashes vpon penitents was done with­out good iudgment.

ART. XIX. WHETHER THE PENNANCE of the Niniuites were true?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ionas 3. v. 10. And God saw their (Niniuites) workes, that they were conuerted from their euill way: and God had mercie on Pennance of Niniuites, was true. the euill which he had spoaken, that he would do to them, and he did it not. Et ver. 5. And the men of Niniue beleiued in God, and they proclaimed a fast, &c.

Math. 12. v. 41. The men of Niniue shall rise in iudgment with this generation, and shall condemne it because they did pennance at the preaching of Ionas.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Catechismus ad Parochos cap. de Paenitentia: There are most cleare examples of the Niniuits, of Dauid, of the Penitent woman, of the Apostles: all which imploring the mercie of God with manie teares, obtained pardon of their sinnes.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Beza lib. quaestion. vol. 1. Theol. pag. 674. God approued Not true pennance. the pennance of the Niniuites, although it was not true pen­nance, but some kinde of humiliation vnder the mightie hand of God.

Sadeel de vera peccator. remiss. p. 109. It is very absurd to compare those Heathen (Niniuites) strangers from Gods coue­nant, and void of true doctrine, who had heard nothing of the true God, nothing of the M [...]ssias, with godlie men receauing the benefit of Christ with true faith.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth that the Niniuites beleiued in God, did pennance, were conuerted from their euill way. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that the Niniuits were void of true doctrine, had heard nothing of the true God, and that their pennance was not true.

ART. XX. WHETHER EREMITICALL life be lawfull?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Luc. 1. vers. 80. And the child grew and was strenghtned in Eremiticall life lawfull. spirit, and was in the deserts vntill the day of his manifestation in Israel.

Math. 4. v. 1. Then Iesus was led of the Spirit into the desert.

Hebr. 11. v. 38. Wandring in deserts, in mountaines and dennes, and in caues of the earth.

Marc. 1. ver. 13. And he (Iesus) was in the desert fourtie dayes Christ in the desert with beasts. and fourtie nightes, and was tempted of Satan, and he was with beastes.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Promptuar. Dom. 2. Aduentus: Our He­retiks will not that S. Ihon liued in a desert poperly termed, in a wildernesse, in solitude, lest so notable example of his may seeme to patronise our Ermits and Anchorets.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

The Magdeburgians Centur. 1. l. 1. cap. 10. Luke reporteth Eremiticall life, supersti­tious. that the child (Ihon) abode in the desert vnto the day of his manifestation; which is not to be vnderstood of anie den farre frō all conuersation of men, as if he had lurked there like a beare or a hater of mankind, as afterward Ermits and such kind of men feigned to thēselues superstitious religious. Et Cent. 4. c. 10. they write thus of Ermits: But who will not accurse these monsters of men, as enemies of humane societie, and offending against the whole second table?

Perkins in reformed Cathol. C. 8. p. 168. For time of peace, I see no cause of solitarie life.

Polanus in Disput. priuatis disput. 22. Eremiticall life, is Sauage and in humane. clownish, sauage, and farre from ciuilitie. The like say other Protestants.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that S. Ihon Baptist was frō a child in the desert, that Christ was lede of the Spirit into the desert, and was there fourtie dayes and with beasts: that Gods Saints wandered in deserts, denns, and caues of the earth. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that eremiticall life, is clow­nish, sauage, and superstitious, that Eremits deserue to be accursed, and do sinne against the whole second table.

THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF GOOD workes in particular.

That which we haue related in this chapter euidently sheweth, that Protestants doctrine of good workes in particular is cleane contrarie to the doctrine of the holie Scripture. For the Scripture together with Catholiks tea­cheth, that not to marrie is good and counsailed of God: that virginitie is a vertue, and better then the state of mar­riage: that fasting is a vertue and worshippe of God, and an antidote against the Diuel, and that choice of meats is lawfull: that we may pray for the dead, for all, and for that which God hath not promised, and in strange tongue, and that he that praieth may be heard for his owne or his praiers worth: that it is lawfull to sell all, and giue to the pore; that almes deliuereth from death and sinne; that pennance is commanded to all: that punishment of the bodie is a parte of pennance: All which Protestants denie.

They shew also, that Protestants steale quite away Whatvertues Protest. re­iect. manie particular vertues, and manie things also frō other vertues which they will seeme to leaue. For they take quite away the vertues of virginitie, of fasting, & vowing: They take from praier, that it be made for the dead, for all, and for that which God hath not promised: They take frō religiō the forsaking of goods, from almes the power of deliuering from death and sinne, and from pennance the punishment of the bodie. And thus much of good workes: Now of their contraries, that is, sinnes.

CHAPTER XV. OF SINNES

ART. I. WHETHER SINNES BE IMPVTED to the Elect and Faithfull?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

REG. 2. C. 12. V. 5. & seq. And Dauid saied to Na­than: our Lord liueth, the man that hath done this, is the child of death—And Nathan saied to Sinne was imputed to Dauid. Dauid: Thou art that man. Thus saieth the Lord God of Israel:—Why therefore hast thou con­temned the word of the Lord that thou wouldest do euill in my sight—For which thing the sword shall not departe from thy house for euer because thou hast despised me. The same teach both other places before cited, which say that God is an­grie and hateth the faithfull when they sinne grieuously: as also such as teach, that God punisheth them for sinnes, and that sinnes are mortall euen to the elect faithfull: Which we shall cite soone after.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Amiss. Grat. c. 7. If sinnes do remaine with a liuelie iustifying faith in men that are once iustifyed, euen by this they are not imputed: nether are they so much veniall and to be forgiuen, as already forgiuen and remitted, nether make they a man guiltie of any p [...]ine or punishment: And there is no man but seeth, how absurd and pernitious this doctrine is.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Wootton in Answere to Popish Articles. p. 92. Sinne is Sinne is re­mitted before it be commit­ted. remitted as soone as it is committed, or rather before it be com­mitted, a man once iustified hauing obtained full remission of all sinnes, past, present, and to come.

Abbots in Diatribam Tomsonic. 20. That sinnes be not Not imputed to the elect. imputed to the elect, pertaineth to mercie.

Luther in Gal. 2. to. 5. f. 229. Because iustice & fulfilling of the law is begun by faith, therefore for Christ in whome they beleiue, the rest of sinnes and fulfilling of the law is not imputed. In c. 5. f. 420. A beleiuer, hauing sinne & sinning, neuerthelesse remaineth Not to the faithfull. godlie.—Albeit they haue and commit sinnes, yet let them know that they are not imputed to them through Christ. In c. 8. Isaiae Sinne maketh not Christians guiltie. to. 4. f. 83. This is Christian libertie, that we may satisfie the law in some parte: But where we do not, there it doth not make vs guiltie, because we haue remission of sinnes.

Caluin in Ioan. 5. v. 29. No not sinnes, whereof the faithfull Sinne not imputed to the faithfull. dayly do make themselues guiltie, are imputed to them. Et 3. In-Instit. cap. 4. §. 28. he saieth that the sinnes of the faithfull are veniall, because they are not imputed.

Beza in Epistola dedicator. Resp. ad Castel. p. 427. Sinnes are not imputed to them that beleiue. Which he repeateth fol. Not to the beleiuers. 457. & vol. 3. p. 350.

Zanchius de Perseuerant. q. 1. c. 2. This is most certaine, that God neuer imputeth sinnes to the elect. Not to the Elect.

Pareus l. 4. de Iustif. c. 1. after he had related these words of Luther: Where faith, is no sinne can hurt: addeth, What more true?

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture plainely saieth, that sinne was imputed to Dauid albeit he was faithfull and elect. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that sinne is not imputed to [Page 437] the faithfull, neuer imputed to the elect, that sinne maketh not the faithfull guiltie, hurteth them not: that a beleiuer euen sinning remaineth godlie: that sinne is remitted to him euen before it be committed.

ART. II. WHETHER ANIE SINNES BE mortall to the faithfull and elect?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Gen. 2. v. 17. it is saied to Adam a faithfull and elect mā: Sinne mortall to Adam. In what day soeuer thou shall eate of it, thou shalt die the death.

Numbers 18. ver. 22. That the children of Israel approch not To the Israe­tes. any more to the tabernacle, nor commit deadlie sinne.

Rom. 5. v. 12. As by one man sinne entred into this world and To all men. by sinne death, and so vnto all men death did passe. Et v. 18. As by the offence of one, vnto all men to condemnation.

1. Cor. 15. v. 22. As in Adam all die. Et Epist. 2. cap. 5. v. 14. If one died for all, then all were dead.

Ephes. 2. v. 5. Euen when we were dead by sinnes, quickened vs together in Christ.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Amiss Grat. cap. 7. That all sinnes of the predestinate, be termed veniall, and all sinnes of the reprobates, mortall, is confuted out of the examples of the Scripture with strong arguments, nor onely of Catholik Doctors, but also of Lutherans.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Caluin in 1. Ioan. 5. v. 16. He denieth, that they are sinnes to Grieuous sin­nes of Saints, not mortall. death, not onely those in which the Saints do dayly offend, but also if it chāce that sometimes they grieuously prouoke the wrath of God. 2. Instit. c. 8. §. 59. The sinnes of Saints, are veniall. l. 3. Veniall. c. 4. §. 28. The sinnes of the faithfull be veniall.

Beza in 1. Ioan. 5. v. 19. Hence it followeth, that no sinnes are No sinnes of the Elect, mortall. mortall to the elect; none veniall, to the reprobate.

Zanchius in Depulsione calum. to. 7. col. 258. Because sinnes are pardoned to the elect, nor are imuputed to death, there­fore in respect of the persons which are in Christ, sinnes commit­ted of them, cannot be called mortall. De Perseuerantia ib. col. 156. The falls of Saints are not deadlie to them, and therefore they die not in Gods sight with such falls.

Musculus in locis tit. de Peccato: If the persons be elect and faithfull in Christ, it followeth, that their sinnes are not mortall, but veniall.

Bucanus in Instit. Theol. loco. 16. To the elect, all sinnes, All sinnes of the Elect, be veniall. euen the most grieuous, are veniall by Christ.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that sinne was mortall to A­dam, though he were both faithfull and elect: that by him death and condemnation passed vnto all men: that all men were dead in him. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that no sinnes are mortall to the elect and faithfull: that no sinnes are imputed to them to death: that no falls are deadlie to them, nor that they die with any whatsoeuer: that euen most grieuous sinnes are veniall to the elect. Which some Protestants confesse to be against Scripture. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. III. WHETHER OMELY INCRE­dulitie be sinne?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Ioan. 19. v. 11. Therefore he that hath betraied me to thee, hath Sinne, to be­traie Christ. Sinne, to kill S. Stephen. Sinne, to ac­cept persons. Sinne, not to doe the good one knoweth. greater sinne.

Act. 7. v. 60. Lord laie not this sinne vnto them.

Iames. 2. v. 9. But if you accept persons, you worke sinne. And c. 4. v. 17. To one knowing to doe good, and not doing it; to him it is sinne.

CATH OLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Stapleton orat. Catechet. 2. &c. Pride is so capitall a sinne, as it is the supreme head of all sinnes, euen of them which are termed capitall.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Luther Postilla in Dom. 4. post Pascha. fol. 260. The Lord Onely incre­dulitie sinne. teacheth here farre otherwise, while he saieth: The holie Ghost reproueth the world for sinne because they beleiue not in me, where onely incredulitie is accounted sinne. In Disput. tom. Sinne proper to incredu­litie. 1. f. 371. As nothing iustifieth but faith: so nothing sinneth but incredulitie. Iustification is proper to sinne in Quarto modo. No sinne, but incredulitie. all sorte: so is sinne to incredulitie. lib. cont. Cathar. to. 2. fol. 156. Christ hath appointed, that there should be no sinne but incredulitie. Et in po­stilla Domestica feriae 2. Pentecost. impress. 1601. There is no more anie sinne, but not to beleiue.

Melancthon apud Cocleum in art. 6. Confess. August. As according to the Ghospell onely faith is iustice: So contrari­wise according to the Ghospell, onely incredulitie is sinne. Onely incre­dulitie, sinne.

Caluin in Ioan. 15. vers. 22. Christ by these words seemeth to insinuate, that onely ncredulitie is sinne: and there are, who thinke so.

THE CONFERENCE.

The Scripture expressely saieth, that it was sinne to be­traye Christ, to kill S. Stephen: that it is sinne to accept persons, and not to doe the good which we know. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say: that there is no sinne but in­credulitie, onely incredulitie is sinne: that sinne is in all sortes proper to incredulitie.

ART. IV. WHETHER SINNE OVGHT to be ouercome of the faithfull?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Rom. 6. v. 11. & seq. So thinke you also, that you are dead to We ought to ouercome sin­ne. sinne—Let not sinne therefore reigne in your mortall bodie, that you obey the concupiscences thereof.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Roman. 6. v. 12. If the Spirit struggle, but ouercometh not sinne in the bedie: then it obeyeth and yeeldeth to the concupiscences of the bodie. How then doth S. Paul exhorte those that are regenerate in Christ, that sinne reigne not in their bodies, and that they obey not concupiscences of the flesh? These carnall and Epicurean Heretiks will haue the spirit to struggle with the flesh, but not ouercome it.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Beza in Rom. 6. ver. 12. edit. An. 1565. & 1582. This exhor­tation is fitly added to that which went before, that we may vn­derstand, We ought not to ouercome sinne. how farre we be dead to sinne as long as we liue here: to wit, so farre as that the spirit do struggle (against sinne) but not ouercome. Of the same opinion are others, who (as before we saw) do teach, that we ought not to doe good workes. For if we ought not doe good workes, surely we ought not to ouercome sinne.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that we ought to thinke our selues dead to sinne: that sinne ought not to reigne in vs, nor we ought to obey the concupiscences thereof. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that the spirit ought to struggle against sinne, but not so as it ouercome it.

ART. V. WHETHER ANIE THAT SERVE the flesh do also serue God?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Rom. 8. v 13. If you liue according to the flesh, you shall die. Liuers accor­ding to the flesh shall die. Please not God. Are of the Diuel. v. 8. They that are in the flesh, cannot please God.

Math. 6. v. 24. No man can serue two Maisters.

1. Ioan. 3. v. 8. He that committeth sinne, is of the Diuel.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

D. Stapleton in Math. 6. v. 24. Who serue God, can nether serue the Diuel, nor the flesh.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Caluin in Math. 6. v. 24. It is surely true, that the faithfull are neuer so wholy obedient vnto God, but that now and then they are withdrawne by the vitious lusts of the flesh: but because Some seruer [...] of the flesh are approued of God. they mourne vnder this miserable slauerie and dislike themselues, nor serue this flesh otherwise then against their will and striuing, their desires and endeauours are approued of God, euen as if they did afford him entire obedience. In Rom. 8. v. 5. The Apostle te­stifieth, that he accounteth not them carnall, who do aspire to heauenlie iustice, but who are wholy giuen to the world.

Beza in Praef. ad Pastores Basil. vol. 1. pag. 427. To nill euill and yet to doe it, is the parte of Saints who do wrastle.

Pareus l. 2. de Iustif. c. 7. Sonnes of the Diuel, are not simply Not all grie­uous sinners, Sonnes of the Diuel. (grieuous) sinners, but obstinat sinners. l. 4. cap. 17. Nether the faithfull who sinne by chance, or of themselues by weaknesse, but such as of themselues giue themselues to sinne, serue the Diuel and ought to be called sonnes of the Diuel.

Scarpe de Iustif. Contr. 13. They onely are saied to serue the [Page 442] Diuel and to be his sonnes, in whome sinne reigneth and who commit sinne with a full will, but the faithfull do not so sinne. See also what they say in the next article.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that who serue the flesh, shall die; nor cāplease God: that none can serue twoe maisters: that whosoeuer committeth sinne is of the Diuel. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that euen the sonnes of God serue the flesh: that the Apostle accounteth none carnall but such as wholy giue themselues to the world: that onely obstinat sinners are sonnes of the Diuel: that the the faithfull sinning ether of infirmitie or wilfully, serue not the Diuel: that to nill euill and yet do it, is the parte of Saints: that they onely serue the Diuel who with full will commit sinne.

ART. VI. WHETHER BY GRIEVOVS sinnes the faithfull fall from grace?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Ioan. 3. v. 8. He that committeth sinne, is of the Diuel. v. 15. No murderer hath life in him. Sinne maketh to fall from grace. You know, that no murderer hath life euerlasting abiding in himselfe.

Gal. 5. v. 4. You are euacuated from Christ, that are iustified in the law, you are fallen from grace.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Session. 6. cap. 15. We must teach, that grace of iustification once receaued, is lost, not onely by infide­litie, but also with anie other mortall sinne, though faith be not lost.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Contr. 4. q. 6. c. 2. But it is more absurd which he S. Peter did not leese grace saieth, that Peter (by denying Christ) lost grace. Et Concione vlt. p. 696. To goe from grace, that is, to obey the concupiscence of the flesh, and to resist Gods motions, and admonitions, is farre from falling from grace.

Perkins de Baptismo to. 1. col. 819. This is most worthie of remembrance, that the Apostle calleth the Galathians euen in that verie time when they erred in the foundation, and euen were gone to an other Ghospell, Sonnes of God, saying: you all are the sonnes of God. For hereupon we may truely conclude, that not No enor­mious sinne obscureth grace. any enormious sinne, nor euerie errour which is committed against the foundation, obscurreth the grace and regeneration which maketh the Sonnes of God, much lesse extinguish it. In Serie Caufarum c. 42. By falls, grace and faith are not taken Sinne taketh not away grace. away but illustrated. cap. 51. It shall appeare out of the word of God, that it is farre otherwise thē that grace is extinguished by euerie mortall sinne. And de Sermon. Dom. tom. 2. col. 391. he saieth, that Dauid and Peter euen when they sinned as they did, were by regeneration the Sonnes of God, and the grace of God remained in them.

Abbots in Diatribam Tomsoni c. 22. Dauid was not yet Dauid iust, when he com­mitted mur­der. quite spoiled of spirituall life, not yet depriued of iustification, but worthie to be depriued. Againe: Guilt of sinne doth not take away iustification, doth not extinguish the Holie Ghost, doth not exclude the right of inheritance to the kingdome of God, but onely the vse thereof.

The vniuersitie of Zurich apud Zanchium tom. 7. col. 74. Seing the strife of the spirit with the flesh is alwaies in Saints, it followeth that the spirit doth alwaies remaine in them, though sometimes they be ouercomen with the weight of the flesh.

Caluin in 2. Petri 2. v. 21. The faithfull also sinne, but they Faithfull in grace euen when they sinne. fall not from grace.

[Page 444] Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 388. Whosoeuer is elect, al­beit Fall not from grace by sinne he sinne grieuously, as is saied of Dauid, yet he falleth not frō grace, into which God once receaued him. In Confess. c. 4. sect. 20. The Holie Ghost did testifie to their (Dauid Peter) spirit, that they, though they had most fouly fallen, were not withstan­standing accounted in the number of the Sonnes of God. And in Colloq. cit. When Smidelin had saied: I aske whether Dauid Dauid adul­tering kept the holie Ghost. committing adulterie, lost the Holie Ghost, or no? Beza an­swered: He lost him, not but kept him. Which p. 381. he expli­teth by this exāple: As druncknesse can for a time take away the vse of reason, but yet not reason it selfe: So sinne cā for a time take away from the elect the vse of the Holie Ghost and of grace, but not grace and the Holie Ghost himselfe, who abideth in them and departeth not from them, as nether he departed from Dauid. Et 2. part. resp. ad Acta Colloq. Montisbel. p. 71. It is a vaine Nether ve­niall nor mor­tall sinnes ex­clude the holie Ghost. distinction betwene veniall and mortall sinnes. For nether the one nor the other cast of the Holie Ghost, but interrupt his effi­cacie.

Zanchius de perseuerantia tom. 7. col. 359. saieth, that it cannot be saied without blasphemie, that Saints by sinning leaue to be the sonnes of God, & leese all right of euerlasting life. Et col. 150. The Holie Ghost departeth not, but is contristated with our sinnes.

Pareus l. 3. de Iustif. c. 14. denieth, that ether Dauid by adulterie and murder, or Salomon by idolatrie or S. Peter by denying Christ, lost iustification. And l. de Amiss. Grat. c. 7. When the spirit ouercometh the flesh, there ceaseth not to be flesh in Saints, but it abideth tamed. In like sorte, when the flesh ouercometh the spirit, as in Dauid when he fell, the Spirit doth not cease to be in Saints, but abideth ouercomen and trou­bled. Et c. 11. Reconciliation, grace, loue, adoption, not euerie one, nay neuer a sinne of the faithfull, can dissolue.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that who sought iustifica­tion in the law, were euacuated from Christ, were fallen [Page 445] from grace: who committeth sinne, is of the Diuel: and and that no murderer hath life in him. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the faithfull by sinning do not fall from grace: that Dauid in adulterie and mur­der, S. Peter in deniall of Christ, Salomon in idolatrie, lost not iustification: that the sinnes of the faithfull take not away the Holie Ghost but onely the vse thereof: that the Holie Spirit is in the faithfull when they are ouerco­men of the flesh: that no sinne of theirs can dissolue grace: that no enormious sinne extinguisheth grace. Which some Protestants confesse to be against Scripture. See lib. 2. cap. 30.

ART. VII. WHETHER SINNE CAN stand with iustice?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

2. Cor. 6. v. 14. What participatiō hath iustice with iniquitie, Iustice and Iniquitie stand not to­gether. or what societie is there betwene light and darknesse, and what agreement with Christ and Belial?

Wisdome. 1. vers 4. Wisdome will not enter into a militious soule, nor dwel in a bodie subiect to sinnes.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Amiss. Grat. cap. 12. Sinne fighteth with grace, and cannot remaine together with iustice.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Abbots in Diatribam Tomsoni c. 25. Sinne dwelleth to­gether Iustice dwel­leth with sinne. Faith with infidelitie. with iustice in vs.

Perkins in Galat. 5. True faith is alwaies mingled with con­trarie incredulitie, in so much as they who beleiue, feele much in­credulitie in themselues.

[Page 446] Luther in Gal. 3. to. 5. f. 335. A Christian is together iust and a sinner, a freind and enemie of God. Et Assert. art. 31. tom. 2. If therefore euerie one be also a sinner whilest he is iust, what can A worke partely good partely nought. Life & death together. follow more euidently, then that a worke also is partely good, partely euill?

Caluin cont. Franciscan. libertin. p. 471. Behould how con­traries may be together in one subiect: For life is begun, and much of death remaineth. In Math. 17. vers. 24. Seing faith is no where perfect, it followeth that we are partely incredulous. In Luc. 1. vers. 6. The iustice which in them is praised, dependeth of Gods free pardon, and therefore he imputeth not that iniustice which remaineth in them.

Beza lib. Quaest. vol. 1. pag. 672. In one and the selfe same Puritie and filth, light and darknesse together. subiect, but in diuers respects, are puritie and filth, light and darknesse, faith and incredulitie.

Pareus l. 4. de Iustif. c. 17. I answere, that there is no absur­ditie, that faith hath sometimes dist ust or incredulitie mingled with it, and so by accident, that faith is sinne. l. 1. c. 14. A sinner Faith is sinne by accident. The same man iust and and wicked. The same worke, good and euill. beleiuing is in the first moment of iustification iustified by grace, and wicked by nature. Et lib. 4. cap. 17. Workes are good and not good, and worthie of reward and punishmēt, but in diuers respects. Good, in so much as they are of God and done of the regenerate according to the law, by faith, and to the glorie of God: Euill; as much as they are defiled by the impure flesh and other sinnes. Againe: They are worthie of reward in the courte of mercie, but worthie of punishment in the courte of Gods iustice.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that there is no participation of iustice with iniquitie, no societie of light and darknesse: that the Holie Ghost dwelleth not in a bodie subiect to sinne. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that a man is at once iust and wicked, freind and enemie of God: that life and death, puritie and filth, light and darkenesse, faith and incredu­litie, sinne and iustice, can be in the same man together, [Page 447] yea that the same act can be at once good and ill, in the same act, faith and incredulitie. Which same Protestants confesse to be contrarie to Scripture. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. VIII. WHETHER SINNES MAY be redeemed by good workes?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Daniel 4. v. 24. Redeeme then thy sinnes with almes and Sinnes redee­med by almes thy iniquities with the mercies of the poore, perhaps he will for­giue thine offences.

Prou. 15. v. 17. By mercie and faith, sinnes are purged. Et c. By mercie. 6. v. 6. By mercie and trueth, iniquitie is redeemed.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Paenit. c. 3. Catholiks teach, that the tem­porall paines of the other life, may be redeemed by fastings, praiers, almes, and other pious and painfull workes of this life.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Confessio Anglica art. 12. Good workes cannot putt away Sinnes not re­deemed by all mes. our sinnes.

Confessio Wittemberg. cap. de Eleemosyna: What need had there beene of the passion and death of Christ, if sinne could be blotted out by the merit of almes?

Hunnius de Iustif. pag. 197. Should not Christ haue dyed in vaine for sinnes, if they could be redeemed by almes?

Herbrandus in Compendio loco de bonis operibus: If sinnes were redeemed with almes, God should seeme iniust, con­demning the poore for sinnes, because he had not giuen them riches, as he did to others, wherewith they might redeeme their sinnes.

Caluin 3. Instit. c. 4. §. 25. Papists say, there are manie helps Nor by good workes or charitie. whereby we may redeeme our sinnes, as tears, fasting, offerings, [Page 448] duties of charitie: To such lies I oppose &c. In Luc. 7. v. 50. By this speech is refuted their errour, who thinke that sinnes can be redeemed by charitie.

Sadeel de ver. peccat. remiss. p. 113. If expiation of sinnes be giuen to mens workes, then is Christ dead in vaine?

Aretius in locis part. 1. f. 90. Inward clensing cometh not of almes. If it had beene possible to redeeme sinnes by almes, Christ had died in vayne.

Homius in Disput. 70. Almes hath not that force which Papists blasphemously attribute to it, to wit, to dispose a man to the grace of iustification, to wipe away sinnes, and to satisfie for them.

Willet Contr. 19. q. 3. p. 1034. It is an abominable and blas­phemous Not by workes. opinion, that anie man by his workes should be able to redeeme his sinnes.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that sinnes are redeemed by almes, that sinnes are purged and redeemed by mercie. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely say, that sinnes are not redeemed by almes or charitie: that it is not possible to redeeme sinnes by almes: that Christs eath had beene in vaine if sinnes could be redeemed by almes: that it is abhominable and blasphemous to say that sinne may be redeemed by almes. Which are so contrarie to Scripture as sometimes Protestants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. IX. WHETHER TO ABSTAINE from great sinnes be necessarie to saluation?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Cor. 6. v. 9. Do not erre: Nether fornicatours, nor seruers of Great sinners shall not enioy heauen. Idols, nor adulters, &c. shall possesse the kingdome of God.

Ephes. 5. v. 5. Know you this, that no fornicatour, or vncleane, [Page 449] or couetous person (which is the seruice of idols) hath inheritance in the kingdome of Christ and God.

Rom. 8. v. 13. If you liue according to the flesh, you shall die. Shall die.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 4. de Iustif. cap. 9. It can no way be, that faith accompanied with euill workes can saue a man.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 5. c. 7. We say: If anie haue an act of No sinne hur­teth where faith. faith, that sinne cannot hurt him: This Luther saieth, this we all say.

Luther de Captiuit. Babyl. to. 2. f. 74. So thou seest how rich A Christian cannot leefe his saluation by anie sinne. a Christian or baptized men is; who, though he would, cannot leese his saluation with what great sinnes soeuer, vnlesse he will not beleiue. For no sinnes can damne him, but onely incredulitie. De votis ib. fol. 281. There are none so ill workes of one that be­leiueth in Christ, which can accuse and condemne him. De liber­tate ib. f. 8. No worke profiteth an infidell to iustice and saluatiō, No sinne dā ­neth infide­litie. and contrariwise no euill worke maketh him euill or damned, but incredulitie. In c. 53. Isaiae to. 4. No sinne can hurt him that be­leiueth. In Gal. 2. to. 5. f. 313. The false Apostles taught, that vn­lesse you liue according to the law you are dead before God: Paul teacheth the plaine contrarie. In c. 4. f. 404. The true knowledge of Christ or faith disputeth whether thou hast done good workes to iustice, or euill workes to damnation, but simply thus determi­neth: whether thou hast done good workes, thou art not therefore iustified, or whether thou hast done ill, thou art not therefore damned. Et to. 1. Epist. edit. Ienae f. 345. Be a sinner, and sinne No murther or fornication can draw vs from Christ. Perseuerer in sinne, are iust. stoutly: Sinne shall not draw vs from Christ, albeit we commit fornication or murther a thousand times a daye.

Bergenses apud Hospin. in Concordia discordi. f. 86. Iu­stice is imputed euen to them who perseuer in sinne.

Melancthon in Ioan. apud Cocleum in Art. 6. Confess. Augustanae. As by the Ghospell onely faith is iustice, so that [Page 450] though thou hadst done all the sinnes of all mē, yet if thou beleiuest that the Father hath mercie vpon thee for Christ, thou shalt be safe: So contrariewise, by the Ghospell onely incredulitie is sinne. Onely incre­dulitie is sine.

Reineccius to. 4. Armaturae. c. 15. Euill workes do not make an euill man, to wit, him that is in Christ.

Zuinglius lib. de. ver. & falsa relig. tom. 2. c. de Peccato: Onely incre­duli [...]ie is not pardoned. It followeth, that onely incredulitie is that, to which pardon is denied.

Caluin in Rom. 8. v. 13. Howsoeuer we be yet subiect to sinne, neuerthelesse he promiseth vs life, so we prosecute our desire of mortifying the flesh.

Author resp. ad theses Valentinianas p. 925. This would that notable Diuine (Luther) and all our men; So we haue true faith, no sinne how great soeuer shall hinder ws to be made par­takers of the euerlasting inheritance. See more in my Latin booke c. 15. art. 8.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely biddeth vs not erre, for nether for­nicatours nor adulterous, nor such grieuous sinners shall possesse the kingdome of God, and that if we liue accor­ding to the flesh we shall die. Catholiks say the same.

Protestants expressely say, that a Christian cannot be damned with what great sinnes soeuer, so he will be­leiue; that onely incredulitie can damne him: that though he commit fornication and murder a thousand times aday shall not be drawne from Christ: though he had done all the sinnes of all mē he shalbe saued, if he beleiue: that pardon is denied onely to incredulitie: that so one haue faith, sinnes can not hurt him; that so we haue true faith no grieuous sinnes whatsoeuer shall hinder vs to enter into heauen: What other I pray you is this but that voice of the Serpent to Eue; Yee shall not die.

ART. X. WHETHER SINNES BE THE cause for which men are damned?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 25. v. 41. Get yee away from me you cursed into euerla­sting Men are damned for not exerci­sing charitie. According to their workes. fire which was prouided for the Diuel and his Angels: For I was an hungred, and you gaue me not to eate &c.

Apocal. 20. v. 12. And the dead were iudged of those things which were written in the bookes according to their workes.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Grat. & lib. arb. c. 16. The Scripture euerie where teacheth, that eternall punishment is by the iust iudgment of God rendred to mens sinnes.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther in Ionae. 1. to. 4. f. 409. Let vs know, that we are not Men are not damned in sinne. Onely incre­dulitie dam­neth. damned in sinne, nor saued by good workes.

Postilla in Dom. 8. post. Trinitat. f. 300. I obserue, that no worke is so euill, as it can damne a man, onely incredulitie dāneth. That a man committeth adulterie, that worke condemneth not, but adulterie doth shew, that he hath lost his faith. In Dom. 4. post Pascha: Onely incredulitie is held for sinne. In die Ascen­sionis: Nether is there anie sinne so great, which can cōdemne a man: onely incredulitie damneth whosoeuer are damned. Damna­tion followeth no sinne but infidelitie.

Iacobus Andreae in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 109. None but None but in­fidels are damned. Men are not damned be­cause they haue sinned. the incredulous is damned. 105. Vnlesse incredulitie were in those that are to be damned, none should be damned. p. 447. Those that are to be adiudged to eternall punishmēt are not therefore dāned because they haue sinned, but because they would not embrace Christ with true faith. And in the margent: Onely incredulitie damneth men. Whereupon Beza in the same Colloquie pag. [Page 452] 421. & 448. & in part. 2. resp. pag. 215. saied: Surely your speech seemed to vs intolerable: That men are not damned for sinne, or because they haue sinned. And notwithstanding Beza him­selfe in the same Colloq. pag. 103. saieth: The onely efficient cause of damnation, is our incredulitie & 106. I say, that onely in­credulitie Onely incre­dulitie cau­seth damna­tion. is the efficient cause of the damnation of the impious. Et 2 part. resp. cit. p. 6. Men perish not simply for sinne, but for incredulitie.

Schlusselburg. to. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 824. No sinnes con­demne, vnlesse incredulitie be adioyned.

Bidembachius in Consensu Iesuit. & Christian. printed at Rochel 1584. p. 733. This saying is not ill vsed of some diuines: It onely dam­neth. Onely incredulitie damneth: Wherefore ether Torrensis must re­proue the office of the Holie Ghost reprouing the world, and cor­rect his tongue; or he must graunt that men are damned for in­credulitie alone.

Reineccius to. 3. Armaturae c. 12. Man is punished not be­cause Men are not punished be­cause they did not well. Sinnes do not damne. Onely infide­litie is cause of damnation he did not well.

Zuinglius in Ioan. 5. tom. 4. Sinnes do not make a man vn­iust, nor damne a man, but impietie and incredulitie.

Pareus in Collegio Theol. 7. Disput. 5. It is rightly saied: That onely infidelitie is the cause of damnation.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that men are damned for sinnes of omission, or not doing that which they were bound to doe: that euerie one is iudged according to his workes. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that men are not punished because they did not well: that sinnes condemne not mē: that men are not damned for sinnes or because they haue sinned: that no sinne is so grieuous as it can condemne a man: that damnation followeth no sinne but incredulitie; that onely incredulitie damneth men: that men are dam­ned for infidelitie onely.

ART. XI. WHETHER WE MVST GIVE account of our sinnes?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 12. vers. 36. I say vnto you, that euerie idle word that Man must giue account of euerie idle word. men shall speake, they shall render an account for it in the day of iudgment.

Rom. 14. v. 12. Euerie one of vs for himselfe shall render ac­count to God.

2. Cor. 5. v. 10. For we must all be manifested before the iudg­ment Of things that he hath done. seat of Christ, that euerie one may receaue the proper things of the bodie according as he hath done ether good or euill.

Apoc. 20. ver. 12. And the dead were iudged of those things which were written in the bookes according to their workss.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Act. 15. v. 11. Caluinists cannot abide, that workes be called to account: But these pestilēt teachers lead their followers right to the pitte of hell, and directly gainesay the holie Scripture: Workes must come to account.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Confessio Palatina p. 202. I beleiue and confesse, that God Gods iugd­ment not to be feared. the Father for Christs most full satisfaction, neuer remembreth my sinnes, so that I haue no need to feare the iudgment of God.

Luther in Gal. 1. to. 5. f. 282. Christ will not exact an account He will not take account of our life. Not enter into iudgmēt with vs. of vs of our ill passed life.

Caluin in Math. 12. v. 36. In this is founded the trust of our saluation, that God will not enter into iudgment with vs. In c. 27. v. 26. Nether is it to be feared, that our sinnes come any more into Gods iudgment. In Roman. 4. v. 6. Who are couered with Christs iustice, they haue not onely God appeased to them, but also to their workes, whose spotts and blemishes are couered with [Page 454] Christs puritie, that they come not to account. In Gal. 3. v. 22. It followeth vndoubtedly: If workes come into iudgment, we are all damned.

Beza in Confess. c. 4. sect. 12. This sanctification of humane nature in Christ imputed to vs by faith, hath made that the re­likes of that corruption which is euen in the regenerate, come not to account before God.

Scarpe de Iustif. Contr. 7. These sinnes shall not come to ac­count before God.

Tilenus in Syntagmate c. 67. The elect do know, that ne­ther their deeds, nor all their words shalbe called to the reckoning of this (last) iudgment.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that we shall giue account of euerie idle word: that euerie one shall giue account for himselfe: that euerie one shall receaue for the good or ill which he hath done: that the dead shalbe iud­ged according to their workes. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that Christ will not exact an account of our life ill passed: that God will not enter into iudgment with vs: that our sinnes shall not come to iudgment: shall not come to reckoning: that nether all our deeds or words shall come to the reckoning of iudgment.

ART. XII. WHETHER THE ELECT being iustified committeth ill or sinne?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Psal. 50. ver. 6. Dauid saieth of himselfe: To thee onely haue Dauid did ill. I sinned, and haue done ill before thee.

2. Reg. 12. v. 9. Nathan saieth to Dauid: Why therefore hast thou contemned the word of the Lord, that thou wouldest doe euill in my sight?

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Amiss. Grat. c. 7. Dauid himselfe pecu­liarly bewaileth his adulterie and murder, and amongst other things saieth: To thee onely haue I sinned, and haue done ill be­fore thee.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Zanchius de Perseuerantia tom. 7. col. 124. Dauid sinned He commit­ted not sinne. indeed, but neuer committed sinne. Et 147. The regenerate com­mit not sinne.

Musculus in Locis tit. de Peccato. The elect commit not The elect commit not sinne. sinne, though they sometimes do sinne. Againe: The elect commit not sinne, but the reprobates.

Abbots in Diatribam Tomsoni c. 20. Christ manifestly sheweth, that it is one thing to sinne, an other to commit sinne, and saieth, that the iustified do not commit sinne.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that Dauid (though an elect and iustified man) sinned, did ill before God, contemned Gods word. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that Dauid neuer committed sinne, that the regenerate commit not sinne, that the elect commit not sine.

ART. XIII. WHETHER THE ELECT himselfe, being iustified, sinneth?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

2 Reg. 24. v. 17. Dauid saieth of himselfe: I am he that haue Dauid sinned and did wic­kedly. Did euill. sinned, I haue done wickedly: Et 1. Paralipomen. 21. v. 17. It is I that haue sinned, it is I that haue done the euill.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Session. 6. Can. 23. If anie shall say, that a man once iustified cannot sinne, nor leese grace &c. be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Academie of Marpurg apud Zanchium in tom. 7. col. The elect do not sinne. 66. The elect himselfe doth it (sinne) not, hut sinne inhabi­ting in him.

Bucer in Matthaei 7. A Christian sinneth not, and yet he A Christian sinneth not. hath sinne.

Zanchius in Supplicat. ad Senatum Argentinensem tom. 7. col. 59. The elect cannot properly obey the concupis­cences Doth not obey concupiscēce. of sinne.

Whitaker Controu. 2. q. 2. cap. 2. True faithfull can neuer be Is not ouer­comen of Sa­than. ouercomen of Sathan.

Contra-remonstrantes in Collat. Hagae. pap. 351. Sinne hath not rule ouer the elect. And 347. There is plainely saied, who is borne of God, that is, the true faithfull and regenerate, that he doth not sinne so, as sinne ruleth ouer him againe, nor can so sinne.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that Dauid though iustifyed, did euill; wickedly; did sinne The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that the elect him selfe com­mitteth not sinne, that a Christian sinneth not: that the elect properly obey not the concupiscences of sinne: that sinne ruleth not ouer an elect.

ART. XIV. WHETHER THE ELECT being iustified, euer doe sinne wittingly and willingly?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

2. Reg. 12. v. 9. it is saied to Dauid: Why hast thou contēned Dauid con­temned Gods word. Despised God. the word of the Lord. Et v. 10. The sword shall not departe from thy house for euer, because thou hast despised me.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Rom. 6. v. 12. calleth it filthie doctrine, that the elect being iustified do not shake of the yoke of the law of God of set malice; but of frailtie, because the flesh ouercometh the spirit striuing.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Iacobus Andreae in Colloq. Montisb. p. 382. The elect The elect sinne not of purpose. Not of full will. sinne not of purpose, but against their will.

Perkins de Praedest. to. 1. col. 153. The regenerate do not sinne of whole or full will.

Academie of Zurich apud Zanchium to. 7. col. 74. Ne­ther of them (Dauid, Peter) sinned with his whole harte and mynde. And Zanchius himselfe ib. de Perseuerant. col. 98. The true faithfull being once ingrafted in Christ neuer sinne with their mynd, that is with their whole mynde, harte, and full will, but Onely of igno­norance. onely with flesh, ignorance, and frailtie: Et col. 363. Saints neuer sinne of set malice, or (as others say) with their will, but alwaies ether of frailtie, or of ignorance.

Daneus Contr. de Baptismo c. 14. Men sinne in two sortes: Ether with whole affection of mynde feeling no fight betwene the spirit and flesh; and in this sorte do not they sinne, who are borne of God and haue true faith.

Pareus l. 1. de Amiss. Gratiae. cap. 6. Who is borne of God [Page 458] [...] not sinne with his whole harte. Et l. 3. de Iustif. c. 15. [...]ece we haue clearly, that the regenerate do not sinne, to wit, with their whole harte and to death. [...] dea [...]h.

Scarpe de Iustif. Contr. 5. No faithfull persons sinne with full force of will.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely teacheth, that Dauid though an elect and iustified man contemned Gods word, despised God. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely teach, that the elect do not sinne with their whole harte, neuer sinne with their will, neuer with full will: but onely of frailtie or ignorance or with the flesh.

ART. XV. WHETHER THE WIDDOWS whereof S. Paul speake did make void their faith by marrying?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Tim. 5. v. 11. & 12. But auoid the yonger widdows, for when Somewidows damned for marrying againe. they shalbe wanton, in Christ, they will marrie, hauing damnatiō because they haue made void their first faith.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Monachis c 24. The Apostle faith, that they make void their first faith, which will marrie.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Apologia Confess. Augustan. c. de votis: Paul condemneth Not damned because the married. the widdows, not because they married.

Whitaker l. 9. cont. Dureum sect. 39. The Apostle writeth, that those widdows were to be damned, not because they married.

[Page 459] Lutherans de votis to. 2. f. 302. But nether doth Paul con­demne this in them, that they will marrie.

Illyricus in Claue part. 1. verbo Fides: There is no speech of breaking of vow or of marrying againe.

Zuinglius in Explanat. artic. 30. Paul saieth, that these broke their first faith, because they vsed the pleasure of the flesh not with husbands: for they who married, did not breake their faith.

Peter Martyr libr. de votis col. 1352. It cannot be ga­thered hence, that to haue a will to marrie was accounted sinne in them.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that those widdows whereof S. Paul speaketh had their damnation by marrying, be­cause by marrying they made void their first faith. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that they had no damnation by marrying, that they did not sinne by marrying; that there is no speech in S. Paul of marrying againe: that he spoake of such as out of marriage vsed the pleasure of the flesh: Which contradiction of the Scripture is so eui­dent, as some Protestants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. XVI. WHETHER VSVRIE be sinne?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Psal. 14. v. 1. & 5. Lord, who shall dwel in thy tabernacle &c. Vsurie, sinne. He that hath not giuen his money to vsurie.

Psal. 71. ver. 14. From vsuries and iniquities he shall redeeme their soules.

Ezechiel 18. vers. 5. and 8. And a man if he shalbe iust hath not lent to vsurie and not taken more, hath turned his hand [Page 460] from iniquitie—This man is iust, liuing he shall liue, saieth our Lord God.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

S. Thomas 2. 2. q. 78. art. 1. To take vsurie for money lent, is of it selfe vniust.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Bucer in Disput. de Vsuris pag. 794. The Lord did not for­bidde Not all v­surie for­bidden. Some vsurie allowed. and condemne all vsurie, but vsurie of a certaine kind, to wit, that with biteth and helpeth not the neighbour, which alone I thinke to be allowed.

Caluin in Epistolis edit. 1619. pag. 488. If we condemne all vsurie, we make the snare of consciences straiter then the Lord himselfe would. Againe: I find not by any testimonie of Scrip­ture that all vsuries are condemned.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that who lendeth money to vsurie, shall not dwell in Gods tabernacle, that soules are to be redeemed from vsurie, that a iust man doth not lend to vsurie. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expresseiy say, that al vsurie is not condem­ned, that some is to be allowed.

ART. XVII. WHETHER ALL HAVE sinned in Adam?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Rom. 5. v. 12. As by one man sinne entred into this world, and All men sinned in Adam. All made sinners in Adam. by sinne death, and so vnto all men death did passe in whome all sinned. Et ver. 19. As by the disobedience of one man manie were made sinners.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 4. de Amiss. Gratiae. c. 13. In that one man, all sinned.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Zuinglius de Peccato orig. to. 2. f. 116. Nether hindreth it, We sinned but figura­tiuely in Adam. Not truely sinned. that S. Paul Rom. 5. saieth: All haue sinned. For after the same manner the worde, Sinned, is putte metonymically. De Ratione fidei ib. f. 539. I confesse that our first father committed a sinne which is truely a sinne, but they who are descended of him did not sinne in this sorte.

Adolphus Venator apud Homium in Specimine &c. We did not sinne in A­dam. art. 15. Thereupon it may be gathered, that we did not sinne in Adam, because &c.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that all sinned in Adam, that by his disobedience manie are made sinners. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that all sinned in Adam but fi­guratiuely; that Adam truely sinned but not they who are descended of him; that we sinned not in Adam.

ART. XVIII. WHETHER THERE BE anie originall sinne?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Scripture in places before cited saieth, that all sinned Originall sinne, true sinne. in Adam, that by his disobedience many were made sinners: & 1. Cor. 15. v. 12. that in Adam all died.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 5. Can. 2. If anie shall say, that Adam by his sinne of disobedience, transfused onely death and punishment of the bodie in all man kinde, and not sinne, which is the death of the soule: be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Zuinglius de Peccato orig. to. 2. f. 115. What could be saied Originall sinne, is no sinne, Not truely called sinne. more breefly or clearly, then that originall sinne, is no sinne, but a sicknesse: Fol. 116. This is that I will: that originall sinne is not truely called sinne, but metonymically of the sinne committed of our first father. fol. 115. What could be saied more weakly and more farre from Canonicall Scripture, then that it is not a sicknesse, but a guilt? De Baptismo ibid. fol. 87. It followeth, Not guilt. No staine. that litle ones or Infants are without all blemish or staine. f. 90. Whence we gather, that originall sinne is indeed a sicknesse, which yet of it selfe is not faultie, nor can cause the punishment of damnation. Againe: How can it be, that what is a sicknesse and contagion, deserueth the name of sinne, or is sinne indeed? And Respons. ad Luther. fol. 517. The summe of all which No sinne in­deed. Not such a sinne as hath fault. Not properly sinne. Maketh not guiltie of death. I taught in my booke of originall sinne is this: That originall contagion is not such a sinne, that hath any fault, but rather is a sicknesse which by reason of Adams sinne, cleaueth vnto vs.

Homius in Specimine &c. art. 15. bringeth many Pro­testants who denie originall sinne: as Venator. Originall sinne is not properly sinne, nor deserueth damnation. Arminius: Originall sinne is fondly saied to make guiltie of death. Borrius. There is no reason why God would impute this sinne to Infants.

Beza de Praedestinat. cont. Castel. vol 1. p. 421. thus wri­teth of Castellio (whome D. Humfrey ad Ration. 1. Cam­piani much commendeth for learning and honestie) Out of which it may be easily gathred, that ether thou accountest ori­ginall Originall sinne, a fable. sinne, a fable; or els doest so diminish it, that what is by origin, thou wouldst haue to be attributed to imitation. Nether [Page 463] is Beza himselfe farre from the same opinion; for 2. part. resp. ad acta Colloq. Montisbel. p. 103. he denieth, that ele­cted infants need any renouation. Faber also and Erasmus, whome Protestants challenge for theirs, do denie ori­ginall sinne in Rom. 5.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that all haue sinned in Adam, that all die in Adam, that by his disobedience manie are made sinners. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that originall sinne, is no sinne but a sicknes; not truely a fault, but figuratiuely: not a guilte, not a blemish not a staine, not faultie of it selfe, that it can not cause damnation; not such a sinne as hath fault, not a sinne indeed, nor deserueth the name of sinne.

THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF SINNES.

The things which we hau [...] rehearsed in this chapter, do make manifest, that Protestants teach of sinnes quite contrarie to holie Scripture. For the Scripture (and Ca­tholiks with it) teacheth, that sinnes are imputed to the faithfull: that they are mortall to them as well as to others: that they ought to be ouercomen of the faithfull: that whosoeuer serue sinne, serue not God: that great sinnes putte out grace, nor can stād with iustice: that they are to be redeemed with good workes: that to abstaine from them, is necessarie to saluation: that they are the cause why men are damned: that we must giue an ac­count of them: that they are committed of the elect and that with full consent: that vsurie is a sinne, and that originall sinne is a true sinne. All which Protestants do denie.

They make also manifest, that Protestants play the What Pro­test take from sinnes. theiues towards sinnes also, and steale from them no lesse then from good things, but that they steale from [Page 464] sinne other kind of qualities and for an other end. For from God, from Christ, from Saintes, from the Church, from Sacraments, from good workes and other godlie and holie things they steale that which is good, vertuous, and worthie of praise and honour, that thereby they may not seeme so worthie to be loued and esteemed of men: But from sinnes they steale malice, all power of hurting the faithfull, in saying they are not imputed to them, cast not them out of Gods grace, and such like now rehear­sed, to the end that they should not seeme so horrible and so much to be auoided of the faithfull: And thereby they shew themselues to be freinds of sinne, and precursors of him who is termed: The man of sinne. And thus much of 2. Thessal. 2. Sinnes: Now of Iustification from them.

CHAPTER XVI. OF IVSTIFICATION.

ART. I. WHETHER IVSTIFICATION be of workes?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

IAMES 2. v. 21. Abraham our father was he not Abraham iustified by workes. Man. Rahab. iustified by workes? vers. 24. Do you see, that by workes a man is iustified? Et v. 25. Rahab the harlot was not she iustified by workes?

Luc. 7. v. 47. Manie sinnes are forgiuen her, because she hath loued much.

Act. 3. vers. 19. Be penitent therefore and conuert, that your sinnes may be putte out.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Rom. 4. v. 2. Abrahams workes had glorie euen before God, and he was iustified of then as S. Iames doth most expressely affirme.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Apologia Confess. Augustanae c. de Iustif. Reconciliation Reconcilia­tion, not by workes. is not receaued by workes. c. de Implet. legis: If anie thinke, that he obtaineth remission of sinnes because he loueth, he dishonou­reth [Page 466] Christ. c. de votis: It is an impious opinion, that we obtaine remission of sinnes for our workes.

Confessio Bohemica art. 7. Good workes are to be done, not Iustification not by workes. that we thinke that we obtaine remission of sinnes for them. Gal­lica artic. 22. We are not iustified by workes. Belgica artic. 24. Good workes are of no moment at all for to iustifie vs. Argenti­nensis Workes helpe not to iustifi­cation. cap. 3. Good workes helpe nothing for to make vs iust of vniust. Heluetica cap. 15. We receaue this iustification not by any workes.

Whitaker ad Ration. 8. Campiani. In iustifying vs, God maketh no reckoning of our workes. For the iust liueth not of workes.

Perkins in Serie Causarum cap. 51. To be iustified by good Abraham, not iustified by workes. workes, is both false and ridiculous. In Gal. 3. Abraham was not iustified by his good workes. In c. 4. That doctrine, which drea­meth of Iustification by workes, bringeth in idolatrie. Et in c. 5. it ouerturneth the foundation of religion.

Luther de libertate tom. 2. fol. 4. A soule is iustified by no workes. In Gal. 1. to. 5. Sinne is taken away by no workes. In c. 3. Abraham was iustified by no other thing at all but faith. Epist. Abrahā not iustified by workes. ad Liuones to. 7. All doctrine of iustifying and sauing vs by workes, is impious, diuelish, and high blasphemie against God. Et to. 1. fol. 393. We must firmely beleiue against the Diuel, that the woman was saued by onely faith before she loued.

Caluin 3. Instit. c. 11. §. 6. In iustification there is no place for workes. c. 14. §. 5. Workes helpe nothing to iustifie vs. cap. 16. §. 1. Men are not iustified by workes. We say, they are not iustified by workes. In Gal. 2. v. 15. We can­not be iustified by workes.

Beza in Confess. cap. 4. sect. 17. How can we be iustified by Workes do not iustifie. workes? l. Quaest. p. 689. Good workes do not iustifie.

Peter Martyr in locis classe 3. c. 4. §. 8. Iustification is not had of workes.

Bullinger de Iustif. fidei Serm. 6. Abraham was not iusti­fied by his workes.

Aretius in locis part. 2. f. 78. We are not iustified of workes.

Zanchius in Confess. c. 21. art. 4. We constantly confesse, that a man is not iustified of workes. Man is not iustified by workes.

[Page 467] Polanus in Disp. priuat. perio do 1. disput. 36. Not because the woman loued much, therefore her sinnes were remitted her.

Pareus in Gal. 2. lect. 24. The Apostle denieth, that workes ether alone or with faith do iustifie.

Rogers artic. 11. Workes haue no place or portion in the Workes with faith do not iustifie. matter of our iustification.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Abraham was iustified by workes, that Rahab was iustified by workes: that the womans sinnes were forgiuen because she loued: that men must repent for to haue their sinnes forgiuen. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that Abrahā was iustified by workes, by nothing els at all but by faith, that the womās sinnes were not forgiuen because she loued; that sinne is not taken away by any workes that we are not iusti­fied by any workes, that workes haue no place, are of no moment, or reckoning in iustification: that it is impious, diuelish, ridiculous, and most blasphemous against God, to dreame of Iustification by workes.

ART. II. WHETHER IVSTIFICATION be by faith onely?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Iames 2. v. 24. Do you see, that by workes a man is iustified, Iustification, not by faith alone. and not by faith onely.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Councel of Trent Session. 6. can. 9. If anie shall say, that the impious is iustified by faith alone, so as he vnder­standeth, that nothing els is required to cooperate to the grace of iustification, and that it is no way necessarie that he be pre­pared [Page 468] and disposed by motion of his owne will, be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Confessio Saxonica c. de Remiss. Peccat. Wittenbergica c. de Iustif. Articuli Smalcaldici part. 2. c. 1. liber Concordiae c. 3. Confessio Anglica art. 11. Heluetica cap. 15. Belgica art. By onely faith. 22. Bohemica art. 6. teach in expresse termes, that we are iustified by onelie faith. And the same in other words teach Confessio Augustana. c. de fide. Argentinensis c. 3. & Gal­lica art. 20.

Apologia Confess. Augustanae c. de Iustif. We are iusti­fied By faith alone. by faith alone, if by iustification we meane, to be iust of vn­iust, or to be regenerated. Againe: Faith alone doth iustifie, alone maketh iust of vniust. By faith onely we receaue remission for Christ. Et c. de Resp. ad Argumenta. Remission of sinnes and Onely by faith. iustification is receaued onely by faith. These things we obtaine onely by faith.

Luther de libertate to. 2. fol. 4. A soule is iustified by faith By nothing els. alone. In Gal. 2. to. 5. Faith iustifieth, and nothing els.

Vrbanus Regius in Catachesi fol. 136. We are Iustified by faith onely.

Schusselburg. l. 1. Theol. Caluin art. 15. Paul teacheth, that By faith alone. a man is iustified by faith onely, by faith alone.

Zuinglius ad Matthaeum Rutling. to. 2. f. 151. We are iusti­fied by faith alone.

Caluin in Galat. 2. v. 16. We are iustified by faith alone.

Beza in Rom. 3 vers. 20. What was the Apostles intent? To teach, that no man is iustified by anie other means then by faith. We are iustified by onely faith.

Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 1. It belongeth to faith onely, that we be iustified by it.

Whitaker ad Ration. 1. Campiani: That is our doctrine most true and most holie: That a man is iustified by faith alone.

Perkins in Catechesi tom. 1. col. 487. How canst thou be Onely by faith. made partaker of Christ and of all his benefits, and fruitfully enioye them? Onely by faith.

[Page 469] Rogers artic. 11. Onely by faith we are accounted righteous before God.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that a man is not iustified by faith onely. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that a man is iustified by faith onely, by faith alone, and no other way then by faith: that nothing iustifieth but faith.

ART. III. WHETHER THE IVSTIFIED, be indeed, and in the sight of God, iust?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Gen. 7. ver. 1. God thus speaketh to Noë: I haue seene thee Noē iust in Gods sight. iust in my sight. c. 6. v. 9. Noë was a iust and perfect man.

Iob 32. v. 2. And Eliu was angrie and tooke indignation and he was angrie against Iob, for that he saied himselfe to be iust before God.

Luc. 1. v. 6. And they were both iust before God. Iust before God.

1. Cor. 5. v. 21. Him that knew no sinne, for vs he made sinne: that we might be made the iustice of God in him.

Ephes. 1. ver. 4. He chose vs in him before the constitution of Holie in Gods sight. the world, that we should be holie and immaculate in his sight in charitie.

1. Ioan. 3. vers. 7. He that doth iustice is iust: euen as he also is iust.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Session. 6. cap. 7. Being indued with iustice of God, we are not onely reputed, but also are named and are iust.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Illyricus in Math. 20. v. 12. Surely so it is in religion and be­fore None is iust before God. God, and especially in the kingdome of Grace, where all de­pende of free mercie, and none is iust. Et in Praef. partis 2. Clauis, saieth that Papist take, to iustifie, amisse, of reall, and not of im­putatiue iustice.

Reineccius to. 4. Armaturae cap. 15. Nether doth God looke vpon vs but in his Sonne; whereupon it cometh to passe, that we we seeme quite others then we are. As looking through glasse We seeme to God others then we are. which is greene, yellow, or of some other colour, the things which me behould seeme to vs to be of the same colour of which the glasse is, through which we see: So to God (I speake humanely for the weaknesse of the flesh) beholding and considering vs in his Sonne, we seeme to be of his colour, and shyning with his iustice and innocencie: And thereby he seing and touching vs, thinketh that he toucheth his owne naturall Sonne, as Isaac speaking to Ia­cob his yonger Sonne, thought he spoake to Esau his elder sonne. And the same example of a great glasse or spectacles vseth Zanchius l. 2. de Natura Dei. c. 2.

Hunnius de Iustif. p. 19. reiecteth it as Popish doctrine, that by iustification, a man is made indeed iust.

Zuinglius in Luc. 1. to. 4. Before God none can be iust. None iust be­fore God. Not iust, but held iust. Not iust in­deed.

Caluin 3. Instit. c. 19. §. 2. It is not inquired there (in Iustifi­cation) how we be iust; but how, (though vniust and vnwor­thie) we may be held for iust. c. 11. §. 11. Let him graunt, that they are counted iust, who are not indeed. Againe: He is iust, not indeed, but by imputation. In Math. 12. v. 37. The Papists thinke it absurd, that we say a man is iustified by faith, because they ex­pound it to be made and be iust indeed: But we meane, to be ac­counted iust and to be absolued in the iudgment of God. In Luc. 18. v. 19. This place plainely telleth, what is properly to be iusti­fied, As if we were iust. to wit, to stand before God as if we were iust. In Rom. 3. ver. 25. I haue already eftsones admonished, that men are not iustified, because they be such indeed, but by imputation. In 2. Cor. 5. v. 21. How are we iust before God? foresooth as Christ is a sinner. In [Page 471] Antidoto Concil. sess. 6. c. 8. They (of Trent) affirme, that we Not truely iust. are truely iust and not onely reputed. De Caena p. 2. Let vs be as­sured, that we, though we be wicked and vncleane, neuerthelesse, are acknowledged and receaued of the Lord and also helde for iust. Et Concione 158. in Iob. Where shall any such (iust) be found None iust. amongst men?

Beza in Math. 12. v. 37. Paul testifieth that we, being not in Not in our selues iust but accounted so. our selues iust, yet are iustified in Christ apprehended by faith, that is, accounted for iust, and so absolued.

Pereus l 1. de Amiss. Grat. c. 6. It is more sure to say, that they (Zacharias and Elizabeth) were iust and faultlesse before God and men, not absolutely, but by imputation of iustice. Of the same opinion are all others who say, that for God to iu­stifie men, is not to make them iust, but onely to declare or pronounce them such.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Noë was iust before God, Iob iust before God: Zacharias and Elizabeth iust before God: that God chose vs for to be iust in his sight: that he made Christ sinne for to make vs the iustice of God: and that who doeth iustice is iust, euen as God also is iust. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that none is iust: that in iusti­ficatiō it is not enquired how we are iust, but how we are helde for iust: that to be iustified, is not to be iust: that the iustified are not indeed iust, not truely iust, but so reputed: that before God they are no otherwise iust then Christ was a sinner: that we appeare quite others to God, then we are: that God looking vpon vs and touching vs, taketh vs for his owne Sonne, as Isaac tooke Iacob, for Esau.

ART. IV. WHETHER THE IVSTIFIED be cleane?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ezech. 36. v 25. And I will powre vpon you cleane water, and The iustified, be cleansed. you shalbe clensed from all your contaminations.

Ioan. 13. v. 10. And you are cleane. c. 15. v. 3. Now you are cleane Are cleane. for the word which I haue spoaken to you.

1. Cor. 6. ver. 11. And these things certes you were, but you are washed, you are sanctified.

Ephes. 1. v. 4. He chose vs in him that we should be holie and Immaculate. immaculate in his sight in charitie.

Tit. 2. vers. 14. Who gaue himselfe for vs, that he might re­deeme vs from all iniquitie, and might cleanse to himselfe a people acceptable.

Hebr. 9. v. 14. How much more, shall the blood of Christ, who Cleansed frō dead workes. by the Holie Ghost offered himselfe vnspotted vnto God, cleanse our conscience from dead workes?

1. Ioan. 1. v. 7. And the blood of Iesus Christ his Sonne cleāsetb Cleāsed from all sinne. vs from all sinne.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 5. can. 5. There is no damnation to them who are truely buried with Christ by baptisme to death, who walke not according to the flesh, but putting of the ould man and putting on the new which is created according to God, are made innocent, vnspotted, pure, harmelesse and beloued of God.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

French Confession art. 11. Euen they who excell in holinesse Defiled with manie sinnes. are defiled with manie sinnes, as long as they liue in this world.

Luther in Confutat. Latomi to. 2. f. 218. The beleiuers are Vncleane. iust, and yet vncleane.

[Page 473] Zuinglius in Explanat. artic. 39. All men are vniust before Ʋniust. God.

Caluin 3. Institut. cap. 15. § 5. Though we be vncleane, he is cleanesse to vs. In Rom. 4. v. 5. None shall come to the iustice of Impious. faith, but he that shalbe impious in himselfe. In v. 20. He pro­nounceth Ouerwhel­med with sinne. to hould vs for iust, and we are ouerwehlmed with sinne. The like he hath in the places cited in the former article.

Beza in Rom. 4. v. 5. Who iustifieth the impious, that is, ac­counteth him iust in Christ who is himselfe impious.

Iunius l. 4. de Eccles c. 11. The pious man, is in himselfe vn­cleane Filthie. and filthie.

Scarpe de Iustif. Contr. 8. We are called iust for Christs iu­stice imputed to vs; and vniust, for inherent sinne.

Pareus l. 4. de Iustif. c. 17. But if Christ haue now absolutely cleansed his Church and people, what followeth, but that the Romish Babylon is nether Church nor people of Christ? Of the same opiniō are they also who (as we shall see in the next article) teach that sinnes remaine in the iustified.

And hereupon Protestants (albeit each of thē beleiueth as a point of faith, that he is iustified) professe that they are Protestants confession of their owne wickednesse. most wicked. For thus they say in the French Confession art. 18. In our selues we are worthie of all hatred. Et in Confess. Heluet. cap. 8. We are drowned in naughtie lusts, turned from good realie to all euill, full of all wickednesse, distrust, con­tempt, and hatred of God. And in their French Common praiers: Readie to all wickednesse, vnprofitable to all good workes making no end of transgressing Gods commandments, and continually increasing their damnation with impure and wicked life. Beza also in his Confession cap. 4. sect. 10. It is euident enough, that we are ouerwhelmed with infinit wickednesse. Et de Praedest. cont. Castel. p. 422. Our vices are great and manie. Caluin de Caena pag. 2. There is none of vs who can finde one crumme of iustice in himselfe, but rather we are defiled with so manie vices and wickednesse, and full of such a multitude of sinnes, as &c. Whitaker l. 2. de Peccato orig. c. 3. saieth that they burne with hatred and contempt of God. Apologia Con­fess. Augustanae c. de Peccato orig. saieth that their godlie [Page 474] men doubt of the anger of God, of the grace of God, of the word of God, are angred at the iudgment, of God, murmure at his deeds &c. Et Pareus l. 3. de Iustif. c. 8. addeth, that they passe neuer a day without manie a mortall sinne. This verdict they giue of themselues. Wherefore it is no meruail, that in their French Confession art. 18. they say, that they cast away all opinion of vertues and merits. And such are they that are iustified after the Protestant fashion, and to make vs such, Christ (forsooth) was incarnated and suffered, and sent the Holie Ghost into the world.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that the iustified are cleane, are washed, are cleansed from all their filth, are cleansed from dead workes, and from all sinne, are vn­spotted. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that the iustified are not absolutely cleansed, are vncleane, impure, filthie, vniust, impious, defiled with manie sinnes: and that those who are iustified after the Protestant manner, are drowned in naughtie lusts, full of all wickednesse, worthie of all ha­tered, burne with hatred and contempt of God, doubt of Gods word &c. And if their iustified men be such, what I pray you are the rest?

ART. V. WHETHER IN THOSE THAT are iustified, remaine the sinnes from which they are iustified?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Isaie 44. v. 22. I haue cleane taken away thine iniquities as a Sinne taken cleane away. No iniquitie in Dauid. As for as the East from the west. cloude, and thy sinnes as a mist.

Psal. 16. v. 3. By fire thou hast examined me, and there is no ini­quitie found in me. Psalm. 102. v. 12. As farre as the East is from the West, hath he made our iniquities farre from vs.

[Page 475] Ioan. 1. ver. 29. Behould the lambe of God, behould him that taketh away the sinne of the world. 1. Ioan. 3. v. 5. And you know, Sinne taken away. that he appeared to take away our sinnes.

Rom. 8. v. 1. There is now no damnation to them that are in Christ Iesus.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Councel of Trent Sess. 5. Con. 1. If anie denie, that by the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ which is giuen in Baptisme, the guilt of originall sinne is remitted: or els saieth, that al that is not taken away which hath the true and proper nature of sinne, but auoucheth, that that is onely shauen or not imputed; be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Confessio Saxonica c. 9. Let him confesse, that in the rege­nerate Manie great sinnes in the iustified. there are yet manie sinnes and great filthinesse worthie of the wrath of God. The like hath the English Confession art. 9. The French art. 11. The Flemish art. 15. The Sco­tish art. 15.

Whitaker l. 2. de Peccato orig. c. 3. If thou thinkest, that the regenerate can be without (mortall) sinnes, thou thinkest against Scripture and true faith. l. 3. c. 3. How manie things there are in Manie things worthie of damnation. vs worthie of damnation, that speech of the Apostle declareth, & he addeth that in the regenerate, sinne doth liue, doth pre­uaile, and doth flourish.

Perkins de Baptismo to. 1. col. 835. Remission taketh away Sinne not taken away but not im­puted. sinne, so as it is not imputed; not, that it is not.

Willet Contr. 12. q. 6. p. 577. The blot and staine of sinne re­maineth still. We are not void of sinne.

Luther in Assert. art. 2. to 2. It is one thing, for all sinnes Sinne re­ted, but not taken away. The iust are guiltie of mortall sinne. to be remitted; an other, to be all taken away. Baptisme remitteth all sinnes, but taketh not quite away. De Ratione confitendi fol. 26. This is the most mortall of all mortall sinnes, not to be­leiue himselfe to be guiltie of damnable and mortall sinne before [Page 476] God. In Gal. 3. to. 5. Beleiuing, we are reputed iust, though sinnes, and those great ones, remayne in vs.

Liber Concordiae c. 3. When we teach, that by the working of the Holie Ghost we are regenerate and iustified, it must not be Iniustice in the regene­rate. so taken, as if no iniustice at all did sticke to the regenerate and iustified after regeneration.

Reineccius to. 4. Armaturae. c. 22. Sinnes are taken from Sinne not taken away but not im­puted. vs, not that they are no more, but that they are not imputed, and condemne not.

Caluin in Ioan. 1. ver. 29. Abeit sinne do euer more sticke in vs, yet in the iudgment of God it is none. In Antidoto Concil. Truely abi­deth in vs. sess. 5. Truely sinn abideth in vs.

Peter Martyr in Locis. Classe. 1. c. 14. When God is saied to Remission taketh away onely the pu­nishment. remit, to wipe out, to forgiue sinnes, he maketh not that they be not, or haue not beene; but the obligation to beare the punishment for sinne, is taken away.

Pareus l. 5. de Amiss. Grat. c. 7. Innumerable sinnes, euen such Innumerable sinnes in the regenerate. as are worthie of death, remaine in the regenarate.

And herevpon they teach, that remission, is nothing but a forgiuenesse of the punishment.

Whitaker l. 3. de Peccato orig. cap. 3. Remission doth pardon and forgiue the punishment, not take away or remoue actually To forgiue sinnes is onely not to punish them. the fault.

Beza in Math. 6. v. 12. To remit sinne, is nothing els, but not to exact the punishment thereof.

Piscator in Thesibus l. 1. p. 428. The remission of sinne, is no­thing els, but not to punish for sinne.

Kemnitius de Origine Iesuitarum c. de Peccato: The re­mission of sinne, is one thing; the abolition, is an other.

Or as Luther saied in the words cited: It is one thing for sinne to be remitted, an other, to be taken away.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that God taketh away sinne, putteth out sinne as a cloud or mist: that he maketh our iniquities as farre from vs, as the East is from the West: [Page 477] that he found no iniquitie in Dauid: that there is no damnation in them, who are in Christ Iesus. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that manie sinnes, innu­merable sinnes, great sinnes, worthie of death, great filthinesse worthie the wrathe of God, remaine, truely remaine, are continually in those that are iustified: that sinne liueth and preuaileth in the regenerate: that sinne is not taken away, no sinne quite taken away; that it is not made to be no more: that remission of sinne is nothing, but forgiuenesse of the punishment. Which are so con­trarie to Scripture as sometimes Protestants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. VI. WHETHER SINNES BE simply forgiuen?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Ioan. 20. v. 23. Whose sinnes you shall forgiue, they are for­giuen Sinnes simply forgiuen. them.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 5. de Amiss. Grat c. 7. Nether can it be graunted without impietie, that the sentence of the Apostle (that there is no damnation in the Iustified) is not simply true.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Pareus l. 5. de Amiss. Gratiae c. 7. It is most true, that sinnes Not simply forgiuen. are not simply remitted; but with continuall praier of remission. Et l. 4. de Iustif. c. 17. he saieth, that Christ doth not absolutely cleanse his people. The same teacheth Illyricus in Apologia Confess. Antuerpiensis c. 3. and all Protestants, who say (as we haue seene before) that sinnes remaine in the iusti­fied, and that they are still guiltie of sinne, and deserue [Page 478] damnation, and that remission of sinnes, is nothing but forgiuenesse of punishment. For if onely punishment be forgiuen the iustified, if the sinne stil remaine in them by which they are guiltie and deserue damnation, manifest it is, that sinne is not simply remitted to them.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture simply saieth, that sinne is remitted. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants simply say, that sinne is not simply remitted.

ART. VII. WHETHER ALL THAT ARE iustified, be equally iust or holie?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Iob. 1. v. 8. Hast thou considered my seruant Iob: that there None like to Iob. is not the like to him on the earth, a man simple, and right, and fearing God, and departing from euill.

Numbers 12, v. 3. Moises was the mildest man aboue all men Moises mil­dest of all mē. that dwelle vpon the earth.

Math. 8. v. 10. I haue not found so great faith in Israel. Greatest faith Greatest loue.

Ioan. 21. v. 15. Iesus saied to Simō Peter: Simon of Ihon louest thou me more then these?

Apoc. 22. v. 11. He that is iust, let him be iustified yet, and let the holie, be sanctified yet.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

C. Bellarm. l. 3. de Iustif. c. 16. Lutherans teach, that all iust men are equally iust, so that none is iuster then an other, nor the same increaseth in iustice.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Luther in Math.Math 7. to. 7. fol. 96. A Christian is as good and Euerie Chri­stian as holie is S. Peter. [Page 479] holie as S. Peter and Paul: nether is anie greater or better then he. Postilla in Domin. 24. S. Peter is not better then the theife on The B. Vir­gin excelleth not the sinner. We are as holie as the Saints. Better then they. the crosse: Marie the mother of God doth not excell Marie the sinner. In festo Natiu. Mariae. We are as holie as Marie and the other Saints. If they were now vpon earth, they would not be ashamed to subiect themselues to me and to all, and to honour vs, as better then they.

Brentius homilia in die Visitationis: Marie is not prefer­red before all weomen for her owne holinesse, or other such like vertues.

Polanus in Disput. priuatis periodo 1. disput. 37. One is not None more iust then an other. No lesse then Christ. more iust then an other before God.

Pareus l. 2. de Iustif. c. 7. By Christs iustice imputed to vs, we are accounted no lesse iust then Christ himselfe, at least keeping the proportion of the head and members.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that there was none on earth like to Iob: that Moises was the mildest man vpon earth: that there was not so great faith in Israel as in the Centu­rion: that Peter loued Christ more then others: that the iust may be yet iustified. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that euerie Christian is as good and holie as the Apostles: that we are as holie as our B. Ladie and the Saints in heauen: that we are better then they: that we are are as iust as Christ himselfe: that one is not more iust then an other.

ART. VIII. WHETHER THERE IS ANIE iustice or grace inherent in the iustified?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Daniel 6. v. 22. My God hath sent his Angel, and hath shut Iustice in Daniel. vp the mouthes of the Lyons, and they haue not hurt me, be­cause before him iustice hath beene found in me.

[Page 480] Luc. 1. v. 28. And the Angel being entred in, saied vnto her B. Virgin full of grace. Haile, full of grace our Lord is with thee.

Act. 6. v. 8. And Steuen full of grace and fortitude.

Ephes. 4. vers. 24. Putte on the new man, which according to God is created in iustice and holinesse of trueth.

2. Tim. 1. v. 6. Resuscitate the grace of God, which is in thee by Grace in Ti­mothe. the imposition of my hands.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Rom. 4. v. 2. The Scriptures plainely teach inherent iustice in man.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

French Confession art. 18. Casting away all opinion of ver­tues No opinion of vertue. No iustice in vs. Not a crume of iustice. or merits, we rest altogether in the obedience alone of Christ.

Caluin in Rom. 8. v. 3. There can be no iustice in vs. In Gal. 3. v. 6. Seing men haue no iustice in them, they get it by imputa­tion. De caena p. 2. There is none of vs who can finde anie crūme of iustice in himselfe. There is no good in vs. Et in Confess. fidei p. 158. We openly confesse, that there is nothing in vs, which if God looke vpon, he may not iustly condemne.

Beza in Confess. cap. 4. sect. 8. Faith compelleth vs to con­fesse, Nothing in vs but cause of damnatiō. that there is nothing in vs besides causes and proofes of damnation.

Humfrey ad Ration. 2. Campiani p. 142. As for infused Not anie iu­stice. grace, that is, inherent iustice: we say and teach that no gotten habit, no ingrafted vertue, no infused qualitie, not any iustice by which we may be iustified before God, is inherent in vs: but that there is ingrafted and inherent all wickednesse, all rebellion and stubburnesse of the flesh.

Pareus lib. 2. de Iustificat. cap. 7. We are void of inherent We are void of inherent iustice. iustice; therefore we need imputed iustice. lib. 3. cap. We haue already shewed, that there is no inherent iustice in the iudgment of God.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth that there was iustice in Daniel before God: that our B. Ladie and Saint Steuen were full of grace: that grace was in Timothe: that we must putte on the new man who is created according to God in iustice of trueth, that is, true iustice. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that there is no iustice in vs before God, there can be no iustice, not a crumme of iu­stice, no vertue, no good, nothing but cause of damnatiō, and which deserueth to be damned.

ART. IX. WHETHER IVSTICE INHE­rent in vs can be imputed to vs?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Psal. 105. v. 30. Phinees stood and pacified, and the slaughter Zeale impu­ted to iustice. ceased, and it was reputed to him vnto iustice.

Rom. 4. v. 3. Abraham beleiued God, and it was reputed him Also faith. to iustice. v. 5. To him that worketh not, yet beleiueth in him that iustifieth the impious, his faith is reputed to iustice. v. 9. We say, that to Abraham faith was reputed to iustice. And in like sorte. v. 4. it is saied, that reward is imputed to the worker, and v. 8. that sinne is imputed to the sinner.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Rom. 4. ver. 2. Dauid the Prophet most ex­pressely saieth, that the zeale of the honor of God and of his law in Phinees, was reputed him to iustice.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Pareus l. 2. de Iustif. c. 3. What inhereth, is not imputed. For No inherent thing im­puted. [Page 482] that is properly imputed, which is not had: That is not imputed which is had according to Pauls discourse. l. 3. c. 1. What inhereth, is not imputed.

Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. pag. 68. If any say: Reward is im­puted according to debt, abuseth the word, Imputed. And pag. 72. It implieth contradiction, that inherent iustice should be imputed.

Moulins in his Buckler art. 19. sect. 31. It is certaine, that faith, as it is a vertue inherent in vs, cannot be imputed to vs: Our actions are not im­puted. for they are not our actions or vertues, but of others, which are imputed to vs.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that the zeale of Phinees was imputed to him for iustice: that Abrahams beleife was re­puted to him: that the faith of the beleiuer is reputed to him. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say; that what inhereth is not im­puted: that inherent vertue cannot be imputed: that it implieth contradiction that inherent iustice should be imputed.

ART. X. WHETHER THE IVSTIFIED be infallibly certaine and by diuine faith, that they are iustified?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Eccles. 9. ver. 1. Man knoweth not, whether he be worthie of None knoweth that he is worthie of loue. Or whether he be simple. loue or hatred, but all things are reserued vncertaine for the time to come.

Eccles. 5. v. 5. Of sinne forgiuen, be not without feare.

Iob 9. v. 21. All though I shall be simple, the selfe same shall my soule be ignorant of.

Hier. 17. v. 9. The hart of man is peruerse and vnsearchable, None know­eth his owne hart. who shall know it.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. cap. 9. None can know with cer­taintie of faith which cannot be deceaued, that he hath ob­tained grace.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Commonly they teach, that euerie faithfull man is iu­stified by a speciall or peculiar faith wherewith he belei­ueth that his sinnes are forgiuen. For thus they professe in Confess. Augustana apud Melancthonem to. 3. art. 4. They We are iusti­fied by be­leiuing our selues to be such. are iustified, when they beleiue that they are receaued into grace, and that their sinnes are remitted for Christ. This faith God im­puteth for iustice. Et art. 5. God iustifieth those, who beleiue that they are receaued into grace for Christ.

And Apologia Confess. Augustanae. c. de Iustificat. This Speciall faith of our owne iustification iustifieth vs. speciall faith, wherewith euerie one beleiueth that his sinnes are remitted for Christ, and that God is appeased and pacified for Christ, obtaineth remission of sinnes and iustifieth vs. And c. de Paenitentia: Remission of sinnes cometh by that speciall faith, wherewith euerie one beleiueth that his sinnes are forgiuen him for Christ. Whitakerus ad Ration. 8. Campiani p. 41. Who­soeuer beleiueth that his sinnes are remitted, this verie faith ab­solueth him. The same teach commonly all Protestants, and manie of them are named in my Latin booke: And because it is well enough knowne, I will alledge no more of their sayings to prooue, that they thinke themselues to be iustified by a speciall faith wherewith they beleiue that they are iustified.

Whitaker Concione vlt. This one thing I say: Whosoeuer We haue cer­taine faith of our iustifi­cation. denie vs to be certaine of our saluation with certaintie of faith, leaue vs no faith. l. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 47. None are iustified, but who know that they are iustified.

Iuel Defense of the Apologie. pag. 149. Our people be As certaine as if Christ saied so to vs. so certaine of the remission of their sinnes in the blood of Christ, [Page 484] as if Christ himselfe were present and spoake it to them.

Perkins de Baptismo tom. 1. col. 820. He beleiueth not the Ghospell vnlesse he likewise be perswaded that he is the sonne of God. And same ibid. col. 206. The true faithfull are certaine by faith, that their sinnes are forgiuen them.

Rainolds thesi. 2. p. 71. That they are elect, faith perswa­deth euerie pious man touching himselfe, and charitie, touching others.

Luther in 1. Petri 1. to. 5. Thou must beleiue, that thou art a We must be­leiue that we are Saints. Saint, and that with so great certaintie and constance, that thou fearest not to leese thy life for it. In Psal. 14. to. 3. f. 245. It can be no waies faith, vnlesse it be an vndoubted opinion, wherewith a man is certaine aboue all certaintie, that he pleaseth God, and hath him propitious in good, and indulgent in euill.

Caluin in Math. 21. v. 21. Christ doth not acknowledge that No beleiuer without spe­ciall faith. anie beleiue, but such as without doubt do thinke that God is pro­pitious to them. The same he hath in Rom. 1. v. 6. & 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 16. In Antidoto Concilij Sess. c. 10. What lewdnesse, I pray, is it, that none can know by certaintie of faith, that he hath obtained grace? And in Catechismo cap. de fide, he defineth Faith, to be a sure and setled knowledge of Gods fatherlie good will towards vs. The like he hath 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 16. & Beza in Confess. c. 4. sect. 5.

The sixt article of Lambeth: A true faithfull man, that is, We are cer­taine by faith of iustice and saluation. indued with iustifying faith, is certaine by fulnesse of faith of the remission of his sinnes, and his eternall saluation by Christ.

Peter Martyr in Rom. 6. We must be resolued with stedfast faith, that God loueth vs, and hath receaued vs into grace by Christ.

Pareus l. 3. de Iustisic. cap. 4. Without doubt it is most false in the faithfull, that none can be certaine with diuine faith of true conuersion.

Willet Contr. 19. q. 2. pag. 1005. By a liuelie faith we may be assured that our sinnes are forgiuen vs, and that we be fully iusti­fied in Christ, reconciled to God, and are remaining in the state of grace.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that a man, knoweth not whether he be worthie of loue or hatred: that he knoweth not whether he be simple: that none knoweth his hart: and biddeth vs not to be without feare of the forgiue­nesse of our sinnes. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that a man must firmely be­leiue that he is a Saint, that his sinnes are forgiuen; that a man may know with diuine faith that his sinnes are for­giuen: that he beleiueth not the Ghospell vnlesse he be­leiue this, that he is no faithfull man except he beleiue so: that they are as certaine that their sinnes are forgiuen, as if Christ himselfe in presence had saied so to them: that this kind of beleife is iustifying faith.

ART. XI. WHETHER PENNANCE GO before Iustification?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Actes 3. v. 19. Be penitent therefore, and conuert, that your Pennance be­fore forgiue­nesse. sinnes may be putte out. c. 2. v. 38. Do pennance, and be euerie one of you baptized in the name of Iesus Christ for remission of your sinnes. cap. 8. v. 22. Do pennance from this thy wickednesse, and pray to God, if perhaps this cogitation of thy hart may be re­mitted thee.

2. Cor. 7. v. 10. The sorrow that is according to God worketh pennance vnto saluation that is stable. Likewise the prodigall sonne repented before he was receaued into grace of his father, and likewise S. Marie Magdalen, before her sinnes were forgiuen.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Marci 1. v. 15. Pennance alwaies goeth before regeneration and remission of sinnes.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins in Apoc. 2. tom. 2. col. 114. Regeneration goeth be­fore, Repentance followeth iu­stification. and repentance followeth as the fruit thereof.

Willet Contr. 14. q. 4. pag. 721. Faith is first, whereby we are iustified and our sinnes remitted before God, then followeth re­pentance.

Caluin in 3. Instit. c. 3. §. 2. We will proue, that a man can­not seriously repent, vnlesse he know that he is Gods, but none is truely perswaded that he is Gods, vnlesse he haue first apprehēded his grace. §. 1. It ought to be out of doubt, that pennance doth not onely follow faith (speciall of the remission of our sinnes) but also that it riseth of it. The same hath Beza in Absters. calumniarum He [...]husij p. 328.

Pareus l. 1. de Iustif. c. 20. The workes of pennance and loue Later then iustification. are by nature later then faith and iustification, as the effects of free iustification. Et c. 24. We haue after proued, that pennance and workes are by nature later then iustification. The like hath Apologia Confess. Augustanae c. de Dilectione &c. de Iu­stificatione.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely commandeth to doe pennance for to obtaine remission of sinnes, and to haue sinnes putte out: and saieth that sorrow according to God worketh pennance to saluation. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants say, that none seriously repent but they who know they haue already obtained remission of sinnes: that pennance is the effect of iustification and by nature later then it.

ART. XII. WHETHER IVSTIFICATION be euer lost, or can be lost?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 12. v. 43. When an vncleane spirit shall goe out of a The Diuel goeth out and returneth againe. man, he walketh through drie places, seeking rest and findeth not. Then he saieth I will returne into my house whence I came out-and taketh with him seuen other spirits more wicked then him­selfe, and they entring in, dwell there; and the last of that man be made worse then the first.

Math. 24. v. 12. And because iniquitie shall abound, the cha­ritie Charitie of some waxeth could. of manie shall wax could.

Ioan 15. ver. 6. If anie abide not in me, he shalbe cast forth as the branche and shall wither, and they shall gather him vp and cast him into the fier, and he burneth.

Rom. 11. ver. 22. See then the goodnesse and seueritie of God; vpon them surely that are fallen, the seueritie: but vpon thee, the Some cutte of goodnesse of God, if thou abide in his goodnesse, otherwise thou shalt also be cutte of.

Gal. 5. v. 4. You are fallen from grace. Fallen from grace.

Hebr. 10. vers. 9. How much more thinke you doth he deserue worse punishment, who hath troden the Sonne of God vnder foote, and esteemed the blood as the testament polluted, wherein he is sanctified.

Apoc. 2. v. 5. Be myndfull from whence thou art fallen, and do pennance.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 23. If anie shall say, that a man once iustified, can sinne no more nor leese grace, be he ac­cursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Bucer apud Zanchium l. de Perseuerantia to. 7. col. 172. [Page 488] Nothing is more profitable, then to preach, that is impossible for Impossible to fall from grace. None fall frō grace. Nor from re­mission. those that beleiue, euer to fall from grace.

The Academie of Heidelberg. ib. 70. The elect once re­ceaued into grace, neuer afterward fall from it.

Zanchius himselfe in Summa Praelect. ib. col. 274. If anie shall say, that remission of sinnes once obtained is in Saints made void by falls afterward, he ouerthroweth the whole scope of the Ghospell.

Caluin 3. Institut. cap. 2. §. 11. The seed of life engrafted in the hartes of the elect neuer perisheth. l. 1. c. 14. §. 18. I denie, that the The faithfull neuer ouer­comen. faithfull can euer be ouercome of Sathan.

In Ezechielis 18. v. 24. Dauid is found to be a perfidious mur­derer, a betraier of the armie of God, and briefly there is a huge multitude of sinnes in that pore King, and it seemeth that Gods Grace neuer extinct in Dauid. grace was stifled in him, but not quite extinct.

Beza in 2. part. respons. ad Acta Colloq. Montisbel. p. 87. The Holie Ghost neuer departed wholie or could departe from him who once hath had the feeling of true faith.

Polanus in Disput. priuatis disput. 16. The regenerate can neuer wholy leese faith and the grace of God.

Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. p. 253. The faithfull neuer fall from the grace of God.

Contra remonstrantes in Collat. Hagae p. 351. The elect neuer falleth from grace.

Rainolds thes. 2. p. 77. It is cleare, that the iustified sonnes of God by faith are often times beaten with the strokes of tenta­tion, but neuer killed.

Abbots in Diatribam Thomsoni c. 5. saieth, that those whereof S. Mathew speaketh cap. 24. cit. had neuer true charitie.

Perkins de Desertione col. 1026. This principle is to be Who is once in grace euer continueth so. helde: Who is once in state of grace, shall euer more continew in it.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that there are men from whome the Diuel departeth and returneth againe whose [Page 489] charitie waxeth could: that some fall from grace: that there are some branches in Christ which abide not in him: that some are sanctified by the blood of Christ who afterward tread it vnder foote. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that a man once receaued into grace neuer falleth from it: that the seed of life once ingrafted in a faithfull hart neuer perisheth: that faithfull men are neuer ouercomen of Sathan: that it is impossible for beleiuers to fall from grace: that remission cannot be made void by falls afterward: that there was neuer true charitie in them in whome it waxeth could. Which are so contrarie to Scripture, as manie Protestants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. XIII. WHETHER THE IVSTIFIED man may feare to fall?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Rom. 11. ver. 20. But thou by faith doest stand: Be not highly Feare. wise, but feare.

1. Cor. 10. v. 21. He that thinketh himselfe to stand, lete him Take heed. take heed, lest he fall.

Philippens. 2. ver. 12. With feare and trembling worke your Worke with feare. saluation.

Hebr. 4. v. 1. Let vs feare, lest perhaps forsaking the promise of entring into his rest, some of you be thought to be wanting.

Prou. 28. v. 14. Blessed is the man who is alwaies fearefull. The fearfull, blessed.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. c. 3. Who thinke, that they stand, let them beware lest they fall, and let them worke their saluation with feare and trembling. cap. 9. Euerie one whilest he looketh vpon himselfe and his owne indisposition, may feare of his grace.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins in Conflictu Satanae to. 1. col. 1035. I account my As certaine of saluation as &c. selfe as certaine of saluation, as if my name were expressely writtē in the holie Scripture.

Tindal in Fox his Actes pag. 1137. Nether canst thou be We cannot be damned vn­lesse Christ be. Christ must be damned before we be. As sure of our saluation as of the Ghos­pell. Free from all feare. damned except Christ be damned with thee: nether can Christ be saued, except thou be saued with him.

Luther Postilla in die Natiuit fol. 52. He (Christ) must be damned, before he can be damned, for whome he hath giuen himselfe.

Affelman l. de Praedest. §. 80. Euerie true Christian ought to be as certaine of his saluation, as he must beleiue the Ghospell.

Caluin in 1. Luc. v. 73. Seing God doth reconcile men to him­selfe in Christ; seing he defendeth them with his safegard that they be free from all feare &c. In Ioan. 3. v. 18. Christ will haue the faithfull to be secure from feare of damnation. In Antidoto Concil. Sess. 6. cap. 14. That is not to suffered, when they exhort We must not feare. As sure of heauen as Christ. vs to feare. Et 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 2. We dare bouldly auouch, that euerlasting life is ours, and that we can no more misse of heauen, that Christ himselfe. The like hath Conradus Fabritius apud Zuinglium to. 2. f. 28.

Beza in Luc. 1. vers. 74. Feare in this place signifieth dread of future euill, which is directly contrarie to the trust of the sonnes of God. In Cōfess. c. 4. art. 13. Let euerie one of vs thus discourse We cannot perish. with himselfe: I am in Christ Iesus, and therefore I cannot perish. And in Explicat. Christianismi c. 8. p. 200. he saieth, that a man may be as certaine of his saluatiō, as if he had climbed to heauen, and had heard it out of Gods owne mouth.

Peter Martyr in c. 11. Rom. Nether ought anie to meruaile, that we say, that faith expelleth that feare which is ioyned with doubt of saluation. Et in locis classe 3. c. 3. Who sincerly beleiue Feare not to be damned. in Christ, do not feare to be damned for euer.

Cōtra—Remonstrantes in Collat. Hagae p. 374. Who haue Haue no cause to feare. once beleiued, are certaine, that this is Gods guift; and therefore haue no cause to feare to be damned.

[Page 491] Pareus l 3. de Iustif. c. 2. How do they make a man secure, if All feare ex­pelled. they expell not all feare—But we do thus teach: that a sinner if he looke vpon the promise and mercie of God, may and ought not to feare but surely trust, and that vnlesse he do so, he maketh God a lier.

Bucer apud Zanchium lib. 2. de Natura Dei c. 2. The first thing which thou owest to God, is to beleiue that thou arte pre­destinated A principle of Protest. faith. of him. We must therefore presume as a principle of faith, that we are all elected of God to this end to be saued for euer, and that this purpose of God cannot be changed.

Zanchius l. 5. de Natura Dei c. 2. to. 2. col. 497. Euerie one is bound to beleiue that he is chosen and predestinate in Christ to The repro­bates are bound to be­leiue that they shalbe saued. eternall saluation. When we say, Euerie one is bound to beleiue this, we except none, no not the reprobates, who shall nether euer beleiue, nor yet can beleiue in Christ. The like of the repro­bates teacheth Perkins in Casibus Conscientiae cap. 7. col. 1329.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely biddeth the iustified to feare, to take heed lest he fall; to worke our saluation with feare: to feare lest anie of vs proue reprobate: and sayeth that he is happie who is alwaies fearefull. The same say Catho­liks.

Protestants expressely bidde the iustified to be secure from all feare, from feare of damnation: that it is not to be suffered, that men be exhorted to feare: and bidde men be perswaded, that they cannot perish, that they haue no cause to feare, that they dare assure themselues of heauen as much as Christ himselfe: that they are as sure of salua­tion, as if their names were written in Scripture, or they heard it out of Gods mouth: that they cannot be damned vnlesse Christ be damned: And adde, that euerie one, euen the reprobates, are bound to beleiue this, and that this a principle of their faith.

ART. XIV. WHETHER IVSTIFICATION be proper to the Elect.

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Ezech. 18. ver. 24. But if the iust man shall turne away him­selfe Some repro­bates iusti­fied. from his iustice, and do iniquitie according to all the abho­minations which the impious vseth to worke, shall he liue? All his iustices which he had done shall not be remembred, in the preua­rication which he hath preuaricated, and in his sinne which he hath sinned, in them he shall die.

Math. 24. v. 12. And because inquitie shall abound, the cha­ritie Charitie in some in whome it waxeth could. of manie shall wax could.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Councel of Trent. Sess. 6. Can. 17. If anie shall say, that the grace of iustification, is giuen onely to the predestinate to life: be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 1. cap. 8. Saints indeed none are, but None sancti­fied but the predestinate. those who are predestinate. The onely predestinate are indued with the spirit of sanctification.

Perkins de Desert. to. 1. col. 1026. God bestoweth his spirit No reprobate is regenerate. vpon the reprobate, but not so farre as his nature is regenerated or renewed. And Some apud ipsum col. 209. Remissiō of sinnes pertaineth to the elect alone.

Caluin de Praedest. p. 695. He iustifieth none, but whome he None iusti­fied but the predestinate. hath ordained to life. P. 713. It is certaine, that the reprobates are neuer indued with the spirit of adoption. In Antidoto Con­cil. sess. 6. Can. 17. Whosoeuer is ignorant that the spirit of re­generation is not giuen but to the elect alone: I know not what he knoweth in the Scripture.

Beza l. quaest. vol. 1. p. 687. The elect alone repent and doe good The elect repent. workes.

[Page 493] Abbots in Diatribam Tomsoni cap. 5. There is nothing in reprobates borne of God: No reprobate is iustified. No reprobate iustified.

Rainolds Thesi 4. God iustifieth the elect alone.

Pareus l. 1. de Grat. & lib. arbit. c. 16. Albeit the reprobates seeme sometimes to be conuerted, yet inwardly they are neuer re­generate.

Vrbanus Regius in locis tom. 1. fol. 307. The reprobates shall neuer haue grace which maketh gratefull, nor true faith and charitie.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that a iust man may turne him­selfe from iustice and die in sinne: and that the charitie of manie shall waxe could. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that the predestinate are iusti­fied, onely the elect regenerated: onely the predestinate are Saintes: that the reprobates are neuer adopted, neuer truely iustified, neuer regenerated, onely seeme to be cō ­uerted: and that there is nothing borne of God in them.

ART. XV. WHETHER A SINNER COO­perate or prepare himselfe to iustification?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Prou. 16. v. 1. It pertaineth to a man to prepare the hart.

Ezec. 18. v. 27. And when the impious shall turne away him­selfe Man must prepare his hart. He doth quicken his soule. Cleanseth himselfe. Sanctifieth himselfe. from his impietie, he shall vinificate his soule. v. 31. Make to your selues a new hart and a new spirit.

2. Tim. 2. vers. 21. If anie man therefore shall clense himselfe from these, he shalbe a vessell vnto honour.

1. Ioan. 3. v. 3. And euerie one that hath this hope in him san­ctifieth himselfe.

Iames 4. v. 8. Clense your hands yee sinners, and purifie your hartes, ye double of mynd.

2. Cor. 7. v. 1. Let vs clense our selues from all inquination.

1. Reg. 7. v. 3. Prepare your hartes to our Lord, and serue him Prepareth his hart. onely.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 4. If anie shall say, that mans free will moued and stirred of God, doth by assenting coo­perate nothing with God mouing and stirring, whereby he may prepare and dispose himselfe to obtaine the grace of iustification; nor can dissent though he would, but like to a thing without life doth nothing at all, and hath it selfe merly passiuely, be he ac­cursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker l. 2. de Peccato orig. c. 3. In our verie conuersion In our conuer­sion we are mere passiue. to God which is done by grace, our free will hath not in it selfe anie power, but in this matter we haue our selues wholy pas­siuely.

Perkins in Apoc. 3. Hence I gather, that the Papists doate, We dispose not our selues to iustificatiō. in saying, that in regeneration man hath free will and the vse thereof, and that he can dispose himselfe to iustification.

Luther deseruo arb. to. 2. f. 454. In the verie renewing and We are mere passiue and doe nothing. change of the ould man, who is the sonne of the Diuel, into a new man, who is the sonne of God, a man hath himselfe merely passi­uely, nether doth any thing, but is wholy done. In Psal. 5. to. 3. It is an errour, that free will hath anie actiuitie in good workes, when we speake of an internall worke. What actiuitie hath claye when We haue no actiuitie. the potter giueth it a forme?

Postilla in die Natiuit. fol. 62. No other waies then if God No more then a dead tree. change a drie poste into a new greene and florishing tree: so doth Gods grace renewe a man.

Liber Concordiae c. de lib. arbit. The conuersion of our de­praued No more then a dead man. will is the worke of God alone, as the raising of the dead in the resurrection is to be attributed to God alone.

Schlusselburg. tom. 5. Catal. Haer et. p. 44. Is it well saied, No more then a blocke. that a man is like a blocke in his conuersion? Well.

[Page 495] Mansfeldenses apud eundem p. 474. The true and plaine sentence of this question, and as it were the true proposition of all the matter, which Scripture and with it and out of it Luther setteth downe, is this: That a man in his cōuersion hath himselfe merely passiuely, and by his strength cooperateth nothing at all to Gods grace.

Yea some Lutherans not content to denie, that a man cooperateth to his cōuersion, and to say that he behaueth himselfe merly passiuely like to a blocke, adde also, that he resisteth and repugneth to his conuersion.

Praetorius apud Schlusselburg. tom. cit. pag. 532. Flanius Man is con­uerted against his will. saieth: A man in his conuersion is like a blocke doing nothing of himselfe, yea resisting and like an enemie striuing against God. What do you dislike in this doctrine of Luther and Illyricus?

Gesnerus in Compendio doctrinae caelestis. loco 12. It followeth, that a man in his conuersion doth not onely cooperate nothing, but also resisteth the Holie Ghost.

Piscator apud Vorstium in Parasceue ad Collat. c. 8. God worketh faith and conuersion in men, whomsoeuer he conuerteth they not onely being impious, but also actually rebelling, and con­tinewing in the act of rebellion. Thus they.

Caluin 2. Instit. c. 3. §. 7. But there be some, who will graunt Man hath no parte in his conuersion. that the will of it selfe turned from good, is conuerted by the one­ly power of God, yet so as it being prepared hath some parte in working. But this is wrongly giuen to man, that he obeyeth pre­uenting grace with an attending will. Et ib. §. 10. It is false, that men are drawne willingly. Which also he hath in Ioa. 6. v. 44. In Actor 9. v. 5. The Papists attribute the praise of our conuer­sion He doth not cooperate. to Gods grace, but in parte onely, because they imagin that we cooperate.

Beza in Confess. cap. 4. sect. 17. There can be no concurse of Doth not con­curre: grace and free will, when the Spirit of God by his mere grace freeth vs from sinne.

Pareus l. 6. de Grat. & lib. arbit. c. 9. God taketh away the ill will, and maketh a good. In this the Scripture attributeth no ope­ration to the will but mere passion.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely teacheth, that a man must prepare his soule, prepare his hart: turne himselfe from iniquitie, make a new hart, cleanse and sanctifie himselfe. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely teach, that a man doth not coope­rate, not concurre, hath no parte in working, is merly & and purely passiue in his conuersion, is like a block: that the conuersion of a sinner is the worke of God alone as the raising of the dead: yea that a man in his conuersion actually resisteth and rebelleth against God.

ART. XVI. WHETHER AFTER IVSTIFI­cation there remayne at anie time any temporall punishment due?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

2. Reg. 12. vers. 14. Nathan saied to Dauid: Our Lord hath Dauid pu­nished after he was for­giuen. taken away thy sinne, thou shalt not die. Neuerthelesse because thou hast made the enemies of our Lord to blaspheme; for this thing the sonne that is borne to the dying shall die.

Numbers 20. v. 12. And our Lord saied to Moises and Aa­ron: Also Moises and Aaron. Because you haue not beleiued me to sanctifie before the chil­dren of Israel, you shall not bring in the peoples into the lād which I will giue them. Et Gen. 3. v. 17. Punishment is imposed vpō Adam because he had eaten of the forbidden aple, and yet it is not doubted but his sinne was forgiuen him.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 14. c. 8. The Councel declareth that it is altogether false and contrarie to the word of God, that the fault is neuer remitted of God, but that all the punishment also is pardoned.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Caluin in Luc. 21. v. 43. Away with that naughtie deuise, of No punish­ment after forgiuenesse. the retaining of punishment when the fault is remitted. In Rom. 4. v. 6. The Scholastiks do fable, that the fault being remitted, punishment is retained of God.

Beza in Math. 6. v. 12. It is not onely false, but also a fond and foolish opinion of the Sophisters, who thinke that punishmēt being retained, the fault is remitted.

Daneus Contr. 6. p. 1204. It is an errour that the fault being remitted, any punishment is retained.

Bullinger de Iustific. Serm. 6. What I pray you had Christ Anie tem­porall punish­ment cōtrarie to Christs suffrances. profited vs, if yet punishment (temporall) were exacted of vs for sinnes?

Spalatensis l. cont. Suarem c. 2. The fault is neuer remitted, but the whole punishment is with all pardoned.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that Dauid was punished with the death of his sonne euen after his sinne was re­mitted: The like it saieth of Moyses, Aaron, and Adam. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that it is false foolish and erro­neous, to thinke that the fault being remitted anie tem­porall punishment is retained: that Christ had profited vs nothing if anie temporall punishment were exacted of vs for sinne. Which is so coūtrarie to Scripture as sometimes Protestants themselues confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF iustification.

Out of that which we haue rehearsed in this chapter clearly appeareth, that the Protestants doctrine of Iustifi­cation is quite contrarie to the holie Scripture. For the [Page 498] Scripture (and Catholiks with it) teacheth that iustifica­tion is of workes, and not of faith onely: that the iustified are iust indeed and before God: that they are cleane, and that the sinnes from which they are iustified remaine not in them: that there is in them inherent grace or iustice, and that it is imputed to them: that they are not certaine by infallible faith that they are iustified: that pennance goeth before iustification: that iustification may be lost, and that the iustified ought to feare lest he fall: that iustificatiō is not proper to the elect: that a sinner cooperateth to his iustifi­cation: and that sometimes after iustification temporall punishment remaineth: All Which Protestants denie.

It appeareth also, that Protestants euen in this matter keepe their ould custome of stealing. For they take from iustification the vertue of abolishing sinne in those that are iustified, and of making them truely iust and cleane, and of giuing them internall iustice, and of making that it be imputed to them: They take also from it that it can be communicated to the reprobates. And thus much of Iu­stification.

CHAPTER XVII. OF LIFE AND DEATH EVERLASTING.

ART. I. WHETHER LIFE EVERLASTING be a reward?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

MATH. 5. v. 12. Be glad and reioyce, for your reward Reward in heauen. Euerlasting life rendered to vs. is very great in heauen.

Rom. 2. v. 6. God will render to euerie man ac­cording to his workes: to them truelie that accor­ding to patience in good worke seeke glorie and ho­nour and incorruption, life eternall.

Colossens. 3. ver. 24. Knowing that you shall receaue of our Heauenliein­heritance a retribution or reward. Lord the retribution (Beza and the Anglish Bible translated, Reward) of inheritance.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. c. 16. Euerlasting life is to be pro­posed to those who worke well to the end and hope in God, both as a grace mercifully promised to the childrē of God by Christ Iesus, and as a reward, and to be faithfully giuē by Gods promise to their good workes and merits.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins in reformed Catholik Contr. 5. p. 110. The king­dome Kingdome of heauen not a reward pro­perly. Not a reward or recompēse. of heauen is called a reward not properly, but by a figure or by resemblance.

Ministers of Saxonie in Colloq. Aldeburg. pag. 6. reiect this proposition: Life euerlasting is giuen for good workes as a reward or recompense.

Illyricus in Math. 5. v. 12. The Lord calleth goods to come a Called a re­ward by a­buse. reward abusiuely. And in Clane part. 2. tractat. 6. col. 545. It vseth to be called sometimes a reward by abuse.

Gerlachius to 2. disput. 26. These guifts do not properly de­serue the name of a reward.

Zuinglius de Prouidentia cap. 6. to. 1. These are hyperbols By ouerlas­hing of speech. and ouerlashesse: If thou wilt enter into life keepe the command­ments: Who shall do the will of my father &c. and what other promises soeuer haue beene made to workes. Et in 2. Cor. 5. to. 4. Not that there is any reward of faith or workes, but &c.

Caluin in Antidoto Concilij sess. 6. c. 17. That they make No reward. euerlasting life a reward, in that I dissent from them. 3. Instit. c. 21. §. 1. Saluation cometh to vs by the mere liberalitie of God: He Mere libera­litie. saueth of his mercie good pleasure, and repaieth not a reward. l. 18. §. 3. Let them know, that they haue receaued a guift of grace, Not a reward not a reward of workes. In Ephes. 2. v. 8. That he saueth, is mere grace, not a reward or retribution.

Bucer in Math. 5. The things which come to vs from God, Free guift. are no reward, but his free guifts.

Peter Martyr in Roman. 4. Euerlasting life may haue some Farre from the nature of reward. resemblance of reward, but is farre distant from the nature there­of. Wherefore euerlasting life cannot be called a reward but by some resemblance.

Piscator in Thesibus loco 16, If properly speaking life euer­lasting If there were reward, there were Merit. were a reward, surely we should merit it by good workes. Wherefore it remaineth that life euerlasting be called a reward by a figure.

Luther apud Scioppium in Ecclesiast. c. 67. If I saw heauē [Page 501] open and could merit it by taking vp a straw from the ground, yet would I not take vp the straw.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture plainely saieth; that euerlasting life is giuen according to workes, and in that manner of speach, as it saith that wrath and indignation is giuen according to workes: that there is very great reward in heauen: that we shall receaue the retribution or reward of inheritāce. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that euerlasting life is no re­tribution or reward: that it is farre from the nature of re­ward: that all the promises made in the Scripture to workes are hyperbols or ouerlashings of speach: that is improperly a reward, abusiuely a reward: that it deserueth not the name of reward. Which are so contrarie to Scrip­ture, as sometimes Protestants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. II. WHETHER LIFE EVERLASTING be a Crowne of Iustice?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

2. Tim. 4. v. 7. & 8. I haue fought a good fight, I haue con­summate Heauenlie re­ward is a crowne of iu­stice. my course, I haue kept the faith, Concerning the rest, there is laid vp for me a crowne of iustice, which our Lord will render me at that day a iust iudge.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton l. 9. de Iustif c. 3. The Scriptures most mani­festly shew, that happines is a reward of iustice promised of God.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins refor. Catholik. Contr. 5. p. 109. We must acknow­ledge [Page 502] life eternall to be euerie way the guift of God. p. 108. It is a free guift.

Caluin 3. Instit. c. 15. §. 4. Beatitude it selfe is the mere good­nesse Of mere libe­ralitie. of God. c. 21. §. 1. Saluation cometh to vs of the mere libe­ralitie of God In Rom. 6. v. vlt. Hence we gather, that our sal­uation is wholy from Gods grace and mere goodnesse. In 2. Tim. 2. v. 12. Paul acknowledgeth nothing in the whole cause of salua­tion, Of mere grace but mere grace of God. In Antidoto Concil. sess. 6. It co­meth to vs by no other Title then of free adoption.

Beza in Confess. c. 4. sect. 7. We professe, that euerlasting By not title but of free adoption. life is wholy and in all partes the free guift of God. lib. quaest. vol. 1. p. 655. Wholy of his mere grace doth he giue vs the benefit of eternall life.

Bucer in Epitome doctrinae Argentinen. Euerlasting life remaineth mere grace.

Zuinglius in Exposit. fidei tom. 2. f. 558. Eternall happines cometh by the onely grace and liberalitie of God.

Bullinger Decade 3. Serm. 9. None is so sottish, as he vnder­standeth Wholy and merely of grace. not, that the whole benefit of saluation is attributed wholy and merely to grace.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that euerlasting life is a crowne of iustice, to be giuē to him that hath fought a good fight and consummated his course, and that of a iust iudge. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that life euerlasting is mere grace, mere goodnesse, in all partes a free guift: that it co­meth to vs of mere goodnesse, not otherwise then by mere guift, by no other Title then of free adoption. Wholy of mere grace: that it is nothing but mere grace: that S. Paul acknowledgeth nothing in all the course of saluatiō but mere grace. Which is so contrarie to Scripture as some Protestants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. III. WHETHER SALVATION OR eternall life be of faith onely?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Iames 2. vers. 14. What shall it profit my brethren, if a man Saluation no [...] of faith onely. say he hath faith, but hath not workes? Shall faith be able to saue him?

Philippen. 2. vers. 12. With feare and trembling worke your Saluation is to be wrought of vs. saluation.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

C. Bellarm. l. 4. de Iustif. c. 7. We say, that good workes are necessarie to a iust man to saluation, not onely in manner of pre­presence, but also of efficiencie, because they worke saluation, and without them faith alone worketh not saluation.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Perkins in Gal. 3. to. 2. col. 157. They are deceaued, who say, Workes no cause of salua. Faith onely saueth. Workes not profitable to saluation. that faith and workes concurre as causes of saluation.

Luther de votis to. 2. fol. 273. Faith alone saueth: fol. 279. This is the summe of summes: Workes and vowes can nether be taught nor perswaded, vnlesse we say, that they be holesom and profitable to iustice and saluation: But to teach, that they are holesome, is diuelish and Apostasie from faith, because faith alone is necessarie and holesome. ib. de Captiuit. Baby l. f. 78. It is cer­taine, Faith alone is holesome. that none of them was saued by his vowes and religion, but onely by faith, in which we all are saued. Postilla in die Ascen­sionis. Workes helpe nothing to saluation. It is enough to haue faith. Faith alone by it selfe and without any workes saueth vs, and workes do nothing at all to pietie or saluation. In Dom. post Ascens. Faith deliuereth from the Diuel, hell, sinne, and all mis­fortune; which if we haue, it is enough.

Ministers in Saxonie in Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 162. Who­soeuer teacheth, that eternall life is giuen for good workes, he de­parteth [Page 504] from the word of God, the Confession of Auspurg and Life not giuen for workes. the Apologie. Thou shall neuer read in the Scripture, that eter­nall life is giuen for good workes.

Liber Concordiae c. 3. p. 691. By faith alone we are iustified before God and saued. 694. But this errour also is to be reiected when it is taught: That a man is any other way, or by anie other thing saued, then by that, by which he is iustified before God: as if by onely faith we were iustified before God, but yet that it were impossible to obtaine eternall saluation without workes. cap. 4. in Epitome art. We beleiue, teach, and confesse, that good workes Workes wholy exclu­ded from sal­tion. are wholy to be excluded, not onely when we treate of the iustifica­tion of faith, but also when we dispute of our eternall saluation. Againe: We reiect and condemne these speeches: Good workes are necessarie to saluation.

Zuinglius in Expostulat. ad Lindouerum to. 1. fol. 204. Faith alone saueth vs.

Caluin in Rom. 10. v. 10. We are saued by faith alone. In c. 1. v. 7. It is faith alone, which bringeth euerlastingnesse of life.

Beza in Explicat. Christianismi c. 8. vol. 1. pag. 199. Who Saluation re­lieth not v­pon workes. teach, that mens saluation relieth vpon workes ether wholy or in some parte, do plainely ouerturne all the Ghospell.

Pareus l. 4. de Iustif. c. 4. The Ghospell promiseth saluation vnder the condition of faith alone.

Daneus Contr. de Baptismo c. 17. All the manner of our saluation purchased by Christ, standeth in faith in him.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that faith alone can not saue vs. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that faith alone saueth, alone bringeth life: that by faith onely we are saued: that salua­tion is promised vpon conditiō of faith onely: that workes concurre not to saluation, worke nothing to saluation, are not necessarie to saluation, are not holesome.

ART. IV. WHETHER ALL MEN, BOTH good and badde, be to be iudged?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Apoc. 20. v. 12. And I saw the dead, great and litle, standing Great and litle are to be be iudged. in the sight of the throne, and bookes were opened, and an other booke was opened which was of life; and the dead were iudged of those things which were written in the bookes according to their workes. And the sea gaue the dead, that were in it, and death and Euerie one. All. hell gaue their dead that were in them, and it was iudged of euerie one according to their workes.

2. Cor. 5. v. 10. For we must all be manifested before the iudg­mēt Euerie one seat of Christ, that euerie one may receaue the proper things of the bodie according as he hath done ether good or euill.

Mathew. 25. vers. 32. And all nations shalbe gathered be­fore All nations. him, and he shall seperate them one from an other, as the pa­stour seperateth the sheepe from the goates. Then shall the King say to them that shalbe at his right hand: Come ye blessed &c. Then shall he say to them also that be at his left hand: Goe ye away &c.

Act. 10. v. 43. It is he that of God was appointed iudge of the liuing and of the dead.

Hebr. 22. v. 22. But you are come to mount Sion, and the cittie All. of the liuing God—and the iudge of all, God.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Catechismus ad Parochos in Exposit, Symboli. Of which article that is the sense and meaning, that in the last day Christ our Lord shall iudg all mankind.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther apud Scioppium in suo Ecclesiast. c. 5. Christians Onely infidell— know, that onely infidels who will not receaue the Ghospell, are [Page 506] to be iudged of Christ in the last day. Let vs learne and note this Not the faith­full. well, that we feare not death and the last iudgment: for Christ is not to come to iudge vs, but he will iudge them who beleiue not.

Bullinger Concione 90. in Apoc. f. 163. The impious are Impious, not the pious. to be iudged, but not the pious.—The good, because they are iusti­fied and absolued, appeare in iudgment with glorie to iudge after their manner and fashiō the wicked, but not to be iudged of anie.

Tilenus in Syntagmate c. 67. The elect do know, that nether Not the elect. their deeds nor all their words are to be called to the account of this iudgment. The like say others, as we haue shewed be­fore c. 3. art. 10.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that all the dead shalbe iud­ged according to their workes: that all must be manife­sted before the tribunall of Christ: that all Nations shalbe gathered to Christs iudgment: that Christ is iudge of the quicke and the dead: that God is iudge of all. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that the impious are to be iud­ged but not the pious: that the good are not to be iudged of anie: that onely infidels shalbe iudged.

ART. V. WHETHER THERE BE ANIE. to whome, seeking eternall glorie according to patience of good workes, euer­lasting life is rendred?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Roman. 2. vers. 6. and 7. Who will render to euerie man There are some such. according to his workes; to them truely that according to pa­tience in good worke, seeke glorie and honour, and incorruption, life eternall.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Rom. 2. v. 6. cit. If Christ alone shall bring those workes, to which the Apostle here saieth that eternall life is rēdred, he should not haue saied: He will render to euerie one ac­cording to his workes, but to euerie one according to Christs workes.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Beza in Rom. 2. v. 6. What is here saied of Sophisters, as if There are no such. anie out of Christ, or regenerate in Christ, are found such in the iudgment of God, as these here are described, doth varie much frō the scope of the Apostle. For that surely is most absurd. Or as he hath in edition of 1565. Shall anie man bring these workes, to which the Apostle saieth that life eternall shalbe rendred: Ether men not regenerate, or the sonnes of God? But nether A­braham surely hath whereof to glorie before God.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that there are some, to whome seeking glorie according to patience of good workes, eternall life is rendred. The same say Catholiks.

Protestāts plainely say, that there are no men to whome life eternall is rendred according to their workes, nor that there are anie workes to which eternall life is rendred.

ART. VI. WHETHER THE SOVLES OF reprobates departed this life do now suffer the paines of hell?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Iude. v. 7. As Sodome and Gomorrha and the citties ad­ioyning Sodomites in eternall fire. in like manner hauing fornicated and going after an [Page 508] other flesh, were made an example, sustaining the paine of eter­nall fire.

Luc. 16. vers. 22. And the rich man also dead, and he was Diues in tor­ments. buried in hell. And lifting vp his eyes when he was in torments &c.

Numbers 16. ver. 33. And they went downe into hell quicke, couered with the ground. Are in hell.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

S. Thomas. Suplement. q. 69. art. 2. As soone as the soule is loosed from the bodie, ether it is cast into hell or mounteth to heauen, vnlesse it be hindred be some guilt so that it need first to be purged. And the contrarie opinion is to be held for heresie.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Scultet. in 1. parte Medullae in Tertulliano c. 42. As that The soules not punished before the bodie. positiō of his is new, so also is it false: That the soules suffer in hell before the bodies.

Confession of Wittemberg. cap. de Memoria defuncto­rum. Faith requireth of vs to beleiue, that the dead are not no­thing, but truely liue before God; the godlie, happily in Christ, and the imperious in horrible expectation of the reuelation of Gods iudgment.

Confessio Belgica art. 12. saieth thus of the Diuels: Reprobates expect their torments. They dayly expect the horrible torments of their wicked deeds.

Caluin 3. Institut. cap. 25. §. 6. There is no doubt, but that the same lot befalleth to the reprobates, which Iude assigneth to the Diuels, to the tyed bound in chaines, till they be drawne to the punishment, to which they are adiudged. In 2. Petri 2. vers. 4. Expect their reuenge. The reprobates suffer horrible torment of the reuenge prepared for them.

Luther in 25. Genes. to. 6. fol. 321. I cannot affirme, whe­ther Vncertaine whether wic­ked soules be now tormen­ted. the soules of the wicked be tormented streight after death. 322. We know not, whether damnatiō begin streight after death. Sermone de Diuite & Lazaro tom. 7. fol. 268. I dare not af­firme, [Page 509] that Diues is now vexed with these torments. In cap. 2. Ionae to. 4. f. 418. I am not very certaine, what hell is before the last day. And apud Schioppium lib. cit. ca. 3. Nether hath the The place of the dead hath no torments. place of the dead anie torments.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the Sodomites suffer the paine of euerlasting fire: that Diues is buried in hell, is in torments, and tormented with fire: that Dathan and Abiron descended quicke into hell. The same say Catholiks.

Protestāts say, that they dare not affirme, that the soules of the wicked are tormented streight after their death: yea they teach that it is false that soules are punished in hell before the bodies.

ART. VII. WHETHER HELL BE anie place?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Luke 16. vers. 22. And the rich man also died, and he was Hell is a place of torments. buried in hell. And v. 28. Lest they also come into this place of torments.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Purgatorio c. 6. Hell is a place of punish­ment.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther Serm. de Diuite & Lazaro tom. 7. fol. 267. Hell Hell, nothing but consciēce. No corporall place. can be nothing els, but a conscience void of faith and fraught with sinne. Postilla in Dom. 2. post Trinitatem. fol. 286. True hell shall begin at the latter day. The place where a soule may [Page 510] be and yet want quiet, can not be a corporall place. Hell can be nought els but an emptie, faith lesse, sinfull, and wicked cons­cience.

Perkins in Apocalips 2. to. 2. col. 90. We must not imagin, No certaine place, that hell is anie certaine definite and corporall place.

Brentius apud Hospin. parte. 2. Histor. fol. 308. I laugh There is no lo­call hell. at your ould wiues dotages of a corporall and locall heauē or hell. Fol. 331. A locall hell, is a fiction.

Schlusselburg lib. 1. Theol. Caluin art. 27. writeth, that the Catechisme of Heidelburg calleth in doubt whether there be No such ap­pointed place. anie hell indeed, and an appointed place where the wicked and damned after this life are to be punished with eternall paines to­gether with the wicked spirits. And that Bucer vpon S. Ihon openly affirmeth this.

Caluin 2. Instit. c. 16. §. 9. To shut vp the soules of the dead in prison, is childish.

Tilenus in Syntagmate cap. 6. We condemne the Papists, who out of the dreame of their druncken braine do put the place of the damned in the middest of the earth.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that hell is a place of tor­ments. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that hell is no place, no cor­porall place, no prison; that it is nothing but a wicked conscience; that it shall begine at a the latter day: which are so repugnant to Scripture, as some Protestants con­fesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. VIII. WHETHER THE FIRE OF hell be true fire?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Mathew. 25. vers. 41. Get ye from me you cursed into fire True fire in hell. euerlasting.

[Page 511] Iude. v. 7. cit. Sustaining the paine of eternall fire.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

S. Thomas. Supplement. q. 70. art. 3. The fire of hell is not imaginarie or metaphoricall fire, but true corporall fire.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins in Apoc. 2. to. 2. col. 90. We must not imagin, that No corporall fire. the torments (of hell) are corporall, but rather spirituall, seing they are an apprehension or feeling of the wrath of God and of his reuenge.

Caluin in Math. 3. v. 12. Touching euerlasting fire, we may Metapho­ricall fire. gather, that it is a metaphoricall speach.

Daneus Controu. 4. cap. 11. They feigne, that the soules of mē, and Diuels are tormented in hell with true and corporall fire. Controu. 6. pag. 1181. It is impossible, that the soules of men separated from their bodies should be tormented with anie cor­porall fire.

Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 269. It implieth contradiction, that corporall fire should worke vpon a mere spirit, as mans soule is saied to be.

Tilenus in Syntagmate cap. 68. There is no cause, why we should say that (in hell) is corporall fire. The same saieth Po­lanus in Sylloge thesium. parte 2. p. 518. and Lobechius dis­put. 6. & 19.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the fire of hell is fire. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that it is not true or mate­riall fire, but metaphoricall: that soules and mere spirits cannot be tormented with corporall fire.

THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF EVERLAS­ting life and death.

What we haue rehearsed in this chapter clearely pro­ueth, that Protestants teach farre otherwise of euerla­sting saluation and damnation, then Scripture doth. For Scripture (and Catholiks with it) teacheth, that eternall saluation is a reward, a crowne of iustice, and cometh not of faith onely: that the soules of the reprobates do now suffer the paines of hell: that hell is a true place, and that the fire of hell is true fire: All which Protestants denie.

The same also proue, that Protestants steale from eter­nall saluation the nature of a reward, and crowne of iu­stice, and dependencie of good workes: and steale from hell the nature of a place and true fire.

CHAPTER XVIII. OF GODS LAVV.

ART. I. WHETHER GODS LAW BE possible?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

EZECHIEL. 36. v. 27. And I will put my spirit in God will make vs to keepe his law the middest of you, and I will make that you walke in my precepts and keepe my iudgments and doe them.

Math. 7. ver. 21. He that doth the will of my Fa­ther Some do his will. which is in heauē, he shall enter into the king­dome of heauen. c. 11. v. 30. My yoke is sweet, and my burden light.

Rom. 8. v. 4. God sending his Sonne in the similitude of the Iustification of the law fulfilled in vs flesh of sinne, euen of sinne damned sinne in the flesh, that the iustification of the law might be fulfilled in vs. c. 13. v. 8. He that loueth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law.

Gal. 5. ver. 14. All the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt The law ful­filled in loue loue thy neighbour as thy selfe.

1. Ioan. 2. ver 4. He that saieth, he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a lier, and the trueth is not in him. c. 5. v. 3. This is the charitie of God, that we keepe his commandmēts, and his commandments are not heauie.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. c. 11. No man must vse that teme­rarious [Page 514] speach and condemned of the Fathers vnder a curse: That Gods commandments are impossible to be kept of a iustified man. For God commandeth not impossble things, but by commanding he admonisheth to doe what thou canst, and to aske what thou canst not, and helpeth that thou maiest.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker l. 1. cōt. Dureū sect. 9. Thou cāst doe nothing lesse, We can not fulfill the law the fulfill the law? No man can obey the law. And Contr. 2. q. 6. c. 3. he auoucheth it to be a foundation of Christian reli­gion: That Gods law cannot be fulfilled of vs: and ib. q. 5. c. 7. saieth, that the contrarie is Pelagian heresie.

Perkins de Baptismo to 1. col. 833. The Papists thinke, that a man in this life can obserue and fulfill the law.

Confession of Auspurg. cap. 6. So great is the weaknesse of No man can satisfie the law. mans nature, as no man can satisfie the law.

Apologie of England. We say, that in this life we can no way satisfie the law.

Luther de libertate to. 2. fol 4. All the commandments are All the com­mandments are impossible are alike impossible vnto vs. In Gal. 3. f. 329. The law exacteth impossible things.

Caluin in Antidoto Concilij Sess. 10. cap. 12. They bring nothing which helpeth their wicked opinion of the possible obser­uation of the law. In Luc. 10. v. 26. It is impossible for vs to per­forme The law is impossible to be kept. that which the law commandeth. In Actor. 15. v. 10. It is manifest, that the law is impossible to be kept.

Beza in Luc. 18. v. 22. No man can keepe one commandment so as the law prescribeth. In Rom. 10. ver. 6. The law proposeth not heauen but vnder an impossble condition.

Daneus Contr. de Baptismo c. 15. It is altogether impossible Altogether impossible. to keepe the commandments. Contr. 5. p. 974. Bellarmin saieth, that is easie for him that hath charitie to keepe the law: I ans­were that euen to him it is impossible.

Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theol. loco 5. Albeit Euen with God his grace regenerate men be holpen and gouerned of the Holie Ghost, yet they are hindred by the remnants of sinne, that they cannot sa­tisfie the law.

[...]

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Gods commandments are not heauie, that his burden is light: that who loueth his neighbour, fulfilleth the law: that God will make vs to keepe his iudgments: that he sent his Sonne, that the iustification of the law might be fulfilled in vs. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that no man can satisfie the law, that the law is impossible euen to a iustified man, that the law is impossible: that all the commandments are a like impossible: that no one can be kept: that the law proposeth not heauen but vnder an vnpossible condition: that the doctrine of the possible obseruation of the law, is wicked.

ART. II. WHETHER EVER ANIE HAVE kept Gods law?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Psalm. 118. vers. 55. I haue beene myndfull in the night of thy Dauid kept Gods law. name, o Lord, and haue kept thy law.

Luc. 1. v. 6. And they were both iust before God, walking in Also Zacha­rias and Eli­zabeth. all the commandments and iustifications of our Lord without blame.

Ioan. 17. v. 6. Thyne they were, and to me thou gauest them, And the A­postles. and they haue kept thy word.

Act. 13. v. 22. I haue found Dauid the sonne of Iesse a man ac­cording to my hart, who shall doe all my willes.

1. Ioan. 3. v. 22. Whatsoeuer we shall aske we shall receaue of him, because we keepe his commandments.

Apoc. 3. v. 10. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, and I will keepe thee from the houre of tentation. c. 14. v. 12. Here And Saintes. is the patience of Saintes, who keepe the commandments of God, and the faith Iesus.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. ca. 16. We must beleiue, that no­thing wanteth to the iustified, that they may not seeme to haue fully satisfied the law of God according to the state of this life with those workes which are done in God.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

The Confession of Scotlond artic. 15. We affirme, that None but Christ hath kept the law. none on earth (Christ onely excepted) in worke and indeed so per­formeth, and shall performe that obedience to the law, which the law requireth.

Confession of Auspurg. c. de operibus. Saintes do not sa­tisfie Not Saintes. the law.

Confession of Bohemia art. 7. We teach, that there is none who in deeds doeth fulfill the precepts of the law.

Luther in Gal. 3. to. f. 3. 343. Moises requireth a worker who perfectly doth the law; But where shall we haue him? No where. In. c. 4. f. 393. No man doth the law.

Caluin in Rom. 13. vers. 8. No man performeth the law, nor euer performed it. In Act. 15. v. 10. The faithfull after they are re­generate with the spirit of God, do giue themselues to the iustice of the law, but yet they performe not all, but halfe and much lesse then halfe. In Gal.Gal 3. v. 10. It is cleare, that neuer anie was found or can be fouud, who fulfilleth the law. In vers. 12. There is none who doth the workes of the law. The like he hath in Anti­doto Concil. sess. 6. c. 12. In 3. Instit. c. 17. §. 3. & 13.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Dauid kept Gods law, did all his wills: that Zacharias and Elizabeth walked in all Gods commandments without blame: that the Apo­stles kept Gods word: that Saintes haue kept Gods word and commandments. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that none besides Christe gaue that obedience to the law which it requireth; that no man in deed hath fulfilled the law: that no man satis­fieth the law: that the regenerate do much lesse then halfe of the law.

ART. III. WHETHER EVER ANIE HAVE loued or followed God in all their hartes?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Deut. 30. v. 6. Our Lord thy God will circuncise thy hart, and God will make vs to loue him in all our hart. Dauid did so. the hart of thy seed, that thou maiest loue our Lord thy God in all thy hart, and in all thy soule that thou maiest liue.

3. Reg. 14. vers. 8. Thou hast not beene as my seruant Dauid, who kept my commandments, and followed me in all his hart, doing that which was well liked in my sight.

3. Reg. 8. v. 23. Lord God of Israel, who keepest couenant and mercie with thy seruants that walke before thee in all their hart.

4. Reg. 23. v. 25. There was no king before him (Iosias) like Iosias follow­ed God in all his hart. to him, who returned to our Lord in all his hart, and in all his soule, and in all his power according to all the law of Moises.

Daniel. 3. 41. Azarias thus praieth: And now we follow thee Also Aza­rias. in all our hart, and feare thee, and seeke thy face.

Psal. 118. v. 10. With my whole hart I haue sought after thee. And Dauid.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Amiss. Gratiae. c. 12. Luke writeth of Za­charias and Elizabeth that they walked in all the commandmēts and iustifications of our Lord: nether would they be saied to haue walked, in all the commandments, who had neglected the first and greatest which is of louing God with all the hart.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

The Apologie of the Confession of Auspurg. c. de Resp. [Page 518] ad Argumenta. No man feareth so much, loueth God so much, beleiueth God so much as he ought.

Luther in Gal. 5. to. 5. f. 417. Thou shalt not find one on earth, who so loueth, God and his neighbour, as the law requireth. Po­stilla None can loue God in all his hart. in Dom. 10. post. Trinit. f. 315. He requireth, that we loue him with all our hart, which no mortall man can performe.

Brentius homilia 1. in Dom. 13. post. Trinit. None was euer found amongst the Saintes, who loued God perfectly with all his soule.

Caluin. 2. Instit. c. 7. §. 5. I say, there was no Saint, who whilest No Saint euer loued God in all his hart. he was in this mortall life, attained to that hight of loue, that he loued God with all his soule, with all his hart, with all his power.

Pareus l. 4 de Iustif. c. 11. Such loue (of all his soule) none of the Saintes had, or can haue in this infirmitie.

Daneus Contr. 5. p. 973. That this precept: Thou shalt loue God &c. can be fulfilled, both vnder the ould and the new testa­ment, and that God promised it Deuter. 10. v. 12. 30. v. 6. Hier. 24. v. 7. is most false.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely teacheth, that God will make the faithfull to loue him with all their hart: that the three children followed God in all their hart: that Dauid sought God in all his hart: that God vseth mercie to them who walke before him in all their hartes: that Iosias re­turned to God in all his hart, in all his soule, in all his power, and according to all the law of Moises. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach; that there is not one who loueth God so as the law requireth: that no Saint loued God with all his hart: that no Saint euer had the loue God in all his hart.

ART. IV. WHETHER GODS LAW BE in the hartes of anie?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Hierem. 31. v. 33. I will giue my law in their bowels, and in their Gods law in the hart of some. hart I will write it.

Psal. 36. 31. The law of God in his hart.

Deut. 30. v. 14. But the word is very neare thee, in thy hart and in thy mouth to doe it. The same Rom. 10. v. 6.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Rom. 10. vers. 6. The Scripture here saieth plainely: The word is neare, that is, the commandment of the law to doe it. This is not true saieth the Heretike, and the word of the law, or the cōmandment of the law is not properly in our hart.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Caluin in Rom. 10. v. 6. Euen after regeneration, the word Gods law in the hart of none. of the law cannot be properly saied to be in our hart, because it requireth perfection frō which the faithfull themselues are farre of. The same say others who teach that the law is impos­sible. For if it be impossible, it is not in our hartes.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Gods law is in our bo­wels, is written in our hartes: is in the harts of some. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the law of God is not properly in the hart of anie.

ART. V. WHETHER WE PRAY THAT we may fulfill Gods law?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 6. v. 10. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heauen. We pray to fulfill Gods law.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 1. de bonis operibus in part. cap. 6. We pray that Gods helpe and grace be giuen vs, whereby we may and will fulfill Gods commandments.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Perkins in Gal. 3. to. 2. col. 135. We do not pray, that we may We pray not so. fulfill the law, but that we may endeauour according to our strēght to fulfill it.

Caluin in Math. 10. v. 6. It sufficeth, that with desire we te­stifie that we hate whatsoeuer is against the will of God. In like sorte Daneus in orat. Dom. and others, who teach that it is impossible to fulfill the law. For no man praieth for that which he knoweth to be impossible.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely biddeth vs pray, that Gods will be done in earth as it in heauen, where doubtles it is fulfilled The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely teach, that we do not pray that we fulfill Gods law, that it sufficeth to testifie that we hate what is contrarie to Gods law. Which is so contrarie to Scripture as sometimes Protestants themselues confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. VI. WHETHER THE KEEPING OF the law be necessarie to saluation?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Math. 19. v. 17. If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the com­mandments. Keeping of the law ne­cessarie to saluation.

Ioan. 15. ver. 10. If you keepe my precepts, you shall abide in my loue.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D, Stapleton in Math. 19. v. 17. This doctrine of Christ doth manifestly shew, that the keeping of Gods commandments is ne­cessarie to euerlasting life.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther in Galat. 2. tom. 5. f. 311. The Papists teach: Faith in Not neces­sarie. Christ iustifieth, but with all the commandments of God must be kept, because the Scripture saieth: If thou wilt enter &c. There Christ is streight denied and abolished.

Caluin in Math. 19. ver. 17. This answere of Christ is legall; That none is accounted iust before God vnlesse he hath satisfied the law, which is impossible. 3. Instit. c. 17. §. 7. A legall promise, which added to an impossible condition, proueth nothing. In An­tido to Concil. sess. 6. p. 280. Woe be to their Catechumens, if so hard a condition (of obseruing the law) be imposed vpon thē. what other then eternall malediction is laied vpon them. In Act. 15. v. 10. The whole world is cast headlong into eternall perditiō, if it cannot obtaine saluation but by keeping the law. In Math. 9. v. 10. It sufficeth to testifie this by desire, that we hate whatsoeuer is contrarie to Gods will, and wish it were not.

Perkins in Cases of Conscience c. 7. If men do endeauour to yeeld God obedience in all things, God will so accepte this their slender and small endeauour of doing that which they can do by [Page 522] his grace, as if they had perfectly satisfied the whole law. Slender en­deauour ac­cepted of God

Piscator loco 17. The faithfull are freed from the rigour of the law, and therein from care and feare of maledictiō of the law for the breaking thereof.

Pareus l. 4. de Iustif. cap. 7. It is enough, if they endeauour to Enough to endeauour. begin the new obedience of the law according to all the command­ments, and aske and impetrate the pardon of defects for the me­rits of Christ, otherwise no flesh would be saued.

Peter Martyr in 1. Cor 10. v. 12. The precepts of good workes require no other thing of vs, then endeauour and diligence to liue well. In c. 7. v. 19. vpon that: But the keeping of Gods commād­ments, This, saieth he is not expected of you, who already are children and belong to Christ, but onely keeping of the command­ments of God so farre as the condition of man and state of this present life do suffer.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that if we will enter to life, we must keepe the commandments. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that it is not necessarie to keepe the commandmēts: that it is enough to endeauour. to begin the keeping of them: that God accepteth a slēder endeauour of keeping them for a perfect keeping.

ART. VII. WHETHER THE LAW OF the ten commandments be abrogated and taken away from the faithfull?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH.

Rom. 3. v. 31. Do we then destroie the law by faith? God for­bidde: The law not abrogated by faith in Christ. If no law, no sinne. But we do establish the law. c. 4. v. 16. Where there is no law, nether is there preuarication.

Math. 5. v. 18. Do not thinke that I am come to breake the law or the Prophets. I am not come to breake, but to fulfill.

[Page 523] Ioan. 14. v. 15. If you loue me, keepe my commandments.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Councel of Trent Sess. 9. Con. 19. If anie shall say, that nothing is commanded in the Ghospell but faith, and that the rest are indifferent, nether commanded nor forbidden, but free, or that the ten commandments belonge nothing to Christians: be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Luther Sermone de Moyse: The ten commandments be­long The ten com­mandments belonge not to Christians. to Christians: And Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dureum sect. 91. addeth: This article is surely most worthie of Luther, because it containeth most high trueth and comfort.

The same Luther in c. 18. Deut. to. 3. f. 56. Know, that Gods law is that onely which commandeth to the wicked and desperate The law abo­lished to the godlie. men what is to be done, but where the godlie are, there the law is abolished. In Gal. 2. to. 5. fol. 227. The hart being iustified by faith, streight waies all lawes cease, all things are free and law­full. 223. The law is dead, and compelleth no more, yet we may do the law vpon charitie, but not as a law. 315. all the ceremoniall A Christian not bound to the law. law or the decalog, is abrogated to a Christian, because he is dead to it. And to be dead to the law, is not to be bound with the law, but to be free from it and not to know it. 370. Christ hath abrogated all lawes vniuersally. Postilla in die Pentecostis f. 273. The Holie Ghost is giuen to this end, to abrogate and take away the law. Wherefore Christians are not to be gouerned by laws, but others who professe not Christ in their hart, are to be bridled with laws, are to be remitted to hangmen and tormen­tours, and to be gouerned by the sword, for to be kept in order. Et f. 272. The Holie Ghost doth so abrogate the law, that he lea­ueth not so much as the letter of the law, or if anie thing re­maine, it remaineth onely for to preach by word.

Melancthon in locis apud Fabritium in art. Augustan. 20. p. 364. We haue diuided the law into three partes, Morall, [Page 524] ceremoniall, and iudiciall, all which must needs be abrogated if the ould testament be abrogated. And this was the cause of abro­g [...]ting the law, because it could not be performed or done. Which The morall law is abro­gated. cause pertaining more to the morall law, then to the ceremoniall or iudiciall, we must needs say that the Decalogue also is ab­rogated.

Michael Neāder apud Schlusselburg. to. 4. Catal. Haeret. p. 61. I abide in my opinion, that the law is not giuen to the iust The law hath no vse. All lawes taken away. in anie vse or office.

Tindal in Fox his Actes pag. 1140. Edit. An. 1610. Christ tooke away all lawes and maketh vs free and at libertie.

Or as M. Rainolds l. 4. Caluinuoturcismi c. 22. reporteth his words out of an other edition: Christ hath freed vs from all lawes, so that hereafter no law bindeth vs in conscience.

Zuinglius in Explanat. artic. 16. The law is taken from the godlie by Christ.

The same in effect say all other Protestants, who teach, that the condemnation of the law, or imputation of the breach thereof, is taken from the faithfull, so that it is not imputed to them ether for fault or punishment. For it implieth contradiction, that there be a law, and that the breach thereof make not the wilfull breakers subiect to sinne or punishment. Wherefore Luther in Disput. 6. to 1. proposit. 14. saied truely: A law which condemneth not, is a feigned or painted law like to a Chimaera. And that the breach of no law is imputed to the faithfull is the commō doctrine of Protestants, as is to be seene in Conf. Heluet. cap. 12. Scotica art. 15. Apologia Confess. Augustanae c. de Implet. legis. Martyr. in locis class. 2. c. 15. Caluin. 2. Institut. c. 7. Beza in 1. Ioan. 5. v. 3. & in c. 2. v. 7. Whitaker loco citat. and others.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the law is not destroied by faith in Christ but established; that Christ came not to breake the law but to fulfill it: that if there be no law, [Page 525] there is no sinne. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the ten commandmēts belong nothing to Christians: that the lawe cōmandeth onely the wicked: that that being iustified all lawes cease: that the lawe compelleth no more: that we are not būod with the lawe: that Christ hath abrogated all lawes: that that the lawe is not giuen to the iust in anie vse: that no lawe bindeth anie more. Which is so contrarie to Scrip­ture, as some Protestants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER of Gods lawe.

By what hath beene reported in this Chapter clearely appeareth, that Protestants teach quite contrarie to the holie Scripture concerning Gods lawe. For the Scripture together with Catholiks teacheth, that Gods lawe is pos­sible, that some kept it; that some haue loued God in all their harte, that Gods lawe is in the harte of some, that we pray to fulfill it: that the keeping of it is necessarie to sal­uation, and that the morall lawe of the ten cōmandments is not taken away from the faithfull: all which Protestants denie.

By the same also appeareth, that the Protestants also in this matter play the theeues. For they take from Gods lawe that it is possible, that it hath beene kept of anie, that it is in the hartes of anie, that it is necessarie to saluation, and that it obligeth the faithfull.

CHAPTER XIX. OF MANS LAVV AND SVPERIORITIE.

ART. I. WHETHER THERE BE ANIE Superioritie among Christians?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

PROVERB. 8. vers.s 15. By me Kings do reigne.

Math. 24. v. 45. Who, thinkest thou, is a faith­full Christ ap­pointed some ouer his fa­milie. All power is of God. wise seruant, whome his Lord hath appointed ouer his familie?

Rom. 13. v. 1. Let euerie soule be subiect to higher powers, for there is no power but of God.

Tite 3. v. 1. Admonish them to be subiect to Princes and Po­testates.

Hebr. 13. v. 17. Obey your Prelats, and be subiect to them. Subiect to Prelats and Princes.

Act. 2. v. 28. The Holie Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm. l. 3. de Laicis c. 3. The Prophets foretould that all the Kings of the earth should serue Christ and the Church, which cannot be vnlesse there be Kings in the Church.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther l. de saeculari potestate apud Coccium tom. 1. l. 7. No Superio­ritie among Christians. A Christian, subiect to none. art. 1. Among Christians there can be no superioritie.

De libertate Christiana to. 2. f. 3. A Christian man is the most freest Lord of all, subiect to none. De votis ibib. fol. 270. Christ hath giuē me so much libertie, that I man subiect to none, but to himselfe onely; Christ is my immediate Lord, I know no other anie more. In 1. Petri c. 2. to. 5. f. 462. Christ hath cōmit­ted the badde to profane power, for to gouerne thē as they ought to be gouerned: the good, that is those who beleiue, he hath re­serued to himselfe, whome he gouerneth by his word onely.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely saieth, that Kings reigne by God, that we must obey the higher powers, that we must be subiest to Princes and Prelats, and to rulers of the Church. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that there is no superioritie among Christians: that a Christian is subiect to none, vnder none but Christ: that Christ is his immediate Lord, and that he knoweth no other.

ART. II. WHETHER MAN HAVE AV­thoritie to make lawes?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Act. 15. v. 29. It hath seemed good to the Holie Ghost and to The Apostles made lawes. vs, to lay no further burde vpon you then these necessarie things: That you abstaine from things immolated to idols, and blood, and that which is strangled.

Ibid. v. 41. Paul walked through Syria and Cilicia confirming [Page 528] the Churches commanding them to keepe the precepts of the A­postles and the Ancients.

1. Cor. 7. vers. 12. For to the rest, I say, not our Lord: If anie Also S. Paul. brother haue a wife an infidel, and she consent to dwel with him, let him not put her away.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Act. 15. v. 28. The Church can impose tem­porall lawes as precepts for some good end, to wit, to keepe peace in the Church, which binde the faithfull in conscience and before God to obey them.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Confession of Basle art. 10. None can forbidde that which None can for­bidde that which Christ forbade not. God alone cā make lawes. Christ hath not forbidde.

Lutherl cont. R. Angliae. to. 2. f. 346. The power of making lawes belonges to God alone. De Captiu. Babyl. fol. 77. Nether men nor Angels can by anie right impose anie lawe vpon Chri­stians, but as they will themselues.

Caluin 4. Instit. c. 10. §. 7. We heare, that God chalengeth God onely a lawgiuer. this as proper to himselfe alone, to gouerne vs by the command of his word and by lawes. Ibid. §. 8. If God be the onely lawgiuer, men must not take this authoritie vpon them. In Iacobi 4. v. 12. They draw to themselues all the maiestie of God, who chalenge authoritie to make lawes.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the Apostles had au­thoritie to impose necessarie burdens, and to command that which Christ had not commanded: to command their precep [...]s to be kept: and to make lawes for married persons. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that none can forbidde that which Christ hath not forbidde: that the power of ma­king lawes is proper to God alone: that no lawe can be im­posed vpon Christians but as they will themselues.

ART. III. WHETHER MANS LAW CAN binde the conscience?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Rom. 13. v. 2. Who resisteth the power, resisteth the ordināce Mans lawe can binde conscience. of God, and they that resist, purchase to themselues damnation. v. 5. Therefore be subiect of necessitie, not onely for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

D. Stapleton in Rom. 13. v. 1. The breach of humane lawes offendeth also God—The verie consciences of the faithfull are bound with ciuill lawes.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Contr. 4. quaest. 7. c. 1. We say, that the lawes of Princes lawes bind not con­science. Princes binde not the conscience, for this is proper to God. lib. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 103 Who impose lawes vpon the conscience, chalenge power of sauing and destroying, and robbe God of his right. The lawes of Magistrates haue no power ouer the cons­cience.

Perkins in Anatomia Conscientiae: tom. 1. col. 1215. We Conscience subiect to no mans lawe. acknowledge no subiection at all of the conscience to mens lawes. In Galat. 5. tom. 2. col. 258. The Magistrates lawe maketh a thing necessarie externally; Neuerthelesse the thing in it selfe is not made necessarie, but remaineth indifferent, and you may vse it or not, if you auoide contempt or scandall.

Luther in 1. Petri c. 2. tom. 5. f. 464. The Magistrate cannot [Page 530] binde the conscience. De seruo arbit. to. 2. fol. 431. Consciences are bound with Gods law onely.

Zuinglius in Explanat. artic. 28. It is no sinne which God forbiddeth not. Mans additions cannot make anie thing to be good or euill. Art. 24. No Christian is bound to those workes which Christ hath not commaunded.

Caluin in Iacobi 4. vers. 12. It is God alone, who hath the conscience subiect to his laws. In Refutat. Cathalon. p. 384. No mortall man can make lawes which binde the conscience, and make men guiltie of Gods iudgment. De necessitate re­form. pag. 58. We teach, that consciences are free and quite from mens lawes. In Confess. fidei p. 109. Men haue no power to binde the consciēce vnder mortall sinne. The like he hath 3. Instit. c. 19. & 4. c. 10.

Beza in Confess. c. 5. sect. 33. God hath reserued to himselfe alone all this power of binding the conscience with lawes. cap. 7. sect. 9. It is lawfull to God alone, to impose lawes vpon the cons­cience.

Peter Martyr in locis. classe 4. cap. 4. §. 5. The Apostles No sinne to breake the Apostles laws without scandall. did decree, that Gentils conuerted to Christ should abstaine from strangled meate, and immolated to idols, and from blood—If anie had eaten of them without offense of others he had sinned no­thing in conscience.

Daneus Controu. 3. p. 509. Mens commandment can not bind our consciences. Contr. 5 pa. g1125. No law, but Gods, can binde vs in consciencience.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saieth, that who resisteth the Ma­gistrate resisteth Gods ordinance, and purchaseth damna­tion, and that we must be subiect to him for conscience sake. Catholiks say the same.

Protestāts expressely say, that Magistrates cannot binde the conscience: that God alone can binde the conscience: that breakers of the Apostles precept without contempt or scandall did not sinne.

THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER of mans law.

What hath beene rehearsed in this chapter plainely proueth that Protestants teach contrarie to the Scripture concerning mans law. For the holie Scripture and Ca­tholiks withall, teacheth that there is superioritie among Christians, that men haue power to make lawes, and that their lawes may binde the conscience: all which are de­nied of Protestants.

It proueth also that Protestants euen in this matter keepe their ould custome of stealing: For they take from Christians all superioritie, all power of makinge lawes, and from their lawes all power of binding the conscience.

CHAPTER XX. OF FREE VVILL.

ART. I. WHETHER MANS WILL BE free in indifferent matters?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

NVMBERS 30. v. 14. It shalbe in the arbitrement Man free in things indif­ferent. of her husband, whether she shall do it or not do it.

Iosue 24. ver. 15. Choice is giuen you, chuse this day that which pleaseth you.

2. Reg. 24. vers. 12. Choice is giuen thee of three We haue choice. things; chuse one of them which thou wilt.

1. Corint. 7. vers. 37. For he that hath determined in his hart being setled, not hauing necessitie, but hauing power of his owne will &c.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Concil of Trent. Sess. 6. Con. 5. If anie shall say, that mans free will is after Adams sinne lost and extinct, or a thing onely in Title, or a title without the thing, finally a deuise of Sathan brought into the Church: be he accursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Luther art. 36. tom. 2. Free will after sinne is a thing onely in No free will after sinne. [Page 533] Title. And in assert. eiusdem articuli: Free will is a deuise amongst things, and a title without the thing: because no man hath in his power to thinke any good or ill, but all things fall out of absolute necessitie. There is no doubt, but that by Sathans tea­ching this name, Free will, came into the Church.

The same Luther de seruo arbit. to. 2. f. 434. Mans will is Mans will is like a beast. set in the middest as a beast: if God sitte vpon it, it willeth and goeth whither God will; if Sathan sitte vpon it, it willeth and goeth whither Sathan will: Nether is it in his power to runne to ether rider or to seeke him, but the riders themselues striue about We do all things of ne­cessitie. him whether shall haue him. fol. 435. It is certaine, that we do all things of necessitie, and nothing by free will. The like he hath p. 461. 486. and otherwhere often.

Melancthon in locis editis An. 1521. apud Bellarm. l. 4. Men haue nether free will nor reason. de Grat. & lib. arbit. c. 5. Men vse the name of free will, which is most different from the holie scripture, from the sense and iudg­ment of the Spirit. And out of Plato his schole, is added the word Reason, as pernitious as that. Againe: Seing all things that fall out, fall out necessarily according to Gods predestination, there is no libertie of will. What then (will you say) is there no chance in things, no happe, no fortune? The Scripture say, that all things fall out necessarily. And if there seeme to thee to be some chance in humane matters, thou must here command the iudgment of reason. Which words of his also are repeated by Zanchius de Praedestinat. c. 5. to. 7. col. 435.

Zuinglius l. de Religione c. de Merito. to. 2. Gods pro­uidence taketh away both free will and merit. The verie name of free will disliked.

Caluin l. 2. lib. arb. p. 153. The name of free will displeaseth me, and I would it were taken away. Et p. 154. Who mantaineth free will, vseth an other lāguage then the Holie Ghost doth. 2. Instit. c. 2. §. 8. Because I thinke it (name of free will) cannot be kept without great danger, and that it would be great good to Church if it were abolished, nether will I vse it, and I should wish others if they will heare me, to forebeare it. Et l. 1. cap. 15. §. 8. Who do yet seeke will in mā lost and drowned in spirituall perditiō, do plainely doate. Et in confess p. 108. We nether grant merit, nor free will. No free will in indifferent things.

Polanus in Disput. priuatis disput 34. A sinfull man hath [Page 534] no free will in indifferent and ciuill matters.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely saieth, that man hath freedome in choice to doe: that he hath choice to chuse what he will: that he hath not necessitie but power of his will. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that free will is a deuise: a thing onely in title, or title without the thing: that there is no libertie no chance in things: that all things fall out of absolute necessitie; that mans will is like a beast: that a sinfull man hath no free will in indifferēt and ciuill things. Which some Protestants confesse to be contrarie to Scrip­ture. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. II. WHETHER MANS WILL BE free in morall matters that are good or badde?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Gen. 4. v 6. Why art thou angrie, and why is thy contenance Free will in morall mat­ters. fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not receaue againe: but if thou doest ill, shall not thy sinne forthwith be present at thy dore? But the lust thereof shalbe vnder thee, and thou shalt haue dominion ouer it.

Iosue 24. v. 15. Chuse this day that which pleaseth you, whome We haue choice in mo­rall matters. you ought especially to serue. ver. 22. You are witnesses, that your selues haue chosen to you our Lord for to serue him.

Eccles. 15. ver. 18. Before man there is life and death, good and Some could sinne and did not. euill: what pleaseth him, that shall be giuen him. c. 31. v. 10. He that could transgresse, and hath not transgressed; and do euils, and hath not done.

Philemon. ver. 14. But without thy counsaill I would do no­thing: Voluntarie and not of ne­cessitie, that thy good might not be as it were of necessitie, but vo­luntarie. The like is 1. Corint. 7. vers. 37. cited in the former article.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

C. Bellarm l. 5. de Grat. & lib. arbit. c. 14. Orthodoxall trueth teacheth, that man in state of corrupted nature is indued with free will in morall matters.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 5. c. 7. p. 515. Luther and Caluin grant Mans will not free to good. mans will to be free to sinne and ill doing, but not to good. p. 517. It is the Pelagian heresie: That man after his fall hath anie li­bertie left to good. The like hath Morton l. 1. Apologiae. c. 30.

Luther de seruo arbit. to. 2. fol. 460. If here could be anie change or freedome of will in Pharao to both partes, God could not haue so certainely haue foretould his induration.—Which No free will to good. could not be, vnlesse induration were wholy beyond the power of man, and onely in Gods power. Resp. ad Artic. Louan. fo. 504. There is no feee will to good.

Caluin 2. Instit. c. 3. §. 10. God moueth the will, not as it hath Not in our power to obey or resist. beene taught and beleiued these manie ages, that afterward it is in our choice ether to obey or resist the motion, but by working it effectually. We must cast away that saying of Chrysostome: whome he draweth, he draweth willing. Which he repeateth in Ioan. 6. vers. 44.

Pareus l. 5. de Grat. c. 29. p. 919. Who want iustice, are not free to iustice, but to iniustice: nor to good, but onely to ill.

Piscator in Thesibus pag. 423. A man in sinne hath no free will to good, but onely to ill.

Thus teach they of mans will to good; of the same to­wards ill, this they say.

Caluin 2. Institut. c. 3. § 5. I maruaile, if any thinke it a harsh Man is of ne­cessitie drawne to ill. speach, that I say mans will hauing lost libertie is by necessitie drawne or led to euill. Et §. A carnall man necessarily obeyeth euerie draught of Sathan. The same he hath c. 5. §. 1

[Page 536] Daneus Contr. 6. p. 1224. That sinnes are not the acts of Sinne is not the act of a free will. free will, is false. They are the acts of our owne accord, but not of free will.

Vallada in Apologia c. 20. Who can denie this necessitie of sinning in a man not regenerate? The same teach others as hath beene shewed before c. 2. art. 8.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the lust of sinne is vnder a man: that, as it pleaseth him, good or euill shalbe giuen to him: that he hath choice whome he will serue: that some thing is voluntarie to him and not necessarie: that he could haue sinned and yet did not. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that there is no free will to good: no freedome to both partes: that it is not in our choice to obey or resist: that by necessitie we are drawne to ill: that sinne is not an act of free will, but onely of our owne accord. Which is so contrarie to Scripture, as some Protestants confesse it. See lib. 2. c. 30.

ART. III. WHETHER MANS WILL cooperate with Gods grace to good actes?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Cor. 3. v. 9. For we are Gods coadiutors. c. 15. ver. 10. I haue We are Gods coadiutors. laboured more abundantly then all they: yet not I, the grace of God with me.

Math. 25. v. 20. Lord fiue talents thou didst deliuer me; be­hould, We gaine more with Gods grace. I haue gained other fiue besides.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Councel of Trent Sess. 6. Con. 4. If anie shall say, that [Page 537] mans free will moued and stirred vp of God, doth coope­rate nothing by assenting to God mouing and calling: be he ac­cursed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther in psalm. 5. to. 3. fol. 174. It is an error, that free will Free will worketh not in good. hath anie actiuitie in a good worke, when we speake of an inward worke.

Zuinglius in Explanat. art. 20. The Papists make God the We are not Gods coadiu­tors. first and chiefe cause of all goodnesse, and vs cooperatours, which is craftily to withdraw themselues from God.

Caluin 2. Institut. cap. 3. §. 12. The Apostle saieth not, that Gods grace laboured with him to make himselfe fellow of the labour; but rather giueth the whole praise of the labour to grace alone. §. 6. We see, that not content to haue giuen simply the praise of our conuersion to God, he excludeth vs expressely from all fellowshippe.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture expressely saieth, that we are Gods co­adiutors, that Gods grace laboureth with vs: that we gaine ouer that which was giuen vs. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that we are not coadiutors of labour, that we are not Gods coadiutors, that we haue no fellowshippe of the labour.

THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER of Free will.

That which we haue rehearsed in this chapter plainely declareth, that Protestants teach farre otherwise of free will then the holie Scripture doth. For that Scrip­ture [Page 538] (and Catholiks with it) teacheth, that man hath free will in indifferent matters, and in morall both good and badde, and that he cooperateth with Gods grace to good: All which Protestants denie.

It sheweth also that as Protestants haue stoallen from God, from Christ, from Saints, from the Church, and other things spoaken of before, so also they steale from man that which is the most excellent thing in him, to wit, free will, or domi­nion ouer his owne acts, and make him a slaue, and like to beasts.

CHAPTER XXI. OF MANS SOVLE.

ART. I. WHETHER MANS SOVLE BE immortall?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

MATH. 10. ver. 28. Feare ye not them who kill the Soule of man cannot be killed. bodie, and are not able to kill to soule. c. 22. ve. 32. He is not the God of the dead, but of the liuing.

Ioan. 11. ver. 26. Euerie one that liueth and be­leiueth Shall not die. in me, shall not die for euer.

Eccles. 12. v. 7. And the spirit returneth to God who gaue it. Returnet to God.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

S. Thomas 2. 2. q. 164. art. 1. The soule of man is immortall, beasts soules are mortall. Et 1. parte q. 118. art. 2. It is heresie to say, that a reasonable soule is transfused with the seed.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther in Assert. art. 27. to. 2. f. 107. I giue leaue, that the Pope make articles of faith to his followers, Such as are: That bread and wine are transsubstantiated in the Sacrament: That the soule is the substantiall forme of mans bodie: That he is Em­perour of the world and king of heauē, and an earthlie God: That [Page 540] the soule is immortall, and all those infinit monsters in the Ro­mish The soule is mortall. dūghill of Decrees: that such as his faith is, such be his Gho­spell, such his faithfull, such his Church, and like lippes like let­tuce, and the pot may haue a fit couer. And in the Margent: Articles made of the Pope.

Zuinglius l. de Religione c. de Clauibus to. 2. f. 187. But they do not so agree amongst themselues where the keyes were giuen; that it is maruaile, why the Pope of Rome, seing he alone can iudge the Scripture as these men dreame, hath not pronoūced by some lawe where they were giuen, lest there should be so great dissension in a matter of so great moment, or rather of profit: For The soule dieth with the bodie. he might easily, for he hath decreed, that soules do not die when the bodie dieth.

Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 543. There wāt not some among Infants pe­rish like beasts. Christiās, who thinke that ether all Infants or some are quite ex­tinguished by death as beasts are. And he himselfe insinuateth, that mans soule is not a pure spirit, as appeareth by words cited in an other place. Caluin in Explic. perfidiae Genti­lis. p. 677. Some (Protestants) did say, that there is no shorter way to abolish the protection of Saintes, superstitious praier for the dead, the inuention of Purgatorie and such like, then if we would beleiue death to be the destruction of the soule. Soules perish.

Brentius homilia 35. in c. 20. Lucae apud Reginaldum l. 4. Caluinoturcismi cap. 5. Albeit there be no publike profession among vs that the soule perisheth with the bodie, and that there is no resurrection of the dead; yet that most vncleane and most profane life, which the greatest parte of men follow, clearely shew­eth, that in their mynd they thinke that there is no life after this life, or at least that they doubt of the life to come. No life after this. Men are be­gotten euen according to the soule.

Besides they teach that mans soule is transfused with the seede.

Bergenses apud Hospin. in Concordia discordi f. 104. Write that a mā is naturally begotten of his father and mother, both according to bodie and soule.

Luther disput. 2. to. 2. fol. 500. Who shall thinke, that the soule is by transfusion, seemeth not to thinke amisse from the Scripture. Et fol. 501. That is nothing, which is saied: A reaso­nable [Page 541] soule is infused whilest it is created, and created it is infused. Et Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 530. Luther thought that the soule was by transfusion.

Hutterus in Analysi Confess. Augustanae art. 2. p. 157. We Our Soules are not crea­ted but trans­fused. resolue, that that opinion seemeth more probable to vs, which thinketh that soules are not infused of God, but are propagated from parents to children by transfusion.

Peucerus apud Schlusselburg l. 2. Theol. Caluin. art. 6. I conclude that soules rise by transfusion.

Schlusselburg. to. 2. Catal. Haeret. p. 195. It appeareth suf­ficiently in the writings of Luther and Melancthon that they incline to this opinion, which saieth that soules are by transfu­sion, and they shew great arguments out of the Scripture.

Reineccius to. 3. Armaturae cap. 6. We gather, that soules are together with the bodies propagated from the parents into the children, and not made of the seed as out of matter; but of the soule of the parents as one candle is lightned of an other, and that as the bodie, so the soule is in the seed, not actually, but in power, which being dead is raised vp by Gods gouernment.

But to teach that mans soules is by transfusion, is in ef­fect The Soule being dead it raised. and deed to say it is mortall, as the Protestants them­selues confesse. Pareus l. 4. de Amiss. Grat. c. 11. Whether we say that soules are sowed with the bodies, or immediatly trans­fused out of other soules, as one light is kindled of an other, we cannot defend the immortalitie of the soule any more. Beza in Rom. 5. v. 12. Which opinion can no way be mantained, but that the substance of mans soule must be diuisible and consequently corruptible.

Moreouer they teach, that mans soule after his death sleepeth and feeleth nothing.

Luther in 2. Ionae to. 4. f. 417. Scripture teacheth that the dead sleepe: I thinke that they are so drowned with a meruailous The Soules sleepe and feele nothing. and vnspeakable sleepe, as they feele or see lesse then they that otherwise sleepe, and when they shalbe raised, they shall not know where they haue beene, or how they were sodainlie borne a new. Ib. in c. 9. Eccles. f. 36. Salomon seemeth to thinke, that the dead [Page 542] sleepe so, as they know nothing at all. He described the dead like to sensles carcases. Et f. 37. An other place, that the dead feele nothing. Salomon thought, that the dead did wholy sleepe and feele nothing at all. In cap. 25. Gen. to. 6 f. 722. There is a great difference betwene the Saintes sleeping and Christ raigning: they sleepe and know not what is done.

Caluin in Psychopanychia p. 388. I know manie good men, into whose mynd some thing was instilled of this sleepe (of the soules) ether through to much readinesse to beleiue, or through ignorance of Scriptures, whereby they were not sufficiently instru­cted at the time for to resist, whome I would not offend if I may.

Sleidan l. 9. Histor. Luther teacheth out of Scripture, that the soules of the dead do rest and expect the latter day of iudg­ment: and he addeth that out of this Luther ouerthrew purgatorie.

But to teach, that the soules haue no feeling, is as much as to say, that they are perished, according to the verdict of the Protestants themselues. For thus Beza epistola 82. To depriue the soule of motion and sense, is alone as to kill the soule. The same saieth Caluin lib. cit. p. 391. Daneus Contr. 2. p. 160. Zuinglius in Exposit. fidei tom. 2. fol. 559. and in elencho fol. 37.

Castalio also apud Bezam de puniendis Haereticis, (whose learning and honestie D. Humfrey ad Ration. 1. Campiani saieth he well knew) writeth thus: Men dispute of the Trinitie, of Predestination, of free will, of God, of Angels, of the state of soules after this life, and of other such matters, which nether are so necessarie to obtaine saluation by faith, be­cause without knowledge of them publicans and harlots haue beene saued, nether if they be knowne make they a man better.

Finally they vse to vnderstand the Saintes departed this life by this terme, The dead. For so doth the Apologie of the Confession of Auspurg. c. de Inuocat. Sanctorum: The confession of Saxonie c. 21. Melancthon in locis. c. de Sacramentis, c. de Caeremonijs. c. de scandalo. c. de libertate Whitaker l. 9. cont. Dureum sect. 36.

[Page 543] Wherevpon Kemnitius 3. parte Examinis p. 228. saieth that the Saintes departed are vsually termed The dead.

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.

Scripture expressely saieth, that the soule cannot be killed, and that it returneth to God. The same say Ca­tholiks.

Protestants expressely say, that the soule dieth, that it is a Popes decree, that the soule dieth not, that it is a mon­struous thing to say that it is immortall: they adde also that it is by transfusion, that after death it feeleth nothing: that all or most infantes perish as beasts that the know­ledge of the state of soules after this death, is not necessarie to saluation nor maketh a man the better.

ART. II. WHETHER MANS SOVLE BE the forme of his bodie?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

Gen. 2. v. 7. Our Lord God formed man of the styme of the Soule forme of the bodie. earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man be­came a liuing soule.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

S. Thomas 1. parte q. 76. art. 4. A reasonable soule is vnited to the bodie as a substantiall forme.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther cited in the former article: I giue leaue that the Not substan­tiall forme of the bodie. Pope make articles of faith to his followers. Such are: That the soule is a substantiall forme of the bodie. In psal. 22. to. 3. f. 348. [Page 544] It is not determined according to the spirit of trueth, nor accor­ding So also Fa­rellus. to the authoritie of Scriptures, but by the Popes reed ac­cording to vaine traditions of men: That the essence of God is nether generated nor generateth: That the soule is a substantiall forme of the bodie: That bread and wine are trāssubstantiated on the altar: that one kinde is to be giuen to lay men for the whole Sacrament, and like monsters.

Polanus in Sylloge Thesium parte 2. p. 518. Mans soule is No forme of the bodie. no forme of the bodie, against Bellarmin.

Bucanus Instit. loco 8. p. 89. The soule is in one onely mēber Not in euerie member of the bodie. and place of the bodie.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely saith, that the soule was infused of God into man, and that by it he was made a liuing crea­ture. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely say, that mans soule is no forme of the bodie, that it is monstrous to say that it is the forme of the bodie: that it is in one onely parte and place of the bodie, and not in the whole bodie.

ART. III. WHETHER THERE BE ANIE resurrection of the dead?

SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH.

1. Cor. 15. v. 16. For if the dead rise not againe, nether is Christ The dead shall rise. risen againe. And if Christ be not risen againe, vaine is your faith.

1. Thessalon. 4. v. 14. For if we beleiue that Iesus died and rose againe: so also God them that haue slept by Iesus will bring with him. And the same is most plainely taught in innumerable places.

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME.

Catechismus ad Parochos in Exposit. Symboli: As we beleiue that manie haue beene raised from death, so we must be­leiue that all shalbe raised to life.

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE.

Luther l. de seruo arbit. to. 2. fol. 442. Behould experience, what the most excellent witts amongst the Gentils thought of the life to come and the resurrection. How much more excellent they were of wit, did they not the more thinke the life to come and resurrection to be ridiculous.—Finally to this day the most, Luther not free from denying the resurrection of the dead. by how much they are of greater wit and learning, do they not the more laughe at that article, and accoūt it afable, and that opēly. And I would to God thoum, y Erasmus and I, were free from this leauen. So rare is there anie faithfull soule touching this article.

Brentius apud Reginaldum cited in the first article: Yea such wordes fall from diuers (Protestants) by which they signifie No resurre­ction of the dead. that they beleiue not the resurrection of the dead, as well when there are drunken as when they are sober, in their familiar talkes.

Vorstius in Apologetica resp. ad Homium p. 41. writeth thus: Let them see, who will enquire these things more curiously, what amongst our men Caluin himselfe sometimes thought of this matter in his epistles p. 85. Where Farellus plainely enough Caluin denied the resurre­ction of the flesh. telleth that he not onely doubted of the resurrection of this flesh, but thought plaine contrarie from others at that time. And ne­uerthelesse none accursed him therefore of heresie. Yea among the Lutherans Iames Schegkius in Antisimonic. sect. 9. p. 420. Schegkius de­nied the re­surrection of these bodies. Openly denied, that the same bodies should rise hereafter. And yet he was curteously excused of his parteners, and it no where ap­peareth, that he was for that condemned of heresie ether of his owne men or of ours.

Caluin Epistola 104. thus writeth to Laelius Sozinus Sozinus de­nied the re­surrection of the flesh. (whome Camerarius in vita Melancthonis much com­mendeth) [Page 546] I see that you are not satisfied about the resurrection of the flesh.

Farellus, who was the first Minister of Geneua, and whome Caluin and Beza highly cōmend, and his picture is put amongst the worthies of the new reformers, denied the resurrection of this flesh. For thus writeth Caluin to him, as reporteth M. Reinalds in Caluinoturcismo l. 3. c. 22. It is no meruaile, that the resurrection of this flesh seemeth a Nether Cal­uin maruai­leth at it. thing incredible to thee. Thou thinkes it sufficeth if thou beleiuest that sometime we shall haue new bodies. Behould, the first A­postle of Geneua thought the resurrection of this flesh a thing incredible; nether that seemed anie meruaill to his Coapostle Caluin.

Besides, all they who, as we rehearsed cap. 3. artic. 20. denie that Christs blood rose againe, denie that there was a perfect resurrection of Christ of whome his blood was a parte, and consequently they must denie that the blood of other men shal rise againe, and so there shall not be a perfect resurrection of men.

Moreouer Caluin in 4 c. 1. §. 27. saieth that those Corin­thians who denied the resurrection, were not excluded from Gods mercie. Sadeel and Theses Posnan. c. 12. pag. 806. Protestants account de­niers of the resurrection to be mem­bers of the Church and children of God, and faithfull. that they kept the name of a true Chruch; which also saieth Riuet. tract. 1. sect. 39. Beza 2 parte respons. ad Acta Mon­tisbel. pa. 253. and Luther in Galat. 1. fol. 215. The Confes­sion of Zwizerland addeth, that they were holie Churches of God. Author Respons ad theses Vadimont. pag. 533. affir­meth, that they fell not from true faith. And Perkins tractat. de Baptismo col. 819. auoucheth, that they were the sonnes of God. But if they who denied the resurrection, kept the name of a true Church, remained the sonnes of God, were not excluded from Gods mercie, fell not from faith, surely ether the resurrection is no article at all of faith, or not necessarie ether to grace or saluation.

THE CONFERENCE.

Scripture plainely teacheth, that there shalbe resurre­ction of the dead, and that the contrarie doctrine denieth Christs resurrection and ouerthroweth all Christian faith. The same say Catholiks.

Protestants plainely teach: that the more wittie the Gentils were, the more they laughed at the resurrection, that the more learned men now are the more they thinke the resurrection to be a fable: that Luther and Erasmus were not free from this leauen, and that in this matter a faithfull soule is rare: that Schegkius openly denied re­surrection of this bodie, (which is indeed to denie all re­surrection, seing resurrection is not but of the same which died) and yet was condemned of no Protestants, yea ex­cused of some: that manie of them both drunke and sober let fall such speaches from them, as do shew that they be­leiue not the resurrection of the dead: That amongst the Sacramentaries two principall Apostles Caluin and Farel did not beleiue the resurrection of this flesh, and conse­quently not the resurrection of the dead: that Sozinus was not satisfied about the resurrection of the flesh: that manie of them denie the resurrection of the blood: and lasty that they auouch that those Christians, who denied the resurrection of the dead, fell not from true faith, not from the Church, or fauour of God.

THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER of mans Soule.

What we haue rehearsed in this chapter plainely sheweth, that Protestants thinke farre otherwise of mans soule, then the holie Scripture doth. For the Scripture, and Catholiks with it, teacheth, that the soule of man is the forme of the bodie, is immortall, that there [Page 548] shalbe resurrection of the dead: which Protestants denie.

It sheweth also, that Protestants play the theiues to­wards their owne soules, whilest take from it immorta­litie, and the nature of the forme of the bodie, and denie the resurrectiō of the dead. And hitherto we haue shew­ed, that Protestants in 260. articles contradict the ex­presse words of the holie Scripture: it remaineth, that we shew that they also contradict the true sense of the words; which we will doe by twoe wayes, the one by generall reasons, the other by the plaine confession of The Scope of the second booke. some Protestants touching manie of the foresaied ar­ticles.

End of the first booke.

THE SECOND BOOKE. IN WHICH IT IS SHEVVED THAT PROTESTANTS CONTRADICT THE TRVE sense of holie Scripture.

CHAPTER I. THAT PROTESTANTS CONTRADICT the true sense of Scripture, because in so manie things they gainsay the expresse words thereof.

FIRST of all, we must consider, that when the holie Scripture and Catho­liks both of purpose intend clearely to declare their meaning touching the foresaied 260. articles in controuersie, they do iumpe ether in the very selfe same, or inequiualent words: and that cōtrariwise, whē the Scripture and the learnedest of the Protestants intend to expresse their meaning cōcerning the saied articles, they vse quite opposite and contrarie speaches. Which is a manifest signe, that the Catholiks doctrine about the saied articles is the selfe same with the doctrine of the holie Scripture, and the Protestants do­ctrine, quite contrarie thereunto. For sithence this agree­mēt of Catholiks with the Scripture in words and speach, [Page 550] and disagreement of Protestants in the same, falleth out so often and in so manie and weightie matters, it cannot be attributed to chāce, because chāce, as the Philosophers 2. Phys [...]c. teach, is in those things onely which fall out seldome: And therefore it proceedeth of the nature of these sen­tences or doctrines, whose agreement or disagreement with the sentence of the holie Scripture, breedeth this so frequent agreement or disagreement with the words or speaches of the same. Wherefore thus I argue in forme of syllogisme: These doctrines, which when they are of purpose to be expressed clearely, distinctly, and as they differ from all other doctrines, do of their nature require to be expressed with the very same or equiualent words, are in deed one and the selfe same doctrine: And contra­riwise, those doctrines, which when they are to be so expressed, of their nature require to be expressed with quite opposite and contrarie words, or speaches, are in deed opposite and contrarie doctrines: But the Scriptures and the Catholiks doctrines touching the foresaied 260. articles, are of the first kind, and the Scripture and Prote­stants doctrines, of the second: Therefore they are all one, and these, quite contrarie. The Maior of first propo­sitiō is euidēt. For how could twoe doctrines or opiniōs of their nature require to be expressed with the selfe same or equiualent words, if there were any differēce betwene them. For vndoubtely that difference would exact some difference in the words; and those words which clearely and fully expresse the one doctrine, could not clearely and fully expresse the other. And much lesse could one & the selfe same speach clearely expressely thē both, if they were contrarie one to the other. And therefore certaine it is, that twoe cōtrarie doctrines cannot of their nature require to be expressed by the selfe same or equiualent words. And consequently also it is most certaine, that the Scriptures and Catholiks doctrines which touching these 260. articles of their nature require to be expressed with the selfe same or equiualent words, are not opposite one [Page 551] to the other. But those doctrines, which when they are to be clearely and distinctly expressed, of their nature re­quire to be expressed with opposite and contrarie spee­ches, must needs also of their nature be contrarie one to the other. For els why should they of their nature re­quire to be expressed by contrarie speaches? And the op­position which is betwene the speaches, wherewith they require to be signified, riseth of the oppositiō, which is betwene the doctrines themselues. The Minor or se­cond proposition is proued. First by the reason alreadie made: Because it cannot come by chance, that in so manie and so weightie matters, when Catholiks and Protestāts do of purpose clearely & distinctly expresse their opiniōs, those should agree in words and speach with the holie Scripture, and these should disagree. This agreement therefore and disagreement in words, must needs rise of the very nature of their opinions. Secondly, it may be proued by examples; but for breuities sake I will be con­tent with one. That the Protestants opinion touching the Eucharist; or that which Christ after his last supper gaue with his hands to be eaten, when it is clearely and dinstinctly to be expressed, as it differreth from the Ca­tholik doctrine of the same matter, of it nature requireth to be expressed by a proposition which is simply nega­tiue, appeareth manifestly: First because their opinion of that matter is simply negatiue, to wit, that it is not the bodie of Christ; And an opinion which is simply nega­tiue, requireth to be expressed by the like proposition, such as this is: This is not Christs bodie. Secondly, because manie, and the learnedest of the Protestants, and often times, and in manie places, haue expressed their opinion of this matter by such a proposition, when they ment purposely to expresse it clearely and distinctly, as it deffer­reth from the Catholike doctrine, as I haue shewed be­fore c. 11. art. 1. who best knew, with what kinde of pro­position their opinion required to be expressed when it was most clearely and distinctly to be expressed, when it [Page 552] was most clearely and distinctly to be declared. And in the same manner it is euident, that the Catholik doctrine of this matter, of it nature requireth to be expressed by a proposition which is simply affirmatiue, as this is: This is Christs bodie, because their doctrine of this matter is sim­ply affirmatiue, and because Catholiks vse to expresse their doctrine by this kind of proposition. And that the doctrine of the Scripture concerning the same point, of it nature requireth to be expressed by a proposition which is simply affirmatiue, is manifest, because she foure times of purpose expressing her meaning of this matter, she vseth a proposition which is simply affirmatiue, and neuer vseth a proposition negatiue. Wherefore ether the Scrip­ture neuer expressed her meaning of this matter in such a proposition, as of it nature it required to be expressed withall, but alwaies by a contrarie kinde of proposition, and then also when of purpose she ment to expresse her meaning most clearely and distinctly, or the Scriptures meaning touching this matter of it nature requireth to be expressed by a proposition which is simply affirmatiue, as this is: This is my bodie: or, This is Christs bodie. And conse­quently it is one and the selfe same kinde of proposition, wherewith the Scriptures and Catholiks doctrine of this point requireth to be expressed, to wit, a proposition sim­ply affirmatiue; and the propositions wherewith the mea­ning of the Scripture and of Protestants of the same mat­ter are to be expressed are quite opposite, to wit, the one simply affirmatiue; the other, simply negatiue; and the like are their meanings.

But that the force of this argumēt may better appeare, 1. Head from the numbers of articles in which Pro­test. contra­dict the Scrip­ture. I will deuide it into diuers heads. The first shalbe taken from the multitude of matters of articles in which Prote­stants do contradict the expresse words of Scripture, which are (as we haue seene) 260 and more. For though it may chance, that one once, or twise, or seldome may contradict the expresse words of an other, and yet not contradict his sense or meaning, yet it can no way be [Page 553] thought, that this can fall out so often. Because so great and so frequent opposition betwene their words, cannot (as I saied before) come by chance: therefore it must rise of the opposition which is betwene their meaning. For how should their tongues so often iarre, whoses myndes alwaies agree? How should they who al­waies meane the same, so often speake cōtrariwise? How should the same sense and mynd, be expressed so often by contrarie signes?

The second head shalbe taken from the qualitie and 2. From the number of Protest. who doe cōtradict. multitude of Protestants who haue crossed the expresse words of Scripture. For admit, that some one or few Pro­testants, and those not the lest learned, should crosse the expresse words of Scripture, and yet the Protestants do­ctrine should not crosse the true meaning of the Scrip­ture; yet it is altogether incredible, that so manie, and so famous Protestants, should so often fight with the ex­presse words of Scripture, and yet their doctrine should not be contrarie to the meaning of the Scripture: For this their crossing of the Scriptures words could not rise of chance, because it is in so manie Protestants; nor of igno­rance, because they were the learnedest amongst them, and therefore it proceedeth of the verie nature of their doctrine. And consequently, their doctrine of it nature is opposite to the Scriptures doctrine.

The third head is taken of the manner wherewith 3. From the manner in which they contradict. Protestants crosse the expresse words of Scripture. Be­cause, for the most parte, they crosse them so directly, so plainely, so manifestly, as they crosse the verie words of Catholiks, which of set purpose they contradict, or as euer anie Heretik crossed the expresse words of Scrip­ture, or as anie man can crosse them. Wherefore ether let them denie, that the contradict the meaning of the Coū ­cel of Trent, of D. Stapleton, or C. Bellarmin which of purpose they do contradict: or let them grant, that they contradict also the meaning of the holie Scripture: or els let them say, that the contradictiōs of senses or meanings [Page 554] are not to to be gathered out of anie opposition in words, though neuer so great and manifest, but out of their plea­sure. Besides, ether let them denie, that euer anie Here­tike cōtradicted the true meaning of the Scripture, or let them graunt the same of themselues; seing they haue of­ten times, as directly, and as euidently crossed the ex­presse words of Scripture, and those spoaken of purpose for to declare the Scriptures meaning, as euer anie Here­tike crossed the Scriptures words. Moreouer, they not onely crosse the expresse words of Scripture as ditectly and plainely as euer anie did, but also they manie times crosse them in so manie and so different formes of speach, as scarce anie, who would haue it knowne that he did contradict the Scriptures meaning, could diuise more manners how to contradict it.

The fourth head, is taken out of the qualitie of the 4. From the qualitie of the words which they contradict. words of Scripture which Protestants do contradict. For they are expresse, formall, cleare, not obscure nor doubt­full; and spoaken not by the way, but of purpose for to expresse the Scriptures meaning of those matters, as is euident in all the articles. And what can be the true sense of Scripture, if that be not, which such kind of words do of themselues most euidently afford? Or who can be thought to contradict the Scriptures true meaning, if he do not, who contradicteth the euident sense of such kind of words? Surely I doubt not, but if these words were written in anie other booke then in the Scripture, that the Protestants would confesse, that they contradict the sense of them, as well as they contradict the sense of Ca­tholiks words. For as S. Austin saied in the like case of Pe­lagians: Lib. 1. de pec­cat. mer. c. 9. If I should speake thus, these would oppose, and crie, that I speake not well, I thought amisse: for they would vnder­stand no other meaning in these words of anie man who should speake them, but this, which they will not vnderstand in the A­postle. 5. From the sense in which they contra­dict.

The fift head we will take from the sense of those words of Scripture which the Protestants contradict. For [Page 555] the sense in which the Protestants oppose themselues againsts the Scriptures words, is not forced or violent, but obuious, easie, open, and which the words of them­selues do plainely shew, and in which such words vse to to spoaken and vnderstood of men. And euident it is, that all words ought to be vnderstood according to such a sense and that such a sense is the true sense of them, vn­lesse the contrarie be manifestly proued. For this is the verie rule of vnderstanding words, which the Luther. de verb. cenae. to. 7. Melancthon in Hospin. p. 74. Martyr in loc. tit. de Eu­char. Perkins in 1. Gal, v. 8. Pareus l. 5. de Illyricus in Claue part. 2. tom. 7. Protestāts themselues sometimes do vehemently vrge, and vn­lesse it be obserued, the vnderstanding of words wilbe vncertaine and according to euerie ones fansie. Where­fore vnlesse Protestants do euidently conuince, that those words of Scripture which they contradict, are to be vnderstood in an other sense, then in that which of themselues according to their ordinarie accep­tion amongst men they beare, they cannot denie, but in contradicting this ordinarie sense of the words of Scrip­ture, they contradict the true sense of them. And therefore the Reader in this matter must diligently marke, that Ca­tholiks are not bound to proue, that the words of Scrip­ture or of Protestants be to be taken in their vsuall and or­dinarie sense amongst men; but that this is to be supposed as a rule and vndoubted principle of vnderstāding words, vnlesse the contrarie be demonstrated: And if anie denie it, he is not to be admitted to anie disputation which is grounded in words or testimonies, because he denieth the verie first principle of vnderstanding words, which being denied, all dispute grounded on words is vayne. Wherefore that Protestants, who say that Catholiks do begge that point which they ought to proue, when they vrge, that the words of Scripture are to be vnderstood according to the sense which they openly shew, and in which men vse to speake and vnderstand such words, know not, what ought to be proued in disputations out of words, and what is to be supposed as a principle there­of. Whereupon Kemnitius himselfe in Examen. parte 2. [Page 556] tit. de Missa. saieth: What madnesse is it, to leaue the plaine sense, which hath certaine and manifest testimonies of Scripture, and to deuise a new exposition? And the same say other Pro­stants, as we shall rehearse hereafter. In Perorat. But if Protestants will haue ether the words of Scripture, or anie other words whatsoeuer, to be vnderstood in an other sense, then that wherein they vse to be vnderstood of men, all the burden of prouing lieth vpon them. Which because they cannot proue, we iustly conclude, that they contra­dict the true sense of the words of Scripture which we before haue alledged, and frame this argument: Who­soeuer contradict that sense of the Scriptures words, which of themselues they beare, and in which they are vsually vnderstood of men, and cannot demonstrate, that they are to be vnderstood in an other sense, they contra­dict the true sense of the words of Scripture: But Prote­stants do so. Therefore they contradict the true sense of the holie Scripture. The Maior or first proposition, is (as I saied) the principle and ground of all dispute out of words: and the Minor or second proposition is euident by the answeres of Catholiks vnto the proofes which Protestants bring for to shew that the words of Scripture are to be vnderstood in an other sense, then they shew, or men vsually vnderstand them in.

The sixt head is taken out of the circunstances which 6. From the circunstances of the words. make for the natiue and vsuall sense of those words of Scripture which Protestants contradict. For example: Christ saied simply of that which he gaue with his hands to his Apostles after his last Supper: This is my bodie: and the Protestants simply say of the same; This is not Christs bodie, and consequently contradict Christs words not onely in their plaine, natiue, and vsuall sense, but also which is confirmed by all their circunstances, of end, of time, of place, of the speaker, and of the hearers. As for the circunstance of the end, it is plaine, that the end of these words was to tell clearely the Apostles what indeed that was which he then gaue them. And all his other [Page 557] words, were ether spoaken of other matters, or if of the same matter, yet they were spoaken to this end to tell the Apostles what it was which then he gaue them, but to what end they should vse it, or for some such like pur­pose. And that the foresaied words do clearly expresse, what that was which at that time Christ gaue to his A­postles, is so euident, as our aduersaries themselues con­fesse. For thus Admonit. vlt. Caluin: I denie not, but Christment to speake most clearly. And Cont. Sel­nec. Beza: If the question be about the word of God, surely we haue none more expresse, and in which we more willingly rest, then the institution of the Supper it selfe: This is my bodie. Authores Admonit. de libro Concordiae c. 3. p. 91. The words of the Supper are most cleare, and of themselues abun­dantly sufficient for to be rightly vnderstood. And the same Whitaker ad Rat. 3. Zuinglius in Expl. art. 18. Riuet tract. 3. sect. 12. Polanus part. 1. thes. de caena. others confesse. The circonstance also of the time con­firmeth the same: For it was the last when Christ was to conuerse with his Apostles in humane māner, and there­fore it was behouefull, that, if euer, he should then speake in must plaine and vsuall sense, especially speaking of a matter newly then instituted by him, and bequeathed by him, by his last will and testament, and necessarily to be knowne of them, and yet which could no waie be knowne of them but by Christs words. But euident it is, that the most cleare manner of speaking, is to speake in the plaine, natiue, and vsuall sense of words, And conse­quently Christ, who by our aduersaries confession, ment to speake most clearely, speake in the plaine, natiue, and vsuall sense of his words. The circunstance of place also concurreth. For the place where Christ spoake these words, was free and void of strangers, so that thereby no occasion could be to meane otherwise then the words vsually did beare. The circunstance also of the Speaker doth much confirme the same. For he was the word it selfe, the wisdome of his Father, who both best knew how he ought to expresse his meaning about a new thing which could not be knowne of vs but by his words, & was most desirous that we should know what it was, and that [Page 558] we should rightly vnderstād his meaning. Finally Christs hearers do contest the same. For they were his Apostles, to whome he had made knowne the mysteries of God, and therefore of their parte there was no cause to speake otherwise, then men vse to do by such kind of words.

The seuenth head shalbe taken from the nature or qua­litie 7. From the matter. of the matter of the foresaied articles, in which Pro­testants contradict the expresse words of Scripture: toge­ther with Protestants want of the like opposite words of Scripture, which may seeme expressely and without any inference or exposition of Protestants, to teach as Prote­stants doe. For the matter of the foresaied articles partely is such, as the very light of reason doth see, that it is so as the expresse words of Scripture doth teach it to be: to wit, That God willeth not, doth not, commandeth not sinne: That he tempteth not, nor prodestinateth men to sinne, that he iustifieth not the impious remaining impious, that good workes are necessarie to saluation, and the like: Par­tely is knowne to be such by verie experience, as, That a man hath free will in good and badde, that he cooperateth to his conuersion, that faith is an act of man, and such others: Partely it is new, neuer heard of before, and farre beyond the reach of all reason, as is the Eucharist, and manie more. Now Protestants, in all kinds of matter What kind of words Pro­test. want. which is in controuersie, and almost in all the foresaied articles, want expresse words of Scripture, which were of purpose spoaken to declare what a thing was, and which, of themselues, plainly, and directly without any inference or exposition of men, may so much as seeme to say, that it is so as Protestants teach. Seing therefore that What kind of words Ca­tholiks doe bring. in all kind of matter in controuersie, and in all the fore­saied articles, Catholiks do bring both expresse words of Scripture, and spoaken of purpose to declare what we ought to beleiue touching that article, and which plainely and directly according to their natiue and v­suall sense amongst men without any inference or ex­position added to them, pronounce that it is so as [Page 559] Catholiks teach, and that the light of reason and ex­perience also contest the same sense in such matters as they can reach vnto: And that Protestants in none or very few articles can bring anie such expresse words of Scripture, which may so much as seeme to be so plaine What Pro­test. oppose against the expresse words of Scripture. for them, as those are for Catholiks, but in all, or all most all the saied articles, onely bring their inferences or argu­ments, and those composed at least of one humane prin­ciple, and that in matters which humane reason no way can reach vnto, it is mere madnesse to forsake the doctrine the doctrine of the Catholik Church, holie Fathers, and Councels, and the most expresse words of Scripture in all the saied articles, and the very light of reason and expe­rience it selfe in manie of them, and to harken to the in­ferences, consequences, and humane arguments of a few, new, and disagreing Heretiks. For example: Seing the Eucharist, as it is a matter of faith, to wit, a Sacrament in­stituted of Christ, and a guift giuen of him to the Church (whether it be onely a seale of grace, as Protestāts would, or the true bodie of Christ, as Catholiks beleiue) is a new thing, instituted first of Christ, and neuer heard of before, nor falleth vnder the reach of sense or reason, but onely of faith, and is such as Christ would haue it to be; is it not Madnesse to follow mens consequences rather then Gods words. madnesse, to gather what it is, rather by the humane infe­rences or arguments composed of some few, new, and disagreing men, of one humane principle at least, then by Christs owne words, and those most expresse, and spoakē of him purposely for to tell vs most clearely what he would haue the Eucharist to be? For who well in his witts will perswade himselfe, ether that these men by their humane arguments perceaue better, what a thing, which falleth not vnder reason, is, then Christ who insti­tuted it: or that they know better what Christ would haue it to be, then Christ himselfe: or that they expresse Christs meaning more clearely by their arguments and consequences quite opposite to Christs words, then he hath done by his owne expresse words speaking by him­selfe [Page 600] of purpose for to declare his meaning: or finally, that Christ expresseth his meaning concerning the Eucharist, by a humane principle no where deliuered of him, and a humane argument neuer made of him, and that also dire­ctly opposite to his owne expresse words, better then by his owne most expresse and cleare words, and those of purpose spoaken for to expresse clearely what he would haue the Eucharist to be? Can any mā beleiue, that a few, new, and disagreing men do vnderstand the supernaturall matters of faith better then God himselfe; or that they declare better what they are by their humane inferences and arguments composed of humane principles, thē God himselfe doth by his owne expresse words spoaken by him of purpose for to declare what they are? what it is to preferre mans word before Gods word, and man before God, if this be not? Or doth any wise man teach new Notethis. things, necessarie to be knowne of vs, and which cannot be knowne but by his teaching, and that but once in his life, and a litle before his death, onely by contraries, to wit, by saying that they are that which they are not in­deed, and neuer saying, that they are that which truely they are? And shall we thinke, that Christ, the wisdome of his Father, did once onely in his life, and neare vnto his death teach vs what the Eucharist is, (which was then a new thing neuer heard of before, and necessarie to be knowne of vs, and yet could not be knowne but by his teaching) onely by the contrarie; to wit, by saying most expressely that it was his bodie giuen and broken for vs, & neuer saying, that it was not his bodie, but onely a figure thereof, if indeed it onely were a figure as Protestants be­leiue? would God, or Gods Scripture (as S. Austin writeth) [...]. 33. cont. Fa [...]stum c. 7. speake in an other manner to vs then ours is? No surely, vnlesse it would not be vnderstood of vs. And who will say, that Is it mens cu­stome to be taught by cō ­traries? it is our manner to be taught new things, and that but once, and which cānot be knowne but by some Maisters teaching, not by our Maisters expresse words spoaken by him of purpose for to tell vs what those things are, but [Page 601] by a quite opposite discourse, not made of him but of some other, and consisting at least of one principle which he neuer allowed?

By these, Reader, thou seest clearly (as I hope) that if Ether Pro­test. contra­dict the true sense of Scrip­ture, or none. euer anie haue contradicted the true sense of the Scrip­ture, the Protestants haue done it: First because, they haue as often, and in as manie, and as weightie matters, con­tradicted the expresse words of Scripture, as euer anie haue. Secondly, because they haue contradicted, as ex­presse, and cleare words, and those as purposely spoaken to declare the Scriptures meaning, as euer anie words were which anie haue cōtradicted. Thirdly, because they haue contradicted them in as plaine, cleare, and vsuall sense, and which is confirmed by as manie circunstances, and by light of reason, and experience, as euer anie words of Scripture were contradicted in. Fourthly, because they contradict these kind of words in this kind of sense, with as euident want of the like words which may seeme plain­ly and directly of themselues without all inference or ex­position of man to beare the contrarie sense, as euer anie did. Thou seest also, what a maine difference there is be­twene The differēce betwene the grounds of the Cath. and Protest. faith. the foundations of the Catholik and Protestant be­leefe touching these articles. For whereas the foundation of the Protestant beleife concerning the Eucharist is no expresse word of God, which is purposely spoaken to de­clare this matter, and which of it selfe without all helpe of man doth plainely and directly pronounce, that it is such as they beleiue; but ether mans word onely, or mans discourse framed at least out of one humane principle: the foundation of the Catholik faith, is Gods expresse and cleare word, spoaken of him purposely for to declare what the Eucharist is, which of it selfe without anie helpe of vs, clearely, and directly auoucheth that the Eucharist is such as Catholiks beleiue it to be, and against which words no other expresse words of God, directly contrarie to these, can be opposed, but onely humane arguments and discourses. These (as S. Austin speaketh) are the proofes [Page 602] of our course, these the foundations, these the strength. What­soeuer Lib. de vnit. c. 19. In Psal. 21. they gayne say, men say: but this God saieth. Yet let vs heare, what it is which men say against God.

They except (saieth Caluin) that they haue the word, by 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 25. which the will of God is made manifest. A most iust exception doubtles, especially in matters of faith, and such as can­not be knowne but by Gods word, and against them who so much brag of Gods word. For if we haue Gods, word, we haue also Gods meaning, vnlesse they can de­monstrate the contrarie. Whereupon well saied Tertul­lian: Ether denie, that these are written, or who art thou, that Contr. Pra­xeam. c. 23. thou thinkest that they are not to be vnderstood as they are writ­ten? Forsooth (saieth Caluin) if we giue them leaue to banish out Loco cit. §. 20 of the Church the guift of interpretation, which may bring light to the word. Againe: We vsing daily studie, do embrace that sense, which the Holie Gost doth suggest. And once more: The reuerence of Christs words, is not a pretext iust enough, why they should so reiect all the reasons which we obiect. Behould, Rea­der, once more, the difference betwene the Catholik and Caluins faith. The Catholik faith (by the aduersaries con­fession What Caluin opposeth against the expresse word of God.) is grounded vpon the expresse and plaine words of God: Caluins faith relieth vpon his guift of interpreta­tion, his studie, the suggestions of his spirit, his reasons, which he dare oppose, yea prefer, before the expresse word of God. But we demand, that seing we haue for vs the expresse word of God, wherewith Gods will touching the Eucharist is made manifest, he produce the like word of God, whereby it may be made manifest, that the Cal­uinists haue the guift of interpretation rather then the Catholiks, or the Lutherans, or anie sorte of Christians; or that that guift of interpreting which interpreteth Gods expresse words, spoaken by him of supernaturall matters of purpose to declare what they are contrarie to their vsuall sense, is the guift of God. But if he cannot pro­duce anie such word of God, it were starke madnesse to forsake Gods expresse word, and the plaine meaning thereof, which besides Sacramentaries all Christians els [Page 603] do embrace, and to follow a guift of interpretation ether vncertaine, or feigned. Besides, Protestants do banish the guift of infallible interpretation out of the Church, in say­ing, that she may erre in matters of faith and interpreta­tation of Scripture, why then do they in this matter pre­tend such a guift, and oppose it against Gods expresse words? Moreouer to expound words which (by their owne confession) are most cleare, is no other thing, then (as S. Austin saieth) to cast darknesse vpon cleare light. Ne­ther Serm. 14. de verbis Apost. banish we the guift of interpretation out of the Church, which neuer interpreted these words but in their natiue and vsuall sense; but we denie that Here­tiks haue the guift of interpreting the Scripture; and af­firme, that their new expositiō, directly contrarie to Gods words, both expresse and of purpose spoaken to declare this matter, and condemned by Gods Church, is no in­terpretation, but a deprauation and corruption. Further­more, we reiect no interpretation which may bring light to the word, but we denie, that Caluins interpretation is such, but rather quite extinguisheth the cleare light of the word. For what greater darknesse can be cast vpon light, then in expresse words spoaken of purpose to de­clare a matter, and by which a new doctrine is deliuered, a new Sacrament instituted, a last will is made, and which were spoaken of the Maister of trueth, vnto his disciples, when he was to forsake them, to expound Is, by, Is not: and, Body giuen for you, by A bare figure or Signe thereof. And thus we haue heard what Caluin opposeth against Gods expresse word: now let vs see how he would diminish the force and authoritie of the same.

I confesse (saieth he) that they haue the word. A confes­sion surely much to be esteemed, especially proceeding In Act. 9. v. 21. from such an aduersarie as is accustomed to crie: That Pa­pists find no weapons for them in the Scripture. But he should also haue confessed, as the trueth is, that Protestants haue not such a word, to wit, which plainely and directly de­nieth the Eucharist to be the bodie and blood of Christ. [Page 604] For thereby it would haue appeared more clearelie, whe­ther Catholiks or Protestants find the better weapons in the Scripture. But he addeth: Yet such a word, as the An­thropomorphites had, when they made God to haue a bodie. Yea such a word, as thou or anie Christian hath, when he maketh God to haue beene incarnated, to haue suffered, to haue risen againe, and to haue ascended to heauen; and (as I dare say) a clearer word also, if the words themselues and the foresaied circunstances be considered. So that Differences betwene the Cath. and the Anthro­pomorphites. more iustly may anie Heretik, who denieth the foresaied mysteries, obiect to thee, the example of the Anthropo­morphites, then thou canst obiect it to vs in this mysterie. For the Anthropomorphites in no place of Scripture had 1 an expresse word, which directly saied God hath a bodie: We haue a most expresse word, wherewith Christ saied most directly of that which he gaue to his Apostles: This is my bodie. The Anthropomorphites had no expresse 2 word, which was of purpose spoakē to tell vs what God was: we haue an expresse word spoaken purposely to this end, and onely to this end, to tell vs what the Eucharist is. The Anthropomorphites had no expresse word, which 3 anie circunstances of moment did conuince to be vnder­stood in their proper sense: we haue an expresse word, which all circustances do confirme ought to be vnder­stood in their natiue and vsuall signification. The Anthro­pomorphites 4 had a word, but as a thing, which the very light of reason did shew to be otherwise then the word did signifie: we haue the word, of a new thing, neuer heard of before, and which can no way be knowne by the light of reason, but onely by the word of God. Finally 5 (to omit al other differences taken from the Church, Fa­thers, and Councels) the Anthropomorphites had the word of a matter, which the Scripture other where most manifestly denieth: we haue the word of a matter which Deuter. 4. Actor. 7. Ioan. 4. the Scripture no where directly (ether clearely or obscu­ly) denieth, nether the deniall thereof can any way be wroūg out of the Scripture, but by adding a false humane [Page 605] principle, and by making a deceitfull humane argument. Thus manie and thus great differences are there betwene the word, wherewith we make the Eucharist the bodie of Christ, and the word wherewith the Anthropomor­phites made God to haue a bodie, as I thinke are not be­twene the word which the Anthropomorphites alledged, and the word wherewith anie other article of Christian faith is proued.

And thus much touching the first argument taken from the opposition betwixt the words of the holie Scripture and of Protestants in 260. articles, and such words of the Scripture as were spoaken of purpose for to tell vs what we were to beleiue, and in their open and plaine sense, which they manifestly shew, and in which such words vse to be spoaken and vnderstood of men: which argu­ment as a foundation of all the rest that follow, shalbe in­cluded in euerie one of them.

CHAPTER II. THAT PROTESTANTS CONFESSE, that they contradict the sense of those words, which the Ca­tholik Church manie ages agoe and manie of themselues be­leiue to be the words of God.

THE second argument, wherewith we will proue that Protestants contradict the true sense of the holie Scripture, we will take from their confes­sion, wherein they confesse, that they contradict the sense of those words, of which, some of them (to let passe all other proofes) are acknowledged by diuers Protestants, and all of them were manie ages agoe iudged by the Ca­tholik Lutherans confesse that their doctrine is against S. Iames Epi­stle. Church to be a parte of the holie Scripture.

For Luther and the Lutheran Protestants do confesse, that the cheifest point of Protestancie, to wit, of Iustifica­tion by onelie faith, doth verilie contradict the Epistle of [Page 606] S. Iames, where he saieth. Yee see, that a man is iustified by workes, and not by faith onely. For thus writeth Luther in his Preface vpon that Epistle: I iudge it to be the writing of no Apostle, for this cause. First because directly against S. Paul, and all other Scripture, it attributeth iustification to workes. And in Luther saieth: S. Iames doa­ted. c. 22. Gen. tom. 6. fol. 282. Iames concludeth ill. It followeth not as Iames doateth: Therefore the fruites do iustifie—let our ad­uersaries therefore be packing with their Iames. Melancthon de Sacris Concion. to. 2. fol. 23. But if they cannot be mitti­gated by anie exposition, as those words of Iames: Yee see &c. these absolutely are not to be admitted. Magdelburgenses Cē ­tur. 1. l. 2. c. 4. col. 54. The Epistle of Iames swarueth not a litle from the analogie of Apostolik doctrine, whiles it ascribeth iu­stification not to faith onely, but to workes. And Centur. 2. c. 4. col. 71. The Epistle of Iames attributeth iustice to workes con­trarie to Paul and all other Scriptures. Schlusselburg. lib. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 15. fol. 50. Iames contrarie to Paul attribu­teth iustice to workes. And tom. 8. Catal. Haeret. pag. 500. he saieth of S. Iames. He fighteth directly with Paul and all the rest of the Scripture, by giuing iustice before God to mans workes. The same confesse Pomeranus and Vitus Theodorus cited by Coccius to. 1. lib. 6. art. 23. and Pappus cited by Gretser l. 1. de verbo Dei c. 18. and the same is insinuated by Hun­nius de Iustific. pag. 219. Wherevpon Daneus in Enchirid. Augustini c. 67. saieth: It troubleth manie now a dayes, so that some haue cast out the Epistle of Iames, others haue called it straweish. And Pareus l. 4. de Iustif. c. 18. Luther could not ac­cord (Iames with Paul) but by casting away the whole Epistle. Beza also in Iac. 2. v. 14. Manie haue cast away this Epistle for this cause, as if it were contrarie to true doctrine. Nether do onelie Lutherans iudge thus of S. Iames his Epistle, but also some Sacramentaries. For Musculus de locis tit. de Some Sacra­mentaries re­iect Sainct Iames. Iustificat. saieth: That impertinentlie he alledgeth the ex­amples of Abraham; That he confoundeth the word of faith, and setteth downe a sentence different from Apo­stolicall doctrine. And ib. tit. de Scriptur. pa. 172. plainelie professeth, that he houldeth it not for authenticall Scrip­ture. [Page 607] And the Confession Heluet. c. 15. saieth: The same saied he (Iames) not contradicting S. Paul, otherwise he were to be reiected. And neuerthelesse, commonly all Sacramen­taries account S. Iames Epistle to be a parte of holie Scrip­ture; in so much as the English, French, and Flemish Pro­testants haue put it in their Confessions, as a point of their faith.

Wherefore thus I argue in forme: what contradicteth the Epistle of S. Iames, contradicteth the holie Scripture. The cheifest point of Protestancie touching Iustification by onely faith cōtradicteth the Epistle of S. Iames: There­fore it contradicteth the holie Scripture. The Maior or first Proporsition is not onely beleiued and tought of all Catholiks, but also commonelie of Sacramentaries: And the Minor or second Proposition is graunted by the Lu­therans.

In like sorte all Protestants acknowledge their doctrine Protestants confesse that they teach contrarie to Machab. To­bie. &c. of not praying for the dead to be contrarie to those words of 2. Machab. c. 12. It is a holie and holesome cogitation to pray for the dead, that they may be loose from their sinnes. Wherevpon Caluin in Antidoto Concil. Trident. sess. 4. p. 265. saieth: Out of the 2. of Machabes both Purgatorie will be proued, and the Intercession of Saints: out of Tobie, Satisfa­ctions, Exorcismes, and what not? They will borrow no few mat­ters of Ecclesiasticus. For from whence might they better draw their dreggs. So plainelie he confesseth, that his doctrine in the foresaied points contradicted the bookes of Ma­chabes, Tobie, and Ecclesiasticus. And notwithstanding S. Austin (whome Caluin 4. Instit. c. 14. §. 26. Protestants account the best witnesse of antiquitie) clearelie testifieth that manie ages agoe the holie Church held the bookes of Machabes for Cano­nicall Scripture. For thus he writeth of them lib. 18. de Ci­uitat. c. 36. Which, not Iewes, but the Church holdeth for Ca­nonicall. And the like he saieth lib. 1. cont. Gaudent. cap. 23. Lib. de do­ctrin. Christ. c. 8. l. 2. Re­tract. c. 4. and otherwhere. Besides manie Protestantt, as Caluin in Antidot. cit. p. 266. Whitaker Contr. 3. q. 6. c. 3. Perkins de Symbol. p. 787. and also Hyperius, Zanchius, Lubbertus, [Page 608] Hospinian, Rainolds, Feild, and others alledged in the Protestants Apologie Tract. 1. Sect. 3. confesse, that the Councel of Carthage (where S. Austin was present and subscribed thereto) did reckon the bookes of Machabes in the nūber of Canonicall Scripture. And to omit all other arguments drawne out of the Scripture and Fathers for the infallibilitie of the Church, the Protestants them­selues eftsoones confesse, that the Church can discerne true Scriptures from false, and that we are bound to yeeld to her iudgment. For thus saieth Luther l. de Captiuit. to. 2. fol. 84. This indeed hath the Church, that she can discerne The Church can discerne the word of God. Hath autho­ritie to iudge. the word of God from the word of men, as Austin confesseth that he beleiued the Ghospell being moued by the authoritie of the Church. The Confession of Wittenberg. cap. de Eccles. The Church hath authoritie to iudge of all doctrines. And cap. de Concilijs: She hath an assured promisse of the perpetuall pre­sence of Christ, and she is gouerned of the holie Ghost. Melan­cthon Respons. ad Acta Ratisbon. tom. 3. pag. 732. We ac­knowledge this authoritie of testifying the Apostolicall Scrip­tures, or discerning the writings of the Apostles from counter­fait, doth agree to the true Church. Caluin de vera ref. p. 232. I denie not, but that it is the proper office of Church to discerne true The proper office of the Church. Scriptures from counterfeit. Peter Martyr Praefat. 1. Epist. ad Corinth. We will easily graunt, that the ancient Church was indued so much with the holie Ghost, that by his leading and di­rectiō they easily discerned betwene those which were proposed to them, which were the true and sincere words of God, and by this spirituall power they distinguished the Canon of Scriptures from apocryphall bookes. And in locis Class. 1. c. 6. §. 6. We acknow­ledge the office of the Church to be, that being indued with Gods Spirit, she may distinguish the true and sincere bookes of holie writ from counterfeit and apocryphall. Iuel in Defens. of the Apologie pag. 204. The Church of God, had the spirit of wis­dome, She hath the spirit of wis­dome. Can discerne true Scrip­tures. whereby she might discerne true Scriptures from false. Fulke in his Answere to a false Cathol. p. 5. The Church of Christ indeed can discerne true Scriptures from false. Perkins de Serm. Dom. tom. 2. col. 252. The Church hath the guift of iud­ging [Page 609] of greatest matters. She can iudge of the booke of Scripture, Hath the guift of iud­ging. which are Canonicall, which are not, of the spirits of men, and of their doctrines, and therefore surely can iudge which companie of men is the true Church, which is not. Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 3. c. 1. pag. 315. We denie not, that it belongeth to the Church, to approue, to acknowledge, to receaue, to promulgate, to commend the Scriptures to all her children, and we say, that this testimonie is true and ought to be admitted of all. Cap. 2. pag. 316. It is the office of the Church to iudge and discerne true sincere and right Scriptures from false, counterfait, and bastard. And for to dis­charge Hath the spirit of Christ to distinguish this office, she hath the Spirit of Christ, by which she may distinguish trueth from lyes, she knoweth the voice of her Spouse, she is most iuditious and can discerne spirits. Cap. 5. p. Her tradition conuinceth. 322. I denie not, that the Tradition of the Church is an argumēt by which it may be cōuinced, which kookes are Canonicall, which not Canonicall. cap. 6. pag. 323. The Church hath the Spirit of God, by which being taught, she heareth the voice of he Spouse, and acknowledgeth his doctrine. cap. 7. pag. 324. Indeed we may Her autho­ritie cōpelleth be compelled by the authoritie of the Church to acknowledge the Canonicall Scripture: I say (as I often saied before) that we are compelled by the authoritie of the Church to beleiue these bookes to be Canonicall. And cap. 9. pag. 326. We graunt with Ireney, A sound de­monstration. that the authoritie of the Church is a sound and breife demūstra­tion a posteriori, of Canonicall doctrine. And l. 1. de Scriptura c. 1. sect. 9. he affirmeth, that the testimonie of the Church ought to be receaued, and who receaueth it not, is guiltie of sacri­ledge. And lib. 2. cap. 4. sect. 4. p. 227. I say the testimonie of the Church is sufficient to refute and conuince those, who thinke amisse of the Scriptures. The like he hath ib. p. 218. 228. and and other where often.

Out of which confessions of Protestants of the autho­rite and power of the Church to discerne and distinguish true Scripture from false, we may thus argue. It belon­geth to the Church, yea it is her function and proper of­fice, to discerne true Scriptures from false, she hath that she can distinguish the word of God from the word of man, she is taught of the holie Ghost, indued with Gods [Page 610] Spirit, hath the guift of iudging, the spirit of wisdome for to discerne, by her tradition it may be conuinced which bookes are Canonicall which not, by her authoritie, we may be compelled to acknowledge the Canonicall Scrip­ture, her authoritie is a sound demonstration of Canoni­call doctrine, her testimonie ought to be receaued of all, and who receaueth it not, is guiltie of sacriledge. But this holie Church manie ages agoe hath iudged the bookes of Machabes to be Canonicall; Therefore they are such. The Maior or first Proposition is the confession of Prote­stants now rehearsed, and the Minor is confirmed by the foresaied testimonie of S. Austin and the confessions of the forenamed Protestants. And howsoeuer Protestants, The Cath. aduantage ouer Protest. will delude this argument, they must needs confesse, that Catholiks haue the aduantage of them, in that Protestāts produce no testimonie which forceth Catholiks to reiect anie booke which anie Father testifieth to haue beene anciently held of the Church for Canonicall, as Catho­liks produce the testimonie of S. Iames, which maketh the Lutherans to reiect his epistle, which other Protestants confesse to be Canonicall, and an other testimonie out of the bookes of Machabes, which forceth all Protestants to reiect those bookes, which S. Austin and other do witnesse to haue beene anciently held of the Church for Canonicall. Wherefore let this be one argument.

Who not onely in manie and weightie articles do con­tradict the expresse words of holie Scripture, and those spoakē of purpose that we might know the true meaning thereof touching those articles, but also are forced to re­iect manie bookes of Scripture, whereof some, euen manie of themselues, and all of them, the holie Church manie ages since hath iudged to be partes of the holie Scripture, those contradict the very true sense of Scrip­ture: But Protestants doe so: Therefore they contradict the true sense of Scripture.

CHAPTER III. THAT PROTESTANTS ARE FORCED to vse violence to the text of that parte of Scripture which they receaue.

IN the former chapter, we saw how Protestants were forced to reiect a good parte of the holie Scripture, now we shall see, how they deale with that parte which they seeme to admit, by adding to it, by detracting from it, by changing some words, by calling others in doubt, by false translating some, by changing the order of others, and such like dealings. And let the Reader note, What falsifi­cations of Scripture are here touched. that whereas Protestants corrupt the words or sense of holie Scripture for twoe ends, whereof the one is, that it may seeme to make for them: the other is, that it may not seeme to make against them; I will in this, and the next chapters relate onely their fashions of corrupting the Scripture that it may not seeme to make against them; be­cause these make more to my purpose, which is to shew that Protestants contradict the true sense of the holie Scripture: And by that which shalbe saied of this their manner of corrupting, it will easily be gathered, what their other manner of corrupting Scripture is. Let him also note that I intend not to bring all the examples of Protestants corrupting Scripture in anie kind whatsoeuer, but onely so manie as may suffice to proue, that they vse to corrupte Scripture in such sorte. For as Tertullian ob­serued l. Praescript. c. 38. Who meane to teach new doctrine, are forced by necessitie to alter the instruments of doctrine. Et c. 17. Heresie, if it admit anie Scripture, doth change it by addition and detraction for to serue her turne.

Wherefore because these words of the Apostle Rom. They adde to the text. 11. v. 32. For God hath concluded all things into incredulitie, that he may haue mercie on all: do proue, that God hath a will [Page 612] to haue mercie an all. Beza twise addeth to the text the Pronoune Them, in this manner: For God hath concluded all them in obstinacie, that he might haue mercie on all them: Lest the Apostle should seeme to speake simply of all, and not of the elect onely, as Beza would.

Because those words Rom. 2. v. 27. And that which of na­ture They adde. is prepuce, fulfilling the law, shall iudge thee, who by the let­ter and circumcision art a preuaricatour of the law: Proue that some do fulfill the law, Beza addeth twise the particle If, in this sorte. If it fulfill the law. And so of an absolute pro­position maketh a conditionall. The same doth Caluin, the Kings and Queen Elizabeths, Bible, and the French Geneua Bible of the yeares 1562. 1568. 1605. and 1610.

Because those words of the Apostle ad Philemon v. 14. They adde. But without thy counsaill I would do nothing, that thy good might be not as it were of necessitie, but voluntarie: proue good workes to be voluntarie and not done necessarily, the French Bibles An. 1605. and 1610. adde this particle: As; and make the Apostle to say: But as voluntarie. The Kings Bible for voluntarie, hath willingly.

Because those words Tit. 5. v. 3. According to his mercie he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and renouation of the holie Ghost, proue, that Baptisme concurreth to worke our saluation, the French Bibles An. 1562. 1568. 1605. and 1610. take away those words, He hath saued vs, and put them in the former verse, where they make not so much against them. The Kings Bible putteth a comma betwixt: He hath saued vs, and, By the lauer &c. Lest the Apostle should seeme to say, that God worketh our saluation by baptisme, and as Catholiks teach, and not onely signifie it thereby, as Protestants would.

Because those words 2. Pet. 1. v. 10. Wherefore brethren la­bour, They take from the text. that by good workes you may make sure your vocation and election: proue good workes to be necessarie to saluation, and to breed assurance thereof: Luther in his Dutch Bible and in his Commentarie vpon that place tom. 5. blotteth out those words: By good workes. And so doth the Kings [Page 613] Bible, Beza, Tremellius and other. Schioppius also in Ec­clesiastico c. 12. writeth, that Luther in his Bible left out those words Mark 11. v. 26. If so be that you will not forgiue, nether will your Father that is in heauen forgiue you your sinnes: Which teach that our good workes are necessarie to re­mission of sinnes.

Because the verbe: Is: in the words of the institution of They change the words of the text. the holie Eucharist, do proue that it is the bodie and blood of Christ, the Protestants of Zurich in their Dutch Bibles haue changed is into this verbe: Signifieth, as Schlussel­burg. l. 2. Theol. Caluin c. 6. witnesseth that he hath seene and read. Yea Zuinglius l. de ver. relig. c. de Euchar. to. 2. was so audacious as to write thus: Thus hath Luke, which Euangelist onely we will alledge: This signifieth my bodie which is giuen for you. For as he saieth l. de Caena tom. 2. fol 274. If Is be put substantiuely, we must needs confesse, that the true sub­stance of the true fllesh as Christ is present in the supper. And Respons. ad Billican. tom. 2. fol. 261. If you take, Is, substan­tiuely, then the Papists haue wone. A goodly excuse surely for to corrupt the holie text: For if it must be corrupte, it must be done for to vp hould heresie. But this corruption of Scripture is so great and so manifest, as Schlusselburg. l. cit. saied iustly: This onely corruption of the words of the Sōne of God, ought to driue all men from the companie and impietie of Caluinists.

Because the words, Benediction, and we do blesse, in that They change. speach of S. Paul 1. Corinth. 10. The Cuppe of benediction which we do blesse, &c. do insinuate, that the wine in the Cuppe ought to be blessed, Zuinglius l. de Caena. tom. 2. fol. 294. saieth: The words of Benediction and blessing ought not to be vsed in this place. For commonely they vse to be taken for the word of Consecration. And 1. Corinth. 5. to 4. thus he writeth: Thus are the words: The Cuppe of thanks giuing where­with we giue thanks is it not &c. And in like sorte he hath l. de Subsidio tom. 2. fol. 253. of which corruption of Scrip­ture thus writeth Illyricus vpon this place: Some corrupt this text, by translating: The Cuppe of thanks giuing by which [Page 614] we giue thanks, and the text so corrupted they vse in their litur­gies in steed of the words of the Institution or holie supper, ma­king a duble sacriledge. Caluin also in Math. 26. ver. 26. not onely expoundeth the word [...], by He gaue thāks, but also in the very text, translateth it when he had giuen thanks. And yet (as himselfe confesseth there) Mathew and Marke vse the word of Blessing. Why therefore would not he vse the same word in S. Mathews text?

Because those words Acts 2. v. 27. Because thou wilt not They change. leaue my soule in hell, proue that Christs soule descended into hel, Beza in his translation An. 1557. thus changeth the text: Because thou wilt not leaue my carcasse in the graue. Et ad Defens. Castell. p. 460. he saieth: My soule, in the text I did translate My carcasse, but in my Notes, My life: but we may also take, My soule, in steed of the Pronoune, Me. Which expo­sition (saieth he) is most plaine. And he addeth: Where as I noted, that by the ancient translation (my soule) the error rose, I did it not without cause, sith we see that Papists wrest this place especially for to setle their Limbus, and the Fathers from thence deuised that descent of Christ soule into hell. As if he had saied, I was forced to alter the tongue of the holie Ghost, because he spoake against me. In like sorte, because we proue the same out of that passage Act. 2. v. 3 [...]. Foreseing he spoake of the resurrection of Christ, for nether was he left in hell &c. the French Bibles An. 1562. 1567. 1568. 1605. of Hell, haue made Graue, as also hath Tremellius done in his La­tin translation of the Bible neuewed by Iunius & printed at Hannow 1603.

Because those words Psalm. 5. verss. 5. Thou art not a God They change. that wilt iniquitie: proue that God no way willeth iniquitie or sinne: the Kings Bible translateth the place thus: That hath pleasure in wickednesse. The French Bibles An. 1568. That loueth iniquitie: And those of 1588. and 1610. That art not delighted with iniquitie. And the like hath Piscator apud Vorstium in Parasceue cap. 3. and Tremellius in this place. That so they may defēd their blasphemous doctrine, that God willeth iniquitie, though he do not loue it.

Because these words Ezechiel. 33. vers. 11. Liue I, sayeth They change. our Lord: I will not the death of the wicked, but that he be con­uerted from his way and liue: do proue that God of himselfe willeth no mans death, the Kings Bible translateth them thus: I haue no pleasure in the death &c. and so also doth Musculus in locis tit. de veritate, Tremellius in this place, Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. p. 187. and others. That God may seeme of himselfe to will mens death, though he take not pleasure in it, as (say they) a sicke man willeth a bitter po­tion, though he take no delighte in it.

Because the words 2. Thessalon. 2. v. 15. Hould the tradi­tions They change. which yee haue learnt, whether it be by word or by our E­pistle: do proue that traditions not written are as well to be held as those that are written: Beza in his translation An. 1598. changeth the disiunctiue particle whether, into the coniunctiue Also, in this manner: Hould the traditions which yee haue learnt by speach and also by our Epistle. Whome follow Author Respons. ad Theses Vadimontanas pag. 647. and others. An other translation of Beza in Tremel­lius hath thus: Hould the deliuered doctrine, which you haue beene taught both by speach and by Epistle. Where for whether he hath And, and for Traditions, Deliuered doctrine, as Tre­mellius for Traditions, hath, Commandments, The French An. 1568. and 1605. haue Institutions, and the Queens Bible, hath Ordinances.

Because those words 1. Timoth. 2. v. 4. Who will all men They change. to be saued, shew that God hath a will to saue all men, Beza in that place changeth All, into whomsoeuer: that God may seeme to haue onely a will to saue whatsoeuer kinde of men. In like sorte ib. v. 6. Where the Scripture saieth: Who gaue himselfe a redemption for all. Beza translateth, For whom­soeuer.

Because that speach 1. Timoth. 4. v. 10. Who is the Sa­niour They change. of all men, especially of the faithfull: declare that Christ redeemed all men: Beza in that place in steed of Sauiour, putteth, Preseruer. And saieth: Because the name of Sauiour troubleth manie, in that commonly it signifieth eternall life pur­chased [Page 616] by Christ, therefore to auoid ambiguitie, I chose rather to say Preseruer. As if he had saied: Because the word which the Scripture vseth, doth shew that Christ purchased e­ternall life for all, therefore I haue changed it for an other.

Because those words Coloss. 1. v. 10. That yee may walke They change. worthie of God: and 1. Thessalon. 2. v. 11. We haue adiured euerie one of you that you walke worthie of God: and 3. Epistle of 5. Ihon. v. 6. Whome, thou shalt doe well, bringing on their way in manner worthie of God: do shew that good workes may be worthie of God; Beza in all these places, for worthie of God: hath Agreable to God. Tremellius 1. Coloss. v. 10. for worthie of God, hath: It is iust. and 1. Thessal. 2. It is agreable to God. The Kings Bible 3. Ioan. 6. cit. hath After a godlie sorte.

Because Christs words Lucae 7. ver. 47. Manie sinnes are They change. forgiuen her, because she hath loued much: insinuate iustifica­tion by workes. Beza in place of Because (in Greek [...]) translateth For. And addeth that he did so, that it might be more easily perceaued, that in these words is not shewed the cause of remission of sinnes. The Kings Bible, Illyricus and others follow Beza herein.

Because those words of S. Luke c. 1. v. 6. They were both They transla­te ill. iust before God, walking in all the commandements and iustifi­cations of our Lord without blame: helpe to proue, that good workes are iustifications, and do iustifie: Beza, though he confesse that the Greek word which S. Luke vseth, be to be literally translated Iustifications: Yet saieth, that he would not so interprete it, that (saieth he) I might take away this occasion of impugning iustification by (onely) faith, and so in steed of Iustifications, hath, Rites. Tremellius, hath Righte­ousnesse. Queen Elizabeths and King Iames Bible, ordi­nances.

Because those words Philip. 2. v. 12. Worke your saluation Translate ill. with feare and trembling: proue, that we may worke our saluation: The French Bibles An. 1562. 1568. 1605. 1610. in steed of worke haue, Endeauour you: that the Scripture may seeme onely to say, that we may endeauour to worke, [Page 617] but not worke our saluation.

Because those words Iames 5. v. 16. Confesse your sinnes Translate ill. one to an other: proue, that we ought to confesse our sinnes to men, the French Bibles An. 1605. 1610. translate them thus: Confesse your faults one against an other, as if the Apo­stle had bidden, onely to confesse offences done against men. The same insinuateth the Kings Bibles, whiles for Sinnes it hath Faultes.

Because those words Actor. 23. v. 11. And the night fol­lowing, Translate ill. our Lord standing by him, saied &c. do proue, that Christ was present with S. Paul in prison, the French Bi­bles An. 1560 1562. 1568. 1605. in steed of Standing by, tran­slate, He presented himselfe. Tremellius hath, He was seene.

Because those words Hebr, 4. ver. 14. Hauing therefore a Translate ill. great high Preist that hath penetrated the heauens, Caluin for Penetrated the heauenes, translated: He entred, Beza, He passed through: Tromellius, He ascended.

Because that Pronoune demonstratiue Hic, This: in those words of Christ: This is my blood, doth proue, that it Translate ill. is not referred to the word Cuppe or wine, but to the word Blood, Beza in Math. 26. v. 28. would not translate it Hic in the masculine gender, but Hoc in the neuter gender. For (saieth he) homilia 2. de ver. present. vol. 3. pag. 316. Surely who saieth Hic, This is my blood; pointeth at nothing, but his owne blood. The like he saieth in Cyclope pag. 268. Pis­cator l. 2. Thes. p. 450. And yet as Illyricus saieth: All both ancient and new, and Caluin himselfe translate, Hic: This is my blood. And Beza himselfe Hebr 9. ver. 20. translateth the very selfe same Greek words thus, Hic est sanguis: This is my blood: because there they proue not that the Eu­chariste is the bloud of Christ, as they do Mathew. 26. v. 28. cit. Musculus also in locis tit. de Caena pag. 360. affir­meth, that [...] vsed by S. Mathew and S. Mark, is not well translated in the Masculin gender Hic, Vnlesse we vnderstand Calix, and neuerthelesse in the same place saieth, that Mathew and Mark write, that our Lord saied: Hic: This is my my blood of the new testament. So that though twoe Euan­gelists [Page 618] teach that our Lord saied Hic, This, in the Mascu­line gender, yet it is not well translated so.

Because those Greek words Luc. 22. vers. 20. [...] that is. This is the new cuppe which the new testament in my blood, that (Cuppe) which is shed for you, do euidently shew that the word Shed is referred to the word (Cuppe) and consequently doe proue that it was a Cuppe of the true blood of Christ, Beza vpon that place, and Respons. ad Illyr. p. 198. and other Protestants after him, saieth, that ether there is a manifest Solloecophanes, wherein the They call in do o [...] the words. Nominatiue case is put for the Datiue, or els these words are foisted into the text: And yet confesseth, that all our ancient Copies haue the nominatiue case: or as Fulk saieth Praef. in nou. testam. not. 49. All the Copies extant haue it in the nominatiue case. And Beza herein is followed of Whitaker l. 1. cont. Dur. sect. 35. Daneus Contr. de Euchar. p. 544. Bu­canus loco. 48. Piscator in Refutat. Sophismatum Hunnij p. 468. and of others. Zuinglius resp. ad Matthaeum Rul­ling. tom. 2. fol. 156. somewhat bolder, translated these Greek words so, as the word Shed cannot be referred to the word Cup to which alone S. Luke referreth it, for thus he hath: Hoc poculum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis fun­ditur: and Respons. ad Confess Lutheri tom. 2. fol. 511. saieth, that it is an Enallage or Change of the Nominatiue case for the Datiue. Moreouer Beza Luc. 22. vers. 17. calleth in doubt: those words: Which is giuen for you: Whereby the real presence is confirmed.

Because those words Math. 10. vers. 2. The names of the They call in doubt. twelue Apostles be these: These first, Simon, who is called Peter: proue the primacie of S. Peter; Beza vpon that place saieth: What if this word, First, be added by some, who would stablish the the primacie of Peter? And neuerthelesse addeth: We find it so written in all Copies. And so by his owne confession, con­trarie to the testimonie of all Copies calleth in question a word which fauoureth the Primacie of S. Peter.

Because the Pronoune Hoc or Hic in the words of They [...]ll in doubt. [Page 619] the Eucharist, being taken adiectiuely, helpeth to proue the Eucharist to be the bodie & blood of Christ: Daneus l. 1. de Euchar. c. 1. pag. 543. saieth: What if I except, that the proper words of Christ were onely these twoe? Is my stesh: I shall with one word frustrate all this proofe by the Pronoune, Hoc: But if thou canst nether proue thy exceptiō of Christs words, nor canst denie, but that the Euangelists haue the pro­noune Hoc, This, is not thy exception both vaine and im­pious?

Because those words 1. Corinth. 13. v. 2. If I should haue Translate ill. all faith, so that I could remoue mountaines, and haue not cha­ritie, I am nothing: do proue, that no faith at all worketh iustification without charitie: Beza therefore All tran­slateth whole, and saieth he doth it, lest this text should deceaue anie.

Because those words Daniel 4. v. 24. Redeeme thou thy Translate ill. sinnes with almes, proue, that good workes do redeeme sinnes: The Kings Bible translateth it thus: Breake of thy sinnes by righteousnesse: And others say, that our translatiō is naught: And neuerthelesse P. Martyr on this place auou­cheth. That the Chaldee, in which tongue this was written, hath word for word, Redeeme thy sinnes by iustices, and so it is cited by Caluin 3. Instit. c. 4. §. 36. Apolog. Confess. August. c. de respons. ad argumenta, and also by others reported in the Protestants Apologie Tract. 1. sect. 4. subdiuis. 7.

Because those words Hebr. 2. ver. 9. But him, that was a They change the order of the words. litle lessened vnder the Angels, we see Iesus because of the passion of death, crowned with glorie and honor: proue, that Christ was crowned with glorie, because he suffered death: Beza turneth the words thus: But we see that Iesus crowned with glorie and honor, who for a time was made inferior to Angels for suffering of death. And King Iames Bible followeth him: As if the Apostle had not saied, why Christ was crowned with glorie, but why he whas made inferiour to Angels. And yet Beza is not ashamed to adde: Let no man meruaile that I haue changed the placing of the words.

Because the words 2. Pet. 2. v. 8. For in sight and hearing They [...] the [...]. [Page 620] he was iust, dwelling with thē who from day to day vexed the iust soule with vniust workes: proue, that mē may be iuste in some deeds: The King and Queens Bible turne the words thus: For being righteous, and dwelling amōg thē, in seing and hearing vexed his soule. Where they do not refer iust or righteous to Seing and hearing as the text doth.

Because those words 1. Corinth. 14. vers. 17. Thou indeed They omit words. giuest thanks well, do plainely approue praier in an vn­knowne tongue; Zuinglius Caluin and Beza in their Cō ­mentaries slippe ouer these words. Yea Caluin 3. Instit. c. 20. §. 33. citing this sentence, omitteth the word well. In like sorte Caluin and Beza Luc. 22. v. 32. slippe ouer those words of Christ: I haue praied for thee, by which S. Peters Primacie is confirmed.

Wherefore thus I make my third argumēt: Who beside the foresaied opposition to the expresse words of Scrip­ture, are forced many times to vse violence to the very sacred text by adding or taking away words, by chan­ging, by calling in doubt, by ill translating, by omitting, by changing the order of the words, they are to be iudged to contradict the true sense of the holie Scripture. But Protestants do so. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER IV. THAT PROTESTANTS OVERTHROW all force of the words of holie Scripture, yea contemne and deride them.

OVR fourth argument shalbe, that Protestants, when they nether dare denie, nor change the words of Scripture, yet ouerthrow all the force of them, yea sometimes contemne and scoffe at them.

The first way by which they delude the expresse word of God, is that in what kind of matter soeuer, to wit, whether it be of precept or doctrine, whether it can be [Page 621] knowne onely by Gods word or no: and in what places soeuer, to wit, whether in them the matter be handled purposely, or no; in what kind of matter soeuer (I say) and in what kind of place soeuer, the holie Scripture speaketh expressely against thē, they crie, that we must not stick to the letter nor vrge it. Zuinglius in Math. 19. to. 4. The words Protest. will not haue the word of God vrged against them. of Christ: what God hath ioyned, let not man seperate, are so drie, that it may seeme, that married persons can be seperated for no cause. Here because the letter clearely maketh against him, he addeth: But we will not after the Iewish manner sticke so superstitiously to the letter. And in Mark. 1. We must not stick fast to the bare letter, but the letter is to be expounded and di­rected according to the rule of the (Protestants) Spirit. Et In­stitut. de caena. tom. 2. fol. 288. Is it fit in Scripture to vrge earnestly onely the letter, or rather hauing consulted other places, we ought to consider, what the authoritie of it may admit. Because in the matter of the Eucharist, the words of Scripture are clare aga [...]st them: Caluin 4. Instit. cap. 17. §. 20. saieth: Christs words are not vnder the common rule, nor are to be examined gramatically. §. 23. These good Maisters, that they may appeare men of letters, do forbidde to Caluin scof­feth at those who vrge the word of God. goe any whit from the letter. What monstruous absurdities cānot phrentik men gather, if they may obiect euerie tittle for confir­mation of their opinions. And he termeth it foolish stubber­nesse, to contend earnestly about (Christs) words. And calleth vs Catchers of syllables, froward and stubbern exactours of the letter, foolish and ridiculous maisters of letters, because in the matter of the Eucharist we stick close to the expresse words of Scripture, and vrge them against him; as if with scoffes and taunts he would beat vs from the expresse word and letter of almightie God. Moreouer in Math. 3. v. 16. he saieth: Some do foolishly and preposterously vrge the letter, that they may include the thing in the signe. And in Math 26. v. 28. The Papists and such like are foolishly superstitious, whiles they lay fast hould vpon (Christs) words. And Admonit. vlt. ad Westphal. pag. 8 [...]7. We must not earnestly insist vpon the [Page 622] words. Beza cont. Westphal. p. 214. By what right is it not law­full for vs to appeall (as I may say so) from the word to the sense? P. Martyr l. de Euchar. p. 124. Yee must not alwaies ob­iect the clearnesse of the sense. pag. 126. Yee must not take first sense which offereth it selfe. p. 126. Yee should not so much vrge the plainenes of the sense. and pag. 149. They obiect againe vs the simple sense and hould that firmely. Zanchius l. 1. Epist. p. 34. They haue cried to importunely and till they were hoarse: The word, the words. Kerberman l 1. System. Theol. pag. 169. They importunely vrge the letter or words of Scripture. Willet in Synopsi Contr. 19. pag. 885. We must not take the letter, but follow the sense, where we find mention made of the vniuersalitie of Christs death. pag. 886. It cannot literally be vnderstood, that God would absolutely haue all mē to be saued. Thus speake these men, when the letter or plaine sense of Scripture maketh expressely against them. In the meane tyme when­soeuer the letter of Scripture seemeth to fauour thē, they most veliemently press [...]. As for example, because S. Paul sometimes calleth the Eucharist bread, they will needs haue it to be materiall bread. Caluin in Math. 26. vers. 28. The Papists denie, that bread is shewed, but Paul refuteth their Difference betwene the words which Protest. and which Cath. vrge. dotage, affirming that the bread which we break is the commu­nication of the bodie of Christ. The like he hath 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 15. and others after him: And neuerthelesse, the Scripture neuer saieth directly of the Eucharist: This is bread, as four times it saieth most directly of it: This is Christs bodie: Nether doth it in anie place restraine the word, Bread when thereby it signifieth the Eucharist, to the proper signification of materiall bread, as it doth manie waies restraine the word Bodie to signifie the true bodie of Christ, by adding that it is the bodie giuen deliuered or broken for vs. Moreouer the Scripture it selfe Ioan. 6. clearely expoundeth, that when by the word Bread it sig­nifieth the Eucharist, it meaneth the very flesh of Christ. So that in the selfe same matter, that word which is saied of the Eucharist in an identicall speach saying, This is this, and which oftētimes and most clearely is tied to it proper [Page 623] signification, nor is euer expounded in Scripture to be otherwise taken, must not be vrged against Protestants, because it maketh against them; and an other word, which nether is euer so saied of the Eucharist, nor is any way restrained to it proper signification, yea which the Scripture it selfe expoundeth figuratiuely, must be vrged, because it seemeth to fauour Protestants: and consequētly the letter or word of Scripture is to be vrged, or not vr­ged, according as it fauoureth or disfauoureth Protestāts. Which is indeed to shape the Scripture to their opinions, not to frame their opinions to the Scripture.

But if they cannot obtaine, that the letter of the holie They call it begging of the question, to vrge the letter. Scripture be not vrged against them, they take an other course to delude the authoritie or force thereof. For they call the open and plaine sense of it into controuersie, and then crie, that it is the begging of the question to argue against them out of a sense which is controuerted. Thus do the Protestants, when we vrge against them the words of the Eucharist, as yee may see in Zuinglius in Exegesi to. 2. fol. 338. Ad Epistol. Amici fol. 322. Caluin Admonit. vlt. ad Westphal. p. 805. Beza cont. Westphal. pag. 232. P. Mar­tyr 1. Corint. 11. fol. 158. Iuel art. 5. sect. 5. and others. Yea sometimes they goe so farre as to say, that it is a manifest abuse, follie, vanitie, and dotage to argue against them out of the words of the Supper or Eucharist. Author ortho­doxi Consensus in Schlusselburg lib. 4. Theol. Caluin. art. 20. pag. 125. It is a manifest abuse of the words of the Supper, to proue that by the words which is question or controuersie. Hum­fre ad Rat. 2. Campiani p. 118. He will play the foole, who dis­puteth out of this place, which is in controuersie. Caluin Admo­nit. vlt. cit. p. 821. Let them leaue to pretend a vaine preiudice of words, of whose sense and meaning the contention is betweene vs. And in Gratulat. ad Precentor. p. 379. We except, that it is foolishly pressed as most certaine, whereof doubt is. But what argument taken out of the Scriptures words can be good and strong, if that which is taken out of Christs expresse words, which are both cleare, and of purpose [Page 624] spoaken to declare what the Eucharist is (which what it is cannot be knowne but by his plaine words) and which alone were spoaken of him to this end, be a begging of the question, a vaine, foolish, and friuolous argument, onely because it hath pleased some few, new, Heretiks, to call the cleare sense of these words into question.

Thirdly if they dare not say, that the words which They deuise manie senses. make against them, haue an other sense, then that which they clearely afford, yet they will deuise manie senses, and say; that it is vncertaine in which of those senses the words are to be vnderstood, and consequently that no­thing can be certainely gathered of them. Thus dealeth Kemnice in Exam. tit. de Baptismo pag. 69. Where hauing brought manie expositions of the word Baptisme Actor. 19. Whence we proue, that the baptisme of Christ was different from that of S. Ihon, thus at last he concludeth: Nothing cā be proued out of places, that are obscure, ambiguous, and in controuersie. Indeed if those places must be counted such, of which it hath pleased new Hheretiks to deuise diuers senses; Let them giue the like libertie to other He­retiks, and they shall see how much they will preuaile against them by any words of Scripture whatsoeuer.

Their fourth shift is, that when the words of Scripture They will haue Gods meaning ra­ther out of by places, then out of proper. which are spoaken purposely of anie matter, make against them, they will not haue the question to be denied by them, but ether by words which are not spoaken at all of that matter, or but incidently and by the way, and will haue these to be the rule of expounding to others, and so gather the sense of Scripture rather out of a strange place then out of the proper place. Thus the Sacramentaries will haue the question of the Eucharist to be tried rather out of the 6. of S. Ihon (though commonly they teach that there Christ spoake not of Eucharist) or out of words which speak of Christs ascension into heauen, or out of words which speake of the end of the Eucharist, then out of those which purposely and which onely speake of the substance of the Eucharist. Zuinglius Epist. ad Ma­theum [Page 625] Rutling. tom. 2. fol. 153. saieth that Christ speaketh not of the Eucharist in the 6. of S. Ihon: and yet frō thence taketh (as he speaketh fol. 155. his Buckler, and l. de relig. fol. 206. his brasen wall and sheeld, and fol. 215. his hard ada­mant. Note. And saieth. fol. 155. cit. that we must onely stick to these words: Flesh profiteth nothing: or (as he speaketh in Exegesi fol. 336.) To them before all others. And as for the words of the Supper, which were spoaken purposely of this matter, he saieth plainely l. de relig. c. de Euchar. We relie not vpon them, but onely vpon this word. Flesh profiteth nothing. And addeth: What thinke yee of this subtill deuise, which forsooth relieth vpon (Christes) words onely. And Resp. ad Billican. fol. 264. This dispute doth not relie vpon those words: This is my bodie. For we would not seeme to ground our opinion vpō these letters. For that were vnlawfull. See more of the like stuffe in his Apologie tom. 2. fol. 371.

Bullinger cited by Schluslelburg. loc. cit. We desire our Christs words of the Euchar. are no Pro­test. ground of that matter aduersaries that they do not (as heretofore they haue done) make the words of the Lords supper which are in controuersie, as the foundation of their doctrine. Melancthon. Epist. ad Frideric. Elector. apud Martyrem in Dial. col. 112. In this controuersie (of the Eucharist) the best is, to bould the words of Paul: The bread which we breake is the communication of the bodie. Peter Martyr cont. Gardiner. col. 440. It is fond which he addeth, that in the mysterie of the Eucharist we must recurre to the words of our Lord instituting it. Caluin Admonit. vlt. ad Westphal. pag. 818. In vaine they shall crie: we must goe to the fountaine. And de Rat. concordiae pag. 866. There is no reason to insist vpon the essentiall verbe; Is. Yee see, that in the very que­stion, what the Eucharist is, they say that it is fond and contrarie to reason, to recurre to the words of the Insti­tution thereof, to insist in them and make them our foun­dation, and neuerthelesse the words of the Institution are spoake purposely, and that onely to tell vs what the Eu­charist is; but will haue vs to runne to other places where it is not spoaken at all of the Eucharist, or at least not of the substance thereof. This plainely sheweth, that in very [Page 626] deed they make not the Scripture the foundation of their faith, nor gather their beleife from thence: Which them­selues sometimes do plainely confesse. For thus P. Martyr Protest. gather not their faith out of the Scripture. praefat lib. de Eucharist pag. 26. This is the basis strength and foundation of the opinion (of the Eucharist) which I haue set downe: That it is proper to God to be euery where, and that the condition of humane nature is to be contained in some certaine Reason, groūd of Protest. in the Euchar. place, nor can be diffused to manie places at once. Caluin 4. In­stit. c. 17. §. 20. The reuerence of Christs words is no sufficient pretext, why they should so reiect all the reasons which we obiect. Author Orthodoxi Consensus in Schlusserburg. lib. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 23. We must not simply behould the words of Christ, but thinke of some other thing, and with inward eyes behould them as mysteries. And Victorinus ib. In the question of the Supper of the Lord we must looke with the left eye vpon the words of Christ, and with the right, behould the natures of Christ and the writings of Antiquitie. Yee see them professe, that the foundation and strength of their opinion is a hu­mane principle; that their reasons are to be preferred be­fore Christs words: that we must not simply looke vpon Christ words but thinke vpon some other thing, that we must looke vpon Christs words with the left eye, and with the right vpon nature. Which is the very doctrine of Suencfeldius in Schlusselburg art. 23. cit. Remoue (saieth he) from thy sight: Take and Eate: This is my bodie, and then con­sider what is the nature of mans bodie, of eating, of Sacraments, and of ould figures, and so thou shalt find most certaine trueth. In like sorte they confesse, that they learnt not their faith out of Scripture. Zuinglius Resp. ad Serm. Lutheri to. 2. fol. 372. Faith cannot be learnt or discussed out of words, but the Protest. haue not their faith out of Scrip­ture. teacher of it is God, and after we haue it deliuered from him, we may see the same in words. And in Exegesi fol. 347. We do not thinke, that faith can be gathered out of words, but that faith being the mistresse, the words which are set before vs may be vn­derstood. How I pray you should we gather faith out of words, sith we ought not to come to expound Scriptures. But being al­ready armed with faith? And OEcolampadius in Hospin. [Page 627] part. 2. Histor. fol. 70. I come not to Scripture, but being before hand armed with faith.

Their first shift is to scoffe and deride the manner of Protecst. soffe at plaine proofes out of Scripture. arguing out of the expresse words of Scripture. P. Martyr in Schlusselburg. l. 4. Theol. Caluin. artic. 20. calleth our argument taken out of the words of the institution of the Eucharist. a Fiue word proofe. And in Dial. col. 130. thus speaketh: I alwaies thought that yee were not so wise as yee Gods word not enough. should be in labouring so much for an opinion both absurde, and vnprofitable, and hauing nothing to mantaine it but Christs word: This is my bodie. Caluin. 1. Instit. cap. 2. §. 3. saieth that they are madde, who endeauour to defend the images of God and Saints by the example of the Cherubins. The same saieth Hospin. l. de orig. Templorum pag. 254. and Beza 2. part. respons. ad Colloq. Montisbel. pag. 31. termeth the same, a stinking argument. Whitaker ad Rat. 3. Campiani maketh this to be a Sophisme: Saint Iames commandeth to Foolish to striue about Christs words anoint the sick: therefore we must anoint them. Zuinglius de Peccat. orig. tom. 2. fol. 122. saieth: How foolish should he seeme, who for words (of Scripture) would auouch, that we are washed from originall sinne by the water of baptisme. OEcolā ­padius cōplaineth, that the words of the Institutiō of the Eucharist, are obiected to him as a Helene, and the samewords Caluin termeth Aiax his buckler, and the onely refuge of Papists.

Finally they are sometimes driuen to blaspheme the They blas­pheme the very words of Scripture. words of Scripture, and to say that they will nether be­leiue them, nor God himselfe. P. Martyr cont. Gardiner col. 423. termeth the words of the Institution of the Eu­charist a litle speach of fiue words, and col. 1095▪ a fiue word speach: Zuinglius Respons. ad Billican. tom. 2. f. 264. Poore letters. Burensis in Schlusselburg. Praefat. in tom. 3. Catal. Haeret. Foure impotent words. Sheldon. l. of Antichrist pag. 82. in scoffe: Fiue omnipotent words. Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 63. Fiue magicall words. Gratianus Anties tom. 6. do­ctrinae Iesuit. fol. 158. speaketh in this sorte. To be present ac­cording to Gregorie, is to draw Christs bodie out of heauen by fiueuerbicall or magicall power. Volanus l. 2. cont. Scargam. [Page 628] pag. 1047. Feigning to your selues a new Christ of bread, made by the fiue-word-breath of a Preist. Moreouer Zuinglius (as before is rehearsed) called Christs words of the indisso­lubilitie of mariage, drie words, and l. de Relig. c. de Euchar. saieth, that the words of conscration, are too drie for some mens capacitie. Poach in Schlusselburg. tom. 4. Catal. pag. 305. thus writeth: It must needs be, that the law, sith it nether Gods law, in lie. is Christ nor in Christ, is contained in error, lie, and death. And the Scripture (as Luther saieth in his disputations) is not to be vnderstood against Christ, but for Christ, and therefore to be referred to him or not to be accounted true Scripture. Luther being sore vrged by the words of Scripture touching works and the law; teacheth his followers to answere thus tom. 5. in 3. Galat. fol. 345. Simply we must answere in this sorte: Here is Christ, there the testimonies of the Scripture tou­ching workes and the law. But Christ is Lord of the Scripture—Thou vrgest the seruant, that is the Scripture, this seruant I Luther lea­ueth the Scrip­ture to Pa­pists. leaue to thee: I vrge the Lord who is King of the Scripture. And speaketh yet more plainely German. edit. Wittemb. tom. 1. in these words: Albeit the Papists do bring a huge loade of Scriptures in which good works are commanded, I care, nothing He careth not for all the Scripture. for all the sayings of the Scripture, though more were brought. Thou Papist art very insolent and proud with the Scripture, which yet is vnder Christ and the Lord. Wherefore I am nothing He is not moued with it. moued thereby. Go too foresooth, relie vpon the seruant as much as thou wilst, but I relie vpon Christ the true Maister, Lord, and Emperour of the Scripture. Him I will beleiue, and I know he cannot lie to me, nor lead me into error. I had rather honour and beleiue him, then to suffer my selfe to be drawne one finger breth from my opinion for all the sayings of the Scripture. Loe how Luther careth not for all the sayings of the Scrip­tures, is nothing moued with, will not alter his opinion for them all, and leaueth them to the Papists. And in like sorte tom. 1. disput. de Fide fol. 387. saieth: But if our ad­uersaries vrge the Scripture against Christ, we vrge Christ against the Scripture. We haue the Lord, they haue the seruant. Papist haue the Scripture. And in Colloq. cap. de verbo Dei fol. 22. speaking of his [Page 629] followers, saieth: The Scripture is contemned, corrupted, and mocked of vs. Yea Zuinglius in Elencho tom. 2. fol. 10. af­firmeth, that when Paul wrote, the Commentaries of the Euan­gelists and the Epistles of the Apostles were not of authoritie, and that Paul did not attribute so much to his Epistles, as that Paul did not thinke his E­pistles diuine. whatsoeuer was contained in them was holie. The like is insi­nuated by Caluin Actor. 17. vers. 11. Where he saieth, that the Thessalonians did not dispute whether Gods trueth were to be receaued, onely they examined Pauls doctrine according to the rule of Scripture: Plainely putting a difference betwene Gods trueth, and Pauls doctrine. Finally Zuinglius profes­seth Zuinglius will not be­leiue what he cannot comprehend. to beleiue nothing which he cannot comprehend. For thus he speaketh in Hospin. Part. 2. Histor. fol. 72. God doth not propose to vs things that are incomprehensible: Or as Melancthon reporteth ib. fol. 82. God doth not propose to vs such things to be beleiued, as can no way be comprehended. And in Schlusselburg l. 4. Theol. Caluin. art. 9. thus pro­fesseth his more then Diuelish infidelitie: Albeit God with He will not beleiue God though he sware. all his blessed Angels should come from heauen, and sweare that in the Supper of the Lord the bodie and blood of Christ were giuē to all that receaue it: yet nether could, nor would I beleiue it, vn­lesse I should plainely see with my eyes and feel Christ with my hands. The very same he insinuateth Respons. and Bellicā. tom. 2. fol. What I pray you differ these men from the Protest. imi­tate the liber­tins. Libertins of whome thus writeth Caluin in Instructione cap. 9. We already saied, that these men in the beginning were wont plainely to laugh if any alledged the Scriptures, nor dis­sembled to hould them for fables; yet they forbore not to vse thē if there were anie place, which they could wrest to their purpose. But when they perceaued that all good men did detest such sacri­lege, they put on this coate vnder which now they lurk; to wit, they professe not to reiect the holie Scriptures, but feigning to admit them, wrest and change them into allegories. And do not the Protestants deride the Scripture, when they call the words thereof a fiue-word speach, beggerly letters, impotent and magicall words: and when they see that all good men detest such blasphemie, do they not turne thē into figures or allegories?

Wherefore I make this my fourth argument. Who not onely in so manie and so great matters contradict the ex­presse words of Scripture: but also in manie and great points are compelled to forsake the letter thereof, to call the manifeste sense into questiō, to say that it is a begging of the question, to argue out of it to deuise manie new senses for to reiect a place as ambiguous, and to say that the sēse of Scripture is to be gathered rather out of a strāge then out of the proper place where it is purposely hand­led, who finally deride the very kind of arguing out of the expresse words of Scripture and openly blaspheme them, they are to be thought not onely to gainsay the true sense of Scripture, but also to contemne the Scrip­ture and God himselfe. But so do Protestants. There­fore &c.

CHAPTER V. THAT PROTESTANTS SAY THAT words of Scripture which make against them, were not spoaken of certaine knowledge.

OVR fift argument to proue that Protestants re­pugne to the true sense of Scripture, shalbe, be­cause sometimes they denie that the words which were spoaken of God, of Christ, of the Apostles, were spoaken by them of their certaine knowledge, but onely by ghesse or coniecture.

For if out of that saying of God, Ezechielis 3. vers. 6. & seq. For not to a people of profound speach and of an vn­knowne tongue art thou sent to the house of Israel: nether to manie peoples of profound speach and of an vnknowne tongue whose words thou canst not heare, and if thou were sent to them, they would heare the: We will proue, that some can be con­uerted which yet will not be conuerted. Contra-remon­strantes [Page 631] in Collat. Hagae. answere: This is saied, not in re­spect God did not certainely foresee what he saied. of that which God did certainely forsee in these or those: but in respect of that which according to all outward shew a man might iudge. Forsooth, God did not certainely foresee, that other people would haue heard the Prophet, if he had beene sent to them, as he plainely affirmeth, but like a man spoake by ghesse out of the externall appearance.

If we proue the same out of those words of Christ Math. 11. ver. 21. If in Tire and Sidon had beene wrought the miracles that haue beene wrought in you, they had done pen­nance Nor Christ. in hairecloth and ashes: Caluin vpon this place telleth vs: that Christ disputeth not what God did foresee to become of these or those, but what some of them would haue done, for so much as could be gathered by the thing. And ib. in v. 33. We ad­monished before, that Christ speaketh after a humane manner, and doth not tell out of the heauenlie oracle what he had fore­seene was to be, if he had sent to the Sodomits. And lib. 6. de lib. arbitr. pag 197. It is euident, that Christ would by that kind of speach no other thing, thē if one now should say: There is no Turk so obstinate or rebellious to God, or so impious, who would not haue beene conuerted, if he had read seene and heard those things with which Pighius will not amended. The like haue Contra­remonstrantes loc. cit. So that Christ did not certainely foresee that the Tyrians and Sodomites would haue re­pented if they had seene the like miracles, and yet he plainely affirmeth it.

If we proue that a man may fall from grace, because S. Peter 1. cap. 1. vers. 9. saieth: For he that hath not these Scripture speaketh not of knowledge, but of cha­ritie. tbings readie, is blind, and groping with his hand, hauing fore­gotten the purgation of his ould sinnes. Zanchius in Summa Praelect. tom. 7. col. 276. answereth: This place is to be vn­derstood according to the iudgment of charitie. The same he hath in Thesibus tom. 8. col 700. and Piscator in Thesi­bus l. 2. p. 195. Forsooth, S. Peter iudged charitably, but not truely that such a man (as he speaketh of) had beene purged from his sinnes.

If we proue, that God would haue all men to be saued, [Page 632] because S. Paul. 1. Timoth. 2. vers. 4. Who will all men to be saued: Perkins lib. de Praedest. tom. 1. col. 139. saieth: Paul Likewise S. Paul. speaketh in this place according to the iudgment of charitie of Christians, not according to the iudgment of secret and infallible certaintie. In like sorte answereth Piscator loc. cit. and also to Hebr. 6. vers. 5. & cap. 10. vers. 29. Where is it saied, that some reprobates were sanctified with the blood of Christ.

If we proue, that the wicked and reprobates may be in the bodie of Christ, and put him vpon them, because S. Paul saieth, 1. Cor. 12. ver. 13. We were all baptized into one bodie: & Gal. 3. v. 27. As manie of you as are baptized in Christ, haue put on Christ. Vorstius in Antibel. p. 124. answereth: The Apostle speakheth there out of the iudgment of charitie, which accounteth all the citizens of the outward Church, that is, all that professe faith, to be faithfull. But charitie beleiueth all things, and therefore is deceaued, which is farre from the cer­taintie of faith. Which is as much as to say, S. Paul or the Scripture was deceaued in these sayings.

If we proue, that God would haue some to be conuer­ted who will not, because he saieth Math. 23. vers. 37. Hierusalem, Hierusalem, how often would I gather together thy children as the hen doth gather together her chickins vnder her wings, and thou wouldst not: Beza de Praedestinat. cont. Ca­stel. vol. 1. pag. 398. answereth: If we will attribute this speach to Christ as he was God, doste thou not know, that God for to al­lure his children to him, through his infinite goodnesse, by taking vpon him humane affections, doth sometime stammer with vs? God stamme­reth.

Fiftly therefore I proue that Protestants contradict the true sense of Scripture in this sorte. Who not onely gaine­say the expresse words of holie writ, so as we haue seene, but also are forced in manie and great misteries of faith to say that the Apostles, Christ and God himselfe did not cer­tainely foresee what they saied, and that the holie Ghost did not speake of certaine knowledge but by coniectures as men do, they gaynesay the true meaning of the holy Scripture. But Protestants do so. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER VI. THAT PROTESTANTS AFFIRME manie weightie sayings of the Scripture not to haue beene spoaken according to the mynd of the Authors.

MY sixt argument shalbe, because Protestants are driuen to say, that Scripture speaketh not according to it owne mynd and according to trueth, but according to the errour and opinion of others, and that in manie and great matters, as of faith, of good workes, of sacraments, of the very meane of attay­ning saluation and the like.

For if we proue that wicked men may haue faith, be­cause S. Iames spea­keth not ac­cording to his owne mynd. S. Iames cap. 2. vers. 18. speaketh thus to such a one. Thou hast faith, and I haue workes, & v. 19. Thou beleiuest that there is one God: thou doest well: Caluin on that chapter v. 14. saieth: Let vs remember, that he speaketh not according to his owne mynd, as oft as here he nameth faith.

If we proue, that the keeping of the commandements Nor Christ. is necessarie to saluation, because Christ saieth Math. 19. v. 17. If thou wilt enter to life, keepe the commandements. Pareus l. 3. de Iustificat. c. 12. p. 812. answereth: The Lord sendeth him to the workes of the law, not that he thinketh this way of salua­tion possible, but for to confund his hypocrisie. Brentius in Pa­reus l. 4. de Iustificat. c. 2. and in Gerlachius tom. 2. disput. 13. saieth: Christ so answered, as he rather shewed him the way to He shewed the way to perdition. eternall damnation. Which answere (saieth Pareus c. 2. cit.) is no lesse true, then that saying of the Apostle: yee are euacuated from Christ, who are iustified by the law.

If we proue, that iustice is necessarie to saluation, be­cause Christ saieth Mat. 5. ver. 21. Vnlesse your iustice abound more then that of the Scribes and Pharises, you shall not enter into the kingdome of heauen. Pareus l. 4. de Iustif. c. 4. p. 964: [Page 634] answereth; Not that this (inward iustice) was possible to the He shewed an impossible way. disciples, or to anie other man; but that the exactnesse of the law and there impossibilitie being acknowledged, they might forsake the endlesse way of the law, and seeke life in the Ghospell.

If we proue that God rewardeth good workes, because the Scripture often speaketh so: Zuinglius l. de relig. c. de Merito, answereth: There are some so doltish, that what­soeuer thou criest, they thinke God giueth all things to merits, and where these are not, that there his grace is in vaine hoped for: whose weaknesse or rather perfidiousnesse God abuseth, and inuiteth to good workes by hope of reward, that so nothing may be wanting to his seruants. And Ochinus in Schlusselburg. lib. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 23. dareth. call in question, whe­ther Christ spoake those words which he would haue spoaken. We answere (saieth he) that it may be, that when He spoake not that he would Christ saied: This is my bodie, he would haue saied: The bread signifieth my bodie.

The like they meane, when they say, that the holie Scripture speake [...]h by graunt or concession. Scripture speaketh by concessiō or graūt. For thus Caluin in lac. 2. v. 12. That he termeth it faith, is by way of concession orgraunt. And 3. Instit. c. 17. §. 11. That the Apostle calleth faith a vaine opinion which is farre from the nature of faith, is by way of graunt. Beza in Iac. 2. ver. 14. Iames calleth it faith, by way of graunt, that he may not seeme to striue about words. In like manner Illyricus and others.

Kemnitius in locis part. 2. tit. de Argumentis, writeth, that in those sayings: If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the commandments? Who shall doe these, shall liue in them: Doe this, and thou shalt liue: The doers of the law shalbe iustified, Christ and Paul answere by way of concession or graunt.

If we proue, that we can clense our selues from sinne, because 2. Cor. 7. v. 1. it is saied: Let vs clense our selues from all inquination of the flesh and spirit, perfecting sanctification in the feare of God: Caluin 2. Instit. c. 5. §. 11. answereth: By concession or graunt it is attributed to vs, which belongeth to God. And if we proue that there are some litle precepts, [Page 635] because Christ saieth Math. 5. v. 19. One iot or tittle shall not passe of the law, till all be fulfilled: Caluin vpon that place, saieth; Where Christ termeth litle precepts, it is a kind of con­cession or graunt.

If we proue, that God will render eternall life accor­ding to the patience of good workes, because Rom. 2. v. 7. is saied: God will render to euerie man according to his workes: to them truely that according to patience in good worke, seeke glorie, honor, and incorruption, life eternall: Beza vpon that place answereth: In this description of iust iudgment, this is saied of the Apostle by way of graunt or concession, as also when streight after he saieth ver. 13. Not hearers, but doers of the law are iustified.

If we proue that some do keepe the law, because it is written Rom. 2. v. 26. If then the prepuce keepe the iustices of the law, shall not his prepuce be reputed for circuncision? Beza vpon that place answereth: These things are saied of the A­postle by way of graunt or concession, as also I noted before verse 9.

If we proue, that the sacraments of the new law be Scripture speaketh by contention. better then the sacraments of the ould, because S. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews preferreth them before these, Caluin. 4. Instit. c. 14. §. 25. saieth: This we must especially note, that in all these places Paul speaketh not simply but by way of contention or arguing—Let vs therefore remember, that here he disputeth not of ceremonies taken in their true and naturall signification, hut wrested to false and wicked interpretation, not of the lawfull vse of them, but of their superstitious abuse.

Diuers times also they are forced to say, that the Scrip­ture speaketh after a humane manner, and according to the mynd, capacitie, or errour of others, not according to the nature of the thing.

For if we proue, that reward is giuen to almes, because Christ saieth Luc. 16. v. 9. Make vnto you, freinds of the mam­mon of iniquitie, that when you faile, they may receaue you into the eternall tabernacles: Caluin excepteth, that, Christ speaketh After a hu­mane māner. after a humane manner.

If we proue, that some are truely iust, because Math. 1. v. 19. it is saied: Ioseph her husband, for that he was a iust man: Illyricus vpon that place, answereth: Here he is called iust after the common manner, that is, honest, and desirous to be honest.

If we proue, that God giueth sufficient means of sal­uation to some, who yet are not saued, because he saieth Isaiae 5. v. 4. What is there that I ought to do more to my vin­yard, and haue not done? Pareus l. 1. de Grat & lib. arb. cap. 11. answereth: He speaketh not as God, but after a humane manner like a vineroll. The like saieth Caluin. lib. de Proui­dent. pag. 744.

If we proue, that Christ hath bought euen those who denie him, because it is plainely saied so. 2. Pet. 2. v. 1. Gros­sius Professour at Basel in Apol. pro Disput. inaugurali saieth: The Lord is saied to haue bought such, both according to the custome of Scripture, which according to the iudgment of charitie saieth, that all are redeemed, saints, and cleansed from sinne, whosoeuer are baptized and professe Christ, albeit they be not all such before God: as also, according to their owne opinion Scripture speaketh ac­cording to mens false opinion. After a hu­mane māner. and boastes. For whome the Lord hath indeed bought, they neuer denie him.

Zuinglius in Exposit. fidei tom. 2. fol. 558. writeth this; Worke [...] do not merit, but when (the Scripture) promiseth re­ward to workes, it speaketh after a humane manner—Because men giue to thē that haue well deserued, and the guifts are called rewards, God also calleth his guifts reward or recompense. The like hath Bullinger in Rom. 2. And Reineccius tom. 4. Ar­maturae c. 7. saieth, that those words of the Angel Tob. 12. I offered thy praied to our Lord; are spoaken after a humane manner. For (saieth he) there is no need, that Angels should offer our praiers to the Lord, for God is not farre of.

Caluin 3. Instit. c. 18. §. 9. answering to that place Math. 19. v. 17. If thou wilt enter to life, keepe the commande­ments, saieth: As if it, were not manifest, that Christ did ac­comodate his speach to them with whome he had to doe. Polanus in Disput. priuat. 38. saieth: This place in which Christ com­mandeth [Page 637] to keepe the precepts of the law, is to be vnderstood in According to mens suppo­sition. parte to wit, according to the supposition of the yong man.

Masculus in Ioan. 6. saieth: In that (Christ) calleth faith a worke of God, it is an application wherewith he accomodateth According to mens words. himselfe to the words of this people. And Luther in Galat. 2. tom. 5. fol. 317. Paul through too great zeale and indignation By too much zeale and in­dignation. of spirit, calleth Grace a law, whereas in trueth it is nothing els but the greatest and infinit libertie in Christ.

Beza in Cyclope vol. 1. pag. 306. The Apostle Hebr. 7. v. 18. calleth the former precept, vnprofitable, But he speaketh vpō In supposition of aduersaries the supposition of his aduersaries.—So delt Christ with the Ca­pharnaites. Christ according to their supposition saieth his flesh profiteth nothing. And in Ioan. 6. v. 31. But here agayne Christ speaketh vpon their supposition with whome, he discourseth. Et in Dial. cont. Heshus vol. 1. p. 285. 306. and cont. Westphal. p. 241. saieth: The Apostle in all that treatise (of the ould sa­craments) according to his aduersaries supposition considereth the ceremonies a parte from Christ and by themselues. The like hath Tilenus in Syntagmate cap. 57. But Gratianus An­tiiesuita tom. 6. doctrinae. Iesuit. part. 2. pag. 3. speaketh yet worse, saying: According to this impious supposition, the According to an impious supposition. Scripture speaketh contemptibly of the Sacraments, and calleth Circumcision some where Prepuce, other where Concision, other where vnprofitable, and Manna also viuificall bread.

If therefore we proue the keeping of the law to be ne­cessarie to life, because Christ saieth Luc. 10. ver. 28. Doe this and thou shalt liue: Caluin. ib. in ver. 26. answereth: Christ speaketh here about obtaining life as he was asked. For he According to the demand. telleth not plainely (as he doth otherewhere) how men may come to life.—Christ in this answere doth accommodate himselfe to the lawyer, and respecteth the demaund. See also Whitak. l. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 38.

If we proue that the Eucharist is a nobler food then manna, because Christ saieth Ioan. 6. v. 27. Worke not the meate that perisheth, but that endureth vnto life euerlasting. Caluin 4. Instit. c. 14. §. 25. answereth: Christ accommodateth According to the grosse opinion. his speach to the grosse opinion of the Capharnaites. The same [Page 638] he hath in Ioan. 6. versus 50.

If we proue, that the Eucharist is of more vertue then Manna was, because Christ saieth Ioan. 6. v. 58. Your fathers did eate manna and died: he that eateth this bread shall liue for euer: Caluin 2. INstit. c. 10. §. 6. answereth: The Lord spoake According to carnall mens capacitie. to heares, who onely sought to be filled with meate of the bellie, and cared not for the true food of the soule, doth somewhat ac­commodate his speach to their capacitie, but especially he maketh the comparison of manna and of his bodie according to their meaning. And in 1. Cor. 10. v. 3. Christ accommodateh his speach to the meaning of the hearers. We see, that the Lord speaketh Not accor­ding to the nature of the thing. not there according to the nature of the thing, but according to the meaning of the hearers.

If we proue that Christ added somewhat to the rigor of the law, because he saieth Math. 5. v. 22. You haue heard, that it was saied to them of ould; Thou shalt not kill &c. But I say vnto you, who soeuer is angrie with his brother, shalbe in danger of iudgment: Caluin ib. answereth: Christ indeed To the capa­citie of the valgar sorte. To their grosse error. To the capa­citie of the common people. bringeth the words of the law, but he accommodateth himselfe to the common capacite of the vulgar sorte. And in Rom. 2. v. 26. The Apostle doth accommodate his speach according to their grosse error, as also he doth in his Epistle to the Galathians.

If we exhort to do pennance in hairecloth and ashes, because Christ saieth Math. 11. ver. 21. If in Tyre and Sidon had beene wrought the miracles that haue beene wrought in you, they had done pennance in hairecloth and ashes lōg agoe: Caluin ib. answereth: Pennance is described by the externall signes, which were then solemnely vsed in Gods Church, not as if Christ vrged this matter, but because he turneth his speach to the capa­citie of the common people.

If we proue that we shall haue life euerlasting for gi­uing all our goods to the poore, because Christ saieth. Math. 19. v. 21. If thou wilt be perfect, goe, sell the things that thou hast, and giue to the poore and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen. Beza ib. answereth. These words of Christ declare not how life euerlasting is of it self to be gottē, but are spoakē to reproue him that was deceaued with false hope of his iustice. Caluin ib. [Page 639] in v. 20. saieth: Christs answere was directed according to the To the mans disposition. mans disposition. Gerlachius tom. 2. disput. 13. saieth: The Lord in the places alledged (Math. 19. and Luc. 10.) accommo­dated To men be wicked with false do­ctrines. To mēs errors his speach to them who asked him, who were bewiched with an opinion of legall iustice and Pharisaicall doctrines. And againe: Christ might easily accommodate his speach to those er­rours. Illyricus in Claue part. 2. tract. 1. col. 32. writeth thus: Christ after an other manner sheweth the way to the kingdome Christ shewed one way to some, an othe [...] to others. of heauen, to the Pharise, to the lawyer, and to that yong man vaunting of the fulfilling of the law: and in other manner vnto Nicodemus boasting of his discipline and good habits gotten by long tyme and time goodnesse of nature and free will, and yet in an other manner vnto miserable sinners wrastling with their conscience with the wrath of God and their sinnes.

Author respons. ad Theses. Valent. p. 800. thus teacheth: That we may graunt, that oftentimes in Scripture iustification is denied to the ould and attributed to the new testament: Yet According to the Iews sup­position. none seeth not, but that this is saied of the Apostle by supposition of the Iews, who like to Papists, did speake of the ould testament as of the law which should giue iustice by workes. And p. 813. In that Gregorie is deceaued, that he thinketh it followeth out of Pauls discourse, that prepuce keepeth the law, which in trueth the Apostle spoake vpon supposition, not as if it were indeed or could be, but to shew boasting of the law, circum­cision, and all the other ceremonies, was very vaine.

Nor content to haue thus deluded so manie and so weightie sentences of Scripture, they giue a generall rule so to delude them. Caluin in 1. Corinth. 10. ver. 3. It is the Generall rule to delude Scripture thus. manner of the Scripture, when it speaketh of Sacramēts or other things sometimes to speake according to the capacitie of the hearers: and so it doth not respect the nature of thing, but what the hearers thinke amisse. And l. de Praedest. p. 713. The Scrip­ture when it talketh of the Sacraments, vseth to speake in twoe sortes: If it talke with hypocrites, according to their wrong mea­ning, it deuideth the trueth from the signes. The like he hath Gal. 3. v. 27. & in Ioan. 6. v. 32. Daneus tom. 2. Corinth. 4. pag. 217. Peter Martyr in locis closs. 2. c. 16. §. 14. & in 1. Cor. [Page 640] 10. Et Polanus in disput. priuat. 32. saieth: God oftentimes Scripture calleth iust, who indeed are not so. speaketh according to their opinion with whome he speaketh: So are they in the Scripture called iust, who indeed are not iust, but onely in opinion ether of themselues or of others. By these and manie such like sleights Protestants vse to delude the holie Scripture, which if they be admitted, nothing at all can be proued out of Scripture.

Wherefore I thus make my sixt argument. Who not onely in 260. articles do contradict the expresse words of Scripture in their cleare sense: but also in manie and weightie matters are forced to say, that the Scripture speaketh not accordig to her owne mynde, meaneth not as she speaketh, speaketh by way of graunt, concession, or argument, according to the mynd, capacitie, grosse opi­nion, error of others, and after a humane fashion, not ac­cording to the nature of the thing: they are to be thought to gain say the true meaning of the holie Scripture. But Protestants do so. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER VII. THAT PROTESTANTS ARE FORCED to say that the Scripture speaketh ironically, mimetically, hyperbolically and by amplification and fiction.

MY seuenth argument to proue that Protestants contradict the true sense of the Scripture, shalbe because they are forced to say, that manie and most weightie sentences of Scripture, of faith, good workes, Sacraments, redemption of sinnes, meanes of purchasing heauen, and the like, were spoaken not in earnest, but ironically, mimetically, hyperbolically, by amplification and fiction. Precepts ought to be kept: Ironi­cally.

For if we proue, that Gods commandments can be done, because Leuit. 18. Rom. 10. Gal. 3. is saied: Who shall [Page 641] doe those things, shall liue in them: Luther in Gal. 3. tom. 5. fol. 347. Answereth, I wnderstand that this speach is an ironie, or scoffe.

If anie proue the same, because Christ saieth Luc. 10. v. Ironically. 26. Doe this, and thou shalt liue: Luther loc. cit. answereth: I vnderstand this place in common, that this saying of Christ: Doe this and thou shalt liue, is a kinde of ironie and mockage. Poach in Schlusselburg. l. 4. Catal. Haeret. 4. 301. Albeit the lawyer do inquire of life euerlasting, yet if Christs answere be vn­derstood according to the law, that is, without (speaciall) faith, life, cannot be ment of eternall life, without an ironie. Et p. 312. I do not denie, but Christs answere may he wnderstood of eternall life, not according to the law, but an other way, to wit, ether ac­cording to the Ghospell, or by ironie. Againe: That saying and the like may be expounded three wayes. First by ironie, as Luther saieth Gen. 9. and Galat. 3. Secondly according to the law. &c. And Gerlachius tom. 2. disput. 13. There is a secret ironie of Christ.

If we proue that the commandments must needs be kept, because Christ sayeth Math. 19. v. 17. If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the commandments: Pareus l. 4. de Iustificat. c. 2. p. 967. answereth: Luthers ironie (about this place) may be defended. And pag. 969. It was a serious conference, and yet that hindereth not, but that the Lord might vse an ironie. And Gerlachius to. 2. disp. 13. cit. It was a serious conference, and yet there is a secret ironie.

If we proue, that an ill man may haue faith, because S. Iames cap. 2. speaketh thus to such a one: Thou hast faith. An ill man hath faith: Ironically. Thou beleiuest that there is one God: Thou doest well: Beza ib. answereth: That which followeth: Thou hast faith, is spoaken ironically: And Caluin. ib. v. 18. Erasmus is much deceaued in that he acknowledgeth not an ironie in these words. The speech is ironicall. And Thou doest well, is added for to extenuate. And likewise in Rom. 3. v. 30. he saieth: I thinke that there is an ironie in the words. And lib. 6. de lib. arbit. pag. 198. Salomon Mans is to prepare his heart: Ironi­cally. saieth (Prouerb. 16.) it is mans parte to prepare the hart, and the Lords to gouerne the tongue. Who seeth not that it is an iro­nicall [Page 642] description of mans arrogancie, who challengeth to him­selfe all high matters, and hath not the least matter in his power?

If we proue, that good workes do cleanse from sinne, Almes clean­seth sinne. I­ronically. because Christ saieth. Luc. 11. v. 41. But yet that that remai­neth, giue almes, and behould all things are cleane vnto you: Vallada in his Apologie c. 22. pag. 300. answereth: Christ is farre from teaching that by almes sinnes are redeemed, that on the contrarie he derideth and rebuketh the Pharisees that they had this opinion. And the Apologie Conf. August. c. de res­pons. ad argum. There are manie who interprete it to be an ironie. This interpretation is not absurd, nor hath anie thing which is contrarie to other Scriptures. P. Martyr in Rom. 11. Those words: Giue almes &c. may be expounded three waies. The first is, to say, that the speach is ironicall. And this he re­peateth in locis class. 3. c. 4. §. 34. Aretius also in locis part. 1. fol. 90. saieth: Others chuse rather to take this sentence of Christ ironically.

If we proue that sinnes may be redeemed by almes, be­cause Daniel saieth c. 4. ver. 24. Redeeme thy sinnes by almes: Schlusselburg. tom. 8. Catal. pag. 524. saieth: There are Almes re­deeme sinne. Ironically. some that expound this place ironically. Which he doth not dislike.

If we proue that the commandements may be kept, because Luc. 18. v. 22. a man that saied he had kept them all, Christ reprehendeth not, but saieth: Yet one thing thou One thing lacking: Iro­nically. lackest: Sell all that euer thou hast, and giue to the poore &c. Beza ib. answereth: Yea all things (lack) seing no man can keepe euen one commandment so as the law appointeth: wherefore Christ speaketh with a holie ironie.

If we proue that a sinner hath free will or power to conuerte himselfe, because God saieth Oseae. 5. ver. vlt. Going I will returne to my place, vntill you faile and seeke my Men seeke God: Ironi­cally. face: Whitaker and Rat. 9. Campiani answereth: Which words truely he spoake ironically and mimetically. And lib. 9. cont. Dur. sect. 25. It is manifest, that the Lord spoake ironi­cally. Thus you see in how great matters they say, that the [Page 643] Prophets, Apostles, Christ, and God himselfe spoake iro­nically or scoffingly, when they speake against thē, which is indeed to make the Prophets, Apostles, Christ, and God himselfe to be scoffers, or rather to scoffe and mock them. Now let vs see, how they say, that the Scripture speaketh mimetically, or by imitation of others.

If we proue that faith, is a worke, because Christ Faith is a worke: Mi­metically. saieth. Ioan. 6. v. 29. This is the worke of God, that you beleiue in him. Beza ib. answereth: Perhaps this kind of speach, is bor­rowed of the common vses and is to be expounded by mimesis or imitation: as if one comming to a Phisician should aske of him for how much money would he cure him, and the Physician should answere in these words: All the money which I demaund of you is this, that you trust me and be perswaded that I seeke nought but your health. If I say the Physician should thus answere, who could gather out of this answere that money is the trust which the Physician demandeth of the sicke man for to obey holesome ad­uise. Wherefore they are very ridiculous (that I may omit other paralogismes) who out of that place do gather that faith is a worke. Pareus l. 1. de Iustificat. c. 16. Faith is improperly called a worke. For Christ calleth faith in it selfe a worke of God, ac­cording to the speach of the Iewes who asked him. And Whitaker lib. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 88. Christ called faith a worke, ether mi­metically, or because it is the worke of the holie Ghost.

If we proue, that that faith whereof S. Iames speaketh Faith iusti­fieth: Mime­tically. is iustifying faith, because c. 2. v. 24. he saieth: Yee see, that a man is iustified by workes, and not by faith onely: that is: Man is iustified by faith, but not by onely faith: Pareus l. 4. de Iustificat. c. 18. answereth: He addeth that Antithesis: And not by faith onely: by mimesis or imitation of the hypocrites: we are iustified by faith onely: yee see (saieth he) this is false.

If we proue that Christs flesh is truely eaten, because he saieth Ioan. 6. My flesh is truely meate: Zuinglius in Exe­gesi tom. Christ flesh eaten: Mime­tically. 2. fol. 333. answereth: He finely obserueth the imi­tation of the Iewes, who ether thought or would seeme to thinke that he was but a mere man. And vpbraiding to these men their error, he saieth: His flesh is truely meate. The same he repea­teth [Page 644] in Ioan. 6. tom. 4. fol. 308. And addeth fol. 334 Ac­cording to etheologie and mimesis which are a kind of alleosis, that is by imitation, wherewith he spoake according to the speach and opinion of his enemies: he vseth the word Flesh and meaneth Saieth Flesh, and meaneth Spirit. the Spirit, that is his Diuinitie, as often as he attributeth life to his flesh.

If we proue that there are twoe testaments because S. Paul saieth Gal. 4. For these are twoe testaments, the one truely One testamēt. Mimetically. &c. Zuinglius in Elencho tom. 2. fol. 3. answereth: Paul calleth it one testament, not that it was truely a testament, but by etheologie or imitatiō of them who so called it. And he addeth: who more stifly—embraced shaddows (as it is the grosse dispositiō of men) more then they ought, would rather leese light then dark­nesse: not vnlike to that madde man, who greatly complained that his freinds had procured him to be restored to his witts. After the manner of these men Paul saieth that there are twoe testa­ments. See how he saieth that Saint Paul speaketh like a madde man. And in Ioan. 6. tom. 4. p. 305. Where Christ calleth faith a worke, he saieth, Christ plaieth in the word, worke, and calleth faith a worke, because they looked to workes. So in the Epistle to the Rom. and Galat. by imi­tation he calleth grace, the law of the spirit. And in Math. Grace called a law. Mi­metically. 19. pag. 107. The Lord continueth in his imitation, and accom­modateth his speach to the mynd of the yong man, who after a Pharisaicall manner did think, that iustification and life euer­lasting were to be gotten by workes. And in Iacob. 2. p. 549. he saieth, that when S. Iames termeth faith that which is without workes, he speaketh by imitation, imitating them Faith with­out workes: Mimetically. who bragged of dead faith, which is no faith, as of liuelie and true faith. Illyricus also in Claue tract. 4. col. 332. saieth, that by imitation the Ghospell is called the law of faith Rom. 3. and faith a The Ghospell law of faith, Mimetically. worke Ioan. 6. and in like manner it is saied: Make to your selues freinds of the mammon of iniquitie.

If we proue that those things which are written in the booke of wisdome, were spoaken of Salomon because the praier to God which is in the 9. chapter can agree to no other, Whitaker Controu. 1. quaest. 1. c. 12. answereth: [Page 645] That might be done mimetically by imitation, of the writer, Salomon praieth to God Mime­tically. whosoeuer, he was. And the same saieth Rainolds Praelect. 20. and. 21. As if imitations which are grounded in lyes, and that in praiers to God were to be admitted in Scripture. What other thing were this for Scripture but to imitate others in lyes, and euen then when it speaketh to God? And thus much of their Mimeses or imitation: Now let vs see some of their hyperboles.

If we proue that faith may moue mountaines, because Faith may moue moun­taines Hy­perbolically. Christ saieth Math. 17. ver. 20. If you haue faith as a mustard seed, you shall say to this moūtaine, Remoue from hence thither, and it shall remoue: Caluin ib. in v. 19. answereth: It is cer­taine, that it is an hyperbolicall kind of speach, whē he saieth that by faith trees and mountaines may be remoued. The same hath Illyricus vpon this place.

If we haue proue that almes deliuereth from sinne, be­cause Almes deli­uereth from sinne: Hyper­bolically. it is saied Tobie 4. v. 11. Almes deliuereth from all sinne and from death: Vallada in his Apologie cit. pag. 304. ans­wereth: This kind of speach of Tobie is hyperbolicall: And A­pologia Confess. August. c. de respons. ad argum. We will not say that it is an hyperbole, albeit it must be so taken, least it detract from the praise of Christ, whose proper office is to de­liuer from death and sinne.

If we proue that one man by his praier may procure One man pro­cureth life to an o [...]her: Hy­perbolically. life to an other, because it is saied. 1. Ioan. 5. vers. 16. He that knoweth his brother to sinne a sinne not to death, let him aske, and life shalbe giuen him sinning not to death: Caluin ib. ans­wereth: If you vnderstand of man, that he giueth life to his brother, it is an hyperbolicall speach.

If we proue that God hath promised reward to good God rewar­deth works Hyperboli­cally. workes, Zuinglius de Prouident. c. 6. answereth: These are hyperboles and hyperoches: If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements: Who shall doe the will of my father, &c. and what promises soeuer els are made to workes. Thus they deuise hyperboles in Scripture: and yet Pareus lib. 1. de Iustific. cap. 15. and in Galat. 1. Lect. 9. saieth: I dare not say that there is an hyperbole in Scripture, sith it [Page 646] ouerlas heth the trueth, and seemeth to be a kind of lie.

If we proue that faith can be without charitie, because Faith with­out charitie: A fiction. S. Paul saieth 1. Cor. 13. v. 2. If I haue all faith so as I remoue mountaines, and haue not charitie, I am nothing: P. Martyr ib. answereth: The Apostle speaketh by fiction for to exag­gerate the dignitie of charitie.—Who seeth not, that Paul spea­keth here hyperbolically? And in Rom. 11. When the Apostle Impossible. Charitie ex­tolled, by fi­ction. by all means extolled charitie, he vsed a fiction for to extoll it. But Luther Postilla in Domin. Quinquagesimae, saieth: Paul brought an impossible example.

If we proue that faith may be without workes be­cause S. Iames saieth cap. 2. v. 18. Shew me thy faith without Faith with­out workes. workes: Caluin ib. answereth: In that he biddeth shew faith without workes, he argueth from an impossible thing: And in v. 17. It is cleare enough, that the Apostle doth reason from an im­possible thing.

If we proue that widdows marrying after they haue giuen their faith to the contrarie; are damned, because (as S. Paul speaketh 1. Timoth. 5 vers. 12.) they haue made voide their first faith: Caluin 4. Instit c. 13. §. 18. answereth: The Widows leese their first faith: By Amplifica­tion. Apostle for amplification sake addeth, that they haue broken or made voide their first faith.

Wherefore in forme thus I argue: Who not onely in so manie and so great matters contradict such words of Scripture, and in such a sense as we haue seene, but also in manie and great matters are forced to say, that the Scrip­ture seaketh ironically, mimetically, hyperbolically, by way of fiction, and of amplificatiō, and by impossibilities, they are to be thought to contradict the true sense of the Scripture. But Protestants do so. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER VIII. THAT PROTESTANTS ARE COM­pelled to turne the most generall propositions of the Scripture into particulars.

THE eight argument wherewith I will proue that Protestants cōtradict the true sense of holie Scrip­ture shalbe, because in manie and weightie mat­tie, to wit, of God, of Christ, of the Church, of Sacra­ments, of faith and the like, they are forced to turne the most vniuersall propositions of Scripture into particulars.

For touching God: If we proue that he hath a will to haue mercie on all, because Rom. 11. v. 32. it is saied: God Touching God. hath concluded all into incredulitie, that he may haue mercie on all: Beza ib. answereth: The vniuersall particle (All) is to be restrained, to wit, (as he saieth l. de Praedest. cont. Castel. All, that is, Some. p. 360.) All who shall beleiue. The like he hath in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 421. and in Resp. p. 216. 223. and Caluin 3. Instit. c. 24. §. 17. But Zanchius l. 1. de Nat. Dei. c. 2. tom. 2. cal. 562. saieth that this place and also that other: Preach the Ghospell to euerie creature and the like, belong onely to the elect. If we proue the same because Sapient. 11. v. 24. it is saied: Thou hast mercie on all &c. P. Martyr in Rom. 9. ans­wereth: But it easily appeareth, that these things are to be vn­derstood All, that is, Some. of the vniuersall companie of the elect.

If we proue that God hath a will to saue all, because 1. Timot. 2. v. 4 it is saied of God: Who will all men to be saued: Bucer in Math. 6. answereth: That he saieth, All; is as much as if he had saied, some of all. Et Idem apud Zanchium l. de Perseuerant. to. 2. col. 343. That place 1. Timoth. 2. Who will all: and 1. Ioan. 2. He is the propitiation &c. cannot be vn­derstood but synechdochically, for manie, that is for the elect. And againe: It is certaine that the places, which promise sal­uation vniuersally, belong onely to the elect. And Beza in Ioan. 6. v. 40. It must not be taken for an vniuersall, but for an [Page 648] indefinit proposition: Caluin vpon the place cited, saieth: It speaketh of kinds of men, not of all persons. And Perkins in Serie causarum c. 52. We must know, that this proposition is not generall, but indefinit.

If we proue the same out of these words. 2. Pet. 3. v. 10. Not some, but all, that is, Some. Not willing that anie perish, but all to returne to pennance: Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 422. & in respons. p. 231. and De Praedestinat. cont. Castel. p. 355. answereth: It is plaine, that Peter speaketh onely to the faithfull. Zanchius l. 5. de Nat. Dei. cap 2. It is vnderstood onely of the elect. And Bucer in Math. 6. It is ment of them onely whome he hath chosen for to be conuerted and liue.

If we proue that God calleth all, because Christ Math. 11. ver. 28. crieth: Come to me all that labour and are burdened All, that is, Some. and I will refresh you. Beza l. quaest. & resp. vol. 1. p. 699. ans­wereth: But yee will say the calling and promise is vniuersall. But vnderstand it indefinite, (and that in regard of certaine cir­custances of which we spoake) and thou shall thinke more rightly. For otherwise behould with how necessarie reasons that vniuer­sall calling, is refuted: wherefore not an vniuersall calling, but onely an indefinite can and must be defended.

If we proue that God hateth euen the faithfull when they worke iniquitie, because Psalm. 5. v. 7. it is saied: Thou hatest all who worke iniquitie: they will except the All, that is, Some. faithfull as appeareth by what we rehear­sed l. 1. c. 2. art. 9.

If we proue that all things are possible to God, because so it is saied. Math. 19. v. 26. Beza Dial. cont. Heshus: vol. 1. answereth: That saying of thine: All things are possible to God: hath some exception.

Of Christ: if we proue that he died for all, because it is Touching Christ. saied. 2. Cor. 5. ver. 15. If one died for all, then all were dead and Christ died for all: Beza ib. answereth: Sith it is here spoaken All, that is, Some. of the Church or of the elect onely considered vniuersally, we must needs restraine, All, to that whereof the speach is, Et Con­traremonstrantes in Collat. Hagae p. 131. That All, where­with it is saied, Christ died for all, is expounded not to be extēded vniuersally to all and euerie and none excepted, but is to be [Page 649] restrained onely to the faithfull.

If we proue, that Christ is the propitiation for the sinnes of all the world because 1. Ioan. 2. v. 2. it is saied: He is the All the world, that is, Some. propitiation for our sinnes, and not for ours onely; but also for the whole worlds: Zanchius in Summa Praelect. tom. 7. col. 264. answereth: When he saieth, Christ is the propitiation for the sinnes of the whole world, we are not compelled by name of the world (He amitteth, whole) to vnderstand all men vni­uersally. Agayne: Christ is the propitiation onely for the sinnes of the elect of the whole world. Caluin vpon this place: Nether had Ihon anie other meaning, then to make this good common to the whole Church. Beza ib. By the name of the world (He also omitteth whole) are vnderstood all the elect of all ages, degrees, and places.

If we proue that Christ is the Sauiour of all men be­cause it is saied. 1. Timoth. 4. v. 10. Which is the Sauiour of All, that is, Some. all men especially of the faithfull. Author Resp. ad Theses Vademont. p. 482. answereth: This pertaineth to the elect onely.

Of the Church: if we proue, that she erreth not in anie Touching the Church. point of faith: because Christ saieth Ioan. 16. v. 13. When he the spirit of trueth cometh, he shall teach you all trueth: Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 4. c. 2. expoundeth it thus: That is, All trueth, that is, Some. all necessarie trueth. Agayne: I answere, that Christ and the holie Ghost teacheth the Church all trueth simply necessarie, but yet oftentimes leaueth some error. The like hath Rainalds thesi. 2. and Bucanus loco 41. But Daneus Contr. 4. p. 632. saieth: Properly and truely this promise of Christ pertaineth to those twelue whome he then spoake vnto: Wherefore it is a per­sonall blessing, which must, not be extended to anie other then to those twelue Apostles. The like hath Moulins in his Buck­ler pag. 51.

If we proue that wicked men may be in the Church which is the bodie of Christ, because S. Paul saieth. 1 Cor. 10. v. 17. For being manie, we are one bread, one bodie, all that All, that is, Some. participate of one bread Beza dial. cont. Heshus. p. 280. ans­wereth: That, All that participate, cannot be extended to the [Page 650] wicked. Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 11. saieth: The Apostle spea­keth onely of the good and godlie, the wicked do not participate that bread whereof the Apostle speaketh.

If we proue that all the Corinthians and Galathians baptized, were in the Church and had put on Christ, be­cause 1. Cor. 12. v. 13. it is saied: For in one Spirit we were all All, that is, Some. baptized into one bodie: And Galat. 3. ver. 27. For as manie of you as are baptized in Christ, haue put on Christ: Whitaker Contr. 24. 1. cap. 8. answereth. The Apostle in these places speaketh not of all the Corinthians and Galathians, but of those onely who were endued with the spirit of Christ and true faith.

Touching Sacraments: If we proue that Baptisme is Touching Sa­craments. necessarie to all, because Christ saieth Ioan. 3. v. 5. Vnlesse one be borne againe of water &c. Pareus l. 6. de Amiss. Grat. c. 1. answereth: The proposition is to be limitated. And com­monly One, that is, Some. they except infants.

If we proue that baptisme is effectuall also in the repro­bate, because Galat. 3. ver. 27. For as manie of you as are bap­tized As manie, that is, Some in Christ, haue put on Christ. Beza ib. answereth: It is added (As manie) for to take away the difference of nations, states, and sexes. And 2. part. resp. ad Acta Montisb p. 62. By no colour of reason it can be vnderstood vniuersally of euerie baptized person. Zuinglius in Elencho tom. 2. fol 13. saieth: It is spoaken synechdochically: All did eate the same spirituall bread, when as they onely eate it who were spirituall.

If we proue that the bound of marriage dureth all the life of the married parties, because it is saied. 1. Cor. 7. v. 39. A woman is bound to the law, so long time as here husband So long, that is, for a time. liueth. Peter Martyr ib. answereth: When he writeth, that a woman is bound to hir husband so long as he liueth, the excep­tion which Christ hath must be added, to wit, vnlesse adulterie be committed. Beza l. de Diuort. vol. 2. p. 87. saieth: The Apostle respecteth that which is ordinarie, and falleth out for the most parte, as supposing that amongst the faithfull, to whome he wrote, marriages could scarce be dissolued by anie other means then by death.

If we proue that all sick folke are to be anointed with [Page 651] oile, because S. Iames saieth cap. 5. ver. 14. Is anie man sick Anie man, that is, Some. among you? let him bring in the preists of the Church and let them pray ouer him anoiling him with oile in the name of our Lord. Tilenus in Syntagm. cap. 58. answereth: As if those things which are spoaken indefinitly and commonly, were to be taken v­niuersally.

Concerning faith: If wee proue that faith it is neces­sarie Touching faith. to all, because it is saied Ioan. 3. ver. 36. Who beleiueth not, abideth in death: Caluin 4. Instit. c. 16. § 31. answereth: Christ speaketh not there of the generall guilt, wherewith all the Who: that is, Some. posteritie of Adam is infected, but onely threatneth the despisers of the Ghospell, who proudly and obstinately refuse grace offered to them. The like hath Vorstius in Antibel. pag. 375. If we proue the same out of those words Marke vlt. ver. 16. He He, that is, Some. that beleiueth not, shalbe damned. Zuinglius lib. de Peccat. orig. tom. 2. fol. 118. This is no way to be vnderstood simply, but of those who hauing heard the Ghospell would not beleiue.

If we proue that no faith auaileth anie thing without charitie, because it is saied 1. Cor. 13. v. 2. If I haue all faith so All, that is, Some. as I remoue motūaines, and haue not charitie, I am nothing: Cal­uin ib. answereth: The faith whereof he speaketh is particular. Beza ib. As for All, that signifieth not in this place all kindes of faith, but declareth a certaine perfection of this kind, that is, it signifieth rather whole, then all. Peter Martyr in Rom. 11. pag. 935. saieth: We must know, that vniuersall propositions are to be restrained to the matter whereof the speach is: And in Rom. 9. p. 725. and 728. he limitateth manie vniuersall proposi­tions of the Scripture.

Touching good workes: If we proue that charitie fal­leth Of good workes. not away in heauen, because it is saied 1. Co. 13. ver. 8. Charitie neuer falleth away: Caluin ib. answereth: What if I Neuer, that is, not for a time. except, that the perpetuitie of charitie, whereof the Apostle here speaketh, is after the last day and belongeth not to the time bet­weene. And in Zacharie 1. v. 12. We know, that the offices of charitie are restrained to the course of this life.

If we proue that the Apostle doth counsel single life vnto all men, by these words 1. Cor. 7. v. 7. I would all men [Page 652] to be as my selfe: Bullinger ib. answereth: I would indeed all All, that is, Some. men, to wit, who feigne chastitie (obserue (saieth he) the synech­doche) and leaue their wiues, to be as my selfe.

If we proue that God graunteth chastitie to all that aske it out of that most vniuersall promise of Christ Ioan. 16. Any thing, that is, Some. ver. 23. Amen, Amen, I say to you if you aske the Father any thing in my name, he will giue it you. Daneus Contr. 5. p. 1038. answereth: That generall promise of Christ doth not legi­timate (that I may so speake) or make lawfull all our praiers be­fore the Lord, but onely those things which we aske according to Gods expresse and reuealed will, and not other things. And Perkins in Casibus Conscient. l. 2. c. 15. Christs promise is to be vnderstood of those things which are necessarie to saluation, and not of these especiall guifts. In like sorte answereth P. Martyr de Votis. col. 1437. Riuet in Contr. tract. 1. sect. 67. Vorstius in Antibel. p. 224. and others.

If we proue that we may pray for all men, because S. Paul saieth. 1. Timoth. 2. v. 1. I desire therefore first of all things, that obsecrations, praiers, postulations, thanks giuings, be made for all men. Rainolds Apol. Thes. pag. 245. Answereth: Where we are bidden to pray for all, the word All, doth not sig­nifie All, that is, Some. euerie of the kind, but euerie kind of men.

Concerning sinnes: If we proue that euen a faithfull Of Sinnes. man committing a great sinne, becometh the sonne of the Diuel, because. 1. Ioan. 3. v. 8. it is saied: Euerie one that com­mitteth Euerie one, that is, Some. sinne, is of the Diuel. Scarpe de Iustificat. Contr. 13. answereth: They onely are saied to serue the Diuel and to be his children, in whome sinne reigneth, and who commit sinne with a full will: but the faithfull doe not sinne so. The like hath Pareus lib. 2. de Iustific. cap. 17. and lib. 4. cap. 17. And if we proue that Dauid when he committed murder, had not life in him, because 1. Ioan. 3. v. 15. is saied: And you know that no murderer hath life euerlasting in himselfe: Protestants will except both Dauid and all the elect faithfull, as ap­peareth by what we rehearsed l. 1. c. 16. art 5. and 6.

If we proue that no fornicatour hath inheritance, in Christs kingdome, because S. Paul saieth Ephes. 5. vers. 5. [Page 653] Know you this that no fornicator hath inheritance in the king­dome None, that is, not Some. of Christ and of God: Scarpius de Iustif. Contr. 5. pag. 86. excepteth the faithfull.

If we proue that all faithfull must feare least they fall, Who, that is, Some. because it is saied. 1. Cor. 11. v. 12. Who thinketh himselfe to stand let him take heed. Et Rom. 11. v. 20. Thou by faith dost stand, be not to highly wise, but feare. Caluin. 3. Inst. c. 12. §. 22. He doth not warne euerie man. Of Gods law.

Touching the law of God: If we proue that the faith­full may keepe all the commandements, because it is saied All, that is, Some. of Zacharie and Elizabeth. Luc. 1. v. 6. They were both iust before God, walking in all the commandements and iustifications of our Lord without blame: Caluin. ib. saieth: I answere that these praises, wherewith Gods seruants are so highly commen­ded, are to be taken with some exception.

If we proue that Iosias did keepe the whole law of God, because it is saied of him. 4. Reg. 23. He turned to our Lord in all his heart, according to all the law of Moises: Hun­nius All, that is, Some. tractat. de Iustific. p. 170. answereth: That which is added (According to all the law of Moises) doth chiefly respect that reformation in religiō instituted according to the law of Moyses.

Thou seest (Reader) how often and in how manie, and weightie matters Protestants are forced to turne the most generall or vniuersall sayings of the Scripture into particulars, and how manie vniuersall particles both affir­matiue, as All, Euerie one, Euerie creature, As manie, Whole, As long time, Who, Anie man, Anie thing and Negatiues, as Not anie, Neuer, No fornicator, No murderer, they change into particulars, whensoeuer they make against them. Which is so great and so manifest an abuse of Scripture as What some Protestants thing of tur­ning vniuer­sall proposi­tions into particulars. some of themselues crie out against it. For thus Iacobus Andreae in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 418. speaketh to Beza: It is impietie to exclude anie man from this vniuersall promise. p. 419. It is manifest impietie and abhominable doctrine, contrarie to the expresse letter to make a particular promise of an vniuer­sall. Et pag. 421. It is horrible to heare, so manifest an vniuersall proposition to be made a particular.

Wherefore I thus frame my eight argument: Who be­sides the foresaied opposition to the expresse words of Scripture, are compelled in so manie and so great matters to change so manie and so manifest vniuersall propositiōs of the holie Scripture into particulars, they are to be iud­ged to gainsay the true sense of the Scripture. But Prote­stants do so. Therefore &c. And the more forcible this argument ought to be against them, because themselues teach: That as often as there is an vniuersall proposition in Scripture, it must not be limited by anie distinction, vnlesse that be grounded vpon certaine and cleare words of Scripture; For otherwise euerie doctrine may be deluded by subtilitie of distin­ctions. So Gerlachius tom. 2. disp. 24.

CHAPTER IX. THAT PROTESTANTS DO LIMITATE manie vnlimited Propositions of the Scripture.

MY ninth argument, that Protestants contradict the true sense of Scripture, I will take frō thence, that they are forced to limitate manie vnlimi­tated propositions of Scripture, touching great matters, as of God, of Christ, of the Church, and the like.

For if we proue that God doth not at all tempt to euil, Touching God. because S. Iames saieth absolutely. c. 1. v. 13. God is no tempter of euill, and he tempteth no man: P. Martyr in locis. clas. 1. c. 15. §. 9. answereth: When Iames denieth, that God tempteth, he denieth it not altogether, but in that sorte in which those carnall Christians of his time, did affirme him to tempt, as if they when they sinned, had not beene in fault. Caluin vpon this place: He speaketh here of inward temptations, which are no­thing but inordinate desires, which prouoke vs to sinne: And he rightly denieth God to be author of them. Pareus l 2. de Amiss. Grat. c. 8. Iames doth not remoue from God simply all tempta­tion, but onely the inward temptation, and such as may make a man excusable.

If we proue that God willeth not iniquitie at all, that is nether for it selfe, nor for anie other thing, because. ps. 1. v. 5. it is saied without anie limitation: Thou wilst not ini­quitie: they limitate this saying manie waies, as that God willeth not iniquitie for it selfe, or by his word, or by al­lowance, or delighte in it, as appeareth by what we rehear­sed l. 1. c. 2. art. 1.

If we proue that God of himselfe willeth not the death of anie man, because he saieth. Ezech. 33. v. 11. I will not the death of the wicked, and c. 18. v. 32. I will not the death of him that dieth: Zanchius l. 3. de Nat. Dei c. 4. q. 4. answereth: If thou vrgest the word: I will not the death of a sinner, and that God speaketh of his good pleasure, I say that place is to be vnder­stood of the elect onely. Beza 2. art. resp. ad Acta Montisbel. p. 196. That restriction of conuersion, sheweth that this is to be vnderstood onely of them, to whome is graunted the grace of con­uersion, which surely is proper to the elect. Piscator in Thesib. l. 2. p. 187. The Prophet speaketh not here of euerie sinner, but of him onely that is conuerted. But Luther lib. de seru. arbitr. tom. 2. fol. 450. saieth. God willeth manie things, which by his word he sheweth that he willeth not. So he will not the death of a sinner, to wit, by word, but he willeth it by his vnsearch­able will.

If we proue that God willeth the conuersion of euerie sinner, because he saieth without limitation Ezech. 33. v. 11. I will not the death of the wicked, but that he be conuerted and liue: Caluin l. de Praedest. p. 786. and de Prouident. p. 737. answereth: God is saied to will life, as he is saied to will pen­nance, and this he willeth because by his words he inuiteth all to it: but this is not contrarie to his secret counsaile, wherein he hath decreed to conuert none but his elect. Piscator in Thesi­bus lib. 2. pag. 236. saieth: That God speaketh there of the wic­ked who is conuerted.

If we proue that Christ, euen as he is God, would ga­ther those who will not be gathered, because he saieth absolutely Math. 23. v 37. How often would I gather together thy children, as the hen doth goth gather together her chickins [Page 656] vnder her wings, and thou wouldest not? Perkins de Praedest. tom. 1. col. 157. answereth: I say, that Christ speaketh here not as he was God, but as he was minister of the circumcision: The same saieth Luther lib. cit. fol. 451. and others.

If we proue that God calleth euen the reprobate, be­cause he saieth without limitation Apocal. 3. v. 20. I stand at the dore and knock: Perkins loc. iam cit. answereth: Those at whose dore Christ standeth are the faithfull and the conuerted.

If we proue that God euen by inward vocation calleth the reprobate, because without all limitation it is saied, Math. 23. v. 37. How often would I gather thy Children: And Isaiae 65. v. 2. I haue spred fourth my hands all the day to an in­credulous people, And c. 5. v. 4. What is there that I ought to doe more to my vineyard, and haue not done to it? Et Prou. 1. v. 24. I haue called, and you haue refused: Contra-remonstrantes in Collat. Hagae p. 245. & seq. limitate all these sayings onely to outward calling. And Pareus l. 1. de Grat. & lib. arb. c. 11. to onely calling by outwarde means. After which manner Protestants also limitate those words Math. 22. v. 14. Manie are called, but few are chosen.

If we proue that men may resist the holie Ghost spea­king within them, because without limitation it is saied Acts 7. v. 51. You haue alwaies resisted the holie Ghost: Caluin. ib. answereth: They are saied to resist the holie Ghost, who obstinately reiect him speaking by the Prophets, for here is no speach of inward reuelations which God inwardly inspireth to anie, but of the outward ministerie.

If we proue that Christ did not teach his Apostles all Touching Christ. the points of faith, because himselfe saieth. Ioan. 16. v. 12. Yet manie things I haue to say to you, but you cannot beare them now: But when he the Spirit of trueth cometh, he shall teach you all trueth: they limite this to rites and discipline. Beza ib: These words are to be vnderstood of those things, which per­tained to the execution of the Apostolicall function and foun­dation of Churches.

If we proue that Christ was Mediator of all men be­cause [Page 657] it is saied 1. Tim. 2. v. 6. One Mediator of God and men, the man Iesus Christ: they limite this to the elect faithfull: Beza Epist. 28. It is false, that Christ is mediator also of the in­fidels. In like sorte Hunnius de Iustif. pag. 179. restraineth that saying Hebr. 5. ver. 9. He was made to all that obey him, cause of eternall saluation, to obedience in faith.

If we proue that vnwritten traditions of faith are to be Touching Traditions. beleiued, because S. Paul saieth without limitation 2. Thessal. 2. ver. 15. Stand, and hould the traditions, which you haue learned, whether it be by word, or by our epistle; they limite this to onely traditions of rites or ceremonies; Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 6. cap. 10. Other (Protestantes) thinke, that Paul speaketh of certaine externall matters and rites of no great mo­ment. Academia Nemaus. Resp. ad Tournon. pag. 554. By the word Tradition in the Apostles writings, is meant ether the application and right handling of doctrine, or the appointing of rites and discipline.

If we proue that Christ committed all his sheepe to S. Touching S. Peter. Peter because without anie limitation he saieth to him Ioan. 21. v. 17. Feed my sheepe. Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 5. cap. 5. answereth: Christ doth not say to Peter: Feed all my sheepe, but speaketh indefinitely. And Beza ib. in vers. 15. Must Gods word be thus profaned? Surely Christ did not adde All; and the difference betwixt vniuersall and indefinite propositions, is well knowne. As if Protestants did not as well limitate vniuer­sall propositions, as indefinite; as appeared in the former chapter. Besides Daneus Contr. 3. p. 127. faithfull: An in­definite What Pro­test. say of an indefinite proposition. proposition is equiualent to an vniuersall. And Caluin in 1. Ioan. 3. v. 3. An indefinite speach is as much as an vniu [...] ­sall. And 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 29. It is our parte, whatsoeuer is ab­solutely spoake of Christ so to embrace, as without exception that take place with vs which he would say.

If we proue that the Church is alwaies famous and vi­sible, Touching the Church. because Isaie c. 2. v. 2. saieth without limitation of time: And in the latter dayes the mountaine of the house of our Lord shall be prepared in the top of mountaines, and shalbe ele­uated aboue the litle hilles, and all nations shall flow vnto it. Et [Page 658] c. 61. ver. 9. And they shall know their seed in the Gentils and their budde in the middest of peoples. And Miche. 4. v. 8. And the remanent of Iacob shall be in the Gentils in the middest of manie peoples, as a Lion amōg the beasts of the forest. Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 2. c. 2. answereth: The Prophets foretell that no kingdome shalbe so glorious, no cittie so ample, no Empire so large as the Church shalbe in the times of the Messias—But we neuer read, that the Lord hath promised that this maiestie and glorie of the Church shalbe constant and perpetuall. Et Morton. in Apolog. part. 1. l. 1. c. 13. The league is indeed perpetuall, but this so admirable successe is not alwaies so vniuersall, but in a manner peculiar to the age of the Apostles.

If we proue that the Pastors of the Church be alwaies visible, because Christ saieth of them Math. 5. v. 15. A cittie cannot be hid situated vpon a mountaine. Whitaker loc. cit. answereth: Albeit Christ say, that godlie Doctors and Pastors shall not be obscure, nor escape the sight of men; yet he saieth not, that there shalbe alwaies such Doctors which may be as vi­sible as mountaines.

If we proue that the Church is the pillar of all trueth of faith, because S. Paul 1. Timoth. 3. ver. 15. without anie limitation calleth her the pillar and strength of trueth: Whi­take Contr. 2. q. 4. c. 2. answereth: In this place is meant not simply all trueth, but onely necessarie trueth. And Vorstius in Antibel. p. 143. The Apostle speaketh not of euerie trueth that howsoeuer pertaineth to religion, but onely of holesome trueth, or which is necessarie to saluation, and that conditionally also, to wit, so long as she shall remayne the true Church of Christ.

If we proue that the Church is alwaies infallible in faith, because, without limitation to anie time, she is cal­led loc. cit. The pillar and strength of trueth: P. Martyr in lo­cis clas. 4. c. 4. §. 21. saieth: I graunt, She is indeed the pillar of trueth, but not alwaies, but when she relieth vpon the word of God. Confessio. Heluet. c. 17. She erreth not, as long as she relieth vpon the rock Christ, and the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles. Daneus Contr. 4. p. 717. The place of Paul spea­keth of the visible Church, which on earth is the keeper of hea­uenlie [Page 659] doctrine, so long as she is true. Bullinger Dec 4. Serm. 5. The Church erreth not so long as she heareth the voice of her Spouse and Pastor. Herbrandus in Compend. loc. de Eccles. She erreth not so long as she houldeth and followeth the word of God.

Of we proue that the Church is to be heard simply in all things, because our Sauiour without anielimitation saieth Math. 18. v. 19. If he will not heare the Church, let him be to thee as an Ethnik and Publican. Whitaker lib. 1. de Scrip­tura c. 13. sect. 1. answereth: The Sonne of God himselfe com­manded to heare the voice of the Church, but not preaching anie thing but Scripture. Herbrand. loc. cit. saieth the Church is to be heard, as long as she preacheth heauenlie and incorrupt do­ctrine. Moulins in his Buckler p. 84. limitateth this speach of Christ, to quarrels betwixt particular men, and not to questions of religion. The like saied Feild. l. 4. de Eccles. c. 4. and others.

If we proue that the Church in teaching cannot erre, because Isaias saieth c. 59. v. 21. This is my couenant with them saieth, our Lord: My spirit is in thee and my words which I haue put in thy mouth shall not departe out of thy mouth, and out of the mouth of thy seed, and out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saieth our Lord, from this present for euer. Whitaker libr. 1. de Scriptura cap. 11. sect. vlt. answereth: This promise is not made to the teaching Church, but to the whole Church, that is, to the elect.

If we proue that the militant Church is perpetuall, be­cause the Scripture saieth, that Christs kingdome shalbe perpetuall, Daneus Contr. 4. p. 718. answereth: All these places and the like properly pertaine to that Church which God shall gather in heauen, not on earth.

If we proue that the visible Church is alwaies the true Church, because she is called 1. Timoth 3. the pillar of trueth: Daneus loc cit. pag. 721. answereth: Let him know, that the visible Church then, and so long is saied to be the true Church, as long as the voice of heauenlie and Euangelicall trueth soundeth in her.

If we proue that the visible Church cannot erre, be­cause Math. 16. v. 18. it is saied, that the gates of hel shall not preuaile against the Church: Moulins in his Buckler p. 49. answereth: That is meant of the Church of the elect, not of the vniuersall visible Church.

If we proue, that the Church of anie age is to be heard, because Christ Math. 18. Without anie limitation of time biddeth vs to heare the Church: Herbrand. in Compend. loc. de Eccles. answereth: This command is not vniuersall of the Church of all times, but Christ speaketh of his litle Church according to the condition of those times, which then wanted a pious politik Magistrate who was a mēber of the Church. In like sorte Whitaker l. 1. de Script. c. 7. sect. 8. limitateth those words of Christ. Ioan. 6. He shall teach you all trueth: and those. Luc. 10. v. 16. Who heareth you, heareth me ib. c. 8. sect. 1. and those of S. Ihon. 1. c. 4. v. 6. Who knoweth God, heareth vs, in l. 2. de Script. c. 6. sect. 3. to the Apostles onely.

If we proue that none may preach vnlesse he be sent, because S. Paul saieth absolutely Rom. 10. v. 15. How shall they preach, vnlesse they be sent? they except where a Church is not yet founded, or where Pastors teach not truely, or where all things are in confusion, as appeareth by what we tould. l. 1. c. 7. art. 8.

If we proue that none may marrie after diuorce, because without anie limitation it is saied 1. Corinth. 7. v. 10. But to Touching, Matrimonie. them that are ioyned in matrimonie, not I giue commandment but our Lord, that the wife departe not from her husband, and if she depart, to remaine vnmarried or to be reconciled to her hus­band: Caluin ib. answereth: This is not meant of those who haue beene diuorced for adulterie. Others except other cases as appeareth by whath hath beene saied l. 1. c. 12. art. 6. And in like manner they limitate those words Math. 19. ver. 9. He that shall marrie her that is dimissed, committeth aduoutrie: For thus Beza in Luc. 16. v. 18. The Lord speaketh of diuorces vsed amongst the Iews, amongst which diuorce for adulterie can­not be reckoned. The like he hath in 1. Cor. 7. v. 11. Bucer in Math 8. and others.

If we proue that all men ought to confesse all their Touching Confession. sinnes to men, because S. Iames c. 5. v. 16. absolutely saieth: Confesse your sinnes one to an other: Caluin. 3. Instit. c. 4. §. 12. answereth: Such a confessiō must befree, so as it be not exacted of all, but onely commended who feell that they haue need of it: And moreouer, that nether they who vse it for their need, be compelled by any precept, or drawne by any cunning to tell all their sinnes, but as farre forth as themselues shall thinke fit. Cō ­fessio Heluet. cap. 14. restraineth Saint Iames words to those sinnes onely which are committed against our neighbour.

If we proue that now a dayes sick persons are to be Touching extreme Vn­ction. anointed with oile because S. Iames. c. 5. v. 14. saieth: Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the Preists of the Church, and let them pray ouer him anoiling him with oile in the name of our Lord: Caluin. 4. Instit. 19. §. 19. answereth: This is commanded by Iames: To wit, Iames spoake for that time, whiles as yet the Church did enioy this blessing.

If we proue that all who soeuer beleiue not, shalbe Touching faith. damned, because Christ saieth absolutely. Marke vlt. v. 16. He that beleiueth not, shalbe condemned: Zuinglius l. de bap­tismo tom. 2. fol. 93. answereth: What man is so doltish, blockish, and blind, who seeth not that these words of Christ are spoaken onely of those, who hauing heard the Ghospell, do not be­leiue? Musculus in locis lit. de Baptismo: These kind of sen­tences concerning faith are not to be applied to infants, as these: Without faith it is impossible to please God &c.

If we proue that almes deliuereth as well from sinne Touching good workes. past or present, as to come, because it is saied Tobie. 4. ver. 11. Almes deliuereth from all sinne and from death: they re­straine this to future sinnes: Apologia Confess. Augustan. c. de Resp. ad Argum. We grauut that almes do merit many benefits of God, and deliuereth, not from present, but from fu­ture sinne, that is, deserue that we be defended in dangers of sinne and death.

If we proue that almes do purge inwardly, or the soule, because without limitation it is saied Luke 11. v. 14. [Page 662] Giue almes, and behould all things are cleane vnto you: they limitate this to outward cleasing onely: Peter Martyr in Rom. 11. The third way (of expounding this place) is more fit, as I thinke. For Christ exhorteth them to cleanse their soule, which is within, and that is done by faith: And as touching out­ward things he addeth: Giue almes so all things shalbe cleane to you.

If we proue that we may sell all and giue to the poore, because our Sauiour saieth Math. 19. vers. 21. If thou wilt be perfect, sell what thou hast &c. Perkins in Casibus Consciēt. l. 3. c. 4. limitateth that counsaile of Christ, to that man alone to whome he spoake, saying: Those words containe a personall and particular commandment. And in like sort Fulk Math. 19. not. 9. and Mark. 10. not. 3.

If we proue that the conception of concupiscence, or Touching sinne. the inuoluntarie act thereof is no sinne before God, be­cause S. Iames saieth. cap. 1. v. 15. Concupiscence, when it hath conceaue, bringeth forth sinne: Caluin. ib. answereth: Iames disputeth not when sinne beginneth to be borne, so that it be sinne and reputed for such before God, but when it sheweth it selfe.

If we proue that the keeping of the law is absolutely necessarie to life euerlasting: because Christ saieth abso­lutely. Math. 19. v. 17. If thou wilt enter to life, keepe the com­mandements, they limitate these words to a certaine manner of entring, to wit (as they speake) by entring by the law, or by good workes, or merits. Caluin in Math. 5. ver. 21. Who will enter to life by good workes, those he biddeth nothing els but to keepe the commandments of the law: And vpon this place: We gather, that this answere of Christ is ac­cording to the law. And in Antidot. Concil. session. 6. cap. 9. Surely whosoeuer will merit eternall life, hath a rule prescribed to him by the law: Doe these, and thou shalt liue. In like sorte answereth Pareus lib. 4. de lustificat. cap. 2. And Illyricus in Claue part. 2. tract. 6. saieth: That all men are bound to doe good and auoid sinne vnder paine of losse of eternall life, is a sentence of the law, and both must and ought to be restrained [Page 663] by the (Protestant) Ghospell or remission of sinnes. So that no precepts of doing good and auoiding ill, pertaine to the Protestant Ghospell.

If we proue that with Gods grace a man may in­wardly conuert himselfe from euill to good, because it is saied absolutely Zacharie 1. ver. 3. Conuert to me, saieth the Lord of hostes, and I will conuert to you: they limitate this onely to outward conuersion: Peter Martyr in Roman. 11. The Prophet spoake not of inward iustification, but of outward conuersion to good workes.

If we proue that we are not infallibly certaine of for­giuenesse Touching Iustification. of sinnes or eternall punishment, because it is saied absolutely Ioel. 2. v. 14. Who knoweth if he (God) will conuert and forgiue? and the like is saied Ion. 3. v. 9. Kem­nice in locis part. 2. tit. de Argum. limitateth this to for­giuenesse of temporall punishment, and saieth: All the speach of the Prophet tendeth to that he treateth of remission of temporall punishment. In like sorte he limitateth manie other places of Scripture, in which forgiuenesse is attri­buted to workes, onely to forgiuenesse of temporall pu­nishment. That also of Tobie cap. 4. Almes deliuereth from death, he restraineth to temporall death. And in like manner, promises made to good workes he limitateth to certaine blessings in this world or in the next, but will not haue them extended to eternall life. And finally where­soeuer in the Scripture anie man praieth God to iudge or reward him according to his iustice, he limita­teth that to the iustice of his cause or quarell with other men.

If we proue that euerlasting happines is giuen for good Touching eternall life. workes, because S. Iames saieth cap. 1. ver. 25. He that hath remained in it, not made a forgetfull hearer, but a doer of the worke, this man shalbe blessed in his deed; they limitate this to blessednes in this life: Schlusselburg. to. 8. Catal. Haeret. p. 497. thus answereth to this place: To be blessed, is not al­waies taken in holie writ for eternall saluation, but for blessednes in this life.

If we proue that we must not onely beleiue but also keepe the law, because Christ saieth Math. 5. ver. 18. I am not come to break (the law) but to fulfill: Caluin. ibid. ans­wereth: Here is treated of doctrine, not of life. Touching do­ctrine we must not imagin anie abrogation of the law by the co­ming of Christ. And v. 19. where is saied: One iot or one tittle shall not passe of the law till all be fulfilled: Caluin. ibid. saieth: I answere that word be done (or fulfilled) is not referred to mens liues, but to the solide trueth of doctrine.

If we proue that our consciences are obliged by the par­ticular Touching laws of men. iust lawes of Princes, because it is absolutely saied Rom. 3. v. 2. He that resisteth power, resisteth the ordinance of of God: and v. 5. Be subiect of necessitie, not onely for wrath, but also for conscience sake: they limitate these words to the power of Magistrates in generall. Daneus Contr. 5. p. 1127. To obey the Magistrate in generall, is a matter of conscience, but to obey this or that law of the Magistrate wholy and in all points, we are not bound in conscience. And Whitaker libr. 8. cont. Dureum sect. vlt. We must obey the Magistrate in generall for conscience sake, because by a generall precept we are com­manded to obey the Magistrate: but particular lawes of Magi­strates haue no command ouer our consciences. In like sorte Caluin 4. Instit. c. 10. §. 5.

Wherefore thus in forme I frame my ninth argument. who not onely in so manie and so great matters do con­tradict such words of holie Scripture and in such sense, as we haue seene, but also take so much vpon them, as limi­tate and restraine so manie and so weightie sentences of Scripture, they are to be thought to gayne say the right sense of Scripture. But Protestants do so. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER X. THAT PROTESTANTS CHANGE manie absolute Propositions of Scripture into conditionals.

THE tenth argument shalbe taken from that Pro­testants are forced to change manie and weightie absolute Propositions of Scripture into condi­tionals.

For if we proue, that absolutely God will not the death Touching God. of a sinner, but rather his life and conuersion, because he absolutely saieth Ezechiel 18. and 33. I will not the death of a sinner, but rather that he be conuerted and liue: Caluin l. de Praedestinat. pag. 706. answereth: Whereas the Prophets speach exhorteth to pennace, no maruaile if God say, he will haue all to be saued; but the mutuall relation betwene threats and pro­mises sheweth that such kind of speaches are conditionall.—So the promises which inuite all to saluation, shew not what simply and precisely God hath decreed in his secret counsaile, but what he is readie to doe to all that are brought to faith and pen­nance.

Touching the Church, if we proue that the gates of Touching the Church. hell shall not preuaile against her, because Christ doth ab­solutely so promise Math. 16. ver. 16. Besnagus l. de statu Eccles. cap. 8. and others, adde this condition: If she for­sake not her dutie and the word of God. If we proue that sim­ply we must heare the Pastors of the Church, because Christ saieth. Luk. 10. ver. 16. He that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me: Caluin. ib. addeth this condition: If the Church do faithfully her dutie.

If we proue that the Church is simply infallible, be­cause 1. Timoth. 3. she is simply called the pillar and strength of trueth: Vallada in Apol. cont. Episcop. Lusonensem cap. 20. answereth: The visible Church cannot be the pillar of [Page 666] trueth, but as it is grounded vpon the doctrine of the Apostles. Vorstius in Antibell. pag. 143. The Apostle speaketh conditio­nally, to wit, as long as the Church perseuereth to be the Church of Christ. Academia Nemaus. resp. ad Tournon. p. 546. Let it be a true and faithfull Church, if it discerne trueth from fal­sitie by vndoubted and authenticall trueth.

If we proue that the Church is simply to be heard, be­cause Christ saieth. Math. 18. ver. 17. If he heare not the Church, let him be to thee as an Ethnick and Publican: White in his way p. 78. answereth: The sense is, that we must obe­diently heare the Church, and obey her, not simply in all things, but conditionally, as long as she speaketh agreably to Gods word. And Author respons. ad Theses Vademont. pag. 688. The answere is easie and readie: As long as the Church tea­cheth the word of God, she is to be heard, but her authoritie is none when she seperateth her selfe from Gods word. And when Bellarmin had brought manie places of Scripture to proue that the Church cannot faile: Vorstius libr. cit. pag. answereth: In them certaine conditionall promises are pro­posed vnto vs, by which eternall saluation and securitie against Satan, death, &c. is promised of God to all and euerie faithfull, to wit, as farre forth and as long as they shalbe such, or perseuer in true faith.

If we proue that there are some doers of the law, as Touching Gods law. well as there are hearers, because Saint Paul saieth abso­lutely Rom. 2. ver. 13. Not the hearers of the law are iust with God, but the doers of the law shalbe iustified: Caluin. ibidem answereth: This sentence hath onely this meaning: If iustice be sought by the law, we must fulfill the law, because the iu­stice of the law consisteth in the perfection of workes. Peter Martyr ibid. That which he saieth, hath this meaning: If anie were to be iustified before God by the iustice of the law, he must fulfill the law. Pareus libr. 4. de Iustificat. cap. 14. The Apo­stlesaieth indeed: Doers of the law shalbe iustified, but he mea­neth conditionally if there be anie. And Illyricus in Claue part. 2. tract. 4. writeth thus: Roman. 2. When Gentils doe those things which are of the law: that is, if they did them. [Page 667] Againe: Doe this, and thou shalt liue, is put for: If thou doest them, thou shalt liue.

If we proue that there are some which loue their neighbour and fulfill the law, because it is saied Rom. 13. v. 8. Who loueth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law: Caluin. ib. answereth: Paul saieth not what men doe or not doe, but speaketh vpon condition, which you shall not find any where ful­filled. And if you proue that the law may be fulfilled be­cause the Apostle saieth. Galat. 6. v. 2. Beare yee one an others burdens, and so yee shall fulfill the law of Christ: Caluin ibid. answereth: Because none performeth altogether that which Paul requireth, therefore we are all farre from perfection.

If we proue that single life is simply good, because S. Paul saieth absolutely 1. Cor. 7. v. 1. It is good for a man not to touch a woman: P. Martyr in locis Classe 3. cap. 7. §. 17. answereth: They should see, that what Paul hath of the praises of single life, are neuer spoaken absolutely.

If we proue that virginitie may be absolutely counsel­led Of good workes, to men, because S. Paul. 1. Corinth. 7. v. 7. saieth abso­lutely: I would all men to be as my selfe: And ver. 25. A concer­ning virgins, a commandement of our Lord I haue not, but coun­saile I giue: And ver. 28. Art thou loose from a wife, seeke not a wife. Caluin in ver. 25. cit. answereth: Because it is a slip­perie matter and full of difficulties, he speaketh alwaies vnder condition. And in v. 27. This second member must be taken vn­der condition.

If we proue that some may fall from grace because S. Of Iustifica­tion. Paul saieth. Gal. 5. v. 4. You are fallen from grace: Pareus in Galat. 1. lect. 7. answereth: The Apostle speaketh that condi­tionally. And in cap. 5. vers. 4. lect. 61. For the Apostle af­firmeth not that the Galathians were fallen, but threatneth, that if that if they will be iustified by the law, that it will come to posse that they fall.

wherefore thus I make my tenth argument: Who be­side the foresaied opposition on to so manie and such words of holie Scripture, are forced to change manie and weigh­tie absolute sayings of Scripture into conditionals they [Page 668] contradict the true meaning of the holie Scripture. But Protestants doe so. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER XI. THAT PROTESTANTS CHANGE Conditionall Propositions of the Scripture into Absolute, and delude them diuers other waies.

THE eleuenth argument for to proue that Prote­stants contradict the true sense of holie Scripture, shalbe because they are sometimes forced to change conditionall propositions thereof into absolute, and to delude them diuers other waies.

For if we proue that our freindshippe with God de­pendeth of our keeping the commandements, because Christ saied conditionally Ioan. 15. v. 14. Yee are my freinds, if yee doe the things that I command yee: Caluin. ibid. an­swereth: He meaneth not, that we obtaine so great honor by anie merit of ours, but onely admonisheth vs, vpon what con­dition he receaueth vs into fauour and vouch safeth to reckon vs amongst his freinds.

But this wilbe more euident by that we shall shew in the next chapter how they of causall propositions make no causall.

Diuers others waies they delude and frustrate the con­ditionall propositiōs of holie Scripture. For if they can by anie colour they expound them of onely faith, or of the holie ghost: So they delude those places: Ioan. 6. vers. 53. Vnlesse yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood, yee shall not haue life in yee: and Ioan. 3. ver. 5. Vnlesse a man be borne agayne of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdome of God: Which teach that Sacraments are necessarie to saluation. Or if they must needs expound them of good workes, they will not expoūd thē of doing all necessarie good workes and auoiding all necessarie [Page 669] euill, but of some onely or in parte, or of endeauor to doe or auoid them: so they delude those sayings of the Scrip­ture Rom. 8. v. 13. If you liue according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the spirit you mortifie the deeds of the flesh you shall liue. Caluin. ib. He promiseth vs life, if we endeauour to morti­fie the flesh. For he doth not exactly require the death of the flesh, but onely biddeth vs endeauour to tame the lustes thereof. And the like he doth in manie other places, as may be seene hereafter c. 16. And in like manner they delude all other sentences of Scripture which teach, that if we wilbe saued or iustified, we must doe good workes and eschew euill. And according to this they say, that we must doe some good, or haue some good workes: that we must haue a begun or imperfect newnesse of life, and keepe the lawe in some sorte or fashion: Luther in Isaiae 8. to. 4. f. 83. The holie Ghost is giuen that we may satisfie the law in some parte. In some parte. And in Psal. 51. to. 3. fol. 455. We will fulfill and keepe the law, but with a large, that is, with a true Euangelicall dispensation. Confessio Saxon. c. 9. It is needfull that there be some obediēce Protest. dis­pensation. Some obe­dience. Some begin­ning. In some sorte. In some kind. To begin. in those that are iustified. Schlusselb. to. 4. Catal. p. 176. The iustified are free from the accusation and damnation of the law, not from beginning of obedience. Bucer in Rom. 8. Christ giueth that spirit whereby we auoid sinne in some sorte. Pareus l. 3 de Iustif. p. 645. Saints doe not doubt of some kind of inherent iu­stice: and l. 4. c. 7. It is enough if we endeauour to begin the new obedience of the law according to all the commandements. So that wheresoeuer the Scripture saieth conditionally: If thou wilt be iustified or saued doe this or doe not that, they vnderstand it with a large dispensation: that is, doe somewhat, or doe not somewhat of it: or begin or en­deauour to doe or not doe it.

But if this shift will not serue, because the Scripture spea­keth conditionally of keeping the whole law, as Math. 9. v. 17. If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the commandements; and the like, thē they say it is the doctrine of the law not of the Ghospell. Caluin ib. We gather, that this answere of Christ is according to the law. Illyricus in Claue part. 2. tract. 6. col. [Page 670] 543. That all be bound vnder payne of losse of eternall life to doe good and auoid sinne, is a sentence of the law, and must and ought to be corrected and restrained by the (Protestant) Ghospell or by remission of sinnes. Peter Martyr in Rom. 11. That saying: Forgiue, and it shalbe forgiuen, is a precept, and therefore per­taineth to the law. Melancthon in Apologia tom. 3. c. de ar­gumentis: The promise of reconciliation and of eternall life is free, but proper legall promises are added for workes: as who shall giue a draught of water, shall not want his reward.

Wherefore thus I frame my eleuenth argument. Who not onely contradict the expresse words of Scripture, but also are compelled to turne conditionall propositions of Scripture into absolute, and to delude them diuers other waies, do contradict also the sincere meaning of the Scrip­ture. But thus doe Protestants. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER XII. THAT PROTESTANTS CHANGE manie causall propositions of Scripture into not causall.

THE 12. argument for to proue that Protestants contradict the true sense of Scripture, shalbe be­cause they are compelled in manie and weightie controuersies to turne causall propositions into not causall.

For is we proue that Christ was exalted for his humi­liation, because it is saied. Philippen. 2. ver. 8. He humbled himselfe made obedient vnto death euen the death of the crosse. For: For the which thing God hath exalted him. Caluin ibid. an­swereth: That illatiue particle (wherefore) in this place signi­fieth rather consequence, then cause. And 2. Instit. c. 17. §. vlt. The solution is easie, that Paul there speaketh not of the cause of Christs exaltation, but onely sheweth the consequence. And Daneus Controuer. 2. pag. 201. The particle, For which, [Page 671] sheweth the order and continuation of the speach, not the cause for which. If we proue the same, out of those wordes Hebrew. 2. ver. 9. We see Iesus because of the passion of death, crowned with glorie and honour: Caluin. ib. answereth: Be­cause of the passion of death, is as much, as if he had saied, Christ hauing died, was raised to this glorie which he hath gotten—For the meanes onely (that I may so speake) of obtaining glorie is declared.

If we proue that confession of faith is cause of saluatiō, as faith is cause of iustification, out of those words Rom. 10. ver. 10. For with heart we beleiue vnto iustice, but with the To. mouth confesson is made to saluation: Caluin. ib. answereth: We must not gather thereof, that confession is cause of saluation: he ment onely to tell how God doth perfect our saluation. It is a necessitie of perpetuall consequence, not that he attributeth sal­uation to confession. Hunnius lib. de Iustificat. p. 186. saieth: That Confession to saluation is the same, that confession of sal­uation. Which the Electorall Ministers in Colloq. Alde­burg. p. 295. affirme to be a corruption of Scripture.

If we proue that keeping of the commandements is cause of our freindship with God, by those words Ioan. 15. v. 14. You are my freinds if you doe the things that I commād If. you: Caluin ib. answereth: He meaneth not, that we get so much honour by anie merit of ours; but onely admonisheth vs vpon what condition he receaueth vs into grace, and vouchsafeth to reckon vs among his freinds.

If we proue that the forgiuenesse of our sinnes depen­deth vpon our forgiuing of others, out of those words. Luc. 11. v. 4. Forgiue vs our sinnes, for because our selues also do Because. forgiue euerie one that is in debt to vs. Caluin in Math. 6. v. 11. answereth: Neuerthelesse forgiuenesse which we demand for our selues, dependeth not of that which we giue: but by this means Christ would exhorte vs to forgiue all offenses, and withall con­firme more our trust of forgiuenesse as it were by fealing it. Ne­ther skilleth it that in Luke is the particle [...], which is as much as, For because, or For, because Christs meaning was not to note the cause, but onely to aduertise what kind of mind we [Page 672] ought to haue towards our brethren whiles we seeke to be recon­ciled to God.

If we proue that by charitie we be made the sonnes of God, out of those words. Math. 5. ver. 45. But I say to you: That. loue your enemies, doe good to them that hate you, and pray for them that persecure and abuse you, that you may be the children of your father which is in heauen. Calum ib. answereth: Vn­derstand not, that by our beneficence we become the children of God: But because the same Spirit which is witnesse, assurance, and seall of our free adoption, doth correct the naughtie affectiōs of the flesh, which are contrarie to charitie, Christ proueth by the effect, that no others are the children of God, but those who re­semble him in clemencie and meeknes.

If we proue that loue is the cause of forgiuing sinnes, by those words. Luc. 7. v. 47. Manie sinnes are forgiuen her, Because. because she hath loued much: Aretius in locis part. 1. fol. 84. answereth: Because, is taken ostentiuely, not causatiuely: This is so necessarie, as the place cannot be otherwise vnderstood. The like hath Illyricus in Claue part. 2. tract. 4. Polanus in disp. priuat. 36.

If we proue that keeping of the commandments is cause of obtaining what we pray for, out of those words. 1. Ioan. 3. v. 22. Whatsoeuer we shall aske, we shall receaue of Because. him, because we keep his commandements. Caluin. ibidem answereth: He meaneth not, that our trust in praier consisteth in our workes, but this onely he vrgeth, that pietie and sincere worshippe of God cannot be seperated from faith. Nether must it seeme absurd, that he vseth the causall particle though he meane not of the cause, for the inseperable accident vseth sometime to be put for the cause.

If we proue that workes are cause of reward, out of these words. Math. 16. ver. 27. He will render to euerie man According. according to his workes: Caluin ibid. answereth: As often as reward is promised to good workes, the cause of saluation is not shewed, but the faithfull are onely encouraged to doe well, because they are assured that they shall not leese their labour.

If we proue that good workes are cause of eternall [Page 673] happines, out of these words. Math. 25. v. 34. Possessethe For. kingdome &c. For I was hungrie, and you gaue me to eate. And c. 25. v. 23. Because thou hast beene faithfull ouer a few things I will place the ouer manie things, enter into the ioy of thy Lord. And Apocal. 7. ver. 14. These are they which are come out of Therefore. great tribulation &c. therefore they are before the throne of God. Pareus lib. 5. de Iustificat. c. 3. saieth: The answere of all Protestants is, that the causall particle in the places alledged, doth not signifie cause, but consequence. And Caluin. Math. 25. ver. cit. That they insist vpon the causall particle is a weake thing; for we know that not alwaies the cause, but rather the consequēce is meant, when euerlasting life is promised to the iust. And in the same manner doth Kemnice in locis tom. 2. tit. de Ar­gum. delude manie places of Scripture.

If we proue that Christ is cause of our election, by those words. Ephes. 1. v. 3. As he hath chosen vs in him (Christ) In. before the constitution of the world: Piscator in Thesibus, lo­co. 19. answereth: Paul would say nothing, but that he hath chosen vs to this end that he might adopte vs in Christ, and saue vs for him and by him. Which he repeateth libr. 2. p. 288. In like sorte Zanchius l. 5 de Natur. Dei. c. 2. q. 4.

If we proue that Saints shall haue glorie for their worthe or merit, by those words Apocal. 3. ver. 4. They Because. shall walke with me in whites, because they are worthie: Pareus l. 5. de Iustif. c. 2. answereth: He signifieth not the cause meri­torie, but the condition in holie Martyrs agreing with the rule of iustice; So that we may vnderstand, not wherefore, but what of kind men shall walke with Christ.

If we proue that good workes are the cause of glorie out of those words. Rom. 8. v. 17. If we suffer with him, that That. we may be glorifid with him: Caluin ibidem. answereth: This forme of speach sheweth the order which the Lord obserueth in bestowing saluation vpon vs, rather then the cause—He dis­courseth not frō whence saluatiō cometh, but how the Lord gouer­neth his seruants. If we proue the same out of those words. Hebr. 10. v. 36. For patience is necessarie for you: that doing the will of God, you may receaue the promise: Pareus l. 4. de Iu­stific. [Page 674] pag. 1032. answereth: We denie not but some relation of patience vnto saluation is signified by the finall condition, to wit, relation of order, of means, or of condition without which not, but false it is, that thereby is signified a causall relation.

If we proue that good workes are cause of saluation, as bad are the cause of damnation, because it is often saied in Scripture: He will render to euerie one according to his wor­kes: According. Bucanus Institut. loco 32. answereth: The particle Ac­cording, in those speaches doth not signifie cause but conformitie. And Martyr in 1. Corinth. 3. saieth: According, doth not si­gnifie Merit or cause, but rather proportion, forme or similitude.

If we proue that virginitie helpeth to heauen, by those words Math. 19. v. 12. There are Eunuches which haue gelded For. themselues for the kingdome of heauen: Musculus in locis tit. de votis answereth: We must not vnderstand it so, as if this kind of gelding helped any thing to saluation.

Behould (Reader how manie kinds of causall proposi­tions are they forced to make not causall, and how manie and expresse causall particles, to wit: For: To: That: In: According: Because, they make frustrate & to no purpose.

Wherefore thus I argue: who besides their opposition to the expresse words of Scripture, are forced in so manie & so great matters, to make so manie and so cleare causall propositions to be not causals, and to frustrate so manie and so euident causal particles, they are also cōtrarie to the true sēse of Scripture. But Protestāts doe so. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER XIII. THAT WHAT IS SPOAKEN SIMPLY they make to be spoaken in parte or respectiuely.

MY 13. argument shalbe, because Protestants are compelled to make that to be spoaken in parte, which the Scripture speaketh simply or abso­lutely.

For if we proue that God simply will not the death of Of God. a sinner, because he simply saieth and sweareth it Ezech. c. 18. Perkins in Exposit. Symbol. to. 1. col. 777. answereth: This place must not be taken simply but respectiuely: to wit, that Not simply but respe­ctiuely. of the twoe, God would rather the one, to wit, that a sinner should rather liue then dye. Finally so farre forth he willeth not death as it is the destructiō of his creature. The like he hath in Serie Causarum c. 52. And Caluin de Prouid. p. 737. So farre as So farre forth. he exhorteth all to pennance, the Prophet iustely denieth that he willeth the death of a sinner. And in the same sorte he ex­poundeth that saying of S. Peter 2. c. 3. v. 9. Not willing that anie should die: Indeed (saieth Caluin) as farre as God will re­ceaue all to pennance, he will none should perish.

If we proue that God taketh our sinnes from vs, by those words 1. Ioan. 3. ver. 8. For this, appeared the Sonne of God, that he might dissolue the workes of the Diuel. Caluin. ib. In a sorte. answereth: But if in this life there be no full and solid rege­neration, he freeth vs not from sinne and slauerie but in a sorte. And Daneus Contr. de Baptismo. c. 14. on earth sinne is not In parte. quite taken away but in parte.

If we proue that there is nothing worthie of damna­tion Of Iustifica­tion. in those that are iustified, because simply it is saied Rom. 8. ver. 1. There is no damnation to them that are in Christ Not simply. Iesus. Illyricus in Apol. pro Confess. Antuerp. answereth: No damnation is in them who are in Christ Iesus, not simply and in it selfe, but by accident, to wit, continuall praier for forgiue­nesse of sinnes being adioyned: And Pareus l. 5. de Amiss. Grat. c 7. It is most true, that sinnes are not simply forgiuen, but con­tinuall praier for forgiuenesse being added.

If we proue that simply there are some things hard in Of Scripture. Scripture, because it is so saied 2. Pet. 3. v. 16. As also in all his Epistles speaking in them of these things, in which are cer­taine things hard to be vnderstood: Zanchius de Scriptura to. 8. col. 412. answereth: He saieth not, that they are hard to Not to anie. anie, but to twoe kinds of men? to wit, to the vnlearned and vn­skilfull of the Scriptures and that are not taught of God, and to the vnstable, that is, who are not firme in faith. In like sorte. [Page 676] Bullinger Serm. 3. de verbo Dei. and others.

If we proue that Saints haue true iustice before God, If iustifica­tion. because Dauid offereth his iustice to be examined by the iudgement of God and desireth to be iudged thereby; Caluin. 3. Instit. cap. 17. §. 14. answereth: Saints nether will Not wholy. haue enquirie to be made of them wholy, that according to the whole tenour of their life they may be quitted or damned: nether challenge to themselues iustice of diuine perfection, but in com­parison of the wicked and impious.

If we proue that charitie is simply greater then faith, Of good workes. because the Apostle simply saieth. 1. Cor. 13. v. 13. And now there remaine, faith, hope, and charitie, these three, but the greater of these is charitie: Caluin. ib. answereth: It is mani­fest, Not in all points. that charitie is here saied to be the greater, not in all points, but as farre as it shalbe perpetuall, and now is the cheife, in con­seruing the Church. Whitaker l. 9. cont. Dur. sect. 24. The Not euerie way. Apostle saieth that charitie is greater then hope and faith, not euerie way, but onely in parte. Hunnius de Iustif. p. 154. pre­ferreth Not simply. charitie before faith and hope, not vniuersally or simply, but in parte. And Luther Postilla in Dom. Quinquagesim. who doth not acknowledge that Paul speaketh here of the conti­nuance of charitie and of the other guifts, not of their dignitie or vertue?

If we proue that the Church is to be simply heard, be­cause Of the Church. she is simply called the Pillar and strength of trueth. 1. Tim. 3. Academia Nemaus. Resp ad Tournon. pag. 546. an­swereth: Let the Church be the keeper and interpreter of trueth, Not simply. not simply and absolutely, but in parte. Serranus cont. Hayum. part. 3. p. 145. When the Church is called the mother of the faith­full, the pillar and strength of trueth, those sayings of the autho­ritie of the Church nether ought, nor can be vnderstood simply, but in parte or in somesorte. Author respons. ad Thes. Vade­mont. But in parte. p. 492. and 523. I answere, the Church is called the pillar and strength of trueth, not simply, but in somesorte. And p. 689. God hath not commanded to obey, the pastour or the Church simply, but in somesorte.

If we proue that single life is simply good, because S. [Page 677] Paul. 1. Corinth. 7. simply saieth: It is good for a man not to Not absolu­tely. touch a woman: Reineccius tom. 4. Armaturae. cap. 23. an­swereth: The Apostle speaketh so not simply and absolutely, but in some sorte and respectiuely. And ib. addeth, that when S. Paul saieth: It is good for a man to be so: Pauls counsaile is to be taken in some sorte, to wit, of an incommodious thing. Et Whi­taker l. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 86. Paul praiseth virginitie, not in it selfe, but for some other end.

If we proue that Virginitie is simply better then mar­riage, because simply it is saied. 1. Cor. 7. v. 38. Who ioyneth Not simply but vpon condition. his virgin in marriage doth well, and who ioyneth not, doth bet­ter: Beza ib. answereth: That is, prouideth better for his chil­dren; and that not simply, but vpon conditions before expressed by the Apostle: In like sorte is that to be vnderstood which is added: She is more happie who marrieth not againe. Zuinglius also ibid. When he saieth: He doth better, and soone after: He Vpon compa­rison. shalbe more happie, he meaneth not simply, but in comparison.

If we proue that there may be some perfect men in this life, because some are simply so called 1. Cor. 2. Philippen. 3. and other where, Pareus lib. 2. 2. de Iustificat. cap. 7. an­swereth: He attributeth perfection to himselfe and to others, In comparisō. not absolutely but in comparison of Catechumens. And l. 4 c. 11. Most places speake of perfection not absolutely, but in respect of In respect. the most corrupted world. So also Lobechius disput. 9. p. 191.

If we proue that there are some men iust, perfect, kee­pers of the commandements, and the like, because the Scripture simply calleth some so: Pareus l. 4 de Iustificat. c. 11 answereth: These Saints are praised that they were perfect, Not absolu­tely. followed the Lord in all their heart, &c. not absolutely, but be­cause they were sincere worshippers of God. And Hunnius de Iustif. p. 169. They are termed perfect after their manner, that is, imperfectly and in comparison of the wicked. And Illyricus in Claue part. 2. tractat. 4. writeth thus. Tobie 4. Almes de­liuereth from sinne: to wit, concerning some temporall punish­ment, not touching sinne or eternall punishment. In like sorte: Redeeme thy sinnes with almes Daniel. 4. And Author Gra­tiani Antiiesuitae part. 2. p. 33. The Iesuit obiecteth, that Paul. [Page 678] 1. Cor. 10. affirmeth the Sacraments of the ould law to haue beene I some sorte. types: I answere (saieth he) It is true, but in some sorte, not sim­ply. And p. seq. to that Heb. 10. v. 1. The law hauing a shaddow of future goods, he thus answereth: These things are spoaken comparatiuely of the Apostle, not simply. Finally Caluin Ad­monit. vlt. p. 830. saieth: Because the bread is a Sacrament of the bodie, it is the bodie in some sorte.

Let this therefore be my 13. argument. Who beside the foresaied opposition to the expresse words the Scripture, in manie and great controuersies are forced to expound that in some sorte, or in parte, or respectiuely, which is spoaken of the Scripture simply and absolutely, they con­tradict the true meaning of the holie Scripture: But Pro­testants doe so: Therefore &c.

CHAPTER XIV. THAT PROTESTANTS WILL NOT expound there sayings of the Scripture, of that time whereof it speaketh.

MY fourtenth argument shalbe taken from that Protestants are forced to expound the sayings of Scripture of a different time from that of which Scripture speaketh, and that in manie and great matters.

For if we proue that at the very time of the institution Of the Eu­charist. Not is shed, but shalle. of the Eucharist, Christs bodie was giuen and broken, & his blood shed for vs, because three Euangelists and Saint Paul in Greek relating Christs words, vse the participle of the present tense as also doth S. Luke in the vulgare Latin text: neuerthelesse Protestants will not vnderstand Christs words of the time then present, but onely of the time thē to come, as we shewed. l. 1. c. 11. art. 5.

If we proue that those that are iustified, are now in he­rently Of iustifica­tion. lust, by those words. Rom. 8. v. 29. Whome he hath foreknowne, he hath also predestinated to be made conformable [Page 679] to the image of his Sonne: 1. Cor. 15. v. 49. As we haue borne the Conformable not now, his hereafter. image of the earthlie, let vs also beare the image of the heauenlie: Pareus l. 2. de Iustif. c. 3. answereth: We graunt all this, of the state to come, when we shall be fully conformable to the image of Christ by iustice and glorie (keeping the proportion of the head and members) but it maketh nothing for our aduersarie for the present state.

If we proue that in this life our sinnes are taken from vs, Of Sinnes. because the Scripture saieth, that God taketh away, clean­seth, blotteth out sinne: Pareus l. cit. c. 7. answereth: The Sinnes taken away not now but here­after. phrases of Scripture speake of sanctification of the Church, now indeed begun, but hereafter to be perfected, by which the filth of sinne now beginneth by the vertue of Christs spirit to be taken away by the rootes, to be blotted out, cleansed, and purged out of our flesh, and at length shalbe quite taken away and blotted out.

If we proue that God doth now cleanse vs from all iniquitie, because it is saied. 1. Ioan. 1. v. 19. He is faithfull and iust to forgiue vs our sinnes and cleanse vs from all iniquitie: Caluin ib. answereth: If anie obiect that whilest we liue in this life we are neuer cleansed from all iniustice, for so much as belon­geth to reformation: that is true indeed, but Ihon teacheth not what God doth now perfect in vs.

If we proue that in this life some are made iust by the merits of Christ, as by Adams demerit they were made iniust, by these words Rom. 5. v. 19. As by the disobedience of one man manie were made sinners, so also by the obedience of one, manie shalbe made iust. Pareus l. 2. de Iustificat. cap. 3. an­swereth: In this life we are made iust imperfectly, in the next, we shalbe made perfectly iust. Hereupon perchaunce Luther saied Disput. 3. tom. 1. We thinke, that a man to be iustified, is not to be yet iust, but to be in the way and course to iustice.

If we proue that faith without workes is alwaies dead, because it is saied. Iames 2. vers. vlt. Faith without workes is dead: Schlusselburg. to. 8. Catal. p. 526. answereth: The saying of Iames touching faith dead without workes, is to be vnderstood of ehe time after iustification: So that he will not haue faith to be dead without good workes whilest it iustifieth.

If we proue, that God alwaies will all men to be saued, by those words. 1. Tim. 2. Who will all men to be saued: Per­kins in Cases of Conscience cap. 7. sect. 3. answereth: God will all men to be saued: vnderstand, now in this last age of the world.

If we proue, that Saintes in heauen aske mercie for the faithfull, because they aske reuenge vpon their per­secutors, by those words Apocal. 6. vers. 9 I saw vnder the aultar the soules of them that were slanie for the word of God &c. and they cried with a loud voice saying: How long Lord holie and true iudg [...]st thou not and reuengest not our blood on them that dwell on the earth: Confessio Wittember. c. de In­uocat. Sanctorum vnderstandeth this onely of praiers, made whiles the Saints were on earth: In the Apocalypse the soules of the Saints that were slaine do crie that their blood be reuenged, not that now resting in the Lord they are desirous of reuenge after a humane manner, but because the Lord euen after their death is myndfull of the praiers which whiles they yet liued on earth the made for the deliuerie of themselues and the Church.

If we proue, that in this life we fulfill the law, doe the will of God, and obey Christ, by those words. Rom. 8. v. 4 God sent his Sonne &c. that the iustification of the law might be fullfilled in vs. Et Math. 6. Thy will be done on earth: And Hebr. 5. vers. 9. Christ is made the cause of saluation to all that obey him: Scharpius de Iustif. Contr. 12. answereth: Out of these places nothing followeth but that the faithfull fulfill the law, but it followeth not that they fulfill it in this life.

Wherefore I thus make my fourtenth argument: Who besides the foresaied opposition to the expresse words of Scripture, will not expound the words of Scripture on that time whereof it speaketh, do contradict the true sense thereof. Protestants doe so. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER XV. THAT PROTESTANTS OF MANIE sayings of Scripture make one.

MY fiftenth argument shalbe because Protestants are forced to confound manie sayings of Scrip­ture in one, and so make one of manie.

For if we proue, that God will not the death of a sinner, but willeth his conuersion, by those words Eze­chiel. 18. I will not the death of a sinner, but that he be con­uerted and liue: Caluin. l. de Praedest pag. 706. answereth: If (as we ought to doe) those twoe be read ioyntly, I will that a sinner which is conuerted, liue: the cauill is easily refuted. The some hath Beza. 2 part. resp. ad Acta Montisbel. p. 196.

If we proue, that God would haue al to be saued and come to the knowledge of the trueth, because it is so saied. 1. Tim. 2. v. 4. Beza lib. quaest. & respons. vol. 1. Theol. p. 684. saieth: Those twoe: To saue, and to come to the know­ledge of trueth: are to be ioyned, that so God may be vnderstood to will that they be saued, whome he will haue to come to the knowledge of the trueth. So also he answereth in Respons. ad Acta Montisb. p. 194. And there p. 196. in the same sorte expoundeth that Ezech. 18. I will not the death of a sinner, but that be conuerted.

If we proue, that Christs baptisme was different from S. Ihons, because Actor. 19. S. Luke. telleth, that some who haue beene baptized with S. Ihons baptisme, were bap­tized againe of S. Paul: Beza ib. ver. 5. saieth; that these are not the words of S. Luke telling who were baptized of S. Paul, but of S. Paul telling what was the baptisme of Saint Ihon. Caluin. l cont. Anabap. p. 415. saieth: There is saied, that Paul baptized them in the name of Christ, then to expli­cate what this meaneth, is added, that he laied hands vpon them and the holie Ghost descended. Wherefore the same thing is di­uersely [Page 682] expressed by twoe wayes as the Scripture vseth. Et 4. Inst. c. 15. §. 18. Luke doth not tell twoe different things, but keepeth the forme of relating vsed of the Hebrews, who first set downe the summe of the matter, and after explane it more at large.

If we proue, that we must be borne againe both of water and of the holie Ghost, by these words Ioan. 3. v. 5. Vnlesse one be borne againe of water and the holie Ghost &c. Caluin. ib. answereth: It is one simple sentence: that we must be borne a new, for to be Gods children, and that of this second birth the holie Ghost is author. Therefore he put water and Spi­rit for the same thing. And in this manner they confound manie things, which the Scripture distinguisheth, and say, that ether they be Synonimies, or that one exegeti­cally expoundeth the other.

Wherefore this is my 15. argument. Who besides the foresaied opposition to the expresse words of Scripture, are compelled to confound manie different sayings of the Scripture in one, those are also opposite to the true mea­ning of the holie Scripture. Protestants doe so. There­fore &c.

And hitherto we haue seene how manie and what kind of Propositions of Scripture, almost in all kinds of controuersies, Protestants doe change and depraue, and that no kind of speach can be so plaine, strong, and forcible, as it can recall them from their errours, but that they break through, delude, & depraue all: Now let vs see how they deale will the wordes of Scripture. For as Ter­tullian saieth cont. Hermogenen. It is the Heretiks custome to wreste all simple words.

CHAPTER XVI. THAT WORDS OF SCRIPTVRE WHICH signifie the working or doing of a thing, Protestants expound of onely endeauour or desire to do it.

THE 16. argument shalbe taken from thence, that words of Scripture which signifie the working or doing of a thing, Protestants are compelled to ex­pound of onely endeauour or desire to worke or doe it. Thus they delude those words of Scripture, which say that some men are iust, are perfect, auoide euill, doe the will of God, loue him with all their heart, fulfill the law, keepe the commandements, worke their saluation, and the like.

Caluin in Math. 12. vers. 33. those words: Ether make a Make good. 1. aspire to good. tree good &c. expoundeth thus: It cometh of the free indul­gence of God, that he vouchsafeth them so honorable a title (of good) who aspire to goodnesse. In Math. 6. v. 9. Thy will be done: This sufficeth (saieth he) to testifie by desire, that we Keepé. 1. ap­plie their en­deauour. hate and are sorie for whatsoeuer we see contrarie to Gods will, and desire to haue it destroied. In Ioan. 15. v. 10. If yee keepe my commandements: The faithfull (saieth he) are accoūted to keepe Christs commandements, when they applie thereto their endeauour, albeit they be farre from the marke. Vpon that Rom. 8. v. 1. Who walke according to the flesh: He saieth they walke according to the flesh, not who haue quite cast of all sense of the flesh, but who diligently labour to tame and mortifie the flesh, that the desire of pietie may seeme to reigne in them. Et vers. 5. He testifieth, that he accounteth not them carnall, who aspire to heauenlie iustice, but them who are wholy addicted to the world. In Philip. 2. vers. 3. Worke your saluation: We are Worke. 1. as­pire to it. Iust. 1. aspire to iustice. saied to worke it, when gouerned by the holie Ghost, we aspire to heauenlie life. In 1. Tim. 1. v. 9. The law is not set for the iust: I answere, that Paul here calleth them iust, not who are wholy [Page 684] perfect, as there is none to be found, but who with a singular de­sire of heart aspire to goodnesse. Et ib. c. 4. v. vlt. Thou shalt saue thy selfe: The Pastour is saied to saue himselfe, because that is Worke. 1. Goe forward. vsuall, that the faithfull worke their saluation, when they goe forewarde in the course thereof. In 1. Pet. 4. v. 18. If a iust man shall scarce be saued: He calleth them iust, not who are perfe­ctly iust, but who endeauour to liue well. In 1. Ioan. 2. vers. 3. If Keepe. 1. En­deauour. we keepe his commandements: He meaneth not, to keepe the commandements, to fully satisfie the law (which example can neuer be found in the world) but who according to mans infir­mitie doe endeauour to frame their life to Gods seruice. And ib. v. 5. But who keepeth his word, truely in him the loue of God is perfect: I answere (saieth Caluin) that it sufficeth, so euerie one according to the measure of grace giuen to him, doe as­pire to this perfection. And ib in c. 3. v. 5. There is no sinne in him: They are esteemed of the cheifest parte, that is, they are saied to be iust and to liue iustly, because with a sincere aff [...]ction of heart they aspire to iustice. This and manie such like Caluin.

Bucer vpon that Math 7. v. 21. But who doeth the will Doeth. 1. En­deauoureth. of my Father: That is (saieth he) who with his mynd doth en­deauour to frame himselfe to the will of the Father. In Math. 12 v. 50. Whosoeuer doth the will of my Father: We must must note, that to doe the will of the Father, is all one, as to heare the words of Christ, and to doe them, that is, to endeauour from our heart to doe them. And in Ioan. 14. he saieth: To keepe the commandement of the Lord, here is nothing els, but to be­leiue that it is true and holesome, and to loue it with all our heart.

Zuinglius in Explanat. art. 14. Here we vnderstand to doe according to the rule of Christ and precepts of God, to come neare to the rule of God, and with all endeauour to conforme himselfe to the word of God, as farre as a man can in this mortall bodie. Et in Luc. 1. tom. 4. p. 183. Manie trouble themselues here, how they are saied to haue beene iust before God, whereas before him no mortall man can be iust. This knot is easily loosed, if we Iust. 1. En­deauour to be. vnderstand simply according to the phrase of the Hebrew [Page 685] tongue which calleth them iust before God, who for feare of God and loue of iustice endeauour to be innocent and holie.

Schlusselburg. to. 7. Catal. Haeret. pag. 235. expoundeth those words Philip. 2. ver. 12. in this sorte: To worke, in this place signifieth to labour and to be carefull of the true way which God hath proposed for to obtaine saluation.

Pareus l. 4. de Iustif. c. 15. saieth: Iob indeed is saied to be iust, perfect, and fearing God, and auoiding euill: because he was a sincere worshiper of God, hauing an earnest desire to doe well.

Tilenus in Syntagm. c. 46. They are called iust and perfect, Iust. 1. Labour to be. who labour for iustice and aspire to perfection.

Perkins vpon that Galat. 6. ver. 2. So yee shall fulfill the Fulfill. 1. de­sire. law of Christ: Here the Galathians are saied to fulfill the law, because God accepteth the sincere affection of the mynd for the full effect. And Whitaker libr. 8. contr. Dur. sect. 49. They are saied to keepe, who endeauour to keepe. And sect. 39. They loued the law with their heart, and for that cause they are ac­counted iust.

Musculus in locis tit. de Peccato. What other thing is it: I haue kept my feet from all ill way, but I haue carefully endea­uoured to commit no euill? hIaue done iudgement and iustice; but I haue had a desire to doe iudgement and iustice?

Wherefore thus I conclude: Who beside the foresaied opposition to the expresse words of holie Scripture, are also forced in so manie and so great matters to expound the words thereof signifying effecting, working, or doing, of onely desire to effect, work, or doe, they con­tradict the true sense of Scripture. But Protestants doe so. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER XVII. THAT WORDS SIGNIFYING A CAVSE, Protestants expound of a way or meane: and what the Scripture attributeth to one cause, they giue to an other.

THe 17. argument shalbe taken from that Prote­stants are forced to expound words that signifie a Cause, of a way, order, or meane. Thus they de­praue those words of Scripture which teach that faith or good workes are the causes of our iustice or saluation.

Perkins in Cathol. reform. Controu. 4. c. 4. expoundeth those words 2. Corin. 4. v. 17. For that our tribulation which presently is momentanie and light, worketh aboue measure excee­dingly an eternall weight of glorie in vs, in this sorte: Afflictiōs Worke. 1. are [...]eans. worke saluation, not as causes effecting it, but as means leading vs to it. And he addeth withal: Which we must vniuersally and alwaies obserue and hould of workes in the cause of our salua­tion, to wit, that they are as a way and certaine markes which lead vs to glorie, but not by causing or working it.

Caluin vpon those words. 2. Cor. 7. v. 10. For the sorrow that is according to God, worketh pennance vnto saluation that is stable, writeth thus: Paul enquireth not of the cause of salua­tion, but onely commending pennance of the fruite which it Worke. 1. is as a way. bringeth forth, doth say, that it is like a way whereby we come to saluation. In this sorte consequence is rather signified then anie cause. And to the same place Pareus libr. 4. de Iustificat. cap. 7. answereth: No efficient cause, but a meane or condi­tion which helpeth ether by it selfe or by accident, is signified. And Scarpius de Iustification. Controuers. 12. Pennance is saied to worke saluation, not by making it by it vertue, but by leading as by a way to saluation.

The same Caluin in 1. Corinth. 7. vers. 19. Circumcision is nothing and prepuce is nothing, but the obseruation of [Page 687] the commandements of God. Here (saieth he) Paul disputeth not of the cause of iustice, nor how we obtaine it, but onely to what the faithfull ought to bend endeauour. And vpon that Wash. 1. feele. Actorum 22. vers. 16. Be baptized and wash away thy sinnes: Ablution, (he saieth he) signifieth not the cause, but is re­ferred to Paules feeling; who hauing receaued the Symbol, knew better that his sinnes were forgiuen. And 3. Institution. cap. 4. §. 36. he saieth: Where sinne is saied to be purged by mercie and bountifulnesse (Prouerb. 16.) is not meant that by them it is recompensed in the sight of God; but is shewed, that they shall find God mercifull to them who forsaking vice, are turned to pietie, as if he had saied, Gods wrath is appeased when we leaue our wickednesse. And ibidem cap. 14. §. vltim. hauing obiected to himselfe that the Scripture declareth, that good workes are the cause that God doth fauour them, he answereth: That which in order goeth first, he calleth the cause of that which followeth. In this manner he deri­ueth Cause. 1. a step sometimes eternall life from good workes, not that it is giuen for them, but because whom God hath chosen he iustifieth, that afterward he may glorifie, the former grace which is a steppe to the later, he after a sorte maketh a cause—Finally by these kinde of speaches order is rather signified then cause.

Pareus l. 3. de Iustif. c. 12. saieth, that by those words 2. Timoth. 4. I haue fought a good fight: the order and way to the crowne is noted, not the cause. So that what the Scripture maketh the cause, according to these men, is onely a meane, a way, steppe, or order.

In like manner, what the Scripture attributeth to one cause, they giue to an other; as what it atttibuteth to good workes, they giue to faith onely; what it ascribeth to faith or Sacraments, they appropriate to God alone.

Zuinglius l. de Prouident. cap. 6. When Paul writeth to Hearing. 1. Spirit. the Romans, that faith cometh of hearing, in the same manner, he attributeth that to the nearer cause and more knowne to vs, which cometh onely from the Spirit, and not from outward preaching. And in Math. 4. Oftentimes that is attributed to the later, which belongeth to the former: as to workes, which [Page 688] rather belongeth to faith, and againe, to faith, which most pro­perly Workes. 1. faith. and truely belongeth to Gods election.

Sadeel de ver. Peccat. remiss p. 139. answering to those words Prouerb. 16. Iniquitie is purged by bountie and mercie, saieth: That is attributed to the effects which is proper to the cause, after the vsuall manner (saieth he) of Scripture. That is attributed to their vertue, which properly is to be attributed to the benefit of Christ alone.

Illyricus in Claue part. 2. tract. 6. Faith, word, and Sacra­ments Faith &c. 1. God. are saied to saue vs, whereas God alone doth those things. And ibid. Thy faith hath saued thee, whereas onely Gods mercie and omni potēcie apprehēded by faith doth that. And he addeth. Scripture oftentimes at­tributeth things not to their true causes. Oftentimes effects are attributed (by the Scripture) to not true or not principall causes. Herevpon it cometh that there is often mention of Alleosis with Zuinglius, and of Me­talepsis with others, by which figures what the Scripture giueth to one thing they transfer to an other. Which Al­leosis Zuinglius in Exegesi. to. 2. f. 350. calleth interchangable speach; but Luther in Hospin. part. 2. Histor. f. 57. termeth it the Diuels mask.

Wherefore thus I argue in forme. Who gaynesay the expresse words of Scripture in such sorte as we haue seene in the first booke, and besides in manie and weightie matters, words which signifie a cause do expound of a way, meane, or order, and what the Scripture attribu­teth to one cause do transferre to an other, they contra­dict the true sense of holie Scripture: Protestants doe so. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER XVIII. THAT WORDS OF SCRIPTVRE Which say a thing is, Protestants expound by ought to be.

THE 18. argument shalbe because what the Scrip­ture saieth Is, Protestants expound It ought to be. Pareus l. 2. de Iustif. c. 7. those words. 1. Ioan. 2. v. 5. But he that keepeth his word, in him the charitie of God is Is. 1. ought to be. perfected: expoundeth thus: The sentence of S. Ihon (as others such like) is to be vnderstood of right or dutie, not of fact: What kinde of charitie ought to be, not what kinde is in vs. And ibid. those words. Coloss. 3. v. 14. Haue charitie, which is the bound of perfection, he glosseth thus: Charitie is called the bound of perfection, not which we haue, but which we ought to haue, and which we shall haue in euerlasting life. Et l. 4 c. 11. those words Deuter. 30. v. 6. Our Lord God shall circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, that thou maist loue thy Lord God with all thy heart. He interpreteth in this sorte: The promise, to loue God with all thy heart, ether speaketh of dutie, how we ought to loue God, to wit, sincerely and perfectly: or it speaketh of since­ritie. And the same Pareus l. 4. de Grat. & lib. arbit. c. 6. that sentence of the Apostle 1. Tim. 3. he thus expoundeth: The Church is called the pillar and strength of trueth, of dutie, because she ought alwaies to be so, albeit she be not so alwaies in act. The same he hath in Gal. 2. lect. 18. Moulins in his Bucler. pag. 50. and others.

Tilenus in Syntagmate cap. 46. writeth, that in those places Ioan. 14. v. 21. Rom. 13. 8. and Gal. 5. 14. Where the Scripture affirmeth, that those who loue God, doe keepe his commandements, it meaneth not of mans power to per­forme the law, but of our dutie. His meaning is, that the Scrip­ture meaneth not, that who loue God keepe his commā ­dements [Page 690] (which it saieth plainely) but onely that they ought to keepe them.

Wherefore I thus argue. They who besides the fore­saied direct opposition to the expresse words of holie writt, are also forced to expound that by Ought to be, which the Scripture plainely saieth Is; contradict the true meaning of the holie Scripture. Protestants doe so. There­refore &c.

CHAPTER XIV. THAT WORDS OF SCRIPTVRE SIG­nifying a true thing they expound of an apparent or shew.

MY 19. proof shalbe, because words of Scripture which signifie a true thing, Protestants are com­pelled to expound of an apparent, or shew before men. Thus they delude the words of Scripture which teach that Sacraments or good works doe iustifie or re­deeme sinnes, that euill or reprobate men may beleiue, or be in the Church, that reprobates may be iustified, doe good workes, and the like.

When the Scripture saieth. 10. v. 10. With the mouth con­fession is made to saluation: Luther apud Schlusselburg. to. 7. To saluation. 1. to a signe thereof. Catal. p. 234. answereth: to wit, to testifie saluation obtained by faith. Kemnitius ib. p. 559. Paul speaketh so, that confession saueth, to shew what kind of faith obtaineth eternall life, to wit firme and effectuall. Wigandus ib. p. 746. The sense is: By faith saluation is apprehended, but by month is manifested, and con­fession of saluation vttered. Et P. Martyr. in 1. Cor. 12. Salua­tion is attributed to confession, because thence it beginneth to be declared as by an outward signe. He would. 1. He made such shew.

Luther in Postilla in Festo Stephani, writeth thus: What he here saieth: How often would I gather together thy children, as &c. signifith that God delt so with the Iews as no [Page 691] man could thinke or imagin otherwise, then that the earnestly would gather them. For he behaued himselfe, as a man should, who indeed would it. And Postilla in Dom. 1. Aduentus, those words: Redeeme thy sinnes by almes, he thus expoundeth: Shew that they are blotted out. And Dom. 4. post Trinit. those words. Luke 6. Forgiue, and yee shall be forgiuen: in this sorte: If I forgiue, that forgiuenesse maketh meassured of the sin­ceritie of my faith, and certifieth me, and declareth my faith. And in Dom. 9. Make your selues freinds of the mammō of ini­quitie: that is, by outward almes openly shew your faith, where­by you may get freinds, that poore men may be witnesses of your manifest worke, that you beleiue sincerely.

Schlusselburg. tom. 7. Catal. p. 235. writeth thus. Sorrow Worketh. 1. sheweth. according to God worketh pennance of worke to saluation, that is, according to Luthers interpretation, is such a worke as testi­fieth of saluation. And pag seq. The saying of Ioel: Euerie one that calleth vpon the name of the Lord shalbe safe, hath this meaning: that calling vpon the Lords name is a testimonie of saluation receaued by faith.

Brentius homil. 1. in Dom. 13 post Trinit. writeth, that that speach of Iosias. 4. Reg. 23. He returned to our Lord in all his heart: is to be vnderstood what Iosias was in the iudge­ment of men for the gouernement of his kingdome, not what he was in the iudgment of God for his priuate faultes.

Reineccius to. 4. Armat. c. 15. those words Rom. 2. Gen­tils who haue not the law, doe naturally the things of the law, ex­poundeth of politike, philosophicall, and Pharisaicalliustice.

Kemnitius in locis tit. de Argument. part. 2. saieth that those words Deuter. 6. It shalbe iustice to vs before God, if Iustitie. 1. in title. we keeepe his commandments, are ether meant of legall iu­stice, or that though our iustice be vncleane, yet God gi­ueth it the title of Iustice. He would say, that the keeping of the commandements, is ether onely legall iustice, or onely iustice in name sake. And of the fast of Phinees he saieth: of it selfe it could not haue the title of iustice, but was reputed as a deed iustly done.

Herbrand. in Compend. Theol. loco de bonis oper. If [Page 692] the letter (Redeeme thy sinnes by almes) be vrged, it is cleare, that the sense of those words are contrarie to the scope of the whole Scripture, and to the analogie of faith. But this is the proper and true meaning of the place of Daniel: Beleiue God to be Redeem [...]. 1. Sh [...]w [...]hy faith. be angrie with sinne, and to be appeased with the iust, that is, the beleiuers, and shew this faith to be true by workes. In like sorte speaketh Hunnius l. de Iustif. p. 198. of those words Tobie 4. Almes deliuereth from all sinne, and from death.

Zuinglius respons. ad Confess. Lutheri. tom. 2. fol. 477. Those sayings of Paul, which he allledgetb out of Ephes. 5. and Cleanse. 1. Si­gnifie clean­sing. Tit. 3. of the waters cleansing by the word, and of the lauer of re­generation, they vndestand not to be enallages, that is, changings of functions, by which it vseth to be attributed to signes, which they signifie onely.

Caluin in Ioan. 15. v. 2. those words: Euerie branch in me &c. expoundeth thus: I answere manie are held by the opi­nion of mē to be the vine, which indeed haue no roote in the vine. In c. 16. vers. 27. We are saied to be loued of God, whiles we loue In. 1. in mens opinion. Christ, because we haue a pledge of his fatherlie loue. In Actor. 8. v. 13. He beleiued, he expoundeth: He thought he beleiued. In Iust. 1. in out­ward shew. Ezech. 18. ver. 24. How doth Ezechiel meane, that the iust fall away? This question is soone answered, because he treateth not of the liuelie roote of iustice, but of the outward shew or apparence. In Ephes. 5. v. 26. That Paul saieth we are washed by baptisme, is because there God testifieth our washing vnto vs, and with all doth what he sheweth. In Colos. 2. v. 12. We are buried together with him by baptisme, he speaketh after his manner, attributing the efficacie to the Sacrament, lest it should in vaine signifie that which is not. In Iacob. 2. vers. 23. He is iustified by workes: Iustified. 1. Knowne. that is, by the fruites his iustice is knowneand approued. De Praedest. pag. 714. It is no meruaile if (the Scripture) esteeming Sauls workes by the outward shew, commendeth his innocencie and honestie. Et 3. Instit. c. 4. §. 36. That to re­deeme (Dan. 4.) is rather referred to men then to God. And the same he saieth of that of Salomon: Charitie couereth sinnes, and of other such places.

Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 388. We say, that baptisme [Page 693] of water is the lauer of regeneration, that is, signifieth the inward Regeneratiō. 1. Signe there­of. regeneration. In 1. Tim. 4. v. 1. It is one thing truely to embrace Christ, an other onely with mouth to professe Christ with Simon Magus and Iudas: and yet these are saied euen to beleiue, to wit, according to the common vse of speach, because they seeme to be­leiue. In Math. 19. ver. 2. If thou wilt be perfect &c. That is, if thou wilt indeed shew thy selfe such, as thou boastest to be.

Pareus Contr. 5. col. 1009. Hauing damnation &c. 1. Tim. 5. v. 11. Bucers and Martyrs opinion is true, when they take the word Damnation in this place of Paul, for damnation which is pronounced of men against those yōg widows who marrie againe. And Mar [...]yr l. de votis. col. 1355. Those words of the Apostle Damnation. 1. in mens iudgement. may be vnderstood of mens iudgement. The same Daneus. Contr. 6. col. 1187. When Concupiscence hath coceaued &c. Iac. 1. ver. 15. Iames speaketh of that effect of sinne which appea­reth to vs men. Et p. 1205. Bellarmin answereth out of Dan. 4. v. 4. and Philip. 2. v. 12. that we can redeeme our sinnes. But Bel­larmin is deceaued, for those places of Scripture onely teach what we can and ought to doe in regard of men, not in regard of God. Et Contr. 2. c. 16. Verbes actiue, which are spoaken by the Scrip­ture Causeth. 1. Testifieth. of the Sacraments, doe not signifie cause, or action causing and effecting, but onely action testifying.

Pareus de Iustif. c. 15. 1. Ioan. 3. c. 7. Who worketh iustice, is iust; That is, he sheweth by workes, that he is iustified by faith. Et l. 3. c. 14. Ioan. 15. Euerie branche in me: he expoundeth of those, who adhere to Christ in onely outward profession and shew. And that Math. 24. The charitie of manie shall wax could: of those who in outward appearence are iust. And that 1. Tim. 1. Some haue made shipwrack of faith, of onely apparent faith: Et l. 4. c. 18. saieth: With Iames, to Iustifie, is to shew by workes before men the iustice of faith.

Zanchius in Summa Praelect. to. 7. col. 276. The place 2. Pet. 1. (Forgetting the purgation &c.) is to be vnderstood ac­cording to the custome of holie Scripture, which according to the iudgement of charitie, calleth all Saints, Iust, and Cleansed from sinne, whosoeuer are baptized in Christ, and professe Christ, though all be not such before God. Et ib. That Ezech. 18. If a [Page 694] iust man turne himselfe from iustice: Is not meant of one that is truely iust, but who to men onely seemeth iust. Et de Perseuer. c. 2. Manie beleiued in him Ioan. 12. Because to themselues they seemed truely to beleiue in Christ, whereas notwithstandind they doe not truely beleiue.

Perkins in Cathol. Reform. Contr. 4. c. 4. vpon that Ps. 105. It was reputed to him to iustice, writeth thus: Surely not Iustice. 1. a Signe thereof. because that fact was a full satisfaction of the law, but because God ai [...] accept that iust worke as a note and signe of iustice, and of that zele which he had for the glorie of God. Et in Psal. Hap­pie Happie. 1. a signe thereof. is the man who walketh in the law: He saieth: He is happie, that he is in Christ, of which thing the obediēce giuen to the law, is a signe. Et ib. We say, that workes concurre to iustification, and that we are iustified by them as by certaine signes and effects, not as by causes. And tom. 2. in Galat. 5. They are saied to fall Fallen. 1. shew they neuer stood. from grace, not that indeed all had beene vnder grace and after had fallen from it: but because God made it ma­nifest to men that indeed they had neuer beene vnder his fauour. And Apocalips. 2. When Dauid praied God to create a new heart in him, Perkins saieth: He speaketh not as he was before God and by faith; but according to his feeling; for his faith did not put forth it selfe before men and himselfe.

Polanus in Disp. priuat. p. 24. that Ezech. 18. He shall quickē Quicken. 1. testifie. his owne soule expoundeth thus: He by his workes shall testifie, that he is truely regenerate. Et pag. 108. Faith is perfected by workes, that is, perfectly knowne.

Bucanus Inst. loc. 18. Zacharias in these words. Be con­uerted to me, speaketh of outward conuersion. Et loco 30. Cha­ritie couereth a multitude of sinnes, not before God, but before men.

Vrsinus in Catechis. p. 40. That saying of Peter: Denying the Lord who bought them: Agayne: He forgot that he was Cleansed. 1. in outward Signifie. cleansed from his ould sinnes, and such like, are manifestly spoakē ether onely of outward shew and gloriation of redemption or pur­gation, or &c. Et q. 63. Who doeth iustice, is iust; to wit, before men. And in like sorte Piscator in Thes. l. 2. p. 94. expoun­deth that place Rom. 6. Who is dead, is iustified from sinne.

Aretius in locis part. 1. f. 9. saieth to that Tobie 4. & 12. Deliuer. 1. Sgnifie. Almes deliuer from death: They deliuer from eternall death, that is, are signes and firme arguments in the godlie, that they are deliuered from that death. Et Confessio Wittemberg. c. de Eleemosyna. We teach, that almes doth so blot out sinne, that it is the fruite of charitie towards our neighbour, by which worke we testifie the faith and obedience which we owe to God.

P. Martyr in Rom. 9. Nether is proued out of this place (If anie shall cleanse himselfe) that men can cleanse themselues, or make themselues honorable vessells. Wherefore we must not gather more out of those words of Paul, thē that such a cleansing is a signe, whereby we iudge of the worthe or vnworthinesse of vessells in the Church.

Tilenus in Syntagmate c. 41. giueth this rule of deluding A generall of deluding words of Scripture. all places of Scripture, which teach that charitie, hope, feare or pennance doe iustifie, to wit, that ether by these names is vnderstood faith, or that they onely declare iu­stification.

Scharpius de Iust. Contr. 5. denieth that speach Luc. 8. They beleiue for a time: or that 1. Tim. 1. They haue made ship­wrack Faith. 1. in shew. of faith: & cap. 5. & 6. they shall depart from faith: They haue fallen from faith, to be meant of true faith: Nether will he haue that Ezech. 18. When a iust man shall turne himselfe Iust. 1. in shew▪ from iustice, to be meant of one truely iust: nor that Math. 18. When the vncleane spirit shall goe forth of a man, to be meant of the Diuel truely gone forth. Nor that Math 24. Charitie of manie shall wax could, Of true charitie: Nor that Galat. 5. Yee are fallen from grace: of true grace: Nor that Hebr. 6. Were illuminated, or Hebr. 10. In which he was sancti­fied, of truely illuminated or sanctified: Nor that 2. Pet. 1. Forgetting the purgation &c. and c. 2. A sowe washed &c. of true purgation, or true washing. Nor finally that Actor. 10. Simon beleiued, of true faith. And in like sorte Contr. 6. he denieth that Ioan. 12. Manie of the Princes beleiued: and that 1. Cor. 13. If I haue all faith, to be meant of true faith: and Contr. 7. that Iacob. 2. Not by faith onely, of true faith. And Contr. 12. When anie are saied, to be perfect or iust, as [Page 696] Gen. 6. 1. Reg. 15. Luc. 1. Actor. 13. he saieth this is not meant of true iustice or perfection, but of apparent. So that with these men nothing is true if it be against them, but onely apparent, as is indeed their religion.

Wherefore thus I argue in forme. Who beside the fore­saied opposition to the expresse words of Scripture, in manie and great matters, words which signifie true things, are forced to expound them of apparence, out­ward shews, testifications, and significations before men, they contradict the true sense of Scripture. Protestants doe so. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER XX. THAT PROTESTANTS ARE FORCED to expound the words of holie Scripture by diuers, disparates, and contraries.

THE 20. argument wherewith we will proue that Protestants doe contradict the true meaning of holie Scripture, shalbe because they are cōpelled to expound the words thereof by things that are quite different, yea disparate or nothing like, and plaine con­crarie; of which doings of theirs amongst innumerable I will note some few examples.

They expound the words of Scripture by things diffe­rent or diuerse. For thus dealeth Zuinglius in Marci. 1. to. 4. p. 141. All were baptized, that is (saieth he) were taught in Baptized 1. Taught. the Ghospell. In Ioan. 3. v. 5. The kingdome of God, is here taken for heauenlie doctrine and preaching of the Ghospell. In histor. resur. pag. 401. The sense is: Whose sinnes you forgiue, that is, Forgiue. 1. Preache. to whome you shall tell the forgiuenesse of sinnes. In Roman, 5. pag. 419. Sinne in this place (As sinne by one man &c.) is Sinne. 1. Di­s [...]ase. Faith. 1. Preaching. taken for a disease. In cap. 10. pag. 434. Faith is by hearing: Here marke, that Faith is taken of Paul, for the manifested will of God, and for the manifest and publike preaching of faith [Page 697] amongst the Iews and Gentils. In 1. Cor. 7. p. 463. [...]: Good, is here taken for commodious and quiet. Et tom. 2. in Elencho Faith. 1 Gods election. Which. 1. Whiles. Blessed. 1. Bad Faire­well. fol. 34. Faith iustifieth, that is, the election of God. In Subsi­dio. f. 245. Which is powred out for manie, that is, whiles, or as it is powred out for manie. In Exegesi f 355. And it happened as he blessed, that is: bidde them, fairewell. Et in Exposit. fidei fol. 558. It is cleare, that the name of Merit or Reward is in holie Scripture, but insteed of a Free guift.

Caluin in Luc. 1. ver. 15. Replenished with the holie Ghost, expoundeth: To be indued with greater grace aboue che com­mon vulgar sorte. In c. 7. ver. 48. he expoundeth: Forgiue vs Forgiue. 1. Seale. our tresp [...]sses: thus: Seale more and more mercie in our hearts. In c. 8. v. 13. They beleiue for a time: thus: They giue an honor to the Ghospell like to faith. In Math. 7. vers. 21. By, doing Doe Gods will 1. Beleiue the will of the Father, he vnderstandeth. Philosophically to frame his life and manners to the rule of virtue, and to be­leiue in Christ. In cap. 21. vers. 32. The name of Iustice here sig­nifieth, Iustice. 1. Do­ctrine. nothing els, but that Ihons doctrine was pure and right. In cap. 23. vers. 22. To sit in the chaire of Moises is nothing els, then to deliuer out of the law of God, how men ought to liue. In Ioannis 3. vers. 5. By water, he vnder­standeth, Water. 1. Holie Ghost. Charitie in vs. 1. Tow­ards vs. the Holie Ghost. In Actor. 8. ver. 18. by the Holie Ghost; Singular guifts. In Rom. 5. v. 5. by the Charitie of God diffused in vs: he vnderstandeth, our knowledge of Gods cha­ritie towards vs. In 2. Co. 2. v. 10. I haue giuen in the person of Christ: that is (saieth he) sincerely and without simulation. In 1. Timot. 1. and 6. by Faith, he expoundeth: Holesome do­ctrine. Faith. 1. Ho­lesome do­ctrine. In Tit. 1. v. 16. Appoint Bishops: that is: Be president in the choice of them. And in Hebr. 9. v. 26. Destruction of sinne, he expoundeth: freing from the guilt of paine. Sinne. 1. Guilt of paine

Beza in Math. 3. v. 1. by Desert, vnderstandeth A hillie countrie. And in vers. 6. by Confessing their sinnes: Professing Desert. 1. Hillie place. themselues to be sinners. And in cap. 5. vers. 20. Vpon that: Vnlesse your iustice abound &c. by the, Kingdome of heauē he meaneth: the Church militant: and by Enter, Teach.

Peter Martyr in Roman. 18. saieth: When the Scripture Faith. 1. Gods mercie. saieth that we are iustified by faith, when we heare the name of [Page 698] faith, we must vnderstand the obiect of faith, to wit, the mercie of God. Polanus in Syntagm. l. 6. c. 36. Faith is imputed to iu­stice, Faith. 1. Christs iustice that is, the iustice of Christ, which faith apprehendeth, is imputed. Sadeel ad art. 44. abiurat. When we are saied to be iu­stified by faith, by the name of faith we must vnderstand Christ: And so also Bullinger. dec. 3. serm. 9. The Confession of Saxonie c. de Remiss. Peccat. This saying is to be vnderstood correlatiuely: we are iustified by faith: that is, we are iustified by confidence of the Sonne of God.

Zanchius de Perseuerant. tom. 7. col. 143 by that: You are Faith. 1. Con­fidence. fallen from grace, vnderstandeth: you are fallen from the do­ctrine of grace, or from the Ghospell. Pareus l. 2. de Iustif. c. 7. Grace. 1. Do­ctrine. by Perfect charitie, vnderstandeth, sincere. Et lib. 4. c. 7. by, worke your saluation: Doe those things which are necessarie for to obtaine saluation.

Perkins in Cathol. reform. Contr. 5. c. 3. saieth: In all the promises of the Ghospell, in which God doth voluntarily binde himselfe to reward our workes, the obligation doth not directly pertaine to vs, but in respect of the person and obedience of Christ. Apologia Confess. Aug. c. de Implet. legis: Because Loue. 1. Be­leiue. she loued much, that is (say they) because she truely worshiped me with faith and with exercises and signes of faith. Et de Resp. ad Argum. When the text saieth, that eternall life is rendered to workes, it meaneth, that it is rendered to those that are iusti­fied. Agayne: Almes is saied to deliuer from death and to purge from sinne, not in it selfe, but in the cause thereof, that is, in faith. Almes. i. Faith. Brentius hom. 1. in festum om. sanctorum. To hunger after iustice, is to haue a iust cause, and yet not be able to follow it in law. Reineccius to. 4. Armaturae c. 19. by Sacrifice the Phase, vnderstandeth Kill it, lest he should be confessed that the pascal lam be was sacrificed: Illyricus. 1. Ioan. 2. v. 3. The kee­ping Keeping. 1. Knowing. of the cōmandements, in this place signifieth the true know­ledge of his doctrine. Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. p. 192. 2. Pet. 2. They denie the Lord, who hath bought them, that is, whome be­fore they had professed, that he had bought them, Et p. 472. he Buye. 1. Pro­fesse to buye. Which. 1. As farreforth. saieth that, which, in the words of Consecration signifieth, As farreforth: As (saieth he) the Pronoune (which) in those [Page 699] words: The bread which I shall giue is my flesh which I shall giue for the life of the world. Moulins in his Bucler part. 2. pag. 51. saieth that those words Iacob. 5. If he be in sinne, they shalbe forgiuen him, signifie as much, as health shalbe restored to him, all sinnes being forgiuen for which God had afflicted him. And he addeth in the next page: Christ doth teach vs Math. 9. Forgiuen. 1. Arise. that to say to the sicke: Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee, and to say, Arise and walke; are equiualent things: Let then he and his fellow Mynisters say: Arise and walke when they preach of remission of sinnes.

They expound also by disparate or quite differēt things. For thus Zuinglius in Schlusselburg. lib. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 2. Bodie in the words of the Supper may be taken also for the Bodie. 1. Churche. Church. Et in Ioan. 6. to. 4. he saieth: By which also the words of Christ wax cleare: This is my bodie, where Bodie is put for Bodie. 1. Death. Death. In lib. de Relig. cap. de Euchar. to. 2. Now followeth a rite, whereby it appeareth, that this is the sense, and that Bodie here (Is it not a participation of the bodie of our Lord. 1. Cor. 10.) is otherwise taken then for the Symboll of his bodie, to wit, for the Church. In lib. de Caena. fol. 294. he saith, that by Communication of the bodie of Christ, by Commu­nion Communion. 1. Sermon. Chalice. 1. Our selues. you may vnderstand a sermon or the Church: Et 1. Cor. 10. that the sense of these words: The Chalice of blessing which we blesse &c. is: The Cuppe of thankesgiuing with which we giue thanks, what other thing I pray you is it but our selues. Agayne: Blood. 1. Chri­stians. He calleth the blood of Christ, those who trust in his blood. Et in Exegesi f. 359. Flesh in this place. Ioan. 6. is put for the Diuine Flesh. 1. Di­uinitie. Bodie and blood. 1. Faith Nature. In Explic. art. 18. to. 1. f. 37. Thou seest here Ioan. 6. that the bodie and blood of Christ is nothing els, but the word of faith: to wit, that his bodie dead for vs, his blood shed for vs re­deemed vs. And in other places oftentimes saieth, that the word Bodie in the words of Consecration signifieth a Fi­gure or Symboll of Christ his bodie.

The same Zuinglius in Exegesi tom. 2. fol. 350. thus wri­teth: Eate. 1. [...]e­leiue. Vnlesse yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man &c. is as much, as who beleiueth not, to wit, the Ghospell being preached, shalbe condemned. In Ioan. 6. tom. 4. To eate bread and flesh is [Page 700] Eate. 1. Trust. nothing els but to beleiue: Againe: To eate, is to trust. In Elenc. fol. 30. When faith is saied to saue, faith is taken for the ele­ction of God. In lib. de baptis. fol. 61. In the 6. of the Acts, the Beleiue. 1. Heare. word of Beleiuing is taken for to heare the doctrine, or to adioyne himselfe to the number of the beleiuers. The same man Epist. ad Lindouer. to 1. fol. 204. Thou seest here 1. Pet. 3. Baptisme Baptisme. 1. Faith. hath made vs safe, fi [...]st that baptisme is taken for faith. In lib. de Relig. c. de Baptis. to. 2. fol. 201. It was cleare to him, that they had beene baptized by Apollo, that is, taught. In lib. de Baptis f. 61. We saied, that baptisme was taken for the inward Baptisme. Faith. Baptisme. 1. Doctrine. faith. 1. Pet. 3. Et f. 63. We must note, that the words of Baptizing in these words of Paul. Act. 16. is taken for doctrine. Et f. 81. In what then were yee baptized, must not be vnderstood of the ex­ternall baptisme of water, but of doctrine and instruction. In Subsidio ib. f. 254. Baptisme 1. Pet. 3. is taken for Christ, when Baptisme. 1. Christ. he saieth that we are saued by baptisme. Et in Resp. ad Huber. fol. 107. he addeth, that Baptisme 1. Pet. 3. is taken for Christ or for the very Ghospell. Moreouer l. de Baptis. to. 2. fol. 73. Baptisme. 1. Ghospell. he thus writeth: They haue oftentimes learned of vs, that by water in this place (Ioan. 3.) ought to be vnderstood the knowledge Water. 1. Knowledge. Keyes. 1. Words of Keyes. 1. Faith. Keyes. 1. Preaching. Loose and binde. 1. Preach. Binde. 1. Leaue in error. Binde. 1. Not beleiue. Forgiue. 1. Assure. of Christ and the comfort of faith. Et in Explic. art. 50. to 2. f. 92. The keyes are nothing els but the pure word of God and the sincere preaching of the Ghospell. In Exegesi. ib. f. 258. The keyes are not other thing but faith of the Ghospell. Resp. ad Luther. ib f. 378. It is cleare, that the keyes are nothing but the preaching of the Ghospell. Agayne in Explic. art. 50. to. 1. f. 93. We learne, that in Luke, to loose and binde, is nothing els but to preach the Ghospell. lib. de Relig. c. de Clauibus. to. 2. f. 191. It appeareth here, that to Binde, is nothing els but to leaue in error. And in Schlusselb. l. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 9. The words of Binding and loosing, signifie nothing els but to beleiue, and not beleiue.

Perkins in Cathol. ref. Contr. 3. c. 3. writeth thus: I an­swere, that we doe not aske remission of sinnes, because we are not certaine of it: but rather because that certaintie is weake and infirme, that continually indued with new grace of Christ we may dayly increase and be comforted.

Daneus Contr. 7. pag. 1317. Saints are saied to gouerne the Saintes. 1. Christ. [Page 701] world Apoc. 2. and 3. We graunt (saieth he) that the godlie both now and after death doe gouerne the wicked world, in so much, as Christ gouerneth it, of whose kingdome they are partakers, as being his members. Et to. 2. Contr. de Baptis. c. 4. he saieth, that in those wordes: Vnlesse a man be borne of water and the And. 1. O [...]. holie Ghost, the particle And, is to be taken for the disiunctiue particle Or. Et Contr. de Euchar. c. 10. & 11. he will haue the verbe Is in the words of Consecration to stand for: Is. 1. Signi­fieth. Signifieth, Representeth, Sealeth.

Rainolds in Apol. Thes. p. 333. saieth that the Apostle 2. Thessalon. 2. in those words: Hould traditions &c. by the Speach. 1. Scripture. word Speach comprehendeth other Scriptures: or as Iuel in Defens. Apol. part. 2. cap. 9. sec. 1. Will haue it: The very sub­stance of the Ghospell. Others in Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 6. c. 10. will haue whether, put for Also, as Beza putteth in the very Whether. 1. Also. text of that place.

Whitaker Contr. 11. q. 5. c. 4. by Preists in those words of Preists. 1. Chiefe men. the psal. 99. Moyses and Aaron in his preists, will haue to be meant: Chiefe men of the people. And the same saieth Iuel lib. cit. p. 6. c. 11. sect. 4. and Hunnius in Colloq. Ratisbon. sess. 2. Where he addeth, that Moyses did sacrifice as a Prophet of God and not as a Preist.

Luther to 1. f. 398. writeth in this sorte: Paul in this place Faith. 1. Guift of God. (1. Cor. 13. If I had all &c. taketh faith for the guift of the holie Ghost. Et fol. 397. The sense (of these words Redeeme thy Redeeme. 1. Beleiue, leaue, appre­hend. sinnes &c. Dan.) is, to beleiue that God is angrie with sinne, and is pleased with the iust, and shew this faith to be true by workes. But Melacthon thus expoundeth these words: leaue, giue ouer sinning: Et Martyr. ibid. hom. 21. Apprehend the Messias by faith.

Illyricus in Math. 7. v. 82. To performe the words of Christ Performe. 1. Beleiue. is to embrace him truely and from the heart, and secondly to relie vpon his doctrine well vnderstood. Bullinger Dec. 3. sermon. 9. writeth, that when S. Iames saieth a man is iustified by Workes. 1. Faith. workes, he meaneth. By faith fruitfull of good workes. Et l. de Orig. Error. c. 18. These sentences: I will protect this cittie for my selfe and for my seruant Dauid: And I will protect this [Page 702] cittie for my selfe and for promise made to Dauid are all one. Sa­deel Dauid. 1. Pro­mise to Da­uid or Christ. Sorrow Pie­tie. [...] Faith. ad Art. 57. expoundeth, For Dauid, that is, For Christ. Hunnius tract. de Iustif. p. 145. saieth, that by the word, Sorrow, in that 2. Cor. 7. Sorrow according to God &c. and also by the word, Pietie, in that 1. Timot. 4. Pietie hath pro­mises, is vnderstood Faith.

But most of all this their manner of expounding by dis­parate or quite different things appeareth in their expoun­ding the words of Christ his soules descent into hell: where by Soule they vnderstand Dead bodie or Carcasse: by Descended, Suffered: and by Hell, Graue, Death, or Paines of hell, and the like. For thus Zuinglius in Hofmeister in Art. Descended. 1. Redeemed. 3. Confess. Aug. He descended into hell, that is, his death re-redeemed those which were in hell. OEcolampadius ib. It is an Descended. 1. Buried. exposition of that: He was buried. Bucer in Math. 27. In the 2. of the Acts for the same is put, that his soule is not forsaken in hell, and the holie did not see the graue of corruption, to wit, for that which is; Not to be forsaken in death. What other thing is it here to descēd to hell, then the bodie to be buried vnder earth? In this sorce then descended life or a liuelie bodie into hell, that is, being truely dead was put in the graue: Agayne: That article of the Symbol: He descended into hell, is an explication of that which went before, He was dead and burried. P Martyr in locis Class. 2. p. 428. He descended into hell, signifieth nothing els, Descended. 1. In estate of the dead. Descended. 1. Suffered death. Descended. 1. Laied in the the graue. Soule. 1. Car­casse. Hell. 1. Graue. but that he was in the very same estate in which other soules are that haue departed from their bodies. Caluin. 2. Instit. c. 16. ser. 10. If he be saied to haue descended into hell, no meruaile, seing he suffered that death wich by Gods wrath is inflicted vpon the wicked. Beza in Act. 2. v. 27. To descend to hell, properly signi­fieth to be laied in the graue. Et ib. edit. An. 1565. In my former edition I rightly translated it: Thou shalt not forsake my car­casse in the graue. In Defens. cont. Castel. vol. 1. Theol. pag. 460. In the text, My soule, I translated, my carcasse: Et p. seq. I still keepe the same sense. Serranus cont. Hayum. part. 3. p. 520. spendeth manie words to proue, that by Soule. Act. 2. v. 27. is not meat Soule, but a Deade mā or carcasse, and addeth: Flesh. 1. Soule. No man can doubt, but by the word flesh is meat Soule. So that [Page 703] by Soule shall not be meant Soule, but Carcasse, and agayne by Flesh, not flesh but soule. Vrsinus in Carechism. q. 44. In this article Hell is taken for great affliction. Whitaker. l. 8. cōt. Dur. sect. 7. That the Prophet saieth: Thou shalt not forsake my soule in hell, is as much, as if he had saied: Thou shalt not for­sake me lying in the graue: Et Sect. 22. It is manifest, that it is Descended. 1. Buried. the same sense in both words: that to be buried, is to descēd to hell, and that to descend to hell, is to be buried. Perkins in Explic. Symboli tom. 1. col. 680. He descended into hell, that is, being dead and buried, was detained captiue in the graue, and kept of death for three dayes. Et col. 676. Others expound it thus: He felt and bore the torments and anguishes of hell. This (saieth he) is a good and true exposition. Et in Serie Causarum c. 18. The descent into hell, is the ignominious dominion of death ouer him being buried. Daneus Contr. 2. p. 161. By the name of the death Death. 1. tor­ments of soule of Christ are meant the torments of soule and the curse of God, which is felt in the mynd. P. 169. It is apparent out of the Acts 2. that the Greek word, [...], is put for graue of the bodie. Et pag. 172. he saieth: Of the descent of Christ to hell, that is, of the sorrow in soule suffered by Christ. Tilenus in Syntagm. c. 6. vn­derstandeth by the descent to hell, the dominion of [...] which it obtained by thy continuate death of Christ oppressed and shut vp in a graue sealed and kept with souldiors for three dayes together. Bucanus in loco 25. By Christs descent into hell are meant those great torments of mynd, which he sustained in his agonie and on the crosse. Polanus in Syntagm. l. 6. c. 21. We declare, that the descent of Christ into hell, is his voluntarie de­mission of himselfe to abide and wrastle out the paines of hell. Fi­nally Vorstins in Antibel. pag 40. Writeth thus: All Prote­testants do not wholy agree about the true sense of this article, whilest some accommodate this phrase properly to the death and burriall of Christ, as an explication thereof: others metaphori­cally to the inward griefs of the mynd, or infernall torments which Christ suffered at the time of his death or passion: and others metonymically or effectiuely by a kinde of prosopopeia to the fruite of the death and passion of Christ exhibited vnto vs miserable and damned. Et p. 41. We say: that speach: Descend to [Page 704] hell most truely doth signifie in Scripture nothing els, thē simply to dye or to brought into the state of the dead; and so buried. Et p. 42. The sense of those words. Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hell, may most fitly be expressed thus: Thou shalt not leaue my life in death, or thou shalt not leaue me in the power of death. Albeit Soule. 1. Dead bodie. Hell. 1. Graue. nothing hindreth by Soule to vnderstand synechdochically the very bodie and that also dead, and to take the name of Hell for the Graue. Expositions by quite con­traries.

They expound also the words of the holie Scripture by quite cōtraries. For touching faith whē S. Iames c. 2. saieth that a man, is not iustified by faith onely, they say, he meaneth not of faith, but onely of a shaddow or dead image of faith. So Fai [...]b. 1. Not faith. Zuinglius, Caluin, Beza vpon that place, Luther in Postilla in Dom. 9. post Trinit. Bucer in Math. 8. Whitaker. l. 1. cōt. Beleiue. 1. De­ceaue them­selues and others. Dur. sect. 13. & others. In like sorte the word Beleiue in that Luc. 7. v. 13. They beleiue for a time, with them signifieth not to beleiue: but to deceaue mens eyes and their owne mynd with a deceitfull shew of faith. So Caluin. 2. Instit. c. 2. §. 10. Where he calleth this beleife, a shaddow and shew of faith, and saieth, that it is of no reckoning and vnworthie of the name of faith. When S. Ihon. 12. ver. 23. saieth: Manie beleiued in his name: Caluin. ibidem. thus expoundeth him: Their faith was pre­posterous: It is euident, that their faith was not true and law­full. Luther in Postil. in Dom. Quinquagues. saieth, that when S. Paul. 1. Corinth. 13. Writeth: If I haue all faith &c. he doth not speake of Christian faith. In like sorte: To be illuminated, To taste the heauenlie guift, and to be made partaker of the holie Ghost Hebr. 6. vers. 4. according to them, is not to haue true light, or the holie Ghost, but onely to haue some such thing. So Caluin 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 11. and. 12. and Heb. loc. cit ibique Beza and others. Moreouer, faith to be consummated by workes. Iac. 2. v. 22. in their opinion, is not to be consummated or perfect by Perfected. 1. Not perfected workes, but to be tried to be such. Caluin ibid. It is saied to be perfected by workes, not that it taketh thence perfection, but be cause it is proued to be true thereby. Finally when Christ Ioan. 6. calleth faith a worke, Zuinglius l. de relig. c. de orat. ex­poundeth Worke. 1. No worke. him: So he calleth it a worke, as by the contrarie sense [Page 705] he would say, yee shalbe made happie by faith, and by no worke. And in this sorte they depraue all those places of the holie Scripture, which teach that the euil or reprobates, do beleiue, are illuminated, doe repent, and the like.

Touching workes: they denie that To worke, in that 2. Cor. Touching workes. 7. v. 10. Sorrow according to God worketh pennance stabill to sal­uation, signifieth not, To Cause, but onely to goe before sal­uatiō: Caluin ib. For he inquireth not of the cause of saluatiō, but onely cōmending pennāce as a fruite which it worketh, saieth that it is like a way by which we come to saluatiō. Likewise: worke your saluatiō. Phil. 2. with thē doth not cōmand vs to worke our saluatiō, but onely to doe those things which become thē that are to be saued. For thus Zuinglius vpon that place: For Paul in this place commandeth not to doe good works that we may get saluatiō by thē, but that we may doe those things which become the childrē of God who are saued by faith. Whē the Scri­pture saieth: Feare of God expelleth sinne: Almes purgeth, sinne, expelleth sinne: By mercie sinnes are purged, Kemnice in locis part. 2. de arg. answereth: It speaketh not of propitiation or sa­tisfactiō for sinne; but saieth that sinnes are auoided & eschewed. So that, to expell, to purge, to extinguish sinne, is not to purge sinnes already cōmitted, but onely to beware of cō ­mitting thē. To be doers of the word. Iac. 1. v. 22. in their opi­niō is not to be doers of the word, but hartely to embrace it. Caluin. ib. A doer here doth not signifie him who satisfieth the law, and fulfilleth it in all points, but who hartely embraceth the word of God, & by his life in earnest witnesseth that he beleiueth. Perfect charitie. 1. Ioā. 2. v. 5. With thē, is not perfect, but true: Beza ib. It is not inquired in this place, who loueth God perfectly, but who loueth him truely. To doe the will of God. 1. Ioā. 2. v. 17. according to thē is not to doe, but to beleiue: Caluin. ib. If anie obiect, that done what God cōmandeth, the answere is, at hand, that here is no speach of the absolute keeping of the law, but of the obedience of faith. In like sorte: Doe this. Luc. 10. v. 28. With them is not to doe, but to beleiue. Luther in Gal. 3. to. 5. p. 345. The meaning of this place: Doe this and thou shalt liue, is this: Thou shalt liue for this faithfull doing, or this doing [Page 706] shall giue the life for onely faith. In this sorte iustification, is at­tributed to onely faith, as creation is to the Godhead. Weomen in those words. Apoc. 14. v. 4. These are those who were not de­filed Weomen. 1. not weomen but idols. with weomen, according to their mynd signifieth not weomen, but idols. Tilenus in Syntagm. cap. 47. It is not meant of carnall copulation with weomen, but of spirituall whore­dome with idols: Forsooth least virginitie might be thought to haue a speciall reward in heauen. Iust and Iustice. Ezech. 18. vers. 14. When the iust shall turne himselfe from his iustice, with these men signifieth not iust nor iustice. Pareus lib. 3. de Iustif. cap. 14. My aduersarie wrongfully wresteth this Scrip­ture, from temporally iust, to truely iust. They doe, Rom. 2. v. 14. those things which are of the law, is not meant of doing, but of commanding: Beza ib. edit. 1565. That is, they com­mand honest things and forbidde dishonest. For Paul speaketh not this of the obseruation of the law, but onely of that māner which euen profane people followed in making laws.

Touching sinnes: Iniquitie in those words Prouerb. 16. Touching sinne. Iniquitie. 1. not iniquitie. vers. 6. Iniquitie is redeemed by mercie and trueth, with these men, is not iniquitie or sinne, but temporall punishment: Kemnice in locis. part. 2. tit. de Argum. Mercie is an expia­tion, not of sinne, but of temporall punishment. Sinnes to be takē away. 1. Ioan. 1. vers. 29. is not to be taken away, but onely not to be imputed: Caluin. ibid. Albeit sinne do perpetually stick in vs, yet in Gods iudgement it is none, because being abo­lished by Christs grace, it is not imputed. In like sorte. To be blotted out like a mist; Esaiae. 44. is not to be blotted out, but to be not imputed: Bidenbachius in Consensu &c. p. 724. Our sinnes are saied to be blotted out as a mist, to be cast behind the back, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea, not as if they were no more, but because they are not imputed to the beleiuer.

Touching Iustification: Grossius in Apol. pro Disput. Touching Iu­stification. writeth thus: Sanctification by the blood of the couenāt (Heb. 10. v. 29.) is not the inward cleansing of the heart from sinne. To receaue the holie Ghost. Act. 19. v. 2. With them is not to re­ceaue grace, but some speciall guifts: Caluin. ibid. Here is not spoaken of the spirit of regeneration, but of speciall guifts. In [Page 707] like sorte by; The holie Ghost ib. Nether haue we heard that there is a holie Ghost: is not meant the holie Ghost. For thus Caluin ib. How could it be that Iews had not heard of the holie Ghost. Et Beza ibid. It were most absurd to thinke, that they knew not that there was anie holie Ghost. To be sanctified. Hebr. 10. v. 29. is not to be truely sanctified: For thus Contrare­monstrantes in Collat. Hagae p. 391. Nether yet can it be con­cluded thereof, that they were truely faithfull and indeed sancti­fied. To fall from grace. Gal. 5. ver. 5. With them is not to fall from grace, but to fall from the hope of obtaining it. Con­trare monstrantes. loc. cit. p. 388. These are saied to fall from the grace of iustification, not that euer they were partakers there­of, but because they are excluded from al hope of obtaining it, so long as they wilbe iustified by the law.

Touching baptisme: To be baptized. Act. 19. v. 3. In whome Touching Baptisme. then were you baptized, with them is not to haue receaued baptisme, but other guifts: Beza ib. We must needs graunt, that here is not treated of baptisme, but of guifts wherewith God was wonte specially to adorne those whome he made rulers of Churches. Gual [...]erus ib. hom. 125. These words must not be ex­poūded of the baptisme of water, but of the baptisme of fire. Like­wise Baptisme. 1. Pet. 3. with them signifieth not baptisme but Christ: Zuinglius resp. ad Huber. tom. 2. It is certainely euident, that Peter in that place by Baptisme vnderstandeth no other thing but Christ. Water, also Ioan. 3. v. 5. Vnlesse one be borne agayne of water, signifieth not water, but the holie Ghost: Caluin. ibid. I can no way be persuaded to beleiue that Christ speaketh of baptisme. And in Refutat. Serueti. This pertaineth nothing to baptisme, but the name of water is meta­phorically attributed to the holie Ghost. Zuinglius vpon this place: By water here he meaneth not that element, but the word of God, grace of God, heauenlie water, that is the illustration of the no [...]e Ghost. And in the same manner other Protestants commonlie.

Touching the Eucharist: Is, in the words of consecratiō Touching the Eucharist. with them is not, Is, but Signifieth, nor Bodie giuen for vs; Blood shed for vs, is the true bodie and blood of Christ, but [Page 708] onely figures of them, as appeareth by what hath beene saied. lib. 1. cap. 11. art. 1. To eate the flesh and drinke the blood of Christ, so often repeated. Ioan. 6. is not to eate or drinke, but onely to beleiue: P. Martyr cont. Gardiner. part. 1. col. col. 866. We still say, that to eate, to wit, the flesh of Christ, is nothing els then to apprehend it by faith, as giuen for vs as price of our redemption. Which also he hath col. 863. And Luther Postil. in Dom. post Natiuit. To eate and drinke his flesh and To eate. 1. not to eate but to beleiue. blood, is no other thing then to beleiue that Christ truely tooke these for our sake, and repaied them agayne at death. The like hath Zuinglius in Ioan. 6. and in Histor. passionis, and l. de Relig. c. de Euchar. Bullinger Dec. 5. serm. 9. Vrsinus in Ca­techism. q. 76. Flesh, in those words of Christ Ioan. 6. My Flesh. 1. not flesh but di­uinitie. flesh is truely meate, with them is not flesh, but the God­head: Zuinglius in Exegesi to. 2. fol. 333. He saieth; his flesh is truely meate, meaning surely not his flesh, but his better nature which had taken flesh. The Bodie of our Lord, in those words 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we breake, is it not the participation of the bodie of our Lord, with these men is not the bodie of Christ. 1. Chri­stians. Christ, but Christians: Zuinglius lib. cit. Thou mights haue seene at the first, how that Communion and Bodie are not taken Bodie of Christ. 1. men. for distribution of Christs bodie, but for men themselues.

Finally Luther was so bould as to set downe a Canon Luthers Canō of expounding Words by cō ­traries. of expounding the words of holie Scripture by cōtraries. For thus he writeth in Ps. 5. to. 3. fol. 171. Let this be a Canon for thee: Where the Scripture commandeth a good worke to be done, do thou so vnderstand it, that it forbiddeth thee doe good workes, seing thou canst not, but that thou maiest sanctifie the Lord, be dead and buried, and suffer God to worke in thee. Which Canon Protestants do well follow, as appeareth by what hath beene related in this chapter, and before in the sixt and seuenth chapter, where we shewed that in the weightieste matters they expounded the words of holie Scripture ironically, and according to others mēs mynde.

These and innumerable the like doe Protestants, of which we might easily gather not onely a chapter, but a booke full. But out of these which we haue rehearsed, it [Page 709] clearely appeareth: First how great hereticall libertie (as Tertullian speaketh) is, which turneth the words of holie Scripture this way, and that way, in to this forme and that, and tosseth them vp and downe like tenis balls. Secondly how easie it may be for euerie idiote with this libertie for to defend what heresie soeuer though neuer so contrarie to Scripture. For who cannot expound the words of Scripture, by diuerse, by disparate, and contrarie things. Thirdly, how impossible it is, if this libertie be ad­mitted, to refute by Scripture any heresie at all, or to proue anie thing by anie words whatsoeuer ether of God or man. Fourthly how that Protestants by this kinde of dea­ling, do more dishonor God and the holie Scripture, then if they should quite reiect it. For if they should reiect the Scripture, they should onely reiect Gods word and trueth: But by this manner of dealing they doe not onely reiect Gods trueth and meaning, but also in steede thereof foist in the contrarie vntrueth: and so (as S. Hierome speaketh) In Galat. [...] of the word of God, they make the word of the Diuel. Fiftly it appeareth that these expositions of Protestants are like to that which Luther merly deuised for to shew the Sacramentaries how they expounded the words of consecration, in Defens. verb. cenae. to. 7. fol. 384. where he A fit exāple of Protest. expositions. writeth thus: Surely they doe a great and weightie matter: But no otherwise, then if I should denie that God made heauen and earth, & whē one should obiect that of Moises: In the beginning God created heauen and earth, I should expound Moises words in this sorte: God, that is, a Cuccou: Made, that is, deuoured: Heauen and earth, that is, a Hedge sparow all and whole: It not this a trick of arte? Yes surely not vnknowne nor vnsemely to stage plaiers. Thus Luther, who as being best practised in this arte, could best of all others describe it. Finally it ap­peareth, that Protestants haue not onely forged a new faith, but also a new tongue, a new Grammar, a new frame of speach. For concerning Propositions, they bidde vs vnderstand an Affirmation by a Negation, and a Nega­tion by an Affirmation, and words they bidde vs expoūd [Page 710] by diuerse, by disparate, and contraries to these which they signifie with other men. And this new Grammar of theirs Luther acknowledgeth in these words. Gal. 3. tom. 5. fol. 345. Those words, To doe, To worke, are to be taken Protestants new Grāmar or language. three manner of waies, Substantially or naturally, Morally, and Theologically. Insubstances, natures, and morall matters, these words are taken in their vsuall and naturall signification, but in diuinitie they are made plainely new words, and get a new signifi­cation. Wherefore when thou readest in Scripture, of Fathers, of Prophets, of Kings, that they wrought iustice &c. re­member, that such and the like sayings are to be vnderstood according to the new and Theologicall Grammar (of Pro­testants) wherefore I admonish yee agayne, that the sen­tences which the aduersaries obiect out of Scripture, of workes and reward, be alwaies to be vnderstood Theologically by the definition: As if they obiect that saying of Daniel 4. Re­deeme thy sinnes by almes, streight we must runne to the Theologicall grammar, and not to the morall. The like he hath in cap. 4. Genes. fol. 60. Nor much otherwise wri­teth Kemnice. libr. de origin. Iesuit. pag. 47. When he saieth: It is most certaine, that the Holie Ghost would that in this article of Iustification, not onely the things themselues and the meaning, but also the very names should be by a pe­culiar signification distinct from the words of Philosophers. Schlusselburg. also Praefat. libr. Theolog. Caluin. distin­guisheth betwene the Grammar of Nations, and of Deuines, and saieth that that taketh the word of Iustice actiuely, but this taketh it passiuely. The like hath Gesnerus loc. 2. de Iu­stif. pag. 47.

But what we ought to thinke of these inuentors of Luthers Cen­sure of these new word mongers. a new Grammar, themselues doe sometimes tell vs. For thus writeth Luther. lib. de seruo. arbitr. tom. 2. fol. 435. Whoe will not mock or rather hate this vnsemely changer of words, who against all vse endeauoureth to bring in such kinde of speach, as to call a begger, a rich man—By this abuse of speach anie man may bragge of anie thing. But this is not the parte of Diuines, but of Cooseners and Stageplayers. [Page 711] And Caluin. libr. contr. Libertin. cap. 3. The libertines at Libertines. the first bouldly reiected the Scriptures, but when they saw that thereby they were abhorred of all men, they meant to deale more closely and more couertely, that making shew not to cast away Scripture, they might turne it into allegories, and wrest it into diuerse and strange senses, changing a horse into a man, and as the common speach is, feigning the horne of a lanterne to be a cloude. And capit. 7. Like as Egyptians and other vagabonds, such as those who going out of Bohemia wander vp and downe the whole world, vse a cer­taine peculiar speach, which none vnderstand but those of their owne crew and brotherhood, So &c.—I denie not but they vse the common words, but so they alter their signification, as no man can vnderstand what the matter is which is proposed, nor what they would affirme or denie.

Beza also l. de puniend. Haer. vol. 1. Theol. Sathan, when he could not quite cast the Scripture out of the Church, yet by vaine allegories made it altogether vprofitable, which course now the libertines and Anabaptistes do take. Bullinger. Con­cion. Anabaptiste. Arians. Seruetians. Familistes. 25. in Apocal. thus writeth of the Arians and Serue­tians: They turne and winde the words of God with their Gigan­ticall bouldnesse, as they list. Whitaker l. 1. de Script. c. vlt. sect. 4. The Familists do leaue almost no article of our faith vntou­ched, whilest with their allegories they turne and corrupt all things: And Reinolds in his Conference cap. 2. sect. 2. The Familists, for to saue their phrensies, from the Scripture reiect the literall sense, which is the very edge thereof, and put that vp into the scabarde of their fanaticall dreames and al­legories. The like hath Perkins in Conflictu Christi. tom. 2. This they note in the Libertines, Familists, Anabap­tists, and others, whereof themselues are no lesse guiltie, then those be, as appeareth by what hath beene already related. But as Luther him selfe saieth. Genes. 6. tom. 6. fol. 84. Who would suffer this libertie in deprauing the true sense in the fables of Terence, or Virgils Ecloges, and shall we suffer it in the Church? And Defension. verb. Cenae tom. 7. fol. 397. Surely I cannot see, that they can be excused by [Page 712] anie plausible pretext as if vpon a good meaning they had beene deceaued by some curiofitie or spirituall blindnesse, as it happe­neth to most Heretiks. But it appeareth that they mocke the word of God vpon obstinacie and malice. For I doe not thinke that it can be that these sillie trifles and toies should in earnest moue a man in his wittes, whether he were a Turk or Iew, much lesse a Christian. Thus the Protestants owne Prophet and Father speaketh of Protestants.

Wherefore thus I argue in the 20. place. Who not onely gaynesay the words of holie Scripture so directly and so often as is shewed in the first booke, but also in so manie and so great matters expound the words thereof by diuerse, by disparates, and by contraries, so that they bring in a new grammar, a new language and significa­tion of words neuer heard of before, they manifestly con­tradict, nay mock the true sense of holie Scripture: But Protestants doe so. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER XXI. THAT PROTESTANTS ARE COM­pelled to deuise improprietie of words and all kinds of figures.

THE 21. Argument, wherewith we will proue, that Protestants doe contradict the true sense of holie Scripture, is because when the proprietie of the word is against them, they deuise improprieties and all kind of figures.

Caluin. 4. Instit. c. 8. §. 2. Authoritie is not properly giuen to Not properly. men. Beza in Confess. c. 5. sect. 27. Nether Pastors nor Doctors can properly binde or loose anie man. Zanchius de Eccles. c. 9. Power of forgiuing sinnes is not properly giuen to the Apostles or to others, for they doe not properly forgiue sinnes. Vorstius in Resp. ad Homium p. 31. I doe not say that faith it selfe doth properly iustifie vs. Perkins in Cathol. Reform. Cont. 5. c. 3. [Page 713] The kingdome of heauen is called a reward, not properly but by a figure. Et Cont. 10. c. 4. These words: This is my bodie, must not be vnderstood properly, but by a figure: Pareus l. 5. de Iustif. c. 3. Nether is eternall life called a reward properly. Piscator in Thes. l. 2. p. 103. Faith, properly speaking, doth not purge sinnes. Et p. 112. We must not properly vnderstand that Christ purged the Church by the lauer of water in the word, but metonymically, Imperpely.

In like sorte, for improperly: Caluin in Ioan▪ 4. ver. 39. The word, Beleiue, improperly signifieth, that they were stirred vp by the speach of the woman to acknowledge Christ a Prophet. In c. 6. v. 29. It is euident enough, that Christ spoake improperly, when he calleth faith a worke. In cap. 12. ver. 42. He seemeth to speake improperly, whilest he seperateth faith from confession. In Math. 6. v. 16. That he promiseth reward from God vnto fa­sting; is an improper speach. In illud. Math. 12. v. 33. Make a good tree. It is an improper speach: In illud. c. 13. v. 19. He scrapeth away that which was sowed in the heart: That Christ saieth: the word was sowed in their hearts, is an improper speach. In c. 26. v. 26. The word of Bodie is improperly trāsferred to bread, of which it is a signe. In illud Rom. 11. v. 22. If he remaine in goodnesse: This should be improperly spoaken peculiarly of anie good man, that God had mercie on him when he chose him, if so he remaine in mercie. Goodnesse. In illud Ephes. 2. vers. 20. Built vpon the foundation of the Apostles: Properly Christ is the onely founda­tion. Beza in Colloq. Montisb. pag. 120. saieth: Baptisme was heth away sinnes, is an improper speach. Aretius in locis. part. 1. f. 84. There is an other improper forgiuenesse of sinnes: as is that of the Ministers. Bullinger. Dec. 3. Serm. 9. The Apo­stles improperly attribute iustice to good workes, but truely and properly to faith, and most properly to Christ himselfe. Piscator in Thes. l. 2. p. 119. It is improperly saied: that faith is imputed to iustice. These and manie other things they say are spoa­ken improperly or not properly when the proprietie of the word maketh against them.

Somethings they say are to be vnderstood tropically Tropically or Figuratiuely. or figuratiuely. P. Martyr cont. Gardiner. col 623. We say, That speach: This is my bodie, is not proper, but metopharicall [Page 714] and tropicall. And in Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 239. The words: This is &c. cannot be taken simply and without a figure. They are a tropicall manner of speaking. And Hospin. him­selfe. ib. fol. 26. saieth: Zuinglius expounded Christ his words; This is &c. by a metonymie, interpreting, Is, for, signifieth. Fol. 35. OEcolampadius sheweth, that the figure is in the word Bodie. And fol. 161. Those of Strasburg and Zurich agree, that the words are tropicall. Caluin de Rat. Concordiae. The word Bodie is figuratiuely giuen to bread. Beza in Colloq. Mōt. pag. 302. Our men denie not this proposition: Man is God, but tell how it is to be expounded, we say, it is a tropicall speach. Da­neus. Cont. de Euchar. c. 10. Bread it selfe is tropically called the bodie of Christ.

Vorstius in Antibel. p. 394. It appeareth, that those words of Christ must needs be meant by a figure. Tilenus in Syntagm. c. 64. The Apostle indeed saieth, Christians haue an altar, but not a materiall and visible, but figuratiuely.

Some things they will haue be expounded Symboli­cally: Symbolically. Caluin in Admonition. vltim. ad Westphal. Bread is symbolically called Bodie. Et cont. Heshus. p. 844. Touching bread, the speach is metonymicall, that it may truely be symbo­lically called the true bodie of Christ. Zuinglius in Subsid. to. 2. f. 245. The disciples vnderstood Christs speach rightly, but sym­bolically.

Other things they vnderstand aequiuocally. Pareus l. Aequiue­cally. 4. de Iustif. cap. 4. I confesse, that in Scripture, the Ghospell is equiuocally called the law of faith, the law of Christ, the law of libertie: In which sense we graunt that Christ is called a law­giuer, a law maker, that is a Teacher. Other things they ex­pound Analogically. Perkins in Cathol. Refor. Contr. 11. c. 2. Bread is the bodie of Christ sacramentally, by analogie, and no otherwise.

Some things they will haue to be taken Synecdochi­cally. Synechdochi­cally. Luther in Hospin. l. cit. fol. 76. There is a synechdoche (in the words of consecration) as a sword with a scabbard. Westphalus in Schlusselb. to. 7. Catal. p. 176. Luther acknow­ledgeth a synechdochicall speach in the words of Christ, This [Page 715] is &c. and the same saieth Adamus Francisci in Marga­rita loco. 16. Bucer l. de Ministerio. pag. 609. It is euident, that those: Take, Eate, are synechdochicall, and are referred to twoe things. Peter Martyr contra Gardiner. col. 933. I alwaies pretēded, that I did acknowledge a metonymie or synech­doche in those words of the Supper. And he addeth: It cannot be denied, but there is a manifest alleosis. And col. 965. I confesse, that Bucer liked better a synecdoche. Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 42. Nothing hindreth, by Soule synechdochi­cally to vnderstand the bodie it selfe, and that also dead. Wigand in Schlusseb. to. 7. Catal. p. 754. Worke your saluation with feare and trembling, is a synecdoche, that is: Doe true pennance. Lobechius disput. 22. The Scripture, saieth that faith iustifieth vs, and faith is imputed to iustice by metalepsis and synechdoche taking faith for the obiect of faith, that is, for Christ or the iu­stice of Christ. Scarpius also de Iustif. Cont. 1. saieth, that this speach. Faith iustifieth, is synecdochicall.

Sometimes, that words which make against them are Catachresti­cally. taken Catechrestically or abusiuely. Zuinglius l. de Relig. cap. de oration. Christ abusiuely calleth faith a worke. Agayne: Testament is taken here abusiuely, for the signe or symboll of the testament. In Elencho fol. 31. Paul speaketh of twoe testa­ments, but the one he calleth catachrestically a testament. In Respons. ad Billican: O Ecolampadius saith that here (in words of the Supper) is a catachresis or metonymie. In Math. cap. 9. That the Scripture calleth faith, that which is dead, is done by abuse of the word, as we say: the faith of Iews, the faith of Turkes. And in Hospin. lib. 2. Histor. fol. 35. When I say, that by Catachresis: This bread signifieth my bodie, and OEcolampadius saieth metonymically: This bread is a figure of my bodie, what difference, I pray you, is there in the summe of the sense. Illyricus in Mathew. 5. vers. 12. Christ abusiuely calleth future goods, a reward. Caluin. 3. Institut. cap. 2. §. 9. The testimonie of faith is attributed to such, but by catachresis. Zanchius in Supplication. tom. 7. pagin. 59. That speach: To obey their concupiscences, when it is attri­buted to the elect, is to be vnderstood catachrestically. Pareus [Page 716] l. 1. de Iustif. c. 15. A dead faith, is not a true faith, though abu­siuely it be called faith. Author Resp. ad thes. Valent. Our men do say truely and orderly, that the Ghospell cannot be called a law, but catachrestically.

Otherwhile they will haue the words of Scrip­ture, which are contrarie to them, to be taken metalep­tically: Zuinglius in Math. 24. tom. 4. Saluation is to be at­tributed Metalepti­cally. to nothing how holie soeuer, but to the pure and mere grace of God. And if in Scripture any thing be attributed to those things, that is done by metalepticall and synecdochicall speaches. Vrsinus in Catechis. q. 63. Faith is our iustice: is vn­derstood correlatiuely and metaleptically, and otherwise falsely. Agayne: Faith is correlatiuely imputed to iustice, by metalepsis. Scarpius Contr. 7. de Iustific. It is taken correlatiuely and by metalepsis. Tilenus in Syntagm. c. 56. We attribute the cause of saluation not to faith it selfe properly, but onely metaleptically. To those I adde, that Zuinglius in Hebr. 6. tom. 4. saieth: We thinke that these things are rightly saied by hyperoches, as Christ speaketh that Math. 18. of power to binde and loose. And when the Angel praieth for the people Zachariae. 1. Bul­linger l. de orig. Erroris. c. 8. saieth, It is in hypotyposis suffi­guration of a thing present.

Oftentimes they will haue the words of Scripture op­posite Metonymi­cally. to them, to be taken metonymically. Zuinglius lib. de Pec. orig. to. 2. f. 156. This is that which I would: That ori­ginall sinne, is not truely, but metonymically termed sinne. That Paul saieth: All haue sinned, the word of sinning is put metony­mically: Caluin in Math. 26. v. 26. None that is conuersant in Scripture will denie, but that a sacramentall speach is to be taken metonymically. Beza in Resp. altera ad Selnener. p. 270. The names of Bodie and Blood are not attributed to bread and wine but metonymically. Daneus Cont. 4. c. 4. This speach: Faith iu­stifieth vs, is metonymicall: for the continent is taken for the con­tained. Et Cont. de Euchar. c. 1. The sacramentall bread is here metonymically termed the bodie of Christ. Whitaker Contr. 4. q. 1. c. 2. The Church is saied to be founded in the Apostles, me­tonymically, not properly. Bucanus in Institut. loco. 48. This [Page 717] proposition is figuratiue, and that not simply metaphoricall or allegoricall, but metonymicall. Piscator in Thes. l. 2. p. 512. God to haue saued vs by the lauer of regeneration Tit. 3. ether is not meant of baptisme, or if it be, it is spoaken metonymically. A­gayne: Regeneration is made by baptisme metonymically.

Sometimes they will haue them to be spoaken meta­phorically. Metaphori­cally. Zuinglius in Subsid. tom. 2. fol. 247. We say that the figure of this speach (of the Supper) is to be expounded by a metaphor. Thou saiest, there is a metonymie, where no metonymie is properlie. Caluin. in Math. 3. v. 12. The speach of euerlasting fire, is metaphoricall. In Refutat. Catalani. There is no spea [...]h here (Ioan. 3.) of baptisme, but the name of water is metaphori­cally attributed to the Spirit. Musculus in locis tit. de Caena. The bodie of the Lord is eaten improperly and metaphorically.

But it is wonderous how manie, and what kinds of fi­gures How manie figures they find in foure words. The Luthe­rans. they deuise in those foure plaine words of consecra­tion: This is my bodie. For the Lutherans, albeit the will haue thē to be vnderstood according to the letter, yet in Hosp. part. 2. Hist. f. 352. say: In this proposition: This is &c. the affir­mation is beside nature and not according to nature. Selneccer. ib. will haue it to be an vnusuall speach. Heshusius in Beza in dial. cont. eum. I say (quoth he) that it is an vnusuall kinde of speach, contrarie to all the rules of Logicians and Rhetoriciās. Hemingius in Enchir. clas. 3. saieth. It is not a philosophicall kind of speach, but diuine. Lobechius disput. 12. The words are taken properly, but the manner of speaking is singular and vn­usuall. Hutter in Anal. Cōf. Aug calleth it an vnusuall speach, that is, mysticall and singular, and that the letter is kept in regard of euerie word, but that the manner of speaking is vnusuall in re­gard of the whole propositiō Adā Frā. in Margarita Theol. loc. 16. It is a speach not regular nor figuratiue, but vnusuall, con­trarie to the order of nature. And the like hath Reineccius to. 4. Arm. c. 16. Finally Grauerus in Absurdis Caluin. c 1. sec. 7. & vlt. saieth that it is a dominatiue speach. But in Antithes. p. 410. saieth, that Lutherans put a gramaticall synecdoche, not rhetoricall. Amongst the Sacramentaries (as appeareath by The Sacra­mentaries. what hath beene alreadie rehearsed) some will haue to [Page 718] be here a Catachresis, some a synechdoche, some alleosis, others a metaphor, and others a metonymie: Likewise some will haue the figure to be in the word This, others in the word Is, and others in the word Bodie. And as Kikerman writeth. libr. 3. System. Theol. p. 445. There are manie that say, There is no figure nether in the Predicate, nor in the verbe, but in the connexion of the Predicate with the Subiect, that is, in the forme of this proposition. Polanus in Sylloge thes. part. 1. de Caena. There is a threfould figure in these words. This is &c. Synechdoche of the gender, a meta­phor, and a metonymie of the Subiect. Ramus in Schlusselb. l. 1. Theol. Caluin. artic. 22. will haue three figures in these words. Aretius ib. saieth, that this speach of Christ, is ether metaphoricall, or catachresticall, or metonymicall. Pencier ib. In these words of Christ, ether there is a metaphor, or a meto­nymie, or a synechdoche, or alleosis. Et Zuinglius in Hospin. part. 2. f. 143. These words: This is &c. are not to be vnderstood naturally, and in the proper sense of the words, but symbolically, denominatiuely, and metonymically. Thus (as Tertullian saied Cap. 27. of the Valentinians) They turne all into figures and images, being themselues imaginarie men. And as Illyricus in Claue part. 2. tract. 4. writeth: Nothing is more easie, then to say: It is a trope, a figure, a phrase of speach, an Hebraisme, as Austine grauely noteth.

Wherefore I argue thus in the 21. place. Who beside their foresaied opposition to the expresse words of Scrip­ture, doe also in so manie and so weightie matters delude the proper sense of the words of Scripture by so manie kinds of figures, they contradict the true sense of the holie Scripture. But so doe Protestants. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER XXII. THAT PROTESTANTS ARE FORCED to coine manie distinctions friuolous, voluntarie, opposite to themselues, and vnheard of before.

THE 22. argument which we will make for to shew, that Protestanrs contradict the true mea­ning of the holie Scripture, is because they are cō ­pelled to deuise manie distinctions friuolous, voluntarie, contrarie to themselues, and neuer heard of before.

Their friuolous distinctions are of this sorte. Dauid sinned indeed, but neuer committed sinne: It is an other thing to sinne, and an other, to commit sinne. As we related lib. 1. c. 16. art. 12.

Zanchius de Perseuer. tom. 7. maketh this distinction: Friuolous di­stinctions. Saintes slide into sinne, but doe not foreslide. Lambert. ib. The elect oftentimes doe erre, but yet are neuer lead into error. Rai­nolds thes. 2. He insinuatcth the (the gates of Hell) shall vaile against the Church, but not preuaile. Caluin de Ration. Concordiae. The word Bodie is by a figure transferred to bread, but not figuratiuely. Beza respons. ad Act. part. 2. pag. 104. To euerie one of the baptized grace is offered, but not giuen. p. 123. The elect dying children, are renouated, but not regenerated. p. 177. I did not say, that the first man did sinne by Gods will, but that he fell by Gods will. Perkins de Serm. Dom. to. 2. col. 575. Christ did not properly die the second death, but yet he suffered it. Scarpius de Iustific. cont. 14. It is one thing to keepe the com­mandments, an other to fulfill them. Pareus l. 4. de Amiss Grat. c. 10. It is true, that Infants doe not actually sinne, but it [...] false, that they doe inclinatiuelie sinne. l. 1. de Iustif. c. 13. The Scrip­ture requireth the Sacraments and pennance to conuersion and regeneration, but not to iustificatiō. Et l. 2. c. 3. It is manifest, that we shalbe iustified, and we shalbe made Iust, is not all one with the Apostle. Et c. 9. To be constituited iust, is not the same that [Page 720] is to be made iust in this life. In Colleg. Theol. 7. disp. 7. It is a farre other thing (for God) to will that all be saued, and to will to saue all. l. 2. de Amiss. Grat. c. 4. Sinne and the fall of Adam were neuer the same thing.

Voluntarie distinctions I call those, by which for their Voluntarie distinctions. pleasure they draw the same words into diuerse senses. As when the Scripture biddeth vs loue God with all our heart, then they will haue that with all the heart, signifieth all kind of degree of loue, so that this precept be impossi­ble for vs: but when it saieth, that anie hath loued God with all the heart, then they will haue, with all the heart, to signifie onely sincerely and without hypocrisie. So Caluin in Actor. 8. v. 9. Pareus l. 1. de Iustif. c. 10. l. 2. c. 7. and others. In like sorte, when the Scripture. 1. Cor. 11. affir­meth the Eucharist to be the bodie of Christ, then the word Bodie is taken for a figure; But when in the same place, it saieth, that vnworthie receauers are guiltie of the bodie of Christ, thē it is taken for the true bodie of Christ. And so of innumerable other words, which they expoūd diuersely as it pleaseth them.

Their distinctions which destroie themselues are of Distinctions destroying themselues. this sorte. Pareus. l. 4. de Iustific. c. 4. distinguisheth stipend, into a free stipend, and a due: and saieth, that eternall life is a free stipend, but not due. As if it could be ima­gined, how a stipend could not be due. Like to this is their distinction of reward, into due and vndue. For if it be no waies due, it is no reward, but a mere gift. Whereupon Eu­can. Instit. loc. 32. saieth: Reward properly is nothing els, but which is giuen of debt. Et Scarpius de Iustif. Controu. 15. In morall matters, where there is reward, there is merit. Musculus in locis titul. de Meritis. Surely there can be no re­ward, but in respect of merit. Yea and Pareus himselfe in Pro­oem. l. 5. de Iustific. Reward properly called, is due. The same man. l. 4. cit. c. 10. addeth: that iust men can fulfill the law by an inchoate fulfilling, but not by a perfect. Which he repeateth. c. 13. as if there could be a fulfilling which is onely inchoate or begun. And neuerthelesse by this distinction doe they [Page 721] delude all those testimonies of Scripture, which teach, that some doe fulfill the law, loue God, doe good workes, and the like. Which they interpret of an imperfect fulfil­ling, louing, and doing. Beza in Dial. cont. Heshuss. vol. 1. saieth: The fathers before Christ were one thing with the flesh of Christ, then to come, but not actually. And in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 27. We confesse, that Christ God and man, was not actually a man, before his reall incarnation, yet we say, that he was truely present to these Fathers. And p. 63. I will not say, that Christs bodie was not at the time Abraham. For it was, but not actually. Gerlachius to. 2. disp. 17. Noë indeed was perfectly iust: but not absolutely iust.

But as for distinctions neuer heard of before, they haue deuised innumerable. For as it appeareth by what Distinctions vnheard of. Of God. hath beene related lib. 1. cap. 2. they distinguish of God, that he will sinne for some other end, but not for it selfe: That he willeth, that is, decreeth it, but not willeth, that is, not approueth it: That the hidden God willeth death, but not the reuealed: That he will haue all to be saued, by his reuealed will, but not by his hidden will: or as speaketh Beza part. 2. respons. ad Colloq. Montisbel. He will haue all saued by his open will, but not by his pleasure. And agayne: He will not the death of a sinner, by his open will, but by his secret will. That he inuiteth all to him by words, but not by his mynd: That he punisheth the faithfull lest they sinne, not because they haue sinned: that he iu­stifieth a wicked man remaining wicked, by the Ghos­pell, not by law: And manie other such distinctions as may be gathered out of the saied chapter &c. To which I adde these. Beza cont. Heshus. vol. 1. Alie pleaseth God, not as it is a lie, but as it is a iust punishement. Musculus in locis titul. de iustific. God iustifieth a wicked man abiding such, in his throne of grace, not in his throne of iu­stice. Tilenus in Syntagm. cap. 46. God iudgeth iust mens workes to be good according to the Ghospell, not according to law. Perkins in Apoc 2. tom. 2. Gods reuealed will hath with it ad­ioyned a condition, but not his secret will.

Touching Christ; they distinguish, that he is ā sinner Of Christ. by imputation, but not by inherence: That he died for all, but not for euerie one: That sometime he speaketh as others thought, not as himselfe: That he is a lawmaker, head of the Church, to be adored, to be inuocated, can forgiue sinnes, and worke miracles, not as man, but as God onely. See more l. 1. c. 3.

Of Saints: they distinguish in this new manner. They Of Saints. wish for vs heauen, but pray not: we may wish that they praied for vs, but may not pray: They pray for vs in ge­nerall, but not in particular: They may be worshipped of vs after a ciuill or profane māner, but not after a religious. And as Perkins saieth in Cathol. reform. Contr. 14. cap. 2. When Angels appeared, they were lawfullie honored, but not now.

Touching Scripture; they haue coined these new di­stinctions: Of Scripture. In Paulsome things are hard, not of themselues, but by accident. So Reineccius to. 1. Arm. c. 10. In Scripture there are some things hard to be vnderstood and obscure to vs, though all the Scripture be in it selfe cleare. So Pareus in Gal. 2. lect. 25. The Ghospell, teacheth good works, not of it selfe, but bor­roweth the doctrine of workes from the law. So the some Pa­reus Colleg. Theol. 9. disput. 39. The Thessalonians tooke not vpon them to iudge, or to debate whether Gods trueth were to be admitted, but onely examined Pauls doctrine according to the touchestone of Scripture: So Caluin. act. 17. vers. 13. As if Paules doctrine and Gods trueth were not all one. The Ghospell in a most large sense is taken for the whole doctrine of Christ and the Apostles: Largely, for the doctrine both of grace and faith, and of repentance and new obedience; but straitely and properly for the doctrine of grace by faith: So Pareus l. 4. de Iu­stif. c. 3. Finally the Scripture speaketh as the law, not as the Ghospell; by which distinction they delude manie places of Scripture, as is to be seene in Luther de seru. arbit. to. 2. f. 449. Caluin in Math. 19. vers. 17. Pareus. l. 4. de Iustif. cap. 2. Schlusselb. to. 8. Catal. p. 441. & to. 2. p. 270.

Of S. Peter and the Apostles, they haue inuented these Of the Apo­stles. [Page 723] new distinctions. S. Peter is first of the Apostles in order, not in iurisdiction: The Apostles are foundations of the Church, as those that found the Church, not as those on which it is founded: or as Iunius spaketh Cont. 3. l. 1. c. 10. The Church is founded vpon Peter as vpon a pillar, not as on a foundation.

Of Pastors they distinguish: That authoritie is in the Of Pastors. word which they preach, not in themselues: That they gouerne the visible Church, but not the Catholike: That in case of necessitie, they are made without mission, but not otherwise. See l. 1. c. 7.

Of the Church: they haue brought in these new di­stinctions Of the Church That for professiō of faith, there is one Church visible, an other inuisible: That she is infallible in funda­mentall points, but not in others: That she is to be heard when she preacheth Scripture, but not otherwise: That she is the pillar to which trueth is fastened, not on which it relieth: So saieth Riuet. Tractat. 1. sec. 39. Or as Andrews writeth in Resp. ad Apol. Bellar. c. 14. She is so the pillar of trueth, as that she relieth vpon trueth, not trueth vpon her. That the Church is necessarie to beleiue the Scriptures, not to know them. So whitaker lib. 3. de Script. 396. That the Church is the staye and pillar of trueth, not the foundation of trueth. Heilbruner in Colloq. Ratisb. sess. 7.

Of the Sacraments: they distinguish in this sorte: They iustifie as signes or seales, not as causes: They are receiued Of Sacramēts whole and intire of the good, but not of the badde: that baptisme is the lauer of regeneration, passiuely, not actiuely: So Daneus. Contr. 2. c. 12. That baptisme is but one taken wholy, but is twoe, taken by partes: So Beza. part. Resp. ad Acta p. 44. That the Church is cleansed significatiuely by the baptisme of water, but really by the baptisme of the spirit. So Beza. ib. p. 115. or as Polanus saieth in Disp priu. p. 37. Sinnes are saied to be blotted out by baptisme, not properly, but in a figuratiue sense. The same Beza in Hutter in Analysi. p. 54. saieth. I neuer simply saied, that baptisme was the obsignation of regeneration in children, but of adoption. Perkins in Galat. 3. By baptisme, [Page 724] actuall guilt is taken away, but not potentiall. Pareus in Gal. 2. lect. 23. Absolutely we are all borne sinners, but in regard of the couenant, we are borne Christians or Gods confederats.

Of the Eucharist: they haue these distinctions: That it Of the Eu­charist. is the symbolicall bodie of Christ, but not his true bodie: That Christ his flesh killed doth profit vs, but not eaten: That it is exhibited in the Supper according to the vertue thereof, not according to the substance: That when S. Paul saieth. 1. Cor. 11. He eateth iudgement to himselfe, he meaneth not of damnation but of correction: So wolfius in Schusselb. l. 1. Theol. art. 25. In like sorte they say, that Preists forgiue sinne indirectly not directly; directly as it is an offense of the Church, indirectly as it an offense of God. So Spalata. l. 5. de Repub. c. 12.

Of faith: they make these distinctions: That one is Ca­tholike Of Faith. or vniuersall, or historicall, an other, speciall. A­gaine, that one is abstract, naked, simple, an other, concrete, compounded, incarnate. So Luther in Gal. 3. to. 5. That there is one habituall and actuall, of men: an other potentiall and incli­natiue, of infants: So Pareus l. 3. de Iustif. c. 14. or as Polanus saieth. part. 2. thes. p. 651. Infants haue not altogether the same faith that men haue, yet they haue some thing proportionable. Piscator in Thesibus. l. 2. pag. 252. Adam before his fall had not iustifying faith: or as Pareus writeth l. 1. de Amiss. Grat. c. 7. Adam lost faith of the commandement, but not faith of the promise. Bullinger dec. 5. serm. 7. Infants are faithfull by the imputation of God. Agayne: They are baptized in their owne faith? to wit, which God imputeth to them. Zanchius in Sup­plicat. to. 7. Manie reprobates are endued with a certaine faith much like to the faith of the elect, but not with the same. Per­kins in Cathol. 4. c. 5. There is one generall and Catholike faith, wherewith a man beleiueth the articles of faith to be true; and an other iustifying or particular faith. Thus they distinguish of faith. And in like sorte they distinguish of the iustifica­tion of faith, to wit, that it iustifieth relatiuely or correla­tiuely, not absolutely, and as an instrument, not as it is a worke. Bucanus in Institit. loc. 3. Faith is saied to be imputed [Page 725] to iustice, not properly, but relatiuely, Polan. part. 2. thes. pag. 197. We are iustefied by faith not properly, but relatiuely. Reineccius tom. 4. Armat. cap. 21. Faith iustifieth as well absolutely as considered relatiuely. Pareus in Galat. 3. lection. 32. Faith is imputed to iustice relatiuely. Agayne: Faith iustifieth organically. And in Colleg. Theol. 2. disp. 10. We are saied to be iustified by faith, but not formerly nor me­ritoriously, but organically. Touching the losse of faith, they thus distinguish: Zanchius in Supplication. citat. The elect loose faith in parte, but not wholy. Beza in Pre­fat. 2. part respons. ad Acta: Faith sometimes sleepeth, some­times seemeth to be quite lost, but yet is not lost. Agayne: There is a lethargie of faith, but no losse: The feeling or vse of faith is lost for a time, but not faith it selfe.—Some reprobates do beleiue with a generall and historicall faith common to the Diuels themselues. Tilenus in Syntagm. capit. 43. The faithfull become sometimes outliers; but not runawaies or forsakers. In like sorte they say, that faith without works at the time of iustification is not dead, but at other times, if it be without workes it is dead. Likewise Reineccius tom. 4. Armat. cap. 15. saieth. Faith is called a worke not absolutely, as it is considered in it selfe, but relatiuely, as it apprehendeth Christ. Hunnius de Iu­stificat. pagin. 157. Faith worketh by charitie towards our neighbour, not toward God. Finally Perkins in Casibus c. 7. That which euerie one is bound to beleiue, is indeed true ac­cording to the intention of God who bindeth him: but it is not true alwaies according to the euent.

Of good works in generall: they coyne these distin­ctions: Of good works in ge­nerall. The good workes of the iust are good in parte, not wholy: They are all equall before God, but not in themselues. They are acceptable to God in his throne of mercie, but not of iustice. They are necessarie to iustifica­tion by necessitie of presence, but not of cause: They are necessarie to saluation, not to iustificatiō. See l. 1. c. 14. art. 15.

To which we adde, that Pareus lib. 4. de Iustificat. capite. 17. saieth. That good works are worthie of reward in [Page 726] the courte of mercie, but worthie of punishment in the courte of iustice of God. Et l. 1. c. 16. 23. & 24. Works are required to re­generation, not to iustification: or as Reineccius speaketh 10. 1. Arm. c. 20. They are necessarie to sanctification not to iustifi­cation Who also to. 4 c. 22. distinguisheth a worke in Gi­uing and Receauing, and saieth, that faith is a giuing worke, not a receauing Schlusselb. to. 7. Catal. p. 446. writeth, that obedience is necessarie to saluation, but an others obedience, not ours. And addeth: The dutie of obedience is indeed necessarie to saluation, forsooth if it be not freely remitted. Scarpius de Iu­stif. Contr. 15. Iust men are worthie of the kingdome of God, by the worth of aptnesse, not of perfection or merit. Riuet. tract. 3 sect. 36. There may be a relation of Merit and Reward betwene men, but not betwene God and men. Perkins in Cathol. Ref. Cont. 4. cap. 6. Good workes are necessarie to saluation, not as cause, but onely as a thing necessarie following faith.

Touching good works in particular, they thus distin­guish: of good works in particular. That to liue single, is a good profitable, but not honest or vertuous: That virginitie is better then mariage in something, but not simply: That fasting is a parte of Gods worshippe in the law, but not in the Ghospel: That almes deliuereth from sinne and death, not by it selfe, but by the cause thereof: That it is lawfull to pray for the elect, not for others: for the liuing, not for the dead, for things promised in the Scripture not for other things, as appeareth by what hath beene rehearsed c. 15. To which we adde that Perkins in Cathol. reform. Cont. 3. c. 3. wri­teth, that we pray not so much for the forgiuenesse of sinnes past, as present. Confessio Wittember. saieth: We may wish to the dead all rest and happines in Christ, but we may not pray for them. Luther in Postil. Dom. 2. post Trin. graunteth, that we may once or twise pray for the dead, but not of­ten: And at home and in our chamber, but not in the Church. And the like hath Vrbanus Regius in formulis caute loquendi to. 1. Who also in locis. fol. 322. saieth, that we may pray cōditionally for the soule of our brother, but not absolutely. Feild l. 3. de Eccles. c. 17. teacheth, that we [Page 727] may pray for one that is dead streigth after his death, but not afterward, Zuingle in art. 60. saieth: I condemne not, if one being carefull for the dead, doe implore or pray Gods mercie for them, but to define any time for this, is diabolicall. Spalata l. 5. Repub. c. 8. n. 132. writeth, that God at the intercession of the Church forgiueth litle sinnes soone after death, but not long after. Thus they distinguish about praier fore the dead. Perkins in Apoc. 2. tom. 2. The precept of repentance is directly giuē to the elect, indirectly to the reprobate. Et Tilenus in Syn­tagm. c. 47. There is no counsaile inferred out of. 1. Corint. 7. but onely a desire and wish of one desiring the guift of continencie.

Touching sinne: these new distinctions they make: Of sinne. That it is imputed to reprobates and infidels, not to the faithfull and elect: That it is veniall to the elect, not to o­thers: that it may stand with iustice with some wrastling, no otherwise: that byting vsurie is condemned not other, as we haue related l. 1. c. 16. Besides Perkins in Cathol. ref. Cont. 2. cap. 1. saieth, that in iustification, sinne is taken away not in it selfe, but as it is in the person: or as Riuet speaketh Cōt. tract. 3. sect. 26. Sinne remaineth in parte, not wholy. Caluin in Ioā. 1. v. 29. Sinne is in vs but not in the iudgement of God. Beza in 2. part. resp. ad Coll. Montisb. p. 73. Dauid sinned, but not whole, but as he was not regenerate. p. 79. He did not retaine the holie Ghost, but some thing of the holie Ghost. pag. 71. Sinne casteth not of the holie Ghost, but hindreth his efficacie. Et p. 87. It maketh the holie Ghost a sleepe for a time, but doth not cast him of. Pareus l. 1. de Amiss. Grat. c. 7. Adam fell not as he was predestinate, but as he was to be predestinated: He lost the grace of creation, but not the grace of iustification. And Piscator in Thes. loc. 20. The elect do slide, but are not cast downe.

Touching iustification, these new distinctions they Of iustifica­tion. frame. It is declared by workes, but not caused: It forgi­ueth sinnes, but taketh them not away: It maketh that sinne is not imputed, but not that it is no more. It maketh a man iust not in himselfe, but in Christ. And others such like as may be seene lib. 1. c. 17. Moreouer Luther in Zan­chius de Perseuer. to. 7. col. 128. saieth: When Peter sinned, [Page 728] his loue towards God and Christ was not drowned, but onelie floated. Reineccius to. 4. Arm. c. 15. Sanctification increaseth and decreaseth, but not iustification. Kemnice in locis. part. 2. tit. de Argum. writeth, that when in Scripture God is re­quired to iudge vs, or reward vs according to our iustice, that speach is not of the iustice of person, but of our cause or controuersie with other men. And agayne: That same: yee are cleane Ioan. 13. And yee are washed and sanctified. 1. Cor. 7. is to be vnderstood imputatiuely: Whitaker ad Rat. 8. Camp. Faith, hope and charitie doe make vs iust, inchoately not absolu­tely. Perkins de Praedest to 1. distingui [...]heth grace into that which represseth; which he saieth is cōmon to reprobates & into that which reneweth, which he maketh proper to the elect. Et in Cath ref. Cont 4. c. 4. saieth: Adam had imputed iustice according to the substance thereof, but not according to imputation. Illyricusin Claue part. 2. tract. 6. Sinne is abolished by right & promise for the time to come, but not in act and deed. Gesner in Cōp. loco. 22. In Scripture those are called i [...]st, who a [...]oūd with iustice, according to the doctrine of the law, not of the Ghospell Scarpe de Iust. Cōt. 1. Iustificatiō effectiuely is imme­diatly of Christ alone, but sanctificatiō is of the holie Ghost. Iu­stificatiō quitteth vs in the iudgemēt of God, not sanctificatiō. Et Cōt. 7. There is a twoefould ablutiō of sinne; the first is of the guilt, and this is iust [...]ficatiō: the second is of the inherence thereof, and this is sanct [...]fication. Bullinger. dec. 3. serm. 9. There is a duble iustice, iustificant and obedi [...]nt. Polanus part. 2. thes. The grace which Adam receaued in creation, was not grace which maketh gratefull. Et in Disp. priuat. Sinnes are blotted out by pennance not causatiuely, but ostēsiuely. Riuet. tract. 3. sec. 26. We are per­fectiuely imputatiuely iust, but inherētly iust, onely imperfectly.

Touching the law: they distinguish in this new sorte: It is Of Gods law. abrogated from the faithfull according to rigor and im­putatiō, no according to obligation: There is a twoefould fulfilling of the law: legall and Euangelicall. Mans law bindeth in generall, not in particular. Whitaker libr 8. cont. Dur. sect. 96. saieth. The Decalogue is taken away in parte, but not simply. Caluin in Actor. 15. vers. 10. The com­mandements [Page 729] are an vnsupportable yoake for to be exacted, not for doctrine. Pareus l. 2. de Iustif. cap. 7. They are heauie con­cerning perfection, not for inchoation. Reineccius to. 4. Arm. cap. 13. They are light in respect of imputation and inchoation, but not of perfect fulfilling. Bucan in Instit. loco. 19. To the re­generate, the law is possible by imputation of the satisfaction of Christ, and by inchoation of newnesse. Scarpius de Iustif. Cōt. 12. The law is possible for outward precepts, not inward; in parte not in whole, or by inchoation, or in Christ, not in our selues. Musculus in locis titul. de Legibus: Christians fulfill the law perfectly in Christ, imperfectly in themselues. Polanus in disput. priuat. 40. The regenerate keepe the precepts of God by by imputation, but themselues keepe them not. Reineccius tom. 4. Armat. cap. 13. According to the law none is worthie before God, but according to the Ghospell, the godlie are worthie before God.

These and manie such other distinctions neuer heard What onely distinctions Protestants say they allow. of before among Christians, haue Protestants deuised, against which at this present I obiect onelie this, that themselues teach, that no distinctions are to be admitted in Diuinitie, which are not gathered out of expresse and plaine places of Scripture. For thus Whitaker. Contr. 4. quaest. 1. cap. 3. That rule is much to be esteemed: That in diui­nitie no distinctions are to be allowed, but such as are proued by plaine passages of Scripture: And lib. 2. de Concupisc. cap. 7. We may say and defend what we will, if such distinctions be ac­cepted. Sadeel ad Repetit. Sophism. Turriani: It is a theolo­gicall rule: All distinctions in diuinitie must be proued by ex­presse places of Scripture. The like hath Perkins l. de Caena. to. 1. col. 861. and others.

Their most vsuall distinctions wherewith most cōmonly Most vsuall distinctions with Protest. they delude the testimonies of Scripture, are these, though perhaps all of them vse not the verie selfe same termes. To wit: Before men, not before God: or which cometh all to one: It seemeth so, but is not: By this distinction they delude all those testimonies of Scripture, which teach that reprobate or euill men may beleiue, doe good workes, [Page 730] be in the Church, that reprobates may be iustified, that good workes doe iustifie, redeeme sinnes or the like: Which they expound, before men, not before God, or in shew, not in deed. An other vsuall distinction of theirs is: In it selfe, or in an other thing. By this they delude those te­stimonies of Scripture, which say that good men are iust, worthie of God, fulfill the law, that baptisme forgiueth sinnes, Almes deliuereth from death, and such like, which they expound, in an other, not in themselues: as that good men are iust, worthie of God, fulfill the law, in Christ not in themselues: that almes deliuereth from death, not in it selfe, but in faith, as saieth Confessio Augustana. c. de Implet. legis, and that baptisme remitteth sinnes not in it selfe but in faith. So Caluin in Act. 2. v. 38. A third vsuall distinction of theirs is, Significātly not Causally: By this they delude those testimonies of Scripture, which teach that Sacraments worke grace, Preists remit sinnes, good works doe iustifie, doe cause life euerlasting, and the like. Which they expound Significantly or ostensiuely, not Causally. Their fourth accustomed distinction, is In parte, not simply or wholy, Thus they delude those testimonies which auouch that there is inherent iustice, that sinners are taken away, that good mens good workes are good, and such like, which they expound, In parte, not simply or wholy. Their fift vsuall distinction is: A saying of the law, not of the Ghospell. Thus they delude all the sentences of Scripture, which declare that iustice and life euerlasting is to be pur­chased by good works, that the keeping of the law is ne­cessarie to life, and such like. For these kind of sayings, they will haue to be onely of the law not of the Ghospell. But their most vsuall distinction of all is. Figuratiuely not Properly: which kind of deluding the Scripture is most ample and containeth almost all the former kinds. For what seemeth to be, & is not, is figuratiuely not properly. Likewise what is in parte, and not simply, what is not in it selfe but in another, is figuratiuely and not properly. Yet because this their distinction would wax stale, if it were [Page 731] vsed vnder the same termes in all places, and the va­nitie thereof would easily appeare if nakedly it were ap­plied to some places, therefore at least in words and with some litle differences they haue deuided it into diuers. Peculiarly by this distinction they delude all those testi­monies of Scripture, which teach that the Eucharist is the bodie and blood of Christ, that eternall life is a reward, that the Apostles are the foundations of the Church, that the Ghospell is a law, Christ a law giuer, descended into hell, that there is in the Church an altar, a sacrifice, and the like. These forsooth are their fine plaisters which they applie to cure all the wounds which are giuen them by the sword of the word of God, which if they will let other Heretiks vse in such sorte as they doe, nothing at all will be proued out of Scripture.

Wherefore thus I frame my 22. argument. They who besides their opposition to the expresse words of holie Scripture related in the first booke, are forced in manie and great matters to deuise friuolous and verball distin­ctions, and such as destroye themselues, and were neuer heard of before among Christians, they contradict the true sense of holie Scripture. Protestants doe so. There­fore &c.

CHAPTER XXIII. THAT PROTESTANTS CONFESSE THE vniforme consent of Fathers, Councels, and of the Church to be against them, and neglect and condemne it.

THE 23. argument wherewith we will proue the opposition of Protestants with the Scripture, shalbe, because sometimes they be forced to ac­knowledge that they contradict the vniforme consent of the Fathers, Councels, and Church, yea neglect and con­temne it.

That sometimes they confesse the vniforme consent Protest. con­fesse that [...]hey are against Fathers. How manie soeuer. of the Fathers, Councels, and Church is against them, is manifest. For thus writeth Luther in 2. Petri to. 5. fol. 490. Here stumbled how manie soeuer ether Fathers are Doctors haue heretofore expounded the Scripture, as when that Math. 16. Thou art Peter &c. they interpreted of the Pope. Tom. 2. l. de lib. arbit. fol 480. What auaileth it, if one shall relie vpon the ancient Fathers approued by the course of so manie ages? Were All of them. they not all of them together blind? Et to. 6. in Gen. c. 42. Here surely all the Fathers, Austin, Ambrose, &c. were deceaued, nor vnderstood any thing, Kemnice in loc. part. 1. p. 166. All anti­quitie with one mouth reiect those propositions: That all things that are done, are done necessarilie: That men sinne of necessitie. And yet Protestants teach so, as appeareth. l. 1. c. 2. art. 8. &c. 21. art. 1. & 2. Schlusselburg to. 8. Catal. p. 379. We deny that The ancient Doctors. the ancient Doctors of the Church were Catholiks euery where, for they were deceaued sometimes and peruerted some articles of faith. Zuingle in Respons. ad Epist. Constant. to. 1. speaking of the exposition of Malachias touching sacrifice in the Church, saieth: The exposition of the Ancient is reiected. And l. de Baptism. to. 2. We must say, that almost all whosoeuer haue Almost all from the A­postles. Ould and new. All Diuines. written vpon baptisme euen from the very Apostles time, haue erred from the marke, and that not in few points. Wherefore we will see what thing baptisme is after a farre other manner, then ether the ancient or the new writers, yea then those of our dayes haue done, Ib. fol. 74. Nether they onely say that (Saint Ihons baptisme is different from Christs) but also all Diuines whome I remember euer to haue read, doe follow this their sen­tence most constantly. Ib. in Paraen. fol. 603. They were Fathers begot the Popedome, the most wicked brood of Antichrist. Bul­linger dec. 4. serm. 10. It is true which they say, that the anciēts prated for the dead. Gualter. in Actor. 19. hom. 125. It is eui­dent, that the Fathers abused this place: It deceaued them, that they thought Ihons baptisme of water and Christs to be differēt. P. Martyr l. de votis. Surely that I may confesse that which is true, we haue them (Fathers) harder against vs in this cause. In 1. Cor. 15. All the Fathers make for this opinion. Againe: We All the Fa­thers. [Page 733] confesse freely that the Fathers make differences of rewards. Zanchius de Eccles. cap. 9. tom. 8. The Fathers exposition is not admitted in this place. Agayne: The Fathers exposition is The Fathers. not admitted in this place; Vpon this rock that is, vpon Peter Musculus in locis tit. de signis. The Fathers doe attribute more efficacie to our Sacraments, then to those of the ould testament, in so much as they say they be effectuall signes of grace. This error is to be beaten out of the heads of all the faithfull. Ib. tit. de bapt. The Fathers did denie saluation to the children of Christiās takē away by death before they were baptized. Caluin in 1. Cor. 7. v. 5. The Fathers. Let no man meruaile, that in this matter we freely dissent frō the Fathers. Againe: Fathers erred in approuing inconsiderately the vow of chastitie. Ib. v. 7. The Fathers will haue virginitie to be a worshippe of God. Now therein is a pernitious error. In Act 19. v. 9. With the Fathers that opiniō had force, that Ihons and Christs baptismes were different. And for breuities sake to omit his In how manie points Caluin is against the Fathers. words, 2. Inst. c. 2. §. 4. he confesseth, that the Fathers be a­gainst him touching free will. c. 4. §. 3. touching permissiō of sinne. c. 14. §. 3. touching Christ mediator as he is God. c. 16. §. 9. touching the descēt of Christ to hell. Et l. 3. c. 4. §. 38 39. touching satisfactiō. c. 5. §. 10. touching praier for the dead. Et l. 4. c. 15. §. 7. touching the differēce betwixt S. Ihons and Christs Baptisme, & §. 20. touchings laicks baptizing in case of necessitie. c. 17. §. 39. touching the carying of the Eucharist to the sick. c. 18. §. 10. touching Sacrifice. Et §. 43. touching exufflation and chrisme in baptisme. The like he acknow­ledgeth Luc. 7. v. 13. Math. 19. v. 9. & 17. 1. Cor. 15. v. 10. Hebr. 7. v. 9. & other where oftē. Beza in resp. ad Cast. vo. 1. Theol. We see, that this place especially was wrested by the Fathers for to proue their limbus. And the Fathers from hence also deuised that descent of Christs soule into hell: Besides in Marc. 1. v. 4. In act. 2. v. 27. In c. 19. v. 2. In Rom. 4. v. 11. and otherwhere oftē ­times, he professeth to disagree frō the Fathers. Dan. Cōtr. 3. p. 277. saieth, that the Fathers haue most naughtily expoūded that saying of Christ Math. 16. Thou art Peter, of the person of Peter. Et. p. 281. They haue most naughtily expounded the place. Sadeel ad art. abiur. 26. We hould this article (of Christs des­cēt) [Page 734] but we vnderstād it otherwise thē the Fathers did. Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 5. c. 7. We confesse indeed, that some Popish errors are ancient, and held and defended of the Fathers, which truely we doe freely and openly professe. Lib. 6. cont. Dur. sect. 7. Your Poperie is er­rors of the Fathers. mingle mangle of Popish religion is pached vp of the errors of the Fathers. lib. 8. sect. 7. Both of them iustly exclude that ficti­tious limbus of the Fathers. l. 2. de Script. p. 280. Luther durst dissent from the Fathers, whome he perceaued plainely to dissent from the Scriptures. Perkins in Gal. 1. vers. 8 Manie doctrines From the time of the Apo­les. haue beene receaued and beleiued euen from the time of the Apo­stles, of the intercession of Saints, of the praier to the dead, and for the dead in purgatorie, and the the like, and these doctrines haue beene confirmed by diuers reuelations. Spalata. l. 5. de Re­pub. c. 11. n. 41. That Preists doe truely and properly forgiue sinnes Common con­sent of Fa­thers. Vniuersally receaued. by the keyes, is the most common consent of the Fathers. cap. 8. numero. 37. It was a most ancient custome and most vni­uersally receaued in the Church, that praiers and oblatiōs should be made for the dead. Sutclif. l. 1. de Eccles. Bellarmin meaneth any consent whatsoeuer with the Fathers in doctrine of free will, of mens satisfactions for sinnes, of limbus, of purgatorie, of praier for the dead, of praier to the dead, of forbiddacne of marriage, and other such like doctrines: This consent we denie to be a note of the Church, for in all these things they did dot consent with the Ancient fa­thers with mutuall con­sent. Apostolicall Church. Duditius in Beza epist. 1. saieth thus: If it be trueth which the ancient Fathers haue professed with mu­tuall consent, that is all on the Papists side. Thus they tou­ching their dissent from the Fathers.

In like manner they confesse, that they dissent from the Church and Councells. For thus P. Martyr in 1. Cor. 3. That The Church alwai [...]s praied for dead. The ancient Church. The Church at 500. also vseth to be obiected to vs. That the Church hath alwaies praied for the dead: which truely I doe not denie. Whitaker Cōt. 2. q. 5. c. 7. I answere. True it is, that Caluin saieth and the Cen­turie writers, that the ancient Church erred in manie things, as of limbus, of free will, of merit of works, and the other things be­fore rehearsed. Agayne: I say that the Church which was 500. or 600. years after Christ did not hould in all points the doctrine of the Apostles. For she held some errors. Casaubon. epist. ad Cardin. Perron. It was a most ancient custome, that in the pu­blike [Page 735] praiers of the Church remembrance should be made of the The ancient Church. dead, and rest praied for them of God. The ancient Church by this means approued her faith of the resurrection to come. Zuinglius in Elencho. tom. 2. speaking of the ceremonies In the begin­ning of the Church. Generall Councells of baptisme, saieth: We know, that in the beginning of the Church these things were vsed. The like they confesse tou­ching Councells. For thus Confessio Anglica. art. 21. Ge­nerall Councells may erre, and sometimes haue erred euen in the things which belonge to the rule of pietie. Vrban Regius in In­terpret. All Councells The ancient Councels. loc. to 1. It is more cleare then the light, that all Coun­cells haue pernitiously erred. Caluin. 4 Insit. c. 9. §. 10. There is some thing wanting euen in those ancient and purer Councells. There was a notable example hereof in the Councell of Nice. Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 7. c 7. auoucheth, that the Councell of Nice and Chalcedon haue erred.

Nether doe Protestants onely dissent frō the vniforme consent of Fathers, Councels, and Church, but also they make small account thereof. For thus P. Martyr in loc. Tit. Not Fathers euen agreing. Script. §. 16. But at least (say they) then are the Fathers to be allowed, when they agree amongst themselues. No not then al­waies. Et lib. de votis. As long as we abide in the Fathers, we shall alwaies remayne in the same errors. Whitaker. Cont. 1. q. 5. c: 8. The agreing exposition of the Fathers, is no rule of expoū ding Not wit­nesses with­out exceptiō. Scriptures. Cont. 2. q. 7. c. 7. We denie not but the Fathers be witnesse of the trueth, but so as they be not without excep­tion, for all haue erred. l. 6. cont. Dur. sect. 3. The consent of Fa­thers is not sure and free from error. Et ad Demonst. 7. San­deri. Not the whole Senate of Fathers. Nether will we thinke, that thou hast demonstrated any thing, though thou couldest bring the whole Senate of Fathers against vs. Rainolds in his Conference p. 151. Trueth is not to Not all. be tried by consent of Fathers. Psal. 150. If not one or twoe of the Fathers, but all haue thought it, nor thought it onely but haue written it, nor written it onely but thought it, not obscurely but clearely, nor seldome but often, nor for a time but perpetually, yet their consent were not secure. And he termeth vniuersalitie, antiquitie, consent, rotten postes. Yea in his 5. Thesis he will haue the Roman Church to be no true Church, be­cause [Page 736] she forbiddeth the Scriptures to be expounded contrarie to that sense which our holie mother the Church doth hould, or con­trarie to the vniforme consent of Fathers. By which forbiddance (saieth he) are often reiected those senses which the spirit by the tenor of the words and sentences doth teach to be the meaning of the holie text. Mortō in Apol. part. 1. l. 1. c. 69. Sometimes negle­cting the persons (of the Fathers) it is most safe to fech the prime antiquitie out of the Apostolicall writings. Which is (saieth he) the Protest. de­fense, to re­iect the Fa­thers. prore and puppe of the Protestants defense. Caluin 4. Instit. c. 9. §. 12. Let no names of Coūcells, of Pastours, of Bishops hinder vs, that we trie not all the spirits of them all with the square of Gods word, for to finde whether they be of God. Daneus Cōtr. p. 289. Touching the saying of the Fathers, this is our breif answere to them all: We regard not what the Fathers haue saied, but how Saying of Fathers not reguarded. truely. Et Cont. 5. p. 698. We must not looke what the Fathers haue written, but what they should haue writtē. Vorstius in An­tib. p. 395. The Protestants doe not thinke that they ought much to care, what the ancient Fathers haue thought or written of this Not to be cared for. matter. Pareus l. 5. de Iust. c. 5. I say that Scripture is to be expoū ­ded by Scripture, not by Fathers. Et l. 2. de Grat. c. 14. Though all the Fathers agreed well, yet were it weake. Reineccius to. 1. Arm. Not all fa­thers together c. 9 Whē all Doctors of the Church with a common consent doe teach some thing to come from Apostolicall tradition, is that to be beleiued to be Apostolicall tradition? No. Gerlachius disp. 22. de Eccles. The Fathers haue straied from the path of trueth, not in these onely wherein they disagree with themselues and with others, but in those also which they haue vniformely deliuered. Celius Secundus de Amplit. regni Dei. lib. 1. Should then the Their autho­ritie nothing at all. authoritie of so manie ancient Fathers, the consent of ages auaile nothings? Nothing at all. Polanus in thes. part. 3. p. 546. We cite them ( [...]estimonies of Fathers) [...]specially when we handle points of religion controuerted with Papists, not for our sake but for Pa­pists, that we may refute Papists by the Fathers, whome they haue Fathers cited as Heathens. made their iudges: as in ould time the, Fathers refuted the Heathē by the testimonies of the Sybills, of Poets, Philosophers, orators, and Heathen Historians. As therefore the Fathers vsed the te­stimonies of Heathens against Heathēs: So we produce the testi­monies [Page 737] of Fathers against Papists. Muscul. in loc. tit. de Scrip. As for me, I require not the testimonies of Fathers for to giue au­thoritie to Canonicall Scripture, and to make distinction betwene it and the Fathers writings, contenting my selfe with the autho­ritie and canon of the Scripture it selfe. But because our aduer­saries endeauour to trouble the trueth by pretext of Fathers, I well alledge them where they are against their endeauours, but when they cite any thing out of the Fathers writings against vs, I plainely say that I will not binde my selfe to their authoritie.

In like sorte they make litle reckoning of the Church & Authoritie of the Churche auaileth no­thing. Councels. For thus writeth Whitaker ad Rat. 3. Camp. Can the Church afford vs no confirmation of doctrine, no arguments of faith? None. Et Cōt. 1. q. 5. c. 10. The practise of the Church, is the opinion of men. The sentences of the Fathers, is an opinion of Merely hu­mane. men. The definition of Councels is the iudgement of mē. Vorstius in Antib. pag. 1. saieth, that the testimonie of the Church is merely humane, Et p. 382. An Argument from the practise of the ancient Church concludeth nothing. Protest. con­temne Fathers Church and Councels. Not to be re­garded. Contemned.

Finally they professe to cōtemne both Fathers Church, and Coūcells. For thus writeth Luther de ser. arb. to. 2. fol. 433. The Fathers authoritie is not to be regarded. Et l. de Con­cil. Twentie years agoe I was forced to contemne the Fathers commentaries. Melancthon. in loc. edit. An. 1523. I am of opi­nion that in matters of religion mens commentaries are to be fled like the plague. Reineccius to. 4. Armat. cap. 15. There are Fa­thers who hould the same error with the Papists, whose testimo­nies we reiect as false and fond. Bullinger dec. 5. Serm. 4. We answere in one word to the ancient writers of the Church, whome they obiect vnto vs, testifying I know not what of Peters pri­macie, we doe not so much care what the Fathers thought, Litle moued. as what Christ hath instituted. Caluin. 3. Institut. cap. 14. §. 38. I am litle moued with those things which euerie where are to be found in the writings of the Fathers touching satisfaction. Et de ver. reform. Nether care I for the sentences of the Fathers which these Moderators bring for to tread downe the trueth. What to doe with Father [...] Humfrey in Proregom. What haue we to doe with Fathers, with flesh and blood, or what pertaineth it to vs what the [Page 738] false synods of Bishops doe decree. Whitaker lib. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 62. I care litle for the Fathers. Sect. 69. I care not what We care not. What to doe with Coūcels. the Fathers thought of Ihons baptisme. Cont. 1. q. 5. c. 10. What haue we to doe with Churches or Councells, vnlesse they shew that those things which they define be aggreable to Scripture. Et l. de Script. c. 1. sect. 7. An argument which is taken from the bare testimonie of the Church to confirme the Scriptures, or anie parte of them, or anie point of our faith, I say is inualide, vnef­fectuall and vnfit to perswade. Iuel in Apol part. 4. saieth, that Way of the Church fana­ticall. the way to find the trueth by God speaking in the Church and Councels, is very vncertaine, very dangerous, and in a manner fanaticall.

Thus thou seest Reader, that Protestants confesse, that in manie and great matters, the Fathers, the ancient, all Fathers, all from the Apostles time, the ancient Fathers with mutuall consent, all antiquitie: likewise, the ancient Church, the Church of the first 500. or 600. yeares, the Church in the very beginning: Finally generall Coun­cells, all generall Councells are opposite to them: and that the Catholik doctrine doth consist of the sentences of the Fathers, hath beene beleiued and receaued since the A­postles time, and all deliuered by the Fathers with mu­tuall consent. Moreouer thou seest, how litle they esteeme the vniforme consent of Fathers, Church, and Councells, yea in plaine termes professe to contemne it. I dispute not now, how the vniforme cōsent of Fathers, of the Church, and Councells is infallible in matters of faith: which hath beene manifestly proued by many Catholiks writers, onely I propose to the Readers consideration, how much Note. Protestants doe preiudice their cause in the iudgement of all reasonable men, by reiecting and contemning the vni­forme consent of Fathers, of the Church and Councells, touching the exposition of Scripture. Forsooth yong mē contemne most ancient; few, very manie; disagreing, those that most agree; men of meane wit or learning, those that were most wittie and learned: men of small diligēce, those that haue beene most diligent: vulgar, yea profane [Page 739] men, those that were most holie: nether will admit such and so manie men now happily reigning with Christ, who nether knew vs nor them, so that could not be par­tiall, ether for iudges, or arbiters, or witnesses sufficient of the sense of Scripture, but quite reiect them as insuffi­cient to decide this controuersie. Surely hereby it is eui­dent, that the sense which Protestants attribute to the Scripture, is not euidēt, and cōsequently no point of faith, seing so manie, so learned, so wittie, so holie, so diligent searchers of Scripture in so manie ages could not finde it. For as Andrews saieth in Tortura Torti: It is monstrous, if among so manie eyes, eagles eyes, eyes dayly conuersant in Scrip­tures (I adde eyes lightened by the holie Ghost) none per­ceaued this sense grounded as they say must plainely—If it had beene most plainely grounded, I thinke some Father would haue seene through a lattise at least he would not haue denied it, and taught the contrarie: Yea it followeth that the sense in which Catholiks expound the Scripture: is manifest, seing so manie and so great Fathers haue vniformely deliuered it, nor deliuered it onely, but also condemned those who followed that sense which the Protestants embrace, as Heretiks, as shall appeare in the Chapter following. I adde also that Casaubō in his epistle to Card Perron thus writeth: The King will willingly graunt, that now it is not law­full No end of controuersies without the Fathers. for anie to condemne those things, which are euident to haue beene approued by the Fathers of the first ages by an vniforme consent for good and lawfull. Agayne: If the testimonie and weight of the primitiue Church be taken away, the King wil­lingly graunteth that amongst men the controuersies of these times will neuer haue an end. Luther also in Defens. verb. Caenae. to. 7. If this frame of the world shall continew some ages, humane means wilbe agayne set downe, after the manner of the Fathers, for to take away distinctions, and laws and decrees wilbe made for to reconcile and to keepe agreement in religion.

In forme therefore thus I make my 23. argument Who not onely gainesay the expresse words of holie Scripture in such sorte as hath beene set downe in the former [Page 740] booke, but also confesse, that in manie and gerat matters, they contrarie to the vniforme consent of holie Fathers, of the Church and Councels, yea reiect and contemne it, they are also contrarie to the true sense of holie Scripture. Protestants doe so. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER XXIV. THAT PROTESTANTS CONFESSE, that their doctrine was in ould time condemned for Heresie.

THE 24. argument for to proue that Protestants cōtradict the right sense of holie Scripture, shalbe because it is so manifest that much of their do­ctrine was in ould time condemned of the Fathers for he­resie, as themselues confesse it.

For touching the heresies of Aërius, thus writeth Bu­can. Instit. loc. 42. Did the Fathers rightly reckon the opinion Protest. con­fesse they hould the he­resies: Of Aerius. of Aërius who made no distinction betwene a Bishop and a Preist, amongst heresies? No more surely, then these other his opinions. 1. That we ought not to make praiers or offerings for the dead. 2. That dead Saints are not to be praied vnto. 3. That there ought not to be anie set dayes of fasting. Beza respons. ad Serau. c. 32. Surely Serauia, if thou doest thinke Aërius to haue beene an Heretike in those three former points, all the reformed Churches this day are Heretiks to thee, as well as they are to the Papists. Vorstius in Antibel. p. 201. Aërius was vniustly con­demned of heresie by the Fathers. Angelocrator. l. 7. de chro­nol. The opinions of Aërius a most learned man, that he reiected praier for dead and set fast, and made a Preist equall to a Bishop, were to be borne withall, vnlesse with Aërius he had impugned the Trinitie. Whitaker. Cont. 2. q. 5. cap. 7. Epiphanius indeed and Austin after him, put Aërius amongst Heretiks. But if he held nothing but these points, he was no Hereike. Cartwright Replica. 2. p. 618. If it must preuaile against me, that Aerius [Page 741] an Heretiks would make a Bishop and Priest all one, whome Epi­phanius a Catholike thought to be distinct and different by the word of God, or that Austin reckoned it amongst the heresies of of Aërius; by this way will rise a great preiudice to the trueth, wherewith we beleiue, that we ought not to pray for the dead, nor offer sacrifice for them. For Epiphanius to. 1. haer. 7. calleth this an heresie of Aërius, and of the same iudgement is Austin. haer. 51. which notwithstanding is orthodox doctrine. Gratianus Antiiesuita part. 1. pagin. 528. Surely if one take away those things which Aërius is rather feigned then proued to haue held with the Ariās about the diuinitie of Christ, there wilbe nothing which may be iustly and deseruedly reprehended in his do­ctrine. Daneus in libr. Augustini de Haeres. capit. 53. The Aërians were quickly supprest, because they were oppugned by the common consent of all Bishops. 1. Aërius taught that a Preist did not differ from a Bishop in order and degree. Which doctrine I see not why it should be condemned. 2. That praiers are not to be made for the dead, because they cānot be holpen by such suffrages of ours. Why Christians should not admit this, I see not. 3. That fasts are not be appointed vpon certaine set and solemne dayes yearely, as was the fast of lent: for that all this kind of aniuer­sarie fasts is superstitious, and not to be vsed of Christians. Which surely is true. 4. That there is no pascha among Christiās which is to be kept and celebrated. Nether ought this opinion of the Aërians to be condemned, because it is true. Wherefore we haue not noted these men among Heretiks.

Touching the heresies of Iouinian, thus writeth the Of Iouinian. same Daneus l. cit. c. 82. Iouinian did equall mariage with single life, and virginitie, for that both of thē are of thēselues indiff [...]ēt and no parte of Gods true worship, as also because &c. This why it should be erroneus, nether Hierome proueth, nor any other of the Fathers hath proued. Whitaker loc. cit. Iouiniā thought that the choice of meates and fasting was not meritorious. I answere. Is the choice of meates, meritorious? Follie. To fast for this end to me­rit eternall life, is to abuse fasting. We willingly agree with Iouiniā in this point. Iouiniā taught that mariage was equall to virginitie in dignitie and merit. So also Paul, so Christ, so we all teach. [Page 742] Indeed Hierome inuetheth against Iouinian for this cause. Hū ­fre. ad Rat. 3. Camp. We grant, it is true which Sanders saieth of the Iouinians and Protestants: That fasting or abstinence frō some certaine meats profiteth nothing.

Touching the heresies of Vigilantius thus Humfre loc. cit. Of Vigilan­tius. He taught, that the reliks of Saints are not to be worshiped. And we also. Vigilantius taught, that there was no need to light torches, or to wachat the sepulchres of Martyres. And why should not we teach the same, and much rather? He taught that Saints are not to be worshipped, nor that men ought superstitiously to runne to their monuments: We say the same. Vorstius in An­tibel. p. 162. The heresies alledged of Bellarmin, are indeed no heresies, for example, which he alledgeth out of Hierome tou­ching Iouinian and Vigilantius, and out of Epiphanius touching Aerius and some few others. Angelocrator loc. cit. Vigilan­tius, a Frenchman, but a most learned Prelat in Spaine, denieth, that Saints are to be reuerenced, and would, haue riches to be preferred before pouertie: Against him Hierome wrote. Beza in 2. part. resp. ad Acta Montisb. Hierome defending an ill cause, that is inuocation of Saints against Vigilantius &c. Luther in Postilla Exalt. Sanctae Crucis: Vigilantius wrote of this matter (worshippe of reliks) against whome Hierome earnestly op­posed himselfe; which I wish had not beene done, and if Vigilan­tius his booke were extant as Hieroms is, I beleiue Vigilantius wrote more Christianely of this matter then Hierome. Ser­ranus cont. Hayum part. 3. The discreet Reader seeth, that Hierome in that booke against Vigilantius passeth not onely the boundes of modestie, but also of trueth. Iuel in Defēs. Apol. part. 1. c. 2. sect. 3. Hierome reproueth Vigilantius that he repre­hended wakes, inuocation of Saints, worshippe of relikes, lights, and other such things. Of Origen.

As for the heresies of Origen, thus writeth Spalatensis l. 5. de Repub. c. 6. n. 44. Origen was shroudly taxed of Theo­philus, because he held that the Sacraments did not worke san­ctification by the worke (as I may so speake) wrought, but onely by the worke of the worker, and that God doth not vse materiall and insensible creatures to importe sanctification to men. But [Page 743] Theophilus whilest he doth reproue this opinion or error of Ori­gen, is all &c. And yet herein Protestants teach as Origen did, as appeareth by what hath beene related l. 1. cap. 10. artic. 7.

Finally Daneus Contr. 4. pag. 770. confesseth to agree Of Messaliās, and Nouatiās with the Messalians, that habituall concupiscence in the iust is sinne: and with Nouatians, that Christians are not to be anointed.

Thou seest Reader that Protestants plainely confesse, that they defend the condemned doctrine, of Aërius, Io­uinian, Vigilantius, Origen, Messalians, Nouatians: and that S. Austin, S. Hierome, S. Epiphanians, Fathers, Bishops with common consent of all, did cōdemne their doctrines for heresies, and them for heretiks. Whome I aduise to consider well those words of Beza written of a late He­retik epist. 81. He plainely and without dissimulation houldeth and accounteth Origen, Aërius, Heluidius &c. not for Here­tiks, but for maintainers of the trueth. These are such things, as that now it may onely seeme to be wanting to set the Diuel him­selfe in the throne of God and of trueth. And Epist. 16. What I Good counsell of Beza. admonished before, I admonish now in the Lord agayne and a­gayne, to wit, that at lest they would consider with themselues from whome and to whome are they gone. For that I may imi­tate the words of S. Austin l. 2. cont. Iulian. c. 10. Hath long time so confounded the highest with the lowest: Shall light so be termed darkenesse, and darkenesse light, that Aërius, Iouinian, Vigilantius, become to see, and Austin, Hierome, Epipha­nius be blinde.

But in some I thus argue in the 24. place: whose do­ctrine in manie and greatest points is opposite to the ex­presse words of Scripture, and besides (as themselues con­fesse) was condemned of the ancient Church and holie Fathers, for heresie, that is repugnant to the true sense of Scripture: But such is the doctrine of Protestants. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER XXV. THAT PROTESTANTS THEMSELVES sometimes confesse that diuers of their opinions be blasphemous.

THE 25. argument wherewith we will proue that Protestants contradict the true sense of the Scrip­ture, shalbe, because it is so manifest that diuers of their doctrines which in the former booke I shewed to be opposite to the expresse words of Scripture, are blas­phemous, as partely the very Authors of them, partely other learned Protestants being compelled by their con­science and the euidencie of the matter doe confesse it.

Concerning God: Protestāts teach that he willeth sinne, Blasphemie: that God willeth sinne. as hath beene seene l. 1. c. 2. art. 1. Which doctrine to be blas­phemous, thus confesseth Caluin in Resp. ad Nebulon. p. 732. Was it a doubtfull blasphemie, to make God the author of of sinne, to will sinne, to thrust to sinne? Beza de Praed. cōt. Ca­stel. vol. 1. Theol. p. 372. Out of these things none of these blas­phemies followeth, to wit, ether that God is the author of sinne, or is delighted with sinne, or also willeth sinne. Et p. 397. It cānot be saied without blasphemie, that God willeth iniustice. Ib. l. Quest. & Resp. p. 681. What then? Shall we say, that God willeth ini­quitie? God forbidde. For this is the most horrible blasphemie of all. Zanchius l. 3. de Nat. Dei c. 4. We should surely say; that God is the cause and author of sinne, if we should say that pro­perly speaking he willeth sinne, or would haue sinne to be done. Hutterus in Analysi Cōf. Aug. p. 625. The blasphemie of Sacra­mentaries is execrable; who are not ashamed to referre the most dolefull fall of our first parents and all that world of euils, which thereō insued, not in regard of the punishmēt, but of the sinne, vnto an absolute and eternall decree of God, and to his effectuall wor­king and immutable will Et p. seq. But let heauē be astonished & the elements amazed at such mostrous blasphemies, whereof no [Page 745] pious man should suffer to heare the onely outward noise without shaking, much lesse should assent vnto them in his heart. And Ioannes Andrae in Colloquio Montisb. p. 422. This asser­tion (that man fell by Gods will) is impious and horrible to heare, and so contrarie to the expresse and reuealed word of God.

They teach also that God willeth sinne euen as it is That God willeth sinne as sinne. sinne, as hath beene shewed lib. 1. cap. art. 2. But that this is blasphemous, is acknowledged by Beza l. de Praedest. p. 410. in the words: If euer we had thought to speake or write, that sinnes as sinnes proceed from the will of God, we would con­fesse, that we were worthie of all punishment. Lobechius also Disp. 21. This principle of Diuinitie is firmely to be held and to be beleiued with all our heart: that God nether willeth nor com­mandeth ill deeds as they are such, much lesse worketh or helpeth them, or by an eternall decree doth destinate or secretly driue men to commit them.

They teach also, that God worketh sinne and is the That God is cause of sinne. cause and author of it as is to be seene l. 1. c. 2. art. 4. And yet Caluin. l. de Prouident. p. 742. aliâs 736. confesseth, that it is a monstrous blasphemie, that wickednesse is done not onely by the will of God, but also he being the author thereof. And pag. 471. Thou wranglest with me, as if I had saied, that sinne is the iust worke of God, which in all my writings I euer more detest. Instruct. contr. Libertin. cap. 14. God must denie himselfe and become a Deuil, if he did worke euill, which these men doe attribute vnto him. The like he hath libr. de Praedestin. pag. 711. And in Actor. 2. ver. 23. saieth: I denie that God is the au­thor of euill, because in this word an euill affection is insinuated. Beza in Absters. Calumn. Heshus. pag. 316. calleth it blas­phemie: That God worketh the wickednesse of the wicked. And de Praedest. cont. Castel. p. 401. God forbidde, that anie of ours should haue saied or written, as thou auonchest, that God ether giue, or permit, or worke an euill will, or anie wicked or filthie desires: when as euen our thoughts doe altogether abhorre from these kinde of blasphemies. P. Mart. in locis classe 1. c. 14. If God wrought sinne, he were a sinner. Kemnice in locis part. 1. [Page 746] tit de Causa Peccati: All mens mynds and eares do so abhorre from that speach: God is the cause of sinne, that therefore the Maniches did feigne an other God. Vrsin. in Miscellan. p. 72. Thou saiest, that these are the speaches of manie of men: God doth effectually worke in the reprobate, that they sinne: With all our heart we accurse this speach and doctrine. Whitaker ad Rat. 9. Campia. That is horrible, Campian, and not to be spoaken which thou saiest; that anie should make God the Author of sinne, He deserueth that God should streigth with a thunder boult cast him into the bottomlesse pit of hell. Pareus in Colleg. Theol. 1. disput. 2. The Fathers iustly condemned that impious doctrine of the Maniches and Libertins, ascribing the cause of fall and sinne to God the Creator. And Disput. 3. God was not, nor is not the efficient cause of sinne, which heretofore was the blasphemie of the Maniches, and now is of some Libertines.

They teach that God doth predestinate and ordaine That he pre­destinated men to sinne. mē to sinne, as is related l. 1. c. 2. art. 5. Which to be blasphe­mous, confesseth Vorstius in Amica Collat. sect. 89. in the words: which doctrine (that God doth destinate men to sinne) I scarce beleiue that thy selfe wilt thinke to be voide of blasphemie if thou doest well consider it. Hutter in Anal. Con­fes. August. c. 9. The troupe of Sacramentaries, Beza, Caluin, Renecher, doth not feare to write with a most execrable and most wonderfull blasphemie, that some are fatally and absolutely de­stinated not onely to their last end, to wit, damnation, but also to the causes betwene, euen to infidelitie it selfe, by an absolute de­cree of reprobation which goeth before all causes. Episcopius apud Hom. in Specim. Contr. Belg. p. 36. Great iniustice and hypocrisie should be attributed to God, if by a secret will he did define and ordaine that those things should be done, which by his reuealed will he forbiddeth and will not haue done. Arminius ib. saieth: Bellarmin obiecteth against the opinion of our Doctors, that thereof will follow, that God is the Author of sinne, that God truely sinneth, that God alone sinneth, and that sinne is no sinne: By this complainte I see no wrong done to your doctrine, Perkins.

They teach, that God doth command sinne, as we haue [Page 747] proued l. 1. c. 2. art. 6. Which to be blasphemie confesseth That he com­mandeth sinne. Beza in Resp. ad Acta Montisbel. pag. 182. in these words: That God commandeth that which he will not, punisheth that which he commandeth, is the author of euill: surely all these things are full of horrible impietie and blasphemie. And Zan­chius in Depuls. calum. to. 7. col. 255. I haue alwaies taught, that it is blasphemie, to say, that God commandeth, men to sinne.

They teach that God doth push and tempt men to That he tēp­teth to sinne. sinne, as is to be seene l. 1. c. 2. art. 7. And yet Caluin Resp. ad Nebulon. p 732. saieth: Was it a doubtfull blasphemie: that God pusheth men to sinne? And in 1. Ioan. 3. v 8. It is proper to the Deuil, to push men to sinne. De Praedest. pag. 711. If euer I had saied, that it had beene done by the instinct of the holie Ghost, that the first man should forsake God, perhaps Pighius might iustly iusult ouer me. Beza de Praedest. vol. 1. Theol. p. 404. The name of Tentation doth not agree to God, sith it sig­nifieth nothing but inticement to euill, which God can no waies doe. In Math. 3. v. 3. Tentations which entice vs to euill, come not but from Satan. And in Respons. ad Acta Montisb. part. 2. pag. 186. Nether he, being infinitly good, could push a created good to euill. Melancthon in Schlusselb. l. 1. Theol. Caluin. artic. 8. They doe inferre, that God doth push the mynds and hearts of men to doe wickedly: this is a damned error. Et lib. de Causa peccati. to. 2. That same Cyclopicall cauillation of some is to be reiected, that therefore God sinneth not in pushing men to euill, because there is no law for God. This Cyclopicall imagi­nation is detestable. Whitaker ad Rat. 8. Camp. God did not adde new spurres to Dauid and Iudas for to sinne. God forbidde that anie Christian should so much as thinke so. Hutter in A­nal. pag. 683. It cannot be saied or thought without great wic­kednesse or impietie and blasphemie, that God is the efficient, im­pelling, inclining, cause of sinne.

They say that God imposeth necessitie or forceth men That he for­ceth to sinne. to sinne, as is shewed. lib. 1. c. 2. art. 8. which to be blas­phemie confesseth Whitaker libr. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 7. We haue alwaies reiected as blasphemous, that God doth force and [Page 748] push men to sinne, and putteth euill wills into them. Kemnice in locis part. 1. pag. 169. condemneth this proposition: God forceth to sinne. And Moulins in Arnolds flights saieth: That God doth push and necessitate to sinne, is a horrible and Diuelish doctrine.

They teach that God doth iustifie a wicked man re­maining That he iusti­fieth the wic­ked. wicked, as appeareth l. 1. cap. 2. artic. Which to be blasphemous, is acknowledged by Tilenus in Syntagm. c. 41. in these words: We denie not that he is made and is iust, whome God pronounceth iust: which surely the iust iudgement of the most iust iudge doth require, whose iudgement is according to trueth.

They say that God doth not care for good works, as That he ca­reth not for good workes. we haue shewed l. 1. cap. 2. art. 13. of which doctrine thus speaketh Melancthon Resp. ad art. 24. Bauar. What a hor­rible and barbarous speach is this? And Kemnice in loc. part. 2. tit. de bonis oper. termeth it a fanaticall paradox.

They say that God hath no will to saue all, nor calleth That he hath no will to saue all. all to him, as is to be seene l. 1. cap. 2. art. 19. And neuer the lesse liber Cōcordiae c. 11. pronoūceth that these doctrines are false, horrible, and blasphemous: That God hath no will that all men should doe pennance and beleiue the Ghospell: That when God calleth vs to him, he hath no will in earnest that all men should come to him: That God will not that all should be saued, but that some, not for their sinnes, but onely for the de­cree, purpose and will of God are destinated to damnation, so as by no means they can obtaine saluation. The same opinions Herbrand. in Compend. Theol. loc. de Elect. condemneth as blasphemous. And Gerlachius to. 2. disput. 16. saieth: Impious, blasphemous, and pernitious to mens saluation are the doctrines that follow: That God willeth not that euerie men be saued: That it is false, that God hath made all mankinde for no other end then for saluation: That God doth not call men to sal­uation. Grauer in absurdis Caluin. c. 5. sect. 31. This opinion of Caluinists, that God hath no will that all men be saued, is extre­mely impious and blasphemous. In like manner Iames Andrew in Colloq. Montisb. p. 421. & 422.

They teach that God of himselfe willeth the death That he wil­leth death & damnation. and damnation of men, as appeareth. l. 1. cap. 2. art. 22. And yet Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theol. loco. 17. con­demneth as blasphemous these opinions: That God hath destinated the greatest number of men to eternall damnation for the mere pleasure of his will: That he neuer loued those whome he hath destinated to damnation: That our first fathers fell by Gods decree, will, and ordinance: That Christ died for the Elect onely: That the merit of his passion pertaineth to the Elect onely: That the promises of the Ghospell are not vniuersall: That God doth not in earnest call thereprobates by the Ghospell: That the repro­bate cannot be cōuerted: That the elect falling into sinne, retaine grace. Gerlachius also Disp. 16. cit. saieth that these are blas­phemous positions: The reprobate are reprobated without any de­sert of theirs: That God sometime doth by his word signifie that he willeth that which he willeth not; and that he will not that which indeed he will: That the Ghospell is promulgated to some that they may be indurated. Homius disp. 60. writeth thus: If any should teach, that God hath decreed by his absolute will without any res­pect of sinne, to dāne men and to punish thē with euerlasting tor­ments, he doubtlesse should blasphemously attribute manifest in­iustice to God. And Remonstrantes in Collat. Hagae after they had recited this opinion of the Cōtrare monstrantes: That God doth reprobate some for his pleasure and not for their sinne; so that he would not giue them faith or Christ, that he might surely bring thē to their end by infidelitie as by the fruite of this reprobation: they adde p. 128. We obiect, that this doctrine is of it selfe so absurd and horrible, that to proue and re­fute the horror thereof, in a manner sufficieth to point at it.

They teach also that God doth not dāne mē for sinne, as That [...]e dam­neth not for sinne. is shewed l. 1. c. 2. art. 23. And yet Vrsin. in Miscel p. 87. gi­ueth this censure hereof: This wicked and absurde doctrine, wherewith he concludeth an other no lesse false and absurd: That as manie wicked as haue perished, doe perish, or shall perish, haue not perished, doe not perish or shall perish for their sinnes, but for incredultie onely. Et Beza resp ad Acta Monti [...]. part. 2. p. 215. saieth, that it is an intolerable speach that men are not damned for sinne.

Finally they teach that God by his omnipotencie can­not make that Christs bodie should be at once in diuers places, as is shewed l. 1. c. 2. art. 23. And yet liber Concor­diae c. 5. saieth that it is horrible to say and heare, that God not with all his omnipotent power can make that Christs bodie at the same can be substantially present in more then one place. Thus much of their confessed blasphemies against God.

Touching Christ, they teach that his humanitie is not Touching Christ. to be worshipped or praied vnto l. 1. c. 3. art. 3. Which to be blasphemous thus teacheth Hutter in Anal. Confes. Aug. Blasphemie: that Christs humanitie is not to be worshipped. art. 3. Away with that impious speach of Daneus blasphemously saying, that Christs humane nature albeit personally vnited to the diuinitie, is not capable of whorshippe or religious hope. Ger­lachius tom. 2. disput. 5. Now all the faithfull see the execrable impietie of the Caluinists, who wickedly blaspheme that Christ as man is not to be worshipped or praied vnto. Reineccius tom. 2. Armat. c. 37. saieth that the impietie of Daneus who de­nieth that Christs humanitie is religiously to be worship­ped is to be refuted, not by words, but by thunderbolts, yea with the fire of hell.

They teach that the humanitie of Christ, or Christ as That Christ as man can­not giue life, &c. man, hath no power to giue life to forgiue sinnes, to worke miracles, as we related l. 1. cap. 3. art. 4. Which to be blasphemous thus confesseth Hutter in Anal. cit. art. 3. For not (as the Sacramētaries do wickedly auouch) the of power mira­cles is to be attributed onely to the diuinitie of Christ, but to his whole person, and therefore to both natures together. Gerla­chius to 2. disp. 4. By these now may appeare the impietie of the Caluinists, for they take from Christ power to giue life. Mus­culus in Hospin. part. 2. Hist. f. 323. There is none but a plaine wicked Atheist, who can denie, that to forgiue sinnes is imparted to the finit humanitie of Christ.

They teach, that Christ was ouerwhelmed with des­peration, That he des­paired. as is to be seene lib. 1. c. 3. art. 11. Which Zuinglius, in Histor. passionis to. 4. cōfesseth to be blasphemie saying. Away with their doctrine out of the Church of Christ, who af­firme that Christ on the Crosse despaired. And Tilenus in Syn­tagm. [Page 751] cap. 65. They are extremely infidels who despaire of their saluation.

They teach also that Christ died for the elect onely, as That he died but for the elect. hath beene shewed l. 1. c. 3. art. 18. Which Lobechius disp. 6. confesseth to be blasphemous in these words: The Cal­uinists affirme, that Christ died for the elect onely and not for all men. By which blasphemie they not onely depriue Christ of a great parte of his honor, and the Church of comfort, but also cō ­tradict the holie Ghost to his face. The like hath Adamus Francisci. loco 17. and Gerlachius disput. 16. And Grauerus in Absurdis Caluin. c. 5. sect. 58. saieth that it is an absurd and blasphemous Caluinisticall doctrine. Iames Andreae in Beza resp. ad acta Montisb. p. 212. saieth. It is a horrible doctrine of Beza, that Christ died not for the sinnes of the whole world.

Finally they teach, that the blood of Christ wherewith That his blood is corrupted. he redeemed vs, is corrupted, and now no more in being: as appeareth l. 1. c. 3. art. 20. of which doctrine thus pro­nounceth Schlusselburg. lib. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 2. This is a horrible blasphemie, dishonorable to the blood of the Sonne of God with which we were redeemed.

Touching the Scripture, they teach that it can be vn­derstood Touching Scripture. without the holie Ghost: as is proued l. 1. c. 5. art. 2. Which doctrine thus condemneth Casaubon. Exercit. 16. cont. Baron. sect. 215. Baronius addeth, that the Scriptures cannot be vnderstood without the helpe of God, and this he con­firmeth with some testimonies of the Fathers, as if there were anie Christian who denieth this or calleth it in doubt.

Concerning the Church they teach that she doth not Touching the Church. perpetually continew, as is proued l. 1. cap. 8. art. 4. Which Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 3. c. 2. confesseth to be basphemous in these words: Who denieth or doubteth that the Church is founded for euer and is to continew for euer, he is no Christian.

Concerning Baptisme: they teach that when water Touching Baptisme. wanteth it may be ministred in anie other liquor, as is to be seene l. 1. cap. 10. art. 1. Which as blasphemous thus con­demneth Hutter in Anal. Confess. p. 466. Beza is blasphe­mous, who affirmeth that he doth not against the will and plea­sure [Page 752] of Christ, who ether in administring baptisme, vseth milke or anie other liquor whatsoeuer, or in these countries where there is no vse of wine, or if be nature he abhorre wine, doth in the Lords supper vse anie other kinde of drinke. Et p. 490. The licēce which Beza of his owne head taketh, was sacrilegious, saying: If there want water, and yet the baptisme of some cannot be differred with edification nor ought not, surely I would as well baptize with anie other liquor as with water. The like iudgement hereof giueth Grauer in Absurdis Caluin. c. 4. sec. 6.

They teach that Baptisme doth not giue grace, and that the childrē of the faithfull are in the grace of God before they be baptized, l. 1. c. 10. art. 79. Which doctrine thus cen­sureth Hutter in Anal cit. art. 13. It is the madnesse of the Sa­cramentarians, who will haue that the grace of regeneratiō is not giuen by the vse of Sacramēts but that the children of the faith­full and elect haue it before. The like saieth. Grau. l cit. sect. 10.

Touching the holie Eucharist: they say that it is not the Touching the Eucharist. bodie and blood of Christ. lib. 1. c. 11. art. 1. Which to be blas­phemie thus iudgeth Hutter in Anal. cit. pag. 536. It is ex­treme impudencie, desperate bouldnesse, horrible blaspemie, to oppose a contradictorte proposition to the words of Christs in­stitution. For Christ saieth: This which I giue you to eate, is my bodie. The Sacramentaries denie it, and say: That which thou giuest vs to eate, is not thy bodie. The like hath Musculus art. cit.

They teach that Christ is not in the Supper. l. 1. c. 11. art. 1. And neuerthelesse thus writeth. Beza in Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 301. Manie thinke, that we would exclude Christ from the Supper, which is plainely impious. We are so farre from saying, that Christ Iesus is absent from the Supper, that aboue all men we most repugne this blasphemie.

Concerning faith they teach that it is not simply ne­cessarie to saluation. l. 1. c. 13. art. 15. Which is blasphemous Touching Faith. in the iudgement of Luther in Genes. 47. tom. 6. Zuinglius (saieth he) wrote of late that Numa Pompilius, Hercules, Sci­pio, Hector, do enioy euerlasting happines in heauen with Peter and other Saints. Which is nothing els then plainely to confesse [Page 753] that they thinke there is no faith no Christianitie. The like saieth Beza l. de puniend. Haeret.

Touching good works they denie that it is necessarie Touching good workes. they should be present when we are iustified. l. 1. c. 14 art. 12. Of which doctrine thus pronounce the Electorall Mi­nisters in Colloq. Aldel. p. 343. It is horrible dishonor to God and a barbarous doctrine, to professe, that in the very instant and act of iustification, not onely merit, but also necessitie of the presence of good works is excluded.

They say that all the good works of iust men are sinnes and mere iniquities lib. 1. cap. 14. art. 2. Of which doctrine Zuinglius giue [...]h this verdict in Exposit. Fidei. to. 2. Some of ours haue saied paradox like, that euerie worke of ours is ab­homination.

They say also that we may not doe good for reward. l. 1. c. 14. art. 19. Of which doctrine Remonstrantes in Collat. Hagae. p. 95 giue this censure: Who denie that the faithfull may doe good workes in regard of reward due to good works, he peruerteth and denieth the nature of faith, of Gods law, of eter­nall life and death.

Touching sinne: they teach that in the faithfull it doth Touching sinne. not expell grace. l. 1. c. 16. art. 6. Of which Hutter thus wri­teth: They plainely make the Apostle a liar, who with open mouth pronounceth that euerie fornicator, vncleane, and coue­tous man is excluded out of the kingdome of heauen: and also Christ our Sauiour, who pronounceth this sentence against those that denie him: whosoeuer shall denie me &c.

They teach that men shall not be damned for their sin­full works, but onely for incredulitie. l 1. c. 16. art. 10. And yet Beza in 2. part. Resp. ad Acta Montisb. pag. 218. after he had recited these positions of Iames Andrews: Onely in­credulitie damneth men: Men are not damned, because they haue sinned: addeth: Durst euer man before this so impudently bring into Gods Church, so false, so monstrous, so abhominable do­ctrine? Et p. 215. Surely your speach seemed into lerable to vs: that men are not damned for sinne. The like hath Vrsin. in Mis­cellan. p. 84.

Touching Iustification: they teach that a iustified man Touching Iu­sication. cannot leese grace by any sinne that he committeth: lib. 1. c. 17. art. 12. Which doctrine is thus censured by Wittem­bergenses in Schlusselb. lib. 1. Theol. art. 7. It is a great mad­nesse of the Anabaptistes and other frantike men, who say that the iustified cannot fall, or at least not leese the holie Ghost, and become againe guiltie of Gods wrath, albeit they breake Gods commandments against their conscience. Hutter in Anal. cit. p. 562. It is a blasphemous speach of Zanchius, saying that for­giuenesse of sinnes once obtained is not made voyde by sinnes fol­owing, and that the holie Ghost once giuen to the iustified remai­neth with him for euer: And of Beza writing that Peter de­nying Christ, and Dauid falling into adulterie, did not leese the holie Gost. Adamus Francisci. loc. 6. The Caluinists with a hor­rible madnesse imagin that the regenerate cānot fall into mortall sinne, and that if they fall, notwithstanding they retaine Gods grace, the holie Ghost, and faith. Et Confess. August. c. 11. con­demneth the Anabaptistes: who denie that they who are once iustified can againe leese the holie Ghost.

They teach that a Sinner doth not cooperate to his conuersesion, but that he is iustified doing nothing as a logge, or els rebelling. lib. 1. c. 17. art. 15. Which doctrine thus the Wittembergians condemne in Schlusselb. to. 5. Catal. Haer. With all our hearts we abhor from that doctrine dishono­rable to God and full of Blasphemies against the Sonne of God: A man is conuerted not onely as a logge, but also resisting, and we say that by such speach not onely securitie, and profane contempt of God, but also horrible sinnes of men are bolstered.

Of free will, they teach that man hath no freedome in good or euill deeds. l. 1. c. 21. art. 2. Which doctrine Melan­cthon lib. de Causa Peccati to. 2. thus condemneth: We doe not applaude the madnesse of the Stoickes or Maniches, who are dishonorable to God and pernitious to mans life, feigning that men do necessarily commit sinne.

Finally Iames Andrews in Colloq. Montisb. condem­ned manie doctrines of Beza as blasphemous, as pag. 381. That the elect though they sinne grieuously doe retaine [Page 745] the holie Ghost. pag. 393. That onely the elect infants are adopted in baptisme. p. 447. That Christ died not for the sinnes of the whole world. p. 422. That God will haue some to perish. Et p. 423. That God will not haue mercie on some, and that he created some to this end to shew his wrath in them. Vorstius also in Parasceue oftentimes condemneth Piscators doctrine of blaphemie: And scarce is there anie Protestant that writeth against an other who doth not accuse him of blasphemie.

Wherefore let this be my 25. argument. Whose sundrie doctrines are not onely so opposite to the expresse words of Scripture as hath beene shewed in the first booke, but also so blasphemous as sometimes the very Authors of them, partely other learned Protestants their brethren do confesse it, they are opposite to the true meaning of holie Scripture But manie doctrines of the Protestants are such. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER XXVI. THAT PROTESTANTS DOE FRVS­strate and make voide the ends of the coming and passion of Christ.

MY 26. argument, wherewith I will proue that Protestāts cōtradict the true sense of holie Scrip­ture shalbe, because manie of their positions doe frustrate and make voide the coming and passion of Christ.

For one end of the coming and passion of Christ was Protest. say Christ tooke, not away sinne. to take away and exhaust our sinnes: 1. Ioan. 3. v. 5. And you know, that he appeared to take away our sinnes. Hebr. 9. v. 28. Christ was offered once to exhaust the sinnes of manie. But Pro­testants (as we shewed l. 1. c. 17. art. 5.) say, that Christ did not take away or exhaust our sinnes but leaueth thē in vs.

An other end of his coming and passion was to destroie [Page 756] and dissolue sinne Hebr. 6. v. 6. this, that our ould man is Nor destroied sinne. crucified with him, that the bodie of sinne may be destroied And cap. 9. ver. 26. But now once in the consummation of the worlds, to the destruction of sinnes, he hath appeared by his owne hoste. And 1. Ioan. 3. vers. 8. For this appeared the Sonne of God, that he might dissolue the works of the Diuel. But Pro­testants say that sinne is not destroied in the regenerate, but that it abideth and liueth in them, as is to be seene l. 1. c. 17. art. 5.

A third end was to cleanse vs from sinne. Tit. 2. v. 14. Nor cleansed sinne. Who gaue himselfe for vs, that he might redeeme vs from all iniquities and might cleanse to himselfe a people acceptable. Et 1. Ioan. 1. v. 7. And the blood of Iesus Christ his Sonne cleanseth vs from all sinne. But Protestants say that the regenerate are not cleansed from sinne, but remaine vncleane, im­pure, filthie, as is to be seene l. 1. c. 17. art 4.

A fourth end was that we might be truely sanctified, Nor truely sanctified vs. and become holie and immaculate in the sight of God. Ioan. 17. v. 19. And for them I do sanctifie my selfe, that they also may be sanctified in trueth. Ephes. 1. v. 4. As he chose vs in him before the constitution of the world that we should be holie and immaculate in his sight in charitie. But Protestants denie that we are truely sanctified, or holie and immaculate in the sight of God. See li. 1. c. 17. art. 3.

A fift end was that we should follow or doe good Nor made vs to follow good workes. works Tit. 2. v. 14. That he might cleanse to himselfe a people acceptable, a pursuer of good works. But Protestants denie that our workes are truely good, and say that they are mere sinnes. See l. 1. c. 14. art. 2.

A sixt end was that we should liue iustly and piously in Nor mad vs liue in holi­nesse before God. holinesse and iustice before God Luc. 1. v. 74. That without feare being deliuered from the hand of our enemies we may serue him in holinesse and iustice before him all our dayes. Tit. 2. v. 12. For the grace of God our Sauiour hath appeared to all men, in­structing vs that denying impietie and wordly desires, we liue soberly and iustly and godly in this world. But Protestants denie that the workes or liues of the iust are pious, holie, [Page 757] or iust before God. See lib. 1. cap. 14. art. 5. A seuenth end of Nor made vs to fulfill the law. Christs coming was, that the iustification of the law might be fulfilled in vs. Rom. 8. v. 3. God sending his Sonne in the similitude of the flesh of sinne, euen of sinne damned sinne in the flesh, that the iustification of the law might be fulfilled in vs. But Protestants say that the law cannot be fulfilled in vs, but onely in Christ. See lib. 1. c. 19. art. 1.

An eight end was to preach a day of retribution Luc. 4. v. 19. To Euangelize vnto the pore he sent me to preach the acceptable yeare of our Lord and the day of retribution. But Pro­testants denie that there is anie day of reward or retribu­tion, but onely of mere bountie and liberalitie. See l. 1. c 18 art. 1. To these I adde, that thus writeth Perkins in Gal. 1. v. 3. It is the fault of our age; that all professe Christ, yet manie admit not Christ but their owne deuises, to wit, a Christ who must be a Sauiour to deliuer them from hell, but not a Lord to giue them commandements, this they cannot suffer. But Pro­testants as we shewed l. 1. c. art. 7. denie Christ to be a law­giuer or Lord to giue commandements, according to Per­kins admit not Christ, but their owne deuises.

Wherefore thus I make my 26. argument. Whose do­ctrine Nor preached reward. not onely in so manie and so great points is against the expresse words of God and in their vsuall sense, but also doth make voide and frustrate so manie ends of the coming and passion of Christ; it doth contradict the true sense of Scripture. Such is the Protestants doctrine. There­fore. &c.

CHAPTER XXVII. THAT PROTESTANTS TAKE AWAY encouragements to vertue, yea all vertue: and in steed of them put allurements to vice and remoue the impediments thereof.

MY 27. argument, that Protestants contradict the true meaning of holie Scripture shalbe, because they take away the encouragements to vertue, yea all vertue out of the world, and in place of them put allurements to vice and remoue the impediments thereof.

They take away encouragements to vertue: because as Protest. take away encou­ragements to vertue. we shewed l. 1. c. 2. art. 13. they teach, that God careth not for good workes. art. 14. that he is not honored with thē. art. 16. that he is not appeased with them: And c. 14. Art. 6. that there is no dignitie or worth in them. Art. 7. that there is no reward promised to them. Art. 10. that all good workes are equall before God. Art. 12. and 13. that they are not necessarie to iustification or saluation. Art. 15. that they are not cause of saluation. Art. 16. Not so much as a testi­monie of iustification or saluation. Art. 18. that we ought not to doe them. Cap. 17. artic. 15. That a sinner doth not cooperate to his iustification. Cap. 18. art. 1. That saluation is no reward or retribution. Art. 2. No crowne of iustice. Art. 3. That it is of faith onely. And cap. 21. art. 1. That our will is not free in morall works. Art. 3. That it doth not cooperate with the grace of God to good works. But who can denie, but that Gods fauour towards good works, their worth and reward, their efficacie and ne­cessitie to iustification and saluation, mans freedome and cooperation to acts of vertue and saluatiō, be great spurres and encouragements to vertue. Which notwithstanding all, and others such like, Protestants take away.

They take also away all vertue. For first they denie to fulfill the law. diuers particular vertues, as faith, the roote of all vertue, which they say is vitious and vnworthie the name of vertue l. 1. c. 13. art. 12. They take away the highest degree of Chastitie, to wit, virginitie, c. 15. art. 2. and the perfectest part of Temperancie, to wit, Fasting, ib. art. 5. and all choice of meates artic. 7. They takeaway also praier for all men art. 8. Vows art. 14. and Eremiticall life. art. 15. Besides, they takeaway all inherent iustice. c. 17. art. 8. and denie, that the iustified are truely iust. art. 3. or cleane art. 4. but retaine sinne in them art. 5. Finally they take away all vertue. For they teach, that all the good works of sinners or of good men are sinnes, yea mere sinnes c. 14. art. 1. and 2. that they are filth, dūgge, and stinke in the face of God art. 3. But if all If all good workes be sinne there can be no vertue. good works be sinnes, and mere sinnes, surely there is no vertue at all. For (as Whitaker saieth. l. 2. de Pec. orig. c. 14.) Tell vs, how sinnes can be good workes. Which is much more true, if they be mere sinnes.

They set also allurements to sinne. For as is shewed l. Protest. set allurements to sinne. 1. c. 2. art. 1. they teach, that God willeth sinne. art. 2. That sinne pleaseth God. art. 4. That God worketh sinne. art. 5. That God predestinateth to sinne. artic. 6. That he com­mandeth to sinne. art. 7. That he tempeth to sinne. art. 8. That he necessitateth to sinne. art. 10. That he iustifieth the wicked remaining wicked. artic. 17. That he will not haue his commandements kept. And cap. 3. artic. 11. That Christ was truely a sinner. c 4. art. 1. That the Angels in heauen do sinne. c. 13. art. 17. That faith being alone doth iustifie. art. 23. That it can neuer be lost. c. 16. artic. 4. That sinne must not be ouercomen of vs. art. 13. That the Elect doe not sinne. art. 16. That all vsurie is not sinne. Et c. 19. art. 1. That the law of God is not possible. art. 2. That neuer anie kept it. art. 3. That none euer loued God with all his heart. But what man in his witts can denie, that these Po­sitions: Sinne pleaseth God: God willeth, doeth, commandeth sinne: He predestinateth, necessitateth, tempteth to sinne: He will not haue his commandements kept: Christ and the Angels [Page 760] in heauen doe sinne: The wicked is iustified remayning wicked, faith being alone doth iustifie, it can neuer be lost, sinne must not be ouercomen of the faithfull, they themselues neuer sinne, and such like be great enticements to sinne?

They take away also the obstacles or impediments They remoue impediments of sinne. of sinne, in teaching (as we haue shewed l. 1. c. 2. art. 3.) That God hateth not sinne. art. 9. That God hateth not the faithfull when they worke wickednesse. art. 11. That he is not angrie with the faithfull whilest they sinne. art. 12. That he neuer punisheth for anie sinne committed. art. 23. That he damneth not men for sinne. And c. 3. art. 7. That Christ gaue no laws. art. 8. That he is no iudge. c. 5. art. 6. That the Ghospell promiseth saluation without anie condition of workes. art. 5. That it doth not reproue sinne. c. 10. art. 8. That in baptisme al sinnes, past, present, and to come, are forgiuen. c. 16. art. 1. That sinnes are not imputed to the faithfull art. 2. That they are not mortall to them. art. 5. That seruing the flesh we may serue God. art. 6. That no sinnes cast of grace. art. 7. That sinnes can stand with grace. artic. 9. That to abstaine from sinnes, is not neces­sarie to saluation. artic. 10. That sinne is not the cause of damnation. artic. 11. That we must not giue account of sinnes. cap. 17. artic. 12. That iustification is neuer lost. artic. 13. That the iustified need not feare to fall. artic. 16. That he is to suffer no punishment at all. c. 18. art. 4. That the faithfull are not to be iudged. art. 4. That Hell is no place art. 7. That hell fire is no true fire. And cap. 19. art. 7. That the law is abrogated from the faithfull But it is most euident, that taking away Gods wrath, hatred, and pu­nishment of sinnes and sinners, taking away Christs law­giuing and iudgement: taking from men all feare of iud­gement damnation, wrath, and hatred of God, and of losse of iustice and saluation: and putting securitie that men euen committing heynous sinnes, are certaine of Gods loue, of grace, and eternall saluation, and free from all punishment whatsoeuer, all impediments of sinne on Gods parte are taken away, and if anie beleiuing this [Page 761] doctrine, do forbeare sinne, it proceedeth not but from a naturall engrafted horror of sinne, or els from feare or or shame of men.

Yea so euident it is, that diuers positions of Prote­stants Protest. con­fesse, that some of their opinions al­lure to sinne. are allurements to sinne, as some Protestants confesse it. For thus write the Wittembergians cited be­fore cap. 25. That to denie a man to cooperate to his conuersion, doth settle horrible wickednesse. Which yet Protestants denie lib. 1. cap. 17. artic. 15. Remonstrantes apud Hom. in Specim. Cont. Belg. pag. 126. say: The doctrine of their perseuerance in faith who haue once beleiued, is of it nature and condition suffi­ciet to engender a securitie in men, for to serue them as a cushion in midst of their sinnes. Againe: Of it selfe it is hurtfull to true pietie and good manners. And yet Protestants teach thus, libr. 1. cap. 13. art. 23. Schlusselburg. tom. 7. Catal. wri­teth thus: To pardon sinnes to come, which one doth studie to commit, is surely to graunt an Epicurean licence to sinne: And yet this is Protestants doctrine l. 1. cap. 10. art. 8. Melan­cthon in Cocleus in art. 6. Confess. August. thus speaketh: Now it is vsuall to speake of faith, and faith cannot be vnder­stood, vnlesse pennance be preached: Surely they poure new wine into ould vessels, who preach faith without pennance, with­out doctrine of the feare of God, without the doctrine of the law, accustome the people to a carnall kind of securitie. That securitie is worse, then all the errors vnder Poperie were. And yet Protestants say, that the Ghospell doth not reproue sinne, doth not preach pennance, promiseth sal­uation vpon condition of faith onely, as is shewed l. 1. c. 5. art. 5. 6. Hutter in Anal. Cōfess August. p. 571. writeth that: The error of the Anabaptists, who denie that men once iustified can leese the holie Ghost, doth giue full licence to commit all kind of villanie vnder the absolute perseuerance of those that are once iustified. And yet this is the doctrine of Protestants l. 1. c. 17. art. 12. other Protestants in Zanchius de Perseuer. to. 7. col. 159. say: that the opinion which teacheth, that the faith­full cannot fall from grace, taketh away pennance, looseth the reines to concupiscence, maketh a man secure that he [Page 762] dare sinne euen against his conscience. And Liber Concord. Luther. c. de bonis oper. That false and Epicurean opinion is sharpely to be reproued, wherewith some feigne that faith and grace once receaued or saluation cannot be lost by anie sinne or wickednesse whatsoeuer, albeit it be most freely committed. Also other Protestants as Gualterus Praefat. Epist. Rom. repor­teth, when they thinke seriously of pietie, doe feare, that we de­uise to easie a way to saluation, and least this doctrine breed a licēce to sinne, and opē, a gappe for men to dare to doe any thing. Moreouer diuers of them confesse, that men take occa­sion to sinne by their doctrine, as Luther tom. 5. in Gal. 6. Iames Andrews Conc. 4. in Luc. 21. Perkins de Serm. Dom. to. 2. and in Gal. 5. ver. 13. and others in Erasmus in Epist. ad Fratres. Finally Luther in Postilla domest. Dom. 1. Ad­uentus saieth. Oh sorrow: The world dayly becometh worse by The world worse by Lu­thers doctrine this doctrine: and Castalio in Caluin de Prouident. These are the things (Caluin) which thy aduersaries reporte of thy doctrine, and warne men to iudge of this doctrine by the fruits thereof. For they say that thou and thy disciples carrie manie fruits of thy God, that most of you are contentious, reuengefull, myndfull of wrong; and endowed with such vices as thy God doth suggest.

Where thus I argue in the 27. place. Whose doctrine is not onely so opposite to the expresse words of Scripture as was seene in the first booke, but also taketh away en­couragements to vertue, yea all vertue out of the world, and remoueth impediments of sinne, and giueth allure­ments theertoe; that is opposite to the true sense of holie Scripture. But such is the doctrine of Protestants. There­fore &c.

CHAPTER XXVIII. THAT PROTESTANTS HAVE NO infallible interpretation of Scripture.

THE 28. Argument to proue that Protestants must needs contradict the true sense of holie Scripture, is because they haue no sure and infallible means to attaine to the true meaning thereof. But before we proue that they haue no infallible mean to come to the right sense of Scripture, we must proue that Scripture (at lest in some points of faith) needeth some means to in­terpret or expound it, to wit, ether because no where it de­liuereth some points of faith so clearely, that the onely words thereof sufffice to captiuate the vnderstanding: or because, though some where it deliuer clearly enough some points of faith, yet other where it seemeth so to teach the contrarie, as without some infallible inter­preter it would seeme vncertaine whether of the twoe it did teach.

That therefore Scripture doth not of it selfe teach That Scrip­ture needeth an Interpre­ter. clearely all points of faith, so as it need no interpreter for that purpose, I proue first out of the Scripture it selfe. For the holie Eunuch did read the Scripture speaking of the passion of Christ Actor. 8. and yet being asked of Philip whether he vnderstood what he read, answered: And how can I, if none shall shew me. You see, that the Scripture did not clearely foretell the passion of Christ, as that a pious man by the onely words thereof without an inter­preter could vnderstand the meaning thereof. And Luk. vlt. v. 27. And beginning from Moyses and all the Prophets, he did interprete vnto them in all the Scriptures the things that were concerning him. Et v. 45. Then he opened their vnderstan­ding, that they might vnderstand the Scriptures. But if Christs disciples did not vnderstand the Scriptures which spoake [Page 764] of him, and the Apostles had need that Christ should open their vnderstanding for to vnderstād the Scriptures, it is euident that the Scriptures by themselues doe not so plainely teach all matters of faith, as they need no inter­pretation for to be rightly vnderstood of the faithfull. Be­sides 2. Pet. vlt. it is saied, that in S. Pauls epistles there are some things hard to be vnderstood. And that these hard things do containe points of faith, is cleare; both because with­out cause they should be limited to other things, as also because it is added, that the learned and vnstable doe de­praue these hard things to their owne destruction: but such things are especially matters of faith. Moreouer, if the Scripture did so clearely teach all points of faith, that for them it needed no interpreter, it would follow, that the guift of interpretation had beene superfluously giuen to the Church for to expound Scripture in matters belon­ging to faith.

Secondly I proue this out of the Fathers: but for bre­uities sake I will content my selfe with one testimonie of S. Austin: He lib. de Vtil. cred c 7. to one that saied: When I read the Scriptures, by my selfe I vnderstood them: thus ans­wereth: Is it so? Without some skill in poetrie thou darest not read Terentian Maurus. Asper, Cornutus, Donatus, and manie more are necessarie for to vnderstand anie Poet, and thou fallest vpon those bookes without a guide, and darest giue thy opinion of them without a teacher. Loe how plainely he saieth, that we can not vnderstand the Scriptures by our selues, and by how familiar an example he proueth it.

Thirdly I proue it by the verie cōfession of Protestāts. For Protest. con­fesse that Scripture alone suffi­ceth not. thus writeth Whitaker Cōt. 1. q. 4. c. 1. When Bellarmin ma­keth this to be the state of the questiō; Whether the the Scripture by it selfe be so cleare, as without anie interpretatiō it sufficeth of it selfe to determine and decide all controuersies of faith, he figh­teth without an aduersarie, for surely in this point we are not against him. Agayne: They say, that we thinke (but falsely) that all things in Scripture, are plaine, and that they without anie interpretation are sufficient to determine all controuersies. without [Page 765] Behould how plainely he denieth, that Protestants think, that Scripture of it selfe without anie interpretatiō is suffi­ciēt to end all controuersies of faith. And the like hath Iu­nius l. 3. de verb. Dei c. 3. When he graunteth, that Scripture needeth an interpreter. Kemnice 1. part. Exa. p. 104. It hath need of the guift and helpe of interpretatiō. And the Magdeburgiās Cēt. 1. l. 2. c. 4. The Apostles thought, that the Scripture cānot be vnderstood without the holie Ghost and an interpreter: and the same meā all other Protestāts, who admit that the Scripture is obscure, or that the guift of interpretatiō is needfull for the expositiō thereof. For doubtles they meane that, as well of such places of Scripture wherein points of faith are deli­uered, as of others: & this Caluin 4. Inst. c 17. §. 25. clearely enough insinuateth, where, whē Catholiks obiected, that they had the word of God wherein he affirmeth that the Eucharist is his bodie, he answereth: Indeed, if they may ba­nish the guift of Interpretatiō out of the Church. Wherefore he thinketh, that there is in the Church the guift of Interpre­tation euen for to expound Scriptures touching points of faith, such as the Eucharist is. Furthermore Plessie. l. 3. de Eccl. c. 3. writeth, that the cōtrouersie of Schisme cānot be properly decided by the Scripture, because it is rather a question of fact, then doctrine. If therefore Scripture by it selfe can determine nether the questiō of Schisme, nor yet all controuersies of faith, it is manifest, that the interpreta­tion of some is necessarie, and that also infallible, because fallible interpretatiō is not sufficiēt to put vs out of doubt. And surely Protestants must needs teach, that Scripture by it selfe alone, is not sufficient to decide all controuersies of faith, both because els it had decided all controuersies amongst themselues, or betwene anie that are not obsti­nate; as also because scarce in anie controuersies that are betwixt vs and them, Scripture doth so much as in shew directly and immediatly giue sentence for them, but they haue need to conferre places, and adioyne thereto some humane principle, and make an argument, for to draw in what manner soeuer their doctrine out of Scrip­ture: [Page 766] which conference of places, adiunction of a hu­mane principle, and discourse, seing it is not made by the Scripture, but by Protestants by their guift of Interpreta­tation, they must needs graunt, that the Scripture hath need of Interpretation for to determine all the controuer­sies that are betwixt vs and them. And for this cause, al­beit Whē Protest. will haue ex­presse Scrip­ture, when consequence thereof. when they put vs to the proofe, they vse to crie, No­thing is to be beleiued which is not expressely in Scripture; yet when they are to proue, they will haue it suffice, that it may be gathered out of Scripture by good cōsequence. For so say the Lutherans in Colloq. Ratisbon. Sess 3. & 13. Kemnice in 1. part. Exam. p. 320. Beza in Resp. ad Acta Mō ­tisb. part. 2 p. 46. & l. de Notis Eccles. Daneus Cont. 1. p. 86. Pareus l. 1. de Iustif. c. 16. Piscator de Iustif. l. 1. c. 5. Riuet. in Contr. tract. 1. sect. 18. and others commonly. And seing this Inference by good consequence is not made by the Scripture, but by themselues, by their Interpretation, they must needs say, that besides the Scripture there is neces­sarie some Interpreter for to know all points of faith.

Now that Protestants haue no infallible interpretation of Scripture, is manifest: First, because they confesse, that Protest. haue no infallible interpreter. that they haue no infallible Interpreter of Scripture. Pa­reus in Colleg. Theol 2. disp. 1. The word of God cannot abide anie infallible Interpreter besides God himselfe who inspired the Scripture. Secondly, because they denie that the whole Senate of Fathers, the Catholik Church or generall Councels haue the guift of infallible interpretation in all points of faith, and therefore ridiculously should they arrogate this guift to themselues. And seing they teach, that all Pastors, together, and all the true Church (whichsoeuer it is) may erre in matters of faith, they can­not chalenge to their Pastors this infallible guift. Thirdly, for if they doe infallibly interprete the Scripture in all points of faith, ether they doe it by means, or without means. Not without means: for such interpretation were Propheticall by immediate reuelation from God, or rather Enthusiasticall by illusion from the Diuel. Whereupon saieth Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 4. c. 5. If the holie Ghost teach the [Page 767] Church to interprete these places of Scripture without means, Protest, re­quire means to interprete. this is Enthusiasticall, and Anabaptisticall, and extraordinarie. For the Spirit teacheth now onely by meanes, nether must we now looke for new inspirations or reuelations. Et Cōt. 1. q. 5. c. 9. Now must we treate of the meās to finde the sense of Scripture. For sith the Scripture hath not a liuely voice for vs to heare, we must vse some means for to finde out which is the sense and meaning of the Scripture. Agayne: The Church hath alwaies vsed some means for to expound the Scripture. But if they expound the Scripture by means, then (according to their owne opinion) if their means be fallible, their interpretation also must be fallible. For thus Whitaker c. 3. cit. If by means, then such as the means be, such must needs the interpretation be. But the means, which Protestants haue, are but humane and fallible. For (as they graunt) they are no other then such as the Catholik Church, holie Fathers, & generall Coūcels haue vsed. For thus Whitaker c. 3. cit. But the means (of the Church) to expound obscure places, are vncertaine, doubtfull, and ambiguous. And they must needs say so, because other­wise they must confesse, that the Church is infallible in ex­pounding the Scripture. Secondly, because the means Protest meās, but humane. which Protestants vse, are these: Pondering of circum­stances, of the stile and Phrase of Scripture, conference of places, recurring to the Hebrew and Greek text, praier, and the like, as yee may see in Rainolds Confer. lib. 2. di­uis. 2. Confes. Heluet. c. 2. Whitaker. Cont. 1. q. 5. c. 9. Hum­frey ad Rat. 1. Camp. and others. But all these means are humane, for they be our pondering, our conference, our recurring, our praier. And all humane means are fallible, as euerie man is subiect to lie. Thirdly because no where in Scripture is there promised infallible assistance to them that vse these means. And if anie say, that it is pro­mised to praier, whatsoeuer we aske: first he maketh onely praier an infallible meane. Agayne, it sufficeth not to pray how soeuer, but we must pray well and perseue­rantlie. For Iac. 4. v. 3. it is saied: Yee pray and obtayne not, because yee pray ill. But it is not praied well, that euerie [Page 768] priuat man by him selfe should vnderstand the Scriptures; but rather ill, because the Scripture saieth Malac. 2. The lippes of the Priest keepe knowledge, and they shall require the law out of his mouth. and Ephes. 4. He hath giuen Pastors and Do­ctors for the consumnation of Saints. Fourthly, because all vse these means, Catholiks, Heretiks, Iews, and yet all doe not attaine to the right sense of Scripture by them.

Fiftly, because, Protestants themselues doe insinuate Their means not infallible. that these means are not infallible. For Whitaker besides the words already related, saieth Cōt. 1. q. 5. c. 9. & 10. That we must vse these means rightly, and thereby declareth that these means are not infallible vnlesse they be rightly vsed, and yet he doth not set downe the meane how to vse thē rightly. Et c. 10. cit. addeth, that all these means must be accom­modated to the rule of faith. Which be clearely enough shew­eth, that of themselues they are not infallible. Rainolds also loc. cit. saieth: that all their means are vaine. Vnlesse God giue eyes to see.

Sixtlie, these means are not onelie fallible, but also insuf­ficient. Their means not common to all. For we must not onelie know to conferre places, but also what places are to be conferred, and what not, and with what places they are to be conferred, and with what not. Besides, we must know how we must cōferre. For otherwise (as Tertullian saied of examining Scrip­tures) we may say of conferring: As if hauing ill examined all, we may not fall into error, by making choice of some euill. But the foresaied means teach vs not this.

Finally, these means are not common to all the faithfull. For thus writeth Whitaker c. 9. cit. The vnlearned know not how to vse these means rightly: and Rainolds libr. cit. cap. 5. diuis. 1. Because the infirme and vnlearned sorte of Christians haue no skill to discerne the right sense of Scripture from the false, he (Vincent) accommodateth himselfe to their infirmitie, and giueth them externall sensible means to know it. I aske therefore, whether vnlearned Protestants do truely know the right sense of Scripture by means, or without means? If without means? they are Enthusiasts. If by [Page 769] means, there are others then those which Protestants as­signe. I let passe, that the Lutherans say, that the Sacramē ­taries had their exposition of the Scripture frō the Diuell, and that Luther professeth that he was taught of the Di­uell: as perhaps we shall proue an other time at large.

Wherefore thus I make my 28. argument. They who in so manie and weightie matters do expressely contradict such plaine words of Scripture, and yet haue no infallible way to attaine to the true sense thereof, must needs con­tradict the true sense of Scripture. But Protestants be such. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER XXIX. THAT PROTESTANTS ARE FORCED to admit no Iudge in the Church, to whose iudgement they will stand.

THE 29. Argument wherewith we will proue, that Protestants are against the true sense of Scrip­true, shalbe, because their doctrine is so plainelie against Scripture, as they dare not admit anie Iudge thereof. For thus Zuinglius tom. 1. in Explanat. artic. 67. Protest admit Iudge. I suffer no man to be iudge in the matter of trueth and faith. Whitaker Contr. 1. quaest. 5. c. 4. God hath reserued to him­selfe the iudgement of religion, and hath not graunted it to anie man. And Contr. 4. q. 1, c. 2. There is now no infallible iudge on earth which is man. Vorstius in Antibel. pag. 80. We haue proued, that onely Christ or the holie Ghost speaking plainely in Scripture, is to be accounted this supreme iudge of contro­uersies of faith. Pareus in Colleg. Theol. 4. Disputatio. 2. The supreme iudge of interpretations of Scripture and controuersies of faith, from whome there is no Appeale, is is no man now, nor since the Apostles, nether Church, nor Councell &c. Lutherans in Colloq. Ratisb. Session. 9. Proue this, that besides the written law, there must be an other [Page 770] visible iudge appointed. The like saieth Academia Nemau­siensis Resp. ad Tournon. Eliensis resp. ad Apol. Bellarm. c. 14. Feild l. 3. de Eccles. cap. 13 & 16. Moulins in his Bucler art. 3. sect. 6. and other Protestants commonly.

But that there must needs be admitted a iudge in the Church to whose iudgement we must stand, I proue: First out of Scripture. For Deut. 17. it is saied: If thou perceaue that There must needs be a Iudge. the iudgement with thee be hard and doubtfull thou shalt come to the Preists of the leuiticall stock and to the Iudge that shalbe at that time, and thou shalt aske of them who shall shew thee the trueth of the iudgement, and thou shalt doe whatsoeuer they that are presidents of the place, which our Lord shall chuse, shall say and teach thee according to the law and shalt follow their sen­tence, nether shalt thou decline to the right hand, nor to the left hand. But he that shalbe proud refusing to obey the commande­ment of the Preist, who at that time ministreth to our Lord thy God, and the decree of the Iudge, that man shall die. Behould a Iudge instituted in the Church vnder the law, and him to be obeyed vnder paine of death. Likewise Math. 18. Christ saieth: If he will not heare the Church, let him be to the as an Ethnik and Publican. And Actor. 15. When the Christians did disagree about the obseruation of Iewish ceremonies, they apointed that Paul and Barnabas should goe vp, and cer­taine others of the rest, to the Apostles, and Preists in Hieru­salem vpon this question, and all true Christians submitted themselues to their decree, and S. Paul commanded it to be kept. And the like practise hath beene euer obserued in the Church, and they held for Heretiks who did not submit themselues to the iudgement of a lawfull Coun­cell.

Secondely I proue it out of the Fathers. For thus S. Ci­prian Epist. 55. For nether are Heresies risen or Schismes sprung from anie other roote, then because the Preist of God is not obeyed, nor beleiued that there is one preist for a time in the Church, and one Iudge for a time in steed of Christ. Loe to denie, that there is a iudge in the Church in steed of Christ, is the occasion of all Heresies and Schismes. And [Page 771] S. Austin l. 1. cont. Crescon. c. 33. Whosoeuer feareth to be de­ceaued in the obscuritie of this question, let him aske the Church of it, whome the holie Scripture doth shew without anie doubt.

Thirdly, because it was euer the custome of Heretiks Heretiks de­nie a Iudge. to denie, that there is a Iudge in the Church. Whereupon the Donatists in Breuic. Collat. say that Christ must be the iudge of this cause, stirring vp enuie to Catholiks because they had requested a man to be iudge.

Fourthlie, I proue it by reason, because it is a plaine ar­gument of an euill cause, that the Patrons thereof dare not submit it to the iudgment of anie Iudge in the common wealth. Besides, there can be no peace in anie societie or commonwealth, vnlesse beside the laws, there be some Iudge, who may determine matters, and to whose iudge­ment men must stand. And who denie such Iudges, ether mantaine an ill cause, or loue not peace, but continuall braules.

For these and the like arguments, Protestants sometime Protest some­time admit a Iudge in Words. in words doe admitt a Iudge in the Church. For thus Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 5. c. 4. I confesse, that in euerie common wealth there ought to be Iudges, who may make an end of con­tentions amongst men. Et c. 7. God indeed hath left a Iudge to his Church, but who it is, now is question and debate betwene vs and the Papists. Eliensis. cap. 14. cit. But beside the law, there is need of another liuely Iudge. Who denieth that? Melancthon in Resp. ad Ant. Bauar. tom. 3. We openly confesse, that there must be iudgments in the Church. But indeed they will haue the Scripture onelie to be this Iudge: For thus Zuinglius. disput. 1. to. 1. I will neuer admit any other iudges beside the holie Scriptures. Which is in word to admit a Iudge, and in ef­fect But not in effect. to denie him. For the Scripture is the law of Chri­stians, and therefore not their Iudge, who is to giue sen­tence according to the law. And the Lutherans in Col­loq. Ratisbon. sess 1. when they had saied, that Scripture is the rule and square of faith, afterward doe adde: It is one thing to shew the Iudge [...] another, to shew the rule; Wherein they plainelie distinguish the Scripture and the Iudge. [Page 772] Moreouer the testimonies of Scriptures, of Fathers, and the reasons before alledged do proue, that there must be a liuelie or speaking Iudge in the Church, which is diffe­rent from the law or Scripture. Finallie it is fond, to make Protest iudge can nether heare nor speake. such a Iudge, and him onely, who is both deafe and dūbe, and who can nether heare those that contend, nor pro­nounce sentence, nor compell them to obey it. Further­more (as hath beene often saied) in most controuersies betwixt vs and Protestants, Scripture doth not so much as seeme to giue sentence for Protestants, vnlesse it be con­ferred by them and ioyned with some humane principle, and brought into sillogisticall forme. Whereas a Iudge must be such, as by himselfe without anie helpe of ether of the parties, he can giue sentence. Besides, the sentence of the Iudge, and especiallie if there can be no appeale from him, must be so cleare, as no man can doubt for whether partie it is; But such is not the sentence of Scrip­ture in manie controuersies. Agayne there is controuersie betwene vs about diuers bookes, of which the rest of the Scripture saieth nothing. Finallie, before Moises, the Church had no Scripture, and for sometime after Christ, it had no parte of the new testament, and yet she neuer wanted a Iudge. And (as we saw in the Chapter before) Protestants confesse, that Scripture of it selfe is not suffi­cient to determine all controuersies of faith, and there­fore not to iudge all. Wherefore we must needs haue some other Iudge.

For these and the like causes some Protestants seing how absurd it is, that Scripture is the onely Iudge in the Church, say that Christ or the holie Ghost speaking in the Scripture, is the Iudge. Whitaker c. 7. cit. We say, that this Iudge is the holie Ghost speaking in the Scripture. In like sorte Confes. Heluet. c. 12. Academia Nemaus: loc. cit. Luthe­rans in Colloq. Ratisb. sess. 9. and others. But seing Christ or the holie Ghost is no otherwise in the Scripture, then as in a signe of his will, to say that the holie Ghost as he is in Scripture is Iudge, is no other thing indeed, then to say [Page 773] that the Scripture is iudge. And as the King, as he is in his written laws, is not a sufficient iudge of the common wealth, because els euē after his death he should be iudge, but besides there must be a liuing iudge who both heareth and speaketh, who can heare the parties and giue sentēce: So nether is the holie Ghost a sufficient iudge is in the holie Scripture.

Others therefore acknowledge, that there must be in the Church a speaking iudge or man. For thus Eliensis loc. cit. Wherefore we all of long time demand a free and lawfull sy­nod. Protest. admit a liuing Iudge in words. And Lutherans in Colloq. cit. sess. 9. We professe, that God hath giuen some power to the Ministers and Doctors of the Church, to iudge of controuersies of religion. Neuerthelesse in trueth they denie the verie nature of the Iudge. For ether they will not admit such a Iudge as we are bound to obey [...], as appeareth by that they denie the vniuersall Church, all Pastors, or generall Councels to be infallible, yea Moulins in the preface of his Bucler, saieth, that there But not in effect. can be no greater temeritie then to desire that men sinners may be infallible iudges of the sēse of the law: And the Lutherās loc. cit. It is simply and absolutely certaine, that the Ministerie may erre. But this in trueth is to denie the Iudge, whose end is The iudge in the Church admitteth not appeale. to make peace and to compose debates: which he cannot doe, vnlesse men be bound to obey him: and all the fore­saied authorities & reasons which proue that there ought to be a iudge in the Church, proue also that he ought to be such from whome we may not appeale. Wherevpon Whi­taker Cōt. 1. q. 5. c. 4. thus writeth: I answere, that those words (Deuteron. 17. cit.) are to be vnderstood of authoritie to define hard contentions and controuersies, as Ecclesiasticall by the Minister, and politicall by the Magistrate, that there might be in both some from whome there should be no appeale: els there would be no end of contending. But this he meaneth onely in the Nether in outward nor inward Courte. externall or outward courte, not in the inward courte of conscience. For thus he addeth: A great weight of iudge­ment was in the Priest, and what he had once determined, was good in the externall courte, that so controuersies and debates [Page 774] might be ended. And Cont. 4. q 1. cap. 2. Controuersies may be brought to the externall Courte, and there defined: but conscience resteth not in that Courte. But this shift is easilie refuted. First, because the distruction of the externall Cour [...]e is without cause deuised in this matter. Secondlie, because the peace of the Church especially consisteth in the in­ternall courte, to wit, in faith. Wherefore in this Courte we may not appeale from the Iudge of the Church, other­wise there would neuer be peace of conscience. Thirdly, the practise of the Church in the Councell of the Apo­stles, and in other generall Councels, sheweth, that the Iudge of the Church hath power to end controuersies euen in the inward courte of conscience. Finallie, if one were bound to obey the iudgement of the Church in the outward Courte, and not in the inward, it would follow that sometimes he were bound to denie Gods trueth before men, to wit, if the Church should define against Gods trueth. Besides, the authoritie of the Church is spirituall and ouer the soule, and therefore her power of iudging extendeth it selfe euen to the inwarde Courte of the [...]oule.

Wherefore let this be our 29. argument. Whose do­ctrine in manie and weightie matters doth so contradict the expresse words of Scripture, as they dare not admit anie Iudge in the Church, they are to be thought to con­tradict the true sense of the Scripture. But such are Pro­testants. Therefore &c.

CHAPTER XXX. THAT PROTESTANTS DOE SOME­times confesse, that their doctrine doth contradict the holie Scripture.

THE last proof which we will make to shew, that Protestants doe contradict the true sense of Scrip­ture, shalbe taken from their owne confession, wherewith sometimes they confesse it implicitlie, some­times plainelie and expressely. Implicitly they confesse it diuers wayes. First because they acknowledge, that they Protest. can­not reconcile their doctrine with the Scripture. know not how to reconcile their doctrine with the holie Scripture. Luther de seru. arbit. to. 2. fol. 466. How this is iust, that he (God) condemneth those that deserue it not, is now incomprehensible: yet it is beleiued till the Sonne of man be reuealed. Et f. 486. In the light of grace it is vnanswerable, how God condemneth him, who with all his power can doe nothing but sinne and be guiltie. Here both the light of nature and the light of Grace teach, that it is not the fault of wretched man, but of vniust God. Et to. 1. f. 390. It is a wonderfull probleme: that God rewardeth iustice, which himselfe reputeth iniustice. Melan­cthon in Rom. 9. edit. 1. This misterie is inexplicable: that God both willeth sinnes, and yet truelie hateth them. Peter Martyr in locis Class. 1. c. 16. §. 9. It is no meruaile, that we cannot vn­derstand, how it is not contrarie to Gods iustice to punish sinnes, and by tempting to enforce them, because God can doe more then we can vnderstand. Caluin 1. Institut. capit. 18. §. 3. By reason of the weaknesses of our vnderstanding we doe not con­ceaue, how (God) in different manner willeth and willeth the same thing. Againe: Where we conceiue not, how (God) will haue that to be done, which he forbiddeth to doe let vs remember our weaknesse. Et 3. Instit. c. 24. §. 17. When he had saied, that God willeth that, which he professeth that he will not; he addeth: Albeit according to our vnderstanding, Gods will [Page 776] be manifould, yet in himselfe he willeth not this and that, but by his manifould wisdome maketh our vnderstanding astonis­hed, till it shalbe graunted to vs to know, that wonderfully he willeth that, which now seemeth contrarie to his will. And cap. 11. §. 11. This is a meruailous manner of iustifying, that they that are couered with Christ iustice, feare not the iudgement which they deserue, and whilest iustly they condemne them­selues, they are iudged iust out of themselues. De Praedest. pag. 704. Let our faith adore a farre of with decent sobrietie the hidden counsail of God, wherewith the fall of man was pre­ordained. And pag. 711. How it was appointed by the foresight and decree of God what was to become of man, and yet God is not to be madde partaker of the sinne, as if he were ether author or allower thereof, seing it is clearely a secret farre beyond the reach of mans wit, let vs not be ashamed to confesse our igno­rance. In Ioan. 12. ver. 27. But it seemeth, that this doth not become the Sonne of God, that an inconsiderate desire escapeth him, which he must streight renounce for to obey his Father. I confesse (saieth he) that truely this is the follie of the crosse, which is a scandall to proud men. Nay, it is not the follie of the crosse, but the impietie of Caluin to attribute an in cō ­siderate desire to Christ. And in Math. 26. vers. 39. If anie obiect, that the first motion which should haue beene bridled, be­fore it went further, was not temperate as it beseemed: I answere (saieth he) that in this corruption of our nature there cannot be seene the feruor of passions with that temper which was in Christ; but we must yeeld this honor to the Sonne of God, that we iudge not of him by our selues. Forsooth the impostures of Caluin not onelie wāting all word of God, but also quite cōtrarie thereto, must be beleiued, though they cannot be vnder­stood, and the Catholik doctrine of the Eucharist and the like must not be beleiued because it cannot be vnderstood. Beza in Explicat. Christianismi c. 3. After a wonderfull and incomprehēsible manner it pleaseth God, that euen that, which as it is sinne he alloweth not, yet is not done without his will. De Praedest. cont. Cast. p. 340. When he had saied, that God de­creeth [Page 777] the causes of damnation, and that none can resist his decree, he asketh: Is not then all the falut in God? and ans­wereth: This difficultie is vnexplicable for men. Agayne: How God is not in fault, if he ordayne the causes of dānation, we thinke with the Apostle, that it is a question vnexplicable for mans wit. Et in Colloq. Montisb. p. 427. There is no parte of Chri­stian doctrine from which sense and humane reason doth more abhorre. Pareus l. 2. de Amiss. Grat. c. 13. after he had saied p. 358. that God doth enforce mē to sinnes as they are his secret iud­gements: addeth. p. 363. that this manner is vnexplicable. In­deed this their excuse of the inexplicabilitie of the thing were tolerable, if the Scripture did clearely teach, what they say: but seing it doth not clearelie teach so, as appea­reth by the answers of Catholiks; yea so clearely teach the contrarie, as Protestants are forced to confesse, that they know not how to reconcile so manie of their posi­tions with the Scripture, it is a verie great proofe, that in verie deed their doctrine is repugnant to Scripture.

An other manner whereby implicitlie they cōfesse, that Protest. con­fesse that the words of Scripture seeme against them. their doctrine is repugnāt to Scripture, is, because in manie and great matters they acknowledge, that the words of Scripture, and such as are of purpose spoakē for to declare vnto vs what we ought to beleiue of such matters, seeme to fauour vs more then them, are hard to them and tor­ment them shrewdly. Luther in Postill. Dom. 9. post. Trin. This dayes Ghospell, if it be nakedly looked into without the (Pro­testant) spirit, is plainely Papisticall. Zuinglius l. de Rel. c. de Merito. None denieth, but that in Scripture there are almost more places which attribute merit to our works, then denie it. And in Explanat. art. 20. The places of Scripture at first sight seeme to attribute some what to Merit. Bullinger Dec. 3. Serm. 9. We acknowledge, that the Scripture euerie were doth seeme to attribut life and iustice to good works. Rainolds in Confer. c. sect. 1. What if in that other place the Scripture in shew do fa­uour you more then vs. And he addeth, that he easilie graunteth, that the shew of the words of Scripture ma­keth more for vs then for them. Agayne: I will graunt, [...] [Page 778] the words of Christ: This is my bodie, in shew do fauour more your reall presence, then that sacramentall which we mantaine. And in an other place: In shew of words our Sauiour seemeth to haue promised the keys to Peter onely. Herbrand. in Compen­dio Theol. pag. 340. saieth: If the letter be vrged in those The letter a­gainst Pro­testants. words of Daniel: Redeeme thy sinnes by almes, they be con­trarie to their doctrine. The same confesseth Hunnius l. de Iustif. of those words of Tobie: Almes deliuereth from all sinne and from death. And the same is euident by infinit places of Scripture, which Protestants are forced to ex­pound figuratiuelie because the proprietie of the word is for vs.

Zuinglius Epist. ad Matthaeum Rutling. to. 2. thus spea­keth: Now remaineth that which in this matter is the hardest A hard mat­ter for Pro­test. to wrest the words. of all, to wit, how we may wrest the words of Christ which they terme words of consecration. Here verily we must stretch all the veyns of faith. Et in Resp. ad Billican. he saieth, that he vseth pulleis and presses to wring out the sense of the words of consecration, and addeth: We denie, that anie one They need pullies and presses. litle droppe, at least sincere and pure, will come from them, vn-vnlesse they be prest with the weight of other places. And againe: How manie had we some years agoe, who could acquit themselues handsomely of those words of Christ, Thou art Peter &c. and shew the figure of the speach? And yet it was no hin­drance, that we could not handsomely dispatch our selues of the word. Caluin 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 11. I know, it seemeth hard to some, where faith is attributed to the reprobates. In Luc. 3. vers. 9. As for Merit, that knot is to be loosed, which hindreth manie: For the Scripture so often promising reward to works, seemeth to attribute some merit to them. Peter Martyr in Dom. 4. Hom. Protest. tor­mented with the words of Scripture. 21. The (Protestant) interpreters do torment themselues, in that Daniel seemeth to attribute redemption or remission of sinnes to mans iustice and works of mercie. For they well admonish, that it is repugnant to the chiefe point of our religion. Daneus in c. 67. Enchir. Aug. saieth, that saying of S. Iames: We are not iu­stified by faith onelie: doth this day tormēt manie, so that some haue reiected the epistle, others haue called it strawish. Kemnice [Page 779] in loc. to. 2. tit. de Argum. That saying of Daniel. c. 4. seemeth very hard against free iustification.

The third way by which they tacitelie confesse, that Protest forced to denie their doctrine. their doctrine is contrarie to Scripture is, because when it maketh for their purpose, they denie that they teach manie of those points which in the former booke we haue clearelie shewed that they plainelie teach. And because they do this so frequentlie, as I need not bring manie ex­amples thereof, I will here cite onelie some few. Tou­ching God: Pareus thus writeth Colleg. Theol. 9. disp. 32. It is a slaunder, that we simply say that God would and decreed that our first parents should fall. See l. 1. cap. 2. art. 5. Of Scrip­ture: thus Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 4. cap. 1. Our aduersaries attri­bute vnto vs this doctrine, as if we saied, that the Catholik Church could faile, which is most false. See lib. 1. cap. 8. art. The same man. q 3. cit. c. 2. Our aduersaries slander vs, when they say, that we make such a Church, which sometime is no where, and can be seene of none. See l. 1. c. 8. art. 5. Touching the Eu­charist, Eliensis Resp. ad Apol. Bellar. c. 1. We agree with you of the matter, all the contention is about the manner—A pre­sence (I say) we beleiue, nor lesse reall then you. Perkins in Cath. refor. Contr. 10. cap. 1. We beleiue and teach a reall presence of the bodie and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Supper, and that not feigned, but true and reall. Argentinenses in Hospin. part. 2. Histor. Be they accursed, who will haue no­thing to be exhibited here but a signe and figure. And Hospi­nian. himselfe. Our men neuer denied, that the bodie of Christ was truely in their Supper. Beza l. qq. saieth, that it is a slander, that they exclude Christ from their Supper. Gratianus Antiiesuita p. 140. There is no controuersie, whether the true bodie and blood of the Lord be contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Et Riuet. tract. 3. sec. 12. The question betwene vs, is not simply, whether the bodie and blood of Christ be truely and really in this Sacrament. Et Spalatensis libr. contr. Suar. cap. 1. num. 39. Who denieth that the Eucharist is the onely flesh and onely blood of our Lord Iesus Christ? See the contrarie of all these lib. 1. c. 11. art. 1.

Touching faith; thus writeth Peter Martyr in loc. Class. 3. §. 24. We make faith, hope, and charitie, three different things, nether doe we confound them, as our aduersaries accuse vs. See the contrarie lib. 1. c. 13. art. 6. Of good works thus Tilenus in Syntag. cap. 46. It is a cruell slander of our aduersaries, where they feigne, that we teach, that all the works of the iust be pro­perly and simply sinnes. Et Riuet. tract. 3. sect. 31. None of ours saieth absolutely, that all works are sinne, nether say we, that they are mingled with sinne absolutely. See the contrarie lib. 1. c. 14. art. 2.

Touching good works in particular; thus Riuet. tract. 1. sect. 73. We reiect this position: That it is one of the condi­tions necessarie to a Bishop, that he be married. See the con­trarie lib. 1. cap. 15. art. 4. Of reward: thus the some Riuet. 3. sect. 39. We denie not the reward of good works. See the con­trarie lib. 1. c. 14. art. 7. c. 18. arr. 1. Of free will thus Serranus l. 3. cont. Hayum. Doth anie of ours denie, or euer denied, that those that are not regenerate doe fall to sinne of their prone and free will? See the contrarie lib. 1. c. 16. art. 14.

But finally they doe plainely and expressely graunt that Protest. con­fesse much of their doctrine to be against Scripture. Of God. manie points of Protestants doctrine are cōtrarie to Scrip­ture. For touching God, thus writeth Confessio Saxon. c. God nether willeth sinne, nor approueth, nor helpeth it, as it is written: when the Diuel speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his owne: and 1. Ioan. 3. Who committeth sinne, is of the Diuel. Gerlachius tom. 2. disput. 15. It is impossible, that God should will sinne, of whome it is saied. psalm. 5. Thou art not a God that willeth ini-inquitie. Et Polanus in Disput. priuat. p. 235. God nether wil­leth, nor can will the ill of offence or sinne properly taken psal. 5. vers. 5. Melancthon in disput. to. 4. p. 623. The conference of the continuall doctrine in the writings of the Prophets and Apo­stles doth shew, that God nether wille [...] nor worketh sinne, as it is expressely saied: Thou art not a Gad that willeth iniquitie; And out of this same place Pareus in Colleg. Theol. 1. disp. 2. proueth, that Gods will is no efficient cause of sinne. And yet Protestants teach both that God willeth sinne, and worketh sinne: See lib. 1. c. 2. art. 1. 4. They teach also, [Page 781] that God hath ordained and predestinated men to sinne. l. 1. c. 2. art. 5. of which doctrine Melancthon in disp. to. 4. p. 572. giueth this censure. There are certaine frantike fellows much worse then the Stoicks, who teach, that God of himselfe doth ordaine and predestinate haynous sinnes, and that he willeth them, and not onely suffereth them. And in locis tit. de Causa Peccat. Sinne is nether done of God, nor ordained of him. They teach, that God commandeth, vrgeth and tempteth to sinne. lib. 1. cap. 2. art. 7. Which is contrarie to Scripture, by iudgment of Riuet tract. 3. sect. 33. The Scripture expressely saieth, that God will not iniquitie, that he commandeth none to doe ill, that he cannot tempt to ill. Moulins in his Bucler. p. 97. God doth not stirre vp mē to doe ill, as it is saied ps. 45. Thou hast loued iustice and hated iniquitie. Et Calu. in Math. 4. v. 1. Where­vpon we gather, that tentations which incite vs to ill, come not frō God. They teach that God is not angrie with the faith­full when they worke iniquitie. lib. 1. c. 2. art. 11. Which to be contrarie to Scripture Protestants in Zanchius in Sup­plicat. confesse in these words: God doth threaten his anger to all the transgressors of his law, and they cite thereto that Ps. 5. Thou hast hated all that worke iniquitie. They teach, that God hath no will that all should be saued, li. c. 2. art. 19. Which is against Scripture as cōfesseth Hemingius in these words in Enchir. clas. 3. They accuse God of a lye, whosoeuer thinke that he will not the saluation of some, as farre as perteineth to the coū ­sail of creation. Gesnerus in Compend. loc. 30. The Scripture doth plainely testifie, that God hath in earnest a will that all should be saued. Affelmā de Praed. §. 36. The Scripture testifieth by words, by oath, by telling, by oblation, that God would haue all mē saued. They teach, that God doth not call al mē to him, nor offer his grace to thē. l. 1. c. 2. art. 21. of which thus wri­teth Illyricus in Claue part. 2. tract. 4. Some by misunderstan­ding predestinatiō, vse hurtefully to restraine the vniuersall pro­mises and callings of the Ghospell, and to make them particulars: by which error of theirs, they quite ouerthrow the Ghospell of Christ. Gerlachius to. 2. disp. 15. The plaine testimonies of Scrip­ture do proue the vniuersall will of God. Hemingius in Schlus. [Page 782] l. 1. Theol. Calu. art. 11. Who denie grace to be vniuersall, do cor­rupt the doctrine of the Ghospell, oppose themselues and others. The like hath Confess. Saxon. c. 4. They denie, that Gods wrath is appeased by good works l. 1. c. 2. art. 16. And yet thus hath Confessio Aug. art. 11. We confesse, that by good works, present calamities are aswaged as I saye teacheth c. 58. The like hath Apol. Conf. c. de resp. ad Argum.

Touching Christ, they denie that he is God of God l. 1. Of Christ. c. 3 art. 1. And yet the Ministers of Poland in Zāchius epist. 1. say it is Iudaisme: He denieth (say they) with the Iews, that Christ is God of God. They teach, that Christs humanitie is not to be inuocated or adored l. 1. c. 3. art. 3. Of which thus writeth Caluin Admonit. vlt. They pretend, that there is no where anie precept of adoring Christs bodie: Surely of Christ as man it is properly spoaken: God hath exalted him, and giuen him &c. Wherefore Austin rightly gathereth frō hence, that Christs flesh is to be adored in the person of the Mediator. They teach, that Christ as man is not head of the Church l. 1. c. 3. art. 6. And yet thus writeth Kickerman. l. 3. System. p. 322. There is giuen also to the flesh of Christ for the vnion, the highest power of office, to be head of the Church: This is that which he saieth: All power is giuen to me, that is, full power of gouernement in the Church. They teach, that Christ is not iudge as he is man. l. 1. c. 3. art. 8. And yet Lobechius disp. 19. Whence it is rightly gathered, that Christ hath iudiciall power, not onely by his deitie, but also by his humanitie, as it is euident by manifest testimonies of Scripture. The like hath Caluin in Ro. 2. v. 16. They denie, that Christs humanitie hath power to giue life l. 1. c. 3. art. 4. Of which thus Hutter in Anal. p. 293. Who shall dare to denie, that power of giuing life was giuen to Christs humanitie, he doth manifestly accuse Christ, who, Ioan. 6. often­times attributeth this power to his flesh. They say, that Christ did not make a new testamēt. l. 1. c. 3. art. 9. of which point thus pronounceth Gerlachius to. 2. disp. 14. This is no other thing, then to contradict the Apostle. Et Schlusselb. l. 1. Theol. art. 17. The word of God teacheth, that there are twoe couenants or testaments, and not one and the same in substance. The same [Page 783] saieth Illyricus praefat. in nou. testam. They denie, that Christ redeemed vs with his blood or corporall death. l. 1. c. 3. art. 17. Of which doctrine this censure giueth Serranus contr. Hayum. part. 3. The Scripture affirmeth, that we are purged by the blood of Christ, that our sinnes are plainely expia­ted, that God, by that price paied for vs, was truely appeased. Calu. res. ad Sadolet. p. 126. Runne ouer all the Oracles of God, if the onely blood of Christ be euery where proposed for the price of satisfaction, for pacification, for oblation, with what boulde­nesse darest thou &c. Moulins in his Bucler, p. 154. saieth, that it is the summe of the Ghospell, that Christs death was a full and entire satisfaction. They say, that Christ did not dye for those that are damned. l. 1. c. 3. art. 18. Of which point thus writeth Hutter in Anal. art. 3. It is false which the Caluinists feigne, that the sacrifice of the passion and death of Christ was not offered for all but for some onely: The impietie of which doctrine all the Scripture doth greatly refute. Gerlachius to. 2. disput. 15. They lye horribly, that God the Father did apoint the satisfa­ction of his Sonne for some onely: Against this blasphemie we op­pose the most cleare words of the Scripture. Polanus part. 3. thes. Christ died for all. Ro. 5. v. 2. Cor. 5. v. 15. And Roger Art. 3. putteth it as an error in faith. They say that the blood of Christ wherewith we were redeemed, is corrupted and now no more in being l. 1. c. 3. art. 20. Which Schusselb. l. 1. Theol. at. 20. proueth to be contrarie to Scripture. They denie that the Soule of Christ descended into hell. l. 1. c. 3. art. 21. Which is contrarie to Scripture as testifieth Lobe­chius disput. 6. in these words: We beleiue, and embrace with simple faith as true and aggreable to Scripture and the Creeds, that Christ truely descended into hell. Luther in ps. 16. Accor­ding to the words of the Prophet, the Soule of Christ in substance descended into hell. They denie that Christ entred to his di­sciples the dores being shut l. 1. c. 3. art. 23. Which is repug­nant to Scripture according to Luther in def. verb. cenae. to. 7. The testimonies (saieth he) of Scripture are manifest, that Christ passed through the dores shut vnto his disciples, And Zuinglius in Histor. resur. tom. 4. The Euangelist Ioan doth [Page 784] witnesse, that the dores were shut, and that Iesus entred in the dores being shut. They denie that Christ praieth for vs in heauen l. 1. c. 3. art. 25. which is opposite to Scripture as Me­lancthon confesseth in resp. ad art Bauar. saying: He is to be detested, who denieth, that Christ now praieth for vs, sith it is plainely written to the Hebrews: Alwaies liuing that he may pray for vs. Et Kemnice in Exam. part. 3. c. de Inuoc. saieth that it is repugnant to Scripture and depriueth Christ of a parte of his Preisthood.

Touching Angels and Saints: They teach that the glorie Of Saintes. of all Saints is equal. l. 1. c. 4. art. 3. which is against Scripture in the iudgement of Caluin. in 1. Cor. 15. v. 41. It is most, true, and it is proued by the testimonies of Scripture, that there be dif­ferēt degrees of honor and glorie of the Saints. They denie that Angels or Saints pray for vs: cap. 4. art. 4. which the same Caluin auoucheth to be against Scripture: In Zachar. 1. v. 12. The Scripture witnesseth that Angels suppliantly pray to God for vs: Zacharie saieth that the Angel praied: O Lord of hostes. Apol. Conf. Aug. c. de Inuoc. We graunt that Angels pray for vs. For there are testimonies Zach. 1. Where the Angel praieth: O Lord of hostes. The same saieth P. Martyr in Rom. 8. & Schlus. to. 8. Catal. p. 65. They denie that Angels offer vp our praiers to God. l. 1. c. 4. art. 7. Which Beza teacheth to be cōtrarie to Scripture in Apoc. 8. v. 3. Ihon learned by this visiō, that the praiers of Saints in this world, to wit, of those that dayly offer to God pure sacrifices of praiers and good deeds, are offered to God by the ministerie of Angels. They denie, that we ought to pray to Saints lib. 1. c. 4 art. 8. Which to be re­pugnant to Scripture thus confesseth Luther to. 1. de 1 pre­cept. f. 12. I say that in anie case we must recurre to the suffrages of Saints, as in Iob it is saied: And turne thy selfe to some of the Saints, and as Salomon alledgeth his father: Remember Dauid O Lord. And also the Patriach Iacob saied of Ephraim and Manasse; let my name be inuocated vpon these children.

Touching Scripture: they teach, that there is nothing Of Scripture. hard in it. lib. 1. c. 5. art. 1. Which is against Scripture as con­fesseth [Page 785] Christian ad Portum lib. cont. Verron. We confesse (saieth he) plainely with S. Peter, as in the Epistles of S. Paul, so in the Scripture, that there are manie things hard to vnderstād. Whitaker lib. 6. cont. Dur. sect. 22. I confesse, as Peter saieth, that there in Scriptures manie things hard to vnderstand. The like saieth Pareus in Gal. 2. lect. 25. They teach, that the law is contrarie to the Ghospel. l. 1. c. 5. art. 7. Of which do­ctrine thus Serranus cōt. Hayum. part. 3. With a more grosse and dangerous ignorance doth he oppose the law of Moises and the law of the Ghospell like twoe principles of Maniche, as if they were contrarie.

Concerning S. Peter: They denie, that the Church was Of S. Peter. founded vpon him, l. 1. c. 6. art. 2. Which to be against Scrip­ture thus confesseth Whitaker. Cont. 4. q. 2. cap. 2. We denie not, that Peter was the foundation and gouernour of the Church, and if they require, we will graunt also, that this was promised to him in these words. Et. l. 5. cont. Dur. sec. 4. Who doth not con­fesse, that Peter is the rock and foundation of the Church? They denie, that the keys of heauen were giuen to Peter l. 1. c. 6. art. 3. Which is against Scripture. For thus Spalatensis l. 1. de Rep. c. 7. Christ expressely saieth to Peter: I will giue the keys: wherefore fairewell they and let them be gone, who vsing force to the letter, will haue the keys to be giuen or promised not imme­diatly to Peter, but excluding Peters person, ether to the whole Church, or to some other that is not Peter. Et Whitaker. Cont. 4. q. 2. c. 4. I graunt that the keys were promised to Peter, for the place doth conuince that, and I will neuer repugne. Eliēsis in resp. ad Apol. Bellar. c. 8. Who doubts that the keys, were promised to Peter? They denie that the Apostles were foundations of the Church l. 1. c. 6. art. 5. Which Rainolds in his Confer. c. 2. sec. 1. acknowledgeth to be against the Scripture in these words. The 12. Apostles are called 12. foundations Apoc. 21. v. 14. Et Serran. cōt. Hayum. part. 3. All the Prophets and Apo­stles are termed (in Scripture) foundations of the Church.

Cōcerning Pastors of the Church: They denie that there Of Pastors. are alwaies some, l. 1. c. 7. art. 1. which thus censureth Melan­cthō apud Luther. 10. 1. f. 483. Where the Church is, there must [Page 786] be the right ordering of Ministers, because the ordination of Mi­nisters is one of the proper guifts of the Church, according to that Ephes. 4. He gaue Pastors &c. Kemnice in Exam. part. 2. tit. de ordine: The Sonne of God himselfe will haue the Ministerie of those that teach the Ghospell to be conserued with a continuall vocation in the Church. So Paul saieth Ephes. 4. Et Caluin in Ephes. 4. vers. 13. Here (Paul) admonis heth, that the vse of the Ministerie is not for a time, but perpetuall as long as we liue in the world.

Touching the Church: they denie that she doth per­petually Of the Church endure. l. 1. c. 8. art. 4. And notwithstanding Whi­taker Cōt. 2. q. 3. c. 2. saieth: Who denieth or doubteth, that the Church is founded for cuer, and to cōtinew for euer, he is no Chri­stian. They denie also, that she is alwaies visible l. 1. c. 8. art. 5. Which thus condemneth Daneus l. de visib. Eccles. Who denieth the true Church of God and her to haue beene visible frō the beginning of the world, he doubtlesse sheweth himselfe to be ignorant of the first page of the Bible. Et Reineccius to. 4. Arm. c. 3. The testimonies of Scripture teach, that the visible companie neuer perisheth quite. They teach, that the Church can erre euen in fundamētall points. lib. 1. c. 8. art. 6. And yet Caluin writeth 4. Instit. c. §. 10. By which words Paul doth signifie, that to the end Gods trueth faile not in the world, the Church is a faithfull keeper thereof.

Touching Baptisme: they denie that ether water, or Of Baptisme. the naming of the B. Trinitie is necessarie thereto l. 1. c. 10. art. 1. 2. And yet Reineccius to. 4. Armat. c. 18. thus writeth: Beza most fondely imagineth that in want of water, we may vse other liquor. And Beza l. quaestionum. & resp. vol. 3. If anie should not baptize in the name of the Trinitie, or for water, (especially wittingly) should vse some other thing, surely this would not be the baptisme which Christ instituted. Pareus in Colleg. Theol. 9. disp. 22. There is no Christian that doubteth, that the baptisme of water according to Christs institution ought to be administred onely in the name of the Father &c. They denie that baptisme is necessarie to Infants. l. 1. c. 10. art. 9. Of which thing Melancthon in Catechesi tom. 3. gi­ueth [Page 787] this iudgement: I answere, that baptisme is necessarie to In­fants, because Christs commandement is vniuersall, Ioan. 3. vn­lesse &c. Vrbanus Regius in Epist. ad Heminges to. 2. The Catholik Church doth rightly beleiue out of the Scriptures that Baptisme is necessarie to saluation. They denie that the chil­dren of the faithfull are in state of damnation before they be baptized. l. 1. c. 10 art. 9. Which thus cōdemneth Schlus­selburg. l. 1. Theol. art. 18. It may be proued manie wayes out of the word of God, that the children of the faithfull are not holie from their mothers wombs. They say that baptisme is not the lauer of the soule, nor purgeth sinnes. l. 1. cap. 10. art. 6. And yet thus writeth Beza in Prae. 2. part. resp. ad Montisb. Did euer anie Christian denie, that baptisme is the lauer of regenera­tion, which the Apostle witnesseth in expresse words. Et Shlus­selb. l. 1. Theol. art. 18. This blasphemie of the Caluinists (that Baptisme doth not purge sinnes) the holie Ghost in manie places refuteth. In like sorte Grauer in Absurdis Caluin. c. 14. ser. 10.

Touching the Eucharist: they denie, that it is the bodie Of the Eu­charist. and blood of Christ. l. 1. c. 11. art. 1. Which is against Scrip­ture. For thus Muscul. in loc. tit. de Caena: I may not say, the bread of the Supper is not the bodie of the Lord. For in so saying I should contradict the Lord saying: This is my bodie. Againe: Otherwise bread should not be the bodie of the Lord against his expresse word. Beza in Hosp. part. 2. f. 300. being asked whe­ther he disliked that one should say: The bread of the Supper is the bodie of Christ, answered, No: for they are the words of Christ. Et Hosp. ib. f. 136. We denie not, that bread and wine are the bodie and blood of Christ: For Christ himselfe saied: This is my bodie. They say, that those words: This is my bodie, must be thus expounded: This signifieth my bodie. Of which ex­position Musculus in Schlusselb. l. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 22. giueth this iudgement: We must beware of that exposition, wherewith Christs words are thought to be the same as if he had saied: This signifieth my bodie. For this is not Christs meaning, to shew that this bread signifieth his bodie. They denie, that Christ gaue vs his bodie to eate or his blood to drinke. l. 1. [Page 788] c. 11. art. 2. Which doctrine thus censureth Caluin l. de Ne­ces. ref. Christ saied in plaine termes that he gaue them his bodie. Beza epist. 5. But I answere, that is all one as to make Christ a lyer, as who in cleare and plaine words saieth, he gaue them that bodie which was deliuered for vs. Et Apol. 1. contr. Saintem. p. 292. To denie all eating of flesh, were plainely to denie the very words of Christ. They denie that the Cuppe is the new testa­ment l. 1. c. 11. art. 4. And yet Simlerus in Hosp. part. 2. f. 348. saieth: The proper sense of these words, is: The Cuppe is the new testament or the blood of the new testament. Iames Andreae in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 38. To me it seemeth altogether new and vnheard of that the Supper is denied to be the testamēt of Christ, against the plaine words alledged out of Luke. Et Musculus in locis titul. de Caena: In Luke and Paul it is saied of this Cuppe, that it is the new testament. They denie, that the Cuppe of the Eucharist was shed for vs. l. 1. c. 11. art 6. And yet Illyri­cus in Luc. 22. v. 20. writeth: Which is powred out for you, in the Greek text must needs be referred to the Cuppe.

Touching Matrimonie: they denie that it is a Sacramēt. Of Matri­monie: c. 12. art. 5. And yet thus professeth the Confession of Wit­temberg. c. de Coniugio: We confesse, that Mariage is a kind of life instituted and approued by God, and a mysterie, as com­monly it is expounded, a great Sacrament in Christ and the Church, as Paul saieth.

Touching faith: they denie that it can be without good Of Faith. works l. 1. cap. 13. art. 8. which doctrine thus condemneth Schlusselburg. l. 1. Theol. art. 15. Aretius saieth, that faith and good works are conioyned as the species and her proprietie, as a man and reason; But we out of the word of God teach and learne that this doctrine is false. They denie that faith it selfe is im­puted to vs for iustice. l. 1. c. 13. art. 19. And yet thus iudgeth Vrbanus Regius in loc. fol. 46. Sincere faith on the mercie of God and Iesus Christ, is our verie iustice. Faith is imputed for iustice to the beleiuer. Abraham beleiued and it was imputed to him for iustice. They denie that the faith of the Hemor­roïssa was pure libr. 1. capit. 13. articul. 25. And yet thus Bul­linger in Marci 5. The power of true faith is singularly ex­pressed

Touching good works: they denie, that they are neces­sarie Of good workes. to saluation. l. 1. c. 14. art. 13. And yet Piscator saieth in Thes. loc. 10. The Scripture teacheth, that good works are neces­sarie to saluation. The same say the Electorals in Colloq. Aldeburgico. They denie also, that good works are cause of saluation lib. 1. cap. 14. art. 15. And yet thus writeth Illyri­cus in Claue tractat. 6. titul. de Var. bonum operum praed. We heare that to manie effects and praises, and euen saluation it selfe is attributed (in Scripture) to good works,—It is plaine, that oftentimes somewhat to much praise is ascribed to good works, which doth not agree to them, nor is to be as­cribed to them, if we will speake exactly, truely, and properly. They denie, that they are meritorious lib. 1. cap. 14. art. 8. And yet thus professeth Apollog. Confession. in Melan­cthon. tom. 3. Seing works are some fulfilling of the law they are truely saied to be meritorious, reward is rightly saied to be due to them. Agayne: The text of Scripture saieth that life euerlasting is rendered to them. Which Protestants denie lib. 1. cap. 14. articul. 7. They denie also that they are to be done for God. lib. 1. cap. 14. art. 20. Of which point thus iudgeth Kemnice in locis tit. de bonis oper. The testimonies of Scripture most clearely teach, that good works are to be done for Gods sake.

Touching virginitie: they denie that it is counsailed in Scripture l 1. c. 15. art. 4. And neuerthelesse Vrbanus Regius in locis fol. 372. saieth: Virginitie is counsailed in the Gh [...]spell, not commanded. And in Interp. loc. 49. Virginitie is onely a counsaile, not a precept.

Concerning sinne: they teach, that it can remayne with Of sinne. iustice l. 1. c. 16. art. 17. Yet thus pronuonceth Luther in Gal. 3. These are directly opposit: That a Christian is iust and loued of God, and yet with all is a sinner. Againe: How are these twoe cō ­tradictories true at once? I h [...]ue sinnes & am most worthie of the wrath of God, and the Father loueth me. They denie that sinne putteth a man out of grace. l. 1 c. 16. art. 6. And yet thus wri­teth Hemingius in Enchir class. 2. If a penitent sinne against his conscience, as Dauid did with murder and adulterie, he [Page 790] casteth of the holie Ghost, and becometh guiltie of Gods wrath, and vnlesse he doe pennance falleth into eternall punishment. It is a horrible madnesse to say that such retaine the holie Ghost, whē as Paul saieth plainely Gal. 5. The works of the flesh are ma­nifest, and they that doe such, shall not possesse the kingdome of God. They denie that the widdows (whereof S. Paul spea­keth 1. Timoth.) did sinne in marrying l. 1. c. 16. art. 15. And yet thus Bullinger in Tim. 5. Surely to marrie, of it selfe, is no sinne: But because they haue once giuen their promise to Christ the spouse and to the Church, and of their owne accord haue left marriage, hereupon their marriage turneth to the disgrace of Christ, which is that which Paul termeth to become wanton against Christ. Bucer lib. 2. de Regno Christi c. 23. They who haue giuen their first promise to God, of a single life, haue indeed iudgement and reprehension. Caluin vpon this place saieth that these widdows: gaue away their libertie to marrie, and did free themselues from the bound of marriage for all their life, and did depriue themselues of the libertie to marrie. How then did not they sinne by marrying.

Touching Iustification: they teach, that it is neuer last. Of Iustifica­tion. l. 1. c. 17. art. 15. Which is contrarie to Scripture to Scripture, as Confess. Saxon. cap. 11. confesseth in these words: By the saying of Luke: He goeth and bringeth other spirits, and the like sayings, it is manifest, that some regenerate do contristate and cast of the holie Ghost, and are afterward cast away of God, and become guiltie of his wrath and eternall punishment.

Touching eternall life: they denie that it is a reward. l. 1. Of eternall life. c. 18. art. 1. And yet thus speaketh Apologia Confess. Aug. in Melancthon: tom. 3. The Scripture calleth eternall life, are­ward: Agayne: The name of reward in this manner agreeth to eternall life, because eternall life rewardeth good works.

Touching Hell: they denie that it is a place. l. 1. c 18. act. Of Hell, 7. Which to be contrarie to Scripture thus confesseth Bu­canus loc. 4. Hell is a certaine place hid and horrible, appointed of God for damned men and Angels to their eternall paine. Nu. 16. 30. Math. 8. 12. Et Piscat or l. 1. loc. 22. The Scripture euerie where testifieth, that the damned shall suffer these torments in [Page 791] hell, to wit a place vnder earth appointed for their punishment. And Regius in loc. tit. l de Peccato. The Scripture expressely deputeth twoe places for soules, heauen for the good, and hell for the badde.

Touching the law of God: they denie that we may pray Of Gods law. for the fulfilling of it. lib. 1. c. 19. art. 5. And yet thus writeth Perkins in Explic. orat. Dom. Be done, that is, let obedience be giuen to it, let it be fulfilled of all men.

Concerning mans will: they denie that it is free in euill Of mans will l. 1. c. 21. art. 2. And yet thus writeth Regius in locis tit. de Peccato: To say with Maniche; that man cannot auoide sinne; this error is heresie. Rogers on the 10. Article. The Maniches affirmed how man is not voluntarily brought but necessarilie driuen vnto sinne.

These and manie moe Protestanticall doctrines Prote­stants themselues confesse to be contrarie to the true sense of holie Scripture. Why then may not we conclude, that Protestāts do contradict the holie Scripture, seing besides all the foresaied arguments, they themselues plainely con­fesse it of manie points of their doctrine: Which was the end and scope of this worke.

PERORATION Or Conclusion to the Reader.

THov hast seene (good Reader) in this worke, Catholiks ad­uantages for, Scripture ouer Prote­stants. what great aduantage Catholiks haue ouer Pro­testants euen for the written word of God or holie Scripture. Thou hast seene, that the Catholik do­ctrine in more then twoe hundred and sixtie points of cō ­trouersie relieth vpon the expresse word of God; whereas the Protestants Doctrine relieth vpon humane principles, humane conferences, humane consequences, that is, vpon the word of man. Thou hast seene, that the holie Scrip­ture in all these foresaied articles giueth sentence for the Catholik doctrine, and condemneth the Protestant, in [Page 792] expresse words, and those purposely spoaken, and in their plaine & vsuall sense, in which such words vse to be spoakē and taken of men: then the which no sentence can be giuē clearer or manifester. Thou hast seene how manie, how voluntarie, how intollerable corruptiōs both of the words and sense of Scripture Protestants are forced to make, lest they should seeme to be condemned by the sentence of holie Scripture. They haue now that Iudge to whome alone they appeale, let them heare him, let them submit themselues to his sentence. He speaketh plainely, directly, and purposely, and (as I saied) in the plaine and vsuall sense in which men vse such words, that I may not say also in the sense, in which he is vnderstood of the holie Fathers and the Catholik Church. Now all and the onelie pretext of Protestants touching the Scripture is taken away. For who, vnlesse he will shut his eyes, doth not see, but that they are most plainelie condemned of the Scripture, who are condemned of it in so manie, and so weightie articles, in such plaine words, and so cleare sense, and that it is but a vaine strugling to seek to obs­cure the clearnesse of such a sentence by humane glosses and expositions, such as were neuer wanting, nor euer wilbe wanting to anie Heretik? The Protestants haue often cried, that the Scripture is the onelie rule and foun­dation of faith, that faith relieth onelie vpon Scripture: which I would to God they would follow in the fore­saied 260. articles, and let goe their owne glosses and con­sequences, which are not sound in Scripture, and follow them who produce the expresse word of God against the word of man. Which counsail though it of it selfe be most reasonable, yet because they will more willinglie follow it when they shall heare it approued by their owne Maisters, I will here set downe the words of some of them. Luther in Postilla in Festo Assumpt. Alwaies Protest. aduise vs to follow them that fol­low Scrip­ture. sticke to th [...]se things, which are clearely deliuered by the Scriptures: and relie not vpon that which hath not manifest [Page 793] authoritie in Scripture. The Protestante Princes in Praefar. libr. Concordiae. In true simplicitie of faith they shall fir­mely insist in the plaine words of Christ: which is the surest manner and fittest to teach the ignorant. Melancthon in A­ctis Wormat. tom. 4. When the letter is plaine, it is manifest we must not goe from it. Et ib. in Resp. ad Staphilum: Nether is it to to be doubted, but that the letter, when there is no obscuritie or anbiguitie, is to be preferred before all the decrees of all men. Againe: Where the word is manifest, and without obscuritie or ambiguitie: it is impietie to teach or thinke the contrarie. And in Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 115. What wilbe in time of ten­tation, Harken to this, Prote­stants. when the conscience shall aske what cause it had to goe from the recaued doctrine of the Church: Then these words: This is my bodie, wilbe lightnings. What will the terrified mynd oppose against these, with what Scripture, with what word of God, will she strenghthen and perswade her selfe, that it was need to inter­pret them by a metaphor. They seeme not to be well acquainted with these disputes, who so much delighte in wit, as them more ad­mire subtilly deuised reasons then the words of Scripture. Iames Andrews in Colloq. Montisbel. pag. 456. Let them examine and iudge the doctrine of both partes, not by humane glosses, but by the word of God. Zuinglius libr. de Author. sedit. tom. 2. As often as thou seest Christian Doctors to cōtend and disagree, stick to him who bringeth a cleare, euident, and expresse oracle of God. Caluin. l. de ver. ref. p. 326. We denie, that it is lawfull for vs to goe from the certaine words of Christ. And 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 35. Our soules relie vpon the onely certaine word of God, when they are called to account. Sadeel libr. de Human. Christ. I cannot sufficiently admire them, who by those things which are not extant in Scripture, will take awaye the things which are approued by most certaine and euident testimonies of Scrip­ture. And de ver. peccat. remissio. No opinion is Theo­logicall, which is against the expresse places of Scripture. Fulk. in Hebr. 6. not. 3. Nether is the exposition of anie man to be receaued, that goeth directly against the words of the text, and the manifould testimonies of the Scripture. Vorstius in A­mica Collat. sec. 101. Who simply so affirme and teach al these [Page 794] things, they are secure before God, because they can safely retire themselues vnder the sheild of the holie Scripture; But who denie them, or by meruailous glosses obscure or corrupt them, thy finde no where sure footing. There is nothing more secure, thē simply to stick to the cleare word of God expounded by it selfe: and contra­riewise, nothing more dangerous, then to adde or detract neuer so litle of our owne, especially in matters of so great moment. Thus the cheife Protestant maisters, which if ether themselues would haue followed, or their disciples yet would fol­low, soone would there be an end of these controuersies.

With what assurance (ô God) may Catholiks appeare Confidence of Cath. for their faith. before thy tribunall for to answere for the faith which they maintaine against Protestants, seing they finde it is auouched in so manie and so great articles by thy expresse words spoaken not by the way, but of set purpose to tell vs what thou wouldest haue vs beleiue of these matters, and in their cleare and plaine sense, which they manifestly beare, and in which such words vse to be taken of men, so that vnlesse thou doe deceaue then or be deceaued, they cānot in these points be deceaued? But with what distrust Desperation of Protest. or rather desperation will Protestants appeare, seing they haue left that which so expresse words of God do auouch, & follow that which they most clearelie condēne, & onelie humane consequences, humane glosses, humane subtilities doe vphould? Then these words of God, wilbe (as Me­lancthon saied) lightnings, or as S. Austin speaketh, thun­drings Lib. 1. contr. Parm. c. 2. and heauenly lightnings, and Protestants cōsequences, figures, and glosses, will vanish to nothing. Then it will clearelie appeare, that Protestants without all word of God, without all diuine authoritie, but onelie vpon their owne fancies haue preferred their consequences, their conferences, their idle reasons before Gods expresse word, and that they might not seeme to haue done so, haue changed the true and natiue sense of Gods words into a strange, figuratiue, and violent sense. And shall we Neuer anie so contrarie to Scripture as Protestants. thinke, that these men are Ghospelers, restorers of the Ghospel, or sent of God, and their doctrine the pure Ghos­pell? [Page 795] Whereas neuer was there doctrine more opposit to the Ghospell, nor euer anie who in so manie and weightie matters, so directlie opposed themselues to the plaine words and open sense of the Ghospell. O bouldnesse of men that durst do thus against the expresse word of God himselfe. O impudencie of them who would auouch such doctrine, for the Ghospell. And ô blindnesses or madnesse of them, who suffer themselues to be deceaued of such men in a matter so euident. O bewiched and blinded mē, awaken at lenght, open your eyes, consider your estate, search the Scriptures here set before your eyes, and com­pare them with the doctrine of your Maisters, and consider whether they who in so manie and so great matters speak so contrarie, can speake with the same spirit, thinke the same thing. Demand of your Maisters 1. by what au­thoritie Demands to be made to Ministers. of God, by what word of God, they dare speake contrarie to the words and phrase of Scripture, of so manie and so great matters: 2. by what authoritie or word of 1 God, they dare thinke of so manie and so great matters, 2 otherwise then the expresse word of God spoaken pur­poselie and in it plaine and open sense, taught them to thinke. 3. By what authoritie or word of God, they 3 haue changed the proper vsuall and manifest sense of his words, into figuratiue, vnusuall, and violent senses,

If they can alledge no expresse authoritie or word of Ministers draw men from Gods expresse word to their conse­quences. God for their so doing (as in trueth in most of these Arti­cles they can giue no colour of Gods expresse word) but oneliepretend their consequences, their conferences, their reasons, suffer not your selues by this most deceitfull and fond humane pretext to be drawne from Gods expresse and their manifest sense. Let vs (saieth S. Austin) heare our Lib. de peccat. mer. c. 20. our Lord not the ghesses and suspicions of men. But that God speaking to men, speaking according to the manner of men, speaking of diuine and supernaturall things which cannot be knowne of vs but by his words, and speaking of them purposely for to declare his mynd concerning Note. them, should so often and in so manie and so wheigtie [Page 796] points, thinke otherwise then he speaketh, or otherwise thinke then his words do shew, or otherwise then men to whome he speaketh vse to vnderstand them, and yet not once should expressely say the cōtrarie, is not Gods word but the ghesses and suspicions, yea the impostures and lies of men. In this point therefore consisteth almost all the The Summe whether Ca­tholiks or Pro­test, be to be followed. summe of deliberation whether Catholiks or Protestants be to be followed, to wit, whether in supernaturall mat­ters, which cannot be knowne but by Gods expresse words, we ought to follow rather the expresse words of God purposely spoaken of him for to tell vs those mat­ters, Is whether Gods word, or mans rea­son. rather then the consequences, conferences, & reasons, of some new slart vp men not well agreing among them­selues: Then the which consultation none can be easier. For if euen in matters which are subiect to sense & reason, we ought to preferre Gods word before reason of what men soeuer; how much more in things which farre sur­passe the reach of mens sense or reason, ought we to pre­ferre it before the reasons of a few, new, and iangling fellows? Let that faith liue, florish, and triumphe, which Let that faith preuaile which Scrip­ture most fa­uoureth. in diuine matters that cannot be knowne but by Gods words, is authorized by Gods expresse word spoaken of purpose to declare Gods mynd, and in the plaine and opē sense wherein men vse to take such words, and against which sense no other expresse words are directly con­trarie: And let that faith, or rather infidelitie, fall, perish, vanish, which in more then 260. articles is condemned of such words of God and in such a sense, and in most points is onely supported by humane consequences, humane conferences, and humane reasons or arguments.

These are the points (Christian Reader) taken out of How Protest. handle the letter of Scri­pture. the first booke, which I desire to fasten and engraue in thy memorie: which yet will be more forcible, if thou adde to them things which I haue set before thy eyes in thy second booke. For there I haue shewed, that the holie Scripture doth so manifestly condemne the Protestants doctrine, as that touching the letter thereof, they are for­ced [Page 797] to reiect some openly, others priuilie to scrape out, to call some in doubt, to adde some, to translate some wrong, and change the order of others: Touching the propositiōs How the say­ings. of Scripture, they are compelled to say, that some of them were certainlie knowne of God himselfe, others not spoa­ken according to his owne mynd, others spoaken ironi­cally, mimeticallie, hyperbolicallie, by fiction and ampli­fication: and to change vniuersall propositions into parti­culars, vnlimited into limited, absolute into conditionals, these that were spoakē simply into those that were spoakē in parte, and those that were spoaken of one time, into those that were spoaken of an other. Touching the single How the simple words. words of Scripture, they are forced, those words which signifie the doing of a thing, to expound of endeauour to doe it; those which signifie the cause, to expound of the way or means to an end: Which signifie that a thing is, to expound that it ought to be: Which signifie a true thing, to expound of an apparent or signe thereof: to expound words, by diuerse, by disparate, or vnlikelie, yea by oppo­sites or contraries: to deuise all kinde of figures when the proprietie of the word is against them: to find out new & and neuer heard of distinctions: to reiect the vnanimous exposition of Fathers, Church, and Councels: to frustrate the ends of the passion of Christ: to take out of the world all true vertue, and to open the way to all vice: to confesse, that they hould opinions her to fore condemned for here­sies of the Church and Fathers: to acknowledge that some of their opinions are plainely blasphemous: and fi­nally (which is the end of this worke) directly opposite to holie Scripture. Who (I say) in more then 260. articles of cōtrouersie, not onelie oppose themselues to the expresse words of Scripture, spoaken of purpose to tell vs Gods meaning cōcerning matters that farre passe all mās reach, in their proper sense, and in which men vsuallie vnder­stand them, and to which no other places of Scripture are directlie opposite: but also, laie violent hands vpon the sacred letter or word, change almost all the kinds of pro­positions [Page 798] which the Scripture vseth, impiouslie depraue the sense of the words, reiect the exposition of Fathers, Church, and Councells, make voide the ends of Christs passion take away all vertue and bring in vice, and finallie confesse, that diuers of their opinions are blasphemous & contrarie to scripture, they are to be accounted, auoided and eschewed, not onely as Heretiks condemned by the Scripture and holie Church, but euen of themselues.

A note to the Reader.

I HAVE not set downe the editions of the Protestants bookes which I cite in this worke, because I haue done that in my booke de Authore Prot. Ecclesiae put forth An. 1619. Where he that list may see them, as also he may there see the laws which I prescribe to him that will answere ether that booke or this. Moreouer in this En­glish worke I doe not cite the English words of our En­glish Protestant writers because I had not their English works at hand, but translate them out of their Latin works. Besides I am not so curious to cite the leafe or page as I was in the Latin edition, because the vnlearned will not be able to seeke the Latin, and the learned Reader will rather (I suppose) peruse my Latin copie, where he shall find the leaues or pages as carefully cited as I could doe by the errors of the Scribe or Printer, whose fault no dis­cret reader will impute to me; and whose error I hope is no where to be found both in the number of the chap­ters, and of the leaues or pages together: So that the one of them may bring the Reader to the place which I al­ledge, if the other chance to be misprinted.

Laus Deo Virginique Matri.

AN INDEX OF THE CHAPTERS and Articles contained in the first booke.

CHAPTR 1. Of the owners of Scripture.

Whether Catholiks or Protestants be true owners of the Scripture.

CHAP. 2. Of God.

  • ARt. 2. Whether God willeth sinne. page. 45.
  • 2. Whether sinne pleaseth God. p. 49.
  • 3. Whether God hateth sinne. p. 50.
  • 4. Whether God worketh sinne. p. 51.
  • 5. Whether God ordaineth sinne to be. p. 33.
  • 6. Whether God commandeth sinne? p. 56.
  • 7. Whether God tempteth to sinne? p. 57
  • 8. Whether God necessitateth to sinne? p. 59.
  • 9. Whether God hateth all that sinne? p. 61.
  • 10. Whether God iustifieth the sinner remaining a sinner? p. 62.
  • 11. Whether God be angrie with the faithfull when they sinne? p. 65.
  • 12. Whether God be delighted with good works. p. 67.
  • 14. Whether God be serued by good works. p. 69.
  • 15. Whether God esteeme of good works which are not commanded? 70.
  • 16. Whether God be appeased by good workes? p. 71.
  • 17. Whether God will haue his commā ­dements kept. p. 73.
  • 18. Whether God loueth all men. p. 75.
  • 19. Whether God would haue all men to be saued. p. 77.
  • 20. Whether God would haue some cō ­uerted who will not conuert. p. 78.
  • 21. Whether God call all men. p. 80.
  • 22. Whether God of himselfe will the death and damnation of men. p. 81.
  • 23. Whether God dāneth men for sinne? p. 85.
  • 24. Whether God can doe all things. p. 86.
  • 25. Whether God can make a Camell passe through a needls eye. p. 88.
  • 26. Whether God can doe that which shall neuer be. p. 90.
  • 27. Whether Gods miracles be a suffi­cient proof of trueth? p. 91.

Chap. 3. Of Christ.

  • Art. 1. Whether God the Sonne had his being of his Father. p. 96.
  • 2. Whether Christ was predestinated the Sonne of God. p. 97.
  • 3. Whether Christ as man is to be ado­red. p. 98.
  • 4. Whether Christ as man could worke miracles. p. 100.
  • 5. Whether Christs humanitie be euerie where. p. 102.
  • 6. Whether Christ as man be head of [Page] the Church. p. 104.
  • 7. Whether Christ as man made lawes? p. 105.
  • 8. Whether Christ as mā be Iudge? 107.
  • 9. Whether Christ made a new testa­ment? p. 109.
  • 10. Whether as man he were ignorant? p. 111.
  • 11. Whether as man he were a sinner? p. 113.
  • 12. Whether he refused to doe the office of a Redeemer? p. 116.
  • 13 Whether he was assured of his salua­tion? 118
  • 14 VVhether he had commandment to giue his life for vs? 120
  • 15 VVhether he merited any thing for himselfe? 121
  • 16 VVhether he sufficiently redeemed vs? 123
  • 17. VVhether he redeemed vs with his blood? 125
  • 18. VVhether he died for reprobates? 127
  • 19. VVhether he died for all? 129
  • 20. VVhether his blood be corrupted? 131
  • 21. VVhether his soule descēded to hell? 132
  • 22. VVhether he suffered the paines of hell? 134
  • 23. VVhether he entred to his disciples, the doores being shut? 136
  • 24. VVhether he penetrated the heauēs? 138
  • 25. VVhether he praieth for vs in heauen? 139

Chap. 4. Of Angels and Saints.

  • Art. 1. VVhether Angels and Saints doe the will of God? 144
  • 2. VVhether Saints enioye their feli­citie? 145
  • 3. VVhether the glorie of Saints be e­quall? 147
  • 4. VVhether Angels and Saints pray for vs. 148
  • 5. VVhether Saints haue care of vs? 150
  • 6. VVhether they heare our praiers. 152.
  • 7. VVhether Angels offer our praiers to God? 153
  • 8. VVhether they be to be praied vnto? 155
  • 9. VVhether God be to be praied vnto by the names of Saints? 156
  • 10. VVhether God haue mercie on vs for Saints sake? 158
  • 11. VVhether Angels or Saints be to be bowed vnto? 159
  • 12. VVhether Saints be to be imitated of vs? 161
  • 13. VVhether holie men receaue vs into heauenlie tabernacles? 162
  • 14. VVhether anie Saint may be termed our hope? 163
  • 15. VVhether anie had power to worke Miracles? 164
  • 16. VVhether Saints do reigne with Christ? 166
  • 17. VVhether anie was full of grace? 167

Chap. 5. Of the Scripture or worde of God.

  • Art. 1. VVhether anie place of Scripture be hard to vnderstand? 170
  • 2. VVhether Scripture can be vnder­stood without the holie Ghost? 172
  • 3. VVhether the Ghospel containe any law? 174
  • 4. VVhether the Ghospell preach pen­nance? 167
  • 5. VVhether the Ghospell reproue [Page] sinne? 178
  • 6. VVhether the Ghopell promise sal­uation without conditiō of works? 180
  • 7. VVhether the Gospell be contrarie to the law? 182
  • 8. VVhether the law of Moyses com­manded faith in Christ? 184.
  • 9. VVhether anie vnwritten traditions be to be kept? 186

Chap. 6. Of S. Peter and the Apostles.

  • Art. 1. VVhether S. Peter were first of the Apostles? 189.
  • 2. VVhether the Church was built on S. Peter? 190.
  • 3. VVhether the keyes were giuen to him? 192.
  • 4. VVhether his faith failed? 193.
  • 5. VVhether the Apostles were foun­dations of the Church? 195.
  • 6. VVhether the Apostles were simply to be heard? 196.
  • 7. VVhether they were sufficient wit­nesses of the trueth? 198
  • 8. VVhether they learned anie point af­ter Christs ascension? 200.
  • 9. VVhether Iudas was truely a disci­ple? 201.
  • 10. VVhether Iudas was a Bishop? 202.

Chap. 7. Of Pastors of the Church.

  • Art. 1. Whether Pastors alwaies conti­new? 204.
  • 2. VVhether authoritie be in the Pa­stors? 206.
  • 3. VVhether one Pastor can excommu­nicate? 208.
  • 4. VVhether Pastors can make lawes? 209.
  • 5. VVhether Bishops be rulers of the Church? 210
  • 6. VVhether they rule the Church? 211.
  • 7. VVhether Pastors be to be called Priests? 213.
  • 8. VVhether a Pastor can be without calling? 214.
  • 9 Whether a Pastor may haue temporall iurisdiction? 216.
  • 10 VVhether Moyses were a Preist? 218.

Chap. 8. Of the Church.

  • Art. 1. VVhether the Church be one? 220.
  • 2. VVhether ill men be of the Church? 223.
  • 3 Whether reprobats be of the Church? 225.
  • 4 VVhether the Church euer conti­new? 226.
  • 5. VVhether it be alwaies visible? 228.
  • 6. VVhether it be infallible? 230.
  • 7. VVhether it be simply to be heard? 231.
  • 8. VVhether trueth relieth on the Church? 232.

Chap. 9. Of Temples or materiall Churches.

  • Art. 1. VVhether Churches be for priuat Praiers? 235.
  • 2. VVhether Churches be to be ador­ned? 237.
  • 3. VVhether Images may be set in Churches?
  • 4. VVhether Heatens thought their idols to be Gods? 240

Chap. 10. Of Baptisme.

  • Art. 1. Whether water be necessarie to baptisme? p. 242.
  • 2. Whether inuocation of the Trinitie be necessarie to baptisme? p. 243.
  • 3. Whether baptisme be necessarie as by precept? p. 245.
  • 4. VVhether it be necessarie as a meane? p. 246.
  • 5. VVhether Simon Magus and such were baptized? p. 248.
  • 6. VVhether baptisme be effectuall in reprobats. p. 150.
  • 7. VVhether baptisme clenseth sinne? p. 252.
  • 8. VVhether it pardonneth sinnes to come? p. 256.
  • 9. VVhether before baptisme children be in state of damnation? p. 258.
  • 10. VVhether the baptisme of S. Ihon and of Christ were different? p. 261.
  • 11. VVhether certaine Ephesians had re­ceaued S. Ihons baptisme? p. 262.
  • 12. VVhether they had heard of the ho­lie Ghost? p. 264.

Chap. 11. Of the Eucharist.

  • Art. 1. VVhether the Eucharist be the bodie and blood of Christ? p. 266.
  • 2. VVhether Christs flesh be to be eaten, and his blood to be drunk? p. 280.
  • 3. VVhether Christ gaue the blood of the new testament to be drunk? p. 283.
  • 4. VVhether the Eucharisticall Chalice be Christs testament? p. 284.
  • 5. Vhether at the time of his Supper his blood was shed? p. 286.
  • 6. VVhether the Eucharisticall Chalice was shed for vs? p. 288.
  • 7. VVhether bread be necessarie to the Eucharist? p. 289.
  • 8. VVhether the Eucharist be to be made of azime bread? p. 290.
  • 9. VVhether bread and wine whereof the Eucharist is made, be to be bles­sed? p. 292.
  • 10. VVhether there ought to be anie preparation to the Eucharist? p. 293.
  • 11. VVhether there be anie Sacrifice in the Church? p. 295.
  • 12. VVhether is there anie altar in the Church. p. 296.
  • 13. VVhether the Paschal lambe was sa­crificed? p. 297.

Chap. 12. Of the other Sacraments.

  • Art. 1. VVhether Preists can forgiue sinnes? p. 300.
  • 2. VVhether we must cōfesse our sinnes. p. 302.
  • 3. VVhether grace be giuen by imposi­tion of hands? p. 305.
  • 4. VVhether hands be to be imposed v­pon those that are baptized? p. 305.
  • 5. VVhether Matrimonie be a Sacra­ment? p. 306.
  • 6. VVhether one may marrie after di­uorce. p. 307.
  • 7. VVhether the sick are to be anoiled? p. 310.
  • 8. VVhether the new Sacraments ex­cell the ould. p. 311.

Chap. 13. Of faith.

  • Art. 1. VVhether faith be a worke? 314.
  • 2. VVhether faith beleiue onely God his promises. 315.
  • 3. VVhether to beleiue that Christ is God, be iustifying faith? 317.
  • 4. VVhether faith be one? 319.
  • 5. VVhether all articles of faith may be [Page] beleiued without the holie Ghost. 321.
  • 6. VVhether faith differ from hope and charitie? 322.
  • 7. VVhether faith be greater then cha­ritie? 324.
  • 8. VVhether faith be without charitie? 325.
  • 9. VVhether it be without confession? 328.
  • 10. VVhether without good works it be dead? 329.
  • 11. VVhether faith whereof S. Iames speaketh be iustifying faith? 331.
  • 12. VVhether anie faith be perfect? 333.
  • 13. VVhether faith be perfected by good works. 331.
  • 14. VVhether by faith we onely know that we are iustified? 336.
  • 15. VVhether faith be necessarie to iusti­fication or saluation. 338.
  • 16. VVhether faith be anie cause of iu­stificatien? 340.
  • 17. VVhether faith alone cā iustifie. 342.
  • 18. VVhether faith iustifie, as it is beleife. 344.
  • 19. VVhether faith it selfe be imputed to iustice. 346
  • 20. VVhether faith be proper to the iust. 348
  • 21 VVhether it be proper to the Elect? 350
  • 22. VVhether faith come by hearing? 352
  • 23. VVhether faith be euer lost? 353
  • 24. VVhether faith be rewarded? 355
  • 25. VVhether the faith of those who toucht Christs garments, were pure? 356

Chap. 14. Of good workes in generall.

  • Art. 1. VVhether anie worke of a Sinner may be good. p. 360
  • 2 VVhether euerie good worke, be sinne? 362
  • 3 VVhether good works, be a sweet smell to God, 364
  • 4 VVhether good works be fully good? 366
  • 5 VVhether they be iust or iustice in the sight of God? 369
  • 6 VVhether in good works there be anie worth? 371
  • 7 VVhether eternall life be promised to good works? 373
  • 8 VVhether good works be merito­rious. 374
  • 9 VVhether there may be glorie in good works? 376
  • 10 VVhether all good works be equall before God? 378
  • 11 VVhether good works be comman­ded of God? 379
  • 12 VVhether they be necessarie to iusti­fication? 381
  • 13 VVhether they be necessarie to sal­uation? 384
  • 14 VVhether they be profitable to sal­uation or iustification? 387
  • 15 VVhether they be anie cause of sal­uation? 390
  • 16 VVhether they be a testimonie of iu­stification or predestination? 393
  • 17 VVhether they be a cause of Gods loue towards vs? 395
  • 18 VVhether we ought to doe good works? 396
  • 19 VVhether they may be done for re­ward? 399
  • 20 VVhether they be to be done for the glorie of God? 401

Chap. 15. Of workes in particular.

  • Art. 1. VVhether it be good not to marrie? 406
  • [Page]2 VVhether virginitie, be a vertue? 406.
  • 3. VVhether the state of virginitie be better then marriage? 408
  • 4. VVhether God would haue men to liue single? 410
  • 5. VVhether Fasting be a vertue? 412.
  • 6. VVhether fasting be a preseruatiue against the Diuel? 414.
  • 7. VVhether choice of meats be lauda­ble? 415.
  • 8 VVhether we may pray for all? 416.
  • 9. VVhether we may pray for the dead? 417.
  • 10 VVhether we may pray for that which God hath not promised? 419
  • 11. VVhether anie obtaine for the worth of their praier? 421.
  • 12. VVhether we may pray in an vn­knowne tongue? 422.
  • 13. VVhether we be commanded to say our lords praier? 423
  • 14. VVhether we may make vows? 424
  • 15. VVhether almes deliuer from death and sinne? 426
  • 16. VVhether we may giue all to the poore? 427
  • 17. VVhether pennance be commanded to all? 428
  • 18 VVhether affliction of the bodie be a parte of pennance? 429.
  • 19 VVhether pennance of the Niniuites was good? 431
  • 20. VVhether Eremitical life be lawfull?

Chap. 16. Of Sinnes.

  • Art. 1. VVhether sinnes be imputed to the faithfull? 435.
  • 2. VVhether anie sinne be mortall to the Elect and faithfull? 437.
  • 3. VVhether onely incredulitie be sinne? 438.
  • 4. VVhether sinne ought to be ouer­comen of vs? 440.
  • 5. VVhether anie that serue the flesh, can serue God? 441.
  • 6 VVhether by greuous sinnes we fall from grace? 442.
  • 7 VVhether sinne can stād with iustice?
  • 8. VVhether sinne may be redeemed by good works? 447.
  • 9. VVhether to abstaine from great sinnes, be necessarie to saluation? 448
  • 10. VVhether sinne be the cause of dam­nation? 451.
  • 11. VVhether we must giue account of our sinnes? 453.
  • 12. VVhether the iustified commit ill? p. 454.
  • 13. VVhether the iustified commit sinne? 455.
  • 14 VVhether the iustified euer do sinne wilfully? 457.
  • 15 VVhether the widows 1. Tim. 5. did sinne in marrying? 458.
  • 16 VVhether vsurie be sinne? 459.
  • 17. VVhether all sinned in Adam? 460.
  • 18. VVhether there is originall sinne? 461.

Chap. 17. Of Iustification.

  • Art. 1. VVhether Iustification be of works? 465.
  • 2. VVhether it be of faith onely? 467.
  • 3. VVhether the iustified be iust in Gods fight? 469.
  • 4. VVhether the iustified be cleane? 472
  • 5. VVhether sinne remaine in the iusti­fied? 474.
  • 6. VVhether sinnes be simply forgiuen? 477.
  • 7. VVhether all the iustified be equally iust? 478.
  • 8. VVhether there is anie inherent iu­stice? 478.
  • [Page]9. Whether inherent iustice can be im­puted. 481.
  • 10. Whether the iustified be infallibly certaine of their iustice? 482.
  • 11. Whether pennance goe before iustifi­cation? 845.
  • 12. Whether iustificatiō can be lost? 487.
  • 13. Whether the iustified may feare to fall? 489.
  • 14. Whether iustification be proper to the Elect? 492.
  • 15. Whether we cooperate to our iustifi­cation? 493.
  • 16. Whether after iustification anie pu­nishment remaine? 496

Chapt. 18. Of life and death euerlasting.

  • ART. 1. Whether life euerlasting be a reward? p. 499.
  • 2. Whether it be a crowne of iustice? 501.
  • 3. Whether it be of faith onely? 503.
  • 4. Whether all men be to be iudged? 505
  • 5. Whether eternall life be to be rende­red to anie? 506.
  • 6. Whether the soules of the Reprobates doe now suffer in Hell. 507.
  • 7. Whether Hell be anie place? 509.
  • 8. Whether Hell fire be true fire? 510.

Chapt. 19. Of Gods law.

  • ART. 1. Whether Gods law be possi­ble? 513.
  • 2. Whether euer anie kept Gods law? 515.
  • 3. Whether anie loued God in all the [...] heart? 517.
  • 4. Whether Gods law be in th [...] heart of anie? 519.
  • 5. Whether we [...] [...] [...] that we may keepe Gods law? 520.
  • 6. Whether the keeping of Gods law be necessarie to saluation? 521.
  • 7. Whether the law of God be abroga­ted from the faithfull. 522.

Chapt. 20. Of mans law and superioritie.

  • ART. 1. Whether there be anie Su­perioritie among Christians? 526.
  • 2. Whether man can make laws? 527.
  • 3. Whether mans law bindeth the con­science? 529.

Chapt. 21. Of free will.

  • ART. Whether man be free in indif­ferent matters? 532.
  • 2. Whether man be free in morall mat­ters? 534.
  • 3. Whether man cooperate with Gods grace to good? 536.

Chap. 22. Of mans Soule.

  • ART. 1. Whether mans Soule be im­mortall? 539.
  • 2. Whether Mans soule be the forme of his bodie? 545.
  • 3 Whether there be anie resurrection of the dead? 547.

THE INDEX. OF THE CHAPTERS CONTAINED in the second booke.

  • CHAPTER. 1. That Protestants contradict the tru [...] sense of Scrip­ture, because i [...] so manie points they gaynesay the expresse words thereof. pag. 549.
  • Chapt. 2. That Protestants confesse, they contradict the sense of those words, which the Cathol. Church long since, and manie of themselues now, beleiue to be the words of God. p. 611.
  • Chapt. 3. That Protestants are forced to vse violence to that parte of Scrip­ture which they receaue. p. 615.
  • Chapt. 4. That Protestants ouerthrow all force of the words of Scripture, yea contemne and deride them. p. 620.
  • Chapt. 5. That Protestants say, that words of Scripture which make against them, were not spoaken of certaine knowledge. p. 630.
  • Chapt. 6. That Protestants saye, that manie weightie sayings of the Scripture were not spoaken accor­ding to the mynd of the speakers. p. 633.
  • Chapt. 7. That Protestants are forced to say, that the Scripture speaketh ironically, &c. p. 640.
  • Chapt. 8. That Protestants are forced to turne the most generall speaches of the Scripture into particulars. p. 647.
  • Chapt. 9. That Protestants limitate manie propositions, not limitated by the Scripture. p. 654.
  • Chapt. 10. That Protestants change manie absolute speaches of Scrip­ture into conditionals. p. 665.
  • Chapt. 11. That Protestants change conditionall speaches of Scripture into absolute. p. 668.
  • Chapt. 12. That Protestants change manie causall speaches of Scripture into not causal. p. 670.
  • Chapt. 13. That what is simply spoaken of Scripture, they make to be spoa­ken in parte. p. 674.
  • Chapt. 14. That they will not vnderstād the speaches of Scripture of that time of which it speaketh. p. 678.
  • Chapt. 15. That of manie sayings of Scripture they make one. p. 681.
  • Chapt. 16. That words which signifie effecting a thing, they expound of en­deauoring. p. 683.
  • Chapt. 17. That words which signifie a cause, they expound of a way or meane. p. 686.
  • Chap. 18. That words which signifie a thing to be, they expound, that it ought to be. p. 689.
  • Chapt. 19. That words signifying a true thing, they expound of an apparent. p. 690.
  • Chapt. 20. That they are forced to ex­pound the words of Scripture, by di­uers, by disparats, and contraries. p. 696.
  • Chapt. 21. That they are forced to de­uise improprietie of words and all fi­gures. p. 712.
  • Chapt. 22. That they are forced to coyne manie distinctions, friuolous, repug­nant, and vnheard of. p. 719.
  • Chapt. 23. That they confesse that they teach against the vniforme consent of Fathers, the Church, and Coun­cels. p. 731.
  • [Page]Chapt. 24. That they confesse that they teach ould damned heresies. p. 740.
  • Chapt. 25. That they confesse that some of the Protestants opinions are blas­phemous. p. 744.
  • Chapt. 26. That they make frustrate the ends of Christs incarnation and pas­sion. p. 755.
  • Chapt. 27. That they take away all ver­tue, and open a way to all sinne. p. 758.
  • Chapt. 28. That they haue no infallible interpretation of Scripture. p. 763.
  • Chapt. 29. That they admit no Iudge to whose iudgment they will stand. p. 769.
  • Chapt. 30. That sometimes they con­fesse their doctrine to be contrarie to holie Scripture. p. 757.
  • Peroration or Conclusion to the Rea­der. p. 791.
FINIS.

Faults escaped in the printing.

In the Preface to the booke.

Page 5. line 8. let is. Correction, let vs. ibid. l. 26. sixte. cor. sixtie. p. 8. l. 15. is most. cor. is a most. ib. ease. cor. easie. ib. l. 38 dele. all p. 9. l. 10. gods. cor. God. p. 12. l. 2. thefe. cor. these. p. 15. l. 34. for as cor. so for as. p. 17. l. 37. like most &c. cor. like boost of them all. But this most. &c. p. 19. l. 7. pro­porse is cor. propose. p. 20. l. 37. Word. cor. worke. p. 23. l. 31. proportions cor. propositions. p. 25. l. 27. Workes. cor. worke is. p. 26. l 10. if cite. cor. I cite. p. 27. l. 20. thaught cor. taught.

In the booke.

Pag. 2. line. 18. hould cor. hold. p. 3. l. 28. herie cor. heire. p. 6. l. 1. with cor. with them. p. 10. l. 28. for better cor. far better. p. 14. l. 20. be cor. he. p. 20. l. 19. rocke. cor. the rocke. p. 23. l. 21. right cor. night. ib. l. 27. image cor. of Image. ib. l 28. not cor. nor. p. 25. l. 2. whas hed cor. washed. p 28. l. 36. sweel cor. sweet. p. 48. l. 3. damnations cor. damnation. p. 49. l. 33. dath cor. doth. p, 50. l. 23. aboues cor. aboue. p. 51. l. 13. vn cor. vnto. p. 52 l. 10. is cor. his. p. 53. l. 21. it cor. is. p. 55. l. 11. to will cor. to witt. p. 56. l. 25. for cor. for to. p. 65. l. 5. punisheth cor. he punisheth. ib. l. 16. hath anger cor. hath no anger. p. 68. l 17 Manlins cor. Moulins. p. 69. l. 19. to will cor. to wit. p. 74. l. 31. declare cor. deela­red. p. 80. l. 13 came cor. come. p. 81. l. 22. burdered cor. burdened. p. 82. l 32. shat cor. that. p. 92. l 36. as once cor. at once. p 102. l 22. forgiuen cor. forgiuing. p. 105 l. 3. know cor. bow. p 123. l. 26. obut cor. but. p. 138 l. 14. cannot be cor. cannot but be. ib. l. 35. bought cor. brought. p. 145. l. 27. came cor. come. p. 146. l. 19. enioyned cor. enioyed. p. 155. l. 19. two cor. to. p. 156. l. 17. any cor. an. p. 177. l. 16. workesse cor. workes. p. 182. l. 3 mayes cor. wayes. p. 191. l. 24. opposition cor. exposition. p. 193 l. 23. affirmeth cor. denyeth. p. 194. l. 1. affirme cor. deny. ib l. 3. denie cor. affirme. p. 202 l. 5. one cor. are. ib l 26. deny cor. affirme. p. 209 l. 23. diuel cor. dwell. p. 210. l. 24. priests cor. priest. p. 211. l. 13. whether do, cor. whether Pastors doe. p 313. l 17. followes cor. fellowes. p. 215. l. 17. port cor. part. p. 218. l. 20. as cor was p. 260. l. 1. roshly cor. rashly. p. 269. l. 26. if cor. of. p. 271. l. 34. of pastie cor. or pastie. p. 274. l. 35. if the cor. of the. p. 278 l. [...]8. them cor. then. p. 289. l. 10. he cor. be. ib. l. 20. ad cor. and p. 305. l. 17. descricbed cor. described. p. 309. l. 1. of cor a. ib. l. 25. husband cor her husband. p. 315 l 20. to God cor. God. p. 317. l 27. beleuie cor. beleiue. p. 328. l 22. with cor. with hearte. p. 331. l. 6. faith saieth cor. sith faith. p 341. l. 1. Catholikes cor. Protestants. p. 342 l. 4. not cor nor. p 343. l. 12. strang cor. strong. p 346. l. 12. derswasion cor. persuasion. p 349. l. 17. this cor. they. p. 355. l. 15. leefe cor leese. p. 357 l. 16. sauing cor. saying. p. 365 l. 18. art cor. are. p. 377. l. 5. Com cor. Rom. p. 396. l. 19 youehall cor. you shall. p. 409. l. 3. of self cor of it selfe p. 420. l. 21. promise cor. promised p. 426. l. 26. suo cor. sua. p. 444. l. 9. him, not cor him not. p. 448. l. 22. eath cor. death. p 458. l. 23. faith cor, sayeth p. 460 l. 9 with cor. which p 465. l. 17. then cor. them. p. 487. l. 22 as cor. of. p. 489 l. 18 lete cor. let. p. 490. l. 17. to cor. to be ib. l. 20. that cor. then. p. 514 l. 8. the cor. then. p. 522. l. 5. būod cor. bound. p. 542. l. 19. alone cor. all one p 543 l 17. styme cor. slyme. p. 545. l. 12. thoum, y cor. thou, my p. 550. l 22. as cor. of. p. 634. l. 3 there cor. their. p. 636. l 30 prayed cor. prayers. p. 639. l. 12. and tyme dele tyme. ib l 24. boasting cor. that boasting. p. 656. l. 13. fourth cor. forth. 657 l. 29. vniusall cor vniuersall p 659 l 6. of cor. if p 662. l 18. conceaue cor. conceaued. p. 664 l 27 as cor. as to. p. 673. l. 28. of kinde cor. kind of. p 690. l. 27 month cor. mouth p. 691 l. 2. the cor. he p. 698. l. 29 be confessed cor. confesse. p. 704. l 2. to cor. to be p. 709. l. 22. merly cor merily p. 728. l. 29 perfectiuely cor perfectly. p 732. l. 4. are cor or. p 734. l. 21. forbiddacne cor. forbiddance. ib. l. 32. dot cor. not p. 743. l 14. must cor most p. 748. l. 31 men cor. man. p. 750 l. 25. of power cor. pow­er of. p 764. l, 10. learned cor. vnlearned. p. 773 l 6. is in cor. in p. 774. l. 4. distruction cor. distin­ction. p. 775 l. 28. willeth cor. willeth not. p. 790. l. 20. last cor. lost. p 793 l. 18. them cor. they. p. 794. l. 19. then cor. them.

In the Margents.

Pag. 20. not rocke cor. not the rocke. ib keyos cor. keyes p. 27. diuarce cor. diuorce. ib aduantrie cor. aduoutrie ib. to worke cor. a worke p. 65 euer cor. Eue. p. 118. the cor. he p. 146 heauen cor heare. p. 161. followed cor. followed p 223. bod cor. bad. p. 226. hane cor. haue. p. 240 theirs cor. their p. 258. sote cor. state. p. 276. ward. cor. word. p. 278. thou cor then. p. 309. liuing [...] cor. liuing. p. 327. thou cor. then. p 350. all cor. at all. p 361. sinners cor. of sinners. p. 367 perfiled cor. perfited. p. 403. goost cor. good p 475 reted cor. remitted. p. 539. returnet cor. returneth. p. 659. thing cor. thinke p. 695. generall of cor. generall way of. p. 713. imperpely cor. improperly.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.