and that we should rightly vnderstaÌ„d 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 shal be 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 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 ProtestaÌ„ts 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 spoakeÌ„ 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 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 maÌ„ 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 theÌ„ 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 â— 33. cont Faâ—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 coÌ„traries it is our manner to be taught new things and that but once and which caÌ„not 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 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
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 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 wil be 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 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 God they dare thinke of so manie and so great matters 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 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 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
of faith in Christ of iustifying faith of faith of remission of sinnes The like hath Ambing apud Hospin in Concord discordi fol. 140. Beza de Praedest cont Caste l. vol. 1. p. 393. There is no mētion in the law of this benefit of free redemption by Christ For the declaratiō of this will belongeth to an other parte of Gods word which is called the Ghospell Apol. Cōf. Augustan c. de Iustific The Ghospell preacheth iustice of faith in Christ which the law doth not teach THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that Moises wrote in the law of Christ that Moises wrote things concerning Christ That Moise commanded the people to heare Christ in all things The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that the law neuer knew faith in Christ that Moises cōmandeth not faith in Christ that the law knoweth nothing of faith in Christ that in the law there is no mention of free redemption in Christ that the law teacheth nothing of faith in Christ ART IX WHETHER ANY VNWRITTEN word or Traditions be to be kept SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. 2. Thessal 2. v. 15. Therefore brethren stand and hould the traditions Traditions not written to be helde which you haue learned whether it be by word or by our epistle CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Coūcell of Trent Sess 4. The holie Coūcell doth with equall pious affection reuerently receaue and honour traditions belonging to faith or manners as ether deliuered by Christs mouth or the holie Ghost and by continuall succession conserued in the Catholik Church PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 3. cap. 10. We care not for vnwritten Not to be helde traditions And Contro 2. q. 5. c. 18. We acknowledge no other word then that which is written And what doctrine soeuer is not written we hould for bastard doctrine Perkins in Cathol ref Contr. 20. c. 2. We acknowledge the onely written word of God Luther Postil in ferias S. Stephani Nothing is to be affirmed Nothing but that which is expressed in Scripture which is not expressed in Scripture Iacobus Andreae l. cont Hosium p. 169. That faith is no faith but an vncertain opinion which is not grounded vpon an expresse testimonie of Scripture Wigand apud Scusselb to 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 681. Onely those doctrines whose very words or equiualent for sense are extant in the Scripture are to be tought and deliuered in the Church Caluin in Gratulat ad Praecentorem pag. 377. Nothing is to be beleiued which is not expressed in Scripture And cont versipellem pagin 353. There is no mention of vnwritten traditions Beza in Rom. 1. v. 17. Christians acknowledge no other object of this faith then the written word of God Etad Reprehens Castell p. 503. Whosoeuer beleiueth in doctrine of religion that which is not written I say he embraceth opinion for faith and an idol for God Vallada in Apol. cont Episc Luzon c. 13. In all the holie No speech of an vnwritten word Scripture there is no speech of an vnwritten word Daneus Controu 7. pag. 1350. The foundation of Christian faith is one onely to wit the word of God and that onely written Hospinian part 2. Histor Sacram. fol. 23. The Magistrates of Zurich commāded that hereafter nothing should be proposed or preached in their Church but the pure fined word of God contained in the bookes of the Prophets and Apostles THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that traditions as well they which are learned by word as they which are learned by writing are to be obserued Catholiks teach the same Protestants expressely teach that onely written doctrin is to be tought nothing to be beleiued but what is written onely the pure fined written word to be tought no obiect of faith but what is written nothing to be beleiued but what is expressed in Scripture and that in verie words or in equiualent sense that there is no mention of vnwritten traditions no speech of vnwritten word that they care not for vnwritten traditions A SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF THE WORD of God or Scripture What we haue rehearsed in this chapter doth clearly shew that Protestants do farre otherwise iudge of Scripture then the Scripture it selfe and Catholiks doe For the holie Scripture together with Catholiks teacheth that in it are some things hard to be vnderstood that it cannot be vnderstood without the light of the holie Ghost that the Ghospell is or containeth a law that it doth preach pennance and good workes reproueth sinne promiseth saluation vnder condition of good workes and is not contrarie vnto the law of God that the law of Moises commandeth faith in Christ and that vnwritten traditions are to be obserued And Protestants defend all the contrarie They shew also that Protestants steale from the Scripture Protestants steale from Scripture her excellencie wherewith she surpasseth the capacitie of mans wit and from the Ghospell that it containeth any law preacheth pennance or good workes reproueth sinne promiseth saluation vpon condition of well doing and agreement with Gods law whereby we see what a libertin Ghospell they bring in to wit such as containeth Libertin Ghospell of Protestants no law preacheth no pennance or good workes reproueth no sinne promiseth saluation without all condition of well doing and is quite contrarie to the law of God And that they steall from the law of Moises that it commandeth faith in Christ and finally they take away all the vnwritten word of God CHAPTER V. OF SAINT PETER AND THE APOSTLES ART I. WHETHER S. PETER WERE first of the Apostles SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. MATHEW 10. v. 2. And the names of the twelue S. Peter first of the Apostles Apostles be these The first Simon who is called Peter CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Pontif. c. 18. Peter was put first by reason his dignitie PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Contr. 3. q. 5. c. 3. Wheresoeuer mention is made Not first of Peter if we looke well into the place we shall find that nothing is giuen to him which agreeth not to the other Apostles And Controu 4. quaest 2. c. Paul maketh himselfe equall to Peter in all points Tindal in Fox his Acts p. 1139. S. Paul is greater then Peter by the testimonie of Christ Articuli Smalcaldici pag. 345. We giue no prerogatiue to Peter Luther in Gal. 2. to 5. This place clearely sheweth that all the Apostles had equall vocation and commission There was altogether equalitie amongst them no Apostle was greater then an other Illyricus in Praefat. lib. de Sectis It appeareth that Christ gaue no primacie at all in his Church to any man Caluinus in Matth. 20. v. 25. Christ shewed that in his kingdome No primacie or firstnesse there was no primacie for which they contended Beza in Matth. 10. v. 2. What if this word First were added of some who would establish Peters primacie Festus Homius disput 12. All the Apostles were equall in dignitie authoritie
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 shal be 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 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 Cētur 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 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
his commaÌ„dements 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 shal be 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 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 mammoÌ„ 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 shal be 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 shal be 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 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 Redeemâ— 1. Shâ—w â—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 meÌ„ 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 of water is the lauer of regeneration that is signifieth the inward RegeneratioÌ„ 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
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 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 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 commādements 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 cōuerted 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 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
he nether mentioneth the lawes of answering my saied booke which I set downe and proue by reason testimonie of holie Fathers and confession of Protestants ought to be kept in answering such a booke And which lawes I tell him before hand that vnles he ether keepe or refute I would accounte his answer no solid or lawfull answere but the babling of one who could neither sufficiently answere nor yet hould his peace Secondly because he maketh no other answere to the manifold and manifest depositions of the best learned Protestants which I haue my self brought and clearly confuted by the depositions or testimonies them selues against which confutation of myne he replieth nothing but standeth mute Thirdly because he so miserably mangleth the answere which I make to their Sophisme wherewith they by pretense of true Doctrin would proue that they haue alwaies had true Pastors and People who taught and beleiued it and so pittifully replieth to the saied answere as he plainly sheweth him self to be a true Heretike that is conuicted in his owne iudgement as I think euerie one that compareth his lecture with my Booke will clearly perceiue 4. But sith the Protestants cheife and almost whole pretense of the truth and euer being of their Church is the pretense of the truth of their doctrin by the Scripture I will euidently shew euen by the light of Reason and Prudence that they haue no reasonable or colourable pretense of Scripture but that it maketh expresly clearly and directly against theÌ„ and for Catholiks almost in all points of coÌ„trouersie For whereas there be twoe waies to shew Twoe waies to proue that the Scripture is against Protest that the holie Scripture is plainely against Protestants the one by conferring of diuers places together by bringing the exposition of the holie Fathers decrees of Councels and tradition of the Church the other by onely comparinge the expresse words of Catholiks and ProtestaÌ„ts with Protest Doctrin as clearly contrarie to Scripture as yea is to no. expresse words of holie Scripture touching the same matter I take not the first way which hithertoe Catholike writers haue followed because it is not so fit to the capacitie of commun people for whome especially I compose this worke but the second which is as cleare for euerie one that hath reason to see as it is cleare to see that Yea and Yea of the same matter agree and that Yea and Nay do disagree 4. This perhaps may seeme strange nay impossible to simple Protestants whose eares haue bene still accustomed to heare their ministers vaunt and brag of the word of God of the Scripture and Bible and to auouch that Catholiks haue nothing to alleadge for theÌ„ selues but traditions and word of men But I beseech such to suspend a while their iudgment and sith they wil haue the Protestants doctrin to be tried or iudged by nothing but by Scripture onely let them grant me these two conditions Two conditions to proue the Scripture to be against Protest 1. Touching the letter 2. Touching the sense of trying their doctrin by the Scripture which the very light of reason the authoritie of holie Fathers and the Confession of the best learned Protestants will enforce them to graunt The first condition is touching the words or letter of the holie Scripture The second is touching the sense or meaning of the saied words or letter For as the holie Scripture consisteth of two partes whereof the one is the word or letter the other is the sense therof so I require one condition for the word and an other for the sense 5. The condition touching the word or letter is that the words of holie Scripture be taken as they be in the The 1. coÌ„ditioÌ„ toâ—ching the letter proued Bible or booke of God without anie addition subtraction or transposition breefly without anie chopping or changing whatsoeuer This condition is so iust and reasonable as I think no reasonable man will denie it and neuertheles I wil proue it First because where God alone is Iugde there it is reason that all men be silent and onely harken what God saieth nor interrupt or corrupt his words Let vs heare Lib. 1. peccat c. 20. De vnit c. 13 Serm. 27. de verb. Apo. saieth S. Austin our lord and not ghesses or suspitions of men Againe I beleiue that which I read in holie Scripture not that which vaine Heretiks say And other where There is a controuersie risen let is goe to the Iudge let the Prophet iudge yea let God iudge by the Prophet let vs both hold our peace And yet againe let vs not heare This I say This thou saiest but let vs Lib. 6. cont Iul. c. 4. In Confutat Latomito 2. fol. 234. heare This our lord saieth Yea Luther writeth That mans word added vnto Gods word is a couer nay mans dung wherwith pure truth is hidden Moreouer seing Protestants impose silence to the Church Councells Fathers and all Catholiks in decision of matters of faith and therin admit onely the written word of God it were impudencie for them to request to speake Agayne if Protestants will mingle their owne words with the words of God they admit not the onely word of God for iudge of controuersies but partely also their owne and make one entire iudge of them both Finally Protestants are wonte to crie that the Scriture is the onely and profest rule of faith that they will heare Beza cont Heshus Daneus Cont. 3. 6. 7. Hospin part 2 Caluin cont versipel cont Cathalon nothing besides Scripture that nothing is to be taught but the pure written word nothing to be beleiued but that which is expressely conteined in the Scripture Let them heare therefore in these twoe hundred and sixte points in which I will compare their doctrine with the Scripture mere Scripture onely Scripture and let them harken to nothing but Scripture let all their owne words whatsoeuer be set aside let the Scriptures pure and onely words shew and iudge whether Catholik or Protestant doctrin in these 260. points here set downe be agreable or disagreable vnto it 6. The second condition touching the sense is That The 2. condition touching the sense proued the pure written word of God may iudge betwixt vs according to the pure sense therof which when it is spoken clearly or of purpose to tell vs what Gods meaning is of it self and according to the vsual acception of men it doth afford and this is euident also especiallie if the Church must not be admitted to be the infallible Interpreter of the true sense of Scripture But neuertheles I proue it First because Protestants cannot set downe anie condition which is so reasonable or indifferent to both partes Secondly because ether the Scripture in matters of controuersie clearly declareth her meaning by her self without any help or exposition of man or she doth not If she clearly declare her meaning by her self then needeth she no help of man
at all For what need she help of others to declare her meaning who clearly declareth it her self And vndoubtedly if in any place she clearly declareth her meaning she doth it in those places in which she speaketh both clearly and of set purpose for to expresse her meaning But if by her self she doe not clearly declare her meaning in matters in controuersie without some help of man especially without the help of one of the opposite parties who contend about her meaning certainly she is A iudge must be able by himself to declare his mynd not fitt to be the onely iudge of controuersies as Protestants would haue her For who will saye that she alone is fitt to be iudge who alone and by her self is not able to vtter clearly her mynd Besids if the pure word of God may not iudge according to the pure sense which of it self it clearly yeeldeth but according to a different nay quite opposite sense which being conferred expounded wrested by man it is forced to yeeld who shall assure vs that Gods sense and not the sense of man whose and not Gods that conference inference and wresting is is made Serm. 14. de verb. Apost Tractat. 2. de Cant. c. 17. L. 6. cont Iulian c. 5. L. 2. de Baptismo c. 6. iudge of controuersies Let mens ghesses saieth S. Austin giue place for a time let vs take in hand diuine weapons Againe This is humane inference not dinine authoritie The arguments which you bring are humane these are diuine munitions And otherwhere let vs not bring false scales with which we may weigh what we will and how we will and saye as we please This is heauie This is leight But let vs bring the diuine scale of the holie Scripture and in that let vs weigh which is heauiest or rather let not vs wheigh it but let vs aknowledg it weighed of God Let vs set aside a while mens ghesses or imaginations of the conference or exposition of this or that place of Scripture let vs not bring deceitfull scales of mans conference inference or exposition of Scripture with which we may weigh what we will and how we will saying according as we please This is the meaning That is not the meaning This followeth That followeth not This is true that is false againe all which we may oppose those words of S. Austin This is mans inference mans conference mans exposition mans ghesse not diuine authoritie and let vs bring the diuine and sure scale of the pure meaning of Gods pure word and in that let vs weigh the doctrin of both partes or rather let vs acknowledge that which is weighed and allowed by God him self in this his scale Moreouer if mans help be necessarie to Scripture for the conference and expositiō of the places therof or inference of that which is to be inferred out of them so that without mans help it can not sufficiently decide questions of faith I aske of Protestants what men these must be whether we or they or some third who nether are Catholiks nor Protestants Sure I am they will nether admit ours nor other mens expositions of Scripture for their iudge and I think they wil be ashamed to exact of vs that we should admit their interpretatiō especially sith they refuse the conference inference and exposition of the holy Councells and Fathers Wherfore vnles they will stand to Protestants must be tried by the natiue and vsual sense of he words or thy no sense that sense of Scripture which is no way partial to wit which the Scripture it self by it self without any conference or exposition of man giueth they can name no sense of Scripture which both parties may admit for their iudge and to refuse all sense of Scripture whervpon both parties may reasonably agree is plainly to refuse all reasonable triall by scripture For seing the soule and kernel of the Scripture is the sense therof and that the letter or words is but the shell or bark of it as is euident and both holie Fathers and Protestants agree manifest it is that whosoeuer will not reasonably agree vpon any sense of the Church Councells or Fathers where it is spoken of set purpose to declare Gods meaning of it self without any mans exposition and according to the vsual vnderstanding of men it doth afford rather then the quite contrarie sense which by the wresting of Protestants it is compelled to carrie Let but this right reason and true prudence lift vp this Balance wherein I weigh the Doctrin of Catholiks and Protestants according to holie Scripture in more then 260. points and I nothing doubt but it will clearly see and iudge the Catholik doctrin agreable to Scripture and the Protestant quite opposite and contrarie And this is my purpose Scope and butte in this 1. The Scope of the first booke And of the second booke to which I adde a second wherin I manifestly shewe that Protestants Doctrin is not onely quite opposite in more then 260. points both in words and meaning to the holie Scripture but also that they are forced to reiect many and great partes of the Scripture to alter that parte which they admit to weaken all force of Scripture to say that much of the Scripture was not spoken of certaine knowledge or not according to the meaning of the speaker to teach that most weightie sentences of the Scripture were spoken ironically mimetically and hyperbolically to change the most vniuersall propositions of the Scripture into particulers to limitate speeches not limited by the Scripture to alter absolute speeches into conditionall to make causall propositions not causall to expound words in some sorte which were spake simply The contents of the second booke which were spaken of one time to interprete them of an other to make one saying of many to vnderstand words that signifie the doing of a thing of an endeauour to doe it which signifie working a thing of the way or meane therto which signifie that a thing is to expound that it ought to be words which signifie a true thing to expound them of a shew or apparent thing to expound the words of Scripture of different yea wholy diuerse contrarie matters to deuise improprietes and all figures of speeches to feigne friuolous and neuer before heard of distinctions to reiect the exposition of the Fathers Councells and Church to confesse that they teach Doctrin damned in ould time for heresie to frustate the ends of the incarnation and passion of Christ to take out of the world all vertue and giue free scope to all vice and finally to confesse that much of the Protestant doctrin is contrarie to holie Scripture All which clearly shewe that Protestant leaders doe not onely teach doctrin contrarie to the Scripture but also do in very deed mock and contemne it 8. The manner of my proceeding is this First I deuide Manner of proceeding in this booke the matters which are in controuersie
pastors as is shewed in the saied booke c. 2. cit and Caluin in Ezechiel c. 3. v. 9. saieth that Papists chalenge the name of the Church because they pretend a continuall succession And indeed saieth he we are forced to confesse that they haue the ordinarie ministerie And who can denie but the true Pastors of Gods Church are true owners of Gods worde which they haue authoritie to preach Thereby they confesse that Catholiks are true possessors of the holie Scripture For thus writeth Luther to 2. Germ. fol. 279. cited by Scarpius in Eccles c. 6. VVe confesse that vnder Poperie are manie Christian goods yea all Christian good and that it came from thence to vs. Namely we confesse that in Poperie is true holie Scripture true baptisme true office of preaching true Sacrament of the altar true keyes to forgiue sinnes true Catechisme Nay I say that in Poperie is true The kernell of Christianitie in Poperie Christianitie yea the very kernell of Christianitie and manie great Saintes And Hall Chalmeley and Batterfeild graunt that Luther wrote thus and seeme to allow it Luther also to 6. in c. 28. Genes saieth we confesse that Papists haue the Church because they haue baptisme absolution the text of the Ghospel and there are manie godlie men amongest them The eight proofe shal be from the Confession of such 8. title Confession of strangers as nether are Catholiks nor Protestants For as Vorstius writeth in Antibell p. 181. Iewes Turkes and Pagans do think that the Christian religion consisteth cheefly in Poperie And Whitaker Cont. 2. q. c. 2. No other famous Church can be named in these latter times which was thought to be the Church and was called the Church but the Roman Church Nether let anie think that such as want faith can not be sufficient iudges in this matter For albeit they be not sufficient iudges in the question of the trueth of doctrin yet are they sufficient in question of facte as this is And in this Ioseph lib. Antiq. Euseb l. 7. c. 24. sorte the Heathens in the time of the ould law iudged betwene the Iewes and the Samaritans and in the time of the Ghospel betwene the Catholiks and the Samosatenians And as Christians can iudge what kind of Mahometans are the true owners of the Alcoran though they think not the Alcoran to conteyne true doctrin So may Infidels iudge what kinde of Christians be true owners of the Ghospel though they beleeue not the Ghospel to be the worde of God The ninth proof may be taken from the agreement of 9. title Agreement with Scripture the Cath. doctrin both in words and sense with the holie Scripture as shall appeare in this booke Which proofe though taken alone doe not conuince that Catholiks are true owners of the Scripture yet in conuinceth that they are true owners rather then Protestants who so farre disagree from the Scripture both in words and sense The tenth proofe shal be that Protestants against these 10. title weaknes of Protest Proofes so manie and so forcible proofes for the Catholiks can bring no other proofe for their right to Scripture then that they haue the true doctrin of Scripture Which argument taken alone is as I shewed at large in my saied booke De Authore c. lib. 2. c. 15. a fond Sophisme or Foularie First because Schismatiks haue the true doctrin of Scripture as I there proued by reason by the testimonie of holie Fathers and the confession of Protestants and yet are no true owners of the Scripture because they are no true mēbers of the Church as I there also proued Secondly for Protestants to proue that they be true owners of the Scripture because they haue the true doctrin thereof is to proue one vnknowne and false thing by an other as vnkowne and false Which is not to proue at all because all proofe must be from a thing more knowne Thirdly they nether proue that they haue the doctrin of the Scripture by expresse words of Scripture for these are quite against them as shal be shewed in this booke nor by plaine inference out of the words of Scripture as appeareth by the Catholiks answers vnto all their proofes nor finally they haue proued any thing before a lawfull iudge but all their proofes are such as euerie Heretike maketh Besides if truth of doctrin doe proue true right to Scripture it farre more maketh for Catholiks and no more for Protestants then for anie other Heretiks Out of all which hath beene saied in this Chapter it is most euident that if the light of reason may be iudge in this matter Catholiks must needs be counted the true owners of the holie Scripture because they haue all the foresaied Titles then the which both fewer and weaker would make a claime to worldlie matters out of all question of all which Protestants can pretend none but the last Secondly it is euident that if Catholiks be the true If Cath. be true owners of the Scripture all controuersies are ended owners of the Scripture the sacred testament of Christ they are also true owners of the holie Sacraments of the keyes of heauen to binde and loose sinnes of the means of saluation and of all the goods which Christ hath by his will and testament bequeathed to his Church For vndoubtedly all these things pertaine to them to whome Christs testament doth belong Thirdly it is euident that if Catholiks be true owners of the Scriptures Protestants be vniust vsurpers of them as Iewes Turkes and Infidels are and haue no more right to keep or vse them against Catholiks then theeues haue to vse true mens goods or weapons against them For cleare it is that Catholiks and Protestants are opposite Churches as I haue shewed in the foresaied booke De Authore lib. 1. c. 2. and lib. 2. c. 6. and that one of them is a false Church whereas the Scriptures were giuen and belong to one onely Church Wherefore we may well say to Protestants as Tertullian de Prescript c. 37. saied to Heretiks of his time VVho are you when and whence came you what doe you in mine being not mine By what right Marcion Luther doest thou fell my woods By what licence Valentin Caluin doest thou turne away my water By what authoritie Apelles Zuingle doest thou charge my bounds It is my possession what doe you strangers here sow and feed at your pleasure And the same say we to Protestants Let them first shew what right they haue to Scriptures before they argue out of them let them render vs our weapons or shew what iust title they haue to them before they fight with them against vs. For as the same Tertull. saieth c. 15. Here we first stop them that they are not to be admitted to anie dispute of Scriptures VVe must see whether they may haue them or no to whom belongeth the Scripture that he be not admitted to it to whom it appertaineth not And c. 19. The
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 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 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
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 shal be 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 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 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
and Luther in Galat. 1. fol. 215. The Confession of Zwizerland addeth that they were holie Churches of God Author Respons ad theses Vadimont pag. 533. affirmeth that they fell not from true faith And Perkins tractat de Baptismo col 819. auoucheth that they were the sonnes of God But if they who denied the resurrection kept the name of a true Church remained the sonnes of God were not excluded from Gods mercie fell not from faith surely ether the resurrection is no article at all of faith or not necessarie ether to grace or saluation THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely teacheth that there shal be resurrection of the dead and that the contrarie doctrine denieth Christs resurrection and ouerthroweth all Christian faith The same say Catholiks Protestants plainely teach that the more wittie the Gentils were the more they laughed at the resurrection that the more learned men now are the more they thinke the resurrection to be a fable that Luther and Erasmus were not free from this leauen and that in this matter a faithfull soule is rare that Schegkius openly denied resurrection of this bodie which is indeed to denie all resurrection seing resurrection is not but of the same which died and yet was condemned of no Protestants yea excused of some that manie of them both drunke and sober let fall such speaches from them as do shew that they beleiue not the resurrection of the dead That amongst the Sacramentaries two principall Apostles Caluin and Farel did not beleiue the resurrection of this flesh and consequently not the resurrection of the dead that Sozinus was not satisfied about the resurrection of the flesh that manie of them denie the resurrection of the blood and lasty that they auouch that those Christians who denied the resurrection of the dead fell not from true faith not from the Church or fauour of God THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER of mans Soule What we haue rehearsed in this chapter plainely sheweth that Protestants thinke farre otherwise of mans soule then the holie Scripture doth For the Scripture and Catholiks with it teacheth that the soule of man is the forme of the bodie is immortall that there shal be resurrection of the dead which Protestants denie It sheweth also that Protestants play the theiues towards their owne soules whilest take from it immortalitie and the nature of the forme of the bodie and denie the resurrectioÌ„ of the dead And hitherto we haue shewed that Protestants in 260. articles contradict the expresse words of the holie Scripture it remaineth that we shew that they also contradict the true sense of the words which we will doe by twoe wayes the one by generall reasons the other by the plaine confession of The Scope of the second booke some Protestants touching manie of the foresaied articles End of the first booke THE SECOND BOOKE IN WHICH IT IS SHEVVED THAT PROTESTANTS CONTRADICT THE TRVE sense of holie Scripture CHAPTER I. THAT PROTESTANTS CONTRADICT the true sense of Scripture because in so manie things they gainsay the expresse words thereof FIRST of all we must consider that when the holie Scripture and Catholiks both of purpose intend clearely to declare their meaning touching the foresaied 260. articles in controuersie they do iumpe ether in the very selfe same or inequiualent words and that coÌ„trariwise wheÌ„ the Scripture and the learnedest of the Protestants intend to expresse their meaning coÌ„cerning the saied articles they vse quite opposite and contrarie speaches Which is a manifest signe that the Catholiks doctrine about the saied articles is the selfe same with the doctrine of the holie Scripture and the Protestants doctrine quite contrarie thereunto For sithence this agreemeÌ„t of Catholiks with the Scripture in words and speach and disagreement of Protestants in the same falleth out so often and in so manie and weightie matters it cannot be attributed to chaÌ„ce because chaÌ„ce as the Philosophers 2. Physâ—c teach is in those things onely which fall out seldome And therefore it proceedeth of the nature of these sentences or doctrines whose agreement or disagreement with the sentence of the holie Scripture breedeth this so frequent agreement or disagreement with the words or speaches of the same Wherefore thus I argue in forme of syllogisme These doctrines which when they are of purpose to be expressed clearely distinctly and as they differ from all other doctrines do of their nature require to be expressed with the very same or equiualent words are in deed one and the selfe same doctrine And contrariwise those doctrines which when they are to be so expressed of their nature require to be expressed with quite opposite and contrarie words or speaches are in deed opposite and contrarie doctrines But the Scriptures and the Catholiks doctrines touching the foresaied 260. articles are of the first kind and the Scripture and Protestants doctrines of the second Therefore they are all one and these quite contrarie The Maior of first propositioÌ„ is euideÌ„t For how could twoe doctrines or opinioÌ„s of their nature require to be expressed with the selfe same or equiualent words if there were any differeÌ„ce betwene them For vndoubtely that difference would exact some difference in the words and those words which clearely and fully expresse the one doctrine could not clearely and fully expresse the other And much lesse could one the selfe same speach clearely expressely theÌ„ both if they were contrarie one to the other And therefore certaine it is that twoe coÌ„trarie doctrines cannot of their nature require to be expressed by the selfe same or equiualent words And consequently also it is most certaine that the Scriptures and Catholiks doctrines which touching these 260. articles of their nature require to be expressed with the selfe same or equiualent words are not opposite one to the other But those doctrines which when they are to be clearely and distinctly expressed of their nature require to be expressed with opposite and contrarie speeches must needs also of their nature be contrarie one to the other For els why should they of their nature require to be expressed by contrarie speaches And the opposition which is betwene the speaches wherewith they require to be signified riseth of the oppositioÌ„ which is betwene the doctrines themselues The Minor or second proposition is proued First by the reason alreadie made Because it cannot come by chance that in so manie and so weightie matters when Catholiks and ProtestaÌ„ts do of purpose clearely distinctly expresse their opinioÌ„s those should agree in words and speach with the holie Scripture and these should disagree This agreement therefore and disagreement in words must needs rise of the very nature of their opinions Secondly it may be proued by examples but for breuities sake I will be content with one That the Protestants opinion touching the Eucharist or that which Christ after his last supper gaue with his hands to be eaten when it is clearely and dinstinctly to be expressed as it differreth from the
conceaue how God in different manner willeth and willeth the same thing Againe Where we conceiue not how God will haue that to be done which he forbiddeth to doe let vs remember our weaknesse Et 3. Instit c. 24. § 17. When he had saied that God willeth that which he professeth that he will not he addeth Albeit according to our vnderstanding Gods will be manifould yet in himselfe he willeth not this and that but by his manifould wisdome maketh our vnderstanding astonished till it shal be graunted to vs to know that wonderfully he willeth that which now seemeth contrarie to his will And cap. 11. § 11. This is a meruailous manner of iustifying that they that are couered with Christ iustice feare not the iudgement which they deserue and whilest iustly they condemne themselues they are iudged iust out of themselues De Praedest pag. 704. Let our faith adore a farre of with decent sobrietie the hidden counsail of God wherewith the fall of man was preordained And pag. 711. How it was appointed by the foresight and decree of God what was to become of man and yet God is not to be madde partaker of the sinne as if he were ether author or allower thereof seing it is clearely a secret farre beyond the reach of mans wit let vs not be ashamed to confesse our ignorance In Ioan. 12. ver 27. But it seemeth that this doth not become the Sonne of God that an inconsiderate desire escapeth him which he must streight renounce for to obey his Father I confesse saieth he that truely this is the follie of the crosse which is a scandall to proud men Nay it is not the follie of the crosse but the impietie of Caluin to attribute an in cōsiderate desire to Christ And in Math. 26. vers 39. If anie obiect that the first motion which should haue beene bridled before it went further was not temperate as it beseemed I answere saieth he that in this corruption of our nature there cannot be seene the feruor of passions with that temper which was in Christ but we must yeeld this honor to the Sonne of God that we iudge not of him by our selues Forsooth the impostures of Caluin not onelie wāting all word of God but also quite cōtrarie thereto must be beleiued though they cannot be vnderstood and the Catholik doctrine of the Eucharist and the like must not be beleiued because it cannot be vnderstood Beza in Explicat Christianismi c. 3. After a wonderfull and incomprehēsible manner it pleaseth God that euen that which as it is sinne he alloweth not yet is not done without his will De Praedest cont Cast p. 340. When he had saied that God decreeth the causes of damnation and that none can resist his decree he asketh Is not then all the falut in God and answereth This difficultie is vnexplicable for men Agayne How God is not in fault if he ordayne the causes of dānation we thinke with the Apostle that it is a question vnexplicable for mans wit Et in Colloq Montisb p. 427. There is no parte of Christian doctrine from which sense and humane reason doth more abhorre Pareus l. 2. de Amiss Grat. c. 13. after he had saied p. 358. that God doth enforce mē to sinnes as they are his secret iudgements addeth p. 363. that this manner is vnexplicable Indeed this their excuse of the inexplicabilitie of the thing were tolerable if the Scripture did clearely teach what they say but seing it doth not clearelie teach so as appeareth by the answers of Catholiks yea so clearely teach the contrarie as Protestants are forced to confesse that they know not how to reconcile so manie of their positions with the Scripture it is a verie great proofe that in verie deed their doctrine is repugnant to Scripture An other manner whereby implicitlie they cōfesse that Protest confesse that the words of Scripture seeme against them their doctrine is repugnāt to Scripture is because in manie and great matters they acknowledge that the words of Scripture and such as are of purpose spoakē for to declare vnto vs what we ought to beleiue of such matters seeme to fauour vs more then them are hard to them and torment them shrewdly Luther in Postill Dom. 9. post Trin. This dayes Ghospell if it be nakedly looked into without the Protestant spirit is plainely Papisticall Zuinglius l. de Rel. c. de Merito None denieth but that in Scripture there are almost more places which attribute merit to our works then denie it And in Explanat art 20. The places of Scripture at first sight seeme to attribute some what to Merit Bullinger Dec. 3. Serm. 9. We acknowledge that the Scripture euerie were doth seeme to attribut life and iustice to good works Rainolds in Confer c. sect 1. What if in that other place the Scripture in shew do fauour you more then vs. And he addeth that he easilie graunteth that the shew of the words of Scripture maketh more for vs then for them Agayne I will graunt 〈◊〉 the words of Christ This is my bodie in shew do fauour more your reall presence then that sacramentall which we mantaine And in an other place In shew of words our Sauiour seemeth to haue promised the keys to Peter onely Herbrand in Compendio Theol. pag. 340. saieth If the letter be vrged in those The letter against Protestants words of Daniel Redeeme thy sinnes by almes they be contrarie to their doctrine The same confesseth Hunnius l. de Iustif of those words of Tobie Almes deliuereth from all sinne and from death And the same is euident by infinit places of Scripture which Protestants are forced to expound figuratiuelie because the proprietie of the word is for vs. Zuinglius Epist ad Matthaeum Rutling to 2. thus speaketh Now remaineth that which in this matter is the hardest A hard matter for Protest to wrest the words of all to wit how we may wrest the words of Christ which they terme words of consecration Here verily we must stretch all the veyns of faith Et in Resp ad Billican he saieth that he vseth pulleis and presses to wring out the sense of the words of consecration and addeth We denie that anie one They need pullies and presses litle droppe at least sincere and pure will come from them vn-vnlesse they be prest with the weight of other places And againe How manie had we some years agoe who could acquit themselues handsomely of those words of Christ Thou art Peter c. and shew the figure of the speach And yet it was no hindrance that we could not handsomely dispatch our selues of the word Caluin 3. Instit c. 2. § 11. I know it seemeth hard to some where faith is attributed to the reprobates In Luc. 3. vers 9. As for Merit that knot is to be loosed which hindreth manie For the Scripture so often promising reward to works seemeth to attribute some merit to them Peter Martyr in Dom. 4. Hom.