A CONFERENCE OF THE CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANTE DOCTRINE WITH THE EXPRESS WORDS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.  
WHICH IS THE SECOND PARTE OF THE prudential Balance of Religion.  
WHEREIN IS CLEARLY showed, THAT IN MORE than 260. points of controversy, catholics agree with the holy Scripture, both in words and sense: and Protestants disagree in both, and deprave both the sayings, words, and sense of Scripture.  
WRITTEN FIRST IN LATIN, BUT NOW AVGmented and translated into English.  ACTS IU VERSE. XVII. 
IF IT BE JUST IN THE SIGHT OF GOD, TO hear you rather than God, judge ye.  S. Athanasius Apol. de Fuga. 
WHAT MU WE STICK TO, TO GOD'S words, or these men's Fables?  
AT DOUAI, By the widow of MARK WYON, at the sign of the Phoenix.  
M.DC.XXXI.   


The argument of the first book.  
Who in more than 260. points of controversy, speak with the holy Scripture, in the very self same or equivalent words, when it speaketh of those matters expressly and of purpose, and in that sense also, which the words of Scripture of themselves, without any exposition of man do afford, and in which sense such words use to be spoken and understood of men, they, touching those points, agree both in words and meaning with the holy Scripture: And who speak of those points both in such words and sense, as are contrary to the foresaied words and sense, they in those points disagree both in words and sense from the holy Scripture. But Catholics do that, and Protestants, this. Therefore etc. The Mayor seemeth to be manifest by itself, and is largely proved in the second book Cap. 1. The Minor is showed to the eye in all the first book.   

The argument of the second Book.  
Who not only in more than 260. points of controversy disagree from the foresaied words and sense of Scripture, but also are forced openly to reject some of the words thereof, to blot out some, to call others in question, to change the order of others: to change almost all kinds of the Scriptures speeches, to expound her words by quite different and plain contraries, to reject the unanimous exposition of holy Fathers, to confess that some of their opinions were long since condemned for heresies, that some are blasphemous and plain contrary to Scripture, such contradict not only the words, but also the true sense of Scripture. But Protestants do thus. Therefore etc. The Mayor is manifest by itself: and the Minor showed to the eye in the second Book.    

APPROBATIO.  
HOc opus, cui titulus: Collatio doctrinae Catholicorum ac Protestantium cum expressis sacrae scripturae verbis, duobus libris comprehensa, Latino serm one olim editum, & à duobus S. Theol. Doctoribus Parisiensibus approbatum: nunc verò auctum & in Anglicum sermonem fideliter conversum, nihil habet fidei Catholicae adversum, aut bonis moribus, sed plurimum valet ad confutationem doctrinae haereticorum praesentis temporis, & proinde rectè praeli beneficio in lucem edetur. Datum Duaci die 2. januarij 1631.  
GEORGIUS COLVENERIUS S. Theol. Doctor & eiusdem Regius, ordinarius ac primarius Professor, insignis Eccl●siae Collegiatae S. Petri Praepositus & Canonicus, Duacen sis Academiae Cancellarius, & librorum Censor.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER, WHEREIN THE SCOPE, MANNER OF proceeding, AND PROFIT OF THIS BOOK IS DECLARED, REQVISITE TO BE READ BEFORE THE BOOK.  
THERE are now diverse years (Gentle Reader) since I published the first part of the Prudential Balance of Religion, in which, by the weights of Prudence and Right Reason I weighed together the Catholic and Protestant religion according to their first Founders in our English nation, to wit, S. Austin and Martin Luther: which book hath never since been answered by any Protestant albeit diverse ministers, and superintendents have carped at it both in Pulpits and printed books, showing thereby that they wanted no will to answer it, if they could have performed it. In the preface thereof I promised a second part, in which I would after the same manner weigh the foresaid religions according to their claims to the holy Scripture, and the express words thereof, which here now I offer unto thee. The causes why I have so long differred the publishing of this second part, are well enough known to them who know me, and not needful to be known of them who know me not. And therefore I will not trouble thee with the rehearshall of them, but here propose unto thee the scope, manner of proceeding, and Profits of this second part.  
2. As a man consisteth essentially of a Soul and Body, and can neither be, nor be imagined without them both: So the true Church of Christ essentially consisteth 
Two things wholly necessarieto Christ's Church.  of his true Doctrine, which is the form, and (as it were) the soul of his Church, and of lawful Pastors and People, who teach and embrace his Doctrine, which Pastors and People make (as it were) the body of Christ's Church. And without both these parts, to wit, Christ's true Doctrine, and true Pastors teaching, and People embracing it, Christ's true Church can no more be, or imagined to be, than a true man can either be, or imagined to be, without both the true body and true soul of a man. And albeit the manifest need of both these parts to the true Church of Christ, doth enforce Protestant's to make some claim to them both, and to pretend that they have alvaies had both true Pastors who taught, and People who believed their Doctrine; yet their pretence to this part of the Church is so weak and slender, as but seldom and upon mere necessity they insist thereon. But their greatest pretence and claim is to the true Doctrine of Christ; and think thereby to prove, that they have always had true Pastors and People who taught and believed their Doctrine, as I have showed in a Book of the Author of the Protestant Church and Religion; wherein also I have convinced by ten Demonstrations, (all taken out of the open Confessions of the best learned Protestants both of England and other Countries) that they never had any one Pastor who taught, or man who believed the very fundamental and most substantial points of their religion, before Luther arose; but that he was first Author, Inventor, and Father thereof, as some of them in plain terms do call him.  
3. And although this Book have been now these many years published both in Latin and English, and doth by the open confessions of the best learned Protestants overthrew the very foundation of their Church, or rather show, that it hath no foundation at all besides their own imagination; yet hitherto no Protestant hath made any show of a solid answer unto it. I say, no show of a 
why D. Prideaux lecture is no answer to the Author of Protest. religion.  solid answer, because that flourish which Doctor Prideaux the King's divinity Reader in Oxford hath made in a lecture, deserveth not the name of show or shadow of an answer. First, because he neither mentioneth the laws of answering my said book, which I set down, and prove by reason, testimony of holy Fathers, and confession of Protestants, aught to be kept in answering such a book: And which laws, I tell him before hand, that unless he either keep, or refute, I would account his answer no solid or lawful answer, but the babbling of one who could neither sufficiently answer, nor yet hold his peace. Secondly, because he maketh no other answer to the manifold and manifest depositions of the best learned Protestants, which I have myself brought, and clearly confuted by the depositions or testimonies themselves, against which confutation of mine, he replieth nothing, but standeth mute. Thirdly, because he so miserably mangleth the answer which I make to their Sophism, wherewith they by pretence of true Doctrine, would prove that they have always had true Pastors and People who taught and believed it, and so pitifully replieth to the said answer, as he plainly showeth himself to be a true Heretic, that is, convicted in his own judgement, as I think every one, that compareth his lecture with my Book, will clearly perceive.  
4. But sith the Protestants chief and almost whole pretence of the truth and ever being of their Church, is the pretence of the truth of their doctrine by the Scripture, I will evidently show, even by the light of Reason and Prudence, that they have no reasonable or colourable pretence of Scripture: but that it maketh expressly, clearly, and directly against them, and for Catholics, almost in all points of controversy. For whereas there be two ways to show, 
Twoe ways to prove that. the Scripture is against Protest.  that the holy Scripture is plainly against Protestants; the one by conferring of diverse places together, by bringing the exposition of the holy Fathers, decrees of Counsels, and tradition of the Church: the other, by only comparing the express words of Catholics and Protestant's with 
Protest. Doctrine as clearly contrary to Scripture as yea is to no.  express words of holy Scripture touching the same matter; I take not the first way, which hithertoe Catholic writers have followed, because it is not so fit to the capacity of common people, for whom especially I compose this work; but the second, which is as clear, for every one that hath reason, to see, as it is clear to see, that Yea and Yea, of the same matter agree, and that Yea and Nay do disagree.  
4. This perhaps may seem strange, nay impossible to simple Protestants, whose ears have been still accustomed to hear their ministers vaunt, and brag of the word of God, of the Scripture, and Bible, and to avouch that Catholics have nothing to allege for them selues but traditions and word of men: But I beseech such to suspend a while their judgement, and sith they will have the Protestants doctrine to be tried or judged by nothing but by Scripture only, let them grant me these two conditions 
Two conditions to prove the Scripture to be against Protest. 1. Touching the letter. 2. Touching the sense.  of trying their doctrine by the Scripture, which the very light of reason, the authority of holy Fathers, and the Confession of the best learned Protestants will enforce them to grant. The first condition is touching the words or letter of the holy Scripture; The second, is touching the sense or meaning of the said words or letter. For as the holy Scripture consisteth of two parts, whereof the one is the word or letter, the other, is the sense thereof, 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 holy Scripture be taken as they be in the 
The 1. condition touching the letter, proved.  Bible or book of God, without any addition, subtraction, or transposition: briefly without any chopping or changing whatsoever. This condition is so just and reasonable, as I think no reasonable man will deny it; and nevertheless I will prove it. First, because where God alone is judged, there it is reason, that all men be silent, and only hearken what God sayeth, nor interrupt or corrupt his words. Let us hear 
Lib. 1. peccat. c. 20. De unit. c. 13 Serm. 27. de verb. Apo.  (sayeth S. Austin) our lord, and not ghesses or suspicions of men. Again: I believe that which I read in holy Scripture, not that which vain Heretics say. And other where: There is a controversy risen, let is go to the judge, let the Prophet judge: yea let God judge by the Prophet, let us both hold our peace. And yet again: let us not hear: This I say: This thou sayest, but let us 
Lib. 6. cont. jul. c. 4. In Confutat. Latomito. 2. fol. 234.  hear, This our lord sayeth. Yea Luther writeth: That man's word added unto God's word is a cover, nay man's dung, wherewith pure truth is hidden. Moreover, seeing Protestants impose silence to the Church, Counsels, Fathers, and all Catholics in decision of matters of faith, and therein admit only the written word of God, it were impudency for them to request to speak. Again, if Protestants will mingle their own words with the words of God, they admit not the only word of God for judge of controversies, but partly also their own, and make one entire judge of them both. Finally, Protestants are wont to cry, that the scripture is the only, and professed rule of faith; that they will hear 
Beza count. Heshus. Daneus Cont. 3. 6. 7. Hospin part. 2 Caluin count. versipel. & cont. Cathalon.  nothing besides Scripture; that nothing is to be taught but the pure written word; nothing to be believed but that which is expressly contained in the Scripture. Let them hear therefore in these two hundred and sixth points, in which I will compare their doctrine with the Scripture, mere Scripture, only Scripture, and let them hearken to nothing but Scripture; let all their own words whatsoever be set aside: let the Scriptures pure and only words show and judge, whether Catholik or Protestant doctrine in these 260. points here set down, be agreeable or disagreeable unto it.  
6. The second condition touching the sense is: That 
The 2. condition touching the sense, proved.  the pure written word of God may judge betwixt us according to the pure sense thereof, which (when it is spoken clearly or of purpose to tell: us what Gods meaning is) of itself and according to the usual acception of men it doth afford, and this is evident also especially, if the Church must not be admitted to be the infallible Interpreter of the true sense of Scripture. But nevertheless I prove it. First, because Protestants cannot set down any condition which is so reasonable or indifferent to both parts. Secondly, because either the Scripture in matters of controversy clearly declareth her meaning by herself without any help or exposition of man, or she doth not. If she clearly declare her meaning by herself, then needeth she no help of man at all. For what need she help of others to declare her meaning, who clearly declareth it herself? And undoubtedly 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 express her meaning. But if by herself she do not clearly declare her meaning in matters in controversy without some help of man (especially without the help of one of the opposite parties who contend about her meaning) certainly she is 
A judge must be able by himself to declare his mind.  not fit to be the only judge of controversies, as Protestants would have her. For who will say, that she alone is fit to be judge, who alone and by herself is not able to utter clearly her mind? Besides, if the pure word of God may not judge according to the pure sense which of itself it clearly yields, but according to a different, nay quite opposite sense, which being conferred, expounded, wrested by man, it is forced to yield, who shall assure us, that God's 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. julian. c. 5. L. 2. de Baptismo c. 6.  judge of controversies? Let men's ghesses (sayeth S. Austin) give place for a time, let us take in hand divine weapons. Again: This is humane inference, not dinine authority. The arguments which you bring are humane, these are divine munitions. And otherwhere: let us not bring false scales, with which we may weigh what we will and how we will, and say as we please: This is heavy: This is leight; But let us bring the divine scale of the holy Scripture, and in that let us weigh which is heaviest, or rather let not us wheigh it, but let us aknowledg it weighed of God. Let us set aside a while men's ghesses or imaginations of the conference or exposition of this or that place of Scripture, let us not bring deceitful scales of man's 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, again all which we may oppose those words of S. Austin: This is man's inference, man's conference, man's exposition, man's guess, not divine authority, and let us bring the divine and sure scale of the pure meaning of God's pure word, and in that let us weigh the doctrine of both parts, or rather let us acknowledge that which is weighed and allowed by God himself in this his scale. Moreover, if man's help be necessary to Scripture for the conference and exposition of the places thereof, or inference of that which is to be inferred out of them, so that without man's help it can not sufficiently decide questions of faith, I ask of Protestants, what men these must be; whether we or they, or some third, who neither are catholics nor Protestants? Sure I am, they will neither admit ours nor other men's expositions of Scripture for their judge, and I think they willbe ashamed to exact of us that we should admit their interpretation, especially sith they refuse the conference, inference, and exposition of the holy Counsels, and Fathers. Wherefore unless they will stand to 
Protestants must be tried by the native, and usual sense of he words, or thy no sense.  that sense of Scripture which is no way partial, to wit, which the Scripture itself, by itself, without any conference or exposition of man, giveth, they can name no sense of Scripture which both parties may admit for their judge: and to refuse all sense of Scripture whereupon both parties may reasonably agree, is plainly to refuse all reasonable trial by scripture. For seeing the soul and kernel of the Scripture is the sense thereof; and that the letter or words is but the shell or bark of it, as is evident and both holy Fathers and Protestants agree, manifest it is, that whosoever will not reasonably agree upon any sense of the Church, Counsels, or Fathers) where it is spoken of set purpose to declare God's meaning, of itself without any man's exposition, and according to the usual understanding of men, it doth afford, rather than the quite contrary sense, which by the wresting of Protestants it is compelled to carry. Let but this right reason and true prudence lift up this Balance, wherein I weigh the Doctrine of Catholics and Protestants according to holy Scripture in more than 260. points, and I nothing doubt, but it will clearly see and judge the Catholic doctrine agreeable to Scripture and the Protestant, quite opposite and contrary. And this is my purpose, Scope, and butt in this 1. 
The Scope of the first book And of the second.  book, to which I add a second, wherein I manifestly show that Protestants Doctrine is not only quite opposite in more than 260. points both in words and meaning to the holy Scripture, but also, that they are forced to reject many and great parts of the Scripture; to alter that part which they admit, to weaken all force of Scripture; to say that much of the Scripture was not spoken of certain knowledge, or not according to the meaning of the speaker; to teach, that most weighty sentences of the Scripture were spoken ironically, mimetically, and hyperbolically, to change the most universal propositions of the Scripture into particulars, to limitate speeches not limited by the Scripture; to alter absolute speeches into conditional; to make causal propositions not causal, to expound words in some sort, which were spoke simply; 
The contents of the second book.  which were spaken of one time, to interpret them of an other, to make one saying, of many; to understand words that signify the doing of a thing, of an endeavour to do it; which signify working a thing, of the way or mean thereto; which signify that a thing is, to expound that it ought to be: words which signify a true thing, to expound them of a show or apparent thing: to expound the words of Scripture of different, yea wholly divers, & contrary matters; to device improprietes and all figures of speeches; to feign frivolous and never before heard of distinctions; to reject the exposition of the Fathers, Counsels, and Church: to confess, that they teach Doctrine damned in old time for heresy: to frustate the ends of the incarnation and passion of Christ: to take out of the world all virtue and give free scope to all vice: and finally, to confess, that much of the Protestant doctrine is contrary to holy Scripture. All which clearly show, that Protestant leaders do not only teach doctrine contrary to the Scripture, but also do in very deed mock and contemn it.  
8. The manner of my proceeding is this. First I divide 
Manner of proceeding in this book.  the matters which are in controversy according to their order, and in every matter I distinguish many articles which I propose in form of question: After, I set down the express words of Scripture: Next I bring the decrees of the Council of Trent, or the Instructions of the Catechism of that Council: And where I find not their determinations, I allege the doctrine of S. Thomas, or of D. Stapleton, or Cardinal Bellarmin. Against these, I produce the assertions of one or many famous Protestants directly opposite to the doctrine of the Scripture and of the Catholics. Lastly, I gather together a sum of the words of the holy Scripture, together with a sum of the sayings of Protestants, that thereby the opposition between the doctrine of them both may the better appear. As for the words of Scripture; 
Plessie of the Church c. 5. p. 145. Let them bring one text that is clear and evident and we are ready to yield unto them.  I bring not all which might be brought of every article, because neither is that necessary to my purpose, sith God is as much to be believed in one word as in many, neither (as the Council of Arausica sayeth truly) will many testimonies of Scripture avail any thing with him, to whom few are not sufficient, but I bring those only testimonies which to me seemed most opposite to the words of Protestants, Nether do I prove, that the words of Scripture, which I cite, be clear, and uttered of purpose to declare unto us God's mind of that matter whereof they treat, or do of themselves and according to their accustomed acception amongst men, manifestly afford that sense in which Protestants gain say them; because all thief points are manifest by themselves, and the shifts which Protestants use to delude them, do manifestly prove them. Nether also do I prove, that Protestants can not at least (touching the most of these Articles) produce any such testimonies of Scripture, which, in express words may seem directly, and without any inference, conference, or exposition of theirs to speak for them, as in these 260. points the testimonies which I bring, do speak for us. First, because this being a denial, it is of itself sufficiently proved, unless the Protestants can demonstrate their contrary affirmation. Secondly, because this is evident to every one who 
See Tertul. l. de Resur. c. 3. Luther de verb. Caenae, fol. 389.  considereth the testimonies brought by Protestant's, which in very few and almost no matters at all in controversy betwixt us and them are such, as of themselves without the addition of some humane principle or illation, they may, so much as seem, to be directly opposite unto us. Which if Protestant's would consider, they should easily see, almost in all controversies, as much difference between our proofs out of Scripture and theirs, as there is betwixt the express word of God and humane discourse. Nether may they say, that they are not bound to prove 
Why Protest. are bound to prove their negative points of doctrine.  those points wherein they contradict us, because their denial needeth no proof; Both because in some controversies they are the affirmers, and we the deniers; as when they say, that God will and worketh sin, tempteth and predestinateth to sin; That Christ was truly a sinner feared his damnation, suffered the pains of hell, the like: In which questions, seeing catholics prove their denial by express words of Scripture, much more ought Protestant's by the like express words to prove their affirmation. As also, because it is one thing simply to deny or not to believe the Catholic affirmation (as every jew, Turk, or infidel doth) an other thing, not only to deny it or not believe it, but also to condemn it as an untruth contrary to 
See Tertul. de Corona. c. 2.  Scripture, and to avouch the denial as a truth taught by Scripture; For albeit a simple denial or not belief need no proof, yet such a mixed denial, as denying the opposite affirmation, affirmeth itself to be avouched by Scripture, and the affirmation to be condemned thereby, hath as great need of proof out of Scripture, as any other affirmation whatsoever. Moreover, these denials are articles of faith with Protestants, and as such are put in their Confessions of faith, and therefore either aught to be proved by Scripture, as other articles are; or they must confess, that they can not prove out of Scripture the greatest part of their faith: which principally consisteth of these negative articles or denials of our faith.  
9 As for Catholics, for the most part, I produce the 
Why one Cath. saying is alleged.  words of one only of the foresaied Authors; because the agreement of Catholics in matters of faith is well enough known; I might, if I would, have myself set down the Catholic doctrine in every article in the same words in which the Scripture delivereth her doctrine of the same: or perhaps have found the Catholic doctrine proposed by some Catholik● Author in the very same words which the Scripture useth: But that Protestants should not say, that it was no marvel if the Catholic doctrine be delivered in the Scriptures words by any Author whatsoever; or when it is done of purpose, I would not set it down but in the words of some famous Catholic writer, & those spoken not of purpose to accommodate their speech to the phrase of Scripture; but spoken to declare and express the Catholic doctrine. And here by we may see that when the Catholic doctrine is to be set down most plainly and distinctly by them who best know it, of it nature it requireth to be delivered with the very same or the likewords which the Scripture useth. Whence we may also gather (as I shall hereafter) that the Catholic doctrine is in very deed one and the self same with the doctrine of the Scripture.  
10. For the like cause I have alleged the words only 
Why many Protestant's sayings alleged.  of famous Protestants, such as almost all were not only writers but also Professors of Protestant divinity, lest any should attribute their words to ignorance. And some times I have cited diverse sayings of the same Author, partly lest any should think, that such words fell from him unawares: partly also, because some times they contradict the Scripture in so different manners of speech, as if they would that none should be ignorant thereof: partly also, to the end, that the Catholic Reader may make choice amongst many sayings of Protestants, which he judgeth most opposite to the Scriptures words. Nether yet do I fear, that the multitude of Protestants sayings opposed against the Scripture, may scandalise any weak Catholic; for seeing the Scripture most directly contrary to them, and armed with this shield, he will no more regard the Protestants words then so many barkings of of dogs against heaven, so many cries of jeves against Christ, so many blasphemies of damned men against God. And if it be wearisome or irkesom to the Catholic Reader, to read all the blasphemous speeches of Protestants (as it was to me to write them out) let him run over the Sum which I make of their words, or, by the notes in the margin, choose which are fittest to his purpose. And thus much for the manner of my proceeding in this book.  
11. The profit of this work is manifold. First, because by it a short and easy way may be taken to make an end 
The profits of this work.  of all controversies, and that out of Scirpture alone, as Protestants desire: to wit, by mere rehearsal of the express words of Scripture, of Catholics, and of famous Protestants touching 260. articles of controversy: For if it appear that catholics in 260. articles agree both in word and sense with the express words of Scripture and these spoken of purpose to declare her meaning unto us: and that Protestants in those 260. articles directly contradict the said words and sense of the holy Scripture, no man will doubt, but that all Protestant doctrine (for as it is contrary to the Catholic) is also contrary to the holy Scripture. An other commodity is, that in this book are gathered those places of Scripture, and they ranked according to order of their matters, which in 260. articles directly and in their proper and usual sense do approve the Catholic doctrine, and condemn the Protestant. A third commodity is, that hereby are at hand in every kind of controversy such sayings of famous Protestants, as not only directly cross the Scripture; but also many of them are so blasphemous against God, against Christ, against the Saints, the Church, Sacraments, Faith, Good works: so opposite to piety, virtue and religion: so favourable to vice, and all licentiousness: so repugnant to reason, as some Protestants will deny, and others scarce believe, that ever any of theirs taught such doctrine. Whom I request 
The Author's fidelity in citing protestants sayings.  to take the pains to look upon the books and places by me alleged, and then to believe their own eyes. For I not only gathered their sayings out of their own books, but also, after I had myself gathered them and caused them to be fair copied out, I diligently conferred them with their books, and admitted none which he, that read their books, did none find to be truly cited out of them. Wherefore I say for myself as Caluin said for himself against Gentilis: There shallbe no colour for them to complain that they are slandered, seeing I request that judgement be made of their impiety out of their own mere words. And they, who have had to deal with Protestants either by word or writing, know well how important a thing it is, to be able to convince them, that they teach that which in in very deed they teach; which may clearly be done by their sayings here rehearsed.  
12. The fourth commodity of this work is, that hereby shall appear, that almost in all controversies which between Catholics and Protestants, Catholics do stick fast to the very words of Scripture, and religiously keep her letter and form of speech; and Protestants go fare from the words, at lest of Scripture and bring in a different, yea quite opposite, form of speech. Nether aught they to think this to be a small fault, both because they boasting of the pure and express word of God, ought also to keep the very letter thereof, and not to reject it and to use the contrary: as also because the Apostle commandeth to avoid profane novelties of words, and to keep the 
1. Timoth. 6. 2. Timoth. 1.  form of wholesome words which we have learned of him: which commandment they do not follow, who forsake the Scriptures form of speech, and embrace the contrary: and finally, because not only the sense, but also the words and form of speech used by the Scripture, did proceed from the holy Ghost, and therefore it is sacrilegious audacity to reject God's words and Gods form of speaking, and to bring in man's words and fashion of speaking quite contrary. As if these new Ghospelers should teach God how to deliver his mind, or he meant to speak otherwise by them, than he did by his Prophets, Apostles, and Euamgelists, wherefore their impiety is not to be borne withal who when the Scripture most often and most plainly calleth the belief of wicked men or reprobats, faith, and never denieth it to be faith, yet dare say, that it 
Caluin 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 10.  is unworthy the name of faith: When the Scripture often times and most directly calleth the Eucharist the body of Christ, and not once directly denieth it to be his body, yet dare say, it is not his body. And the like they do in many other matters, wherein if they control not the meaning of the holy Ghost; at least they correct his speech, and reform it according to the square of their new doctrine. Far otherwise proceeded the holy Fathers, who would not suffer so much as a letter or syllable of the holy Scripture to be altered: And as S. Austin gravely advertized. Philosopher's may speak as they please, but we speak according 
Lib. 10. de Civit. c. 23.  to a certain rule, lest licency in words breed impious opinions of the thing which they signify. Yea Protestants themselves some times will seem to be very careful of the words and phrases of Scripture. For thus speaketh Luther: If the 
In Confutat. Latomi. f. 227  Scripture term any thing sin, beware thou be'st not moved by any words of theirs, who (as if they could speak better) deny it to be sin. And Caluin: There is to be taken out of Scripture a 
1. Instit. c. 13. §. 3.  certain form of thinking & speaking, by which all the thoughts of our mind and words of our mouth are to be examined. Beza 
Ad defence. Castell.  also: I see that all godly and learned Divines have ever taught, that the holy Ghost governed not only the mind, but also the tongue and pen: in so much as concerning the wonders of God, not only nothing can be said of any man more truly or more habily, but also neither so gravely nor so properly. Likewise Bucer: 
Prefat. in Math.  No wisdom of the flesh can reach to these mysteries of the kingdom of God. Therefore, than we speak most plainly most perspicuously and most surely of matters of faith, when we speak according to the rule and form of Scripture. And otherwhere: we 
In Hospin. part. 2. Histor  must learn of the Scripture and the holy Ghost, how to speak and think of every matter. Wherefore the holy Ghost his forms of speaking ought not to be corrected according to the judgement of our reason. Thus they, which if they and theirs had followed, we should not have had so much speech contrary to the Scripture.  
13. The fift, and that no small, commodity is, that by this work willbe taken from ministers all their false pretence of Scripture and of the word of God, wherewith perpetually they cry, that the Catholic faith is grounded only upon men's authority, and all their doctrine forsooth upon the express Scripture and word of God, and 
In c. 1. Galat. In Assert. art 2.  thereby draw the simple people to follow them. The Pope (faith Luther) having no Scripture wherewith to defend himself, useth this only and perpetual argument against us. The Church, the Church. Again: Our opinion is delivered by these words of God, the contrary, by the words of men. And otherwhere. All the Scripture standeth an our sides through all letters and tittles. Caluin: Papists find no weapons in Scripture, yea they 
In Actor. 9 v. 22. In Antid. sess. 6. c. 8.  see it wholly against them. Again. I have the whole Scripture on my side. And Sadeel: Our doctrine doth rely upon the express word of God? And in an other place: we professed in the fift article of our French Confession, that our faith is only and wholly, and expressly grounded upon the word of God as it is contained 
De vocat. Ministr. Ad art. 1. abiurat.  in the Scripture. Fulk in joan. 5. note 2. Papists can not find a jot of Popery allowed either by express words of the Scripture, or by necessary conclusion out of the same. And the like most vain pretence, this most impudent boast is most 
Apol. Anglic p. 20. Pareus praefat lib. de Grat. Caluin epist. 193. Whitak. praefat. add Demonst.  manifestly refuted in this book, wherein is clearly showed, that the Catholic doctrine, in more than 260. points denied by Protestants, is in express terms and most directly taught and delivered, by the Scripture, and in the same points the Protestants doctrine condemned: and that these in very deed do rely upon their own inferences out of Scripture, their own conferences of places of Scripture and oppose their own expositions, glosses, tropes, and figures, against the express words and thunders of almighty God.  
14. The sixth commodity is, that though some obstinately will not confess, that in all these 260. points or in most of them, the Scripture or word of God doth expressly approve the Catholic doctrine and condemn the Protestant, yet this he can not deny, but in all these points the holy Scripture both for word and for sense favoureth more the Catholic doctrine then the Protestant: which if ignorant Protestants would mark, they would not be so easily misled. For as for words, in all these 260. points we 
catholics advantage over Protestants. For words of Scripture.  use the very same or equivalent words with the Scripture: what she calleth faith, we call faith: what she calleth the body of Christ, we call the body of Christ. And so in others: whereas Protestants do the quite contrary, as hath been touched before, and shall appear in the whole book. And as for the form of speech, where the Scripture 
For phrase of Scripture.  affirmeth, we affirm; where the Scripture denieth, we deny: And contrary wise the Protestants affirm, where the Scripture denieth; and deny, where the Scripture affirmeth: as shallbe most evident to him that will read this book. Besides no part or parcel of the Scripture forceth 
For parts of Scripture.  catholics to deny it, but they hold all that Protestants account for Scripture and some what more: whereas Protestant's are compelled to reject many books of those which catholics and the holy Church heretofore hath believed to be God's word, and foully also to mangle and corrupt these books which they admit. Moreover catholics refuse no authentical edition or translation of the 
For translations of Scripture.  Scripture: but Protestants will stand to no translation. And thus much touching the words of Scripture. As for 
For the sense of Scripture.  the sense thereof: catholics in all these 260. points do admit that sense, which the express words of Scripture, and they spoken of purpose to declare God's mind do of themselves proporse: which sense Protestants reject and force the quite contrary. Again, scarce in any of these 260. articles Catholics are driven to any answer which hath any show of a shift or evasion, because in them (as I said) they embrace the native and proper sense of the words of Scripture: but Protestants in every one of them are driven to sundry and foul shifts, because they refuse the natural and plain sense of God's word. Besides, catholics in all these 260. points dare stand to the judgement of the express word of God according to that sentence which of themselves with out all help, force or pressing of Catholics they do pronounce: Protestants dare not in these articles stand to the judgement of God's express word, unless they may wrest, wring, and interpret it as they think best. Finally, Catholics in none of all these questions reject that sense of Scripture, which is delivered by unanimous consent of the holy Fathers, Counsels, or Church. Protestants refuse it in many. Seeing therefore catholics have the advantage over Protestants, not only for Fathers, Counsels, Church, miracles, the like, but also that they have such and so great advantages over them in more than 260. points of controversy, both for the express word, and plain sense of the Scripture, it is plain wilfulness and carelessness of salvation to leave catholics for to follow Protestants. I would to God, that Protestants would (as they pretend) follow the express word of God, and embrace that Religion 
Note.  which the express word of God most favoureth, reject that which it most disliketh; and inquire diligently whether the Catholic or Protestant religion can in more points of controversy prove her doctrine by the pure and express written word of God without the mixture of any word of man, and by the pure sense thereof, which of itself it affordeth without any help or exposition of man, when it is spoken of purpose to declare God's meaning unto us. Let that religion flourish and be embraced, which in this conflict overcomet: let that perish and be rejected, which is overcomen. And what more reasonable then to prefer Gods pure word before that which is not pure, mixed partly of God's words, partly of man's. What more reafonable, then to prefer Gods direct speech, before man's inference or collection out of his speech? What more reasonable, then to follow rather Gods express words, than man's glosses, tropes, and figures? And finally, what more reasonable, then to follow that religion which in more than 260. points of controversy is grounded upon the pure word, the direct word, the express word of God, and hath against it nothing but man's mixed word, man's inference, man's glosses: rather than that which in all those points is condemned by the pure, direct, and express word of God, and supported only by man's mixed word, man's inference, and man's glosses? For example: That the Eucharist is the body of Christ, we have for us in four places of Scripture the pure, direct, and express word of God, saying: This is my body: and against us there is not so much as once any pure word of God, saying directly and expressly: This is not my body. But only men's inference out of a mixed word, to wit: Christ's body is in heaven, and can not be in two places; which word is mixed, partly of God's word, for the former part, and of men's word, for the latter. And shall we think that in a matter of faith, which we can not know but by Gods teaching, his pure and express word is not to be preferred before men's inference out of a mixed word, which is in part men's word? What else can we think unless we will even in God's matters prefer men before God.  
15. The seaventh commodity is that in this word are discovered all or the most usual shifts wherewith Protestant's use to delude the testimonies of holy Scripture. Which surely is no less profitable, then to know the deceits of enemies with whom we are to fight. And as Tertullian sayeth: Woe be to him, who whiles he is in this life, knoweth not 
De resur. c. 19  the secrets of Heretics. And these are the especial profits and commodities which may be reaped by this work; Now let us remove certain scruples or hindrances of the reaping of them.  
16. The first scruple may be about the vulgar Latin translation, 
Objections or difficulties removed.  which I follow in citing the words of Scripture. But to omit all which Catholics produce for to prove that translation to be authentical (because this is no place to treat of that matter) Protestants confessions hereof may suffice, which may be seen in the Protestants Apology for the Rom. Church Treat. 1. Sect. 10. subd. 4. to which I add, that Casoubon writeth. I acknowledge the Latin translation of the bible to be holy Scripture, and I account an unperdonable fault to so much as doubt thereof: That jewel. art. 17. sect. 4. sayeth: It hath been ever more generally received in the Church: That Beza in Luc. 1. confesseth: That the ancient interpreter did most religiously translate the Scripture. And in Luc. 8. v. 54. That himself had two ancient Greek copies which marvelously agreed with the vulgar Latin. And Prefat. in Testam. That the vulgar interpreter had a truer Greek copy than theirs now are. Whitaker also Cont. 1. q. 2. c. 7. granteth, that the Latin Fathers commend it and justly. Hounfrey l. 1. de Rat. interpret. affirmeth. That the old Interpreter seemeth enough addicted to the propriety of the word. Moreover Luther and Protestants commonly confess, that Catholics have the word of God that the Fathers used the Latin translation in their disputes for maintenance of the Catholic faith and confutation of Heresies. Besides Fulk in his preface to the Testament, sayeth, that none of them calleth the vulgar translation of the new testament, Papistical, as though it were translated by Papists, or else made so greatly for Papists when it is rightly understood. Finally the vulgar Latin translation differeth not from the original Hebrew or Greek text, but in very few of those places which here I cite; and therefore it willbe but vain to cavil here about this matter.  
17. The second scruple may be, that some times the very 
why Protest. can not excuse themselves by the Scripture.  Scripture contradicteth itself in show of words, and nevertheless in sense and meaning is never repugnant to itself. And therefore it is not so great marvel if Protestant's some time contradict the words of Scripture, neither can it be thereof inferred that the contradict the sense. To this I answer, that the Scripture neither so often, nor in so many and so weighty matters, nor so manifestly and directly contradicteth itself in words, as Protestants do: Nether need we so many and so incredible shifts for to reconcile the words of Scripture, as Protestants need to reconcile their sayings with the Scripture. Besides, God may speak as he pleaseth, & therefore may for to exercise our faith and study mingle some show of contradiction in his words: but Protestants are bound to speak as God speaketh, and not to gain say so much as his words, as doubtless they would not, if their meaning were not repugnant to his. Again, we may not out of any seeming contradiction in God's words, infer any opposition in his meaning, because we know, that he can not be contrary to himself: but we know that Protestants can not be contrary to God's meaning, as we see that they be contrary to his words: and therefore out of their so frequent, so manifest, so direct contradicting of his words, we justly infer, that they also contradict his meaning, as we would infer the same of any Heretics whatsoever. Moreover this cavil will no more help Protestants, than it will help any other Heretics, sith there were ever scarce any, who so often, so plainly, so directly contradicted the express word of God, as Protestants have done. And therefore either we may infer out of the Protestants contradicting the words of God, that they also contradict his true meaning, or we can not infer that of any Heretics whatsoever. But of this more in the second book cap. 1.  
18. The third scruple may be, that perhaps also 
Why they can not excuse themselves by catholics.  some Catholic writers have in show of words contradicted the Scripture. But to this I answer that this is to accuse others, not to clear themselves: Let them first answer for themselves, before they recriminate others. And if any of them will go about to lay the like fault upon Catholics, let him keep these most just and equal conditions. First, let him not meddle with other matters than such as are in controversy betwixt us and them, as I touch no other matters. Secondly, let him bring forth in so many controversies, so manifest and so direct testimonies of holy Scripture agreeing with their doctrine both in words and sense, and opposite to our doctrine, as I have brought. Thou must prove (sayeth Tertullian) as evidently as we prove. Give me a proof which I demand like to 
Cont. Prax. c. 11. De unit. c. 6. 24.  mine. And S. Austin: Produce as clear testimonies as these are which we produce to you. We demand some manifest place which needeth no interpreter. Thirdly, let him show that the Council of Trent contradicteth as directly so many and so express places of Scripture, and that in so weighty matters, as we have showed that their confessions of faith, of which (as they say) they make almost as great account of, as 
Vorstius praefat. Antilpraefat. Syntagm.  we do of the Council of Trent. Fourthly, let him show, that so many and so famous Catholic writers have in so many and so great controversies contradicted the express propositions or assertions of the holy Scripture, as we have showed of the Protestant writers. I say Propositions, or Assertions, because it is a fare greater matter to contradict the proportions of Scripture, in which it pronounceth a thing to be, or not to be; to be such, or not to be such, then to  only from some of the words wherewith here or there it signifieth this or that thing. As for example, it is a fare greater matter to deny the Eucharist to be the body of Christ, which the Scripture often times & plainly affirmeth, than not to call it bread as some times the Scripture doth, but never directly sayeth that it is bread: Whereupon Spalatensis l. 5. de repub. c. 6. writeth thus: It is one thing, for a seeming thing to be called by the name of the true thing, which the appearance doth show; An other, to be said, This is that. The first may and is borne withal in all equivocal terms, but not the latter. Wherefore let him omit these kinds of matters. Fiftly, let him show, that Catholics have done thus, not by the way, treating of other matters, but of set purpose, as Protestants have done, who most often then contradict the Scripture in plain terms, even then when they answer it or comment upon it. Lastly, let him show, that Catholics have been forced for the maintenance of their doctrine to deny so many books, to corrupt so many places of holy Scripture, to device, so many and so incredible shifts, as we have showed the Protestants have done, or let him be ashamed to say, that Catholics are as faulty in this kind, as Protestants be. Moreover, though they could prove, that some Catholics have been as faulty herein, as they are (which they can never prove) yet that would nothing prejudice the Chatholik Church, because her faith is not the doctrine of one or of many Catholics, but the common of them all: But the Protestant faith is in many points the doctrine of some or of many of them, every one of them making that a point of faith, which himself gathereth out of Scripture, whether his fellows believe it, or no. Besides, the Catholic Church, if she find any thing in the writings of her children contrary to holy Scripture, she neither alloweth nor dissembleth it, but commandeth it to be blotted out, as is evident by the expurgatory Indices; but the Protestant either approveth or dissembleth the errors of her writers, and so maketh them her own. 
Why all Contradictions here related may be abjected to the Prot. Church.   
19 The fourth scruple may be, that all the Contradictions against holy Scripture, which are here rehearsed out of Protestant writers, were not made nor allowed of all Protestants, or of their Church, and therefore all of them are not to be imputed to all Protestant's or to their Church. I answer. First, that very many of the Contradictions against holy Scripture here set down are found in their Confessions of faith, and in other writings set forth in their common name: which Contradictions are most justly attributed to their Church, and these alone suffice to show, that the very faith and common doctrine of Protestants is directly opposite both to the word and sense of holy Scripture. Secondly, almost all these Contradictions are taken out of the writings of the first, the chiefest, and famousest teachers, guides, and leaders of Protestants, and therefore either Protestants must acknowledge these Contradictions, or reject the doctrine of their first and chiefest Masters as directly contrary to God's word. Thirdly, all the Contradictions or Antitheses here produced, are taken out of famous writers and maintainers of the Protestant faith, whose doctrine the Protestant Church hath not publicly condemned, nor compelled the Authors thereof to recall it, nor commanded it to be taken out of their writings, and therefore, if not by public consent, yet by silence and dissembling approveth it, and so (as I said before) maketh it her own. Fourthly, Protestants object to the Catholic Church whatsoever any Cotholik writer, though never so obscure, hath written: why then may not we better object unto their Church what many and the most famous of their writers have published? Finally my intention in this works not to show the Contradictions of this or that Protestant man or Church against the holy Scripture; but of the Protestants in general, especially of the chiefest and most famous.  
But whether the Contradictions of Scripture made by 
And though they could not yet that would suffice.  many and famous Protestant writers, and not condemned but dissembled by their Church, be to be objected to their Church, or no, these points ensuing will suffice to my purpose. First, that the common fairh of Protestants is in many and weighty articles directly contrary to the express word and clear meaning of holy Scripture, as is evident by that which in diverse articles I recite out of their Confessions of faith and other their common writings. The second is, that touching many other matters, that self same doctrine which I cite out of other Protestants, is contained in their Confessions of faith though it be not delivered there in terms so expressly opposite to the words of holy Scripture, as it is by other Protestants. The third is, that much of that Protestant Doctrine which here if cite as opposite to holy Scripture, is in very deed the common belief of Protestants, albeit it be not inserted in their Confessions. The fourth point is, that those Protestants whose words I allege, knew the common 
Apol. Anglic Cont. 2. q. 5. c. 8. L. 3. de Eccles. c. 42.  doctrine of Protestants, as well as any who now will deny or reject that doctrine. The fift is, that jewel, Whitaker, Feild, and diverse other Protestants avouch, that there is no material difference in doctrine amongst the chief Protestant's, which either they must confess to befalse, or maintain the doctrine which here I cite out of their chiefest writers. The sixth point is, that housoever the doctrine which I cite, is not in all points the Doctrine of this Protestant man or Church, yet it is as I said Protestant doctrine, taught and maintained by famous Protestants, such as our English Protestant's hold communion withal, and account them their brethren in Christ, And therefore either let them defend their doctrine, or refuse their communion. The seventh point is, that whether all or most of the Protestant doctrine, which here I cite as opposite to holy Scripture, be the common doctrine or belief of Protestant's, or no, this alone would suffice to my purpose, that the doctrine of the first, chiefest, and famousest Protestant preachers and leaders, is in more than 
Note.  260. points of controversy quite opposite to the express words of holy Scripture. For thereby every one may see, that the first & chiefest Protestant preachers, did not teach the word of God, but the word of the Devil quite contrary thereto: were not ministers of the word of God, but ministers of the Devil: not Reformers, but Deformers: not sent of God, but thrust on by the Devil: not lightened from heaven, but blinded from hell: not Apostles, but Apostatas: not pastors but wolves: who under a most false pretence of the word of God, did most directly impugn it, drew christians from God's truth to the Devil's lies, from the lap of the Catholic Church to the den of thiefs, from the assured path of salvation to the open way of damnation.  
Finally I advertise the Reader, that if at any time I use any sharp words against Protestants, I intent them only against their teachers and leaders, yet use I the common name of Protestants, that the rest may know that the crimes which I object unto them, proceed of their doctrine, and thereby fly and reject it, lest they become partakers of the crimes. I show them the gulf of impiety, into which their guides do lead them: let them not be offended with me, that I set before their eyes the impiety of the doctrine which they are taught, but let them be angry with their teachers who under the most false pretence of Scripture and God's word, have thought them such impious doctrine and so contrary to God's words. And I heartily pray God, and ever shall, that he open their eyes, that they may see the most imminent and grievous danger wherein they stand, and avoid it, & lighten with his true light that zeal which they have to his word, 
Rom. 10.  lest they perish for ever with them who had zeal but not according to knowledge.   

Whether catholics or Protestants be the true owners of the holy Scripture?  

FIRST CHAPTER.  
BECAUSE this question of the true owners 
How important this question is.  of the holy Scripture is of such moment, as by it may be decided all controversies, as shall hereafter appear: and withal the decision thereof is so easy and clear, as every one may perceive it: and notwithstanding hath not as yet to my knowledge, been particularly handled of any, albeit (as we shall see out of Tertullian) it should have been handled before any question of Scripture, I will begin first with it. And because Protestants avouch themselves to be the true owners of the Scripture, I need not prove to them that either Catholics or they are the true owners thereof (which the very question doth suppose) but it will suffice against them that I show, that according to all reason, Catholics are to be judged the true owners of Scripture rather than they.  
The first proof hereof I will take from the actual 
The first title for Cathol. actual possession.  possession of the Scripture, in which Catholics peacably were, when Luther and the Protestants first began to challenge the Scripture for theirs. For reason teacheth us to judge the Possessor of any thing to be the true owner of the same, and possession to be a sufficient title of holding it, unless the contrary be manifestly proved and convinced, as we see daily in lands and temporal goods: and otherewise the dominion of things would be uncertain amongst men. Whereupon the law teacheth the Possessor to plead possession as a sufficient title, and to say possideo quia possideo: I possess because I possess. But Protestants can not manifestly disprove, no nor yet colourably impugn the right of the Catholics possession of the holy Scripture, as shall hereafter appear. Therefore according to all reason catholics upon this title of their possession are to be judged true owners of the Scripture.  
The second proof I will take from the Catholics undoubted 
Second title, peaceable possession.  possession thereof, and unquestioned by Protestants for many ages. That Protestants did not for many ages call the Catholics possessions of the Scripture into question, is manifest, by the many and plain confessions of Protestants, that their Church was invisible before Luther for many ages, which I have related in my second book of the Author of the Protestant Church c. 4. And reason teacheth us to account him the true owner of a thing, who without all question or claim of any, hath hold it peacably for many ages together. Whereupon the law alloweth prescription of certain years, after which time expired, it permitteth not the possession to be called in question. Besides, it is no way likely, that the true Church of God would suffer herself to be bereft of so heavenly a treasure, as is the holy Scripture, and yet not once in any corner of the world, for many ages cry after the thief, or challenge her treasure, which she did see was held of others. Will men every day venture their lives for saving or recovering a little land or goods, and would not the Church of God (the only true owner of the Scripture) for many ages once open her mouth to challenge so heavenly a treasure; especially, the Scripture being (as Protestants teach) the only 
Martyr in disput. oxon. p. 143. Pareus Coll. Theol. 3. disp. 2.  external infallible means to attain faith, and as necessary to the salvation of the Church, as meat is to the life of man? what care had the Church offo great a treasure left unto here by Christ, what account made she of faith and salvation, if for many ages she would not so much as challenge the only external infallible and necessary means to obtain them? Would the primitive Church suffer so many torments and cruel death (as we read in the Ecclesiastical History) rather than lose the holy Scriptures, which the Heathens would have taken from her, and would she afterward suffer Papists too take it from her without muttering one word, or laying claim to it for many ages together. Moreover how had she faith, how obtained she salvation, if for main ages she lost the only external, infallible, and necessary means to obtain them?  
The third proof, is that the Catholics possession of the Scripture is fare more ancient than the Protestant's possession 
Third title, ancientest possession.  thereof. For evident it is, that that Christian Church which is the first and ancientest possessor of the holy Scripture, is the only true owner of the same: because the Apostles and Evangelists left their writings first and 
Qui prior est tempore, potior est iure. Reg. iuris.  only to the true Church, and gave her the testament and last will of Christ her sponse, so that the true Christrian Church had the Scripture, before any false Christian Church had it, and likewise certain it is, that she never lost it since it was delivered unto her, but as she is the pillar of truth, so she hath faithfully kept this heavenly truth delivered unto her in writing: and consequently is ancienter possessor of the Scripture than any false Christian Church can be. And this reason the ancient Christians used against Heretics, as appeareth by these words of Tertullian lib. de Prescript. c. 37. It is my possession. I possess it of old. I possess it first. I am the herie of the Apostles. And lib. 4. cont. Mart. c. 4. I say my Bible is true: Martion sayeth, His. I say Martions (Bible) is corrupted. Martion sayeth, Mine is corrupted what shall end our controversy, but order of time, giving authority to that which is found to be ancienter, and rejecting that which is later. For in that falsity is a corruption of truth, truth must needs be before falsity. Thus by their greater antiquity of their possession of the Bible, and also by the greater antiquity of the Bible itself did the ancient Christians prove against Heretics both that their Bibles were the true Bibles, and also that they were the true owners of them. But manifest it is, that Catholics are ancienter possessors of the holy Scripture then Protestants be, in so much as we shall see Protestant's confess, that they had the Scripture of catholics. Therefore catholics are the true owners of the Scripture.  
The fourth proof is taken from that there can be no 
4. title no beginning of possession named.  place or time named, where or when catholics first began to take possession of the holy Scripture, besides the very time of Christ and his Apostles, who alone could give true and lawful possession of the Scripture. Whereas 
See Author of the Prot. religion l. 2. c. 13.  we can name the place and time when Protestant's first began to Usurp possession of the holy Scripture. Which is long after the time of Christ and his Apostles. And all reason bindeth, us to account them the true owners of a thing, the beginning of whose possession can not be found, but at the very time of the first giver's thereof, rather than those whose possession began many hundreds of years after.  
The fift proof I will ground upon that the Catholics 
5. title the integrity of Scripture.  have conserved the holy Scripture incorrupt. For thiefs and wrong possessors use to disfigure the thing they have stolen as much as they can, that it may not be known. Besides, the Scripture must needs be contrary to the usurpers, and agreeable to the true owners, therefore necessity forceth usurpers to alter the Scripture, as false heirs are forced to alter the will or testament if they get it into their hands. Whereupon we see, that scarce ever there were any Heretics, who have not sought to corrupt the 
Tertul. de prescript. c. 17 38.  Scripture, albeit catholics cried out against their sacrilegious impiety. How much more than would Papists have corrupted the Scripture (especially while for many ages there were no visible Protestants to reprove them) if they had not been the true owners of the Scripture? But Catholics have not in all these ages, in which Protestants were invisible, corrupted any part of the Scripture, as is evident by that Protestants confess, that Scripture which they had of Catholics, to be pure and incorrupt. Nether do Protestants object to catholics any corruption made by them in the Hebrew or Greek text, and the vulgar Latin they will have to be ancienter than Papistry itself. But contrariwise, catholics have ever since the beginning of protestancy charged Protestant's with many and grievous corruptions of holy Scripture. Wherefore thus I argue. All reason teacheth us to judge them to be the true owners of a testament, who are the freest from corrupting it. But Catholics are fare more free from corrupting the testament of Christ then Protestants: Therefore etc.  
The sixth proof I will take from the Protestants grant, 
sixth title: grant of Protestants.  that they had the Scripture from catholics. Luther in 16. joan. to. 4. Germ. witenb. fol. 227. There is an argument which can very hardly be wrested from the Papists, and which I myself can very hardly answer and refute, especially sith we are forced to give and grant them so many things, which are true, to wit, that in Popery, is the word, the Apostleship, and that we received the holy Scripture, baptism, the Sacraments and office of preaching from them, otherwise what should we have known of all these things? And to. 5. in 1. Gal. fol. 293. we had indeed the Scripture and the Sacraments of the Papists. Schusselburg to. 8. Catal. Haeres. p. 439. We deny not, that Luther sayeth, that in Popery is all Christian good, and from thence came to us. D. Dave of recusancy. p. 13. We hold the Creed of the Apostles, of Athanasius, of Nice, of Ephesus, of Constantinople, which the Papists also do hold, and the same Bible which we received from them. Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 5. c. 14. Papists have the Scripture, Baptism, Catechism, the articles of faith, the ten commandments, the lords prayer, and these things come from them to us. james Andrea's li. count. Has. p. 316. We deny not, that we received the Scriptures from you. The like hath Spalatensis lib. cont. Suar. c. 1. n. 34. and others. 
A question proposed to Protestants.  Wherefore I ask the Protestant's, how they had the Scripture of us? Did we give it them? Did we sell it them? Did we change it with? Did we relinquish it as a forlorn thing. No one of all these can they prove or affirm with any appearance. How then get they the Scripture from us, but as thiefs get the true men's goods, and as Turks and jews get the same Scripture from us? If any say as Andrews and Schusselb. do intimate, that Protestants had the Scripture of Catholics, as Christians had the old testament of the jews, I answer, that Christians had not the old testament of the jews, if by jews they mean such as remained jews. For Christians had the old testament of the Apostles, and they of Christ who was lord of the old and new testament, as they had from him the Sacraments, and all other goods of the Church. Besides, every heretic may pretend this as well as Protestants. Wherefore thus I argue: They whom their adversaries confess to have had the Scripture before themselves, and can tell no lawful means by which they had the Scripture from them, are according to all reason to be held the true owners of the Scripture, rather than their adversaries; But such are Catholics in respect of Protestants. Therefore etc.  
The seventh proof I will take from the open and manifold 
Seventh title: other confessions of Protestant.  confessions of Protestants. For first they confess, that Catholics are the true Church of Christ, as I have showed at long in my foresaied book of the Author of the Protestant religion lib. 1. c. 2. to which I add these few. Spalatensis lib. 5. de repub. c. 6. n. 236. The Rom. Church is not gone so fare from the foundation, as that she is to be put wholly out of the members of the Churches of Christ. lib. count. Suarem. c. 1. n. 20. I think (as I have often said) that the Rom. Church with those that follow here, are the true Church of Christ. D. featly in his Refutation of Fisher p. 82. The Rom. Church we acknowledge to be a member, though a sick and weak one, of the Catholic visible Church. The like hath D. Hall in his book of old religion: and his two defenders Chalmeley and Batterfeild, whereof the latter in his preface sayeth he will demonstrate that the Rom. Church is a true Church. Now certain it is, that the true Church is the true ower of the Scripture. Secondly, they confess, that Catholic Pastors are true pastors, as is showed in the said book c. 2. cit. and Caluin in Ezechiel. c. 3. v. 9 sayeth, that Papists challenge the name of the Church, because they pretend a continual succession. And indeed (sayeth he) we are forced to confess, that they have the ordinary ministry. And who can deny, but the true Pastors of God's Church are true owners of God's word, which they have authority to preach? Thereby, they confess, that Catholics are true possessors of the holy Scripture. For thus writeth Luther to. 2. Germ. fol. 279. cited by Scarpius in Eccles. c. 6. We confess, that under Popery are many Christian goods, yea all Christian good, and that it came from thence to us. Namely we confess, that in Popery, is true holy Scripture, true baptism, true office of preaching, true Sacrament of the altar, true keys to forgive sins, true Catechism. Nay I say that in Popery is true 
The kernel of Christianity in Popery.  Christianity, yea the very kernel of Christianity and many great Saints: And Hall, Chalmeley and Batterfeild grant that Luther wrote thus and seem to allow it. Luther also to 6. in c. 28. Genes. sayeth: we confess, that Papists have the Church because they have baptism, absolution, the text of the Gospel, and there are many godly men amongst them.  
The eight proof shallbe from the Confession of such 
8. title. Confession of strangers.  as neither are catholics nor Protestants. For as Vorstius writeth in Antibell. p. 181. jews, Turks and Pagans do think, that the Christian religion consisteth chiefly in Popery. 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 any think, that such as want faith, can not be sufficient judges in this matter. For albeit they be not sufficient judges in the question of the truth of doctrine, yet are they sufficient in question of fact as this is. And in this 
joseph. lib. Antiq. Euseb. l. 7. c. 24.  sort, the Heathens in the time of the old law judged between the jews and the Samaritans: and in the time of the Gospel, between the Catholics and the Samosatenians. And as Christians can judge, what kind of Mahometans are the true owners of the Alcoran, though they think not the Alcoran to contain true doctrine: So may Infidels judge, what kind of Christians be true owners of the Gospel though they believe not the Gospel to be the word of God.  
The ninth proof may be taken from the agreement of 
9 title: Agreement with Scripture.  the Cath. doctrine both in words and sense with the holy Scripture, as shall appear in this book. Which proof though taken alone do not convince that Catholics are true owners of the Scripture: yet in convinceth that they are true owners rather than Protestants, who so fare disagree from the Scripture both in words and sense.  
The tenth proof shallbe, that Protestants against these 
10. title weakness of Protest. Proofs.  so many and so forcible proofs for the Catholics, can bring no other proof for their right to Scripture, then that they have the true doctrine of Scripture. Which argument taken alone, is (as I shown at large in my said book De Authore, etc. lib. 2. c. 15.) a fond Sophism or Foularie. First because Schismatiks have the true doctrine of Scripture, as I there proved by reason, by the testimony of holy Fathers, and the confession of Protestants, and yet are no true owners of the Scripture, because they are no true members of the Church, as I there also proved. Secondly, for Protestants to prove that they be true owners of the Scripture, because they have the true doctrine thereof, is to prove one unknown and false thing by an other as unkowne and false. Which is not to prove at all, because all proof must be from a thing more known. Thirdly they neither prove that they have the doctrine of the Scripture by express words of Scripture, for these are quite against them as shallbe showed in this book: nor by plain inference out of the words of Scripture, as appeareth by the Catholics answers unto all their proofs, nor finally they have proved any thing before a lawful judge: but all their proofs are such as every Heretic maketh. Besides, if truth of doctrine do prove true right to Scripture, it fare more maketh for catholics: and no more for Protestants, then for any other Heretics.  
Out of all which hath been said in this Chapter, it is most evident, that if the light of reason may be judge in this matter, catholics must needs be counted the true owners of the holy Scripture, because they have all the foresaied Titles, than the which both fewer and weaker would make a claim to worldly matters out of all question: of all which Protestants can pretend none but the last. Secondly it is evident, that if catholics be the true 
If Cath. be true owners of the Scripture, all controversies are ended.  owners of the Scripture, the sacred testament of Christ, they are also true owners of the holy Sacraments, of the keys of heaven to bind and lose sins, of the means of salvation, and of all the goods which Christ hath by his will and testament bequeathed to his Church. For undoubtedly all these things pertain to them, to whom Christ's testament doth belong. Thirdly it is evident, that if catholics be true owners of the Scriptures, Protestants be unjust usurpers of them, as jews, Turks, and Infidels are, and have no more right to keep or use them against catholics, than thiefs have to use true men's goods or weapons against them. For clear it is, that Catholics and Protestants are opposite Churches, as I have showed in the foresaied book. De Authore lib. 1. c. 2. and lib. 2. c. 6. and that one of them is a false Church, whereas the Scriptures were given and belong to one only Church. Wherefore we may well say to Protestants, as Tertullian de Prescript. c. 37. said to Heretics of his time: Who are you, when and whence came you, what do you in mine, being not mine? By what right Martion (Luther) dost thou fell my woods? By what licence Valentin (Caluin) dost thou turn away my water? By what authority Apelles (Zuingle) dost thou charge my bounds? It is my possession, what do you strangers here sow and feed at your pleasure? And the same say we to Protestants. Let them first show, what right they have to Scriptures, before they argue out of them; let them render us our weapons, or show what just title they have to them before they fight with them against us. For as the same Tertull. sayeth. c. 15. Here we first stop them, that they are not to be admitted to any dispute of Scriptures. We must see whether they may have them or no, to whom belongeth the Scripture, that he be not admitted to it, to whom it appertaineth not. And c. 19 The order of the matter did require, that to be first proposed, which alone is now to be disputed? Fourthly whose is the faith, whose is the Scripture? Fourthly it is evident, that if any Protestant will (notwithstanding all that hath been said) judge, that Protestants are the true owners of Scripture, rather than catholics, he will give that judgement in a matter of such great moment, which he would be ashamed to give in a question of the least trifle in the world. For who seeing that one hath nine titles to a piece of ground, of all which titles his adversary hath no pretence, and that he hath as good (if not fare better) show also of the tenth title, as his adversary hath, would not be ashamed to adjudge the land to his adversary, and cast him out of possession, who was actual possessor when the matter came first in question, was peaceable possessor for many ages, was the ancienter possessor, and of whose possession no 
Note this.  beginning can be found but from the true lord, and from whom his adversary hath whatsoever he hath, whose lawful possession thereof all kind of adversaries do some time confess, and put his adversary in possession who can pretend no title but that which alone sufficeth not, and which also for better agreeth to the ancient possessor? If any say, that in worldly matters reason would give judgement for the ancient possessor, but not in heavenly or divine matters, as the Scripture is, I demand, what Scripture, what word of God teacheth us to check the light of reason concerning the true possession of the Scripture? If none, why then do we not follow reason in this matter of fact concerning the true possession of Scripture, as well as in others? Besides, this were to grant that the light of reason is in this matter with Catholics against Protestants: and consequently that to be a Protetestant, one must first cast away reason, even in a matter which is under the reach of reason, as is, who are the true owners of the Scriptures. Moreover, the very end of this Balance is no other, then to show, that if we will follow the light of reason and true prudence, we ought to embrace the Catholic religion and reject the Protestant, and that to do otherwise, is to cast away reason and prudence, and to become unreasonable and imprudent men, and to say, that Christ hath given us a Religion, which is not only above reason, but even contrary to reason, and that also in matters subject to reason: and that we can not become faithful men, but we must first become unreasonable men, not receive his light of faith, before we put out his light of reason, wherewith he hath made us like to himself and superiors to beasts. Thus we see, how fare, in all reason and prudence, catholics are above Protestants, for the right claim, or just possession of holy Scripture: Now let us see in the rest of this book how fare also they are above them for the letter or words of Scripture: and in the second book how fare they are above them for the true sense thereof.   

A SUM OF THE MORE MANIFEST CONtradictions between the express words of the holy Scripture and of Protestants, with the Chapter and Article where they may be read more at large: which will much serve to understand and remember better those which follow.  
CHAPTER II. OF GOD.  
SCRIPTURE: Thou are not a God that willeth iniquity. 
God willeth not iniquity. He willeth iniquity.   
Protestants. God will have iniquity to be committed. God willeth iniquity with a hidden will: He willeth sin: He willeth sin to be done: He would have Adam to sin, to fall, to revoult. See more c. 2. article. 1.  
Scripture. Our just lord in the mids thereof, will not do 
God doth not iniquity.  iniquity.  
Protestants. God worketh evil in us: The evils of sin are 
He doth iniquity.  done by the effectual working of God: David's adultery is properly Gods work, judas his treachery is his proper work as the vocation of S. Paul: Pharaoh his cruelty is attributed to God's counsel in no other sense then the Egyptians favour towards his people: God procureth sin itself. See more c. 2. art. 4.  
Scripture: He (God) hath commanded no man to do impiously. 
God commandeth not to sin. He commandeth to sin.   
Protestants: God biddeth Satan go to be a lying spirit: By God's commandment Satan is a lying spirit: God giveth him a plain commandment to deceive: Satan was sent to deceive by the express commandment of God. See art. 6.  
Scripture. God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no 
God tempeteth not to sin.  man.  
Protestants. God is the author of temptation: God moveth 
He tempts to sin.  the offenders to sin: pushed the jews to kill his Son: stirreth up the thiefs will to kill: driveth to sin by tempting: inclineth the wills of wicked men into grievous sins. See more art. 7.  
Scripture: Thou hatest all that work iniquity.  
Protestants. God is angry with the elect when they sin, but 
God hateth all that work iniquity. He hateth not all such. God justifieth not the impious. He justifieth the impious.  never hateth them: He hateth all iniquity, but not all in whom iniquity is. See art. 9  
Scripture. He that justifieth the impious, is abominable before God.  
Protestants.  God forbiddeth to justify the impious Prou. 17. can he be said to do that rightly, which himself forbiddeth? Rightly: Albeit we be wicked, yet are we accounted of the lord for just. A wicked man may be pronounced just according to the Gospel: Christ can justify such as are impious and want all good works. See more art. 10.  
Scripture. Against Aaron (God) being exceeding angry, 
God is angry with the faithful when they sin. He is not angry with them. God is pleased with good works. He is not pleased with them. God is served with good works. He is not served with them.  he would have destroyed him.  
Protestants: God always withouldeth his anger from the faithful: God is not angry with sinners. See art. 11.  
Scripture. We do these things which are pleasing before him: with such hosts God is pleased.  
Protestants. God careth not for works: we foolishly feign, that God is much delighted with our works: There is no such God which is delighted with our good works: To wash dishes and to preach is all one, as for pleasing God. See more art. 13.  
Scripture. By fastings and prayers serving (God) day and night.  
Protestants. The true God is not served with works: There is one only worship pleasing to God, to wit true faith. God is served by faith only. Faith is the only true worship of God. See art. 14.  
Scripture. Phinees stood & pacified, and the slaughter ceased. 
God is pacified by good works. He is not pacified by them. God will have his commandments kept. He will not have them kept.   
Protestants. There is no such God that can be pacified with our good works: The works which I do according to God's law, do not pacify his wrath but provoke it. See more art. 16.  
Scripture. This is the will of God, your Sanctification that you abstain from fornication, etc.  
Protestants. God testifieth that he will not that his commandments be kept: will he have the promises of the law performed of us? Nothing less. He commandeth some thing which he will not have done: Properly speaking God will not have his commandments kept of us. See art. 17.  
Scripture. God hath concluded all into incredulity, that he 
God hath mercy on all.  may have mercy on all.  
Protestant's God hath concluded all (the reprobats) under 
He hath not mercy on all.  sin, that he might justly destroy them: God neither would nor will have mercy on all. See art. 18.  
Scripture. Thou lovest all things that are, and hatest nothing 
God loveth all.  of that which thou hast made.  
Protestants. God cannot be said to love all: Albeit he created 
He loveth not all.  all in Adam, yet be loveth not all: God loveth only the elect in Christ, all the rest he justly hated from all eternity and will for ever hate. See more art. 18.  
Scripture. God will all men to be saved: Not willing that any 
God will all to be saved.  perish.  
Protestants. God will not have all saved, not every one 
He will not all to be saved  saved: It is not true, that God would have all saved by Christ. God will not have those that are reprobates to be saved. See more art. 19  
Scripture. Live I, sayeth our lord God, I will not the death of 
God will not the death of a sinner. He will the death of a sinner.  the impious, but that he be converted and live.  
Protestants. God willeth the death of a sinner with his unsearchable will: God createth some to death, to perish, to destruction: God predestinated to death whom he would and because he would. See art. 22.  
Scripture. God made not death. 
God made not death. He made death.   
Protestants. God is the Author of death: Gods will is the first and unavoidable cause of the perdition of them that perish: The hidden will of God worketh death in all. See more art. 22. cit.  
Scripture. Impious men are not necessary for him. 
God needeth not the impious. He needeth them. God damneth men for sin. He damneth not them for sin. God can the all things. He cannot do all things   
Protestants. It is false, that God hath not need of a sinner. See art. 22. cit.  
Scripture. Get ye away from me you accursed into fire everlasting; for I was an hungered and you gave me not to eat.  
Protestants: God for his mere will damneth men: He damneth them that deserve not: There is no other cause of man's damnation, than God's mere pleasure. See art. 23.  
Scripture. With God all things are possible.  
Protestants. That saying: All things are possible to God, hath some exception: God hath no absolute power. See more art. 24.   

CHAPTER III. OF CHRIST.  
SCripture. Who (Christ) was predestinate the Son of God 
Christ, predestinate the Son of God. Not predestinate. Christ made laws. He made none.  in power.  
Protestants. That Christ was predestinate the Son of God: is Arianisme. See art. 2.  
Scripture. Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.  
Protestants. Christ is no lawmaker; no lawgiver who gave any new law to the world. See art. 7.  
Scripture. Bear ye one an others burdens, and so ye shall fulfil 
Christ's Gospel a law.  the law of Christ.  
Protestants. The Gospel must not be called a new law. Art. 
No law.  7. cit.  
Scripture. And he hath given him power to do judgement, 
Christ a judge.  because he is the Son of man.  
Protestants. Christ is not judge: He shall not exercise the last 
No judge.  judgement as man. See art. 8.  
Scripture. For these are the two testaments. 
Twoe testaments.   
Protestants. There are not two testaments. See art. 9 
Not two. Christ learned nothing.   
Scripture. How doth this man know letters, whereas he hath not learned?  
Protestants. Christ was so ignorant, as he learned, and was 
He laernt.  taught as men are. See art. 10.  
Scripture: It was seemly, that we should have such a high priest, 
Christ no sinner.  holy, innocent, impolluted, separated from sinners. Who did not sin.  
Protestants. Christ was a sinner and that truly: we must not 
He was a sinner.  imagine Christ to be innocent: He confesseth his delicateness, overwhelmed with desperation he gave over calling upon God. He needed baptism. See art. 11.  
Scripture. This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased. 
Christ beloved of God.   
Protestants. God made Christ by imputation a sinner, or 
Hateful of God.  unjust, guilty, hateful to God. See art. 11. cit.  
Scripture. This commandment (of giving my life) I received 
Christ commanded to die. Not commanded. He sufficiently redeemed. Not sufficiently.  of my Father.  
Protestants. They say: A law was made that Christ should die: But this is against Scripture. See art. 14.  
Scripture: The Son of man is come to give his life a redemption (in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) for many.  
Protestants. They err saying that Christ's death was a sufficient redemption (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) for the sins of all: Christ died not sufficiently for all. See art. 16.  
Scripture. He hath reconciled in the body of his flesh by 
He redeemed us by death.  death: Pacifiing by the blood of his cross.  
Protestants. Nothing had been done, if Christ had suffered 
Not by death.  only corporal death: Reason itself teacheth, that only corporal death (of Christ) was not sufficient to redeem them who had deserved death both of body and soul. See more art. 17.  
Scripture. Christ did die for the impious. They deny him 
Christ died for the impious and damned. Not for them  that bought them, the lord, bringing upon themselves speedy perdition.  
Protestants. Christ did not give himself for the impious and reprobates. He shed not his blood for the sins of the impious & damned. See more art. 18.  
Scripture. who is the Saviour of all men, especially of the 
Saviour of all  faithful. Who gave himself a redemption for all.  
Protestants. It is not Christ the Redeemer of all? No. Christ 
Not Saviour of all.  is the Redeemer only of the elect, and of none else. See more art. 18. and 19  
Scripture. He is the propitiation of our sins, and not of our 
Propitiation for the sins of the world. Not for the sins of the world. His soul went to hell. Not to hell. Entered the doors being s●ut. Not being shut.  sins only but also for the whole world.  
Protestants, They speak amiss, who say that by Christ's death the sins of the whole world were redeemed. See art. 19 cit.  
Scripture. Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell.  
Protestants. Christ's soul never went to the places of hell. Christ's soul did not descend to hell. See art. 21.  
Scripture. jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst.  
Protestants. Christ by his divine power did open the shut doors. The doors were not shut in the very instant of his passing. See more art. 23.  
Scripture. Having a great high priest, that hath penetrated 
Christ penetrated the heaven. Not penetrated them. Christ prayeth for us. He prayeth not for us.  the heavens, jesus the Son of God.  
Protestants. Christ ascended without penetration of quantities. We admit no penetration. See art. 14.  
Scripture. I will ask the Father. Who also maketh intercession for us.  
Protestants. We may not imagine that Christ as a Suppliant prayeth for us. His death and resurrection are in steed of an eternal intercession. See more art. 25.   

CHAPTER iv OF ANGELS AND SAINTES.  
SCripture. And the Angel of our Lord answered and said: O 
Angels pray for us.  Lord of Hosts, how long will thou not have mercy on Jerusalem?  
Protestants. The Scripture teacheth not that Angels pray. 
They pray not.  We deny that the holy Angels do pray in particular for our necessities. See art. 4.  
Scripture. And he prevailed against the Angel, and was 
Angels to be prayed unto. Not to be prayed unto.  strenghtned, and he wept and besought him.  
Protestants. The invocation of Saints and Angels is impious See art. 8.  
Scripture. Our lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the 
Angels to be bowed unto.  Angel standing in the way with a drawn sword, and he adored him flat to the ground.  
Protestants. We must beware that we neither adore nor worship 
Not to be bowed unto.  Angels: He could not fall down to the Angel without diminishing God's honour. See art. 11.  
Scripture. Nether take thou away thy mercy from us for 
God to be prayed by the names of Saintes. Not so to be prayed.  Abraham thy beloved, and Isaac thy servant, and Israel the holy one.  
Protestants. In the Prophets there is not found any such invocation: Hear me o God for Abraham. God is not to be besought by the names of Saintes. See more art. 9  
Scripture. For yourselves know, how you ought to imitate us. 
Saints to be imitated. Not to be imitated. God protecteth us for the Saints sake. Not for their sakes. Some Saints bad power to work miracles. None had such power. Santes receive men into eternal tabernacles. They do not receive.  Be ye followers of me.  
Protestants. These trifles ought not to be sung to the people that they should imitate the Saints. God requireth that we follow his scripture only, and not the examples of Saintes. See art. 12.  
Scripture. I will protect this city and save it for myself and for David my servant.  
Protestants. It is not to be borne, that they say, through God's liberality and Christ's grace the merits of Saints do profit us to protection. See art. 10.  
Scripture. And he gave them power to cure infirmities and to cast out Devils.  
Protestants. God never gave any man power of working miracles either mediately or immediately. See art. 16.  
Scripture. Make unto you friends of the mammon of iniquity, that when you fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles.  
Protestants. We must not understand, that men shall receive us into eternal tabernacles. See art. 13.  
Scripture. They shallbe priests of God and Christ, and shall 
Saint's reign with him.  reign with him.  
Protestants. The Saints do not reign with Christ. See art. 
They reign not with him.  16.  
Scripture. And he that shall overcome and keep my works 
Saints rule nations.  unto the end, I will give him power over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron.  
Protestants. It is an error, that Angels or the souls of the 
They rule them not.  blessed men are appointed of God to rule and govern us. See art. 16. cit.   

CHAPTER V OF THE SCRIPTURE OR WORD OF GOD.  
SCripture. Paul according to the wisdom given him, hath 
Some things in Scripture. are hard.  written, as also in all Epistles, speaking in them of these things in which are certain hard to be understood.  
Protestants. Peter sayeth not, that Paul's Epistles are obscure, 
No thing hard.  no nor that there are some obscure things in Paul's Epistles. No part of the Scripture is obscure: How can the Scripture be called obscure in any part. See more art. 1.  
Scripture. jesus began to preach and say: Do penance for 
The Gospel preacheth penance. It preacheth it not.  the kingdom of heaven is at hand.  
Protestants. The Gospel properly is not a preaching of penance. The Gospel preacheth not to us that this or that is to be done, or exacteth any thing of us. See more art. 4.  
Scripture. If thou will enter into life, keep the commandments. 
Promiseth life conditionally   
Protestants. The Gospel promiseth salvation even to those 
Not conditionally.  that have no good works at all. The Gospel requireth not works to salvation. See more art. 6. 
Gospel not contrary to the law.   
Scripture Do we then destroy the law by faith? God forbidden. But we establish the law.  
Protestants. The Gospel is truly opposite to the law. The law 
It is contrary to it.  and the Gospel of themselves wholly fight one with the other. See more art. 7.  
Scripture. All things must needs be fulfilled, which are written 
Moses law commandeth faith in Christ. It commandeth it not. Traditions to be kept. Not to be kept.  in the law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms of me.  
Protestants. Faith in Christ, the law never knew. The law of Moses commandeth not faith in Christ. See more art. 8.  
Scripture. Hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether it be by word or by our epistle.  
Protestants. We care not for unwritten traditions: we acknowledge no word but that which is written. See more art. 9   

CHAPTER VI OF S. PETER, AND THE APOSTLES.  
SCripture. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build 
Church built upon Peter.  my Church.  
Protestants. Peter is not rock, because Christ did not build 
Not upon Peter.  his Church upon Peter. See more art. 2.  
Scripture. And I say to thee: Thou art Peter. And to thee 
Keyos given to Peter.  I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.  
Protestants. Christ called faith the rock, to which rock not to 
Not given to him.  Peter, be gave these keys. See art. 3.  
Scripture. I have prayed for thee (Peter) that thy faith fail 
Peter's faith, failed not. It failed.  not.  
Protestants. For a time surely Peter saith failed whiles he denied Christ. It is a blasphemous speech, that Peter denying Christ did not lese his faith. See more art. 4.  
Scripture. And the wall of the city having twelve foundations: 
The Apostles foundations.  and in them twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the lamb.  
Protestants. The Apostles were not the foundations. See 
Not foundations.  more art. 5.  
Scripture. He that heareth you, heareth me. 
The Apostles simply to be heard. Not simply to be heard.   
Protestants. The Apostles be not simply to be heard, but to be examined according to the rule of Scripture, S. Paul's Gospel or the new testament must have been tried by the old. See more art. 6.   

CHAPTER VII. OF THE PASTORS OF THE CHURCH.  
SCripture. If my cowenant with the day can be made void 
Pastors' always.  etc. also my cowenant may be made void with David my servant, that there be not of him a son to reign in his throne and Levits and Priests my ministers. 
Not always.   
Protestants. It is false that the external ministry must be perpetual. The Church hath often no man Pastor. Some short time the Church may be deprived of Pastors. See more art. 7.  
Scripture. Thou art Peter etc. And to thee I will give the 
Authority in the Pastors  keys of the kingdom of heaven.  
Protestants. The authority is not in the Prelates, but in the 
Not in them.  word: the Church hath nothing but mere ministry. See more art. 2.  
Scripture. Thou art Peter etc. and whatsoever thou shalt 
One pastor can excommunicate  bind on earth, it shallbe bound also in heaven.  
Protestants. We must remember, that this power (of excommunicating) 
One cannot.  is given to no one man, but to the whole company of the Presbytery. See more art. 3.  
Scripture. And he (Paul) walked through Syria and Silicia 
Pastors' can make laws.  confirming the Churches, and commanding them to keep the precepts of the Apostles and the Ancients.  
Protestants. The Church hath no power to make laws. See 
They can not  more art. 4.  
Scripture. The Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule 
Pastors, rulers of the Church. Not rulers.  the Church of God.  
Protestants. The true nature of a ruler (of the Church) is in no pure man, one or many. See art. 5.  
Scripture. You shallbe called the priests of the lord. 
Pasters to be called priests. Not to be so called.   
Protestants. Who administer the word and Sacraments amongst the people, neither may, nor aught to be called priests. See more art. 7.  
Scripture. But how shall they preach, unless they be sent? 
No preaching without mission. Without mission.   
Protestants. Even they who are not lawfully called, may preach the word fruitfully. Every Christian man hath authority to preach Christ in what place soever, where they are desirous to hear. See more art. 8.  
Scripture. Moses and Aaron in his priests. 
Moses a priest. No priest.   
Protestants. Moses did not exercise at all the preisthood, but was only a Prophet. See more art. 10.   

CHAPTER VIII. OF THE CHURCH.  
SCripture. There shallbe made one fouled and one pastor. 
Church, but one only. Not one only.   
Protestants We say that there are two societies of men, that is, two Churches to the one belong the predestinate; to the other, the reprobate. Christ and the things themselves teach us, that there are two Churches. See more art. 1.  
Scripture. We are one body all that participate of one 
All those one body who participate one Sacrament.  bread.  
Protestants. The godly are no more joined in one body with 
Not all those.  the wicked, then light with darkness, Christ with Belial. See more art. 2.  
Scripture. The gates of hell shall not prevail against her: of 
Church can not fail. It can fail.  his kingdom there shallbe no end.  
Protestants. It is no marvel, though the Church be clean fallen down long ago. Antichrist had rooted out the Church even from the ground. Christ's kingdom was cast flat down. See more art. 4.  
Scripture. You are the light of the world: A city can not be 
Church can not be hid.  hid, situated upon a mountain.  
Protestants. Often times God will have no visible Church 
It can be hid.  on earth. The whole visible Church may fail. See more art. 5.  
Scripture. Which is the Church of the living God, the pillar 
Church is infallible.  and strength of truth.  
Protestants. The universal Church may err. The Church 
Not infallible.  may err. The Catholic Church may err and that most grievously. See more art. 6.  
Scripture. If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee 
Church, simply to be heard. Not simply to be heard.  as the Heathen and the Publican.  
Protestants. We must not simply receive whatsoever the Church teacheth. See more art. 7.   

CHAPTER IX. OF TEMPLES OR MATERIAL CHURCHES.  
SCripture. Who (Anna) departed not from the temple, by 
Churches for private prayer  fasting and prayers serving day and right.  
Protestants. Churches are for preaching only. It is no lawful 
Not for private prayer.  end of Churches, that the faithful may privately pray in them. See more art. 1.  
Scripture Twoe Cherubins also thou shalt make of beaten 
Images to be set in Churches. Not to be set in Churches.  gold on both sides of the oracle.  
Protestants. The jews had no manner Image neither painted not graved in their temple. God abhorreth images. We must not suffer that Images be in Churches. See more art. 3.  
Scripture reporteth these words of a Heathen: This 
Heathens thought idols to be Gods. They thought not so.  Paul sayeth, that they are no Gods which be made by hands.  
Protestants. It is a lie that the Heathens did believe the Images of their Gods to have been their Gods themselves. See more art. 4.   

CHAPTER X. OF BAPTISM.  
SCripture. Unless a man be borne again of water and the 
Water necessary to baptism. Not necessary.  Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.  
Protestants. Though water be wanting, yet if the baptism of one cannot be differred with edification, I would baptise as well with any other liquor as with water. See more art. 1.  
Scripture. Going, teach ye all nations baptising them 
Baptism commanded of Christ. Not commanded of him.  &c.  
Protestants. Baptism is of less importance, then that the lord should have greatly cammanded any thing about it. See more art. 3.  
Scripture. Unless one be borne of water and the Holy 
Baptism necessary to salvation. Not necessary. Simon Magus was baptised. He was not baptised. Baptism profiteth all. Not all.  Ghost, he cannot inter into the kingdom of God.  
Protestants. Children who die before they be christened, are not shut out of the kingdom of God. See art. 4.  
Scripture. Then Simon (Magus) also himself believed and being baptised he cleaned to Philippe.  
Protestants. That Simon Peter, and Simon Magus received the same whole baptism, is most false. See more art. 5.  
Scripture: As many of you as have been baptised in Christ, have put on Christ.  
Protestants. Baptism bringeth no commodity to those that are not elect. See more art. 6.  
Scripture. Christ loved the Church, cleansing it by the laver 
Baptism purgeth sin It purgeth not sin.  of water in the word.  
Protestants. Who will say, that we are cleansed by this water? Dost thou think that water is the laver of the soul? No. Baptism cannot wash away the filth of sins. See more art. 7.  
Scripture: Be baptised, and wash away thy sins. 
Sins washed away by baptism. Not by baptism. All borne in in state of damnation. Not all.   
Protestants. Paul was not whashed by baptism. See artic. 7.  
Scripture. We were by nature the children of wrath, as also the rest. As by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation.  
Protestants. Original sin is not imputed to them: the children of the faithful are borne Saintes. See art. 9  
Scripture. In what then were ye baptised? who said: in Ihons' 
Some baptised in Saint Ihons' Baptism. Not in that baptism. Some knew not of the Holy Ghost. They knew of him.  baptism.  
Protestants. It is demonstrated, that they were never baptised in Ihons' outward baptism. See more art. 11.  
Scripture. But they said to him: Nay neither have we heard whither there be a Holy Ghost.  
Protestants. How could it be that jews had heard nothing of the Holy Ghost. See more art. 12.   

CHAPTER XI. OF THE EUCHARIST.  
SCripture. This is my body which is given for you. This is my 
The Eucharist is the body of Christ. It is not his body.  blood of the new testament that shallbe shed for many.  
Protestants. The Sacramental bread is called Christ's body, although indeed it be not Christ's body: The Eucharist is not truly the body of Christ. Some do urge that the lords bread is the very body of Christ, but we say the contrary. See more art. 1.  
Scripture. Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and 
Christ's flesh to be eaten.  drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you.  
Protestants. Christ did not command his body to be eaten, 
Not to be eaten.  but symbolical bread. We eat and drink nothing but bread and wine. Christ's corporal flesh can be no way eaten. See more art. 2. 
His flesh truly meat.   
Scripture. My flesh is truly meat.  
Protestants. It is fare from the body of the lord to be truly 
Not truly meat.  eaten. See art. 2. cit.  
Scripture. Drink ye all of this: For this is the blood of the 
Blood of the new testamento be drunk. Not to be drunk. The Chalice is the new testament. There is sacrifice.  new testament.  
Protestants. Christ did not give the blood of the new testament to drink. See art. 3.  
Scripture. This chalice is the new testament in my blood.  
Protestants. That Cup was not the new testament This Cup was not the new testament itself. See more art. 4.  
Scripture. In every place there is sacrificing, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation.  
Protestants. There is no more Sacrifice remaining in the 
There is none  Church. See more art. 11.  
Scripture. This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, 
The Chalice shed for us.  which (chalice, as is evident by the Greek text) shallbe shed for you.  
Protestant's. The chalice was not shed for us. See more art. 6. 
Not shed for us. We have an altar. We have none.   
Scripture. We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle.  
Protestants. Paul maketh no mention of an altar. In the Apostolical writings there is no mention of an altar. Altars have no place in the time of the Gospel. See more art. 24.  
Scripture. And the whole multitude of the children of Israel 
The Paschall lamb sacrificed. Not sacrificed.  shall sacrifice him (the paschal lamb) at even.  
Protestants. The holy Bible no where teacheth that the paschal lamb was immolated and sacrificed. The paschal lamb was no sacrifice. See more art. 13.   

OF THE OTHER SACRAMENTS. CHAPTER XII.  
SCripture. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven. 
Men can forgive sins. They can not   
Protestants. Men do not forgive sins who attributeth remission of sins to a creature, robbeth God of his glory. It is proper to God alone to remit sins, and so proper, as he communicateth this glory to none. See more art. 1.  
Scripture. Confess your sins one to an other. 
Sinnes to be confessed to men. Not to be confessed to them. Grace by imposition of hands. Not by it.   
Protestants. God requireth not this confession to man. Confession of sins is forbidden. Nether Christ nor his Apostles would command it. See art. 2.  
Scripture. Resuscitate the grace of God, which is in thee by the imposition of my hands.  
Protestants. Grace was not given by the external sign (of imposition of hands.) Imposition of hands of itself hath no efficacy, but the effect dependeth of God alone. See more art. 3.  
Scripture. Every one that dismisseth his wife and marrieth an 
To marry after diverce is advantrie. Not advantrie. Men dying are to be avoiled.  other committeth adultery.  
Protestants. Who dismisseth his wife for whoredom and marrieth an other, doth not commit adultery, See more art. 6.  
Scripture. Is any man sick among you? let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anoiling him with oil.  
Protestants. The Priests were commanded, that they should 
Not to be  not anoile those that died. See more art. 7.   

CHAPTER XIII. OF FAITH.  
SCripture. This is the work of God that you believe in him 
Faith is a work.  whom he hath sent.  
Protestants. Faith is no work. It is false, that faith is a 
Not to work  work. See more art. 1.  
Scripture. And now there remain Faith, Hope, and Charity, 
Faith distinct from Hope  these three etc.  
Protestants. Who wnderstand not that Faith, Hope, and 
Not distinct.  Charity are the self same thing, willbe forced to let pass many knots in Scripture unloosed. See more art. 7.  
Scripture. And now there remain Faith, Hope, and Charity, 
Faith inferior to Charity. Not inferior.  these three, but the greater of these is Charity.  
Protestants. Faith is greater than Charity. Faith is better, more worthy, more noble than Charity. See more art. 7.  
Scripture. Of the Princes also many believed in him, but for 
Faith without confession.  the Pharises did not confess.  
Protestants. True faith can no more be separated from confession 
Not without confession. Faith of Christ's Godhead helpeth.  of mouth, than fire from heat. See more art. 9  
Scripture. These are written, that you may believe that jesus is Christ the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.  
Protestants. To believe that Christ is one person, which is 
Helpeth not.  God and man, would help none. See more art. 3.  
Scripture: Of the Princes also many believed in him, but 
Faith without charity.  for the Pharises did not confess. For they loved the glory of man more than the glory of God.  
Protestants. It is impossible to believe where charity wanteth. 
Not without charity.  True faith can no more be without works than fire without heat. See more art. 8.  
Scripture. Faith without works, is dead. 
Faith some times dead. Never dead.   
Protestants. Who believe, that true faith can be dead, believe against the Confession of our Church. True faith can never be said to be dead. See more art. 10.  
Scripture. Without faith it is impossible to please God. 
Faith necessary to salvation. Not necessary. Faith without works saveth not. It saveth. Belief doth justify.   
Protestants: Infants are saved by God's election albeit they be taken out of this life not only without baptism but also without faith. See more art. 15.  
Scripture. What shall it profit, if a man say he hath faith but hath not works. Shall his faith be able to save him.  
Protestants. Faith justifieth without good works. Faith void of good works is imputed to justice. See more art. 17.  
Scripture. Whosoever beleiveth that jesus is Christ, is borne of God. Abraham believed and it was imputed him to justice.  
Protestants. Faith doth not justify us by the work belief. 
Not justifieth  See more art. 18.  
Scripture. To him that beleiveth in him who justifieth the 
Faith reputed to justice.  impious, his faith is reputed to justice.  
Protestants. The act of believing is not our justice. Not the 
Not reputed.  act or work of our faith, that is, our belief justifieth us. See more art. 19  
Scripture. Of the Princes also many believed in him, but for 
Certain princes believed. They believed not. Many believed. They believed not. Faith cause of Salvation. Not cause thereof. Simon Magus believed. He believed not. Faith by hearing. Not by hearing.  the Pharises they did not confess.  
Protestants. We do not grant that thoses Princes had true faith. We deny that they truly believed. See more art. 20.  
Scripture. Ihon. 2. Many believed in his name.  
Protestants. Their faith was not true, but hypocrisy. See art. 20. cit.  
Scripture. Thy faith hath made thee safe.  
Protestants. Faith doth not work, cause, or procure our Salvation. See more art. 16.  
Scripture. Simon (Magus) also himself believed.  
Protestants. Some believe not at all, as Simon Magus. He was quite faithless, indeed he believed not. See more art. 21.  
Scripture. Faith is by hearing.  
Protestants. Faith cometh not by the labour of the preachers. Faith riseth of the Scripture alone, not of the authority of the Church: Faith can not be gotten by words. See more articul. 22.  
Scripture. For a time they believe, and in time of temptation 
Faith some time lost.  they revolt.  
Protestants. True faith can never be lost: It cannot be by 
Never lost.  any means, that those who believe should lose their faith. See more art. 23.  
Scripture reporteth that Christ said to Thomas: Be 
S. Thomas faith.  not incredulous, but faithful. And that Thomas said: Unless I see etc. I will not believe.  
Protestants. Faith was not utterly extinct in Thomas. Faith 
He lost it not.  lay in his hart. See more art. 23. cit.  
Scripture. He that beleiveth in the Son, hath life everlasting. 
Faith rewarded.   
Protestants. There is no reward to faith. No reward can be 
Not rewarded.  rendered to faith. See art. 24.  
Scripture Reporteth that Christ said to the woman 
The woman's faith, pure.  who touched the hem of his garment: Thy faith hath made the safe.  
Protestants. It may be that some error or vice was mingled 
Not pure.  with the woman's faith: Perhaps she slipped a little out of the way. See more art. 25.   

CHAPTER XIV. OF GOOD WORKS IN GENERAL.  
SCripture sayeth to a sinner believing that there is one 
Some works of a sinner, good.  God: Thou dost well: and Rahab the harlot was not she justified by works?  
Protestants. What works soever go before justification 
None good.  are evil. What can sinners alienated from God do, but is execrable in his judgement? See more art. 1.  
Scripture. In all these things job sinned not with his lips. 
The just sin not in every work. In every work. Good works sweet before God. Vnsweet.   
Protestants. The just man sinneth in every good work. All saints in every good work do sin. See more art. 2.  
Scripture. Noë offered holocaustes upon the altar, and our lord smelled a sweell savour.  
Protestants. Our works stink before God, if they be called to a straight account. Whatsoever we can give to God, is stenchie. See more art. 3.  
Scripture. Remember, how I have walked before thee in truth, 
Some works, perfect.  and in a perfect hart.  
Protestants. All our good works are imperfect: They are 
None perfect.  partly evil. See more art. 4.  
Scripture. Phinees stood and pacified and the slaughter ceased, 
Some works, just before God. None just before hmi.  and it was reputed to him unto justice.  
Protestants. Who make their works, even those which they imagine to do by the grace of Christ, justice before God, make idols of them. See more art. 5.  
Scripture. What is our hope or joy or crown of glory? Are 
Glory before God.  not you before our lord jesus in his coming?  
Protestants. It can not be, that any have glory before God. 
Not glory before him.  See more art. 9  
Scripture. He who joineth his virgin in matrimony, doth 
Some works better, then others. None better than others. Some works counselled. None counselled.  well, and he who joineth not, doth better.  
Protestants. Before God there is no work better than other. See more art. 10.  
Scripture. As concerning virgins, a commandment of our Lord I have not, but counsel I give.  
Protestants. There are not some precepts, and others, counsels. See more art. 11.  
Scripture. If you will not forgive men, neither will your Father 
Some works necessary to forgiveness. Not necessary.  forgive you your offences.  
Protestants. The pardon which we ask to be given to us, dependeth not upon that which we give to others. See more artic. 12.  
Scripture. Patience is necessary for you, that doing the will 
Some necessary to saluavation. Not necessary. Some profitable. None profitable.  of God, you may receive the promise.  
Protestants. Good works are not necessary to salvation. See more art. 13.  
Scripture. Piety is profitable to all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that to come.  
Protestants. To teach, that works are wholesome and profitable is devilish, and apostatical from faith: works are unprofitable to Christian justice and likewise to salvation. See more art. 14.  
Scripture. Be ye in nothing terrified of the adversaries, which 
Affliction, cause of salvation.  to them is cause of perdition, but to you of salvation, and this of God.  
Protestants. The Scripture no where teacheth, that the afflictions 
Not cause of salvation.  which the Saints suffer of the wicked are cause of their salvation. See more art. 15.  
Scripture. Possess you the kingdom prepared for you. For I 
Works cause of enjoying heaven. Not cause.  was an hungered, and you gave me to eat.  
Protestants. None shallbe saved for his works. The kingdom of heaven is not given for good works. The just are not rewarded for the works of justice which they have done. See more art. 15. cit.  
Scripture. Labour, that by good works you may make sure 
Works make certainty of salvation. They make it not.  your vocation and election.  
Protestants. We are utterly undone, if we be sent to our works when we must seek the certainty of our salvation. See more art. 16. 
Works cause that God loveth us. Not cause.   
Scripture. The Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me.  
Protestants. The obedience which the faithful give to him, is not so much a cause why he continueth his love towards them, as an effect of his love. See art. 17.  
Scripture. When you shall have done all things that are commanded 
We ought to do good works.  you, say we are unprofitable servants, we have done that which we ought to do.  
Protestants. Thou owest nothing to God but faith: This phrase 
We ought not.  of the law: A faithful man ought to do good works, belongeth not to Christians. See more art. 18.  
Scripture: I have inclined my hart to do thy justification for 
We may do good for reward. We may not.  ever, for reward.  
Protestants. If thou pray, fast, etc. Beware thou dost it not for that end that thou mayest reap any temporal or eternal profit. See more art. 19   

CHAPTER XV. OF GOOD WORKS IN PARTICULER.  
SCripture. I say to the unmarried and to widous: It is good for 
It is good not to marry.  them if they so abide.  
Protestants. It is not good for a man to be single, for it is not 
It is not good.  pleasant, not honest, nor profitable. See more art. 1. 
Single life, counselled. No● counselled.   
Scripture. Art thou lose from a wife? Seek not a wife.  
Protestants. Paul will have universally all to be married. God pronounceth the sentence, that he will have none to be unmarried. See more art. 4.  
Scripture. He that joineth his virgin in matrimony, doth 
Virginity is a virtue.  well, and he that joineth not, doth better.  
Protestants. Virginity is no virtue, but a thing indifferent. 
Not a virtue.  We think that virginity is nothing. See more articul. 2.  
Scripture. He that joineth his virgin in matrimony doth 
Virginity better than marriage. Not better.  well, and he that joineth not, doth better.  
Protestants. Single life in itself is much more base than marriage. To beget children, is the chiefest work after preaching. See more art. 3.  
Scripture. Who departed not from the temple, by fastings and 
Fasting, service of God.  prayers serving night and day.  
Protestants. Fasting of itself is an indifferent thing. It is a 
No service of God.  naughty superstition, to think that fasting is a part of God's service. See more art. 5.  
Scripture. This kind (of Devils) is not cast out, but by 
Fasting driveth away Devils. It driveth them not.  prayer and fasting.  
Protestants. The ridiculous Papists make fasting an antidote to drive away Devils. See art. 6.  
Scripture: I Daniel mourned the days of three weeks, desiderable 
Choice of meats, good  bread I did not eat, and flesh and wine entered not into my mouth.  
Protestants. We hold this distinction of meats to be foolish, 
Not good.  and wicked: Choice of meats upon certain days S. Paul attributeth to the doctrine of Devils. See more art. 7.  
Scripture. I desire, that prayers be made for all men. 
Prayer, to be made for all. Not for all.   
Protestants Nether must we pray for every one. We must not make prayers for the sins of the reprobates. See more artic. 8.  
Scripture. It is a holy cogitation, to pray for the dead, that 
Good to pray for the dead.  they my be loosed from sins.  
Protestants. We detest prayers for the dead. That form of 
Not good.  prayer: God give the dead a happy resurrection, is to be rejected. 
Prayer in an unknown language, good.  See more art. 9  
Scripture sayeth of one praying in the Church in an unknown tongue: Indeed thou givest thankes well.  
Protestants. We detest prayers in an unknown tongue. It is 
Not good.  repugnant to Scripture, and contrary to sense of nature. See more art. 12.  
Scripture. Vow ye, and render to our Lord your God. 
Vows good. Not good.   
Protestants. Vows are against the ordinance of God; vows do not become Christians. See more art. 14.  
Scripture. If thou will be perfect, go sell all thou hast, 
Forsaking of riches, counselled. Not counselled.  and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven.  
Protestants. The forsaking of goods, hath no commandment nor counsel in Scripture. See more art. 16.  
Scripture. Alms delivereth from all sin and from 
Alms delivereth from death. Not from death. Penal works, a part of penance. No part of penance.  death.  
Protestants. Alms delivereth not from temporal death nor from eternal death. See more art. 15.  
Scripture If in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had done penance in haircloth and ashes.  
Protestants. Ashes, sackcloth was no part of penance. Sackcloth and ashes are only an external sign of penance. See more art. 18.  
Scripture. The child grew, and was strengthened in spirit, 
Eremitical life, good;  and was in the deserts until the day of his manifestation in Israel.  
Protestants. Eremitical life is clownish, savage, and fare 
Not good.  from civility. See more art. 20.  
Scripture. God saw their (Ninivites) works, that they were 
The Ninivites penance, true. Not true.  converted from their evil way etc.  
Protestants. The penance of the Ninivites was not true penance. See more art. 19   

CHAPTER XVI. OF SIN.  
SCripture. He that committeth sin, is of the Devil. 
Great sinners are of the Devil. Not all.   
Protestants. Nether the faithful who sin by chance, or of themselves by weakness; but such as give themselves to sin, serve the Devil and aught to be called Sons of the Devil. See more art.  
Scripture. You are evacuated from Christ, that are justified 
Sin putteth out of grace.  in the law, you are fallen from grace.  
Protestants. Not any enormous sin obscureth grace, much 
It putteth not.  less extinguisheth it. The faithful sin, but fall not from grace. See more art. 6. 
No murderer hath life. Some murderer hath. justice standeth not with sin. It standeth with sin. Sin to be redeemed with alms. Not to be redeemed with alms. Sin purged by works. Not purged by them. Great sin separateth from God. separateth not. Sin cause of damnation.   
Scripture. No murderer hath life everlasting abiding in himself.  
Protestants. David (a murderer) was not yet quite spoiled of spiritual life, not yet deprived of justification. See more art. 6. cit.  
Scripture. What participation hath justice with iniquity.  
Protestants. Sin dwelleth together with justice in us. A work is partly good, partly evil. See more art. 7.  
Scripture. Redeem thou thy sins with alms.  
Protestants. Should not Christ have died in vain for sins, if sins could be redeemed with alms? See more art. 8.  
Scripture. By mercy and faith sins are purged.  
Protestants. If purging of sins be given to men's works, then is Christ dead in vain. See art. 8. cit.  
Scripture. Nether fornicators nor adulterers shall possess the kingdom of God.  
Protestants. Sin shall not draw us from Christ, though we commit fornication or murder a thousand times a day. See more art. 9  
Scripture. Depart from me ye accursed into everlasting fire: for I was an hungered and you gave me not to eat.  
Protestants. Those that are adjudged to eternal punishment, 
Not cause of damnation.  are not therefore damned because they sinned. Only incredulity damneth. See more art. 10.  
Scripture. Every one of us for himself shall render account 
Account is to be given of sins.  to God. That every one may receive the proper things of the body as he hath done either good or evil.  
Protestants. If works come into judgement, we are all damned. 
Not to be given.  These sins shall not come to account before God. See more art. 11.  
Scripture reporteth that David said of himself: I have 
David did ill.  done ill before thee.  
Protestants. David never committed sin: The regenerate 
He did not ill  commit no sin. See more art. 12.  
Scripture reporteth these words of David: I am he that 
David himself sinned.  have sinned, I have done wickedly.  
Protestants. The elect himself doth not sin, but sin that 
Not himself.  dwelleth in him. The true faithful or regenerate doth not sin. See more art. 13.   

CHAPTER XVII. OF JUSTIFICATION.  
SCripture. Abraham, was he not justified by works? 
Abraham justified by works. Not by works. Man justified by works. Not by works. Sins forgiven for love. Not for love.   
Protestants. Abraham was not justified by his good works. He was justified by no other thing at all but by faith. See art. 1.  
Scripture. Do you see that by works a man is justified?  
Protestants. We say, they are not justified by works, we can not be justified by works. See art. 1. cit.  
Scripture. Many sins are forgiven her, because she loved much.  
Protestants. Not because the woman loved much, therefore her sins were forgiven her. See art. 1. cit.  
Scripture: By works a man is justified, and not by faith 
Man not justified by faith only. By faith only. Some just before God. None just before God.  only.  
Protestants. We are justified by faith only. By faith only we receive remission of sins. See more art. 2.  
Scripture. They were both just before God.  
Protestants. Before God none is just, none can be just. Where shall any such (just) be found amongst men? See more artic. 3.  
Scripture. You are clean. The blood of Christ cleanseth us 
Some clean.  from all sin.  
Protestants. The beleivers are just, and yet unclean. The 
None clean.  pious man is in himself unclean and filthy. See more art. 4.  
Scripture. As fare as the East is from the west, hath he made 
Sins taken from the justified. Not taken from them.  our iniquities fare from us. There is no iniquity found in me.  
Protestants. In the regenerate there are many sins, and great filth. Innumerable sins even such as are worthy of death, remain in the regenerate. See more art. 5.  
Scripture Before him (God) justice hath been found in me. 
justice in men. No justice in them.   
Protestants. There can be no justice in us. There is no inherent justice in the judgement of God. See more. 8.  
Scripture. To him, that beleiveth in him who justifieth the 
Some inherent thing imputed. No inherent thing, imputed. Men not certain of grace. Certain.  impious, his faith is reputed to justice.  
Protestants. What is inherent, is not imputed. See more art. 9  
Scripture. Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred.  
Protestants. It is lewednes, to say, that none can know by certainty of faith that he hath obtained grace. See more artic. 10.  
Scripture. Ye are fallen from grace. 
Some fall from grace. None fall from grace.   
Protestants: It is impossible for those that believe to fall from grace. The elect never fall from grace. The faithful never fall from the grace of God. See more art. 12.  
Scripture. Thou by faith dost stand: Be not highly wise, but 
We must fear.  fear.  
Protestants: That is not to be suffered, that they exhort us 
We must not fear.  to fear. I cannot be damned, unless Christ be damned. See more art. 13.  
Scripture. If the just man shall turn away himself from his 
Some reprobates, justified. Noreprobates justified. Man prepareth his hart. He prepareth it not.  justice and do iniquity, in his sin which he hath sinned in them he shall dye.  
Protestants. No reprobate is justified. The elect only repent and do good works. See more art. 14.  
Scripture. It pertaineth to a man to prepare the heart.  
Protestants. In our conversion to God we have ourselves wholly passively. A man is like a block in his conversion. See more art. 15.   

CHAPTER XVIII. OF EVERLASTING LIFE AND DEATH.  
SCripture. Your reward is very great in heaven. You shall receive 
Salvation a reward or retribution. No reward or retribution. There is a crown of justice. No crown of justice. Faith alone saveth not. It saveth. Some already suffer the pains of hell. None yet suffer the pains of hell. Hell a place of torments. No place.  the retribution of inheritance.  
Protestants. That he saveth, is mere grace, not a reward or retribution. See more art. 1.  
Scripture. There is laid up for me a crown of justice.  
Protestants. Paul acknowledgeth nothing in the whole course of salvation, but mere grace. See more art. 2.  
Scripture. Shall faith be able to save him?  
Protestants. Faith alone saveth. By faith alone we are saved. See more art. 3.  
Scripture. As Sodom and Gomorrha and the city's adjoining in like manner having fornicated &c. were made an example, sustaining the pain of eternal fire.  
Protestants. It is a false position: that the souls suffer in hell before the bodies. See more art. 6.  
Scripture. Lest they also come into this place of torments.  
Protestants. We must not imagine, that hell is any certain, definite, and corporal place. A local hell, is a fiction. See more art. 7.  
Scripture. Depart from me ye cursed into fire everlasting. 
Hell fire, true fire.   
Protestants. They feign, that the souls of men and devils 
Not true fire.  are tormented in hell with true and corporal fire. See more artic. 8.   

CHAPTER XIX. OF GOD'S LAW.  
SCripture. My yoke is sweet, and my burden light. 
God's law possible. Not possible, Some have kept God's law. None have kept it. Some have loved God with all their hart. None have loved him so. God's law in the hearts of some. In the hearts of none. We pray to fulfil Gods will. We pray not so. Keeping the commandments necessary to life. Not necessary.   
Protestants. The law is impossible to be kept. It is impossible to keep the commandments. See more art. 1.  
Scripture. I have kept thy law. They have kept thy word.  
Protestants. No man performeth the law or ever performed it. See more art. 2.  
Scripture faith of josias: He returned to our lord in all his hart, and in all his soul, and in all his power, according to all the law of Moses.  
Protestants: There was no Saint who in this mortal life loved God with all is soul, with all his hart, with all his power. See more art. 3.  
Scripture. The law of God in his hart.  
Protestants. Even after regeneration, the word of the law is not properly said to be in our hart. See more art. 4.  
Scripture. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.  
Protestants. We do not pray, that we may fulfil the law. See more art. 5.  
Scripture. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.  
Protestants. Woe be to their Cathecumen, if so hard a condition (of keeping the law) be imposed upon them. See more art. 6.  
Scripture. Do we then destroy the law by faith? God forbidden: but we establish the law.  
Protestants. All the ceremonial law or the Decalogue is abrogated 
It is abrogated.  from a Christian, because he is dead to it; And to be dead to the law, is not to be bound with the law, but free from it and not to know it. See more art. 7.   

CHAPTER XX. OF MAN'S LAW.  
SCripture. Who, thinkest thou, is a faithful and wise servant, 
Superiority amongst Christians.  whom his lord hath appointed over his family.  
Protestants. Among Christians, there can be no superiority. Christ is my immediate Lord, I know no other. See more art. 1.  
Scripture. To the rest, I say, not our Lord: If any brother 
None amongst them.  have a wife an infidel, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not put her away.  
Protestants. They draw to themselves all the majesty of God, 
Man can command that which God doth not. He cannot. Conscience subject to man's laws. Not subject.  who challenge authority to make laws. See more art. 2.  
Scripture: Be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.  
Protestants. The laws of Princes bind not the conscience: have no power over the conscience. See more art. 3.   

CHAPTER XXI. OF FREE WILL.  
SCripture. It shallbe in the arbitrement of her husband, whether 
There is free will.  she shall do it, or not do it.  
Protestants. Free vill is a title without the thing. See more 
There is none  art. 1.  
Scripture. Without thy counsel I would do nothing, that thy 
Freedom to good.  good might not be as it were of necessity, but voluntary.  
Protestants. Man after his fall hath no liberty to good. There 
No freedom to good.  is no free will to good. See more art. 2.  
Scripture. We are Gods coadiutours. 
God's coadjutors.   
Protestants. Papists make God the first and chiefest cause of all goodness, and us coadiutours: Which is craftily to withdraw 
Not his coadjutors.  themselves from God. See more art. 3.   

CHAPTER XXII. OF MAN'S SOUL.  
SCripture. Fear ye not them who kill the body, and are not 
Man's soul, immortal.  able to kill the soul.  
Protestants. I give leave to the Pope to make articles of faith 
Not immortal.  for his followers. Such as are that bread and wine are transsubstantiated in the Sacrament: That he is Emperor of the world, and an earthly God: That the soul is immortal, and all those infinite monsters in the Romish dunghill of decrees.  
What Propositions, I pray you, shall ever be thought contradictions, if these be not: seeing there can scarce be devised more formal or more direct opposition then is betwixt the most of these? But because perhaps the vulgar Protestante will say, that he beleiveth not all or most of the Protestants propositions here set down; albeit this excuse will not suffice him, as I have showed in the end of my Preface, yet for his fuller satisfaction, I have gathered twelve principal articles, which commonly all Protestants believe, quite contrary to the express word of God.   

THE COMMON PROTESTANTS CREED CONSIsting of twelve Articles quite contrary to the express word of God in the Scripture.  
1 PROTESTANTS believe, that a man is 
Lib. 1. c. 16. art. 2.  justified by only faith quite contrary to the express word of God. joannes. 2. v. 4. Do you see, that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only?  
2 Protestants believe, that we can not keep Goods commandments, quite contrary to his express word. Ezechiel 36. v. 27. I will make 
Lib. 1. c. 18. art. 1.  that you walk in my commandments and keep my judgements, and do them.  
3 Protestants believe, that the keeping of God's commandments is not necessary to come to life everlasting quite contrary to Gods express words. Matthew. 19 v. 17. 
Lib. 1. c. 18. art. 6.  If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.  
4 Protestants believe, that no men can forgive sins quite contrary to the express word of God. John 20. v. 
Lib. 1. c. 11. art. 1.  22. Receive ye the holy Ghost, whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven them.  
5 Protestants believe, that we are not bound to confess our sins to men quite contrary to the express word of 
Lib. 1. c. 11. art. 2.  God joannes 5. v. 16. Confess your sins, one to an other.  
6 Protestants believe, that men when they die are not to be anoiled quite contrary to the express word of God. 
Lib. 1. c. 11. art. 7.  james 5. v. 14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him avoiling him with oil in the name of our lord.  
7 Protestants believe, that the blessed Sacrament is not the true body and blood of Christ quite contrary to the 
Lib. 1. c. 10. art. 1.  express word of God. Luke 22. v. 19 This is my body, which is given for you: and Matthew 26. v. 28. This is my blood, which shallbe shed for remisson of sins.  
8 Protestants believe, that the Church of God is not infallible in faith, quite contrary to God's express word. 1. 
Lib. 1. c. 8. art. 6.  Timothy 3. v. 15. Which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth.  
9 Protestants believe, that we must not believe Traditions quite contrary to the express word of God. 2. Thessalon. 
Lib. 1. c. 5. art. 9  2. v. 15. Hold the Traditions which you have learned, whether it be by word or by epistle.  
10 Protestants believe it is ill done to pray in the Church in an unknown language, quite contrary to the express 
Lib. 1. c. 14. art. 12.  word of God. 1. Cor. 14. v. 17. where it is said of such a one. Thou indeed givests thankes well.  
11 Protestants Believe, that there is no sacrifice in the Church quite contrary to the express word of God. Malachi 
Lib. 1. c. 11. art. 11.  1. v. 11. In every place there is sacrificing, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation.  
12 Protestants believe, that there is no altar in the Church quite contrary to the express word of God. Hebrews 
Lib. 1. c. 11. art. 12.  13. v. 10. We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle.    

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC AND PROtestant doctrine with the express words of the holy Scripture.  

FIRST CHAPTER. OF GOD.  

Article 1. Whether God willeth iniquity or sin.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
PSALM 5. verse. 5. Thou art 
God will not iniquity.  not a God that wilt iniquity.  
Abacuc. 1. verse. 13. Thine eyes are clean from seeing evil, and thou canst not look toward iniquity.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Saint Thomas part. 1. Summae. quaest. 19 art. 9 God will no way the evil of sin.  
D. Stapleton lib. 11. de justificat. c. 8 It is wholly repugnant to God's nature, to will sin.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Caluin in c. 3. Gen. v. 1. & 3. None of these things hinder, but 
God would have man to fall.  that God would have man to fall, for some certain cause unknown to us. And cont. Franciscan. libertin. in opusculis page 441. We say, that the devil and man both fell by the will of God unknown to us.  
Beza in 2. par. resp. ad acta Colloquij Montis Belgartensis p. 177 sayeth, that our first parents fell indeed with the will and 
Man fall with the will of God.  decree of God. Again. I said and do say, that it c●me not to pass, but by the decree of God so willing, that our first parents deprived themselves of their native goodness. And l. de Praedest. count. Castell. volume. 1. Theol. p. 340. having objected to himself, that if the causes of damnation come with God his will, than man were out of all fault, and all the fault were in God: he denieth the sequel, and admitteth the antecedent, and addeth, that God decreeth, and ordaineth the causes of damnation.  
Peter Martyr in c. 9 Rom. p. 348. God is said to hate sin, 
God willeth sin for some other end. He would have Adam to fall. He would have Adam to sin.  because he willeth it not for itself, but for some other end. And in locis class 1. c. 14. p. 116. It cannot be doubted, but that God would have Adam to fall. Zanchius l. 5. de natura Dei. c. 2. Would not God have Adam to sin, and us all together with him to fall into this corruption; by which it cometh to pass, that we cannot but sin, unless he help us with his grace? He would. Again. By this (omnipotent) will he would and ordained the sin of Adam, that in him all should sinne.  
Piscator apud Vorstium in Parasceve c. 3. Sins are done with God's procurement and will that they should be done. God will iniquity 
God will have iniquity to be committed.  to be committed, albeit he do not delight in it; as a sick man will drink a bitter potion, albeit he be not delighted with it. Because God will declare his justice and mercy, therefore also he will that sins be committed. And apud eunden in Collat. sect. 61. God will 
He will that sin be done.  not only that sins may be done, but also will that they be done.  
The same Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. p. 184 It is false and implieth contradiction: that man fell, not with God's will, but with 
He will sinne though he be no delighted with it.  his permission. For if he permitted, he also would, not simply and of itself, as if he were delighted with sin, but in some sort and for some other thing. Page 187. God can will some thing, with which notwithstanding he is not delighted; As for example: he is not 
He willeth wickedness for some other end.  delighted with wickedness, & yet permitteth it and that willingly, and therefore willeth it in some sort and for some other end. And p. 203. It is not ill doctrine to say; That Gods will is done even by sinning, that is, even sins are done by Gods will.  
Bucanus in Institut. Theol. loco 14. p. 145. Is God not willing 
God willeth sin with a hidden will.  iniquity? If you take it simply, that God no way will it, the scripture is against that. Wherefore we must expound it so: That God will it not with his allowing or revealed or signified will, but with his hidden or good pleasing will. And the same hath Pareus lib. 2. the Amiss. Gratiae c. 16.  
Melancthon in cap. 9 Rom. This is a mystery unspeakable, to 
God willeth sin. Would Adans fall. Would Adans revolt.  wit, that God willeth sins, and yet truly hateth them.  
Perkins in Exposit. Symbol. tom. 1. col. 773. God would Adam's fall for a good end. Et de praedestinat. col. 128. We must say, that God would have Adam's revolt to come to pass. And p. 129. Albeit God willeth not sin simply and for itself, yet he doth decree it, and willeth it to come to pass. See more of the like sayings of Protestants if you please in my Latin book of this matter Chapter. 1. Art. 1.   

THE CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE, OF CATHOLICS, AND OF PROTESTANTS.  
The Scripture expressly sayeth, that God will not iniquity or sin; nay that he cannot look toward it. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that God would have Adam to sin, would have his fall, his revolt; that God willeth sin, willeth wickedness for some other end, will have iniquity to be committed though he delight not in it, as a sick man will drink a bitter potion though he take no delight in it, that the causes of damnation came with God's will, that he willeth sin with a hidden and good pleasing will. Which are as directly against the foresaied words of Scripture, as any can be. Nether will it avail protestants, to say (as some times they do) that God willeth sin, as it is the occasion of some good, to wit, of manifesting his justice in punishing it, or his mercy in pardoning it. Because, in saying that God willeth sin, wickedness, iniquity, man's fall, man's revolt, the causes of damnations (as in plain terms they doesaye) they not only affirm: that God willeth the act in which iniquity is, but the very iniquity, malice, or sinfulness itself, as is manifest both by the foresaied words, as also because they some times teach (as we shall see hereafter article 5.) that sin, as it is sin, is preordinated of God. And in saying, that God willeth iniquity or sinfulness itself, they directly contradict the aforecited words of holy Scripture. For therein they mean, that iniquity or sin is one of those things which are willed of God, which the Scripture directly denieth. Nether is this contradiction avoided by adding, that though iniquity be willed of God, yet it is not willed of him for itself, or as it is iniquity, but as it is an occasion of some good, because still it is affirmed that iniquity itself is one of the things which are willed of God; as in their own example; True it is, that a bitter potion is willed of the sick, though it be not willed of him for itself, nor as it is bitter, but as it is a mean to recover health. Wherefore in this matter, we must distinguish two questions. The one is simple or absolute: to wit, Whether God will iniquity or sin itself: To which question the holy Scripture answereth negatively, and the Protestants affirmatively. The other is a redoubling question, namely, Whether God will iniquity or sin, as it is iniquity or sin, and for itself: To which question both the Scripture and Protestants answer negatively, but this their agreement with the Scripture in this second question saveth not their disagreement from it in the former question: which disagreement or contradiction is that which here I urge. Moreover, neither man nor the devil himself can will iniquity, as iniquity, or for itself, because as such, it is a pure privation of good, and nothing can be willed of any, but as it is good, either true or apparent good. Whereupon Saint Denis with the consent of all Divines and Philosophers said: None worketh, looking only 
De diuin. nominibus. c. 4.  to ill. Finally, to say that God willeth sin as it is a mean to some good end, is to make him like to them, who as the Apostle writeth, Roman. 3. say: Let us do evil that good may follow: whose damnation (sayeth he) is just. Blasphemous therefore it is, and against holy Scripture, that God will iniquity or sin, under what consideration soever he be said to will it. And so impious this is, as the holy Fathers say, that it taketh away 
a Tertull. exhortat. ad Castit. c. 2. Prosper. l. 2. ad Vincent. c. 10  all sin and judgement of God, and is more 
b Augustin. l. 1. de ordin. c. 1.  blasphemous then to deny God's providence: yea some Protestants confess, that it is contrary to scripture, as we shall see hereafter. l. 2. c. 25. 30.    

ART. II. WHETHER SIN DOTH please God.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
3. Kings. 11. v. 6. And Solomon did that which was not liked 
Sin pleaseth not God.  before our Lord.  
1. Paralipomenon 21. v. 7. And that which was commanded displeased God, and he strake Israel.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Card. Bellarmin l. 2. de septem verbis Dom. c. 4. The greatness of the sin, which Christ undertook to blot out by his passion, was in some sort infinite, by reason of the infinite dignity and excellency of the person which was offended.   

PROTESTANT EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Bucanus and Pareus in the former article: God willeth sin with his hidden and good pleasing will.  
Caluin de Praedestinat. p. 726. Whence therefore shall we 
Pleaseth God.  say that it came to pass, that Pharaoh should so inhumanly rage, but that it so pleased God, partly for to try the patience of his people, partly to exercise his power?  
Beza de Praedestinat. count. castle. val. 1. Theol. p. 376. God's will doth embrace even those things which simply he alloweth not yea rejecteth and punisheth, yet decreeth them and in some sort, and for some respect is pleased with them. And in Absters. calum. Heshusij. ib. p. 324. We say, that a lie pleaseth God, as it is the just punishment of them who preferred lies before truth. And as Smidelin objected to his face in the Conference at Montebelgard. p. 450. he taught that: In a wonderful and incomprehensible manner it pleased God and he would, that our first parents should sinne.   

THE CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS OF SCRIPTURE, catholics, AND PROTESTANTS.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that sin pleaseth not, yea displeaseth God: And in like sort teach catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that God willeth sin with his good pleasing will: that even those things which God approveth not, do in some respect please him: that lies do please him as they are punishments to men: that it pleased God, that our first parents should sinne.    

ART. III. WHETHER GOD HATE SIN.  

SCRITURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Psalm. 44. v. 8. Thou hast loved justice and hast hated iniquity, 
God hateth sin.  therefore God thy God hath anointed thee with oil of gladness aboves thy fellows.  
S. Wisdom. 14. v. 9 But to God the impious and his impiety are odious alike.  
Zacharie. 8. v. 17. And think ye not every man in your hart evil against his friend, and lying oath love ye not: for all these things are such as I hate, sayeth our Lord.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Card. Bellarmin in psalm. 5. v. 4. God hateth nothing more than sin.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Peter Martyr in Rom. 9 Seeing sins have often times the nature of punishment, it is manifest, that God hateth them not as 
He hateth not sin.  such. Again: For so much as God is said to not will or hate sin, that is to be understood, in so much as pertaineth to the law, and scripture, and rule of life revealed unto us. He is also said to hate sin, because he punisheth it, and willeth it not for itself, but for some other end. Wherefore as he worketh sin, he hateth it not. The same also mean those, who (as we have seen in the former article) teach, that sin pleaseth God.   

THE CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS  
Scripture expressly sayeth that God hateth iniquity, hateth sin, and that impiety is odious un him. The same say Catholics. Protestants expressly say, that God hateth not sin as it hath the nature of punishment, nor as it is his work: that when he is said to hate sin, that is to be understood, that he sayeth so in Scripture.    

ART. iv WHETHER GOD DOTH work sin or inquitie.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Sophonie. 3. v. 5. Our lord in the mids thereof, will not do 
God doth not work sin.  iniquity.  
isaiah. 53. v. 9 Because he hath not done iniquity, neither was there guile in his mouth.  
Proverbs. 14. v. 22. They err, that work evil.  
Matthew. 7. v. 18. A good tree can not yield evil fruits.  
1. joan. 3. v. 8. He that committeth sin, is of the devil.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Council of Trent. Sessione 6. Canone. 6. If any shall say, that God worketh ill deeds as well as good, not only permissively, but also properly and in themselves: so that, no less the treason of judas, than the calling of Paul, was his proper work; be h● accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Luther de seruo arbit. to. 2. fol. 459. diverse times sayeth, that God worketh evil in us and by us: and fol. 433. (as Zanchius 
God worketh sin.  confesseth l. de praedestinat. c. 7.) sayeth: God worketh good and evil in us, rewardeth his good, and punisheth his evil deeds in us.  
Melancthon in Rom. 8. printed 1521. As they confess, 
God worketh properly aduldulterie.  that the vocation of Paul was the proper work of God: so we confess, that they are properly Gods works, as well those the which are called indifferent, as to eat or drink, as those, which are evil, as David's adultery. God doth all things not only permissively, but also mightly, that is, so that judas is treachery is his proper work, as the vocation of Paul.  
Brentius in c. 3. Amos. printed at Francfurt by Peter 
God doth the evil of sin.  Bruboch. 1551. All things are done by the mighty hand and effectual working of God, as well the evils of sin, as the evil of punishment.  
Caluin Institut. l. 1. c. 18. §. 3. Now have I clearly enough showed, that God is called the Author of all those things which these Censurers will have to fall out only by his idle permission. The like he sayeth de Praedestinat. p. 727. And ibid. p. 726. Moses clearly affirmeth, that hardness (of Pharaoh) to have 
Pharaoh's hardness, proper work of God.  been the work of God. Nether surely is Pharaoh his cruelty attributed here in any other sense unto God's counsel, than otherwhere he is said to give favour to his people in the sight of the. Egyptians. And l. 3. Institut. c. 23. §. 1. Whence it followeth, that the hidden counsel of God was the cause of this hardness of heart.  
Beza de Praedestinat. count. Castell. p. 400. Induration, is the just work of God, and the work of Satan.  
Peter Martyr in lib. judic. c. 3. These kind of speeches plainly 
God worketh every way evil.  teach, that God not only by permitting, but also by doing, worketh every way evil in us.  
Piscator apud Vorstium in Parasceve c. 3. etc. in Amica. Collat. sect. 130. Because God procureth this manifestation of 
Procureth sin itself.  of his justice and mercy, therefore also he procureth sins them selves. God procured that Absalon ravished his father wives.  
Zanchius de Excaecat. q. 1. to. 7. col. 204. It is certain, 
Author of induration.  that God as just judge, was the chief Author of this induration.  
See more of their like sayings in my Latin book. c. 1. art. 4.   

THE CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that God will not do iniquity, hath not done iniquity: that a good tree cannot yield evil fruits: that who worketh; who committeth sin, is of the devil. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that God worketh evil in us and by us, punisheth his ill deeds in us: that David's adultery was the proper work of God, and judas his treason was God's work, as well as Paul's vocation: that the evil of sin is done by the effectual working of God: that God is the Author of Induration or hardness of hart the cause of it: that it is God's work: that pharao's cruelty against the jews is attributed to God's counsel in the same sense, that the Egyptians favour towards them; that God every way worketh evil in us: that God it the Author of all those things which Catholic Censurers think to fall out by his permission: that God procureth sin itself. Which sayings are so blasphemous, as the holy fathers affirm, that they make God to be no God: and so 
Basil. hom. quod Deus non sit causa mali.  contrary to holy Scripture, as the same Protestants confess it. See l. 2. c. 25. & 30.    

ART. III. WHETHER GOD OERDAINE SIN to be done, and predestinate men to sin?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Hieremie. 19 v. 5. And they have builtes the excelses of 
God ordaineth not sin  Baalim, which I commanded not, nor have spaken of, neither have they ascended into my hart. The same teacheth the Scripture, where it denieth that God willeth sin.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Council of Trent Session. 6. Can. 17. condemneth this doctrine. The reprobats are predestinate to evil.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Perkins de Praedestinat. to. 1. col. 127. We say, that Adam's 
God decreed man's fall.  fall came, God not only foreseeing but also willing and decreing it In Serie causarum. c. 52. It is wicked to say, that God did only foresee Adam's fall, but did not ordain it by an eternal 
Ordained it.  decree. In Apocal. 1. to. 2. God decreed by a general will, that men should fall and sin.  
Willet in Synopsi Contr. 8. q. 3. p. 859. The fall of Adam was both foreseen of God & decreed to be, not permitted only. As 
Adam's fall decreed as Christ's death.  Christ his death was decreed and determined: so was the fall of Adam. For the end of Christ's death was to restore Adam's fall: and if the end be decreed, than those things also which are necessarily referred to that end.  
Caluin. 3. Institut. c. 23. §. 8. Adam fell because God judged it so expedient. Man falleth God's providence ordaining so. De Provident. p. 736. I acknowledge this to be my doctrine: that 
Ordained of God.  Adam fell not by God's permission only, but also by his hidden counsel. Et p. 738. I confess I wrote so: Adam's fall was ordained by the secret decree of God. De Praedestinar. p. 704. Let our faith with seemly soberness adore a far of the hidden counsel of God, wherewith the fall of men was preordinated.  
Beza de Praedestinat. count. Castell. p. 340. How God is not in fault, if he ordain the causes of damnation, we th●nke it a 
God ordaineth the causes of damnation.  question unexplicable to man's sense. Page. 4▪ 7. We acknowledge it to be true, that God hath predestinated whomsoever he pleased not only to damnation, but also to the causes of damnation. In Absters. calum. Heshusij p. 319. We say, that Adam could not fall but through the decree and ordination of God. We think, that Adam's fall was decreed of God.  
Zanchius de Praedestinat. c. 4. to. 7. As well they which 
Men predestinate to blindness.  are blinded are predestinated to blindness, as they which are delivered, from sin, are predestinated to delivery. De Excaecat. q. 5. It is clear, that God hath predestinated some to excecation. Sin even considered as sin, as it serveth to the glory of 
Sin even as sin is preordained of God.  God not of it nature but by God's goodness, so far forth is sin and the evil of sin preordained of God. Which words also Polanus hath l. 4. Syntax. Theol. c. 10. And the same Zanchius l. 5. de natura Dei c. 2. to. 2. This was that which 
God first decreeth damnation, and then sin.  God first decreed of the reprobates from all eternity: to will the everlasting ordaining of some men to perdition: to this were their sins ordained, and to their sins, forsaking and denial of grace.  
Piscator apud Vorstium in Parasceve. c. 3. All things 
Sin done by a special decree of God.  are done by the decree of God, even sins themselves, and that by an absolute and special decree. c 6. God destinated all and every man to sin. Et in Amica. Collat. sect. 58. God decreed absolutely and of himself, that sins should be done. The same Piscator in thesib. l. 2. loco. 12. Reprobation, denial of grace followeth, this sins follow; sins, punishment followeth, to all God preordained the reprobate from all eternity. See more of their like sayings in the Latin book c. 1. art. 5.   

THE CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS  
Scripture expressly denieth, that sin ascendeth to the hart of God, or that God willeth it. The same, catholics.  
Protestants expreslely affirm, that God ordained, decreed, determined Adam's fall: that Adam fell by God's counsel and because he thought it expedient, through the decree, and ordination of God: that God ordaineth the causes of damnation, praedestinateth to the causes of damnation whom he pleaseth: praedestinateth as well to blindness or excecation, as to delivery from sin: preordayneth sin as sin, as it is occasion of good: first predestinated men to perdition, and after to sin: destinateth every man to sin, decreeth sin itself to be done by an absolute and special decree, and that of himself. Which doctrine is accursed of the Council of Arausica can. 25. and confessed by some Protestants to be contrary to Scripture. See l. 2. c. vlt.    

ART. VI WHETHER GOD COMMAND any to sin.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Ecclesiasticus c. 15. v. 21. He (God) hath commanded no 
God commandeth none to sin.  man to do impiously.  
Hieremie 32. v. 35. They have built the excelses of Baal etc. Which I commanded them not.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Card. Bellarmin. l. 2. Amiss. Grat. c. 8. The Scripture manifestly teacheth that God doth not command sin.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Caluin de Praedestinat. p. 727. You see, that by God's 
Satan lieth by God's commandment.  commandment Satan is not only a lying spirit in the mouth of all the Prophets, but etc. De Provident. pag. 739. What? Where God sendeth for Satan the minister of his revenge, and giveth him a plain commandment to deceive, is not this different from bare permission? And p. 746. God calling Satan, 
God biddeth Satan to lie.  biddeth him go to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the Prophets for deceive Achab.  
Beza in Absters. calum. Heshusij pag. 324. God being angry with the wicked, delivereth them to Satan, and that with this commandment, that by lying and all manner of deceit 
Expressly commandeth him to deceive.  he destroy them miserably. Pag. 382. Satan was sent to deceive Achab by the express commandment of God. De Praedest. count. castle. p. 403. Caluin wrote rightly and truly, that by God's commandment Satan soliciteth to these desires, which in regard of Satan and the wicked, are evil. See more in the Latin book c. 1. art. 6.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture sayeth expressly, that God commanded none to do wickedly: that he commanded not to build the excelses of Baal. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that Satan was a liar by God's commandment: that God giveth him a plain command to deceive: that God biddeth him be a lying spirit for to deceive: that God commandeth Satan to destroy the wicked by lying and all kind of deceit: that God expressly sent him to deceive: and commandeth him to solicit men to such desires as in them are evil.    

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

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
james c. 1. v. 13. Let no man when he is tempted, say that he 
God tempteth none to sin.  is tempted of God: for God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteh no man.  
Ecclesiasticus c. 15. v. 12. Say not: He hath made me err, for impious men are not necessary for him.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Cardin. Bellarmin lib. 2. the Amiss. Grat. cap. 4. If God did push me to that which is against his law, he should deny himself.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dureum. sect. 7. God pushed the ●indes of the jews to kill his son. 
God moveth to sin.   
Zuinglius de Provident. c. 6. tom. 1. God even so moveth the judge to punish the offenders, as he moveth them to sin.  
Bucer in c. 6. Matth. The Scripture is not afraid to make 
God the Author of temptation.  God the author of temptation, who some time bringeth the elect into temptation, and that such as they truly fall and sin.  
Caluin. 1. Institut. c. 18. §. 4. Man by God's just driving doth that which is not lawful for him. De Praedestinat. p. 727. Nether is Satan the minister of God's wrath, only because he soliciteth souls to naughty desires, but also because he effectually draweth them.  
Beza de Praedestinat. count. Castell. p. 401. God stirreth up 
He stirreth the thief to kill. He tempteth to sin.  the ill will of the thief to kill an other.  
Peter Martyr in locis class. 1. c. 15. §. 9 It is no marvel that we can not understand, how it can agree with God's justice to punish sin and yet to drive to it by tempting: for God can do more than we can understand. ibid. p. 1010. We must not deny, that God is the Author of temptations. In Rom. 1. fol 34. Nether must God be accused of injustice, though he will, incline, 
Driveth men's wills into grievous sins.  and drive the wills of wicked men into grievous sins.   

THE CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that God is no tempter of evil, that he tempteth none, maketh none err. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that God pushed the jews to kill his son, moveth the offender to sin, is the author of temptation, driveth man to that which is unlawful, stirreth up the thief to kill, tempteth to sin, driveth into grievous sin: that the devil is God's minister in soliciting and drawing men to naughty desires. Which are so contrary to Scripture, as some times Protestants acknowledge it l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. VIII. WHETHER GOD MAKE men necessarily sin.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Genesis 4. v. 7. If thou dost ill, shall not thy sin forthwith 
God imposeth not necessity to sin.  be present at thy door? but the lust thereof shallbe under thee and thou shalt have dominion over it.  
1. Cor. 10. v. 13. God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 5. defineth that man hath free will in evil.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dureum sect. 1. On whom the holy 
Some have necessity to sin.  Ghost is not bestowed, they have a miserable necessity to sin.  
Willet Controu. 18. q. 2. p. 855. Indeed Adam in respect of God's appointment did sin necessarily. The same hath Perkins de Praedestinat. col. 134.  
Luther de seruo arbit. to. 2. fol. 460. If God did foresee, that judas would be a traitor, judas was necessarily a traitor, neither 
judas a traitor of necessity.  was it in the power of judas or of any creature to do otherwise, or to change his will. Fol. 434. This is the highest degree of faith, to believe him to be just, who at his pleasure maketh men 
Some necessarily damned.  necessarily to be damned.  
Zuinglius de Provident. c. 6 Nether let any say: The thief is guiltless, because he slew, God driving him; For he sinned against 
Some compelled to sin.  the law. But you will say: He was compelled to sin: I grant (I say) that he was compelled.  
Caluin 3. Institut. c. 23. §. 9 The Reprobats would be excused in sinning, because they cannot a void the necessity of sinning, 
Reprobates necessited to sin.  especially sith this necessity is imposed upon them by God's appointment: But we deny, that they can be justly excused, because God's appointment is just. De Praedestinat. p. 704. It sufficed to man's just damnation, to have fallen of his accord from the way of salvation in which he was set. But it could not be other wise. What then? Is he therefore faultless?  
Beza de Praedestinat. count. castle. p. 415. That he sayeth 
Necessarily do sin.  the reprobats do necessarily sin, is most true. In 2. part Respons. ad Acta Colloq. Montisbel. p. 178. With an other necessity Adam is said to have fallen necessarily, to wit, what belongeth to God's appointment. 
God's decree necessitateth to sin.   
Tilenus' disput. 8. de Praedestinat. By this decree of God a double necessity falleth upon the reprobats, the one sinning, the other of perishing.  
Zanchius l. 5. de natura Dei c. 2. We grant that reprobats by this appointment of God are tied with the necessity of sinning, and consequently of perishing, and so tied, as they cannot but sin and perish.  
Piscator l. 2. de the sibus p. 183. It is falsely said, that it was in man's will not to eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree, that is, 
Adam necessarily sinned.  not to transgress the commandment. And pag. 282. Through the decree of God, man could not but transgress. Polanus in Disp. private. disp. 3. Adam sinned necessarily.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the lust of sin is under us, that we have dominion over it, and that God will not suffer us to be tempted above our power. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the wicked do necessarily sin: that the reprobats are tied by God's appointment necessarily both to sin and perish: that it was not in Adans will not to eat the forbidden apple, that through God's decree he could not but transgress, that he sinned necessarily and could not do otherwise: that judas was necessarily a traitor and could not change his mind: that God compelleth the thief to sin. Which are so impious as S. Prosper sayeth: He is no Catholic, who sayeth that by 
Ad c. 16. Gallor.  God's predestination, as it were with a fatal necessity, men compelled to sin are forced to death: and so contrary to Scripture, as Protestants some time confess it. lib. 2. cap. 30. And thus much of God touching sin: Now of God concerning sinners.    

ART. IX. WHETHER GOD HATE ALL that work iniquity.  

SCRITURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Psal. 5. v. 7. Thou hatest all that work iniquity. 
God hateth all workers of iniquity.   
Ecclesiast. c. 12. v. 3. The highest hateth sinners.  
Math. 7. v. 23. Depart from me you that work iniquity.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D Stapleton l. 3. de justificat. c. 8. Sin of it nature, in whomsoever it is, separateth from God, and maketh him in whom it is, hateful to God.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker. l. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 34. The godly, though 
God hateth not all such.  they sin (grievously) yet are always most assuredly persuaded of Christ's love and will.  
Perkins de Praedest. to. 1. God being offended, doth change the effects of grace into the effects of a certain hatred, not against the faithful themselves, but against their sins. He doth not put away his fatherly affection, and they are still children concerning the right of eternal life.  
Caluin. 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 12. We see that God wonderfully is angered with his children, which he leaveth to love, not that in himself he hateth them, but because he will terrify them with some feeling of his wrath.  
Beza de Praedestinat. count. castle. p. 409. Albeit the lord 
God never hateth the elect.  hate all iniquity, yet hateth he not all in whom iniquity is.  
Zanchius l. 4. de natura Dei. c. 7. q. 2. God never hateth the elect. Again. It cannot be, that God at any time hateth them. And in depuls. calum. to. 7. God is angry with the elect whem they sin, but never hateth them.  
Pareus l. 1. de Amiss. Grat. c. 7. God doth not hate his children when they sin.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly affirmeth, that God hateth all who work iniquity: that he hateth sinners: that who work iniquity shall depart from him. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly deny, that God hateth the faithful when they sin: that ever he hateth the elect: that the faithful, though they sin, are ever assured of God's love: that God hateth all in whom iniquity is. Which are so opposite to Scripture as Protestants some times confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. X. WHETHER GOD JUSTIFIETH, that is, judgeth him to be just, who is wicked.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Proverb. 17. v. 15. He that justifieth the impious, and he that 
justifier of the impious, adhominable to God.  condemneth the just, both are abominable before God. isaiah 5. v. 23. Woe to you, who justify the impious for gifts. Rom. 2. v. 2. We know, that the judgement of God is according to verity.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Card. Bellarmin l. 2. the justif. c. 9 A wicked man cannot be truly justified, that is, pronounced just, unless he who pronounceth him just do withal make him just.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Bucanus loco 31. de justificat. q. 18. p. 313.  God 
God justifieth the wicked.  forbiddeth to justify the wicked Proverb. 17. 15. Can he be said to do that rightly which himself forbiddeth? Rightly, because he it above all law.  
Caluin l. de Caena p. 2. Let us be assured, that albeit we be 
God accounteth wicked, for just.  wicked and impure, yet we are acknowledged and accepted of the lord and accounted for just. Et 3. Institut. c. 19 §. 2. It is not inquired there, how we may be just, but how being unjust and unworthy, we may be held for just.  
Pareus l. 2. de justificat. c. 9 What he objecteth, that a wicked man cannot be truly pronounced just unless he be made 
The wicked may be judged just according to the Gospel.  just, is true of inherent justice and according to the law: but it is false, that he cannot be pronounced just with imputed justice and according to the Gospel.  
Illyricus Praefat. in epist. ad Rom. It is all together contumelious against Christ, that he cannot by his justice and efficacy justify and save such sinners as are impious and want all good works.  
Scarpius de justificat. Controu. 9 We are called just by the imputation of Christ's justice: but we are also called unjust for injustice which is in us.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that it is abominable before God to justify the wicked, and pronounceth woe to him that doth it, and addeth that all God's judgements are according to verity, which that judgement is not, that pronounceth the wicked for just. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that God doth that which himself forbiddeth, to wit, that he pronounceth the wicked for just; that though we be unjust we are held of the Lord for just; that Christ justifieth and saveth such sinners as are impious; that with imputed justice the wicked are pronounced just.    

ART. XI. WHETHER GOD BE ANGRY with the faithful when they sin.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Exod. 4. vers. 14. Our Lord being angry at Moses, said &c. 
God angered at Moses and Aaron.   
Deuteronom. 9 v. 20. Against Aaron also being exceeding angry, he would have destroyed him.  
Michee 7. v. 9 I will bear the wrath of our lord, because I have sinned to him.  
Roman. 2. v. 9 Wrath and indignation, tribulation, and 
God's wrath on all that do evil.  anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Catechismus ad Parochos in orat. Dom. Albeit the act of sin be past, yet sin remaineth by guilt and stain, over which Gods anger ever hanging doth follow it as the shadow the body.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther in c. 42. Gen. to. 6. fol. 575. Nether must we believe him, when he is angry: For in deed Christ, that is, God incarnate is not angry. Doth he not seem to be angry? No surely, he is not angry. Nor suffer thyself to be so persuaded, for it is not true but 
God but feignedlie angry.  feigned anger. In c. 3. Galat. to. 5. fol. 336. Fellow not the judgement of reason, which sayeth, that God is angry with sinners. Et in argum. Epistolae fol. 272. Thou canst not be saved, unless thou forget the law, and determine certainly in thy hart 
Not angry with sinners.  that there is no law or anger of God, but mere mercy and grace for Christ's sake.  
Caluin. 3. Instit. cap. 4. §. 31. God is not so rigorous in his judgement of chastyzing (the faithful) as he becometh angry. §. 32. God always withhouldeth his anger from the faithful. Item. 
Never angry with the faithful.  Nether hindereth it, that the lord is often said to be angry with his Saints, when he chastizeth their sins. For that is not meant of God's counsel or affection when punisheth, but of the vehement feeling of sorrow, wherewith they are affected, who sustain how little soever of his severity.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that God was angry with Moses, exceeding angry against Aaron, had wrath against Micheas, and that wrath and indignation is upon every soul that worketh evil. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say: that God is not angry with sinners, is not angry indeed, his anger is not true but feigned, hath anger but mere grace and mercy, always withhouldeth his anger from the faithful, that what is said of God's anger against the faithful is not meant of his mind, but of their feeling of his chastisement. Which are so opposite to the holy Scripture as even Protestants some times confess. See. lib. 2. c. 30.    

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

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Genes. 3. vers. 17. God sayeth to Adam. Because thou hast 
God punished Adam and Ever for sin post.  heard the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work, with much toiling shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life.  
2. Kings. 12. vers. 14. Our lord hath taken away thy sin, 
Also David.  thou ●halt not dye. Nevertheless because thou hast made the enemies of our lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the son that is borne to thee, dying shall dye.  
Ihon. c. 5. v. 14. jesus said to him: Behold thou art made whole, sinne no more lest some worse thing chance to thee.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Card. Bellarmin. l. 2. the Penitent. c. 2. We see that the punishment inflicted upon David, had respect to that which was past, rather than to that which was to come.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Caluin. 3. Inst. cap. 4. §. 33. Whiles the reprobates are scourged of God with whips, they begin in some sort to taste the punishments of his judgement; But his children are beaten with 
God punisheth not his children for sins past.  rods, not for to pay to God the penalty of their offences, but to increase thereby in repentance. Wherefore we gather that they respect more the time to come, than the time past. Et §. 30. What I pray you had Christ done for us, if yet punishment were exacted for sin?  
Zanchius de Perseverant. q. 1. c. 2. This is most certain, that God never imputeth sin to the elect. The same say others as we shall see hereafter. c. 16. art. 1.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Adam was punished because he had eaten of the apple; and David, because he had made God's enemies blaspheme. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that God's children are not punished for sin past, that no sin is imputed to the elect. That no punishment is exacted of us for sin. And hitherto we have seen that the Scripture teacheth us how God carrieth himself towards sins and sinners plain contrary to that which Protestants teach: Now we will see the like touching good works.    

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

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Genes. 8. v. 20. Noë built an altar to our lord, and taking of all cattle and fowls that were clean, offered holocausts upon 
noah's sacrifice a sweet smell to God.  the altar, and our lord smelled a sweet savour.  
4. King's c. 22. v. 2. And he (josias) did that was liked before our Lord.  
Malachi 3. v. 4. And the sacrifice of juda and Jerusalem 
Sacrifice pleaseth God.  shall please our lord.  
Acts 10. vers. 4. And he said to him: Thy prayers and thy alms deeds are ascended into remembrance in the sight of God.  
Hebrews 13. ver. 16. And forget not beneficence and communication: for with such hosts God is promerited (Or, as the Greek hath) is pleased.  
1. Ihon. 3. v. 22. We do those things which are pleasing before him.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Card. Bellarmin. l. 4. de justificat. c. 15 The seventh testimony is taken out of those places (of Scripture) which teach that the works of the just do please God. And l. 5. c. 2. He sayeth that the sense of the forecited words Hebr. 13. is this: With such hosts God is delighted or God is pleased with such hosts.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther de Captivit. Babylon. to. 2. fol. 69. Nether can 
God careth not at all for works.  we any time deal otherwise with God, then by faith in the word of his promise: He careth nothing at all for works nor needeth them, by which we are to deal rather with men and with our selves. Et Postilla in Domini. 1. Aduentus fol 8. God careth 
Respecteth not yea loatheth them.  not for works. In festo S. Stephani fol. 376. God respecteth not works. We foolishly feign that God is much delighted with our works, whereas he greatly loatheth them. In festo Assumpt. fol. 435. Truly works are of no account before God. In cap. 1. jonae to. 4. fol. 411. The Papists have a conceit of God, as if he were a God that is delighted and may be appeased with our good 
No God, that is delighted with works.  works, whereas there is no such God, no such Godhead, which is delighted with these things. And to. 7. Serm. in Hebr. 11. God careth not greatly what kind or what notable works we do.  
tindal in Fox his Acts printed 1610. p. 1138. There is no 
To make water pleaseth God as much as preaching.  work better than an other to please God. To make water, to wash dishes, to be a souter or an Apostle, all is one. To wash dishes and to preach all is one, as touching the deed to please God. Other Protestants (as testifieth Schusselburg. to. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 551. Melancthon. in Respons. ad artic. Bavar. to. 3. and Manlius in locis tit. de Eccles.) say: God careth not for good works. And the same also do they think, who (as we shall relate hereafter) say, that, before God, good works are mere iniquities, filth, stench and dung. For surely God careth not for such things.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that good works are a sweet savour before God, are liked of God, please God, are pleasing before God. The like say catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that God careth not for works, careth not at all for them, doth not regard or respect them, is not delighted with them, careth not what notable works we do, maketh no account of them, yea greatly loatheth them: that to wash dishes, to make water, to play the cobbler pleaseth God as well as to be an Apostle.    

ART. XIV. WHETHER GOD BE WORSHIPPED or served with good works.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
isaiah. 19 v. 21. The Egyptians shall know our Lord in that day, and shall worship him in hosts and in gifts. 
God worshipped by works.   
Luke. v. 2. c. 37. Who departed not from the temple, by fastings and prayers serving night and day.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in joan. 4. v. 23. Therefore God is so served inspirit and truth, that as this worship doth not exclude the outward acts of piety and works of charity towards our neighbour, wherewith we worship and serve God in justice, so etc.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther delibertate Christiana to. 2. fol. 5. For we do not 
Not glorified by works.  glorify God by working, but by believing. Ibid. count. Regem Angliae fol. 334. God is served by faith only. De bonis operibus 
Not served by them.  to. 5. fol. 580. Only faith is the true worship of God. In c. 1. jonae. to. 4. fol. 412. The true God is not served with works. There is one only worship pleasing to God, to will true faith.  
Tindal in Fox before cited: God is honoured on all sides in 
Not worshipped by works.  that we count him righteous in all his laws and ordinances, and also true in all his promises. Other worship of God is none, except we make an idol of him. Confession of Basil. art. 13. Faith is the only true worship of God. The like say other Protestants, who (as we shall see hereafter) teach, that good works are sin before God. For God is not served or worshipped with sin, but disserued and dishonoured by it.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that God is worshipped and served with good works. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that God is not glorified by working, that God is not served by works, that faith is the only true worship of God, that God is served by only faith, that only faith is the worship of the true God: that there is no other worship of God but to believe him right in all his laws and true in all his promises.    

ART. XV. WHETHER GOD DO Accounted those good works which are not commanded.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Mark. 14. v. 3. and 6. There came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of precious spike-nard, and breaking the 
A work not commanded, good in God's sight.  alabaster box, she poured it out upon his head.— But jesus said: let her alone, why do you molest her; She hath wrought a good work upon me,  
1. Corint. 7. 25. And as concerning virgins, a commandment of our Lord I have not, but counsel I give.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Card. Bellarmin. l. 2. de Monachis. c. 16. God is worshipped with every act of virtue, though not commanded, yet done for God.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Confessio Heluet. c. 16. God liketh not works and worship's chosen by us. And Confessio Saxon. c. 17. We teach, that works (as they say) not due, are no worship of God.  
Luther Postilla in festo S. joan. fol. 92. Nothing pleaseth 
Works not commanded, not pleasing to God.  God, which is done without his commandment.  
Melancthon in Disput. to. 4. p. 602. Works not commanded from heaven, are no worhippe of God.  
Caluin 4. Institut. c. 13. §. 2. All voluntary worships which we device without his commandment, are abominable to God. In Rom. 5. v. 19 They dote, who vaunt to God of their works devised by themselves, who esteemeth them no more than dung.  
Lobechius in Disput. 9 p. 184. Without God's commandment, 
Nor good.  a work though done with never so good intention nor forbidden, neither, is nor can be good.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly affirmeth, that S. magdalen's anointing of Christ, though not commanded, was a good work & grateful to him: that virginity is good, though not commanded. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that God liketh no work not commanded by him, that no work not commanded is any worship of God: that no work whatsoever not commanded of God is good, that what we do without God's commandment is no more respected of God than dung, and is abominable to him.    

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

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
〈…〉 11. and. 13. But Moses besought the Lord his 
God pacified by works.  God, saying: why 〈…〉 fury angry against thy people etc. And our lord was pacified 〈…〉 the evil which he had spoken against his people.  
2. Paralipomen. 30. v. 18. and 20. And 〈…〉 for them saying etc. Whom our Lord heard, and was pacified to the people.  
Psalm. 105. v. 30. And Phinees stood, and pacified, and the slaughter ceased.  
Ezech. 43. v. 27. The priests shall make your holocausts upon the altar, and those which they offer for peace: and I will be pacified toward you, sayeth our lord God.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Matth. 17. v. 21. divers examples in Scripture do teach us the force and power of fasting joined with prayer for to pacify God.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther in c. 1. jonae to. 4. fol. 411. Papists have an opinion, that God can be pacified with our good works, when as there is no 
No God, that is pacified by works.  where such a God. In Galat. 2. to. 5. fol. 363. The works which I do according to God's law, do not pacify his wrath, but provoke it. 
Works provoke God's wrath.   
Caluin 4. Inst. c. 15. §. 4. It is the doctrine of the Scripture. that our good works are always stained with much uncleanness, with which God may be justly offended and angried: so fare are they from purchazing us his good will, or provoking his liberality towards us.  
Confessio Saxonica c. de remiss. Peccat. It is a dishonour to the Son of God, to imagine that any works are propitiation for sin The same hath Apologia pro Confess. August. c. de Implet. legis.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth 〈…〉 pacified with prayer, with zeal, wi●● 〈…〉 The same teach catholics▪  
●●●●ants expressly teach contrariwise, that God is not pacified with good works, that good works pacify not his wrath but provoke i●, that our good works are fare from purchazing God's favour. That it is dishonour to Christ to imagine that good works are propitiation for sin.    

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

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Ezechiel 36. v. 27. And I will make that you walk in my 
God will have his commandments kept.  precepts and keep my judgements, and do them.  
Matthew. 12. ver. 50. For whosoever shall do the will of my father that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.  
Acts. 13. v. 22. I have found David the son of jesse, a man according to my hart, who shall do all my wills.  
1. Thessalon. 4. v. 3. For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that you abstain from fornication etc.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Actor. 15. v. 10. Behold and mark Caluins double blasphemy: He sayeth, that God testifieth, that it shall never be that his law be fulfilled: He addeth, that God will 〈◊〉 that it be done, that he will not that his law 〈◊〉 ●hen these two be said any thing more absurd 〈…〉 paradoxes?   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Caluin in Actor. 15. ver. 10. Nether let us rashly inquire, 
God will not have them kept.  whether it can be (that God's commandments be kept) which himself testifieth shall never be, and that he will that it never be. lib. 2. de lib. arbit. p. 148. We deny not, but that God can give so great grace to man, as may be equal to the justice of the law, but because he hath denied that he will do it, we say, that it is sim●ly impossible to be done. 
He will no have the law to be kept.   
B●za in 2. part Respons. ad Acta Colloq. Montisbel. p. 226. When we hear the promises of the law, will he have them 
He commandeth that which he will not haved one  to be performed of us? Nothing less. Therefore he commandeth some thing which he will not have done, and promiseth also some thing which he will not perform.  
Zanchius l. 3. de natura Dei c. 4. q. 10. Often times Gods commandment is one thing, and his will is an other. For God commandeth 
God's commandment contrary to his will.  some thing, as to Pharaoh and to other wicked men, which properly he will not, for if he would, it should be done.  
Piscator apud Vorstium in Parasceve part. 8. If God will (properly speaking) have his commandments kept of us, then can it not be but we should keep them. And l. 2. Thes. p. 208. God some time doth by word signify that he will, which indeed he willeth not: And. p. 201. Whereby we perceive, that there is a certain 
God dissembleth,  holy dissembling in God, which is lawful to men, and much more to God who is a most free agent. And loco 12. p. 172. He sayeth, that there is holy dissembling, and that Christ dissembled. And Graverus in Absurdis Caluin. c. 5. sect. 34. That is called a good and lawful dissembling, when one in outward speech feigneth himself to will evil things, but in inward motion and affection of hart or mind willeth, and at last, doth good. And of such a dissembling (in God) there is an example Genes. 22. Thus they make some dissembling good, and 〈◊〉 dissembler, and yet cry out against all aequivocation. 〈…〉 Genes. 20. to. 6. fol. 244. seemeth to make Christ an 〈…〉 thus he writeth: That which they term an officious lie, is 〈…〉 fit of our neighbour. So Christ in Luke feigned, that he 〈…〉 saul's daughter said that David lay in bed.  
Beza also 2. part. respon ad Acta Montisb. p. 174. sayeth: There is some good deceit. So God by his will of sign, or that which is outwardly declare, not only willeth but also commandeth Isaac to be killed of his father. And Peter Martyr loco. 13. sect. 39 It is some time lawful to use good deceit.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that God will make us to walk in his precepts and keep his commandments, that it is God's will that we abstain from fornication: and that who doth God's will is Christ's brother, sister, and mother. The like say catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach the contrary, that God will not have his commandments kept: that God will not give sufficient grace to keep them: that God will nothing less than to have his laws kept: that God commandeth some thing which he will not have done, and promiseth some thing which he will not perform. And thus much of God touching good works: Now let us speak of him as he carrieth himself towards men or mankind.    

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

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Wisdom. c. 11. v. 24. & 25. But thou hast mercy an all, because 
God loveth all.  thou canst do all things, and dissemblest the sins of men for repentance. For thou lovest all things that are, and hatest nothing of those which thou hast made. And v. 27. But thou sparest all, because they are thine O Lord, which lovest souls.  
Ihon. 1. vers. 16. For so God loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that every one that beleiveth in him perish not, but may have life everlasting.  
Rom. 11. v. 32. For God hath concluded all into incredulity, that he may have mercy an all.   

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

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Controu. 2. q. 1. c. 13. p. 449. Christ loveth not the reprobate.  
Beza de Praedestinat. count. Castell. vol. 1. p. 346. God 
God loveth not all.  cannot be said to love all alike, no not to love all. P. 345. Albeit he hath created all in Adam, yet he loveth, not all. 343. You will therefore say, he is their father, for so much as pertaineth to creation. I confess: Therefore say you: He loveth them: But this 
He loveth the elect only.  I flatly deny. In Colloq. Montisbel. p. God loveth the elect only in Christ, all the rest he justly hated from all eternity and will for ever hate. And in 2. part respon ad Acta huius Colloq. p. 106. It is true, that God will not have mercy an them. P. 194. This I say, that there never was time, nor is, nor shallbe, when God would, willeth, or will hereafter have mercy an every 
God would never have mercieon all.  one. And de Praedestinat. vol. 3. p. 404. God concluded all (reprobats) under sin, that he might justly destroy them. Which also he sayeth in Explicat. Christianismi p. 177.  
Zanchius de Praedestinat. to. 7. col. 295. God can have mercy on all, but because he neither would nor will, therefore etc.  
Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. p. 185. I answer, that God would not have mercy on all.   

TH● CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that God hath mercy on all, spareth all, loveth all, loveth the world, loveth souls. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants on the contrary expressly say, that God hath not mercy on all, loveth not all, loveth not, nor ever loved the reprobate, concluded the reprobate under sin for to destroy them justly.    

ART. XIX. WHETHER GOD WOULD have all men saved.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Timoth. 2. v. 4. God will all men to be saved, and to come 
God would have all saved  to the knowledge of the truth.  
2. Peter. 3. ver. 9 Our Lord doth patiently for you, not willing that any perish, but that all return to penance.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Card. Bellarmin. l. 2. de Grat. & lib. arbit. c. 3. It is true, that God will have all saved, with that will which the Divines rightly call Antecedent.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Cancione ultim. pag. 694. It is a plausible 
God would not give life to all.  opinion, that God indeed will all to come to life, but it is near to Pelagianisme. Again. He would not give life to all.  
Rainoldus in Apologia Thes. pag. 247. It remaineth, that God will have saved, not every one, but the elect of all 
God hath not, will to save all.  kind of men: not simply all, but all given to Christ, all the predestinate.  
Perkins de Praedcstinat. tom. 1. pag. 139. It seemeth, that there is not such a will, or (as they say) a velleity in God, with which indefinitely and conditionally he will have all and every man of all ages to be saved. That antecedent universal will of all and every one's salvation in Christ, is feigned. Col. 141. He calleth them outwardly by the word preached, whom he will not 
Would not in earnest have all saved.  have saved. And col. 144. denieth, that God, would in earnest have all saved. In Serie causarum cap. 52. It is not true, that God would have all saved by Christ.  
abbots orat. 2. deverit. Grat. Christi pag. 28. It followeth therefore, not this, that God would have all to come.  
Caluin de Provident. p. 750. From that reason, which is the the mother of all errors, riseth that God to thee, who without exception will have all saved.  
Beza ad calum. jacobi Andreae vol. 3. p. 125. This we grant, that God will not have those that are reprobates to be saved, or the death of his son to profit them.  
Zanchius in Thesibus to. 7. col 280. It can no ways be said, that God simply and properly would or will all men universally to be saved. Et de Praedestinat. cap. 4. He will not have all saved.  
Piscator in Thesibus loco 20. par. 313. Their opinion is impious, who affirm, that God will have saved all and every man none excepted, and yet doth not save all. Et l. 2. loco 12. p. 143. God will not have every one saved.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly affirmeth, that God will all men to be saved, willeth not that any perish, but that all return to penance. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly deny, that God indeed will all to come to life, that God in earnest would have all saved, that God would have every one saved, that God properly would all to be saved; that he would have the reprobates to be saved. Which are so plainly contrary to Scripture, as some Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. XX. WHETHER GOD WOULD have some converted who will not convert.  

SCRITURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
isaiah c. 65. v. 2. I have spread forth my hands all the day to on 
God would have some converted who will not.  incredulous peoples which goeth in a way not good after their own cogitations.  
Proverb. 1. v. 24. Because I called and you refused: I stretched out my hand, and there was none that regarded.  
Matthew. 23. v. 37. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the Prophets, and stonest them that are sent to thee, how often would I gather together thy children, as the hen doth gather together her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldst not.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Math. 23. v. 37. God would recall the jews unto him with a true act of his will, for the hen will not metaphorically, but properly, gather her chickens to her.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins de Praedestinat. to. 1. col. 121. God will conversion in some men, only in approbation, exhortation, and means.  
Caluin in Math. 22. v. 37. p. 293. I answer, that the will of God, of which here is spoken, is to be considered by the effect, to wit, because he indifferently calleth all unto him by the preaching of his word, he is rightly said to gather all unto him. And he addeth, that he calleth the reprobates, only by the outward voice of men. And 3. Inst. c. 24. §. 17. sayeth, that God indeed willeth not this, but is said to will it figuratively and in humane manner, as he is said to stretch out his arms.  
Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 418. God will not have the 
God will not have reprobates converted.  reprobates converted and saved. And addeth, that they cannot will to be converted. And in Respons. ad Acta Colloq. part. 2. p. 208. It is most false and ridiculous to say, that God will any other to be converted but the elect.  
Piscator apud Vorstium in Parasceve. ca 8. God will not 
Nor them who indeed repent not.  the conversion of them who in deed repent not.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that God would call the jews unto him as a hem her chickens, that he stretched his hands to an incredulous people, that he called them who refused. The same teach Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that God will not the conversion of them who do not repent: that he will not have the reprobates converted: that he will the elect only to be converted: that he calleth others only outwardly by man's preaching, and willeth their conversion, not properly, but figuratively only.    

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

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matthew. 11. v. 28. Came ye to me all that labour and are 
God calleth all.  burdened, and I well refresh you. And c. 22. v. 9 Go ye therefore into the high ways, and whomsoever you shall find, call to the marriage.  
Mark. 16. vers. 15. Going into the whole world, preach the Gospel to all creatures.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Card. Bellarmin. de Amiss. Grat. etc. l. 2. 9 The Scripture teacheth that God inviteth all to him.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins in Casibus conscient. cap. 7. It is evident that the promise of salvation is not to be taken as universal without exception or restriction. 
God inviteth not all.   
Beza de Praedestinat. count. castle. p. 417. Christ doth not invite simply all unto him. Et in quaest. & Respons. p. 655. See, with how convincent reason that universal vocation is refuted. 
Vocation is not universal.  Wherefore not vocation, much less that universal election, can and must be assigned, but only an indefinite vocation.  
Zanchius in Supplicat. ad Senatum Argent. to. 7. col. 57 That God in earnest calleth all, is to be understood according to his revealed will, to wit, so fare as he calleth all by the outward preaching of the Gospel, not excluding any, but not according to his secret will. In depuls. calum. col. 260. The promises 
Promises pertain not to all.  do not pertain indeed unto all, but only to the elect. And col. 261. There is an other reason, why God doth not give them (reprobates) faith, nor ever simply promised it to them.  
Bucanus in Institut. loco 36. Is not the vocation and remission 
Not remission.  universal Matthew 11. 28? It is rather indefinite.  
Vrsinus in Miscellan. p. 74. If the universal promise belonged to all men, what a mass of absurdity and impiety would follow?  
Pareus in Galat. 3. lect. 43. The promises are universal to the beleivers, but not universal to the incredulous, for they belong not to them. Therefore it sufficeth not to urge the univeruersall articles, All: Of all.  
Stosselius apud Zanchium l. 2. epistolorum. The Gospel 
Nor the Gospel.  belongeth only to the elect.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Christ called all that are burdered, and commanded to preach to all creatures. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that God's vocation is not universal, that God in earnest calleth not all: that the promise of salvation is not universal, pertaineth only to the elect, that the Gospel belongeth only to the elect. Which are so opposite to the Scripture, as diverse Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

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

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Ezechielis 33. v. 11. Live I, sayeth our Lord God, I will not the death of the impious, but that the impious be converted from 
God willeth not death.  his way and live. c. 18. v. 23. Why, is the death of a sinner my will, sayeth our Lord God, and not that he convert from his ways and live? Et ver. 32. Because I vill not the death of him that dieth, sayeth our Lord. 
He made not death.   
Wisdom c. 1. v. 13. God made not death, neither doth he rejoice in the perdition of the living.  
Toby 3. 22. For thou art not delighted in our perditions.  
Ecclesiast. 15. vers. 11. Impious men are not necessary for him.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Gard. Bellarmin. l. 2. de Grat. & lib. arb. c. 16. The sins of men, and not the only will of God, are the cause of positive reprobation, that is, of that act wherewith God will adjudge reprotes to everlasting punishment.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Conc. vlt. p. 693. God predestinated to eternal 
God predestinateth to death whom and why he would. Sin, not the cause of damnation. God worketh and willeth death.  death whom he would, and because he would. Pag. 694. The only cause of reprobation, whereof we speak, is God's will, mind, and decree.  
Perkins de Praedestinat. to. 1. col. 123. Sin is not the cause of the decree of damnation. See Willet. count 18. q. 1. p. 855.  
Luther l. de seru. arbit. to. 2. fol. 450. The hidden God worketh life, death, and all in all. Again. He will not the death of a sinner, to wit, in word, but he willeth it with his unsearchable will.  
Caluin 3. Institut. c. 22. §. vlt. If we cannot give a reason 
No reason of reprobation but Gods will. Some created todamnation, and to perish.  why God vouchsafeth mercy to his elect, but because it so pleaseth him: neither shall we have any other thing why he reprobateth others, them his will. Cap. 21. §. 5. To some eternal life is preordinated, to others eternal damnation; Therefore as every one is created to either end, etc. In Roman. 9 ver 18. Solomon teacheth, shalt the wicked were of purpose created for to perish.  
Beza in Rom. 9 v. 11. Who gather, that God, in those whom from all eternity he destinated to reprobation and perdition, was moved thereto by their foreseen incredulity & ill life, are greatly deceived. In Explicat. Christianismi cap. 5. Reprobates he created to the end that he might be glorified in their just condemnation. In Colloq. Montisbel. p. 447. He created, ordained, and destinated the reprobates to eternal damnation for causes known to himself alone. And de Praedestinat. vol. 3. p. 438. God of his mere will, and therefore not for any respect of foreseen worthiness or unworthiness, hath destinated to hatred and perdition whom he would, either particular men or whole nations. And this doctrine, he termeth, the foundation of his faith.  
Bucer in Matth. 6. What he sayeth, that he will not the death of the impious and of him that dieth, but would rather have him return and live, is to be understood of them only, whom he hath chosen to be converted and live.  
Peter Martyr in Rom. 9 It less despleaseth men, if they be 
God hateth and reprobateth for his mere will.  said to be predestinated and chosen, then to be said to be hated and reprobated for God's mere will without all respect of deserts; and yet there must be the same reason of both. Et libr. de libro arbit. tom. 3. locorum: It seemeth at first sight absurd, that some should be created of God for to perish, yet the Scripture 
Some created to perish. God's will the only cause of reprobation.  sayeth it.  
Musculus in locis tit. de reprobis. The cause of reprobation is not to be attributed to the future wickedness of the reprobates, but to the only will of God.  
Piscator in Thesibus lib. 2. p. 182. God made man to fall. It 
He made men to fall.  is false, that God hath not need of a sinner. Page. 235. Nether is this simply true, that God is not the beginning or cause of perdition. P. 245. Reprobation is absolute, that is, depending of the mere pleasure of God, and not upon the condition of incredulity foreseen.  
Marlorat in Rom. 9 v. 22. What inconvenience is it to say, 
Some made to destruction.  that these were made to destruction?  
Zanchius de Praedestinat. c. 1. to. 7. They take from God his 
Some created to death, to be destroyed.  right, who say that it is false, that God created some to life, others to death, only that he might show his mercy in them, and his power and justice in these. cap. 4. He createth some to this end to be destroyed. c. 6. That one is saved or damned, we must needs confess that Gods will was and is the chiefest. Et apud Schusselburg. l. 4. Theol. Caluin art. 8. God's will is the first and unavoidable 
God's 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 wisdom: Death entered into the world by the envy of the Devil, and if there be any such others, in which death is attributed to the Devil as to the Author, we answer, 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 diverse causes.  
Bucanus l. 4. Syntagm. c. 10. The cause efficient and moving, for which the decree of affirmative or negative reprobation was made of God, is not sin.— The true and only moving cause for which the decree of reprobation was made, is God's pleasure or free will. See many more like sayings of Protestants in my Latin book l. 1. art. 22.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that God of himself 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 entered by the Devil, that impious men are not necessary for God. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say the contrary, that God will the death of a sinner with his unsearchable will: that he is the Author of death: that he created men to perdition, death, and damnation: that he is the beginning, the first & unavoidable cause of the perdition of them that perish: That he predestinateth to death whom he would and why he would: that sin is not the cause of the decree of damnation: That sin is neither efficient nor moving cause of negative or affirmative reprobation, but only the pleasure and free will of God.    

ART. XXIII. WHETHER GOD DAMNETH men for sin.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matth. 25. v. 41. Then he shall say to them also that be at 
God damneth for sin.  his left hand: Get ye away from me you cursed into fire everlasting. For I was an hungered and you gave me not to eat etc.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarmin l. 2. de Grat. & lib. arb. c. 16. The Scriptures every where teach, that by the just judgement of God everlasting punishment is rendered unto sin.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
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 deserve not.  common sense or natural reason, that God for his mere will doth forsake, harden, and damn men. Fol. 465. Let us, I pray you, feign, that God must be such a one as respecteth deserts in them who are to be damned: Shall we not in like manner avouch and grant, that he respecteth deserts in them who are to be saved? And fol. 466. It is now incomprehensible, how it is just that he damneth them that deserve not, and yet is believed.  
Zanchius apud Schusselburg. l. 4. Theol. Caluin art. 8. Here we say, that there is no other cause of men's damnation, than God's mere pleasure. Rennecber. 16. The cause of damnation or reprobation is not to be sought in men, but Gods will is the chiefest and supreme cause thereof. Also Gryneus. 16. Sins are 
Sin not the cause of damnation.  not the cause why men are damned. And Spindlerus. 16. Sin can no way be the cause why men are damned.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that men are damned and adjudged to hell fire for sin. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say the contrary, that sins 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 men's damnation then Gods mere pleasure, that God damneth those who deserve it not, that he respecteth not deserts in those that he damneth, that he damneth men for his mere will. And thus much of God's inward and outward acts toward sin, good works, and mankind, let us now see something of his power.    

ART. XXIV. WHETHER GOD BE Almighty and can do all things.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Genes. 17. v. 1. Our Lord appeared unto him, and said unto 
God is almighty.  him: I am the God almighty.  
job. 42. v. 2. I know, thou canst do all things.  
Matthew 19 v. 26. With God all things are possible. The same is repeated Mark 10. and 14.  
Luke 1. vers. 36. There shall not be impossible with God any word.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Card. Bellarmin. l. 3. de Euchar. c. 2. All divines write, that 
God's power is not absolute  God is said to be almighty, because he can do all that implieth not contradiction.   

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Caluin in Resp. ad Nebulon. p. 730. Caluin every where earnestly rejecteth that devise of God's absolute power, which the Sophisters prate of in their schools. Which he repeateth de Praedest. 728. the Provide 755. 1. Inst. c. 17. §. 2. & l. 3. c. 23. §. 2. & in c. 25. Isaiae.  
Beza count. Heshusium. vol. 1. p. 299. That saying of thine: All things are possible to God, hath some exception. P. 300. You forsooth, shall teach us, that God's omnipotency must not 
God's omnipotency, limited. Some things, impossible to God.  be tied to that order, which willingly he hath appointed to himself. And pag. 302. He sayeth, that God can no more put Christ's body in two places at once, than he can make new Gods. In Colloq. Montisbel. p. 27. God cannot make, that Christ's body be substantially in many places at one time. Lib. quaest. vol. 1. p. 658 God cannot make, that one and the same body 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. object. 11. We complain, that you always object God's power, whereas this (Christ's 
To which Gods power doth not extend. God's omnipotency not without exception. Beareth not some things.  body to be at once in many places) is of that kind of things to which Gods power doth not extend. And lib. 1. Epistolarum Zanchij pag. 408. We warn the godly, that God's omnipotency, which we believe, is not to be believed without all exception.  
Sadeel ad art. 14. aburat. We have showed, that Christ's body cannot be really present in many places at once, and that God's omnipotency cannot bear this. And yet these men say, that their faith can make present, things that are to come, absent, and farthest of, as Sadeel speaketh Lib. de Sacrament. Manducat. p. 300. Beza l. de unione hypostat. vol. 3. p. 97. & Apol. 1. cont. Saintem, Martyr in locis class. 2. c. 16. §. 12. in Disput. Oxionensi p. 227. & l. 1. epist. Zanchij pag. 411. Whitaker l. 2. cont. Dur. sect. 8. Whereupon justly said Smidelin the Lutheran unto Bez● in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 26. They give greater power to their faith, then to God.  
Tilenus' in Syntagm. c. 7. Who pretend, that Christ with 
Some●hings repugn to God's power.  his body did penetrate the stone that covered his tomb, or the doors shut, do affirm that which repugneth to the nature of a glorified body, and to God's power in working miracles.  
Dareus cited by Smidelin in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 178. & by Schusselburg. l. 1. Theol. Caluin art. 3. Christ could not so much as will, that his body were at once in many places, because he could not perform it. And when C Bellarmin did argue in this sort: God in the book of Numbers ca 5. did give water power to kill adulteress women; and c. 21. gave the brazen serpent virtue to cure; therefore he can give the word of baptism virtue to change the water: Daneus answereth Controu. 3. c. 20. in these words: God can not give that power to any creatures, unless he make them true 
God cannot make water to kill.  and substantial Gods, and transfuse his power into them.— It is false, that water, Numb. 5. had power to kill, or the brazen serpent, Numb. 25. had power to cure. Besides, many Protestants say, that God cannot give to the Sacraments power to work grace, nor to men power to forgive sins, or to work miracles, and such like.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that God is almighty, that he can do all things, that all things are possible to him, and nothing impossible. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say the contrary, that God hath no absolute power; that the saying of Scripture. All things are possible to God, hath some exception; that his omnipotency is tied to an order: that he can not put a body in many places at once, or not extensively in place: that he cannot give to water power to kill: that his omnipotency beareth not some thing, extendeth not to some thing, and that some things repugn unto it.    

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

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Mark. 10. v. 25. 26. It is easier for a Camelle to pass through 
God can make a Camelle pass through a needls eye.  a needles, eye, then for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.— With men it is impossible. And Matth. 19 This is impossble, but not with God.   

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

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Willet Controu. 13. q. 1. pag. 609. It is not proved out of 
It is impossible to God.  this place, that God can draw the huge body of a Camelle through a needle, remaining still of that bigness: no more than that it is possible for God to bring a proud rich arrogant man to heaven, his affections not altered: both these are impossible to God. And the same say Spalatensis l. 5. de Repub. c. 6. nu. 179. Bel in his jesuits Antepaste p. 47. and others.  
Beza in Marc. 10. ver. 26. Can God make that a Camelle remaining such as it is by nature, may pass through a needls eye? No.  
Bucanus in institutio. loc. 48. pag. 797. God can make that a Camelle pass through a needls eye, but not leaving him such as he is by nature, but making him so small as is needful.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that God can make a Camelle pass through a needls eye. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants say, that God can not make a Camelle pass through a needls eye, as long as he retaineth the bigness of a Camelle.    

ART. XXVI. WHETHER THAT BE possible to God which shall never be.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matthew 3. ver. 9 I tell you that God is able of these stones to 
God can do that, which shall never be.  raise up children to Abraham.  
Matthew 26. vers. 53. Thinkest thou, that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of Angels?   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Card. Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euchar. cap. 2. The Scriptures do most plainly teach, that God can do many things which he will never do.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 25. We say, that God is so almighty, for so much as belongeth to his power considered by it 
He cannot do that which he hath not decreed to do. His power must be measured by his will.  self, as he cannot do that indeed, which he hath decreed▪ not do.  
Ministri in Colloq. Parisiens. die 5. The omnipotency of God must be measured according to his will and things which belong to his nature. The same insinuateth Caluin 1. Institut. c. 16. §. 3. Where he will not admit any omnipotency of God, but only that, which is effectual, operative, and is continually working.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that God can do that which he will not do. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that he can not do that which he hath decreed not to do; that his omnipotency must be measured according to his will; that he hath no omnipotency but that which is continually working.    

ART. XXVII. WHETHER GOD'S TRUE Miracles be a sufficient testimony of truth.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Ihon. 5. vers. 36. But I have a greater testimony than John: 
God's miracles a sufficient testimony.  For the works which the Father hath given me to perfect them, the very works themselves which I do, give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me. Cap. 10. ver. 38. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, and if you will no believe me, believe the works.  
Luke 11. v. 20. But if I in the finger of God do cast out Devils, surely the kingdom of God is come upon you.  
Mark 16. v. vlt. But they going forth preached every where, our Lord working withal, and confirming the work with signs that followed.   

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

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Controu. 2. quaest. 5. cap. 12. pag. 528. I say, 
No miracle is a sufficient testimony.  that out of neither kind of miracles (true or apparent) there can be taken a sufficient testimony, or a certain argument gathered for true doctrine. Page 529. It is manifest, that God giveth power of working these kind of miracles to false teachers, that he may tempt them to whom they are sent. Which he repeateth again page 530. and addeth: Miracles may be wrought to confirm false doctrine. And Controu. 4. quaest. 5. c. 3. pag. 688. I answer, that though they (Papists) did work true miracles, such as the Devil cannot imitate, they were not therefore to be believed.  
Daneus Controu. 4. lib. 4. cap. 14. pag. 784. We deny, 
True miracles not sufficient.  that true miracles are a sufficient testimony of true doctrine.  
Hospinian. l. de Origine Templorum pag. 140. God permitteth the Devils some times to work true miracles— God doth this partly to tempt the elect, partly for the greater blindness of the reprobate.  
Luther in capit. 7. Matth. tom. 7. fol. 92. I am nothing moved with miracles, albeit in my sight they should raise the dead to life. For all these may deceive. God also permitteth true miracles to be wrought for punishment of them who care not for truth.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that true miracles are a greater testimony then S. John: that though we did not believe Christ, yet we should believe his miracles: that they are God's confirmation of truth: that if one in the finger of God cast out Devils, certainly he preacheth the kingdom of God. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that even true miracles are no sufficient testimony or argument of true doctrine; that though we could do true miracles such as the Devil cannot imitate, yet we were not to be believed: that miracles may be done to confirm false doctrine: that God giveth to false teacher's power to work true miracles for to tempt men: that they are nothing moved with miracles, no though they should see the dead raised to life.    

THE SUM OF THIS CHAPTER OF GOD.  
I did think, that it would not be ungrateful or unprofitable to the Reader, if at the end of every chapter I set down the sum thereof, that thereby he might, as once, perceive, in how many and how great matters which have been handled in each Chapter, Protestants contradict the pure word of God: and also how like very false Prophets they play the thiefs in every chapter, and steal some thing.  
Caluin in Actor. 22. v. 14. Writeth thus of Catholics: Papists have made a new God: They have coined for themselves a 
Whether catholics or Protestants make a false God.  young God. The same he sayeth otherwhere, and many Protestants: which whether it agree to Catholics or to them will easily appear out of that which hath been said in this Chapter. For as touching iniquity or sin; the God of the holy Scripture and of Catholics, willeth it not, worketh it not, doth not predestinate nor tempt men unto it, doth not command necessitate or compel to sin: But the God of Protestants doth all these, as appeareth out of the. 1. 4. 5. 6. 7. and 8. Article. As concerning sinners; the God of Scripture and catholics hateth all that work iniquity, is angry with the faithful when they sin, and punisheth them for sins committed: The Protestants God doth none of these, as appeareth by the 9 11. and 12. Article. As for good works; the God of Scripture and of Catholics, is delighted with them, is worshipped with them, accepteth good works not commanded, is appeased with good works, will have his commandments kept: The Protestants God doth all the contrary, as is seen by the 13. 14. 15. 16. and 17. Ar●icle. As touching men or mankind; the Scripture and catholics God, loveth all, would have all saved, would (as a hen her chickens) gather even then which will not come, will not the death of a sinner, nor damneth men but for sin: The Protestants God is quite contrary; as is evident by the 18. 19 20. 21. 22. Article. And finally concerning power: the Scriptures and Catholics God is omnipotent, can do those things which shall never be, can make a Camel pass through a needls eye: Such is not the Protestants God, as is to be seen by the 23. and 24. Article. Seeing therefore so many and so great properties agree to the Protestants God, quite contrary to those which the God proposed unto us by the holy Scripture and catholics, hath, it is evident, that it is an other and a new God different from the God which the Scripture teacheth: yea that it is (as Caluin speaketh of the Libertins' God) an idol, 
Cont. libert. c. 14.  which ought to be more detestable to us than all the Pagan's idols: or rather, that it is the very Devil himself. For what other can he be, who willeth iniquity, will have men to sin, worketh sin, procureth sin, is author of obduration, is in like sort author of cruelty as of love, predestinateth to sin, preordaineth sin even as it is sin, decreeth by a special decree that sin be done, pusheth to evil by himself immediately and by a peculiar action, necessitateth & compelleth to sin, commandeth to lie and is author of temptation to evil, and consequently is the Tempter and Father of lying (which names the Scripture appropriateth to the Devil) who careth not for good works, is not delighted nor worshipped with them, will not have God's commandments kept, who commandeth that which he would not have done, and promiseth that which he will not perform: who made death, and is the Author of death and damnation, the fontaine of perdition, finally who damneth them that deserve it not, and that for his mere pleasure. These & diverse other qualities before showed, do plainly declare, who and what one he is, whom Protestants teachers have proposed to the world to adore as God: who in truth can be no other, than the very Devil.  
It appeareth also out of that which hath been rehearsed 
How many and great attributes Protestants take from God. Goodness.  in his Chapter, that those coiners of a new God, do play the thiefs, and steal from the true God many of his principal properties. For they steal away his goodness, in saying that he willeth, worketh, decreeth sin; tempteth, necessitateth, compelleth to sin: careth not for good works, nor is worshipped with them. They take away his justice, in teaching that he hateth not all that work iniquity, is not angry with the faithful when 
justice.  they sin, imputeth not their sin to them, will not have his commandments kept, commandeth that which he will not have done, and promiseth that which he will not perform. They rob him of his omnipotency, 
Omnipotency.  whiles they affirm, that there are many things which he cannot do. And in place of these admirable virtues, they give to him the contrary vices. For in steed of goodness, they attribute unto him malice, wherewith he willeth, worketh, decreeth iniquity; and predestinateth, necessitateth, and compelleth men unto it. For justice, they give him Injustice, wherewith he justifieth the impious remaining impious, and damneth those that deserve it not. And for fidelity, they give him infidelity, wherewith he promiseth that which he will not perform. And thus much of God: Now of Christ, God incarnate.    

CHAPTER II. OF CHRIST.  

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

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
I Hon. 5. ver. 26. For as the Father hath life in him 
The Son hath life of his Father. Is of his Father.  self, so he hath given to the Son also to have life in himself.  
Ihon. c. 6. v. 57 I live by the Father. Cap. 7. v. 29. I know him, because I am of him.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
S. Thomas 1. part q. 27. art. 2. That which among the divine persons is begotten, taketh his being of the Father.  
D. Stapleton in joan. 10. ver. 30. This, that impious man (Caluin) doth for that purpose, to establish in some sort his peculiar and new doctrine, wherewith he will have the Son to be God of himself, and not of the Father.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker ad Ration. 8. Campiani p. 34. This saying (God 
Christ received not to be God of his Father.  of God) some did afterward so understand, as they affirmed that Christ was not God by himself and of himself, but received that of the Father. Wherein they wholly took away the divinity of Christ.  
Willet Controu. 20. q. 1. pag. 1161. The Father gave not to the Son to be God.— If Christ received life from his Father, 
Received not life of his Father.  he could not have it in himself.  
Caluin Admonit. ad Polonos in Opuscul. pag. 685. If the Father have his being of himself, the Son have his being of 
Had not his being of his Father.  the Father, the holy Ghost of them both, do there not arise three natures?  
Beza apud Campian. Ration. 8. The Son is not begotten 
Not begotten of the Essence of his Father.  of the essence of his Father. Which Whitaker in his answer maintaineth.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that God the Father gave life to the Son, that the Son liveth by the Father, that the Son is of the Father. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants teach quite contrary, that God the Son received not of the Father to be God, but had that of himself, that Christ received not life from his Father, that he had not his being of his Father, that he was not begotten of the substance of his Father.    

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

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Rom. 1. ver. 4. it is said of Christ: Who was predestinate 
Christ predestinate the Son of God.  the Son of God in power.   

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

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Daneus Controu. 1. q. 14. p. 30. He sayeth: Christ was predestinate 
Not predestinate the Son of God.  the Son of God: Which is Arianisme.  
Affelman l. de Praedestinat. §. 7. The matter or object of predestination are not origen's souls, nor Christ, as those of Basel, of Herborne, and Maldonat do falsely teach, who are contradicted by those of Heidelberg. The same do those Protestants insinuate, who will not have us read in the place cited Rom.  
1. Predestinate, but, Declared the Son of God.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Christ was predestinate the Son of God. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say the contrary; that he was not predestinate the Son of God, and call it heresy to say so. Which is so contrary to Scripture, as Saint Austin sayeth: Who denieth the Son of God to have been predestinated, 
Tractat. 105. in joan.  he denieth him to have been man.    

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

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Philippen. 2. vers. 10. That in the name of jesus every knee 
Christ to be worshipped and invocated as man.  bow of the celestials, terrestrials, and infernals.  
Mark. 10. v. 47. & 48. The blind man crieth: jesus Son of David have mercy upon me. The like Matthew 15. ver. 22. and c. 20. v. 31.  
Luke. 23. v. 42. And he said to jesus: Lord remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom.  
Matthew. 2. ver. 11. They found the child with Marry his mother, and falling down adored him. c. 28. v. 9 They took hold of his feet and adored him.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Card. Bellarmin l. 1. de Sanctis. c. 12. The Divines gives hyperdulie only to the humanity of Christ and to his Mother.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Zuinglius l. de ver. & fals. relig. c. de Statuis tom. 2. How 
Not to be worshipped as man. Not to be invocated as man.  can they be ignorant, that Christ, as he was visible and man, was no way to be worshipped, but as he was God.  
Daneus in orat. Domini. pag. 574. Christ is not to be invocated as he is man, but as he is God consubstantial to his Father.  
In Exani. Kemnitij. p. 1447. Who directeth his adoration or invocation to the humanity of Christ, is accursed by the mouth of God.— Christ's flesh is not by nature God, albeit it be hypostatically truly united to God. Therefore who properly direct their invocation unto it, are true Idolaters. Again. Christ, as man, is our fellow servant and one of our brethren, albeit the first begotten. Therefore Christ is not to be adored or invocated as he is man. Likewise: The flesh of Christ, albeit glorified and abiding united in one person, is yet a creature. Wherefore who directeth his adoration untoit, blasphemeth God.  
Beza in Colloq. Montisbel p. 292. We also deny, that 
Christ's humanity not to be worshipped.  the humanity of Christ is to be worshipped. Which also he repeateth pag. 296. 298. 209. 284. and 301. And p. 284. and 292. We adore all Christ, we direct our invocation to the Son of God, that is, to his divinity as the only proper object of religious worship, and not to his humanity. Respons. 3. ad Sel: vol. 2. p. 274. I confess, that this same man is to be invocated, but not as man, but as he is God.  
Polanus in Sylloge Thesium parte 1. p. 482. Christ is not the proper object of adoration, but his divinity.  
D●●ines of Neustad, in Schusselburg l. 4. Theol Caluin 
Christ heareth not all in his Humanity.  art. 2●. For Christ heareth not all, saveth not all, giveth not the holy Christ by his humanity, much less by his hands or feet. Th●se things are proper to his divinity, and therefore agree to Christ man, not as he is man, but as he is God.  
Divines of Heidelberg (as reporteth Smidelin in Colloq. cit. p. 290.) writ, that Christ heareth not our prayers in heaven according to his humanity.  
Perkins in Serie Causarum cap. 21. tom. 1. col. 32. Nether could invocation agree to Christ, unless, as he is man, so he were also God. For adoration is not referred to his humanity considered by itself, but to the divinity, to which his flesh is hypostatically united.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Christ was invocated as he was Son of David, and as in the time of his passion he had not yet entered into his kingdom: and that he was adored as he was a child and the son of Marie. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that Christ as man is not to be invocated, that according to his humanity he heareth not our prayers in heaven, that as man he is no way to be worshipped, that Godhead is the only proper object of religious worship: that who direct their invocation or adoration to Christ's humanity blaspheme God, are true Idolaters, blaspheme God, and are accursed by God's mouth. Which are so opposite to Scripture as Some Protestants confess it. See l. 2. c. vlt.    

ART. iv WHETHER CHRIST AS MAN, or the humanity of Christ had power to quicken, to remit sins, to work miracles?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matthew 9 v. 6. and 8. But that you may know that the 
Christ as man had power to forgive sins.  Son of man hath power in earth to forgive sins.— And the multitudes seeing it, were affrayed, & glorified God that gave such power to men.  
Ihon. 6. v. 54. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, 
To give life.  hath life everlasting.  
Acts. 4. vers. 10. In the name of jesus Christ of Nazareth 
To work miracles.  whom you did crucify, whom God hath raised from the dead, in this same this man standeth before you whole.  
Hebrews 9 v. 19 For if the blood of goats and of oxen, and the asses, of an heifer being sprinkled sanctifieth the polluted to the cleansing of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ who by the holy Ghost offered himself unspotted unto God, 
To pu●ge from sin.  cleanse our conscience from dead works to serve the living God?   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
S. Thomas 3. part 416. art. 11. The power of forgiving sins consisteth in Christ's divine nature by authority, but in his humane nature it is instrumentally and by ministry.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins in Galat. 3. v. 5. Not Christ himself as man, could 
As man he could not work a miracle. Not profitable as man.  work a true miracle.  
Zuinglius l. de ver. & falsa relig. c. de Euchar. to 2. Christ is profitable to us on that part wherewith he descended from heaven, not on that whereby he was borne of the immaculate Virgin. Again: He could be profitable only according to his divinity. Which he repeateth in joan. 6. to m. 4. and there addeth: Christ's flesh profiteth nothing, nothing at all. 
His flesh profiteth nothing at all. Had no power to give life.   
Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 276. In the mean time we deny, that Christ's flesh is truly vivificall. A gain: But that there is any power or virtue of quickening in Christ's flesh, for which power imparted to it it may be said vivificall and to quicken, that we deny. And p. 279. The virtue of quickening is so proper to the divinity, as it cannot be communicated even to the flesh of Christ nor to any other creature unless it be turned into the divinity. Lib. count. Brent. col. 1. pag. 527. he denieth that Christ's humanity forgiveth sins by virtue of the divinity which had given this power to it. And p. 545. sayeth. Note, that the power of saving is not attributed to the flesh though assumpted, but to the divinity of which it is assumpted. And in Colloq. cit. p. 228. The raising of the dead is the work of the divinity 
Nor to raise the dead.  only, which cannot be attributed to the humanity of Christ.  
Daneus Controu. 4. q. 9 p. 195. Christ the Son of man living on earth remitted sins, but not as man, but as God: as in 
Remitted not sins as man.  the same divine nature he wrought miracles, not as man.  
Sadeel respon ad Art abiurat. 5. Our life firstly, properly, and precisely proceedeth from the divine nature. And the divines 
Nor heareth our prayers.  of Heidelberg before cited: Christ as man heareth not our prayers in heaven.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the Son of man had in earth power to forgive sins, that who eateth his flesh hath life everlasting, that in the name of Christ crucified miracles were wrought, that his blood cleanseth our consciences from sins. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach the contrary, that Christ as man was not profitable unto us, that his flesh profiteth nothing at all, that it is not vivificall not hath any virtue of quickening, that the divinity hath not given it any power of forgiven sins, that our life proceedeth precisely from the divinity, that Christ as man did not forgive sins, did not work any miracle, could not work any miracle, that the raising of the dead cannot be attributed to his humanity. Which are so contrary to the Scripture as diverse Protestants do acknowledge it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. V WHETHER CHRIST AS MAN, or his humanity were every where.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Matthew. 28. v. 6. I know that you seek jesus that was crucified: 
Christ's body not in the Sepulchre after his resurrection.  He is not here.  
John 11. v. 15. jesus said to them plainly: Lazarus is dead, and 
Not where Lazarus died. Not where●e was sought.  I am glad for your sake, that you may believe, because I was not there. And c. 6. v. 24. When therefore the multitude saw, that jesus was not there not his disciples, they &c.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Card. Bellarmin l. 3. the Incarnate. c. 11. That Christ's humanity is everywhere, is against Scripture.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Luther in Defence. verb. caenae to. 7. fol. 394. Christ manifestly 
Christ's body in heaven and earth.  testifieth, that his body is at once in heaven and in earth, or rather present every where. Which he oftentimes repeateth. Whereupon Zuinglius resp. ad Confess. Lutheri to. 2. fol. 446. sayeth that Luther affirmeth Christ to be in every 
In every place.  place, no less according to his humane nature, than his divine.  
Brentius apud Bezam lib. cont. ipsum vol. 1. Theol. p. 516. It is necessary, that wheresoever the divinity of Christ is, 
Wheresoever his godhead is  there also he have with him his humane nature.  
Gerlachius tom. 2. disput. 2. p. 25. We put the humane nature of Christ almighty and in all places.  
Smidelin in Hospin. part. 2. Hist. fol. 323. The Humanity of Christ is every where. Which he and his followers defended openly in the Conference at Mulbrun and Montbelgard.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Christ as man was not in the sepulchre after his resurrection, that he was not where Lazarus died, that he was not where the jews sought him. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that Christ's body is every where, that his humanity is wheresoever his divinity is, that his humane nature is in all places. Which is so opposite to Scripture, as many Protestants confess it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. VI WHETHER CHRIST AS MAN be head of the Church?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Corint. 11. v. 3. And I will have you to know, that the head 
Christ head of the Church as he is man.  of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.  
Ephes. 5. v. 23. Because the man is the head of the woman, as Christ is the head of the Church, himself the Saviour of his body.  
Philippens. 2. vers. 8. He humbled himself, made obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. For the which thing God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names, that in the name of jesus every knee bow.  
Roman. 14. ver. 9 For this end Christ died and arose again, that he may have dominion both of the dead and of the living.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton l. 7. de justificat. c. 4. Christ not only as God, but also as man, is head of the Church.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Controu. 2. q. 2. p. 455. I answer, that it is absurd, 
Not foundation of the Church as he was man.  that the foundation of the Church be visible. The Church was not founded in Christ, as he could be seen, but as he could not be seen. Pag. 456. Christ was not a visible or sensible, but (that I may so speak) a credible foundation. And Controu. 4. q. 1. c. 2. q. 525. Christ was no visible monarch in the Church.  
Vallada in Apologia cont. Episcop. Luzon. c. 5. It is gross 
Not head of the Church, as man.  ignorance to make jesus Christ head of the Church as he is man, which to this day no divine durst say.  
Zuinglius in Coloss. 1. tom. 4. It is impossible, that a visible man should be head of the Church, seeing she is invisible.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Christ is head of men as he is under God, as he is Saviour of his body: that in the name of jesus all knees shall know because he humbled himself to death, that he died and rose again for to have dominion over all. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the Church was not founded in Christ as he was visible: that he was no visible Monarch of the Church: that he is not head of the Church as he is man: that no visible man can be head of the Church.    

ART. VII. WHETHER CHRIST AS man was a law maker, made any laws?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
isaiah c. 33. v. 22. thus prophetieth of Christ: For the Lord 
Christ, lawmaker, as man.  is our judge, the Lord is our lawmaker, the Lord is our King, he will save us.  
Matthew. 11. v. 30. Christ sayeth: For my yoke is sweet, and my burden light. And c. vlt. ver. 19 All power is given to me in heaven and earth, going therefore teach ye all nations.— teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.  
Ihon. 15. v. 14. You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you.  
1. Cor. 7. ver. 10. But to them that be joined in matrimony, not I give commandment, but our Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband, and if she depart, to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband.  
Galat. 6. v. 2. Bear ye one an others burdens, and so you shall fulfil the law of Christ.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Session. 6. Canon. 21. If any shall say, that jesus Christ was given of God to men as a redeemer to whom they may trust, not as a lawmaker whom to obey, be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Confession of Witenberg. c. de Euangelio: Nether is 
Christ no law maker.  Christ to be made a new lawmaker, seeing he neither hath made a new law, neither etc.  
Powel Epist. lib. de Adiaphoris. We constantly deny, that Christ is a lawmaker. Which also M. Perkins insinuateth in Galat. c. 6. saying. The Gospel must no way be called a new law.  
Luther in Galat. 1. tom. 5. fol. 228. Christ is no lawmaker. 
Every lawmaker, minister of sin.  Every law maker is the minister of sin. fol. 292. The Gospel teacheth, that Christ came not to give a new law and to give precepts of manners. In cap. 2. fol. 321. he sayeth, that he laboureth to damn the old opinion of Christ a lawgiver and judge. Again: Define Christ rightly, not as the Sophisters and justitiamans do who make him a new lawgiver, who abrogating the old law gave a new; to them Christ is an exactor and Tyrant. And in cap. 52. Isaiae tom. 4. fol. 198. They err, who think 
Christ frameth not manners.  Christ to be a lawmaker who frometh manners.  
Illyricus in Matth. c. 5. Christ is no law giver.  
Caluin in Antidote. Concil. Sess. 6. Con. 21. We deny, 
He gave no new laws.  that Christ is a lawgiver, who gave any new laws to the world. In Math. 5. v. 21. Nether must we imagine Christ a new lawmaker, who added any thing to the eternal justice of his Father, but we must hear him as a faithful interpreter. And in v. 43. Christ giveth no new laws.  
Beza in Math. 19 v. 19 As if Christ came to make any new law, and not rather to deliver us from the curse of the law. In 2. 
He taught us not what to do or shun.  Cor. 3. v. 6. Christ is the Minister of the Gospel, not teaching us what we ought to do what to shun (which is the perpetual office of the law) but freely offering himself for eternal life to them that believe.  
Peter Martyr in Roman. 3. But we absolutely deny, that Christ gave new laws.  
Pareus l. 4. de Inst. c. 4. Christ indeed as God was the giver and author of the law with his Father, but in flesh he came not as a lawmaker, but as a redeemer.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Christ was a lawmaker, that he hath a law, and commandeth some thing, that he imposeth a yoke and burden. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say the contrary, that Christ was no lawmaker, no lawgiver, made no new laws, that he gave no precepts of manners, framed not manners, taught us not what to do or what to shun, that every lawgiver is the minister of sin.    

ART. VIII. WHETHER CHRIST AS man be a judge?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
John 5. v. 22. For neither doth the Father judge any man, but all judgement he hath given to the Son, that all may honour the Son as they do honour the Father. And v. 27. And he hath 
Christ, judge, as man.  given him power to do judgement also because he is the Son of man.  
Acts. 10. ver. 43. And commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is he that of God was appointed judge of the living and of the dead.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
●ard. Bellarm. l. 3. de Incarnate. cap. 16. Power of judging externally and sensibly is given to Christ, because he is the Son of man.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther in Galat. 2. to. 5. fol. 321. I was so taught from a child, that I waxed pail with fear at the very name of Christ, because I was persuaded that he was a judge. Wherefore I have double labour to correct this evil. First, to forget that old inveterate 
Christ is no judge.  opinion of Christ a lawmaker and judge, then to damn and reject it. And in Galat. 5. tom. 1. Germ. Witenberg: apud Scioppium in suo Ecclesiast. c. 5. When thou thinkest of Christ as a judge who will command thee to give an account of thy life past, then be assured and certain, that it is not Christ, but the very devil himself. The same doctrine he preacheth Postilla in Dom. 3. Aduentus, and in Die Pentecostes, where also he addeth: If we have such an imagination of Christ, as that I think he is a judge, straight ways I fear him, thence it followeth that I become strange from him, and fearful in the sight of God, so that also I hate him.  
jacobus Andreae apud Bezam respon ad calum. vol. 3. pag. 131. Some of them are not afraid to say, that Christ shall not exercise the last judgement as man but as God. And the like think all they; who as we shall rehearse hereafter chap. 16. say, that Christ will not exact any account of our life past. For if he be our judge, doubtless he will exact account of us.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that Christ is appointed judge of the living and the dead, that he hath power to judge because he is the Son of man. catholics the same.  
Protestants expressly teach, that it is a damnable opinion to think Christ to be a judge: that when we think of Christ as a judge, it is not Christ, but the Devil himself: that if we imagine Christ to be a judge we fall to hate him.    

ART. IX. WHETHER CHRIST HATH made a new testament or covenant?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Hieremie 31. v. 31. Behold the days shall come, sayeth our Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel 
Christ made a new covenant.  and the house of juda, not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day that I took their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. Which words the Apostle citeth Hebr. 8. v. 8. and expoundeth them of the covenant made by Christ.  
Hebrews 8. v. 6. and 7. But now he hath obtained a better 
A better testament.  ministry, by so much as he is mediator of a better testament which is establiished in better promises. For if that former had been void of fault, there should not certes a place of a second been sought.  
Hebrews 9 v. 15. And therefore he is the mediator of a new 
A new testament.  testament, that death being a mean, unto the redemption of those prevarications which were under the former testament, they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance.  
Galat. 4. v. 24. For these are the two testaments. The one 
Twoe testaments.  from mount Sina etc.  
Matthew 26. ver. 28. This is my blood of the new testament. And Luke 22. v. 20. This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa c. 8. Christ at his last supper made his testament, and therefore fulfilled the figure of the old testament.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Confessions of Switzers cap. 17. Seeing there is always one only God, one mediator of God and men, one testament or covenant, 
There is but one testament.  it necessarily followeth &c.  
Whitaker Cont. 2. q 2. c. 3. It is one and the same covenant, albeit by reason of the times diversely made.  
Zuinglius in Elencho tom. 2. fol. 31. They are called two 
Not two testaments.  testaments, not that they are two different testaments. Fol. 33. Wherefore there is one testament alone, one only testament. In Serm. 1. Bernen. fol. 532. But seeing there are not two testaments, there must be this one.  
Caluin 2. Instit. c. 10. §. 2. The convenant of all the Fathers is so little different from ours in deed and in substance, that it is wholly one and the same, yet the administration varieth.  
Beza in Math. 26. v. 28. They cannot nor must not be called 
Not two covenants.  two covenants, as if indeed they were two. Cont. Heshus. vol. 1. p. 283. The old and the new covenant is one only and singular covenant, whether we consider the author, or the matter, or the end and scope of them both.  
Peter Martyr in locis clas. 2. c. 16. §. 27. We must needs determine, that the covenant betwixt God and man of the old and new testament is one and the same.  
Bucanus Instit. Theol. loco. 22. The two testaments are one in substance, or in respect of all causes, efficient, material, and final.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Christ made a new covenant or testament, a second, an other, a latter covenant or testament, a new one not according to the old, a better testament established in better promises, and that the former testament was not void of fault. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say, that there is always one testament or covenant, one and the same covenant, wholly one and the same in deed and substance, one and the same according to the Author matter and end, one in respect of all causes material, formal, efficient and final▪ that there are not two different testaments, that they must not be called two, as if indeed they were two. Which are so manifestly repugnant to Scripture as diverse Protestants confess it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. X. WHETHER CHRIST AS MAN were ignorant?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
John 16. v. 30. The Apostles say to Christ: Now we know 
Christ knew all things.  that thou knowest all things, and thou needest not that any man ask thee.  
John 21. v. 17. Peter said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. And ca 7. v. 15. And the 
Knew letters though he had not learned them.  jews marvelled, saying: How doth this man know letters, whereas he hath not learned.  
Ihon. 2. v. 24. But jesus did not commit himself unto them, for that he knew all, and because it was not needful for him that 
Knew what was in man.  any should give testimony of man, for he knew what was in man. And c. 18. ver. 4. jesus therefore knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth etc.  
Coloss. 2. v. 3. In whom (jesus Christ) be all the treasures 
Had all treasures of knowledge.  of wisdom and knowledge hid.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
S. Thomas 3. part. q. 15. art. 3. As in Christ there was no fomite of sin, so there was no ignorance. Et q. 11. art. 11. He knew all particular things passed, present, and to come.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker ad Ration. 8. Campiani. Thou sayest, that Protestants 
Christ was ignorant.  teach that Christ was ignorant. And why may they not teach so?  
Zuinglius in c. 2. Lucae. Christ's soul daily profited, whereas from the beginning he knew not all things.  
Caluin in Math. 21. v. 18. There is no absurdity, if we say that according to his humanity he knew not what kind of tree 
Knew not trees.  it was. In c. 24. v. 36. It was no inconveniency, that Christ according to man's knowledge was ignorant of some thing. In Lucae 2. v. 40. His soul was subject to ignorance.  
Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 177. We must acknowledge, that Christ in the time of his humiliation according to his humanity 
Was ignorant of many things.  was for us ignorant of many things. And p. 250. being asked, Whether Christ according to his soul be searcher of hearts? he answered: No.  
Gallastus in l. 2. Irenei. cap. 49. Christ was so ignorat as he 
He was taught as we be.  learned and was taught as men are.  
Daneus Controu. 2. p. 143. Christ's soul was truly ignorant and knew not some things.— Christ knew not where Lazarus 
He knew not Lazarus his grave. Nor figs on the tree. Was subject to childish ignorance.  his corpse was laid.  
Pareus l. 5. the Amiss. Grat. c 14. Christ knew not figs on the tree.  
Serranus Cont. Hayum parte 3. pag. 289. Luke testifieth, that he was subject to childish ignorance and forgetfulness.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth that Christ knew all things that should come upon him, that he knew all things, that he knew all men, that he knew whar was in man, that he knew letters though he had not learned, that in him were all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants contrariwise teach, that Christ as man knew not all things, was ignorant of many things, was subject to childish ignorance and forgetfulness, knew not the hearts of men, knew not where Lazarus his body was laid, knew not figs on the tree, knew not what kind of tree it was, and was so ignorant as he needed to be taught as men are. And this ignorance of Christ Serranus lib. cit. pag. 290. calleth the ground of their salvation. Which is so opposith to Scriptures as some Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. XI. WHETHER CHRIST AS MAN were truly a sinner and hateful to God?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Hebrews 7. ver. 26. For it was seemly that we should have 
Christ separated from sinners.  such a high priest, holy, innocent, impolluted, separated from sinners etc.  
1. Peter 1. v. 19 You are redeemed with precious blood, as it were of an immaculate and unspotted lamb, Christ. And c. 2. v. 22. Who did not sin, neither was guile found in him.  
Matthew 3. c. 17. And be hold a voice from heaven, saying. 
God well pleased in Christ.  This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
D. Stapleton l. 7. the justific. c. 10. It is not only new, but also a blasphemous kind of speech, to call Christ a sinner either by imputation or any way at all. In Math. 26. ver. 39 We must maintain, that Christ neither had any inconsiderate desire, nor said any thing that deserved correcting, nor offered unmeasured requests, nor wanted a mild moderation.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Perkins in Cathol. reform. Controu. 4. c. 4. We may with 
Christ truly a sinner.  reverence to his majesty in good manner say, that Christ was a sinner, and that truly. And De Serm. Dom in Monte to. 2. col. 212. We may most certainly affirm, that Christ by and for our sins was made a sinner, not in but by imputation.  
Luther in c. 53. Isaiae to. 4. fol. 222. He is the greatest sinner, 
Christ the greatest sinner.  so that there is none greater than the Son of God. And fol. seq. addeth that, He is wicked, guilty of death, and under the power of the Devil and hell. In c. 3. Galat. to. 5. fol. 348. All the Prophets saw this in spirit, that Christ was to be the greatest thief, murderer, adulterer, robber, sacrilegious, so that none ever in the world was greater.— If thou deny him to have been a sinner and accursed, deny that he suffered and died. And fol. 350. he calleth it most sweet doctrine and most full of comfort, that Christ for us was made a curse, that is, a sinner obnoxious 
Christ not innocent.  to the wrath of God. And 351. We must not imagine Christ to be innocent, as the Sophisters and almost all the Fathers, Hierome, and others have done. In Psal. 22. to. 3. He seemeth in himself to swallow the temptation of blasphemy, which was almost breacking out, as it were floating between praise and blasphemy. Postilla in Domin. 2. post Epiphan. He uncivilly rejected the 
Uncivilly rejected his mother.  most modest admonition of his Mother. And maketh our B. Lady thus complaining of him: He rudely rejecting hath dishonoured me, and with so uncivil an answer hath shamed me before so many guests.  
Illyricus in Confess. Antuerpien. cap. 6. He may be most truly called a sinner, by the most mighty imputation of his Father. Et in Clavae Scripturae part. 5. col. 858. God made Christ 
Hateful to God.  by imputation a sinner, or injust, guilty, hateful to God. The like he hath part. 2. col. 534. and in 2. Corint. 5. ver. 21 In Math. 3. v. 15. he sayeth, that Christ by imputation was the 
Had need to be cleansed.  uncleanest of all, and had need to be cleansed by baptisms and justices.  
Caluin in 2. Corint. 5. v. 21. How are we just before God? As Christ was a sinner. In Math. 26. v. 39 he writeth: I confess, that Christ had an abrupt desire. Betwixt violent floods of temptations, he (as it were) wavered with desires, now on one side, now on the other. He correcteth and recalleth a request which suddenly escaped him. This prayer of Christ was not thought of, but the force and vehemency of sorrow did wrest from him a speech which by and by was corrected. The same Violence made him for the present forget the heavenly decree, that for that moment he did not think himself to have been sent on this condition to be the redeemer of mankind. In c. 27. v. 46. But it seemeth absurd, that a speech of desperation should proceed from Christ. The answer is at hand. For albeit the sense of the flesh did apprehend destruction, yet faith abode fast in his heart. In ver. 47. So we see, 
Ouerwelmed with desperation.  that he was vexed on every side, that being overwhelmed with desperation, he gave over calling upon God. Which was to renounce his salvation. In joan. 12. v. 27. By flying death, he confesseth his delicateness.  
Beza in 2. Corint. 5. ver. 21. Christ was for us made sin, that is, a sinner, not in himself, but by the guilt of all our sins 
Properly accursed.  imputed to him. In Galat. 3. v. 13. In that consisteth our salvation, that God properly and without any figure poured all his wrath upon his Son, properly and not figuratively accursed him, ●● in his humanity he was our pledge, for to receive us into grace.  
Pareus in Galat. 3. lection. 35. He was made a curse, that is, accursed.  
Daneus Controu. de baptismo c. 23. That which he objecteth, 
He had need of baptism.  that it is mere blasphemy, to say that Christ was a sinner, and had need of baptism, is itself most blasphemous.— Christ him hath taught, that as he was made man for our sake he needed this baptism.  
Piscator in Thesib. lib. 2. p. 125. Christ by imputation was 
Accursed as the damned.  truly a sinner, because for sins he was a curse, that is, accursed. But none is accursed before God, but for sin, that is, as he is, or as he is held for a sinner. And p. 619. To be accursed, was common to Christ with all those to whom in the day of judgement he shall say: God ye accursed into everlasting fire. Moulins in his Bucler of faith art. 17. section. 31. Christ made himself culpable for to make us assoiled. See more of their like speeches in the Latin book c. 1. art. 11.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that Christ was separated from sinners, was innocent, holy, unpolluted, immaculate, unspotted: that he was his Fathers well beloved, Son, in whom he was well pleased. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants say, that Christ was a sinner, the greatest sinner that ever was, truly a sinner, most truly a sinner, not innocent, unjust, unclean, had need of baptism, had need to be cleansed: was hateful to God, accursed of God, accursed as the damned shallbe at the day of judgement, was culpable, confessed his delicateness, had desires not premeditated that deserved correction and recalling, floated between praise and blasphemy, reeled between temptations, uncivilly rejected, dishonoured, and shamed his mother, was so overwhelmed with desperation, that he gave over calling upon God, which was to renounce his salvation.    

ART. XII. WHETHER CHRIST REEVsed to do the office of a Redeemer?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Luke 12. v. 51. But I have to be baptised with a baptism and 
Christ desired to die for mankind.  how am I strained until it be dispatched?  
Math. 16. v. 23. Where S. Peter dehorted him from suffering: Turning said to Peter: Go after me Satan: Thou art a scandal unto me, because thou savourest not the things that are of God. And c. 26. v. 53. When S. Peter would have defended him: jesus sayeth to him: Return thy sword into his place,— Thinkest thou, that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of Angels.  
John 4. vers. 34. Christ sayeth: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, to perfect his work. And c. 18. v. 11. The chalice which my Father hath given me, shall not I drink it.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
D. Stapleton in Math. 26. ver. 39 Caluin affirmeth, that Christ, as much as lay in him, refused, and drew back from doing the office a Redeemer: then the which no more grievous accusation could be laid upon Christ by any Pagan or jew.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Perkins in Serie Causarum c. 15. Christ was subject to this 
Christ forget his office.  weakness, not to remember the office imposed upon him by reason of the agony shaking his sense. And c. 18. A little before Christ's death, sorrow did so trouble his spirit, as for a time it stroke inwardly a marvelous amazement and forgetfulness of the office imposed upon him.  
Caluin in joan. 12. v. 27. By flying death, he confesseth his 
Had a destre contrary to his vocation.  delicateness. Again. He recalleth the desire which he acknowledgeth to be contrary to his vocation. In Math. 26. v. 36. Yet is not the question quite answered. For sith we lately said that all Christ's affections were rightly composed, how doth he now correct himself? For he doth so submit his affection to Gods will, as if he had exceeded measure. Surely in the first request there appeareth 
As much as was in him he refused to do the office of a Mediator.  not that mild moderation whereof I spoke, because, as much as lay in him, he refused & forbore to do the office of a Mediator. I answer, there was no fault in that whiles the terror of death was before his eyes there fell upon him such a darkness, as leaving all others, he laid hold upon such a desire. Nether is it needful to dispute here subtly whether he could forget our salvation. Again In that moment he did not think, that he was sent upon condition to be the redeemer of man kind.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that Christ so desired to accomplish our redemption, as he was strained until he had perfected it, that his meat was to do the will of his Father, that he sharply rebuked S. Peter when he dehorted him from suffering, and forbad him to defend him from it. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that Christ was so weak as to forget the office of our redemption, that for a time he forgot it: that he fled death, had a desire contrary to his vocation, refused and forbore to do the office of a Mediator, for a time did not think that he was sent upon condition to be the redeemer of mankind.    

ART. XIII. WHETHER CHRIST WAS assured of his salvation?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
John n. v. 41. And jesus lifting his eyes upward, said, Father 
Christ knew knew that God did always hear him. That the abode in his fafathers love.  I give the thanks that thou hast heard me, and I did know that thou dost always hear me. Chap. 15. v. 10. If you keep my precepts, you shall abide in my love, as I also have kept my Father's precepts and do abide in his love. C. 16. ver. 28. I leave the world and go to the Father. cap. 17. vers. 10. And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee.  
Luke 22. vers. 69. But from hence forth the Son of man shallbe sitting on the right hand of the power of God. c. 23. v. 43. And jesus said unto him: Amen I say to thee: this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.  
Acts 2. v. 25. For David sayeth concerning him: I foresaw the Lord in my sigh always, because he is at my right hand that I be not moved.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Promptuar. Quadrages. far. 4. hebdom, sanct. Christ, touching the state of his soul, feareth not the least forsaking of God.— How can any believe, that Christ could have the least suspicion of God's malediction or forsaking.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther in psalm. 22. to. 3. fol. 330. It followeth, that Christ himself suffered the dread and horror of a conscience troubled, and tasting the everlasting wrath. fol. 331. Christ was no less 
Christ freighted as the damned are.  freighted in soul, than we, or the damned are, whiles they dread and fly God. fol. 333. He was most troubled with wand'ring fears and most unquiet affections. And addeth fol. 330. cit. that, 
In exceeding despair.  Christ was at once both exceedingly glorying, and despairing.  
Melancthon in c. 26. Matthaei apud Hofmeister in Art. 3. 
Floated betwixt hell and life.  Augustan. The third, & that the greatest cause of Christ's dread, was a feeling of Gods forsaking and wrath, whereby Christ floated betwixt hell and life.  
Caluin in Catechismo c. de fide. Because he presented himself 
Christ's conscience anxious  before the tribunal seat of God, for to satisfy for sinners, it was needful that his conscience should be tortured with this anxiety, as if he had been forsaken of God, yea as if he had God his mortal enemy. In Math. 26. ver. 37. The depth of horrible destruction did grievously vex him to fear & anxiety. In v. 39 It was needful 
Feared profound death.  for him to fear the profound depth of death.— Christ was stroaken with the dread of God's malediction. In Hebrae. 5. v. 7. I doubt not but the Apostle meaneth, that Christ was delivered 
Feared to be swallowed of death. Almost persuaded that he was cast away.  from that which he feared, to wit, lest overcome with evils he should yield, or be swallowed with death. And the same repeateth Beza upon the same place, and addeth: He was almost persuaded, that he was cast away. And in Luc. 22. v. 44. Nether did Christ wrasle only with the fears of death as other men d●e, but with the dreadful judgement of his angry Father, than the which nothing can be thought more dreadful. And in this dejection of Christ consisteth the sum of our comfort.  
Pareus l. 3. de justificat. c. 12. When Bellarmin had said: He cannot fear, who by faith is assured of his salvation: Answereth: The proposition, unless it be limited, is universally false. Who more sure of his salvation and predestination, that our Saviour, and yet did he not cry upon the Cross and not without fear: My God etc. See more of their like sayings in my Latin book c. 2. art. 13.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Christ knew that his Father did always hear him, that he did abide in his love, that he went to his father, that he should sit on the right hand of the power of God, that he should be in paradise, that God was at his right hand, that he be not moved. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that Christ suffered the dread of a conscience tasting everlasting wrath, was freighted in his soul like to the damned, was exceedingly despairing, did float between hell and life, was tormented with anxiety as if God were his mortal enemy, was grievously vexed with the dread of horrible destruction, did fear the profound depth of death and God's malediction, feared lest he should be overcomen with evils and swallowed with death, was almost persuaded that the was cast away, was afraid of his saluantion. And yet these men (as we shall see c. 17. art. 10.) avouch, that every one of them is assured of his salvation, and account him no Christian or faithful man, who is not so assured: yea they make assurance of salvation an essential point of faith. So that they make themselues fare more assured of their Salvation than they make Christ: and condemn us for doubting of our Salvation, who make Christ to doubt, fear, and despair of his.    

ART. XIV. WHETHER CHRIST HAD a commandment of his Father to give his life, or to die for us?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
John 10. vers. 18. I yield my life, that I may take it again, No man taketh it away from me, but I yield it of myself, and 
Christ commanded to give his life.  I have power to yield it, and I have power to take it again. This commandment I received of my Father. cap. 18. vers. 11. The chalice which my Father hath given me, shall not I drink it.  
Roman. 5. v. 19 For as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shallbe made just.  
Philippen. 2. v. 8. He humbled himself, made obedient unto death even the death of the cross.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
S. Thomas 3. part quaest. 47. art. 2. Christ received a commandment of his Father to suffer.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Polanus in Disput. private. periodo 1. disput. 36. They say: 
Not commanded to die.  A law was made, that Christ should die. But this is against Scripture. For so his merit should not have been voluntary. The same also do other Protestants mean, who either say, that in every proper merit the oblation must needs be not commanded, as Hutterus in Analysi Confess. Augustan. artic. 4. or that it must not be due or of obligation, as Whitaker sayeth lib. 9 cont. Dureum sect. 34. Perkins in Cathol. reform. Contr. 5. c. 2. Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 638. and others.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Christ received this commandment of his Father to yield his life, that his Father gave him the chalice of his passion, that he was obedient to death, and that by his obedience many are made just. But (as Polanus himself confesseth part. 2. thes. p. 219.) obedience cannot be so much as imagined, but in regard of the law to which it is afforded. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that there was no law made of Christ's death, that if it had been commanded, his death had not been meritorious.    

ART. XV. WHETHER CHRIST MERITED any thing for himself, or had any thing for merit?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH. 
Christ exalted for his humiliation.   
Philippen. 2. v. 8. & 9 He humbled himself, made obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. For the which thing God also hath exalted him, & hath given him a name which is above all names etc.  
Hebrews 2. v. 9 But him that was a little lessened under the Angels, we see jesus because of the passion of death crowned with glory and honour.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
S. Thomas 3. part. q. 19 art. 3. Christ had by merit the glory of his body, and those things which pertain to his outward excellency, as ascension, whorshippe, and such others.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Caluin in Philippen. 2. ver. 9 Nether Christ got nor sought 
Christ got nothing for himself.  any thing for himself. In 2. Institut. c. 17. §. 6. To inquire whether Christ merited any thing to himself (as the Scholastiks do) is no less foolish curiosity, then temerarious resolution when they affirm it. With what merits could man obtain to be judge of the world, head of Angels?  
Daneus Controu. 2. p. 27. The Sententiarians do say, that Christ merited also to himself: but we deny it. 
He merited nothing for for himself.   
Pareus l. 5. the justif. c. 3. It is false, that Christ merited to himself exaltation.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Christ was exalted and had a name given him above all names because he humbled himself, that he was crowned with glory because of his passion. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that Christ did not merit his exaltation, did not merit any thing to himself, could not merit to be judge of the world and head of Angels.    

ART. XVI. WHETHER CHRIST REDEEmed us with a sufficient price, or truly merited our redemption?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Cor. 6. v. 20. You are bought with a great price. 
Christ bought us with a great price.   
1. Timoth. 2. v. 6. For there is one God: one also mediator of God and men, man Christ jesus who gave himself a redemption (in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) for all.  
1. Peter 2. ver. 18. Knowing, that not with corruptible things gold or silver, you are redeemed from your vain conversation 
With his precious blood.  of your father's tradition, but with the precious blood, as it were of an immaculate and unspotted lamb, Christ.  
1. John 3. v. 16. In this we have known the charity of God, because he hath yielded his life for us. c. 4. v. 10. He hath loved us and sent his son a propitiation for our sins.  
Matthew 20. ver. 28. The Son of man is come to give his life a redemption (in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) for many.  
Rom. 3. v. 24. justified gratis by his grace by the redemption (in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that is in Christ jesus.  
Psalm. 129. v. 7. Because with our Lord is mercy, and with him plenteous redemption.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
S. Thomas 3. part. artic. 2. Christ suffering of charity and obedience did give God some thing more than the recompense of the offence of all mankind did exact.— The passion of Christ was not only a sufficient, obut also a superaboundant satisfaction for the sins of mankind.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Tindal in Fox his Acts printed An. 1610. pag. 1136. Christ 
Christ merited not heaven.  with all his works did not merit heaven.  
Daneus Controu. 2. lib. 5. p. 210. Three necessary conditions of merit do fail in the works of a creature and of Christ man towards God.— For by the union hypostatical, Christ doth not 
He did not merit.  merit. Page. 200. Christ as man properly merited nothing with God. P. 202. Yea not in this form of a servant could Christ merit any thing to himself, because in this form he was a credture. But a creature can merit nothing of his Creator.  
Caluin 2. Instit. c. 17 §. 1. Truly I confess, that if any would simply and by himself oppose Christ unto the judgement of God, there were no place for merit; because there will not be found in man any worth which may merit before God. §. vlt. With what merits could man obtain to be judge of the world, and head of Angels? 3. Instit. c. 11. §. 12. It is fond objected of him: that the power of justifying fare supasseth both men and Angels, seeing this dependeth not upon the worth of any creature, but of God's ordination. If the Angels would satisfy God, they would avail nothing, because they were not destinated to this end; but this was proper to Christ man, who was subject to the law for to redceme us from the curse of the law. And Respons. ad quaest. Sozin: Christ could merit nothing but through the pleasure of God. Et in joan. 4. v. 10. When Christ is sated to have appeased the Father towards us, this is referred to our sense. For as we are guilty to ourselves, we cannot conceive God but as angry and offended till Christ absolve us from the guilt.— Wherefore touching the feeling of our faith God beginneth to love us in Christ.  
Spindlerus apud Scusselburg. l. 4. Theol. Caluin. c. 5. The 
His death no sufficient redemption for all sins.  Lutherans err in saying that Christ's death was a sufficient redemption (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) for the sins of all and every man.  
Piscator apud Vorstium in Parasceve c. 6. Christ died not sufficiently, much less effectually for all.  
Welsingius apud Homium in Specim. Controver. Belgic. 
His blood satisfied not God's justice.  art. 21. That Christ's blood satisfied Gods justice for our sins, is no where extant, and it is plainly contrary to the free and just remission of sins, which God hath offered to us by Christ. And the same say other Protestants, as Caluin reporteth 2. Instit. c. 17. §. 1. and Beza in Absters. calumn. Heshusij p. 324.  
Slatius apud Homium loc. cit. There is question, whether 
Christ properly satisfied not.  Christ properly satisfied for us. We deny it. And the same hath Vorstius ib. Who also addeth: That Christ satisfied by a certain acceptation, not by exact identity.  
Pareus l. 5 the justific. c. 3. To merit, is the part of servants, 
To merit, is serutle and sordid.  serutle, and sordid.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Christ bought us with a great price, that he gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, a ransom or price of redemption for us, that he redeemed us with his precious blood: that God gave his life for us, sent his son a propitiation for our sins: that with God there is plenteous redemption. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say the contrary: that Christ could not merit heaven, had no place for merit if we respect the judgement of God, did not merit, three conditions necessatie to merit wanted in his works, that power of meriting in him depended of God's pleasure and ordination: That properly he did not satisfy for us, that his blood did not satisfy God's justice, that his death was not a sufficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or ransom for all, that to merit is servile and sordid.    

ART. XVII. WHETHER CHRIST REDEEmed us by his blood or corporal death?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Coloss. 1. ver. 22. And you, whereas some time alienated and 
Christ redeemed us by his death. By his blood, By he oblation of his body.  enemies in sense, in evil works, yet now he hath reconciled in the body of his flesh by death. vers. 20. Pacifying by the blood of his cross whether the things in earth or the things that are in heaven.  
Hebrews. 10. v. 10. In the which will we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of jesus Christ once. c. 9 vers. 12. By his own blood entered once into the Holies eternal redemption being found.  
Ephes. 1. v. 6. In whom we have redemption by his blood the remission of sins.  
1. Peter v. 19 You are redeemed with the precious blood as it were of an immaculate and unsported lamb, Christ.  
Acts 20. v. 28. The holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.  
Apocalips'. 5. v. 9 Thou hast redeemed us to God in thy blood.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
S. Thomas 3. part. q. 48. art. 5. The price of our redemption is the blood of Christ, or his corporal life which consisteth in blood.  
Stapleton in Prompt. Quadrages. far. 4. Hebdom. Sanct. Caluin putteth not only an other price beside the corporal death of Christ, but also an other greater and more excellent: Can Christian ears suffer this?   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker lib. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 18. Caluin wrote most truly: 
Christ's death had done nothing.  That nothing had been done, if Christ had suffered only corporal death.  
Perkins de Serm. Dom. to. 2. col. 576. Reason itself teacheth, 
Was not sufficient.  that only corporal death (of Christ) was not sufficient to redeem them who had deserved death of body and soul.  
Willet Cont. 20. q. 3. p. 1088. The bodily death of Christ was 
Was not the full price.  not in respect of God's justice the whole and full price of our redemption.  
Caluin 2. Instit. c. 16. §. 10. Nothing had been done, if Christ 
There needed a greater price.  had suffered only bodily death— There was an other greater & more excellent price, that he suffered in his soul the horrible torments of a damned and lost man.  
Bezalib. quaest. vol. 1. Theol. Christ was in the midst of the torments of hell, for to deliver us fully from both deaths etc.  
Scarpe de justif. Cont. 16. Writeth that diverse Protestant's say, that those places of Scripture, in which is said, that Christ died for us, are to be understood only of his feeling of the wrath of God, and not of his bodily death: and that his bodily death availed nothing to our redemption nor was a part of the satisfaction for sins.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that Christ hath reconciled us in the body of his flesh by death, hath pacified all things by the blood of his cross, hath sanctifieth us by the oblation of his body, hath found an eternal redemption by his blood, hath redeemed us by his blood, with his blood, in his blood, hath purchased the Church with his blood. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that nothing had been done if Christ had suffered only corporal or bodily death, that his corporal death was not sufficient to redeem us, that there was need of a greater and excellenter price, that his corporal death availed nothing to our redemption nor was any part of the satisfaction for sins. Which are so manifestly opposite to Scripture as some Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. XVIII. WHETHER CHRIST DIED for the impious and reprobats?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH. 
Christ died for the impious. For him that perisheth. For the unjust.   
Rom. 5. ver. 6. For why did Christ, when we as yet were weak, according to the time die for the impious?  
1. Cor. 18. ver. 11. And through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish, for whom Christ hath died.  
1. Peter. 3. v. 18. Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for unjust.  
2. Peter 2. v. 1. & seq. But there were also false Prophets in the people, as also in you there shallbe lying masters, which shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny him that hath bought them, the 
For those that go to perdition.  Lord, bringing upon themselves speedy perdition— unto whom the judgement, now long since ceaseth not, and their perdition sl●mbereth not.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarmin l. 4. the Amiss. Gratiae c. 7. Our Lord suffered and died for the unjust.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Controu. 2. q. 1. c. 9 p. 437. Christ did not give 
Christ died not for the impious. The wicked not redremed by Christ.  himself for the impious and reprobates. Which he repeateth cap. 13.  
Rainolds thesi 4. q. 22. The wicked, albeit they be termed faithful for their profession of faith, or for temporal faith, yet are they not redeemed or founded in Christ. In Apologia thesium p. 246. Christ offered himself for the elect only. 247. 
Redeemed only the elect.  The elect only were redeemed of Christ.  
Perkins de Praedestinat. tom. 1. col. 135. Whom at any time he acknowledged not, he never bought or redeemed with the price of his blood. col. 137. Of these, Christ is only a half-redeemer, and therefore no redeemer. And de Desertion. col. 1023. Christ is the redeemer only of the elect, and of none else. So also D. Willet Contr. 9 q. 2. p. 893.  
Caluin l. cont. Heshus. p. 849. I would know how the impious 
Not crucified for the impious.  eat Christ's flesh for which it was not crucified: and how they drink his blood, which was not shed to redeem their sins.  
Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 447. Christ died not for the sins of them that are damned— He shed not his blood for the remission of the sins of the impious and damned. Epist 28. It is false that Christ is the mediator of the infidels also.  
Zanchius in Summa Praelection. to. 7. col. 272. Christ, according to the purpose of his Father, was borne prayed, suffered and died only for the elect. In Depulsion. Calum. col. 253. The 
Reprobats not redeemed.  reprobats were not redeemed by Christ.  
Piscator apud Gerlachium Disput. 9 Christ no way died for the reprobats, other sufficiently or effectually.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that Christ died for the impious, for the unjust, for those that perish: that he bought lying monsters who bring in sects of perdition, and bring upon themselves speedy perdition, and whose perdition slumbereth not. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly teach the contrary, that Christ gave not himself for the impious or reprobats, that the wicked were not redeemed in Christ, that Christ's flesh was not crucified for the impious nor his blood shed for their sins: that Christ offered himself only for the elect, that they only were redeemed by Christ: that Christ is redeemer of the elect and of none else, no mediator of Infidels, was borne, suffered and died for the elect only, that neither sufficiently nor effectually he died for the reprobats. Which are so contrary to Scripture as many Protestants acknowledge it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. XIX. WHETHER CHRIST DIED for all?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
2. Corint. 5. v. 14. For the charity of Christ urgeth us, judging 
Christ died for all.  this: That if one died for all, than all were dead, and Christ died for all.  
1. Timoth. 2. v 6. Christ jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all. Chap. 4. v. 10. Who is the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful.  
Hebrews 2. v. 9 We see jesus because of the passion of death crowned wi●h glory and honour, that through the grace of God he might taste death for all.  
1. joan. 2. v. 2. We have an advocate with the Father, jesus Christ the just, and he is the propitiation of our sins, and not of ours only, but also for the whole worlds. Ca ver. 14. The Father hath sent his Son the Saviour of the world.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent. Sess. 6. c. 9 Howbeit Christ died for all, yet notwithstanding all receive not the benefit of his death.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins de Praedest. to. 1. col. 144. It is marvellous absurd, 
Redeemed not all.  that Christ on his part should have redeemed and reconciled to God all and every one, and yet that in the end many of these should be damned. De Serm. Dom. to. 2. col. 341. The opinion of universal redemption, is an invention of man's brain.  
Caluin in 1. joan. 2. v. 2. cit. Under all, he doth not comprehend the reprobats. In 1. Tim. 2. v. 5. The universal particle must be referred to all kind of men, not to all persons.  
Sadeel ad Art. abiur. 7. They speak amiss, who say that by 
Redeemed not the sins of the whole world.  Christ's death the sins of the whole world were redeemed.  
Piscator l. 2. Thes. p. 371. Christ died not universally for all men, but for the elect only— We deny, that Christ died sufficiently for all, but not effectually. P. 177. Christ died nor for all, but for some.  
Bucanus Instit. Theol. loco 36. Is not Christ the redeemer of all? No. More of their like sayings may be seen in my Latin book c. 1. art. 19   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that Christ died for all that are dead, that he gave himself a redemption for all that he tasted death for all; that he is the Saviour of all men, the Saviour of the world, the propitiation not only of our sins but of all the whole world. Catholics teach the same.  
Protestants expressly teach the contrary, that Christ on his part redeemed not all and every one, that universal redemption is an invention of man's brain: that Christ died not universally for all, redeemed not the sins of the whole world, neither sufficiently nor effectually died for all, died but for some, is not redeemer of all. Which diverse Protestants confess to be contrary to Scripture. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. XX. WHETHER THE BLOOD wherewith Christ redeemed us was putrefied and corrupted?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Acts 2. v. 27. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor 
God's holy did not see corruption.  give thy Holy to see corruption.  
1. Peter. 1. v. 19 Knowing, that not with corruptible things, gold or silver, you are redeemed from your vain conversation of your father's traditions, but with the precious blood, as it were of an immaculate and unspotted lamb, Christ.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
S. Thomas 3. par q. 34. art. ● All the blood that flowed out of the body of Christ, did rise in Christ's body, sith it belonged to the truth of his humane nature.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Perkins in Apoc. 1. to. 2. col. 41. The substance of that blood 
The substance of Christ blood perished.  (of Christ) which was shed, did perish, whatsoever the Papists do prate. In Cathol. reform. Contr. 10. c. 3. That blood which ran out the feet and hands and si●e of Christ upon the cross, was not gathered up again and put into the unities: N●● the collection was needls, and none knows what is become of this blood. The same insinuateth Whitaker Contr. 2 q. 1 c. 9 p. 437.  
Beza in 2. part. Resp. ad Acta Colloq Montisbel. p. 108. It were curious and profane to inquire what became of that self same blood which ran out of the wounds of Christ, and whether it were taken again of him when he arose.  
Musculus in locis Tit. de Caena: We need not dispute of the blood of Christ, what became of it after it was spilt on the ground, whether it were taken again into his glorified body, or no.  
Schusselbur lib. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 20. reporteth Curaeus saying: Christ's blood shed for us on the cross was long 
Long since consumed. Putrified.  since consumed. And Erastus his companians teaching: That Christ's blood which he shed for our sinnes, is putrified and no more in being. Germanus Bavarus in Feua●dent l. 4. Theomach. Caluin. c. 16. The substantial blood of Christ is not given in the Supper, because it was corrupted on the ground. 
Corrupted.    

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that we were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the precious blood of Christ, that God suffered not his Holy to see corruption. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that it is profane to inquire what is become of Christ's blood, that long since it is consumed, corrupted, not gathered again, perished, and is no more in being.    

ART. XXI. WHETHER CHRIST'S SOUL descended to Hell?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Acts. 2. v. 27. Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell. Et v. 
Was in Hell.  31. Foreseeing he spoke of the resurrection of Christ, for neither was he left in Hell, neither did his flesh see corruption.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Actor. 2. v. 27. This place doth plainly prove the descent of Christ into Hell in soul, according to the article of Christian belief.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker. l. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 23. Caluin defendeth, that 
Never went to Hell. Descended not to Hell.  Christ's soul never went to the places of Hell. And l. 9 sect 27. I believe that Christ's soul separated from the body not only did not descend to Hell, but straight mounted to Heaven.  
Roger's upon the 3. Article of Protestants Confession: sayeth, that Carlisle against D. Smithe pa. 28. 77. calleth this article (of Christ descent into hell) an error and a fable. 
A fable.   
Perkins in Explicat. Symboli to 1. col. 678. If we say that Christ in soul descended into Hell, we plainly take away that manifest opposition between the first and the second Adam.  
Beza in Actor. 2. v. 27. Who by Hell understand the place which is commonly called Hell, as if the soul of Christ had indeed descended thither, surely are much deceived.  
Serranus count. Hayum part. 3. pag. 722. Beza desirous to 
Descent to Hell, a fable.  stop the way to that Popish fable of the descent of Christ's soul into hell etc.  
Hemingius in Enchir. Theolog. class. 3. pag. 263. It skilleth not greatly, to know how Christ descended into Hell, so that with true faith we hold that he delivered us from the power of Hell.  
Aretius' in locis part. 1. fol. 72. Other (Protestants) deny 
To be taken out of the Creed.  all descent of Christ into Hell. Some of them eagerly impugn this descent; for they say, that this sentence is to be taken out of the Creed.  
Ministers of Anhalt apud Hospin. in Concordia discordi. fol. 87. The Divines of Berge have done well, that through ours and other men's admonitions they have put out the article of the descent into Hell.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly affirmeth, that Christ's soul was in Hell: and our Creed sayeth that he descended into Hell: The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly deny, that Christ's soul descended to Hell, went to the places of Hell: and say that the descent of Christ into Hell, is a Popish fable: that it skilleth not greatly to know how he descended into Hell: that some of them eagerly impugn this article of the Creed, and would have it put out of the Creed, and that some have put it out. Which is so plain a contradiction of Scripture as diverse Protestants confess it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. XXII. WHETHER CHRIST SVFfered the pains of Hell, of the damned, and the second death of the soul?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Acts 2. v. 24. Whom God hath raised up, losing the sorrows of 
Christ loosed the pains of Hell. Free among the dead.  Hell, according as it was impossible that he should be houlden of it.  
Psal. 87. v. 6. I am become as a man without help, free among the dead.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
D. Stapleton in Promptuar. Quadrages. feria 4. Hebdom. Sanctae: It is a very devilish speech and execrable blasphemy of Caluin, that Christ in soul suffered the horrible torments of damned and lost man.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 20. Christ suffered the pains of Hell for a time.  
Perkins in Explicat. Symboli col. 679. Others so expound: 
Suffered the pains of Hell.  He felt and bore the torments and anguishs of Hell. This is a good and true exposition. Col. 680. Those words: Crucified, dead, and buried, are not to be understood of a common and ordinary, death, but of an execrable and cursed death, by which Christ sustained the full wrath of God, yea the anguishs of Hell both in body and mind. De Serm. Dom. col. 575. Christ bore the sins 
The anguishs of Hell in mind and body. Suffered the second death.  of the elect, together with the punishment due to them, so much as appertaineth to the substance thereof, to wit, the first and second death.  
Parks count. Willet. p. 114. Luther, Illyricus, Latimer taught that Christ descended into Hell body and soul, and there sustained torments after death.  
Willet Contr. 20. q. 3. p. 1083. I will show in what tolerable sense 
Died in soul.  Christ is affirmed to die in the soul. Et pa. 1112. That Hell flames are not eternal in Christ, the worthiness of his person obtained.  
Luther in Psal. 22. to. 3. fol. 330. Christ suffered that which we should have suffered for sin, and which the damned now suffer. In Gen. 42. to. 6. f 586. I think that Christ sustained the sorrows of Hell.— Let us know, that Christ must have borne the pain of Hell.  
Hutterus in Analysi Confess. Augustan. art. 3. Christ suffered the true sorrows of hell.  
Lobechius disp. 6. p. 136. Christ suffered the punishment of 
Suffered the pains of the damned.  the desperate and damned, and everlasting pains.  
Caluin 1. Instit. c. 16. §. 10. He suffered that death which God in anger inflicteth upon the wicked.— He suffered in soul the horrible torments of a desperate and lost man.  
In Catechismo c. de fide he asketh: How can it come to pass, that Christ who is the salvation of the world, should be subject to this damnation? and Answereth: He was not so under 
Was subject to damnation  it, as he remained under it. In Rom. 10. v. 6. He suffered the horrors of hell, for to deliver us from them.  
Beza lib. Quaest. vol. 1. p. 672. He was in the midst of the torments of hell.  
Daneus Cont. 2. p. 165. Bellarmin sayeth, that the only death which Christ suffered in body, satisfied God for our sins. This is false. For the reward of sin is death, and that is two fold. The 
Suffered the separation of God from his soul.  first is the separation of the soul from the body; the second is the separation of God from the soul. Both which Christ suffered, & therefore both death of soul and body, and that wholly for us, and not only the death of the body.  
Vrsinus in Catechismo pag. 278. To believe in Christ who descended into hell, is to believe that Christ suffered in his soul the hellish torments and sorrows.  
Polanus in Sylloge thes. par. 3. p. 450. Christ died the eternal death. And Pareus Colloq. Theol. 2. disput. 5. citeth Brentius saying. Christ burnt in the flames of hell. More like hellish 
Was burnt in the flames of hell.  speeches of theirs are in my Latin book ca 1. art. 22. See Rogers upon the 3. Article of English Confession.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture sayeth, that Christ was free among the dead, that he loused the sorrows of hell and could not be held of it. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants say, that Christ suffered the pains, the sorrows, the anguishs of hell, the true sorrows of hell, hellish torments, that which the damned now suffer, the torments of a desperate and lost man, that he burned in the flames of hell, was in the midst of the torments of hell, sustained the anguishes of hell both in body and mind: suffered the torments of hell both in body and soul: that he suffered the execrable death, the first and second death, that death which God in his wrath inflicteth upon the wicked, the second death of the soul which is separation from God, that he died the eternal death: that he was under damnation.    

ART. XXIII. WHETHER CHRIST ENTERED unto his disciples the doors being shut?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Ihon. 20. v. 19 When it was late that day the first of the Sabbaths, 
Christ entered the doors being shut.  and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together for fear of the jews, jesus came and stood in the midst. Et v. 26. After eight days, again the disciples were within and Thomas with them, jesus cometh the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said etc.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in joan. 20. v. 19 The Evangelist sayeth that Christ entered the doors being shut, which words exclude all opening of any entrance.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Willet Controu. 20. q. 2. p. 1079. We grant that Christ's coming in the doors being shut, was miraculous, because one substance gave place to an other for a time: and after the passing of his body, the place remained whole and shut as before, but not in the very instant of passing.  
Spalatensis lib. 5. Repub. cap. 6. num. 180. Christ could 
He opened the doors.  truly open himself the doors, and straight ways shut them, and in the mean time hold the eyes of his disciples, that they should not see either the doors open or himself enter until he was in the midst.  
Peter Martyr in dialogo. col. 97. When our Lord would 
The doors gave place.  enter, the doors of themselves gave place.  
Caluin Admonit. vlt. ad Westphal. p. 805. But if Christ by his divine power did miraculously open the shut doors, doth it therefore follow that his body was infinite?  
Beza count. Westphal. vol. 1. Theol. p. 231. Caluin thinketh 
He opened the doors.  rather that the Evangelist spoke of the doors shut, to give to understand that of themselves they opened to Christ's entrance. In joan. 20. v. 19 Ether the doors of themselves opened to Christ, or he passed through the walls.  
Piscator in Respons. ad Buscherum. c. 13. As if it were not more probable, that Christ by his divine power did open the shut doors? More of their like sayings may be seen in my Latin book chapped. 2. art. 23.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Christ entered to his disciples the doors being shut and when the doors were shut. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the doors were not shut in the instant of Christ's entrance, that Christ truly opened the doors, that the doors of themselves opened and gave place. Which doctrine diverse Protestants confess to be contrary to Scripture. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. XXIV. WHETHER CHRIST PENEtrated the Heavens?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Hebrews 4. v. 14. Having therefore a great high Priest that 
Christ penetrated the Heavenes.  hath penetrated the Heavens, jesus the Son of God.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 3. de Euchar. c. 6. It cannot be temerariously said of the body of Christ, that the Heavens were broken when he ascended to his Father.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Vorstius in Antibellarm. p 402. The question is begged in 
Did not penetrate heaven.  all the examples which are bought to prove penetration of quantities, whereas in truth no such thing is any where red in Scripture.  
Spalatensis lib. 5. the Republic. cap. 6. num. 182. I admit no penetration.  
Gualterus in joan. 20. calleth it a monstruous new doctrine, to say, that two bodies can be at once in the same place.  
Tilenus' in Syntagm. cap. 8. sayeth that Christ ascended without penetration of quantities. And the Ministers in the Conference at Paris 1588. affirmed, that he could not ascend, but renting and breaking the Heavens.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that Christ penetrated the Heavens. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that in Scripture there is no example of penetration, that they admit no penetration that it is a monstruous new doctrine, that Christ ascended without penetration, and could not ascend but by renting the heavens.    

ART. XXV. WHETHER CHRIST'S DO IN heaven pray for us?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
John 14. ver. 16. And I will ask the Father, and he will give 
Christ our advocate with the Father. Maketh incession for us.  you an other Paraclete.  
1. John 2. v. 1. But and if any man shall sin, we have an advocate with the Father, jesus Christ the just.  
Rom. 8. vers. 34. Christ jesus that died, yea that is risen also again, who is on the right hand of God, who also maketh intertercession for us.  
Hebrews 7. v. 25. Whereby he is able to save also for ever, going by himself to God, always living to make intercession for us.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Sanctis c. 20. Christ prayeth for all. Et. l. 2. de Missa c. 8. Christ is our only immediate intercessor with his Father.  
Tolet in Ihon. 16. Annot. 35. The holy Fathers teach, that Christ in heaven, as man, prayeth his Father for us; albeit some deny it, but improbably.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Peter Martyr in 1. Corint. 13. But they must know, that Christ's intercession with the Father for us, is nothing else, but that 
Christ's intercession nothing but &c  he is always present with the Father; and that by his prosence, because he was delivered to death for us, God's mercy towards the elect is most speedily obtained.  
Caluin in joan. 16. v. 26. But when it is said, that Christ prayeth for us to his Father, we must not imagine any carnal thing of him, as if falling at his Father's fect he humbly made 
Maketh not bumble prayer.  prayer: but the virtue of his Sacrifice wherewith he once pacified God to us, being ever of force, this effectual blood with which he cleansed our sins, and the obedience which he performed, are a continual intercession for us. And in Rom. 8. v. 34. he sayeth, that because his death and resurrection are in steed of an eternal intercession, and have the efficacy of a lively prayer, he is said to intercede for us. The like hath Perkins de Serie Causarum to. 1. col. 21.  
Bezain Confess. c. 4. sect. 16. Nether therefore may we imagine, 
Prayeth not as a Suppliant.  that Christ as a Suppliant prayeth for us, but he reconcileth us to the Father by the perpetual odour of his only sacrifice, and maketh our prayers effectual before God.  
Bucanus in Instit. Theol. loco. 35. Christ, not by a gesture or prayer, as casting himself at his Father's feet, doth humbly pray for us, but both by the merit and virtue of his death, and also by offering our prayers to the Father. The like say others as may be seen in my Latin book c. 2. art. 25.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Christ in heaven is our advocate, asketh for us, maketh intercession for us. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that Christ's intercession is nothing else but his presence with his Father, that he doth not humbly make prayer for us, that his death and resurrection are in steed of prayer: that he prayeth not for us as a Suppliant, that he doth not humbly pray for us.    

A SUM OF THIS CHAPTER OF CHRIST.  
In the former Chapter we shown that Protestants cry that we make a new God, and that this fault rather falleth upon them: now we will show that they object the like unto us concerning Christ, and that themselves are faulty therein. M. Perkins in Cathol. reform. Controu. 9 cap. 11. thus writeth of catholics: They worship an other Christ than we do. And in Conflictu Christi cum Diabolo tom. 2. col. 130. The Papists Christ, is a feigned Christ. In Apocal. 2. col. 189. The Papists Christ is a false Christ, yea 
Protestants new Christ.  an idol of Christ. But out of that which hath been related in this chapter, it will appear, that the Catholics Christ is the true Christ described unto us by the Scripture, and that the Protestants Christ, is a quite different and opposite Christ. For the Christ which Scripture and catholics propose, is (as he is man) to be worshipped, to be called upon, head of the Church, lawmaker, judge, can forgive sins, work miracles. None of which things agree to the Protestants Christ.  
According to Protestants, Christ as man was ignorant, most truly a sinner, was afraid of his salvation: but not according to Catholics: According to Scripture and catholics Christ merited some thing for himself, truly merited our redemption, and that by his bodily death or blood, neither was his blood corrupted: but according to Protestants, he merited nothing for himself, merited not our redemption with a just price, but by acceptation of his Father, nor by his corporal death, but by some greater matter, and his blood was corrupted, nor is now any more in being. According to the Scripture and catholics, Christ died for the wicked, for the damned, for all, descended into hell, was free from infernal pains, entered to his disciples the doors being shut, penetrated heaven, and there prayeth for us. None of which things agree to the Protestants Christ, and consequently he is a fare different yea opposite unto the true Christ described to us by the holy Scripture.  
Manifest also it is, that Protestants like true thiefs 
Protestants take from Christ.  steal from Christ his due honour, because the deny that as he is man, he is to be worshipped, to be prayed unto, that he is head of the Church, lawmaker, or 
Honor.  judge. They rob him of his power, in denying that as 
Power.  he is man, he can give life, forgive sins, raise the dead, enter the doors being shut, penetrate the heavens, or work any true miracle. They bereave him of his knowledge, 
Knowledge.  for they deny, that as he is man he knoweth all things, knoweth the secrets of hearts, can hear our ptaiers, knew the kind of tree, but had need to be taught as men are. They steal away his justice or Virtue: 
Virtue.  for they teach that he was truly and most truly a sinner, that as much as lay in him he refused to do the office of a Mediator, that he had unconsiderate desires and contrary to his vocation, that he behaved himself uncivilly towards his mother, confessed his delicateness, let slip a speech of desperation, nay was overwhelmed with desperation and exceedingly despairing. They take from him certainty of salvation, because 
Certainty of salvation.  they say, that he was afraid of his salvation, and was almost persuaded that he was undone. They take 
Worth.  away worthiness, in saying that nothing had been done by his corporal death, but that there needed a greater price, that he could not merit to be judge of the world, that with all his works he merited not heaven, that he could not merit our redemption by a worthy price but by acceptation of his Father. Finally they spoil him of his goodness and merit, because they say that he died not for the wicked, for the reprobate, 
Mercy,  for all, but only for some few elect, and that now he prayeth not for us in heaven. And if you take away from Christ as man his honour, his power, his knowledge, his justice, his worthiness, his certainty of salvation, his goodness, what remaineth of Christ as man, but the bare name of a Saviour. Whereupon rightly said Saint Austin: If we diligently consider those things which belong to Christ, he is only in name found amongst any Heretics whatsoever. But hitherto having treated of God and Christ, now let us treat of Angels and Saints who happily reign with him in heaven.    

CHAPTER III. OF ANGELS AND SAINTS IN HEAVEN.  

ART. I. WHETHER ANGELS AND Saints in heaven do the will of God?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
PSALM 102. ver. 20. Bless our Lord all ye 
Angels do God's word.  his Angels, mighty in power, doing his word. And v. 21. Bless our Lord all ye his hosts, you his ministers that do his will. 
Do his will.   
Matthew 6. ver. 10. Thy will be done, as in heaven, in earth also.  
Apocal. 21. v. 27. There shall not enter into it (Heaven) any polluted thing, nor that doth abomination and maketh lie.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Card. Bellarmin. lib. 1. de bonis operibus in particul. cap. 6. In heaven the holy Angels obey God readily perfectly and in all things.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Caluin in Coloss. 1. v. 20. In this self same obedience, which 
Angel's obeobedience satisfieth not.  (the Angels) give to God, there is not such exquisite perfection, as it satisfieth God in every point and without pardon. And 3. Instit. c. 14. §. 16. Nether the Angels themselves are answerable to that exceeding justice of God. And c. 17. §. 9 In the sight of God neither the Angels are just enough.  
The same Caluin Contion. 16. in job. There is in the Angel's 
There is fault in the Angels.  folly and vanity, that is fault.— God found in his Angels that which he may justly reprehend.— Nether are the Angels of that perfection, in which if it be rigorously examined, nothing may be found worthy of blame.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that the Angels do God's word, do his will, that Gods will is done in heaven, that into heaven entereth nothing that doth abomination or is polluted. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants Expressly teach, that the obedience of Angels satisfieth not God in every point and without pardon: that the Angels answer not to God's justice: that they are not just enough in God's sight: that in them is folly, vanity, and fault, that which God may justly reprehend, that which is worthy of blame.    

ART. II. WHETHER THE SAINTS DO already enjoy their heavenly felicity.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Apocal. 7. v. 14. These are they which are came out of great 
Saints are before the throne of God  tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the lamb: therefore they are before the throne of God, and they serve him day and night in his temple.  
Luke 23. v. 43. And jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Session, 25. sayeth. That Saints enjoy everlasting felicity in heaven, and do reign with Christ.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther Postilla in Dom. 2. post Trinit. fol. 286. All the 
The Saints sleep.  Fathers before Christ's incarnation went into Abraham's bosom, that is, in death abode with firm faith in this word and slept in it, and therein sleep even now until the last day, excepting them who rose with Christ. And to. 6. in c. 25. Gen. sayeth that Saint's sleep and know not what is done. Which otherwhere he often times repeateth.  
Caluin in 2. Petri 2. v. 4. Hence we may gather, not only what pain the reprobate sustain after death, but also what is the 
Enjoy not yet felicity.  state of the children of God. For they quietly rest in hope of assured felicity, howbeit as yet they enjoy it not. In Math. 22. v. 23. For neither God doth affirm, that the souls remain after death, as if now they enjoined their present glory and happiness, but he differreth their hop until the last day. Which he eftsoon, repeateth in Psychopannychia p. 405. and otherwere. Whereupon Spalatensis l. 5. de Rep. c. 8. n. 113. 115. and 119. confesseth that Caluin teacheth, that the blessed souls departed 
Nor their essential reward.  out of this world, dot not enjoy their essential reward, felicity, and glory, until the last day. And himself n. 103. affirmeth, that that opinion which attributeth perfect felicity unto blessed souls before the resurrection, hath difficulties which cannot be answered: and n. 120. commendeth Caluins opinion in this matter, as pious and learned. And the reason, why he inclineth unto him, he giveth n. 102. in these words: For if blessed 
If Saints wereinglorie, they could heaven us.  Souls be already fully happy, they may easily hearken to us, and request help of God. So, that for to bereave us of the prayers of Saints, they bereave them of their heavenly felicity.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly affirmeth, that the Saints are now before the throne of God, and in his temple, and that the good thief was in paradise with Christ. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly deny, that Saints enjoy their assured felicity, their present glory and happiness, and say that their hope is differred unto the last day: that all the Saints sleep unto the last day, and know not what is done: that they as yet enjoy not their essential glory and felicity.    

ART. III. WHETHER THE GLORY OF all the Saints be equal?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
1. Corina. 15. ver. 41. One indeed glory of the sun, an other 
Saints differ in glory.  glory of the moon, and other glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory: so also the resurrection of the dead.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
C. Bellarm. l. 3. the justif. c. 16. The testimonies of the Scripture do teach, that the rewards in heaven are not equal.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 15. v. 32. But if God, in giving everlasting 
No degrees of reward.  life, do not respect the worth of our works, whence shall we gather these degrees of rewards. Again: our adversaries have devised this distinction of substantial and accidental reward: They shall have the brightness of the sun, that is, equally 
Equal glory.  the greatest glory.  
Pareus l. 5. the justif. c. 20. The Papists do feign diverse degrees of eternal life. But whence have they the degrees which they make?  
Perkins in Galat. 1. tom. 2. All the elect enjoy equal essential 
Equal essential glory.  glory.  
Caluin in Matth. 20. Some (Protestant) interpreters do gather this sum: Because the heavenly inheritance is not gotten by merit of works but is given freely, that the glory of all shallbe equal.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that the dead shall rise as different in glory, as one star differeth from an other. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that there is no distinction of substantial or accidental glory, that the substantial glory of all the elect shallbe equal: that there are no degrees of everlasting life, no degrees of reward in heaven, that all shall equally enjoy the greatest glory. Which some Protestants confess to be repugnant to Scripture. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. XX. WHETHER ANGELS AND Saints in heaven pray for us?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Zacharie 1. v. 12. And the Angel of our Lord answered and 
Angels pray for us.  said: O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of juda with which thou hast been angry.  
2. Maccabees 15. v. 12. And the vision was in this manner: 
And Saints.  Onias who had been the high priest, a good and benign man stretching forth his hands prayed for all the people of the jews. v. 14. This is a lover of his brethren and of the people of Israel: this is he that prayeth much for the people and for the whole city, Hieremie the Prophet of God.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent sess. 25. cap. de Inuocat. sayeth, that their opinion is impious who say that the Saints pray not for us.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Confession of France art. 24. We believe that whatsoever 
Saints pray not for us.  men have feigned of the prayer of Saints, is nothing else but the frauds and deceit of Satan. The like hath Confess. Heluet. c. 5. and Apol. Confess. August. c. de invocat.  
Willet Controu. 9 quaest. 3. pag. 440. Saints do not pray for us.  
Whitaker ad Rat. 4. Compiani: Whether the Martyrs and Saints in heaven do pray to Christ for us, we know not.  
Zuinglius in Explanat. art. 20. There cannot be alleged out of the Bible any doctrine or example, that proveth Saints in heaven to pray for us.— If as you feign, they pray for us, they will move God nothing. For it is not done from the heart.  
Bullinger Decade 4. Serm. 5. The Scripture teacheth not, 
Angels pray not for us.  that Angels pray. De Origin. cultus Divorum. cap. 15. It becometh not the Saints, taking to themselves the office of Christ, to pray for us.  
Caluin 3. Instit. c. 20. §. 21. What Angel or Devil ever told any man any syllable of this prayer of Saints which they feign. In 1. Tim. 2. v. 5. It is a mere fiction bred in the brains, that the dead prey for us.  
Daneus Controu. 7. p. 1311. They request nothing of God, 
Nether in general nor in particular.  either in general or in particular, for the necessities of those that live on earth.  
Polanus in Disp. private. disp. 25. The Saints departed pray not God for the living, either in general or in particular.  
Vorstius in Antibellarm. pa. 281. We deny, that the holy Angels, and especially the souls of the Just departed hence, do pray in particular for our necessities.  
Pareus in Colloq. Swal. 3. They should sinne, if they 
They should sinne if they prayed for us.  prayed for us. Because they should both accuse God of unmercifulness, as if he heard not sufficiently Christ's prayers; and also should reprove Christ of weakness and fluggishnes.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that an Angel, and Onias, and Hieremie after their death did pray for the people. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that neither Angels nor Saints pray for us, that it becometh not them to pray for us, that they should sinne if they prayed for us, that they do it not from their heart: that they pray neither in general nor in particular for us: that the prayer of Saints is a fiction fraud and deceit of the devil. Which is so opposite to Scripture as some Protestants acknowledge it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. V WHETHER SAINTS IN heaven care for our matters?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
2. Maccabees 15. ver. 12. and 15. And the vision was in this 
Saints have care for us.  manner— And that Hieremie put forth his right hand and gave unto judas a sword of gold, saying: Take the holy sword a gift from God wherewith thou shalt overthrew the adversaries of my people Israel.  
1. Cor. 13. v. 8. Charity never falleth away.  
2. Peter 1. vers. 15. And I will do my diligence, you to have often after my decease also, that you may keep a memory of these things.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Card. Bellarm. l. 1. de Sanctis c. 18. The Angels pray for us and have care of us in particular, therefore much more the spirits of holy men.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Tindal in Fox Acts p. 1137. What buildest thou Churches, 
Saints be not our friends.  foundest Abbeys, Chauntries and Colleges in the honour of Saints, to my Mother, S. Peter, Paul and Saints that be dead, to make of them thy friends? They need it not, yea they be not thy friends.  
Luther Postilla in Dom. 9 post Trinit. Nether are they thy friends, but theirs, of whom in their life time they received benefit.  
Caluin 3. Instit. c. 20 §. 23. For what Saint is to be thought 
Take no care of us.  to take care of the safety of the people, Moses giving it over, who whiles he lived fare surpassed all others in this point? In Luc. 16. vers. 19 Here the Papists are fond subtle, whiles they will prove, that the dead have care of the living, which is a stinking cavil. In Zachar. ver. 12. We know, that the offices of charity 
Charity only for this life.  are restrained to the course of this life. Which also hath Zuinglius respon ad Luther. to. 2. fol. 379.  
Beza in Lucae 15. v. 10. Who can therefore rightly persuade himself or others, that the Souls of Saints in heaven have care of those things, which are done on earth, or that they know them, and much less, that they ought to be prayed unto?  
Pareus in Colloq. Swal. 3. The Scripture denieth, that the 
Care not for our necessities  Saints in heaven know and care for our necessities.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that charity never falleth away, that Hieremie had care of the people after his death. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the offices of charity are restrained to this present l●fe, that Saints in heaven are not our friends, that they have no care of us, or of our necessities.    

ART. VI WHETHER ANGELS AND Saints hear our prayers and know our affairs?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Toby 12. vers. 12. the Angel sayeth: When thou didst pray 
Angels hear our prayers.  with tears, and didst burte the dead and left thy dinner, and didst hide the dead by day in thy house, and by night didst bury them, I offered thy prayer to our Lord.  
Luke 15. vers. 10. So I say to you, there shallbe joy before the 
Know our repentance.  Angels of God upon one sinner that doth penance. And cap. 16. vers. 19 Abraham being dead sayeth: They have Moses and the Prophets.  
Apocal. 4. vers. 1. After these things I looked, and behold a door open in heaven, and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet speaking to me, saying: Come up hither, and I 
Know things to come.  will show thee the things which must be done quickly after these. And c. 19 v. 1. and 2. After these things I heard as it is were the voice of many multitudes in heaven saying Alleluia, praise, and 
And punishments of the wicked.  glory, and power is to our God: Because true and just are his judgements which hath judged of the great harlot, that hath corrupted the eorth in her whoredom, and hath revenged the blood of his servants of her hands.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Sanctis c. 20. It is not true, that Saints do not know what we ask of them.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker ad Ration. 4. Campiani. It is certain, that the 
Saints know not what we do. Hear not our prayers.  Saints do not know what we do.  
Apologia Confess. Augustan. c. de Inuocat. It cannot be said, that Saints do hear our prayer.  
Caluin 3. Instit. cap. 20. §. 24. Who told, that they have so long ears, that they can stretch them unto our prayers; so quick eyes, that they can perceive our necessities? And in 1. Cor. 13. v. 8. The Saints do not know our estate.  
Beza in 1. joan. 2. vers. 1. The blessed spirits have no knowledge of things done here below. And l. quaestion. & respon vol. 1. It is easy to refute as a foolish and gross fiction, that they say, that God revealeth our prayers to the blessed spirits.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the Angel heard the prayer and knew the good deeds of Tobias: that the Angels know and rejoice of the penance of a sinner, that Abraham knew of Moses and the Prophets, that Saints knew the wickedness of the great harlot and God's punishment upon her. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that Saints know not what we do, that they hear not our prayers, perceive not our necessities, know not our estate, that to say that God revealeth to them our prayers is a foolish and gross fiction.    

ART. XVII. WHETHER ANGELS OR Saints in heaven do offer our prayers to God?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Toby 12. vers. 12. cit. the Angel sayeth: When thou didst 
Angels off●r our prayers to God.  pray with tears, I offered thy prayer to our Lord. Apocal. 5. v. 8. And when he had opened the book, the four beasts and the sour and twenty Seniors fell before the lamb, having every one harps and golden vials full of odours which are the prayers of saints. And c. 8. v. 3. And an other Angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censar, and there were given to him many incenses, that he should give of the prayers of all Saints upon the altar of gold which is before the throne of God.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Cardin. Bellarmin. lib. 1. de Sanctis cap. 16. Caluin intimateth, that not only the Saints but neither the Angels can offer our prayers to God, which is against most plain Scripture.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Willet Controvers 9 quaestion. 3. pag. 440. That Saints 
They offer not up our prayers.  should offer up our special prayers, and make particular request for us to God, is no where found in the Scripture, but rather the contrary.  
Reineccius tom. 4. Armaturae c. 7. The words of the Angel: Tobiae loc. cit. are spoken after our fashion. For there is no need, that Angels should offer our prayers to the Lord, because God is not fare of.  
Caluin 3. Institut. cap. 20. §. 20. Christ having entered into the Sanctuary of heaven till the end of the world, alone doth offer to God requests of the people, which sitteth a fare of in the entry.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that the Angel offered Tobies prayer to God: that the four and twenty seniors did offer the prayers of holy men before the lamb: that an Angel did offer the prayers of all Saints before the throne of God. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that Angels do not offer our prayers to the Lord: that Saints do not offer our special prayers to God: that Christ only offereth to God the prayers of the people.    

ART. VIII. WHETHER ANGELS OR Saints be to be prayed unto?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Genes. 48. vers. 16. jacob thus praierh: The Angel that 
Angels prayed unto.  delivereth me from all evils, bless these children, and be my name called upon them, the names also of my father's Abraham and Isaac.  
Osee 12. v. 4. And he (jacob) prevailed against the Angel 
jacob prayed an Angel.  and was strenghned, and he wept and besought him.  
Toby 5. vers. 21. And Tobias answering, said: well may you walk, and God be in your journey, and his Angel accompany you.  
Luke 16. ve. 24. Christ either in a history or in a parable maketh the rich man thus praying: Father Abraham have mercy on me. And v. 27. Then Father I beseech the, that thou wouldst send etc. And neither he, nor Abraham condemneth this prayer as impious or idolatrous, but only rejecteth it as two late.  
Apocalyps'. 1. v. 4. 5. S. John thus prayeth: Grace to you and peace from him that is, and that was, and shall come, and from the seven spirits which are in the sight of his throne, and from jesus Christ who is the faithful witness.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent. Sess. 25. c. de Inuocat. It is good and profitable humbly to call upon the Saints that reign together with Christ.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
The English Articles art. 22. The doctrine of the Romanists 
Saints not to be prayed unto.  touching invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly devised. In like sort writeth Confess. Heluet, cap. 5. Wirtenbergica c. de Inuocat. Augustana c. 21. Saxonica c. 22. and Articuli Smalcaldici c. de Inuocat.  
Perkins in Serie causarum cap. 21. The invocation of the 
Nor Angels.  Saints and Angels is much more impious. So in reform. Cath. pag. 251.  
Rainolds in his Conference c. 1. sect. 2. calleth it, a most pestilent basilisk.  
Melancthon in Disput. to. 4. pa. 531. The invocation of the dead, is manifest idolatry.  
Beza in 1. joan. 2. ver. 1. The Souls in heaven of Saints departed this life, cannot be invocated without impiety. And lib. quaest. & resp. vol. 1. affirmeth, that the invocation of Angels and dead Saints, is impious idolatry. The Like say Protestants commonly.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that jacob made prayer to any Angel, besought an Angel with tears, that Toby prayed an Angel, that the rich man invocated Abraham, that S. John prayed unto the seven spirits which are before the throne of God. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that the invocation of Angels or Saints is a found thing vainly devised, impious, idolatrous, and most pestilent.    

ART. IX. WHETHER GOD BE TO BE prayed unto by the names of Saints?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Exod. 32. ver. 11. and 13. But Moses besought the Lord his 
God prayed by names of Saints.  God, saying— Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, saying: I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven.  
Psal. 131. v. 10. For David thy servant's sake, turn not away the face of thy Christ.  
2. Paralipomen. 6. v. vlt. Remember the mercies of David thy servant.  
Daniel. 6. ver. 35. Nether take thou away thy mercy from us for Abraham thy beloved, and Isaac thy servant, and Israel thy holy one.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Sanctis cap. 19 In the old testament men prayed God and alleged the merits of Saints which were departed, that their prayers might be helped by them.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Confession of Saxony c. 22. sayeth, that in the Prophets, 
Not to be so prayed.  there is not found any such invocation: Hear me O God for Abraham.  
Confession of Bohemia art. 2. They teach, that God is to be prayed and invocated by the name of Christ only.  
Caluin 3. Instit. c. 20. §. 21. In Papistry, God is besought by the names of Saints. Ibid. Their merits are obtruded for to purchase Gods good will. The like teach commonly all Protestants. So Perkins reform. Catholic Contr. 14. p. 257.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that Moses prayed God by the names of Abraham, Isaac and jacob: that Azarias in Daniel did the same: that Solomon prayed God for David's sake and for his mercies. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that there is no such kind of prayer in the Prophets: Hear me o God for Abraham's sake: that God is to be prayed unto only by Christ's name: that to pray God by the names or merits of Saints is unlawful.    

ART. X. WHETHER GOD TAKE Mercy on men for the merits of Saints?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY affirm.  
3. Reg. v. 4. But for David's sake our Lord his God gave him a 
God hath mercy for the Saints sake.  lamp in Jerusalem, that he might raise up his son after him and establish Jerusalem, because David had done right in the eyes of our Lord.  
4. Reg. 19 ver. 34. And I will protect this city, and I will save it for myself and for David my servant.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Prompt. Cathol. in Festo Om. Sanctorun: The Scripture by many examples doth show the merits of Saints, by which the godly are helped.  
C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Missa c. 8. We ask mercy of God by the merits and prayers of Saints, through the mediation of Christ.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Apologia Confess. Augustan. c. de Inuoc. We think, that we ought not to trust that the merits of Saints are applied unto us, that for them God is reconciled to us.  
Whitaker l. 9 cont. Dur. sect. 38. We know, that you are 
God hath not mercy for the Saints sake.  blasphemous and injurious to Christ, who pray to Saints that their merits may help you.  
Caluin 3. Instit. c. 20. §. 21. In Papistry; Now and then the merits of Saints are obtruded for to get Gods good will.  
De vera reform. p. 339. It is not to be borne, that which they say, that through God's liberality and Christ's grace, merits of Saints do profit us for protection and obtaining of favour.  
Perkins ref. Cathol. Contr. 14. p. 266. We utterly deny that we are helped by merits of Saints either living or departed.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that God did good to Abias' David's great graundchild for David's sake, and because David had done right in God's sight, that is, for the good deeds or merits of David: that he protected Jerusalem for himself and for David. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that God is not reconciled unto us for the merits of Saints: that it is blasphemous to say, that the merits of Saints do help us: that they profit us not either for protection, or obtaining of favour.    

ART. XI. WHETHER ANGELS OR SAINTS are to be worshipped with the bowing of our body?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Gen. 19 v. 1. And the two Angels came to Sodom at even, and Lot sitting in the gates of the city: who when he had seen 
Angels Worshipped.  them, rose up and went to meet them, and adored prostrate on the ground, and said: I beseech you my Lords turn into the house of your servant.  
Numbers 22. v. 31. Forewith our Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the Angel standing in the way with a drawn sword, and he adored him flat to the ground.  
joshua 5. v. 13. When joshua had seen an Angel and asked him who he was, and the Angel had answered: I am a Prince of the host of our Lord: joshua fell flat to the ground and adoring, said &c.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent. Sess. 25. By the Images which we kiss, and to which we put of our hats, we worship the Saints whose images they are.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Confessio Mulhusnia art. 10. We dislike the veneration 
Not to be worshipped.  of Saints. And Heluet. c. 5. We neither adore, nor worship, nor invocate the Saints in heaven.  
Perkins reform. Cathol. Controu. 14. c. 2. p. 249. Because 
No not with civil worship.  Angels appear not now as in former times, not so much as civil adoration in any bodily gesture is to be done unto them. We deny that any civil worship in bending of the knee or prostrating of the body is to be given to the Saints.  
Humphrey ad Ration. 3. Campiani pag. 263. Vigilantius taught that Saints are not to be reverenced, nor that we ought 
Not to be reverenced.  superstitiously to run to their monuments. We say the same.  
Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 6. c. 3. Papists worship Angels and the Saints.  
Luther postilla in Domin. 23. post Trinit. For what other was the worship and reverence of Saints, but a devilish thing?  
Caluin 1. Instit. c. 12. §. 3. He could not fall down to the Angel, without diminishing of God's glory.  
Bullinger Decad. 4. form. 9 We must be ware, that we neither adore, invocate, or worship Angels. The same say Protestants commonly.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that Lot seeing Angels adored prostrate on the ground: that joshua hearing of an Angel that he was a Prince of God's host fell flat on the ground and adored: that Balaam adored flat to the ground an Angel, and yet was not reprehended therefore either of the Angel or of the Scripture. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly teach, that it is not lawful to reverence, venerate, adore, worship or bow to the Angels or Saints, but it is a devilish thing. And yet Luther himself thus writeth epist. ad Erphurdienses tom. 7. fol. 500 I do not think, that they are to be rejected or condemned, who whorshippe Saints without presuming trust. For whatsoever they do to Saints, they do to Christ. Nether can it be but Christ is partaker of the honour which is given to Saints.    

ART. XII. WHETHER SAINTS BE TO be imitated of us?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Cor. 11. v. 1. Be ye followers of me, as I also of Christ.  
Philippen. 3. ver. 17. Be followers of me brethren and observe 
Saints to be imitated and followed.  them that walk so as you have our form.  
2. Thessalon. 3. v. 7. For yourselves know, how you ought to imitate us.  
Hebr. 13. v. 7. Remember your Prelates, who have spoken the word of God to you: the end of whose conversation beholding, imitate their faith.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Lucae. 9 v. 54. The faithful Christians piously and carefully imitate the examples of the holy Fathers.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther Postilla in Festo S. joann. fol. 378. These trifles 
Saints not to be imitated or followed.  ought not be sung unto the people out of the pulpits in preaching, that they should imitate the Saints and follow their footsteps. And in ferijs eiusdem fol. 91. An old error hath gotten possession and force, that we all look upon the deeds and lives of Saints, and endeavour to follow them, thinking (like fools) that this is a great piety— The way of the Lord admitteth not examples of Saints, but in all things expecteth the commandments of the Lord only. In die Epiphaniae fol. 130. God 
Nor their examples.  requireth, that we follow his only Scripture, and not the examples of Saints.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that we must follow Saints and imitate them. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly teach, that Saints are not to be imitated or followed, their examples not to be admitted, that it is an error to look upon the lives of Saints and follow them.    

ART. XIII. WHETHER HOLY MEN receive us into everlasting tabernacles?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Luc. 16. v. 9 And I say unto you. Make unto you friends of 
Holy men receive us into Heaven.  the mammon of iniquity, that when you fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Lucae 16. ver. 9 Christ teacheth, that they to whom we have done good do receive us into eternal tabernacles, that is, Christ for them not only by reason of the good work, but also for their prayers, giveth us life everlasting.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther postilla in Dom. 9 post Trinit. fol. 107. We must 
They receive us not into Heaven.  not understand, that men shall receive us into eternal tabernacles.  
Illyricus in Clavae part. 2. tractar. 6. Poor men are said to receive their benefactors into eternal tabernacles, whereas this is the deed of the Father alone for the merit of his Son.  
Caluin in Lucae 16. vers. 9 citat. He meaneth not, that we must get patrons and intreatours, who by their protection may shield and defend us.— But they do fondly and absurdly, who hereupon gather that we are helped by the prayers or suffrages of the dead.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that holy men to whom we have done good, do receive us into eternal tabernacles. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that no men receive us into eternal tabernacles, that that is the deed of the Father alone, that we are not to get patrons or intreatours for us.    

ART. XIV. WHETHER ANY SAINT may be called our hope?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Thessalon. 2. v. 18. For what is our hope, or joy, or crown 
Saints called our hope.  of glory? Are not you before our Lord jesus in his coming? For you are our glory and joy.  
John 5. v. 45. Think not, that I will accuse you to the Father, there is that accuseth you, Moses, in whom you trust.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de bonis oper. in part. c. 15. The B. Virgin is called our hope, because, after God, we trust especially in her intercession.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Caluin in Confess. p. 109. Many kinds of prayers were brought 
Not to be so called.  in, which had horrible blasphemies, as when the Virgin is termed of infidels the gate of salvation, our hope.  
Beza in joan. 2. v. 5. Idolatry hath so fare prevailed, that they are not ashamed to call Marie, the Queen of heaven, their hope, and salvation.  
P. Martyr in 1. Cor. c. 3. They call the B. Virgin their hope, as if they would put their hope in a creature.  
Pareus in Colloq. 3. Swal. You salute Marie by the Title of your hope: Which salutation tendeth to the dishonour of God.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the Thessalonians were the hope, joy and crown of glory of the Apostle before our Lord: that the jews did trust in Moses, and yet were not reprehended therefore. Catholics say the like.  
Protestants expressly say, that it tendeth to the dishonour of God, is idolatry and horrible blasphemy to call our bessed Lady our hope.    

ART. XV. WHETHER SAINTS HAD power to work miracles?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matth. 10. ver. 1. And having called his twelve disciples together, 
Some Saints had power to do miracles.  he gave them power over unclean spirits that they should cast them out, and should cure all manner of disease and all manner of infirmity.  
Mark. 3. ver. 15. And he gave them power to cure infirmities, and to cast out devils.  
1. Corin. 12. v. 9 To one certes by the spirit is given the word of wisdom— to an other the grace of doing cures in one spirit, to an other, the working of miracles.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 4. de Eccles. c. 14. How could God more plainly express his mind, then by giving to one the singular gift of miracles?   

PROTESTANT'S EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins in Gal. 3. v. 3. God never gave any man the power of 
Never man had power to work miracles.  working miracles, either mediately or immediately.  
Vrsinus in Catechismo q. 99 The power of working miracles is not transfused into Saints, therefore metaphorically they are said to work them.  
Beza in 1. Cor. 12. v. 6. But in doing of miracles, if we consider the work itself, God's power doth work without any communication at all, which he imparteth not even to the Angels themselves. What then will some say? Were the saints of God like stocks & blocks in the working of miracles? No. For either by their prayers they obtained the miracles of God, or understanding Gods will by inward grace or peculiar revelation, they declared it: but so, that no power of theirs did in any sort concur as efficient cause to the working of the miracles.  
Piscator in Thes. l. 2. p. 373. Doth God impart to any creature the power of working miracles? We deny it: because the power of working miracles is omnipotency itself.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that Christ gave the Apostles power to cure all manner of diseases & infirmities: that to some is given the grace of working miracles. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say, that God never gave to any creature the power of working miracles either mediately or immediately: that he imparteth not to Saints the power of working miracles: that no power in them concurreth as efficient cause to the working of miracles but only the power that is in God: that all power of working miracles is omnipotency itself, and never imparted to any creature.    

ART. XVI. WHETHER SAINTS DO reign with Christ?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Apocal. 5. v. 10. Thou hast made us to our God a kingdom and priests, and we shall reign upon the earth.  
Apocal. 20. ver. 6. They shallbe priests of God and of Christ, 
Saint's reign with Christ.  and shall reign with him a thousand years. c. 22. v. 5. Our Lord God doth illuminate them, and they, shall reign for ever and ever.  
Apocal. 2. v. 26. And he that shall overcome and keep my 
Have power over nations.  works unto the end, I will give him power over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron. Cap. 3. vers. 21. He that shall overcome, I will give unto him to sit with me in my throne, as I also have overcome, and have sitten with my Father in his throne.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Card. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sanctis cap. 18. We learn, that the souls of holy men after their death before the resurrection do receive power over nations, and do rule them, and sit in the throne of Christ, that is, do with him govern the whole world.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Reineccius tom. 4. Armaturae c. 7. The Saints do not reign 
Saints reign not with Christ. Do not rule nations.  with Christ. The like hath Vorstius in Antibel. p. 298.  
Pareus in Collegio Theol. 9 disput. 18. sayeth, that it is an error to say: That as Angels, so the souls of blessed men are appointed of God to rule and govern us. Of the same opinion are all other Protestants, who say, that the Saints in heaven neither know nor care what is done on earth.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Saints reign with Christ, govern nations, sit in Christ's throne. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say, that Saints reign not with Christ, are not appointed of God to rule and govern us, know not, nor care not what is done on earth.    

ART. XVII. WHETHER ANY SAINT were full of grace?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Luc. 1. v. 28. the Angel sayeth to our B. Lady. Hail full of grace.  
Act. 36. ver. 28. Consider therefore brethren seven men of you 
Some Saints full of grace.  of good testimony, full of the holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. And v. 8. And Stephen full of grace and fortitude did great wonders.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
S. Thomas 3. part. q. 27. art. 5. The B. Virgin Marie obtained such fullness of grace, that she was nighest to the author of grace.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Illyricus in Lucae 1. v. 28. cit. It is ill translated: Full of grace: 
None full of grace.  For Christ alone is full of grace and truth.  
Caluin in Lucae. 1. v. 15. expoundeth, Full of grace, Above the ordinary course. Of the same mind also are other Protestants, who either deny that the Angel saluted our B. Lady, Full of grace; or deny, that we have any inherent justice or grace in us, as we shall see hereafter.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that our lady and S. Stephen was full of grace, and that others were full of the holy Ghost. And Catholics say the same.  
Protestants say, that Christ alone was full of grace, and that others have no grace or justice in them.    

A SUM OF THIS CHAPTER OF ANGELS or Saints.  
It appeareth out of that which hath been rehearsed in this chapter, that Protestants do fare otherwise describe unto us Angels and Saints, than the holy Scripture and catholics do. For according to the Scripture and catholics they are perfectly just and perfectly do the will of God, but not according to Protestants. In the verdict of the Scripture and catholics, they pray for us, have care of our matters, hear our prayers: In the opinion of Protestants they do none of these. According to the Scripture and catholics, they are to be prayed unto, to be worshipped, to be imitated of us, and God is to be invocated by their names, who also for their good deeds, their sake doth good unto us: but according to Protestants none of all these things belong unto them. In the doctrine of the Scripture and catholics, they enjoy their heavenly felicity, reign with Christ, and some of them had power to do miracles: but in the Protestants Doctrine they neither enjoy their heavenly happiness, nor reign with Christ, nor any of them had or can have power to work miracles.  
Protestants therefore steal from Angels and Saints 
Protest. steal from Saints. Power. Virtue.  their power, whiles they deny, that they are capable of power to work miracles: steal away their perfect justice, in denying that they are perfectly just or perfectly do the will of God. Rob them of their honour, because they 
Honor.  deny that we may honour them, imitate them, pray to them, or pray to God in their names. They spoil them 
Dignity.  of their dignity, in saying that God doth not any good unto us for their merits or good deeds. They bereave 
Knowledge.  them of their knowledge, in saying that they know not any thing that is done on earth. They rob them of 
Charity.  their charity, because they say, that they pray not for us either in general or in particular, have no care of us, not exercise any offices of charity towards us. Finally they 
Happiness.  take from them their heavenly felicity, because they teach, that they enjoy not that until the day of judgement. And hitherto we have spoken of those who are in heaven: now let us speak of these things which are on earth, and first of the word of God.    

CHAPTER iv OF THE WORD OF GOD OR SCRIPTURE.  

ART. I. WHETHER ANY PLACES OF Scripture be hard to be understood.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
PETER 3. vers. 16. As our most dear 
Some places of Scripture hard to be understood.  brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you, as also in all his epistles speaking in them of these things, in the which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable deprave.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
D. Stapleton in joan. 17. v. 20. Catholics deny, that all the Scripture is plain and clear.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Whitaker Controu. 1. q. 4. c. 3. p. 337. Peter sayeth not, that Paul's epistles are obscure, no nor that there are some obscure things in Paul's epistles. And c. 4. p. 340. It is manifest, that the Scriptures are easy to be understood. And he addeth, that the whole will of God which is declared in his whole word and Scriptures, and the whole Scripture, is easy. The same he sayeth p. 341. Of the whole Scripture, of the universal Scripture, and whole word of God.  
Luther l. de seru. arbit. to. 2. fol. 426. It is spread abroad by 
No place of Scripture hard.  the impious Sophisters, that there are some things obscure in the Scripture, and that all things are not laid open. Fol. 427. There is nothing at all left obscure or ambiguous, but all things are brought into most clear light by the word, and declared to the whole world whatsoever is in Scripture. And fol. 440. I speak of the whole Sripture: I will not have any part of it to be said to be obscure. The like he hath Postilla in festo S. jacobi fol. 430. and Cont. Cocleum to. 2. fol. 410. Never any thing was uttered more simply, more purely, more clearly, more easily, than the word of God. Praefat. Assert. art. The Scripture is by itself 
No book more clear than the scripture.  the most certain, the most easy, the most clear interpreter of itself, proving, judging, and lightning all things. And in psalm. 37. to. 3. fol. 10. If any of them say, that we need the Father's interpretation, the Scriptures are obscure: Thou shalt answer: That is false. No book in the whole world is most clearly written then the holy Scripture, which compared to all other books, is like the Sun before all other lights.  
Gerlachius disputat. 1. tom. 1. pag. 9 We say, that the whole Scripture is so clear, as it needeth no interpretation at all.  
Zanchius de Scriptura tom. 8. col. 408. How then can the Scripture be said obscure in any part thereof? col. 409. If the Scripture be obscure in no part (as before we have showed) much less in those things which are necessary to salvation. And l. 1. Epistol. pag. 98. The places of holy Scripture, from whence the decrees of Christian religion are drawn, are so plain and manifest, as they need no more diligent or clearer exposition.  
Serranus count Hayum part. 3. p. 267. sayeth, that there is not any ambiguity or obscurity in the matter or words of the Scripture. And p. 269. that the Lord hath plainly laid open in the Scripture all the mysteries of our salvation. Many more of their like sayings may be seen in my Latin book cap. 4. art. 1.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that in S. Paul's epistles there be some things hard to be understood. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the Scripture sayeth not that there are some obscure things in S. Paul's epistles: that the Scripture, the whole scripture is easy: that the whole scripture is so clear as it needeth no interpretation at all: that no part of it is obscure, that all things are clear whatsoever is in the word and declared to the whole world: that the Scripture is the easiest and clearest interpreter of itself: that no book in the whole world is so clear as the Scripture, and that being compared to them, it is like the Sun to other lights. Which are so manifestly contrary to Scripture as Protestants themselues sometimes confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. II. WHETHER SCRIPTURE CAN BE understood without the light of the holy Ghost?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
2. Peter 1. v. 20. Understanding this first, that no prophety 
Scripture not understood of ourselves.  (or exposition) of Scripture is made by private interpretation.  
Matth. 13. v. 11. To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.  
Luc. 24. v. 45. Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
D. Stapleton l. 11. de Principijs c. 2. The spirit of God, of whom the understanding of the Scriptures is to be asked and given, is not to be sought in the Scriptures themselves.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Whitaker l. 1. de Scriptura c. 12. sect. 8. The Scriptures may 
Scripture not understood by only reading. without the holy Ghost.  be known by only reading. l. 2. c. 8. sect. 16. I say, that the Scriptures may be understood before faith and without faith. Again, But if thou thinkest, that the Scriptures cannot be understood at all without peculiar lightning of the holy Ghost, thou art in a great error. And Controu. 1. q. 6. c. 13. For so much as appertaineth to the knowledge of the letter, the Church hath no privilege.  
Morton. in Apol. part. 2. l. 5. c. 10. Any one though never so 
Any may understand the Scripture:  so impious, may search the Scriptures to knowledge, though not to wisdom: that is, to the knowledge of truth, though not to the attaining of salvation.  
Beza l. de notis Eccles. vol. 3. p. 137. But for to understand what the Prophets and Apostles have in sum thought and thought of every article of our religion, there needeth only a wit not wholly dull, and knowledge of tongues, and attentive reading. And p. 138. Understanding is common to all that have any judgement, but to knowledge, there is need of the external illustration of the holy Ghost, by reason of the blindness, of man's judgement. The same say all Protestants who teach (as we have seen in the former article) that the Scripture is clear.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that prophecy, that is, understanding of Scripture, is not made by private interpretation: that to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven is given to some as a peculiar gift not common to all: that Christ's disciples had need to have their understanding opened by him for to understand the Scriptures. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the Scripture may be known by only reading: that to know what the Prophets or Apostles thought of every article of our religion, we need but a mean wit, knowledge of tongues and attentive reading: That Scripture may be understood without faith and without any peculiar light of the holy Ghost: that to understand the sense of the letter there is privilege of the Church, that never so wicked men may know the truth of the Scripture. Which are so contrary to Scripture, as diverse Protestants confess it. See libro 2. cap. 30.    

ART. III. WHETHER THE GOSPEL be a law or contain any law?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matth. 11. v. 30. My yoke is sweet and my burden light. c. 28. 
Christ's Gospel containeth laws and precepts.  v. 19 Teach ye all nations, baptising them &c. teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.  
John 15. v. 14. You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you.  
Galat. 6. v. 2. Bear ye one an others burdens, and so ye shall fulfil the law of Christ. The same is evident by other places which shallbe cited in the two next articles, and by the laws of baptism and the eucharist which are in the Gospel.  
Romans 2. v. 16. God shall judge secrets of men according to my Gospel.  
Apocal. 14. v. 6. And I saw an other Angel flying through the midst of heaven having the eternal Gospel to evangelise to them that sit upon the earth— saying with a loud voice: Fear our Lord etc.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 4. the justif. c. 2. The Gospel containeth laws properly so called.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther de votis to. 2. fol. 271. They know not the Gospel, 
The Gospel is no law.  whiles they make a law of it. Postilla in Dom. 3. adventus fol. 36. None of thy works must follow the Gospel, for it is not a law which requireth works, but only faith, because in it nothing is done, but that God's grace is offered and promised.  
Confessio Wittenberg. c. de Euangelio. Unless ye take the name of the law generally for doctrine, certainly the Gospel of Christ is not properly a law. The same sayeth Pareus in Galat. 6. lect. 71.  
Perkins in Gal. 6. to. 2. The Gospel must no ways be called a new law. So also Beza count. Sanct. Apol. 1. p. 305. Mart. in Rom. 7. p. 375. in 8.  
Melancthon in Disput. to. 4. p. 490. The old testament is a law: the new testament is no law. The same say others, as appeareth by what hath been rehearsed cap. 3. art. 7. and shallbe more in the two next articles.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the Gospel of Christ is a yoke and burden, that therein he commandeth some things, that Christ hath a law; that he commanded the receiving of baptism and the eucharist, that men shallbe judged according to the Gospel; that the eternal Gospel commandeth men to fear God. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the Gospel is no law, no ways to be called a new law, the new testament no law: the Gospel properly no law unless by law you mean doctrine: that it is no law that requireth works.    

ART. iv WHETHER THE GOSPEL doth preach penance, and good works?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matthew 3. vers. 2. John Baptist thus began his preaching 
The Gospel commandeth penance.  of the Gospel: Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.  
Matth. 4. v. 17. From that time jesus began to preach and to say: Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.  
Luc. 5. v. 23. I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance. c. 24. v. 26. It behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and penance to be preached in his name and remission of sins unto all nations.  
Acts 2. vers. 38. S. Peter thus preached the Gospel. Do penance, and be every one of you baptised. And S. Paul c. 17. v. 30. God now denounceth unto men, that all every where do penance.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 4. the justif. c. 2. The Gospel threatneth wrath and indignation to them who do not receive our Saviour, nor do penance.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
The Divines of Targa apud Hospin. in Concordia discordi 
The Gospel properly is no preaching of penance.  fol. 66. If the Gospel be simply and properly taken for preaching, to wit, of the grace of God in jesus Christ, than it is no preaching of penance, but oney a preaching of remission of sins. The like teach others ib. fol. 104. And the Divines of 
Only commandeth to believe.  Berga ib. fol. 140. The Gospel teacheth and commandeth only to believe in Christ.  
Luther Postilla in die Nativit. fol. 60. We read and hear nothing preached in the Gospel, but mere grace and mere bounty. In die Ascensionis fol. 264. I often times said, that the Gospel cannot abide, that works be preached, how good or great soever they be. And in Inst. de Moise fol. 449. The 
The Gospel telleth not what it to be done or omitted.  Gospel preacheth not to us, that this or that is to be done or omitted, or exacteth any things of us.  
The Divines of Saxony apud Schusselb. tom. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 803. condemn Maior, because he would have the Gospel properly taken to be a preaching of penance and remission of sins.  
Kemnitius in locis tit. de justif. p. 222. If we say that the 
Proper doctrine of the Gospel is not of newness of life.  proper doctrine of the Gospel is not only of faith in the free promises for Christ, but also of newness of life or good works, then straight it followeth, that good works also enter into iustication as a partial cause. And pag. 224. Who would have the the Gospel properly so termed to contain not only the promise of grace, but also the doctrine of good workesse, such understand not what they say. For by this means the difference of the law and the Gospel is confounded.  
Liber Concordiae 1. c. 5. p. 594. We reject as false and pernicious Doctrine: that the Gospel properly is a preaching of penance, 
The Gospel requireth not works.  and not only a preaching of the grace of God. The like hath Gesnerus in Compendio loco 15.  
Gerlachius to. 2. disp. 13. The law requiring works properly belongeth not to the Gospel. Again. It is truly said, that not the Gospel but the law requireth works.  
Lobechius Disput. 9 The word of the Gospel showeth not, what is to be done by working, but what we must believe.  
Caluin in Rom. 10. ver. 8. As the law exacted works, the Gospel, requireth nothing else, but that men bring faith to receive God's grace. The like hath Beza in Catechismo compend. and others.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that John Baptist, Christ, and the Apostles begun the preaching of Gospel by preaching penance: that Christ came to call sinners to penance, that penance and remission of sins are to be preached in his name: that God in the Gospel denounceth to all men that they do penance. And the Gospel every where preacheth good works. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the Gospel properly taken doth not preach penance: that the Gospel commandeth only to believe in Christ; requireth nothing but faith: showeth not what is to be done or undone, but what is to be believed: that it requireth not works, cannot abide that works be preached whatsoever they be: preacheth not that this or that thing is to be done, preacheth not newness of life or good works, containeth not doctrine of Good works. Which are so contrary to Scripture as some Protestants confess it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. V WHETHER THE GOSPEL do reprove sin.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Rom. 1. v. 17. For the justice of God is revealed in it (Gospel) 
The Gospel reproveth sin.  by faith into faith. v. 18. For the wrath of God from heaven is revealed upon all impiety and injustice etc.  
Ihon. 16. v. 8. And when he (the Paraclet) is come, he shall argue the world of sin and of injustice. The same teach the places cited in the former article, and others wherein the Gospel commandeth men to abstain from sin and threatneth punishment thereto.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton Roman. 1. vers. 18. Absurdly and impiously is said: that it belongeth not to the ministry of the Gospel to reprove sin.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther Concordiae cap. 5. pag. 593. When the law and 
The Gospel reproveth not sin.  the Gospel are compared together, we believe each, and confess, that the Gospel is not a preaching of penance reproving sin: but that properly it is nothing else but a most joyful message, and a preaching full of comfort not reproving or terrifying.  
Luther Postilla in die Om. Sanct. fol. 441. The law commandeth, 
Dotario not threaten.  threatneth, and urgeth: the Gospel maketh no threats nor pusheth on.  
Schusselb. to. 4. Catal. Haeret. p. 209. The Gospel properly speaking doth reprove no sin: but this is the proper and most proper office of the law.  
Caluin 2. Instit. c. 10. §. 4. The gospels preaching pronounceth nothing else, but that sinners through the fatherly goodness of God are justified without their merit.  
Beza in Rom. 1. v. 18. To reprove sin, rather belongeth to the ministry of the law, then of the Gospel.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that in the Gholpell God's anger is revealed upon all injustice: that the spirit of the Gospel reproveth sin. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that to reprove sin rather belongeth to the ministry of the law then of the Gospel: that the Gospel properly taken reproveth not sin, but is nothing else but a message of joy and comfort: that to reprove sin is the proper office of the law. Which is so opposite to the Scripture, as some times Protestants confess it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. VI WHETHER THE GOSPEL promiseth salvation with condition of good works?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matthew. 19 vers. 17. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the 
The Gospel promiseth salvation upon condition of Works.  commandments.  
Luke. 13. vers. 3. Unless you have penance, you shall all likewise perish.  
Roman. 8. vers. 13. If you live according to the flesh, you shall die.  
Hebrews 10. v. 36 For patience is necessary for you, that doing the will of God, you may receive the promise. C. 12. v. 14. Fellow peace with all men and holiness, without which no man shall see God.  
John 3. v. 5. Unless a man be borne again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. c. 6. v. 53. Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. c. 15. v. 10. If you keep my precepts, you shall abide in my love.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 20. If any shall say, that a man justified and never so perfect, is not bound to keep the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe: as if the Gospel were an absolute and bare promise without condition of keeping Gods commandments, be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Apol. Conf. Augustan. fol. 60. Doth not the Gospel promise remission of sins and salvation even to those that have no good works at all? ib. in resp. ad arg. If remission of sins do depend of the condition of our works, it willbe altogether uncertain.  
Luther in Colloq. Mensal. apud Vlemberg. causa. 5. 
The Gospel promiseth salvation without condition of works.  Whosoever sayeth, that the Gospel requireth works to salvation, is a liar.  
Perkins in Gal. 3. to. 2. The Gospel offereth and giveth life freely without condition of any work, and requireth nothing but the acceptance of the thing offered.  
Willet Controu. 19 quaest. 1. pa. 1012. The Gospel and the law are two distinct things. The law sayeth: Do this and thou shalt be saved: The Gospel: Believe only, and it sufficeth unto life.  
Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theol. loco 8. The promise of the Gospel is not conditional.  
Gerlachius to. 2. disput. 13. The promises of the Gospel are not conditional, but absolute in respect of works.  
The Divines of Saxony in Colloq. Aldeburg. Scripto. 6. p. 134. The promises of the law are conditional, because they propose reward with condition of obedience: But the promises of the Gospel are not conditional, but free.  
Caluin in Antidote. Concil. Sess. 6. Con. 20. In that the Gospel differeth from the law, because it promiseth life by faith, and not under the condition of works as the law doth. And 3. Instit. c. 11. §. 17. The promises of the Gospel are free and rely upon the only mercy of God, whereas the promises of the law depend of the condition of works.  
Peter Martyr in Rom. 11. We deny, that God's testament of remission of sins in Christ hath any condition adjoined.  
Pareus l. 4. the justif. c. 1. The Gospel, properly is the doctrine of grace, so it requireth only the condition of faith. And c. 2. The Gospel strictly and properly hath promises of salvation under the only condition of faith, and threats of death under the only condition of incredulity. Those promises and threats alone are proper to the Gospel and Evangelicall, all others are mixed, partly evangelical, partly legal.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that if we will enter into life we must keep the commandments; that patience is necessary for to receive the promise: that without holiness no man shall see God: that to be baptised and to eat the flesh of Christ is necessary to life: that unless we have penance we shall perish, that if we live according to the flesh we shall die. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that the Gospel promiseth salvation even to those that have no good works at all: that it requireth no good works to salvation, offereth life without condition of any work: that the promises of the Gospel are absolute in respect of works, are not conditional: that the Ghosdell requireth only the acceptance of the thing offered, requireth only belief to life, only the condition of faith. Which are so contrary to Scripture as some times the Protestants themselves confess it See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. VII. WHETHER THE GOSPEL be contrary to the law?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Rom. 3. v. 31. Do we then destroy the law by faith? God forbid: 
The Gospel not contrary to the law.  but we do establish the law.  
Gal. 3. v. 21. Was the law then against the promises of God? God forbid.  
Matthew 5. vers. 18. Do not think that I am come to break the law or the Prophet. I am not come to break, but to fulfil.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
S. Thomas 1. 2. quaest. 17. art. 3. Something is contained in an other by power, as the whole tree is contained in the seed: and after this manner the new law is contained in the old.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Confessio Heluet. c. 13. The Gospel truly is opposite to 
It is contrary to the law  the law: For the law worketh wrath and denounceth malediction; the Gospel preacheth grace and benediction.  
Illyricus in Sacrae Scripturae part. 2. tract. 1. eol. 10. There are two kinds of doctrines, the law and the Gospel, and they of themselves and of their nature truly contrary. Col. 11. This surely is the key of all the Scripture and Divinity, to know that in 
Twoe maie● to heaven & those contrary.  it is contained a twofould kind of doctrine, and a double way of salvation, which are of themselves plainly contrary the one to the other. Col. 39 The law and the Gospel of themselves wholly fight one with the other: These doctrines fight, but the law being the inferior yields to the Gospel the superior; and so the one contradictory falling, the other obideth true. And Tract. 6. col. 547. 551. he sayeth, that the Gospel correcteth the law.  
Luther in Gal 4. f. 373. Let the godly learne, that Christ and the law are two contrary, all together incompatible.  
Scusselburg tom. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 446. True it is: Entire and perfect obedience is necessary to salvation, for the Lord himself hath said: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. But contrariwise, there is full power given to me to 
Protestants mitigate the rigour of the law.  interpret or mitigate this rigour. Wherefore I interpret and mitigate it thus. Perfect obedience is necessary to one that is to be saved; to wit, either his own or an other man's. And p. 446. sayeth, that the Gospel correcteth and amendeth the sayings of the law.  
Caluin 2. Instit. c. 9 §. 4. Paul maketh the justice of the law and the Gospel contrary one to the other.  
Vallada in Apolog. count. Episcop. Luzon. c. 30. Luther speaketh not simply of Moses, but of Moses opposite to jesus Christ, that is, of the law opposite to the Gospel. And seeing all Protestants think, that the doctrine of the law is this: Our keeping of the law is necessary to salvation, and the doctrine of the Gospel, this: Our keeping of the law is not necessary to salvation, they must needs all say, that the doctrine of the Gospel is quite contrary or contradictory to the doctrine of the law. Whereupon Beza de Praedest. count. castle. vol. 1. p. 393. writeth in this sort: These are contrary: unless you do all these things you shall die, and, Albeit you do them not, yet if you believe, you shall live. Whereof the first, they say, is the doctrine of the law; the second, of the Gospel.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the faith of the Gospel doth not destroy, but establish the law; that God's promises are not against the law: that Christ came not to break the law. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the Gospel is truly opposite to the law: that the law and Gospel are two doctrines of their nature truly contrary, plainly contrary, and fight one with the other: that the Gospel correcteth the law: that the justice of the law and of the Gospel is contrary one to the other, and that this is the key of all Protestant divinity: and that Protestants have full power to mitigate the rigour of God's law. Which are so contrary to Scripture, as Protestants some times confess it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. VIII. WHETHER THE LAW OF Moses did command faith in Christ?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
John 1. v. 45. Him, whom Moses in the law and the Prophets 
Moses in the law wrote of Christ.  wrote of, we have found jesus the son of joseph of Nazareth. c. 5. v. 45. For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also. For of me he hath written.  
Luc. 24. v. 27. And beginning from Moses and all the Prophets 
Written of Christ in the law.  he did interpret to them in all the Scriptures the things that were concerning him. And v. 44. All things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, of me.  
Act. 3. v. 22. Moses indeed said, That a Prophet, shall the Lord your God raise up to you of your brethren as myself: Him 
Moses commanded to bear Christ.  you shall hear according to all things whatsoever he shall speak to you. c. 26. v. 23. Saying nothing besides those things, which the Prophets did speak should come to pass, and Moses, if Christ were passable etc. See c. 28. v. 23.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. lib. 4. justif. c. 4. Every where in the Gospel we read, that diverse mysteries were fulfilled in Christ, because it was so written in the law and Prophets.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins in Gal. 3. to. 2. The Gospel requireth faith in Christ 
The law knew not Christ. The law of Moses commanded not faith in Christ. The law teacheth not faith in Christ  the Mediator, God and man, which faith the law never knew.  
Pareus l. 1. de justif. c. 16. Faith is no work of the law: for the law of Moses commandeth not faith in Christ. And l. 2. c. 4. The law knoweth nothing of faith in Christ, of justifying faith, of faith of remission of sins. The like hath Ambing. apud Hospin. in Concord. discordi fol. 140.  
Beza de Praedest. count. Cast l. vol. 1. p. 393. There is no mention in the law of this benefit (of free redemption by Christ) For the declaration of this will belongeth to an other part of God's word, which is called the Gospel.  
Apol. Conf. Augustan. c. de justific. The Gospel preacheth justice of faith in Christ, which the law doth not teach.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Moses wrote in the law, of Christ, that Moses wrote things concerning Christ: That Moise commanded the people to hear Christ in all things. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the law never knew faith in Christ, that Moses commandeth 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 UNWRITTEN word or Traditions be to be kept?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
2. Thessal. 2. v. 15. Therefore brethren stand, and hold the traditions 
Traditions not written to be held.  which you have learned: whether it be by word or by our epistle.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent. Sess. 4. The holy Council doth with equal pious affection reverently receive and honour traditions belonging to faith or manners, as either delivered by Christ's mouth or the holy Ghost, and by continual succession conserved in the Catholic Church.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 3. cap. 10. We care not for unwritten 
Not to be held.  traditions. And Contro. 2. q. 5. c. 18. We acknowledge no other word then that which is written. And what doctrine soever is not written we hold for bastard doctrine.  
Perkins in Cathol. ref. Contr. 20. c. 2. We acknowledge the only 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.  
jacobus Andreae l. cont. Hosium. p. 169. That faith is no faith, but an uncertain opinion, which is not grounded upon an express testimony of Scripture.  
Wigand apud Scusselb. to. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 681. Only those doctrines, whose very words or equivalent for sense are extant in the Scripture, are to be taught and delivered in the Church.  
Caluin in Gratulat. ad Praecentorem pag. 377. Nothing is to be believed, which is not expressed in Scripture. And count. versipellem. pagin. 353. There is no mention of unwritten traditions.  
Beza in Rom. 1. v. 17. Christians acknowledge no other object of this faith, than the written word of God. Etad Reprehends. Castell. p. 503. Whosoever beleiveth 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 holy 
No speech of an unwritten word.  Scripture there is no speech of an unwritten word.  
Daneus Controu. 7. pag. 1350. The foundation of Christian faith is one only, to wit, the word of God, and that only written.  
Hospinian part. 2. Histor. Sacram. fol. 23. The Magistrates of Zurich commanded, that hereafter nothing should be proposed or preached in their Church but the pure fined word of God contained in the books of the Prophets and Apostles.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that traditions, as well they which are learned by word, as they which are learned by writing, are to be observed. Catholics teach the same.  
Protestants expressly teach, that only written doctrine is to be taught, nothing to be believed but what is written, only the pure fined written word to be taught; no object of faith but what is written: nothing to be believed but what is expressed in Scripture, and that in very words or in equivalent sense, that there is no mention of unwritten traditions, no speech of unwritten word: that they care not for unwritten traditions.    

A SUM OF THIS CHAPTER OF THE WORD of God or Scripture.  
What we have rehearsed in this chapter doth clearly show, that Protestants do fare otherwise judge of Scripture than the Scripture itself and catholics do. For the holy Scripture together with catholics teacheth that in it are some things hard to be understood, that it cannot be understood without the light of the holy Ghost: that the Gospel is or containeth a law: that it doth preach penance and good works, reproveth sin, promiseth salvation under condition of good works, and is not contrary unto the law of God: that the law of Moses commandeth faith in Christ: and that unwritten traditions are to be observed: And Protestants defend all the contrary.  
They show also, that Protestants steal from the Scripture 
Protestants steal from Scripture.  her excellency wherewith she surpasseth the capacity of man's wit: and from the Gospel, that it containeth any law, preacheth penance or good works, reproveth sin, promiseth salvation upon condition of well doing, and agreement with God's law: whereby we see what a libertin Gospel they bring in, to wit, such as containeth 
Libertin Gospel of Protestants.  no law, preacheth no penance or good works, reproveth no sin, promiseth salvation without all condition of well doing, and is quite contrary to the law of God: And that they steal from the law of Moses that it commandeth faith in Christ; and finally they take away all the unwritten word of God.    

CHAPTER V OF SAINT PETER AND THE APOSTLES.  

ART. I. WHETHER S. PETER WERE first of the Apostles?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
MATHEW 10. v. 2. And the names of the twelve 
S. Peter first of the Apostles.  Apostles be these: The first Simon, who is called Peter.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Pontif. c. 18. Peter was put first, by reason his dignity.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Contr. 3. q. 5. c. 3. Wheresoever mention is made 
Not first.  of Peter, if we look well into the place, we shall find that nothing is given to him, which agreeth not to the other Apostles. And Controu 4. quaest. 2. c. Paul maketh himself equal to Peter in all points.  
Tindal in Fox his Acts p. 1139. S. Paul is greater than Peter by the testimony of Christ.  
Articuli Smalcaldici pag. 345. We give no prerogative to Peter.  
Luther in Gal. 2. to. 5. This place clearly showeth, that all the Apostles had equal vocation and commission. There was altogether equality amongst them: no Apostle was greater than an other.  
Illyricus in Praefat. lib. de Sectis. It appeareth, that Christ gave no primacy at all in his Church to any man.  
Caluinus in Matth. 20. v. 25. Christ shown, that in his kingdom 
No primacy or firstness.  there was no primacy, for which they contended.  
Beza in Matth. 10. v. 2. What if this word (First) were added of some who would establish Peter's primacy?  
Festus Homius disput. 12. All the Apostles were equal in dignity, authority, title, and power. Again. Peter had no primacy amongst the Apostles.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that S. Peter was the first of the Apostles. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say, that S. Peter had no primacy at all; and suspect that the word, First, is added to the Scripture: they say also, that Saint Peter had nothing which was not common to the other Apostles: that all the Apostles were equal in dignity, authority, title, and power: that there was altogether equality amongst them, and none greater than an other: that S. Paul was equal to S. Peter in all points, nay greater than he by the testimony of Christ.    

ART. II. WHETHER THE CHURCH was built upon S. Peter himself?  

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Math. 16. v. 18. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter, and upon 
The Church built upon S. Peter.  this rock will I build my Church— And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Promptuar. Cath. in Festo Petri & Pauli S. Chrisostome doth diligently teach, that two things were here given to Peter: The one, the gift of the Father; to wit the revelalation of the word incarnate: The other, the proper gift of the Son, to be the rock of the Church.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Controu. 4. q. 2 c. 2. Peter is not the rock, because 
Not upon S. Peter.  Christ doth not build his Church upon Peter.  
Luther in Matth. 16. to. 5. upon this, that is, upon me, not upon thee. Item. He cannot be understood to build upon Peter.  
Zuinglius l. de vera & falsa relig. cap. de Clavibus. I will build my Church upon this rock: not upon thee, for thou art not the rock. Again: Only Christ, not Peter, is the rock upon the which the Church standeth.  
Bucer in Matth. 16. Faith in Christ is that rock upon which the Church is said to be built, not that man Peter.  
Caluin in Math. 16. v. 19 He feigneth, that Peter is called the foundation of the Church. But who seethe not, that he giveth that to the person of a man, which was spoken of Peter's faith?  
Beza in Matth. 16. v. 18. But Matthew, or whosoever was his interpreter seemeth by this difference of words to distinguish Peter from that rock on which the building relieth.  
Zanchius l. de Eccles. c. 9 The opposition of the Fathers is not admitted in this place: upon this rock, that is, upon Peter.  
Vorstius in Antibell. p. 64. Our men use to answer, that by the name of Rock, not the person, but the faith or confession of Peter, or Christ himself, is to be understood. More of their like sayings may be seen in my Latin book c. 5. art. 2.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that Christ speaking to Peter himself, hath in the words which immediately go before that clause: upon this rock &c, as also in the which immediately follow it, and designing S. Peter's person both by his Father, and by his proper name Peter, which he had given to him. (Which both in the Syriack tongue in which Christ spoke, and in the Hebrew tongue in which Saint Matthew wrote his Gospel, is wholly one and the self same word that Rock is, and also in the Greek language is equivalent or synonimall with it, as Protestants confess, and finally designing him by that pronoun This, said: upon this Rock, (which is as much, as is he had said upon this Peter) I will build my Church. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that S. Peter is not the Rock of the Church, not the foundation, not he upon whom the Church is built. Which is so manifest a contradiction of Scripture, as many Protestants confess it. See libr. 2. cap. 30.    

ART. III. WHETHER THE KEYS OF the kingdom of heaven were given to S. Peter himself?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matthew 16. vers. 18. & 19 And I say to thee. That thou 
The keys given to S. Peter.  art Peter— And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Prompt. Cathol. in Festo Petri & Pauli. The power of the keys was promised by Christ to Peter alone, and therefore it was truly given.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Controu. 9 quaest. 5. c. 3. Surely the keys of the 
Not to any one men.  Church were not given to any one singular man, but to the Church itself.  
Bucher in Matth. 16. This power (of the keys) is in the whole Church, but the authority of administering it, is in the Priests and Bishops: as in old time in Rome, the power was in the people; the authority, in the Senate.  
Articuli Smalcaldici. We must needs confess, that the keys belong not to the person of any one man, hut to the Church.  
Daneus Contr. 3. c. 10. p. 244. Christ called faith the rock: 
Not to Saint Peter.  to which rock, not to Peter, he gave these keys and the strength against the power and gates of Hell.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that Christ promised, and consequently gave, the keys of Heaven unto S. Peter. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that the power of the keys is not in the priests and Bishops: that they were not given to Peter, nor to any one singular man. Which contradiction of the Scripture is so plain, as some Protestants acknowledge it. See l. 2. c. 30    

ART. iv WHETHER S. PETER'S faith failed?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Luc. 22. v. 31. And our Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold 
Saint Peter's faith failed not.  Satan hath required to have you for to sift as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Lucae 22. v. 32. Christ doth in those words manifestly teach, that S. Peter's faith should not fail.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Cont. 4. q. 2. c. 2. When Bellarmin had said: Peter lost charity, but not faith when he denied Christ: answereth: It seemeth, that a greater wound was given to his faith then to his 
Saints Peter's faith failed.  charity. Again: That was surely a short apostasy.  
Hutterus in Analysi Confess. Augustan. art. 12. It is a blasphemous speech of Beza, when he writeth: That Peter denying Christ did not lose his faith.  
Reineccius to. 1. Armat. c. 22. Peter retained not faith. And to. 3. c. 4. For a time Peter's faith surely failed whiles he denied Christ.  
Daneus Contr. 3. c. 10. Bellarmin dreameth, when he sayeth, that Peter's faith could not fail: For by the denial which afterward he made, it appeareth to be false which he impudently affirmeth of the indefectibilitie of Peter's faith. The same he hath ibid. lib. 4. cap. 3.  
Lambertus and Schusselb. l. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 14. sayeth that Peter, when he fell, had not that true faith wherewith we trust in God alone, and the infidelity prevailed against Peter.  
junius Contro. 3. l. 1. c. 10. Certainly Peter erred from faith.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that Christ prayed that S. Peter's faith should not fail: which undoubtedly he obtained. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that S. Peter lost his faith, erred from faith, did not retain faith, did apostotate; that his faith failed, that infidelity prevailed against him. Which is so open a contradiction of Scripture, as diverse Protestants confess it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. V WHETHER THE APOSTLES were foundations of the Church?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Apocalip. 21. v. 14. And the wall of the city having twelve 
The Apostles foundations of the Church.  foundations: and in them twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the lamb.  
Ephes. 2. v. 20. You are citizens of the Saints, and the domesticals of God, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, jesus Christ himself being the highest corner stone.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Pontif. c. 11. All the Apostles were foundations of the Church.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Controu. 4. q. 1. c. 2. It is contrary to the analogy 
Not foundations of the Church.  of faith, that any man should be a foundation of the Church.  
Moulin. in his Bucler p. 380. The Apostles were not the foundations.  
Peter Martyr in locis, clas. 4. cap. 3. §. 4. If we read in the Fathers, (as we do in the Apocalypse) that there are twelve foundations, here foundation is not put for the rout of the building, but for great stones which are next to the foundation.  
Beza in Ephes. 2. vers. 20. The Apostles and Prophets were builders of this temple, that is, of the Church of God (as also now faithful Ministers are) but not the foundation itself.  
Herbrandus in Compend. Theol. loco de Eccles. The Apostles are not the foundation of the Church, but by their doctrine of Christ they laid the foundation.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that there are twelve foundations of the Church, and in them written the names of the twelve Apostles: that we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles, Christ being the chief corner stone where there is manifest distinction made between the foundation on which we are built, and Christ. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say, that the Apostles were not foundations, that they were not foundations of the Church, but builders: not foundations, but great stones next to the foundation: that no man can be a foundation of the Church. Which are so contrary to the Scripture, as some Protestants confess it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. VI WHETHER THE APOSTLES were simply to be heard or believed without examination of their doctrine?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Luc. 10. v. 16. He that heareth you, heareth me. 
The Apostles were simply to be heard.   
1. Thessalon. 1. v. 12. We give thankes to God without intermission, because that when you had received of us the word of God, you received it, not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God. The same also is proved by the testimonies cited in the next article.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton Defence. count. Whitak. l. 3. sect. 5. It is absurd to judge of the Apostles doctrine. Antidote. Act. 17. v. 11. Christ hath joined his truth and the Apostles preaching so narrowly, as he said who heareth you, heareth me: Why then not also: who examineth your doctrine, examineth my truth?   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Controu. 2. quaest. 5. cap. 11. If the Apostles be not simply to be heard, but to be examined according to the rule 
Not simply to be heard.  of Scripture, and to be received so fare forth as they agree with it, and to be rejected, as they differre, much, less &c. And l. 2. cont. Dureum sect. 2. When Paul preached to the Berheans, they examined the Scriptures, for to know fully whether those things which Paul taught, agreed with Scriptures. And this their example is allowed with the highest testimony of the holy Ghost, and proposed to all Christians to be imitated.  
Caluin in Actor. 17. vers. 11. The Thessalonians did not take upon to examine whether God's truth were to be received or no: only they examined Paul's doctrine to the line of Scripture. For the Scripture is the true touchstone, by which all doctrines are to be examined. And seeing the Spirit of God praiseth the Thessalonians, it prescribeth in their example a rule for us. It was lawful for the disciples to examine Paul's doctrine. And 4. Institut. c. 8. §. 4. The Apostles in their very name do show how fare their commission stretcheth: Forsooth, if they be Apostles let them not prate what they list, but faithfully deliver his commandments who sent them.  
Luther Praefat. Assert. Artic. to. 2. If S. Paul's Gospel or the new testament must have been tried by the old Scripture whether it were so or no, what did we, who would have the Father's sayings, examined by the Scripture?  
Daneus Contr. 4. p. 611. It is most false, that he writeth, that the doctrine and sentence of the Apostles was not examined of the disciples and auditors. Yea Christ himself commandeth his own doctrine to be so examined Io. 5. 39   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that who heareth the Apostles heareth Christ: that their word is not the word of men, but the word of God, and as such received of such as are faithful. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the Apostles are not to be heard simply but first to be examined: that all Christians ought to imitate the Betheans in examining S. Paul's doctrine: that the Apostles must not prate what they list: that the Gospel must be tried by the old testament.    

ART. VII. WHETHER THE APOSTLES were sufficient witnesses of the truth?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
John 15. v. 27. The Spirit of truth shall give testimone of me, 
The Apostles were sufficient witnesses.  and you also shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning. c. 21. v. 24. This is that disciple which giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. c. 1. v. 7. This man came for testimony, to give testimony of the light, that all might believe through him.  
Acts 1. v. 8. You shall receive the virtue of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shallbe witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all jewrie and Samaria, and even unto the utmost of the earth. c. 5. v. 32. And we are witnesses of these words, and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him. c. 10. v. 42. Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest, not to all the people, but to witness preordinated of God, to us who did eat and drink with him after he rose again from the dead.  
3. Ihon. v. 12. And we give testimony, and thou knowest that our testimony is true.  
Exode. 14. v. 31. And they believed our Lord, and Moses his servant.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton Defence. Contr. Whitaker. l. 1. sect. 8. In all these things the Apostles did allege their testimony, and themselves also as witnesses of that truth which they taught And l. 3. sect. 3. The Apostles were witnesses of their doctrine, and they gave authority to their doctrine. See him Cont. 4. l. 8. c. 9   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Controu. 1. q. 3. c. 11. God alone is a sufficient witness 
None but God is a sufficient witness.  of himself. And l. 3. de Scriptura c. 13. sect. 3. The people did not believe Moses for himself, but for that divine and great miracle.— Belief, was given to Moses and Paul, not for themselves, but for God's authority which appeared in their ministry. And ib. sect. 1. The testimony of the Church, as of the Church, is but humane. And Contr. 1. q. 3. c. 11. cit. The judgement of the Church is humane. The same followeth evidently of that which they said in the former article. For if the Apostles doctrine must be examined, it is manifest that they are not sufficient witnesses of their doctrine.  
The same Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 4. c. 3. Yea after Christ's 
Not the Apostles.  ascension and that descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, manifest it is, that the whole Church erred about the vocation of the Gentiles, and not the vulgar Christians only, but even the very Apostles and Doctors.— These were great errors, and yet we see that they were in the Apostles even after the Holy Ghost had descended upon them.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly affirmeth, that the Apostles had the holy Ghost given them to testify of Christ: that they were joined with the holy Ghost witnesses of Christ: that they were witnesses appointed of God: that their testimony is true: that all may believe through Saint John: that the faithful believed God and Moses. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that none but God is a sufficient witness of the truth: that neither Paul nor Moses were to be believed for themselves: that the testimony of the Church is but humane: That the Apostles erred and that greatly even after the holy Ghost had descended upon them.    

ART. VIII. WHETHER THE APOSTLES learned any point of Christian doctrine after Christ's ascension?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
John 16. v. 12. Yet many things I have to say to you, but you 
The Apostles learned some thing after Christ.  cannot bear them now: but when he the Spirit of truth cometh, he shall teach you all truth.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in joan. 16. v. 12. By this testimony is clearly proved, that Christ taught not all by word of mouth; but that both the Apostles and the Church learned many things of the Holy Ghost.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 6. c. 10. The holy Ghost did suggest no 
They learned nothing.  other things than those which Christ had taught.  
Caluin in joan. 14. vers. 26. Mark what all these things are, which he promiseth that he Spirit shall teach. He sayeth: He shall suggest or bring to mind whatsoever I have said. Whence it followeth, that he shall not be a coiner of new revelations. And 4. Institut. c. 8. §. 8. That limitation is carefully to be noted, where he appointeth the holy Ghost his office, to suggest whatsoever he had taught by word of mouth.  
Beza in joan. 14. v. 26. The Apostles neither learned nor taught any point of Christian and saving doctrine after the departure of the Lord.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that many things were told to the Apostles which they could not bear in Christ's time: that the holy Ghost was to be sent to teach them all truth. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that the Apostles learned no point of Christian doctrine after Christ's departure: that the Holy Ghost revealed no new thing to them; that he suggested no other thing than Christ had taught.    

ART. IX. WHETHER JUDAS WAS TRVELY a disciple, or in the true Church of Christ?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matth. 10. v. 1. & seq. And having called his twelve disciples 
judas was truly a disciple of Christ.  together, he gave them etc. And the names of the twelve Apostles be these: The first Simon who is called Peter— and judas Iscariot who also betrayed him. Et c. 20. v. 14. & 47. & Marc. 14. v. 10. & 43. &. Luc. 22. v. 3. & 47. he is called one of the twelve.  
John 12. v. 14. One therefore of his disciples, judas Iscariot.  
Acts 1. v. 17. judas, who was the captain of them that apprehended jesus, who was numbered among us, and obtained the lot of this ministry. v. 25. Show of these two, one, whom thou hast chosen to take the place of this ministry and Apostleship, from the which judas hath prevaricated— And the lot fell upon Mathias, and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Card. Bellarm. l. 3. de Eccles. c. 7. judas was once of the true Church, for he was an Apostle one of the twelve, and called a Bishop of the Prophet David psal. 108. Which could not be true, unless he had been of the Church.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Controu. 2. q. 1. cap. 7. I answer, that the reprobate 
judas never of the Catholic Church.  judas was never of the true Catholic Church. He held for a time a principal place in the outward society of the Church, because he was an Apostle, but this made him not of the true Catholic Church— But how he was one of the Apostles Austin telleth, Tract. 61. in joan. That how he was one in number not in merit; 
Never an Apostle indeed. Never true member of the Church.  are in show not in virtue. But what is in show, seemeth to be, but is not indeed.  
Daneus Controu. 4. c. 2. judas Iscariot and Simon Magus were never true members of the true Church of God. Of the same opinion are Protestants commonly, who deny that any reprobate can be in the true Church, as we shall see hereafter c. 8.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that judas was one of Christ's disciples, one of the twelve Apostles, was numbered amongst them, obtained the lot of their ministry, had the place of Apostleship which S. Mathias afterwards had. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that judas was never of the true Catholic Church, seemed to be one of the Apostles but was not indeed.    

ART. X. WHETHER JUDAS WAS a Bishop?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Acts 1. v. 20. For it is written in the book of psalms: Be 
judas was a Bishop.  their habitation made desert, and be there none that dwell in it: and his (judas) Bishopric let an other take.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
C. Bellarm. cited in the former article. judas is called a Bishop of the Prophet David.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 7. judas was an Apostle therefore no 
He was no Bishop.  Bishop: because the Apostles were no Bishops. The same say other Protestants, who deny that the Apostles were properly Bishops.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
The Scripture expressly sayeth, that judas had the office of a Bishop, which an other Apostle took: The same say Catholics.  
The Protestants say, that judas was no Bishop.    

THE SUM OF THIS CHAPTER OF SAINT Peter and the Apostles.  
Out of that which hath been rehearsed in this chapter it clearly appeareth, that the Protestant's in an other manner describe S. Peter and the Apostles, them the holy Scripture and catholics do. For the Scripture and catholics teach that S. Peter was first of the Apostles: that he was the rock on which Christ built his Church, that he had the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that his faith did not fail: All which Protestants deny. Besides the Scripture and catholics say, that the Apostles were foundations of the Church, were simply to heard without examining their doctrine, were sufficient witnesses of truth; learned diverse things of the holy Ghost: All which are denied by Prorestants. Moreover the Scripture and catholics say that judas was truly a disciple and Apostle of Christ, and also a Bishop: which Protestant's in like manner deny.  
Wherefore Protestants steal from S. Peter his honour, that he is the first of the Apostles; his authority, that he is the rock of the Church; and his power of the keys and steadfastness of faith. And from the rest of the Apostles they steal that they were foundations of the Church, simply to be heard, sufficient witnesses of truth, and that they learned any thing of the holy Ghost.    

CHAPTER VI OF PASTORS OF THE CHURCH.  

ART. I. WHETHER THERE BE Always pastors of the Church?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
HIEREMIE 33. v. 21. Thus sayeth the Lord: If my 
Pastors' always.  covenant with the day can be made void, and my covenant with the night, that there be no day and night in their time: also my covenant may be made void with David my servant, that there be not of him a son to reign in his throne, and levites and priests my ministers.  
Ephes. 4. v. 12. And he gave Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the saints, unto the work of the ministeric unto the edifying of the body of Christ, until we meet all into the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in 1. Cor. 15. v. 15. Impious Caluin doth boldly and often times say, that Pastors, Doctors, Prelates, Bishops, Masters of Churches all universally for many ages have wholly strayed from the Christian truth and been seducers.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther in psal. 129. to. 3. The Church under Antichrist had no true ministry.  
Caluin de vera reform. p. 322. Not without cause we avouch 
Not always.  that for some ages the Church was so torn and scattered, that it was destitute of true Pastors. And p. 322. I grant indeed, that it can never come to pass that the Church perish: but when they refer that to Pastors which is promised of the perpetual continuance of the Church, therein they are much deceived.  
Beza de notis Eccles. vol. 3. Forsooth it fell out, that the lawful order was then wholly abolished in the Church, as it is manifest that it hath been now for some ages, not so much being left as the smalllest shadow of the chiefest parts of ecclesiastical vocation.  
Sadeel ad Art. abiurat. pag. 533. It is false, that the external ministry must be perpetual.  
Daneus Controu. 3. p. 426. The Church eftsoon hath no man Postour. And Controu, 4. p. 757. The true Church hath oft wanted Prelates.  
Lukbertus l. 5 de Eccles cap. 5. We say, that for some short time the Church may be deprived of Pastors.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that there shallbe Pastors as long as there shallbe day and night: that Pastors are given until we meet all in one faith. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the Church may be deprived of Pastors; that Pastors may perish, that the ministry must not be perpetual: that the Church sometime had no true ministry, was for some ages destitute of true Pastors: that lawful order was for some ages quite abolished in the Church not so much as the slenderest shadow of the chiefest parts of ecclesiastical vocation being left Which are so plain against Scripture as sometimes Protestants confess it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. II. WHETHER AUTHORITY of governing the Church be in the Pastors themselves?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matth. 16. v. 18. & seq. Thou art Peter etc. And to thee I will give 
Pastors have authority to govern.  the keys of the kingdom of heaven.  
Acts 20. v. 28. The Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God.  
1. Cor. 4. v. 21. What will you? In a rod that I come to you, or in charity and the spirit of mildness?  
2. Cor. 13. v. 10. These things I writ absent, that being present I may not deal hardly according to the power which the Lord hath given me. And c. 10. v. 6. Having in readiness to revenge all disobedience.  
2. Tim. 1. v. 11. I am appointed a preacher, and Apostle, and Master of the Gentiles.  
Hebrews 13. vers. 17. Obey your Prelates and be subject to them.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Triplicat. count. Whitaker. c. 13. We see, that Paul putteth the authority in the Prelates.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker l. 1. de Script. c. 13. sect. 12. The authority is not 
Authority is not in the Pastors.  in the Prelates but in the word, for whose administration the Prelates do serve. Again: I acknowledge no ruling which the Church hath. All the authority is in God and in his word, the Church hath nothing but mere ministry.  
Spalatensis l. 5. de Repub c. 2. n. 40. Church governors are most like to Physicians. The Physician appointeth wholesome things, and forbiddeth unwholesome, prescribeth diet etc. but hath no 
They have no jurisdiction.  jurisdiction or command over the sick— As it is the Physician's office to govern the sick, that is, without jurisdiction: So it is the office of the ecclesiastical rectors to govern the Church, that is, the faithful.  
Caluin 4. Instit. c. 8. §. 2. We must remember, that what authority or dignity the Holy Ghost in the Scripture doth give to Priests, or Prophets, or Apostles, or Successors of Apostles, all that is given not properly to the men themselves, but to the ministry whereof they are officers, or (to speak brefly) to the word, whose ministry is committed to them. The same he hath in joan. 16. v. 8. in Math. 20. v. 25. and in jacob 4. v. 12.  
Beza in Math. 20. v. 25. What then, will you say. Have the 
No power at all over consciences.  Ministers of the word of God no power at all? None truly they, no not over consciences for instruction whereof they are appointed: But they are legates of Christ, to say and do in his name sacred not civil matters, who alone hath all right of commanding, and he commandeth them to be heard as legates, not as masters.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the power of keys was given to S. Peter: that the Holy Ghost placed Bishops to govern the Church: that S. Paul had a rod and power over the faithful, could deal hardly and punish all disobedience, was Master of the Gentiles, and that we ought to be subject to our Prelates. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that there is no authority in the Prelates themselves: that the Church hath no rule but mere ministry: that Pastors have no more jurisdiction over the faithful than Physicians over the sick: that they have no power over the consciences, but that all authority or right of commanding is in God only and in his word.    

ART. III. WHETHER ANY ONE PAStour have authority to excommunicate?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 16. v. 19 Thou art Peter— And whatsoever thou shalt 
S. Peter had authority to excommunicate. And S. Paul.  bind upon earth, it shallbe bound also in heaven.  
1. Timoth. 16. v. vlt. Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander whom I have delivered to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton Cont. 2. q. 1. art. un. The Ecclesiastical power first, principally, of itself, and immediately, is in particular persons.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Beza in Conf. c. 5. sect. 43. We must remember, that this power 
No one man can excommunicate.  (of excommunicating) is given to no one man, but to the whole company of the Presbytery.  
Caluin 4. Instit. c. 11. §. 5. The spiritual power (of excommunicating) must not be exercised at the pleasure of one man, but by the lawful assembly. §. 6. This kind of power was not in one, but in the assemble of the Elders.  
Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 5. v. 4. So great an Apostle doth not not take upon him to excommunicate of himself and alone: which yet the Pope and many Bishops dare.  
Bucanus in Institut. loco 44. In whom must the power of excommunicating be? not in any one either Bishop, or ordained of the Bishop.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that power of binding was given to S. Peter: that S. Paul excommunicated or delivered some to Satan. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say, that power of excommunicating is in no one man, Bishop or other: that S. Paul took not upon to excommunicate of himself.    

ART. iv WHETHER PASTORS OF the Church have power to command or make laws?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Acts 15. v. 28. It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and 
Pastors' can command.  to us, to lay no further burden upon you, than these necessary things: That you abstain from the things imolated to idols, and blood, and that which is strangled. And ver. 41. And he (Paul) walked through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches, and commanding them to keep the precepts of the Apostles and the Ancients.  
1. Thessalon. 4. v. 11. We desire you brethren, that you work with your own hands, as we have commanded you. And Epistol. 2. cap. 3. vers. 4. And we have confidence of you in our Lord, that the things which we command, you both do and will do.  
1. Cor. 7. v. 12. For to the rest, I say, not our Lord: If any brother have a wife an infidel, and she consent to Devil with him, let him not put her away.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 4. de Pontif. c. 17. The Pope and other Bishops can judge and make laws.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Caluin in Antidoto Concilij Sess. 6. con. 20. As for laws of 
They cannot command.  the Church, let them look to them: we acknowledge one lawmaker, who can give rules of life, as we have our life from him. In actor. 15. v. 28. The sottish Papists, who out of these words would 
The Church hath no authority. No power to make laws.  prove that the Church hath some authority.  
Musculus in locis c. de Magistrate. The Church hath no power to make laws, but she is commanded to hear and obey.  
Luther de Captivit. to. 2. fol. 76. Nether Pope, nor Bishop, nor any man hath any right to put a tittle upon a Christian man, unless it be done by his own consent.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly affirmeth, that the Apostles put precepts and burdens upon the faithful, that S. Paul commanded Christians to keep them, and that himself commanded diverse things. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the Church hath no authority of lawmaking, hath no power to make laws, that no Bishop or other can command a Christian man any thing but what he will himself.    

ART. VIII. WHETHER BISHOPS BE rulers of the Church?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Act. 28. v. 28. The Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to 
Bishop's rulers of the Church.  rule the Church of God.  
2. Tim. 1. ver. 11. I am appointed a preacher and Apostle and Master of the Gentiles. 7. c. 5. v. 19 Against a Priests receive not accusation, but under two or three witnesses.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent sess. 23. c. 4. Bishops are put of the Holy Ghost for to rule the Church of God.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Spalatensis or Lohetus Respons. ad Marium. cap. 1. The true nature of a head, and the true nature of a ruler, is in no pure 
No man ruler of the Church  man, one or many, neither Monarchically nor Aristocratically. Of the same opinion are others as appeareth by what hath been said before art. 2. and 4.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Bishops are rulers of the Church, that S. Paul was master of the Gentiles, that S. Timothe was judge of Priests. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that no pure man one or many, can be head or true ruler of the Church.    

ART. VI WHETHER DO RULE THE true Church of God?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Act. 20. v. 28. The holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to 
Bishop's rule the true Church  rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood.  
Ephes. 4. v. 11. And he gave other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints, unto the work of the ministry, unto the edifying of the body of Christ.  
isaiah 62. v. 6. Upon thy walls, Jerusalem, I have appointed watch men.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Ttent Sess. 6. c. 1. The Holy Ghost hath put all Bishops of patriarchal, Primatiall, Metropolitan and Cathedral Churches to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his blood.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Controu. 2. quaest. 2. c. 2. The rule of the Catholic 
Not the true Church.  Church could yet never be seen. Again: The Catholic Curch, which containeth only good men, can neither be seen, nor comen unto, nor saluted. And q. 1. c. 10. There are some Prelates, who say and do not, but these are not of the Catholic Church— Bellarmin should remember, that Bishops are Pastors of particular Churches, not of the Catholic Church. Of the same opinion are other Protestants, who say, that the true Church of God is invisible to men, for such a Church cannot be ruled of men: or deny, that any reprobates, though they be Pastors, are members of the true Church. For if they were Pastors of the true Church, certainly they should be also members of the same and those principal. And if no reprobates be Pastors of the true Church, neither be any elect: because those Pastors, which are elect, rule no other Church then that, which those which are reprobate, do. As Saint Peter ruled no other kind of Church, than judas did.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that Bishops rule that Church which Christ purchased with his blood: that they edify the body of Christ: and that there are watch men upon the walls of Jerusalem: But Jerusalem, the body of Christ, the Church purchased with Christ's blood, is the true Church. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that the rule of the Catholic or true Church is invisible, that she cannot be seen: that naughty prelates are not of the Catholic Church: that Bishops are not pastors of the Catholic Church.    

ART. VII. WHETHER PASTORS OF the Church be to be called Priests?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
isaiah 61. ver. 6. speaking of the time of Gospel, sayeth: 
Pastors of the Church are to be called Priests.  And you shallbe called the Priests of the Lord. To you it shallbe said: The Ministers of our God. And c. 66. v. 20. 21. And they shall show forth my glory to the Gentiles— And I will take of them to be priests and levits, sayeth our Lord.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa c. 17. S. Austin sayeth, that Bishops and Presbyters are properly called Priests.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther de Instit. Ministr. to. 2. fol. 371. Who administer the 
Not to be called Priests.  word and Sacraments amongst people, neither may nor aught to be called priests.  
Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 18. §. 14. With what trust dare these sacrilegious follows call themselves priests of the living God?  
Rainalds in his Conference c. 8. divis. 4. They who charge us with falsehood and corruption in that we call the Ministers of the Gospel, Elders; are guilty themselves of heresy and blasphemy, in that they call them Priests.  
Whitaker l. 9 cont. Dur. sect. 47. The names of Priests or Sacrificers, do no way agree to the Ministers of the new testament, but abusively and metonymically.  
P. Martyr l. cont. Gardiner col. 1075. We call not our Ministers, Priests.  
Confessio Heluet. c. 18. We give none of our Ministers the name of Priests.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the Pastors of the Church shallbe called Priests: and that some of the Gentiles shall of God be taken to be Priests. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that Pastors of the Church may not be called Priests, that they call none of them Priests: that it is sacrilege, heresy, and blasphemy to call them priests.    

ART. VIII. WHETHER ANY CAN BE a Pastor and preach without mission or calling?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Roman. 10. vers. 15. But how shall they preach unless they 
None can preach without mission.  be sent?  
Hebr. 5. ver. 5. So Christ also did not glorify himself that he might be made a high priest.  
John 3. v. 28. A man cannot receive any thing, unless it be given him from heaven.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
D. Stapleton in Rom. 10. v. 15. The root of lawful preaching, is mission: neither is there any lawful power of preaching God's word, where lawful mission went not before.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Art. Smalcaldici pag. 353. In case of necessity, a lay man absolveth, 
In necessity a lay man absolveth. Some may preach with out mission.  and becometh Pastor and Minister to an other.  
Luther tom. 2. German. fol. 256. A Christian man hath so much power, that not called, he ought to come forth and teach in midst of Christians, when he seethe the teacher there to err.  
Id. l. de Instit. ministr. f. 372. We have showed evidently, that every one hath authority to minister the word, yea commandment, if he see that there is none to teach, or that they teach not aright, who are. The like ib. l. de judic. Eccles. 376. & de Captivit. f. 80. And Postilla in die S. Stephani f. 84. Stephen by his example giveth authority to every Christian to preach Christ in what place soever, where they are desirous to hear.  
Herbrand in Disp. 11. Even they who are not lawfully called may preach the word fruitfully.  
Melancthon in disput. to. 4. p. 507. A lay man can absolve, not only in case of necessity, but otherwhere.  
jacobus Andreae in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 410. In case of necessity when Ministers or other men are absent, it is lawful for a woman to comfort a sick man by preaching, and absolve him of his sins. Kemnitius also 2. port. Exam. tit. de Ministris p. 49. sayeth that it is lawful in case of necessity to preach without lawful vocation.  
Peter Martyr in locis clas. 4. c. 1. §. 15. When a Church is not yet built and men are ignorant of Christian religion, whosoever shallbe there by chance who know Christ, they are bound to preach him: neither is ordination to be expected, seeing it cannot be had.  
Beza de Notis Eccles. vol. 3. Then, wilt thou say, shall it be lawful for every one in the Church to teach? No truly— But where a general disorder rageth under colour of order, neither remedy can be expected from the authors of this evil, then surely, as when the city is on fire, it is the part of every good citizen out of order to bring water and cast upon the fire: so in this fire of the Church, it is the duty of every pious man according to his power to oppose himself to this evil.  
Plessie de Eccles. c. 11. We know, that it is said: How shall they preach unless they be sent: But because when all things are done confusely and out of order, we must not look that all things may be done rightly, and according to set order and form. For either that the Church be admonished that there need reformation, or that any particular man take care of his salvation, every Christian ought to know that he is called to that function by a general vocation, so that he burn with zeal of the glory of God and charity to his neighbour.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that none can preach unless he be sent, none can take any honour unless it be given to him: that Christ made not himself Priest or Pastor. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that one that is not called may fruitfully preach, that any man may preach in case of necessity, or when there wanteth a Pastor, or he erreth, or when there is a general disorder, or men are desirous to hear: that a lay man may absolve in case of necessity and otherwise also: that in case of necessity a lay man becometh a Minister and Pastor: yea that where men want, a woman may preach and absolve from sins. Which are so plainly against Scripture as some Protestants confess it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. IX. WHETHER A PASTOR OF the Church may have also temporal jurisdiction?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Gen. 14. v. 18. and Hebr. 7. v. 3. Melchisedech is said to 
A Pastor of the Church may have temporal jurisdiction.  have been both a Priest and King.  
Exod. 18. ver. 13. Moses did sit to judge the people: And yet withal was a priest as we shall show in the next article. 1. Reg. 1. & 4. Heli is said to have been high Priest and judge of the people. The same is evidten of the Maccabees.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 9 It doth not repugn, that the Pope should be both a spiritual Prince, and also a temporal Prince of some province.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Zuinglius Art. 36. to. 1. jurisdiction or administration of 
He cannot.  law which the said Church men do challenge, belongeth wholly to the secular Magistrate if he willbe a Christian. And in explan. art. 36. All administration of law is forbidden to Church men.  
Caluin in Luc. 12. v. 13. So is the robbery of the Pope and his men condemned, who though they pretend to be Pastors of the Church, notwithstanding dare take upon them terrene and profane jurisdiction, which is contrary to their function. The same he hath 4. justit. c. 11. §. 8.  
Daneus Controu. 4. pag. 560. Let us show, that under the Gospel it is not lawful for Bishops to have, execute, practice, both ecclesiastical and political jurisdiction.  
Polanus in Disput private. disput. 13. No man can be at once both a Bishop and a political Prince.  
Hutterus in Analysi Confess. Augustan. p. 622. It is manifest, that both powers cannot agree to one and the same man at one time.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Melchisedech was at once both King and Priest: that Moses was both judge and priest: the same of Heli and the Maccabees Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say, that all temporal jurisdiction belongeth to the civil Magistrate: all temporal administration of law is forbidden to Church men, that the same man cannot have ecclesiastical and temporal jurisdiction, the same man cannot be both Bishop and Prince.    

ART. X. WHETHER MOSES WERE a Priest?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Psal. 98. v. 6. Moses and Aaron in his Priests, and Samuel 
Moses was a Priest.  among them that invocate his name.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 9 Moses was both a sovereign temporal Prince and a high priest, as is evident it out of the Scripture.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 5. c. 4. Nether did Moses exercise at all 
He was no Priest.  the preisthood, but was only a Prophet.  
jewel in defence. Apol. Part. 6. c. 11. divis. 4. Whether Moses were a Priest or no, we are not certain.  
Daneus Cont. 4. p. 561. I answer that Moses had not nor, exercised both the functions of Preihstood and Magistrate; but only the functions of a Magistrate and Prophet. The same said Hunnius in Colloq. Ratisbon. sect. 2. Where he addeth, that he sacrified as a Prophet, not as a Priest.  
Chamier l. 1. de Pontif. p. 71. I grant, that Moses as superior to Aaron, but as Magistrate, not as Priest.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture sayeth plainly, that Moses was a Priest as it sayeth that Aaron was one. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that Moses was no priest; exercised no preisthood.    

THE SUM OF THIS CHAPTER OF PASTORS.  
What we have rehearsed in this Chapter doth show, that Protestants do propose fare other kind of Pastors to us then the holy Scripture and catholics do: For the Scripture together with catholics teacheth us, that Pastors are perpetual, have in themselves authority to rule the Church, that one single Pastor hath power to excommunicate, that they have authority to command and make laws, be true rulers of the Church, do rule the true Church, be to be called Priests, cannot be made nor preach without lawful calling, may have also temporal jurisdiction, and finally that Moses was a Priest: All which Protestants deny.  
They also show that Protestants steal from the Pastors of the Church their perpetuity, their authority, their power to excommunicate in particular, their authority to command and make laws, their true power of ruling, or ruling the true Church, their name of Priests and temporal jurisdiction: and finally from Moses, his Preisthood. And thus much of Pastors: now of the Church.    

CHAPTER VII. OF THE CHURCH.  

ART. I. WHETHER THE CHURCH be one?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
I HON 10. v. 16. There shallbe made one fouled and 
One Church.  one Pastor.  
Rom. 12. v. 5. So we being many, are one body in Christ.  
Ephes. 2. v. 16. That he may reconcile both in one body to God by the cross.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton Controu. 1. quaestion. 2. artic. 1. The Catholic doctrine is, that there is one only Church which we profess in the Creed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Controu. 2. quaest. 1. cap. 7. pag 432. There 
Twoe Churches.  must needs be one Church of the wicked, an other of the good. And cap. 14. pag. 453. Where (Austin) sayeth, that which we say, that there are two societies of men in the world, that is, two Churches. To the one, belong the predestinate; to the other, the reprobate.  
Humphrey ad Ration 3. Campiani. We have showed, that 
This, and that.  Caluin and our Churches put not only that invisible Church, but also this which is visible and apparent by her notes.  
Morton in Apol. part. 1. l. c. 1. The question is, whether that Church which in our Creed we believe and profess to be one holy and catholic be invisible, and necessarily distinct from any visible Church. Protestants affirm: Papists deny. And cap. 3. Many are in the visible Church who have nothing to do with the invisible. Therefore there must be admitted some invisible Church, out of which they are, distinct from that, in which they are.  
Magdeburgenses Centuria 1. l. 2. c. 4. col. 171. Christ and 
Twoe Churches.  the things themselves teach us, that there are two Churches  
Gesnerus in Compendio doctrinae loco 24. Then will there be two Churches, one visible, the other invisible? We must needs distinguish between the visible congregation of them that are called, embrace the Sacraments, and profess the pure word of God, and between the true faithful and elect.  
Vrsinus in Catechismo p. 343. The militant Church is twoefould, visible, and invisible. The visible is the company of those that agree in doctrine, having many members dead or not regenerate: The invisihle, is the company of the elect and regenerate.  
Daneus Cont. 4. p. 707. But if this man be of that opinion, 
Twoe Churches.  that Austin doth not acknowledge two Churches, the one visible in which even the reprobate are, an other invisible in which only, those are who are predestinated of God to salvation, he is much deceived.  
Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 124. One distinction separateth the true and internal Church of Christ, which wholly consisteth of the elect and true beleivers, from the external company of professors, which often times hath many reprobates: albeit also it may be not without cause called the true Church of Christ, by reason of professing true doctrine.  
And seeing all Protestants divide the Church into visible and invisible, and do not only profess, that the invisible Church is a true Church, but also sometimes call the visible, a true Church, properly so termed, and the sp●use and body of Christ, as I shown l. de Authore Protestant. Eccles. 2. cap. 6. they must needs confess, that they make 
Visible and invisible Church distinct. In parts.  two true Churches militant, which in their opinion differ in parts or members, in definition, and in many proprieties. For according to them, the parts or members of the invisible Church, are only just and predestinate men: parts or members of the visible Church, are both just and unjust, predestinate and reprobate. The definition of the invisible Church, is this: A Society in justifying faith and predestination: The definition of the visible, this: 
In Definition.  A Society in profession of true faith and lawful use of Sacraments. The invisible, is known only to God: The visible, to God and men also. Against the invisible, the gates 
In Proprieties.  of hell cannot prevail: against the visible, they may. She cannot be led into error, at lest not into fundamental error: This may. She cannot wholly perish, this may. She is believed of Protestants in the Creed, not this. She hath no visible notes whereby she may be distinguished from other Societies, this hath. If therefore both these Societies be true Churches before God, there must needs be two true militante Churches. For one cannot differ from itself, in parts, definition, and in so many and so great proprieties.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that Christ's fold is one, that Christians are one mystical body. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants plainly say, that there are two Churches, a twoefould Church, one of the wicked an other of good: or one of the predestinate an other of the reprobate: that there is this and that Church, visible and invisible.    

ART. VII. WHETHER BAD MEN MAY be in the true Church?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 13. ver. 47. The kingdom of heaven is like to a net cast 
B●d men in the Church.  into the sea, and gathering together of all kind of fishes. Which when it was filled, drawing it forth and sitting by the shore▪ they chose out the good into vessels, but the bad they cast out. So shall it be in the consummation of the world.  
Matth. 3. v. 12. Whose fan is in his hand, and he shall clean 
Chaff in God's flore.  purge his flore; and will gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.  
1. Cor. 6. v. 15. Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Taking therefore the members of Christ, shall I make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. c. 10. v. 17. For 
All Communicants, one body.  being many, we are one bread, one body all that participate of one bread. The same is evident by what hath been said before of judas.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton Controu. 1. q. 2. art. 5. The orthodoxal sentence is, that the true Church which we believe in our Creed, consisteth of good and bad.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 1. cap. 7. The Church consisteth of the 
The bade no members of the Church.  good only. The bad are not members of the true Church. c. 11. The godly are no more joined in one body with the wicked, then light with darkness, Christ with Belial. c. 13. In the triumphant Church are only good, so likewise in the militant. Et q. 5. c. 3. The wicked 
Belong to the Church.  belong not to the Church of God.  
Rainalds thes. 4. The wicked are no part of the body of Christ, therefore neither of the Church. And in Apologia thes. pag. 244. The Church proposed in the Creed, containeth only Saints.  
Apologia Conf. Augustan. de Eccles. The wicked cannot be the Church.  
Luther in Psal. 118. tom. 7. Who hath not true faith, is not a 
Pertain not to the Church.  Saint and just, pertaineth not to the holy Church.  
Caluin 4. Instit. c. 1. § 7. None are admitted into that which is indeed the Church before God, but they who by grace of adoption are the Sons of God.  
Peter Martyr in locis clas. 4. c. 1. §. 1. We avouch, that such 
Not parts of the Church.  men (wicked) are not indeed and before God parts of the Church. In 1. Cor. 1. Only Saints are truly and before God of the Church, the wicked in only show and not indeed belong to the Church.  
Daneus Cont. 4. p. 706. That which is the true Church, consisteth of Saintes alone.  
Volanus l. 3. cont. Scargam. Confess, that in name only, 
In name only members of the Church.  and not indeed (as thou falsely thinkest) they are reputed amongst the members of the Church of God, who being by nature goats are hidden under the name of Christ's sheep in his flock. And he addeth, that such are worthily, judged to cover themselves with the vain and unprofitable mask of the Church.  
Musculus in locis tit. de Eccles. Not so much as the name of the Church is to be given to the wicked and reprobate.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that bad men are in the Church as bad fishes in the net, and as chaff in the flore: that the bodies of those Christians who commit fornication, are members of Christ: that all who eat of one Eucharistical bread, are one body. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly teach, that bad men are not members of the true Church, pertain not to the holy Church, are not indeed & before God parts of the Church, only in show, and not indeed belong to the Church, in name only and not indeed are reputed among the members of the Church, cover themselues with the vain mask of the Church, deserve not so much as the name of the Church: that they are not joined in one body with the godly, are no part of the body of Christ: That the Church, the Church proposed in the Creed, the Church indeed and before God, the true Church, consisteth only of good men and Saints.    

ART. III. WHETHER REPROBATES may be in true Church?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
The parables cited in the former article of the net and 
Reprobates in God's net, in his flore, and his disciples.  the flore, and the example of judas show manifestly, that reprobates may be in the true Church.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton Cont. 1. q. 2. art. 1. The Catholic doctrine is, that there is but one Church which we profess in our Creed, and that she consisteth of the elect and reprobate.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 7. We say, that the Church consisteth 
Reprobates not of the Church indeed.  not of reprobates, but of only predestinate. Again. A reprobate may seem to be of the Church, but he cannot be indeed of the Church. And q. 5. c. 3. That is a false Church, which consisteth of reprobates.  
Rainalds in Apol. Thes. p. 170. I determine, that the elect alone are contained in the Church of the Creed.  
M. Perkins. de praedest. tom. 1. col. 154. A reprobate is but in 
Only in show members of the Church.  show only a member of Christ.  
Abbats in Diatribam Thomsoni c. 8. Reprobates are not reputed in the Church.  
Caluin in 1. joan. 2. v. 19 John plainly pronounceth, that they 
Never members of the Church.  who fall away, were never members of the Church.  
Beza in Confess. cap. 5. sect. 8. As for the rest (Beside the elect) they are not be numbered among the members of the Church, albeit they were Apostles.  
Daneus Cont. 4. p. 689. The true Church of God containeth only his elect.  
Pareus Colloq. Theol. 1. disput. 12. The reprobate are not truly and indeed of the Church, nor belong unto it before God. 
Not truly of the Church.   
Sadeel in Refutat. Posnan. c. 4. Reprobates pertain not to the true Church. And Musculus in the former article, will not so much as the name of the Church to be bestowed upon the reprobates.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that those who are to be be cast out and to be burnt with unquenchable fire, that is, reprobates, are in the kingdom of heaven and in the flore of God, that is, in his Church. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly teach, that reprobates are not in the Church, not in the true Church, not in the Church of the Creed, not indeed, not before Good: that the Church, the true Church containeth only the elect: that the re-reprobates only in show and appearance can be of the Church, that they deserve not the name of the Church that she is a false Church which consisteth of the reprobates.    

ART. iv WHETHER THE CHURCH continueth ever?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matthew 16. vers. 18. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock 
Church, invincible.  will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  
Luke 1. v. 33. And he shall reign in the house of jacob for 
Shall have no end.  ever, and of his kingdom there shallbe no end.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton Cont. 1. q. 3. art. 2. The Church of Christ continueth to the end of the world.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Apology of the Church of England. Long ago hath 
The whole Church clean fallen down.  the Bishop of Rome willed to have the whole Church depend upon himself alone: wherefore it is no marvel though it be clean fallen down long ago. Again. When we likewise saw, that all things were quite trodden underfoot by these men, and that nothing remained in the temple of God but pitiful spoils and decays, we reckoned etc.  
Cartwright in whitgift's Defense p. 217. When Antichrist 
Rooted out from the ground.  had rooted out the Church even from the ground etc.  
Luther in c. 49. Genes. tom. 6 The Pope hath extinguished the Church.  
Caluin count. Sadolet. p. 132. The matter came to that pass, that it was clear and manifest both to the learned and unlearned, 
Christ kingdom flat down.  that the true order of the Church then perished, Christ's kingdom was cast flat down, when this principality (of the Pope) was erected.  
Beza in Conf. c. 5. sect. 29. But for that horrible tyranny (of the Popedom) which overthrew the whole Church and whicb almost alone doth stay her renewing we &c.  
Daneus in l. Augustini de Haeres. c. 95. About the year of our lord 574. arose this destruction, plague, and tyranny of the 
Rooted out from the foundation.  whole Church, which after rooted out the kingdom of Christ from the foundation.  
Chassanio l. 2. de Ecclesia p. 151. It is false: That the Church shall never be broken of. More of their like sayings may be seen in my 2. book of the Author of the Protestant religion c. 1. Where also c. 2. I have refuted their evasions.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the gates of hell shall not pre●aile against the Church. that there shallbe no end of the kingdom of Christ. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the whole Church was clean fallen down long ago: that nothing remained in the temple of God but pitiful spoils & decays: that the Church was rooted out from the ground: the Church extinct, the whole Church overthrown, the whole Church destroyed: that the kingdom of Christ was cast flat down and rooted out from the foundation: which are so contrary to the Scripture as sometimes Protestants confess no less. See lib. 2. cap. 30.    

ART. V WHETHER THE CHURCH BE always visible.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matth. 5. vers. 15. Christ thus speaketh to his disciples or 
Church cannot be hidden.  Church: You are the light of the world. A city cannot be hid situated upon a mountain.  
And c. 18. v. 17. And if he will not hear them, tell the Church, And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publican.  
isaiah 62. v. 6. Upon thy walls, Jerusalem, I have appointed 
Wacth men for ever in the Church.  wachmen, all the day and all the night for ever they shall not hold their peace.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton Cont. 1. q. 3. art. 1. The Church which we are to believe, must necessarily always be visible. There must always be a visible Church.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 2. c. 1. Their (Papists) opinion is, that 
Militant Church invisible.  the militant Church is always visible. But we teach, that the whole Church, that is, the Catholic, is invisible, not only the triumphant part, but also the militant. Et q. 4. c. 1. We confess, that there is always on earth some number of them who piously worship Christ, and hold the true faith and religion: but we say, that this member is not always visible. Their (Papists) opinion is that there is perpetually some visible Church on earth.  
Caluin in Praefat. Instit. Papists will have the form of the 
Church not apparent.  Church to be always apparent and visible: we on the contrary affirm, that the Church may consist of no apparent form. Et in Catechismo c. de fide. She is not always seen with eyes, discerned by marks.  
Daneus Cont. 4. l. 3. c. 12. Oftentimes God will have some visible 
Oftentimes no visible Church.  Church on earth, oftentimes none. And l. 4. c. 8. The true Church may some time fail to be visible.  
Scarpe de justif. Cont. 5. The members of the visible Church 
The whole visible Church may fail. In the uttermost extent▪  may fail, yea the whole visible Church, as such.  
Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 136. Whence it followeth, that the visible Church of Christ, not only in a great part, but even whole, taken in the uttermost extent, may for sometime fail from the true faith, and be wholly obscured. Again. The external Church of Christ may be obscured and fail. More of their like sayings may be seen in my foresaied book c. 4.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly teacheth, that the Church of Christ cannot be hidden, and biddeth us to tell and hear her. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly teach, that there is not always a visible number of those who piously worship Christ, that the Church may have no apparent for me, is not always seen with eyes, sometimes faileth to be visible: that the whole visible Church, as such, may fail: that the whole visible Church taken in her uttermost extent may fail from the faith: that God oftentimes will have no visible Church on earth. Which are so opposite to Scripture as Protestants sometimes confess it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. VI WHETHER THE CHURCH be infallible in faith?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
isaiah. 59 vers. ultim. This is my covenant with them, sayeth 
God's spirit ever in the mouth of the Church.  our Lord: My spirit that is in thee, and my words that I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, and out of the mouth of thy seed, and out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, sayeth our Lord, from this present for ever.  
Matthew. 16. vers. 18. And the gates of hell shall not prevail 
Gates of hell prevail not against her.  against it.  
joan. 16. v. 13. But when the Spirit of truth cometh, he shall teach you all truth.  
1. Tim. 3. ver. 15. Which is the Church of the living God, the 
The pillar of truth.  pillar and ground of truth.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton Controu. 4. qu. 2. art. unico. The Church in her determinations of faith is ever must certain and infallible.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 4. cap. 3. God hath not promised to his 
The universal Church may err. In necessary matters. The whole Church.  Church, that she should not err. The universal Church may err. The whole Church may err. It is evident, that the true Church may for a time err even in necessary matters. Yea after Christ's ascension and that descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, it is manifest, that the whole Church did err about the vocation of the Gentiles, and not only the common sort of Christians, but even the very Apostles and Doctors. And quaest. 5. cap. 17. The Church may for a time err in some fundamental points.  
Beza de notis Eccles. vol. 3. If some particular Church may err even in some principal head of Christian religion, and yet leave not therefore to be a true Church: why may we not say the same of all particular Churches taken not only severally but all together, for this is the Catholic Church? And the margin 
The Catholic Church, and in fundamental points. The whole Churrh.  sayeth: Some errors may creep into the Church even in some fundamental head of saith.  
Daneus Controu. 4. l. 3. c. 17. The whole Church, all Pastors generally may err. The whole Church may be deceived, slip, and err.  
Author Resp. ad Theses. Vademont. p. 503. The Catholic 
And grievously.  Church may err, and that sometimes most grievously. The like they teach commonly.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that God's spirit and his word shall never depart from the mouth of the Church: that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her; that the Holy Ghost teacheth her all truth: that she is the pillar and ground of truth. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly teach: that the Church, the true Church, the universal Church, the whole Church may err most grievously and in some fundamental and necessary matters: that the whole Apostolic Church even after the descent of the Holy Ghost did err. Which is so repugnant to holy Scripture, as sometimes Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. VII. WHETHER THE CHURCH be to be heard simply in all things?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matth. 18. v. 17. If he will not hear the Church, let him be 
Church, simply to be heard.  to the as the Heathen and the Publican.  
Luc. 10. v. 16. Who heareth you, heareth me, and who despiseth you, despiseth me.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton Cont. 4. q. 2. art. 3. We must simply and absolutely obey the voice of the Church in doctrine of faith.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 3. c. 3. We must not simply receive whatsoever 
Not simply to be heard.  the Church teacheth; but whatsoever she is commanded of God to teach, and proveth by God's authority. And q. 5. c. 5. The Church is to be heard, not simply in all her sayings, decrees, sentences and commandments. The same he hath Cont. 2. q. 4. c. 2. and l. 1. de Scriptura c. 11.  
Bucanus in Inst. Theol. loco. 43. Must we simply hear the voice of the Church, and receive whatsoever she teacheth? No.  
Reineccius to. 4. Armat. c. 3. We must believe the Church in 
Not simply to be believed.  all things, not taken simply and absolutely, but relatively and with condition, as fare as according to Scripture and out of that she proposeth divine truth.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture simply and absolutely biddeth us to hear the Church, and sayeth that who heareth her, heareth Christ. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants deny, that she is simply to be heard or obeyed.    

ART. VIII. WHETHER TRVETH, IN respect of us, do rely upon the Church?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Timoth. 3. ver. 15. Which is the Church of the living God, 
Church the pillar of truth.  the pillar and ground of truth.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton. Controu. 4. quaest. 2. artic. unico. The Church, according to the ordinary course, is for faithful men the pillar of all revealed truth, and for faith itself, the ground. For the faithful rely upon the teaching of the Church as an unmovable pillar.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Contru. 2. q. 4. c. 2. The truth of faith doth not 
Not pillar in regard of us.  rely upon the Church as a foundation, no not in regard of us. Truth doth not rely upon the authority of the Church. Again. If the truth of faith did rely upon the authority of the Church in respect of us, who then etc.  
Bucer in Disp. Cantabrig. It is manifest enough that no 
Sustaineth not truth.  Church is to be termed the pillar and ground of truth, as if she did sustain and conserve truth.  
Melancthon in locis c. de Signis Eccles. to. 3. Faith doth not rely wpon the authority of the Church.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the Church doth not sustain or conserve the truth: that faith relieth not upon her authority: that truth doth not rely upon her authority as a foundation, no not in regard or respect of us.    

THE SUM OF THIS CHAPTER OF the Church.  
What hath been repeated in this Chapter doth make manifest, that Protestants describe unto us a Church quite different from that which the holy Scripture and Catholics propose. For the Scripture and catholics teach that the Church is but one: Protestants say there are two Churches. They say she containeth both bad and reprobates, that she endureth for ever, is always visible, infallible in faith, is simply in all things to be heard, and is the pillar of faith touching us: All which points Protestants deny.  
They also make manifest, that Protestants steal from the Church a great part of her, to wit, the bad and reprobate faithful, and many of her chief properties, namely, unity, perpetuity, continual visibility, infallibility, and our dependency upon her in belief. And thus much of the Church: Now of Temples or material Churches.    

CHAPTER VIII. OF TEMPLES OR MATERIAL CHURCHES.  

ART. I. WHETHER THE CHURCHES be also for private prayer?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
KINGS 3. cap. 8. ver. 41. Moreover also the stranger, 
Place of prayer for a stranger,  which is not of thy people Israel, when he shall come from a fare country for thy name— and shall pray in this place, thou shalt hear in heaven in the firmament of thy habitation, and shalt do all things for which the stranger shall invocate thee.  
2. Paralipomen. 6. vers. 21. Whosoever shall pray in this 
For whomsoever.  place, hear out of thy habitation, that is, from the heavens, and be propitious.  
Matthew 21. vers. 13. It is written: my house shallbe called a house of prayer.  
Luc. 2. v 37. Who departed not from the temple, by fastings 
For S. Anne.  and prayers serving night and day. c. 24. v. 53. And they were always in the Temple, praising and blessing God.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Cardin. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Santis. cap. 4. The Churches of Christians are rightly instituted for to pray also private prayers.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Tindal in Fox Acts 1610. pag. 1138. Churches are for preaching 
For preaching only.  only. And Fox addeth: This article containeth neither error nor honesty.  
Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 327. Nether is this a lawful end 
Not for private prayer.  of Churches, that the faithful pray privacy in them.  
Luther in Festo Dedicat. Templi fol. 447. The people which believe in Christ are all just and subject to no law, especially 
Not dedicated to prayer.  that pertaineth to ceremonies of temples: And therefore, now amongst them, there is no temple dedicated to prayer.  
And hereupon Protestants in Confess. Heluet. c. 23. bid them beware, that they weary not the people with to long prayer: And in Confess. Argentinen. cap. 21. They detest our long payer, as also doth Caluin in Matth. 6. ver. 7. and finally in their Synod at Dordrach art. 46. they define that public evening prayers are not to be brought in, where they are not in use: and to be taken away where they are. So well these men love prayers in Churches.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that God's Church is the house of prayer for all people, a place of prayer where the stranger may make his prayer and be heard: that Anna night and day prayed in the temple: that the Apostles were always in the temple praising God. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that Churches are only for preaching, that is no lawful end of Churches to pray privately in them: that Christians have no temple dedicated to prayer, and forbid long, and evening prayer in Churches.    

ART. II. WHETHER CHURCHES BE to be adorned?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Exod. 35. is described the wonderful adorning of the tabernacle 
Churches are to be adorned.  made by God's commandment: and 3. Reg. 6. the most rich ornaments of the temple made by Solomon.  
Psalm 25. v. 8. I have loved the beauty of thy house.  
Marc. 14. v. 15. Say to the master of the house that the Master sayeth: where is my refectory, where I may eat my Paske with my disciples? And he will show you a great chamber, adorned, and there prepare for us.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in joan. 12. v. 3. Sumptuous d●cking and honourable adorning, when they are done in the honour of God and for his worship, either in the adorning or magnifencie of Churches, or in solemn administration of Sacraments, do please God.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins in Problemate c. de ornatu templorum. The error 
Not to be adorned.  (of adorning temples) began to be strange in Constantins' time: and the Fathers then being carried away with the custom do exact the adorning of temples.  
Caluin in Math. 26. v. 11 Let us not device sumptuous worship's of God with the Papists. In joan. 12. v. 6. Surely God careth not for external pomp— wherefore they are preposterous interpreters, who out of Christ's answer do infer, that costly and magnifical whorships do please God.  
Tigurini apud Hospin. part. 2. Hist. fol. 24. The ornaments of Churches belong not to the true worship of God.  
Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 327. It is not only superfluous, but also vain and superstitious, and in part ethnical also and jewish, to make great and unprofitable expenses in adorning Churches, as every where useth to be done in Popery. For that theatrical bravery is contrary to the simplicity of Christian religion.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that God himself comcommanded the tabernacle to be adorned, that Solomon by his instinct adorned the temple, that David loved the beauty of God's house: that Christ made choice of a great and adorned chamber, wherein he should celebrate the Eucharist. The same say Catholics.  
Protestant's expressly say, that the adorning of Churches is an error, superfluous, vain, superstitious, ethnical and judaical, and contrary to Christian religion: that magnifical and costly worships please not God.    

ART. III. WHETHER IT BE LAWFUL to put the Images of Angels or Saints in Churches?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Exod. 25. v. 18. God thus commandeth: Two Cherubins 
Images in the Temple.  also thou shalt make of beaten gold on both sides of the Oracle. And vers. 22. And I will speak to thee over the Propitiatory and from the midst of the two Cherubins, which shallbe upon the ark of testimony, all things which I will command the children of Israel by thee.  
3. Reg. 6. vers. 23. And he (Solomon) made in the Oracle two Cherubs of olive trees of ten cubits in height. And v. 27. And he put the Cherubs in the midst of the inner temple.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Session. 25. c. de Inuocat. The Images of Christ and other Saints are to be had and kept, especially in Churches.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
jewel. art. 14. sect. 2. The jews had no manner of Image, neither painted nor graved in their temples.  
Luther in Deuteron. 7. to. 3. I do not much love images, and would they were not in Churches.  
Zuinglius l. de ver. & fals. relig. c. de Statuis. Images must 
Not in temples  be taken out of Churches.  
Sadeel ad Art. 59 Abiurat. God abhorreth images.  
Peter Martyr in locis tit. de Cult. Imaginum §. 22. We must not suffer, that Images be had in Churches.  
And in this point the Protestants doctrine is well enough known by their deeds: yea some of them go so fare as they deny that we may paint any Images of Christ or the Saints. For thus sayeth Leo judae in Zuinglius to. 2. f. 627. If Christ and his Saints be in heaven, it is wickedness even to make their images. With whom agreeth Zuinglius ib. 630. Hoffman also ib. f. 631. sayeth: That good man thinketh, that images may be kept and suffered, so that none do adore or worship them. But this opinion is contrary to the testimonies of Scripture, wherein the Lord commandeth that we shall not make them. The same intimateth Confessio Heluet. c. 4.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that God commanded two Images of Angels to be made and put in the Oracle: that Solomon made two others, and put them in the midst of the inner temple. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that God abhorreth images, that they are not to be suffered in Churches, no that the Images of Christ and his Saints are to be made: that the jews had no manner of Images in their temple.    

ART. iv WHETHER THE HEATHENS or Idolaters did think their Idols to be Gods.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Exod 32. v. 8. God himself thus speaketh unto Moses: They have made to themselves a molten calf, and have adored, and immolating hosts unto it, have said: These are thy Gods, Israel, that have brought thee out of the land of Egypt.  
Acts 19 v. 26. Demetrius a Heathen hath these words: 
Heathens thought theirs Idols to be Gods.  Sirs you see and hear, that this same Paul by persuasion hath averted a great multitude, not only of Ephesus, but almost of all Asia, saying: That they are no Gods which be made by hands.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 2. the Imagine. c. 13. It is false, that the Heathens did not think the idols to be Gods.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Caluin 1. Instit. c. 11. §. 9 Nether are the Heathens to be thought 
They thought not so.  to have been so blockish, as that they knew not, that God was an other thing than stones and stocks.  
Daneus Controver 7. p. 1394. It is a lie, that the Heathens did believe the Images of their Gods to have been their Gods themselves.  
Zuinglius in Resp. ad Valentin. to. 1. f. 247. The Heathens did no more account their Idols to be Gods, than now we use to account of our Images. The like say Peter Martyr Controu. Gardiner. col. 396. and Sadeel ad art. 59 abiurat.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly teacheth, that the idolaters did say, that their molten calf was their God, that Demetrius a Heathen reprehended S. Paul, because he taught, that they were no Gods which were made by men's hands. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that the Heathens did not think stocks or stones to be their Gods: that it is a lie, that they thought the images of their Gods to be Gods themselves. And yet these men, who against the plain testimony of Scripture do defend the Heathens, do accuse the Catholics that they make Images their God.    

THE SUM OF THIS CHAPTER OF TEMPLES or material Churches.  
Out of that which we have rehearsed in this Chapter, it appeareth, that Protestants have other kind of temples, than the Scripture and catholics have. For the Scripture and catholics teach, that temples or Churches are also for private prayer, that they are to be adorned, and that images of Angels or Saints are to be put in them: all which Protestants deny: and consequently they robe the Churches of one of their ends for which they are instituted, and of their ornaments and holy Images.    

CHAPTER IX. OF BAPTISM.  

ART. I. WHETHER WATER BE necessary to Baptism?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
I HON 3. v. 5. Unless a man be borne again of 
Water necessary to baptism.  water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.  
Ephes. 5. v. 26. As Christ also loved the Church & delivered himself for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent sess. 7. come. 2. If any say, that true and natural water is not necessary to baptism, be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Beza Epistola 2. vol. 3. Theol. Though water be wanting, if 
Not necessary.  the baptism of one cannot nor aught to be differred with edification, surely I would as well baptise with any other liquor as with water.  
Polanus in Sylloge Thes. part. 2. p. 556. The external and sensible matter of baptism, is water, and that wanting an other liquor proportionable.  
Festus Homius in Disput. 45. We do not greatly deny, but where no water can be had, there some other liquor which hath the some use that water hath, and is very proportionable thereto, may be used in the place thereof.  
Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 367. Bellarmin and his do more restrain this essence of baptism, than our men are wont to do; Whiles he avoucheth, that pure water and that solemn form: In the name of the Father etc. is simply in all places and times precisely necessary. Again. Extraordinarily and in some most rare and unusual cases, we do not deny, but that some other kind of liquor, which hath the same use that water hath, may be used. The same teacheth Luther in Colloq. Mensal. cap. 15. and Rivet judgeth it probable tractat. 3. sect. 3. Nether is it disliked by Saddel ad Artic. abiurat. 11.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that unless one be borne again of water, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven: that Christ cleanseth his Church with the laver of water. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that water is not simply necessary: that extraordinarily and in case of necessity one may baptise in other liquor as well as in water: that where water wanteth, an other liquor proportionable may suffice. Which is so evident a contradiction of Scripture, as Protestants themselves sometimes confess it. See lib. 2. cap. 30.    

ART. II. WHETHER INVOCATION of the holy Trinity, be necessary in baptism?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matthew 28. ver. 19 Going teach ye all nations baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Catechismus ad Parochos cap. de baptismo. Pastor's shall teach, that this is the perfect and absolute form of baptism: I baptise the in the name of the Father etc. and afterward addeth, that this form doth especially pertain to the substance of baptism.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther l. de Captivit. Babil. tom. 2. fol. 75. Howsoever baptisme●●s 
Not necessary.  given, so that it be not given in the name of a man but in the name of God, it truly saveth: Nay I doubt not, but if one take it in the name of the Lord, albeit a wicked Minister do not give it in the name of the Lord, that he is truly baptised in the name of the Lord.  
Zuinglius ad Struthionem to. 2. f. 312. Nether am I ignorant, that the Apostles did not acknowledge these words (In the name of the Father etc.) for such, as without them baptism could not stand. De baptismo ib. fol. 65. It is evident, that these words of Christ, which he useth Matthew c. 28. are not so to be taken, as if they were a certain form of baptism. And fol. 77. It shall appear, that Christ would not, that in baptising we should use this form of words: I baptise thee in the name of the Father etc.  
Caluin de ver. reform. p. 235. Papists disputing about the form of baptism, stand upon the bare pronunciation of the words, as if Christ, when he commanded the Apostles to baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, had prescribed them I know not what magical charm.  
Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 366. According to our men's opinion nothing else is required to the essence a baptism, but the plunging of that man into the water, who is minded publicly to profess Christ. p. 367. About the form (of baptism) if that must be essential, here we plainly disagree. For indeed it no way consisteth in that pronunciation of words, but in the immersion of the man or the sprinkling of him with water done in the name of Christ or of the holy Trinity.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly teacheth, that Christ commanded to baptise in the name of the holy Trinity. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants plainly teach, that invocation of the holy Trinity is not essential to baptism: that baptism howsoever given in the name of God, nay though it be not given in God's name, so it be taken in God's name, is true baptism: that baptism may consist without invocation of the holy Trinity: that Chtist prescribed no certain form of words, nor would that we should use the foresaied words whiles we baptise: that to stand upon it, is to make it a magical charm. Which contradiction of Scripture is so clear, as some Protestants confess it: As you may see infra l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. III. WHETHER BAPTISM BE necessary by necessity of precept?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 28. v. 19 Going teach ye all nations, baptising them 
Baptism necessary by commandment.  in the name of the Father etc.  
Act. 2. vers. 38. Be every one of you baptised in the name of jesus Christ for remission of your sins.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Session. 7. Can. 5. If any shall say, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary to salvation be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Cont. q. 47. c. 2. It is lawful to abstain from baptism, 
Not necessary by commandment.  so there be no contempt or scandal in the fact.  
Casaubon Epistola ad Card. Perron. Many (Protestants) put baptism amongst those things, which whether they be absent or present it skilleth not much.  
Bucer in Math. 9 I answer, that baptism as an external thing is of less importance, then that the Lord should have greatly commanded any thing about it.  
Zuinglius de Baptismo tom. 2. fol. 96. Baptism is a ceremonial thing, which the Church may well omit or take away.  
OEcalampadius l. 2. Epist. pag. 363. It is an external thing, which the law of Charity may dispense with.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly teacheth: that Christ and the Apostles commanded baptism. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants plainly teach, that Christ did not greatly command any thing about baptism: that the Church may well take it away: that we may abstain from it, so there be no contempt or scandal: and that it skilleth not much whether we have it or want it.    

ART. iv WHETHER BAPTISM be necessary to salvation in necessity of means?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
John 3. vers. 5. Amen, Amen, I say to thee: Unless a man 
Baptism a necessary means to salvation.  be borne again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent. Sess. 6. c. 4. Which transferring (from injustice to justice) after the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be done without the laver of regeneration, or desire thereof.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 6. cap. 8. The salvation of infants doth 
Not a necessary means.  not depend of the Sacraments. And l. 8. cont. Dureum. sect. 73. Who now exclude infants dying before baptism from life, speak against Scriptures, against God's mercy, and against the ancient custom. And he sayeth that Protestants reject the Catholic doctrine of necessity of baptism, as impious and inhuman.  
Confession of Scotland. pag. 159. We detest and reject his (Popes) cruel judgement against infants dying without baptism: and the absolute necessity of baptism which he putteth.  
Caluin in Marci 16. v. 16. We say that baptism is not simply necessary, but in regard of our obedience. And 4. Instit. cap. 15. §. 12. Children, who die before they be christened, are not shut out 
Children saved without baptism.  of the kingdom of God.  
Beza count. Westphal. vol. 1. p. 256. If any man's child die before he be christened, we doubt not of his salvation. And in 2. part. resp. ad Acta Colloq. Montisbel. p. 128. The question is, whether baptism be simply and absolutely necessary to salvation, which I, with all right beleivers do deny.  
Peter Martyr in Thes. pag. 1008. Christian's children are saved, howbeit they die before they be baptised.  
Daneus Cont. de baptismo cap. 4. We accurse them, who bring in absolute necessity of baptism. Et c. 8. It is blasphemy, that baptism is precisely necessary to salvation.  
Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 368. Our men openly disclaim from Papists that urge the absolute necessity of baptism.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly teacheth, that the water of baptism in necessary for one to enter into the kingdom of God. catholics say the same.  
Protestant's plainly teach, that Baptism is not necessaire to salvation; not simply not absolutely, not precisely necessary: that infants are saved without baptism: and that the contrary doctrine is against Scripture, impious, inhuman, and to be detested.    

ART. V WHETHER SIMON MAGUS received, or reprobates receive whole and entire baptism.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Act. 8. ver. 13. Then Simon also himself believed, and being baptised, he cleaved to Philippe. 
Simon Magus was baptised.   
Acts 2. vers. 38. S. Peter speaketh without distinction of elect or reprobates. Be every one of you baptised in the name of jesus Christ: And vers. 41. They therefore that received his word were baptised. So cap. 8. vers. 12. They were baptised men and women.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Card. Bellarm. lib. 3. de justificat. cap. 14. Simon Magus converted by Philippe and bapsized, did follow Philippe, as Luke writeth.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Beza count. Illyric. vol. 2. Theol. p. 144. What thou writest, that Simon Peter and Simon Magus received the same whole 
Not fully baptised.  baptism, is most false. And p. 131. We do not acknowledge, that the Sacraments are entirely received of the incredulous. In Colloq. Montisbel. p. 118. I grant, that the entire sacraments are offered not only to the godly but also to the ungodly, but not received entirely of the ungodly. And in 2. part. Resp. ad acta Colloq. Montisbel. p. 91. The whole sacrament is not received of the unworthy. Besides ib. p. 110. he sayeth, that the inward ablution of the Holy Ghost is an essential part of baptism: And p. 41. & seqq. & in Colloq pag. 355. & seqq. oftentimes repeateth, that the blood of Christ is the principal and most essential part of baptism: And will not that the reprobates receive either inward ablution or the blood of Christ: And therefore will not that reprobates receive the whole essence of baptism. Moreover in 2. parte cit. p. 76. he writeth thus: We say, that Baptism is the seal of remission and generation, but not in every one, nor always. And in his opinion, it is essential to baptism to be this kind of seal and consequently baptism is not true essential baptism in every one.  
Peter Martyr cont. Gardiner. col. 970. writeth, that Baptism consisteth of water and remission of sins: Which remission he will not have to be given to reprobats. And therefore col. 853. sayeth: If one would speak exactly, he should say, that the impious do not receive the whole sacrament but only one part thereof.  
Piscator in Respons. ad Buscherum c. 10. The faith of the receiver pertaineth to the substance of the Sacrament But they will not admit that reprobates have faith, and therefore have not the whole substance of the Sacrament.  
Besides, Sacramentaries commonly teach, that Christ is the matter and substance of the Sacraments, and namely of the Eucharist: So expressly teacheth Caluin l. de Caena p. 2. and 4. Instit. c. 17. § 11. Peter Martyr cont. Gardiner. col. 655. 755. Confessio Heluet. c. 19 and Consessio Basileensis art. 20. But they deny, that the impious or reprobates receive Christ, and consequently must say, that neither the impious nor the reprobates receive entire baptism or Eucharist. Whereupon Bucer apud Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 147. said; That such impious as are quite impious, receive nothing but bread and wine. And the like they must say of baptism, and consequently they should rebaptize such as were quite impious when they were baptised, as not receiving the whole substance of baptism; without which baptism is no true baptism. Which may be also confirmed by that which Pareus sayeth: Colloq. Theol. 1. disput. 15. That Sacraments neither signify nor seal, and much less do give, any thing to the incredulous. Such therefore as were incredulous when they were baptised, aught to be baptised again, as not having received either the sign or seal of baptism.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the reprobate Simon Magus was baptised, and that diverse others were baptised without making any distinction between the elect or reprobates amongst them. The same say Catholics. Protestants expressly say, that Simon Magus had not whole baptism: that the impious or reprobats do not receive the whole sacraments: that if we will speak exactly we must say, that the impious receive but a part of the Sacrament.    

ART. VI WHETHER BAPTISM BE effectual in the reprobates, or profit them anything.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Gal. 3. v. 27. For as many of you as are baptised in Christ, have 
Baptism effectual in every one.  put on Christ.  
Act. 2. v. 38. S. Peter speaketh thus without any distinction of elect. or reprobate. Be every one of you baptised in the name of jesus Christ for remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Card. Bellarm. lib. 3. de justificat. cap. 14. All infants are truly justified by baptism. And lib. 2. de Grat. cap. 16. Original sin is truly remitted to many reprobates by the grace of baptism.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Caluin de Rat. Concordiae p. 664. The Sacraments to the elect are helpsto salvation, others they profit nothing. De Consens. 
Profiteth nothing to reprobates.  Sacramentor. p. 754. Wediligently teach, that God doth not indifferently put forth his power in all that receive the Sacraments, but only in the elect. And p. 761. The Sacraments profit not indifferently all, but only the elect of God. Devera reform. p. 325. Who admit others (beside the elect) to baptism, do profane it. And addeth pag. 349. that baptism, was not appointed for the reprobate.  
Beza in Colloq. Motisbel. pag. 385. Whom God hath not elected, albeit they were baptised a thousand times with the external baptism of water, yet faith and the Holy Ghost would 
Baptism effectual only in the elect.  never be given to them. And ib. and other where often: The power of baptism showeth itself only in the elect. And in 2. part. resp. ad acta Colloq. Montisbel. p. 89. Faith and grace of baptism is not given to all infants that are lawfully baptised. 
Many thousand infants baptised and not regenerated.  Which he repeateth p. 90. and 97. And in Colloq. cit. pa. 393. Many thousand of infants receive baptism, who yet are never regenerated. Whereupon ib. p. 377. he writeth thus: We can only probably affirm, that infants who are baptised, receive the fruit of adoption.  
Zanchius de Praedest. c. 6. to. 7. maketh this conclusion. To those, who are not elect baptism bringeth no commoditte, nor the prayers made for them of the Church. And in Confess. c. 15. to. 8. We believe, that all are baptised with water; but the elect only with the spirit.  
Musculus in locis tit. de Baptism. None, I think, is so mad, as to say, that the Holy Ghost doth, even in the reprobates whiles they are baptised, work the effect of his grace which is appointed for the elect and faithful.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that whosoever are baptised in Christ, do put on Christ: that every one (without distinction of elect or reprobate) may be baptised for remission of sins. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that Sacraments profit only the elect and give nothing to others: that baptism is appointed for the elect alone: that the reprobate though they were baptised a thousand times should not receive grace: that many thousands of infants are baptised and not regenerated: that only the elect are baptised with the Spirit and that the contrary is madness. Which is so opposite to Scripture as the holy Fathers pronounce that he is no Catholic who sayeth, that baptism doth not take 
Prosper ad c. vlt. Gallor.  away sin in the baptised reprobats: and many Protestants confess it to be contrary to Scripture. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. VII. WHETHER BAPTISM CLEANSETH or washeth away sins?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Ephes. 5. v. 26. Christ loved the Church, and delivered himself 
Baptism cleanseth.  for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word.  
Tit, 3. v. 5. According to his mercy he hath saved us by the 
Saveth.  laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost.  
1. Peter 3. vers. 21. Whereunto baptism being of the like sort 
Remitteth sins.  now saveth you also.  
Act. 2. v. 38. Be every one of you baptised in the name of jesus 
Washes sins.  Christ for remission of your sins. c. 22. v. 17. Rise up; and be baptised, and wash away thy sins.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Catechismus ad Parochos. c. de baptismo: This must be first delivered: that sin, whether it be originally contracted from our first parents, or committed of us, though it were so heinous as scarce could be imagined, is remitted and forgiven by the admirable virtue of this Sacrament of baptism.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 9 We do not get health by the outward baptism. Etib. c. 9 God forbid, that any attribute that 
Baptism availeth not.  to the outward Sacrament, which belongeth to spiritual grace. Etib. q. 6. c. 3. Baptism of itself availeth infants nothing to salvation, nor infuseth faith or any grace into them.  
Perkins in Gal. 3. to. 2. col. 171. Baptism indeed saveth, but 
Saveth not.  not baptism of water.  
Willet Cont. 12. q. 3. p. 567. Baptism is not a remedy against 
Gives not grace.  original sin. 569. Baptism doth not confer grace.  
Luther de Captivit. Babil. c. de baptismo. Baptism justifieth 
Profiteth not.  none, nor profiteth any. ib. count. Cocleum f 408. No part of justification can be attributed to baptism.  
Melancthon in locis edit. 1522. Sacraments do not justify. Which he repeateth l. cont. Anabaptistas'.  
Zuinglius de baptismo to. 2. fol. 62. Baptism is given and received for their sakes who hold the same faith with us, not for his sake who is baptised: for in him, that outward sign can work nothing. Fol. 70. Externall baptism which is done by water, 
Helpeth not.  helpeth nothing to ablution of sins. Etf. 56. Some cried, that external things are wholly unprofitable to salvation, and that no trust is to be put in them, scing they are vain and altogether unprofitable. And surely they said well, if they had not passed the bounds of charity and modesty. Fol. 97. Baptism cannot 
Washeth not sins.  wash away the filth of sin, nor washeth away sin: It is nothing but a sacramental sign whereby God's people is bound to one faith and religion. 98. Baptism maketh us no whit the 
Maketh no us better.  better. And l. de ver. & fall. relig. fol. 91. Some think that baptism either wipeth away sins, or is a sign and certification of their wiping away: both which say what they please, not what the word of God hath taught. And in Rom. 4. tom. 4. The sign of baptism is not received for to confirm faith, for to purge sins. 
Confirmeth not faith.  And apud Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 31. Sacraments are only badges of Christian society, and help nothing to salvation. Finally l. de Peccato original. to. 2. f. 122. he sayeth: How foolish then should he seem, who for the words (of Scripture) would avouch that by baptismal water we are washed from sins?  
Caluin 4. Instit. c. 15. §. 10. Now it is clear, how false it is, that by baptism we are loosed and exempted from original ●inne. §. 2. Who will say, that we are cleansed by this water? In Catechismo 
Is no laver of the soul. Washeth not.  pag. 36. Dost thou think, that water is a laver of the soul? No. In Admonit. vlt. ad Westphal. p. 812. What if baptism wash us, how is the only blood of Christ otherwhere called our ablution? p. 855. If they infer, that the filth of the soul is purged by the corruptible element of water, the sun of justice itself willbe darkened. In Actor. 22. v. 16. Paul was not washed by baptism, but recedued a new confirmation of the grace which he had obtained. In Rom. 4. v. 12. We deny, that men are justified by baptism. In Ephes. 5. v. 26. We must beware, to think, that water purgeth the filth of the soul.  
Beza in Catechismo vol. 1. Theol. pag. 693. Doth water wipe away sin? No. In Colloq. Montisbel. p. 366. The soul is not washed with water, but the body only. p. 377. The baptism 
Infants not renovated when they are baptised.  of water is not the laver of regeneration and renovation, but only signifieth and representeth it. Et 357. We think it absurd, that infants are renovated either at that very time when they are baptised, or befoee they be of discretion and have known and apprehended Christ by faith. Which also he hath in 2. part. resp. ad Acta p. 322. Where also he sayeth. p. 91. I said and do yet say, that the renovation of infants who come to be men, is not to be restrained to the time of their baptism given to them either in their infancy or their youth, but that it beginneth from that time when by actual faith they apprehend Christ. Which he repeateth p. 106. And apud Graverum in Absurdis Caluin. c. 4. sect. 20. I neither said that all, or any children are regenerated at the time of baptism. Which also teacheth Musculus in locis tit. de baptismo. So that they will not have children to be regenerated either by baptism, or when they are baptised.  
Zanchius l. 4. de tribus Elohim c. 5. Water is only a sign of regeneration.  
Piscator in Thes. loco. 25. Ananias said to Paul: Rise, and be baptised and wash away thy sins, not that his sins were to be washed away by baptism, which cannot be washed away but by the blood of Christ.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that the Church is sanctified and cleansed by the laver of water: that we are saved by the laver of regeneration: that baptism saveth us: that we are baptised for remission of sins: that by baptism sins are washed away. The same say Catholics.  
Prorestants plainly say, that baptism justifieth not, saveth not, availeth nothing to salvation, infuseth not faith or any grace: that it worketh nothing in him who receiveth it: maketh us no whit better, cleanseth not sin, purgeth not sin, washeth not sin, wipeth not sin away: confirmeth not faith, certifieth us not of remission of sin; is only a badge of Christian society, a sign whereby men are bound to on faith and religion; that children are not regenerated either by baptism or at the time when they are baptised: finally that baptism profiteth none, but is a vanie and unprofittable thing. What Christians, I pray the, are these, who make this account of their Christendom: And these sayings are so repugnant to Scripture as sometimes Protestants confess it. See l. 2. cap. 30.    

ART. VIII. WHETHER IN BAPTISM even sins to come be pardoned?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Act. 8. v. 21. S. Peter speaketh thus to Simon Magus already 
Sinnes to come not forgiven in baptism.  baptised: Do penance therefore from this thy wickedness, and pray to God if perhaps this cogitation of thy hart may be remitted thee.  
1. Cor. 5. v. 5. S. Paul commandeth a Corinthian baptised, for incest, to be delivered to Satan, that his spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de baptismo. c. 18. Catholics gather that the efficacy of baptism doth not extend itself unto the time to come, but only to the time past: for it pardoneth sins committed and not yet remitted.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Perkins in Serie Causarum c. 33. In baptism once administered, 
Sins prensent and to come forgiven in baptism.  is given remission of sins not only passed and present, but also of those that are to come all your life time. The like he hath in Galat. 3. to. 2.  
Whitaker lib. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 101. Who are baptised, are baptised in Christ's death: but Christ's death availeth to wash away, not only those sins which go before baptism, but also those which follow in all the life time. The like he hath Cont. 2. q. 5. 7. p. 515.  
Willet Cont. 12. q. 6. p. 579. Baptism is a seal of remission of sins for the confirmation of our faith, even of those which are committed after baptism, as well as of sins done before— Therefore baptism sealeth unto us the remission of all our sins, going before or following after.  
Bezal. Quaest. & resp. vol. 3. p. 344. Baptism therefore doth not abolish only sins passed? Yea the fruit thereof stretcheth through the whole life of the faithful. And in Hebr. 10. v. 11. Whosoever is sprinkled with blood of Christ, is delivered for ever from sins past and to come. Et Epist. 5. The fruit of baptism, is the sealing of adoption, the ablution from sins both past and to come.  
Daneus de baptismo cap. 18. tom. 2. Howsoever that grace and remission of sins be sealed unto us, it pertaineth as is referred in all Christ's sacraments to blot out all our sins past, present, and to come.  
Zanchius in sua Confession cap. 18. to. 8. For baptism is not given in remission only of original or sins past, but of all for all the life time.  
Festus Homius in Disp. 44 Remission of sins, not only of those which were committed before baptism, but also of those which are to be committed all the life, is sealed in baptism unto the faithful. More of their like sayings may be seen in my Latin book c. 9 art. 8.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly teacheth, that a baptised man must do penance for remission of such sins as he committeth after baptism: that a baptised man was delivered to Satan, that his soul might be saved. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly teach, that in baptism is given remission of sins past, present, and to come: that baptism availeth for sins that follow all the life time: that baptism is a seal of remission of sins as well committed after as before: that whosoever is once sprinkled with Christ's blood, is delivered for ever of all sins past and to come: that in baptism is given and sealed to the faithful remission of all sins to be committed all their life time. Which is to open a broad way to all wickedness. And whereas Protestants have falsely said that, the Pope giveth pardons for sins to be done: we see, that they 
Protestants pardon, to sin.  manifestly give such pardon to all and every one that is baptised or justified with them.    

ART. IX. WHETHER THE CHILDREN of the Faithful be borne and abide in state of damnation until they be baptised?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Ephes. 2. v. 3. And we were by nature the children of wrath, 
Children of faithful borne in state of damnation.  as also the rest.  
Rom. 5. v. 12. As by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death, and so unto all men death did pass. v. 15. For if by the offence of one many died. v. 18. Therefore as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation: so also by the justice of one unto all men to justification of life. The same also is clear by the places before cited for the necessity of baptism.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton. in 1. Cor. 7. v. 14. It is a new and profane paradox of Caluin: that the children of Christian parents are borne the sons of God.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins de baptismo tom. 1. col. 842. Baptism doth not 
Not in sote of damnation.  make the children of Christian parents the sons of God, but only doth seal unto them the covenant of grace, and certifieth them that they are comprehended in it. In Gal. 2. v. 15. Original sin, which is hidden from beginning in them, is not imputed to them. The children of the faithful are borne Saints.  
Willet Cont. 12. q. 3. p. 565. The children of the faithful are 
Are holy.  holy already even before they be baptised.  
Zuinglius in 1. Co. r 12. tom. 4. The children of Christians are 
In the Church  with in the Church and body of Christ, even before they be Christened.  
Caluin 4. Instit. cap. 16. §. 31. Who are borne of faithful parents, 
Are Saints.  are by supernatural grace Saints. §. 32. Straight after they are borne, they are had and acknowledged of God for children. In Actor. 8. v. 37. I say that the children of the godly, are borne 
Members of Christ.  children of the Church, and from the womb reputed members of Christ. And de ve●. reform. pag. 349. he stretcheth this favour not only to the immediate children of faithful parents, but also many generations after, and as he sayeth 4. Instit. c. 16. §. 9 to the thousand generation. And seeing, that there is no man in the world, who is a thousand generations from No, he must say, that all children whosoever, at lest all the elect, are borne saints and in state of grace & salvation.  
Beza l. cont. Heshus. vol. 1. Theol. p. 307, The children of 
Are Saints.  the faithful are saints before God even from the womb. The like hath Confessio Heluet. cap. 20. Gallica artic. 35. Peter Martyr in locis Class. 2. c. 8. and others commonly, as also may appear by what hath been said before art. 4.  
Nay sometimes they say, that even the children of Infidels are borne in state of grace and salvation.  
Zuinglius de baptismo to 2. f. 91. Infants which are borne 
Infidel's Children in state of salvation.  of infidels I leave to the judgement of the almighty and just, albeit I can find no cause of damnation in them. De Peccato orig. f. 119. Of Christians children, we are sure that they are not damned for original sin, albeit to confess plainly, that opinion seemeth more probable to us which we taught, to wit, that we must not rashly condemn the children of Heathens. In Elencho fol. 36. We impiously condemn not only children of Heathens, but also of Christians. And de Ratione fidei fol. 540. We rashly condemn the children of Christian parents, yea of Heathen parents.  
Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 542. In this point the Protestant's do not wholly agree, but either say that all children whatsoever are through Christ's grace saved, as Zuinglius and many more: or at least all elect children whether they be borne of faithful or other parents though not baptised, are saved, as the most Protestants say. And he addeth: These men's opinion is much more secure; but the sentence of the former is more gentle and probable enough, and therefore not roshly to be condemned.  
Hermingius in Enchiridio class. 3. p. 322. If the children of Infidels die without baptism, we must leave them to God's judgement. The same also followeth out of that which Caluin loco cit. Beza ad reprehends. castle. vol. 1. p. 502. and others say, that children of faithful parents are sanctified and comprehended in the covenant of life unto the thousand generation.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the children of the faithful are by nature or nativity the children of wrath as others are: that death passed unto all: that condemnation passed unto all. The like say catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that Christian children are sons of God before they be christened: that they are borne Saints: that original sin is not imputed to them: that they are holy, within the Church, and body of Christ before they be baptised: Saints by supernatural grace, members of Christ from the womb, borne children of the Church, and from the womb Saints before God. Likewise they say of Infidels children, that they find no cause of condemnation in them, that they are rashly and impiously condemned: that all children whosoever, or at least all elect children, though not baptised, are saved: that such as come of faithful, though after a thousand generations are sanctified and comprehended within the covenant of life. Which are so contrary to Scripture as sometimes Protestants confess it. l. 2. c. 30. and S. Austin sayeth: 
L. 3. de Anima. c. 9  Do not believe, do not say, do not teach, that infants dying before they be baptised, may attain remission of original sin, if thou wilt be a Catholik.    

ART. X. WHETHER THE BAPTISM of S. John and of Christ were the same?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Marc. 1. v. 8. S. John sayeth: I have baptised you with water, 
S. Ihons' baptism different from Christ's.  but he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost.  
Act. 19 ver. 2. (S. Paul) said to them: Have ye received the Holy Ghost, believing? But they said to him: Nay, neither have we heard, whether there be a Holy Ghost. But he said: In what then were you baptised? Who said: In Ihons' baptism. vers. 5. Hearing these things they were baptised in the name of our Lord jesus.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Council of Trent Sess. 7. Can. 1. de baptismo: Isanie shall say, that Ihons' baptism had the same virtue that the baptism of Christ, be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Whitaker ad Ration. 8. Campiani: sayeth of the baptism of S. John and Christ. It was the same ceremony, the same doctrine, 
Not different▪  the same grace.  
Willet Cont. 12. q. 7. p. 585. Ihons' baptism was not diverse from Christ's baptism, but was all one with it in property and effect.  
Zuinglius de ver. & falsa relig. c. de baptismo. It is altogether one baptism, whether you call it Ihons, or Christ's. Et de Baptismo to. 2. f. 75. It will appear, that that outward baptism of water which john used agreeth with the external baptism of Christ and the Apostles, and that there is no difference at all between them.  
Caluin in Luc. 3. v. 3. It is false, that the baptisms of John and Christ were diverse.  
Beza lib. quaest. & respon pag. 344. I say, that indeed it was one only and the same baptism, administered first of John, and after by Christ's commandment.  
Bucanus in Inst. Theol. loco. 47. What differ the Baptism of John Baptist and of Christ? Not in Author, not in substance, not in doctrine, not in sign or ceremony, not also in effector or signification. More of their like sayings in my Latin book c. 9 art. 10.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that S. Ihons' Baptism was given in water, Christ's baptism in the Holy Ghost: that S. Ihons' baptism was not given in the name of the Holy Ghost, in so much as they who had been Baptised with it, knew not that there was a Holy Ghost: that they who had been baptised with S. Ihons' baptism were baptised again with Christ's baptism. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that S. Ihons' and Christ's baptism was all one ceremony, one doctrine, one grace: was not diverse, but all one in property and effect, altogether one: that there was no difference at all between them, not diverse, one only and the same, not different in Author, substance, doctrine, sign, ceremony, effect or signification.    

ART. XI. WHETHER THOSE EPHESIANS, whereof is spoken Actor. 19 had been baptised with S. Ihons' baptism?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Act. 19 v. 3. But he (S. Paul) said: In what then were ye baptised? 
The Ephesians baptised with S. Ihons' baptism.  Who said: In Ihons' baptism. v. 5. Hearing these, they were baptised in the name of our Lord jesus.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Actor. 19 v. 5. We must believe and steadfastly believe, that those twelve Ephesians had been before baptised of Ihon.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker lib. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 70. I deny, that those men 
They were not baptised with S. Ihone baptism.  whereof Luke maketh mention in the Acts, were baptised again.  
Caluin 4. Institut. c. 15. §. 18. I deny, that they were baptised again.  
Zuinglius de Baptismo to. 2. f. 80. Behold an other argument, whereby it is demonstrated, that those (Ephesians) were never baptised in Ihons' outward baptism. Resp. ad Hueber. f. 104. If thou hadst had any consideration of those things, thou wouldst never have come to that madness, to say that these disciples had been baptised of Ihon.  
Beza in Actor. 19 v. 2. We must needs say, that there is not treated of any peculiar history of twelve men, who were either baptised or rebaptised of the Apostle, or of baptism.  
Sadeel ad Art. 10. Abiurat. We no where read, that Ihons' disciples, after his death following Christ, were rebaptised of the Apostles.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the said Ephesians were first baptised with the baptism of S. John, and after with the baptism of Christ. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say, that they were not baptised again, were not baptised with Ihons' baptism, and that it is madness to say it: that in the foresaied place of the Acts, there is no speech of baptism or baptising. Which are so contrary to Scripture, as Protestants sometime confess it. See lib. 2. cap. 30.    

ART. XII. WHETHER THE FORESAIED Ephesians had heard of the Holy Ghost.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Act. 19 v. 2. And he (S. Paul) said to them: Have ye received 
The Ephesians had not heard of the holy Ghost.  the Holy Ghost, believing? But they said to him: Nay: neither have we heard whether there be a Holy Ghost.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
D. Stapleton in Actor. 19 v. 5. S. Paul said to these Ephesians, because they had answered, that they had heard nothing of the Holy Ghost; In what then were you baptised?   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Caluin in Actor. 19 v. 2. How could it be, that jews had heard 
They had heard of the holy Ghost.  nothing the Holy Ghost? Surely hence we gather, that Paul spoke not so much as in general of the Holy Ghost, and therefore there is a figure in the word Ghost.  
Beza in Actor. 19 v. 2. It were most absurd to believe, that they who had been baptised of John, and professed themselves disciples of Christ, were ignorant that there was any holy Ghost.  
Bucanus in Instit. loco. 47. What those twelve men deny, that they had heard that there was a Holy Ghost, is not to be understood of the being or person of the Holy Ghost, but figuratively of the visible manner of pouring down his gifts.  
Reineccius to. 4. Armaturae c. 18. If demand and answer had been simply made of the Holy Ghost in respect of his person and grace, it would follow, that they had had no knowledge of the person of the Holy Ghost: But the consequent is absurd.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that the said Ephesians had not so much as heard that there was a Holy Ghost. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants plainly say, that it could not be that they had not heard of the Holy Ghost: that it is absurd, most absurd to think that they were ignorant of the Holy Ghost.    

THE SUM OF THIS CHAPTER OF BAPTISM.  
The things which we have in this Chapter rehearsed, do clearly show, how differently Protestant's believe of baptism from the Scripture. For the Scripture together with catholics teacheth, that water and the invocation of the holy Trinity be necessary to baptism: that baptism is necessary by necessity both of precept and of mean to salvation: that Simon Magus and reprobats receive whole baptism: that baptism is effectual in the reprobates: that baptism cleanseth sins, but pardoneth not sins that are to be done: that children of the faithful are in state of damnation before they be baptised: that Christ's baptism is different from S. Ihons' baptism: All which Protestats deny.  
They show also, that Protestants play the theives with baptism, and steal from it the necessity of water and of the invocation of the holy Trinity: the necessity of precept and mean to salvation: the integrity and efficacy thereof in the reprobates; the virtue of cleansing sins in any whomsoever; the difference and excellency above the baptism of S. John: which being taken away, Christ's baptism remaineth only in name; and they likewise Christians in name only. Thus much of Baptism: Now of the Eucharist.    

CHAPTER X. OF THE EUCHARISTE.  

ART. I. WHETHER THE EUCHARIST, or that which Christ after his last supper gave with his hands unto his Apostles, was his body and blood?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
MATHEW 26. v. 26. Christ said of that which with his hands he gave to his Apostles to eat: This is my body. The same is Marc. 14. v. 
The Eucharist is the body of Christ.  14. And Luc. 22. ver. 19 This is my body which is given for you. And 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. This is my body which shallbe delivered for you. Moreover Ihon. 6. ver. 15. he sayeth: The bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world.  
Matthew 26. v. 28. Christ sayeth of that which he gave 
The blood of Christ.  his Apostles to drink: This is my blood of the new testament, which shallbe shed for many unto remission of sins. Marc. 14. v. 24. This is my blood of the new testament that shallbe shed for many. Luc. 22. v. 20. This is the Chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shallbe shed for you. 1. Cor. 11. v. 25. This chalice is the new testament in my blood.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent sess. 13. c. 3. The Apostles had not yet received the Eucharist of the hands of our Lord, and yet he truly affirmed that to be his body which he gave. And cap. 4. Because Christ truly said, that that was his body which he offered under form of bread, therefore etc.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
jewel in Denfense of the Apology part. 2. c. 10. diuis. 1. p. 
Not the flesh of Christ.  209. The bread of the Sacrament is one thing, and the flesh of Christ is an other— There is great difference between the bread of the Sacrament and the flesh of Christ. Art. 8. sect. 5. The sacramental bread is called Christ's body, although indeed it be not 
Not indeed his body.  Christ's body. So also art. 21. sect. 1.  
Bel in his jesuits Antepast. p. 44. The meaning of Christ is 
Not his real blood.  not: This is my natural body, and my real blood.  
Spalatensis l. 5. de Repub. c. 6. n. 108. The holy bread, is not 
Not the body of Christ.  the body of Christ. n. 112. The bread is called the body of Christ, not that it is the body of Christ.— The Eucharist, though it be 
Not truly.  called the body of Christ; Yet it is not truly and really the body of Christ. ibid. pag. 165. It is false to say: The bread is the body of Christ.  
Melancthon epist. ad Come Palatin. apud Hospin part. 2. 
Not the true body of Christ  Histor. f. 260. Paul doth not say, as they of Breme do; Bread is the substantial body of Christ: nor as Hes husius doth: Bread is the true body of Christ.  
Hospinian himself lib. cit. f. 261. The bread of the Supper 
Not his substantial body  is not the substantial body of Christ. Which he repeateth fol. 254. The very like words of the Heluetians her rehearseth f. 161. & 153. of the Tigurins 161. of the Strasburgians f. 100 of the Witenbergians fol. 292. of Hardenberg. 297. and of Engelhard fol. 25.  
Zuinglius l. de Caena to. 2. f. 283. These words of Christ: This 
Not corporal flesh.  is my body, can no way be understood of substantial and corporal flesh. Which he hath again l. de relig. c. de Euchar. and in Subsidio to. 2. fol. 247. And Sermon. 1. Bernen. f. 532. As if (the Apostle) should say, this is the meaning of those things which we have told. It is not flesh which is set afore us, albeit now I have vouchsafed it that name, nor likewise blood, but bread and drink.  
OEcalampadius in Hospin. lib. cit. f. 41. Not without folly 
Not the self same body.  would we bind men to confess, that this self same bread is the body of Christ. And f. 118. Some do urge that the Lords bread is the very body of Christ: But we say the contrary. 
Not his very body.   
Bucer in Hospin. l. cit. fol. 191. Nether is bread the very body of Christ, but a Symbol of it. And 192. All acknowledge that bread and wine are symbols, and not the very things themselves of this great mystery.  
Peter Martyr cont. Gardiner. col. 147. The Sacrament of 
Not lawful to say: This is etc.  the Eucharist being shown, it is not lawful for them to say of it all: This is my body. Col. 359. Manifest it is, that the Eucharistical bread is not properly the body of Christ. And in Dialog. col. 137. This is my body, is thus to be expounded: This, to wit that which was showed, signifieth my body.  
Caluin in Math. 3. ver. 16. The bread of the holy Supper, is 
Not Christ's body.  called the body of Christ, not that it is it, but because it testifieth to us, that it is truly given to us for meat.  
Beza in Catechismo sect. 9 This bread and this wine are 
Not our spiritual food.  they not our spiritual food? No: but they signify to us that, from which life everlasting proceedeth. And lib. quaest. quaest. 207. pag. 356. So if you properly understand this saying it willbe no less false, that bread is the body of Christ, then that a gourd 
As false that it is his body as that a gourd is a man. Not Christ's true body  is a man.  
Daneus Cont. de Euchar. c. 10. That Sacramental bread is not the true and real body of Christ. The bread which Christ reached to the Apostles, was not the true body of Christ. And c. 1. Whence it followeth, that the signs remain signs and seals, and never become the thing itself which is signified, to wit, the true flesh and true blood of Christ.  
Volanus l. 1. cont. Scargam. p. 793. Surely bread is not that 
Not the natural body.  true and natural body of Christ, albeit it be called, but sacramentally his body.  
Musculus in locis tit. de Signis. The bread of the lords 
Not the very body.  Supper is not the very body of Christ.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the Eucharist or that which our Saviour after his last supper gave with his hands to his Apostles to eat and drink; was his body & blood; and to put us out of doubt, what body and blood, he added: His body given for us, delivered for us: His blood of the new testament, and shed for remission of sins: And otherwhere that the bread which he would give us, was his flesh which he would give for the life of the world. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the bread, the holy bread, the bread of the Sacrament, the Sacramental bread, the lords bread, the bread of the supper, the bread of the holy supper, the bread of the lords supper, the bread which Christ reached to his Apostles: the Symbols, the Signs: the Eucharist, the sacrament of the Eucharist, the Eucharistical bread, is not the body of Christ, not his very body, not his body itself, not his true body, not his substantial body: not flesh, not Christ's true flesh, an other thing and much different from Christ's flesh; not the thing itself of this mystery, not our spiritual food: that Christ's words can no way be understood of Christ's substantial flesh, that his meaning is not; This my natural body: That the Eucharist being showed we may not say if it: This is my body: that though it be called Christ's body, yet it is not his body. Which are so directly contrary to the Scripture as many of these men sometimes confess it as shallbe seen cap 30. of the 2. book. But because they do not only contradict the Scripture in denying the Eucharist to be the body of Christ, which the Scripture so often and clearly affirmeth, but diverse other ways also, I will likewise set them down.  
Secondly therefore, they contradict the Scripture, in saying that the Eucharist is nothing but a simple ceremony, only bread, only a type or figure, only a seal or sign of the body and blood of Christ, which the Scripture so oftentimes sayeth, is his true body and blood.  
Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 5. c. 19 Sacraments are only seals of 
Only aseale.  those goods which are proposed to us in the word.  
Cartwright in disput. Oxonien. apud Martyrem p. 134. 
Only a sign.  The Eucharist is only a sign.  
Spalatensis l. 5. de Rep. c. 6. n. 113. The bread is not the body of Christ indeed, but only a sign of it.  
Perkins de Caena to. 1. col. 858. The bread is called the body, 
Only a sign and seal.  whereas it is only a sign and seal of the body.  
Melancthon as Luther reporteth in Hospin. part. 2. Histor. 
A simple ceremony.  fol. 194. Accounted the Eucharist no better than a simple ceremony.  
Confessio Czinge. in Syntagmate pag. 196. The (Eucharistical) 
Hath only the name.  signs, have not the substance of the things signified, but only their names.  
Helueti in Hospin libr. cit. fol. 153. The bread, is not the 
Only a sign.  very body of Christ, but only a sign and Sacrament of it.  
jewel art. 10. sect. 1. p. 313. The bread in itself, is very natural 
Very natural bread.  bread. art. 21. sect. 1. p. 443. The mystical bread is not Christ himself, but only a sacrament of Christ.  
Zuinglius de Caena to. 2. f. 286. The bread is only a figure, 
Only a figure  wherewith is signified that body which we ought to remember. f. 291. This drink was nothing else indeed but wine. 293. Nothing 
Nothing else but a sign. Nothing but bread and wine.  else but a sign and figure. And. 296. The Apostles themselves never called this bread the body of Christ, but only bread. And in Respons. ad Lutherum fol. 431. It is nought else but bread.  
OEcolampadius apud Zuinglium to. 2. fol. 503. These particles (This, that) we deny not to be certain & infallible tokens, 
No hang but common bread.  but such they are, as teach that here is nothing else but common bread. And ibid. 510. The drink is a pure and bare creature, and nought else beside.  
Caluin de administr. Caenae. p. 41. Let us account it enough, 
Nothing but a note and sign.  if bread and wine be given us for a note and sign.  
In admonit. vlt. ad Wesphal. p. 826. What other is the bread 
As the Dove was the Holy Ghost.  and wine of the Supper, than a visible word? Cont. Heshus. pag. 861. The bread of the Eucharist in the same manner is called the body of Christ, as the dove is called the holy Ghost. And 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 14. The Supper is nothing else, but a visible testification of that promise which is joan. 6. to wit, that Christ is the bread of life which came from heaven.  
Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 42. The disciples saw, that 
Mere bread and wine.  Christ held bread, and that it was mere bread and wine which he gave with his hands. Cont. Illy ric. col. 2. Theol. p. 149. I say, 
No better than water of baptism.  that the water of baptism is as well the blood of the Lord, as that bread is his body. Cont. Heshus. vol. 1. p. 308. The bread is no otherwise the body, and wine, no otherwise the blood, than the water of baptism is blood. And in 1. Corint. 5. vers. 7. The 
No otherwise then the paschal lamb.  Pascall lamb is called Christ in the self same manner, that that bread is said to be the body of Christ, which was given for us.  
Daneus Cont. de Euchar. cap. 13. The Fathers will have the 
Only symbol and sign.  bread and wine to be only symbols and signs of the true and essential body and blood of Christ.  
Peter Martyr apud Coccium to. 2 l. 6. art. 1. The bread and 
Only type and sign.  wine, are only types and signs of the body and blood of Christ. And hereupon, albeit, as Zanchius confesseth in Resp. ad Arian. col. 876. the Roman Church doth keep baptism and the Supper, or as Caluin speaketh, the half part of the Supper is remaining in Popery, yet nevertheless they sometime term our Eucharist, a Crust of bread, as doth Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 2. c. 16. and Perkins de Sermon. Dom. col. 554. Sometimes, a small crust of bread, as Caluin Admonit. vlt. p. 800. cont. Versipel. p. 358. in Math. 19 v. 13. Sometimes, a Crust, as Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 6. c. 3. Beza in Confess. c. 7. sect. 11. Sometimes, a gobbet of bread, as Whitaker in place last cited: Sometime, a most profane crust, as Beza li. quaest. vol. 3 p. 355. Sometime, a cake and crust, as Peter Martyr orat. 1. Tigurin. Sometime, a wafer of pastry, as the same Martyr count. Gardiner. col. 422. Thus reproachfully they term that, which in their own opinion is the lords Supper, or at least the half part thereof; but no marvel if they so speak so of our Eucharist, who say, that theirs, is nothing else but bread, nothing but common bread, nothing but a bare creature, nothing but a bare sign or figure, nothing but mere bread and wine. But fare otherwise said Christ, that his Eucharist was his body given for us, his blood shed for remission of sins, and not as Protestant's say only a sign, only a seal, only a figure, only a token, only a testification, only a symbol, only a type of Christ's body, which only hath the name of Christ's body, only a simple ceremony; and no otherwise the body of Christ, Then the Pascal lamb was Christ; the dove, the Holy Ghost; or the water of baptism, the blood of Christ.  
Thirdly they contradict the Sripture, in saying, that the Eucharist is only figuratively and in some sort the body and blood of Christ, which the Scripture in the places cited simply and absolutely sayeth to be his body and blood, and addeth John 6. v. 55. My flesh is truly meat, and my blood truly drink. Which is most clearly opposite, to mere figuratively.  
Spalatensis l. 5. de Repub. c. 6. n. 45. The wine in the Chalice is the blood of the lord only ostensively or in show, that is, figuratively 
Only figuratively.  and typically. And num. 115. The Eucharist, is not Christ substantially, but only significantly and figuratively. And 118. It is but figuratively and typically called the body of Christ.  
Perkins in Cathol. ref. Cont. 11. c. 2. We take the bread to 
By resemblance and no otherwise.  be the body of Christ sacramentally by resemblance, and no otherwise. And Cont. 10. cap. 4. These words must not be understood properly, but by a figure.  
Roger's on the 28. Article of Protest. Confess. pag. 174. Abominable be the Popish errors, that substantially and really the body and blood of Christ is contained in the Sacrament Eucharistical.  
jewel art. 5. sect. 10. p. 255. As Christ is herbs or milk, even so, 
As he is herbs or milk. As manna.  and none otherwise, he is bread or flesh. Art. 8. sect. 25. p. 303. As the bread is Christ's body, even so was manna Christ's body.  
Usher in his Answer to a Challenge p. 58. Nothing in this 
Not substantially.  world is more plain, then when our Saviour said: It was his blood, he could not mean it to be substantially. And ib. pag. 60. 
Not really.  The things which he honoured with those names, cannot be really his body and blood, but figuratively.  
Whitaker l. 2. cont. Du. sect. 10. The bread is the true body 
Metonimycally.  of Christ, and the wine the true blood of Christ, but mystically, metonymical, Sacramentally.  
Melancthon apud Hospin. lib. cit. fol. 69. This is my blood, is a metonymy, as if you should say: The ensign or Maze is the Roman Empire.  
Caluin count. Heshus. p. 844. Bread may truly be said, to 
Symbolically.  be symbolically the true body of Christ. Which also he hath Admonit. vlt. ad Westphal. pag. 836. Where also pag. 821. he sayeth: It appeareth, that to them bread was symbolically the body. and p. 830. In some sort it is the body. And 4. Instit. c. 
In some sort.  17. §. 23. The bread is figuratively the body. And count. Heshus. 
Improperly.  l. cit. p. 847. Can he more clearly testify, that bread is improperly called the body of Christ, in respect of likeness?  
Beza respon ad Selneccer. vol. 2. pag. 270. The names 
But metonymically.  of the body and blood, are but metonymically given to the bread and wine.  
Daneus Cont. de Euchar. c. 10. The bread is tropically called 
Tropically.  the body of Christ.  
Peter Martyr l. cont. Gardin. col. 293. We say, that speech: 
Not properly.  This is my body, is not proper, but metaphorical and tropical. And in Hospin l. cit. f. 259. The words: This is etc. cannot be taken simply and without a figure.  
Peucer apud Hospin. in Concordia discordi fol. 206. The 
Not simply.  consecratea bread and chalice are the body and blood of Christ 
Relatively.  relatively, as figures and signs.  
Wolfius in Schusselburg. l. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 22. The 
Significantly.  bread is the body, and the wine the blood of Christ, significantly, no other ways then a key delivered is a house. More of their mere figurative expositions of these words may be seen in my Latin book l. 2. c. 20. But by that which here we have rehearsed, it clearly appeareth, that what the Scripture simply sayeth is the body and blood of Christ, Protestant's say, is only ostensively or in show, only figurasively, by resemblance and no otherways, but metonymically, not properly no otherwise then a key is a house, is the body and blood of Christ.  
Fourthly, they contradict the holy Scripture, in that they deny, that Christ's body is present in the Supper, in the Eucharist, in the Eucharistical bread, or in the Sacrament: in which according to Christ's words it was so present, as he bad his Apostles take it with their hands and eat it.  
The Pseudosynod of London in Hospin. part. 2. Histor. d. 220. No faithful man ought to believe or profess the real 
Real presence not to be believed. Christ's body not in the Sacrament. Not present in substance.  and substantial presence of Christ's flesh in the Eucharist.  
Whitaker in Respons. ad Demonstr. Sanderi pag. 741. Christ's body is not in the Sacrament; nor in infinite Sacraments.  
jewel Defence. Apol. p. 221. Thus is Christ's body present, not really, nor in suhstance, but only in mystery. Again. As Christ is present in the one Sacrament (of Baptism) even so and none otherwise, is he present in the other (of the Eucharist) which 
Absent in body.  he repeateth p. 264. And p. 234. Christ is present in majesty, absent in body. 272. By abuse of speech, they say the body of 
As the people in the Cup.  Christ is laid upon the table. 273. As people is in the Cup: so is Christ's blood in the Cup. The like he hath. artic. 8. divis. 
As he dieth in the Sacrament.  1 And art. 12. divis. 14. As Christ dyeth in the Sacrament: so is his body present in the Sacrament.  
Perkins in his Ref. Cathol. Contr. 10 ca 1. We hold and 
Present as a thing to the name.  teach, that Christ's body and blood are not present with the bread and wine in respect of place of coexistence, but by Sacramental relation or this manner: When a word is uttered, the same comes to the ear, and at the same instant the thing signified comes to the mind, and thus by relation the word and the thing spoken of, are both present together.  
Zuinglius in Respons. ad Propos. Eckij to 2. fol. 576. of this proposition: The true and lively body of Christ and his blood are present in the Sacrament if the Altar: Maketh this 
Not present in the Sacrament.  censure: This proposition is neither pious nor Christian. Serm. 1. Bernae fol. 527. Three articles of Christian faith directly fight against the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper. 
Not in the Supper. Present by contemplation.  In Respons. ad Lutherum fol. 363. By contemplation Christ is in the Eucharist. 420. As for substance, there is nothing present besides bread and wine. 456. We willingly grant and confess, that Christ's body is in the Supper in the same manner 
As our bodies are in heaven.  that our bodies are now in heaven. And in epist. ad Principes fol. 546. Seeing all this presence is nothing without the speculation 
Present by speculation.  of faith, it belongeth to faith, that these things are, or be made present. And apud Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 102. I 
By contemplation.  believe, that in the Supper of the Eucharist, Christ's true body is present by contemplation of faith, that is, that they who give thanks to the Lord for the gifts given us in his Son, do acknowledge him to have taken true flesh, truly to have suffered in it, truly to have wiped away our sins with his blood: and so that all the matter done by Christ is made as it were present by contemplation of faith. But that Christ's body should be really and in substance present, we do not only deny, but avouch to be an error.  
Tigurini in Hospin. part. 2. fol. 161. The sacramental union 
By signification.  wholly consisteth in signification. And in Scusselburg. l. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 21. The body and blood of Christ are by mere imagination 
By mere imagination.  in the Sacrament of the Supper. And Carolstadius ib. art. 20. The body of Christ is not in the Supper. Christ is not in 
Not in the Supper.  the Sacrament neither can be in it.  
Caluin 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 30. Whereas our Mediator is every where whole, he is always present to his servants, and in the Supper affor death himself present in a special manner: but so as he is whole there, not wholly, 
* Totus non totum.  because in his flesh he is contained in heaven, until he come to judgement. In Defence 2. cont. Westphal p. 774. I said, that Christ's body is exhibited 
Not present in substance.  effectually in the Supper, not naturally: according to virtue, not according to substance. See more ib. p. 778. 779 In Consens. de re Sacrament. art. 25. It must needs be, that Christ's body be 
As fare from us, as heaven from earth.  as fare distant from us, as heaven is from earth. Which Beza often times repeateth, as count. Brent. vol. 1. pag. 574. De hypostat. unione pag. 638. lib. quaest. & resp. pag. 673. Resp. ad Andream pag. 130. Apol. 1. cont. Sainctem. p. 302. Resp. ad Repetit. eiusdem. c. 10. p. 50. also Daneus count Kemnit. c. 30. and others.  
Beza count. Heshus. vol. 1. p. 278. We say not, that Christ's 
Not present in the bread.  body is present in the bread. Respons. ad Acta Torgensia vol. 368. We may easily understand and declare out of the word the sacramental manner of presence, to wit, such as the thing signified 
Present as the abject is the thought.  is offered to the understanding to be known and approved; and by faith to be embraced and applied to the beleiver. And epist. 76. What this presence is, we clearly understand and perceive out of the word of God: to wit, such as the thing thought upon is present to our thought; and the thing believed, is present to faith. And as Graverus in Absurdis Caluin. cap. 3. §. 43. sayeth. This presence he plainly putteth in imagination. 
Present in imagination.   
Zanchius in Hospin l. cit. f. 316. Touching the presence of Christ's body in the Supper, I protest, that I do not willingly dispute 
No ward of presence in the Scripture.  of it, because I read no word of it in Scripture. The like he hath l. 2. Epist. p. 69. and 89.  
Peter Martyr in Schusselburg. l. 3. Theol. Caluin. art. 8. I remove the presence of Christ's body from the Eucharist. And l. 
Presence removed from the Eucharist.  cont. Gardiner. col. 815. The presence of Christ's body in heaven directly feighteth with the presence thereof in the Sacrament. col. 994. If besides signification he will that there is a real presence; 
No presence besides signification.  that we altogether deny. More of their like speeches may be seen in my Latin book. c. 10. art. 1. But by these it is clear, that they say that Christ's body is not in the sacrament, is not present in the Sacrament, is not in substance present, is absent in body, is not in the Sacrament nor can be in it: is not in the Supper according to substance, is not present in the bread, is removed from the Eucharist: that there is no word in the scripture of the presence of Christ's body in the Supper: that his blood is in the chalice as the people are there, that he is no otherwise in the Eucharist then in baptism: that he is not there otherwise then a thing is present to our cogitation, or a thing to the name thereof, or our bodies are now present in heaven, finally only present by speculation and mere imagination.  
Fiftly they contradict the Scripture, by saying that no other thing is received in the Eucharist or Supper, then in baptism, or in the simple word.  
Caluin count. Heshus. p. 860. There is no cause, why Christ 
No more present in the Supper then in baptism. Then in the word.  should be said to be more present in the Supper, then in baptism. p. 847. Surely there is a plain solution: That God giveth not more to the visible symbols, then to the word. Therefore communication is no less truly given us by the Gospel, then by the Supper. 4. Instit. c. 14. §. 14. He is deceived, who thinketh, that any thing more is given him by the Sacraments, than which offered by the word of God he receiveth by true faith. §. 17 There is no other function of the Sacraments, then of the word of God. And c. 16. §. 5. he sayeth, that the Sacrament is inferior to the word.  
Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 136. There is the same receiving of Christ in the Sacrament, which is in the simple word. In 2. part. respon ad Acta Colloq. p. 109. Nothing more is to be sought in the Sacraments, then in simple word. l. count. Heshus. p. 287. Nothing more is given in the Supper, then in baptism, or in the preaching of the word.  
Bucer in Hospin. l. cit. p. 161. The memory of this body may 
More in the word then in the Sacrament.  be refreshed by the bread, but more fully by the word.  
Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 11. This is the sum: that we understand the body and blood of Christ to be offered to us no less by the words of God then by Sacraments. In Disput. Oxonien. pag. 225. We receive no less the body and blood of Christ in the word of God, then in this Sacrament. And count. Gardiner. col. 1041. I deny not that that is our speech: Christ's body is received no less in words then in the Sacraments. Nether am I afraid to say, that we come much better to them by words, then by Sacraments.  
Willet Cont. 11. q. 3. c. 557. There is the same substance of both Sacraments.  
jewel art. 5. divis. 5. The word of God is the body and blood of Christ, and that more truly than is the Sacrament. Art. 21. diu. 1. As Christ entereth into us by a minister, by his word, even so he entereth into us by the Sacrament of his body, and no otherwise. Defense of the Apol. p. 221. As Christ is present in the one Sacrament, even so and no otherwise, is he present in the other.  
Hereupon Apologia Confess. Augustanae. cap. de usu Sacrament sayeth, that the Sacrament is as it were a picture of the word. Melancthon in Disputat. tom. 4. pag. 513. The Sacrament is like a picture of the promise. And lib. contr. Anabaptistas': As the will of God is showed in the word or promise, so also it is showed in the Sacrament as in a picture. And oftentimes they say that there is no other presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist, than there is in the simple word, as you may see in Beza Apol. 1. cont. Sanctem p. 297. in Hospin l. cit. fol. 36. 39 and in Concordia discordi f. 205. So that they plainly say, that Christ is no more present in the Supper then in baptism, no more communicated in the Supper than in the Gospel: no more received in the Sacrament them in the word: that there is the same receiving of Christ in the Sacrament and in the simple word, nothing more given in the Supper them in preaching, no more offered by the sacrament then by the word: yea that the Sacrament is inferior to the word, the memory of Christ's body more fully refreshed by the word, then by this Sacrament: that we may better come to Christ's body by words, then by this Sacrament. Which are so contrary to Scripture, as sometimes themselves confess it. See lib. 2. cap. 30.  
Sixtly they contradict the holy Scripture, whiles they say, that they jews received Christ's body before it was borne, as truly as we receive it in the Eucharist.  
Willet Cont. 11. q. 2. p. 544. We do hold, and constantly affirm 
The Fathers no less received the body of Christ thou we.  and teach, that the Fathers in the law received no less the substance of Christ by faith in their Sacraments, than we do in ours.— Christ was as well exhibited to them in their Sacraments, as he is in ours.  
Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 96. He was as present in their Sacraments, as he is to us in ours. p. 69. The Fathers were no less partakers of the body and blood of Christ, than we are in the Lord's Supper. Respons. ad Acta, Colloq. p. 119. The Fathers as truly received Christ's true body and true blood, in the word and in their Sacraments, as we by the instrument of the same faith now receive them.  
Peter Martyr cont. Gardiner. col. 150. The Fathers in the old testament did no less than we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, for so much as pertaineth to the thing itself.  
Seventhly they contradict the holy Scripture, in saying that the Eucharist is a symbolical, mystical, and Sacramental body of Christ, which the Scripture plainly sayeth to be his true body.  
Zuinglius de ver. & falsa relig. c. de Euchar. to. 2. f. 208. We are here compelled plainly to confess, that this self same which Christ gave with so great diligence and majesty, is his symbolical 
Christ's symbolical body Sacramental body.  body. Respons. ad Luther. ib. fol. 514. It is easy to understand, that this bread which Christ giveth us, is Christ's sacramental body, that is, the sign of his body, in that manner and form of speech wherewith showing the statue of Cocles, we say: Behold Cocles that stout champion of his country. Epistola ad Principes fol. 548. The bread is made the sacramental body of Christ. Again: Our adversaries say that Christ's natural and substantial body is given; we say, his sacramental. Hereupon the contention. And in Hospin. l. cit. fol. 143. We are forced, will we nill we, to confess, that these words: This is 
Mystical body.  my body, are thus to be understood: that is: A sacrament of my body: or, This is my sacramental or mystical body.  
Oecalampadius in Beza Resp. ad Repet. Sanctis. pag. 48. That bread is a symbolical body.  
Zanchius lib. 1. Epistolarum pag. 280. These three bodies 
Mystical body.  of Christ we read in the holy Scriptures, His true and natural, his Mystical, which is the Church, and sacramental, which is bread.  
Daneus Cont. de Euchar. c. 10. Austin confesseth, that the 
Only Sacramental body.  bread is only the sacramental body of Christ, but not his natural body. Again: The bread which Christ gave to his Apostles, was his sacramental body.  
Vrsinus in Miscellaneis. p. 172. There is a body of Christ properly so called, and a sacramental, which is the Eucharistical bread. Thus we see, how plainly they say, that the Eucharist is Christ's symbolical body, his sacramental body, his mystical body, and not his true body. Which himself sayeth most plainly to be his true body, that very body which was given and delivered for us.  
Finally we see, how many ways the Caluinists do contradict the express word of God in this one matter. First, in expressly denying the Eucharist to be the body of Christ, which the Scripture so often and so plainly affirmeth: Secondly, in saying that it is only a sign or figure of Christ's body, which the Scripture plainly and often sayeth is his true body. Thirdly, in saying that it is but only figuratively his body, which the Scripture simply and absolutely sayeth is his body. Fourthly, in saying, that Christ's body is but figuratively, or by faith and imagination in the Eucharist: Which the Scripture directly affirmeth to be the substance of the Eucharist. Fiftly, in saying that Christ's body is no more received in the Eucharist, then in the simple word; whereas Christ, bid us take and eat his body in the Eucharist, but not in his word. Sixtly, by saying that the Fathers in the old law received Christ's body in their Sacraments, as truly as we do in the Eucharist: when as they were never bidden to take and eat Christ's flesh in their Sacraments, as we are in the Eucharist. Finally, in saying that the Eucharist is Christ's symbolical, sacramental, and mystical body; which the holy Scripture sayeth is his body, which was given and delivered for us.    

ART. II. WHETHER CHRIST'S FLESH be to be eaten, and his blood to be drunk?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 26. ver. 26. Take ye and eat: This is my body. ver 28. 
Christ's body and blood to be eaten and drunk.  Drink ye all of this: For this is my blood etc.  
John 6. v. 53. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, 
Truly.  and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. Et 56. My flesh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Math. 26. v. 28. For to perfect the new testament and covenant, of which Christ speaketh, betwixt us and him, no spiritual eating or drinking of the body and blood of Christ sufficeth, but there is plainly required an external, real, and corporal receiving of them both.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Zuinglius l. de Relig. c. de Euchar. to. 2. Christ's flesh eaten, 
Christ flesh eaten profiteth not.  profiteth nothing at all. Which he often repeateth in Exegesi fol. 333. 334. 336. 346. and in joan. 6. to. 4. in so much as Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 181. writeth, that Zuinglius every where inculcateth, that Christ's flesh eaten profiteth nothing. And c. cit. de Euchar. Nether do we think, that they are to be 
Not be eaten spiritually.  heard, who determine thus: we eat the true and corporal flesh of Christ, but spiritually: for they do not see, that it can not stand together, to be a body and to be spiritually eaten. Again: What is given to be eaten, is Christ's body, but symbolical. In Exegesi fol. 329. Christ did not command his body to be eaten, but symbolical bread. Respons. ad Luther. fol 435. We eat and drink 
We eat and drink nothing but bread and wine.  nothing but bread and wine. In Apol. f. 370. We teach, that the only sign of Christ's body is eaten in this Eucharistical Supper. Respons. ad Billican: fol. 264. We are taught, that Christ's corporal flesh can be no way eaten. And as Hospin. lib. cit. fol. 181. sayeth: Zuinglius every where inculcateth, that the true and real flesh of Christ cannot be eaten so much as spiritually: and that to eat Christ's flesh is nothing else but to believe.  
Oecolampadius in Hospin. l. cit. f. 75. Flesh eaten profiteth nothing, but the spirit. And in Schusselburg. lib. 1. Theol. Caluin Mistica artic. 22. I do not read in the Evangelists, that they bid receive and eat Christ's body.  
Carolstadius in Scusselburg l. cit. art. 28. This I know, that Christ never gave his body that we should receive it: For he sayeth: My flesh profiteth you not.  
Tigurins in Schusselburg lib. cit. artic. 23. His flesh on earth profited for to accomplish our salvation, now it profiteth no more.  
Peter Martyr cont. Gardiner. col. 146. It is fare from the 
Christ's body not to be truly eaten. He gave not his body but bread. He exhibited not his body in substance.  body of the Lord, to be truly eaten.  
Confessio Czengerina c. de Caena p. 193. Yea after the pronouncing of Christ's words, Christ gave bread to the Apostles, and not his body.  
Caluin defence 2. cont. Westphal. pag. 774. I said, that Christ's body was exhibited effectually in the Supper, not naturally: according to virtue, not according to substance.  
Beza Resp. ad Acta Torgens. vol. 3. p. 68 What is eaten with the mouth, availeth nothing to eternal and spiritual life.  
Perkins in Cathol. reform. Cont. 10. c. 3. Though the body may be bettered with spiritual food of the soul, yet cannot the soul be fed with bodily food.  
Polanus in Graver in Absurdis Caluin. cap. 3. Those words of Christ: Take, eat, are not spoken of Christ's body for neither 
The words not meant of his body.  took he that into his hands, neither brake, nor gave it to his disciples. And albeit sometimes they say in words, that they eat the body of Christ: yet they add, that to eat is nothing but to believe, as we have already repeated out of Zuinglius, and have cited more places of their like sayings in my Latin book c. 10. art. 2. or by word Body, or Flesh, they understand not Christ's true body or flesh, but some other thing, as the same Zuinglius doth Respons. ad Luther. tom. 2. fol. 390. In Exegesi fol. 350. and 333. and in Explicat. art. 18. tom. 1. fol. 37. In like sort, how be it sometimes in words they say, they eat the substance of Christ's body, yet Beza confesseth Apolog. 1. cont. Sainctem pag. 294. that unwillingly they use the name Substance, and as he addeth Respons. 3. ad Selneccer pag. 271. Many of them refuse it, and not without cause, and that is evident by the words now cited out of Caluin, and more by Bullinger in Hospin. part. 2. fol. 344. Where he sayeth: Who knoweth not, that we are of their number, who do not admit this (word Substance) nor ever would admit it.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Christ gave to his Apostles his body to be eaten, and his blood to be drunk: that unless we eat his flesh, we shall not have life: that his flesh is truly meat. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that Christ's flesh eaten profiteth nothing, nothing at all: that Christ's true flesh, cannot be eaten spiritually, can be no way eaten; that it is fare from Christ's body to be truly eaten: that Christ's body is not exhibited in the Supper according to the substance thereof: that those words: Take, eat, are not spoken of Christ's body: that Christ's never gave his body to be received, the Evangelists never commanded us to receive and eat it: that what is given to be eaten, is Christ's symbolical body, is but symbolical bread, is nothing but bread and wine, only a sign of Christ's body: that Christ gave bread to the Apostles, and not his body. Which are so contrary to the holy Scripture, as themselves sometimes confess it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. III. WHETHER CHRIST GAVE the blood of the new testament to be drunk?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matthew 26. v. 28. Drink ye all of this: For this is my blood 
The blood of the new testament to be drunk.  of the new testament.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Matthew 26. vers. 28. Christ professeth, that what we drink in the chalice, is the blood of the new testament.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Zuinglius in Subsidio to. 2. fol. 245. Christ did not give the 
Not the blood of the new testament.  blood of the testament to drink. Which he repeateth again. And of the same opinion all the rest are, who either deny that Christ gave his true blood to drink, as we have seen in the former chapter, for Christ's true blood, is the blood of the new testament: or deny, that the Eucharist is the testament, as we shall hear art. seq.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Christ gave the blood of the new testament to be drunk. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly deny it.    

ART. iv WHETHER THE EVCHARISticall Chalice be the testament of Christ?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH. 
The Chalice was the new testament.   
Luc. 22. v. 20. Christ sayeth: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood.  
1. Corinth. 11. vers. 25. This chalice is the new testament in my blood.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Card. Bellarm. l. 1. de Euchar. c. 11. As for the figure which they put in the word, Testament, I say there is none there: and he avoucheth, that the Eucharist is properly the testament of Christ.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
jewel art. 10. sect. 1. Nether was that cup in deed and really the 
It was not this new testament.  new testament. So also art. 12. sect. 16.  
Willet Cont. 13. q. 1. p. 595. The wine in the cup was not the new testament. 596. The blood is not the testament.  
Peter Martyr in Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 257. Nether the cup itself, nor the liquor contained in it, is indeed the testament.  
Zuinglius in Subsidio to. 2. fol. 245. This cup was not the blood of the testament, nor the testament itself. De Caena fol. 291. The blood of Christ, is not the new testament, and much less can we say, that this drink is the new testament, howbeit it be called by this name. And the reason, why against the express word of God, he denieth the chalice to be the testament of Christ, he giveth l. de Relig. c. de Eucharist. in these words: If the cup be the testament, it followeth, that it is the true and sensible blood of Christ.  
Oecolampadius apud Zuinglium to. 2. fol. 499. It must needs be, that this chalice or cup be the sign of the covenant or new testament, not the new testament itself indeed.  
Beza in Lucae 22. v. 20. edit. An. 1565. Wine is called the covenant itself, whereas it is only a symbol or badge of the covenant, or rather of that wherewith the covenant is made, to wit, of the blood of the lord In Colloq. Montisbel. pag. 38. I marvel, that you call the Supper of the Lord, a testament, which seems very strange to me. The Supper of the Lord is not the testament itself, but only a part of the testament, that is, the seal thereof. The Cup cannot be the testament.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the chalice of the Eucharist is the new testament. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say, that neither the chalice nor the liquor therein contained is the new testament: that neither the wine nor the blood of Christ is the new testament: that the Cup cannot be the new testament, but is only a symbol or badge thereof or rather of the blood wherewith the testament was made: That the Lords Supper is not the testament, and that it were strange to call it so. Which contradiction of Scripture is so evident as diverse Protestants confess it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. V WHETHER AT THE VERY time of Christ's celebration of the Eucharist, his body was given and delivered and his blood shed for us?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Luc. 22. v. 19 And taking bread he gave thanks, and broke, 
Christ's body was given and his blood shed at Supper.  and gave to them saying: This is my body which is given for you. And S. Paul 1. Corinth. 11. vers. 24. in Greek hath, which is broken: as also S. Matthew 26. vers. 28. S. Mark. 14. v. 24. S. Luke c. 22. v. 20. speak of the blood, or of the Chalice, in the present tense: Which is shed.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Math. 26. v. 28. Those words: Which shallbe shed for you, are to be red in the present tense according to all the Evangelists in the Greek text, and the sense is: which is now distributed for you, and is by real participation sprinkled and inwardly poured into every one of you.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
jewel art. 17. sect. 4. Christ gave his body to be broken, and his blood to be shed not at his last supper, but only upon his cross, and not where else.  
Spalatensis l. 5. cap. 6. sect. 229. sayeth, that the forecited words, can be no way true of the present time.  
Peter Martyr cont. Gardiner. col. 354. But I pray you, tell us once, what that is which remaineth and is broken? If you say, 
Not given or shed at the Supper.  Accidents; you willbe laughed at by children: If you say. The body of Christ: you willbe blasphemous. Col. 812. But who will say, that Christ himself or his body is broken in the Supper.  
Moulins in his Bucler part. 2. pag. 91. Christ did not say, that his blood was shed in the Eucharist. Pag. 87. He speaketh of a shedding which was not yet made, but to be made at his death.  
Bucanus in Institution. loco 48. Which is given: is not said but by change of time present for that which is straight to come, for, Which shallbe given, to wit, on the cross, not in the Eucharist.  
Reineccius to. 4. Armaturae c. 19 Christ used the time present for the future. The same sayeth Caluin Admonit. vlt. p. 836. Beza in Math. 26. v. 28. Tilenus' in Syntagm. c. 61. Micronius in Hospin. part. 2. f. 236.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that at the very present time of the celebration of the Eucharist, Christ's body is given, 
Chrysostom, Theophilact, Oecum. in 1. Cor. 10.  is delivered, is broken, and his blood is shed for us. And the holy Fathers declare how it is most true. The Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say, that it is blasphemy to say, that Christ's body is broken in the Eucharist: that his body is not broken in the Supper: that his blood is not shed in the Eucharist: that Christ said, which is given, for, which shallbe given, and took the present time for the future. Which are so contrary to the Scripture, as diverse Protestant's confess it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. VI WHETHER THE CHALICE of the Eucharist was shed for us?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Luc. 22. vers. 20. This is the Chalice, the new testament in my blood, which (Chalice, as is evident in the Greek text) shallbe 
The Chalice shed for us.  shed for you.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Math. 26. v. 28 Keeping the grammatical and right sense of the words of S. Luke, as they are in Greek, where the Chalice itself is said to be shed in remission of sins, by the name of the Chalice we must needs understand not wine, but blood in the chalice.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker ad Ration. 1. Campiani. The Chalice was not 
Not shed for us.  shed for us: And yet he confesseth; that if we stick to the words (of the Evangelist) we must either say, that the Chalice was shed for us, or we must make false Greek.  
Beza in Lucae. 22. v. 20. These words cannot be understood of the wine, much less of the Cup.  
Musculus in locis titul. de Caena: But if in Luke we read: Which is shed for you, that is not referred to the Cup, but to the blood. Again: I think, that the word of Shedding in Saint Luke, is not to be referred to th● Cup of the Sacrament, but to the blood.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that the Chalice was shed for us, as is manifest by the Greek text, which alone Protestants account authentical: in so much as not only Lutheran Protestants confess it, but also D. Willet though a a Caluinist. For thus he writeth Controu. 13. quaest. 1. pag. 595. The Paticiple shed, agreeth with the Cup, not with my blood: as the Evangelist sayeth: The Cup was shed. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the chalice was not shed for us; that these words cannot be understood of the Cup: that the word Shed in S. Luke is not referred to the Cup: Which contradiction of Scripture is so plain, as many Protestants confess it, nor can it he avoided by any better colour than by changing the Greek text, or by saying that Saint Luke wrote false Greek, who yet was an excellent Grecian as is evident by all his writings.    

ART. VII. WHETHER BREAD BE Necessary to make the Eucharist?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 26. v. 26. And whiles they were at supper, jesus took bread, and blessed and broke, and he gave to his disciples and said: 
Bread necessary to the Eucharist.  Take ye add eat: This is my body.  
joan. 6. vers. 51. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give is my f●●h for the life of the world.  
1. Cor. 10. v. 16. The bread which we break, is it not the participation of the body of our Lord?   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
S. Thomas 3. part. q. 74. art. 4. There must needs be bread of wheat, without which the Sacrament is not made.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Beza Epist. 2. vol. 3. Where there is no use of bread or wine, or no plenty at sometime, may no Supper of the Lord be celebrated? yes it may be well celebrated, if that which is in steed of 
Bread not necessary.  bread and wine, either by common, use or by occasion of the time, be taken in place of bread and wine. Which very words are repeated by Hospin. part. 1, Histor. c. 2.  
Tilenus' in Syntagmate c. 61. In these countries in which there is no plenty, no use of wheaten bread or wine pressed out of of grapes, we doubt not but the Sacrament may be well celebrated, if that be used for this Symbol, which there is in steed of bread and wine.  
Bucanus in Institut. Theol. loco 48. What if bread, such as we have, and wine want in any country, with what signs is the Supper to be celebrated? With those earthly elements and corporal meats, which all men in that country use for bread and wine, meat and drink. So also teacheth Homius Disput. 47. neither is it disliked of Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 10. Caluin also apud Bezam epist. 25. alloweth other drink in steed of wine in places where wine wanteth.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that the Eucharist is to be made of bread. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants plainly say, that bread is not necessary: That where bread wanteth, there it may be made of other meats.    

ART. VIII. WHETHER THE EUCHARIST may be made of azime or unleavened bread?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 2. ver. 17. is said, that Christ celebrated the Eucharist the first day of the Azimes: Et Marc. 14. v. 12. The first 
Christ used azime bread.  day of the Azimes when they sacrificed the Pasche: & Luc. 22. v 7. the day of the Azimes wherein it was necessary that the Pasche should be killed. Now in the days of the Azimes it was forbidden Exod. 12. and 13. that there should be any leaven bread amongst the jews, and commanded, that he should die, who in that time had eaten leaven bread.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
S. Thomas 3. part. q. 74. art. 4. The custom of celebrating in azime bread, is more agreeable to reason.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Beza l. quaest. & respon vol. 3. I say freely, that there is a 
To use azime is a blemish: savoureth judaisme.  double blemish in those Churches, which rather use azime then leaven bread. For that savoureth judaisme, and is less agreeable to our daily meat.  
Lobechius Disput. 12. thus writeth. The Zuinglian Caluinists 
Leaven bread, necessary.  despising azime bread with a Pharisaical pride, yea cursing it, do thrust leaven bread upon the Church under opinion of necessity.  
Pareus Colleg. Theol. 9 disput. 26. It must be household bread, for analogies sake.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that Christ instituted the Eucharist, the first day of the Azimes, when there was no leaven bread to be found amongst the jews but only azime: And Beza himself loc. cit. confesseth, that Christ celebrated the Eucharist in azime bread. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that we ought to make the Eucharist rather of leaven bread then of azime, that to make it of azime, is a blemish, savoureth judaisme, and is to be accursed.    

ART. IX. WHETHER THE BREAD and wine of which the Eucharist is made, be to be blessed?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matthew 26. vers. 26. jesus took bread, and blessed and 
Bread and wine, blessed.  broke; and he gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body.  
1. Cor. 10. v. 16. The chalice of benediction which we do bless, is it not the communication of the blood of Christ?   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Math. 26. v. 26. An other circumstance is, that he blessed the bread and chalice.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Zuinglius l. de Caena to. 2. f. 294. They should not use the 
The word of Blessing not to be used.  words of Benediction and Blessing in this place. (1. Cor. 10. cit.) For commonly the use to be taken for the word of Consecrating.  
Caluin in Math. 26. v. 26. Matthew and Mark use the word of Blessing; but seeing in place thereof we read in Luke the word 
Blessing, for Thanks giving.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is no doubt of the sense; and seeing also, that in the Chalice they add the word of thankes giving, they clearly interpret their former speech. Whereby the ignorance of Papists is more ridiculous, who express their blessing with the sign of the cross, as if Christ had used an exorcism.  
Musculus in loc. tit. de Missa. To bless, is not to consecrate, but to give thanks, and to speak well of one; that I may not say, that neither Matthew, nor Mark, nor Paul have used the word of 
Nether Matthew nor Paul used the word Blessing.  Blessing in this matter. Of the same opinion are others, who will have the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Matthew, to signify nothing but thanks giving. And so have the Bibles of K. Edward and of Q. Elizabeth 1562. translated it.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Christ blessed the bread, and that we bless the Chalice. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that blessing of bread is an exorcism, that by, blessing, nothing is meant but thankes giving, that we should not use it here, that neither Matthew nor Paul used it in this matter. Which contradiction of the Scripture is so clear, as some Protestants confess it. See l 2. c. 30.    

ART. X. WHETHER THERE AUGHT to be made any preparation to the receiving of the Eucharist?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Cor. 11. v. 28. But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Card. Bellarm. lib. 4. the Eucharist. cap. 17. The Catholic Church teacheth, that preparation to the Eucharist is not faith alone, but true penance and confession of sins, if a man after baptism be fallen into mortal sin.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther Postilla in die Pascae fol. 241. We taught, that it 
Preparation of no moment  is of no moment and of no value at all, whatsoever we prepare of ourselves to receive the Sacrament, as they did who by their confession and by other works would make themselves worthy to receive the Sacrament. Which is a horrible error and abuse. Et. f. 242. We have condemned them, and not without cause, who endeavour by their works to come worthily.  
The same Luther lib. de Captivitat. Babylon. tom. 2. 
Only erroneous consciences worthily communicate.  cap. de Eucharist. Out of these things we conclude, who do worhily communicate: to wit only they who have sad, afflicted, troubled, confounded, and erroneous consciences. Which doctrine Whitaker defendeth ad Ration. 8. Campiani pag. 41. Again: By which thou seest, that to have Mass worthily 
The more wicked, the nearer to grace.  no other thing is required but faith. And apud Fabritium in artic. 20. Augustan. By how much the wickeder thou art, by so much the sooner God giveth thee grace. And in psalm. 5. tom. 3. fol. 172. I will say one thing rashly and boldly: In this 
Blasphemers, most grateful to God.  life, there are none nearer to God, than these haters and blasphemers of God, nor any more grateful or loving children. Which also Whitaker mantaineth loco citat. And Concione de Praeparat. ad Euchar. An. 1518. The best disposition 
Worst disposed, best disposed.  is no other, then that wherewith thou art worst disposed: and on the contrary, than thou art worst disposed, when thou art best disposed.  
Schusselburg Catal. Haeret. tom. 8. pag. 216. Papists do 
Faith sufficeth.  impudently deny, that faith is a sufficient preparation to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Kemnice. 2. part Exam. tit. De preparat. p. 178. Faith alone is a sufficient Praeparation. The like hath Caluin 4. Instit. c. 14. §. 26.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that a man must prove or prepare himself to receive the Eucharist: that who receiveth it unworthily, receiveth his judgement. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that we must not make ourselves worthy by works; not endeavour by works to come worthily: that they only communicate worthily who bring troubled and erroneous consciences: that we need nothing but faith: that the best disposition is to be ill disposed: that haters and blasphemers of God are nearest unto him and most grateful: that the more wicked one is, the sooner God giveth him grace: that faith is a sufficient preparation to the Eucharist.    

ART. XI. WHETHER THERE BE ANY Sacrifice in the Church?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Malachi 1. v. 11. From the rising of the sun to the going 
Sacrifice in the Church.  down great is my name among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrificing, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation. cap. 3. vers. 3. He shall purge the Sons of Levi, and will strain them as gold and silver, and they shallbe offering sacrifices to our Lord in justice.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent. Sess. 24. c. 1. Christ in his last supper, that he might leave a visible sacrifice to his beloved Church, as the nature of man requireth, offered his body and blood to God the Father under the forms of bread and wine.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Cont. 4. q. 1. c. 2. There is now no more Sacrifice 
No Sacrifice in the Church  remaining in the Church.  
Caluin in 1 Cor. 9 v. 19 The Lord instituted no Sacrifices in which holy Ministers should be occupied. And because the Protestants opinion in this matter is well enough known, I will rehearse no more of their sayings.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that in the Church there is Sacrifice and offering of a clean oblation, and Sacrifice in justice. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that there is no more Sacrifice in the Church. And yet Whitaker Controu. 3. quaest. 6. pag. 2. 615. writeth thus: Without Preisthood there is no Church. And Vallada Apologia cont. Episcop. Luzon. c. 26. No man denieth, but the celebration of the Eucharist is a true Sacrifice.    

ART. XII. WHETHER THERE BE AN altar in the Church?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Hebrew● 13. v. 10. We have an altar, whereof they have no 
Christians have an altar.  power to eat which serve the tabernacle.  
isaiah 19 ver. 10. In that day there shallbe an altar of our Lord in the midst of the land of Egypte, and a title of our Lord to the border thereof.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 24. c. 1. The Apostle Paul writing to the Corinthians, when he sayeth, that they who are polluted with participation of the table of Devils, cannot be made partakers of the Table of our Lord, by a table in both places understandeth an altar.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Caluin in 1. Corinth. 9 vers. 19 There are no altars to 
They have nō●●tar.  sacrifice.  
Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 350. Paul maketh mention 
Paul speaketh not of an altar.  of a table of the Lord, and not of an altar. Ad Repetit. Sanctis c. 4. I confess, there is no altar in the Christian Church. And l. Quaest. & Resp. vol. 3. In the Apostolical writings there is no mention of an altar, but only of a table of the Lord.  
Peter Martyr in Rom. 11. Altars have no place in the time of the Gospel. Herein also the Protestants doctrine is well known.   

THE CONFERENCE  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that we have an altar. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say that we have no altar, that Paul maketh no mention of an altar, that there is no mention of an altar in the writings of the Apostles.    

ART. XIII. WHETHER THE PASCHAL lamb was sacrificed?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Marc. 14. v. 12. And the first day of the Azimes, when they 
Pascal lamb sacrificed.  sacrificed the Pasche.  
Exod. 12. ver. 6. And the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall sacrifice him (Pascal lamb) at even.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent. Sess. 24. c. 1. The multitude of the children of Israel did sacrifice the old Pasche in remembrance of their going out of Egypt.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins in Cathol. reform. Controu. 11. c. 5. The Paschal 
No sacrifice.  lamb was a sacrament, but no sacrifice. The same hath Plessie l. 2. de Missa c. 2.  
Reineccius to. 4. Armaturae c. 19 The holy Bible no where 
Not sacrificed.  teacheth, that the Paschal lamb was immolated and sacrificed.  
Tilenus' in Syntagmate c. 64. We do not grant, that the Paschal lamb was a sacrifice properly called: yea Moses expressly denieth, that it was a sacrifice.  
Pareus in Colloq. Theol. 9 disput. 27. The Minor is false: That the Paschal lamb was a sacrifice properly called.  
Beza in Marci. 14. v. 12. I used the word of Killing, rather than of Sacrificing, that the domestical banquets of the Pasche might be distinguished from those Sacrifices which in the temple were done of the Priests.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the Paschal lamb was sacrificed. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say, that it was not sacrificed, that it was no proper sacrifice, that it was a domestical banquet: that Moses expressly denieth, it to be a Sacrifice. Which is so repugnant to Scripture, as same Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

THE SUM OF THIS CHAPTER OF the Eucharist.  
Out of all which hath been rehearsed in this chapter, it is clear, how different an Eucharist Protestants have from that which the holy Scripture proposeth. For the Scripture, and Catholics with it, teacheth, that the holy Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ, that it is his testament: that Christ's flesh is to be eaten, that whilst the Eucharist was instituted Christ's body was given and his blood shed for us: that the chalice was shed in remission of sins; that bread is a necessary matter of the Eucharist: that unleavened bread is a convenient matter, and that we must prepare ourselves to receive the Eucharist. Moreover the Scripture teacheth, that there is a Sacrifice and altar in the Church, and that the Paschal lamb (which was a figure of the Eucharist) was sacrificed: all which Protestants do deny.  
It is clear also, that Protestants do steal from the 
What Protest. steal from the Eucharist.  Eucharist the truth of the body and blood of Christ, the nature of his testament, the necessity of bread, the conveniency of unleavened bread to make it of, and necessity of our preparation to receive it. They steal also eating and drinking from the flesh and blood of Christ, & oblation and shedding of them when the Eucharist was instituted. And from the Church they steal both Sacrifice and altar, and sacrificing from the Paschal lamb. And thus much of the Eucharist: Now of the other Sacraments.    

CHAPTER XI. OF THE OTHER SACRAMENTS.  

ART. I. WHETHER PRIESTS CAN forgive sins?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
MATHEW 16. v. 19 And I will give to the the keys 
Priests can forgive sins.  of the kingdom of heaven— And whatsoever thou shalt lose on earth, it shallbe loosed in heaven.  
Math. 16. v. 19 Amen, I say unto you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shallbe bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall lose upon earth, shallbe loosed also in heaven.  
Ihon. 20. v. 24. And he said to them: receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose you shall retain, they are retained.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent. Sess. 14. Can. 9 If any shall say, that the Sacramental absolution of the Priest is not a judicial act, but a bare ministry of pronouncing or declaring that sins are forgiven, be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins Galath. 4. tom. 2. The Pope challengeth to 
They cannot.  himself proper and judicial power of forgiving and retaining sins.  
Zuinglius in Art. 51. to. 1. Who attributeth remission of sins to a creature, robbeth God of his glory, and is an idolater.  
In resp. ad Luther. to. 2. f. 430. These words: whose sins you shall forgive etc. have not that sense, as if Christ in speaking them would give his disciples power to forgive sins. In Exposit. fidei 
They cannot certify a man of forgiveness of his sins.  ib. f. 557. Wherefore all these things seem frivolous: I absoluethee, I certify thee, that thy sins are forgiven. This is deceit and mere trifles. Et in Hebr. 6. to. 4. he sayeth, that Christ spoke the words cited out of Math. 18. by hyperoche, or overlashing.  
Bullinger in Marci. 2. Men do not forgive sins, but teach that they are or have been forgiven in Christ by faith.  
Caluin in joan. 20. v. 22. He made the Apostles only witnesses or preachers of this benefit (of remission of sins) And 4. Instit. c. 11. §. 1. For Christ gave not this power properly to men, but to his word, whereof he mad men ministers.  
Beza in Confess c. 5. sect. 27. We must believe, that neither 
They cannot properly bind or lose.  Pastors, nor Doctors can properly bind, or lose any, or open the kingdom of heaven to any. For it is proper to God alone to remit or retain sins, and indeed so proper, as he communicateth this glory with none at all.  
Zanchius de Eccles. c. 9 to. 8. Power of forgiving sins is not given properly to the Apostles themselves or to others, but to their Ministry or to the Gospel. For they do not properly forgive sins, but the Gospel bringeth remission of sins to those that believe.  
Daneus Cont. 4. c. 9 Christ gave power of forgiving sins to his Apostles, as to Ministers that do only declare his benefit towards faithful men, not as such that work and effect the forgiveness of sins.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the keys of the kingdom of heaven are given to pastors of the Church: that what they lose or forgive on earth, is loosed or forgiven in heaven: that the Holy Ghost was given them that by virtue of him they might forgive sins. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say: that God communicateth power of forgiving sins to none at all; that it is idolatry to attribute this power to any creature: that Ministers of the Gospel do not properly lose any, that they forgive not sins, but only declare it; that they are only witnesses & declarers of this benefit: that virtue of forgiving sins is given to the Gospel, not to men. Which is so plainly against the Holy Scripture, as some Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. II. WHETHER WE MU Confess our sins to men?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
james 5. v. 16. Confess your sins one to an other. 
Sins are to be confessed to men.   
Acts 19 v. 18. And many of them that believed came confessing and declaring their deeds.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 14. Can. 6. If any shall deny that Sacramental Confession was instituted, or is necessary by God's law, be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
French Confession art. 14. Auricular Confession was forged 
Not to be confessed to men.  in Sath●ns shop: It is a devise of men.  
Willet Controu. 14. q. 6. p. 736. It is not necessary to make confession at all to men.  
Confessio Argentinensis c. 20. Nether Christ nor the Apostles would commana it.  
Luther in Postilla Epiphaniae. God requireth not this confession to men. Serm. de 10. Leprosis tom. 7. Confession of sins is forbidden.  
Caluin in Refutat. Cathalani. The lawmade of auricular 
Law of confession, devilish.  confession, is devilish: It is an intolerable corruption, if you search into it from the beginning and foundation.  
jewel defence. Apology part. 2. c. 6. divis. 1. Thus much only we say: That private confession to be made unto the Minister, is neither commanded by Christ, nor necessary to salvation.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly commandeth, that we confess our sins to men, and telleth that the first Christians did confess their sins. That same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that it is not necessary to confess to men, that neither Christ nor his Apostles commanded it, that God requireth it not: that it is forbidden, is a devilish law and devise of man and of Satan.    

ART. III. WHETHER GRACE. BE GIVEN by Imposition of hands?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
2. Tim. 1. v. 6. I admonish thee, that thou resuscitate the grace 
Grace given by imposition of hands.  of God, which is in thee by the imposition of my hands.  
Acts 8. vers. 18. And when Simon had seen, that by the imposition of the hands of the Apostles the Holy Ghost was given, he offered etc.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 23. Can. 4. If any shall say, that by holy ordination the Holy Ghost is not given: be he accursed. Et ib. c. 3. sayeth, that by holy orders grace is given.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Caluin in 2. Tim. 1. ver. 6. cit. The question is, whether grace 
Not given by imposition of hands.  were given by the external sign (of imposition of hands.) To which question I answer: As often as Ministers were ordered, they were commended to God by the prayers of the whole Church, and by this means grace was obtained of God for them, but not given them by virtue of that sign. The same Caluin in Actor. 8. v. 15. Luke here speaketh not of the common grace of the Spirit, wherewith God doth regenerate us for sons to himself, but of especial gifts. In c. 6. v. 6. Hence we gather, that imposition of hands, sith it was used of the Apostles, is a comely and seemly rite, but yet hath not of itself any efficacy or virtue, but the force and effect dependeth of God alone.  
Beza Apologia altera cont. Sainctem vol. 2. p. 325. In the Ministry, the ceremony of imposition of hands, doth not make a Minister, as you very ignorantly use to urge, but testifieth to the Church, that he is already made. And l. quaest. & respon vol. 3. pag. 347. We must hold, that there were never any Ministers of the Church made by imposition of hands: but who had been lawfully called to the Ministry, were so put as it were in possession of their function. Of the same opinion are they, who think that Imposition of hands is not necessary to Ministers, as Brentius in Apol. pro Confess. Writemberg c. de ordine. Herbrandus Disput. 11. Beurlinus in Refutat. Soti c. 67. Conciliabulum Parisiens. An. 1565. artic. 7. and much more they, who forbid imposition of hands, as Pseudosynodus Dordracensis An. 1574. art. 23. in these words: The brethren concluded, that Imposition of hands is to 
Imposition of hands, forbidden.  be omitted.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the grace of God and the Holy Ghost are given by Imposition of hands. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that grace is not given by imposition of hands: that it hath no efficacy or virtue, but that the effect is of God alone: that by it pastors are not made, yea that it is not necessary to them, but to be omitted.    

ART. iv WHETHER HANDS BE TO BE imposed upon them that have been baptised?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Act. 8. v. 16. and 17. For he (Holy Ghost) was not yet come 
Hands imposed upon the baptised.  upon any of them: but they were only baptised in the name of our Lord jesus. Then did they impose their hands upon them and they received the Holy Ghost.  
Act. 19 v. 5. and 6. Hearing these things, they were baptised in the name of our Lord jesus: and when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the holy Ghost came upon them.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Actor. 8. v. 17. In these words is descricbed an other Sacrament of the Church different from the baptism; which is called Imposition of hands by reason of the form which Luke here telleth that the Apostles used.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Caluin in Actor. 8. v. 17. cit. Let us remember, that Imposition 
Imposition of hands is now a vain fancy.  of hands was the instrument of God, at what time he bestowed the visible graces of his Spirit upon his servants: but since the Church hath wanted such riches, it is only a vain fancy. And 4. Institut. c. 19 §. 6. he calleth catholics, Stage players, because they say they imitate the Apostles in imposing hands upon those that are baptised.  
Gualterus in Actor 8. homilia 58. We know, that out of this place, Papists have brought in the Sacrament of Confirmation, but it is so ridiculous, as etc.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the Apostles imposed their hands upon those that were baptised. The same Catholics say.  
Protestants expressly say, that it is a vain fancy and ridiculous to impose hands upon those that are baptised.    

ART. V WHETHER MATRIMONY be a Sacrament?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Ephesians 5. v. 31. For this cause shall man leave his father 
Matrimony a Sacrament.  and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and shallbe two in one flesh. This is a great Sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 24. can. If any shall say, that Matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven Sacraments of the Evangelicall law instituted by Christ our Lord, but invented of men in the Church, nor giveth grace; be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Confessio Heluet. c. 19 We confess, that Matrimony is a 
No Sacrament.  profitable institution of God, but not a Sacrament. In like sort the English Confession art. 25.  
jewel defence. Apolog. p. 185. Marriage of itself is neither 
Of itself, not good.  good nor ill.  
Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 64. What more foolish, then to make a Sacrament of Matrimony?  
Caluin 4. Instit. c. 19 §. 34. What sober man would ever have thought, that Matrimony was given for a Srcrament. And others, as we shall see hereafter c. 15. art. 2. say, that Matrimony is nothing, nor maketh a man any whit the better.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that Matrimony in Christ & the Church, that is, among Christians, is a great Sacrament. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that Matrimony is no sacrament, that it is folly and madness to make it a sacrament: that of itself it is not good, is nothing, nor maketh a man better. Which contradiction of Scripture is so manifest, as same Protestants confess it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. VI WHETHER ONE WIFE BEING divorced one may marry an other?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Luke. 16. vers. 18. Every one that dimisseth his wife, and 
No marriage after divorce.  marrieth an other, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is dimissed from her husband, committeth adultery.  
Marc. 10. v. 11. Whosoever dimisseth his wife, and marrieth an other, committeth advouttie upon her. And if the wife dimisse her husband, and marry an other, he committeth adultery. v. 6. Which God hath joined together let no man separate.  
1. Cor. 7. v. 10. But to them that be joined in matrimony, not I give commandment, but our Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband, and if she depart, to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband. And. v. 39 A woman is bound to the law so long time as her husband li●eth: but if her husband sleep, she is at liberty, let her marry to whom she will, only in our Lord.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Council of Trent. Sess. 24. Can. 7. If any shall say, that the Church doth err, when it taught and doth teach according to the Evangelicall and Apostolical doctrine, that the band of Matrimony cannot be broken for the adultery of one of the married parties: and that neither, no not the innocent party which gave no cause of the adultery, can marry again whiles the other party liveth: be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRMI.  
Willet Controu. 15. quaest. 2. pag. 782. For fornication, our 
New marriage after fornication.  Saviour hath granted liberty both to dissolve matrimony, and to marry again.  
Confessio Saxonica. cap. 18. Marriage is not forbidden to the innocent party, when the cause being known, she is pronounced free.  
Confessio Scotica. We detest his (Popes) cruelty against the innocent rejected by divorce.  
Pseudosynod of Midelburg An. 1581. art. 57 If any for adultery have separated himself from his wife, and will not be reconciled again with her, and desire leave of a new marriage, the Presbytery (the adultery being first proved) shall declare, that it is lawful by the word of God.  
Luther in 1. Cor. 7. to. 5. What if the one party will not be reconciled to the other, but will abide separated, and the other, not able to contain, should be enforced to marry, what should be do, may he marry with an other? I answer, that without doubt 
And other offences.  he may. Again: If the husband would teach or force his wife to steal, to adulterate, or commit any other crime against God, it is the same reason of divorce with the other, that unless they be reconciled, a new marriage may be made. Furthermore. What if the second marriage did not fall out right, that the one party should urge the other, the husband the wife, or contrariwise, to live wickedly like Pagans, or if the one would fly from the other until the third or fourth marriage were made, may he marry of wife as often as she is such as we have spoken of, so that he have at once ten or more fugitive wives? And again shall it be lawful 
A woman may have ten husbands livings.  for the wife to have ten or more husbands who all are fled from her? I answer, that we cannot stop S. Paul's mouth, who, as often as it is needful, will use his doctrine: his words are clear. The like he hath ib. Sermon de matrimonio, where also fo. 123. he addeth: If the Mistress will not, let the Maid come.  
Bidembachius in Consensu jesuitarum & Christian. p. 1588. Who rejecting his wife for whoredom, marrieth an other, doth not commit adultery.  
Beza in Confess. c. 5. sect. 39 To whom divorce is lawfully 
Marriage lawful after divorce.  granted, if reconcilement cannot be procured within the time appointed, to them we give leave to marry a new. And epist. 10. he writeth, that Bucer and most of the Protestant Churches in Germany give leave to marry a new for leprosy: to whom (sayeth he) we leave their judgement free, as is reason.  
Perkins de Serm. Dom. to. 2. col. 261. By reason of whoredom 
Whoredom dissolveth marriage.  marriage is dissolved. The same is the common doctrine of Protestants, as you may see more in my Latin book art. 6.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that every one and whosoever dimisseth his wife and marrieth an other committeth adultery: that a woman parted from husband must be reconciled to her husband or remain unmarried: that she is bound to the law of marriage so long as her husband liveth: that man cannot separate those whom God hath joined. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that who having put away his wife for adultery, marrieth an other, doth not commit adultery; that one may marry again for adultery, for malicious forsaking, for denial of coningall duty, for incitation to wickedness, for leprosy; that whoredom dissolveth marriage, that one may have ten or more fugitive wives at once: that if the Mistress will not, the Maid may be called.    

ART. VII. WHETHER THEY WHO lie a dying are to be anointed with oil?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
james 5. v. 14. Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anoiling 
The sick are to be anointed with oil.  him with oil in the name of our Lord, prayer of faith shall save the sick, and our Lord shall lift him up, and if he be in sins, they shallbe remitted.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 14. Can. 2. If any shall say, that the holy anoiling of the sick giveth not grace, nor remitteth sins, nor lighteneth the sick, but that is now ceased, as if in old time is had been only the grace of curing: be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Confessio Saxonica art. 19 That which is now called extreme 
Not to be anointed with oil.  unction, is now a spectacle full of superstition. Confess. Heluet. c. 19 calleth it a devise of man. Et Confess. Writemberg. An unprofitable and idle ceremony.  
Caluin 4. Institut. c. 19 §. 18. Of the same nature is the anoiling of the sick, to wit, an histrionical hypocrisy; It pertaineth not now to us.  
Beza in Confess. c. 7. sect. 11. The sacrament of anoiling, is idle and vain, and now altogether superstitious.  
Hospinian part. 2. Histor. f. 23. The priests were commanded, that they should not anoile those that died, for that was superstitious and contrary to the express word of God.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that those thall lie a dying, are to be anoiled with oil, and it promiseth remission of sins to them. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that this anoiling pertaineth not to us, that it is hypocrisy, an idle, and vain ceremony, and contrary to the express word of God.    

ART. VIII. WHETHER THE SACRAments of the old law were of equal virtue with ours.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Hebr. 10. v. 1. For the law having a shadow of good things to 
Sacraments of the old law shadows of the new.  come, not the very image of the things etc.  
Coloss. 2. vers. 17. Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in part of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body Christ's.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Council of Trent Sess. 7. cap. 2. If any shall say, that the very sacraments of the new law, do not differ from the Sacraments of the old law, but because they be other ceremonies and either rites, be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dureum. sect. 39 Paul expressly teacheth, 
Equal to the Sacraments of the new law.  that the Israelites had the same sacraments in substance which Christ delivered unto us.  
Confessio Heluet. c. 19 For so much as belongeth to that which is the chief and the substance in the sacraments, the sacraments of both people were equal.  
Lutherus l. de Captivit. to. 2. fol. 75. It cannot be, that the new sacraments do differ from the old sacraments.  
Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 14. §. 23. The Apostle speaketh not more honourably of them, then of these. In the sacraments he maketh them equal to us. Whatsoever he gave us in the Sacraments, the same the jews in old time received in theirs, what virtue ours have, the same also they felt in theirs.  
Beza ad Repetit. Sanctis c. 8. p. 30. Unless with the Apostle, you make the old sacraments the same indeed, there willbe little or no difference at all between the true God, and the false God of Martion.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that the Sacraments of the old law differed from the sacraments of the new, as much as a shadow differeth from the image or from the body itself. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that in substance they were the same, were equal, did not differ, that what virtue we receive in our Sacraments the jews felt the same in theirs.    

THE SUM OF THIS CHAPTER OF the other Sacraments.  
The things which have be declared in this chapter do evidently demonstrate, how differently Protestant's think of the other Sacraments from the holy Scripture. For the Scripture together with catholics teacheth, that Priests forgive sins, that sins are to be confessed to men: that grace is given by Imposition of hands, that hands are to be imposed upon those that are baptised: that Matrimony is a Sacrament, that one wife being put away it is not lawful to marry an other: that those who lie a dying are to be anointed with oil: that our Sacraments are more excellent than those of the old law. All which are denied of Protestants.  
They also show, that Protestants in this matter also keep their old custom, and steal from Priests power to forgive sins; steal away the necessity of confessing sins to men: from the baptised they steal imposition of hands, and from the imposition of hands, virtue to give grace: from Matrimony also they steal the nature of a Sacrament, and the indissolubilitie thereof, from those that die, their anoiling, and from all our Sacraments their excellency and virtue above the Sacraments of the old law. And thus fare of the Sacraments: Now touching Faith.    

CHAPTER XII. OF FAITH.  

ART. I. WHETHER FAITH BE A WORK, or to believe, be to do?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
I HON. 6. v. 28. 29. They said therefore to him: 
Faith is a work.  what shall we do that we may work the works of God? jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God that you believe in him whom he hath sent.  
Act. 16. vers. 30. The Jailer said to S. Paul and Hilas: Masters, what must I do that I may be saved: But they said: 
To believe, is to do.  Believe in our Lord jesus, and thou shalt be saved and thy house.  
james 2. v. 19 Thou believest, that there is one God. Thou dost well.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in joan. 6. v. 30. The work of faith, because it is a work of man wherewith he beleiveth and giveth glory to God, is an active and free work.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther de Captivit. Babylon. to. 2. fol. 71. Faith is no work. 
Faith is no work.   
Caluin in joan. 6. v. 29. It is evident enough, that Christ speak improperly, when he called faith a work.  
Beza ib. They are very ridiculous, who out of this place do infer, that faith is a work.  
Pareus l. 4. the justif. c. 17. It is false, that we are justified by the work of faith, or that faith is a work.  
Tilenus' in Syntagmate c. 40. But neither (if we will speak) properly) can faith be called a work.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that faith is a work of God or a divine work: that to believe, is to do. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that faith is no work: that they are ridiculous who say faith is a work: that it is false that faith is a work.    

ART. II. WHETHER FAITH BELEIVETH any thing besides God's promises?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
joan. 17. v. 3. And this is life everlasting, that we know thee, 
Faith knoweth God and Christ. Beleiveth the resurrection of Christ. Understands the creation. Beleiveth jesus the Son of God.  the only true to God, and whom thou hast sent jesus Christ.  
Rom. 10. vers. 9 For if thou confess with thy mouth our Lord jesus, and in thy hart believe that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved.  
Hebr. 11. v. 3. By faith, we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.  
1. joan. 5. v. 5. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that beleiveth that jesus is the Son of God?   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 12. If any shall say, that justifying is nothing else but a trust of the mercy of God forgiving sins for Christ; be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther in Genes. 15. to. 6. f. 178. Surely faith, is nothing else, 
Faith, nothing but an assent to the promises.  nor can do any thing else, but assent to the promises. Postilla in Epist. Dom. 3. Aduentus fol. 31. Faith is nothing else, than a firm, constant, perseverant trust fare from all doubt and wavering, of God's grace and good will to endure for ever. 
A trust of God's grace.   
Melancthon in Coloss. 1. Faith signifieth not knowledge of the history, for such is in the Devils, but an assent wherewith we embrace the promise.  
Hutterus in Analysi Confess. Augustan. art. 4. To believe 
Nothing but a full trust.  in Christ, is nothing else, but with full trust of mind to rely upon the Evangelicall promises of free pardon of sins, and out of them to promise undoubtedly to himself God's grace, salvation, and everlasting life, for the merit and redemption wrought by Christ. Again: There is one only and the same object (of faith) in respect whereof it is said to save, to wit, the only promise of God's mercy of free pardon of sins, by and for Christ.  
Gerlachius Disput. 17. to. 2. There is no other object of justifying faith properly and specially so termed, than the word of the Gospel of the grace and mercy of God and merit of Christ.  
Lobechius Disput. 22. Others do err in the object of faith 
God's whole word not the object of faith.  which they make the whole Scripture for the object of justifying faith.  
Bucer in 1. Timoth. 4. v. 15. Faith is nothing else, but a firm persuasion of salvation gotten by Christ.  
Beza in 1. Tim. 4. v. 15. Faith is nothing else, but a firm persuasion of our election in Christ. In Confess. 4. sect. 5. Faith is not that, wherewith only we believe God to be God, and his word to be true, for the Devils have this faith. c. 7. sect. 8. Faith is not an historical knowledge of things revealed by God, but a certain testimony which the Spirit giveth to the hearts of all the elect, that they are chosen of God. And in brevi Confess. p. 82. That indeed is it which we call faith so much commended in the Scripture, to wit, when a man certainly persuadeth himself that the promises of salvation and life everlasting do peculiarly belong to himself.  
Zanchius de Perseverant to. 7. col. 172. What other thing is faith, than a certain persuasion conceived of the free good will of God towards us in Christ?  
Serranus count. Hayum part. 3. p. 211. Faith is wholly about the promises. The like hath Caluin 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 8. and de vera reform. p. 318. and others.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that that is justifying faith wherewith we believe the true God and Christ jesus: Wherewith we believe the resurrection of Christ, the creation of the world, and Christ to be the Son of God. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that justifying faith is not that wherewith we believe the sacred history of Christ, wherewith we believe things revealed of God, wherewith we believe God's word to be true: but that it is all about the promises, hath no other object then the promises, is nothing but an assent to the promises, is nothing but a trust of grace, nothing but a persuasion of salvation.    

ART. III. WHETHER BELIEVE THAT Christ is God, be justifying faith, or profiteth any man?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
joan. 20. vers. 31. And these are written that you may believe 
To believe Christ to be the Son of God, saveth.  that jesus is Christ the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in his name.  
1. joan. 4. ver. 15. Whosoever shall confess, that jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him and he in God. The like is 1. joan. 5. v. 5. and Rom. 10. v. 9 cit. in the former article.  
Math. 16. v. 17. When S. Peter had said: Thou art the Son of the living God, jesus answering said unto him: Blessed art thou Simon Bariona.  
Act. 8. v. 37. When S. Philip had said to the Eunuch: If thou believe with all thy hart, thou mayest: he answering, said: I believe that jesus Christ is the Son of God.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Card. Bellarm. l. 1. de justificat. cap. 8. This faith which regardeth Christ's divinity, is that which giveth justice and life everlasting.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther Postilla in Dom. 5 post. Pasca fol. 263. Here we 
To believe that Christ is God and Man helpeth none.  see, that to believe in Christ is not to believe that Christ is one person which is God and man, for that would help none. F. 260. What is it then, to believe in Christ? It is not to believe that he is God, or that he ruleth in heaven equally with God, for this many others believe. In Gal. 3. to. 5. f. 346. It is a feigned faith, which 
Belief of all the Mysteries of our redemption is a feigned faith.  heareth of God, of Christ, and of all the mysteries of the incarnation and redemption, and apprehendeth these things heard.  
Hutterus in Analysi Confess. August. art. 4. justifying faith, is not any whatsoever, but a faith of jesus Christ, not wherewith we believe Christ or that there is a Christ— The Epistle to the Hebrews in he whole eleventh chapter putteth the object of it diverse and manifold, but faith cannot, nor must not be said to justify in regard of them all.  
Zuinglius in joan. 2. to. 4. Many believe Christ to be the Son of God, that he was borne, suffered, and raised from death: but this faith justifieth not.  
Sadeel in Resp. ad Artic. abiurat. 33. It is not sufficient, if I believe that jesus Christ came into the world, suffered death, rose again, and ascended into heaven: For this historical faith will not save me. Of the same opinion are other Protestants, as appeareth by their words cited in the former article, as also because they deny that the Catholic or (as they speak) historical faith wherewith we believe what God hath revealed generally to all, is justifying faith, and likewise because they will have justifying faith to be only a special trust, which every elect man hath of God's favour towards himself.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the faith of the divinity of Christ, maketh God to abide in us, and us in God, that it maketh men blessed, is that which sufficieth to baptism, and which giveth life. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say, that faith wherewith Christ, is believed to be God and man helpeth none: that that faith wherewith all the mysteries of our redemption are believed, is a feigned faith: that it is no justifying faith wherewith we believe Christ, or that he was borne, suffered, and rose again.    

ART. iv WHETHER JUSTIFYING faith be one?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Ephes. 4. v. 5. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. 
Faith is bu● one.    

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de justif. c. 5. There are not many faiths: For there is but one faith by reason of one and the same formal object, whereby all things are believed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Scharpe de justif. Contr. 1. justifying faith according to 
Faith is twoefould.  the diversity of the subject, is two fold; one of Infants, an other of men. The faith of Infants can neither have knowledge nor application of the promises of grace, as in men it hath, yet Infants have their notions stirred up by the Holy Ghost.  
Polanus 2. part. Thes. tit. de Fide p. 611. Infants, albeit 
Infants have a different faith from men.  they have not the same faith in all points that men have, by reason of the weakness of their organs; yet they have some thing correspondent to it, which the Holy Ghost worketh immediately in them according to their capacity and strength, for their justification.  
Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 16. §. 19 I will not rashly say, that Infants are endued with the same faith which we feel in ourselves. Et §. 21. If having received baptism, they depart this life before they come to years of discretion, God reneweth them by the virtue of his spirit in a manner unknown to us, which himself alone knoweth.  
Beza in Explicat. Christianismi vol. 1. p. 186. Faith is in a manner twoefould. One wherewith Christ is known in common and as it were generally, to wit, wherewith we assent to the history of Christ and the propheties written of him, which faith is sometimes given even to the reprobates: An other, which is proper and peculiar to the elect. In Colloq. Montisbel. pag. 402. The learnedest Divines of our age, do not say, that faith itself is actually infused into the mind of Infants, but only some beginning thereof, and as it were some seed or root. Wherefore jacobus Andreae ib. fol. 403. sayeth: Your worship (if I have well understood you) discourseth of a double kind of faith, whereof 
A double kind of faith  the one is joined with understanding; the other is esteemed of you like to seed.  
Kemnice in 2. part. Exam. Concil. Trid. p. 92. denieth, that Infants have the same faith which men have, but some other thing, which (sayeth he) we neither well understand, nor can express by words what it is, yet we call it faith, because Scripture calleth that instrument wherewith the kingdom of heaven is gotten, faith.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture as plainly sayeth, that there is but one faith, as it sayeth that there is but one God, one baptism. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that faith is twoefould, that Infants have some things correspondent to faith, that they have not altogether the same faith that men have: that they are renewed in a manner unknown to us, that they have only a beginning root, or seed of faith, that we know not what it is which they have in steed of of our faith: that there is a twoefould faith, one with understanding, an othet without: that there is one faith of Infants, an other of men: one of the elect, an other of reprobats.    

ART. V WHETHER ALL THE ARTIcles of faith may be believed without the Holy Ghost?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Math. 16. v. 17. Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, 
Faith not without the holy Ghost.  but my Father which is in heaven.  
1. Corint. 12. v. 3. No man can say: our Lord jesus, but in the Holy Ghost.  
2. Cor. 3. v. 5. Not that we be sufficient to think any thing of ourselves as of ourselves: but our sufficiency is of God.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
D. Stapleton lib. 8. Princip cap. 2. It is an error: that any can believe all the articles of faith by only humane faith.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 4. c. 1. We may in some sort know all the doctrine of Scripture, and have historical faith by the 
All articles may be believed without the holy Ghost.  ministry of the word, so that we know all the articles of faith and judge them to be true, and that without internal light of the Holy Ghost, as many wicked men and the Devils do.  
Perkins in Gal. 2. to. 2. fol. 89. The Papists define justifying faith, that is a gift of God wherewith we believe the articles of faith and all the word of God to be true. But this faith the devils have. The same say Melancthon and Beza cited in the former article and others, who teach that devils may have the same Catholic, or (as they speak) historical faith, wherewith the mysteries of faith are believed, which Christians have. Whereupon thus writeth Pareus in Gal. 3. lection. 32. Without trust, it would be only historical faith, which even hypocrites have, yea the Devils themselves, who know and believe the Gospel, to be true.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that flesh and blood reveal not the divinity of Christ, but the heavenly Father: that none can call jesus Lord but in the Holy Ghost: that of ourselves we are not able so much as to think any good. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that without the light of the Holy Ghost we can judge all the articles of faith to be true: that it is not a gift of God te believe all the articles of faith and all God's word to be true, but that the devils themselves do believe so much.    

ART. VI WHETHER FAITH BE DIstinct from Hope and Charity.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Cor. 13. ver. 13. And now there remain Faith, Hope, Charity, 
Faith is distinct from Hope and Charity.  these three, but the greater of these is charity.  
Ibid. ver. 2. If I should have all faith so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in 1. Corint. 2. v. 12. We believe S. Paul, not Caluin, that these, faith, hope, charity, are three. They are three, they are distinct, they are not one and the same; there is one nature of faith, an other of hope, an other of charity.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Zuinglius l. de ver. & fals. relig. c. de Merito to. 2. But who 
Faith, all one with Hope and Charity.  understand not, that faith, hope, and charity are the self same thing, to wit, this trust in God, willbe forced to let pass many knots in Scripture unloosed. Again: If hope save, and faith save, faith and hope shallbe the same thing. And soon after: Faith and charity must be the same thing. Nether let here any marvel and fear, that these three Theological virtues are confounded of us. Surely we have learned this out of Scripture, that unless every one of these virtues be each other, it is quite nothing, much less a virtue. Et c. de Euchar. Faith is hope and trust. In Resp. ad Luther. f. 397. The same nature and of spring is of faith and love, yea both these are one & the self same thing. The like he hath in 1. Cor. 13. to. 4. And generally all Protestants confound faith with hope, in that they say, (as we shall see hereafter art. 14.) that faith is trust, and trust either is strong hope, or (as we shall hear P. Martyr there teach) differeth not from hope.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that Faith, Hope, and Charity, are three things. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that they are the self same thing, that they are confounded, that each one of them is the other.    

ART. VII. WHETHER FAITH BE greater than Charity?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
1. Cor. 13. v. 13. And now there remain Faith, Hope, Charity, 
Faith less than Charity.  these there, but the greater of these is charity.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
S. Thomas in 1. Cor. 13. v. 13. These three remain now, but charity is greater than all.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Confessio Augustana c. de discrim. ciborum in Melancthon. to. 3. The doctrine of justice by faith must be eminent in 
Faith above works.  the Church, that faith which beleiveth sins to be remitted for Christ, be placed fare above works. Et c. de bonis operibus. Amongst good works, the chiefest and highest worship of God, is faith itself.  
Tindal in Fox p. 1144. We can show unto God no greater 
The divinest of all God's gifts.  honour, then to have faith and trust in him.  
Perkins in Hebr. 11. Hence we gather, that faith is more divine, than all the rest of God's gifts.  
Peter Martyr in locis clas. 3. c. 3. §. 6. Faith, as it is a work, surpasseth by many degrees other works.  
Luther in Galat. 3. to. 5. fol. 346. If charity be the form of faith as they dote, straight ways I am forced to think, that charity is the chiefest and greatest part of Christian religion, and so I lose Christ. In c. 4. fol. 382. Who so teach faith, as they attribute more to charity then to faith, they greatly dishonour Christ, and wickedly deprave his word. De Captivit. Babil. to. 2. 
The most excellent work of all. The chiefest.  f. 74. Faith is the most excellent work of all works. Postilla in Feria S. joannis fol. 93. Whatsoever the Gospel teacheth or commandeth of works, it so teacheth and commandeth, as it maketh faith the chief. Et in Dom. Quinquagesim. f. 207. 
More noble than Charity  Faith is more worthy, better, and more noble than charity.  
Herbrandus in Compendio Theol. loco. de justificat. Faith is the chiefest and hardest worship which we can give to God.  
Lobechius Disput. 9 Faith hath the first and highest degree amongst all goods.  
Reineccius to. 4. Armaturae c. 18. Yea faith is greater than 
Greater than Charity. Above Charity.  charity.  
Caluin in 1. Cor. 13. v. 13. If we sift all the effects of faith and compare them, faith willbe found to be superior in many points. Yea charity itself, as the Apostle teacheth 1. Thessalon. 1. is the effect of faith, but without doubt the effect is inferior to the cause.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Charity is greater than Faith. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that faith is to be placed above works, is greater, nobler, better than charity, more divine than the other gifts of God: that charity is inferior to faith.    

ART. VIII. WHETHER FAITH MAY BE without Charity or good works?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
joan. 12. v. 42. Of the Princes also many believed in him, but 
Faith without works.  for the Pharisees they did not confess, that they might not be cast out of the Synagogue. For they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God.  
1. Cor. 13. v. 2. If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.  
james 2. v. 14. What shall it profit my brethren, if a man say, he hath faith, but hath not works?  
David also when he abused the wife of Urias and procured him to be slain, had not charity towards his neighbour nor towards God, whom he so greatly offended: Nor S. Peter had charity to Christ, when he denied and foreswore him. In whom at those time's faith was without good, yea with very evil works.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent. Session. 6. cap. 15. We must teach, that by every mortal sin, the grace of justification is lost, though not faith.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Contion. vlt. p. 695. Who think, that true faith 
Faith never void of good works.  may be idly, or void of good works, do believe against the Confession of our Church.— That is a false faith, which is not joined with the keeping of the commandments.  
jewel in Defense of the Apology. p. 304. Yea say: Faith 
True faith without works.  without works is nevertheless a true and real faith. Verily, so is fire without heat a true and real fire.— If the wicked without good works have a true and real faith, then may you also say, that the Devil likewise hath a true and real faith. This faith is no faith. It is only an imaginary and Mathematical fantasy.  
Apologia Confess. Augustanae c. 3. Our adversary teach, 
Not with mortal sin.  that faith may be with mortal sin. c. 5. They dream that faith can stand with mortal sin. C. de resp. ad argumenta. Faith without good works, is hypocrisy. Liber Concordiae Lutheran. cap. 3. True faith is never alone, but always it hath charity and 
Never without Charity.  hope with it.  
Luther Postilla in Dom. 2. post Trinitat. It is impossible to believe, where charity wanteth. In die Ascens. Where faith is sincere, it cannot be without works. In festo Sancti Nicolai. As fire cannot want heat and smoke, so cannot faith be without charity.  
Zuinglius in Math, 19 to. 4. It is impossible, that justifying faith be without works. True and justifying faith can no more be without works, than fire without heat.  
Bucer in Epitome. doctrinae Argentin. art. 8. True faith in Christ can never be without lively trust in God, and firm hope of everlasting life, and burning love both towards God and men. 
No more without Charity than Christ without his Spirit.   
Caluin in Antidote. Concilij Sess. 6. They shall no more separate faith from charity, than Christ from his Spirit. In. 1. joan. 4. v. 7. Away with that foolish fiction of informed faith; for if any divide faith from charity, he doth, as if he went about to take away heat from the sun.  
Beza in 1. Cor. 13. v. 2. justifying faith, which apprehendeth 
Thou the sun without heat.  God's mercy in Christ, in thought may be divided from charity, but not indeed. In 1. Timoth. 4. v. 1. Who separateth faith from the effects of the Spirit of Christ, that is, from mortification of sin and vivification of justice, therein testifieth himself to be an infidel.  
Pareus l. 3. the justif. c. 15. Faith cannot be without charity. l. 4. c. 9 Love canno more be separated from faith then brightness from the sun.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that faith may be without love, without charity, without works, yea with adultery, with murder, with denial of Christ. And the same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that faith, true and real faith cannot be void of good works: that it is impossible to believe without charity: that faith can no more be separated from charity, than fire from heat, the sun from light, or Christ from his Spirit: That faith without works is a false faith, an imaginary fancy, hypocrisy: that it is a dream to say, that faith may be with mortal sin. Which contradiction of the Scripture is so manifest, as sometimes Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. IX. WHETHER FAITH MAY BE without confession of mouth?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Ihon. 12. v. 41. Of the the Princes also many believed in him, 
Faith without Confession of mouth.  but for the Pharises they did not confess, that they might not be cast out of the Snagogue.  
S. Peter's faith never failed, as before is showed, and yet he confessed not, yea denied and foreswore Christ. Mark 14.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de justif. c. 15. S. Austin atributeth the same faith to them who did confess Christ openly, and to them who durst not confess: Nether can it be doubted, but the faith of them who confessed, was true faith in Christ. Therefore also the faith of them, who confessed not, was true.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Cont. 4. q. 6. c. 2. True faith can no more be separated from confession of mouth, than fire from heat, or the sun 
Not without Confession of mouth.  from light and his beams. Surely it is not true faith, which breedeth, not confession. Again: If it yield and be overcomen with fear, it is not true faith,  
Caluin in Rom. 10. v. 10. Nether can any believe with, but he will confess with mouth.  
Zanchius in Confess. c. 17. to. 8. We believe, that true faith cannot want plain confession of truth, where it needeth.  
Volanus lib. 3. cont. Scargam. pag. 1071. God giveth true faith to none, but he openly and freely praiseth Christ setting aside all fear, and confesseth him securely to be his Lord and Saviour.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that diverse believed in Christ who yet for fear did not confess him; that Peter's faith failed not, though he did not confess, yea deny Christ. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants plainly say, that none can believe with hart, but he confesseth with mouth; that true faith can no more be separated from confession then fire from heat, or the sun from his beams: that if it confess not, it is not true faith, that God giveth faith to none, but he openly and freely confesseth.    

ART. X. WHETHER FAITH WITHOUT good works be dead?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
james 2. v. 20. Faith without works is dead. v. 17. So faith if it have not works, is dead in itself. v. 26. For even as the body 
Faith without works is dead.  without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.  
1. Cor. 13. v. 2. If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. c. 7. It is most truly said, that faith without works is dead and idle.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Apologia Eccles. Anglic. c. 301. True faith is lively, and can in no wise be idle. jewel ib. p. 302. A dead faith, is no true faith. Confessio Belgica art. 24. It cannot be, that this holy faith be idle in a man.  
Whitaker Contion. vlt. Who think, that true faith can be idle, or dead, or void of good works, believe against the Confession 
True faith cannot be dead.  of our Church.  
Luther in Gal. 2. to. 5. The Papists and fanatical fellows do so understand, that faith albeit true, if it have no works, is nothing worth. This is false. And Postilla in die Epiphaniae, condemneth as a point of Papistry: Faith with out works, is unprofitable.  
Herbrandus in Compendio loco de Fide. True faith can never be, nor be said to be dead.  
Morlinus apud Schusselburg to. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 168. It is a blasphemous speech: Faith without works is nothing, is worth nothing, hath no virtue or efficacy. p. 169. Who sayeth, that faith without the presence of works is nothing, simply sayeth with the Papists: That faith informed with good works doth justify a man. p. 178. It is a horrible obscuring and depraving of Paul: that faith without the presence of works is nothing.  
Schusselburg to. 8. Catal. Haeret. p. 513. This proposition is blasphemous: Faith in the moment of justification is nothing if it be there without works.— Is it a dead thing as some impious men affirm? God will quail and beat down this blasphemy in them who do not repent. p. 514. The speech of james is not to be wrested to the act of justification. For here faith, though it be without 
Faith in the moment of justification, not dead, though it be without works.  works, and bring with it no merits or works in the sight of God, yet it is not dead— In this strife, albeit faith espy none of her good works, yet is she not dead, albeit she be faint and weak.  
Bucer in joan. 12. Surely I think, that the faith of these Princes (a foresaied) albeit weak, yet was true and lively. The same sayeth Pareus l. 1. de justificat. c. 15.  
Caluin in Antidoto Concilij Sess. 6. Can. 28. I deny not, 
Faith lively, even in most grievous sins.  that some seed of faith remaineth in a man even in most grievous falls. That, how little soever it be, I confess to be a parcel of true faith, and lively also.  
Zanchius in Confess. c. 27. to. 8. The faith of the elect always liveth.  
Contra remonstrantes in Collat. Hagae. 396. It is not said here: If faith be defiled with any (grievous) sin, that that faith is dead: for so no man should have lively faith. Of the same opinion are all Lutherans, who say, that faith before and without good works doth justify: and Sacramentaries also, who teach that justification of faith remaineth in the faithful, what sins soever they commit. For faith sayeth doth not justify or give life whiles it is dead, but only whiles it is lively, if it justify without good works, yea with very ill works, clear it is, that it is not dead or idle, but lively without good, or with ill works.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that faith without good works is dead, is dead in itself, is dead as a body without the soul: that all faith without charity, is nothing. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that faith without works is not dead, is not nothing, is not unprofitable: that though it be defiled with great sins, yet it is not dead: that it neither can be, nor can be said to be dead: that in grievous falls it is lively, even in those Princes who loved the glory of men more than the glory of God.    

ART. XI. WHETHER THE FAITH whereof S. james speaketh be true or justifying faith?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
james 2. vers. 22. Seest thou, that faith did work with his 
Saint james speaketh of justifying faith.  (abraham's) works, and by the works the faith was consummate, and the Scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it ●as reputed him to justice. Et v. 24. Do you see, that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l 1. de justif. cap. 15 many ways proveth that S. james speaketh of justifying faith.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker l. 1. cont. Dureum sect. 13. That james denieth 
He speaketh of a devilish faith.  us to be justified by faith only, is to be understood of a vain, feigned, dead, imaginary, and devilish faith. The like hath jewel cited before art. 8.  
Zuinglius in jacob 2. to. 4. sayeth S. james speaketh of a counterfeit, empty, and vain faith.  
Caluin in jacob 2. v. 17. & 19 He speaketh not of faith. In v. 
Of a dead image of faith  14. He speaketh of a dead image of faith, of a false profession.  
Beza in jacob 2. v. 14. It is not true faith, but a dead image.  
Peter Martyr in locis clas. 3. c. 3. §. 23. james maketh mention of a dead faith, but that is no faith.  
Pareus l. 4. the justif. c. 18. For james devideth not justification 
He removeth faith from justification.  between faith and works (as the Sophisters would) but wholly removeth faith, as a dead thing, from justification.   

THE CONFERENCE  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that S. james spoke of faith which did work with the works of Abraham, which was consummate by his works, wherewith Abraham did believe, which was reputed to him for justice, and by which a man is justified but not alone. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants say, that the faith whereof S. james speaketh was not justifying faith, was not faith, was not true faith, was a vain, feigned, imaginary, and devilish faith, was a counterfeit and dead image of faith.    

ART. XII. WHETHER ANY FAITH be full or perfect and of some account in the sight of God?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matthew 15. v. 28. Then jesus answering said to her: O Woman 
Some faith great. Full.  great is thy faith.  
Act. 6. v. 5. And they chose Steven a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.  
Rom. 4. v. 18. Who contrary to hope believed in hope. Et v. 19 
Strong.  And he was not weakened in faith.  
2. Cor. 8. v. 7. In all things you abvond in faith. 
Abundant.   
Heb. 10. ver. 22. Let us approach with a true hart in fullness of faith.  
james 2. vers. 22. And by the works the faith was consummate. 
Consummate.   
1. Petri 1. v. 7. That the trial of your faith much more precious 
Precious.  than gold, which is proved by the fire, may be found unto praise.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Rom. 4. v. 2. The act of faith wherewith the understanding is captivated unto the obedience of Christ, is an act of notable virtue.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
jacobus Andreae in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 106. Faith is 
Faith is imperfect.  imperfect, and no man beleiveth so firmly as he is bound to do.  
Caluin. 3. Instit. c. 11. §. 7. Faith, albeit of itself it be of no 
Of no worth.  worth or value, justifieth us bringing Christ: as a pitcher filled with money doth enrich a man. In Math. 9 v. 22. We see, that faith hath need of pardon, for to please God. In Act. 6. v. 8. Nether must we imagine any perfection of faith, because he (Saint Steven) was said to be full of faith.  
Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. pag. 28. It never came in our 
Not perfect.  mind to say, that there was any perfect faith in any.  
Peter Martyr in locis class. 3. c. 3. §. 6. Which I say, not, that I think, that we are justified by faith as it is a work, for it is defiled with many spots of our infirmity. c. 4. §. 8. If faith itself be considered as it is work, we cannot be justified by it, sith it is a work lame and inperfect and fare worse than the law requireth; but we are said to be justified by it as by it we apprehend and apply to ourselves the promises of God and justice & merits of Christ. Imagine a most filthy hand leprous and of some beggar, 
Like a most filthy and leprous hand.  with which he receiveth alms of the giver, surely that beggar is not helped of the filthiness or leprosy of his hand, but of the alms which he taketh with what kind of hand soever. And in Roman. 11. he compareth our faith, to a weak, leprous, and scabby hand.  
Pareus de justificat. c. 7. It is not absurd: that with faith is 
Sinful.  mingled sometimes distrust or incredulity which is a sin, and that so by an accident faith is sin. Again: Faith justifieth, as a beggar by a scabby hand receiveth alms.  
Pareus in c. 31. Enchiridij S. Augustini. If we consider how 
Not worthy the name of virtue.  faith is of itself and in us, it is imperfect, lame, polluted, and defiled and mingled with infidelity, so that it is not truly worthy of the name of virtue. Of the same opinion are all Protestant's who as we shall see in the next chapter think that all our good works are defectuous and sinful. For in this, the same reason is of faith and good works.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that some faith is great, full, abundant, consummate, in hope against hope, nor weak, and more precious than tried gold. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that every faith is imperfect, none perfect, none of any worth or value, every one needeth pardon, is sin, is defiled with many spots, worse than the law requireth, lame, polluted, defiled with infidelity, like a most filthy, leprous, and scabby hand, and not truly worthy of the name of virtue.    

ART. VIII. WHETHER FAITH BE CONsummate or perfected by good works of charity?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
james 2. v. 22. Seest thou, that faith did work with his works, 
Faith perfected by works.  and by works the faith was consummate?   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
S. Thomas 2. 2. quaest. 4. artic. 3. Charity is called the form of faith, in that by charity the act of faith is perfected and form.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther in Gal. 2. to. 5. f. 296. The true Gospel is: that works 
Works no perfection of faith.  or charity are not the ornament or perfection of faith.  
Bullinger Decade 3. Serm. 9 That opinion is altogether unworthy of a Christian, which affirmeth, that our faith is perfected by works, that is, that by works is supplied that which wanteth to faith.  
Caluin in jacob 2. v. 22. Faith is said to have been perfected 
Faith not perfected by works.  by works, not that it taketh its, perfection thence but because thereby it is proved to be true. The same say other Protestants commonly.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that faith is consummate or perfected by works. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that faith is not adorned or perfected by works: that works do not perfect faith: that faith taketh not her perfection from works.    

ART. XIV. WHETHER BY FAITH WE do only know that we are justified?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Luc. 7. v. 50. And he (jesus) said to the woman: Thy faith 
Faith maketh safe.  hath made thee safe: go in peace.  
Rom. 1. c. 17. The just liveth by faith. The same is Galat. 3. 
Gives life.  Hebr. 10. & Abacuc. 2.  
Rom. 3. v. 30. For it is one God, that justifieth circumcision 
justifieth.  by faith and prepuce by faith. c. 5. v. 1. Being therefore justified by faith, let us have peace towards God.  
Act. 26. vers. 18. That they may receive remission of sins, and lot among the saints by the faith that is in me.  
Gal. 2. ver. 16. We also believe in Christ jesus that we may be 
Saveth.  justified by the faith of Christ.  
Ephes. 2. v. 8. By grace you are saved through faith.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de justif. c. 17. Let us prove that true faith, is not (as our adversaries would) a bare and sole apprehension of justice, but a cause, and that it hath virtue of justifying.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Zuinglius in Exposit. Fidei to. 2. f. 557. We say, that sins 
Faith only makes us certain of forgiveness.  are remitted by faith; whereby we mean nothing else then to say, that only faith maketh a man certain of the remission of his sins. De Providet. c. 6. to. 1. f. 371. justification and Salvation are attributed to faith, whereas they proceed only from God's election and liberality, and faith followeth the election, so that who have it, may know as it were by a sign and pledge that they are elected. Et in Rom. 8. to. 4. If we will speak properly, election 
Faith saveth not.  saveth, not faith: but because faith is a certain sign that thou art an elect, it is attributed to faith, which pertaineth to election.  
Sutclif. l. 2. de Eccles. c. 6. The justice, wherewith we are just 
justification dependeth of no act of ours.  before God doth not depend of any temporal act of man, but of the eternal decree of God, and is then indeed when a man beginneth to believe. The like hath Perkins in Serie Causarum c. 57 Abbots in Diatribam Tomsoni c. 4. He should remember, that before God we are actually justified from all eternity: in 
We are justified from all eternity. Faith persuadeth us of our justification.  whom yet this is not revealed and manifested but in due time.  
Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. loco 8. When we say: we are justified by faith, we mean, that by faith we are certainly persuaded, that God imputeth justice to us, or remitteth our sins for the satisfaction and obedience of Christ. Of the same opinion are they, who (as we shall see in the next article) deny, that faith is necessary to justification or salvation. For that showeth, that in their opinion faith hath no other function in justification, then to know it and to make us certain thereof. And perhaps for this cause, they both call faith an apprehension of justice, and define it to be acknowledge of Gods will towards us (as Caluin doth 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 6. and in Cathecismo c. defied) or a persuasion of justification or salvation, as do Bucer and Beza cited art. 2. For knowledge or persuasion doth no way cause the thing, but only maketh us certain of it.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that we are justified by faith, receive remission of sins by faith: that we live by faith, are saved by faith, that faith maketh us safe. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that we are actually justified from all eternity, that our justification dependeth of no temporal act of ours: that our justification is then revealed when we begin to believe: that to be justified by faith, is to be persuaded that God imputeth justice to us: that sins to be remitted by faith, is nothing else, but men to be made certain by faith that their sins are remitted.    

ART. XV. WHETHER FAITH BE Necessary to justification or salvation?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Marc. 16. v. 16. He that beleiveth not, shallbe condemned. 
Faith necessary to salvation.   
joan. 3. v. 18. He that doth not believe, is already judged, because he beleiveth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Et v. 36. He that is incredulous to the Son, shall not see 
And justification.  life, but the wrath of God remaineth upon him.  
Hebr. 11. v. 6. Without faith, it is impossible to please God.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. c. 7. Without faith none was ever justified.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Willet Cont. 12. q. 5. p. 574. Christ dwelleth in Infants by his 
Not necessary to justification.  Holy Spirit, though they have no faith. The same he repeateth Contr. 13. q. 1. p. 592. Et Cont. 12. cit. p. 569. Infants have neither faith nor charity.  
Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 6. c. 3. Baptism infuseth not faith or any grace into Infants.  
Perkins Cathol. reform. Contr. 16. c. 1. pag. 271. Though a 
Desire to believe, is sufficient.  desire to repent, and to believe, be not faith and repentance in nature, yet in God's acceptation it is, God accepting the will for the deed. p. 272. Now if any shall say, that without a lively faith in Christ none can be saved: I answer, that God accepts the desire to believe for lively faith, in the time of temptation and in the time of our first conversion. p. 273. Certain it is, that God in sundry cases accepts of this desire to believe, for true faith indeed, See Rogers on the 25. Art. p. 147.  
Zuinglius de Providentia to. 1. fol. 370. It is not general. 
Faith not necessary to salvation.  that who hath not faith is to be damned. Again: As for the damnation of the incredulous, they only are understood, who heard and believed not, of others we cannot judge. De Peccato orig. to. 2. f 118. That (who beleiveth not shallbe damned) is not to be understood absolutely, but of them who having heard the Gospel would not believe. Et in Exposit. Fidei to 2. fol. 659. 
Heathens may be saved.  he sayeth, that in heaven we shall find Hercules, Theseus, Numa and such like Pagans; and his opinion therein defend the Tigurins in their Confession of faith: Bullinger in the Preface thereof. Gualther in Praefat. operum Zuinglij, & in Apologia pro eodem. And the same doctrine of the salvation of Pagans maintain Erasmus, Thommer, Hardenberg, Tossanus and other Protestants as Schlusselburg reporteth l. 3. Theol. Caluin art. 7.  
Bucer in Math. 19 Furthermore, out of that that Infants 
Infants saved without faith.  want faith, nothing less is concluded, then (which some think) that therefore they please not God, nor are Saintes.  
Musculus in locis tit. de baptismo. Infants are saved by God's election, albeit they be taken out of this life not only without baptism, but also without faith.  
Caluin in Math. 19 v. 14. That they avouch, that we are no other ways reconciled to God and made heirs of adoption, then by faith, that we confess of such as are of discretion, but for so much as pertaineth to infants this place convinceth it to be false. Et 4. Instit. c. 16. §. 29. & 31. & li. cont. Seruet. p. 647. he writeth, that that sentence: Every one that beleiveth not the Son of God, abideth in death, belongeth not to infants.  
Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 407. Albeit the children of Christians want faith, yet is not baptism unprofitable to them.  
Daneus Controvers. de Baptismo c. 10. He asketh, what 
No faith needful to Infants.  faith it is which we require in the baptism of Infants: I answer, None.  
Peter Martyr in Schlusselburg. l. 1. Theol. Caluin art. 18. The children of faithful parents are saints by the mere mercy of God, though they have not true faith in Christ.  
Hungari apud Graver. in Absurdis Caluin cap. 4. sect. 25. The children of Christians cannot be properly said to have faith; yet all that are predestinate amongst them are saved and obtain the kingdom of heaven.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that who beleiveth not, shallbe condemned, is already judged, shall not see life, that the wrath of God abideth upon him, and that it is impossible to please God without faith. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that Christ dwelleth in Infants though they have no faith; that they please God, are saved, are Saints without faith: that the sentence of condemnation against incredulous belongeth neither to infants, nor to such as have not heard the Gospel: that a man may be saved with desire of faith, though he have no faith indeed: that in diverse cases God accepteth the desire of faith for lively faith: that diverse Pagans' are saved. Which are so contrary to Scripture as diverse Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. XVI. WHETHER FAITH DO INdeed justify, or be a true cause of justification?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
The holy Scripture in the places cited before artic. 14. 
Faith is a true cause of justification and Salvation.  sayeth, that we are justified by faith, receive remission of sins by faith, live of faith, are saved by faith.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. cap. 8. Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Confessio Belgica art. 22. Properly speaking, we mean not, 
Faith itself doth not justify.  that faith itself, by itself, or of itself doth justify us, as which is only as it were an instrument, with which we apprehend Christ our justice.  
Whitaker ad Demonstrat. 10. Sanderi. Faith is not cause 
No cause of salvation.  of our salvation.  
Perkins in Galat. 3. Faith doth not cause, work, or procure 
Salvation dependeth not of faith.  our Salvation. In Serie causarum cap. 57 Salvation dependeth not of our faith. The same hath Sutclife cited art. 14.  
Illyricus in Clavae Scripture. part. 2. tract. 6. col. 551. Faith, the word, and Sacraments are said to save us, whereas God alone doth such things. col. 552. It is often said: Thy faith hath made thee safe, whereas the only mercy of God and his omnipotency apprehended by faith doth that. Whereupon he addeth, that 
Faith no true cause salvation.  in the Scripture; Effects are often times attributed to not true, or not to principal causes.  
Zuinglius in Elencho to. 2. f. 34. Here is a diffcultie: How faith doth make blessed or justifieth— But whatsoever seemeth hard to lose, flieth a sunder with a small stroke of the figure synecdoche. For faith is taken for the election, the predestination, and vocation of God, all which go before faith.  
Bucanus in Instit. Theol. loco 31. Nether the work nor act 
Faith doth not justify us  of faith doth justify us, but Christ himself whom we apprehend by faith.  
Pareus l. 1. de justif. c. 17. It cannot be said with out plain absurdity, and falsity, that we are justified by faith or out of faith, as by an efficient or formal cause. Again: By no means that efficiency or virtue of justifying can be ascribed to faith, without absurdity and falsity.  
Tilenus' in Syntagmate c. 41. This speech: Faith doth justify us, is figurative and metonymical, and hath this sense: God justifieth the beleiver for the merit of Christ, which the beleiver by only faith apprehendeth. c. 56. Baptism goeth before salvation, but causeth it not, which we give not to faith properly, but only metaleptically.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that Faith truly causeth justification and salvation. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that faith is no cause of our salvation, neither worketh not procureth our salvation: that our salvation dependeth not upon our faith: that faith doth not justify us: that without absurdity and falsity it cannot be said faith is either efficient, or formal cause of justification, or hath virtue of justifying.    

ART. XVII. WHETHER FAITH BEING alone and without good works can justify?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
james 2. v. 14. What shall it profit my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? v. 24. Do you see, that by works a man is justified, and 
Faith alone doth not justify nor save  not by faith only. The same prove the places before cited, which affirm that faith without works is dead.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. c. 7. Faith doth not perfectly unite to Christ, nor maketh a lively member of him, unless to it be adjoined hope and charity.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Confessio Belgica art. 24. We are justified by faith in Christ, and that also before we have done any good works.  
Luther in Gal. 2 to. 5. fol. 310. This faith, doth justify before 
justified before works.  and without charity. fol. 312. It is an error and impiety to say, that infused faith doth not justify, unless it be adorned with 
Faith without charity doth justify.  the works of charity. Et in Disput. to. 1. f. 371. unless faith be without any even the least works, it doth not justify, nay it is 〈◊〉 ●a●th.  
Liber Concordiae Lutheran. c. 3 We reject and condemn, That faith doth not justify without good works, and so good 
The presence of works is not needful.  works to be necessarily required to justification, and that without their presence a man cannot be justified.  
Illyricus in Clavae Scripturae part. 2. tractat. 6. It is falsely said: That faith is never without good works, if it be meant of their actual, and not only potential presence especially in the first justification. Again: God justifieth the impious even not working: Therefore in justification good works do not only not cooperate, but neither are they present.  
Schlusselbug to. 7. Catal. Haeret. pag. 837. Our proposition 
Faith without works justifieth.  remaineth strange: That faith in the first justification of a wicked sinner, is without all good works actually present.  
Wigandus in Schlusselburg lib. cit. p. 792. Faith must needs be first, and then works follow, albeit we cannot discern the time. For Luther's sentence is certain: Faith justifieth before it doth good works. Et p. 764. The absence of our good works doth 
Absence of works hindereth not justification.  not hinder God to impute justice by Christ.  
Author de justif. to. 5. doctrinae jesuit. p. 241. The holy Scripture describeth many justified in whom is no good work seen but only faith: Again: These and the like examples do clearly show, that in the beginning faith is truly without good works, and that it so void of good works is imputed to justice, and receiveth remission of sins. See more of their like sayings hereafter cap. 14. art. 12. For the same believe, as well the Lutherans (who hold that the presence of good works is not necessary to justification) as Caluinists, who teach that justification of faith remaineth in the faithful even in most grievous sins.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that faith without works profiteth not, saveth not, is dead: that a man is not saved with faith only. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that faith justifieth before we do any good work, without and before charity, without even the least good works, without good works actually present, without the presence of good works: that in justification good works are not so much as present: that many are justified in whom no good works are seen: that faith void of good works is imputed to justice and receiveth remission of sins.    

ART. XVIII. WHETHER FAITH DO justify as it is Belief, or as it beleiveth or knoweth?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
joan. 17. v. 3. This is life everlasting, that they know thee the 
Faith justifieth as it is a knowledge.  only true God, and whom thou hast sent, jesus Christ.  
1. joan. c. 5. ver. 1. Whosoever beleiveth, that jesus is Christ, is borne of God. v. 5. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that beleiveth that jesus is the Son of God?  
Rom. 4. v. 3. Abraham believed God, and it was reputed him to justice. c. 10. vers. 9 If thou confess with thy mouth our Lord jesus, and in thy hart believe that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. cap. 6. They are disposed to justice, whilst stirred up and helped by God's grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved to God, believing these things to be true which are revealed and promised.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Willet Controu. 19 pag. 983. Faith doth not justify us by 
Faith justifieth not as it is a Belief. As it is a Belief. But as it is a Petition.  the work of believing. As it is an act of believing only, it justifieth not.  
Field l. 3. de Eccles. c. 44. Special faith hath sundry acts, but to this purpose specially two: The one, by way of petition humbly entreating for acceptation and favour: the other, in the nature of comfortable assurance, consisting in a persuasion, that that is granted which was desired. Faith by her first act obtaineth and worketh our justification: by her second act she doth not actively justify, but finding the thing done, certifieth and assureth us of it.  
Zuinglius l. de ver. & falsa relig. cap. de Merito. Faith in 
As it is a Trust a Confidence.  Scripture is taken many ways. First for belief, then for steadfastness, next for trust in God; and of this only it must be underdoost; That faith saveth. Respons. ad Confess. Lutheri f. 507. To say that this kind of faith and assent, bringeth any comfort, security, peace, tranquillity or salvation to our souls, were false and most foolish.  
Hemingius in Enchirid. class 1. pag. 109. It is manifest, that none is saved by only knowledge. Whereupon every one seethe, that justifying faith is not only the knowledge of the history of Christ.  
Lobechius Disput. 22. Saving faith is said to justify, not by the foundation, as it is a knowledge and assent in the mind and trust in the will, but by reason of the end or object, which is Christ. And of the same opinion are other Protestants, as appeareth both by their words related before art. 2. & 3. and also because they teach, that justifying faith, is not the Catholic faith wherewith we believe the mysteries of faith, but a special trust or confidence, wherewith every elect faithful man assureth himself of the remission of his sins; or at least, that it includeth this trust. Hereupon Confessio Saxon. c. 4. sayeth: By faith is signified a trust resting 
Protestant's faith is Trust.  on the Son of God. Which is repeated c. 7. & 16. Luther Praef. in Epist. ad Rom. to. 5. Faith is a trust of the mercy of God towards us. Ministri Saxonici in Colloq. Aldeburg. fol. 30. Faith, in this matter we understand to be trust relying upon Christ. Zuinglius Respons. ad Confess. Lutheri to. 2. fol. 506. Faith, is no other thing, than a certain and solid trust in God only.  
Caluin in Antidoto Concilij 6. Can. 12. It pleaseth not the reverend fathers, that faith is a trust wherewith we embrace the mercy of God remitting sins for Christ, But it pleaseth the Holy Ghost. And in like sort, others. But as Peter Martyr sayeth in 1. Cor. 13. Hope differeth not from trust, so fare as I think can be gathered out of the Scripture: And consequently, their justifying faith, is not belief, but hope.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly teacheth, that faith justifieth as it beleiveth God: as it knoweth God and Christ, as it beleiveth Christ to have risen from death, as it beleiveth Christ to be the Son of God. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that faith justifieth not as it is an act of believing, as it is an assent or knowledge, or dersuasion: that as it is an assent it bringeth no good to our souls; but only as it is a petition or trust.    

ART. XIX. WHETHER FAITH ITSELF can be imputed to justice?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Rom. 4. ver. 3. Abraham believed God, and it was reputed him 
Faith imputed to Abraham to justice. And to others  to justice. v. 5. But to him that worketh not, yet beleiveth in him that justifieth the impious, his faith is reputed to justice. v. 9 We say, that unto Abraham faith was reputed to justice. The same is Gal. 3. v. 6.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Rom. 4. v. 3. That act of believing (In Abraham) was an act of justice.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de justif. c. 17. That itself is judge▪ justice, and therefore faith doth not apprehend justice, but faith itself in Christ, is justice.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins in Galat. 3. tom. 2. The act of believing is not our justice.  
Peter Martyr in Rom. 4. vers. 3. cit. Nether are they to be 
Act of faith not imputed to justice.  heard, who so expound this sentence, that they take faith meant by Paul to be an act, as if this were the meaning: God imputed to justice that act of Abraham wherewith he believed, as if he accounted it for justice.  
Beza in brevi Confess. vol. 1. Theol. p. 81. Paul said, that we are justified by faith only, and line by it alone, that is, are happy; not as if faith properly were our justice or life, but because by only faith we embrace Christ, and surely know him to be our justice and life.  
Sadeel ad Art. abiurat. 44. Not the act or work of our faith, 
Belief justifieth not.  that is, our belief, justifieth us.  
Piscator in Thes. l. 2. pag. 119. It is unproperly said: Faith is imputed to the beleiver to justice.  
Pareus l. 1. de justific. c. 17. Faith is said to be accounted for justice or imputed to justice, not absolutely but relatively, by reason of her object, which she regardeth and apprehendeth, that is, Christ with his justice. Again: It is clear, that faith to be imputed to justice, is nothing else, but to seek and receive justice or justification in the death and resurrection of Christ. And no marvel that they deny that faith can be imputed to justice, seeing they say it is so vicious and defectuous, as we have seen art. 12.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that the very believing of Abraham, the faith of Abraham, the faith of the beleiver is imputed to justice. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that our believing doth not justify us, that the act of Abraham's believing was not imputed to justice; that the act of believing is not our justice that faith is not properly justice: that faith is unproperly said to be imputed to justice: that faith to be imputed to justice, is nothing else, but by faith to receive justice. Which is so repugnant to Scripture, as some Protestants confess it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. XX. WHETHER FAITH BE proper to the just?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Ihon. 2. v. 23. And when he was at Jerusalem in the Pasche 
Many ill men Believe in Christ.  upon the festival day, many believed in his name, seeing his signs which he did. But jesus did not commit himself unto them, for he knew all.  
joan. 12. v. 42. Of the Princes also many believed in him, but for the Pharises they did not confess— For they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God.  
james 2. v. 19 is said to a wicked beleiver: Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
D. Stapleton l. 8. the justif. cap. 32. The Scripture evidently witnesseth, that faith was in many without, charity, repentance, and other virtues.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Whitaker Contion. vlt. That which is called faith in the impious 
Impious have no true faith.  or those who profess faith for a time, is nothing else, but either bare knowledge, or guess, or opinion, or imagination, or an image of faith, true faith it is not.  
Rainalds thes. 4. But the impious, are not faithful. 
Are not faithful. Nor true beleivers.   
Abbots in Diatribam Tomsoni c. 15. Do they seem to thee to be true beleivers or justified, who loved more the glory of men then of God? Yea if we speak properly, they are not so much as beleivers.  
Caluin in Math. 13. v. 20. We must know, that none are partakers of true faith, but those, who being sealed with the spirit of adoption, call upon God with their hart. Et 3. Instit. cap. 12. §. 9 We acknowledge only the faith of those that are godly.  
Peter Martyr in 1. Corinth. 13. We do not grant, that those 
The foresaied Princes did not believe truly.  Princes (joan. 12. cit.) had true faith. Et in Rom. 11. We deny, that they truly believed.  
Musculus in locis tit. de necessit. fidei: We speak not of that faith, which is rather opinion than faith; Such was their faith of which John speaketh c. 2. cit. The Lord did not approve their faith, because it was not true.  
Zanchius de Perseverant. c. 2. to. 7. Considering both their own and the Church's judgement, they are said truly to believe, but in the sight of God they believe not truly— Like to these were those whereof John 2. sayeth: Many believed in him but jesus etc. As if he had said: They thought they had believed truly, but Christ saw that this did not believe truly, and therefore he did not commit himself to them. Again: This faith is in God's sight hypocrisy always. Such was the faith of them, of whom is said Ihon. 2. Many believed etc. And in like manner is this place of S. John expounded by Caluin 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 12. by Gualther in joan. 2. and by others.  
Volanus l. 3. cont. Scargam. pag. 1069. The wicked have no true faith, but a feigned and dissembled faith. Et p. 1071. Of this faith were they destitute, who are said of John to have believed, but not confessed for fear of the Pharises.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that many Princes who confessed not Christ, and loved the glory of men more than of God, did believe in Christ: that many believed in Christ's name, whom Christ trusted not: that a evil man doth well in believing. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that the foresaied Princes did not believe, had not true faith, were no beleivers: that those whom Christ trusted not, did not believe in the sight of God, that their faith was not true, not sincere, but hypocrisy: that only the godly and the adopted sons of God are partakers of true faith: that the faith of the impious and wicked, is feigned, dissembled, an imagination, or image of faith, not true faith: that the impious are not faithful.    

ART. XXI. WHETHER FAITH BE proper to the Elect?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Act. 8. ver. 13. Then Simon (Magus) also himself believed, 
Simon Magus had faith  and being baptised he cleeved to Philippe:  also signs and very great miracles to be done, he was astonished with admiration.  
Heb. 6. v. 4. For it is impossible for them that were once illuminated, 
Also some reprobates.  have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost etc. and are fallen, to be renewed again to penance.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
D. Stapleton in Actor. 8. v. 13. Simon Magus had true faith.  
Card. Bellarm. l. 3. de justificat. c. 14. Faith is not proper to the elect.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 48. True faith is proper to the the elect. In Contion. vlt. In no reprobate, true faith is found.  
Zuinglius in Math. 19 tom. 4. The Scripture sometimes 
Simon Magus had no faith indeed. Believed not all.  sayeth, that some believed who professed faith, which indeed they had not, as appeareth of Simon Magus in the Acts. In exposit. Fidei to. 2. fol. 558. There are some who believe not at all, as were judas and Simon Magus.  
Caluin in Actor. 8. v. 3. c. The mind (of Simon) was wrapped in dissimulation of faith.  
Beza count. Illyric. vol. 2. p. 131. Simon Magus was quite faithless. 
Was quite faithless.  In Colloq. Montisbel. p. 379. Indeed he wanted faith, indeed he believed not.  
Volanus l. 3. cont. Scargam. p. 1070. Scarga foolishly attributeth true faith to Simon Magus.  
Daneus Contr. de Baptismo c. 14. He objecteth, that Simon Magus lost faith, and that other Apostates did the like: But I deny, that they have, or ever had true faith.  
Pareus l. 3. the justif. c. 14. Simon was an hypocrite, believing only with mouth, not with heart. And he addeth: Nether maketh it any matter, that Luke absolutely sayeth, that he believed. And as for reprobats.  
Caluin 3. Institut. c. 2. § 11. None are illuminated unto faith, 
None but the predestinate have faith. Faith peculiar to the Elect.  but they who are predestinated to salvation. In Confession p. 106. I acknowledge, that faith is a peculiar gift given to the elect alone.  
Beza in Conf. c. 4. sect. 20. Faith is the gift of God proper and peculiar to the elect alone.  
Bucer in Matthaei. 16. They are safe for ever, who once have gotten true faith.  
Musculus in locis: titul. de fide. Faith in Christ is only of the elect.  
Zanchius de Praedestinat. c. 4. to. 7. The reprobates never 
Reprobates never believe truly.  truly believe in Christ. And the same is the common doctrine of the Protestants.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that the reprobate Simon Magus did believe, was baptised, cleeved to Philippe, and was astonished at the miracles wrought by S. Philippe: that even they who cannot be recalled to penance, were once illuminated. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants plainly say, that Simon Magus did not believe at all, was wholly faithless, indeed wanted faith, indeed believed not, had not true faith, believed only with mouth not with hart: that only the elect are illuminated unto faith: that reprobates never truly believe: and that it maketh no matter that the Scripture absolutely sayeth the contrary. These are so opposite to Scripture as some Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. XXII. WHETHER FAITH BE by hearing?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Rom. 10. ver. 15. Faith than is by hearing: and hearing is by 
Faith is by hearing.  the word of Christ.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. c. 6. They are disposed to justice, whiles stirred up and helped by God's grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved to God.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker l. 1. de Scriptura c. 11. sect. 4. All true faith cometh 
Faith not by preachers.  from the Scripture, not by the labour of the Preachers. Again: All the Fathers with one voice teach, that faith riseth of the Scriptures only, not of the authority of the Church. Et c. 13. sect. 8. Reading maketh that we may know the Scriptures and the doctrine of the Scriptures. Et Cont. 145. cap. 8. Faith riseth of the 
Of the Scripture only.  Scripture alone. And in the same place thus expoundeth the aforesaid words of the Apostle: By hearing, that is, by the sense of the Scripture rightly understood.  
Zuinglius in Exegesi to. 2. fol. 347. We do not think, that faith, can be gotten by words, but that faith being mistress, the words which are proposed, may be understood. De Providentia cap. 6. tom. 1. When Paul writeth to the Romans, that faith is 
Not by outward hearing  by hearing; after the same manner, he attributeth that to the nearer and more known cause to us, which belongeth only to the Holy Ghost, not to outward preaching. The like words hath Oecolampadius apud Schlusselburg. libro. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 1.  
Caluin in joan. 5. vers. 9 3 Christ is not otherways rightly known but by the Scripture.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that Faith is by hearing, and addeth there also, that it is not without a Preacher. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that faith is not otherways then by Scripture, that it is by only Scripture, by reading: that it is not by the labour of the preachers, not by the authority of the Church; that it is by the Holy Ghost and not by external preaching: that it cannot be gotten by words.    

ART. XXIII. WHETHER FAITH IS, or can ever be lost?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Luke 8. vers. 13. For they upon the rock: Such as when they 
Some believe for a time.  hear, with joy receive the word, and these have no roots: because for a time they believe, and in time of temptation they revoult.  
joan. 20. vers. 29. Then he sayeth to Thomas: Be not incredulous, 
S. Thomas lost his faith.  but faithful. And v. 25. Thomas said: Unless I see etc. I will not believe.  
1. Tim. 1. v. 19 Certain have made shipwrak about faith. c. 4. 
Others lose faith.  v. 1. In the last times certain shall depart from the faith. c. 6. v. 10. Certain have erred from the faith.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in joan. 20. v. 28. The Gospel doth plainly teach, the Fathers plainly confirm, that Thomas was incredulous and an infidel.  
C. Bellarm. l. 3. the justif. c. 14. Faith once had, may be lost.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dur. sect. ect 48. True faith, which is proper to the elect, can never be lost. Et Contr. 2. q. 5. c. 7. We say, that 
True faith, never lost.  faith once gotten, can never be lost.  
Perkins in Gal. 1. to. 2. Where this faith truly is, it is never extinguished or quite abolished.  
Willet Contr. 19 q. 3. p. 1010. Our sentence is: that he which once hath received a true lively faith, can never finally fall away; neither can that faith utterly perish or fail in him.  
Caluin in joan. 20. vers. 28. thus writeth of S. Thomas: Faith was not in him utterly extinct. Faith, which seemed to be 
S. Thomas lost not his faith.  abolished, lay as it were overwhelmed in his hart. In Math. 13. v. 10. It is impossible, that faith which he hath once graved in the hart of the godly, should vanish and perish. In Lucae 17. v. 13. Livelie faith never dieth. Et 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 21. We avouch, that the root of faith is so put out of a faithful breast, that her light is never so put out or choked but that it lieth as it were under the embers.  
Beza in joan. 6. v. 37. True faith and proper to the elect never falleth indeed quite away. In Colloq. Montisbel. p. 380. Who is once endued of God with true faith, can never lose it more. In Confess. c. 4. sect. 20. I affirm, that he who once in all his life felt a certain testimony of true faith, aught to be secure, that it not only remaineth, but also shall remain to the end, even then when those times shall come, as it seemeth to be utterly wanting.  
Zuinglius in Lucae 9 to. 4. None can fall from true faith. 
None can fall from faith.   
Bullinger Serm. 5. de Fide: True faith can neither fail nor be extinguished.  
Zanchius de Perseverant. to. 7. col. 128. It followeth, that no true Christian ever failed from faith, or can fail.  
Pareus de justif. l. 3. c. 15. Faith which faileth, is not true faith but apparent and hypocritical.  
Piscator apud Vorstium in Parascene cap. 9 It cannot be by any means, that those which believe should lose their faith.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth: that S. Thomas for a time was incredulous, not faithful, did not believe: that some revolt from faith, depart from faith, make shipwrak of faith, err from faith. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that faith in S. Thomas was not quite extinct; that it lay hid in his hart: that true faith can never be lost, never extinguished or quite abolished, that lively faith never dieth: that none can fall from time faith: that who once hath felt true faith may be sure that it will ever remain with him, even then when it seemeth to be utterly wanting: that who beleiveth can by no means leefe faith. Which are so opposite to Scripture, as some Protestants confess it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. XXIV. WHETHER REWARD be given to Faith?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
joan. 3. v. 36. He that beleiveth in the Son hath, life everlasting, 
Reward to faith.  but he that is incredulous to the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God remaineth upon him.  
joan. 16. v. 27. For the Father himself loveth you, because you 
God loveth us because we believe.  have loved me, and have believed that I came forth from God. c. 20. v. 29. Blessed are they, that have not seen and have believed.  
Math. 15. v. 28. O Woman: great is thy faith. Be it done to the as thou wilt. Or as S. Mark hath c. 7. v. 29. For this saying, Go 
Faith obtaineth the promises.  thy way. The Devil is gone out of thy daughter.  
Hebr. 11. v. 33. Who by faith overcame kingdoms, obtained promises.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in joan. v. 30. The act of faith, because is is an act of man, wherewith he beleiveth and giveth glory to God, is an active and free work, and therefore may be rewarded as Abraham's faith was rewarded.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Zuinglius in 2. Cor. 5. tom. 4. Not that there is reward of 
No reward of faith.  works, or of faith but etc.  
Caluin in joan. 6. v. 29. Faith is a passive work (if I may so speak) to which no reward can be rendered.  
Piscator in Thes. loco 16. It is quite repugnant to faith, to be meritorious. Of the same mind are they, who, as we reported before, say that faith is defectuous, sinful, polluted, and like to a leprous and scabby hand. For boubtles such a thing deserveth no reward.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that they who believe are blessed, have everlasting life, as they who believe not, have eternal death: that men are loved of God because they believe: that the woman's daughter was cured by her faith: that by faith Saintes obtain the promises. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that there is no reward of faith, that no reward can be rendered to it: that merit is quite contrary to the nature of it.    

ART. XXV. WHETHER THE FAITH OF them who touched the hem of Christ's garment, or theirs who touched the shadow of S. Peter, and napkins of S. Paul, was pure and good?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 9 v. 21. She said within herself: If I shall touch only his garment, I shall be safe; But jesus turning and seeing her said: 
The Hemorroissa her faith was good.  Have a good hart daughter, thy faith hath made thee safe. c. 14. v. 36. And they besought him, that they might touch but the hem of his garment, and whosoever did touch were made hole.  
Act. 5. v. 15. And the multitude of men and women that believed 
Who touched Christ's hem.  in our Lord was more increased, so that they did bring forth the sick into the streets, and laid them in beds and couches, that when Peter came, his shadow at least might over shadow any of them, and they all might be delivered from their infirmities.  
Act. 19 v. 11. And God wrought by the hand of Paul miracles 
And S. Paul's napkins.  not common, so that there were also brought from his body napkins or hankerchefs upon the sick, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Math. 9 v. 21. Christ himself affirmeth that this fact of hers, proceeded of faith, saving: Thy faith hath made the safe: and health straight following this fact, doth show evidently, that she thought this and touched Christ garment upon an excellent and strong faith.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Caluin in Math. 9 v. 21. It may be, that some error and vice 
Some error in the woman's faith.  was mingled with the woman's faith. Again: That she fluck in his garment rather than by prayer offered herself to be cured of him, perhaps she slipped a little out of the way through inconsiderate zeal. In Math. 14. v. 36. cit. It is credible, that they were somewhat superstitious, 
Some what superstitious.  seeing they restrained Christ's grace to the touching of his garment.  
Daneus Contr. 4. p. 1348. He supposeth that they who did those 
Erroneous.  things (Math 9 Act. 5. & 19 cit.) did not err, which is false, albeit sick people were heard of God, cured of their diseases. Again: God did not approve the manner which they chose. Whose very words repeateth Hospin. l. de origine Templorum p. 132.  
Confessio Heluet. c. 4. Who will believe that a shadow or image of a body could bring any profit to the godly?   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly teacheth, that Christ both by word and deed approved the faith of the woman which reverently touched the hem of his garment: that he both suffered others to touch the hem of his garment and by miracles allowed their fact: and that by great miracles approved their faith who touched the shadow of Saint Peter or the napkins of Saint Paul. catholics say the same.  
Protestants plainly say, that perhaps there was some error or vice in the faith of the woman who touched the hem of his garment, and that she slipped a little out of the way: that they were superstitious who touched our Saviour's garment: that they erred who touched his garment or the shadow of S. Peter, or napkins of S. Paul, and that God did not approve their manner of doing: that none will believe that a shadow can do any good to the godly. Which are so opposite to Scripture as Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

THE SUM OF THIS CHAPTER OF FAITH.  
By those things which have been rehearsed in this chapter, plainly appeareth, how different a faith Protestants have from the Scripture. For the Scripture together with catholics teacheth, that faith is a work or action; that it beleiveth all the articles of faith or words of God, that it cannot be had without the holy Ghost, that it is but one, and distinct from hope and charity, and inferior to charity: that it may be without confession of mouth, and without charity or good works: that without good works it is dead, and without them justifieth not: that it justifieth as it is belief: that indeed it justifieth: and that we do not only thereby know that we are justified: that itself may be imputed to justice, that sometimes it is perfect and is of great value before God: that it is necessary to justification and salvation: that it is not proper to the just or elect: that it is gotten by hearing, that it may be lost: and that reward is given to it. All which Protestant's do deny.  
It appeareth also, that Protestants play the theives even 
What Protest. steal from faith.  towards faith which they would seem to esteem and and advance more than all men, and steal from it, that it is a work or action, that it beleiveth all things revealed of God, that it is distinct from hope and charity, that it is one, that it justifieth as it is belief, that it justifieth indeed, that it is necessary to justification and salvation, that it can be perfect, that it can be imputed to justice, that it can be rewarded, that it is a virtue or truly worthy of the name of virtue. And if we take from Faith the nature of a work or act, the believing of all that is revealed of God, the unity and distinction from hope and charity, all perfection, power of justifying, necessity to justification and salvation, worthiness of reward, nature of justice or virtue, and finally the very name of virtue, we scarce leave the name of Faith much less the thing itself. Nether only do they steal so many and so great good properties from Faith, but also attribute many ill, which are contrary to the nature of it: As that it is polluted with infidelity, like to a scabby or leprous hand, need pardon, and is sin. Such a Faith forsooth it is which in steed of the Catholic 
Protest. faith, is true infidelity.  faith described to us in the Scripture, Protestants have brought into the world, which is true infidelity, and showeth what kind of men the Authors thereof are. And thus fare of Faith▪ Now of good works.    

CHAPTER XIII. OF GOOD WORKS IN GENERAL.  

ART. I. WHETHER ANY WORKS OF a Sinner before he be justified, may be good?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
JAMES 2. v 25. Rahab the harlot, was not she justified 
A Harlot did good works.  by works? Et v. 19 it is said to a Sinner: Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well.  
Luc. 7. v. 47. Many sins are forgiven her, because 
A sinner doth well in believing God.  she hath loved much. Et c. 18. v. 13. The publican standing a fare of knocked his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I say to you this man went down into his house justified more than he. And other place teach that penance and good works go before justification, as we shall see hereafter.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 7. If any shall say, that all works which are done before justification, in what sort soever they are done, are true sins, or deserve the hatred of God; be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins in Gal. 3. to. 2. We are taught that the actions of those 
The actions sinners are sin.  that are not regenerate, are sins. So Rogers on the 10. and 13. article. Apologia Confess. Augustanae c. de Tradition. It is false, that he who out of grace doth the works cammanded, doth not sin. c. de justif. It is false, that men doing the precepts out of grace do not sin.  
Confessio Heluet. c. 15. We must be just before we do good works.  
Lutherus Postilla in Dom. post Nativit. The Lord defineth 
All works before justification are evil. Are sins.  in the Scripture: what works soever go before justification, are evil and of no moment.  
Lobechius Disp. 22. The works of those that are not justified, cannot please God, but in his judgement are accounted for sins.  
Bucer in Disput. Cantabrig. pag. 714. What good work 
Provoke God's wrath.  soever we seem to do before justification, is indeed sin and provoketh God's wrath against us.  
Peter Martyr in Rom. 11. All works that are done before justification, are sins.  
Caluin in Antidoto Conc. sess. 6. c. 9 What works do they tell us of, that are before justification? Posterity will scarce be persuaded, that there was so much blockishness in Popery, that they would set any work before justification, albeit they denied that it merited so great a good. Et 3. Inst. cap. 14. §. 7. What can sinners 
Execrable before God.  alienated from God do, but is execrable in his judgement?  
Bezal. Qnaest. & resp. vol. 1. p. 676. It is foolish to say, that there are any good works of them which are not justified.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that a horlot was justified by her works, that to an other many sins were forgiven because she loved much: that a Sinner in believing God doth well: that the Publican did many good works before he was justified. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that before justification no works are good, all are bad, are sins, execrable before God, and provoke God's wrath again the works.    

ART. II. WHETHER EVERY GOOD work of the Just be sin, or the just sin in every good work?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
job 1. v. 22. In all these things job sinned not with his lips, 
job sinned not in some speeches.  neither spoke he any foolish thing against God. cap. 23. v. 11. My foot hath followed his steps, I have kept his way, and have not declined out of it.  
3. Reg. 15. v. 5. Because David had done right in the eyes of our 
David declined not but in some things.  Lord, and had not declined from all things which he commanded him all the days of his life, except the matter of Urias.  
1. Cor. 7. v. 28. But if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned, and if a Virgin marry, she hath not sinned. v. 37. He sinneth not, if she marry.  
2. Peter 1. v. 10. Doing these things, you shall not sin at any 
Doing some things we sinne not.  time. Apoc. 3. v. 4. But thou hast a few names in Sardis, who have not defiled their garments.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. c. 11. It is manifest, that they are against true doctrine, who say that the just man sinneth in every act at least venially, or (which is more intolerable) that he deserveth eternal pains.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Whitaker l. 2. de Peccato orig. c. 3. Inherent concupiscence 
We sin in every act.  maketh, that we sin in every action of ours, even good. Again: We teach, that the just do always sinne mortally by nature of the thing and the acts themselves. Et ad Ration. 8. Campian. 
All good acts are sins.  All good actions are sins, in God's judgement, mortal; if God pardon them, light: This Luther said, and he said truly.  
Tindal in Fox his Act. p. 1139. There is no deed so good, but that the law damneth it.  
Luther de Ration. Confitendi to. 2. fol 26. Even our good 
Good works are sins.  works, if God judge them according to rigour, and not pardon them with mercy, are damnable and mortal. De Captivit. Babylon. fol. 80. Yea good works are found to be sins. In Assert. art. 31. fol. 109. The just sinneth in every good work. f. 110. He teacheth to sin, who denieth a good work to be sin. In Confutat. Latomi fol. 220. All justice is unclean; every good work sin Tomo 5. in Gal. 1. f. 227. Let there be works, so it be known that before God they be sins. 228. The works of the law must needs be sins, otherwise certainly they would justify. In c. 2. f. 231. Works of the most holy law of God are so fare from giving justice, as that they are sins and make a man worse before God. De bonis operibus fol. 581. Let a man know, 
All our actions are nothing but damnable sins.  that all his life and actions are nothing but damnable sins in the judgement of God. Postilla in Dom. 4. post Pascha: With all thy works which thou dost, thou canst do nothing else but sin. Postilla in Natali Christi f. 374. Christ teacheth, that all that is ours is nothing but sin before God.  
Illyricus apud Schlusselburg. tom. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 155. 
All Saints in every good work do sin.  Hitherto our men disputed against Papists: that all Saints in every good work do sin.  
Wigandus' ib. p. 719. For this very imperfection and pollution good works of themselves are sins.  
Caluin 3. Instit. cap. 17. §. 11. There was never any work of a pious man, which if it were examined by the severe judgement of God, was not damnable. In Refutat. Serueti pag. 655. Because God pardoneth us like his children, thereupon he by pardon imputeth free justice to works, which of themselves are unjust.  
Beza in Conf. c. 4. sect. 19 If God in all rigour would examine 
The best works are mere pollutions▪  even the excellentest works of men, nothing e●s would be determined of them, then that they are mere pollutions of God's gifts. Et l. q. & resp. p. 674. If you examine the best works of the most holy men according to the rule of the law, I say they are sins.  
Bullinger Decad. 3. serm. 10. We say, that the good works of the faithful are sins.  
Serranus count. Hayum. part. 2. p. 188. Whatsoever is of man, is evil, is sin, what shewsoever it hath of virtue.  
janius Cont. 4. l. 3. c. 2. All the works of a man though justified, are sins in themselves.  
Pareus l. de justif. c. 15. The works of the just, if they be examined of God according to the rigour of the law, are mere sins. Et c. 20. The just sinneth even in well doing. 
We sin in well doing.    

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth: that job in some things did not sin with his lips, did not decline from God's way, that David declined not from all things that God commanded except the matter of Urias: that men sinne not in marrying: that doing some things we shall not sin. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that in every good act we sin: that the just in every act sinneth: that all Saint's sin in every good work: that in well doing we sin: that good works are sins: that good works are of themselves damned, of themselves in just, of themselves mortal sins: that even the works of Gods most holy law make a man worse before God: that every act in the judgement of God is nothing but damnable sin, mere sin, nothing but sin, nothing but pollution of God's gifts.    

ART. III. WHETHER WORKS OF the Just be a sweet smell before God?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Gen. 8. vers. 20. Noë offered holocaustes upon the altar, and 
A sweet savour.  our Lord smelled a sweet savour.  
Numbers 29. ver. 21. And shall offer an holocaust for a most 
A sweet odour.  sweet odour to the Lord.  
Apocal. 8. vers. 3. And an other Angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censor: and there were given to him 
Incense.  many incenses, that he should give of the prayer of all Saints upon the altar of gold which is before the throne of God: And the smoke of the incenses of the prayers of the Saints ascended from the hand of the Angel before God.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 4. the justif. cap. 20. The Scripture everywhere praiseth the works of the just, and sayeth, they are pleasing to God and accepted as a sweet odour.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther in Disp. de Mysterio Trinit. to. 1. fol. 418. God exacteth 
justice of the the law is dung before God. Unclean.  the civil justice of the law, and in earnest commandeth it, though he know that before him it is dung.  
Wigandus in Methodo Doctrinae c. 12. Our good works are unclean, are dung.  
Vrbanus Regin. in Interpr. loc. come. to. 1. f. 43. Our works 
Filthy.  generally art filthy.  
Illyricus in Clavae Scripturae part. 2. tract. 6. sayeth, that Our works are rifraff, or outcasts, vertly unclean and that they need cleansing,  
Schlusselburg to. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 55. Paul will have all his righteousness to be accounted rejected and contemned as dung and outcasts; and Isaias a defiled clout.  
Caluin in Refut. Serueti p. 651. When I teach, that works are 
Stink before God.  always mingled as it were with some dreggs, so that they stink before God if they be called to a strait account, he sayeth, that I blaspheme against the Spirit. The like he hath de vera Ref. p. 317. Et 3. Instit. c. 14. §. 16 The Scripture teacheth, that all our justices do stink in the sight of God, unless they draw some good smell from the innocence of Christ. Et c. 12. §. 4. Works, if they be judged according to their worth, are nothing but pollution and filth. Et concione 158. in job: Whatsoever we can give to God, is stenchie.  
Bucer in Epitome Doctrinae Argent. art. 9 All Saints account for nothing and dung, what good soever they did.  
Pareus l. 1. de Iust. c. 19 The Apostle simply opposeth the justice of faith, or by faith, or the justice of Christ and God with which alone he willbe found in God's judgement, against all his works present, past, and to come; accounting them all fare less, for nothing, for dung. Again: Hitherto the Apostle casting away all his works as dung, is no more blasphemous, than the whole Prophetical Church was blasphemous, calling all her justices a defiled clout, which is as filthy a thing. Let Bellarmin go now and cry blasphemies, that we call his works and justices, dung. Et l. 2. c. 12. sayeth: That inherent justices even in the state of grace, are filth, even all, in the rigour of God's judgement.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly faith, that the good works of the Just are a sweet odour, a most sweet odour, a smoke of incense before God. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the good works of the Just in the sight of God are filth, dung, nothing but pollution, filth, and dung: that they are stenchie, do stink before God if they be thoroughly examined; that inherent justices are filth.    

ART. iv WHETHER THE GOOD works of the Just be perfectly, wholly, and entirely good?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
isaiah 38. v. 3. Ezechias prayeth in these words: I beseech 
Ezechias walked in a perfect hart.  thee Lord, remember I pray thee, how I have walked before thee in truth, and in a perfect hart, and have done that which is good in thine eyes.  
3. Reg. 11. vers. 4. Nether was his hart perfect with our Lord 
Also David.  his God, as the hart of David his father. cap. 15. vers. 4. Because David had done right in the eyes of our Lord.  
1. joan. 4. v. 12. If we love one an other, God abideth in us, and 
Charity perfiled.  his charity in us is perfited. c. 2. v. 5. But he that keepeth his word, in him in very deed charity of God is perfited.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 4. the justif. c. 10. All Catholics teach, that the works of the just are simply and absolutely just, and in their, manner, perfect; though not in that perfection, but that they may increase.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dureum. sect. 89. There is no entire good 
No entire good in this life.  of ours in this life. l. 9 sect. 34. Our works are many ways vicious, and are not answerable to the perfection of God's law. Ad Ration. 8. Campiani. In every action of man, though notable, 
Some vice in every act.  there is some vice, which wholly marreth the action, and maketh it odious to God, if it be examined by the weight of his justice.  
Perkins in Gal. 5. ver. 17. The works of the regenerate are in 
In part evil.  part evil.  
Confessio Wittembergens c. de Bonis operibus. All the 
Imperfect.  good works, which we do, are imperfect, nor one can bear the severity of God's judgement.  
Confessio Augustana. c. de operibus. The new obedience is fare from the perfection of the law. And Apologia eiusdem cap. de Implet. legis: Our works are unclean and need mercy.  
Confessio Heluet. c. 16. There are many things unworthy 
Have many imperfections  of God, and very many imperfections are found in the works of Saints. The like hath Confessio Belgica art. 14. and Scotica 
Defiled.  art. 15.  
Luther in Gen. 15. to. 6. Thy works are always defiled imperfect, and polluted.  
Kemnice 1. part. Exam. tit. de justif. Inherent justice in this life is only begun, imperfect, and unclean.  
Zuinglius in Marci 10. tom. 4. In the judgement of God all 
Impure.  our works, though never so good, willbe found impure and unclean.  
Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 7. ver. 19 We do nothing, how good 
Spotted.  and holy soever it seem to be, which indeed is not spotted with many vices. Again: As works come from us, they are disgraced with infinite filth.  
Caluin l. de lib. arb. p. 141. There was never any good work, 
Lame.  which every way pure and perfect, wholly wanted any spot. In Math. 5. v. 12. What good work soever cometh from the best men, is lame and vicious. In Actor. 6. v. 11. The works of Saints have always some fault mingled with them. The like he hath often times.  
Beza in Confess cap. 4. sect. 19 So great is God's goodness, that he doth not only not dislike our works though most imperfect, but also so fare alloweth them as he vouchsafeth them reward.  
Vrsinus in Catechismo q. 62. Our best works in this life are imperfect, and consequently defiled with sin.  
Pareus lib. 4. the justif. cap. 10. They prove that the works of Saints are imperfect, and consequently sins. c. 15. The works of the Just have an imperfect goodness, their goodness whatsoever is polluted with the filth of our flesh, like as water passing through a filthy channel. Et Prooemio in l. 5. The good works of the just are not absolutely good, but always polluted with inhabiting sin.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that the good works of the Just are good and right in the eyes of God: that the charity of those who love one an other, and keep God's word, is perfect: that Ezechias walked before God in a perfect hart, that David's hart was perfect before God. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that the good works of the Just are fare from perfection: that there are many imperfections in them: that they are imperfect, most imperfect, lame, vicious, not wholly pure, imperfectly good, have no perfect goodness, are not absolutely good, not absolutely or simply just, defiled with many vices disgraced with infinite filth, polluted as water running through a filthy channel in part ill, and sins, and that there is no entire good of ours in this life.    

ART. V WHETHER THE GOOD works of the Just be just or justice in the sight of God?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Deuter. 24. v. 13. But if he be poor, the pledge shalt not lodge 
To restore a pledge is justice before God. Phinees zeal was justice. No Daniel and job had justice. justice in Daniel.  with the that night; but forth with thou shall restore it unto him— that thou mayest have justice before our Lord thy God.  
Psal. 105. v. 30. And Phinees stood, and pacified, and the slaughter ceased, and it was reputed to him unto justice.  
Ezech. 14. ver. 14. And if these three men shallbe in the midst thereof, Noë, Daniel, and job: they by their justice shall deliver their own souls, sayeth the Lord of hosts.  
Daniel 6. ver. 22. My God hath sent his Angel, and hath shut up the mouths of the lions, and they have not hurt me, because before him justice hath been found in me.  
Luc. 1. v. 75. That without fear being delivered from the hand of our enemies, we may serve him, in holiness and justice before him all our days.  
Hebr. 11. v. 33. Who by faith overcame kingdoms, wrought 
Saints work justice.  justice.  
1. joan. 3. v. 12. Because his works were wicked, but his brothers, just.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton l. 6. the justif. cap. 8. The justice of good works done in faith is true justice before God.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther in Disp. to. 1. f. 390. God rewardeth justice, which he 
Our justice is wickedness.  accounteth wickedness and iniquity. Et in c. 53. Isaiae to. 4. The justice of Christians is only in reputation justice, but not formally.  
Kemnice in locis tom. 2. tit. de Argumentis: To restore a pledge to the poor, is truly a good and just work, but not such as if it be examined according to the rigour of the law deserveth the title of justice.  
Caluin in Antidoto Concil. Sess. 6. c. 8. How fare is that 
Not justice. Nether wholly nor in part.  newness which is begun in this life, from justice. Again: Will they bring me one place, which witnesseth, that God approveth the begunne newness of life for justice, either wholly or in part? In c. 11. ver. 183. It proceedeth from free imputation, that works get the 
Fare from true justice.  name of justice, which otherwise would be fare from the truth of justice. In Rom. 3. v. 27. The law of faith leaveth no justice 
No justice.  in works whatsoever they be. In c. 11. v. 6. As often as grace is named, the justice of works is brought to nothing. Et 3. Instit. c. 17. §. 9 There is no work which is not so defiled by it own corruption, that it retaineth not the honour of justice. Again: works are judged just, above their worth.  
Pareus l. 1. de justif. c. 19 Who make their works, even those which they imagine to do by the grace of Christ, justice or merits of justice before God, make idols of them, and so in truth make of them dung, and dunghill Gods. l. 2. c. 10. How should it be true and absolute justice, which faileth in many things? l. 3. c. 8. That inherent justice of charity and works, is so uncertain and doubtful, as in truth it is none at all in the judgement of God. Et l. 4. c. 20. Whether God examine our justice according to himself, or according to the rule of the law, it is found to be injustice.  
Ministri Electorales in Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 421. Nether 
Not to be called justice.  can our works be called justice before God.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that the good works of the Just, are just, are justice, are justice before God: that by him they are reputed for justice: that the just shall deliver their souls by their justice. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that the good works of the Just are far from truth of justice, retain not the honour of justice, are not true and absolute justice: that before God they are neither wholly nor in part justice: that the law of faith leaveth no justice in works: that by grace the justice of works is brought to nothing: that truly there is no justice in the judgement of God: that God accounteth our justice, injustice wickedness, iniquity: that who make good works done by grace to be justice before God, make them idols and dunghill Gods.    

ART. VI WHETHER IN THE GOOD works of the Just there can be any worth or worthiness?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Philippens. 1. v. 26. Only converse ye worthy of the Gospel 
Conversation worthy of the Gospel. We are worthy of the lot of Saints.  of Christ.  
Coloss. 1. v. 12. God the Father hath made us worthy unto the part of the lot of the Saints in the light.  
1. Thessal. 2. v. 12. As you know in what manner we desiring and comforting you, have adjured every one of you (as a father his children) that you would walk worthy of God, who hath called you into his kingdom and glory.  
3. Ihon. v. 6. Whom, thou shalt do well, bringing on their way in manner worthy of God.  
Apoc. 3. v. 4. And they shall walk with me in whites, because 
Saints worthy to walk with Christ.  they are worthy.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in joan. 4. v. 14. This place teacheth the force and worth of works which come of the Holy Ghost, against the the wicked. Heretics of our time.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther de Seruo arb. to. 2. f. 453. In merit or Reward, either 
No worth in our works.  we mean of the worth, or of the sequel: If you mean worth, there is no merit, no reward.  
Hemingius in Enchir. Class 1. p. 122. If we must judge of 
Unworthy of the sight of God.  works according to their worth, they are unworthy to come in the sight of God.  
Caluin in Rom. 9 v. 11. The worth of works is not regarded, which is none at all. 3. Institut. c. 17. §. 8. If we must set a price of works according to their worth, we say, they are unworthy to come in the sight of God. Et in Antidoto Concil. Sess. 6. c. vlt. They give a false worthiness to works, as if they please without forgiveness.  
Bezal. Quaest. vol. 1. p. 674. I say, that these works of the regenerate, do please, not for any worth of theirs, but for the mere grace of the Father. The like hath Bucanus in Institut. joco 32.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that we may converse worthily to the Gospel of God, walk worthily of God: bring on others worthily of God: that some are made worthy to the part of Saintes: that some are worthy to walk with God in white. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that there is no worth at all in good works, that they are unworthy to come in God's sight.    

ART. VII. WHETHER LIFE EVERlasting or reward be promised or given to good works or good workers?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matthew 20. vers. 8. Call the work men, and pay them 
Hire given to works.  their hire.  
1. Tim. 4. v. 8. Piety is profitable to all things, having promise 
Life to come promised to piety.  of the life that now is, and of that to come.  
Apoc. 2. v. 7. To him that overcometh, I will give to eat of the tree of life.  
2. Paralipomen. 15. vers. 7. For there shallbe reward to 
Reward to works.  your work.  
Math. 25. v. 34. Come ye blessed of my Father, possess you the 
The Kinkdome given for works.  kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungered, and you gave me to eat etc.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 5. de justificat. c. 3. The Scripture in express words said, that this reward is given to the work, not to the promise only.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Zuinglius in Lucae 13. to. 4. Works are not the things, to 
Salvation not given to works. Nor heavenly rewards.  which God giveth everlasting safety.  
Author libri de justif. to. 5. doctrinae jesuiticae p. 240. It must not be demanded nor granted, that heavenly rewards are given to good works.  
Pareus l. 5. the justif. c. 3. I say that it is a false gloze: Call the 
Nor life everlasting.  workmen, give them their hire, that is, give the workmen life everlasting. Again: I deny also, that (life everlasting) is given to workers.  
Ministers of Saxony in Colloq. Aldeburg. pag. 162. You never read in the Scripture: That everlasting life is given to good works.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that hire is given to workmen, that to him that overcometh is given to eat of the tree of life; that to piety is promised both this life and the next: that there is reward to works. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that life everlasting is not given to workmen; that it is a false gloze, Give the workmen their hire, that is, give workmen life everlasting: that God giveth not eternal life to works, that he giveth not heavenly rewards to works.    

ART. VIII. WHETHER GOOD WORKS of the Just be meritorious before God?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Eccles. 16. v. 15. All mercy shall make place to every man, 
Merit in good works.  according to the merit of his works.  
Hebr. 13. ver. 19 And beneficence and communication do not 
God promerited.  forget, for with such hosts God is promerited.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. c. 16. We must believe, that nothing is wanting to those that are justified, whereby fully they may not be judged to have truly merited life everlasting in due time by the works which are done in God, so they depart hence in grace.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Confessio Wittenberg. c. de justif. Before the tribunal of God, where true and eternal justice and salvation is handled, 
No place at all for merits.  there is no place at all for the merits of men.  
Confessio Belgica art. 15. We do good works, but not to 
Merit is vanity.  merit any thing by them. For what can we merit?  
Confessio Scotica art 15. Whosoever brag of merit of their works, brag of vanity.  
Perkins Cathol. reform. Contr. 5. c. 1. We renounce all personal 
All personal merit renounced.  merits, that is, all merits within the person of any mere man. c. 2. It must needs be a fanatical insolency for any man to imagine, that he can by his works merit eternal life, who cannot 
We cannot merit bread  merit bread.  
Luther de Seruo atbit. tom. 2. fol. 480. There is no merit at all.  
Zuinglius in Exposit. Fdiei to. 2. f. 558. It is manifest, that the names of Merit and Reward are in the holy Scripture, but in steed of a liberal gift.  
Caluin 3. Instit. c. 16. §. 2. We take from men the opinion of meriting. c. 7. §. 3. The works of God's servants perpetually deserve 
Not one drop of merit.  rather shame, than praise. In Rom. 4. v. 2. Who then of us will challenge one drop of merit? In Gal. 6. ver. 8. I say, that they are not only unworthy of the basest reward, but wholly worthy to be damned.  
Beza in joan. 1. v. 9 Where are merits which we may bring before 
Away with the name of merit.  God? Et l. Quaest. vol. 1. p. 681. Away with the name of merit, which is directly contrary to grace. Et 690. Thou shall not find in any place of the Scripture the name of merit.  
Scarpe de justific. Contr. 15. We say, that the works of the 
Nether condign nor congruove merit.  faithful in God's sight are no way meritorious either condignly or congruously.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that every one shallbe rewarded according to the merit of his works: that God is promerited by good works. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants say, that there is no merit at all, not a drop of merit in our works, that we cannot merit bread, not the basest reward, that our works are no way meritorious neither condignly nor congruously. Which some Protestants confess to be contrary to Scripture. See libro. 2. cap. 30.    

ART. XI. WHETHER THE JUST may glory in God of their good works.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Cor. 1. v. 30. He that doth glory, may glory in our lord 
We may glory in God.  c. 9 v. 15. It is good for me to die rather, then that any man should make my glory void.  
Galat. 6. vers. 4. Let every one prove his own works, and so in himself only shall he have glory, and not in an other.  
2. Thessalon. 2. versus 19 and 20. For what is our hope or joy, or crown of glory? Are not you before our Lord jesus in his coming? For you are our glory and our joy.  
2. Corinth. 1. v. 12. For our glory is, the testimony of our 
In the testimony of our conscience.  conscience.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Rom. 3. ver. 21. Abraham had works by which he might glory before God.  
Cardinal. Bellarmin. libro quinto de justification. cap 5. Faith excludeth all their glorying who glory in themselves, as if they, could work justice by their own strength, and had of themselves all the good which they have; but it excludeth not the glorying of them who glory in our Lord.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther postilla in Natali Dom. fol. 374. There is no cause 
No glory in any work.  why we should glory never so little in these (works) but rather that we should blush.  
Caluin in Com. 4. vers. 2. Abraham had not whereupon to glory before God. In cap. 3. vers. 27. Without doubt he sayeth that glorying is excluded, because we can bring forth nothing that is our own, which is worthy of the approbation or commendation of God. Again: When we come to the rule of faith, all 
All glorying in works cast down.  glorying of works is cast down. The like he hath 3. Instit. c. 14. §. 16. and 17.  
Peter Martyr in Rom. 3. The will of God taketh great care 
All glorying excluded.  of this, that all glorying be excluded from us. Again:  God will have glorying excluded, it is clear how much they err who maintain merits. In c. 4. It cannot be that any have glory before God.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that we may glory in God: that every one shall have glory in himself: that they to whom we have done well shallbe our glory before God: that our glory, is the testimony of our conscience. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that all glory of works is cast down: that all our glorying is excluded: that we can have no glory before God: that in works there is never so little whereupon to glory, but rather to be ashamed.    

ART. X. WHETHER ALL GOOD works be equal before God?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Matthew 22. vers. 38. Thou shalt love thy Lord thy God 
The greatest commandment.  from thy whole hart etc. This is the greatest and first commandment.  
Luc. 10. v. 42. Marie hath chosen the best part. 
The best part. Well, and better.   
1. Cor. 7. v. 38. Therefore both he who joineth his Virgin in matrimony, doth well: and he who joineth not doth better. cap. 12. v. vlt. And yet I show you a more excellent way. cap. 13. v. 13. And now there remain faith, hope, charity: these three, but the greater of these is charity.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
D. Stapleton in 1. Cor. 7. v. 38. To join in marriage is good, not to join, is better. Can the latter be preferred before the former in more plain words?   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Tindal in Fox his Acts pag. 1138. There is no work better 
No work better than other.  than an other to please God: To make water, to wash dishes, to be a souter, or an Apostle, all is one. To wash dishes, and to preach, all is one, as touching the deed to please God.  
Luther de votis to. 2. f. 291. Let us not distinguish between 
All works equal with God.  works, they are equal with God, which are great and little with us and amongst themselves, In Psal. 14. to 3. In faith all works are equal. Again: To one that beleiveth in God, all is one, whether he fast, or pray, or serve his brother. For he knoweth, that he serveth and pleaseth God equally in all things, whether they be great or little works, precious or base, short or long.  
De bonis operibus to 5. ●. 578. In this faith all works are made equal. Then falleth down all difference of works, whether they be great or little, long or short, many or few. For works are not grateful to God in themselves but for faith. Ib. in c. 3. Petri fol. 468 Before God there is no work better than other, but by faith all are made equal.  
Confessio Heluet. c. 29. It is most certain, that these works which in true faith are done of parents, by the duties of marriage and housekeeping, do please God no less than prayers, fasting, and alms.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that in God's commandments there is one which is the greatest: that in works there is the best part, good and better, greater and excellenter. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that before God all works are equal, no work exceedeth an other, that all please God equally: that to wash dishes pleaseth God as much as to preach, to be a souter, as much as to be an Apostle: that the duties of marriage please God no less than praying, fasting, and giving of alms.    

ART. XI. WHETHER ALL GOOD works be commanded of God?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
1. Cor. 7. v. 25. As concerning virgins, a commandment of 
Some good work not commanded.  our Lord I have not, but counsel I give. v. 36. But if any man think that he seemeth dishonoured upon his virgin for that she is past age, and if it must be so, let him do that he will. He sinneth 
In the free choice of men.  not if she marry.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Monachis c. 8. It is the sentence of all Catholics, that there are many true and proper Evangelicall counsels, which are neither commanded nor indifferent; but grateful to God and commended of him.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Confessio Scotica art. 14. We affirm, that those wholly 
Only commanded works are good. No counsels.  are good works, which by faith are done according to his commandment.  
Luther l. de votis tom. 2. fol. 272. Religious men are pursuaded of this sacrilegious and blasphemous opinion of counsels and precepts. Again: The counsels which they imagine, are for the most part those whereof Christ speaketh Math. 5. to which add virginity and continency. But that all these are not counsels but necessary commandments, this proveth first of all etc. In cap. 9 Isaiae to. 4. The Turk is better than these, who have brought in this horrible error of counsels. De bonis operibus to. 5. fol. 577. There is no work good, but that which God hath commanded.  
Hutterus in Analysi Conf. Augustan. pag. 413. Wherefore works cannot nor must not be called truly good, but such as are commanded of God. p. 415. Away with that detestable madness, which the Papistical Sophisters have most boldly bewrayed in making commandments and Evangelicall counsels.  
Caluin in 1. Cor. 9 v. 18. We do not acknowledge any work to be good and acceptable to God, which is not contained in the law of God; 4. Instit. c. 13. §. 12. There is none so small a word uttered of Christ, which we must not necessarily obey. In Math. 5. v. 44. How preposterous and unsavoury the invention of counsels is, appeareth etc.  
Beza in 1. Cor. 7. v. 25. I willingly avoid that false distinction betwixt precepts and counsels.  
Daneus Controu. 5. pag. 949. There are not some precepts; other, counsels.  
Volanus l. 1. cont. Scargam. p. 1005. Those which they call 
Counsels are precepts.  counsels of Christ, Christ himself plainly teacheth to be his earnest precepts, which all must obey.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that virginity is not commanded of God, but counselled of the Apostle: that one without sin may marry his virgin or not marry her. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly teach, that virginity is necessarily commanded; that there is no work good but that which is commanded: that there are no counsels distinct from precepts: that the counsels are precepts: that they are mad, worse than Turks, and blasphemous, who distinguish between counsels and precepts. Which are so plain against Scripture as diverse Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. XII. WHETHER GOOD WORKS be necessary to justification?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 6. v. 15. But if you will not forgive men, neither will your 
Some good work necessary to justification.  Father forgive you your offences.  
joan. 15. vers. 10. If you keep my precepts, you shall abide in my love.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Session. 6. Can. 9 If any shall say, that a sinner is justified by only faith, so as he understand that nothing else is required to cooperate to the grace of justification, and that it is not needful in any sort that he be disposed and prepared by motion of his will, be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Confess. Argentinensis. c. 3. Whereas now some years it was taught, that man's works are required to his justification, our men have taught that all justification is to be ascribed to God's good will and Christ's merits.  
Confessio Bohemica art. 6. We teach, that men freely by 
justification obtained without works.  Christ, by faith in Christ through mercy are justified, and obtain salvation and remission of sins, without any work or merit of man.  
Apologia Confess. Augustanae c. de Respons. ad argum. tom. 3. Melancthonis: Doth not the Gospel promise salvation 
justification promised to those who have no good works. Presence of good works not necessary.  and remission of sins even to them who have no good works at all?  
Liber Concordiae Lutheran. in Declarat. artic cap. 3. It is false, if any say, that faith cannot justify without good works: or that the presence of good works is necessary to faith for to justify: or that the presence of good works is necessary to justification, or in the moment of justifying.  
Luther de libertate to. 2. f. 5. Our faith maketh, that none 
None have need of works to be saved.  have need of the law or works for to be justified or saved. f. 6. A Christian needeth no works for to be justified or saved. Postilla in Dom. post Natale. Nothing else is required to justification, then to hear and believe Christ jesus our Saviour. And as Kemnitius in Schlusselburg. to. 7. pag. 530. sayeth: Luther clearly prof●sseth, that works are pernicious with that addition which he calleth Leviathan, to wit, if they be said to be necessary to justification and salvation.  
Ministers of Saxony in Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 164. Whosoever 
Works not necessarily present in the time of justification.  sayeth, that our good works are necessarily present in the moment of justification, he swerveth from the word of God, from the confession and Apology of Auspurg, and from the doctrine of Luther.  
Herbrandus in Compendio Theol. loco de justificat. What excludeth that word: Only? Not works only from the efficient cause if justification, and from worth and merit; but also from all cause without which not, and from all necessary of presence in the act of justification. For without works, a sinner believing in Christ is justified. Otherwise justification would be always uncertain, and so we should doubt of it. Again: To justification, there is need of no other thing, but only of faith. 
Only faith needful to justification. Those that have no good works may be justified. Presence of good works not necessary.   
Kemnitius in Schlusselburg. to. cit. p. 711. It is false, concontrarie to the Apology itself, that none can be justified who hath not good works. p. 716. It is false, if I say that faith doth not justify unless it have good works actually present.  
Morlinus in Schlusselburg. to. cit. p. 171. It is simply a false proposition: The presence of good works is howsoever necessary in the act of justification. Et 173. It stands for an invincible truth, if the presence of good works be accounted as necessary in the act of justification, it is dung and loss. Many more like sayings of Lutherans may be seen in Schlusselburg to. cit.  
Rainolds in Apologia Thesium p. 263. Good works are 
Not required to justification.  not required to justification.  
Caluin in Math. 6. v. 12. The pardon which we ask to be given to us, dependeth not upon that, which we give to others. The like sayings of theirs we repeated in the former chapter art. 17. and shall hereafter also c. 17. art. 1. and 2.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that God will not pardon our sins, unless we pardon others: that we shall abide in his love if we keep his precepts. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that the pardon which me ask of God dependeth not upon that which we give to others: that our works or good works are not required to justification: that we may obtain remission of sins without any work: that the Gospel promiseth remission of sins even to them who have no works at all: that faith can justify without good works: that the presence of good works is not necessary in the moment of justification: that we have no need of works to be justified: that works are pernicious if they taught necessary to justification: that faith justifieth though it have no good works actually present: that sole faith, excludeth even the necessity of the presence of good works, when we are justified.    

ART. XIII. WHETHER GOOD WORKS be necessary to salvation?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 5. v. 21. For I tell you, that unless your justice abound 
Our justice necessary to salvation. Likewise our conversion. And keeping of the commandments. Patience necessary. And Holiness  more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. c. 18. v. 3. Amen, I say to you, unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. c. 19 v. 17. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.  
Hebr. 10. v. 36. Patience is necessary for you, that doing the will of God, you may receive the promise. c. 12. v. 14. Fellow peace with all men and holiness, without which no man shall see God.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 4. the justif. c. 7. We say, that good works are necessary for a just man to salvation.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
The Confession of Bohemia and the Apology of the Confession of Auspurg cited in the former article, deny good works to be necessary to salvation.  
Tindal in Fox his Acts p. 1143. We need not to labour for 
We need not labour for heaven.  all these things (to be Christ's heirs and to have heaven) for these we have already.  
The English Translator of Luther's commentaries upon the Epistle to the Galathians: For if there have been since the 
Good works not necessary to salvation.  time of Luther, and be yet some, which openly defend that works be necessary to salvation, where he before so mightly hath taught the contrary, what then would these have done, if Luther had not been? Who also forewarned us of the same, prophesying▪ that after his times the doctrine of justification would be almost extinguished in the Church.  
Liber Concordiae Luther. in Declar. art. c. 4. Those propositions of necessity of good works to salvation, take away comfort 
Not necessary to salvation.  from troubled and afflicted consciences, give occasion of doubting of the grace of God, and are many ways dangerous. Again: Those propositions of the necessity of good works to salvation, are not to be taught, defended, painted: but rather to be hissed out, cast out of our Churches as false and not sincere.  
Luther in Gal. 1. to. 5. f. 286. The false Apostles did teach, that 
Doctrine of false Apostles  beside faith in Christ the works of God's law are necessary to salvation. l. de votis to. 2. f. 281. Thou now understandest, why I said so oftentimes, that neither vows nor our works are necessary to justice and salvation. And as Schlusselburg. to. 7. Catal. Haer. pag. 312. reporteth: This form of speech: God works are necessary 
Cast out of Luther's Churches.  to salvation he caused to be blotted and taken out of same men's writings, and made a public disputation of the same, and therein cast it out of his Churches, and sent it back again to the Pope's market: or as Illyricus and Gallus ibid. pag. 567. write: In public disputation held at Wittenberg 1536. he more than five times iterated this speech: That proposition good works be 
Condemned.  necessary to salvation, we will have to be condemned, abrogated, and quite shut out of our Churches and schools. The like sayeth Scheptius cited in Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 153. 349.  
The Ministers of Saxony in Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 6. and 7. condemn this proposition: Good works are necessary to 
Popish, and impious doctrine.  salvation. and p. 129. say, that it is Popish, scandalous, dangerous, and impious, contrary to the word of God, the Confession of Auspurg and writings of Luther: to which purpose they cite many of Luther's sayings: p. 134. they say, it breedeth desperation. 
Popish paradox.  p. 151. is the only foundation of the Pope's kingdom. p. 349. a Popish paradox.  
Schlusselburg. tom. 7. Catal. Haeret. pag. 69. Good works 
Popish speech  are necessary to salvation, is especially the speech and phrase of Papists, and the foundation of all Popish and Antichrists works. This foundation standing, all Popery standeth. If therefore we 
Foundation of Popery.  shallbe so mad as to admit this proposition, we shall take away all distinction between us and Popery, all our religion willbe condemned, we justly accounted Schismatiks, accursed, and either compelled to recant our doctrine, or to be damned for ever. And to the same purpose he citeth many famous Lutherans.  
Morlinus in Schlusselburg. to 4. Catal. Haeret. pag. 229. I am assured, that it is the doctrine of Satan, if any say or think, 
Doctrine of Satan.  that to a sinner, as he is now after his fall, works are any way necessary to salvation. To which Poach addeth p. 266. that, it is doctrine of Satan, to say that good works are necessary to salvation, either in the law or in the Gospel, or in any part whatsoever of Christian doctrine.  
Illyricus Praefat. in Epistol. ad Rom. Works are not any 
Not any way necessary.  way necessary to salvation.  
Hunnius de justif. p. 187. This proposition, wherewith it is said, that works are necessary to salvation, I judge to be cast out of the Church, howsoever it be painted or coloured.  
Herbrandus in Compendio Theol. loco de bonis operibus: Let this proposition: God works be necessary to salvation, be cast away. The same say many other Lutherans, whom I name in my Latin book c. 13. art. 13.  
Confessio Heluet. cap. 16. We do not think, that good 
God works not necessary  works are so necessary to salvation, that without them no man is ever saved. And to this Confession subscribed the Protestant Churches of England, Scotland, France, and Flanders, as is reported in Syntagmate Confessionum.  
Caluin in Antidoto Concilij Sess. 6. Can. 20. In that the Gospel differeth from the law, that it promiseth life not upon condition of works, as that doth, but for faith.  
Preus l. 3. the justif. c. 12. Whence we understand, that works 
Not absolutely necessary.  are not absolutely necessary to salvation. l. 4. c. 1. We think even the thief, who in all his life had done no good, when in his agony he fled to Christ, being prevented by death, to have been saved with out works. Et. c. 2. Without new obedience the promise of life may be sure to the beleivers. And in Gal. 6. lect. 73. They 
Contrary to the Gospel.  (Interimists) did hold no few points of doctrine contrary to the Gospel, of seven Sacraments, of works necessary to salvation etc.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that patience is necessary to attain the promises: that without holiness none shall see God: that unless our justice be greater than that of the Pharises we shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven: that if we will have life, we must keep the commandments. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that works are not necssarie to salvation, not absolutely necessary: that the thief was saved without works: that the Gospel promiseth salvation without condition of works: that doctrine of necessity of works to salvation is Popish, is the foundation of all Popery, the doctrine of Antichrist and Satan. Which are so opposite to Scripture, as sometimes Protestants confess it. See l. 2. c. 30.    

ART. XIV. WHETHER GOOD WORKS be profitable or avail any thing to justification and salvation?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Tim. 4. v. 8. Piety is profitable to all things, having promise 
Good works profitable.  of the life that now is, and of that to come. The same teach other places cited in the former article, and others to be cited in the next article.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Catechismus ad Parochos. cap. de Oratione. By devout prayers we appease God, by alms we redeem the offences of men, by fasting we wash away the filth of our own life. And albeit every one be profitable against all kind of sins, yet etc.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Apology of the English Church: We say, we have no meed 
No meed in works.  (in Latin, praesidium) at all by our own works and deeds, but appoint all the means of our salvation to be in Christ alone.  
Confessio Argentinensis c. 3. It is clear, that our works 
Works help nothing to justice. Of no moment.  help nothing to this, that of injust we become just.  
Confessio Belgica art. 24. Works proceeding from the true root of faith are of no moment of all for to justify us.  
Whitaker ad Ration. 8. Campiani. God, in justifying us, 
Of no reckoning.  makes no reckoning at all of our works.  
Tindal in Fox his acts p. 1143. All that think, that good 
Profit nothing.  works help or profit any thing to get the gift of salvation, they blaspheme against God, and rob God of honour. Which Fox also maintaineth.  
Luther l. de votis to. 2. f. 279. To teach, that works are wholesome 
Not profitable.  or profitable, is devilish and Apostatical from faith, seeing faith alone is necessary and profitable. In 1. Petri. 1. to. 5. fol. 453. All which tend to that end, that we may learn, that we cannot be helped by works. In c. 40. Isaiae in Schlusselburg tom. 7. Catal. Haeret. fol. 320. When works are condemned, they are 
Unprofitable.  so condemned, as unprofitable to Christian justice, and likewise to salvation. Postilla in Dom. 3. post Pascha fol. 257. Nether will any works help thither, he meaneth to justification. In die Ascensionis f. 267. Works do nothing at all for piety and justification. 
Do nothing.  In dom. 13. post Trinit. Albeit I had all the works of Abraham, Noë, and all the beloved fathers, they would profit me nothing. In Dom. 13. he sayeth, that works profit a man nothing. In festo S. Annae, that they do nothing. Et Serm. de 10. Leprosis to. 7. he writeth: Let him know, that his works are not necessary and profitable to himself, but only to his neighbour. Nor yet content to have taught, that good works are unprofitable, he addeth that they are pernicious to salvation. For thus writeth Hospin. in Concordia discordi c. 20. Rorarius showeth, that Luther always used this proposition: 
Good works pernicious to salvation.  Good works are pernicious to salvation. And the same confess the Ministers of Saxony in Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 205. and Luther himself intimateth in c. 40. Isaiae to. 3. in these words: The justice and wisdom of the flesh is condemned, as unprofitable, yea pernicious to obtain justice and salvation. For by justice of the flesh, he useth to understand good works. And so Schlusselburg in the place now cited understood him.  
The Ministers of the Elector. in Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 293. speak thus: Amsdorfius hath written, and after him or 
Pernicious to salvation.  by him Flac●ius: works are not only not necessary but also pernicious to salvation: (and his words are at large related by Coccius to. 1. p. 1113.) Besides they add p. 121. that the said Amsdarfius wrote a book with this title: Good works are hurtful to salvation: And that no man may say, that Amsdorfius spoke or wrote this only of the trust of works, himself declareth, saying: That good works even according to their nature or 
Pernicious even of their nature and substance.  substance as they are commanded of God, are pernicious to salvation. And the same evasion rejecteth also Hospinian in place before alleged. Kemnitius also in Schlusselburg to. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 529. confesseth, that in their Church this doctrine is spread: The good works of the just are pernicious to salvation. The same confesseth liber Concordiae c. 4. Hutterus in Analysi Confess. Augustan. disput. 13. Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theol. loco. 10. Reineccius tom. 4. Armaturae c. 15.  
Lubeccenses apud Schlusselburg to. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 
The law unprofitable to justification.  607. The law is not only not necessary to justification, but altogether unprofitable.  
Gerlachius to. 2. disput. 14. The moral now since the fall of man is so unprofitable to justify and save, as etc.  
Caluin in Resp. ad Sadolet. p. 126. Surely we deny, that in justifying man's works are worth a hair. Again: we deny that works have any thing to do in justifying a man. In Rom. 8. v. 3. The law hath no force at all to give justice.  
Coccius tomo 1. pag. 1113. repeateth these words of 
Rather hindereth.  Luther out of his Sermon in Natali Christi: It is now made evident, that to this new nativity work nothing but rather hinder, precepts, laws, doctrine, free will, good works, innocent life etc.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that piety is profitable to all things, and hath promise of the life to come. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that good help nothing to justification or salvation, are not worth a hair; have nothing to do there: that they are not profitable, work nothing to salvation, profit nothing to salvation: that they are unprofitable, yea pernicious to justice and salvation, and that of their own nature as they are commanded of God: and that to teach that works are profitable, is devilish, and Apostatical from faith.    

ART. XV. WHETHER GOOD WORKS be a cause of salvation?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 25. v. 23. Because thou hast been faithful over a few 
Works cause of entrance into joy. And of possessing the kingdom.  things, I will place the over maniethings; enter into the joy of thy lord Et v. 34. Possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an hungered, and you gave me to eat.  
Rom. 8. v. 10. The body indeed, is dead because of sin, but the spirit liveth because of justification.  
2. Cor. 4. v. 17. For that our tribulation which presently is momentary and light, worketh above measure exceedingly an eternal 
Tribulation worketh glory.  weight of glory in us. Et c. 7. v. 10. The sorrow that is according to God, worketh penance unto salvation that is stable: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.  
Gal. 6. v. 8. He that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall 
Life reaped of sowing in spirit.  reap corruption: but he that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit shall reap life everlasting.  
Philippens. 1. v. 27. And in nothing be ye terrified of the adversaries, 
Men work their salvation.  which to them is cause of perdition, but to you of salvation, and this of God. Et c. 2. v. 12. With fear and trembling work your salvation.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton l. 8. the justific. c. 34. Good works are truly and properly the cause either of reconciliation or of salvation.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker lib. 2. de Scriptura cap. 14. sect. 5. The just 
The just not rewarded for for works.  are not rewarded for the works of justice which they have done.  
Perkins in Serie Causarum c. 57 Salvation dependeth not of works, but of our faith.  
Luther in Gal. 2. to. 5. f. 308. Thus are we delivered from sin, 
Salvation dependeth not of works. Life not given for works. Nons saved for works.  justified, and life everlasting is given us, not for our merits and works, but for faith. In Catechismo f. 687. Surely our works do nothing to salvation.  
Illyricus in Clavae part. 2 tractat. 6. None shallbe saved for his works.  
Herbrandus in Compendio theol. loco de bonis operibus: Life everlasting is given to us freely by Christ, and not for our good works.  
Zuinglius in joan. 5. tom. 4. Works do not save, do not 
Works save not.  justify.  
Caluin in Rom. 4. v. 16. If the heavenly inheritance come to 
Heaven cometh not by works. Affliction no cause of salvation. Works not in part cause of salvation. No true cause  us by works, faith will fall, the promise willbe abrogated. In Philippen. 1. ver. 28. Certainly the Scripture no where teacheth, that the afflictions, which the Saints suffer of the wicked, are cause of their salvation.  
Beza in Confess. c. 4. sect. 19 For these things are not so to be understood, as if our works were cause of our salvation either wholly or in part.  
Peter Martyr in Rom. 9 God works are no true cause of eternal salvation.  
Zanchius l. 5. de Natura Dei cap. 2. q. 7. The works of the godly are no true causes of everlasting happiness; but only the means by which (as it were) by degrees the elect are mercifully led into the everlasting and heavenly city.  
Pareus libr. 4. de justificat. cap. 7. Our adversary concludeth false: that the kingdom of heaven is given for good works.  
Tilenus' in Syntagmate cap. 48. Good works in respect of 
No cause at all.  salvation, can be no cause at all.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly teacheth, not only that we shall possess the kingdom of heaven because we have done good works, that we shall reap life everlasting of the spirit, that the soul liveth for justification, that sorrow according to God worketh salvation, that afflictiction worketh glory and is cause of salvation: but also in the same manner sayeth, that the elect shall possess heaven because they have done good deeds, as it sayeth, that the reprobats shall go into everlasting fire because they have done ill deeds: So it sayeth, that the soul liveth for justification, as it sayeth, the body dieth for sin: In like sort it sayeth, that sorrow according to God maketh salvation, as it sayeth, that sorrow of the world worketh death: Even in the same sort it sayeth, that of sowing in spirit we shall reap life everlasting, as it sayeth, that of sowing in flesh we shall reap corruption: And in the same kind of speech sayeth, that persecution is cause of salvation to those who suffer it, as it sayeth, that it is cause of damnation to those who make it. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that affliction is not cause of salvation: that the heavenly in heritance cometh not to us by works: that the life is not given for good works: that we are not rewarded for good works, not saved for works: that salvation dependeth not of works: that works are no way cause salvation, are no cause of it either wholly or in part. Which do so plainly contradict the Scripture, as therefore Illyricus is forced to reprove the Scripture. For this he writeth in Clavae tractat. 6. cit. tit. de varia bonorum operum praedicat. col. 551. We hear, that toto great effects and praises, yea even salvation itself is attributed (of the Scripture) to good works. It manifestly appeareth, that very often to much poise is given (by Scripture) to good works, which doth not agree to them, nor is to be attributed, if we will speak exactly, truly, and properly. Behold how plainly he sayeth, that Scripture attributeth to great effects unto good works, attributeth salvation unto them, attributeth very oftentime to much praise unto them, and such effects as agree not to them, nor are to be be attributed to them if we will speak truly. But surely if the Scripture attributeth to much to good works, and that which doth not agree to them, and which is not to be attributed to them if we will speak truly, the Scripture in so doing, doth falsely. But whether the Scripture or Illyricus know better what is to be attributed to good works, let Christians judge.    

ART. XVI. WHETHER GOOD WORKS be a testimony of justice and predestination?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. joan. 2. ver. 5. But he that keepeth his word, in him in 
By good works we know we are in God. That we are translated from death. God works make election sure.  very deed the charity of God is perfited: in this we know that we be in him. cap. 3. ver. 14. We know, that we are translated from death to life, because we love the brethren. And ver. 21. If our hart do not reprehend us, we have confidence towards God.  
2. Peter 1. vers. 10. Wherefore brethren labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your vocation and election.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Rom. 9 ver. 11. If we believe Saint Peter, the certainty of our salvation, and consequently of the election, is concluded in doing of good works, not in the only purpose of God.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Confessio Wittenbergensis C. de Confess. We know, that 
Works make but doubt and despair.  if we look unto our works, we should not only doubt, but also despair of our salvation.  
Ministri Electorales in Colloq. Aldeburg. pag. 427. We 
No certainty by good.  must certainly determine out of the word of God delivered and proposed unto us, and not out of the feeling of infused newness of life, as it were by an effect, that by faith freely for and by Ch●ist we have remission of sins.  
Caluin 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 38. If we must judge by works, how God is affected toward us, I confess that we can have but a small guess all it. De necessitate reform. pag. 47. What shall man 
A small guess by works. Matter of doubt and despair. Of trembling.  find in his works, but matter of doubting, and at length of despairing? And in Antidote. Concili. Sess. 6. cap. 8. As long as we look what we are, we must tremble before God: so fare are we from having certain and unshaken hope of eternal life. In Rom. 4. v. 14. We are utterly lost and undone, if we be sent to our works, when we must seek the cause or certainty of our salvation. In 1. joan. 3. v. 22. Woe to us, if we look to our works, 
Nothing but matter of fear.  which have nothing in them but matter of fear.  
Pareus lib. 1. de justificat. cap. 10. The trust of remission of sins, neither dependeth nor riseth of a good conscience. l. 3. c. 2. Our faith and trust doth reap nothing of our own disposition, but fear of deceit, doubt, and anxiety. Et l. 4. p. 625. Of our own 
Of doubt and anxiety.  accord we grant, that if faith must rely upon inherent justice, we must not only doubt of grace and justice, but also perpetually tremble.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that we know that we are in God by keeping of his word: that we know we are translated from death to life because we love our brethren: that we have trust toward God if our hart do not reprehend us: that we make our vocation and election certain by good works. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that by works we have no certain trust: that trust neither dependeth nor riseth of a good conscience: that by works we cannot have any small guess how God is affected towards us: that we are undone if we must seek the certainty of our salvation out of works: that in works is nothing found but matter of doubting and despairing: that if we look to them, we must not only doubt but despair of salvation.    

ART. XVII. WHETHER GOOD WORKS be a cause why God loveth us?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
joan. 16. v. 27. For the Father himself loveth you because 
God loveth us because we love Christ. Because we keep his commandments.  you have loved me, and have believed that I comeforth from God. cap. 15. ver. 10. If you keep my precepts, you hall abide in my love, as I also have kept my Father's precepts, and do abide in his love.  
Act. 10. v. 36. In every nation, he that feareth him and worketh justice, is acceptable to him.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in joan. 16. v. 27. Christ plainly sayeth that his disciples love was a cause, why God loved them with this kind of love.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Caluin in joan. 15. v. 10. The obedience, which the faithful 
Good works no cause of God's love towards us.  give to him, is not so much a cause why he continueth his love towards them, as an effect of his love. Et in cap. 16. v. 17. We are here said to be loved of God whiles we love Christ, because we have a pledge of his fatherly love.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly teacheth, that God loveth us, because we love and believe in Christ: that God continueth his love towards us, if we keep his commandments. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that our obedience is no cause why God continueth his love towards us; that we are not loved of God because we love Christ.    

ART. XVIII. WHETHER WE AUGHT to do good works?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Luc. 17. v. 10. When you shall have done all things that are 
We ought to do good works.  commanded you, say: we are unprofitable servants, we have done that which we ought to do.  
1. joan 2. v. 6. He that sayeth, he abideth in him, ought even as he walked, himself also to walk. Et c. 3. v. 16. And we ought to yield our lives for the brethren. Et c. 4. ver. 11. If God hath so loved us, we also ought to love one an other.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 20. If any shall say, that a man justified and never so perfect, is not bound to the keeping of the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe; be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Tindal cited in Caluinoturcismo l. 4. c. 22. Thou owest nothing 
We own nothing to God but faith.  to God but faith, that thou maest confess Christ jesus, and believe him to have risen from the dead: for so thou shalt be safe; in all other things God hath made it free to the to follow thine own will.  
Luther Postilla in Dom. 3. Aduentus f. 39 All works besides 
God requireth nothing but faith. Works are indifferent.  faith are to be done to our neighbour; because God requireth nothing of us but faith, with which we give him his honour. In Gal. 2. to. 5. f. 223. Christ hath so abrogated the works of the law, as they may be held indifferently, but they bind no more. Again: We are not tied to any external work at all, but free to any 
We are free to all works. To all things.  work towards any man, at any time or manner whatsoever.— A Christian is wholly free to all things, doing or omitting as the occasion serveth or wanteth. Psal. 5. to. 3. f. 171. Take this rule: where 
Luther's rule of doing good.  the Scripture commandeth a good work to be done, do thou so understand, that it forbiddeth thee to do a good work. Et apud Kemnitium in locis part. 2. tit. de operibus p. 73. This phrase of the law: A faithful man ought to do good works, belongeth 
A Christian ought not to do good.  not to Christians. And apud Schlusselburg to. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 193. We fight as well against good works, as against sins. And l. de votis apud Coccium to. 1. p. 1113. The doctrine 
Luther fighteth against good works.  of works is necessarily the doctrine of devils. Postilla in Natali Christi. ib. Good works are a cover of filthiness and hypocrisy. Et Serm. de Novo testamento seu de Missa: Let us beware 
Bewareth of good works.  of sin, but much more of good works and laws, and let us attend to God's promise and faith.  
Ministri Electorales in Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 286. have these words: Gallus affirmed, that Luther could hardly bear these propositions: Good works are necessary: A Christian ought 
A Christian ought not do do good works.  to do good works. Et p. 128. Gallus, Otto, and many other men do openly and bitterly reject as false and improper this speech: Good works are necessary; and deny, that Christians ought to do good works.  
Liber Concordiae c. 4. Some have disputed, that good works 
Good works are free.  are not necessary, but free and voluntary. And some have earnestly contended, that new obedience is not necessary in the justified.  
Melancthon in Resp. ad Art. 24. Bavar. to. 4. Some (Protestants) 
New obedience not due.  deny this proposition: New obedience is due: because it is voluntary.  
Illyricus apud Schiusselburg. to. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 271. condemneth Mayor, because he teacheth, Good works are necessary to salvation, by reason of debt. Et in Apologia. count. 
No debt.  Tiletan. c. 6. All the obedience which Christ properly requireth of those that are to be saved, is only to believe in him, and to run to free banquets, to which we are invited of him.  
Pareus l. 4. the justific. c. 1. confesseth, that this is the doctrine 
Good works pertain not to the kingdom of Christ. Belong to Satan. We must pray to have no good works.  of the rigid. Lutherans: Good works and new obedience pertain not to the kingdom of Christ but to the world: Christians with their good works belong to Satan; good works are so fare from being necessary, as that they hinder salvation and be pernicious: We ought to pray God, that we persevere to the end in faith without all good works. And the same speeches of theirs are repeated out of Colloq. Aldeburg by Coccius to. 1. p. 1113.  
Zuinglius l. de Relig. c. de Merito: The Prophets do vehemently urge to good works; but whom? those that believe not well.  
Caluin in joan. 6. v. 29. This alone doth God ask of us, that 
God requireth only faith.  we believe.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that we ought to do the works which are commanded us, that we ought to walk as Christ walked, that we ought to give our lives for our brethren, that we ought to love one an other. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that a Christian ought not to do good works: that good works are indifferent, free, voluntary, not necessary; and compel no more: that a Christian is indifferent to all good works, not tied to do good works: that good works are not necessary in nature of debt, new obience not due: that all the obedience which God requireth of us, is to believe: that he requireth nothing of us but to believe, this only that we believe: that only those who believe not well are to be urged to good works; that we own to God nothing but faith, and that in all other things God hath left us free to follow our own will: that good works pertain not to the kingdom of Christ, but of the world: that Christians with good works belong to the Devil: that we must pray to persevere without good works: That when the Scripture biddeth us do works, we must understand that it forbiddeth us to do them.    

ART. XIX. WHETHER GOOD WORKS may be done for rewards?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Psal. 118. v 112. I have inclined my hart to do thy justification 
David did good for reward. And Moses.  For ever, for reward.  
Hebr. 11. vers. 26. By faith, Moses being made great, denied himself to be the son of pharao's daughter, rather choosing to afflicted with the people of God, then etc. For he looked unto the remuneration. c. 12. v. 2. looking upon the author of faith and 
And Christ.  consummatour jesus, who, joy being proposed unto him, sustained the cross, contemning confusion.  
1. Corinth. 9 vers. 25. And every one that striveth for 
We strive for an incorruptible crown.  the mastery, refraineth himself from all things: and they certes that they may receive a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible.  
Philippens. 3. v. 13. Stretching forth myself to those that are 
For a prize.  before; I pursue the mark, to the prize of the supernal vocation of God in Christ jesus.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Session. 6. cap. 11. It is manifest, that they are contrary to the doctrine of true religion, who say that the just sin in all their works, if stirring up their sloth, and encorraging themselves to run their race, in them, with this especially that God be glorified, they do also look wnto eternal reward.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Tindal in Fox his Acts p. 1144. They that for fear of hell 
Not for joys of heaven.  or for the joys of heaven do serve God, do a constrained service, which God will not have.  
Luther de libert. Christiana to. 2. f. 10 If thou pray at all, 
Not for eternal profit.  fast etc. beware thou dost it not for that end that thou m●est reap any temporal or eternal profit. Deseruo arb. f. 453 Yea 
Nor for the kingdom of heaven.  if they did good for to obtain the kingdom, they should never obtain it, and should belong rather to the impious, who with a naughty and mercenary eye seek those things even in God which are for themselves. Postilla in Dom. 9 post Trinit. Good 
Not for eternal life.  works are not to be done for the cause of eternal life. Again: All good works must be done altogether freely, and no fruit or profit must be sought by them. How can we do any thing for obtaining the inheritance, which already we possess by faith? And 
Not for the prize.  in Festo Om. Sanctorum. We must not exercise piety for this cause, that we may get the prize. The like he hath Serm. in Hebr. 11. tom. 7.  
Vrbanus Regius in locis come. tom. 1. fol. 359. sayeth that good works are not to be done, for any respect of merit or reward. 
Not for reward.   
Apologia Confess. Augustan. c. 20. Paul with his whole speech condemneth all works, if they be done, that for them we may obtain life everlasting. 
Not for life everlasting.    

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that we may do good for reward, for remuneration, for joy, for an incorruptible crown, for a prize. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that we may not do good for any eternal profit, not for the kingdom of heaven, not for the joys of heaven, not for eternal life, not to obtain the inheritance, not for the prize, not for respect of reward.    

ART. XX. WHETHER GOOD WORKS be to be done for the glory of God?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Cor. 10. v. 31. Whether you eat or drink, or do any other 
All works to be done for God's glory.  thing, do all things unto the glory of God.  
Matthew 5. v. ●5. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your father which is in heaven.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent cited in the former article: Works are to be done especially that God be glorified.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Confessio Argentinensis. cap. 6. Nothing is to be reckoned 
Nothing is the duty of a Christian but what is profitable to others.  among the duties of a Christian man, but that which is somewhat profitable to our neighbour. The same hath Bucer in Math. 5.  
Luther de libertat. Christian. to. 2. fol. 9 A Christian in all his works ought to be imbued with this opinion, and only look to this, that he serve and profit others in all things he doth, 
Hath nothing before his eyes but the profit of others.  having nothing before his eyes, but the necessity and commodity of his neighbour. Fol. 10. What work soever is not directed to this only end, that it be done either to chastise the body, or to-pleasure our neighbour, (so that he ask nothing against God) is not good nor Christian. lib. de votis fol. 280. A faithful conscience doth apprehend and teach, that his good works are 
Doth good only for the profit of others. Before God we must cease from works. Good works not to be directed to God. No good work but what is profitable to man.  to be done freely only for the profit of his neighbour, and to exercise the body.  
In 1. Petri 1. to. 5. fol. 449. In God's sight we must cease from works, but towards our neighbour we must be diligent at them. Postilla in Dom. 4. post Trinitat. fol. 289. Works are to be directed to man only, and not to God. In Natali Dom. f. 56. after he had said, that reason can not find out his doctrine, he putteth this example thereof: Who could think with himself, that there are no good works, but such as are profitable to our neighbour, or are referred to this end? In Dom. 14. fol. 319. Those only are good works, which serve and profit our neighbour. Nether it is to be marvelled, if they teach, that good works are not to be done for God's glory, seeing (as before is showed) they teach, that God is neither worshipped nor delighted with them, that in his sight they be stenches, dung, mere iniquity, and sin.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly biddeth, us to do all our works for the glory of God, that God may be glorified with them. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that in doing good works we must only look to this, have this only before our eyes, that we profit our neighbour: that every good work is to be directed only for chastizment of our body or profit of our neighbour: that it is not among the duties of a Christian man, which profiteth not our neighbour: that before God we must cease from works: that our works are to be directed to man only, and not to God. Which sometimes Protestants themselves confess to be contrary to Scripture. See l. 2. c. 30.    

THE SUM OF THIS CHAPTER OF GOOD works in general.  
The things which we have rehearsed in this chapter, do clearly show, that Protestants teach fare otherwise of of good works than Scripture doth. For the holy Scripture, and Catholics with it, teacheth, that good works of the just are not sins, are a sweet savour before God, are entirely good, are just or injust, worthy, meritorious, unequal, not all commanded of God, profitable and necessary to justification and salvation, cause of salvation, testimony of justice and election, a cause why God loveth us: that we ought to do good works, and for God's glory, and that we may also do them partly for reward. All which are denied of Protestants.  
They also show, that in this matter of good works 
What Protest. steal from ghost works.  (if in any whatsoever) Protestants play the thiefs and steal. For from the works of sins they steal all goodness; And from the works of the just they steal entire goodness, true goodness, true justice, sweetness, worth and merit before God, who judgeth of them as they are indeed. They steal away also their necessity and utility of justifying and saving, their causality of salvation o● of God's love towards us, their force of testifying justification or election, our obligation to do them, and the end for which they are to be done, to wit, reward and God's glory. And consequently they take out of the world, all true virtue or justice, and the sweetness thereof, and also the worth, the commodity, the efficacity, the testification, and end: and in their steed bring in mere sins, mere iniquities, stenches, dung, unpleasant to God, unworthy of God, and unprofitable to us, yea hurthfull and pernicious. And yet these men take it in evil part to be called enemies of good works, or that they speak contemptuously of them. But how (I pray you) can they speak more contemptuously of good works, they 
Protest. enemies of good works.  callling them, ill, sins, mere sins, mere iniquities, mere pollutions, stenches, and dung in the sight of God, who judgeth no otherwise of them then they are indeed? Or how can they be greater enemies of good works, then by taking away or denying that there are any true good works in the world, and by putting in their places their quite contraries, that is evil works, and sins? And hitherto of good works in general: Now of them in par-particular.    

CHAPTER XIV. OF GOOD WORKS IN PARTICULAR.  

ART. I. WHETHER IT BE GOOD not to marry?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
CORINT. 1. cap. 7. vers. 8. But I say to the unmarried 
Good, to abide unmarried.  and to woddows: it is good for them, if they so abide, as I also. And vers. 1. It is good for a man not to touch a woman. vers. 26. It is good for a 
Not no touch a woman.  man so to be.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Monachis. cap. 9 Paul absolutely pronounceth, that it is good not to touch a woman.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Caluin in 1. Cor 7. v. 1. The Lord calleth it evil to want a 
Ill to want a wife.  wife. In Gen. 2. v. 18. Maniethimke, that single life is good for them, and therefore lest they should be miserable they abstain 
A wicked. suggestion of Satan.  from marriage. But let the faithful learne to oppose this sentence of God against the, wicked suggestions of Satan.  
Peter Martyr in thesibus. p. 1002. It is not good for a man 
Not honest to be single.  to be single, for it is not pleasant, not honest, not profitable.  
And hereupon they condemn the vow of chastity or single life.  
Luther de votis to. 2. fol. 273. Vowed chastity is quite contrary 
Vow of chastity, contrary to the Gospel. Imptous.  to the Gospel.  
Zuinglius de Relig. c. de votis. All vows of chastity are impious.  
Caluin in Refutat. Cathalani prg. 384. The vow of single life, is a rebellion against God.  
Perkins in Galat 2. tom. 2. The vows of perpetual countinencie, poverty, and regular obedience, are indeed the state of abomination.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that it is good to abide single, and not to touch a woman. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that it is evil to want a wife, that it is a wicked suggestion of Satan to abstain from marriage, that it is not good to be single: and that the vow of chastity or single life, is nought.    

ART. II. WHETHER VIRGINITY BE a virtue, or a good that is honest.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Cor. 7. v. 35 after the Apostle had exhorted to virginity 
Virginity is honest or virtuous.  and single life, he sayeth: And this I speak to your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but to that which is honest, and that may give you power without impediment to pray our Lord.  
Et v. 34. And the woman unmarried and the virgin thinketh 
Holiness in body and spirit. Better than marriage. More blessed.  on the things that pertain to our Lord that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. ver 38. He that joineth his virgin in matrimony, doth well; and he that joineth not, doth better. v. 40. But more blessed shals be be, if she so remain.  
Math. 19 v. 12. There are Eunuches, which have gelded themselves 
Desired for heaven.  for the kingdom of heaven.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
S. Thomas 22. q. 152. art. 3. Virginity is a special virtue, having itself to chastity, as magnificence to liberality.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker ad Ration. 8. Campiani: Virginity is not simply 
Virginity is not simply good.  good. Again: Of them who can always keep virginal chastity, virginity is to be desired, not altogether, but for those troubles which ordinarily follow marriage.  
Tindal in Fox his Acts p. 1141. Keeping of virginity and 
Virginity in the religious is devilish. A thing indifferent. It is nothing.  chastity of the religious, is a devilish thing.  
Apologia Confess. Augustanae cap. de votis: Obedience, poverty, single life, are things indifferent.  
Bidenbachius in Consensu jesuit. & Christian. p. 769. We think, that virginity, widowhood, and marriage are nothing.  
Caluin in Math. 19 ver. 12. It is a foolish imagination, that 
No virtue.  single life is a virtue; for of itself it pleaseth God no more then fasting, nor deserves to be reckoned among the duties which he requireth of us. Et de vera reform. p. 321. Nether is virginity praised, as if of itself it were a virtue.  
Beza in Confess. cap. 4. sect. 16. There is a thirde kind of 
Of itself neither good nor bad.  works, which of themselves are neither properly good nor bad. Of this kind is fasting, sobriety, and desire of keeping virginity in those who have the gift of continency. And c. 5. sect. 39 Nether virginity nor marriage we reckon amongst those things, which simply and of themselues make us better and more grateful to God.  
Daneus Contr. 5. p. 1045. Virginity is no virtue, but a thing 
No virtue.  indifferent. And generally all Protestants when the Apostle calleth virginity, good, in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will not have him understood of a good that is honest or virtuous, but only of a good that is profitable.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that virginity is honest: that it is a holiness in body and soul: that it is better and happier than marriage: and that it is to be desired for the kingdom of heaven. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants plainly say, that virginity is a thing indifferent, is nothing, not simply good, not good of it nature, not of itself a virtue, not simply good, not a virtue, not wholly to be desired, not required of God, and in the religious, a devilish thing.    

ART. III. WHETHER THE STATE OF virginity be better than the state of marriage?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Cor. 7. v. 38. He that joineth his virgin in matrimony doth 
Virginity better than marriage.  well, and he that toyneth not, doth better. ver. 40. More blessed shall she be, if she so remain.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 24. Can. 10. If any shall say, that it is not better and happier to abide in virginity or single life, then to marry; be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker ad Ration. 8. Campiani: Virginity is never better 
Not better.  than marriage, but in some sort; Marriage is often times simply better than virginity.  
Willet Controvers 15. quaest. 5. pag. 806. Virginity is 
Not more holy.  not a more holy and clean thing in itself then marriage is: before God in themselves neither is more holy than either.  
Confessio Witten bergensis C. de votis: We must not think, 
Not more excellent.  that this kind of (single) life, is of self before the judgement seat of God more excellent and more holy than marriage.  
Luther Serm de Matrimonio to. 5. f. 126. Single life in it 
Much more baste thou marriage. Marriage a most divine state.  self is much more base than marriage. And fol. 124. he calleth marriage a divine life, & in 1. Cor. 7. f. 107. the highest religion and most spiritual state, & 107. truly heavenly, spiritual, and divine state, if it be compared with this spiritual state. Again: We conclude, that marriage is like gold, and this spiritual state, dung. In Genes. 2. to. 6. fol. 26. To beget children, is after preaching 
To get children is the chiefest work  of the word of God, the chiefest work. And in c. 21. fol. 257. Married men's life consisteth in the highest degree of spiritual life.  
Vrbanus Regius in locis to. 1. f. 345. Preaching of the word 
Virginity in itself base than marriage.  of God maketh the state of virginity better than marriage by reason of greater impediments, which yet in itself is base.  
Bindebachius in Consensu cit. p. 799. If you consider these kinds of life (virginity and marriage) by themselves they are indifferent, and before God neither is more holy than the other.  
Caluin in 1. Cor. 7. v. 35. Here thou hast two things worth noting: The one is, to what end single life is to be desired, to wit, not for itself, nor because it is a perfiter state. In like manner Beza upon the same place.  
Serranus count. Hayum part. 3. p. 159. If marriage be the 
Nothing better than mar-marriage.  seminary of mankind if the ornament, if the stay, as all the Politicians ever taught, can there be any thing better or more excellent in life then marriage.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that virginity is better and more happy than marriage. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that virginity is not a perfecter state them marriage; not more holy, not more excellent: that it is base than marriage, much base: that marriage is the high●●● religion, most spiritual state, and that in this life nothing is better or more excellent than marriage. What religion (I pray you) have these men, whose chief religion and most spiritual state, is marriage, and who account nothing in this life better than marriage, & to beget children the chiefest work beside preaching?    

ART. iv WHETHER GOD WOULD have men to live single?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Cor. 7. v. 7. I would all men to be as myself. Et v. 27. Art 
God exhorteth all to single life.  thou lose from a wife, seek not a wife.  
Math. 19 v. 12 He that can take, let him take.  
Apocalips'. 14. v. 4. These are they which were not defiled with women. For they are virgins. These follow the lamb whether soever he shall go.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in 1. Corinth. 7. vers. 8. The Spirit of God by the mouth of the Apostle exhorteth to constant virginity and single life.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther in Disput. to. 1. f. 383. The word: Increase and multiply, 
All commanded to increase.  is naturally engrafted and necessarily imposed generally upon all that are men. De votis to. 2. f. 272. Plainly Christ did not counsel (virginity) but rather discouraged. In 1. Cor▪ 7. to. 5. f. 105. Paul will have universally all to be married. Serm. de Matrimonio 
S. Paul will have all married.  f. 119. Increase and multiply, is not a precept, but more than a precept. He is a bawd, that flieth marriage. Epistola in Wofgangum. to. 7. f. 505. God pronounceth the sentence, that he will 
God will have none unmarried.  have none to be unmarried, but multiply. He that will live unmarried, plainly fighteth against God— To take a wife, and to eat and drink, both alike are enforced by necessity, and God commandeth a like both to be done. Et Epistol. ad Equites Teuto. 2. 
To marry, as necessary as to eat or drink. Church men commanded to marry. Priests commanded to marry.  Germ. jenen. fol. 214. The word of God commandeth Church men to marry wives.  
Confessio Augustana c. de Coniugio: Paul sayeth that such a one is be chosen Bishop, as is a husband. Et Apologia eiusdem cap. 15. They bid ws show a precept which commandeth Priests to marry, as if Priests were not men.  
Melancthon Resp. ad Acta Ratisbon. to. 4. Paul will have a Priest to be married.  
Zuinglius in Paraenesi ad Heluetoes to. 1. f. 114. The holy 
Ministers commanded to marry. And Bishops  Scripture is so fare from forbidding Ministers of the Church to marry, that it commandeth it more than once. fol. 115. When they hear Paul in so express words commanding that a Bishop be married to a wife, etc.  
Bullinger in 1. Timoth. 3. A Bishop is minister of the word: but he must be husband of a wife, in that he is a Bishop, and must commend holy marriage to others and terrify them from fornication.  
Caluin in 1. Cor. 7. v. 25. Seeing the Scripture sayeth Genes. 2. that male and female were created together, it seemeth equally 
Single life not commended to any.  and without exception it calleth all to marriage, at least single life is not commanded or commended to any. In 4. Instit. c. 12 §. 24. Paul reckoneth marriage amongst the virtues of a Bishop. Et c. 13. § 3. This is indeed to tempt God, to strive against nature which 
To strive against his flesh is to tempt God. Desire of virginity accursed of God.  he hath given, and to despise his present gifts as if they belonged not to us.  
Sadeel ad Artic. 53. abiurat. This so great affectation of virginity and single life, which God at last did accurse, was so ●suall with the Fathers, as etc.  
Zanchius in Thesibus to. 8. It is against God's commandment, that a young man who hath need of marriage, should remain unmarried: and simply that a woman should be wnmarried.  
Whitaker Controvers 2. quaest. 5. cap. 7. When Bellarmin had said: Vigilantius taught that Church men ought to be married: answereth. If vigilantius meant the lawful marriage of Pastors, he was in the right.  
Tindal in Fox his Acts p. 1139. A priest must have a wife for two causes. The one etc.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth: that God by the mouth of the Apostle would have all men to be a he was, that is, unmarried: that such as were unmarried he exhorted, to remain so: that Christ exhorted all to single life who could take it; that in heaven there is a special reward for virgins. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that Paul would have all men to be married, would have a Priest or Bishop to be married, that Christ terrifieth men from virginity: that God will have no man unmarried: that he as much commandeth to marry as to eat or drink: that to increase and multiply is more than a precept: that God hath accursed the affectation of virginity: that single life is commended to none. And thus much of virginity.    

ART. V WHETHER FASTING BE A virtue or worship or service of God?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Luc. 2. v. 37. Who departed not from the temple, by fastings 
Fasting is service of God.  and prayers serving night and day.  
Math. 6. ver. 17. When thou dost fast, anoint thy head, and wash thy face, that thou appear not to men to fast, but to thy Father who is in secret: and thy Father who seethe in secret, will 
Rewarded of God.  repay the.  
Math. 4. ver. 15. But the days will come, when the kingdom shallbe taken away from them, and then they shall fast.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Lucae 2. vers. 37. This place teacheth, that fasting belongeth to the service of God, as prayers do.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins in Cathol. reform. Contr. 6. pag. 132. Fasting is a 
Fasting of th' same nature that eating is. Helpeth nothing to heaven. Profiteth nothing. Mens fasting no better than beasts  thing indifferent, of the same nature with eating and drinking, and of itself conferreth nothing to the obtaining of the kingdom of heaven, no more than eating and drinking doth.  
Humphrey ad Ration. 3. Campiani p. 263. We grant, that it is true which Sanders sayeth of the jovinianists and our men: That fasting, or abstinence from certain meats profit nothing.  
Luther in jonae 3. to. 3 fol. 422. God esteemeth as much the fastings and haireclothes of beasts as of men, and contrariwise. What cares God for sackcloth, fasting and haircloth?  
Caluin in Math. 16. v. 18. Fasting of itself is an indifferent 
A thing indifferent not required of God. No service of God.  thing, not of those kind of things which God requireth and approveth. In c. 4. ver. 1. In that they persuade themselves, that fasting is a meritorious work, and a part of piety or of God's service, it is a naughty superstition. In Act. 14. v. 23. Let us not put any service of God in fasting, seeing that of itself it is nothing nor is of account with God, but as it is referred to an other end. In 
Of no moment.  Instit. l 4. c. 12. § 16. Nether doth Luke put any service of God in f●sting.— Of itself it is of no moment. c. 19 We must take great heed, that fasting be not accounted a kind of God's service.  
Beza in Confess c. 5. sect. 40. We commend not true fasts as a kind of God's service.  
Peter Martyr in locis loco 10 §. 23. There is an other abuse, 
No service of God.  that there be some who attribute holiness to fasting, as if there were any service of God in it: Whereas indeed fasting is only an exercise, which of itself hath no sanctity.  
Pareus in Collegio Theol. 1. disput. 18. Fasting of it nature 
No virtue.  is no moral virtue. For temperance is a moral virtue, not because it abstaineth from meat or drink, but because it moderately useth meat and drink.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that S. Anne did serve God by fasting and prayer: that God rewardeth those that fast that Christ will have his to fast. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that fasting is no part or kind of God's service: that it is an indifferent thing of the same nature that eating: that it conferreth nothing to get heaven, that it is nothing, is only an exercise: that God maketh no more account of men's fastings then of beasts: that God requireth it not, nor approveth it.    

ART. VI WHETHER FASTING BE A preservative against the Devil?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 17. v. 21. But this kind (of Devils) is not cast out but 
Some devils cast out by fasting.  by prayer and fasting.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Stapleton in Matthew. 17. ver. 28. Prayer and fasting must be added as a most sovereign antidote to drive away these kind of Devils.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Caluin in Math. 17. ver. 21. cit. The ridiculous Papists make 
No Devils cast out by fasting.  fasting an antidote to drive away devils.  
Illyricus in Clavae part. 2. tractat. 6. col. 535 thus expoundeth the foresaied words of Scripture: This kind etc. that is, they cannot be cast out, but by earnest prayer proceeding of earnest repentant and penitent hart; and so he giveth no virtue to fasting.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that certain Devils are not cast out but by fasting and prayer. The same say Catholics. Protestants plainly say, that it is ridiculous to make fasting an antidote against Devils.    

ART. VII. WHETHER CHOICE OF meats be lawful or virtuous?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Daniel 10. v. 3. In those days I Daniel mourned the days of 
Daniel used choice of meats.  three weeks, desiderable bread I did not eat, and flesh and wine entered not into my mouth.  
Math. 3. v. 4. And his (S. Ihons) meat was locusts and wild 
And S. John baptist.  honey: Luc. 1. v. 15. And wine and sicer he shall not drink. c. 7. ver. 33. For John baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine. The like is said of the mother of Samson judic 13, v. 4. and of the Rechabits Hieremie. 35.  
Rom. 14. v. 21. It is good not to eat flesh, and not to drink 
Good, not to eat flesh or drink wine.  wine, nor that wherein thy brother is offended or scandalised or weakened,   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm de bonis operibus in part. l. 2. c. 7. If jonadab could for ever forbid his children and nephews wine, and both his commandment and their obedience pleased God, why cannot our mother the Church forbid her children some meats for a time, so that both the Church's precept and our obedience please God.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker ad Ration. 9 Campiani: It is madness, to have 
Madness, to use choice of meats for religion. Foolish and wicked. No service of God.  any choice of meats for religion sake.  
Perkins in Cathol. Contr. 12. cap. 2. We hold this distinction of meats both to be foolish and wicked.  
Confessio Argentinensis c. 9 We have omitted that choice of meat which was commanded upon certain days which Saint Paul attributeth to the doctrine of Devils.  
Caluin in Luc. 1. v. 15. We must not imagine a service of God 
No service of God. Fond superstition.  in o●stayning from wine.  
Beza in Confess. cap. 5. sect. 41. This choice of meats, which some make a service of God, we doubt not with the Apostle to call a devilish and most fond superstition.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Daniel many days abstained from fle●h, wine, and desiderable bread: that S. John baptist neither eat bread, nor drunk wine or sicer that it is good not to eat flesh nor to drink wine. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say, that the choice of meats is superstitious, foolish, madness, wicked and devilish doctrine: that there is no service of God in abstinence from wine. And thus much of Fasting.    

ART. VIII. WHETHER IT BE LAWFUL to pray for all?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Timoth. 2. vers. 1. I desire therefore first of all things, that 
We must pray for all men.  obsecrations, prayers, postulations, thanks givings, be made for all men.  
Exod. 32. v. 32. Moses thus prayeth for the idolatrous people: 
Moses' prayed for all.  Ether forgive this trespass, or if thou do not, strike me out of the book that thou hast written.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Septem verbis Dom. c. 1. sayeth that Christ upon the cross prayed for Pilate, and the chief Priests, Scribes, and people of the jews.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Rainolds in Apologia thesium. p. 245. Nether must we pray 
We must not pray for every one.  for every one. For we are forbidden to pray for them that sin to death. Wherefore where we are bidden to pray for all the world: All, designeth all kinds, not all of every kind.  
Beza in joan. 5. ver. 16. Hereof it followeth, that no sins 
Not for reprobates.  are venial to the reprobates, and therefore we must not make prayers for the sins of the reprobates.  
Daneus in orat. Dom. p. 593. sayeth that: Thy will be done, belongeth not properly to reprobates, as if we prayed God that they quietly and willingly submit themselves to God and do and execute his will, out of their heart, faithfully and obediently.  
Piscator in Thesibus lib. 3. loco 11. We ought to pray for all 
Nor for those that sin to death.  that are alive, they only excepted, whom we see do sin to death. The same also sayeth Bucanus in Instir. loco. 17. to which he addeth loco 37. that a man must not pray for the obdurated, or those that sin against the Holy Ghost.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that we must pray for all, and that Moses prayed for the idolatrous people amongst whom many were reprobates. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that we must not pray for all, not for reprobates, not for those that sin to death, not for the indurated, not for those that sin 'gainst the Holy Ghost.    

ART. IX. WHETHER IT BE LAWFUL to pray for the dead?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
2. Mach. 12. vers. 43. And (judas) making a gathering, sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver, to Jerusalem, for sacrifice to be offered the for sins of the dead. Et ver. 16. It is therefore a 
A holy thing to pray for the dead.  holy and healthful cogitation to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent. Sess. 25. c. 1. The Catholic Church teacheth, that the souls detained in Purgatory are helped by the suffrages of the faithful.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
jewel art. 18. sect. 3. p. 433. This kind of prayer (for the dead) 
It is superstitions.  is mere superstitious, and utterly without warrant of God's word.  
Confessio Seotica generalis: We detest his (Popes) prayers 
Detestable.  for the dead.  
Caluin Epistola 366. That form of prayer: God give the 
One may wish well to the dead but not pray.  dead a good and happy resurrection, because it is not fitting to the rule of good prayer, is to be rejected: yet I do not deny, but that one may make such a wish.  
Brentius in Dom. 12. post Trinit. Albeit we may wish all happiness to the dead, yet prayer for them is vain.  
Confessio Witten bergen. c. de Memoria de functorum. Charity requireth, that we wish all rest and happiness in Christ unto the dead: But there is no testimony of Prophetical and Apostolic doctrine, that they be helped by our prayers.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the people of God under the law offered sacrifices for the dead, which Caluin also confesseth 3. Instit. c. 5. §. 8. and that it is a holy and healthful thing to pray for them that they be loosed from their sins. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that it is lawful to wish good to the dead, but that to pray for them is vain, superstitious, and detestable. And yet Luther Serm. de de Divite & Lazaro to. 7. f. 268. de Captivit. Babylon. f 72. and count. Catharin. f. 151. Et in Hospin. Concordia discor. f. 225. Apologia Confess. Augustan. c. de vocabulis Missae. Agenda, Anglica apud Bucerum p. 427. 449. Zuinglius art. 60. Vrbanus Regius and others, allow praying for the dead.    

ART. X. WHETHER IT BE LAWFUL to pray for that which God hath not promised?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 26. ver. 39 Christ thus prayeth: My Father, if it be 
Christ prayed for that which was not promised to him. And S. Paul. And Abraham and David.  possible, let this chalice pass from me.  
2. Cor. 12. vers. 8. For the which thing thrice I besought our Lord, that it might depart from me, and he said to me: My grace sufficeth the. In like sort Abraham prayed for Sodom Gen. 18. David for the life of his child 2. Kings 12. & Hieremie for the saving of Jerusalem Hier. 32. and yet had no promise of that for which they prayed.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. de bonis operibus c. 9 Sometime the prayer is meritorious and not impetratorious, as when a just man of charity asketh that which perhaps is not expedient for him, as when S. Paul prayed thrice that the prick of the flesh might be taken from him— In prayer is not required faith wherewith we certainly believe that absolutely God will do that which we ask.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins reform. Cathol. Contr. 4. pag. 79. That which we are to ask God in prayer, we must believe it shall be given us as we ask it.— It is a rule of God's word requiring that in every petition we bring a particular faith whereby we believe, that the thing lawfully asked shallbe given accordingly.  
Tindal in Fox his Acts pag. 1139. To ask of God more than he hath promised, cometh of a false faith, and is plain idolatry. 
Idolatry, to pray for more than God hath promised   
Melancthon in Disput. to. 4. p. 487. As often as thou callest upon God in any business, first of all think certainly that thy prayers are heard for the Son of God. Unless this faith go before, thy prayer is vain. ib. p. 555. Let faith assure us, that our 
Prayer for corporal goods ever heard. Every good man assured to be heard. No prayer to be made with out God's promise.  prayer for corporal goods is heard, and never frustrate.  
Illyricus in Marci 5. v. 28. Every godly man in praying persuadeth himself by the word and promise of God, that in his petition he is heard, no less then if he heard God answering with a clear voice, that he had heard him.  
Luther Postilla in Dom. 5. post Phasca fol. 261. Who pray without a promise of God, they imagine that God is angry with them, whom by prayers they endeavour to appease.— There God heareth not, and our praeier and labour is lost.  
Daneus in Exam. Kemnitij c. 29. We ought to ask nothing 
Nothing to be asked but what is promised.  of God, but what he hath promised.  
Caluin in jacobi 1. v. 6. As we cannot pray, but the word must go before, so must we believe before we pray. For by praying we testify, that we hope for the grace which he hath promise.— Wherefore it is faith which relying upon God's promise, assureth us to obtain that which we ask.— This is a notable place, for to refute that doctrine of Popery, to wit, that we must pray with doubt and uncertain opinion of success. The like he hath. 3. Instit. c. 20. §. 15.  
Confession of Saxony cap. 22. The prayer which is without faith, that is, where a man assureth not himself that God alloweth and heareth his prayer, is vain.  
Apologia Confessio. Augustanae cap. de Tradition. Of our prayer we must be assured, that it is effectual, that it is heard.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Christ prayed for the taking away the cup of his passion; S. Paul for taking away the prick oh the flesh; Abraham for Sodom, and the like; and yet they had no promise nor particular faith, that they should obtain those things. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say, that it is lost labour and idolatry, to pray for any thing which God hath not promised: that we ought not to pray for any thing which God hath not promised.    

ART. XI. WHETHER ANY OBTAIN some thing of God for his own or his prayers worth?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. joan. 3. vers. 21. If our hart do not reprehend us we have 
We obtain because we keep the commandments. Good heareth the just.  confidence toward God, and whatsoever we shall ask, we shall receive of him, because we keep his commandments.  
1. Peter 3. v. 12. The eyes of our Lord are upon the just and his ears unto their prayers.  
james 5. vers. 16. The continual prayer of a just man availeth much.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. lib. 1. de bonis operibus c. 9 Scripture in diverse places witnesseth, that justice is required in him that prayeth for to obtain assuredly.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther Postilla in Dom. 5. post Pascha fol. 263. Whence 
None heard for his worthiness.  it followeth, that none receiveth any thing of God for his own worth or the worth of his prayer. Thy worthiness doth not help thee, thy unworthiness doth not hinder thee. Of the same opinion are other Protestants, who deny that there is any worth in us or in our works.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that a good conscience breedeth confidence in God: that they who keep Gods commandments receive what they ask: that God's ears are unto the prayers of the just; that a just man's prayer availeth much. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say, that the worthiness of him that prayeth, profiteth nothing: that no man obtaineth any thing of God for his own or his prayer worthiness.    

ART. XII. WHETHER IT BE LAWFUL to pray publicly in the Church in an unknown tongue?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Cor. 14. ver. 17. the Apostle thus sayeth of one that publicly prayed in the Church in an unknown tongue: For 
Praying in a strange tongue is good.  thou indeed givest thanks well.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in 1. Corint. 14. v. 17. The Apostle condemneth not, but approveth prayer in an unknown tongue.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Scotica Confessio generally: We detest his (Popes) prayers 
It is detestable.  in an unknown tongue. The like hath Confess. Austria art. 14. & Heluet. c. 22.  
jewel art. 3. sect. 1. sayeth, that it is not only repugnant to the 
Repugnant to Scripture and common sense.  Scriptures of God, but also contrary to the sense of nature.  
Caluin 3. Instit. cap. 20. §. 33. Who can sufficiently wonder at the unbridled licence of the Papists, who fear not to roar out their prayers in an unknown tongue?  
Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 14. vers. 17. The Apostle in this his saying doth not approve the action. But sayeth. Thou givest thanks well, because the words uttered by thee, being of the Holy Ghost, cannot but have a good sense. Et in ver. 14. The idiots are reprehended, 
Praying in Latin, is reprehended. Not to be suffered.  who pray in Latin, Pater noster.  
Aretius' in locis part. 3. fol. 21. It is manifest, that a strange tongue is not to be suffered in Christ's Church.  
Beza in Respons. ad Acta Colloq. Montibel. part. 2. p. 26. Doth not the Apostle in express words forbid to pray in a 
Forbidden.  tongue which is not understood of those that are present?   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that he who prayeth in the Church in a strange tongue, giveth thanks well: The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that such kind of prayer is to be condemned, and expressly forbidden of the Apostle.    

ART. XIII. WHETHER WE BE COMmanded to say our Lord's prayer?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Luc. 11. ver. 1. & 2. One of his disciples said to him: Lord teach 
We are commanded to say our Lord's prayer.  us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And he said to them: when you pray say: Father etc.  
Math. 6. vers. 9 Thus therefore you shall pray: Our Father etc.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de bonis operibus cap. 4. Our Lord's prayer excelleth all other forms of prayer, in authovitie, brevity, perfection, order, efficacy, necessity.— In necessity, because there is no other form of prayer which all Christians in the very words are commanded to keep and use but this.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Bucer in Mat 6. Note, pray in this manner, not these words, 
Not commanded.  as the common people hitherto was foolishly persuaded, thinking that they had prayed well, when they had mumbled up these words— Nether are we here taught in what words we should pray, but what we ought to ask with hearty desire.  
Caluin in Math. 6. v 9 Christ biddeth not his disciples pray in these words, but only showeth them whither they ought to refer all their desires and prayers.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Christ commanded that when we pray we say: Our father. The same say Catholics.  
Protestant's expressly say, that Christ taught us not to say these words, that he taught not what words we should pray withal: that it is a foolish persuasion to think that the recital of our our Lord's prayer, were a good prayer. Which is so contrary to Scripture as some Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. XIV. WHETHER IT BE LAWFUL to vow any thing to God?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Psal. 75. v. 12. Vow ye, and render to our Lord, your God. 
Lawful, to vow.   
isaiah 19 v. 21. it is said of the time of Gospel: And they shall vow vows to our Lord, and pay them.  
Eccles. 5. vers. 3. If thou hast vowed any thing to God, differre not to pay it. But whatsoever thou hast vowed, pay it.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Monachis. c. 17. Vows have never ceased in Christ's Church since the promulgation of the Gospel.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Tindal in Fox his Acts p. 1138. Vows are against the ordinance 
Unlawful.  of God. Which Fox there mantaineth.  
Luther de Ratione Confitendi to. 2. fo. 28. I for my part could wish, that there were no vows at all among Christians besides these which which we made in baptism. De Captivit. Babylon. fol. 77. One thing here I add, which I would that I could persuade all men, that is, that all vows whatsoever were taken away and avoided. fol. 78. It is not a little contrary to Christian 
Contrary to Christian life.  life, that a vow is a certain ceremonial law, a humane tradition or presumption, from which the Church is freed by baptism.  
Vrbanus Regius de Nova & vet. doctrina tom. 2. fol. 26. 
judaical.  That rite of vowing was judaical, and is now abolished as sacrifices are.  
Zuinglius in Explanat. art. 30. I speak of vows in general, 
Contempt of God.  that by Christ they are abolished. To vow, is a curiosity, contempt, and abasing of God, and exaltation of men.— Wherefore 
Sinful.  seeing vows proceed of perfidiousness, and fight against God, they are sins.  
Peter Martyr l. de votis col. 1337. Vows do no more continue, the Gospel being now revealed and brought in. And 1383. 
Become not Christians.  I said indeed and recall not, but make good, that vows do not become Christians.  
Daneus Contr. 5. p. 1020. God no where hath commanded or prescribed that any thing should be vowed unto him.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that Christians shall vow to God, and exhorteth them to vow and to pay their vows. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that vows are against God's ordinance, that they fight against God, proceed of perfidiousness, are sins, nnes, humane presumption, curiosity, contempt of God, and that God never appointed them: that they are abolished, continue no longer, become not Christians, and that it were to be wished, that they were all taken away.    

ART. XV. WHETHER ALMS DELIVER from death and sin?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Tob. 4. v. 11. Alms delivereth from all sin, and from death. 
Alms deliver from sins and death.  c. 12. v. 9 Alms delivereth from death, and that is it which purgeth sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting.  
Luke 11. v. 41. Give alms, and behold all things are clean unto you.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Promptuar. Morali Dom. 1. post. Pentecost. By the liberality of alms we oftentimes avoid the just punishments of sins, and many assaults of the Devil.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Aretius' in locis part. 1. f. 90. Alms delivereth not from temporal 
Nether from temporal nor eternal death. Not from sin.  death, nor also delivereth from eternal death.  
Confessio Wittenbergens. c. de Eleemosyna: What need had there been of the passion of Christ to blot out sins, if they be blotted out by the merit of alms?  
Apologia Confess. Augustanae c. de Resp. ad argumenta: We will not say that (speech of Toby) is an hyperboll, although it must be so understood, lest it detract from the praises of Christ.  
Vallada in suo Apologia cap. 22. This manner of speech of Toby is hyperbolical.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that alms delivereth from death and sin; The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that it delivereth not either from temporal or eternal death: that if it did deliver from sin, Christ's death had not been needful.    

ART. XVI. WHETHER IT BE LAWFUL to sell all, and give it to the poor?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 19 v. 21. If thou wilt be perfect, go sell all that thou 
Perfect men must give all to the poor.  hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. v. 27. Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee.  
Act. 4. v. 32. Nether did any one say, that aught was his own, of those things which he possessed, but all things were common unto them.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Mathei 19 v. 21. It was the error of Vigilantius, and it is now of Caluin and of all Heretics to deny, that voluntary poverty is a mean and instrument of greater perfection,   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Apologia Confessio. Augustanae. cap. penult. The forsaking 
Forsaking of goods not counselled. A humane tradition. Not Catholic doctrine.  of goods hath no commandment nor counsel in the Scripture. Again: It is a mere humane tradition and unprofitable worship.  
Confessio Wittenbergens. c. de votis: The kind of vowing single l●fe, poverty and obedience agreeth not with the true Catholic doctrine.  
Perkins in reform. Cathol. cap. 8. p. 166. The second is the vow of poverty and monastical life, in which men bestow all 
Against Gods will.  they have on the poor and give themselves wholly and only to prayer and fasting. This vow is against the will of God. The like he hath in Casibus Conscient. col. 1125.  
Morton l. 1. Apologiae c 40. Your doctrine (of giving all) 
Savoureth heresy.  savoureth rather heresy, than religion.  
Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 5 c. 7. Monks and jesuits neither marry 
Is anabaptistical.  wives, nor have any thing proper, but have all things common: But this, to have all things common, is anabaptistical.  
Melancthon in locis tit. de Paupertate: The Gospel neither counseleth nor commandeth to leave our goods, unless they be taken from us, neither counseleth it nor commandeth to make things common.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that to give all to the poor is a mean of perfection: that the Apostles forsake all: and that the first Christians had all things common. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the Scripture counseleth not to forsake our goods: that it is a mere humane tradition: that it agreeth not with true Catholic doctrine; that it rather savoureth heresy then religion: that to have all things common, is anabaptistical.    

ART. XVII. WHETHER PENANCE BE commanded to all?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Act. 17. v. 30. God now denounceth unto men, that all every 
Pennance commanded to all  where do penance. c. 20. v. 21. Testifying unto jews and Gentiles penance towards God and faith in our Lord jesus Christ. And 
To jews and Gentiles.  c. 8. v. 22 it is said to Simon Magus. Do penance from this thy wickedness.  
Luc. 24. v. 27. It behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again 
To all nations.  from the dead the third day, and penance to be preached in his name, and remission of sins unto all nations.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 3. the Penitent. cap. 2. Who have committed a mortal sin, are bound by God's law to do penance.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins in Apoc. 2. to. 2. This precept of repentance, is not given 
Pennance not commanded to every one.  severally to every one, but only to the Church of God, or to that people which at last shallbe the Church.  
Caluin de Praedest. pag. 706. God is said to will life, as he 
God willeth not penance to all but by word.  willeth penance. But this he willeth, because by his words he inviteth all to it. And of the same mind are others, who say, that God willeth not the salvation of any but of the elect only, otherwise then by his word; For if indeed he will not have the reprobate do penance, but only in word or show, surely neither doth he command them to do penance, otherwise then in word, and in outward show.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that God denounceth penance to all men every where, to jews and Gentiles, to all Nations, to Simon Magus. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that God commandeth not penance to every one, but only to his Church, or to these who at last shallbe his Church: that he doth not will penance to all but only in word.    

ART. XVIII. WHETHER CHASTISEMENT of the body be a part of penance?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 11. v. 21. Woe be to the Corozain, woe be to thee Bethsaida. For if in Tire and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had done penance in 
Bodily chastizment a part of penance.  haircloth and ashes long ago.  
job. 42. v. 6. I reprehend myself, and do penance in imbers and ashes.  
jonas. 3. v. 6. And he rose up out of his throne, and cast away his garment from him, and was clothed in sackcloth and sat in ashes. And he cried and said in Ninive from the mouth of the King and his Princes, saying: Men and beasts and oxen and cattles, let them not taste any thing nor feed, and let them not drink water. And let men and beasts be covered with sackclothes.  
joel. 2. v. 12. Convert to me in all your heart, in fasting, and in weeping, and in mourning.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Math. 11. erv. 21. It is convinced out of this place, that penance properly consisteth not only in change of life and repentance, but also in penal works.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Willet Contr. 14. q. 1. p. 711. Ashes, sackoth, was no part of 
No part of penance.  repentance, but an outward testification of their inward grief.  
Whitaker Praefat. ad Demonstrat. Sanderi. I said, that penance did not consist in certain external punishments, but in inward grief conceived of the remembrance of sin, and in amendment of life.  
Caluin in Math. 11. ver. 21. Pennance is here described by external 
Christ regardeth notmuch corporal penance.  signs, whereof then there was solemn use in the Church of God: not that Christ insisteth much upon this upon this point, but he accomodateth himself to the capacity of the common people. Et Concione 158. in job: Sackcloth and ashes are only an external sign of penance.  
Beza in Math. 11. v. 21. cit. Which custom (of casting ashes upon themselves) was after word translated to those whom they called Penitents, I wish it had been done with more judgement and better success.  
Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 439. Painful works, are only outward, and oftentimes deceitful and feigned signs of penance. Wherefore they are not parts of true penance.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that penance in sackcloth and ashes is good: that God biddeth us to convert to him in fasting, weeping, and mourning: that the Ninivits did penance in sackcloth and ashes, and job in embers and ashes. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that Christ did not much insist upon sackcloth and ashes: that they are no parts of penance, but only an outward sign thereof: that penance consisteth not in outward punishment: that the custom of casting ashes upon penitents was done without good judgement.    

ART. XIX. WHETHER THE PENANCE of the Ninivites were true?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
jonas 3. v. 10. And God saw their (Ninivites) works, that they were converted from their evil way: and God had mercy on 
Penance of Ninivites, was true.  the evil which he had spoken, that he would do to them, and he did it not. Et ver. 5. And the men of Ninive believed in God, and they proclaimed a fast, etc.  
Math. 12. v. 41. The men of Ninive shall rise in judgement with this generation, and shall condemn it because they did penance at the preaching of jonas.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Catechismus ad Parochos cap. de Paenitentia: There are most clear examples of the Ninivits, of David, of the Penitent woman, of the Apostles: all which imploring the mercy of God with many tears, obtained pardon of their sins.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Beza lib. quaestion. vol. 1. Theol. pag. 674. God approved 
Not true penance.  the penance of the Ninivites, although it was not true penance, but some kind of humiliation under the mighty hand of God.  
Sadeel de vera peccator. remiss. p. 109. It is very absurd to compare those Heathen (Ninivites) strangers from God's covenant, and void of true doctrine, who had heard nothing of the true God, nothing of the M●ssias, with godly men receiving the benefit of Christ with true faith.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth that the Ninivites believed in God, did penance, were converted from their evil way. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that the Ninivits were void of true doctrine, had heard nothing of the true God, and that their penance was not true.    

ART. XX. WHETHER EREMITICAL life be lawful?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Luc. 1. vers. 80. And the child grew and was strenghtned in 
Eremitical life lawful.  spirit, and was in the deserts until the day of his manifestation in Israel.  
Math. 4. v. 1. Then jesus was led of the Spirit into the desert.  
Hebr. 11. v. 38. Wand'ring in deserts, in mountains and dens, and in caves of the earth.  
Marc. 1. ver. 13. And he (jesus) was in the desert forty days 
Christ in the desert with beasts.  and forty nights, and was tempted of Satan, and he was with beasts.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Promptuar. Dom. 2. Aduentus: Our Heretics will not that S. John lived in a desert poperly termed, in a wilderness, in solitude, lest so notable example of his may seem to patronise our Ermits and Anchorets.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
The Magdeburgians Centur. 1. l. 1. cap. 10. Luke reporteth 
Eremitical life, superstitious.  that the child (John) abode in the desert unto the day of his manifestation; which is not to be understood of any den fare from all conversation of men, as if he had lurked there like a bear or a hater of mankind, as afterward Ermits and such kind of men feigned to themselues superstitious religious. Et Cent. 4. c. 10. they writ thus of Ermits: But who will not accurse these monsters of men, as enemies of humane society, and offending against the whole second table?  
Perkins in reformed Cathol. C. 8. p. 168. For time of peace, I see no cause of solitary life.  
Polanus in Disput. privatis disput. 22. Eremitical life, is 
Savage and in humane.  clownish, savage, and fare from civility. The like say other Protestants.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that S. John Baptist was from a child in the desert, that Christ was lead of the Spirit into the desert, and was there forty days and with beasts: that God's Saints wandered in deserts, denns, and caves of the earth. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that eremitical life, is clownish, savage, and superstitious, that Eremits deserve to be accursed, and do sin against the whole second table.    

THE SUM OF THIS CHAPTER OF GOOD works in particular.  
That which we have related in this chapter evidently showeth, that Protestants doctrine of good works in particular is clean contrary to the doctrine of the holy Scripture. For the Scripture together with catholics teacheth, that not to marry is good and counselled of God: that virginity is a virtue, and better than the state of marriage: that fasting is a virtue and worship of God, and an antidote against the Devil, and that choice of meats is lawful: that we may pray for the dead, for all, and for that which God hath not promised, and in strange tongue, and that he that prayeth may be heard for his own or his prayers worth: that it is lawful to sell all, and give to the poor; that alms delivereth from death and sin; that penance is commanded to all: that punishment of the body is a part of penance: All which Protestants deny.  
They show also, that Protestants steal quite away 
Whatvertues Protest. reject.  many particular virtues, and many things also from other virtues which they will seem to leave. For they take quite away the virtues of virginity, of fasting, & vowing: They take from prayer, that it be made for the dead, for all, and for that which God hath not promised: They take from religion the forsaking of goods, from alms the power of delivering from death and sin, and from penance the punishment of the body. And thus much of good works: Now of their contraries, that is, sins.    

CHAPTER XV. OF SIN'S  

ART. I. WHETHER SINS BE IMPUTED to the Elect and Faithful?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
REG. 2. C. 12. V 5. & seq. And David said to Nathan: our Lord liveth, the man that hath done this, is the child of death— And Nathan said to 
Sin was imputed to David.  David: Thou art that man. Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel:— Why therefore hast thou contemned the word of the Lord that thou wouldst do evil in my sight— For which thing the sword shall not depart from thy house for ever because thou hast despised me. The same teach both other places before cited, which say that God is angry and hateth the faithful when they sinne grievously: as also such as teach, that God punisheth them for sins, and that sins are mortal even to the elect faithful: Which we shall cite soon after.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Amiss. Grat. c. 7. If sins do remain with a lively justifying faith in men that are once justified, even by this they are not imputed: neither are they so much venial and to be forgiven, as already forgiven and remitted, neither make they a man guilty of any p●ine or punishment: And there is no man but seethe, how absurd and pernicious this doctrine is.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Wootton in Answer to Popish Articles. p. 92. Sin is 
Sin is remitted before it be committed.  remitted as soon as it is committed, or rather before it be committed, a man once justified having obtained full remission of all sins, past, present, and to come.  
Abbots in Diatribam Tomsonic. 20. That sins be not 
Not imputed to the elect.  imputed to the elect, pertaineth to mercy.  
Luther in Gal. 2. to. 5. f. 229. Because justice & fulfilling of the law is begun by faith, therefore for Christ in whom they believe, the rest of sins and fulfilling of the law is not imputed. In c. 5. f. 420. A beleiver, having sin & sinning, nevertheless remaineth 
Not to the faithful.  godly.— Albeit they have and commit sins, yet let them know that they are not imputed to them through Christ. In c. 8. Isaiae 
Sin maketh not Christians guilty.  to. 4. f. 83. This is Christian liberty, that we may satisfy the law in some part: But where we do not, there it doth not make us guilty, because we have remission of sins.  
Caluin in joan. 5. v. 29. No not sins, whereof the faithful 
Sin not imputed to the faithful.  daily do make themselves guilty, are imputed to them. Et 3. In-Instit. cap. 4. §. 28. he sayeth that the sins of the faithful are venial, because they are not imputed.  
Beza in Epistola dedicator. Resp. ad castle. p. 427. Sins are not imputed to them that believe. Which he repeateth fol. 
Not to the beleivers.  457. & vol. 3. p. 350.  
Zanchius de Perseverant. q. 1. c. 2. This is most certain, that God never imputeth sins to the elect. 
Not to the Elect.   
Pareus l. 4. the justif. c. 1. after he had related these words of Luther: Where faith, is no sin can hurt: addeth, What more true?   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that sin was imputed to David albeit he was faithful and elect. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that sin is not imputed to the faithful, never imputed to the elect, that sin maketh not the faithful guilty, hurteth them not: that a beleiver even sinning remaineth godly: that sin is remitted to him even before it be committed.    

ART. II. WHETHER ANY SINS BE mortal to the faithful and elect?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Gen. 2. v. 17. it is said to Adam a faithful and elect man: 
Sin mortal to Adam.  In what day soever thou shall eat of it, thou shalt die the death.  
Numbers 18. ver. 22. That the children of Israel approach not 
To the Israetes.  any more to the tabernacle, nor commit deadly sin.  
Rom. 5. v. 12. As by one man sin entered into this world and 
To all men.  by sin death, and so unto all men death did pass. Et v. 18. As by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation.  
1. Cor. 15. v. 22. As in Adam all die. Et Epist. 2. cap. 5. v. 14. If one died for all, than all were dead.  
Ephes. 2. v. 5. Even when we were dead by sins, quickened us together in Christ.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Amiss Grat. cap. 7. That all sins of the predestinate, be termed venial, and all sins of the reprobates, mortal, is confuted out of the examples of the Scripture with strong arguments, nor only of Catholic Doctors, but also of Lutherans.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Caluin in 1. joan. 5. v. 16. He denieth, that they are sins to 
Grievous sins of Saints, not mortal.  death, not only those in which the Saints do daily offend, but also if it chance that sometimes they grievously provoke the wrath of God. 2. Instit. c. 8. §. 59 The sins of Saints, are venial. l. 3. 
Venial.  c. 4. §. 28. The sins of the faithful be venial.  
Beza in 1. joan. 5. v. 19 Hence it followeth, that no sins are 
No sins of the Elect, mortal.  mortal to the elect; none venial, to the reprobate.  
Zanchius in Depulsione calum. to. 7. col. 258. Because sins are pardoned to the elect, nor are imuputed to death, therefore in respect of the persons which are in Christ, sins committed of them, cannot be called mortal. De Perseverantia ib. col. 156. The falls of Saints are not deadly to them, and therefore they die not in God's sight with such falls.  
Musculus in locis tit. de Peccato: If the persons be elect and faithful in Christ, it followeth, that their sins are not mortal, but venial.  
Bucanus in Instit. Theol. loco. 16. To the elect, all sins, 
All sins of the Elect, be venial.  even the most grievous, are venial by Christ.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that sin was mortal to Adam, though he were both faithful and elect: that by him death and condemnation passed unto all men: that all men were dead in him. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that no sins are mortal to the elect and faithful: that no sins are imputed to them to death: that no falls are deadly to them, nor that they die with any whatsoever: that even most grievous sins are venial to the elect. Which some Protestants confess to be against Scripture. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. III. WHETHER OMELY Incredulity be sin?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
joan. 19 v. 11. Therefore he that hath betrayed me to thee, hath 
Sin, to betray Christ. Sin, to kill S. Stephen. Sin, to accept persons. Sin, not to do the good one knoweth.  greater sin.  
Act. 7. v. 60. Lord lay not this sin unto them.  
james. 2. v. 9 But if you accept persons, you work sin. And c. 4. v. 17. To one knowing to do good, and not doing it; to him it is sin.   

CATHOLIKS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Stapleton orat. Catechet. 2. etc. Pride is so capital a sin, as it is the supreme head of all sins, even of them which are termed capital.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Luther Postilla in Dom. 4. post Pascha. fol. 260. The Lord 
Only incredulity sin.  teacheth here fare otherwise, while he sayeth: The holy Ghost reproveth the world for sin because they believe not in me, where only incredulity is accounted sin. In Disput. tom. 
Sin proper to incredulity.  1. f. 371. As nothing justifieth but faith: so nothing sinneth but incredulity. justification is proper to sin in 
† Quarto modo. No sin, but incredulity.  all sort: so is sin to incredulity. lib. count. Catarrh. to. 2. fol. 156. Christ hath appointed, that there should be no sin but incredulity. Et in postilla Domestica feriae 2. Pentecost. impress. 1601. There is no more any sin, but not to believe.  
Melancthon apud Cocleum in art. 6. Confess. August. As according to the Gospel only faith is justice: So contrariwise according to the Gospel, only incredulity is sin. 
Only incredulity, sin.   
Caluin in joan. 15. vers. 22. Christ by these words seemeth to insinuate, that only ncredulitie is sin: and there are, who think so.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
The Scripture expressly sayeth, that it was sin to betray Christ, to kill S. Stephen: that it is sin to accept persons, and not to do the good which we know. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say: that there is no sin but incredulity, only incredulity is sin: that sin is in all sorts proper to incredulity.    

ART. iv WHETHER SIN AUGHT to be overcome of the faithful?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Rom. 6. v. 11. & seq. So think you also, that you are dead to 
We ought to overcome sin.  sin— Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that you obey the concupiscences thereof.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Roman. 6. v. 12. If the Spirit struggle, but overcometh not sin in the bedie: than it obeyeth and yields to the concupiscences of the body. How then doth S. Paul exhort those that are regenerate in Christ, that sin reign not in their bodies, and that they obey not concupiscences of the flesh? These carnal and Epicurean Heretics will have the spirit to struggle with the flesh, but not overcome it.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Beza in Rom. 6. ver. 12. edit. An. 1565. & 1582. This exhortation is fitly added to that which went before, that we may understand, 
We ought not to overcome sin.  how fare we be dead to sin as long as we live here: to wit, so fare as that the spirit do struggle (against sin) but not overcome. Of the same opinion are others, who (as before we saw) do teach, that we ought not to do good works. For if we ought not do good works, surely we ought not to overcome sin.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that we ought to think ourselves dead to sin: that sin ought not to reign in us, nor we ought to obey the concupiscences thereof. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that the spirit ought to struggle against sin, but not so as it overcome it.    

ART. V WHETHER ANY THAT SERVE the flesh do also serve God?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Rom. 8. v 13. If you live according to the flesh, you shall die. 
Livers according to the flesh shall die. Please not God. Are of the Devil.  v. 8. They that are in the flesh, cannot please God.  
Math. 6. v. 24. No man can serve two Masters.  
1. joan. 3. v. 8. He that committeth sin, is of the Devil.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
D. Stapleton in Math. 6. v. 24. Who serve God, can neither serve the Devil, nor the flesh.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Caluin in Math. 6. v. 24. It is surely true, that the faithful are never so wholly obedient unto God, but that now and then they are withdrawn by the vicious lusts of the flesh: but because 
Some serveth of the flesh are approved of God.  they mourn under this miserable slavery and dislike themselves, nor serve this flesh otherwise then against their will and striving, their desires and endeavours are approved of God, even as if they did afford him entire obedience. In Rom. 8. v. 5. The Apostle testifieth, that he accounteth not them carnal, who do aspire to heavenly justice, but who are wholly given to the world.  
Beza in Praef. ad pastors Basil. vol. 1. pag. 427. To nill evil and yet to do it, is the part of Saints who do wrestle.  
Pareus l. 2. the justif. c. 7. Sons of the Devil, are not simply 
Not all grievous sinners, Sons of the Devil.  (grievous) sinners, but obstinate sinners. l. 4. cap. 17. Nether the faithful who sin by chance, or of themselves by weakness, but such as of themselves give themselves to sin, serve the Devil and aught to be called sons of the Devil.  
Scarpe de justif. Contr. 13. They only are said to serve the Devil and to be his sons, in whom sin reigneth and who commit sin with a full will, but the faithful do not so sin. See also what they say in the next article.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that who serve the flesh, shall die; nor camplease God: that none can serve two masters: that whosoever committeth sin is of the Devil. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that even the sons of God serve the flesh: that the Apostle accounteth none carnal but such as wholly give themselves to the world: that only obstinate sinners are sons of the Devil: that the the faithful sinning either of infirmity or wilfully, serve not the Devil: that to nill evil and yet do it, is the part of Saints: that they only serve the Devil who with full will commit sin.    

ART. VI WHETHER BY GRIEVOUS sins the faithful fall from grace?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. joan. 3. v. 8. He that committeth sin, is of the Devil. v. 15. 
No murderer hath life in him. Sin maketh to fall from grace.  You know, that no murderer hath life everlasting abiding in himself.  
Gal. 5. v. 4. You are evacuated from Christ, that are justified in the law, you are fallen from grace.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Session. 6. cap. 15. We must teach, that grace of justification once received, is lost, not only by infidelity, but also with any other mortal sin, though faith be not lost.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Contr. 4. q. 6. c. 2. But it is more absurd which he 
S. Peter did not lose grace  sayeth, that Peter (by denying Christ) lost grace. Et Concione vlt. p. 696. To go from grace, that is, to obey the concupiscence of the flesh, and to resist God's motions, and admonitions, is fare from falling from grace.  
Perkins de Baptismo to. 1. col. 819. This is most worthy of remembrance, that the Apostle calleth the Galathians even in that very time when they erred in the foundation, and even were gone to an other Gospel, Sons of God, saying: you all are the sons of God. For hereupon we may truly conclude, that not 
No enormous sin obscureth grace.  any enormous sin, nor every error which is committed against the foundation, obscurreth the grace and regeneration which maketh the Sons of God, much less extinguish it. In Serie Caufarum c. 42. By falls, grace and faith are not taken 
Sin taketh not away grace.  away but illustrated. cap. 51. It shall appear out of the word of God, that it is fare otherwise than that grace is extinguished by every mortal sin. And de Sermon. Dom. tom. 2. col. 391. he sayeth, that David and Peter even when they sinned as they did, were by regeneration the Sons of God, and the grace of God remained in them.  
Abbots in Diatribam Tomsoni c. 22. David was not yet 
David just, when he committed murder.  quite spoiled of spiritual life, not yet deprived of justification, but worthy to be deprived. Again: Gild of sin doth not take away justification, doth not extinguish the Holy Ghost, doth not exclude the right of inheritance to the kingdom of God, but only the use thereof.  
The university of Zurich apud Zanchium tom. 7. col. 74. Seeing the strife of the spirit with the flesh is always in Saints, it followeth that the spirit doth always remain in them, though sometimes they be overcomen with the weight of the flesh.  
Caluin in 2. Petri 2. v. 21. The faithful also sin, but they 
Faithful in grace even when they sin.  fall not from grace.  
Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 388. Whosoever is elect, albeit 
Fall not from grace by sin  he sinne grievously, as is said of David, yet he falleth not from grace, into which God once received him. In Confess. c. 4. sect. 20. The Holy Ghost did testify to their (David Peter) spirit, that they, though they had most foully fallen, were not withstanstanding accounted in the number of the Sons of God. And in Colloq. cit. When Smidelin had said: I ask whether David 
David adultering kept the holy Ghost.  committing adultery, lost the Holy Ghost, or no? Beza answered: He lost him, not but kept him. Which p. 381. he expliteth by this example: As druncknesse can for a time take away the use of reason, but yet not reason itself: So sin can for a time take away from the elect the use of the Holy Ghost and of grace, but not grace and the Holy Ghost himself, who abideth in them and departeth not from them, as neither he departed from David. Et 2. part. resp. ad Acta Colloq. Montisbel. p. 71. It is a vain 
Nether venial nor mortal sins exclude the holy Ghost.  distinction between venial and mortal sins. For neither the one nor the other cast of the Holy Ghost, but interrupt his efficacy.  
Zanchius de perseverantia tom. 7. col. 359. sayeth, that it cannot be said without blasphemy, that Saints by sinning leave to be the sons of God, & lose all right of everlasting life. Et col. 150. The Holy Ghost departeth not, but is contristated with our sins.  
Pareus l. 3. the justif. c. 14. denieth, that either David by adultery and murder, or Solomon by idolatry or S. Peter by denying Christ, lost justification. And l. de Amiss. Grat. c. 7. When the spirit overcometh the flesh, there ceaseth not to be flesh in Saints, but it abideth tamed. In like sort, when the flesh overcometh the spirit, as in David when he fell, the Spirit doth not cease to be in Saints, but abideth overcomen and troubled. Et c. 11. Reconciliation, grace, love, adoption, not every one, nay never a sin of the faithful, can dissolve.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that who sought justification in the law, were evacuated from Christ, were fallen from grace: who committeth sin, is of the Devil: and and that no murderer hath life in him. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the faithful by sinning do not fall from grace: that David in adultery and murder, S. Peter in denial of Christ, Solomon in idolatry, lost not justification: that the sins of the faithful take not away the Holy Ghost but only the use thereof: that the Holy Spirit is in the faithful when they are overcomen of the flesh: that no sin of theirs can dissolve grace: that no enormous sin extinguisheth grace. Which some Protestants confess to be against Scripture. See lib. 2. cap. 30.    

ART. VII. WHETHER SIN CAN stand with justice?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
2. Cor. 6. v. 14. What participation hath justice with iniquity, 
justice and Iniquity stand not together.  or what society is there between light and darkness, and what agreement with Christ and Belial?  
Wisdom. 1. verse 4. Wisdom will not enter into a militious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Amiss. Grat. cap. 12. Sin fighteth with grace, and cannot remain together with justice.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Abbots in Diatribam Tomsoni c. 25. Sin dwelleth together 
justice dwelleth with sin. Faith with infidelity.  with justice in us.  
Perkins in Galat. 5. True faith is always mingled with contrary incredulity, in so much as they who believe, feel much incredulity in themselves.  
Luther in Gal. 3. to. 5. f. 335. A Christian is together just and a sinner, a friend and enemy of God. Et Assert. art. 31. tom. 2. If therefore every one be also a sinner whilst he is just, what can 
A work partly good partly nought. Life & death together.  follow more evidently, then that a work also is partly good, partly evil?  
Caluin count. Franciscan. libertin. p. 471. Behold how contraries may be together in one subject: For life is begun, and much of death remaineth. In Math. 17. vers. 24.  faith is no where perfect, it followeth that we are partly incredulous. In Luc. 1. vers. 6. The justice which in them is praised, dependeth of God's free pardon, and therefore he imputeth not that injustice which remaineth in them.  
Beza lib. Quaest. vol. 1. pag. 672. In one and the self same 
Purity and filth, light and darkness together.  subject, but in diverse respects, are purity and filth, light and darkness, faith and incredulity.  
Pareus l. 4. the justif. c. 17. I answer, that there is no absurdity, that faith hath sometimes dist ust or incredulity mingled with it, and so by accident, that faith is sin. l. 1. c. 14. A sinner 
Faith is sin by accident. The same man just and and wicked. The same work, good and evil.  believing is in the first moment of justification justified by grace, and wicked by nature. Et lib. 4. cap. 17. Works are good and not good, and worthy of reward and punishment, but in diverse respects. Good, in so much as they are of God and done of the regenerate according to the law, by faith, and to the glory of God: Evil; as much as they are defiled by the impure flesh and other sins. Again: They are worthy of reward in the court of mercy, but worthy of punishment in the court of God's justice.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that there is no participation of justice with iniquity, no society of light and darkness: that the Holy Ghost dwelleth not in a body subject to sin. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that a man is at once just and wicked, friend and enemy of God: that life and death, purity and filth, light and darkness, faith and incredulity, sin and justice, can be in the same man together, yea that the same act can be at once good and ill, in the same act, faith and incredulity. Which same Protestants confess to be contrary to Scripture. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. VIII. WHETHER SINS MAY be redeemed by good works?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Daniel 4. v. 24. Redeem then thy sins with alms and 
Sins redeemed by alms  thy iniquities with the mercies of the poor, perhaps he will forgive thine offences.  
Prou. 15. v. 17. By mercy and faith, sins are purged. Et c. 
By mercy.  6. v. 6. By mercy and truth, iniquity is redeemed.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Paenit. c. 3. Catholics teach, that the temporal pains of the other life, may be redeemed by fastings, prayers, alms, and other pious and painful works of this life.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Confessio Anglica art. 12. Good works cannot put away 
Sinnes not redeemed by all mes.  our sins.  
Confessio Wittenberg. cap. de Eleemosyna: What need had there been of the passion and death of Christ, if sin could be blotted out by the merit of alms?  
Hunnius de justif. pag. 197. Should not Christ have died in vain for sins, if they could be redeemed by alms?  
Herbrandus in Compendio loco de bonis operibus: If sins were redeemed with alms, God should seem injust, condemning the poor for sins, because he had not given them riches, as he did to others, wherewith they might redeem their sins.  
Caluin 3. Instit. c. 4. §. 25. Papists say, there are many helps 
Nor by good works or charity.  whereby we may redeem our sins, as tears, fasting, offerings, duties of charity: To such lies I oppose etc. In Luc. 7. v. 50. By this speech is refuted their error, who think that sins can be redeemed by charity.  
Sadeel de ver. peccat. remiss. p. 113. If expiation of sins be given to men's works, then is Christ dead in vain?  
Aretius' in locis part. 1. f. 90. Inward cleansing cometh not of alms. If it had been possible to redeem sins by alms, Christ had died in vain.  
Homius in Disput. 70. Alms hath not that force which Papists blasphemously attribute to it, to wit, to dispose a man to the grace of justification, to wipe away sins, and to satisfy for them.  
Willet Contr. 19 q. 3. p. 1034. It is an abominable and blasphemous 
Not by works.  opinion, that any man by his works should be able to redeem his sins.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that sins are redeemed by alms, that sins are purged and redeemed by mercy. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say, that sins are not redeemed by alms or charity: that it is not possible to redeem sins by alms: that Christ's each had been in vain if sins could be redeemed by alms: that it is abominable and blasphemous to say that sin may be redeemed by alms. Which are so contrary to Scripture as sometimes Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. IX. WHETHER TO ABSTAIN from great sins be necessary to salvation?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Cor. 6. v. 9 Do not err: Nether fornicators, nor servers of 
Great sinners shall not enjoy heaven.  Idols, nor adulters, etc. shall possess the kingdom of God.  
Ephes. 5. v. 5. Know you this, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is the service of idols) hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.  
Rom. 8. v. 13. If you live according to the flesh, you shall die. 
Shall die.    

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 4. the justif. cap. 9 It can no way be, that faith accompanied with evil works can save a man.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 5. c. 7. We say: If any have an act of 
No sin hurteth where faith.  faith, that sin cannot hurt him: This Luther sayeth, this we all say.  
Luther de Captivit. Babyl. to. 2. f. 74. So thou seest how rich 
A Christian cannot leefe his salvation by any sin.  a Christian or baptised men is; who, though he would, cannot lose his salvation with what great sins soever, unless he will not believe. For no sins can damn him, but only incredulity. De votis ib. fol. 281. There are none so ill works of one that beleiveth in Christ, which can accuse and condemn him. De libertate ib. f. 8. No work profiteth an infidel to justice and salvation, 
No sin damneth infidelity.  and contrariwise no evil work maketh him evil or damned, but incredulity. In c. 53. Isaiae to. 4. No sin can hurt him that beleiveth. In Gal. 2. to. 5. f. 313. The false Apostles taught, that unless you live according to the law you are dead before God: Paul teacheth the plain contrary. In c. 4. f. 404. The true knowledge of Christ or faith disputeth whether thou hast done good works to justice, or evil works to damnation, but simply thus determineth: whether thou hast done good works, thou art not therefore justified, or whether thou hast done ill, thou art not therefore damned. Et to. 1. Epist. edit. jenae f. 345. Be a sinner, and sin 
No murder or fornication can draw us from Christ. Perseverer in sin, are just.  stoutly: Sin shall not draw us from Christ, albeit we commit fornication or murder a thousand times a day.  
Bergenses apud Hospin. in Concordia discordi. f. 86. justice is imputed even to them who persever in sin.  
Melancthon in joan. apud Cocleum in Art. 6. Confess. Augustanae. As by the Gospel only faith is justice, so that though thou hadst done all the sins of all men, yet if thou believest that the Father hath mercy upon thee for Christ, thou shalt be safe: So contrariwise, by the Gospel only incredulity is sin. 
Only incredulity is sine.   
Reineccius to. 4. Armaturae. c. 15. Evil works do not make an evil man, to wit, him that is in Christ.  
Zuinglius lib. de. ver. & falsa relig. tom. 2. c. de Peccato: 
Only incredulity is not pardoned.  It followeth, that only incredulity is that, to which pardon is denied.  
Caluin in Rom. 8. v. 13. Howsoever we be yet subject to sin, nevertheless he promiseth us life, so we prosecute our desire of mortifying the flesh.  
Author resp. ad theses Valentinianas' p. 925. This would that notable Divine (Luther) and all our men; So we have true faith, no sin how great soever shall hinder ws to be made partakers of the everlasting inheritance. See more in my Latin book c. 15. art. 8.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly biddeth us not err, for neither fornicators nor adulterous, nor such grievous sinners shall possess the kingdom of God, and that if we live according to the flesh we shall die. Catholics say the same.  
Protestants expressly say, that a Christian cannot be damned with what great sins soever, so he will believe; that only incredulity can damn him: that though he commit fornication and murder a thousand times aday shall not be drawn from Christ: though he had done all the sins of all men he shallbe saved, if he believe: that pardon is denied only to incredulity: that so one have faith, sins can not hurt him; that so we have true faith no grievous sins whatsoever shall hinder us to enter into heaven: What other I pray you is this but that voice of the Serpent to Eve; Ye shall not die.    

ART. X. WHETHER SINS BE THE cause for which men are damned?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 25. v. 41. Get ye away from me you cursed into everlasting 
Men are damned for not exercising charity. According to their works.  fire which was provided for the Devil and his Angels: For I was an hungered, and you gave me not to eat etc.  
Apocal. 20. v. 12. And the dead were judged of those things which were written in the books according to their works.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Grat. & lib. arb. c. 16. The Scripture every where teacheth, that eternal punishment is by the just judgement of God rendered to men's sins.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther in jonae. 1. to. 4. f. 409. Let us know, that we are not 
Men are not damned in sin. Only incredulity damneth.  damned in sin, nor saved by good works.  
Postilla in Dom. 8. post. Trinitat. f. 300. I observe, that no work is so evil, as it can damn a man, only incredulity damneth. That a man committeth adultery, that work condemneth not, but adultery doth show, that he hath lost his faith. In Dom. 4. post Pascha: Only incredulity is held for sin. In die Ascensionis: Nether is there any sin so great, which can condemn a man: only incredulity damneth whosoever are damned. Damnation followeth no sin but infidelity.  
jacobus Andreae in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 109. None but 
None but infidels are damned. Men are not damned because they have sinned.  the incredulous is damned. 105. Unless incredulity were in those that are to be damned, none should be damned. p. 447. Those that are to be adjudged to eternal punishment are not therefore damned because they have sinned, but because they would not embrace Christ with true faith. And in the margin: Only incredulity damneth men. Whereupon Beza in the same Colloquy pag. 421. & 448. & in part. 2. resp. pag. 215. said: Surely your speech seemed to us intolerable: That men are not damned for sin, or because they have sinned. And notwithstanding Beza himself in the same Colloq. pag. 103. sayeth: The only efficient cause of damnation, is our incredulity & 106. I say, that only incredulity 
Only incredulity causeth damnation.  is the efficient cause of the damnation of the impious. Et 2 part. resp. cit. p. 6. Men perish not simply for sin, but for incredulity.  
Schlusselburg. to. 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 824. No sins condemn, unless incredulity be adjoined.  
Bidembachius in Consensu jesuit. & Christian. printed at Rochel 1584. p. 733. This saying is not ill used of some divines: 
It only damneth.  Only incredulity damneth: Wherefore either Torrensis must reprove the office of the Holy Ghost reproving the world, and correct his tongue; or he must grant that men are damned for incredulity alone.  
Reineccius to. 3. Armaturae c. 12. Man is punished not because 
Men are not punished because they did not well. Sins do not damn. Only infidelity is cause of damnation  he did not well.  
Zuinglius in joan. 5. tom. 4. Sins do not make a man unjust, nor damn a man, but impiety and incredulity.  
Pareus in Collegio Theol. 7. Disput. 5. It is rightly said: That only infidelity is the cause of damnation.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that men are damned for sins of omission, or not doing that which they were bound to do: that every one is judged according to his works. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that men are not punished because they did not well: that sins condemn not men: that men are not damned for sins or because they have sinned: that no sin is so grievous as it can condemn a man: that damnation followeth no sin but incredulity; that only incredulity damneth men: that men are damned for infidelity only.    

ART. XI. WHETHER WE MU GIVE account of our sins?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 12. vers. 36. I say unto you, that every idle word that 
Man must give account of every idle word.  men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgement.  
Rom. 14. v. 12. Every one of us for himself shall render account to God.  
2. Cor. 5. v. 10. For we must all be manifested before the judgement 
Of things that he hath done.  seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body according as he hath done either good or evil.  
Apoc. 20. ver. 12. And the dead were judged of those things which were written in the books according to their workss.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Act. 15. v. 11. Caluinists' cannot abide, that works be called to account: But these pestilent teachers lead their followers right to the pit of hell, and directly gainsay the holy Scripture: Works must come to account.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Confessio Palatina p. 202. I believe and confess, that God 
God's iugdment not to be feared.  the Father for Christ's most full satisfaction, never remembreth my sins, so that I have no need to fear the judgement of God.  
Luther in Gal. 1. to. 5. f. 282. Christ will not exact an account 
He will not take account of our life. Not enter into judgement with us.  of us of our ill passed life.  
Caluin in Math. 12. v. 36. In this is founded the trust of our salvation, that God will not enter into judgement with us. In c. 27. v. 26. Nether is it to be feared, that our sins come any more into God's judgement. In Roman. 4. v. 6. Who are covered with Christ's justice, they have not only God appeased to them, but also to their works, whose spots and blemishes are covered with Christ's purity, that they come not to account. In Gal. 3. v. 22. It followeth undoubtedly: If works come into judgement, we are all damned.  
Beza in Confess. c. 4. sect. 12. This sanctification of humane nature in Christ imputed to us by faith, hath made that the relics of that corruption which is even in the regenerate, come not to account before God.  
Scarpe de justif. Contr. 7. These sins shall not come to account before God.  
Tilenus' in Syntagmate c. 67. The elect do know, that neither their deeds, nor all their words shallbe called to the reckoning of this (last) judgement.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that we shall give account of every idle word: that every one shall give account for himself: that every one shall receive for the good or ill which he hath done: that the dead shallbe judged according to their works. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that Christ will not exact an account of our life ill passed: that God will not enter into judgement with us: that our sins shall not come to judgement: shall not come to reckoning: that neither all our deeds or words shall come to the reckoning of judgement.    

ART. XII. WHETHER THE ELECT being justified committeth ill or sin?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Psal. 50. ver. 6. David sayeth of himself: To thee only have 
David did ill.  I sinned, and have done ill before thee.  
2. Reg. 12. v. 9 Nathan sayeth to David: Why therefore hast thou contemned the word of the Lord, that thou wouldst do evil in my sight?   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Amiss. Grat. c. 7. David himself peculiarly bewaileth his adultery and murder, and amongst other things sayeth: To thee only have I sinned, and have done ill before thee.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Zanchius de Perseverantia tom. 7. col. 124. David sinned 
He committed not sin.  indeed, but never committed sin. Et 147. The regenerate commit not sin.  
Musculus in Locis tit. de Peccato. The elect commit not 
The elect commit not sin.  sin, though they sometimes do sin. Again: The elect commit not sin, but the reprobates.  
Abbots in Diatribam Tomsoni c. 20. Christ manifestly showeth, that it is one thing to sin, an other to commit sin, and sayeth, that the justified do not commit sin.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that David (though an elect and justified man) sinned, did ill before God, contemned God's word. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that David never committed sin, that the regenerate commit not sin, that the elect commit not sine.    

ART. XIII. WHETHER THE ELECT himself, being justified, sinneth?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
2 Reg. 24. v. 17. David sayeth of himself: I am he that have 
David sinned and did wickedly. Did evil.  sinned, I have done wickedly: Et 1. Paralipomen. 21. v. 17. It is I that have sinned, it is I that have done the evil.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Session. 6. Can. 23. If any shall say, that a man once justified cannot sinne, nor lose grace etc. be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Academy of Marpurg apud Zanchium in tom. 7. col. 
The elect do not sin.  66. The elect himself doth it (sin) not, but sin inhabiting in him.  
Bucer in Matthaei 7. A Christian sinneth not, and yet he 
A Christian sinneth not.  hath sin.  
Zanchius in Supplicat. ad Senatum Argentinensem tom. 7. col. 59 The elect cannot properly obey the concupiscences 
Doth not obey concupiscence.  of sin.  
Whitaker Controu. 2. q. 2. cap. 2. True faithful can never be 
Is not overcomen of Satan.  overcomen of Satan.  
Contra-remonstrantes in Collat. Hagae. pap. 351. Sin hath not rule over the elect. And 347. There is plainly said, who is borne of God, that is, the true faithful and regenerate, that he doth not sin so, as sin ruleth over him again, nor can so sin.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that David though justified, did evil; wickedly; did sin The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that the elect himself committeth not sin, that a Christian sinneth not: that the elect properly obey not the concupiscences of sin: that sin ruleth not over an elect.    

ART. XIV. WHETHER THE ELECT being justified, ever do sin wittingly and willingly?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
2. Reg. 12. v. 9 it is said to David: Why hast thou contemned 
David contemned God's word. Despised God.  the word of the lord Et v. 10. The sword shall not depart from thy house for ever, because thou hast despised me.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Rom. 6. v. 12. calleth it filthy doctrine, that the elect being justified do not shake of the yoke of the law of God of set malice; but of frailty, because the flesh overcometh the spirit striving.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
jacobus Andreae in Colloq. Montisb. p. 382. The elect 
The elect sin not of purpose. Not of full will.  sin not of purpose, but against their will.  
Perkins de Praedest. to. 1. col. 153. The regenerate do not sin of whole or full will.  
Academy of Zurich apud Zanchium to. 7. col. 74. Nether of them (David, Peter) sinned with his whole heart and mind. And Zanchius himself ib. de Perseverant. col. 98. The true faithful being once engrafted in Christ never sin with their mind, that is with their whole mind, heart, and full will, but 
Only of ignonorance.  only with flesh, ignorance, and frailty: Et col. 363. Saints never sin of set malice, or (as others say) with their will, but always either of frailty, or of ignorance.  
Daneus Contr. de Baptismo c. 14. Men sin in two sorts: Ether with whole affection of mind feeling no fight between the spirit and flesh; and in this sort do not they sin, who are borne of God and have true faith.  
Pareus l. 1. de Amiss. Gratiae. cap. 6. Who is borne of God 〈…〉 not sin with his whole heart. Et l. 3. the justif. c. 15. ●●ece we have clearly, that the regenerate do not sin, to wit, with their whole heart and to death. 
〈…〉 death.   
Scarpe de justif. Contr. 5. No faithful persons sin with full force of will.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly teacheth, that David though an elect and justified man contemned God's word, despised God. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly teach, that the elect do not sin with their whole heart, never sin with their will, never with full will: but only of frailty or ignorance or with the flesh.    

ART. XV. WHETHER THE WIDOWS whereof S. Paul speak did make void their faith by marrying?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Tim. 5. v. 11. & 12. But avoid the younger widows, for when 
Somewidows damned for marrying again.  they shallbe wanton, in Christ, they will marry, having damnation because they have made void their first faith.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Monachis c 24. The Apostle faith, that they make void their first faith, which will marry.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Apologia Confess. Augustan. c. de votis: Paul condemneth 
Not damned because the married.  the widows, not because they married.  
Whitaker l. 9 cont. Dureum sect. 39 The Apostle writeth, that those widows were to be damned, not because they married.  
Lutherans de votis to. 2. f. 302. But neither doth Paul condemn this in them, that they will marry.  
Illyricus in Clavae part. 1. verbo Fides: There is no speech of breaking of vow or of marrying again.  
Zuinglius in Explanat. artic. 30. Paul sayeth, that these broke their first faith, because they used the pleasure of the flesh not with husbands: for they who married, did not break their faith.  
Peter Martyr libr. de votis col. 1352. It cannot be gathered hence, that to have a will to marry was accounted sin in them.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that those widows whereof S. Paul speaketh had their damnation by marrying, because by marrying they made void their first faith. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that they had no damnation by marrying, that they did not sin by marrying; that there is no speech in S. Paul of marrying again: that he spoke of such as out of marriage used the pleasure of the flesh: Which contradiction of the Scripture is so evident, as some Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. XVI. WHETHER VSURIE be sin?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Psal. 14. v. 1. & 5. Lord, who shall dwell in thy tabernacle etc. 
Usury, sin.  He that hath not given his money to usury.  
Psal. 71. ver. 14. From usuries and iniquities he shall redeem their souls.  
Ezechiel 18. vers. 5. and 8. And a man if he shallbe just hath not lent to usury and not taken more, hath turned his hand from iniquity— This man is just, living he shall live, sayeth our Lord God.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
S. Thomas 2. 2. q. 78. art. 1. To take usury for money lent, is of itself unjust.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Bucer in Disput. de Vsuris pag. 794. The Lord did not forbid 
Not all usury forbidden. Some usury allowed.  and condemn all usury, but usury of a certain kind, to wit, that with biteth and helpeth not the neighbour, which alone I think to be allowed.  
Caluin in Epistolis edit. 1619. pag. 488. If we condemn all usury, we make the snare of consciences straiter than the Lord himself would. Again: I find not by any testimony of Scripture that all usuries are condemned.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that who dareth money to usury, shall not dwell in God's tabernacle, that souls are to be redeemed from usury, that a just man doth not lend to usury. The same say Catholics.  
Protestant's expresseiy say, that all usury is not condemned, that some is to be allowed.    

ART. XVII. WHETHER ALL HAVE sinned in Adam?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Rom. 5. v. 12. As by one man sin entered into this world, and 
All men sinned in Adam. All made sinners in Adam.  by sin death, and so unto all men death did pass in whom all sinned. Et ver. 19 As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 4. the Amiss. Gratiae. c. 13. In that one man, all sinned.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Zuinglius de Peccato orig. to. 2. f. 116. Nether hindereth it, 
We sinned but figuratively in Adam. Not truly sinned.  that S. Paul Rom. 5. sayeth: All have sinned. For after the same manner the word, Sinned, is put metonymically. De Ratione fidei ib. f. 539. I confess that our first father committed a sin which is truly a sin, but they who are descended of him did not sin in this sort.  
Adolphus Venator apud Homium in Specimine etc. 
We did not sin in Adam.  art. 15. Thereupon it may be gathered, that we did not sin in Adam, because etc.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that all sinned in Adam, that by his disobedience many are made sinners. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that all sinned in Adam but figuratively; that Adam truly sinned but not they who are descended of him; that we sinned not in Adam.    

ART. XVIII. WHETHER THERE BE any original sin?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Scripture in places before cited sayeth, that all sinned 
Original sin, true sin.  in Adam, that by his disobedience many were made sinners: & 1. Cor. 15. v. 12. that in Adam all died.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 5. Can. 2. If any shall say, that Adam by his sin of disobedience, transfused only death and punishment of the body in all man kind, and not sin, which is the death of the soul: be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Zuinglius de Peccato orig. to. 2. f. 115. What could be said 
Original sin, is no sin, Not truly called sin.  more briefly or clearly, than that original sin, is no sin, but a sickness: Fol. 116. This is that I will: that original sin is not truly called sin, but metonymically of the sin committed of our first father. fol. 115. What could be said more weakly and more fare from Canonical Scripture, then that it is not a sickness, but a guilt? De Baptismo ibid. fol. 87. It followeth, 
Not guilt. No stain.  that little ones or Infants are without all blemish or stain. f. 90. Whence we gather, that original sin is indeed a sickness, which yet of itself is not faulty, nor can cause the punishment of damnation. Again: How can it be, that what is a sickness and contagion, deserveth the name of sin, or is sin indeed? And Respons. ad Luther. fol. 517. The sum of all which 
No sin indeed. Not such a sin as hath fault. Not properly sin. Maketh not guilty of death.  I taught in my book of original sin is this: That original contagion is not such a sin, that hath any fault, but rather is a sickness which by reason of Adam's sin, cleaveth unto us.  
Homius in Specimine etc. art. 15. bringeth many Protestants who deny original sin: as Venator. Original sin is not properly sin, nor deserveth damnation. Arminius: Original sin is fond said to make guilty of death. Borrius. There is no reason why God would impute this sin to Infants.  
Beza de Praedestinat. count. castle. vol 1. p. 421. thus writeth of Castellio (whom D. Humphrey ad Ration. 1. Campiani much commendeth for learning and honesty) Out of which it may be easily gathered, that either thou accountest original 
Original sin, a fable.  sin, a fable; or else dost so diminish it, that what is by origin, thou wouldst have to be attributed to imitation. Nether is Beza himself fare from the same opinion; for 2. part. resp. ad acta Colloq. Montisbel. p. 103. he denieth, that elected infants need any renovation. Faber also and Erasmus, whom Protestants challenge for theirs, do deny original sin in Rom. 5.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that all have sinned in Adam, that all die in Adam, that by his disobedience many are made sinners. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that original sin, is no sin but a sickness; not truly a fault, but figuratively: not a guilt, not a blemish not a stain, not faulty of itself, that it can not cause damnation; not such a sin as hath fault, not a sin indeed, nor deserveth the name of sin.    

THE SUM OF THIS CHAPTER OF SINS.  
The things which we hau● rehearsed in this chapter, do make manifest, that Protestants teach of sins quite contrary to holy Scripture. For the Scripture (and catholics with it) teacheth, that sins are imputed to the faithful: that they are mortal to them as well as to others: that they ought to be overcomen of the faithful: that whosoever serve sin, serve not God: that great sins put out grace, nor can stand with justice: that they are to be redeemed with good works: that to abstain from them, is necessary to salvation: that they are the cause why men are damned: that we must give an account of them: that they are committed of the elect and that with full consent: that usury is a sin, and that original sin is a true sin. All which Protestants do deny.  
They make also manifest, that Protestants play the 
What Protest take from sins.  theives towards sins also, and steal from them no less then from good things, but that they steal from sin other kind of qualities and for an other end. For from God, from Christ, from Saints, from the Church, from Sacraments, from good works and other godly and holy things they steal that which is good, virtuous, and worthy of praise and honour, that thereby they may not seem so worthy to be loved and esteemed of men: But from sins they steal malice, all power of hurting the faithful, in saying they are not imputed to them, cast not them out of God's grace, and such like now rehearsed, to the end that they should not seem so horrible and so much to be avoided of the faithful: And thereby they show themselves to be friends of sin, and precursors of him who is termed: The man of sin. And thus much of 
2. Thessal. 2.  Sins: Now of justification from them.    

CHAPTER XVI. OF JUSTIFICATION.  

ART. I. WHETHER JUSTIFICATION be of works?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
JAMES 2. v. 21. Abraham our father was he not 
Abraham justified by works. Man. Rahab.  justified by works? vers. 24. Do you see, that by works a man is justified? Et v. 25. Rahab the harlot was not she justified by works?  
Luc. 7. v. 47. Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much.  
Act. 3. vers. 19 Be penitent therefore and convert, that your sins may be put out.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Rom. 4. v. 2. Abraham's works had glory even before God, and he was justified of then as S. james doth most expressly affirm.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Apologia Confess. Augustanae c. de justif. Reconciliation 
Reconciliation, not by works.  is not received by works. c. de Implet. legis: If any think, that he obtaineth remission of sins because he loveth, he dishonoureth Christ. c. de votis: It is an impious opinion, that we obtain remission of sins for our works.  
Confessio Bohemica art. 7. Good works are to be done, not 
justification not by works.  that we think that we obtain remission of sins for them. Gallica artic. 22. We are not justified by works. Belgica artic. 24. Good works are of no moment at all for to justify us. Argentinensis 
Works help not to justification.  cap. 3. Good works help nothing for to make us just of unjust. Heluetica cap. 15. We receive this justification not by any works.  
Whitaker ad Ration. 8. Campiani. In justifying us, God maketh no reckoning of our works. For the just liveth not of works.  
Perkins in Serie Causarum cap. 51. To be justified by good 
Abraham, not justified by works.  works, is both false and ridiculous. In Gal. 3. Abraham was not justified by his good works. In c. 4. That doctrine, which dreameth of justification by works, bringeth in idolatry. Et in c. 5. it overturneth the foundation of religion.  
Luther de libertate tom. 2. fol. 4. A soul is justified by no works. In Gal. 1. to. 5. Sin is taken away by no works. In c. 3. Abraham was justified by no other thing at all but faith. Epist. 
Abraham not justified by works.  ad Livones to. 7. All doctrine of justifying and saving us by works, is impious, devilish, and high blasphemy against God. Et to. 1. fol. 393. We must firmly believe against the Devil, that the woman was saved by only faith before she loved.  
Caluin 3. Instit. c. 11. §. 6. In justification there is no place for works. c. 14. §. 5. Works help nothing to justify us. cap. 16. §. 1. 
Men are not justified by works.  We say, they are not justified by works. In Gal. 2. v. 15. We cannot be justified by works.  
Beza in Confess. cap. 4. sect. 17. How can we be justified by 
Works do not justify.  works? l. Quaest. p. 689. Good works do not justify.  
Peter Martyr in locis class 3. c. 4. §. 8. justification is not had of works.  
Bullinger de justif. fidei Serm. 6. Abraham was not justified by his works.  
Aretius' in locis part. 2. f. 78. We are not justified of works.  
Zanchius in Confess. c. 21. art. 4. We constantly confess, that a man is not justified of works. 
Man is not justified by works.   
Polanus in Disp. private. perio do 1. disput. 36. Not because the woman loved much, therefore her sins were remitted her.  
Pareus in Gal. 2. lect. 24. The Apostle denieth, that works either alone or with faith do justify.  
Roger's artic. 11. Works have no place or portion in the 
Works with faith do not justify.  matter of our justification.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Abraham was justified by works, that Rahab was justified by works: that the woman's sins were forgiven because she loved: that men must repent for to have their sins forgiven. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that Abraham was justified by works, by nothing else at all but by faith, that the woman's sins were not forgiven because she loved; that sin is not taken away by any works that we are not justified by any works, that works have no place, are of no moment, or reckoning in justification: that it is impious, devilish, ridiculous, and most blasphemous against God, to dream of justification by works.    

ART. II. WHETHER JUSTIFICATION be by faith only?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
james 2. v. 24. Do you see, that by works a man is justified, 
justification, not by faith alone.  and not by faith only.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Council of Trent Session. 6. can. 9 If any shall say, that the impious is justified by faith alone, so as he understandeth, that nothing else is required to cooperate to the grace of justification, and that it is no way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by motion of his own will, be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Confessio Saxonica c. de Remiss. Peccat. Wittenbergica c. de justif. Articuli Smalcaldici part. 2. c. 1. liber Concordiae c. 3. Confessio Anglica art. 11. Heluetica cap. 15. Belgica art. 
By only faith.  22. Bohemica art. 6. teach in express terms, that we are justified by only faith. And the same in other words teach Confessio Augustana. c. de fide. Argentinensis c. 3. & Gallica art. 20.  
Apologia Confess. Augustanae c. de justif. We are justified 
By faith alone.  by faith alone, if by justification we mean, to be just of unjust, or to be regenerated. Again: Faith alone doth justify, alone maketh just of unjust. By faith only we receive remission for Christ. Et c. de Resp. ad Argumenta. Remission of sins and 
Only by faith.  justification is received only by faith. These things we obtain only by faith.  
Luther de libertate to. 2. fol. 4. A soul is justified by faith 
By nothing else.  alone. In Gal. 2. to. 5. Faith justifieth, and nothing else.  
Vrbanus Regius in Catachesi fol. 136. We are justified by faith only.  
Schusselburg. l. 1. Theol. Caluin art. 15. Paul teacheth, that 
By faith alone.  a man is justified by faith only, by faith alone.  
Zuinglius ad Matthaeum Rutling. to. 2. f. 151. We are justified by faith alone.  
Caluin in Galat. 2. v. 16. We are justified by faith alone.  
Beza in Rom. 3 vers. 20. What was the Apostles intent? To teach, that no man is justified by any other means then by faith. We are justified by only faith.  
Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 1. It belongeth to faith only, that we be justified by it.  
Whitaker ad Ration. 1. Campiani: That is our doctrine most true and most holy: That a man is justified by faith alone.  
Perkins in Catechesi tom. 1. col. 487. How canst thou be 
Only by faith.  made partaker of Christ and of all his benefits, and fruitfully enjoy them? Only by faith.  
Roger's artic. 11. Only by faith we are accounted righteous before God.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that a man is not justified by faith only. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that a man is justified by faith only, by faith alone, and no other way then by faith: that nothing justifieth but faith.    

ART. III. WHETHER THE JUSTIFIED, be indeed, and in the sight of God, just?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Gen. 7. ver. 1. God thus speaketh to Noë: I have seen thee 
Noen just in God's sight.  just in my sight. c. 6. v. 9 Noë was a just and perfect man.  
job 32. v. 2. And Eliu was angry and taken indignation and he was angry against job, for that he said himself to be just before God.  
Luc. 1. v. 6. And they were both just before God. 
Just before God.   
1. Cor. 5. v. 21. Him that knew no sin, for us he made sin: that we might be made the justice of God in him.  
Ephes. 1. ver. 4. He chose us in him before the constitution of 
Holy in God's sight.  the world, that we should be holy and immaculate in his sight in charity.  
1. joan. 3. vers. 7. He that doth justice is just: even as he also is just.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Session. 6. cap. 7. Being endued with justice of God, we are not only reputed, but also are named and are just.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Illyricus in Math. 20. v. 12. Surely so it is in religion and before 
None is just before God.  God, and especially in the kingdom of Grace, where all depend of free mercy, and none is just. Et in Praef. partis 2. Clavis, sayeth that Papist take, to justify, amiss, of real, and not of imputative justice.  
Reineccius to. 4. Armaturae cap. 15. Nether doth God look upon us but in his Son; whereupon it cometh to pass, that we we seem quite others than we are. As looking through glass 
We seem to God others than we are.  which is green, yellow, or of some other colour, the things which me behold seem to us to be of the same colour of which the glass is, through which we see: So to God (I speak humanely for the weakness of the flesh) beholding and considering us in his Son, we seem to be of his colour, and shining with his justice and innocence: And thereby he seeing and touching us, thinketh that he toucheth his own natural Son, as Isaac speaking to jacob his younger Son, thought he spoke to Esau his elder son. And the same example of a great glass or spectacles useth Zanchius l. 2. de Natura Dei. c. 2.  
Hunnius de justif. p. 19 rejecteth it as Popish doctrine, that by justification, a man is made indeed just.  
Zuinglius in Luc. 1. to. 4. Before God none can be just. 
None just before God. Not just, but held just. Not just indeed.   
Caluin 3. Instit. c. 19 §. 2. It is not inquired there (in justification) how we be just; but how, (though unjust and unworthy) we may be held for just. c. 11. §. 11. Let him grant, that they are counted just, who are not indeed. Again: He is just, not indeed, but by imputation. In Math. 12. v. 37. The Papists think it absurd, that we say a man is justified by faith, because they expound it to be made and be just indeed: But we mean, to be accounted just and to be absolved in the judgement of God. In Luc. 18. v. 19 This place plainly telleth, what is properly to be justified, 
As if we were just.  to wit, to stand before God as if we were just. In Rom. 3. ver. 25. I have already eftsoon admonished, that men are not justified, because they be such indeed, but by imputation. In 2. Cor. 5. v. 21. How are we just before God? forsooth as Christ is a sinner. In Antidoto Concil. sess. 6. c. 8. They (of Trent) affirm, that we 
Not truly just.  are truly just and not only reputed. De Caena p. 2. Let us be assured, that we, though we be wicked and unclean, nevertheless, are acknowledged and received of the Lord and also held for just. Et Concione 158. in job. Where shall any such (just) be found 
None just.  amongst men?  
Beza in Math. 12. v. 37. Paul testifieth that we, being not in 
Not in ourselves just but accounted so.  ourselves just, yet are justified in Christ apprehended by faith, that is, accounted for just, and so absolved.  
Pereus l 1. de Amiss. Grat. c. 6. It is more sure to say, that they (Zacharias and Elizabeth) were just and faultless before God and men, not absolutely, but by imputation of justice. Of the same opinion are all others who say, that for God to justify men, is not to make them just, but only to declare or pronounce them such.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that Noë was just before God, job just before God: Zacharias and Elizabeth just before God: that God chose us for to be just in his sight: that he made Christ sin for to make us the justice of God: and that who doth justice is just, even as God also is just. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that none is just: that in justification it is not enquired how we are just, but how we are held for just: that to be justified, is not to be just: that the justified are not indeed just, not truly just, but so reputed: that before God they are no otherwise just then Christ was a sinner: that we appear quite others to God, than we are: that God looking upon us and touching us, taketh us for his own Son, as Isaac took jacob, for Esau.    

ART. iv WHETHER THE JUSTIFIED be clean?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Ezech. 36. v 25. And I will pour upon you clean water, and 
The justified, be cleansed.  you shallbe cleansed from all your contaminations.  
joan. 13. v. 10. And you are clean. c. 15. v. 3. Now you are clean 
Are clean.  for the word which I have spoken to you.  
1. Cor. 6. ver. 11. And these things certes you were, but you are washed, you are sanctified.  
Ephes. 1. v. 4. He chose us in him that we should be holy and 
Immaculate.  immaculate in his sight in charity.  
Tit. 2. vers. 14. Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and might cleanse to himself a people acceptable.  
Hebr. 9 v. 14. How much more, shall the blood of Christ, who 
Cleansed from dead works.  by the Holy Ghost offered himself unspotted unto God, cleanse our conscience from dead works?  
1. joan. 1. v. 7. And the blood of jesus Christ his Son cleansetb 
Cleansed from all sin.  us from all sin.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 5. can. 5. There is no damnation to them who are truly buried with Christ by baptism to death, who walk not according to the flesh, but putting of the old man and putting on the new which is created according to God, are made innocent, unspotted, pure, harmless and beloved of God.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
French Confession art. 11. Even they who excel in holiness 
Defiled with many sins.  are defiled with many sins, as long as they live in this world.  
Luther in Confutat. Latomi to. 2. f. 218. The beleivers are 
Unclean.  just, and yet unclean.  
Zuinglius in Explanat. artic. 39 All men are unjust before 
Unjust.  God.  
Caluin 3. Institut. cap. 15. § 5. Though we be unclean, he is cleanness to us. In Rom. 4. v. 5. None shall come to the justice of 
Impious.  faith, but he that shallbe impious in himself. In v. 20. He pronounceth 
Overwhelmed with sin.  to hold us for just, and we are overwehlmed with sin. The like he hath in the places cited in the former article.  
Beza in Rom. 4. v. 5. Who justifieth the impious, that is, accounteth him just in Christ who is himself impious.  
junius l. 4. de Eccles c. 11. The pious man, is in himself unclean 
Filthy.  and filthy.  
Scarpe de justif. Contr. 8. We are called just for Christ's justice imputed to us; and unjust, for inherent sin.  
Pareus l. 4. the justif. c. 17. But if Christ have now absolutely cleansed his Church and people, what followeth, but that the Romish Babylon is neither Church nor people of Christ? Of the same opinion are they also who (as we shall see in the next article) teach that sins remain in the justified.  
And hereupon Protestants (albeit each of them beleiveth as a point of faith, that he is justified) profess that they are 
Protestant's confession of their own wickedness.  most wicked. For thus they say in the French Confession art. 18. In ourselves we are worthy of all hatred. Et in Confess. Heluet. cap. 8. We are drowned in naughty lusts, turned from good realie to all evil, full of all wickedness, distrust, contempt, and hatred of God. And in their French Common prayers: Ready to all wickedness, unprofitable to all good works making no end of transgressing Gods commandments, and continually increasing their damnation with impure and wicked life. Beza also in his Confession cap. 4. sect. 10. It is evident enough, that we are overwhelmed with infinite wickedness. Et de Praedest. count. castle. p. 422. Our vices are great and many. Caluin de Caena pag. 2. There is none of us who can find one crumb of justice in himself, but rather we are defiled with so many vices and wickedness, and full of such a multitude of sins, as etc. Whitaker l. 2. de Peccato orig. c. 3. sayeth that they burn with hatred and contempt of God. Apologia Confess. Augustanae c. de Peccato orig. sayeth that their godly men doubt of the anger of God, of the grace of God, of the word of God, are angered at the judgement, of God, murmur at his deeds etc. Et Pareus l. 3. the justif. c. 8. addeth, that they pass never a day without many a mortal sin. This verdict they give of themselves. Wherefore it is no marvel, that in their French Confession art. 18. they say, that they cast away all opinion of virtues and merits. And such are they that are justified after the Protestant fashion, and to make us such, Christ (forsooth) was incarnated and suffered, and sent the Holy Ghost into the world.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that the justified are clean, are washed, are cleansed from all their filth, are cleansed from dead works, and from all sin, are unspotted. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that the justified are not absolutely cleansed, are unclean, impure, filthy, unjust, impious, defiled with many sins: and that those who are justified after the Protestant manner, are drowned in naughty lusts, full of all wickedness, worthy of all hatred, burn with hatred and contempt of God, doubt of God's word etc. And if their justified men be such, what I pray you are the rest?    

ART. V WHETHER IN THOSE THAT are justified, remain the sins from which they are justified?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
isaiah 44. v. 22. I have clean taken away thine iniquities as a 
Sin taken clean away. No iniquity in David. As for as the East from the west.  cloud, and thy sins as a mist.  
Psal. 16. v. 3. By fire thou hast examined me, and there is no iniquity found in me. Psalm. 102. v. 12. As fare as the East is from the West, hath he made our iniquities fare from us.  
joan. 1. ver. 29. Behold the lamb of God, behold him that taketh away the sin of the world. 1. joan. 3. v. 5. And you know, 
Sin taken away.  that he appeared to take away our sins.  
Rom. 8. v. 1. There is now no damnation to them that are in Christ jesus.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Council of Trent Sess. 5. Con. 1. If any deny, that by the grace of our Lord jesus Christ which is given in Baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted: or else sayeth, that all that is not taken away which hath the true and proper nature of sin, but avoucheth, that that is only shaved or not imputed; be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Confessio Saxonica c. 9 Let him confess, that in the regenerate 
Many great sins in the justified.  there are yet many sins and great filthiness worthy of the wrath of God. The like hath the English Confession art. 9 The French art. 11. The Flemish art. 15. The Scotish art. 15.  
Whitaker l. 2. de Peccato orig. c. 3. If thou thinkest, that the regenerate can be without (mortal) sins, thou thinkest against Scripture and true faith. l. 3. c. 3. How many things there are in 
Many things worthy of damnation.  us worthy of damnation, that speech of the Apostle declareth, & he addeth that in the regenerate, sin doth live, doth prevail, and doth flourish.  
Perkins de Baptismo to. 1. col. 835. Remission taketh away 
Sin not taken away but not imputed.  sin, so as it is not imputed; not, that it is not.  
Willet Contr. 12. q. 6. p. 577. The blot and stain of sin remaineth still. We are not void of sin.  
Luther in Assert. art. 2. to 2. It is one thing, for all sins 
Sin reted, but not taken away. The just are guilty of mortal sin.  to be remitted; an other, to be all taken away. Baptism remitteth all sins, but taketh not quite away. De Ratione confitendi fol. 26. This is the most mortal of all mortal sins, not to believe himself to be guilty of damnable and mortal sin before God. In Gal. 3. to. 5. Believing, we are reputed just, though sins, and those great ones, remain in us.  
Liber Concordiae c. 3. When we teach, that by the working of the Holy Ghost we are regenerate and justified, it must not be 
Injustice in the regenerate.  so taken, as if no injustice at all did stick to the regenerate and justified after regeneration.  
Reineccius to. 4. Armaturae. c. 22. Sins are taken from 
Sin not taken away but not imputed.  us, not that they are no more, but that they are not imputed, and condemn not.  
Caluin in joan. 1. ver. 29. Abeit sin do ever more stick in us, yet in the judgement of God it is none. In Antidoto Council. 
Truly abideth in us.  sess. 5. Truly sin abideth in us.  
Peter Martyr in Locis. Class. 1. c. 14. When God is said to 
Remission taketh away only the punishment.  remit, to wipe out, to forgive sins, he maketh not that they be not, or have not been; but the obligation to bear the punishment for sin, is taken away.  
Pareus l. 5. the Amiss. Grat. c. 7. Innumerable sins, even such 
Innumerable sins in the regenerate.  as are worthy of death, remain in the regenarate.  
And hereupon they teach, that remission, is nothing but a forgiveness of the punishment.  
Whitaker l. 3. de Peccato orig. cap. 3. Remission doth pardon and forgive the punishment, not take away or remove actually 
To forgive sins is only not to punish them.  the fault.  
Beza in Math. 6. v. 12. To remit sin, is nothing else, but not to exact the punishment thereof.  
Piscator in Thesibus l. 1. p. 428. The remission of sin, is nothing else, but not to punish for sin.  
Kemnitius de Origine jesuitarum c. de Peccato: The remission of sin, is one thing; the abolition, is an other.  
Or as Luther said in the words cited: It is one thing for sin to be remitted, an other, to be taken away.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that God taketh away sin, putteth out sin as a cloud or mist: that he maketh our iniquities as fare from us, as the East is from the West: that he found no iniquity in David: that there is no damnation in them, who are in Christ jesus. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that many sins, innumerable sins, great sins, worthy of death, great filthiness worthy the wrath of God, remain, truly remain, are continually in those that are justified: that sin liveth and prevaileth in the regenerate: that sin is not taken away, no sin quite taken away; that it is not made to be no more: that remission of sin is nothing, but forgiveness of the punishment. Which are so contrary to Scripture as sometimes Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. VI WHETHER SINS BE simply forgiven?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
joan. 20. v. 23. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven 
Sins simply forgiven.  them.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 5. the Amiss. Great c. 7. Nether can it be granted without impiety, that the sentence of the Apostle (that there is no damnation in the justified) is not simply true.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Pareus l. 5. de Amiss. Gratiae c. 7. It is most true, that sins 
Not simply forgiven.  are not simply remitted; but with continual prayer of remission. Et l. 4. de justif. c. 17. he sayeth, that Christ doth not absolutely cleanse his people. The same teacheth Illyricus in Apologia Confess. Antuerpiensis c. 3. and all Protestants, who say (as we have seen before) that sins remain in the justified, and that they are still guilty of sin, and deserve damnation, and that remission of sins, is nothing but forgiveness of punishment. For if only punishment be forgiven the justified, if the sin still remain in them by which they are guilty and deserve damnation, manifest it is, that sin is not simply remitted to them.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture simply sayeth, that sin is remitted. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants simply say, that sin is not simply remitted.    

ART. VII. WHETHER ALL THAT ARE justified, be equally just or holy?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
job. 1. v. 8. Hast thou considered my servant job: that there 
None like to job.  is not the like to him on the earth, a man simple, and right, and fearing God, and departing from evil.  
Numbers 12, v. 3. Moses was the mildest man above all men 
Moses mildest of all men.  that dwell upon the earth.  
Math. 8. v. 10. I have not found so great faith in Israel. 
Greatest faith Greatest love.   
joan. 21. v. 15. jesus said to Simon Peter: Simon of John lovest thou me more than these?  
Apoc. 22. v. 11. He that is just, let him be justified yet, and let the holy, be sanctified yet.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
C. Bellarm. l. 3. the justif. c. 16. Lutherans teach, that all just men are equally just, so that none is juster than an other, nor the same increaseth in justice.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Luther in Math. Math 7. to. 7. fol. 96. A Christian is as good and 
Every Christian as holy is S. Peter.  holy as S. Peter and Paul: neither is any greater or better than he. Postilla in Domin. 24. S. Peter is not better than the thief on 
The B. Virgin excelleth not the sinner. We are as holy as the Saints. Better than they.  the cross: Marry the mother of God doth not excel Marie the sinner. In festo Natiu. Mariae. We are as holy as Marie and the other Saints. If they were now upon earth, they would not be ashamed to subject themselves to me and to all, and to honour us, as better than they.  
Brentius homilia in die Visitationis: Marie is not preferred before all women for her own holiness, or other such like virtues.  
Polanus in Disput. privatis periodo 1. disput. 37. One is not 
None more just than an other. No less than Christ.  more just than an other before God.  
Pareus l. 2. the justif. c. 7. By Christ's justice imputed to us, we are accounted no less just than Christ himself, at least keeping the proportion of the head and members.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that there was none on earth like to job: that Moses was the mildest man upon earth: that there was not so great faith in Israel as in the Centurion: that Peter loved Christ more than others: that the just may be yet justified. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that every Christian is as good and holy as the Apostles: that we are as holy as our B. Lady and the Saints in heaven: that we are better than they: that we are are as just as Christ himself: that one is not more just than an other.    

ART. VIII. WHETHER THERE IS ANY justice or grace inherent in the justified?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Daniel 6. v. 22. My God hath sent his Angel, and hath shut 
justice in Daniel.  up the mouths of the Lions, and they have not hurt me, because before him justice hath been found in me.  
Luc. 1. v. 28. And the Angel being entered in, said unto her 
B. Virgin full of grace.  Hail, full of grace our Lord is with thee.  
Act. 6. v. 8. And Steven full of grace and fortitude.  
Ephes. 4. vers. 24. Put on the new man, which according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth.  
2. Tim. 1. v. 6. Resuscitate the grace of God, which is in thee by 
Grace in Timothe.  the imposition of my hands.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Rom. 4. v. 2. The Scriptures plainly teach inherent justice in man.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
French Confession art. 18. Casting away all opinion of virtues 
No opinion of virtue. No justice in us. Not a crume of justice.  or merits, we rest altogether in the obedience alone of Christ.  
Caluin in Rom. 8. v. 3. There can be no justice in us. In Gal. 3. v. 6. Seeing men have no justice in them, they get it by imputation. De caena p. 2. There is none of us who can find any crumb of justice in himself. There is no good in us. Et in Confess. fidei p. 158. We openly confess, that there is nothing in us, which if God look upon, he may not justly condemn.  
Beza in Confess. cap. 4. sect. 8. Faith compelleth us to confess, 
Nothing in us but cause of damnation.  that there is nothing in us besides causes and proofs of damnation.  
Humphrey ad Ration. 2. Campiani p. 142. As for infused 
Not any justice.  grace, that is, inherent justice: we say and teach that no got habit, no engrafted virtue, no infused quality, not any justice by which we may be justified before God, is inherent in us: but that there is engrafted and inherent all wickedness, all rebellion and stubbornness of the flesh.  
Pareus lib. 2. de justificat. cap. 7. We are void of inherent 
We are void of inherent justice.  justice; therefore we need imputed justice. lib. 3. cap. We have already showed, that there is no inherent justice in the judgement of God.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth that there was justice in Daniel before God: that our B. Lady and Saint Steven were full of grace: that grace was in Timothe: that we must put on the new man who is created according to God in justice of truth, that is, true justice. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that there is no justice in us before God, there can be no justice, not a crumb of justice, no virtue, no good, nothing but cause of damnation, and which deserveth to be damned.    

ART. IX. WHETHER JUSTICE INHErent in us can be imputed to us?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Psal. 105. v. 30. Phinees stood and pacified, and the slaughter 
Zeal imputed to justice.  ceased, and it was reputed to him unto justice.  
Rom. 4. v. 3. Abraham believed God, and it was reputed him 
Also faith.  to justice. v. 5. To him that worketh not, yet beleiveth in him that justifieth the impious, his faith is reputed to justice. v. 9 We say, that to Abraham faith was reputed to justice. And in like sort. v. 4. it is said, that reward is imputed to the worker, and v. 8. that sin is imputed to the sinner.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Rom. 4. ver. 2. David the Prophet most expressly sayeth, that the zeal of the honour of God and of his law in Phinees, was reputed him to justice.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Pareus l. 2. the justif. c. 3. What inhereth, is not imputed. For 
No inherent thing imputed.  that is properly imputed, which is not had: That is not imputed which is had according to Paul's discourse. l. 3. c. 1. What inhereth, is not imputed.  
Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. pag. 68 If any say: Reward is imputed according to debt, abuseth the word, Imputed. And pag. 72. It implieth contradiction, that inherent justice should be imputed.  
Moulins in his Buckler art. 19 sect. 31. It is certain, that faith, as it is a virtue inherent in us, cannot be imputed to us: 
Our actions are not imputed.  for they are not our actions or virtues, but of others, which are imputed to us.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that the zeal of Phinees was imputed to him for justice: that Abraham's belief was reputed to him: that the faith of the beleiver is reputed to him. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say; that what inhereth is not imputed: that inherent virtue cannot be imputed: that it implieth contradiction that inherent justice should be imputed.    

ART. X. WHETHER THE JUSTIFIED be infallibly certain and by divine faith, that they are justified?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Eccles. 9 ver. 1. Man knoweth not, whether he be worthy of 
None knoweth that he is worthy of love. Or whether he be simple.  love or hatred, but all things are reserved uncertain for the time to come.  
Eccles. 5. v. 5. Of sin forgiven, be not without fear.  
job 9 v. 21. All though I shall be simple, the self same shall my soul be ignorant of.  
Hier. 17. v. 9 The hart of man is perverse and unsearchable, 
None knoweth his own hart.  who shall know it.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. cap. 9 None can know with certainty of faith which cannot be deceived, that he hath obtained grace.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Commonly they teach, that every faithful man is justified by a special or peculiar faith wherewith he beleiveth that his sins are forgiven. For thus they profess in Confess. Augustana apud Melancthonem to. 3. art. 4. They 
We are justified by believing ourselves to be such.  are justified, when they believe that they are received into grace, and that their sins are remitted for Christ. This faith God imputeth for justice. Et art. 5. God justifieth those, who believe that they are received into grace for Christ.  
And Apologia Confess. Augustanae. c. de justificat. This 
Special faith of our own justification justifieth us.  special faith, wherewith every one beleiveth that his sins are remitted for Christ, and that God is appeased and pacified for Christ, obtaineth remission of sins and justifieth us. And c. de Paenitentia: Remission of sins cometh by that special faith, wherewith every one beleiveth that his sins are forgiven him for Christ. Whitakerus ad Ration. 8. Campiani p. 41. Whosoever beleiveth that his sins are remitted, this very faith absolveth him. The same teach commonly all Protestants, and many of them are named in my Latin book: And because it is well enough known, I will allege no more of their sayings to prove, that they think themselves to be justified by a special faith wherewith they believe that they are justified.  
Whitaker Concione vlt. This one thing I say: Whosoever 
We have certain faith of our justification.  deny us to be certain of our salvation with certainty of faith, leave us no faith. l. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 47. None are justified, but who know that they are justified.  
jewel Defense of the Apology. pag. 149. Our people be 
As certain as if Christ said so to us.  so certain of the remission of their sins in the blood of Christ, as if Christ himself were present and spoke it to them.  
Perkins de Baptismo tom. 1. col. 820. He beleiveth not the Gospel unless he likewise be persuaded that he is the son of God. And same ibid. col. 206. The true faithful are certain by faith, that their sins are forgiven them.  
Rainolds thesi. 2. p. 71. That they are elect, faith persuadeth every pious man touching himself, and charity, touching others.  
Luther in 1. Petri 1. to. 5. Thou must believe, that thou art a 
We must believe that we are Saints.  Saint, and that with so great certainty and constance, that thou fearest not to lose thy life for it. In Psal. 14. to. 3. f. 245. It can be no ways faith, unless it be an undoubted opinion, wherewith a man is certain above all certainty, that he pleaseth God, and hath him propitious in good, and indulgent in evil.  
Caluin in Math. 21. v. 21. Christ doth not acknowledge that 
No beleiver without special faith.  any believe, but such as without doubt do think that God is propitious to them. The same he hath in Rom. 1. v. 6. & 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 16. In Antidoto Concilij Sess. c. 10. What lewdness, I pray, is it, that none can know by certainty of faith, that he hath obtained grace? And in Catechismo cap. de fide, he defineth Faith, to be a sure and settled knowledge of God's fatherly good will towards us. The like he hath 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 16. & Beza in Confess. c. 4. sect. 5.  
The sixth article of Lambeth: A true faithful man, that is, 
We are certain by faith of justice and salvation.  endued with justifying faith, is certain by fullness of faith of the remission of his sins, and his eternal salvation by Christ.  
Peter Martyr in Rom. 6. We must be resolved with steadfast faith, that God loveth us, and hath received us into grace by Christ.  
Pareus l. 3. the justisic. cap. 4. Without doubt it is most false in the faithful, that none can be certain with divine faith of true conversion.  
Willet Contr. 19 q. 2. pag. 1005. By a lively faith we may be assured that our sins are forgiven us, and that we be fully justified in Christ, reconciled to God, and are remaining in the state of grace.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that a man, knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred: that he knoweth not whether he be simple: that none knoweth his hart: and biddeth us not to be without fear of the forgiveness of our sins. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that a man must firmly believe that he is a Saint, that his sins are forgiven; that a man may know with divine faith that his sins are forgiven: that he beleiveth not the Gospel unless he believe this, that he is no faithful man except he believe so: that they are as certain that their sins are forgiven, as if Christ himself in presence had said so to them: that this kind of belief is justifying faith.    

ART. XI. WHETHER PENANCE GO before justification?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Acts 3. v. 19 Be penitent therefore, and convert, that your 
Penance before forgiveness.  sins may be put out. c. 2. v. 38. Do penance, and be every one of you baptised in the name of jesus Christ for remission of your sins. cap. 8. v. 22. Do penance from this thy wickedness, and pray to God, if perhaps this cogitation of thy hart may be remitted thee.  
2. Cor. 7. v. 10. The sorrow that is according to God worketh penance unto salvation that is stable. Likewise the prodigal son repent before he was received into grace of his father, and likewise S. Marie Magdalen, before her sins were forgiven.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Marci 1. v. 15. Pennance always goeth before regeneration and remission of sins.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins in Apoc. 2. tom. 2. col. 114. Regeneration goeth before, 
Repentance followeth justification.  and repentance followeth as the fruit thereof.  
Willet Contr. 14. q. 4. pag. 721. Faith is first, whereby we are justified and our sins remitted before God, then followeth repentance.  
Caluin in 3. Instit. c. 3. §. 2. We will prove, that a man cannot seriously repent, unless he know that he is Gods, but none is truly persuaded that he is Gods, unless he have first apprehended his grace. §. 1. It ought to be out of doubt, that penance doth not only follow faith (special of the remission of our sins) but also that it riseth of it. The same hath Beza in Absters. calumniarum He●husij p. 328.  
Pareus l. 1. de justif. c. 20. The works of penance and love 
Later than justification.  are by nature later than faith and justification, as the effects of free justification. Et c. 24. We have after proved, that penance and works are by nature later than justification. The like hath Apologia Confess. Augustanae c. the Dilectione etc. de justificatione.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly commandeth to do penance for to obtain remission of sins, and to have sins put out: and sayeth that sorrow according to God worketh penance to salvation. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants say, that none seriously repent but they who know they have already obtained remission of sins: that penance is the effect of justification and by nature later than it.    

ART. XII. WHETHER JUSTIFICATION be ever lost, or can be lost?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 12. v. 43. When an unclean spirit shall go out of a 
The Devil goeth out and returneth again.  man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest and findeth not. Then he sayeth I will return into my house whence I came out-and taketh with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they entering in, dwell there; and the last of that man be made worse than the first.  
Math. 24. v. 12. And because iniquity shall abound, the charity 
Charity of some waxeth could.  of many shall wax could.  
joan 15. ver. 6. If any abide not in me, he shallbe cast forth as the branch and shall whither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth.  
Rom. 11. ver. 22. See then the goodness and severity of God; upon them surely that are fallen, the severity: but upon thee, the 
Some cut of  goodness of God, if thou abide in his goodness, otherwise thou shalt also be cut of.  
Gal. 5. v. 4. You are fallen from grace. 
Fallen from grace.   
Hebr. 10. vers. 9 How much more think you doth he deserve worse punishment, who hath trodden the Son of God under foot, and esteemed the blood as the testament polluted, wherein he is sanctified.  
Apoc. 2. v. 5. Be mindful from whence thou art fallen, and do penance.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 23. If any shall say, that a man once justified, can sinne no more nor lose grace, be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Bucer apud Zanchium l. de Perseverantia to. 7. col. 172. Nothing is more profitable, then to preach, that is impossible for 
Impossible to fall from grace. None fall from grace. Nor from remission.  those that believe, ever to fall from grace.  
The Academy of Heidelberg. ib. 70. The elect once received into grace, never afterward fall from it.  
Zanchius himself in Summa Praelect. ib. col. 274. If any shall say, that remission of sins once obtained is in Saints made void by falls afterward, he overthroweth the whole scope of the Gospel.  
Caluin 3. Institut. cap. 2. §. 11. The seed of life engrafted in the hearts of the elect never perisheth. l. 1. c. 14. §. 18. I deny, that the 
The faithful never overcomen.  faithful can ever be overcome of Satan.  
In Ezechielis 18. v. 24. David is found to be a perfidious murderer, a betrayer of the army of God, and briefly there is a huge multitude of sins in that poor King, and it seemeth that God's 
Grace never extinct in David.  grace was stifled in him, but not quite extinct.  
Beza in 2. part. respon ad Acta Colloq. Montisbel. p. 87. The Holy Ghost never departed wholly or could depart from him who once hath had the feeling of true faith.  
Polanus in Disput. privatis disput. 16. The regenerate can never wholly lose faith and the grace of God.  
Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. p. 253. The faithful never fall from the grace of God.  
Contra remonstrantes in Collat. Hagae p. 351. The elect never falleth from grace.  
Rainolds thes. 2. p. 77. It is clear, that the justified sons of God by faith are often times beaten with the strokes of tentation, but never killed.  
Abbots in Diatribam Thomsoni c. 5. sayeth, that those whereof S. Matthew speaketh cap. 24. cit. had never true charity.  
Perkins de Desertione col. 1026. This principle is to be 
Who is once in grace ever continueth so.  held: Who is once in state of grace, shall ever more continue in it.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that there are men from whom the Devil departeth and returneth again whose charity waxeth could: that some fall from grace: that there are some branches in Christ which abide not in him: that some are sanctified by the blood of Christ who afterward tread it under foot. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that a man once received into grace never falleth from it: that the seed of life once engrafted in a faithful hart never perisheth: that faithful men are never overcomen of Satan: that it is impossible for beleivers to fall from grace: that remission cannot be made void by falls afterward: that there was never true charity in them in whom it waxeth could. Which are so contrary to Scripture, as many Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. XIII. WHETHER THE JUSTIFIED man may fear to fall?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Rom. 11. ver. 20. But thou by faith dost stand: Be not highly 
Fear.  wise, but fear.  
1. Cor. 10. v. 21. He that thinketh himself to stand, let him 
Take heed.  take heed, lest he fall.  
Philippens. 2. ver. 12. With fear and trembling work your 
Work with fear.  salvation.  
Hebr. 4. v. 1. Let us fear, lest perhaps forsaking the promise of entering into his rest, some of you be thought to be wanting.  
Prou. 28. v. 14. Blessed is the man who is always fearful. 
The fearful, blessed.    

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. c. 3. Who think, that they stand, let them beware lest they fall, and let them work their salvation with fear and trembling. cap. 9 Every one whilst he looketh upon himself and his own indisposition, may fear of his grace.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins in Conflictu Satanae to. 1. col. 1035. I account my 
As certain of salvation as etc.  self as certain of salvation, as if my name were expressly written in the holy Scripture.  
Tindal in Fox his Acts pag. 1137. Nether canst thou be 
We cannot be damned unless Christ be. Christ must be damned before we be. As sure of our salvation as of the Gospel. Free from all fear.  damned except Christ be damned with thee: neither can Christ be saved, except thou be saved with him.  
Luther Postilla in die Nativit fol. 52. He (Christ) must be damned, before he can be damned, for whom he hath given himself.  
Affelman l. de Praedest. §. 80. Every true Christian ought to be as certain of his salvation, as he must believe the Gospel.  
Caluin in 1. Luc. v. 73.  God doth reconcile men to himself in Christ; seeing he defendeth them with his safeguard that they be free from all fear etc. In joan. 3. v. 18. Christ will have the faithful to be secure from fear of damnation. In Antidoto Concil. Sess. 6. cap. 14. That is not to suffered, when they exhort 
We must not fear. As sure of heaven as Christ.  us to fear. Et 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 2. We dare boldly avouch, that everlasting life is ours, and that we can no more miss of heaven, that Christ himself. The like hath Conradus Fabritius apud Zuinglium to. 2. f. 28.  
Beza in Luc. 1. vers. 74. Fear in this place signifieth dread of future evil, which is directly contrary to the trust of the sons of God. In Confess. c. 4. art. 13. Let every one of us thus discourse 
We cannot perish.  with himself: I am in Christ jesus, and therefore I cannot perish. And in Explicat. Christianismi c. 8. p. 200. he sayeth, that a man may be as certain of his salvation, as if he had climbed to heaven, and had heard it out of Gods own mouth.  
Peter Martyr in c. 11. Rom. Nether ought any to marvel, that we say, that faith expelleth that fear which is joined with doubt of salvation. Et in locis class 3. c. 3. Who sincerely believe 
Fear not to be damned.  in Christ, do not fear to be damned for ever.  
Contra— Remonstrantes in Collat. Hagae p. 374. Who have 
Have no cause to fear.  once believed, are certain, that this is God's gift; and therefore have no cause to fear to be damned.  
Pareus l 3. the justif. c. 2. How do they make a man secure, if 
All fear expelled.  they expel not all fear— But we do thus teach: that a sinner if he look upon the promise and mercy of God, may and ought not to fear but surely trust, and that unless he do so, he maketh God a liar.  
Bucer apud Zanchium lib. 2. de Natura Dei c. 2. The first thing which thou owest to God, is to believe that thou art predestinated 
A principle of Protest. faith.  of him. We must therefore presume as a principle of faith, that we are all elected of God to this end to be saved for ever, and that this purpose of God cannot be changed.  
Zanchius l. 5. de Natura Dei c. 2. to. 2. col. 497. Every one is bound to believe that he is chosen and predestinate in Christ to 
The reprobates are bound to believe that they shallbe saved.  eternal salvation. When we say, Every one is bound to believe this, we except none, no not the reprobates, who shall neither ever believe, nor yet can believe in Christ. The like of the reprobates teacheth Perkins in Casibus Conscientiae cap. 7. col. 1329.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly biddeth the justified to fear, to take heed lest he fall; to work our salvation with fear: to fear lest any of us prove reprobate: and sayeth that he is happy who is always fearful. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly bid the justified to be secure from all fear, from fear of damnation: that it is not to be suffered, that men be exhorted to fear: and bid men be persuaded, that they cannot perish, that they have no cause to fear, that they dare assure themselves of heaven as much as Christ himself: that they are as sure of salvation, as if their names were written in Scripture, or they heard it out of God's mouth: that they cannot be damned unless Christ be damned: And add, that every one, even the reprobates, are bound to believe this, and that this a principle of their faith.    

ART. XIV. WHETHER JUSTIFICATION be proper to the Elect.  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Ezech. 18. ver. 24. But if the just man shall turn away himself 
Some reprobates justified.  from his justice, and do iniquity according to all the abominations which the impious useth to work, shall he live? All his justices which he had done shall not be remembered, in the prevarication which he hath prevaricated, and in his sin which he hath sinned, in them he shall die.  
Math. 24. v. 12. And because inquitie shall abound, the charity 
Charity in some in whom it waxeth could.  of many shall wax could.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Council of Trent. Sess. 6. Can. 17. If any shall say, that the grace of justification, is given only to the predestinate to life: be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 1. cap. 8. Saints indeed none are, but 
None sanctified but the predestinate.  those who are predestinate. The only predestinate are endued with the spirit of sanctification.  
Perkins de Desert. to. 1. col. 1026. God bestoweth his spirit 
No reprobate is regenerate.  upon the reprobate, but not so fare as his nature is regenerated or renewed. And Some apud ipsum col. 209. Remission of sins pertaineth to the elect alone.  
Caluin de Praedest. p. 695. He justifieth none, but whom he 
None justified but the predestinate.  hath ordained to life. P. 713. It is certain, that the reprobates are never endued with the spirit of adoption. In Antidoto Concil. sess. 6. Can. 17. Whosoever is ignorant that the spirit of regeneration is not given but to the elect alone: I know not what he knoweth in the Scripture.  
Beza l. quaest. vol. 1. p. 687. The elect alone repent and do good 
The elect repent.  works.  
Abbots in Diatribam Tomsoni cap. 5. There is nothing in reprobates borne of God: No reprobate is justified. 
No reprobate justified.   
Rainolds Thesi 4. God justifieth the elect alone.  
Pareus l. 1. de Grat. & lib. arbit. c. 16. Albeit the reprobates seem sometimes to be converted, yet inwardly they are never regenerate.  
Vrbanus Regius in locis tom. 1. fol. 307. The reprobates shall never have grace which maketh grateful, nor true faith and charity.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that a just man may turn himself from justice and die in sin: and that the charity of many shall wax could. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that the predestinate are justified, only the elect regenerated: only the predestinate are Saintes: that the reprobates are never adopted, never truly justified, never regenerated, only seem to be converted: and that there is nothing borne of God in them.    

ART. XV. WHETHER A SINNER COOperate or prepare himself to justification?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Prou. 16. v. 1. It pertaineth to a man to prepare the hart.  
Ezec. 18. v. 27. And when the impious shall turn away himself 
Man must prepare his hart. He doth quicken his soul. Cleanseth himself. Sanctifieth himself.  from his impiety, he shall vinificate his soul. v. 31. Make to yourselves a new hart and a new spirit.  
2. Tim. 2. vers. 21. If any man therefore shall cleanse himself from these, he shallbe a vessel unto honour.  
1. joan. 3. v. 3. And every one that hath this hope in him sanctifieth himself.  
james 4. v. 8. Cleanse your hands ye sinners, and purify your hearts, ye double of mind.  
2. Cor. 7. v. 1. Let us cleanse ourselves from all inquination.  
1. Reg. 7. v. 3. Prepare your hearts to our Lord, and serve him 
Prepareth his hart.  only.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 4. If any shall say, that man's free will moved and stirred of God, doth by assenting cooperate nothing with God moving and stirring, whereby he may prepare and dispose himself to obtain the grace of justification; nor can descent though he would, but like to a thing without life doth nothing at all, and hath itself merly passively, be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker l. 2. de Peccato orig. c. 3. In our very conversion 
In our conversion we are mere passive.  to God which is done by grace, our free will hath not in itself any power, but in this matter we have ourselves wholly passively.  
Perkins in Apoc. 3. Hence I gather, that the Papists dote, 
We dispose not ourselves to justification.  in saying, that in regeneration man hath free will and the use thereof, and that he can dispose himself to justification.  
Luther deseruo arb. to. 2. f. 454. In the very renewing and 
We are mere passive and do nothing.  change of the old man, who is the son of the Devil, into a new man, who is the son of God, a man hath himself merely passively, neither doth any thing, but is wholly done. In Psal. 5. to. 3. It is an error, that free will hath any activity in good works, when we speak of an internal work. What activity hath clay when 
We have no activity.  the potter giveth it a form?  
Postilla in die Nativit. fol. 62. No other ways then if God 
No more than a dead tree.  change a dry post into a new green and flourishing tree: so doth God's grace renew a man.  
Liber Concordiae c. de lib. arbit. The conversion of our depraved 
No more than a dead man.  will is the work of God alone, as the raising of the dead in the resurrection is to be attributed to God alone.  
Schlusselburg. tom. 5. Catal. Haer et. p. 44. Is it well said, 
No more than a block.  that a man is like a block in his conversion? Well.  
Mansfeldenses apud eundem p. 474. The true and plain sentence of this question, and as it were the true proposition of all the matter, which Scripture and with it and out of it Luther setteth down, is this: That a man in his conversion hath himself merely passively, and by his strength cooperateth nothing at all to God's grace.  
Yea some Lutherans not content to deny, that a man cooperateth to his conversion, and to say that he behaveth himself merly passively like to a block, add also, that he resisteth and repugneth to his conversion.  
Praetorius apud Schlusselburg. tom. cit. pag. 532. Flanius 
Man is converted against his will.  sayeth: A man in his conversion is like a block doing nothing of himself, yea resisting and like an enemy striving against God. What do you dislike in this doctrine of Luther and Illyricus?  
Gesnerus in Compendio doctrinae caelestis. loco 12. It followeth, that a man in his conversion doth not only cooperate nothing, but also resisteth the Holy Ghost.  
Piscator apud Vorstium in Parasceve ad Collat. c. 8. God worketh faith and conversion in men, whomsoever he converteth they not only being impious, but also actually rebelling, and continuing in the act of rebellion. Thus they.  
Caluin 2. Instit. c. 3. §. 7. But there be some, who will grant 
Man hath no part in his conversion.  that the will of itself turned from good, is converted by the only power of God, yet so as it being prepared hath some part in working. But this is wrongly given to man, that he obeyeth preventing grace with an attending will. Et ib. §. 10. It is false, that men are drawn willingly. Which also he hath in joa. 6. v. 44. In Actor 9 v. 5. The Papists attribute the praise of our conversion 
He doth not cooperate.  to God's grace, but in part only, because they imagine that we cooperate.  
Beza in Confess. cap. 4. sect. 17. There can be no concourse of 
Doth not concur:  grace and free will, when the Spirit of God by his mere grace freeth us from sin.  
Pareus l. 6. de Grat. & lib. arbit. c. 9 God taketh away the ill will, and maketh a good. In this the Scripture attributeth no operation to the will but mere passion.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly teacheth, that a man must prepare his soul, prepare his hart: turn himself from iniquity, make a new hart, cleanse and sanctify himself. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly teach, that a man doth not cooperate, not concur, hath no part in working, is merly & and purely passive in his conversion, is like a block: that the conversion of a sinner is the work of God alone as the raising of the dead: yea that a man in his conversion actually resisteth and rebelleth against God.    

ART. XVI. WHETHER AFTER Justification there remain at any time any temporal punishment due?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
2. Reg. 12. vers. 14. Nathan said to David: Our Lord hath 
David punished after he was forgiven.  taken away thy sin, thou shalt not die. Nevertheless because thou hast made the enemies of our Lord to blaspheme; for this thing the son that is borne to the dying shall die.  
Numbers 20. v. 12. And our Lord said to Moses and Aaron: 
Also Moses and Aaron.  Because you have not believed me to sanctify before the children of Israel, you shall not bring in the peoples into the land which I will give them. Et Gen. 3. v. 17. Punishment is imposed upon Adam because he had eaten of the forbidden apple, and yet it is not doubted but his sin was forgiven him.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 14. c. 8. The Council declareth that it is altogether false and contrary to the word of God, that the fault is never remitted of God, but that all the punishment also is pardoned.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Caluin in Luc. 21. v. 43. Away with that naughty devise, of 
No punishment after forgiveness.  the retaining of punishment when the fault is remitted. In Rom. 4. v. 6. The Scholastiks do fable, that the fault being remitted, punishment is retained of God.  
Beza in Math. 6. v. 12. It is not only false, but also a fond and foolish opinion of the Sophisters, who think that punishment being retained, the fault is remitted.  
Daneus Contr. 6. p. 1204. It is an error that the fault being remitted, any punishment is retained.  
Bullinger de justific. Serm. 6. What I pray you had Christ 
Any temporal punishment contrary to Christ's sufferances.  profited us, if yet punishment (temporal) were exacted of us for sins?  
Spalatensis l. cont. Suarem c. 2. The fault is never remitted, but the whole punishment is with all pardoned.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that David was punished with the death of his son even after his sin was remitted: The like it sayeth of Moses, Aaron, and Adam. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that it is false foolish and erroneous, to think that the fault being remitted any temporal punishment is retained: that Christ had profited us nothing if any temporal punishment were exacted of us for sin. Which is so countrarie to Scripture as sometimes Protestants themselves confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

THE SUM OF THIS CHAPTER OF justification.  
Out of that which we have rehearsed in this chapter clearly appeareth, that the Protestants doctrine of justification is quite contrary to the holy Scripture. For the Scripture (and catholics with it) teacheth that justification is of works, and not of faith only: that the justified are just indeed and before God: that they are clean, and that the sins from which they are justified remain not in them: that there is in them inherent grace or justice, and that it is imputed to them: that they are not certain by infallible faith that they are justified: that penance goeth before justification: that justification may be lost, and that the justified aught to fear lest he fall: that justification is not proper to the elect: that a sinner cooperateth to his justification: and that sometimes after justification temporal punishment remaineth: All Which Protestants deny.  
It appeareth also, that Protestants even in this matter keep their old custom of stealing. For they take from justification the virtue of abolishing sin in those that are justified, and of making them truly just and clean, and of giving them internal justice, and of making that it be imputed to them: They take also from it that it can be communicated to the reprobates. And thus much of justification.    

CHAPTER XVII. OF LIFE AND DEATH EVERLASTING.  

ART. I. WHETHER LIFE EVERLASTING be a reward?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
MATH. 5. v. 12. Be glad and rejoice, for your reward 
Reward in heaven. Everlasting life rendered to us.  is very great in heaven.  
Rom. 2. v. 6. God will render to every man according to his works: to them truly that according to patience in good work seek glory and honour and incorruption, life eternal.  
Colossens. 3. ver. 24. Knowing that you shall receive of our 
Heavenlieinheritance a retribution or reward.  Lord the retribution (Beza and the Anglish Bible translated, Reward) of inheritance.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. c. 16. Everlasting life is to be proposed to those who work well to the end and hope in God, both as a grace mercifully promised to the children of God by Christ jesus, and as a reward, and to be faithfully given by God's promise to their good works and merits.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins in reformed Catholic Contr. 5. p. 110. The kingdom 
Kingdom of heaven not a reward properly. Not a reward or recompense.  of heaven is called a reward not properly, but by a figure or by resemblance.  
Ministers of Saxony in Colloq. Aldeburg. pag. 6. reject this proposition: Life everlasting is given for good works as a reward or recompense.  
Illyricus in Math. 5. v. 12. The Lord calleth goods to come a 
Called a reward by abuse.  reward abusively. And in Clane part. 2. tractat. 6. col. 545. It useth to be called sometimes a reward by abuse.  
Gerlachius to 2. disput. 26. These gifts do not properly deserve the name of a reward.  
Zuinglius de Providentia cap. 6. to. 1. These are hyperbols 
By overlashing of speech.  and overlashesse: If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments: Who shall do the will of my father etc. and what other promises soever have been made to works. Et in 2. Cor. 5. to. 4. Not that there is any reward of faith or works, but etc.  
Caluin in Antidoto Concilij sess. 6. c. 17. That they make 
No reward.  everlasting life a reward, in that I descent from them. 3. Instit. c. 21. §. 1. Salvation cometh to us by the mere liberality of God: He 
Mere liberality.  saveth of his mercy good pleasure, and repaieth not a reward. l. 18. §. 3. Let them know, that they have received a gift of grace, 
Not a reward  not a reward of works. In Ephes. 2. v. 8. That he saveth, is mere grace, not a reward or retribution.  
Bucer in Math. 5. The things which come to us from God, 
Free gift.  are no reward, but his free gifts.  
Peter Martyr in Roman. 4. Everlasting life may have some 
Fare from the nature of reward.  resemblance of reward, but is fare distant from the nature thereof. Wherefore everlasting life cannot be called a reward but by some resemblance.  
Piscator in Thesibus loco 16, If properly speaking life everlasting 
If there were reward, there were Merit.  were a reward, surely we should merit it by good works. Wherefore it remaineth that life everlasting be called a reward by a figure.  
Luther apud Scioppium in Ecclesiast. c. 67. If I saw heaven open and could merit it by taking up a straw from the ground, yet would I not take up the straw.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture plainly sayeth; that everlasting life is given according to works, and in that manner of speech, as it saith that wrath and indignation is given according to works: that there is very great reward in heaven: that we shall receive the retribution or reward of inheritance. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that everlasting life is no retribution or reward: that it is fare from the nature of reward: that all the promises made in the Scripture to works are hyperbols or overlashing of speech: that is improperly a reward, abusively a reward: that it deserveth not the name of reward. Which are so contrary to Scripture, as sometimes Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. II. WHETHER LIFE EVERLASTING be a Crown of justice?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
2. Tim. 4. v. 7. & 8. I have fought a good fight, I have consummate 
Heavenly reward is a crown of justice.  my course, I have kept the faith, Concerning the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which our Lord will render me at that day a just judge.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton l. 9 the justif c. 3. The Scriptures most manifestly show, that happiness is a reward of justice promised of God.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins refor. Catholik. Contr. 5. p. 109. We must acknowledge life eternal to be every way the gift of God. p. 108. It is a free gift.  
Caluin 3. Instit. c. 15. §. 4. Beatitude itself is the mere goodness 
Of mere liberality.  of God. c. 21. §. 1. Salvation cometh to us of the mere liberality of God In Rom. 6. v. vlt. Hence we gather, that our salvation is wholly from God's grace and mere goodness. In 2. Tim. 2. v. 12. Paul acknowledgeth nothing in the whole cause of salvation, 
Of mere grace  but mere grace of God. In Antidoto Concil. sess. 6. It cometh to us by no other Title then of free adoption.  
Beza in Confess. c. 4. sect. 7. We profess, that everlasting 
By not title but of free adoption.  life is wholly and in all parts the free gift of God. lib. quaest. vol. 1. p. 655. Wholly of his mere grace doth he give us the benefit of eternal life.  
Bucer in Epitome doctrinae Argentinen. Everlasting life remaineth mere grace.  
Zuinglius in Exposit. fidei tom. 2. f. 558. Eternal happiness cometh by the only grace and liberality of God.  
Bullinger Decade 3. Serm. 9 None is so sottish, as he understandeth 
Wholly and merely of grace.  not, that the whole benefit of salvation is attributed wholly and merely to grace.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that everlasting life is a crown of justice, to be given to him that hath fought a good fight and consummated his course, and that of a just judge. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that life everlasting is mere grace, mere goodness, in all parts a free gift: that it cometh to us of mere goodness, not otherwise then by mere gift, by no other Title then of free adoption. Wholly of mere grace: that it is nothing but mere grace: that S. Paul acknowledgeth nothing in all the course of salvation but mere grace. Which is so contrary to Scripture as some Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. III. WHETHER SALVATION OR eternal life be of faith only?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
james 2. vers. 14. What shall it profit my brethren, if a man 
Salvation no● of faith only.  say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?  
Philippen. 2. vers. 12. With fear and trembling work your 
Salvation is to be wrought of us.  salvation.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
C. Bellarm. l. 4. the justif. c. 7. We say, that good works are necessary to a just man to salvation, not only in manner of pre-presence, but also of efficiency, because they work salvation, and without them faith alone worketh not salvation.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Perkins in Gal. 3. to. 2. col. 157. They are deceived, who say, 
Works no cause of salua. Faith only saveth. Works not profitable to salvation.  that faith and works concur as causes of salvation.  
Luther de votis to. 2. fol. 273. Faith alone saveth: fol. 279. This is the sum of sums: Works and vows can neither be taught nor persuaded, unless we say, that they be wholesome and profitable to justice and salvation: But to teach, that they are wholesome, is devilish and Apostasy from faith, because faith alone is necessary and wholesome. ib. de Captivit. Baby l. f. 78. It is certain, 
Faith alone is wholesome.  that none of them was saved by his vows and religion, but only by faith, in which we all are saved. Postilla in die Ascensionis. 
Works help nothing to salvation. It is enough to have faith.  Faith alone by itself and without any works saveth us, and works do nothing at all to piety or salvation. In Dom. post Ascens. Faith delivereth from the Devil, hell, sin, and all misfortune; which if we have, it is enough.  
Ministers in Saxony in Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 162. Whosoever teacheth, that eternal life is given for good works, he departeth from the word of God, the Confession of Auspurg and 
Life not given for works.  the Apology. Thou shall never read in the Scripture, that eternal life is given for good works.  
Liber Concordiae c. 3. p. 691. By faith alone we are justified before God and saved. 694. But this error also is to be rejected when it is taught: That a man is any other way, or by any other thing saved, then by that, by which he is justified before God: as if by only faith we were justified before God, but yet that it were impossible to obtain eternal salvation without works. cap. 4. in Epitome art. We believe, teach, and confess, that good works 
Works wholly excluded from saltion.  are wholly to be excluded, not only when we treat of the justification of faith, but also when we dispute of our eternal salvation. Again: We reject and condemn these speeches: Good works are necessary to salvation.  
Zuinglius in Expostulat. ad Lindoverum to. 1. fol. 204. Faith alone saveth us.  
Caluin in Rom. 10. v. 10. We are saved by faith alone. In c. 1. v. 7. It is faith alone, which bringeth everlastingness of life.  
Beza in Explicat. Christianismi c. 8. vol. 1. pag. 199. Who 
Salvation relieth not upon works.  teach, that men's salvation relieth upon works either wholly or in some part, do plainly overturn all the Gospel.  
Pareus l. 4. the justif. c. 4. The Gospel promiseth salvation under the condition of faith alone.  
Daneus Contr. de Baptismo c. 17. All the manner of our salvation purchased by Christ, standeth in faith in him.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that faith alone can not save us. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that faith alone saveth, alone bringeth life: that by faith only we are saved: that salvation is promised upon condition of faith only: that works concur not to salvation, work nothing to salvation, are not necessary to salvation, are not wholesome.    

ART. iv WHETHER ALL MEN, BOTH good and bad, be to be judged?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Apoc. 20. v. 12. And I saw the dead, great and little, standing 
Great and little are to be be judged.  in the sight of the throne, and books were opened, and an other book was opened which was of life; and the dead were judged of those things which were written in the books according to their works. And the sea gave the dead, that were in it, and death and 
Every one. All.  hell gave their dead that were in them, and it was judged of every one according to their works.  
2. Cor. 5. v. 10. For we must all be manifested before the judgement 
Every one  seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body according as he hath done either good or evil.  
Matthew. 25. vers. 32. And all nations shallbe gathered before 
All nations.  him, and he shall separate them one from an other, as the pastor separateth the sheep from the goats. Then shall the King say to them that shallbe at his right hand: Come ye blessed etc. Then shall he say to them also that be at his left hand: Go ye away etc.  
Act. 10. v. 43. It is he that of God was appointed judge of the living and of the dead.  
Hebr. 22. v. 22. But you are come to mount Zion, and the city 
All.  of the living God— and the judge of all, God.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Catechismus ad Parochos in Exposit, Symboli. Of which article that is the sense and meaning, that in the last day Christ our Lord shall judge all mankind.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther apud Scioppium in suo Ecclesiast. c. 5. Christians 
Only infidel—  know, that only infidels who will not receive the Gospel, are to be judged of Christ in the last day. Let us learn and note this 
Not the faithful.  well, that we fear not death and the last judgement: for Christ is not to come to judge us, but he will judge them who believe not.  
Bullinger Concione 90. in Apoc. f. 163. The impious are 
Impious, not the pious.  to be judged, but not the pious.— The good, because they are justified and absolved, appear in judgement with glory to judge after their manner and fashion the wicked, but not to be judged of any.  
Tilenus' in Syntagmate c. 67. The elect do know, that neither 
Not the elect.  their deeds nor all their words are to be called to the account of this judgement. The like say others, as we have showed before c. 3. art. 10.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that all the dead shallbe judged according to their works: that all must be manifested before the tribunal of Christ: that all Nations shallbe gathered to Christ's judgement: that Christ is judge of the quick and the dead: that God is judge of all. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that the impious are to be judged but not the pious: that the good are not to be judged of any: that only infidels shallbe judged.    

ART. V WHETHER THERE BE ANIE. to whom, seeking eternal glory according to patience of good works, everlasting life is rendered?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Roman. 2. vers. 6. and 7. Who will render to every man 
There are some such.  according to his works; to them truly that according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour, and incorruption, life eternal.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Rom. 2. v. 6. cit. If Christ alone shall bring those works, to which the Apostle here sayeth that eternal life is rendered, he should not have said: He will render to every one according to his works, but to every one according to Christ's works.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Beza in Rom. 2. v. 6. What is here said of Sophisters, as if 
There are no such.  any out of Christ, or regenerate in Christ, are found such in the judgement of God, as these here are described, doth  much from the scope of the Apostle. For that surely is most absurd. Or as he hath in edition of 1565. Shall any man bring these works, to which the Apostle sayeth that life eternal shallbe rendered: Ether men not regenerate, or the sons of God? But neither Abraham surely hath whereof to glory before God.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that there are some, to whom seeking glory according to patience of good works, eternal life is rendered. The same say Catholics.  
Protestant's plainly say, that there are no men to whom life eternal is rendered according to their works, nor that there are any works to which eternal life is rendered.    

ART. VI WHETHER THE SOULS OF reprobates departed this life do now suffer the pains of hell?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
jude. v. 7. As Sodom and Gomorrha and the city's adjoining 
Sodomites in eternal fire.  in like manner having fornicated and going after an other flesh, were made an example, sustaining the pain of eternal fire.  
Luc. 16. vers. 22. And the rich man also dead, and he was 
Dives in torments.  buried in hell. And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments etc.  
Numbers 16. ver. 33. And they went down into hell quick, covered with the ground. 
Are in hell.    

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
S. Thomas. Suplement. q. 69. art. 2. As soon as the soul is loosed from the body, either it is cast into hell or mounteth to heaven, unless it be hindered be some guilt so that it need first to be purged. And the contrary opinion is to be held for heresy.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Scultet. in 1. parte Medullae in Tertulliano c. 42. As that 
The souls not punished before the body.  position of his is new, so also is it false: That the souls suffer in hell before the bodies.  
Confession of Wittenberg. cap. de Memoria defunctorum. Faith requireth of us to believe, that the dead are not nothing, but truly live before God; the godly, happily in Christ, and the imperious in horrible expectation of the revelation of God's judgement.  
Confessio Belgica art. 12. sayeth thus of the Devils: 
Reprobates expect their torments.  They daily expect the horrible torments of their wicked deeds.  
Caluin 3. Institut. cap. 25. §. 6. There is no doubt, but that the same lot befalleth to the reprobates, which jude assigneth to the Devils, to the tied bound in chains, till they be drawn to the punishment, to which they are adjudged. In 2. Petri 2. vers. 4. 
Expect their revenge.  The reprobates suffer horrible torment of the revenge prepared for them.  
Luther in 25. Genes. to. 6. fol. 321. I cannot affirm, whether 
Uncertain whether wicked souls be now tormented.  the souls of the wicked be tormented straight after death. 322. We know not, whether damnation begin straight after death. Sermone de Divite & Lazaro tom. 7. fol. 268. I dare not affirm, that Dives is now vexed with these torments. In cap. 2. jonae to. 4. f. 418. I am not very certain, what hell is before the last day. And apud Schioppium lib. cit. ca 3. Nether hath the 
The place of the dead hath no torments.  place of the dead any torments.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the Sodomites suffer the pain of everlasting fire: that Dives is buried in hell, is in torments, and tormented with fire: that Dathan and Abiron descended quick into hell. The same say Catholics.  
Protestant's say, that they dare not affirm, that the souls of the wicked are tormented straight after their death: yea they teach that it is false that souls are punished in hell before the bodies.    

ART. VII. WHETHER HELL BE any place?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Luke 16. vers. 22. And the rich man also died, and he was 
Hell is a place of torments.  buried in hell. And v. 28. Lest they also come into this place of torments.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Purgatorio c. 6. Hell is a place of punishment.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther Serm. de Divite & Lazaro tom. 7. fol. 267. Hell 
Hell, nothing but conscience. No corporal place.  can be nothing else, but a conscience void of faith and fraught with sin. Postilla in Dom. 2. post Trinitatem. fol. 286. True hell shall begin at the latter day. The place where a soul may be and yet want quiet, can not be a corporal place. Hell can be nought else but an empty, faith less, sinful, and wicked conscience.  
Perkins in Apocalips' 2. to. 2. col. 90. We must not imagine, 
No certain place,  that hell is any certain definite and corporal place.  
Brentius apud Hospin. parte. 2. Histor. fol. 308. I laugh 
There is no local hell.  at your old wife's dotages of a corporal and local heaven or hell. Fol. 331. A local hell, is a fiction.  
Schlusselburg lib. 1. Theol. Caluin art. 27. writeth, that the Catechism of Heidelburg calleth in doubt whether there be 
No such appointed place.  any hell indeed, and an appointed place where the wicked and damned after this life are to be punished with eternal pains together with the wicked spirits. And that Bucer upon S. John openly affirmeth this.  
Caluin 2. Instit. c. 16. §. 9 To shut up the souls of the dead in prison, is childish.  
Tilenus' in Syntagmate cap. 6. We condemn the Papists, who out of the dream of their drunken brain do put the place of the damned in the midst of the earth.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that hell is a place of torments. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that hell is no place, no corporal place, no prison; that it is nothing but a wicked conscience; that it shall begin at a the latter day: which are so repugnant to Scripture, as some Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. VIII. WHETHER THE FIRE OF hell be true fire?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Matthew. 25. vers. 41. Get ye from me you cursed into fire 
True fire in hell.  everlasting.  
jude. v. 7. cit. Sustaining the pain of eternal fire.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
S. Thomas. Supplement. q. 70. art. 3. The fire of hell is not imaginary or metaphorical fire, but true corporal fire.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins in Apoc. 2. to. 2. col. 90. We must not imagine, that 
No corporal fire.  the torments (of hell) are corporal, but rather spiritual, seeing they are an apprehension or feeling of the wrath of God and of his revenge.  
Caluin in Math. 3. v. 12. Touching everlasting fire, we may 
Metaphorical fire.  gather, that it is a metaphorical speech.  
Daneus Controu. 4. cap. 11. They feign, that the souls of men, and Devils are tormented in hell with true and corporal fire. Controu. 6. pag. 1181. It is impossible, that the souls of men separated from their bodies should be tormented with any corporal fire.  
Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 269. It implieth contradiction, that corporal fire should work upon a mere spirit, as man's soul is said to be.  
Tilenus' in Syntagmate cap. 68 There is no cause, why we should say that (in hell) is corporal fire. The same sayeth Polanus in Sylloge thesium. parte 2. p. 518. and Lobechius disput. 6. & 19   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the fire of hell is fire. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that it is not true or material fire, but metaphorical: that souls and mere spirits cannot be tormented with corporal fire.    

THE SUM OF THIS CHAPTER OF EVERLASting life and death.  
What we have rehearsed in this chapter clearly proveth, that Protestants teach fare otherwise of everlasting salvation and damnation, than Scripture doth. For Scripture (and catholics with it) teacheth, that eternal salvation is a reward, a crown of justice, and cometh not of faith only: that the souls of the reprobates do now suffer the pains of hell: that hell is a true place, and that the fire of hell is true fire: All which Protestants deny.  
The same also prove, that Protestants steal from eternal salvation the nature of a reward, and crown of justice, and dependency of good works: and steal from hell the nature of a place and true fire.    

CHAPTER XVIII. OF GOD'S LAW.  

ART. I. WHETHER GOD'S LAW BE possible?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
EZECHIEL. 36. v. 27. And I will put my spirit in 
God will make us to keep his law  the midst of you, and I will make that you walk in my precepts and keep my judgements and do them.  
Math. 7. ver. 21. He that doth the will of my Father 
Some do his will.  which is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. c. 11. v. 30. My yoke is sweet, and my burden light.  
Rom. 8. v. 4. God sending his Son in the similitude of the 
justification of the law fulfilled in us  flesh of sin, even of sin damned sin in the flesh, that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us. c. 13. v. 8. He that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law.  
Gal. 5. ver. 14. All the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt 
The law fulfilled in love  love thy neighbour as thyself.  
1. joan. 2. ver 4. He that sayeth, he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. c. 5. v. 3. This is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments, and his commandments are not heavy.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. c. 11. No man must use that temerarious speech and condemned of the Fathers under a curse: That God's commandments are impossible to be kept of a justified man. For God commandeth not impossble things, but by commanding he admonisheth to do what thou canst, and to ask what thou canst not, and helpeth that thou mayest.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker l. 1. count. Dureun sect. 9 Thou canst do nothing less, 
We can not fulfil the law  the fulfil the law? No man can obey the law. And Contr. 2. q. 6. c. 3. he avoucheth it to be a foundation of Christian religion: That God's law cannot be fulfilled of us: and ib. q. 5. c. 7. sayeth, that the contrary is Pelagian heresy.  
Perkins de Baptismo to 1. col. 833. The Papists think, that a man in this life can observe and fulfil the law.  
Confession of Auspurg. cap. 6. So great is the weakness of 
No man can satisfy the law.  man's nature, as no man can satisfy the law.  
Apology of England. We say, that in this life we can no way satisfy the law.  
Luther de libertate to. 2. fol 4. All the commandments are 
All the commandments are impossible  are alike impossible unto us. In Gal. 3. f. 329. The law exacteth impossible things.  
Caluin in Antidoto Concilij Sess. 10. cap. 12. They bring nothing which helpeth their wicked opinion of the possible observation of the law. In Luc. 10. v. 26. It is impossible for us to perform 
The law is impossible to be kept.  that which the law commandeth. In Actor. 15. v. 10. It is manifest, that the law is impossible to be kept.  
Beza in Luc. 18. v. 22. No man can keep one commandment so as the law prescribeth. In Rom. 10. ver. 6. The law proposeth not heaven but under an impossble condition.  
Daneus Contr. de Baptismo c. 15. It is altogether impossible 
Altogether impossible.  to keep the commandments. Contr. 5. p. 974. Bellarmin sayeth, that is easy for him that hath charity to keep the law: I answer that even to him it is impossible.  
Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theol. loco 5. Albeit 
Even with God his grace  regenerate men be helped and governed of the Holy Ghost, yet they are hindered by the remnants of sin, that they cannot satisfy the law.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that God's commandments are not heavy, that his burden is light: that who loveth his neighbour, fulfilleth the law: that God will make us to keep his judgements: that he sent his Son, that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that no man can satisfy the law, that the law is impossible even to a justified man, that the law is impossible: that all the commandments are a like impossible: that no one can be kept: that the law proposeth not heaven but under an impossible condition: that the doctrine of the possible observation of the law, is wicked.    

ART. II. WHETHER EVER ANIE HAVE kept God's law?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Psalm. 118. vers. 55. I have been mindful in the night of thy 
David kept God's law.  name, o Lord, and have kept thy law.  
Luc. 1. v. 6. And they were both just before God, walking in 
Also Zacharias and Elizabeth.  all the commandments and iustifications of our Lord without blame.  
joan. 17. v. 6. Thine they were, and to me thou gavest them, 
And the Apostles.  and they have kept thy word.  
Act. 13. v. 22. I have found David the son of jesse a man according to my hart, who shall do all my wills.  
1. joan. 3. v. 22. Whatsoever we shall ask we shall receive of him, because we keep his commandments.  
Apoc. 3. v. 10. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, and I will keep thee from the hour of tentation. c. 14. v. 12. Here 
And Saintes.  is the patience of Saintes, who keep the commandments of God, and the faith jesus.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. ca 16. We must believe, that nothing wanteth to the justified, that they may not seem to have fully satisfied the law of God according to the state of this life with those works which are done in God.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
The Confession of Scotlond artic. 15. We affirm, that 
None but Christ hath kept the law.  none on earth (Christ only excepted) in work and indeed so performeth, and shall perform that obedience to the law, which the law requireth.  
Confession of Auspurg. c. de operibus. Saints do not satisfy 
Not Saintes.  the law.  
Confession of Bohemia art. 7. We teach, that there is none who in deeds doth fulfil the precepts of the law.  
Luther in Gal. 3. to. f. 3. 343. Moses requireth a worker who perfectly doth the law; But where shall we have him? No where. In. c. 4. f. 393. No man doth the law.  
Caluin in Rom. 13. vers. 8. No man performeth the law, nor ever performed it. In Act. 15. v. 10. The faithful after they are regenerate with the spirit of God, do give themselves to the justice of the law, but yet they perform not all, but half and much less than half. In Gal. Gal 3. v. 10. It is clear, that never any was found or can be fowd, who fulfilleth the law. In vers. 12. There is none who doth the works of the law. The like he hath in Antidoto Concil. sess. 6. c. 12. In 3. Instit. c. 17. §. 3. & 13.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that David kept God's law, did all his wills: that Zacharias and Elizabeth walked in all God's commandments without blame: that the Apostles kept God's word: that Saints have kept God's word and commandments. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that none besides Christ gave that obedience to the law which it requireth; that no man in deed hath fulfilled the law: that no man satisfieth the law: that the regenerate do much less than half of the law.    

ART. III. WHETHER EVER ANIE HAVE loved or followed God in all their hearts?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Deut. 30. v. 6. Our Lord thy God will circuncise thy hart, and 
God will make us to love him in all our hart. David did so.  the hart of thy seed, that thou mayest love our Lord thy God in all thy hart, and in all thy soul that thou mayest live.  
3. Reg. 14. vers. 8. Thou hast not been as my servant David, who kept my commandments, and followed me in all his hart, doing that which was well liked in my sight.  
3. Reg. 8. v. 23. Lord God of Israel, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee in all their hart.  
4. Reg. 23. v. 25. There was no king before him (josias) like 
josias followed God in all his hart.  to him, who returned to our Lord in all his hart, and in all his soul, and in all his power according to all the law of Moses.  
Daniel. 3. 41. Azarias' thus prayeth: And now we follow thee 
Also Azarias.  in all our hart, and fear thee, and seek thy face.  
Psal. 118. v. 10. With my whole hart I have sought after thee. 
And David.    

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Amiss. Gratiae. c. 12. Luke writeth of Zacharias and Elizabeth that they walked in all the commandments and iustifications of our Lord: neither would they be said to have walked, in all the commandments, who had neglected the first and greatest which is of loving God with all the hart.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
The Apology of the Confession of Auspurg. c. de Resp. ad Argumenta. No man feareth so much, loveth God so much, beleiveth God so much as he ought.  
Luther in Gal. 5. to. 5. f. 417. Thou shalt not find one on earth, who so loveth, God and his neighbour, as the law requireth. Postilla 
None can love God in all his hart.  in Dom. 10. post. Trinit. f. 315. He requireth, that we love him with all our hart, which no mortal man can perform.  
Brentius homilia 1. in Dom. 13. post. Trinit. None was ever found amongst the Saints, who loved God perfectly with all his soul.  
Caluin. 2. Instit. c. 7. §. 5. I say, there was no Saint, who whilst 
No Saint ever loved God in all his hart.  he was in this mortal life, attained to that height of love, that he loved God with all his soul, with all his hart, with all his power.  
Pareus l. 4 the justif. c. 11. Such love (of all his soul) none of the Saints had, or can have in this infirmity.  
Daneus Contr. 5. p. 973. That this precept: Thou shalt love God etc. can be fulfilled, both under the old and the new testament, and that God promised it Deuter. 10. v. 12. 30. v. 6. Hier. 24. v. 7. is most false.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly teacheth, that God will make the faithful to love him with all their hart: that the three children followed God in all their hart: that David sought God in all his hart: that God useth mercy to them who walk before him in all their hearts: that josias returned to God in all his hart, in all his soul, in all his power, and according to all the law of Moses. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach; that there is not one who loveth God so as the law requireth: that no Saint loved God with all his hart: that no Saint ever had the love God in all his hart.    

ART. iv WHETHER GOD'S LAW BE in the hearts of any?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Hierem. 31. v. 33. I will give my law in their bowels, and in their 
God's law in the hart of some.  hart I will write it.  
Psal. 36. 31. The law of God in his hart.  
Deut. 30. v. 14. But the word is very near thee, in thy hart and in thy mouth to do it. The same Rom. 10. v. 6.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Rom. 10. vers. 6. The Scripture here sayeth plainly: The word is near, that is, the commandment of the law to do it. This is not true sayeth the Heretic, and the word of the law, or the commandment of the law is not properly in our hart.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Caluin in Rom. 10. v. 6. Even after regeneration, the word 
God's law in the hart of none.  of the law cannot be properly said to be in our hart, because it requireth perfection from which the faithful themselves are fare of. The same say others who teach that the law is impossible. For if it be impossible, it is not in our hearts.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that God's law is in our bowels, is written in our hearts: is in the hearts of some. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the law of God is not properly in the hart of any.    

ART. V WHETHER WE PRAY THAT we may fulfil God's law?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 6. v. 10. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 
We pray to fulfil God's law.    

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 1. de bonis operibus in part. cap. 6. We pray that God's help and grace be given us, whereby we may and will fulfil God's commandments.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Perkins in Gal. 3. to. 2. col. 135. We do not pray, that we may 
We pray not so.  fulfil the law, but that we may endeavour according to our strength to fulfil it.  
Caluin in Math. 10. v. 6. It sufficeth, that with desire we testify that we hate whatsoever is against the will of God. In like sort Daneus in orat. Dom. and others, who teach that it is impossible to fulfil the law. For no man prayeth for that which he knoweth to be impossible.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly biddeth us pray, that Gods will be done in earth as it in heaven, where doubtless it is fulfilled The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly teach, that we do not pray that we fulfil God's law, that it sufficeth to testify that we hate what is contrary to God's law. Which is so contrary to Scripture as sometimes Protestants themselves confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. VI WHETHER THE KEEPING OF the law be necessary to salvation?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Math. 19 v. 17. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 
Keeping of the law necessary to salvation.   
joan. 15. ver. 10. If you keep my precepts, you shall abide in my love.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D, Stapleton in Math. 19 v. 17. This doctrine of Christ doth manifestly show, that the keeping of God's commandments is necessary to everlasting life.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther in Galat. 2. tom. 5. f. 311. The Papists teach: Faith in 
Not necessary.  Christ justifieth, but with all the commandments of God must be kept, because the Scripture sayeth: If thou wilt enter etc. There Christ is straight denied and abolished.  
Caluin in Math. 19 ver. 17. This answer of Christ is legal; That none is accounted just before God unless he hath satisfied the law, which is impossible. 3. Instit. c. 17. §. 7. A legal promise, which added to an impossible condition, proveth nothing. In Antido to Concil. sess. 6. p. 280. Woe be to their Catechumen, if so hard a condition (of observing the law) be imposed upon them. what other then eternal malediction is laid upon them. In Act. 15. v. 10. The whole world is cast headlong into eternal perdition, if it cannot obtain salvation but by keeping the law. In Math. 9 v. 10. It sufficeth to testify this by desire, that we hate whatsoever is contrary to Gods will, and wish it were not.  
Perkins in Cases of Conscience c. 7. If men do endeavour to yield God obedience in all things, God will so accept this their slender and small endeavour of doing that which they can do by his grace, as if they had perfectly satisfied the whole law. 
Slender endeavour accepted of God   
Piscator loco 17. The faithful are freed from the rigour of the law, and therein from care and fear of malediction of the law for the breaking thereof.  
Pareus l. 4. the justif. cap. 7. It is enough, if they endeavour to 
Enough to endeavour.  begin the new obedience of the law according to all the commandments, and ask and impetrate the pardon of defects for the merits of Christ, otherwise no flesh would be saved.  
Peter Martyr in 1. Cor 10. v. 12. The precepts of good works require no other thing of us, than endeavour and diligence to live well. In c. 7. v. 19 upon that: But the keeping of God's commandments, This, sayeth he is not expected of you, who already are children and belong to Christ, but only keeping of the commandments of God so fare as the condition of man and state of this present life do suffer.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that if we will enter to life, we must keep the commandments. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that it is not necessary to keep the commandments: that it is enough to endeavour. to begin the keeping of them: that God accepteth a slender endeavour of keeping them for a perfect keeping.    

ART. VII. WHETHER THE LAW OF the ten commandments be abrogated and taken away from the faithful?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY DENIETH.  
Rom. 3. v. 31. Do we then destroy the law by faith? God forbid: 
The law not abrogated by faith in Christ. If no law, no sin.  But we do establish the law. c. 4. v. 16. Where there is no law, neither is there prevarication.  
Math. 5. v. 18. Do not think that I am come to break the law or the Prophets. I am not come to break, but to fulfil.  
joan. 14. v. 15. If you love me, keep my commandments.   

catholics EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Council of Trent Sess. 9 Con. 19 If any shall say, that nothing is commanded in the Gospel but faith, and that the rest are indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, but free, or that the ten commandments belong nothing to Christians: be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Luther Sermone de Moyse: The ten commandments belong 
The ten commandments belong not to Christians.  to Christians: And Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dureum sect. 91. addeth: This article is surely most worthy of Luther, because it containeth most high truth and comfort.  
The same Luther in c. 18. Deut. to. 3. f. 56. Know, that God's law is that only which commandeth to the wicked and desperate 
The law abolished to the godly.  men what is to be done, but where the godly are, there the law is abolished. In Gal. 2. to. 5. fol. 227. The hart being justified by faith, straight ways all laws cease, all things are free and lawful. 223. The law is dead, and compelleth no more, yet we may do the law upon charity, but not as a law. 315. all the ceremonial 
A Christian not bound to the law.  law or the decalog, is abrogated to a Christian, because he is dead to it. And to be dead to the law, is not to be bound with the law, but to be free from it and not to know it. 370. Christ hath abrogated all laws universally. Postilla in die Pentecostis f. 273. The Holy Ghost is given to this end, to abrogate and take away the law. Wherefore Christians are not to be governed by laws, but others who profess not Christ in their hart, are to be bridled with laws, are to be remitted to hangmen and tormentors, and to be governed by the sword, for to be kept in order. Et f. 272. The Holy Ghost doth so abrogate the law, that he leaveth not so much as the letter of the law, or if any thing remain, it remaineth only for to preach by word.  
Melancthon in locis apud Fabritium in art. Augustan. 20. p. 364. We have divided the law into three parts, Moral, ceremonial, and judicial, all which must needs be abrogated if the old testament be abrogated. And this was the cause of abrogating the law, because it could not be performed or done. Which 
The moral law is abrogated.  cause pertaining more to the moral law, then to the ceremonial or judicial, we must needs say that the Decalogue also is abrogated.  
Michael Neander apud Schlusselburg. to. 4. Catal. Haeret. p. 61. I abide in my opinion, that the law is not given to the just 
The law hath no use. All laws taken away.  in any use or office.  
Tindal in Fox his Acts pag. 1140. Edit. An. 1610. Christ took away all laws and maketh us free and at liberty.  
Or as M. Rainolds l. 4. Caluinuoturcismi c. 22. reporteth his words out of an other edition: Christ hath freed us from all laws, so that hereafter no law bindeth us in conscience.  
Zuinglius in Explanat. artic. 16. The law is taken from the godly by Christ.  
The same in effect say all other Protestants, who teach, that the condemnation of the law, or imputation of the breach thereof, is taken from the faithful, so that it is not imputed to them either for fault or punishment. For it implieth contradiction, that there be a law, and that the breach thereof make not the wilful breakers subject to sin or punishment. Wherefore Luther in Disput. 6. to 1. proposit. 14. said truly: A law which condemneth not, is a feigned or painted law like to a Chimaera. And that the breach of no law is imputed to the faithful is the common doctrine of Protestants, as is to be seen in Conf. Heluet. cap. 12. Scotica art. 15. Apologia Confess. Augustanae c. de Implet. legis. Martyr. in locis class. 2. c. 15. Caluin. 2. Institut. c. 7. Beza in 1. joan. 5. v. 3. & in c. 2. v. 7. Whitaker loco citat. and others.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the law is not destroyed by faith in Christ but established; that Christ came not to break the law but to fulfil it: that if there be no law, there is no sin. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the ten commandments belong nothing to Christians: that the law commandeth only the wicked: that that being justified all laws cease: that the law compelleth no more: that we are not bunod with the law: that Christ hath abrogated all laws: that that the law is not given to the just in any use: that no law bindeth any more. Which is so contrary to Scripture, as some Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

THE SUM OF THIS CHAPTER of God's law.  
By what hath been reported in this Chapter clearly appeareth, that Protestants teach quite contrary to the holy Scripture concerning God's law. For the Scripture together with catholics teacheth, that God's law is possible, that some kept it; that some have loved God in all their heart, that God's law is in the heart of some, that we pray to fulfil it: that the keeping of it is necessary to salvation, and that the moral law of the ten commandments is not taken away from the faithful: all which Protestants deny.  
By the same also appeareth, that the Protestants also in this matter play the thiefs. For they take from God's law that it is possible, that it hath been kept of any, that it is in the hearts of any, that it is necessary to salvation, and that it obligeth the faithful.    

CHAPTER XIX. OF MAN'S LAW AND SUPERIORITY.  

ART. I. WHETHER THERE BE ANY Superiority among Christians?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
PROVERB. 8. vers. s 15. By me Kings do reign.  
Math. 24. v. 45. Who, thinkest thou, is a faithful 
Christ appointed some over his family. All power is of God.  wise servant, whom his Lord hath appointed over his family?  
Rom. 13. v. 1. Let every soul be subject to higher powers, for there is no power but of God.  
Tite 3. v. 1. Admonish them to be subject to Princes and Potestates.  
Hebr. 13. v. 17. Obey your Prelates, and be subject to them. 
Subject to Prelates and Princes.   
Act. 2. v. 28. The Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm. l. 3. de Laicis c. 3. The Prophets foretold that all the Kings of the earth should serve Christ and the Church, which cannot be unless there be Kings in the Church.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther l. de saeculari potestate apud Coccium tom. 1. l. 7. 
No Superiority among Christians. A Christian, subject to none.  art. 1. Among Christians there can be no superiority.  
De libertate Christiana to. 2. f. 3. A Christian man is the most freest Lord of all, subject to none. De votis ibib. fol. 270. Christ hath given me so much liberty, that I man subject to none, but to himself only; Christ is my immediate Lord, I know no other any more. In 1. Petri c. 2. to. 5. f. 462. Christ hath committed the bad to profane power, for to govern them as they ought to be governed: the good, that is those who believe, he hath reserved to himself, whom he governeth by his word only.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that King's reign by God, that we must obey the higher powers, that we must be subiest to Princes and Prelates, and to rulers of the Church. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that there is no superiority among Christians: that a Christian is subject to none, under none but Christ: that Christ is his immediate Lord, and that he knoweth no other.    

ART. II. WHETHER MAN HAVE AVthoritie to make laws?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Act. 15. v. 29. It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to 
The Apostles made laws.  us, to lay no further bird upon you then these necessary things: That you abstain from things immolated to idols, and blood, and that which is strangled.  
Ibid. v. 41. Paul walked through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches commanding them to keep the precepts of the Apostles and the Ancients.  
1. Cor. 7. vers. 12. For to the rest, I say, not our Lord: If any 
Also S. Paul.  brother have a wife an infidel, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not put her away.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Act. 15. v. 28. The Church can impose temporal laws as precepts for some good end, to wit, to keep peace in the Church, which bind the faithful in conscience and before God to obey them.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Confession of Basle art. 10. None can forbid that which 
None can forbid that which Christ forbade not. God alone can make laws.  Christ hath not forbid.  
Lutherl count. R. Angliae. to. 2. f. 346. The power of making laws belongs to God alone. De Captiu. Babyl. fol. 77. Nether men nor Angels can by any right impose any law upon Christians, but as they will themselves.  
Caluin 4. Instit. c. 10. §. 7. We hear, that God challengeth 
God only a lawgiver.  this as proper to himself alone, to govern us by the command of his word and by laws. Ibid. §. 8. If God be the only lawgiver, men must not take this authority upon them. In jacobi 4. v. 12. They draw to themselves all the majesty of God, who challenge authority to make laws.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the Apostles had authority to impose necessary burdens, and to command that which Christ had not commanded: to command their precepts to be kept: and to make laws for married persons. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that none can forbid that which Christ hath not forbid: that the power of making laws is proper to God alone: that no law can be imposed upon Christians but as they will themselves.    

ART. III. WHETHER MAN'S LAW CAN bind the conscience?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Rom. 13. v. 2. Who resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance 
Man's law can bind conscience.  of God, and they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. v. 5. Therefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
D. Stapleton in Rom. 13. v. 1. The breach of humane laws offendeth also God— The very consciences of the faithful are bound with civil laws.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Contr. 4. quaest. 7. c. 1. We say, that the laws of 
Prince's laws bind not conscience.  Princes bind not the conscience, for this is proper to God. lib. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 103 Who impose laws upon the conscience, challenge power of saving and destroying, and rob God of his right. The laws of Magistrates have no power over the conscience.  
Perkins in Anatomia Conscientiae: tom. 1. col. 1215. We 
Conscience subject to no man's law.  acknowledge no subjection at all of the conscience to men's laws. In Galat. 5. tom. 2. col. 258. The Magistrate's law maketh a thing necessary externally; Nevertheless the thing in itself is not made necessary, but remaineth indifferent, and you may use it or not, if you avoid contempt or scandal.  
Luther in 1. Petri c. 2. tom. 5. f. 464. The Magistrate cannot bind the conscience. De seruo arbit. to. 2. fol. 431. Consciences are bound with God's law only.  
Zuinglius in Explanat. artic. 28. It is no sin which God forbiddeth not. Man's additions cannot make any thing to be good or evil. Art. 24. No Christian is bound to those works which Christ hath not commanded.  
Caluin in jacobi 4. vers. 12. It is God alone, who hath the conscience subject to his laws. In Refutat. Cathalon. p. 384. No mortal man can make laws which bind the conscience, and make men guilty of God's judgement. De necessitate reform. pag. 58. We teach, that consciences are free and quite from men's laws. In Confess. fidei p. 109. Men have no power to bind the conscience under mortal sin. The like he hath 3. Instit. c. 19 & 4. c. 10.  
Beza in Confess. c. 5. sect. 33. God hath reserved to himself alone all this power of binding the conscience with laws. cap. 7. sect. 9 It is lawful to God alone, to impose laws upon the conscience.  
Peter Martyr in locis. class 4. cap. 4. §. 5. The Apostles 
No sin to break the Apostles laws without scandal.  did decree, that Gentiles converted to Christ should abstain from strangled meat, and immolated to idols, and from blood— If any had eaten of them without offence of others he had sinned nothing in conscience.  
Daneus Controu. 3. p. 509. men's commandment can not bind our consciences. Contr. 5 pa. g1125. No law, but Gods, can bind us in consciencience.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly sayeth, that who resisteth the Magistrate resisteth God's ordinance, and purchaseth damnation, and that we must be subject to him for conscience sake. Catholics say the same.  
Protestant's expressly say, that Magistrates cannot bind the conscience: that God alone can bind the conscience: that breakers of the Apostles precept without contempt or scandal did not sin.    

THE SUM OF THIS CHAPTER of man's law.  
What hath been rehearsed in this chapter plainly proveth that Protestants teach contrary to the Scripture concerning man's law. For the holy Scripture and catholics withal, teacheth that there is superiority among Christians, that men have power to make laws, and that their laws may bind the conscience: all which are denied of Protestants.  
It proveth also that Protestants even in this matter keep their old custom of stealing: For they take from Christians all superiority, all power of making laws, and from their laws all power of binding the conscience.    

CHAPTER XX. OF FREE WILL.  

ART. I. WHETHER MAN'S WILL BE free in indifferent matters?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
NUMBERS 30. v. 14. It shallbe in the arbitrement 
Man free in things indifferent.  of her husband, whether she shall do it or not do it.  
joshua 24. ver. 15. Choice is given you, choose this day that which pleaseth you.  
2. Reg. 24. vers. 12. Choice is given thee of three 
We have choice.  things; choose one of them which thou wilt.  
1. Corint. 7. vers. 37. For he that hath determined in his hart being settled, not having necessity, but having power of his own will etc.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent. Sess. 6. Con. 5. If any shall say, that man's free will is after Adam's sin lost and extinct, or a thing only in Title, or a title without the thing, finally a devise of Satan brought into the Church: be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Luther art. 36. tom. 2. Free will after sin is a thing only in 
No free will after sin.  Title. And in assert. eiusdem articuli: Free will is a devise amongst things, and a title without the thing: because no man hath in his power to think any good or ill, but all things fall out of absolute necessity. There is no doubt, but that by Satan's teaching this name, Free will, came into the Church.  
The same Luther de seruo arbit. to. 2. f. 434. Man's will is 
Man's will is like a beast.  set in the midst as a beast: if God sit upon it, it willeth and goeth whither God will; if Satan sit upon it, it willeth and goeth whither Satan will: Nether is it in his power to run to either rider or to seek him, but the riders themselves strive about 
We do all things of necessity.  him whether shall have him. fol. 435. It is certain, that we do all things of necessity, 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 have neither free will nor reason.  de Grat. & lib. arbit. c. 5. Men use the name of free will, which is most different from the holy scripture, from the sense and judgement of the Spirit. And out of Plato his school, is added the word Reason, as pernicious as that. Again:  all things that fall out, fall out necessarily according to God's predestination, there is no liberty of will. What then (will you say) is there no chance in things, no hap, no fortune? The Scripture say, that all things fall out necessarily. And if there seem to thee to be some chance in humane matters, thou must here command the judgement 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. God's providence taketh away both free will and merit. 
The very 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, useth an other language than the Holy Ghost doth. 2. Instit. c. 2. §. 8. Because I think it (name of free will) cannot be kept without great danger, and that it would be great good to Church if it were abolished, neither will I use it, and I should wish others if they will hear me, to forbear it. Et l. 1. cap. 15. §. 8. Who do yet seek will in man lost and drowned in spiritual perdition, do plainly dote. Et in confess p. 108. We neither grant merit, nor free will. 
No free will in indifferent things.   
Polanus in Disput. privatis disput 34. A sinful man hath no free will in indifferent and civil matters.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that man hath freedom in choice to do: that he hath choice to choose what he will: that he hath not necessity but power of his will. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that free will is a devise: a thing only in title, or title without the thing: that there is no liberty no chance in things: that all things fall out of absolute necessity; that man's will is like a beast: that a sinful man hath no free will in indifferent and civil things. Which some Protestants confess to be contrary to Scripture. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. II. WHETHER MAN'S WILL BE free in moral matters that are good or bad?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Gen. 4. v 6. Why art thou angry, and why is thy countenance 
Free will in moral matters.  fallen? If thou dost well, shalt thou not receive again: but if thou dost ill, shall not thy sin forthwith be present at thy door? But the lust thereof shallbe under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it.  
joshua 24. v. 15. Choose this day that which pleaseth you, whom 
We have choice in moral matters.  you ought especially to serve. ver. 22. You are witnesses, that yourselves have chosen to you our Lord for to serve him.  
Eccles. 15. ver. 18. Before man there is life and death, good and 
Some could sinne and did not.  evil: what pleaseth him, that shall be given him. c. 31. v. 10. He that could transgress, and hath not transgressed; and do evils, and hath not done.  
Philemon. ver. 14. But without thy counsel I would do nothing: 
Voluntary and not of necessity,  that thy good might not be as it were of necessity, but voluntary. The like is 1. Corint. 7. vers. 37. cited in the former article.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
C. Bellarm l. 5. de Grat. & lib. arbit. c. 14. Orthodoxal truth teacheth, that man in state of corrupted nature is endued with free will in moral matters.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 5. c. 7. p. 515. Luther and Caluin grant 
Man's will not free to good.  man's will to be free to sin and ill doing, but not to good. p. 517. It is the Pelagian heresy: That man after his fall hath any liberty left to good. The like hath Morton l. 1. Apologiae. c. 30.  
Luther de seruo arbit. to. 2. fol. 460. If here could be any change or freedom of will in Pharaoh to both parts, God could not have so certainly have foretold his induration.— Which 
No free will to good.  could not be, unless induration were wholly beyond the power of man, and only in God's power. Resp. ad Artic. Lovan. fo. 504. There is no fee will to good.  
Caluin 2. Instit. c. 3. §. 10. God moveth the will, not as it hath 
Not in our power to obey or resist.  been taught and believed these many ages, that afterward it is in our choice either to obey or resist the motion, but by working it effectually. We must cast away that saying of chrysostom: whom he draweth, he draweth willing. Which he repeateth in joan. 6. vers. 44.  
Pareus l. 5. de Grat. c. 29. p. 919. Who want justice, are not free to justice, but to injustice: nor to good, but only to ill.  
Piscator in Thesibus pag. 423. A man in sin hath no free will to good, but only to ill.  
Thus teach they of man's will to good; of the same towards ill, this they say.  
Caluin 2. Institut. c. 3. § 5. I marvel, if any think it a harsh 
Man is of necessity drawn to ill.  speech, that I say man's will having lost liberty is by necessity drawn or led to evil. Et §. A carnal man necessarily obeyeth every draught of Satan. The same he hath c. 5. §. 1  
Daneus Contr. 6. p. 1224. That sins are not the acts of 
Sin is not the act of a free will.  free will, is false. They are the acts of our own accord, but not of free will.  
Vallada in Apologia c. 20. Who can deny this necessity of sinning in a man not regenerate? The same teach others as hath been showed before c. 2. art. 8.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the lust of sin is under a man: that, as it pleaseth him, good or evil shallbe given to him: that he hath choice whom he will serve: that some thing is voluntary to him and not necessary: that he could have sinned and yet did not. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that there is no free will to good: no freedom to both parts: that it is not in our choice to obey or resist: that by necessity we are drawn to ill: that sin is not an act of free will, but only of our own accord. Which is so contrary to Scripture, as some Protestants confess it. See lib. 2. c. 30.    

ART. III. WHETHER MAN'S WILL cooperate with God's grace to good acts?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Cor. 3. v. 9 For we are Gods coadjutors. c. 15. ver. 10. I have 
We are Gods coadjutors.  laboured more abundantly than all they: yet not I, the grace of God with me.  
Math. 25. v. 20. Lord five talents thou didst deliver me; behold, 
We gain more with God's grace.  I have gained other five beside.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Council of Trent Sess. 6. Con. 4. If any shall say, that man's free will moved and stirred up of God, doth cooperate nothing by assenting to God moving and calling: be he accursed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther in psalm. 5. to. 3. fol. 174. It is an error, that free will 
Free will worketh not in good.  hath any activity in a good work, when we speak of an inward work.  
Zuinglius in Explanat. art. 20. The Papists make God the 
We are not Gods coadjutors.  first and chief cause of all goodness, and us cooperatours, which is craftily to withdraw themselves from God.  
Caluin 2. Institut. cap. 3. §. 12. The Apostle sayeth not, that God's grace laboured with him to make himself fellow of the labour; but rather giveth the whole praise of the labour to grace alone. §. 6. We see, that not content to have given simply the praise of our conversion to God, he excludeth us expressly from all fellowship.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that we are Gods coadjutors, that God's grace laboureth with us: that we gain over that which was given us. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that we are not coadjutors of labour, that we are not Gods coadjutors, that we have no fellowship of the labour.    

THE SUM OF THIS CHAPTER of Free will.  
That which we have rehearsed in this chapter plainly declareth, that Protestants teach fare otherwise of free will then the holy Scripture doth. For that Scripture (and catholics with it) teacheth, that man hath free will in indifferent matters, and in moral both good and bad, and that he cooperateth with God's grace to good: All which Protestants deny.  
It showeth also that as Protestants have stoallen from God, from Christ, from Saints, from the Church, and other things spoken of before, so also they steal from man that which is the most excellent thing in him, to wit, free will, or dominion over his own acts, and make him a slave, and like to beasts.    

CHAPTER XXI. OF MAN'S SOUL.  

ART. I. WHETHER MAN'S SOUL BE immortal?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
MATH. 10. ver. 28. Fear ye not them who kill the 
Soul of man cannot be killed.  body, and are not able to kill to soul. c. 22. ve. 32. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.  
joan. 11. ver. 26. Every one that liveth and beleiveth 
Shall not die.  in me, shall not die for ever.  
Eccles. 12. v. 7. And the spirit returneth to God who gave it. 
Returnet to God.    

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
S. Thomas 2. 2. q. 164. art. 1. The soul of man is immortal, beasts souls are mortal. Et 1. parte q. 118. art. 2. It is heresy to say, that a reasonable soul is transfused with the seed.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther in Assert. art. 27. to. 2. f. 107. I give leave, that the Pope make articles of faith to his followers, Such as are: That bread and wine are transsubstantiated in the Sacrament: That the soul is the substantial form of man's body: That he is Emperor of the world and king of heaven, and an earthly God: That the soul is immortal, and all those infinite monsters in the Romish 
The soul is mortal.  dunghill of Decrees: that such as his faith is, such be his Gospel, such his faithful, such his Church, and like lips like lettuce, and the pot may have a fit cover. And in the Margin: Articles made of the Pope.  
Zuinglius l. de Religione c. de Clavibus to. 2. f. 187. But they do not so agree amongst themselves where the keys were given; that it is marvel, why the Pope of Rome, seeing he alone can judge the Scripture as these men dream, hath not pronounced by some law where they were given, lest there should be so great dissension in a matter of so great moment, or rather of profit: For 
The soul dieth with the body.  he might easily, for he hath decreed, that souls do not die when the body dieth.  
Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 543. There want not some among 
Infants perish like beasts.  Christians, who think that either all Infants or some are quite extinguished by death as beasts are. And he himself insinuateth, that man's soul is not a pure spirit, as appeareth by words cited in an other place. Caluin in Explic. perfidiae Gentilis. p. 677. Some (Protestants) did say, that there is no shorter way to abolish the protection of Saintes, superstitious prayer for the dead, the invention of Purgatory and such like, then if we would believe death to be the destruction of the soul. 
Souls perish.   
Brentius homilia 35. in c. 20. Lucae apud Reginaldum l. 4. Caluinoturcismi cap. 5. Albeit there be no public profession among us that the soul perisheth with the body, and that there is no resurrection of the dead; yet that most unclean and most profane life, which the greatest part of men follow, clearly showeth, that in their mind they think that there is no life after this life, or at least that they doubt of the life to come. 
No life after this. Men are begotten even according to the soul.   
Besides they teach that man's soul is transfused with the seed.  
Bergenses apud Hospin. in Concordia discordi f. 104. Writ that a man is naturally begotten of his father and mother, both according to body and soul.  
Luther disput. 2. to. 2. fol. 500 Who shall think, that the soul is by transfusion, seemeth not to think amiss from the Scripture. Et fol. 501. That is nothing, which is said: A reasonable soul is infused whilst it is created, and created it is infused. Et Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 530. Luther thought that the soul was by transfusion.  
Hutterus in Analysi Confess. Augustanae art. 2. p. 157. We 
Our Souls are not created but transfused.  resolve, that that opinion seemeth more probable to us, which thinketh that souls are not infused of God, but are propagated from parents to children by transfusion.  
Peucerus apud Schlusselburg l. 2. Theol. Caluin. art. 6. I conclude that souls rise by transfusion.  
Schlusselburg. to. 2. Catal. Haeret. p. 195. It appeareth sufficiently in the writings of Luther and Melancthon that they incline to this opinion, which sayeth that souls are by transfusion, and they show great arguments out of the Scripture.  
Reineccius to. 3. Armaturae cap. 6. We gather, that souls are together with the bodies propagated from the parents into the children, and not made of the seed as out of matter; but of the soul of the parents as one candle is lightened of an other, and that as the body, so the soul is in the seed, not actually, but in power, which being dead is raised up by God's government.  
But to teach that man's souls is by transfusion, is in effect 
The Soul being dead it raised.  and deed to say it is mortal, as the Protestants themselves confess. Pareus l. 4. the Amiss. Grat. c. 11. Whether we say that souls are sowed with the bodies, or immediately transfused out of other souls, as one light is kindled of an other, we cannot defend the immortality of the soul any more. Beza in Rom. 5. v. 12. Which opinion can no way be mantained, but that the substance of man's soul must be divisible and consequently corruptible.  
Moreover they teach, that man's soul after his death sleepeth and feeleth nothing.  
Luther in 2. jonae to. 4. f. 417. Scripture teacheth that the dead sleep: I think that they are so drowned with a marvellous 
The Souls sleep and feel nothing.  and unspeakable sleep, as they feel or see less than they that otherwise sleep, and when they shallbe raised, they shall not know where they have been, or how they were suddenly borne a new. Ib. in c. 9 Eccles. f. 36. Solomon seemeth to think, that the dead sleep so, as they know nothing at all. He described the dead like to senseless carcases. Et f. 37. An other place, that the dead feel nothing. Solomon thought, that the dead did wholly sleep and feel nothing at all. In cap. 25. Gen. to. 6 f. 722. There is a great difference between the Saints sleeping and Christ reigning: they sleep and know not what is done.  
Caluin in Psychopanychia p. 388. I know many good men, into whose mind some thing was instilled of this sleep (of the souls) either through to much readiness to believe, or through ignorance of Scriptures, whereby they were not sufficiently instructed at the time for to resist, whom I would not offend if I may.  
Sleidan l. 9 Histor. Luther teacheth out of Scripture, that the souls of the dead do rest and expect the latter day of judgement: and he addeth that out of this Luther overthrew purgatory.  
But to teach, that the souls have no feeling, is as much as to say, that they are perished, according to the verdict of the Protestants themselves. For thus Beza epistola 82. To deprive the soul of motion and sense, is alone as to kill the soul. The same sayeth Caluin lib. cit. p. 391. Daneus Contr. 2. p. 160. Zuinglius in Exposit. fidei tom. 2. fol. 559. and in elencho fol. 37.  
Castalio also apud Bezam de puniendis Haereticis, (whose learning and honesty D. Humphrey ad Ration. 1. Campiani sayeth he well knew) writeth thus: Men dispute of the Trinity, of Predestination, of free will, of God, of Angels, of the state of souls after this life, and of other such matters, which neither are so necessary to obtain salvation by faith, because without knowledge of them publicans and harlots have been saved, neither if they be known make they a man better.  
Finally they use to understand the Saints departed this life by this term, The dead. For so doth the Apology of the Confession of Auspurg. c. de Inuocat. Sanctorum: The confession of Saxony c. 21. Melancthon in locis. c. de Sacramentis, c. de Caeremonijs. c. de scandalo. c. de libertate Whitaker l. 9 cont. Dureum sect. 36.  
Whereupon Kemnitius 3. parte Examinis p. 228. sayeth that the Saints departed are usually termed The dead.   

CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS.  
Scripture expressly sayeth, that the soul cannot be killed, and that it returneth to God. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants expressly say, that the soul dieth, that it is a Pope's decree, that the soul dieth not, that it is a monstruous thing to say that it is immortal: they add also that it is by transfusion, that after death it feeleth nothing: that all or most infants perish as beasts that the knowledge of the state of souls after this death, is not necessary to salvation nor maketh a man the better.    

ART. II. WHETHER MAN'S SOUL BE the form of his body?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
Gen. 2. v. 7. Our Lord God form man of the styme of the 
Soul form of the body.  earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
S. Thomas 1. part q. 76. art. 4. A reasonable soul is united to the body as a substantial form.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther cited in the former article: I give leave that the 
Not substantial form of the body.  Pope make articles of faith to his followers. Such are: That the soul is a substantial form of the body. In psal. 22. to. 3. f. 348. It is not determined according to the spirit of truth, nor according 
So also Farellus.  to the authority of Scriptures, but by the Pope's reed according to vain traditions of men: That the essence of God is neither generated nor generateth: That the soul is a substantial form of the body: That bread and wine are transsubstantiated on the altar: that one kind is to be given to lay men for the whole Sacrament, and like monsters.  
Polanus in Sylloge Thesium parte 2. p. 518. Man's soul is 
No form of the body.  no form of the body, against Bellarmin.  
Bucanus Instit. loco 8. p. 89. The soul is in one only member 
Not in every member of the body.  and place of the body.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly saith, that the soul was infused of God into man, and that by it he was made a living creature. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly say, that man's soul is no form of the body, that it is monstrous to say that it is the form of the body: that it is in one only part and place of the body, and not in the whole body.    

ART. III. WHETHER THERE BE ANY resurrection of the dead?  

SCRIPTURE EXPRESSLY AFFIRMETH.  
1. Cor. 15. v. 16. For if the dead rise not again, neither is Christ 
The dead shall rise.  risen again. And if Christ be not risen again, vain is your faith.  
1. Thessalon. 4. v. 14. For if we believe that jesus died and rose again: so also God them that have slept by jesus will bring with him. And the same is most plainly taught in innumerable places.   

catholics EXPRESSLY AFFIRM.  
Catechismus ad Parochos in Exposit. Symboli: As we believe that many have been raised from death, so we must believe that all shallbe raised to life.   

PROTESTANTS EXPRESSLY DENY.  
Luther l. de seruo arbit. to. 2. fol. 442. Behold experience, what the most excellent wits amongst the Gentiles thought of the life to come and the resurrection. How much more excellent they were of wit, did they not the more think the life to come and resurrection to be ridiculous.— Finally to this day the most, 
Luther not free from denying the resurrection of the dead.  by how much they are of greater wit and learning, do they not the more laugh at that article, and accounted it afable, and that openly. And I would to God thoum, y Erasmus and I, were free from this leaven. So rare is there any faithful soul touching this article.  
Brentius apud Reginaldum cited in the first article: Yea such words fall from diverse (Protestants) by which they signify 
No resurrection of the dead.  that they believe not the resurrection of the dead, as well when there are drunken as when they are sober, in their familiar talks.  
Vorstius in Apologetica resp. ad Homium p. 41. writeth thus: Let them see, who will inquire these things more curiously, what amongst our men Caluin himself sometimes thought of this matter in his epistles p. 85. Where Farellus plainly enough 
Caluin denied the resurrection of the flesh.  telleth that he not only doubted of the resurrection of this flesh, but thought plain contrary from others at that time. And nevertheless none accursed him therefore of heresy. Yea among the Lutherans james Schegkius in Antisimonic. sect. 9 p. 420. 
Schegkius denied the resurrection of these bodies.  Openly denied, that the same bodies should rise hereafter. And yet he was courteously excused of his partners, and it no where appeareth, that he was for that condemned of heresy either of his own men or of ours.  
Caluin Epistola 104. thus writeth to Laelius Sozinus 
Sozinus denied the resurrection of the flesh.  (whom Camerarius in vita Melancthonis much commendeth) I see that you are not satisfied about the resurrection of the flesh.  
Farellus, who was the first Minister of Geneva, and whom Caluin and Beza highly commend, and his picture is put amongst the worthies of the new reformers, denied the resurrection of this flesh. For thus writeth Caluin to him, as reporteth M. Reinalds in Caluinoturcismo l. 3. c. 22. It is no marvel, that the resurrection of this flesh seemeth a 
Nether Caluin marveleth at it.  thing incredible to thee. Thou thinks it sufficeth if thou believest that sometime we shall have new bodies. Behold, the first Apostle of Geneva thought the resurrection of this flesh a thing incredible; neither that seemed any marvel to his Coapostle Caluin.  
Besides, all they who, as we rehearsed cap. 3. artic. 20. deny that Christ's blood rose again, deny that there was a perfect resurrection of Christ of whom his blood was a part, and consequently they must deny that the blood of other men shall rise again, and so there shall not be a perfect resurrection of men.  
Moreover Caluin in 4 c. 1. §. 27. sayeth that those Corinthians who denied the resurrection, were not excluded from God's mercy. Sadeel and Theses Posnan. c. 12. pag. 806. 
Protestants account deniers of the resurrection to be members of the Church and children of God, and faithful.  that they kept the name of a true Church; which also sayeth Rivet. tract. 1. sect. 39 Beza 2 part respon ad Acta Montisbel. pa. 253. and Luther in Galat. 1. fol. 215. The Confession of Zwizerland addeth, that they were holy 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. avoucheth, that they were the sons of God. But if they who denied the resurrection, kept the name of a true Church, remained the sons of God, were not excluded from God's mercy, fell not from faith, surely either the resurrection is no article at all of faith, or not necessary either to grace or salvation.   

THE CONFERENCE.  
Scripture plainly teacheth, that there shallbe resurrection of the dead, and that the contrary doctrine denieth Christ's resurrection and overthroweth all Christian faith. The same say Catholics.  
Protestants plainly teach: that the more witty the Gentiles were, the more they laughed at the resurrection, that the more learned men now are the more they think the resurrection to be a fable: that Luther and Erasmus were not free from this leaven, and that in this matter a faithful soul is rare: that Schegkius openly denied resurrection of this body, (which is indeed to deny all resurrection, seeing resurrection is not but of the same which died) and yet was condemned of no Protestants, yea excused of some: that many of them both drunk and sober let fall such speeches from them, as do show that they believe not the resurrection of the dead: That amongst the Sacramentaries two principal Apostles Caluin and Farel did not believe 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 many of them deny the resurrection of the blood: and lasty that they avouch that those Christians, who denied the resurrection of the dead, fell not from true faith, not from the Church, or favour of God.    

THE SUM OF THIS CHAPTER of man's Soul.  
What we have rehearsed in this chapter plainly showeth, that Protestants think fare otherwise of man's soul, than the holy Scripture doth. For the Scripture, and Catholics with it, teacheth, that the soul of man is the form of the body, is immortal, that there shallbe resurrection of the dead: which Protestants deny.  
It showeth also, that Protestants play the theives towards their own souls, whilst take from it immortality, and the nature of the form of the body, and deny the resurrection of the dead. And hitherto we have showed, that Protestants in 260. articles contradict the express words of the holy Scripture: it remaineth, that we show that they also contradict the true sense of the words; which we will do by two ways, the one by general reasons, the other by the plain confession of 
The Scope of the second book.  some Protestants touching many of the foresaied articles.    
End of the first book.   

THE SECOND BOOK. IN WHICH IT IS SHOWN THAT PROTESTANTS CONTRADICT THE TRUE sense of holy Scripture.  

CHAPTER I. THAT PROTESTANTS CONTRADICT the true sense of Scripture, because in so many things they gainsay the express words thereof.  
FIRST of all, we must consider, that when the holy Scripture and catholics both of purpose intent clearly to declare their meaning touching the foresaied 260. articles in controversy, they do jump either in the very self same, or inequivalent words: and that contrariwise, when the Scripture and the learnedest of the Protestants intent to express their meaning concerning the said articles, they use quite opposite and contrary speeches. Which is a manifest sign, that the Catholics doctrine about the said articles is the self same with the doctrine of the holy Scripture, and the Protestants doctrine, quite contrary thereunto. For sithence this agreement of Catholics with the Scripture in words and speech, and disagreement of Protestants in the same, falleth out so often and in so many and weighty matters, it cannot be attributed to chance, because chance, as the Philosophers 
2. Physic.  teach, is in those things only which fall out seldom: And therefore it proceedeth of the nature of these sentences or doctrines, whose agreement or disagreement with the sentence of the holy Scripture, breedeth this so frequent agreement or disagreement with the words or speeches of the same. Wherefore thus I argue in form of syllogism: These doctrines, which when they are of purpose to be expressed clearly, distinctly, and as they differ from all other doctrines, do of their nature require to be expressed with the very same or equivalent words, are in deed one and the self 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 contrary words, or speeches, are in deed opposite and contrary doctrines: But the Scriptures and the Catholics 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 contrary. The Mayor of first proposition is evident. For how could two doctrines or opinions of their nature require to be expressed with the self same or equivalent words, if there were any difference between them. For undoubtely that difference would exact some difference in the words; and those words which clearly and fully express the one doctrine, could not clearly and fully express the other. And much less could one & the self same speech clearly expressly them both, if they were contrary one to the other. And therefore certain it is, that two contrary doctrines cannot of their nature require to be expressed by the self same or equivalent words. And consequently also it is most certain, that the Scriptures and Catholics doctrines which touching these 260. articles of their nature require to be expressed with the self same or equivalent words, are not opposite one to the other. But those doctrines, which when they are to be clearly and distinctly expressed, of their nature require to be expressed with opposite and contrary speeches, must needs also of their nature be contrary one to the other. For else why should they of their nature require to be expressed by contrary speeches? And the opposition which is between the speeches, wherewith they require to be signified, riseth of the opposition, which is between the doctrines themselves. The Minor or second proposition is proved. First by the reason already made: Because it cannot come by chance, that in so many and so weighty matters, when catholics and Protestant's do of purpose clearly & distinctly express their opinions, those should agree in words and speech with the holy 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 proved by examples; but for brevity's sake I will be content with one. That the Protestants opinion touching the Eucharist; or that which Christ after his last supper gave with his hands to be eaten, when it is clearly and dinstinctly to be expressed, as it differreth from the Catholic doctrine of the same matter, of it nature requireth to be expressed by a proposition which is simply negative, appeareth manifestly: First because their opinion of that matter is simply negative, to wit, that it is not the body of Christ; And an opinion which is simply negative, requireth to be expressed by the like proposition, such as this is: This is not Christ's body. Secondly, because many, and the learnedest of the Protestants, and often times, and in many places, have expressed their opinion of this matter by such a proposition, when they meant purposely to express it clearly and distinctly, as it defferreth from the Catholic doctrine, as I have showed before c. 11. art. 1. who best knew, with what kind of proposition their opinion required to be expressed when it was most clearly and distinctly to be expressed, when it was most clearly and distinctly to be declared. And in the same manner it is evident, that the Catholic doctrine of this matter, of it nature requireth to be expressed by a proposition which is simply affirmative, as this is: This is Christ's body, because their doctrine of this matter is simply affirmative, and because Catholics use to express their doctrine by this kind of proposition. And that the doctrine of the Scripture concerning the same point, of it nature requireth to be expressed by a proposition which is simply affirmative, is manifest, because she four times of purpose expressing her meaning of this matter, she useth a proposition which is simply affirmative, and never useth a proposition negative. Wherefore either the Scripture never expressed her meaning of this matter in such a proposition, as of it nature it required to be expressed withal, but always by a contrary kind of proposition, and then also when of purpose she meant to express her meaning most clearly and distinctly, or the Scriptures meaning touching this matter of it nature requireth to be expressed by a proposition which is simply affirmative, as this is: This is my body: or, This is Christ's body. And consequently it is one and the self same kind of proposition, wherewith the Scriptures and Catholics doctrine of this point requireth to be expressed, to wit, a proposition simply affirmative; and the propositions wherewith the meaning of the Scripture and of Protestants of the same matter are to be expressed are quite opposite, to wit, the one simply affirmative; the other, simply negative; and the like are their meanings.  
But that the force of this argument may better appear, 
1. Head from the numbers of articles in which Protest. contradict the Scripture.  I will divide it into diverse heads. The first shallbe taken from the multitude of matters of articles in which Protestants do contradict the express words of Scripture, which are (as we have seen) 260 and more. For though it may chance, that one once, or twice, or seldom may contradict the express words of an other, and yet not contradict his sense or meaning, yet it can no way be thought, that this can fall out so often. Because so great and so frequent opposition between their words, cannot (as I said before) come by chance: therefore it must rise of the opposition which is between their meaning. For how should their tongues so often jar, whoses minds always agree? How should they who always mean the same, so often speak contrariwise? How should the same sense and mind, be expressed so often by contrary signs?  
The second head shallbe taken from the quality and 
2. From the number of Protest. who do contradict.  multitude of Protestants who have crossed the express words of Scripture. For admit, that some one or few Protestants, and those not the lest learned, should cross the express words of Scripture, and yet the Protestants doctrine should not cross the true meaning of the Scripture; yet it is altogether incredible, that so many, and so famous Protestants, should so often fight with the express words of Scripture, and yet their doctrine should not be contrary to the meaning of the Scripture: For this their crossing of the Scriptures words could not rise of chance, because it is in so many Protestants; nor of ignorance, because they were the learnedest amongst them, and therefore it proceedeth of the very nature of their doctrine. And consequently, their doctrine of it nature is opposite to the Scriptures doctrine.  
The third head is taken of the manner wherewith 
3. From the manner in which they contradict.  Protestants cross the express words of Scripture. Because, for the most part, they cross them so directly, so plainly, so manifestly, as they cross the very words of Catholics, which of set purpose they contradict, or as ever any heretic crossed the express words of Scripture, or as any man can cross them. Wherefore either let them deny, that the contradict the meaning of the Council of Trent, of D. Stapleton, or C. Bellarmin which of purpose they do contradict: or let them grant, that they contradict also the meaning of the holy Scripture: or else let them say, that the contradictions of senses or meanings are not to to be gathered out of any opposition in words, though never so great and manifest, but out of their pleasure. Besides, either let them deny, that ever any Heretic contradicted the true meaning of the Scripture, or let them grant the same of themselves; seeing they have often times, as directly, and as evidently crossed the express words of Scripture, and those spoken of purpose for to declare the Scriptures meaning, as ever any Heretic crossed the Scriptures words. Moreover, they not only cross the express words of Scripture as ditectly and plainly as ever any did, but also they many times cross them in so many and so different forms of speech, as scarce any, who would have it known that he did contradict the Scriptures meaning, could divise more manners how to contradict it.  
The fourth head, is taken out of the quality of the 
4. From the quality of the words which they contradict.  words of Scripture which Protestants do contradict. For they are express, formal, clear, not obscure nor doubtful; and spoken not by the way, but of purpose for to express the Scriptures meaning of those matters, as is evident in all the articles. And what can be the true sense of Scripture, if that be not, which such kind of words do of themselves most evidently afford? Or who can be thought to contradict the Scriptures true meaning, if he do not, who contradicteth the evident sense of such kind of words? Surely I doubt not, but if these words were written in any other book then in the Scripture, that the Protestants would confess, that they contradict the sense of them, as well as they contradict the sense of Catholics words. For as S. Austin said in the like case of Pelagians: 
Lib. 1. de peccat. mer. c. 9  If I should speak thus, these would oppose, and cry, that I speak not well, I thought amiss: for they would understand no other meaning in these words of any man who should speak them, but this, which they will not understand in the Apostle. 
5. From the sense in which they contradict.   
The fift head we will take from the sense of those words of Scripture which the Protestants contradict. For the sense in which the Protestants oppose themselves againsts the Scriptures words, is not forced or violent, but obvious, easy, open, and which the words of themselves do plainly show, and in which such words use to to spoken and understood of men. And evident it is, that all words ought to be understood according to such a sense and that such a sense is the true sense of them, unless the contrary be manifestly proved. For this is the very rule of understanding words, which the 
† Luther. de verb. cenae. to. 7. Melancthon in Hospin. p. 74. Martyr in loc. tit. de Euchar. Perkins in 1. Gal, v. 8. Pareus l. 5. de Illyricus in Clavae part. 2. tom. 7.  Protestant's themselves sometimes do vehemently urge, and unless it be observed, the understanding of words willbe uncertain and according to every one's fancy. Wherefore unless Protestants do evidently convince, that those words of Scripture which they contradict, are to be understood in an other sense, then in that which of themselves according to their ordinary acception amongst men they bear, they cannot deny, but in contradicting this ordinary sense of the words of Scripture, they contradict the true sense of them. And therefore the Reader in this matter must diligently mark, that Catholics are not bound to prove, that the words of Scripture or of Protestants be to be taken in their usual and ordinary sense amongst men; but that this is to be supposed as a rule and undoubted principle of understanding words, unless the contrary be demonstrated: And if any deny it, he is not to be admitted to any disputation which is grounded in words or testimonies, because he denieth the very first principle of understanding words, which being denied, all dispute grounded on words is vain. Wherefore that Protestants, who say that Catholics do beg that point which they ought to prove, when they urge, that the words of Scripture are to be understood according to the sense which they openly show, and in which men use to speak and understand such words, know not, what ought to be proved in disputations out of words, and what is to be supposed as a principle thereof. Whereupon Kemnitius himself in Examen. parte 2. tit. de Missa. sayeth: What madness is it, to leave the plain sense, which hath certain and manifest testimonies of Scripture, and to device a new exposition? And the same say other Prostants, as we shall rehearse hereafter. 
† In Perorat.  But if Protestants will have either the words of Scripture, or any other words whatsoever, to be understood in an other sense, then that wherein they use to be understood of men, all the burden of proving lieth upon them. Which because they cannot prove, we justly conclude, that they contradict the true sense of the words of Scripture which we before have alleged, and frame this argument: Whosoever contradict that sense of the Scriptures words, which of themselves they bear, and in which they are usually understood of men, and cannot demonstrate, that they are to be understood in an other sense, they contradict the true sense of the words of Scripture: But Protestants do so. Therefore they contradict the true sense of the holy Scripture. The Mayor or first proposition, is (as I said) the principle and ground of all dispute out of words: and the Minor or second proposition is evident by the answers of Catholics unto the proofs which Protestants bring for to show that the words of Scripture are to be understood in an other sense, than they show, or men usually understand them in.  
The sixth head is taken out of the circunstances which 
6. From the circunstances of the words.  make for the native and usual sense of those words of Scripture which Protestants contradict. For example: Christ said simply of that which he gave with his hands to his Apostles after his last Supper: This is my body: and the Protestants simply say of the same; This is not Christ's body, and consequently contradict Christ's words not only in their plain, native, and usual sense, but also which is confirmed by all their circunstances, of end, of time, of place, of the speaker, and of the hearers. As for the circumstance of the end, it is plain, that the end of these words was to tell clearly the Apostles what indeed that was which he then gave them. And all his other words, were either spoken of other matters, or if of the same matter, yet they were spoken to this end to tell the Apostles what it was which then he gave them, but to what end they should use it, or for some such like purpose. And that the foresaied words do clearly express, what that was which at that time Christ gave to his Apostles, is so evident, as our adversaries themselves confess. For thus 
a Admonit. vlt.  Caluin: I deny not, but Christment to speak most clearly. And 
b Cont. Selnec.  Beza: If the question be about the word of God, surely we have none more express, and in which we more willingly rest, than the institution of the Supper itself: This is my body. Authores Admonit. de libro Concordiae c. 3. p. 91. The words of the Supper are most clear, and of themselves abundantly sufficient for to be rightly understood. And the same 
c Whitaker ad Rat. 3. Zuinglius in Expl. art. 18. Rivet tract. 3. sect. 12. Polanus part. 1. thes. de caena.  others confess. The circonstance also of the time confirmeth the same: For it was the last when Christ was to converse with his Apostles in humane manner, and therefore it was behooveful, that, if ever, he should then speak in must plain and usual sense, especially speaking of a matter newly then instituted by him, and bequeathed by him, by his last will and testament, and necessarily to be known of them, and yet which could no way be known of them but by Christ's words. But evident it is, that the most clear manner of speaking, is to speak in the plain, native, and usual sense of words, And consequently Christ, who by our adversary's confession, meant to speak most clearly, speak in the plain, native, and usual sense of his words. The circumstance of place also concurreth. For the place where Christ spoke these words, was free and void of strangers, so that thereby no occasion could be to mean otherwise then the words usually did bear. The circumstance also of the Speaker doth much confirm the same. For he was the word itself, the wisdom of his Father, who both best knew how he ought to express his meaning about a new thing which could not be known of us but by his words, & was most desirous that we should know what it was, and that we should rightly understand his meaning. Finally Christ's hearers do contest the same. For they were his Apostles, to whom he had made known the mysteries of God, and therefore of their part there was no cause to speak otherwise, than men use to do by such kind of words.  
The seventh head shallbe taken from the nature or quality 
7. From the matter.  of the matter of the foresaied articles, in which Protestants contradict the express words of Scripture: together with Protestants want of the like opposite words of Scripture, which may seem expressly and without any inference or exposition of Protestants, to teach as Protestants do. For the matter of the foresaied articles partly is such, as the very light of reason doth see, that it is so as the express words of Scripture doth teach it to be: to wit, That God willeth not, doth not, commandeth not sin: That he tempteth not, nor prodestinateth men to sin, that he justifieth not the impious remaining impious, that good works are necessary to salvation, and the like: Partly is known to be such by very experience, as, That a man hath free will in good and bad, that he cooperateth to his conversion, that faith is an act of man, and such others: Partly it is new, never heard of before, and fare beyond the reach of all reason, as is the Eucharist, and many more. Now Protestants, in all kinds of matter 
What kind of words Protest. want.  which is in controversy, and almost in all the foresaied articles, want express words of Scripture, which were of purpose spoken to declare what a thing was, and which, of themselves, plainly, and directly without any inference or exposition of men, may so much as seem to say, that it is so as Protestants teach. Seeing therefore that 
What kind of words Catholics do bring.  in all kind of matter in controversy, and in all the foresaied articles, Catholics do bring both express words of Scripture, and spoken of purpose to declare what we ought to believe touching that article, and which plainly and directly according to their native and usual sense amongst men without any inference or exposition added to them, pronounce that it is so as Catholics teach, and that the light of reason and experience also contest the same sense in such matters as they can reach unto: And that Protestants in none or very few articles can bring any such express words of Scripture, which may so much as seem to be so plain 
What Protest. oppose against the express words of Scripture.  for them, as those are for Catholics, but in all, or all most all the said articles, only 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 unto, it is mere madness to forsake the doctrine the doctrine of the Catholic Church, holy Fathers, and Counsels, and the most express words of Scripture in all the said articles, and the very light of reason and experience itself in many of them, and to hearken to the inferences, consequences, and humane arguments of a few, new, and disagreeing Heretics. For example:  the Eucharist, as it is a matter of faith, to wit, a Sacrament instituted of Christ, and a gift given of him to the Church (whether it be only a seal of grace, as Protestant's would, or the true body of Christ, as Catholics believe) is a new thing, instituted first of Christ, and never heard of before, nor falleth under the reach of sense or reason, but only of faith, and is such as Christ would have it to be; is it not 
Madness to follow men's consequences rather than God's words.  madness, to gather what it is, rather by the humane inferences or arguments composed of some few, new, and disagreeing men, of one humane principle at least, then by Christ's own words, and those most express, and spoken of him purposely for to tell us most clearly what he would have the Eucharist to be? For who well in his wits will persuade himself, either that these men by their humane arguments perceive better, what a thing, which falleth not under reason, is, than Christ who instituted it: or that they know better what Christ would have it to be, than Christ himself: or that they express Christ's meaning more clearly by their arguments and consequences quite opposite to Christ's words, than he hath done by his own express words speaking by himself of purpose for to declare his meaning: or finally, that Christ expresseth his meaning concerning the Eucharist, by a humane principle no where delivered of him, and a humane argument never made of him, and that also directly opposite to his own express words, better than by his own most express and clear words, and those of purpose spoken for to express clearly what he would have the Eucharist to be? Can any man believe, that a few, new, and disagreeing men do understand the supernatural matters of faith better than God himself; or that they declare better what they are by their humane inferences and arguments composed of humane principles, them God himself doth by his own express words spoken by him of purpose for to declare what they are? what it is to prefer man's word before God's word, and man before God, if this be not? Or doth any wise man teach new 
Notethis.  things, necessary to be known of us, and which cannot be known but by his teaching, and that but once in his life, and a little before his death, only by contraries, to wit, by saying that they are that which they are not indeed, and never saying, that they are that which truly they are? And shall we think, that Christ, the wisdom of his Father, did once only in his life, and near unto his death teach us what the Eucharist is, (which was then a new thing never heard of before, and necessary to be known of us, and yet could not be known but by his teaching) only by the contrary; to wit, by saying most expressly that it was his body given and broken for us, & never saying, that it was not his body, but only a figure thereof, if indeed it only were a figure as Protestants believe? would God, or God's Scripture (as S. Austin writeth) 
●. 33. cont. Fa●stum c. 7.  speak in an other manner to us then ours is? No surely, unless it would not be understood of us. And who will say, that 
Is it men's custom to be taught by contraries?  it is our manner to be taught new things, and that but once, and which cannot be known but by some Master's teaching, not by our Master's express words spoken by him of purpose for to tell us 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 never allowed?  
By these, Reader, thou seest clearly (as I hope) that if 
Ether Protest. contradict the true sense of Scripture, or none.  ever any have contradicted the true sense of the Scripture, the Protestants have done it: First because, they have as often, and in as many, and as weighty matters, contradicted the express words of Scripture, as ever any have. Secondly, because they have contradicted, as express, and clear words, and those as purposely spoken to declare the Scriptures meaning, as ever any words were which any have contradicted. Thirdly, because they have contradicted them in as plain, clear, and usual sense, and which is confirmed by as many circunstances, and by light of reason, and experience, as ever any words of Scripture were contradicted in. Fourthly, because they contradict these kind of words in this kind of sense, with as evident want of the like words which may seem plainly and directly of themselves without all inference or exposition of man to bear the contrary sense, as ever any did. Thou seest also, what a main difference there is between 
The difference between the grounds of the Cath. and Protest. faith.  the foundations of the Catholic and Protestant belief touching these articles. For whereas the foundation of the Protestant belief concerning the Eucharist is no express word of God, which is purposely spoken to declare this matter, and which of itself without all help of man doth plainly and directly pronounce, that it is such as they believe; but either man's word only, or man's discourse framed at least out of one humane principle: the foundation of the Catholic faith, is Gods express and clear word, spoken of him purposely for to declare what the Eucharist is, which of itself without any help of us, clearly, and directly avoucheth that the Eucharist is such as Catholics believe it to be, and against which words no other express words of God, directly contrary to these, can be opposed, but only humane arguments and discourses. These (as S. Austin speaketh) are the proofs of our course, these the foundations, these the strength. Whatsoever 
Lib. de unit. c. 19 In Psal. 21.  they gain say, men say: but this God sayeth. Yet let us hear, what it is which men say against God.  
They except (sayeth Caluin) that they have the word, by 
4. Instit. c. 17. §. 25.  which the will of God is made manifest. A most just exception doubtless, especially in matters of faith, and such as cannot be known but by God's word, and against them who so much brag of God's word. For if we have Gods, word, we have also God's meaning, unless they can demonstrate the contrary. Whereupon well said Tertullian: Ether deny, that these are written, or who art thou, that 
Contr. Praxeam. c. 23.  thou thinkest that they are not to be understood as they are written? Forsooth (sayeth Caluin) if we give them leave to banish out 
Loco cit. §. 20  of the Church the gift of interpretation, which may bring light to the word. Again: We using daily study, do embrace that sense, which the Holy Ghost doth suggest. And once more: The reverence of Christ's words, is not a pretext just enough, why they should so reject all the reasons which we object. Behold, Reader, once more, the difference between the Catholic and Caluins' faith. The Catholic faith (by the adversary's confession 
What Caluin opposeth against the express word of God. ) is grounded upon the express and plain words of God: Caluins' faith relieth upon his gift of interpretation, his study, the suggestions of his spirit, his reasons, which he dare oppose, yea prefer, before the express word of God. But we demand, that seeing we have for us the express 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 have the gift of interpretation rather than the Catholics, or the Lutherans, or any sort of Christians; or that that gift of interpreting which interpreteth Gods express words, spoken by him of supernatural matters of purpose to declare what they are contrary to their usual sense, is the gift of God. But if he cannot produce any such word of God, it were stark madness to forsake Gods express word, and the plain meaning thereof, which besides Sacramentaries all Christians else do embrace, and to follow a gift of interpretation either uncertain, or feigned. Besides, Protestants do banish the gift of infallible interpretation out of the Church, in saying, that she may err in matters of faith and interpretatation of Scripture, why then do they in this matter pretend such a gift, and oppose it against God's express words? Moreover to expound words which (by their own confession) are most clear, is no other thing, than (as S. Austin sayeth) to cast darkness upon clear light. Nether 
Serm. 14. de verbis Apost.  banish we the gift of interpretation out of the Church, which never interpreted these words but in their native and usual sense; but we deny that Heretics have the gift of interpreting the Scripture; and affirm, that their new exposition, directly contrary to God's words, both express and of purpose spoken to declare this matter, and condemned by God's Church, is no interpretation, but a depravation and corruption. Furthermore, we reject no interpretation which may bring light to the word, but we deny, that Caluins' interpretation is such, but rather quite extinguisheth the clear light of the word. For what greater darkness can be cast upon light, then in express words spoken of purpose to declare a matter, and by which a new doctrine is delivered, a new Sacrament instituted, a last will is made, and which were spoken of the Master of truth, unto his disciples, when he was to forsake them, to expound Is, by, Is not: and, Body given for you, by A bare figure or Sign thereof. And thus we have heard what Caluin opposeth against God's express word: now let us see how he would diminish the force and authority of the same.  
I confess (sayeth he) that they have the word. A confession surely much to be esteemed, especially proceeding 
In Act. 9 v. 21.  from such an adversary as is accustomed to cry: That Papists find no weapons for them in the Scripture. But he should also have confessed, as the truth is, that Protestants have not such a word, to wit, which plainly and directly denieth the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ. For thereby it would have appeared more clearly, whether catholics 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 have a body. Yea such a word, as thou or any Christian hath, when he maketh God to have been incarnated, to have suffered, to have risen again, and to have ascended to heaven; and (as I dare say) a clearer word also, if the words themselves and the foresaied circunstances be considered. So that 
Differences between the Cath. and the Anthropomorphites.  more justly may any heretic, who denieth the foresaied mysteries, object to thee, the example of the Anthropomorphites, than thou canst object it to us in this mystery. For the Anthropomorphites in no place of Scripture had an express word, which directly said God hath a body: We have a most express word, wherewith Christ said most directly of that which he gave to his Apostles: This is my body. The Anthropomorphites had no express word, which was of purpose spoken to tell us what God was: we have an express word spoken purposely to this end, and only to this end, to tell us what the Eucharist is. The Anthropomorphites had no express word, which any circunstances of moment did convince to be understood in their proper sense: we have an express word, which all circustances do confirm aught to be understood in their native and usual signification. The Anthropomorphites had a word, but as a thing, which the very light of reason did show to be otherwise then the word did signify: we have the word, of a new thing, never heard of before, and which can no way be known by the light of reason, but only by the word of God. Finally (to omit all other differences taken from the Church, Fathers, and Counsels) the Anthropomorphites had the word of a matter, which the Scripture other where most manifestly denieth: we have the word of a matter which 
Deuter. 4. Actor. 7. joan. 4.  the Scripture no where directly (either clearly or obsculy) denieth, neither the denial thereof can any way be wroung out of the Scripture, but by adding a false humane principle, and by making a deceitful humane argument. Thus many and thus great differences are there between the word, wherewith we make the Eucharist the body of Christ, and the word wherewith the Anthropomorphites made God to have a body, as I think are not between the word which the Anthropomorphites alleged, and the word wherewith any other article of Christian faith is proved.  
And thus much touching the first argument taken from the opposition betwixt the words of the holy Scripture and of Protestants in 260. articles, and such words of the Scripture as were spoken of purpose for to tell us what we were to believe, and in their open and plain sense, which they manifestly show, and in which such words use to be spoken and understood of men: which argument as a foundation of all the rest that follow, shallbe included in every one of them.   

CHAPTER II. THAT PROTESTANTS CONFESS, that they contradict the sense of those words, which the Catholic Church many ages ago and many of themselves believe to be the words of God.  
THE second argument, wherewith we will prove that Protestants contradict the true sense of the holy Scripture, we will take from their confession, wherein they confess, that they contradict the sense of those words, of which, some of them (to let pass all other proofs) are acknowledged by diverse Protestants, and all of them were many ages ago judged by the Catholic 
Lutherans confess that their doctrine is against S. james Epistle.  Church to be a part of the holy Scripture.  
For Luther and the Lutheran Protestant's do confess, that the chiefest point of protestancy, to wit, of justification by only faith, doth verily contradict the Epistle of S. james, where he sayeth. Ye see, that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. For thus writeth Luther in his Preface upon that Epistle: I judge it to be the writing of no Apostle, for this cause. First because directly against S. Paul, and all other Scripture, it attributeth justification to works. And in 
Luther sayeth: S. james doted.  c. 22. Gen. tom. 6. fol. 282. james concludeth ill. It followeth not as james doateth: Therefore the fruits do justify— let our adversaries therefore be packing with their james. Melancthon de Sacris Contion. to. 2. fol. 23. But if they cannot be mitigated by any exposition, as those words of james: Ye see etc. these absolutely are not to be admitted. Magdelburgenses Centur. 1. l. 2. c. 4. col. 54. The Epistle of james swerveth not a little from the analogy of Apostolic doctrine, whiles it ascribeth justification not to faith only, but to works. And Centur. 2. c. 4. col. 71. The Epistle of james attributeth justice to works contrary to Paul and all other Scriptures. Schlusselburg. lib. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 15. fol. 50. james contrary to Paul attributeth justice to works. And tom. 8. Catal. Haeret. pag. 500 he sayeth of S. james. He fighteth directly with Paul and all the rest of the Scripture, by giving justice before God to man's works. The same confess 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 justific. pag. 219. Whereupon Daneus in Enchirid. Augustini c. 67. sayeth: It troubleth many now a days, so that some have cast out the Epistle of james, others have called it straweish. And Pareus l. 4. de justif. c. 18. Luther could not accord (james with Paul) but by casting away the whole Epistle. Beza also in jac. 2. v. 14. Many have cast away this Epistle for this cause, as if it were contrary to true doctrine. Nether do only Lutherans judge thus of S. james his Epistle, but also some Sacramentaries. For Musculus de locis tit. de 
Some Sacramentaries reject Saint james.  justificat. sayeth: That impertinently he allegeth the examples of Abraham; That he confoundeth the word of faith, and setteth down a sentence different from Apostolical doctrine. And ib. tit. de Scripture. pa. 172. plainly professeth, that he holdeth it not for authentical Scripture. And the Confession Heluet. c. 15. sayeth: The same said he (james) not contradicting S. Paul, otherwise he were to be rejected. And nevertheless, commonly all Sacramentaries account S. james Epistle to be a part of holy Scripture; in so much as the English, French, and Flemish Protestants have put it in their Confessions, as a point of their faith.  
Wherefore thus I argue in form: what contradicteth the Epistle of S. james, contradicteth the holy Scripture. The chiefest point of protestancy touching justification by only faith contradicteth the Epistle of S. james: Therefore it contradicteth the holy Scripture. The Mayor or first Proporsition is not only believed and taught of all Catholics, but also commonelie of Sacramentaries: And the Minor or second Proposition is granted by the Lutherans.  
In like sort all Protestants acknowledge their doctrine 
Protestants confess that they teach contrary to Machab. Toby. etc.  of not praying for the dead to be contrary to those words of 2. Machab. c. 12. It is a holy and wholesome cogitation to pray for the dead, that they may be lose from their sins. Whereupon Caluin in Antidoto Concil. Trident. sess. 4. p. 265. sayeth: Out of the 2. of Macchabees both Purgatory will be proved, and the Intercession of Saints: out of Toby, Satisfactions, Exorcisms, and what not? They will borrow no few matters of Ecclesiasticus. For from whence might they better draw their dreggs. So plainly he confesseth, that his doctrine in the foresaied points contradicted the books of Macchabees, Toby, and Ecclesiasticus. And notwithstanding S. Austin (whom 
† Caluin 4. Instit. c. 14. §. 26.  Protestants account the best witness of antiquity) clearly testifieth that many ages ago the holy Church held the books of Macchabees for Canonical Scripture. For thus he writeth of them lib. 18. de Civitat. c. 36. Which, not jews, but the Church holdeth for Canonical. And the like he sayeth lib. 1. count. Gaudent. cap. 23. 
Lib. de doctrine. Christ. c. 8. l. 2. Retract. c. 4.  and otherwhere. Besides many Protestantt, as Caluin in Antidote. cit. p. 266. Whitaker Contr. 3. q. 6. c. 3. Perkins de Symbol. p. 787. and also Hyperius, Zanchius, Lubbertus, Hospinian, Rainolds, Feild, and others alleged in the Protestants Apology Tract. 1. Sect. 3. confess, that the Council of Carthage (where S. Austin was present and subscribed thereto) did reckon the books of Macchabees in the number of Canonical Scripture. And to omit all other arguments drawn out of the Scripture and Fathers for the infallibility of the Church, the Protestants themselves eftsoons confess, that the Church can discern true Scriptures from false, and that we are bound to yield to her judgement. For thus sayeth Luther l. de Captivit. to. 2. fol. 84. This indeed hath the Church, that she can discern 
The Church can discern the word of God. Hath authority to judge.  the word of God from the word of men, as Austin confesseth that he believed the Gospel being moved by the authority of the Church. The Confession of Wittenberg. cap. de Eccles. The Church hath authority to judge of all doctrines. And cap. de Concilijs: She hath an assured promise of the perpetual presence of Christ, and she is governed of the holy Ghost. Melancthon Respons. ad Acta Ratisbon. tom. 3. pag. 732. We acknowledge this authority of testifying the Apostolical Scriptures, or discerning the writings of the Apostles from counterfeit, doth agree to the true Church. Caluin de vera ref. p. 232. I deny not, but that it is the proper office of Church to discern true 
The proper office of the Church.  Scriptures from counterfeit. Peter Martyr Praefat. 1. Epist. ad Corinth. We will easily grant, that the ancient Church was endued so much with the holy Ghost, that by his leading and direction they easily discerned between those which were proposed to them, which were the true and sincere words of God, and by this spiritual power they distinguished the Canon of Scriptures from apocryphal books. And in locis Class. 1. c. 6. §. 6. We acknowledge the office of the Church to be, that being endued with God's Spirit, she may distinguish the true and sincere books of holy writ from counterfeit and apocryphal. jewel in Defence. of the Apology pag. 204. The Church of God, had the spirit of wisdom, 
She hath the spirit of wisdom. Can discern true Scriptures.  whereby she might discern true Scriptures from false. Fulke in his Answer to a false Cathol. p. 5. The Church of Christ indeed can discern true Scriptures from false. Perkins de Serm. Dom. tom. 2. col. 252. The Church hath the gift of judging of greatest matters. She can judge of the book of Scripture, 
Hath the gift of judging.  which are Canonical, which are not, of the spirits of men, and of their doctrines, and therefore surely can judge which company of men is the true Church, which is not. Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 3. c. 1. pag. 315. We deny not, that it belongeth to the Church, to approve, to acknowledge, to receive, to promulgate, to commend the Scriptures to all her children, and we say, that this testimony is true and aught to be admitted of all. Cap. 2. pag. 316. It is the office of the Church to judge and discern true sincere and right Scriptures from false, counterfeit, and bastard. And for to discharge 
Hath the spirit of Christ to distinguish  this office, she hath the Spirit of Christ, by which she may distinguish truth from lies, she knoweth the voice of her Spouse, she is most judicious and can discern spirits. Cap. 5. p. 
Her tradition convinceth.  322. I deny not, that the Tradition of the Church is an argument by which it may be convinced, which kookes are Canonical, which not Canonical. cap. 6. pag. 323. The Church hath the Spirit of God, by which being taught, she heareth the voice of he Spouse, and acknowledgeth his doctrine. cap. 7. pag. 324. Indeed we may 
Her authority compelleth  be compelled by the authority of the Church to acknowledge the Canonical Scripture: I say (as I often said before) that we are compelled by the authority of the Church to believe these books to be Canonical. And cap. 9 pag. 326. We grant with Ireney, 
A sound demonstration.  that the authority of the Church is a sound and brief demunstration a posteriori, of Canonical doctrine. And l. 1. de Scriptura c. 1. sect. 9 he affirmeth, that the testimony of the Church ought to be received, and who receiveth it not, is guilty of sacrilege. And lib. 2. cap. 4. sect. 4. p. 227. I say the testimony of the Church is sufficient to refute and convince those, who think amiss of the Scriptures. The like he hath ib. p. 218. 228. and and other where often.  
Out of which confessions of Protestants of the authority and power of the Church to discern and distinguish true Scripture from false, we may thus argue. It belongeth to the Church, yea it is her function and proper office, to discern true Scriptures from false, she hath that she can distinguish the word of God from the word of man, she is taught of the holy Ghost, endued with God's Spirit, hath the gift of judging, the spirit of wisdom for to discern, by her tradition it may be convinced which books are Canonical which not, by her authority, we may be compelled to acknowledge the Canonical Scripture, her authority is a sound demonstration of Canonical doctrine, her testimony ought to be received of all, and who receiveth it not, is guilty of sacrilege. But this holy Church many ages ago hath judged the books of Macchabees to be Canonical; Therefore they are such. The Mayor or first Proposition is the confession of Protestants now rehearsed, and the Minor is confirmed by the foresaied testimony of S. Austin and the confessions of the forenamed Protestants. And howsoever Protestants, 
The Cath. advantage over Protest.  will delude this argument, they must needs confess, that Catholics have the advantage of them, in that Protestant's produce no testimony which forceth catholics to reject any book which any Father testifieth to have been anciently held of the Church for Canonical, as Catholics produce the testimony of S. james, which maketh the Lutherans to reject his epistle, which other Protestants confess to be Canonical, and an other testimony out of the books of Macchabees, which forceth all Protestants to reject those books, which S. Austin and other do witness to have been anciently held of the Church for Canonical. Wherefore let this be one argument.  
Who not only in many and weighty articles do contradict the express words of holy Scripture, and those spoken of purpose that we might know the true meaning thereof touching those articles, but also are forced to reject many books of Scripture, whereof some, even many of themselves, and all of them, the holy Church many ages since hath judged to be parts of the holy Scripture, those contradict the very true sense of Scripture: But Protestants do so: Therefore they contradict the true sense of Scripture.   

CHAPTER III. THAT PROTESTANTS ARE FORCED to use violence to the text of that part of Scripture which they receive.  
IN the former chapter, we saw how Protestants were forced to reject a good part of the holy Scripture, now we shall see, how they deal with that part which they seem to admit, by adding to it, by detracting from it, by changing some words, by calling others in doubt, by false translating some, by changing the order of others, and such like dealings. And let the Reader note, 
What falsifications of Scripture are here touched.  that whereas Protestants corrupt the words or sense of holy Scripture for two ends, whereof the one is, that it may seem to make for them: the other is, that it may not seem to make against them; I will in this, and the next chapters relate only their fashions of corrupting the Scripture that it may not seem to make against them; because these make more to my purpose, which is to show that Protestants contradict the true sense of the holy Scripture: And by that which shallbe said of this their manner of corrupting, it will easily be gathered, what their other manner of corrupting Scripture is. Let him also note that I intent not to bring all the examples of Protestants corrupting Scripture in any kind whatsoever, but only so many as may suffice to prove, that they use to corrupt Scripture in such sort. For as Tertullian observed l. Prescript. c. 38. Who mean to teach new doctrine, are forced by necessity to alter the instruments of doctrine. Et c. 17. Heresy, if it admit any Scripture, doth change it by addition and detraction for to serve her turn.  
Wherefore because these words of the Apostle Rom. 
They add to the text.  11. v. 32. For God hath concluded all things into incredulity, that he may have mercy on all: do prove, that God hath a will to have mercy an all. Beza twice addeth to the text the pronoun Them, in this manner: For God hath concluded all them in obstinacy, that he might have mercy on all them: Lest the Apostle should seem to speak simply of all, and not of the elect only, as Beza would.  
Because those words Rom. 2. v. 27. And that which of nature 
They add.  is prepuce, fulfilling the law, shall judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision art a prevaricatour of the law: Prove that some do fulfil the law, Beza addeth twice the particle If, in this sort. If it fulfil the law. And so of an absolute proposition maketh a conditional. The same doth Caluin, the Kings and Queen Elizabeth's, Bible, and the French Geneva Bible of the years 1562. 1568. 1605. and 1610.  
Because those words of the Apostle ad Philemon v. 14. 
They add.  But without thy counsel I would do nothing, that thy good might be not as it were of necessity, but voluntary: prove good works to be voluntary and not done necessarily, the French Bibles An. 1605. and 1610. add this particle: As; and make the Apostle to say: But as voluntary. The King's Bible for voluntary, hath willingly.  
Because those words Tit. 5. v. 3. According to his mercy he hath saved us by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the holy Ghost, prove, that Baptism concurreth to work our salvation, the French Bibles An. 1562. 1568. 1605. and 1610. take away those words, He hath saved us, and put them in the former verse, where they make not so much against them. The King's Bible putteth a comma betwixt: He hath saved us, and, By the laver etc. Lest the Apostle should seem to say, that God worketh our salvation by baptism, and as Catholics teach, and not only signify it thereby, as Protestants would.  
Because those words 2. Pet. 1. v. 10. Wherefore brethren labour, 
They take from the text.  that by good works you may make sure your vocation and election: prove good works to be necessary to salvation, and to breed assurance thereof: Luther in his Dutch Bible and in his Commentary upon that place tom. 5. blotteth out those words: By good works. And so doth the King's Bible, Beza, Tremellius and other. Schioppius also in Ecclesiastico c. 12. writeth, that Luther in his Bible left out those words Mark 11. v. 26. If so be that you will not forgive, neither will your Father that is in heaven forgive you your sins: Which teach that our good works are necessary to remission of sins.  
Because the verb: Is: in the words of the institution of 
They change the words of the text.  the holy Eucharist, do prove that it is the body and blood of Christ, the Protestants of Zurich in their Dutch Bibles have changed is into this verb: Signifieth, as Schlusselburg. l. 2. Theol. Caluin c. 6. witnesseth that he hath seen and read. Yea Zuinglius l. de ver. relig. c. de Euchar. to. 2. was so audacious as to write thus: Thus hath Luke, which Evangelist only we will allege: This signifieth my body which is given for you. For as he sayeth l. de Caena tom. 2. fol 274. If Is be put substantively, we must needs confess, that the true substance of the true flesh as Christ is present in the supper. And Respons. ad Billican. tom. 2. fol. 261. If you take, Is, substantively, than the Papists have won. A goodly excuse surely for to corrupt the holy text: For if it must be corrupt, it must be done for to up hold heresy. But this corruption of Scripture is so great and so manifest, as Schlusselburg. l. cit. said justly: This only corruption of the words of the Son of God, aught to drive all men from the company and impiety of Caluinists.  
Because the words, Benediction, and we do bless, in that 
They change.  speech of S. Paul 1. Corinth. 10. The Cup of benediction which we do bless, etc. do insinuate, that the wine in the Cup ought to be blessed, Zuinglius l. de Caena. tom. 2. fol. 294. sayeth: The words of Benediction and blessing ought not to be used in this place. For commonely they use to be taken for the word of Consecration. And 1. Corinth. 5. to 4. thus he writeth: Thus are the words: The Cup of thanks giving wherewith we give thanks is it not &c. And in like sort he hath l. de Subsidio tom. 2. fol. 253. of which corruption of Scripture thus writeth Illyricus upon this place: Some corrupt this text, by translating: The Cup of thanks giving by which we give thanks, and the text so corrupted they use in their liturgies in steed of the words of the Institution or holy supper, making a double sacrilege. Caluin also in Math. 26. ver. 26. not only expoundeth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by He gave thanks, but also in the very text, translateth it when he had given thanks. And yet (as himself confesseth there) Matthew and Mark use the word of Blessing. Why therefore would not he use the same word in S. Mathews text?  
Because those words Acts 2. v. 27. Because thou wilt not 
They change.  leave my soul in hell, prove that Christ's soul descended into hell, Beza in his translation An. 1557. thus changeth the text: Because thou wilt not leave my carcase in the grave. Et ad Defence. Castell. p. 460. he sayeth: My soul, in the text I did translate My carcase, but in my Notes, My life: but we may also take, My soul, in steed of the pronoun, Me. Which exposition (sayeth he) is most plain. And he addeth: Where as I noted, that by the ancient translation (my soul) the error rose, I did it not without cause, sith we see that Papists wrist this place especially for to settle their Limbus, and the Fathers from thence devised that descent of Christ soul into hell. As if he had said, I was forced to alter the tongue of the holy Ghost, because he spoke against me. In like sort, because we prove the same out of that passage Act. 2. v. 3●. Foreseeing he spoke of the resurrection of Christ, for neither was he left in hell etc. the French Bibles An. 1562. 1567. 1568. 1605. of Hell, have made Grave, as also hath Tremellius done in his Latin translation of the Bible nevewed by junius & printed at Hannow 1603.  
Because those words Psalm. 5. verss. 5. Thou art not a God 
They change.  that wilt iniquity: prove that God no way willeth iniquity or sin: the King's Bible translateth the place thus: That hath pleasure in wickedness. The French Bibles An. 1568. That loveth iniquity: And those of 1588. and 1610. That art not delighted with iniquity. And the like hath Piscator apud Vorstium in Parasceve cap. 3. and Tremellius in this place. That so they may defend their blasphemous doctrine, that God willeth iniquity, though he do not love it.  
Because these words Ezechiel. 33. vers. 11. Live I, sayeth 
They change.  our Lord: I will not the death of the wicked, but that he be converted from his way and live: do prove that God of himself willeth no man's death, the King's Bible translateth them thus: I have no pleasure in the death etc. and so also doth Musculus in locis tit. de veritate, Tremellius in this place, Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. p. 187. and others. That God may seem of himself to will men's death, though he take not pleasure in it, as (say they) a sick man willeth a bitter potion, though he take no delight in it.  
Because the words 2. Thessalon. 2. v. 15. Hold the traditions 
They change.  which ye have learned, whether it be by word or by our Epistle: do prove that traditions not written are as well to be held as those that are written: Beza in his translation An. 1598. changeth the disiunctive particle whether, into the coniunctive Also, in this manner: Hold the traditions which ye have learned by speech and also by our Epistle. Whom follow Author Respons. ad Theses Vadimontanas pag. 647. and others. An other translation of Beza in Tremellius hath thus: Hold the delivered doctrine, which you have been taught both by speech and by Epistle. Where for whether he hath And, and for Traditions, Delivered doctrine, as Tremellius for Traditions, hath, Commandments, The French An. 1568. and 1605. have Institutions, and the Queen's Bible, hath Ordinances.  
Because those words 1. Timoth. 2. v. 4. Who will all men 
They change.  to be saved, show that God hath a will to save all men, Beza in that place changeth All, into whomsoever: that God may seem to have only a will to save whatsoever kind of men. In like sort ib. v. 6. Where the Scripture sayeth: Who gave himself a redemption for all. Beza translateth, For whomsoever.  
Because that speech 1. Timoth. 4. v. 10. Who is the saviour 
They change.  of all men, especially of the faithful: declare that Christ redeemed all men: Beza in that place in steed of Saviour, putteth, Preserver. And sayeth: Because the name of Saviour troubleth many, in that commonly it signifieth eternal life purchased by Christ, therefore to avoid ambiguity, I chose rather to say Preserver. As if he had said: Because the word which the Scripture useth, doth show that Christ purchased eternal life for all, therefore I have changed it for an other.  
Because those words Coloss. 1. v. 10. That ye may walk 
They change.  worthy of God: and 1. Thessalon. 2. v. 11. We have adjured every one of you that you walk worthy of God: and 3. Epistle of 5. Ihon. v. 6. Whom, thou shalt do well, bringing on their way in manner worthy of God: do show that good works may be worthy of God; Beza in all these places, for worthy of God: hath Agreeable to God. Tremellius 1. Coloss. v. 10. for worthy of God, hath: It is just. and 1. Thessaly. 2. It is agreeable to God. The King's Bible 3. joan. 6. cit. hath After a godly sort.  
Because Christ's words Lucae 7. ver. 47. Many sins are 
They change.  forgiven her, because she hath loved much: insinuate justification by works. Beza in place of Because (in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) translateth For. And addeth that he did so, that it might be more easily perceived, that in these words is not showed the cause of remission of sins. The King's Bible, Illyricus and others follow Beza herein.  
Because those words of S. Luke c. 1. v. 6. They were both 
They translate ill.  just before God, walking in all the commandments and iustifications of our Lord without blame: help to prove, that good works are iustifications, and do justify: Beza, though he confess that the Greek word which S. Luke useth, be to be literally translated justifications: Yet sayeth, that he would not so interpret it, that (sayeth he) I might take away this occasion of impugning justification by (only) faith, and so in steed of justifications, hath, Rites. Tremellius, hath Righteousness. Queen Elizabeth's and King james Bible, ordinances.  
Because those words Philip. 2. v. 12. Work your salvation 
Translate ill.  with fear and trembling: prove, that we may work our salvation: The French Bibles An. 1562. 1568. 1605. 1610. in steed of work have, Endeavour you: that the Scripture may seem only to say, that we may endeavour to work, but not work our salvation.  
Because those words james 5. v. 16. Confess your sins 
Translate ill.  one to an other: prove, that we ought to confess our sins to men, the French Bibles An. 1605. 1610. translate them thus: Confess your faults one against an other, as if the Apostle had bidden, only to confess offences done against men. The same insinuateth the Kings Bibles, whiles for Sins it hath Faults.  
Because those words Actor. 23. v. 11. And the night following, 
Translate ill.  our Lord standing by him, said &c. do prove, that Christ was present with S. Paul in prison, the French Bibles An. 1560 1562. 1568. 1605. in steed of Standing by, translate, He presented himself. Tremellius hath, He was seen.  
Because those words Hebr, 4. ver. 14. Having therefore a 
Translate ill.  great high Priest that hath penetrated the heavens, Caluin for Penetrated the heavens, translated: He entered, Beza, He passed through: Tromellius, He ascended.  
Because that Pronoune demonstrative Hic, This: in those words of Christ: This is my blood, doth prove, that it 
Translate ill.  is not referred to the word Cup or wine, but to the word Blood, Beza in Math. 26. v. 28. would not translate it Hic in the masculine gender, but Hoc in the neuter gender. For (sayeth he) homilia 2. de ver. present. vol. 3. pag. 316. Surely who sayeth Hic, This is my blood; pointeth at nothing, but his own blood. The like he sayeth in Cyclope pag. 268. Piscator l. 2. Thes. p. 450. And yet as Illyricus sayeth: All both ancient and new, and Caluin himself translate, Hic: This is my blood. And Beza himself Hebr 9 ver. 20. translateth the very self same Greek words thus, Hic est sanguis: This is my blood: because there they prove not that the eucharist is the blood of Christ, as they do Matthew. 26. v. 28. cit. Musculus also in locis tit. de Caena pag. 360. affirmeth, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by S. Matthew and S. Mark, is not well translated in the Masculine gender Hic, Unless we understand Calix, and nevertheless in the same place sayeth, that Matthew and Mark write, that our Lord said: Hic: This is my my blood of the new testament. So that though two Evangelists teach that our Lord said Hic, This, in the Masculine gender, yet it is not well translated so.  
Because those Greek words Luc. 22. vers. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is. This is the new cup which the new testament in my blood, that (Cup) which is shed for you, do evidently show that the word Shed is referred to the word (Cup) and consequently do prove that it was a Cup of the true blood of Christ, Beza upon that place, and Respons. ad Illyr. p. 198. and other Protestants after him, sayeth, that either there is a manifest Solloecophanes, wherein the 
They call in do o● the words.  Nominative case is put for the Dative, or else these words are foisted into the text: And yet confesseth, that all our ancient Copies have the nominative case: or as Fulk sayeth Praef. in nou. testam. not. 49. All the Copies extant have it in the nominative case. And Beza herein is followed of Whitaker l. 1. cont. Dur. sect. 35. Daneus Contr. de Euchar. p. 544. Bucanus loco. 48. Piscator in Refutat. Sophismatum Hunnij p. 468. and of others. Zuinglius resp. ad Matthaeum ruling. tom. 2. fol. 156. somewhat bolder, translated these Greek words so, as the word Shed cannot be referred to the word Cup to which alone S. Luke referreth it, for thus he hath: Hoc poculum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis funditur: and Respons. ad Confess Lutheri tom. 2. fol. 511. sayeth, that it is an Enallage or Change of the Nominative case for the Dative. Moreover Beza Luc. 22. vers. 17. calleth in doubt: those words: Which is given for you: Whereby the real presence is confirmed.  
Because those words Math. 10. vers. 2. The names of the 
They call in doubt.  twelve Apostles be these: These first, Simon, who is called Peter: prove the primacy of S. Peter; Beza upon that place sayeth: What if this word, First, be added by some, who would establish the the primacy of Peter? And nevertheless addeth: We find it so written in all Copies. And so by his own confession, contrary to the testimony of all Copies calleth in question a word which favoureth the Primacy of S. Peter.  
Because the pronoun Hoc or Hic in the words of 
They ●●ll in doubt.  the Eucharist, being taken adiectively, helpeth to prove the Eucharist to be the body & blood of Christ: Daneus l. 1. de Euchar. c. 1. pag. 543. sayeth: What if I except, that the proper words of Christ were only these two? Is my stesh: I shall with one word frustrate all this proof by the pronoun, Hoc: But if thou canst neither prove thy exception of Christ's words, nor canst deny, but that the Evangelists have the pronoun Hoc, This, is not thy exception both vain and impious?  
Because those words 1. Corinth. 13. v. 2. If I should have 
Translate ill.  all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing: do prove, that no faith at all worketh justification without charity: Beza therefore All translateth whole, and sayeth he doth it, lest this text should deceive any.  
Because those words Daniel 4. v. 24. Redeem thou thy 
Translate ill.  sins with alms, prove, that good works do redeem sins: The King's Bible translateth it thus: Break of thy sins by righteousness: And others say, that our translation is naught: And nevertheless P. Martyr on this place avoucheth. That the Chaldee, in which tongue this was written, hath word for word, Redeem thy sins by justices, and so it is cited by Caluin 3. Instit. c. 4. §. 36. Apolog. Confess. August. c. de respon ad argumenta, and also by others reported in the Protestants Apology Tract. 1. sect. 4. subdivis. 7.  
Because those words Hebr. 2. ver. 9 But him, that was a 
They change the order of the words.  little lessened under the Angels, we see jesus because of the passion of death, crowned with glory and honour: prove, that Christ was crowned with glory, because he suffered death: Beza turneth the words thus: But we see that jesus crowned with glory and honour, who for a time was made inferior to Angels for suffering of death. And King james Bible followeth him: As if the Apostle had not said, why Christ was crowned with glory, but why he whas made inferior to Angels. And yet Beza is not ashamed to add: Let no man marvel that I have changed the placing of the words.  
Because the words 2. Pet. 2. v. 8. For in sight and hearing 
They 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉.  he was just, dwelling with them who from day to day vexed the just soul with unjust works: prove, that men may be just in some deeds: The King and Queen's Bible turn the words thus: For being righteous, and dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing vexed his soul. Where they do not refer just or righteous to Seeing and hearing as the text doth.  
Because those words 1. Corinth. 14. vers. 17. Thou indeed 
They omit words.  givest thanks well, do plainly approve prayer in an unknown tongue; Zuinglius Caluin and Beza in their Commentaries slip over these words. Yea Caluin 3. Instit. c. 20. §. 33. citing this sentence, omitteth the word well. In like sort Caluin and Beza Luc. 22. v. 32. slip over those words of Christ: I have prayed for thee, by which S. Peter's Primacy is confirmed.  
Wherefore thus I make my third argument: Who beside the foresaied opposition to the express words of Scripture, are forced many times to use violence to the very sacred text by adding or taking away words, by changing, by calling in doubt, by ill translating, by omitting, by changing the order of the words, they are to be judged to contradict the true sense of the holy Scripture. But Protestants do so. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER IU. THAT PROTESTANTS OVERTHROW all force of the words of holy Scripture, yea contemn and deride them.  
OUR fourth argument shallbe, that Protestants, when they neither dare deny, nor change the words of Scripture, yet overthrew all the force of them, yea sometimes contemn and scoff at them.  
The first way by which they delude the express word of God, is that in what kind of matter soever, to wit, whether it be of precept or doctrine, whether it can be known only by God's word or no: and in what places soever, to wit, whether in them the matter be handled purposely, or no; in what kind of matter soever (I say) and in what kind of place soever, the holy Scripture speaketh expressly against them, they cry, that we must not stick to the letter nor urge it. Zuinglius in Math. 19 to. 4. The words 
Protest. will not have the word of God urged against them.  of Christ: what God hath joined, let not man separate, are so dry, that it may seem, that married persons can be separated for no cause. Here because the letter clearly maketh against him, he addeth: But we will not after the jewish manner stick so superstitiously to the letter. And in Mark. 1. We must not stick fast to the bare letter, but the letter is to be expounded and directed according to the rule of the (Protestants) Spirit. Et Institut. de caena. tom. 2. fol. 288. Is it fit in Scripture to urge earnestly only the letter, or rather having consulted other places, we ought to consider, what the authority of it may admit. Because in the matter of the Eucharist, the words of Scripture are clare against them: Caluin 4. Instit. cap. 17. §. 20. sayeth: Christ's words are not under the common rule, nor are to be examined gramatically. §. 23. These good Masters, that they may appear men of letters, do forbid to 
Caluin scoffeth at those who urge the word of God.  go any whit from the letter. What monstruous absurdities cannot phrentik men gather, if they may object every tittle for confirmation of their opinions. And he termeth it foolish stubbornness, to contend earnestly about (Christ's) words. And calleth us Catchers of syllables, froward and stubborn exactours of the letter, foolish and ridiculous masters of letters, because in the matter of the Eucharist we stick close to the express words of Scripture, and urge them against him; as if with scoffs and taunts he would beat us from the express word and letter of almighty God. Moreover in Math. 3. v. 16. he sayeth: Some do foolishly and preposterously urge the letter, that they may include the thing in the sign. And in Math 26. v. 28. The Papists and such like are foolishly superstitious, whiles they lay fast hold upon (Christ's) words. And Admonit. vlt. ad Westphal. pag. 8●7. We must not earnestly insist upon the words. Beza count. Westphal. p. 214. By what right is it not lawful for us to appeal (as I may say so) from the word to the sense? P. Martyr l. de Euchar. p. 124. Ye must not always object the clearness of the sense. pag. 126. Ye must not take first sense which offereth itself. p. 126. Ye should not so much urge the plainness of the sense. and pag. 149. They object again us the simple sense and hold that firmly. Zanchius l. 1. Epist. p. 34. They have cried to importunely and till they were hoarse: The word, the words. Kerberman l 1. System. Theol. pag. 169. They importunely urge the letter or words of Scripture. Willet in Synopsi Contr. 19 pag. 885. We must not take the letter, but follow the sense, where we find mention made of the universality of Christ's death. pag. 886. It cannot literally be understood, that God would absolutely have all men to be saved. Thus speak these men, when the letter or plain sense of Scripture maketh expressly against them. In the mean time whensoever the letter of Scripture seemeth to favour them, they most veliemently press●●. As for example, because S. Paul sometimes calleth the Eucharist bread, they will needs have it to be material bread. Caluin in Math. 26. vers. 28. The Papists deny, that bread is showed, but Paul refuteth their 
Difference between the words which Protest. and which Cath. urge.  dotage, affirming that the bread which we break is the communication of the body of Christ. The like he hath 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 15. and others after him: And nevertheless, the Scripture never sayeth directly of the Eucharist: This is bread, as four times it sayeth most directly of it: This is Christ's body: Nether doth it in any place restrain the word, Bread when thereby it signifieth the Eucharist, to the proper signification of material bread, as it doth many ways restrain the word Body to signify the true body of Christ, by adding that it is the body given delivered or broken for us. Moreover the Scripture itself joan. 6. clearly expoundeth, that when by the word Bread it signifieth the Eucharist, it meaneth the very flesh of Christ. So that in the self same matter, that word which is said of the Eucharist in an identical speech saying, This is this, and which oftentimes and most clearly is tied to it proper signification, nor is ever expounded in Scripture to be otherwise taken, must not be urged against Protestants, because it maketh against them; and an other word, which neither is ever so said of the Eucharist, nor is any way restrained to it proper signification, yea which the Scripture itself expoundeth figuratively, must be urged, because it seemeth to favour Protestants: and consequently the letter or word of Scripture is to be urged, or not urged, according as it favoureth or disfavoureth Protestant's. Which is indeed to shape the Scripture to their opinions, not to frame their opinions to the Scripture.  
But if they cannot obtain, that the letter of the holy 
They call it begging of the question, to urge the letter.  Scripture be not urged against them, they take an other course to delude the authority or force thereof. For they call the open and plain sense of it into controversy, and then cry, that it is the begging of the question to argue against them out of a sense which is controverted. Thus do the Protestants, when we urge against them the words of the Eucharist, as ye may see in Zuinglius in Exegesi to. 2. fol. 338. Ad Epistol. Amici fol. 322. Caluin Admonit. vlt. ad Westphal. p. 805. Beza count. Westphal. pag. 232. P. Martyr 1. Corint. 11. fol. 158. jewel art. 5. sect. 5. and others. Yea sometimes they go so fare as to say, that it is a manifest abuse, folly, vanity, and dotage to argue against them out of the words of the Supper or Eucharist. Author orthodoxi Consensus in Schlusselburg lib. 4. Theol. Caluin. art. 20. pag. 125. It is a manifest abuse of the words of the Supper, to prove that by the words which is question or controversy. Humfre ad Rat. 2. Campiani p. 118. He will play the fool, who disputeth out of this place, which is in controversy. Caluin Admonit. vlt. cit. p. 821. Let them leave to pretend a vain prejudice of words, of whose sense and meaning the contention is between us. And in Gratulat. ad Precentor. p. 379. We except, that it is foolishly pressed as most certain, whereof doubt is. But what argument taken out of the Scriptures words can be good and strong, if that which is taken out of Christ's express words, which are both clear, and of purpose spoken to declare what the Eucharist is (which what it is cannot be known but by his plain words) and which alone were spoken of him to this end, be a begging of the question, a vain, foolish, and frivolous argument, only because it hath pleased some few, new, Heretics, to call the clear sense of these words into question.  
Thirdly if they dare not say, that the words which 
They device many senses.  make against them, have an other sense, then that which they clearly afford, yet they will device many senses, and say; that it is uncertain in which of those senses the words are to be understood, and consequently that nothing can be certainly gathered of them. Thus dealeth Kemnice in Exam. tit. de Baptismo pag. 69. Where having brought many expositions of the word Baptism Actor. 19 Whence we prove, that the baptism of Christ was different from that of S. John, thus at last he concludeth: Nothing can be proved out of places, that are obscure, ambiguous, and in controversy. Indeed if those places must be counted such, of which it hath pleased new Hheretiks to device diverse senses; Let them give the like liberty to other Heretics, and they shall see how much they will prevail against them by any words of Scripture whatsoever.  
Their fourth shift is, that when the words of Scripture 
They will have God's meaning rather out of by places, than out of proper.  which are spoken purposely of any matter, make against them, they will not have the question to be denied by them, but either by words which are not spoken at all of that matter, or but incidently and by the way, and will have these to be the rule of expounding to others, and so gather the sense of Scripture rather out of a strange place then out of the proper place. Thus the Sacramentaries will have the question of the Eucharist to be tried rather out of the 6. of S. John (though commonly they teach that there Christ spoke not of Eucharist) or out of words which speak of Christ's ascension into heaven, or out of words which speak of the end of the Eucharist, than out of those which purposely and which only speak of the substance of the Eucharist. Zuinglius Epist. ad Matheum Rutling. tom. 2. fol. 153. sayeth that Christ speaketh not of the Eucharist in the 6. of S. John: and yet from thence taketh (as he speaketh fol. 155. his Buckler, and l. de relig. fol. 206. his brazen wall and shield, and fol. 215. his hard adamant. 
Note.  And sayeth. fol. 155. cit. that we must only stick to these words: Flesh profiteth nothing: or (as he speaketh in Exegesi fol. 336.) To them before all others. And as for the words of the Supper, which were spoken purposely of this matter, he sayeth plainly l. de relig. c. de Euchar. We rely not upon them, but only upon this word. Flesh profiteth nothing. And addeth: What think ye of this subtle devise, which forsooth relieth upon (Christ's) words only. And Resp. ad Billican. fol. 264. This dispute doth not rely upon those words: This is my body. For we would not seem to ground our opinion upon these letters. For that were unlawful. See more of the like stuff in his Apology tom. 2. fol. 371.  
Bullinger cited by Schluslelburg. loc. cit. We desire our 
Christ's words of the Euchar. are no Protest. ground of that matter  adversaries that they do not (as heretofore they have done) make the words of the Lords supper which are in controversy, as the foundation of their doctrine. Melancthon. Epist. ad Frideric. Elector. apud Martyrem in Dial. col. 112. In this controversy (of the Eucharist) the best is, to bold the words of Paul: The bread which we break is the communication of the body. Peter Martyr cont. Gardiner. col. 440. It is fond which he addeth, that in the mystery of the Eucharist we must recurre to the words of our Lord instituting it. Caluin Admonit. vlt. ad Westphal. pag. 818. In vain they shall cry: we must go to the fountain. And de Rat. concordiae pag. 866. There is no reason to insist upon the essential verb; Is. Ye see, that in the very question, what the Eucharist is, they say that it is fond and contrary to reason, to recurre to the words of the Institution thereof, to insist in them and make them our foundation, and nevertheless the words of the Institution are spoke purposely, and that only to tell us what the Eucharist is; but will have us to run to other places where it is not spoken at all of the Eucharist, or at least not of the substance thereof. This plainly showeth, that in very deed they make not the Scripture the foundation of their faith, nor gather their belief from thence: Which themselves sometimes do plainly confess. For thus P. Martyr 
Protest. gather not their faith out of the Scripture.  praefat lib. de Eucharist pag. 26. This is the basis strength and foundation of the opinion (of the Eucharist) which I have set down: That it is proper to God to be every where, and that the condition of humane nature is to be contained in some certain 
Reason, ground of Protest. in the Euchar.  place, nor can be diffused to many places at once. Caluin 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 20. The reverence of Christ's words is no sufficient pretext, why they should so reject all the reasons which we object. Author Orthodoxi Consensus in Schlusserburg. lib. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 23. We must not simply behold the words of Christ, but think of some other thing, and with inward eyes behold them as mysteries. And Victorinus ib. In the question of the Supper of the Lord we must look with the left eye upon the words of Christ, and with the right, behold the natures of Christ and the writings of Antiquity. Ye see them profess, that the foundation and strength of their opinion is a humane principle; that their reasons are to be preferred before Christ's words: that we must not simply look upon Christ words but think upon some other thing, that we must look upon Christ's words with the left eye, and with the right upon nature. Which is the very doctrine of Suencfeldius in Schlusselburg art. 23. cit. Remove (sayeth he) from thy sight: Take and Eat: This is my body, and then consider what is the nature of man's body, of eating, of Sacraments, and of old figures, and so thou shalt find most certain truth. In like sort they confess, that they learned not their faith out of Scripture. Zuinglius Resp. ad Serm. Lutheri to. 2. fol. 372. Faith cannot be learned or discussed out of words, but the 
Protest. have not their faith out of Scripture.  teacher of it is God, and after we have it delivered from him, we may see the same in words. And in Exegesi fol. 347. We do not think, that faith can be gathered out of words, but that faith being the mistress, the words which are set before us may be understood. How I pray you should we gather faith out of words, sith we ought not to come to expound Scriptures. But being already armed with faith? And OEcolampadius in Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 70. I come not to Scripture, but being before hand armed with faith.  
Their first shift is to scoff and deride the manner of 
Protecst. soffe at plain proofs out of Scripture.  arguing out of the express words of Scripture. P. Martyr in Schlusselburg. l. 4. Theol. Caluin. artic. 20. calleth our argument taken out of the words of the institution of the Eucharist. a Five word proof. And in Dial. col. 130. thus speaketh: I always thought that ye were not so wise as ye 
God's word not enough.  should be in labouring so much for an opinion both absurd, and unprofitable, and having nothing to maintain it but Christ's word: This is my body. Caluin. 1. Instit. cap. 2. §. 3. sayeth that they are mad, who endeavour to defend the images of God and Saints by the example of the Cherubins. The same sayeth Hospin. l. de orig. Templorum pag. 254. and Beza 2. part. respon ad Colloq. Montisbel. pag. 31. termeth the same, a stinking argument. Whitaker ad Rat. 3. Campiani maketh this to be a Sophism: Saint james commandeth to 
Foolish to strive about Christ's words  anoint the sick: therefore we must anoint them. Zuinglius de Peccat. orig. tom. 2. fol. 122. sayeth: How foolish should he seem, who for words (of Scripture) would avouch, that we are washed from original sin by the water of baptism. Oecolampadius complaineth, that the words of the Institution of the Eucharist, are objected to him as a Helen, and the samewords Caluin termeth Aiax his buckler, and the only refuge of Papists.  
Finally they are sometimes driven to blaspheme the 
They blaspheme the very words of Scripture.  words of Scripture, and to say that they will neither believe them, nor God himself. P. Martyr cont. Gardiner col. 423. termeth the words of the Institution of the Eucharist a little speech of five words, and col. 1095▪ a five word speech: Zuinglius Respons. ad Billican. tom. 2. f. 264. Poor letters. Burensis in Schlusselburg. Praefat. in tom. 3. Catal. Haeret. Four impotent words. Sheldon. l. of Antichrist pag. 82. in scoff: Five omnipotent words. Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 63. Five magical words. Gratianus Anties' tom. 6. doctrinae jesuit. fol. 158. speaketh in this sort. To be present according to Gregory, is to draw Christ's body out of heaven by fiveuerbicall or magical power. Volanus l. 2. cont. Scargam. pag. 1047. Feigning to yourselves a new Christ of bread, made by the five-word-breath of a Priest. Moreover Zuinglius (as before is rehearsed) called Christ's words of the indissolubilitie of marriage, dry words, and l. de Relig. c. de Euchar. sayeth, that the words of conscration, are too dry for some men's capacity. Poach in Schlusselburg. tom. 4. Catal. pag. 305. thus writeth: It must needs be, that the law, sith it neither 
God's law, in lie.  is Christ nor in Christ, is contained in error, lie, and death. And the Scripture (as Luther sayeth in his disputations) is not to be understood against Christ, but for Christ, and therefore to be referred to him or not to be accounted true Scripture. Luther being sore urged by the words of Scripture touching works and the law; teacheth his followers to answer thus tom. 5. in 3. Galat. fol. 345. Simply we must answer in this sort: Here is Christ, there the testimonies of the Scripture touching works and the law. But Christ is Lord of the Scripture— Thou urgest the servant, that is the Scripture, this servant I 
Luther leaveth the Scripture to Papists.  leave to thee: I urge the Lord who is King of the Scripture. And speaketh yet more plainly German. edit. Wittemb. tom. 1. in these words: Albeit the Papists do bring a huge load of Scriptures in which good works are commanded, I care, nothing 
He careth not for all the Scripture.  for all the sayings of the Scripture, though more were brought. Thou Papist art very insolent and proud with the Scripture, which yet is under Christ and the Lord. Wherefore I am nothing 
He is not moved with it.  moved thereby. Go too forsooth, rely upon the servant as much as thou wilt, but I rely upon Christ the true Master, Lord, and Emperor of the Scripture. Him I will believe, and I know he cannot lie to me, nor lead me into error. I had rather honour and believe him, then to suffer myself to be drawn one finger breath from my opinion for all the sayings of the Scripture. Lo how Luther careth not for all the sayings of the Scriptures, is nothing moved with, will not alter his opinion for them all, and leaveth them to the Papists. And in like sort tom. 1. disput. de Fide fol. 387. sayeth: But if our adversaries urge the Scripture against Christ, we urge Christ against the Scripture. We have the Lord, they have the servant. 
Papist have the Scripture.  And in Colloq. cap. de verbo Dei fol. 22. speaking of his followers, sayeth: The Scripture is contemned, corrupted, and mocked of us. Yea Zuinglius in Elencho tom. 2. fol. 10. affirmeth, that when Paul wrote, the Commentaries of the Evangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles were not of authority, and that Paul did not attribute so much to his Epistles, as that 
Paul did not think his Epistles divine.  whatsoever was contained in them was holy. The like is insinuated by Caluin Actor. 17. vers. 11. Where he sayeth, that the Thessalonians did not dispute whether God's truth were to be received, only they examined Paul's doctrine according to the rule of Scripture: Plainly putting a difference between God's truth, and Paul's doctrine. Finally Zuinglius professeth 
Zuinglius will not believe what he cannot comprehend.  to believe nothing which he cannot comprehend. For thus he speaketh in Hospin. Part. 2. Histor. fol. 72. God doth not propose to us things that are incomprehensible: Or as Melancthon reporteth ib. fol. 82. God doth not propose to us such things to be believed, as can no way be comprehended. And in Schlusselburg l. 4. Theol. Caluin. art. 9 thus professeth his more than Devilish infidelity: Albeit God with 
He will not believe God though he swore.  all his blessed Angels should come from heaven, and swear that in the Supper of the Lord the body and blood of Christ were given to all that receive it: yet neither could, nor would I believe it, unless I should plainly see with my eyes and feel Christ with my hands. The very same he insinuateth Respons. and Bellican. tom. 2. fol. What I pray you differ these men from the 
Protest. imitate the libertins.  Libertins of whom thus writeth Caluin in Instructione cap. 9 We already said, that these men in the beginning were wont plainly to laugh if any alleged the Scriptures, nor dissembled to hold them for fables; yet they forbore not to use them if there were any place, which they could wrest to their purpose. But when they perceived that all good men did detest such sacrilege, they put on this coat under which now they lurk; to wit, they profess not to reject the holy Scriptures, but feigning to admit them, wrist and change them into allegories. And do not the Protestants deride the Scripture, when they call the words thereof a five-word speech, beggarly letters, impotent and magical words: and when they see that all good men detest such blasphemy, do they not turn them into figures or allegories?  
Wherefore I make this my fourth argument. Who not only in so many and so great matters contradict the express words of Scripture: but also in many and great points are compelled to forsake the letter thereof, to call the  sense into question, to say that it is a begging of the question, to argue out of it to device many new senses for to reject a place as ambiguous, and to say that the sense of Scripture is to be gathered rather out of a strange then out of the proper place where it is purposely handled, who finally deride the very kind of arguing out of the express words of Scripture and openly blaspheme them, they are to be thought not only to gainsay the true sense of Scripture, but also to contemn the Scripture and God himself. But so do Protestants. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER V THAT PROTESTANTS SAY THAT words of Scripture which make against them, were not spoken of certain knowledge.  
OUR fift argument to prove that Protestants repugn to the true sense of Scripture, shallbe, because sometimes they deny that the words which were spoken of God, of Christ, of the Apostles, were spoken by them of their certain knowledge, but only by guess or conjecture.  
For if out of that saying of God, Ezechielis 3. vers. 6. & seq. For not to a people of profound speech and of an unknown tongue art thou sent to the house of Israel: neither to many peoples of profound speech and of an unknown tongue whose words thou canst not hear, and if thou were sent to them, they would hear the: We will prove, that some can be converted which yet will not be converted. Contra-remonstrantes in Collat. Hagae. answer: This is said, not in respect 
God did not certainly foresee what he said.  of that which God did certainly foresee in these or those: but in respect of that which according to all outward show a man might judge. Forsooth, God did not certainly foresee, that other people would have heard the Prophet, if he had been sent to them, as he plainly affirmeth, but like a man spoke by guess out of the external appearance.  
If we prove the same out of those words of Christ Math. 11. ver. 21. If in Tire and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had done penance 
Nor Christ.  in haircloth and ashes: Caluin upon this place telleth us: that Christ disputeth not what God did foresee to become of these or those, but what some of them would have done, for so much as could be gathered by the thing. And ib. in v. 33. We admonished before, that Christ speaketh after a humane manner, and doth not tell out of the heavenly oracle what he had foreseen was to be, if he had sent to the Sodomites. And lib. 6. de lib. arbitr. pag 197. It is evident, that Christ would by that kind of speech no other thing, than if one now should say: There is no Turk so obstinate or rebellious to God, or so impious, who would not have been converted, if he had read seen and heard those things with which Pighius will not amended. The like have Contra-remonstrantes loc. cit. So that Christ did not certainly foresee that the Tyrians and Sodomites would have repent if they had seen the like miracles, and yet he plainly affirmeth it.  
If we prove that a man may fall from grace, because S. Peter 1. cap. 1. vers. 9 sayeth: For he that hath not these 
Scripture speaketh not of knowledge, but of charity.  things ready, is blind, and groping with his hand, having forgotten the purgation of his old sins. Zanchius in Summa Praelect. tom. 7. col. 276. answereth: This place is to be understood according to the judgement of charity. The same he hath in Thesibus tom. 8. col 700. and Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. p. 195. Forsooth, S. Peter judged charitably, but not truly that such a man (as he speaketh of) had been purged from his sins.  
If we prove, that God would have all men to be saved, because S. Paul. 1. Timoth. 2. vers. 4. Who will all men to be saved: Perkins lib. de Praedest. tom. 1. col. 139. sayeth: Paul 
Likewise S. Paul.  speaketh in this place according to the judgement of charity of Christians, not according to the judgement of secret and infallible certainty. In like sort answereth Piscator loc. cit. and also to Hebr. 6. vers. 5. & cap. 10. vers. 29. Where is it said, that some reprobates were sanctified with the blood of Christ.  
If we prove, that the wicked and reprobates may be in the body of Christ, and put him upon them, because S. Paul sayeth, 1. Cor. 12. ver. 13. We were all baptised into one body: & Gal. 3. v. 27. As many of you as are baptised in Christ, have put on Christ. Vorstius in Antibel. p. 124. answereth: The Apostle speakheth there out of the judgement of charity, which accounteth all the citizens of the outward Church, that is, all that profess faith, to be faithful. But charity beleiveth all things, and therefore is deceived, which is fare from the certainty of faith. Which is as much as to say, S. Paul or the Scripture was deceived in these sayings.  
If we prove, that God would have some to be converted who will not, because he sayeth Math. 23. vers. 37. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I gather together thy children as the hen doth gather together her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldst not: Beza de Praedestinat. count. castle. vol. 1. pag. 398. answereth: If we will attribute this speech to Christ as he was God, dost thou not know, that God for to allure his children to him, through his infinite goodness, by taking upon him humane affections, doth sometime stammer with us? 
God stammereth.   
Fiftly therefore I prove that Protestants contradict the true sense of Scripture in this sort. Who not only gainsay the express words of holy writ, so as we have seen, but also are forced in many and great mysteries of faith to say that the Apostles, Christ and God himself did not certainly foresee what they said, and that the holy Ghost did not speak of certain knowledge but by conjectures as men do, they gainsay the true meaning of the holy Scripture. But Protestants do so. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER VI THAT PROTESTANTS AFFIRM many weighty sayings of the Scripture not to have been spoken according to the mind of the Authors.  
MY sixth argument shallbe, because Protestants are driven to say, that Scripture speaketh not according to it own mind and according to truth, but according to the error and opinion of others, and that in many and great matters, as of faith, of good works, of sacraments, of the very mean of attaining salvation and the like.  
For if we prove that wicked men may have faith, because 
S. james speaketh not according to his own mind.  S. james cap. 2. vers. 18. speaketh thus to such a one. Thou hast faith, and I have works, & v. 19 Thou believest that there is one God: thou dost well: Caluin on that chapter v. 14. sayeth: Let us remember, that he speaketh not according to his own mind, as oft as here he nameth faith.  
If we prove, that the keeping of the commandments 
Nor Christ.  is necessary to salvation, because Christ sayeth Math. 19 v. 17. If thou wilt enter to life, keep the commandments. Pareus l. 3. de justificat. c. 12. p. 812. answereth: The Lord sendeth him to the works of the law, not that he thinketh this way of salvation possible, but for to confund his hypocrisy. Brentius in Pareus l. 4. de justificat. c. 2. and in Gerlachius tom. 2. disput. 13. sayeth: Christ so answered, as he rather shown him the way to 
He shown the way to perdition.  eternal damnation. Which answer (sayeth Pareus c. 2. cit.) is no less true, than that saying of the Apostle: ye are evacuated from Christ, who are justified by the law.  
If we prove, that justice is necessary to salvation, because Christ sayeth Mat. 5. ver. 21. Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharises, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Pareus l. 4. de justif. c. 4. p. 964: answereth; Not that this (inward justice) was possible to the 
He shown an impossible way.  disciples, or to any other man; but that the exactness of the law and there impossibility being acknowledged, they might forsake the endless way of the law, and seek life in the Gospel.  
If we prove that God rewardeth good works, because the Scripture often speaketh so: Zuinglius l. de relig. c. de Merito, answereth: There are some so doltish, that whatsoever thou criest, they think God giveth all things to merits, and where these are not, that there his grace is in vain hoped for: whose weakness or rather perfidiousness God abuseth, and inviteth to good works by hope of reward, that so nothing may be wanting to his servants. And Ochinus in Schlusselburg. lib. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 23. dareth. call in question, whether Christ spoke those words which he would have spoken. We answer (sayeth he) that it may be, that when 
He spoke not that he would  Christ said: This is my body, he would have said: The bread signifieth my body.  
The like they mean, when they say, that the holy 
Scripture speaks by grant or concession.  Scripture speaketh by concession or grant. For thus Caluin in lac. 2. v. 12. That he termeth it faith, is by way of concession orgraunt. And 3. Instit. c. 17. §. 11. That the Apostle calleth faith a vain opinion which is fare from the nature of faith, is by way of grant. Beza in jac. 2. ver. 14. james calleth it faith, by way of grant, that he may not seem to strive about words. In like manner Illyricus and others.  
Kemnitius in locis part. 2. tit. de Argumentis, writeth, that in those sayings: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments? Who shall do these, shall live in them: Do this, and thou shalt live: The doers of the law shallbe justified, Christ and Paul answer by way of concession or grant.  
If we prove, that we can cleanse ourselves from sin, because 2. Cor. 7. v. 1. it is said: Let us cleanse ourselves from all inquination of the flesh and spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God: Caluin 2. Instit. c. 5. §. 11. answereth: By concession or grant it is attributed to us, which belongeth to God. And if we prove that there are some little precepts, because Christ sayeth Math. 5. v. 19 One jot or tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled: Caluin upon that place, sayeth; Where Christ termeth little precepts, it is a kind of concession or grant.  
If we prove, that God will render eternal life according to the patience of good works, because Rom. 2. v. 7. is said: God will render to every man according to his works: to them truly that according to patience in good work, seek glory, honour, and incorruption, life eternal: Beza upon that place answereth: In this description of just judgement, this is said of the Apostle by way of grant or concession, as also when straight after he sayeth ver. 13. Not hearers, but doers of the law are justified.  
If we prove that some do keep the law, because it is written Rom. 2. v. 26. If then the prepuce keep the justices of the law, shall not his prepuce be reputed for circumcision? Beza upon that place answereth: These things are said of the Apostle by way of grant or concession, as also I noted before verse 9  
If we prove, that the sacraments of the new law be 
Scripture speaketh by contention.  better than the sacraments of the old, because S. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews preferreth them before these, Caluin. 4. Instit. c. 14. §. 25. sayeth: This we must especially note, that in all these places Paul speaketh not simply but by way of contention or arguing— Let us therefore remember, that here he disputeth not of ceremonies taken in their true and natural signification, hut wrested to false and wicked interpretation, not of the lawful use of them, but of their superstitious abuse.  
divers times also they are forced to say, that the Scripture speaketh after a humane manner, and according to the mind, capacity, or error of others, not according to the nature of the thing.  
For if we prove, that reward is given to alms, because Christ sayeth Luc. 16. v. 9 Make unto you, friends of the mammon of iniquity, that when you fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles: Caluin excepteth, that, Christ speaketh 
After a humane manner.  after a humane manner.  
If we prove, that some are truly just, because Math. 1. v. 19 it is said: joseph her husband, for that he was a just man: Illyricus upon that place, answereth: Here he is called just after the common manner, that is, honest, and desirous to be honest.  
If we prove, that God giveth sufficient means of salvation to some, who yet are not saved, because he sayeth Isaiae 5. v. 4. What is there that I ought to do more to my vineyard, and have not done? Pareus l. 1. de Grat & lib. arb. cap. 11. answereth: He speaketh not as God, but after a humane manner like a vineroll. The like sayeth Caluin. lib. de Provident. pag. 744.  
If we prove, that Christ hath bought even those who deny him, because it is plainly said so. 2. Pet. 2. v. 1. Grossius Professor at Basel in Apol. pro Disput. inaugurali sayeth: The Lord is said to have bought such, both according to the custom of Scripture, which according to the judgement of charity sayeth, that all are redeemed, saints, and cleansed from sin, whosoever are baptised and profess Christ, albeit they be not all such before God: as also, according to their own opinion 
Scripture speaketh according to men's false opinion. After a humane manner.  and boasts. For whom the Lord hath indeed bought, they never deny him.  
Zuinglius in Exposit. fidei tom. 2. fol. 558. writeth this; Worke● do not merit, but when (the Scripture) promiseth reward to works, it speaketh after a humane manner— Because men give to them that have well deserved, and the gifts are called rewards, God also calleth his gifts reward or recompense. The like hath Bullinger in Rom. 2. And Reineccius tom. 4. Armaturae c. 7. sayeth, that those words of the Angel Tob. 12. I offered thy prayed to our Lord; are spoken after a humane manner. For (sayeth he) there is no need, that Angels should offer our prayers to the Lord, for God is not fare of.  
Caluin 3. Instit. c. 18. §. 9 answering to that place Math. 19 v. 17. If thou wilt enter to life, keep the commandments, sayeth: As if it, were not manifest, that Christ did accommodate his speech to them with whom he had to do. Polanus in Disput. private. 38. sayeth: This place in which Christ commandeth to keep the precepts of the law, is to be understood in 
According to men's supposition.  part to wit, according to the supposition of the young man.  
Masculus in joan. 6. sayeth: In that (Christ) calleth faith a work of God, it is an application wherewith he accomodateth 
According to men's words.  himself to the words of this people. And Luther in Galat. 2. tom. 5. fol. 317. Paul through too great zeal and indignation 
By too much zeal and indignation.  of spirit, calleth Grace a law, whereas in truth it is nothing else but the greatest and infinite liberty in Christ.  
Beza in Cyclope vol. 1. pag. 306. The Apostle Hebr. 7. v. 18. calleth the former precept, unprofitable, But he speaketh upon 
In supposition of adversaries  the supposition of his adversaries.— So dealt Christ with the Capharnaites. Christ according to their supposition sayeth his flesh profiteth nothing. And in joan. 6. v. 31. But here again Christ speaketh upon their supposition with whom, he discourseth. Et in Dial. count. Heshus vol. 1. p. 285. 306. and count. Westphal. p. 241. sayeth: The Apostle in all that treatise (of the old sacraments) according to his adversary's supposition considereth the ceremonies a part from Christ and by themselves. The like hath Tilenus in Syntagmate cap. 57 But Gratianus Antiiesuita tom. 6. doctrinae. jesuit. part. 2. pag. 3. speaketh yet worse, saying: According to this impious supposition, the 
According to an impious supposition.  Scripture speaketh contemptibly of the Sacraments, and calleth Circumcision some where Prepuce, other where Concision, other where unprofitable, and Manna also vivificall bread.  
If therefore we prove the keeping of the law to be necessary to life, because Christ sayeth Luc. 10. ver. 28. Do this and thou shalt live: Caluin. ib. in ver. 26. answereth: Christ speaketh here about obtaining life as he was asked. For he 
According to the demand.  telleth not plainly (as he doth otherewhere) how men may come to life.— Christ in this answer doth accommodate himself to the lawyer, and respecteth the demand. See also Whitak. l. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 38.  
If we prove that the Eucharist is a nobler food than manna, because Christ sayeth joan. 6. v. 27. Work not the meat that perisheth, but that endureth unto life everlasting. Caluin 4. Instit. c. 14. §. 25. answereth: Christ accommodateth 
According to the gross opinion.  his speech to the gross opinion of the Capharnaites. The same he hath in joan. 6. versus 50.  
If we prove, that the Eucharist is of more virtue than Manna was, because Christ sayeth joan. 6. v. 58. Your fathers did eat manna and died: he that eateth this bread shall live for ever: Caluin 2. INstit. c. 10. §. 6. answereth: The Lord spoke 
According to carnal men's capacity.  to hairs, who only sought to be filled with meat of the belly, and cared not for the true food of the soul, doth somewhat accommodate his speech to their capacity, but especially he maketh the comparison of manna and of his body according to their meaning. And in 1. Cor. 10. v. 3. Christ accommodateh his speech to the meaning of the hearers. We see, that the Lord speaketh 
Not according to the nature of the thing.  not there according to the nature of the thing, but according to the meaning of the hearers.  
If we prove that Christ added somewhat to the rigour of the law, because he sayeth Math. 5. v. 22. You have heard, that it was said to them of old; Thou shalt not kill etc. But I say unto you, who soever is angry with his brother, shallbe in danger of judgement: Caluin ib. answereth: Christ indeed 
To the capacity of the valgar sort. To their gross error. To the capacity of the common people.  bringeth the words of the law, but he accommodateth himself to the common capacity of the vulgar sort. And in Rom. 2. v. 26. The Apostle doth accommodate his speech according to their gross error, as also he doth in his Epistle to the Galathians.  
If we exhort to do penance in haircloth and ashes, because Christ sayeth Math. 11. ver. 21. If in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had done penance in haircloth and ashes long ago: Caluin ib. answereth: Pennance is described by the external signs, which were then solemnly used in God's Church, not as if Christ urged this matter, but because he turneth his speech to the capacity of the common people.  
If we prove that we shall have life everlasting for giving all our goods to the poor, because Christ sayeth. Math. 19 v. 21. If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell the things that thou hast, and give to the poor and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. Beza ib. answereth. These words of Christ declare not how life everlasting is of itself to be gotten, but are spoken to reprove him that was deceived with false hope of his justice. Caluin ib. in v. 20. sayeth: Christ's answer was directed according to the 
To the man's disposition.  man's disposition. Gerlachius tom. 2. disput. 13. sayeth: The Lord in the places alleged (Math. 19 and Luc. 10.) accommodated 
To men be wicked with false doctrines. To men's errors  his speech to them who asked him, who were bewiched with an opinion of legal justice and Pharisaical doctrines. And again: Christ might easily accommodate his speech to those errors. Illyricus in Clavae part. 2. tract. 1. col. 32. writeth thus: Christ after an other manner showeth the way to the kingdom 
Christ shown one way to some, an other to others.  of heaven, to the Pharisee, to the lawyer, and to that young man vaunting of the fulfilling of the law: and in other manner unto Nicodemus boasting of his discipline and good habits gotten by long time and time goodness of nature and free will, and yet in an other manner unto miserable sinners wrestling with their conscience with the wrath of God and their sins.  
Author respon ad Theses. Valent. p. 800. thus teacheth: That we may grant, that oftentimes in Scripture justification is denied to the old and attributed to the new testament: Yet 
According to the jews supposition.  none seethe not, but that this is said of the Apostle by supposition of the jews, who like to Papists, did speak of the old testament as of the law which should give justice by works. And p. 813. In that Gregory is deceived, that he thinketh it followeth out of Paul's discourse, that prepuce keepeth the law, which in truth the Apostle spoke upon supposition, not as if it were indeed or could be, but to show boasting of the law, circumcision, and all the other ceremonies, was very vain.  
Nor content to have thus deluded so many and so weighty sentences of Scripture, they give a general rule so to delude them. Caluin in 1. Corinth. 10. ver. 3. It is the 
General rule to delude Scripture thus.  manner of the Scripture, when it speaketh of Sacraments or other things sometimes to speak according to the capacity of the hearers: and so it doth not respect the nature of thing, but what the hearers think amiss. And l. de Praedest. p. 713. The Scripture when it talketh of the Sacraments, useth to speak in two sorts: If it talk with hypocrites, according to their wrong meaning, it devideth the truth from the signs. The like he hath Gal. 3. v. 27. & in joan. 6. v. 32. Daneus tom. 2. Corinth. 4. pag. 217. Peter Martyr in locis closely. 2. c. 16. §. 14. & in 1. Cor. 10. Et Polanus in disput. private. 32. sayeth: God oftentimes 
Scripture calleth just, who indeed are not so.  speaketh according to their opinion with whom he speaketh: So are they in the Scripture called just, who indeed are not just, but only in opinion either of themselves or of others. By these and many such like sleights Protestants use to delude the holy Scripture, which if they be admitted, nothing at all can be proved out of Scripture.  
Wherefore I thus make my sixth argument. Who not only in 260. articles do contradict the express words of Scripture in their clear sense: but also in many and weighty matters are forced to say, that the Scripture speaketh not according to her own mind, meaneth not as she speaketh, speaketh by way of grant, concession, or argument, according to the mind, capacity, gross opinion, error of others, and after a humane fashion, not according to the nature of the thing: they are to be thought to gain say the true meaning of the holy Scripture. But Protestants do so. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER VII. THAT PROTESTANTS ARE FORCED to say that the Scripture speaketh ironically, mimetically, hyperbolically and by amplification and fiction.  
MY seventh argument to prove that Protestants contradict the true sense of the Scripture, shallbe because they are forced to say, that many and most weighty sentences of Scripture, of faith, good works, Sacraments, redemption of sins, means of purchasing heaven, and the like, were spoken not in earnest, but ironically, mimetically, hyperbolically, by amplification and fiction. 
Precepts ought to be kept: Ironically.   
For if we prove, that God's commandments can be done, because Levit. 18. Rom. 10. Gal. 3. is said: Who shall do those things, shall live in them: Luther in Gal. 3. tom. 5. fol. 347. Answereth, I wnderstand that this speech is an irony, or scoff.  
If any prove the same, because Christ sayeth Luc. 10. v. 
Ironically.  26. Do this, and thou shalt live: Luther loc. cit. answereth: I understand this place in common, that this saying of Christ: Do this and thou shalt live, is a kind of irony and mockage. Poach in Schlusselburg. l. 4. Catal. Haeret. 4. 301. Albeit the lawyer do inquire of life everlasting, yet if Christ's answer be understood according to the law, that is, without (speacial) faith, life, cannot be meant of eternal life, without an irony. Et p. 312. I do not deny, but Christ's answer may he wnderstood of eternal life, not according to the law, but an other way, to wit, either according to the Gospel, or by irony. Again: That saying and the like may be expounded three ways. First by irony, as Luther sayeth Gen. 9 and Galat. 3. Secondly according to the law. etc. And Gerlachius tom. 2. disput. 13. There is a secret irony of Christ.  
If we prove that the commandments must needs be kept, because Christ sayeth Math. 19 v. 17. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments: Pareus l. 4. de justificat. c. 2. p. 967. answereth: Luther's irony (about this place) may be defended. And pag. 969. It was a serious conference, and yet that hindereth not, but that the Lord might use an irony. And Gerlachius to. 2. disp. 13. cit. It was a serious conference, and yet there is a secret irony.  
If we prove, that an ill man may have faith, because S. james cap. 2. speaketh thus to such a one: Thou hast faith. 
An ill man hath faith: Ironically.  Thou believest that there is one God: Thou dost well: Beza ib. answereth: That which followeth: Thou hast faith, is spoken ironically: And Caluin. ib. v. 18. Erasmus is much deceived in that he acknowledgeth not an irony in these words. The speech is ironical. And Thou dost well, is added for to extenuate. And likewise in Rom. 3. v. 30. he sayeth: I think that there is an irony in the words. And lib. 6. de lib. arbit. pag. 198. Solomon 
Man's is to prepare his heart: Ironically.  sayeth (Proverb. 16.) it is man's part to prepare the hart, and the Lords to govern the tongue. Who seethe not that it is an ironical description of man's arrogancy, who challengeth to himself all high matters, and hath not the least matter in his power?  
If we prove, that good works do cleanse from sin, 
Alms cleanseth sin. Ironically.  because Christ sayeth. Luc. 11. v. 41. But yet that that remaineth, give alms, and behold all things are clean unto you: Vallada in his Apology c. 22. pag. 300. answereth: Christ is fare from teaching that by alms sins are redeemed, that on the contrary he derideth and rebuketh the Pharisees that they had this opinion. And the Apology Conf. August. c. de respon ad argum. There are many who interpret it to be an irony. This interpretation is not absurd, nor hath any thing which is contrary to other Scriptures. P. Martyr in Rom. 11. Those words: Give alms etc. may be expounded three ways. The first is, to say, that the speech is ironical. And this he repeateth in locis class. 3. c. 4. §. 34. Aretius also in locis part. 1. fol. 90. sayeth: Others choose rather to take this sentence of Christ ironically.  
If we prove that sins may be redeemed by alms, because Daniel sayeth c. 4. ver. 24. Redeem thy sins by alms: Schlusselburg. tom. 8. Catal. pag. 524. sayeth: There are 
Alms redeem sin. Ironically.  some that expound this place ironically. Which he doth not dislike.  
If we prove that the commandments may be kept, because Luc. 18. v. 22. a man that said he had kept them all, Christ reprehendeth not, but sayeth: Yet one thing thou 
One thing lacking: Ironically.  lackest: Sell all that ever thou hast, and give to the poor etc. Beza ib. answereth: Yea all things (lack) seeing no man can keep even one commandment so as the law appointeth: wherefore Christ speaketh with a holy irony.  
If we prove that a sinner hath free will or power to convert himself, because God sayeth Oseae. 5. ver. vlt. Going I will return to my place, until you fail and seek my 
Men seek God: Ironically.  face: Whitaker and Rat. 9 Campiani answereth: Which words truly he spoke ironically and mimetically. And lib. 9 cont. Dur. sect. 25. It is manifest, that the Lord spoke ironically. Thus you see in how great matters they say, that the Prophets, Apostles, Christ, and God himself spoke ironically or scoffingly, when they speak against them, which is indeed to make the Prophets, Apostles, Christ, and God himself to be scoffers, or rather to scoff and mock them. Now let us see, how they say, that the Scripture speaketh mimetically, or by imitation of others.  
If we prove that faith, is a work, because Christ 
Faith is a work: Mimetically.  sayeth. joan. 6. v. 29. This is the work of God, that you believe in him. Beza ib. answereth: Perhaps this kind of speech, is borrowed of the common uses and is to be expounded by mimesis or imitation: as if one coming to a Physician should ask of him for how much money would he cure him, and the Physician should answer in these words: All the money which I demand of you is this, that you trust me and be persuaded that I seek nought but your health. If I say the Physician should thus answer, who could gather out of this answer that money is the trust which the Physician demandeth of the sick man for to obey wholesome advice. Wherefore they are very ridiculous (that I may omit other paralogismes) who out of that place do gather that faith is a work. Pareus l. 1. de justificat. c. 16. Faith is improperly called a work. For Christ calleth faith in itself a work of God, according to the speech of the jews who asked him. And Whitaker lib. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 88 Christ called faith a work, either mimetically, or because it is the work of the holy Ghost.  
If we prove, that that faith whereof S. james speaketh 
Faith justifieth: Mimetically.  is justifying faith, because c. 2. v. 24. he sayeth: Ye see, that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only: that is: Man is justified by faith, but not by only faith: Pareus l. 4. de justificat. c. 18. answereth: He addeth that Antithesis: And not by faith only: by mimesis or imitation of the hypocrites: we are justified by faith only: ye see (sayeth he) this is false.  
If we prove that Christ's flesh is truly eaten, because he sayeth joan. 6. My flesh is truly meat: Zuinglius in Exegesi tom. 
Christ flesh eaten: Mimetically.  2. fol. 333. answereth: He finely observeth the imitation of the jews, who either thought or would seem to think that he was but a mere man. And upbraiding to these men their error, he sayeth: His flesh is truly meat. The same he repeateth in joan. 6. tom. 4. fol. 308. And addeth fol. 334 According to etheologie and mimesis which are a kind of alleosis, that is by imitation, wherewith he spoke according to the speech and opinion of his enemies: he useth the word Flesh and meaneth 
Sayeth Flesh, and meaneth Spirit.  the Spirit, that is his Divinity, as often as he attributeth life to his flesh.  
If we prove that there are two testaments because S. Paul sayeth Gal. 4. For these are two testaments, the one truly 
One testament. Mimetically.  &c. Zuinglius in Elencho tom. 2. fol. 3. answereth: Paul calleth it one testament, not that it was truly a testament, but by etheologie or imitation of them who so called it. And he addeth: who more stiffly— embraced shadows (as it is the gross disposition of men) more than they ought, would rather lose light then darkness: not unlike to that mad man, who greatly complained that his friends had procured him to be restored to his wits. After the manner of these men Paul sayeth that there are two testaments. See how he sayeth that Saint Paul speaketh like a mad man. And in joan. 6. tom. 4. p. 305. Where Christ calleth faith a work, he sayeth, Christ playeth in the word, work, and calleth faith a work, because they looked to works. So in the Epistle to the Rom. and Galat. by imitation he calleth grace, the law of the spirit. And in Math. 
Grace called a law. Mimetically.  19 pag. 107. The Lord continueth in his imitation, and accommodateth his speech to the mind of the young man, who after a Pharisaical manner did think, that justification and life everlasting were to be gotten by works. And in jacob. 2. p. 549. he sayeth, that when S. james termeth faith that which is without works, he speaketh by imitation, imitating them 
Faith without works: Mimetically.  who bragged of dead faith, which is no faith, as of lively and true faith. Illyricus also in Clavae tract. 4. col. 332. sayeth, that by imitation the Gospel is called the law of faith Rom. 3. and faith a 
The Gospel law of faith, Mimetically.  work joan. 6. and in like manner it is said: Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of iniquity.  
If we prove that those things which are written in the book of wisdom, were spoken of Solomon because the prayer to God which is in the 9 chapter can agree to no other, Whitaker Controu. 1. quaest. 1. c. 12. answereth: That might be done mimetically by imitation, of the writer, 
Solomon prayeth to God Mimetically.  whosoever, he was. And the same sayeth Rainolds Praelect. 20. and. 21. As if imitations which are grounded in lies, and that in prayers to God were to be admitted in Scripture. What other thing were this for Scripture but to imitate others in lies, and even then when it speaketh to God? And thus much of their Mimese or imitation: Now let us see some of their hyperboles.  
If we prove that faith may move mountains, because 
Faith may move mountains Hyperbolically.  Christ sayeth Math. 17. ver. 20. If you have faith as a mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Remove from hence thither, and it shall remove: Caluin ib. in v. 19 answereth: It is certain, that it is an hyperbolical kind of speech, when he sayeth that by faith trees and mountains may be removed. The same hath Illyricus upon this place.  
If we have prove that alms delivereth from sin, because 
Alms delivereth from sin: Hyperbolically.  it is said Toby 4. v. 11. Alms delivereth from all sin and from death: Vallada in his Apology cit. pag. 304. answereth: This kind of speech of Toby is hyperbolical: And Apologia Confess. August. c. de respon ad argum. We will not say that it is an hyperbole, albeit it must be so taken, lest it detract from the praise of Christ, whose proper office is to deliver from death and sin.  
If we prove that one man by his prayer may procure 
One man procureth life to an o●her: Hyperbolically.  life to an other, because it is said. 1. joan. 5. vers. 16. He that knoweth his brother to sinne a sin not to death, let him ask, and life shallbe given him sinning not to death: Caluin ib. answereth: If you understand of man, that he giveth life to his brother, it is an hyperbolical speech.  
If we prove that God hath promised reward to good 
God rewardeth works Hyperbolically.  works, Zuinglius de Provident. c. 6. answereth: These are hyperboles and hyperoches: If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments: Who shall do the will of my father, etc. and what promises soever else are made to works. Thus they device hyperboles in Scripture: and yet Pareus lib. 1. de justific. cap. 15. and in Galat. 1. Lect. 9 sayeth: I dare not say that there is an hyperbole in Scripture, sith it ouerlasheth the truth, and seemeth to be a kind of lie.  
If we prove that faith can be without charity, because 
Faith without charity: A fiction.  S. Paul sayeth 1. Cor. 13. v. 2. If I have all faith so as I remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing: P. Martyr ib. answereth: The Apostle speaketh by fiction for to exaggerate the dignity of charity.— Who seethe not, that Paul speaketh here hyperbolically? And in Rom. 11. When the Apostle 
Impossible. Charity extolled, by fiction.  by all means extolled charity, he used a fiction for to extol it. But Luther Postilla in Domin. Quinquagesimae, sayeth: Paul brought an impossible example.  
If we prove that faith may be without works because S. james sayeth cap. 2. v. 18. Show me thy faith without 
Faith without works.  works: Caluin ib. answereth: In that he biddeth show faith without works, he argueth from an impossible thing: And in v. 17. It is clear enough, that the Apostle doth reason from an impossible thing.  
If we prove that widows marrying after they have given their faith to the contrary; are damned, because (as S. Paul speaketh 1. Timoth. 5 vers. 12.) they have made void their first faith: Caluin 4. Instit c. 13. §. 18. answereth: The 
Widows lose their first faith: By Amplification.  Apostle for amplification sake addeth, that they have broken or made void their first faith.  
Wherefore in form thus I argue: Who not only in so many and so great matters contradict such words of Scripture, and in such a sense as we have seen, but also in many and great matters are forced to say, that the Scripture seeketh ironically, mimetically, hyperbolically, by way of fiction, and of amplification, and by impossibilities, they are to be thought to contradict the true sense of the Scripture. But Protestants do so. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER VIII. THAT PROTESTANTS ARE COMpelled to turn the most general propositions of the Scripture into particulars.  
THE eight argument wherewith I will prove that Protestants contradict the true sense of holy Scripture shallbe, because in many and weighty mattie, to wit, of God, of Christ, of the Church, of Sacraments, of faith and the like, they are forced to turn the most universal propositions of Scripture into particulars.  
For touching God: If we prove that he hath a will to have mercy on all, because Rom. 11. v. 32. it is said: God 
Touching God.  hath concluded all into incredulity, that he may have mercy on all: Beza ib. answereth: The universal particle (All) is to be restrained, to wit, (as he sayeth l. de Praedest. count. castle. 
All, that is, Some.  p. 360.) All who shall believe. The like he hath in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 421. and in Resp. p. 216. 223. and Caluin 3. Instit. c. 24. §. 17. But Zanchius l. 1. de Nat. Dei. c. 2. tom. 2. cal. 562. sayeth that this place and also that other: Preach the Gospel to every creature and the like, belong only to the elect. If we prove the same because Sapient. 11. v. 24. it is said: Thou hast mercy on all etc. P. Martyr in Rom. 9 answereth: But it easily appeareth, that these things are to be understood 
All, that is, Some.  of the universal company of the elect.  
If we prove that God hath a will to save all, because 1. Timot. 2. v. 4 it is said of God: Who will all men to be saved: Bucer in Math. 6. answereth: That he sayeth, All; is as much as if he had said, some of all. Et Idem apud Zanchium l. de Perseverant. to. 2. col. 343. That place 1. Timoth. 2. Who will all: and 1. joan. 2. He is the propitiation etc. cannot be understood but synechdochically, for many, that is for the elect. And again: It is certain that the places, which promise salvation universally, belong only to the elect. And Beza in joan. 6. v. 40. It must not be taken for an universal, but for an indefinite proposition: Caluin upon the place cited, sayeth: It speaketh of kinds of men, not of all persons. And Perkins in Serie causarum c. 52. We must know, that this proposition is not general, but indefinite.  
If we prove the same out of these words. 2. Pet. 3. v. 10. 
Not some, but all, that is, Some.  Not willing that any perish, but all to return to penance: Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 422. & in respon p. 231. and De Praedestinat. count. castle. p. 355. answereth: It is plain, that Peter speaketh only to the faithful. Zanchius l. 5. de Nat. Dei. cap 2. It is understood only of the elect. And Bucer in Math. 6. It is meant of them only whom he hath chosen for to be converted and live.  
If we prove that God calleth all, because Christ Math. 11. ver. 28. crieth: Come to me all that labour and are burdened 
All, that is, Some.  and I will refresh you. Beza l. quaest. & resp. vol. 1. p. 699. answereth: But ye will say the calling and promise is universal. But understand it indefinite, (and that in regard of certain circustances of which we spoke) and thou shall think more rightly. For otherwise behold with how necessary reasons that universal calling, is refuted: wherefore not an universal calling, but only an indefinite can and must be defended.  
If we prove that God hateth even the faithful when they work iniquity, because Psalm. 5. v. 7. it is said: Thou hatest all who work iniquity: they will except the 
All, that is, Some.  faithful as appeareth by what we rehearsed l. 1. c. 2. art. 9  
If we prove that all things are possible to God, because so it is said. Math. 19 v. 26. Beza Dial. cont. Heshus: vol. 1. answereth: That saying of thine: All things are possible to God: hath some exception.  
Of Christ: if we prove that he died for all, because it is 
Touching Christ.  said. 2. Cor. 5. ver. 15. If one died for all, than all were dead and Christ died for all: Beza ib. answereth: Sith it is here spoken 
All, that is, Some.  of the Church or of the elect only considered universally, we must needs restrain, All, to that whereof the speech is, Et Contraremonstrantes in Collat. Hagae p. 131. That All, wherewith it is said, Christ died for all, is expounded not to be extended universally to all and every and none excepted, but is to be restrained only to the faithful.  
If we prove, that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all the world because 1. joan. 2. v. 2. it is said: He is the 
All the world, that is, Some.  propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only; but also for the whole worlds: Zanchius in Summa Praelect. tom. 7. col. 264. answereth: When he sayeth, Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, we are not compelled by name of the world (He amitteth, whole) to understand all men universally. Again: Christ is the propitiation only for the sins of the elect of the whole world. Caluin upon this place: Nether had John any other meaning, then to make this good common to the whole Church. Beza ib. By the name of the world (He also omitteth whole) are understood all the elect of all ages, degrees, and places.  
If we prove that Christ is the Saviour of all men because it is said. 1. Timoth. 4. v. 10. Which is the Saviour of 
All, that is, Some.  all men especially of the faithful. Author Resp. ad Theses Vademont. p. 482. answereth: This pertaineth to the elect only.  
Of the Church: if we prove, that she erreth not in any 
Touching the Church.  point of faith: because Christ sayeth joan. 16. v. 13. When he the spirit of truth cometh, he shall teach you all truth: Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 4. c. 2. expoundeth it thus: That is, 
All truth, that is, Some.  all necessary truth. Again: I answer, that Christ and the holy Ghost teacheth the Church all truth simply necessary, but yet oftentimes leaveth some error. The like hath Rainalds thesi. 2. and Bucanus loco 41. But Daneus Contr. 4. p. 632. sayeth: Properly and truly this promise of Christ pertaineth to those twelve whom he then spoke unto: Wherefore it is a personal blessing, which must, not be extended to any other then to those twelve Apostles. The like hath Moulins in his Buckler pag. 51.  
If we prove that wicked men may be in the Church which is the body of Christ, because S. Paul sayeth. 1 Cor. 10. v. 17. For being many, we are one bread, one body, all that 
All, that is, Some.  participate of one bread Beza dial. count. Heshus. p. 280. answereth: That, All that participate, cannot be extended to the wicked. Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 11. sayeth: The Apostle speaketh only of the good and godly, the wicked do not participate that bread whereof the Apostle speaketh.  
If we prove that all the Corinthians and Galathians baptised, were in the Church and had put on Christ, because 1. Cor. 12. v. 13. it is said: For in one Spirit we were all 
All, that is, Some.  baptised into one body: And Galat. 3. ver. 27. For as many of you as are baptised in Christ, have put on Christ: Whitaker Contr. 24. 1. cap. 8. answereth. The Apostle in these places speaketh not of all the Corinthians and Galathians, but of those only who were endued with the spirit of Christ and true faith.  
Touching Sacraments: If we prove that Baptism is 
Touching Sacraments.  necessary to all, because Christ sayeth joan. 3. v. 5. Unless one be borne again of water etc. Pareus l. 6. de Amiss. Grat. c. 1. answereth: The proposition is to be limitated. And commonly 
One, that is, Some.  they except infants.  
If we prove that baptism is effectual also in the reprobate, because Galat. 3. ver. 27. For as many of you as are baptised 
As many, that is, Some  in Christ, have put on Christ. Beza ib. answereth: It is added (As many) for to take away the difference of nations, states, and sexes. And 2. part. resp. ad Acta Montisb p. 62. By no colour of reason it can be understood universally of every baptised person. Zuinglius in Elencho tom. 2. fol 13. sayeth: It is spoken synechdochically: All did eat the same spiritual bread, when as they only eat it who were spiritual.  
If we prove that the bound of marriage dureth all the life of the married parties, because it is said. 1. Cor. 7. v. 39 A woman is bound to the law, so long time as here husband 
So long, that is, for a time.  liveth. Peter Martyr ib. answereth: When he writeth, that a woman is bound to her husband so long as he liveth, the exception which Christ hath must be added, to wit, unless adultery be committed. Beza l. de Divort. vol. 2. p. 87. sayeth: The Apostle respecteth that which is ordinary, and falleth out for the most part, as supposing that amongst the faithful, to whom he wrote, marriages could scarce be dissolved by any other means then by death.  
If we prove that all sick folk are to be anointed with oil, because S. james sayeth cap. 5. ver. 14. Is any man sick 
Any man, that is, Some.  among you? let him bring in the priests of the Church and let them pray over him anoiling him with oil in the name of our Lord. Tilenus in Syntagm. cap. 58. answereth: As if those things which are spoken indefinitely and commonly, were to be taken universally.  
Concerning faith: If we prove that faith it is necessary 
Touching faith.  to all, because it is said joan. 3. ver. 36. Who beleiveth not, abideth in death: Caluin 4. Instit. c. 16. § 31. answereth: Christ speaketh not there of the general guilt, wherewith all the 
Who: that is, Some.  posterity of Adam is infected, but only threatneth the despisers of the Gospel, who proudly and obstinately refuse grace offered to them. The like hath Vorstius in Antibel. pag. 375. If we prove the same out of those words Mark vlt. ver. 16. He 
He, that is, Some.  that beleiveth not, shallbe damned. Zuinglius lib. de Peccat. orig. tom. 2. fol. 118. This is no way to be understood simply, but of those who having heard the Gospel would not believe.  
If we prove that no faith availeth any thing without charity, because it is said 1. Cor. 13. v. 2. If I have all faith so 
All, that is, Some.  as I remove motunaines, and have not charity, I am nothing: Caluin ib. answereth: The faith whereof he speaketh is particular. Beza ib. As for All, that signifieth not in this place all kinds of faith, but declareth a certain perfection of this kind, that is, it signifieth rather whole, then all. Peter Martyr in Rom. 11. pag. 935. sayeth: We must know, that universal propositions are to be restrained to the matter whereof the speech is: And in Rom. 9 p. 725. and 728. he limitateth many universal propositions of the Scripture.  
Touching good works: If we prove that charity falleth 
Of good works.  not away in heaven, because it is said 1. Co. 13. ver. 8. Charity never falleth away: Caluin ib. answereth: What if I 
Never, that is, not for a time.  except, that the perpetuity of charity, whereof the Apostle here speaketh, is after the last day and belongeth not to the time between. And in Zacharie 1. v. 12. We know, that the offices of charity are restrained to the course of this life.  
If we prove that the Apostle doth counsel single life unto all men, by these words 1. Cor. 7. v. 7. I would all men to be as myself: Bullinger ib. answereth: I would indeed all 
All, that is, Some.  men, to wit, who feign chastity (observe (sayeth he) the synecdoche) and leave their wives, to be as myself.  
If we prove that God granteth chastity to all that ask it out of that most universal promise of Christ joan. 16. 
Any thing, that is, Some.  ver. 23. Amen, Amen, I say to you if you ask the Father any thing in my name, he will give it you. Daneus Contr. 5. p. 1038. answereth: That general promise of Christ doth not legitimate (that I may so speak) or make lawful all our prayers before the Lord, but only those things which we ask according to Gods express and revealed will, and not other things. And Perkins in Casibus Conscient. l. 2. c. 15. Christ's promise is to be understood of those things which are necessary to salvation, and not of these especial gifts. In like sort answereth P. Martyr de Votis. col. 1437. Rivet in Contr. tract. 1. sect. 67. Vorstius in Antibel. p. 224. and others.  
If we prove that we may pray for all men, because S. Paul sayeth. 1. Timoth. 2. v. 1. I desire therefore first of all things, that obsecrations, prayers, postulations, thanks givings, be made for all men. Rainolds Apol. Thes. pag. 245. Answereth: Where we are bidden to pray for all, the word All, doth not signify 
All, that is, Some.  every of the kind, but every kind of men.  
Concerning sins: If we prove that even a faithful 
Of Sins.  man committing a great sin, becometh the son of the Devil, because. 1. joan. 3. v. 8. it is said: Every one that committeth 
Every one, that is, Some.  sin, is of the Devil. Scarpe de justificat. Contr. 13. answereth: They only are said to serve the Devil and to be his children, in whom sin reigneth, and who commit sin with a full will: but the faithful do not sinne so. The like hath Pareus lib. 2. de justific. cap. 17. and lib. 4. cap. 17. And if we prove that David when he committed murder, had not life in him, because 1. joan. 3. v. 15. is said: And you know that no murderer hath life everlasting in himself: Protestant's will except both David and all the elect faithful, as appeareth by what we rehearsed l. 1. c. 16. art 5. and 6.  
If we prove that no fornicator hath inheritance, in Christ's kingdom, because S. Paul sayeth Ephes. 5. vers. 5. Know you this that no fornicator hath inheritance in the kingdom 
None, that is, not Some.  of Christ and of God: Scarpius de justif. Contr. 5. pag. 86. excepteth the faithful.  
If we prove that all faithful must fear lest they fall, 
Who, that is, Some.  because it is said. 1. Cor. 11. v. 12. Who thinketh himself to stand let him take heed. Et Rom. 11. v. 20. Thou by faith dost stand, be not to highly wise, but fear. Caluin. 3. Inst. c. 12. §. 22. He doth not warn every man. 
Of God's law.   
Touching the law of God: If we prove that the faithful may keep all the commandments, because it is said 
All, that is, Some.  of Zacharie and Elizabeth. Luc. 1. v. 6. They were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and iustifications of our Lord without blame: Caluin. ib. sayeth: I answer that these praises, wherewith God's servants are so highly commended, are to be taken with some exception.  
If we prove that josias did keep the whole law of God, because it is said of him. 4. Reg. 23. He turned to our Lord in all his heart, according to all the law of Moses: Hunnius 
All, that is, Some.  tractat. de justific. p. 170. answereth: That which is added (According to all the law of Moses) doth chief respect that reformation in religion instituted according to the law of Moses.  
Thou seest (Reader) how often and in how many, and weighty matters Protestants are forced to turn the most general or universal sayings of the Scripture into particulars, and how many universal particles both affirmative, as All, Every one, Every creature, As many, Whole, As long time, Who, Any man, Any thing and Negatives, as Not any, Never, No fornicator, No murderer, they change into particulars, whensoever they make against them. Which is so great and so manifest an abuse of Scripture as 
What some Protestants thing of turning universal propositions into particulars.  some of themselves cry out against it. For thus jacobus Andreae in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 418. speaketh to Beza: It is impiety to exclude any man from this universal promise. p. 419. It is manifest impiety and abominable doctrine, contrary to the express letter to make a particular promise of an universal. Et pag. 421. It is horrible to hear, so manifest an universal proposition to be made a particular.  
Wherefore I thus frame my eight argument: Who besides the foresaied opposition to the express words of Scripture, are compelled in so many and so great matters to change so many and so manifest universal propositions of the holy Scripture into particulars, they are to be judged to gainsay the true sense of the Scripture. But Protestants do so. Therefore etc. And the more forcible this argument ought to be against them, because themselves teach: That as often as there is an universal proposition in Scripture, it must not be limited by any distinction, unless that be grounded upon certain and clear words of Scripture; For otherwise every doctrine may be deluded by subtility of distinctions. So Gerlachius tom. 2. disp. 24.   

CHAPTER IX. THAT PROTESTANTS DO LIMITATE many unlimited Propositions of the Scripture.  
MY ninth argument, that Protestants contradict the true sense of Scripture, I will take from thence, that they are forced to limitate many unlimitated propositions of Scripture, touching great matters, as of God, of Christ, of the Church, and the like.  
For if we prove that God doth not at all tempt to evil, 
Touching God.  because S. james sayeth absolutely. c. 1. v. 13. God is no tempter of evil, and he tempteth no man: P. Martyr in locis. clas. 1. c. 15. §. 9 answereth: When james denieth, that God tempteth, he denieth it not altogether, but in that sort in which those carnal Christians of his time, did affirm him to tempt, as if they when they sinned, had not been in fault. Caluin upon this place: He speaketh here of inward temptations, which are nothing but inordinate desires, which provoke us to sin: And he rightly denieth God to be author of them. Pareus l 2. de Amiss. Grat. c. 8. james doth not remove from God simply all temptation, but only the inward temptation, and such as may make a man excusable.  
If we prove that God willeth not iniquity at all, that is neither for itself, nor for any other thing, because. ps. 1. v. 5. it is said without any limitation: Thou wilt not iniquity: they limitate this saying many ways, as that God willeth not iniquity for itself, or by his word, or by allowance, or delight in it, as appeareth by what we rehearsed l. 1. c. 2. art. 1.  
If we prove that God of himself willeth not the death of any man, because he sayeth. Ezech. 33. v. 11. I will not the death of the wicked, and c. 18. v. 32. I will not the death of him that dieth: Zanchius l. 3. de Nat. Dei c. 4. q. 4. answereth: If thou urgest the word: I will not the death of a sinner, and that God speaketh of his good pleasure, I say that place is to be understood of the elect only. Beza 2. art. resp. ad Acta Montisbel. p. 196. That restriction of conversion, showeth that this is to be understood only of them, to whom is granted the grace of conversion, which surely is proper to the elect. Piscator in Thesib. l. 2. p. 187. The Prophet speaketh not here of every sinner, but of him only that is converted. But Luther lib. de seru. arbitr. tom. 2. fol. 450. sayeth. God willeth many things, which by his word he showeth that he willeth not. So he will not the death of a sinner, to wit, by word, but he willeth it by his unsearchable will.  
If we prove that God willeth the conversion of every sinner, because he sayeth without limitation Ezech. 33. v. 11. I will not the death of the wicked, but that he be converted and live: Caluin l. de Praedest. p. 786. and de Provident. p. 737. answereth: God is said to will life, as he is said to will penance, and this he willeth because by his words he inviteth all to it: but this is not contrary to his secret counsel, wherein he hath decreed to convert none but his elect. Piscator in Thesibus lib. 2. pag. 236. sayeth: That God speaketh there of the wicked who is converted.  
If we prove that Christ, even as he is God, would gather those who will not be gathered, because he sayeth absolutely Math. 23. v 37. How often would I gather together thy children, as the hen doth goth gather together her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldst not? Perkins de Praedest. tom. 1. col. 157. answereth: I say, that Christ speaketh here not as he was God, but as he was minister of the circumcision: The same sayeth Luther lib. cit. fol. 451. and others.  
If we prove that God calleth even the reprobate, because he sayeth without limitation Apocal. 3. v. 20. I stand at the door and knock: Perkins loc. iam cit. answereth: Those at whose door Christ standeth are the faithful and the converted.  
If we prove that God even by inward vocation calleth the reprobate, because without all limitation it is said, Math. 23. v. 37. How often would I gather thy Children: And Isaiae 65. v. 2. I have spread fourth my hands all the day to an incredulous people, And c. 5. v. 4. What is there that I ought to do more to my vineyard, and have not done to it? Et Prou. 1. v. 24. I have called, and you have refused: Contra-remonstrantes in Collat. Hagae p. 245. & seq. limitate all these sayings only to outward calling. And Pareus l. 1. de Grat. & lib. arb. c. 11. to only calling by outward means. After which manner Protestant's also limitate those words Math. 22. v. 14. Many are called, but few are chosen.  
If we prove that men may resist the holy Ghost speaking within them, because without limitation it is said Acts 7. v. 51. You have always resisted the holy Ghost: Caluin. ib. answereth: They are said to resist the holy Ghost, who obstinately reject him speaking by the Prophets, for here is no speech of inward revelations which God inwardly inspireth to any, but of the outward ministry.  
If we prove that Christ did not teach his Apostles all 
Touching Christ.  the points of faith, because himself sayeth. joan. 16. v. 12. Yet many things I have to say to you, but you cannot bear them now: But when he the Spirit of truth cometh, he shall teach you all truth: they limit this to rites and discipline. Beza ib: These words are to be understood of those things, which pertained to the execution of the Apostolical function and foundation of Churches.  
If we prove that Christ was Mediator of all men because it is said 1. Tim. 2. v. 6. One Mediator of God and men, the man jesus Christ: they limit this to the elect faithful: Beza Epist. 28. It is false, that Christ is mediator also of the infidels. In like sort Hunnius de justif. pag. 179. restraineth that saying Hebr. 5. ver. 9 He was made to all that obey him, cause of eternal salvation, to obedience in faith.  
If we prove that unwritten traditions of faith are to be 
Touching Traditions.  believed, because S. Paul sayeth without limitation 2. Thessal. 2. ver. 15. Stand, and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether it be by word, or by our epistle; they limit this to only traditions of rites or ceremonies; Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 6. cap. 10. Other (Protestants) think, that Paul speaketh of certain external matters and rites of no great moment. Academia Nemaus. Resp. ad Tournon. pag. 554. By the word Tradition in the Apostles writings, is meant either the application and right handling of doctrine, or the appointing of rites and discipline.  
If we prove that Christ committed all his sheep to S. 
Touching S. Peter.  Peter because without any limitation he sayeth to him joan. 21. v. 17. Feed my sheep. Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 5. cap. 5. answereth: Christ doth not say to Peter: Feed all my sheep, but speaketh indefinitely. And Beza ib. in vers. 15. Must God's word be thus profaned? Surely Christ did not add All; and the difference betwixt universal and indefinite propositions, is well known. As if Protestants did not as well limitate universal propositions, as indefinite; as appeared in the former chapter. Besides Daneus Contr. 3. p. 127. faithful: An indefinite 
What Protest. say of an indefinite proposition.  proposition is equivalent to an universal. And Caluin in 1. joan. 3. v. 3. An indefinite speech is as much as an universal. And 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 29. It is our part, whatsoever is absolutely spoke of Christ so to embrace, as without exception that take place with us which he would say.  
If we prove that the Church is always famous and visible, 
Touching the Church.  because isaiah c. 2. v. 2. sayeth without limitation of time: And in the latter days the mountain of the house of our Lord shall be prepared in the top of mountains, and shallbe elevated above the little hills, and all nations shall flow unto it. Et c. 61. ver. 9 And they shall know their seed in the Gentiles and their bud in the midst of peoples. And Miche. 4. v. 8. And the remanent of jacob shall be in the Gentiles in the midst of many peoples, as a Lion among the beasts of the forest. Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 2. c. 2. answereth: The Prophets foretell that no kingdom shallbe so glorious, no city so ample, no Empire so large as the Church shallbe in the times of the Messiah— But we never read, that the Lord hath promised that this majesty and glory of the Church shallbe constant and perpetual. Et Morton. in Apolog. part. 1. l. 1. c. 13. The league is indeed perpetual, but this so admirable success is not always so universal, but in a manner peculiar to the age of the Apostles.  
If we prove that the Pastors of the Church be always visible, because Christ sayeth of them Math. 5. v. 15. A city cannot be hid situated upon a mountain. Whitaker loc. cit. answereth: Albeit Christ say, that godly Doctors and Pastors shall not be obscure, nor escape the sight of men; yet he sayeth not, that there shallbe always such Doctors which may be as visible as mountains.  
If we prove that the Church is the pillar of all truth of faith, because S. Paul 1. Timoth. 3. ver. 15. without any limitation calleth her the pillar and strength of truth: Whitake Contr. 2. q. 4. c. 2. answereth: In this place is meant not simply all truth, but only necessary truth. And Vorstius in Antibel. p. 143. The Apostle speaketh not of every truth that howsoever pertaineth to religion, but only of wholesome truth, or which is necessary to salvation, and that conditionally also, to wit, so long as she shall remain the true Church of Christ.  
If we prove that the Church is always infallible in faith, because, without limitation to any time, she is called loc. cit. The pillar and strength of truth: P. Martyr in locis clas. 4. c. 4. §. 21. sayeth: I grant, She is indeed the pillar of truth, but not always, but when she relieth upon the word of God. Confessio. Heluet. c. 17. She erreth not, as long as she relieth upon the rock Christ, and the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles. Daneus Contr. 4. p. 717. The place of Paul speaketh of the visible Church, which on earth is the keeper of heavenly doctrine, so long as she is true. Bullinger Dec 4. Serm. 5. The Church erreth not so long as she heareth the voice of her Spouse and Pastor. Herbrandus in Compend. loc. de Eccles. She erreth not so long as she holdeth and followeth the word of God.  
Of we prove that the Church is to be heard simply in all things, because our Saviour without anielimitation sayeth Math. 18. v. 19 If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as an Ethnik and Publican. Whitaker lib. 1. de Scriptura c. 13. sect. 1. answereth: The Son of God himself commanded to hear the voice of the Church, but not preaching any thing but Scripture. Herbrand. loc. cit. sayeth the Church is to be heard, as long as she preacheth heavenly and incorrupt doctrine. Moulins in his Buckler p. 84. limitateth this speech of Christ, to quarrels betwixt particular men, and not to questions of religion. The like said Feild. l. 4. de Eccles. c. 4. and others.  
If we prove that the Church in teaching cannot err, because Isaias sayeth c. 59 v. 21. This is my covenant with them sayeth, our Lord: My spirit is in thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth, and out of the mouth of thy seed, and out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, sayeth our Lord, from this present for ever. Whitaker libr. 1. de Scriptura cap. 11. sect. vlt. answereth: This promise is not made to the teaching Church, but to the whole Church, that is, to the elect.  
If we prove that the militant Church is perpetual, because the Scripture sayeth, that Christ's kingdom shallbe perpetual, Daneus Contr. 4. p. 718. answereth: All these places and the like properly pertain to that Church which God shall gather in heaven, not on earth.  
If we prove that the visible Church is always the true Church, because she is called 1. Timoth 3. the pillar of truth: Daneus loc cit. pag. 721. answereth: Let him know, that the visible Church then, and so long is said to be the true Church, as long as the voice of heavenly and Evangelicall truth soundeth in her.  
If we prove that the visible Church cannot err, because Math. 16. v. 18. it is said, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church: Moulins in his Buckler p. 49. answereth: That is meant of the Church of the elect, not of the universal visible Church.  
If we prove, that the Church of any age is to be heard, because Christ Math. 18. Without any limitation of time biddeth us to hear the Church: Herbrand. in Compend. loc. de Eccles. answereth: This command is not universal of the Church of all times, but Christ speaketh of his little Church according to the condition of those times, which then wanted a pious politic Magistrate who was a member of the Church. In like sort Whitaker l. 1. de Script. c. 7. sect. 8. limitateth those words of Christ. joan. 6. He shall teach you all truth: and those. Luc. 10. v. 16. Who heareth you, heareth me ib. c. 8. sect. 1. and those of S. Ihon. 1. c. 4. v. 6. Who knoweth God, heareth us, in l. 2. de Script. c. 6. sect. 3. to the Apostles only.  
If we prove that none may preach unless he be sent, because S. Paul sayeth absolutely Rom. 10. v. 15. How shall they preach, unless they be sent? they except where a Church is not yet founded, or where Pastors teach not truly, or where all things are in confusion, as appeareth by what we told. l. 1. c. 7. art. 8.  
If we prove that none may marry after divorce, because without any limitation it is said 1. Corinth. 7. v. 10. But to 
Touching, Matrimony.  them that are joined in matrimony, not I give commandment but our Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband, and if she depart, to remain unmarried or to be reconciled to her husband: Caluin ib. answereth: This is not meant of those who have been divorced for adultery. Others except other cases as appeareth by whath hath been said l. 1. c. 12. art. 6. And in like manner they limitate those words Math. 19 ver. 9 He that shall marry her that is dimissed, committeth adultery: For thus Beza in Luc. 16. v. 18. The Lord speaketh of divorces used amongst the jews, amongst which divorce for adultery cannot be reckoned. The like he hath in 1. Cor. 7. v. 11. Bucer in Math 8. and others.  
If we prove that all men ought to confess all their 
Touching Confession.  sins to men, because S. james c. 5. v. 16. absolutely sayeth: Confess your sins one to an other: Caluin. 3. Instit. c. 4. §. 12. answereth: Such a confession must befree, so as it be not exacted of all, but only commended who feel that they have need of it: And moreover, that neither they who use it for their need, be compelled by any precept, or drawn by any cunning to tell all their sins, but as fare forth as themselves shall think fit. Confessio Heluet. cap. 14. restraineth Saint james words to those sins only which are committed against our neighbour.  
If we prove that now a days sick persons are to be 
Touching extreme Unction.  anointed with oil because S. james. c. 5. v. 14. sayeth: Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the Priests of the Church, and let them pray over him anoiling him with oil in the name of our Lord: Caluin. 4. Instit. 19 §. 19 answereth: This is commanded by james: To wit, james spoke for that time, whiles as yet the Church did enjoy this blessing.  
If we prove that all who soever believe not, shallbe 
Touching faith.  damned, because Christ sayeth absolutely. Mark vlt. v. 16. He that beleiveth not, shallbe condemned: Zuinglius l. de baptismo tom. 2. fol. 93. answereth: What man is so doltish, blockish, and blind, who seethe not that these words of Christ are spoken only of those, who having heard the Gospel, do not believe? Musculus in locis lit. de Baptismo: These kind of sentences concerning faith are not to be applied to infants, as these: Without faith it is impossible to please God etc.  
If we prove that alms delivereth as well from sin 
Touching good works.  past or present, as to come, because it is said Toby. 4. ver. 11. Alms delivereth from all sin and from death: they restrain this to future sins: Apologia Confess. Augustan. c. de Resp. ad Argum. We grawt that alms do merit many benefits of God, and delivereth, not from present, but from future sin, that is, deserve that we be defended in dangers of sin and death.  
If we prove that alms do purge inwardly, or the soul, because without limitation it is said Luke 11. v. 14. Give alms, and behold all things are clean unto you: they limitate this to outward cleasing only: Peter Martyr in Rom. 11. The third way (of expounding this place) is more fit, as I think. For Christ exhorteth them to cleanse their soul, which is within, and that is done by faith: And as touching outward things he addeth: Give alms so all things shallbe clean to you.  
If we prove that we may sell all and give to the poor, because our Saviour sayeth Math. 19 vers. 21. If thou wilt be perfect, sell what thou hast etc. Perkins in Casibus Conscient. l. 3. c. 4. limitateth that counsel of Christ, to that man alone to whom he spoke, saying: Those words contain a personal and particular commandment. And in like sort Fulk Math. 19 not. 9 and Mark. 10. not. 3.  
If we prove that the conception of concupiscence, or 
Touching sin.  the involuntary act thereof is no sin before God, because S. james sayeth. cap. 1. v. 15. Concupiscence, when it hath conceive, bringeth forth sin: Caluin. ib. answereth: james disputeth not when sin beginneth to be borne, so that it be sin and reputed for such before God, but when it showeth itself.  
If we prove that the keeping of the law is absolutely necessary to life everlasting: because Christ sayeth absolutely. Math. 19 v. 17. If thou wilt enter to life, keep the commandments, they limitate these words to a certain manner of entering, to wit (as they speak) by entering by the law, or by good works, or merits. Caluin in Math. 5. ver. 21. Who will enter to life by good works, those he biddeth nothing else but to keep the commandments of the law: And upon this place: We gather, that this answer of Christ is according to the law. And in Antidote. Concil. session. 6. cap. 9 Surely whosoever will merit eternal life, hath a rule prescribed to him by the law: Do these, and thou shalt live. In like sort answereth Pareus lib. 4. de lustificat. cap. 2. And Illyricus in Clavae part. 2. tract. 6. sayeth: That all men are bound to do good and avoid sin under pain of loss of eternal life, is a sentence of the law, and both must and aught to be restrained by the (Protestant) Gospel or remission of sins. So that no precepts of doing good and avoiding ill, pertain to the Protestant Gospel.  
If we prove that with God's grace a man may inwardly convert himself from evil to good, because it is said absolutely Zacharie 1. ver. 3. Convert to me, sayeth the Lord of hosts, and I will convert to you: they limitate this only to outward conversion: Peter Martyr in Roman. 11. The Prophet spoke not of inward justification, but of outward conversion to good works.  
If we prove that we are not infallibly certain of forgiveness 
Touching justification.  of sins or eternal punishment, because it is said absolutely joel. 2. v. 14. Who knoweth if he (God) will convert and forgive? and the like is said jon. 3. v. 9 Kemnice in locis part. 2. tit. de Argum. limitateth this to forgiveness of temporal punishment, and sayeth: All the speech of the Prophet tendeth to that he treateth of remission of temporal punishment. In like sort he limitateth many other places of Scripture, in which forgiveness is attributed to works, only to forgiveness of temporal punishment. That also of Toby cap. 4. Alms delivereth from death, he restraineth to temporal death. And in like manner, promises made to good works he limitateth to certain blessings in this world or in the next, but will not have them extended to eternal life. And finally wheresoever in the Scripture any man prayeth God to judge or reward him according to his justice, he limitateth that to the justice of his cause or quarrel with other men.  
If we prove that everlasting happiness is given for good 
Touching eternal life.  works, because S. james sayeth cap. 1. ver. 25. He that hath remained in it, not made a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shallbe blessed in his deed; they limitate this to blessedness in this life: Schlusselburg. to. 8. Catal. Haeret. p. 497. thus answereth to this place: To be blessed, is not always taken in holy writ for eternal salvation, but for blessedness in this life.  
If we prove that we must not only believe but also keep the law, because Christ sayeth Math. 5. ver. 18. I am not come to break (the law) but to fulfil: Caluin. ibid. answereth: Here is treated of doctrine, not of life. Touching doctrine we must not imagine any abrogation of the law by the coming of Christ. And v. 19 where is said: One jot or one tittle shall not pass of the law till all be fulfilled: Caluin. ibid. sayeth: I answer that word be done (or fulfilled) is not referred to men's lives, but to the  truth of doctrine.  
If we prove that our consciences are obliged by the particular 
Touching laws of men.  just laws of Princes, because it is absolutely said Rom. 3. v. 2. He that resisteth power, resisteth the ordinance of of God: and v. 5. Be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake: they limitate these words to the power of Magistrates in general. Daneus Contr. 5. p. 1127. To obey the Magistrate in general, is a matter of conscience, but to obey this or that law of the Magistrate wholly and in all points, we are not bound in conscience. And Whitaker libr. 8. cont. Dureum sect. vlt. We must obey the Magistrate in general for conscience sake, because by a general precept we are commanded to obey the Magistrate: but particular laws of Magistrates have no command over our consciences. In like sort Caluin 4. Instit. c. 10. §. 5.  
Wherefore thus in form I frame my ninth argument. who not only in so many and so great matters do contradict such words of holy Scripture and in such sense, as we have seen, but also take so much upon them, as limitate and restrain so many and so weighty sentences of Scripture, they are to be thought to gain say the right sense of Scripture. But Protestants do so. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER X. THAT PROTESTANTS CHANGE many absolute Propositions of Scripture into conditionals.  
THE tenth argument shallbe taken from that Protestants are forced to change many and weighty absolute Propositions of Scripture into conditionals.  
For if we prove, that absolutely God will not the death 
Touching God.  of a sinner, but rather his life and conversion, because he absolutely sayeth Ezechiel 18. and 33. I will not the death of a sinner, but rather that he be converted and live: Caluin l. de Praedestinat. pag. 706. answereth: Whereas the Prophet's speech exhorteth to pennace, no marvel if God say, he will have all to be saved; but the mutual relation between threats and promises showeth that such kind of speeches are conditional.— So the promises which invite all to salvation, show not what simply and precisely God hath decreed in his secret counsel, but what he is ready to do to all that are brought to faith and penance.  
Touching the Church, if we prove that the gates of 
Touching the Church.  hell shall not prevail against her, because Christ doth absolutely so promise Math. 16. ver. 16. Besnagus l. de statu Eccles. cap. 8. and others, add this condition: If she forsake not her duty and the word of God. If we prove that simply we must hear the Pastors of the Church, because Christ sayeth. Luk. 10. ver. 16. He that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me: Caluin. ib. addeth this condition: If the Church do faithfully her duty.  
If we prove that the Church is simply infallible, because 1. Timoth. 3. she is simply called the pillar and strength of truth: Vallada in Apol. cont. Episcop. Lusonensem cap. 20. answereth: The visible Church cannot be the pillar of truth, but as it is grounded upon the doctrine of the Apostles. Vorstius in Antibell. pag. 143. The Apostle speaketh conditionally, to wit, as long as the Church persevereth to be the Church of Christ. Academia Nemaus. resp. ad Tournon. p. 546. Let it be a true and faithful Church, if it discern truth from falsity by undoubted and authentical truth.  
If we prove that the Church is simply to be heard, because Christ sayeth. Math. 18. ver. 17. If he hear not the Church, let him be to thee as an Ethnic and Publican: White in his way p. 78. answereth: The sense is, that we must obediently hear the Church, and obey her, not simply in all things, but conditionally, as long as she speaketh agreably to God's word. And Author respon ad Theses Vademont. pag. 688. The answer is easy and ready: As long as the Church teacheth the word of God, she is to be heard, but her authority is none when she separateth herself from God's word. And when Bellarmin had brought many places of Scripture to prove that the Church cannot fail: Vorstius libr. cit. pag. answereth: In them certain conditional promises are proposed unto us, by which eternal salvation and security against Satan, death, etc. is promised of God to all and every faithful, to wit, as fare forth and as long as they shallbe such, or persever in true faith.  
If we prove that there are some doers of the law, as 
Touching Gods law.  well as there are hearers, because Saint Paul sayeth absolutely Rom. 2. ver. 13. Not the hearers of the law are just with God, but the doers of the law shallbe justified: Caluin. ibidem answereth: This sentence hath only this meaning: If justice be sought by the law, we must fulfil the law, because the justice of the law consisteth in the perfection of works. Peter Martyr ibid. That which he sayeth, hath this meaning: If any were to be justified before God by the justice of the law, he must fulfil the law. Pareus libr. 4. de justificat. cap. 14. The Apostlesaieth indeed: Doers of the law shallbe justified, but he meaneth conditionally if there be any. And Illyricus in Clavae part. 2. tract. 4. writeth thus: Roman. 2. When Gentiles do those things which are of the law: that is, if they did them. Again: Do this, and thou shalt live, is put for: If thou dost them, thou shalt live.  
If we prove that there are some which love their neighbour and fulfil the law, because it is said Rom. 13. v. 8. Who loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law: Caluin. ib. answereth: Paul sayeth not what men do or not do, but speaketh upon condition, which you shall not find any where fulfilled. And if you prove that the law may be fulfilled because the Apostle sayeth. Galat. 6. v. 2. Bear ye one an others burdens, and so ye shall fulfil the law of Christ: Caluin ibid. answereth: Because none performeth altogether that which Paul requireth, therefore we are all fare from perfection.  
If we prove that single life is simply good, because S. Paul sayeth absolutely 1. Cor. 7. v. 1. It is good for a man not to touch a woman: P. Martyr in locis Class 3. cap. 7. §. 17. answereth: They should see, that what Paul hath of the praises of single life, are never spoken absolutely.  
If we prove that virginity may be absolutely counselled 
Of good works,  to men, because S. Paul. 1. Corinth. 7. v. 7. sayeth absolutely: I would all men to be as myself: And ver. 25. A concerning virgins, a commandment of our Lord I have not, but counsel I give: And ver. 28. Art thou lose from a wife, seek not a wife. Caluin in ver. 25. cit. answereth: Because it is a slippery matter and full of difficulties, he speaketh always under condition. And in v. 27. This second member must be taken under condition.  
If we prove that some may fall from grace because S. 
Of justification.  Paul sayeth. Gal. 5. v. 4. You are fallen from grace: Pareus in Galat. 1. lect. 7. answereth: The Apostle speaketh that conditionally. And in cap. 5. vers. 4. lect. 61. For the Apostle affirmeth not that the Galathians were fallen, but threatneth, that if that if they will be justified by the law, that it will come to posse that they fall.  
wherefore thus I make my tenth argument: Who beside the foresaied opposition on to so many and such words of holy Scripture, are forced to change many and weighty absolute sayings of Scripture into conditionals they contradict the true meaning of the holy Scripture. But Protestants do so. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER XI. THAT PROTESTANTS CHANGE Conditional Propositions of the Scripture into Absolute, and delude them diverse other ways.  
THE eleventh argument for to prove that Protestants contradict the true sense of holy Scripture, shallbe because they are sometimes forced to change conditional propositions thereof into absolute, and to delude them diverse other ways.  
For if we prove that our freindshippe with God dependeth of our keeping the commandments, because Christ said conditionally joan. 15. v. 14. Ye are my friends, if ye do the things that I command ye: Caluin. ibid. answereth: He meaneth not, that we obtain so great honour by any merit of ours, but only admonisheth us, upon what condition he receiveth us into favour and vouch safeth to reckon us amongst his friends.  
But this willbe more evident by that we shall show in the next chapter how they of causal propositions make no causal.  
divers others ways they delude and frustrate the conditional propositions of holy Scripture. For if they can by any colour they expound them of only faith, or of the holy ghost: So they delude those places: joan. 6. vers. 53. Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in ye: and joan. 3. ver. 5. Unless a man be borne again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God: Which teach that Sacraments are necessary to salvation. Or if they must needs expound them of good works, they will not expound them of doing all necessary good works and avoiding all necessary evil, but of some only or in part, or of endeavour to do or avoid them: so they delude those sayings of the Scripture Rom. 8. v. 13. If you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh you shall live. Caluin. ib. He promiseth us life, if we endeavour to mortify the flesh. For he doth not exactly require the death of the flesh, but only biddeth us endeavour to tame the lusts thereof. And the like he doth in many other places, as may be seen hereafter c. 16. And in like manner they delude all other sentences of Scripture which teach, that if we willbe saved or justified, we must do good works and eschew evil. And according to this they say, that we must do some good, or have some good works: that we must have a begun or imperfect newness of life, and keep the law in some sort or fashion: Luther in Isaiae 8. to. 4. f. 83. The holy Ghost is given that we may satisfy the law in some part. 
In some part.  And in Psal. 51. to. 3. fol. 455. We will fulfil and keep the law, but with a large, that is, with a true Evangelicall dispensation. Confessio Saxon. c. 9 It is needful that there be some obedience 
Protest. dispensation. Some obedience. Some beginning. In some sort. In some kind. To begin.  in those that are justified. Schlusselb. to. 4. Catal. p. 176. The justified are free from the accusation and damnation of the law, not from beginning of obedience. Bucer in Rom. 8. Christ giveth that spirit whereby we avoid sin in some sort. Pareus l. 3 de justif. p. 645. Saints do not doubt of some kind of inherent justice: and l. 4. c. 7. It is enough if we endeavour to begin the new obedience of the law according to all the commandments. So that wheresoever the Scripture sayeth conditionally: If thou wilt be justified or saved do this or do not that, they understand it with a large dispensation: that is, do somewhat, or do not somewhat of it: or begin or endeavour to do or not do it.  
But if this shift will not serve, because the Scripture speaketh conditionally of keeping the whole law, as Math. 9 v. 17. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments; and the like, then they say it is the doctrine of the law not of the Gospel. Caluin ib. We gather, that this answer of Christ is according to the law. Illyricus in Clavae part. 2. tract. 6. col. 543. That all be bound under pain of loss of eternal life to do good and avoid sin, is a sentence of the law, and must and aught to be corrected and restrained by the (Protestant) Gospel or by remission of sins. Peter Martyr in Rom. 11. That saying: Forgive, and it shallbe forgiven, is a precept, and therefore pertaineth to the law. Melancthon in Apologia tom. 3. c. de argumentis: The promise of reconciliation and of eternal life is free, but proper legal promises are added for works: as who shall give a draught of water, shall not want his reward.  
Wherefore thus I frame my eleventh argument. Who not only contradict the express words of Scripture, but also are compelled to turn conditional propositions of Scripture into absolute, and to delude them diverse other ways, do contradict also the sincere meaning of the Scripture. But thus do Protestants. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER XII. THAT PROTESTANTS CHANGE many causal propositions of Scripture into not causal.  
THE 12. argument for to prove that Protestants contradict the true sense of Scripture, shallbe because they are compelled in many and weighty controversies to turn causal propositions into not causal.  
For is we prove that Christ was exalted for his humiliation, because it is said. Philippen. 2. ver. 8. He humbled himself made obedient unto death even the death of the cross. 
For:  For the which thing God hath exalted him. Caluin ibid. answereth: That illative particle (wherefore) in this place signifieth rather consequence, than cause. And 2. Instit. c. 17. §. vlt. The solution is easy, that Paul there speaketh not of the cause of Christ's exaltation, but only showeth the consequence. And Daneus Controver. 2. pag. 201. The particle, For which, showeth the order and continuation of the speech, not the cause for which. If we prove the same, out of those words Hebrew. 2. ver. 9 We see jesus because of the passion of death, crowned with glory and honour: Caluin. ib. answereth: Because of the passion of death, is as much, as if he had said, Christ having died, was raised to this glory which he hath gotten— For the means only (that I may so speak) of obtaining glory is declared.  
If we prove that confession of faith is cause of salvation, as faith is cause of justification, out of those words Rom. 10. ver. 10. For with heart we believe unto justice, but with the 
To.  mouth confesson is made to salvation: Caluin. ib. answereth: We must not gather thereof, that confession is cause of salvation: he meant only to tell how God doth perfect our salvation. It is a necessity of perpetual consequence, not that he attributeth salvation to confession. Hunnius lib. de justificat. p. 186. sayeth: That Confession to salvation is the same, that confession of salvation. Which the Electoral Ministers in Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 295. affirm to be a corruption of Scripture.  
If we prove that keeping of the commandments is cause of our friendship with God, by those words joan. 15. v. 14. You are my friends if you do the things that I command 
If.  you: Caluin ib. answereth: He meaneth not, that we get so much honour by any merit of ours; but only admonisheth us upon what condition he receiveth us into grace, and vouchsafeth to reckon us among his friends.  
If we prove that the forgiveness of our sins dependeth upon our forgiving of others, out of those words. Luc. 11. v. 4. Forgive us our sins, for because ourselves also do 
Because.  forgive every one that is in debt to us. Caluin in Math. 6. v. 11. answereth: Nevertheless forgiveness which we demand for ourselves, dependeth not of that which we give: but by this means Christ would exhort us to forgive all offences, and withal confirm more our trust of forgiveness as it were by feeling it. Nether skilleth it that in Luke is the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is as much as, For because, or For, because Christ's meaning was not to note the cause, but only to advertise what kind of mind we ought to have towards our brethren whiles we seek to be reconciled to God.  
If we prove that by charity we be made the sons of God, out of those words. Math. 5. ver. 45. But I say to you: 
That.  love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that persecure and abuse you, that you may be the children of your father which is in heaven. Calum ib. answereth: Understand not, that by our beneficence we become the children of God: But because the same Spirit which is witness, assurance, and seal of our free adoption, doth correct the naughty affections of the flesh, which are contrary to charity, Christ proveth by the effect, that no others are the children of God, but those who resemble him in clemency and meekness.  
If we prove that love is the cause of forgiving sins, by those words. Luc. 7. v. 47. Many sins are forgiven her, 
Because.  because she hath loved much: Aretius in locis part. 1. fol. 84. answereth: Because, is taken ostentively, not causatively: This is so necessary, as the place cannot be otherwise understood. The like hath Illyricus in Clavae part. 2. tract. 4. Polanus in disp. private. 36.  
If we prove that keeping of the commandments is cause of obtaining what we pray for, out of those words. 1. joan. 3. v. 22. Whatsoever we shall ask, we shall receive of 
Because.  him, because we keep his commandments. Caluin. ibidem answereth: He meaneth not, that our trust in prayer consisteth in our works, but this only he urgeth, that piety and sincere worship of God cannot be separated from faith. Nether must it seem absurd, that he useth the causal particle though he mean not of the cause, for the inseparable accident useth sometime to be put for the cause.  
If we prove that works are cause of reward, out of these words. Math. 16. ver. 27. He will render to every man 
According.  according to his works: Caluin ibid. answereth: As often as reward is promised to good works, the cause of salvation is not showed, but the faithful are only encouraged to do well, because they are assured that they shall not lose their labour.  
If we prove that good works are cause of eternal happiness, out of these words. Math. 25. v. 34. Possessethe 
For.  kingdom etc. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat. And c. 25. v. 23. Because thou hast been faithful over a few things I will place the over many things, enter into the joy of thy Lord. And Apocal. 7. ver. 14. These are they which are come out of 
Therefore.  great tribulation etc. therefore they are before the throne of God. Pareus lib. 5. de justificat. c. 3. sayeth: The answer of all Protestants is, that the causal particle in the places alleged, doth not signify cause, but consequence. And Caluin. Math. 25. ver. cit. That they insist upon the causal particle is a weak thing; for we know that not always the cause, but rather the consequence is meant, when everlasting life is promised to the just. And in the same manner doth Kemnice in locis tom. 2. tit. de Argum. delude many places of Scripture.  
If we prove that Christ is cause of our election, by those words. Ephes. 1. v. 3. As he hath chosen us in him (Christ) 
In.  before the constitution of the world: Piscator in Thesibus, loco. 19 answereth: Paul would say nothing, but that he hath chosen us to this end that he might adopt us in Christ, and save us for him and by him. Which he repeateth libr. 2. p. 288. In like sort Zanchius l. 5 de Natur. Dei. c. 2. q. 4.  
If we prove that Saints shall have glory for their worth or merit, by those words Apocal. 3. ver. 4. They 
Because.  shall walk with me in whites, because they are worthy: Pareus l. 5. de justif. c. 2. answereth: He signifieth not the cause meritory, but the condition in holy Martyrs agreeing with the rule of justice; So that we may understand, not wherefore, but what of kind men shall walk with Christ.  
If we prove that good works are the cause of glory out of those words. Rom. 8. v. 17. If we suffer with him, that 
That.  we may be glorifid with him: Caluin ibidem. answereth: This form of speech showeth the order which the Lord observeth in bestowing salvation upon us, rather than the cause— He discourseth not from whence salvation cometh, but how the Lord governeth his servants. If we prove the same out of those words. Hebr. 10. v. 36. For patience is necessary for you: that doing the will of God, you may receive the promise: Pareus l. 4. de justific. pag. 1032. answereth: We deny not but some relation of patience unto salvation is signified by the final condition, to wit, relation of order, of means, or of condition without which not, but false it is, that thereby is signified a causal relation.  
If we prove that good works are cause of salvation, as bad are the cause of damnation, because it is often said in Scripture: He will render to every one according to his works: 
According.  Bucanus Institut. loco 32. answereth: The particle According, in those speeches doth not signify cause but conformity. And Martyr in 1. Corinth. 3. sayeth: According, doth not signify Merit or cause, but rather proportion, form or similitude.  
If we prove that virginity helpeth to heaven, by those words Math. 19 v. 12. There are Eunuches which have gelded 
For.  themselves for the kingdom of heaven: Musculus in locis tit. de votis answereth: We must not understand it so, as if this kind of gelding helped any thing to salvation.  
Behold (Reader how many kinds of causal propositions are they forced to make not causal, and how many and express causal particles, to wit: For: To: That: In: Accord: Because, they make frustrate & to no purpose.  
Wherefore thus I argue: who besides their opposition to the express words of Scripture, are forced in so many & so great matters, to make so many and so clear causal propositions to be not causals, and to frustrate so many and so evident causal particles, they are also contrary to the true sense of Scripture. But Protestant's do so. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER XIII. THAT WHAT IS SPOKEN SIMPLY they make to be spoken in part or respectively.  
MY 13. argument shallbe, because Protestants are compelled to make that to be spoken in part, which the Scripture speaketh simply or absolutely.  
For if we prove that God simply will not the death of 
Of God.  a sinner, because he simply sayeth and sweareth it Ezech. c. 18. Perkins in Exposit. Symbol. to. 1. col. 777. answereth: This place must not be taken simply but respectively: to wit, that 
Not simply but respectively.  of the two, God would rather the one, to wit, that a sinner should rather live then dye. Finally so fare forth he willeth not death as it is the destruction of his creature. The like he hath in Serie Causarum c. 52. And Caluin de Provide. p. 737. So fare as 
So fare forth.  he exhorteth all to penance, the Prophet justly denieth that he willeth the death of a sinner. And in the same sort he expoundeth that saying of S. Peter 2. c. 3. v. 9 Not willing that any should die: Indeed (sayeth Caluin) as fare as God will receive all to penance, he will none should perish.  
If we prove that God taketh our sins from us, by those words 1. joan. 3. ver. 8. For this, appeared the Son of God, that he might dissolve the works of the Devil. Caluin. ib. 
In a sort.  answereth: But if in this life there be no full and solid regeneration, he freeth us not from sin and slavery but in a sort. And Daneus Contr. de Baptismo. c. 14. on earth sin is not 
In part.  quite taken away but in part.  
If we prove that there is nothing worthy of damnation 
Of justification.  in those that are justified, because simply it is said Rom. 8. ver. 1. There is no damnation to them that are in Christ 
Not simply.  jesus. Illyricus in Apol. pro Confess. Antuerp. answereth: No damnation is in them who are in Christ jesus, not simply and in itself, but by accident, to wit, continual prayer for forgiveness of sins being adjoined: And Pareus l. 5. de Amiss. Grat. c 7. It is most true, that sins are not simply forgiven, but continual prayer for forgiveness being added.  
If we prove that simply there are some things hard in 
Of Scripture.  Scripture, because it is so said 2. Pet. 3. v. 16. As also in all his Epistles speaking in them of these things, in which are certain things hard to be understood: Zanchius de Scriptura to. 8. col. 412. answereth: He sayeth not, that they are hard to 
Not to any.  any, but to two kinds of men? to wit, to the unlearned and unskilful of the Scriptures and that are not taught of God, and to the unstable, that is, who are not firm in faith. In like sort. Bullinger Serm. 3. de verbo Dei. and others.  
If we prove that Saints have true justice before God, 
If justification.  because David offereth his justice to be examined by the judgement of God and desireth to be judged thereby; Caluin. 3. Instit. cap. 17. §. 14. answereth: Saints neither will 
Not wholly.  have enquiry to be made of them wholly, that according to the whole tenor of their life they may be quitted or damned: neither challenge to themselves justice of divine perfection, but in comparison of the wicked and impious.  
If we prove that charity is simply greater than faith, 
Of good works.  because the Apostle simply sayeth. 1. Cor. 13. v. 13. And now there remain, faith, hope, and charity, these three, but the greater of these is charity: Caluin. ib. answereth: It is manifest, 
Not in all points.  that charity is here said to be the greater, not in all points, but as fare as it shallbe perpetual, and now is the chief, in conserving the Church. Whitaker l. 9 cont. Dur. sect. 24. The 
Not every way.  Apostle sayeth that charity is greater than hope and faith, not every way, but only in part. Hunnius de justif. p. 154. preferreth 
Not simply.  charity before faith and hope, not universally or simply, but in part. And Luther Postilla in Dom. Quinquagesim. who doth not acknowledge that Paul speaketh here of the continuance of charity and of the other gifts, not of their dignity or virtue?  
If we prove that the Church is to be simply heard, because 
Of the Church.  she is simply called the Pillar and strength of truth. 1. Tim. 3. Academia Nemaus. Resp ad Tournon. pag. 546. answereth: Let the Church be the keeper and interpreter of truth, 
Not simply.  not simply and absolutely, but in part. Serranus count. Hayum. part. 3. p. 145. When the Church is called the mother of the faithful, the pillar and strength of truth, those sayings of the authority of the Church neither aught, nor can be understood simply, but in part or in somesorte. Author respon ad Thes. Vademont. 
But in part.  p. 492. and 523. I answer, the Church is called the pillar and strength of truth, not simply, but in somesorte. And p. 689. God hath not commanded to obey, the pastor or the Church simply, but in somesorte.  
If we prove that single life is simply good, because S. Paul. 1. Corinth. 7. simply sayeth: It is good for a man not to 
Not absolutely.  touch a woman: Reineccius tom. 4. Armaturae. cap. 23. answereth: The Apostle speaketh so not simply and absolutely, but in some sort and respectively. And ib. addeth, that when S. Paul sayeth: It is good for a man to be so: Paul's counsel is to be taken in some sort, to wit, of an incommodious thing. Et Whitaker l. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 86. Paul praiseth virginity, not in itself, but for some other end.  
If we prove that Virginity is simply better than marriage, because simply it is said. 1. Cor. 7. v. 38. Who joineth 
Not simply but upon condition.  his virgin in marriage doth well, and who joineth not, doth better: Beza ib. answereth: That is, provideth better for his children; and that not simply, but upon conditions before expressed by the Apostle: In like sort is that to be understood which is added: She is more happy who marrieth not again. Zuinglius also ibid. When he sayeth: He doth better, and soon after: He 
Upon comparison.  shallbe more happy, he meaneth not simply, but in comparison.  
If we prove that there may be some perfect men in this life, because some are simply so called 1. Cor. 2. Philippen. 3. and other where, Pareus lib. 2. 2. de justificat. cap. 7. answereth: He attributeth perfection to himself and to others, 
In comparison.  not absolutely but in comparison of Catechumen. And l. 4 c. 11. Most places speak of perfection not absolutely, but in respect of 
In respect.  the most corrupted world. So also Lobechius disput. 9 p. 191.  
If we prove that there are some men just, perfect, keepers of the commandments, and the like, because the Scripture simply calleth some so: Pareus l. 4 de justificat. c. 11 answereth: These Saints are praised that they were perfect, 
Not absolutely.  followed the Lord in all their heart, etc. not absolutely, but because they were sincere worshippers of God. And Hunnius de justif. p. 169. They are termed perfect after their manner, that is, imperfectly and in comparison of the wicked. And Illyricus in Clavae part. 2. tractat. 4. writeth thus. Toby 4. Alms delivereth from sin: to wit, concerning some temporal punishment, not touching sin or eternal punishment. In like sort: Redeem thy sins with alms Daniel. 4. And Author Gratiani Antiiesuitae part. 2. p. 33. The jesuit objecteth, that Paul. 1. Cor. 10. affirmeth the Sacraments of the old law to have been 
I some sort.  types: I answer (sayeth he) It is true, but in some sort, not simply. And p. seq. to that Heb. 10. v. 1. The law having a shadow of future goods, he thus answereth: These things are spoken comparatively of the Apostle, not simply. Finally Caluin Admonit. vlt. p. 830. sayeth: Because the bread is a Sacrament of the body, it is the body in some sort.  
Let this therefore be my 13. argument. Who beside the foresaied opposition to the express words the Scripture, in many and great controversies are forced to expound that in some sort, or in part, or respectively, which is spoken of the Scripture simply and absolutely, they contradict the true meaning of the holy Scripture: But Protestants do so: Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER XIV. THAT PROTESTANTS WILL NOT expound there sayings of the Scripture, of that time whereof it speaketh.  
MY fourteenth argument shallbe taken from that Protestants are forced to expound the sayings of Scripture of a different time from that of which Scripture speaketh, and that in many and great matters.  
For if we prove that at the very time of the institution 
Of the Eucharist. Not is shed, but shall.  of the Eucharist, Christ's body was given and broken, & his blood shed for us, because three Evangelists and Saint Paul in Greek relating Christ's words, use the participle of the present tense as also doth S. Luke in the vulgar Latin text: nevertheless Protestants will not understand Christ's words of the time then present, but only of the time them to come, as we shown. l. 1. c. 11. art. 5.  
If we prove that those that are justified, are now in herently 
Of justification.  lust, by those words. Rom. 8. v. 29. Whom he hath foreknown, he hath also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son: 1. Cor. 15. v. 49. As we have borne the 
Conformable not now, his hereafter.  image of the earthly, let us also bear the image of the heavenly: Pareus l. 2. de justif. c. 3. answereth: We grant all this, of the state to come, when we shall be fully conformable to the image of Christ by justice and glory (keeping the proportion of the head and members) but it maketh nothing for our adversary for the present state.  
If we prove that in this life our sins are taken from us, 
Of Sins.  because the Scripture sayeth, that God taketh away, cleanseth, blotteth out sin: Pareus l. cit. c. 7. answereth: The 
Sins taken away not now but hereafter.  phrases of Scripture speak of sanctification of the Church, now indeed begun, but hereafter to be perfected, by which the filth of sin now beginneth by the virtue of Christ's spirit to be taken away by the roots, to be blotted out, cleansed, and purged out of our flesh, and at length shallbe quite taken away and blotted out.  
If we prove that God doth now cleanse us from all iniquity, because it is said. 1. joan. 1. v. 19 He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all iniquity: Caluin ib. answereth: If any object that whilst we live in this life we are never cleansed from all injustice, for so much as belongeth to reformation: that is true indeed, but John teacheth not what God doth now perfect in us.  
If we prove that in this life some are made just by the merits of Christ, as by Adam's demerit they were made injust, by these words Rom. 5. v. 19 As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so also by the obedience of one, many shallbe made just. Pareus l. 2. de justificat. cap. 3. answereth: In this life we are made just imperfectly, in the next, we shallbe made perfectly just. Hereupon perchance Luther said Disput. 3. tom. 1. We think, that a man to be justified, is not to be yet just, but to be in the way and course to justice.  
If we prove that faith without works is always dead, because it is said. james 2. vers. vlt. Faith without works is dead: Schlusselburg. to. 8. Catal. p. 526. answereth: The saying of james touching faith dead without works, is to be understood of ehe time after justification: So that he will not have faith to be dead without good works whilst it justifieth.  
If we prove, that God always will all men to be saved, by those words. 1. Tim. 2. Who will all men to be saved: Perkins in Cases of Conscience cap. 7. sect. 3. answereth: God will all men to be saved: understand, now in this last age of the world.  
If we prove, that Saints in heaven ask mercy for the faithful, because they ask revenge upon their persecutors, by those words Apocal. 6. vers. 9 I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slanie for the word of God etc. and they cried with a loud voice saying: How long Lord holy and true iudg●st thou not and revengest not our blood on them that dwell on the earth: Confessio Wittember. c. de Inuocat. Sanctorum understandeth this only of prayers, made whiles the Saints were on earth: In the Apocalypse the souls of the Saints that were slain do cry that their blood be revenged, not that now resting in the Lord they are desirous of revenge after a humane manner, but because the Lord even after their death is mindful of the prayers which whiles they yet lived on earth the made for the delivery of themselves and the Church.  
If we prove, that in this life we fulfil the law, do the will of God, and obey Christ, by those words. Rom. 8. v. 4 God sent his Son etc. that the justification of the law might be fulfiled in us. Et Math. 6. Thy will be done on earth: And Hebr. 5. vers. 9 Christ is made the cause of salvation to all that obey him: Scharpius de justif. Contr. 12. answereth: Out of these places nothing followeth but that the faithful fulfil the law, but it followeth not that they fulfil it in this life.  
Wherefore I thus make my fourtenth argument: Who besides the foresaied opposition to the express words of Scripture, will not expound the words of Scripture on that time whereof it speaketh, do contradict the true sense thereof. Protestants do so. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER XV. THAT PROTESTANTS OF MANY sayings of Scripture make one.  
MY fifteenth argument shallbe because Protestants are forced to confound many sayings of Scripture in one, and so make one of many.  
For if we prove, that God will not the death of a sinner, but willeth his conversion, by those words Ezechiel. 18. I will not the death of a sinner, but that he be converted and live: Caluin. l. de Praedest pag. 706. answereth: If (as we ought to do) those two be read jointly, I will that a sinner which is converted, live: the cavil is easily refuted. The some hath Beza. 2 part. resp. ad Acta Montisbel. p. 196.  
If we prove, that God would have all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, because it is so said. 1. Tim. 2. v. 4. Beza lib. quaest. & respon vol. 1. Theol. p. 684. sayeth: Those two: To save, and to come to the knowledge of truth: are to be joined, that so God may be understood to will that they be saved, whom he will have to come to the knowledge of the truth. So also he answereth in Respons. ad Acta Montisb. p. 194. And there p. 196. in the same sort expoundeth that Ezech. 18. I will not the death of a sinner, but that be converted.  
If we prove, that Christ's baptism was different from S. Ihons', because Actor. 19 S. Luke. telleth, that some who have been baptised with S. Ihons' baptism, were baptised again of S. Paul: Beza ib. ver. 5. sayeth; that these are not the words of S. Luke telling who were baptised of S. Paul, but of S. Paul telling what was the baptism of Saint Ihon. Caluin. l cont. Anabap. p. 415. sayeth: There is said, that Paul baptised them in the name of Christ, then to explicate what this meaneth, is added, that he laid hands upon them and the holy Ghost descended. Wherefore the same thing is diversely expressed by two ways as the Scripture useth. Et 4. Inst. c. 15. §. 18. Luke doth not tell two different things, but keepeth the form of relating used of the Hebrews, who first set down the sum of the matter, and after explain it more at large.  
If we prove, that we must be borne again both of water and of the holy Ghost, by these words joan. 3. v. 5. Unless one be borne again of water and the holy Ghost etc. Caluin. ib. answereth: It is one simple sentence: that we must be borne a new, for to be God's children, and that of this second birth the holy Ghost is author. Therefore he put water and Spirit for the same thing. And in this manner they confound many things, which the Scripture distinguisheth, and say, that either they be Synonimies, or that one exegetically expoundeth the other.  
Wherefore this is my 15. argument. Who besides the foresaied opposition to the express words of Scripture, are compelled to confound many different sayings of the Scripture in one, those are also opposite to the true meaning of the holy Scripture. Protestants do so. Therefore etc.  
And hitherto we have seen how many and what kind of Propositions of Scripture, almost in all kinds of controversies, Protestants do change and deprave, and that no kind of speech can be so plain, strong, and forcible, as it can recall them from their errors, but that they break through, delude, & deprave all: Now let us see how they deal will the words of Scripture. For as Tertullian sayeth count. Hermogenen. It is the Heretics custom to wrest all simple words.   

CHAPTER XVI. THAT WORDS OF SCRIPTURE WHICH signify the working or doing of a thing, Protestants expound of only endeavour or desire to do it.  
THE 16. argument shallbe taken from thence, that words of Scripture which signify the working or doing of a thing, Protestants are compelled to expound of only endeavour or desire to work or do it. Thus they delude those words of Scripture, which say that some men are just, are perfect, avoid evil, do the will of God, love him with all their heart, fulfil the law, keep the commandments, work their salvation, and the like.  
Caluin in Math. 12. vers. 33. those words: Ether make a 
Make good. 1. aspire to good.  tree good etc. expoundeth thus: It cometh of the free indulgence of God, that he vouchsafeth them so honourable a title (of good) who aspire to goodness. In Math. 6. v. 9 Thy will be done: This sufficeth (sayeth he) to testify by desire, that we 
Keepé. 1. apply their endeavour.  hate and are sorry for whatsoever we see contrary to God's will, and desire to have it destroyed. In joan. 15. v. 10. If ye keep my commandments: The faithful (sayeth he) are accounted to keep Christ's commandments, when they apply thereto their endeavour, albeit they be fare from the mark. Upon that Rom. 8. v. 1. Who walk according to the flesh: He sayeth they walk according to the flesh, not who have quite cast of all sense of the flesh, but who diligently labour to tame and mortify the flesh, that the desire of piety may seem to reign in them. Et vers. 5. He testifieth, that he accounteth not them carnal, who aspire to heavenly justice, but them who are wholly addicted to the world. In Philip. 2. vers. 3. Work your salvation: We are 
Worke. 1. aspire to it. Just 1. aspire to justice.  said to work it, when governed by the holy Ghost, we aspire to heavenly life. In 1. Tim. 1. v. 9 The law is not set for the just: I answer, that Paul here calleth them just, not who are wholly perfect, as there is none to be found, but who with a singular desire of heart aspire to goodness. Et ib. c. 4. v. vlt. Thou shalt save thyself: The Pastor is said to save himself, because that is 
Worke. 1. Go forward.  usual, that the faithful work their salvation, when they go forward in the course thereof. In 1. Pet. 4. v. 18. If a just man shall scarce be saved: He calleth them just, not who are perfectly just, but who endeavour to live well. In 1. joan. 2. vers. 3. If 
Keep. 1. Endeavour.  we keep his commandments: He meaneth not, to keep the commandments, to fully satisfy the law (which example can never be found in the world) but who according to man's infirmity do endeavour to frame their life to God's service. And ib. v. 5. But who keepeth his word, truly in him the love of God is perfect: I answer (sayeth Caluin) that it sufficeth, so every one according to the measure of grace given to him, do aspire to this perfection. And ib in c. 3. v. 5. There is no sin in him: They are esteemed of the chiefest part, that is, they are said to be just and to live justly, because with a sincere affection of heart they aspire to justice. This and many such like Caluin.  
Bucer upon that Math 7. v. 21. But who doth the will 
Doth. 1. Endeavoureth.  of my Father: That is (sayeth he) who with his mind doth endeavour to frame himself to the will of the Father. In Math. 12 v. 50. Whosoever doth the will of my Father: We must must note, that to do the will of the Father, is all one, as to hear the words of Christ, and to do them, that is, to endeavour from our heart to do them. And in joan. 14. he sayeth: To keep the commandment of the Lord, here is nothing else, but to believe that it is true and wholesome, and to love it with all our heart.  
Zuinglius in Explanat. art. 14. Here we understand to do according to the rule of Christ and precepts of God, to come near to the rule of God, and with all endeavour to conform himself to the word of God, as fare as a man can in this mortal body. Et in Luc. 1. tom. 4. p. 183. Many trouble themselves here, how they are said to have been just before God, whereas before him no mortal man can be just. This knot is easily loosed, if we 
Iust. 1. Endeavour to be.  understand simply according to the phrase of the Hebrew tongue which calleth them just before God, who for fear of God and love of justice endeavour to be innocent and holy.  
Schlusselburg. to. 7. Catal. Haeret. pag. 235. expoundeth those words Philip. 2. ver. 12. in this sort: To work, in this place signifieth to labour and to be careful of the true way which God hath proposed for to obtain salvation.  
Pareus l. 4. de justif. c. 15. sayeth: job indeed is said to be just, perfect, and fearing God, and avoiding evil: because he was a sincere worshipper of God, having an earnest desire to do well.  
Tilenus' in Syntagm. c. 46. They are called just and perfect, 
Iust. 1. Labour to be.  who labour for justice and aspire to perfection.  
Perkins upon that Galat. 6. ver. 2. So ye shall fulfil the 
Fulfil. 1. desire.  law of Christ: Here the Galathians are said to fulfil the law, because God accepteth the sincere affection of the mind for the full effect. And Whitaker libr. 8. contr. Dur. sect. 49. They are said to keep, who endeavour to keep. And sect. 39 They loved the law with their heart, and for that cause they are accounted just.  
Musculus in locis tit. de Peccato. What other thing is it: I have kept my feet from all ill way, but I have carefully endeavoured to commit no evil? hiave done judgement and justice; but I have had a desire to do judgement and justice?  
Wherefore thus I conclude: Who beside the foresaied opposition to the express words of holy Scripture, are also forced in so many and so great matters to expound the words thereof signifying effecting, working, or doing, of only desire to effect, work, or do, they contradict the true sense of Scripture. But Protestants do so. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER XVII. THAT WORDS SIGNIFYING A CAUSE, Protestants expound of a way or mean: and what the Scripture attributeth to one cause, they give to an other.  
THe 17. argument shallbe taken from that Protestants are forced to expound words that signify a Cause, of a way, order, or mean. Thus they deprave those words of Scripture which teach that faith or good works are the causes of our justice or salvation.  
Perkins in Cathol. reform. Controu. 4. c. 4. expoundeth those words 2. Corin. 4. v. 17. For that our tribulation which presently is momentany and light, worketh above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory in us, in this sort: Afflictions 
Worke. 1. are ●eans.  work salvation, not as causes effecting it, but as means leading us to it. And he addeth withal: Which we must universally and always observe and hold of works in the cause of our salvation, to wit, that they are as a way and certain marks which lead us to glory, but not by causing or working it.  
Caluin upon those words. 2. Cor. 7. v. 10. For the sorrow that is according to God, worketh penance unto salvation that is stable, writeth thus: Paul enquireth not of the cause of salvation, but only commending penance of the fruit which it 
Worke. 1. is as a way.  bringeth forth, doth say, that it is like a way whereby we come to salvation. In this sort consequence is rather signified then any cause. And to the same place Pareus libr. 4. de justificat. cap. 7. answereth: No efficient cause, but a mean or condition which helpeth either by itself or by accident, is signified. And Scarpius de justification. Controvers. 12. Pennance is said to work salvation, not by making it by it virtue, but by leading as by a way to salvation.  
The same Caluin in 1. Corinth. 7. vers. 19 Circumcision is nothing and prepuce is nothing, but the observation of the commandments of God. Here (sayeth he) Paul disputeth not of the cause of justice, nor how we obtain it, but only to what the faithful aught to bend endeavour. And upon that 
Wash. 1. feel.  Actorum 22. vers. 16. Be baptised and wash away thy sins: Ablution, (he sayeth he) signifieth not the cause, but is referred to Paul's feeling; who having received the Symbol, knew better that his sins were forgiven. And 3. Institution. cap. 4. §. 36. he sayeth: Where sin is said to be purged by mercy and bountifulness (Proverb. 16.) is not meant that by them it is recompensed in the sight of God; but is showed, that they shall find God merciful to them who forsaking vice, are turned to piety, as if he had said, God's wrath is appeased when we leave our wickedness. And ibidem cap. 14. §. ultim. having objected to himself that the Scripture declareth, that good works are the cause that God doth favour them, he answereth: That which in order goeth first, he calleth the cause of that which followeth. In this manner he deriveth 
Cause. 1. a step  sometimes eternal life from good works, not that it is given for them, but because whom God hath chosen he justifieth, that afterward he may glorify, the former grace which is a step to the later, he after a sort maketh a cause— Finally by these kind of speeches order is rather signified than cause.  
Pareus l. 3. de justif. c. 12. sayeth, that by those words 2. Timoth. 4. I have fought a good fight: the order and way to the crown is noted, not the cause. So that what the Scripture maketh the cause, according to these men, is only a mean, a way, step, or order.  
In like manner, what the Scripture attributeth to one cause, they give to an other; as what it atttibuteth to good works, they give to faith only; what it ascribeth to faith or Sacraments, they appropriate to God alone.  
Zuinglius l. de Provident. cap. 6. When Paul writeth to 
Hearing. 1. Spirit.  the Romans, that faith cometh of hearing, in the same manner, he attributeth that to the nearer cause and more known to us, which cometh only from the Spirit, and not from outward preaching. And in Math. 4. Oftentimes that is attributed to the later, which belongeth to the former: as to works, which rather belongeth to faith, and again, to faith, which most properly 
Works. 1. faith.  and truly belongeth to God's election.  
Sadeel de ver. Peccat. remiss p. 139. answering to those words Proverb. 16. Iniquity is purged by bounty and mercy, sayeth: That is attributed to the effects which is proper to the cause, after the usual manner (sayeth he) of Scripture. That is attributed to their virtue, which properly is to be attributed to the benefit of Christ alone.  
Illyricus in Clavae part. 2. tract. 6. Faith, word, and Sacraments 
Faith etc. 1. God.  are said to save us, whereas God alone doth those things. And ibid. Thy faith hath saved thee, whereas only God's mercy and omni potency apprehended by faith doth that. And he addeth. 
Scripture oftentimes attributeth things not to their true causes.  Oftentimes effects are attributed (by the Scripture) to not true or not principal causes. Hereupon it cometh that there is often mention of Alleosis with Zuinglius, and of Metalepsis with others, by which figures what the Scripture giveth to one thing they transfer to an other. Which Alleosis Zuinglius in Exegesi. to. 2. f. 350. calleth interchangable speech; but Luther in Hospin. part. 2. Histor. f. 57 termeth it the Devil's mask.  
Wherefore thus I argue in form. Who gainsay the express words of Scripture in such sort as we have seen in the first book, and beside in many and weighty matters, words which signify a cause do expound of a way, mean, or order, and what the Scripture attributeth to one cause do transfer to an other, they contradict the true sense of holy Scripture: Protestants do so. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER XVIII. THAT WORDS OF SCRIPTURE Which say a thing is, Protestants expound by aught to be.  
THE 18. argument shallbe because what the Scripture sayeth Is, Protestants expound It ought to be. Pareus l. 2. de justif. c. 7. those words. 1. joan. 2. v. 5. But he that keepeth his word, in him the charity of God is 
Is. 1. ought to be.  perfected: expoundeth thus: The sentence of S. John (as others such like) is to be understood of right or duty, not of fact: What kind of charity ought to be, not what kind is in us. And ibid. those words. Coloss. 3. v. 14. Have charity, which is the bound of perfection, he glosseth thus: Charity is called the bound of perfection, not which we have, but which we ought to have, and which we shall have in everlasting life. Et l. 4 c. 11. those words Deuter. 30. v. 6. Our Lord God shall circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, that thou mayst love thy Lord God with all thy heart. He interpreteth in this sort: The promise, to love God with all thy heart, either speaketh of duty, how we ought to love God, to wit, sincerely and perfectly: or it speaketh of sincerity. And the same Pareus l. 4. de Grat. & lib. arbit. c. 6. that sentence of the Apostle 1. Tim. 3. he thus expoundeth: The Church is called the pillar and strength of truth, of duty, because she ought always to be so, albeit she be not so always in act. The same he hath in Gal. 2. lect. 18. Moulins in his Bucler. pag. 50. and others.  
Tilenus' in Syntagmate cap. 46. writeth, that in those places joan. 14. v. 21. Rom. 13. 8. and Gal. 5. 14. Where the Scripture affirmeth, that those who love God, do keep his commandments, it meaneth not of man's power to perform the law, but of our duty. His meaning is, that the Scripture meaneth not, that who love God keep his commandments (which it sayeth plainly) but only that they ought to keep them.  
Wherefore I thus argue. They who besides the foresaied direct opposition to the express words of holy writ, are also forced to expound that by Aught to be, which the Scripture plainly sayeth Is; contradict the true meaning of the holy Scripture. Protestants do so. Thererefore etc.   

CHAPTER XIV. THAT WORDS OF SCRIPTURE SIGnifying a true thing they expound of an apparent or show.  
MY 19 proof shallbe, because words of Scripture which signify a true thing, Protestants are compelled to expound of an apparent, or show before men. Thus they delude the words of Scripture which teach that Sacraments or good works do justify or redeem sins, that evil or reprobate men may believe, or be in the Church, that reprobates may be justified, do good works, and the like.  
When the Scripture sayeth. 10. v. 10. With the mouth confession is made to salvation: Luther apud Schlusselburg. to. 7. 
To salvation. 1. to a sign thereof.  Catal. p. 234. answereth: to wit, to testify salvation obtained by faith. Kemnitius ib. p. 559. Paul speaketh so, that confession saveth, to show what kind of faith obtaineth eternal life, to wit firm and effectual. Wigandus' ib. p. 746. The sense is: By faith salvation is apprehended, but by month is manifested, and confession of salvation uttered. Et P. Martyr. in 1. Cor. 12. Salvation is attributed to confession, because thence it beginneth to be declared as by an outward sign. 
He would. 1. He made such show.   
Luther in Postilla in Festo Stephani, writeth thus: What he here sayeth: How often would I gather together thy children, as etc. signifith that God dealt so with the jews as no man could think or imagine otherwise, then that the earnestly would gather them. For he behaved himself, as a man should, who indeed would it. And Postilla in Dom. 1. Aduentus, those words: Redeem thy sins by alms, he thus expoundeth: Show that they are blotted out. And Dom. 4. post Trinit. those words. Luke 6. Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: in this sort: If I forgive, that forgiveness maketh meassured of the sincerity of my faith, and certifieth me, and declareth my faith. And in Dom. 9 Make yourselves friends of the mammon of iniquity: that is, by outward alms openly show your faith, whereby you may get friends, that poor men may be witnesses of your manifest work, that you believe sincerely.  
Schlusselburg. tom. 7. Catal. p. 235. writeth thus. Sorrow 
Worketh. 1. showeth.  according to God worketh penance of work to salvation, that is, according to Luther's interpretation, is such a work as testifieth of salvation. And pag seq. The saying of joel: Every one that calleth upon the name of the Lord shallbe safe, hath this meaning: that calling upon the Lord's name is a testimony of salvation received by faith.  
Brentius homil. 1. in Dom. 13 post Trinit. writeth, that that speech of josias. 4. Reg. 23. He returned to our Lord in all his heart: is to be understood what josias was in the judgement of men for the government of his kingdom, not what he was in the judgement of God for his private faults.  
Reineccius to. 4. Armat. c. 15. those words Rom. 2. Gentiles who have not the law, do naturally the things of the law, expoundeth of politic, philosophical, and Pharisaicalliustice.  
Kemnitius in locis tit. de Argument. part. 2. sayeth that those words Deuter. 6. It shallbe justice to us before God, if 
justitie. 1. in title.  we keep his commandments, are either meant of legal justice, or that though our justice be unclean, yet God giveth it the title of justice. He would say, that the keeping of the commandments, is either only legal justice, or only justice in name sake. And of the fast of Phinees he sayeth: of itself it could not have the title of justice, but was reputed as a deed justly done.  
Herbrand. in Compend. Theol. loco de bonis oper. If the letter (Redeem thy sins by alms) be urged, it is clear, that the sense of those words are contrary to the scope of the whole Scripture, and to the analogy of faith. But this is the proper and true meaning of the place of Daniel: Believe God to be 
Redeems. 1. Sh●w ●hy faith.  be angry with sin, and to be appeased with the just, that is, the beleivers, and show this faith to be true by works. In like sort speaketh Hunnius l. de justif. p. 198. of those words Toby 4. Alms delivereth from all sin, and from death.  
Zuinglius respon ad Confess. Lutheri. tom. 2. fol. 477. Those sayings of Paul, which he allledgetb out of Ephes. 5. and 
Cleanse. 1. Signify cleansing.  Tit. 3. of the waters cleansing by the word, and of the laver of regeneration, they undestand not to be enallages, that is, change of functions, by which it useth to be attributed to signs, which they signify only.  
Caluin in joan. 15. v. 2. those words: Every branch in me etc. expoundeth thus: I answer many are held by the opinion of men to be the vine, which indeed have no root in the vine. In c. 16. vers. 27. We are said to be loved of God, whiles we love 
In. 1. in men's opinion.  Christ, because we have a pledge of his fatherly love. In Actor. 8. v. 13. He believed, he expoundeth: He thought he believed. In 
Iust. 1. in outward show.  Ezech. 18. ver. 24. How doth Ezechiel mean, that the just fall away? This question is soon answered, because he treateth not of the lively root of justice, but of the outward show or appearance. In Ephes. 5. v. 26. That Paul sayeth we are washed by baptism, is because there God testifieth our washing unto us, and with all doth what he showeth. In Colos. 2. v. 12. We are buried together with him by baptism, he speaketh after his manner, attributing the efficacy to the Sacrament, lest it should in vain signify that which is not. In jacob. 2. vers. 23. He is justified by works: 
justified. 1. Known.  that is, by the fruits his justice is knowneand approved. De Praedest. pag. 714. It is no marvel if (the Scripture) esteeming saul's works by the outward show, commendeth his innocence and honesty. Et 3. Instit. c. 4. §. 36. That to redeem (Dan. 4.) is rather referred to men then to God. And the same he sayeth of that of Solomon: Charity covereth sins, and of other such places.  
Beza in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 388. We say, that baptism of water is the laver of regeneration, that is, signifieth the inward 
Regeneration. 1. Sign thereof.  regeneration. In 1. Tim. 4. v. 1. It is one thing truly to embrace Christ, an other only with mouth to profess Christ with Simon Magus and judas: and yet these are said even to believe, to wit, according to the common use of speech, because they seem to believe. In Math. 19 ver. 2. If thou wilt be perfect etc. That is, if thou wilt indeed show thyself such, as thou boastest to be.  
Pareus Contr. 5. col. 1009. Having damnation etc. 1. Tim. 5. v. 11. Bucers and Martyrs opinion is true, when they take the word Damnation in this place of Paul, for damnation which is pronounced of men against those young widows who marry again. And Martyr l. de votis. col. 1355. Those words of the Apostle 
Damnation. 1. in men's judgement.  may be understood of men's judgement. The same Daneus. Contr. 6. col. 1187. When Concupiscence hath coceaved etc. jac. 1. ver. 15. james speaketh of that effect of sin which appeareth to us men. Et p. 1205. Bellarmin answereth out of Dan. 4. v. 4. and Philip. 2. v. 12. that we can redeem our sins. But Bellarmin is deceived, for those places of Scripture only teach what we can and aught to do in regard of men, not in regard of God. Et Contr. 2. c. 16. Verbs active, which are spoken by the Scripture 
Causeth. 1. Testifieth.  of the Sacraments, do not signify cause, or action causing and effecting, but only action testifying.  
Pareus de justif. c. 15. 1. joan. 3. c. 7. Who worketh justice, is just; That is, he showeth by works, that he is justified by faith. Et l. 3. c. 14. joan. 15. Every branch in me: he expoundeth of those, who adhere to Christ in only outward profession and show. And that Math. 24. The charity of many shall wax could: of those who in outward appearance are just. And that 1. Tim. 1. Some have made shipwreck of faith, of only apparent faith: Et l. 4. c. 18. sayeth: With james, to justify, is to show by works before men the justice of faith.  
Zanchius in Summa Praelect. to. 7. col. 276. The place 2. Pet. 1. (Forgetting the purgation etc.) is to be understood according to the custom of holy Scripture, which according to the judgement of charity, calleth all Saints, Justiniano, and Cleansed from sin, whosoever are baptised in Christ, and profess Christ, though all be not such before God. Et ib. That Ezech. 18. If a just man turn himself from justice: Is not meant of one that is truly just, but who to men only seemeth just. Et de Persever. c. 2. Many believed in him joan. 12. Because to themselves they seemed truly to believe in Christ, whereas notwithstandind they do not truly believe.  
Perkins in Cathol. Reform. Contr. 4. c. 4. upon that Ps. 105. It was reputed to him to justice, writeth thus: Surely not 
justice. 1. a Sign thereof.  because that fact was a full satisfaction of the law, but because God ai● accept that just work as a note and sign of justice, and of that zeal which he had for the glory of God. Et in Psal. Happy 
Happy. 1. a sign thereof.  is the man who walketh in the law: He sayeth: He is happy, that he is in Christ, of which thing the obedience given to the law, is a sign. Et ib. We say, that works concur to justification, and that we are justified by them as by certain signs and effects, not as by causes. And tom. 2. in Galat. 5. They are said to fall 
Fallen. 1. show they never stood.  from grace, not that indeed all had been under grace and after had fallen from it: but because God made it manifest to men that indeed they had never been under his favour. And Apocalypse. 2. When David prayed God to create a new heart in him, Perkins sayeth: He speaketh not as he was before God and by faith; but according to his feeling; for his faith did not put forth itself before men and himself.  
Polanus in Disp. private. p. 24. that Ezech. 18. He shall quicken 
Quicken. 1. testify.  his own soul expoundeth thus: He by his works shall testify, that he is truly regenerate. Et pag. 108. Faith is perfected by works, that is, perfectly known.  
Bucanus Inst. loc. 18. Zacharias in these words. Be converted to me, speaketh of outward conversion. Et loco 30. Charity covereth a multitude of sins, not before God, but before men.  
Vrsinus in Catechis. p. 40. That saying of Peter: Denying the Lord who bought them: Again: He forgot that he was 
Cleansed. 1. in outward Signify.  cleansed from his old sins, and such like, are manifestly spoken either only of outward show and gloriation of redemption or purgation, or etc. Et q. 63. Who doth justice, is just; to wit, before men. And in like sort Piscator in Thes. l. 2. p. 94. expoundeth that place Rom. 6. Who is dead, is justified from sin.  
Aretius' in locis part. 1. f. 9 sayeth to that Toby 4. & 12. 
Deliver. 1. Sgnifie.  Alms deliver from death: They deliver from eternal death, that is, are signs and firm arguments in the godly, that they are delivered from that death. Et Confessio Wittenberg. c. de Eleemosyna. We teach, that alms doth so blot out sin, that it is the fruit of charity towards our neighbour, by which work we testify the faith and obedience which we own to God.  
P. Martyr in Rom. 9 Nether is proved out of this place (If any shall cleanse himself) that men can cleanse themselves, or make themselves honourable vessels. Wherefore we must not gather more out of those words of Paul, than that such a cleansing is a sign, whereby we judge of the worth or unworthiness of vessels in the Church.  
Tilenus' in Syntagmate c. 41. giveth this rule of deluding 
A general of deluding words of Scripture.  all places of Scripture, which teach that charity, hope, fear or penance do justify, to wit, that either by these names is understood faith, or that they only declare justification.  
Scharpius de Iust. Contr. 5. denieth that speech Luc. 8. They believe for a time: or that 1. Tim. 1. They have made shipwreck 
Faith. 1. in show.  of faith: & cap. 5. & 6. they shall departed from faith: They have fallen from faith, to be meant of true faith: Nether will he have that Ezech. 18. When a just man shall turn himself 
Iust. 1. in show▪  from justice, to be meant of one truly just: nor that Math. 18. When the unclean spirit shall go forth of a man, to be meant of the Devil truly gone forth. Nor that Math 24. Charity of many shall wax could, Of true charity: Nor that Galat. 5. Ye are fallen from grace: of true grace: Nor that Hebr. 6. Were illuminated, or Hebr. 10. In which he was sanctified, of truly illuminated or sanctified: Nor that 2. Pet. 1. Forgetting the purgation etc. and c. 2. A sow washed &c. of true purgation, or true washing. Nor finally that Actor. 10. Simon believed, of true faith. And in like sort Contr. 6. he denieth that joan. 12. Many of the Princes believed: and that 1. Cor. 13. If I have all faith, to be meant of true faith: and Contr. 7. that jacob. 2. Not by faith only, of true faith. And Contr. 12. When any are said, to be perfect or just, as Gen. 6. 1. Reg. 15. Luc. 1. Actor. 13. he sayeth this is not meant of true justice or perfection, but of apparent. So that with these men nothing is true if it be against them, but only apparent, as is indeed their religion.  
Wherefore thus I argue in form. Who beside the foresaied opposition to the express words of Scripture, in many and great matters, words which signify true things, are forced to expound them of appearance, outward shows, testifications, and significations before men, they contradict the true sense of Scripture. Protestants do so. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER XX. THAT PROTESTANTS ARE FORCED to expound the words of holy Scripture by diverse, disparates, and contraries.  
THE 20. argument wherewith we will prove that Protestants do contradict the true meaning of holy Scripture, shallbe because they are compelled to expound the words thereof by things that are quite different, yea disparate or nothing like, and plain concrarie; of which doings of theirs amongst innumerable I will note some few examples.  
They expound the words of Scripture by things different or divers. For thus dealeth Zuinglius in Marci. 1. to. 4. p. 141. All were baptised, that is (sayeth he) were taught in 
Baptised 1. Taught.  the Gospel. In joan. 3. v. 5. The kingdom of God, is here taken for heavenly doctrine and preaching of the Gospel. In histor. resur. pag. 401. The sense is: Whose sins you forgive, that is, 
Forgive. 1. Preach.  to whom you shall tell the forgiveness of sins. In Roman, 5. pag. 419. Sin in this place (As sin by one man etc.) is 
Sinne. 1. Dis●ase. Faith. 1. Preaching.  taken for a disease. In cap. 10. pag. 434. Faith is by hearing: Here mark, that Faith is taken of Paul, for the manifested will of God, and for the manifest and public preaching of faith amongst the jews and Gentiles. In 1. Cor. 7. p. 463. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Good, is here taken for commodious and quiet. Et tom. 2. in Elencho 
Faith. 1 God's election. Which. 1. Whiles. Blessed. 1. Bad Fairewell.  fol. 34. Faith justifieth, that is, the election of God. In Subsidio. f. 245. Which is poured out for many, that is, while, or as it is poured out for many. In Exegesi f 355. And it happened as he blessed, that is: bid them, fairewell. Et in Exposit. fidei fol. 558. It is clear, that the name of Merit or Reward is in holy Scripture, but instead of a Free gift.  
Caluin in Luc. 1. ver. 15. Replenished with the holy Ghost, expoundeth: To be endued with greater grace above i common vulgar sort. In c. 7. ver. 48. he expoundeth: Forgive us 
Forgive. 1. Seal.  our tresp●sses: thus: Seal more and more mercy in our hearts. In c. 8. v. 13. They believe for a time: thus: They give an honour to the Gospel like to faith. In Math. 7. vers. 21. By, doing 
Do Gods will 1. Believe  the will of the Father, he understandeth. Philosophically to frame his life and manners to the rule of virtue, and to believe in Christ. In cap. 21. vers. 32. The name of justice here signifieth, 
justice. 1. Doctrine.  nothing else, but that Ihons' doctrine was pure and right. In cap. 23. vers. 22. To sit in the chair of Moses is nothing else, then to deliver out of the law of God, how men ought to live. In joannis 3. vers. 5. By water, he understandeth, 
Water. 1. Holy Ghost. Charity in us. 1. Towards us.  the Holy Ghost. In Actor. 8. ver. 18. by the Holy Ghost; Singular gifts. In Rom. 5. v. 5. by the Charity of God diffused in us: he understandeth, our knowledge of God's charity towards us. In 2. Co. 2. v. 10. I have given in the person of Christ: that is (sayeth he) sincerely and without simulation. In 1. Timot. 1. and 6. by Faith, he expoundeth: Wholesome doctrine. 
Faith. 1. Wholesome doctrine.  In Tit. 1. v. 16. Appoint Bishops: that is: Be precedent in the choice of them. And in Hebr. 9 v. 26. Destruction of sin, he expoundeth: freing from the guilt of pain. 
Sinne. 1. Gild of pain   
Beza in Math. 3. v. 1. by Desert, understandeth A hilly country. And in vers. 6. by Confessing their sins: Professing 
Desert. 1. Hilly place.  themselves to be sinners. And in cap. 5. vers. 20. Upon that: Unless your justice abound etc. by the, Kingdom of heaven he meaneth: the Church militant: and by Enter, Teach.  
Peter Martyr in Roman. 18. sayeth: When the Scripture 
Faith. 1. God's mercy.  sayeth that we are justified by faith, when we hear the name of faith, we must understand the object of faith, to wit, the mercy of God. Polanus in Syntagm. l. 6. c. 36. Faith is imputed to justice, 
Faith. 1. Christ's justice  that is, the justice of Christ, which faith apprehendeth, is imputed. Sadeel ad art. 44. abiurat. When we are said to be justified by faith, by the name of faith we must understand Christ: And so also Bullinger. dec. 3. serm. 9 The Confession of Saxony c. de Remiss. Peccat. This saying is to be understood correlatively: we are justified by faith: that is, we are justified by confidence of the Son of God.  
Zanchius de Perseverant. tom. 7. col. 143 by that: You are 
Faith. 1. Confidence.  fallen from grace, understandeth: you are fallen from the doctrine of grace, or from the Gospel. Pareus l. 2. de justif. c. 7. 
Grace. 1. Doctrine.  by Perfect charity, understandeth, sincere. Et lib. 4. c. 7. by, work your salvation: Do those things which are necessary for to obtain salvation.  
Perkins in Cathol. reform. Contr. 5. c. 3. sayeth: In all the promises of the Gospel, in which God doth voluntarily bind himself to reward our works, the obligation doth not directly pertain to us, but in respect of the person and obedience of Christ. Apologia Confess. Aug. c. de Implet. legis: Because 
Love.. 1. Believe.  she loved much, that is (say they) because she truly worshipped me with faith and with exercises and signs of faith. Et de Resp. ad Argum. When the text sayeth, that eternal life is rendered to works, it meaneth, that it is rendered to those that are justified. Again: Alms is said to deliver from death and to purge from sin, not in itself, but in the cause thereof, that is, in faith. 
Alms. i Faith.  Brentius hom. 1. in festum om. sanctorum. To hunger after justice, is to have a just cause, and yet not be able to follow it in law. Reineccius to. 4. Armaturae c. 19 by Sacrifice the Phase, understandeth Kill it, lest he should be confessed that the pascal lamb be was sacrificed: Illyricus. 1. joan. 2. v. 3. The keeping 
Keeping. 1. Knowing.  of the commandments, in this place signifieth the true knowledge of his doctrine. Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. p. 192. 2. Pet. 2. They deny the Lord, who hath bought them, that is, whom before they had professed, that he had bought them, Et p. 472. he 
Buy. 1. Profess to buy. Which. 1. As farforth.  sayeth that, which, in the words of Consecration signifieth, As farforth: As (sayeth he) the pronoun (which) in those words: The bread which I shall give is my flesh which I shall give for the life of the world. Moulins in his Bucler part. 2. pag. 51. sayeth that those words jacob. 5. If he be in sin, they shallbe forgiven him, signify as much, as health shallbe restored to him, all sins being forgiven for which God had afflicted him. And he addeth in the next page: Christ doth teach us Math. 9 
Forgiven. 1. Arise.  that to say to the sick: Thy sins are forgiven thee, and to say, Arise and walk; are equivalent things: Let then he and his fellow Mynisters say: Arise and walk when they preach of remission of sins.  
They expound also by disparate or quite different things. For thus Zuinglius in Schlusselburg. lib. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 2. Body in the words of the Supper may be taken also for the 
Body. 1. Church.  Church. Et in joan. 6. to. 4. he sayeth: By which also the words of Christ wax clear: This is my body, where Body is put for 
Body. 1. Death.  Death. In lib. de Relig. cap. de Euchar. to. 2. Now followeth a rite, whereby it appeareth, that this is the sense, and that Body here (Is it not a participation of the body of our Lord. 1. Cor. 10.) is otherwise taken then for the Symbol of his body, to wit, for the Church. In lib. de Caena. fol. 294. he saith, that by Communication of the body of Christ, by Communion 
Communion. 1. Sermon. Chalice. 1. Ourselves.  you may understand a sermon or the Church: Et 1. Cor. 10. that the sense of these words: The Chalice of blessing which we bless etc. is: The Cup of thanksgiving with which we give thanks, what other thing I pray you is it but ourselves. Again: 
Blood. 1. Christians.  He calleth the blood of Christ, those who trust in his blood. Et in Exegesi f. 359. Flesh in this place. joan. 6. is put for the Divine 
Flesh. 1. Divinity. Body and blood. 1. Faith  Nature. In Explic. art. 18. to. 1. f. 37. Thou seest here joan. 6. that the body and blood of Christ is nothing else, but the word of faith: to wit, that his body dead for us, his blood shed for us redeemed us. And in other places oftentimes sayeth, that the word Body in the words of Consecration signifieth a Figure or Symbol of Christ his body.  
The same Zuinglius in Exegesi tom. 2. fol. 350. thus writeth: 
Eat. 1. relieve.  Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man etc. is as much, as who beleiveth not, to wit, the Gospel being preached, shallbe condemned. In joan. 6. tom. 4. To eat bread and flesh is 
Eat. 1. Trust.  nothing else but to believe: Again: To eat, is to trust. In Elenc. fol. 30. When faith is said to save, faith is taken for the election of God. In lib. de baptis. fol. 61. In the 6. of the Acts, the 
Believe. 1. Hear.  word of Believing is taken for to hear the doctrine, or to adjoin himself to the number of the beleivers. The same man Epist. ad Lindover. to 1. fol. 204. Thou seest here 1. Pet. 3. Baptism 
Baptism. 1. Faith.  hath made us safe, fi●st that baptism is taken for faith. In lib. de Relig. c. de Baptis. to. 2. fol. 201. It was clear to him, that they had been baptised by Apollo, that is, taught. In lib. de Baptis f. 61. We said, that baptism was taken for the inward 
Baptism. Faith. Baptism. 1. Doctrine.  faith. 1. Pet. 3. Et f. 63. We must note, that the words of Baptising in these words of Paul. Act. 16. is taken for doctrine. Et f. 81. In what then were ye baptised, must not be understood of the external baptism of water, but of doctrine and instruction. In Subsidio ib. f. 254. Baptism 1. Pet. 3. is taken for Christ, when 
Baptism. 1. Christ.  he sayeth that we are saved by baptism. Et in Resp. ad Huber. fol. 107. he addeth, that Baptism 1. Pet. 3. is taken for Christ or for the very Gospel. Moreover l. de Baptis. to. 2. fol. 73. 
Baptism. 1. Gospel.  he thus writeth: They have oftentimes learned of us, that by water in this place (joan. 3.) ought to be understood the knowledge 
Water. 1. Knowledge. Keys. 1. Words of Keys. 1. Faith. Keyes. 1. Preaching. Lose and bind. 1. Preach. Bind. 1. Leave in error. Bind. 1. Not believe. Forgive. 1. Assure.  of Christ and the comfort of faith. Et in Explic. art. 50. to 2. f. 92. The keys are nothing else but the pure word of God and the sincere preaching of the Gospel. In Exegesi. ib. f. 258. The keys are not other thing but faith of the Gospel. Resp. ad Luther. ib f. 378. It is clear, that the keys are nothing but the preaching of the Gospel. Again in Explic. art. 50. to. 1. f. 93. We learn, that in Luke, to lose and bind, is nothing else but to preach the Gospel. lib. de Relig. c. de Clavibus. to. 2. f. 191. It appeareth here, that to Bind, is nothing else but to leave in error. And in Schlusselb. l. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 9 The words of Binding and losing, signify nothing else but to believe, and not believe.  
Perkins in Cathol. ref. Contr. 3. c. 3. writeth thus: I answer, that we do not ask remission of sins, because we are not certain of it: but rather because that certainty is weak and infirm, that continually endued with new grace of Christ we may daily increase and be comforted.  
Daneus Contr. 7. pag. 1317. Saints are said to govern the 
Saintes. 1. Christ.  world Apoc. 2. and 3. We grant (sayeth he) that the godly both now and after death do govern the wicked world, in so much, as Christ governeth it, of whose kingdom they are partakers, as being his members. Et to. 2. Contr. de Baptis. c. 4. he sayeth, that in those words: Unless a man be borne of water and the 
And. 1. O●.  holy Ghost, the particle And, is to be taken for the disiunctive particle Or. Et Contr. de Euchar. c. 10. & 11. he will have the verb Is in the words of Consecration to stand for: 
Is. 1. Signifieth.  Signifieth, Representeth, Sealeth.  
Rainolds in Apol. Thes. p. 333. sayeth that the Apostle 2. Thessalon. 2. in those words: Hold traditions etc. by the 
Speech. 1. Scripture.  word Speech comprehendeth other Scriptures: or as jewel in Defence. Apol. part. 2. cap. 9 sec. 1. Will have it: The very substance of the Gospel. Others in Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 6. c. 10. will have whether, put for Also, as Beza putteth in the very 
Whether. 1. Also.  text of that place.  
Whitaker Contr. 11. q. 5. c. 4. by Priests in those words of 
Priests. 1. Chief men.  the psal. 99 Moses and Aaron in his priests, will have to be meant: Chief men of the people. And the same sayeth jewel lib. cit. p. 6. c. 11. sect. 4. and Hunnius in Colloq. Ratisbon. sess. 2. Where he addeth, that Moses did sacrifice as a Prophet of God and not as a Priest.  
Luther to 1. f. 398. writeth in this sort: Paul in this place 
Faith. 1. Gift of God.  (1. Cor. 13. If I had all etc. taketh faith for the gift of the holy Ghost. Et fol. 397. The sense (of these words Redeem thy 
Redeem. 1. Believe, leave, apprehend.  sins etc. Dan.) is, to believe that God is angry with sin, and is pleased with the just, and show this faith to be true by works. But Melacthon thus expoundeth these words: leave, give over sinning: Et Martyr. ibid. hom. 21. Apprehend the Messiah by faith.  
Illyricus in Math. 7. v. 82. To perform the words of Christ 
Perform. 1. Believe.  is to embrace him truly and from the heart, and secondly to rely upon his doctrine well understood. Bullinger Dec. 3. sermon. 9 writeth, that when S. james sayeth a man is justified by 
Works. 1. Faith.  works, he meaneth. By faith fruitful of good works. Et l. de Orig. Error. c. 18. These sentences: I will protect this city for myself and for my servant David: And I will protect this city for myself and for promise made to David are all one. Sadeel 
David. 1. Promise to David or Christ. Sorrow Piety. ● Faith.  ad Art. 57 expoundeth, For David, that is, For Christ. Hunnius' tract. de justif. p. 145. sayeth, that by the word, Sorrow, in that 2. Cor. 7. Sorrow according to God etc. and also by the word, Piety, in that 1. Timot. 4. Piety hath promises, is understood Faith.  
But most of all this their manner of expounding by disparate or quite different things appeareth in their expounding the words of Christ his soul's descent into hell: where by Soul they understand Dead body or Carcase: by Descended, Suffered: and by Hell, Grave, Death, or Pains of hell, and the like. For thus Zuinglius in Hofmeister in Art. 
Descended. 1. Redeemed.  3. Confess. Aug. He descended into hell, that is, his death re-redeemed those which were in hell. OEcolampadius ib. It is an 
Descended. 1. Buried.  exposition of that: He was buried. Bucer in Math. 27. In the 2. of the Acts for the same is put, that his soul is not forsaken in hell, and the holy did not see the grave of corruption, to wit, for that which is; Not to be forsaken in death. What other thing is it here to descend to hell, than the body to be buried under earth? In this source then descended life or a lively body into hell, that is, being truly dead was put in the grave: Again: That article of the Symbol: He descended into hell, is an explication of that which went before, He was dead and buried. P Martyr in locis Class. 2. p. 428. He descended into hell, signifieth nothing else, 
Descended. 1. In estate of the dead. Descended. 1. Suffered death. Descended. 1. Laid in the the grave. Soul. 1. Carcase. Hell. 1. Grave.  but that he was in the very same estate in which other souls are that have departed from their bodies. Caluin. 2. Instit. c. 16. ser. 10. If he be said to have descended into hell, no marvel, seeing he suffered that death which by God's wrath is inflicted upon the wicked. Beza in Act. 2. v. 27. To descend to hell, properly signifieth to be laid in the grave. Et ib. edit. An. 1565. In my former edition I rightly translated it: Thou shalt not forsake my carcase in the grave. In Defence. count. castle. vol. 1. Theol. pag. 460. In the text, My soul, I translated, my carcase: Et p. seq. I still keep the same sense. Serranus count. Hayum. part. 3. p. 520. spendeth many words to prove, that by Soul. Act. 2. v. 27. is not meat Soul, but a Dead man or carcase, and addeth: 
Flesh. 1. Soul.  No man can doubt, but by the word flesh is meat Soul. So that by Soul shall not be meant Soul, but Carcase, and again by Flesh, not flesh but soul. Vrsinus in Carechism. q. 44. In this article Hell is taken for great affliction. Whitaker. l. 8. count. Dur. sect. 7. That the Prophet sayeth: Thou shalt not forsake my soul in hell, is as much, as if he had said: Thou shalt not forsake me lying in the grave: Et Sect. 22. It is manifest, that it is 
Descended. 1. Buried.  the same sense in both words: that to be buried, is to descend to hell, and that to descend to hell, is to be buried. Perkins in Explic. Symboli tom. 1. col. 680. He descended into hell, that is, being dead and buried, was detained captive in the grave, and kept of death for three days. Et col. 676. Others expound it thus: He felt and bore the torments and anguishs of hell. This (sayeth he) is a good and true exposition. Et in Serie Causarum c. 18. The descent into hell, is the ignominious dominion of death over him being buried. Daneus Contr. 2. p. 161. By the name of the death 
Death. 1. torments of soul  of Christ are meant the torments of soul and the curse of God, which is felt in the mind. P. 169. It is apparent out of the Acts 2. that the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is put for grave of the body. Et pag. 172. he sayeth: Of the descent of Christ to hell, that is, of the sorrow in soul suffered by Christ. Tilenus' in Syntagm. c. 6. understandeth by the descent to hell, the dominion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which it obtained by thy continuate death of Christ oppressed and shut up in a grave sealed and kept with soldiers for three days together. Bucanus in loco 25. By Christ's descent into hell are meant those great torments of mind, which he sustained in his agony and on the cross. Polanus in Syntagm. l. 6. c. 21. We declare, that the descent of Christ into hell, is his voluntary demission of himself to abide and wrestle out the pains of hell. Finally Vorstins in Antibel. pag 40. Writeth thus: All protestants do not wholly agree about the true sense of this article, whilst some accommodate this phrase properly to the death and burriall of Christ, as an explication thereof: others metaphorically to the inward griefs of the mind, or infernal torments which Christ suffered at the time of his death or passion: and others metonymically or effectively by a kind of prosopopeia to the fruit of the death and passion of Christ exhibited unto us miserable and damned. Et p. 41. We say: that speech: Descend to hell most truly doth signify in Scripture nothing else, them simply to dye or to brought into the state of the dead; and so buried. Et p. 42. The sense of those words. Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell, may most fitly be expressed thus: Thou shalt not leave my life in death, or thou shalt not leave me in the power of death. Albeit 
Soul. 1. Dead body. Hell. 1. Grave.  nothing hindereth by Soul to understand synechdochically the very body and that also dead, and to take the name of Hell for the Grave. 
Expositions by quite contraries.   
They expound also the words of the holy Scripture by quite contraries. For touching faith when S. james c. 2. sayeth that a man, is not justified by faith only, they say, he meaneth not of faith, but only of a shadow or dead image of faith. So 
Fai●b. 1. Not faith.  Zuinglius, Caluin, Beza upon that place, Luther in Postilla in Dom. 9 post Trinit. Bucer in Math. 8. Whitaker. l. 1. count. 
Believe. 1. Deceive themselves and others.  Dur. sect. 13. & others. In like sort the word Believe in that Luc. 7. v. 13. They believe for a time, with them signifieth not to believe: but to deceive men's eyes and their own mind with a deceitful show of faith. So Caluin. 2. Instit. c. 2. §. 10. Where he calleth this belief, a shadow and show of faith, and sayeth, that it is of no reckoning and unworthy of the name of faith. When S. Ihon. 12. ver. 23. sayeth: Many believed in his name: Caluin. ibidem. thus expoundeth him: Their faith was preposterous: It is evident, that their faith was not true and lawful. Luther in Postil. in Dom. Quinquagues. sayeth, that when S. Paul. 1. Corinth. 13. Writeth: If I have all faith etc. he doth not speak of Christian faith. In like sort: To be illuminated, To taste the heavenly gift, and to be made partaker of the holy Ghost Hebr. 6. vers. 4. according to them, is not to have true light, or the holy Ghost, but only to have some such thing. So Caluin 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 11. and. 12. and Heb. loc. cit ibique Beza and others. Moreover, faith to be consummated by works. jac. 2. v. 22. in their opinion, is not to be consummated or perfect by 
Perfected. 1. Not perfected  works, but to be tried to be such. Caluin ibid. It is said to be perfected by works, not that it taketh thence perfection, but be cause it is proved to be true thereby. Finally when Christ joan. 6. calleth faith a work, Zuinglius l. de relig. c. de orat. expoundeth 
Worke. 1. No work.  him: So he calleth it a work, as by the contrary sense he would say, ye shallbe made happy by faith, and by no work. And in this sort they deprave all those places of the holy Scripture, which teach that the evil or reprobates, do believe, are illuminated, do repent, and the like.  
Touching works: they deny that To work, in that 2. Cor. 
Touching works.  7. v. 10. Sorrow according to God worketh penance stabil to salvation, signifieth not, To Cause, but only to go before salvation: Caluin ib. For he inquireth not of the cause of salvation, but only commending penance as a fruit which it worketh, sayeth that it is like a way by which we come to salvation. Likewise: work your salvation. Phil. 2. with them doth not command us to work our salvation, but only to do those things which become them that are to be saved. For thus Zuinglius upon that place: For Paul in this place commandeth not to do good works that we may get salvation by them, but that we may do those things which become the children of God who are saved by faith. When the Scripture sayeth: Fear of God expelleth sin: Alms purgeth, sin, expelleth sin: By mercy sins are purged, Kemnice in locis part. 2. de arg. answereth: It speaketh not of propitiation or satisfaction for sin; but sayeth that sins are avoided & eschewed. So that, to expel, to purge, to extinguish sin, is not to purge sins already committed, but only to beware of committing them. To be doers of the word. jac. 1. v. 22. in their opinion is not to be doers of the word, but heartily to embrace it. Caluin. ib. A doer here doth not signify him who satisfieth the law, and fulfilleth it in all points, but who heartily embraceth the word of God, & by his life in earnest witnesseth that he beleiveth. Perfect charity. 1. joan. 2. v. 5. With them, is not perfect, but true: Beza ib. It is not inquired in this place, who loveth God perfectly, but who loveth him truly. To do the will of God. 1. joan. 2. v. 17. according to them is not to do, but to believe: Caluin. ib. If any object, that done what God commandeth, the answer is, at hand, that here is no speech of the absolute keeping of the law, but of the obedience of faith. In like sort: Do this. Luc. 10. v. 28. With them is not to do, but to believe. Luther in Gal. 3. to. 5. p. 345. The meaning of this place: Do this and thou shalt live, is this: Thou shalt live for this faithful doing, or this doing shall give the life for only faith. In this sort justification, is attributed to only faith, as creation is to the Godhead. Women in those words. Apoc. 14. v. 4. These are those who were not defiled 
Women. 1. not women but idols.  with women, according to their mind signifieth not women, but idols. Tilenus' in Syntagm. cap. 47. It is not meant of carnal copulation with women, but of spiritual whoredom with idols: Forsooth lest virginity might be thought to have a special reward in heaven. Just and justice. Ezech. 18. vers. 14. When the just shall turn himself from his justice, with these men signifieth not just nor justice. Pareus lib. 3. de justif. cap. 14. My adversary wrongfully wresteth this Scripture, from temporally just, to truly just. They do, Rom. 2. v. 14. those things which are of the law, is not meant of doing, but of commanding: Beza ib. edit. 1565. That is, they command honest things and forbid dishonest. For Paul speaketh not this of the observation of the law, but only of that manner which even profane people followed in making laws.  
Touching sins: Iniquity in those words Proverb. 16. 
Touching sin. Iniquity. 1. not iniquity.  vers. 6. Iniquity is redeemed by mercy and truth, with these men, is not iniquity or sin, but temporal punishment: Kemnice in locis. part. 2. tit. de Argum. Mercie is an expiation, not of sin, but of temporal punishment. Sinnes to be taken away. 1. joan. 1. vers. 29. is not to be taken away, but only not to be imputed: Caluin. ibid. Albeit sin do perpetually stick in us, yet in God's judgement it is none, because being abolished by Christ's grace, it is not imputed. In like sort. To be blotted out like a mist; Esaiae. 44. is not to be blotted out, but to be not imputed: Bidenbachius in Consensu etc. p. 724. Our sins are said to be blotted out as a mist, to be cast behind the back, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea, not as if they were no more, but because they are not imputed to the beleiver.  
Touching justification: Grossius in Apol. pro Disput. 
Touching justification.  writeth thus: Sanctification by the blood of the covenant (Heb. 10. v. 29.) is not the inward cleansing of the heart from sin. To receive the holy Ghost. Act. 19 v. 2. With them is not to receive grace, but some special gifts: Caluin. ibid. Here is not spoken of the spirit of regeneration, but of special gifts. In like sort by; The holy Ghost ib. Nether have we heard that there is a holy Ghost: is not meant the holy Ghost. For thus Caluin ib. How could it be that jews had not heard of the holy Ghost. Et Beza ibid. It were most absurd to think, that they knew not that there was any holy Ghost. To be sanctified. Hebr. 10. v. 29. is not to be truly sanctified: For thus Contraremonstrantes in Collat. Hagae p. 391. Nether yet can it be concluded thereof, that they were truly faithful and indeed sanctified. To fall from grace. Gal. 5. ver. 5. With them is not to fall from grace, but to fall from the hope of obtaining it. Contrare monstrantes. loc. cit. p. 388. These are said to fall from the grace of justification, not that ever they were partakers thereof, but because they are excluded from all hope of obtaining it, so long as they willbe justified by the law.  
Touching baptism: To be baptised. Act. 19 v. 3. In whom 
Touching Baptism.  then were you baptised, with them is not to have received baptism, but other gifts: Beza ib. We must needs grant, that here is not treated of baptism, but of gifts wherewith God was wont specially to adorn those whom he made rulers of Churches. Gual●erus ib. hom. 125. These words must not be expounded of the baptism of water, but of the baptism of fire. Likewise Baptism. 1. Pet. 3. with them signifieth not baptism but Christ: Zuinglius resp. ad Huber. tom. 2. It is certainly evident, that Peter in that place by Baptism understandeth no other thing but Christ. Water, also joan. 3. v. 5. Unless one be borne again of water, signifieth not water, but the holy Ghost: Caluin. ibid. I can no way be persuaded to believe that Christ speaketh of baptism. And in Refutat. Serueti. This pertaineth nothing to baptism, but the name of water is metaphorically attributed to the holy Ghost. Zuinglius upon this place: By water here he meaneth not that element, but the word of God, grace of God, heavenly water, that is the illustration of the no●●e Ghost. And in the same manner other Protestants commonly.  
Touching the Eucharist: Is, in the words of consecration 
Touching the Eucharist.  with them is not, Is, but Signifieth, nor Body given for us; Blood shed for us, is the true body and blood of Christ, but only figures of them, as appeareth by what hath been said. lib. 1. cap. 11. art. 1. To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, so often repeated. joan. 6. is not to eat or drink, but only to believe: P. Martyr cont. Gardiner. part. 1. col. col. 866. We still say, that to eat, to wit, the flesh of Christ, is nothing else then to apprehend it by faith, as given for us as price of our redemption. Which also he hath col. 863. And Luther Postil. in Dom. post Nativit. To eat and drink his flesh and 
To eat. 1. not to eat but to believe.  blood, is no other thing then to believe that Christ truly took these for our sake, and repaied them again at death. The like hath Zuinglius in joan. 6. and in Histor. passionis, and l. de Relig. c. de Euchar. Bullinger Dec. 5. serm. 9 Vrsinus in Catechism. q. 76. Flesh, in those words of Christ joan. 6. My 
Flesh. 1. not flesh but divinity.  flesh is truly meat, with them is not flesh, but the Godhead: Zuinglius in Exegesi to. 2. fol. 333. He sayeth; his flesh is truly meat, meaning surely not his flesh, but his better nature which had taken flesh. The Body of our Lord, in those words 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we break, is it not the participation of the body of our Lord, with these men is not the body of 
Christ. 1. Christians.  Christ, but Christians: Zuinglius lib. cit. Thou mights have seen at the first, how that Communion and Body are not taken 
Body of Christ. 1. men.  for distribution of Christ's body, but for men themselves.  
Finally Luther was so bold as to set down a Canon 
Luther's Canon of expounding Words by contraries.  of expounding the words of holy Scripture by contraries. For thus he writeth in Ps. 5. to. 3. fol. 171. Let this be a Canon for thee: Where the Scripture commandeth a good work to be done, do thou so understand it, that it forbiddeth thee do good works, seeing thou canst not, but that thou mayest sanctify the Lord, be dead and buried, and suffer God to work in thee. Which Canon Protestant's do well follow, as appeareth by what hath been related in this chapter, and before in the sixth and seventh chapter, where we shown that in the weightieste matters they expounded the words of holy Scripture ironically, and according to others men's mind.  
These and innumerable the like do Protestants, of which we might easily gather not only a chapter, but a book full. But out of these which we have rehearsed, it clearly appeareth: First how great heretical liberty (as Tertullian speaketh) is, which turneth the words of holy Scripture this way, and that way, in to this form and that, and tosseth them up and down like tennis balls. Secondly how easy it may be for every idiot with this liberty for to defend what heresy soever though never so contrary to Scripture. For who cannot expound the words of Scripture, by divers, by disparate, and contrary things. Thirdly, how impossible it is, if this liberty be admitted, to refute by Scripture any heresy at all, or to prove any thing by any words whatsoever either of God or man. Fourthly how that Protestants by this kind of dealing, do more dishonour God and the holy Scripture, then if they should quite reject it. For if they should reject the Scripture, they should only reject God's word and truth: But by this manner of dealing they do not only reject God's truth and meaning, but also in steed thereof foist in the contrary untruth: and so (as S. Hierome speaketh) 
In Galat. ●  of the word of God, they make the word of the Devil. Fiftly it appeareth that these expositions of Protestants are like to that which Luther merly devised for to show the Sacramentaries how they expounded the words of consecration, in Defence. verb. cenae. to. 7. fol. 384. where he 
A fit example of Protest. expositions.  writeth thus: Surely they do a great and weighty matter: But no otherwise, then if I should deny that God made heaven and earth, & when one should object that of Moses: In the beginning God created heaven and earth, I should expound Moses words in this sort: God, that is, a Cuccou: Made, that is, devoured: Heaven and earth, that is, a Hedge sparrow all and whole: It not this a trick of art? Yes surely not unknown nor unseemly to stage players. Thus Luther, who as being best practised in this art, could best of all others describe it. Finally it appeareth, that Protestants have not only forged a new faith, but also a new tongue, a new Grammar, a new frame of speech. For concerning Propositions, they bid us understand an Affirmation by a Negation, and a Negation by an Affirmation, and words they bid us expound by divers, by disparate, and contraries to these which they signify with other men. And this new Grammar of theirs Luther acknowledgeth in these words. Gal. 3. tom. 5. fol. 345. Those words, To do, To work, are to be taken 
Protestants new Grammar or language.  three manner of ways, Substantially or naturally, Morally, and Theologically. Insubstances, natures, and moral matters, these words are taken in their usual and natural signification, but in divinity they are made plainly new words, and get a new signification. Wherefore when thou readest in Scripture, of Fathers, of Prophets, of Kings, that they wrought justice etc. remember, that such and the like sayings are to be understood according to the new and Theological Grammar (of Protestants) wherefore I admonish ye again, that the sentences which the adversary's object out of Scripture, of works and reward, be always to be understood Theologically by the definition: As if they object that saying of Daniel 4. Redeem thy sins by alms, straight we must run to the Theological grammar, and not to the moral. The like he hath in cap. 4. Genes. fol. 60. Nor much otherwise writeth Kemnice. libr. de origin. jesuit. pag. 47. When he sayeth: It is most certain, that the Holy Ghost would that in this article of justification, not only the things themselves and the meaning, but also the very names should be by a peculiar signification distinct from the words of Philosophers. Schlusselburg. also Praefat. libr. Theolog. Caluin. distinguisheth between the Grammar of Nations, and of Divines, and sayeth that that taketh the word of justice actively, but this taketh it passively. The like hath Gesnerus loc. 2. de justif. pag. 47.  
But what we ought to think of these inventors of 
Luther's Censure of these new word mongers.  a new Grammar, themselves do sometimes tell us. For thus writeth Luther. lib. de seruo. arbitr. tom. 2. fol. 435. Who will not mock or rather hate this unseemly changer of words, who against all use endeavoureth to bring in such kind of speech, as to call a beggar, a rich man— By this abuse of speech any man may brag of any thing. But this is not the part of Divines, but of Cooseners and Stageplayers. And Caluin. libr. contr. Libertin. cap. 3. The libertines at 
Libertines.  the first boldly rejected the Scriptures, but when they saw that thereby they were abhorred of all men, they meant to deal more closely and more covertly, that making show not to cast away Scripture, they might turn it into allegories, and wrest it into divers and strange senses, changing a horse into a man, and as the common speech is, feigning the horn of a lantern to be a cloud. And capit. 7. Like as Egyptians and other vagabonds, such as those who going out of Bohemia wander up and down the whole world, use a certain peculiar speech, which none understand but those of their own crew and brotherhood, So etc.— I deny not but they use the common words, but so they altar their signification, as no man can understand what the matter is which is proposed, nor what they would affirm or deny.  
Beza also l. de puniend. Haer. vol. 1. Theol. Satan, when he could not quite cast the Scripture out of the Church, yet by vain allegories made it altogether unprofitable, which course now the libertines and Anabaptistes do take. Bullinger. Contion. 
Anabaptiste. Arians. Seruetians. Familistes.  25. in Apocal. thus writeth of the Arians and Seruetians: They turn and wind the words of God with their Gigantical boldness, as they list. Whitaker l. 1. de Script. c. vlt. sect. 4. The Familists do leave almost no article of our faith untouched, whilst with their allegories they turn and corrupt all things: And Reinolds in his Conference cap. 2. sect. 2. The Familists, for to save their frenzies, from the Scripture reject the literal sense, which is the very edge thereof, and put that up into the scabarde of their fanatical dreams and allegories. The like hath Perkins in Conflictu Christi. tom. 2. This they note in the Libertines, Familists, Anabaptists, and others, whereof themselves are no less guilty, than those be, as appeareth by what hath been already related. But as Luther himself sayeth. Genes. 6. tom. 6. fol. 84. Who would suffer this liberty in depraving the true sense in the fables of Terence, or Virgil's Ecloges, and shall we suffer it in the Church? And Defension. verb. Cenae tom. 7. fol. 397. Surely I cannot see, that they can be excused by any plausible pretext as if upon a good meaning they had been deceived by some curiofitie or spiritual blindness, as it happeneth to most Heretics. But it appeareth that they mock the word of God upon obstinacy and malice. For I do not think that it can be that these silly trifles and toys should in earnest move a man in his wits, whether he were a Turk or jew, much less a Christian. Thus the Protestants own Prophet and Father speaketh of Protestants.  
Wherefore thus I argue in the 20. place. Who not only gainsay the words of holy Scripture so directly and so often as is showed in the first book, but also in so many and so great matters expound the words thereof by divers, by disparates, and by contraries, so that they bring in a new grammar, a new language and signification of words never heard of before, they manifestly contradict, nay mock the true sense of holy Scripture: But Protestants do so. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER XXI. THAT PROTESTANTS ARE COMpelled to device impropriety of words and all kinds of figures.  
THE 21. Argument, wherewith we will prove, that Protestants do contradict the true sense of holy Scripture, is because when the propriety of the word is against them, they device improprieties and all kind of figures.  
Caluin. 4. Instit. c. 8. §. 2. Authority is not properly given to 
Not properly.  men. Beza in Confess. c. 5. sect. 27. Nether Pastors nor Doctors can properly bind or lose any man. Zanchius de Eccles. c. 9 Power of forgiving sins is not properly given to the Apostles or to others, for they do not properly forgive sins. Vorstius in Resp. ad Homium p. 31. I do not say that faith itself doth properly justify us. Perkins in Cathol. Reform. Cont. 5. c. 3. The kingdom of heaven is called a reward, not properly but by a figure. Et Cont. 10. c. 4. These words: This is my body, must not be understood properly, but by a figure: Pareus l. 5. de justif. c. 3. Nether is eternal life called a reward properly. Piscator in Thes. l. 2. p. 103. Faith, properly speaking, doth not purge sins. Et p. 112. We must not properly understand that Christ purged the Church by the laver of water in the word, but metonymically, 
Imperpely.   
In like sort, for improperly: Caluin in joan▪ 4. ver. 39 The word, Believe, improperly signifieth, that they were stirred up by the speech of the woman to acknowledge Christ a Prophet. In c. 6. v. 29. It is evident enough, that Christ spoke improperly, when he calleth faith a work. In cap. 12. ver. 42. He seemeth to speak improperly, whilst he separateth faith from confession. In Math. 6. v. 16. That he promiseth reward from God unto fasting; is an improper speech. In illud. Math. 12. v. 33. Make a good tree. It is an improper speech: In illud. c. 13. v. 19 He scrapeth away that which was sowed in the heart: That Christ sayeth: the word was sowed in their hearts, is an improper speech. In c. 26. v. 26. The word of Body is improperly transferred to bread, of which it is a sign. In illud Rom. 11. v. 22. If he remain in goodness: This should be improperly spoken peculiarly of any good man, that God had mercy on him when he chose him, if so he remain in mercy. 
† Goodness.  In illud Ephes. 2. vers. 20. Built upon the foundation of the Apostles: Properly Christ is the only foundation. Beza in Colloq. Montisb. pag. 120. sayeth: Baptism was washeth sins, is an improper speech. Aretius' in locis. part. 1. f. 84. There is an other improper forgiveness of sins: as is that of the Ministers. Bullinger. Dec. 3. Serm. 9 The Apostles improperly attribute justice to good works, but truly and properly to faith, and most properly to Christ himself. Piscator in Thes. l. 2. p. 119. It is improperly said: that faith is imputed to justice. These and many other things they say are spoken improperly or not properly when the propriety of the word maketh against them.  
Somethings they say are to be understood tropically 
Tropically or Figuratively.  or figuratively. P. Martyr cont. Gardiner. col 623. We say, That speech: This is my body, is not proper, but metopharicall and tropical. And in Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 239. The words: This is etc. cannot be taken simply and without a figure. They are a tropical manner of speaking. And Hospin. himself. ib. fol. 26. sayeth: Zuinglius expounded Christ his words; This is etc. by a metonymy, interpreting, Is, for, signifieth. Fol. 35. OEcolampadius showeth, that the figure is in the word body. And fol. 161. Those of Strasburg and Zurich agree, that the words are tropical. Caluin de Rat. Concordiae. The word body is figuratively given to bread. Beza in Colloq. Mont. pag. 302. Our men deny not this proposition: Man is God, but tell how it is to be expounded, we say, it is a tropical speech. Daneus. Cont. de Euchar. c. 10. Bread itself is tropically called the body of Christ.  
Vorstius in Antibel. p. 394. It appeareth, that those words of Christ must needs be meant by a figure. Tilenus' in Syntagm. c. 64. The Apostle indeed sayeth, Christians have an altar, but not a material and visible, but figuratively.  
Some things they will have be expounded Symbolically: 
Symbolically.  Caluin in Admonition. ultim. ad Westphal. Bread is symbolically called Body. Et cont. Heshus. p. 844. Touching bread, the speech is metonymical, that it may truly be symbolically called the true body of Christ. Zuinglius in Subsid. to. 2. f. 245. The disciples understood Christ's speech rightly, but symbolically.  
Other things they understand aequivocally. Pareus l. 
Aequivecally.  4. de justif. cap. 4. I confess, that in Scripture, the Gospel is equivocally called the law of faith, the law of Christ, the law of liberty: In which sense we grant that Christ is called a lawgiver, a law maker, that is a Teacher. Other things they expound Analogically. Perkins in Cathol. Refor. Contr. 11. c. 2. Bread is the body of Christ sacramentally, by analogy, and no otherwise.  
Some things they will have to be taken Synecdochically. 
Synechdochically.  Luther in Hospin. l. cit. fol. 76. There is a synecdoche (in the words of consecration) as a sword with a scabbard. Westphalus in Schlusselb. to. 7. Catal. p. 176. Luther acknowledgeth a synechdochical speech in the words of Christ, This is etc. and the same sayeth Adamus Francisci in Margarita loco. 16. Bucer l. de Ministerio. pag. 609. It is evident, that those: Take, Eat, are synechdochical, and are referred to two things. Peter Martyr contra Gardiner. col. 933. I always pretended, that I did acknowledge a metonymy or synecdoche in those words of the Supper. And he addeth: It cannot be denied, but there is a manifest alleosis. And col. 965. I confess, that Bucer liked better a synecdoche. Vorstius in Antibellarm. p. 42. Nothing hindereth, by Soul synechdochically to understand the body itself, and that also dead. Wigand in Schlusseb. to. 7. Catal. p. 754. Work your salvation with fear and trembling, is a synecdoche, that is: Do true penance. Lobechius disput. 22. The Scripture, sayeth that faith justifieth us, and faith is imputed to justice by metalepsis and synecdoche taking faith for the object of faith, that is, for Christ or the justice of Christ. Scarpius also de justif. Cont. 1. sayeth, that this speech. Faith justifieth, is synecdochical.  
Sometimes, that words which make against them are 
Catachrestically.  taken Catechrestically or abusively. Zuinglius l. de Relig. cap. de oration. Christ abusively calleth faith a work. Again: Testament is taken here abusively, for the sign or symbol of the testament. In Elencho fol. 31. Paul speaketh of two testaments, but the one he calleth catachrestically a testament. In Respons. ad Billican: O Ecolampadius saith that here (in words of the Supper) is a catachresis or metonymy. In Math. cap. 9 That the Scripture calleth faith, that which is dead, is done by abuse of the word, as we say: the faith of jews, the faith of Turks. And in Hospin. lib. 2. Histor. fol. 35. When I say, that by Catachresis: This bread signifieth my body, and OEcolampadius sayeth metonymically: This bread is a figure of my body, what difference, I pray you, is there in the sum of the sense. Illyricus in Matthew. 5. vers. 12. Christ abusively calleth future goods, a reward. Caluin. 3. Institut. cap. 2. §. 9 The testimony of faith is attributed to such, but by catachresis. Zanchius in Supplication. tom. 7. pagin. 59 That speech: To obey their concupiscences, when it is attributed to the elect, is to be understood catachrestically. Pareus l. 1. de justif. c. 15. A dead faith, is not a true faith, though abusively it be called faith. Author Resp. ad thes. Valent. Our men do say truly and orderly, that the Gospel cannot be called a law, but catachrestically.  
Otherwhile they will have the words of Scripture, which are contrary to them, to be taken metaleptically: Zuinglius in Math. 24. tom. 4. Salvation is to be attributed 
Metaleptically.  to nothing how holy soever, but to the pure and mere grace of God. And if in Scripture any thing be attributed to those things, that is done by metalepticall and synecdochical speeches. Vrsinus in Catechis. q. 63. Faith is our justice: is understood correlatively and metaleptically, and otherwise falsely. Again: Faith is correlatively imputed to justice, by metalepsis. Scarpius Contr. 7. de justific. It is taken correlatively and by metalepsis. Tilenus' in Syntagm. c. 56. We attribute the cause of salvation not to faith itself properly, but only metaleptically. To those I add, that Zuinglius in Hebr. 6. tom. 4. sayeth: We think that these things are rightly said by hyperoches, as Christ speaketh that Math. 18. of power to bind and lose. And when the Angel prayeth for the people Zachariae. 1. Bullinger l. de orig. Erroris. c. 8. sayeth, It is in hypotyposis suffiguration of a thing present.  
Oftentimes they will have the words of Scripture opposite 
Metonymically.  to them, to be taken metonymically. Zuinglius lib. de Pec. orig. to. 2. f. 156. This is that which I would: That original sin, is not truly, but metonymically termed sin. That Paul sayeth: All have sinned, the word of sinning is put metonymically: Caluin in Math. 26. v. 26. None that is conversant in Scripture will deny, but that a sacramental speech is to be taken metonymically. Beza in Resp. altera ad Selnener. p. 270. The names of Body and Blood are not attributed to bread and wine but metonymically. Daneus Cont. 4. c. 4. This speech: Faith justifieth us, is metonymical: for the continent is taken for the contained. Et Cont. de Euchar. c. 1. The sacramental bread is here metonymically termed the body of Christ. Whitaker Contr. 4. q. 1. c. 2. The Church is said to be founded in the Apostles, metonymically, not properly. Bucanus in Institut. loco. 48. This proposition is figurative, and that not simply metaphorical or allegorical, but metonymical. Piscator in Thes. l. 2. p. 512. God to have saved us by the laver of regeneration Tit. 3. either is not meant of baptism, or if it be, it is spoken metonymically. Again: Regeneration is made by baptism metonymically.  
Sometimes they will have them to be spoken metaphorically. 
Metaphorically.  Zuinglius in Subsid. tom. 2. fol. 247. We say that the figure of this speech (of the Supper) is to be expounded by a metaphor. Thou sayest, there is a metonymy, where no metonymy is properly. Caluin. in Math. 3. v. 12. The speech of everlasting fire, is metaphorical. In Refutat. Catalani. There is no speech here (joan. 3.) of baptism, but the name of water is metaphorically attributed to the Spirit. Musculus in locis tit. de Caena. The body of the Lord is eaten improperly and metaphorically.  
But it is wondrous how many, and what kinds of figures 
How many figures they find in four words. The Lutherans.  they device in those four plain words of consecration: This is my body. For the Lutherans, albeit the will have them to be understood according to the letter, yet in Hosp. part. 2. Hist. f. 352. say: In this proposition: This is etc. the affirmation is beside nature and not according to nature. Selneccer. ib. will have it to be an unusual speech. Heshusius in Beza in dial. count. eum. I say (quoth he) that it is an unusual kind of speech, contrary to all the rules of Logicians and Rhetoricians. Hemingius in Enchir. clas. 3. sayeth. It is not a philosophical kind of speech, but divine. Lobechius disput. 12. The words are taken properly, but the manner of speaking is singular and unusual. Hutter in Anal. Conf. Aug calleth it an unusual speech, that is, mystical and singular, and that the letter is kept in regard of every word, but that the manner of speaking is unusual in regard of the whole proposition Adam Fran. in Margarita Theol. loc. 16. It is a speech not regular nor figurative, but unusual, contrary to the order of nature. And the like hath Reineccius to. 4. Arm. c. 16. Finally Graverus in Absurdis Caluin. c 1. sec. 7. & vlt. sayeth that it is a dominative speech. But in Antithes. p. 410. sayeth, that Lutherans put a gramaticall synecdoche, not rhetorical. Amongst the Sacramentaries (as appeareath by 
The Sacramentaries.  what hath been already rehearsed) some will have to be here a Catachresis, some a synecdoche, some alleosis, others a metaphor, and others a metonymy: Likewise some will have the figure to be in the word This, others in the word Is, and others in the word body. And as Kikerman writeth. libr. 3. System. Theol. p. 445. There are many that say, There is no figure neither in the Predicate, nor in the verb, but in the connexion of the Predicate with the Subject, that is, in the form of this proposition. Polanus in Sylloge thes. part. 1. de Caena. There is a threfould figure in these words. This is etc. Synecdoche of the gender, a metaphor, and a metonymy of the Subject. Ramus in Schlusselb. l. 1. Theol. Caluin. artic. 22. will have three figures in these words. Aretius' ib. sayeth, that this speech of Christ, is either metaphorical, or catachrestical, or metonymical. Pencier ib. In these words of Christ, either there is a metaphor, or a metonymy, or a synecdoche, or alleosis. Et Zuinglius in Hospin. part. 2. f. 143. These words: This is etc. are not to be understood naturally, and in the proper sense of the words, but symbolically, denominatively, and metonymically. Thus (as Tertullian said 
Cap. 27.  of the Valentinians) They turn all into figures and images, being themselves imaginary men. And as Illyricus in Clavae part. 2. tract. 4. writeth: Nothing is more easy, then to say: It is a trope, a figure, a phrase of speech, an Hebraisme, as Austin gravely noteth.  
Wherefore I argue thus in the 21. place. Who beside their foresaied opposition to the express words of Scripture, do also in so many and so weighty matters delude the proper sense of the words of Scripture by so many kinds of figures, they contradict the true sense of the holy Scripture. But so do Protestants. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER XXII. THAT PROTESTANTS ARE FORCED to coin many distinctions frivolous, voluntary, opposite to themselves, and unheard of before.  
THE 22. argument which we will make for to show, that Protestanrs contradict the true meaning of the holy Scripture, is because they are compelled to device many distinctions frivolous, voluntary, contrary to themselves, and never heard of before.  
Their frivolous distinctions are of this sort. David sinned indeed, but never committed sin: It is an other thing to sin, and an other, to commit sin. As we related lib. 1. c. 16. art. 12.  
Zanchius de Persever. tom. 7. maketh this distinction: 
Frivolous distinctions.  Saints slide into sin, but do not foreslide. Lambert. ib. The elect oftentimes do err, but yet are never lead into error. Rainolds thes. 2. He insinuatcth the (the gates of Hell) shall veil against the Church, but not prevail. Caluin de Ration. Concordiae. The word body is by a figure transferred to bread, but not figuratively. Beza respon ad Act. part. 2. pag. 104. To every one of the baptised grace is offered, but not given. p. 123. The elect dying children, are renovated, but not regenerated. p. 177. I did not say, that the first man did sin by God's will, but that he fell by Gods will. Perkins de Serm. Dom. to. 2. col. 575. Christ did not properly die the second death, but yet he suffered it. Scarpius de justific. count. 14. It is one thing to keep the commandments, an other to fulfil them. Pareus l. 4. de Amiss Grat. c. 10. It is true, that Infants do not actually sin, but it ●● false, that they do inclinativelie sin. l. 1. de justif. c. 13. The Scripture requireth the Sacraments and penance to conversion and regeneration, but not to justification. Et l. 2. c. 3. It is manifest, that we shallbe justified, and we shallbe made Just, is not all one with the Apostle. Et c. 9 To be constituited just, is not the same that is to be made just in this life. In Colleg. Theol. 7. disp. 7. It is a fare other thing (for God) to will that all be saved, and to will to save all. l. 2. de Amiss. Grat. c. 4. Sin and the fall of Adam were never the same thing.  
Voluntary distinctions I call those, by which for their 
Voluntary distinctions.  pleasure they draw the same words into divers senses. As when the Scripture biddeth us love God with all our heart, than they will have that with all the heart, signifieth all kind of degree of love, so that this precept be impossible for us: but when it sayeth, that any hath loved God with all the heart, than they will have, with all the heart, to signify only sincerely and without hypocrisy. So Caluin in Actor. 8. v. 9 Pareus l. 1. de justif. c. 10. l. 2. c. 7. and others. In like sort, when the Scripture. 1. Cor. 11. affirmeth the Eucharist to be the body of Christ, than the word body is taken for a figure; But when in the same place, it sayeth, that unworthy receivers are guilty of the body of Christ, them it is taken for the true body of Christ. And so of innumerable other words, which they expound diversely as it pleaseth them.  
Their distinctions which destroy themselves are of 
Distinctions destroying themselves.  this sort. Pareus. l. 4. de justific. c. 4. distinguisheth stipend, into a free stipend, and a due: and sayeth, that eternal life is a free stipend, but not due. As if it could be imagined, how a stipend could not be due. Like to this is their distinction of reward, into due and undue. For if it be no ways due, it is no reward, but a mere gift. Whereupon Eucan. Instit. loc. 32. sayeth: Reward properly is nothing else, but which is given of debt. Et Scarpius de justif. Controu. 15. In moral matters, where there is reward, there is merit. Musculus in locis titul. de Meritis. Surely there can be no reward, but in respect of merit. Yea and Pareus himself in Prooem. l. 5. de justific. Reward properly called, is due. The same man. l. 4. cit. c. 10. addeth: that just men can fulfil the law by an inchoate fulfilling, but not by a perfect. Which he repeateth. c. 13. as if there could be a fulfilling which is only inchoate or begun. And nevertheless by this distinction do they delude all those testimonies of Scripture, which teach, that some do fulfil the law, love God, do good works, and the like. Which they interpret of an imperfect fulfilling, loving, and doing. Beza in Dial. count. Heshuss. vol. 1. sayeth: The fathers before Christ were one thing with the flesh of Christ, then to come, but not actually. And in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 27. We confess, that Christ God and man, was not actually a man, before his real incarnation, yet we say, that he was truly present to these Fathers. And p. 63. I will not say, that Christ's body was not at the time Abraham. For it was, but not actually. Gerlachius to. 2. disp. 17. Noë indeed was perfectly just: but not absolutely just.  
But as for distinctions never heard of before, they have devised innumerable. For as it appeareth by what 
Distinctions unheard of. Of God.  hath been related lib. 1. cap. 2. they distinguish of God, that he will sinne for some other end, but not for itself: That he willeth, that is, decreeth it, but not willeth, that is, not approveth it: That the hidden God willeth death, but not the revealed: That he will have all to be saved, by his revealed will, but not by his hidden will: or as speaketh Beza part. 2. respon ad Colloq. Montisbel. He will have all saved by his open will, but not by his pleasure. And again: He will not the death of a sinner, by his open will, but by his secret will. That he inviteth all to him by words, but not by his mind: That he punisheth the faithful lest they sin, not because they have sinned: that he justifieth a wicked man remaining wicked, by the Gospel, not by law: And many other such distinctions as may be gathered out of the said chapter etc. To which I add these. Beza count. Heshus. vol. 1. Alie pleaseth God, not as it is a lie, but as it is a just punishment. Musculus in locis titul. de iustific. God justifieth a wicked man abiding such, in his throne of grace, not in his throne of justice. Tilenus' in Syntagm. cap. 46. God judgeth just men's works to be good according to the Gospel, not according to law. Perkins in Apoc 2. tom. 2. God's revealed will hath with it adjoined a condition, but not his secret will.  
Touching Christ; they distinguish, that he is Turrian sinner 
Of Christ.  by imputation, but not by inherence: That he died for all, but not for every one: That sometime he speaketh as others thought, not as himself: That he is a lawmaker, head of the Church, to be adored, to be invocated, can forgive sins, and work miracles, not as man, but as God only. See more l. 1. c. 3.  
Of Saints: they distinguish in this new manner. They 
Of Saints.  wish for us heaven, but pray not: we may wish that they prayed for us, but may not pray: They pray for us in general, but not in particular: They may be worshipped of us after a civil or profane manner, but not after a religious. And as Perkins sayeth in Cathol. reform. Contr. 14. cap. 2. When Angels appeared, they were lawfully honoured, but not now.  
Touching Scripture; they have coined these new distinctions: 
Of Scripture.  In Paulsome things are hard, not of themselves, but by accident. So Reineccius to. 1. Arm. c. 10. In Scripture there are some things hard to be understood and obscure to us, though all the Scripture be in itself clear. So Pareus in Gal. 2. lect. 25. The Gospel, teacheth good works, not of itself, but borroweth the doctrine of works from the law. So the some Pareus Colleg. Theol. 9 disput. 39 The Thessalonians took not upon them to judge, or to debate whether God's truth were to be admitted, but only examined Paul's doctrine according to the touchstone of Scripture: So Caluin. act. 17. vers. 13. As if Paul's doctrine and God's truth were not all one. The Gospel in a most large sense is taken for the whole doctrine of Christ and the Apostles: Largely, for the doctrine both of grace and faith, and of repentance and new obedience; but straitely and properly for the doctrine of grace by faith: So Pareus l. 4. de justif. c. 3. Finally the Scripture speaketh as the law, not as the Gospel; by which distinction they delude many places of Scripture, as is to be seen in Luther de seru. arbit. to. 2. f. 449. Caluin in Math. 19 vers. 17. Pareus. l. 4. de justif. cap. 2. Schlusselb. to. 8. Catal. p. 441. & to. 2. p. 270.  
Of S. Peter and the Apostles, they have invented these 
Of the Apostles.  new distinctions. S. Peter is first of the Apostles in order, not in jurisdiction: The Apostles are foundations of the Church, as those that found the Church, not as those on which it is founded: or as junius spaketh Cont. 3. l. 1. c. 10. The Church is founded upon Peter as upon a pillar, not as on a foundation.  
Of Pastors they distinguish: That authority is in the 
Of Pastors.  word which they preach, not in themselves: That they govern the visible Church, but not the Catholic: That in case of necessity, they are made without mission, but not otherwise. See l. 1. c. 7.  
Of the Church: they have brought in these new distinctions 
Of the Church  That for profession of faith, there is one Church visible, an other invisible: That she is infallible in fundamental points, but not in others: That she is to be heard when she preacheth Scripture, but not otherwise: That she is the pillar to which truth is fastened, not on which it relieth: So sayeth Rivet. Tractat. 1. sec. 39 Or as Andrews writeth in Resp. ad Apol. Bellar. c. 14. She is so the pillar of truth, as that she relieth upon truth, not truth upon her. That the Church is necessary to believe the Scriptures, not to know them. So whitaker lib. 3. de Script. 396. That the Church is the stay and pillar of truth, not the foundation of truth. Heilbruner in Colloq. Ratisb. sess. 7.  
Of the Sacraments: they distinguish in this sort: They justify as signs or seals, not as causes: They are received 
Of Sacraments  whole and entire of the good, but not of the bad: that baptism is the laver of regeneration, passively, not actively: So Daneus. Contr. 2. c. 12. That baptism is but one taken wholly, but is two, taken by parts: So Beza. part. Resp. ad Acta p. 44. That the Church is cleansed significatively by the baptism of water, but really by the baptism of the spirit. So Beza. ib. p. 115. or as Polanus sayeth in Disp priu. p. 37. Sins are said to be blotted out by baptism, not properly, but in a figurative sense. The same Beza in Hutter in Analysi. p. 54. sayeth. I never simply said, that baptism was the obsignation of regeneration in children, but of adoption. Perkins in Galat. 3. By baptism, actual guilt is taken away, but not potential. Pareus in Gal. 2. lect. 23. Absolutely we are all born sinners, but in regard of the covenant, we are borne Christians or Gods confederates.  
Of the Eucharist: they have these distinctions: That it 
Of the Eucharist.  is the symbolical body of Christ, but not his true body: That Christ his flesh killed doth profit us, but not eaten: That it is exhibited in the Supper according to the virtue thereof, not according to the substance: That when S. Paul sayeth. 1. Cor. 11. He eateth judgement to himself, he meaneth not of damnation but of correction: So wolfius in Schusselb. l. 1. Theol. art. 25. In like sort they say, that Priests forgive sin indirectly not directly; directly as it is an offence of the Church, indirectly as it an offence of God. So Spalata. l. 5. de Repub. c. 12.  
Of faith: they make these distinctions: That one is Catholic 
Of Faith.  or universal, or historical, an other, special. Again, that one is abstract, naked, simple, an other, concrete, compounded, incarnate. So Luther in Gal. 3. to. 5. That there is one habitual and actual, of men: an other potential and inclinative, of infants: So Pareus l. 3. de justif. c. 14. or as Polanus sayeth. part. 2. thes. p. 651. Infants have not altogether the same faith that men have, yet they have some thing proportionable. Piscator in Thesibus. l. 2. pag. 252. Adam before his fall had not justifying faith: or as Pareus writeth l. 1. de Amiss. Grat. c. 7. Adam lost faith of the commandment, but not faith of the promise. Bullinger dec. 5. serm. 7. Infants are faithful by the imputation of God. Again: They are baptised in their own faith? to wit, which God imputeth to them. Zanchius in Supplicat. to. 7. Many reprobates are endued with a certain faith much like to the faith of the elect, but not with the same. Perkins in Cathol. 4. c. 5. There is one general and Catholic faith, wherewith a man beleiveth the articles of faith to be true; and an other justifying or particular faith. Thus they distinguish of faith. And in like sort they distinguish of the justification of faith, to wit, that it justifieth relatively or correlatively, not absolutely, and as an instrument, not as it is a work. Bucanus in Institit. loc. 3. Faith is said to be imputed to justice, not properly, but relatively, Polan. part. 2. thes. pag. 197. We are justified by faith not properly, but relatively. Reineccius tom. 4. Armat. cap. 21. Faith justifieth as well absolutely as considered relatively. Pareus in Galat. 3. lection. 32. Faith is imputed to justice relatively. Again: Faith justifieth organically. And in Colleg. Theol. 2. disp. 10. We are said to be justified by faith, but not formerly nor meritoriously, but organically. Touching the loss of faith, they thus distinguish: Zanchius in Supplication. citat. The elect lose faith in part, but not wholly. Beza in Prefat. 2. part respon ad Acta: Faith sometimes sleepeth, sometimes seemeth to be quite lost, but yet is not lost. Again: There is a lethargy of faith, but no loss: The feeling or use of faith is lost for a time, but not faith itself.— Some reprobates do believe with a general and historical faith common to the Devils themselves. Tilenus' in Syntagm. capit. 43. The faithful become sometimes outliers; but not runaways or forsakers. In like sort they say, that faith without works at the time of justification is not dead, but at other times, if it be without works it is dead. Likewise Reineccius tom. 4. Armat. cap. 15. sayeth. Faith is called a work not absolutely, as it is considered in itself, but relatively, as it apprehendeth Christ. Hunnius de justificat. pagin. 157. Faith worketh by charity towards our neighbour, not toward God. Finally Perkins in Casibus c. 7. That which every one is bound to believe, is indeed true according to the intention of God who bindeth him: but it is not true always according to the event.  
Of good works in general: they coin these distinctions: 
Of good works in general.  The good works of the just are good in part, not wholly: They are all equal before God, but not in themselves. They are acceptable to God in his throne of mercy, but not of justice. They are necessary to justification by necessity of presence, but not of cause: They are necessary to salvation, not to justification. See l. 1. c. 14. art. 15.  
To which we add, that Pareus lib. 4. de justificat. capite. 17. sayeth. That good works are worthy of reward in the court of mercy, but worthy of punishment in the court of justice of God. Et l. 1. c. 16. 23. & 24. Works are required to regeneration, not to justification: or as Reineccius speaketh 10. 1. Arm. c. 20. They are necessary to sanctification not to justification Who also to. 4 c. 22. distinguisheth a work in Giving and Receiving, and sayeth, that faith is a giving work, not a receiving Schlusselb. to. 7. Catal. p. 446. writeth, that obedience is necessary to salvation, but an others obedience, not ours. And addeth: The duty of obedience is indeed necessary to salvation, forsooth if it be not freely remitted. Scarpius de justif. Contr. 15. Just men are worthy of the kingdom of God, by the worth of aptness, not of perfection or merit. Rivet. tract. 3 sect. 36. There may be a relation of Merit and Reward between men, but not between God and men. Perkins in Cathol. Ref. Cont. 4. cap. 6. Good works are necessary to salvation, not as cause, but only as a thing necessary following faith.  
Touching good works in particular, they thus distinguish: 
of good works in particular.  That to live single, is a good profitable, but not honest or virtuous: That virginity is better than marriage in something, but not simply: That fasting is a part of God's worship in the law, but not in the Gospel: That alms delivereth from sin and death, not by itself, but by the cause thereof: That it is lawful to pray for the elect, not for others: for the living, not for the dead, for things promised in the Scripture not for other things, as appeareth by what hath been rehearsed c. 15. To which we add that Perkins in Cathol. reform. Cont. 3. c. 3. writeth, that we pray not so much for the forgiveness of sins past, as present. Confessio Wittember. sayeth: We may wish to the dead all rest and happiness in Christ, but we may not pray for them. Luther in Postil. Dom. 2. post Trin. granteth, that we may once or twice pray for the dead, but not often: And at home and in our chamber, but not in the Church. And the like hath Vrbanus Regius in formulis caute loquendi to. 1. Who also in locis. fol. 322. sayeth, that we may pray conditionally for the soul of our brother, but not absolutely. Field l. 3. de Eccles. c. 17. teacheth, that we may pray for one that is dead streigth after his death, but not afterward, Zuingle in art. 60. sayeth: I condemn not, if one being careful for the dead, do implore or pray God's mercy for them, but to define any time for this, is diabolical. Spalata l. 5. Repub. c. 8. n. 132. writeth, that God at the intercession of the Church forgiveth little sins soon after death, but not long after. Thus they distinguish about prayer fore the dead. Perkins in Apoc. 2. tom. 2. The precept of repentance is directly given to the elect, indirectly to the reprobate. Et Tilenus in Syntagm. c. 47. There is no counsel inferred out of. 1. Corint. 7. but only a desire and wish of one desiring the gift of continency.  
Touching sin: these new distinctions they make: 
Of sin.  That it is imputed to reprobates and infidels, not to the faithful and elect: That it is venial to the elect, not to others: that it may stand with justice with some wrestling, no otherwise: that biting usury is condemned not other, as we have related l. 1. c. 16. Besides Perkins in Cathol. ref. Cont. 2. cap. 1. sayeth, that in justification, sin is taken away not in itself, but as it is in the person: or as Rivet speaketh Cont. tract. 3. sect. 26. Sin remaineth in part, not wholly. Caluin in joan. 1. v. 29. Sin is in us but not in the judgement of God. Beza in 2. part. resp. ad Coll. Montisb. p. 73. David sinned, but not whole, but as he was not regenerate. p. 79. He did not retain the holy Ghost, but some thing of the holy Ghost. pag. 71. Sin casteth not of the holy Ghost, but hindereth his efficacy. Et p. 87. It maketh the holy Ghost a sleep for a time, but doth not cast him of. Pareus l. 1. de Amiss. Grat. c. 7. Adam fell not as he was predestinate, but as he was to be predestinated: He lost the grace of creation, but not the grace of justification. And Piscator in Thes. loc. 20. The elect do slide, but are not cast down.  
Touching justification, these new distinctions they 
Of justification.  frame. It is declared by works, but not caused: It forgiveth sins, but taketh them not away: It maketh that sin is not imputed, but not that it is no more. It maketh a man just not in himself, but in Christ. And others such like as may be seen lib. 1. c. 17. Moreover Luther in Zanchius de Persever. to. 7. col. 128. sayeth: When Peter sinned, his love towards God and Christ was not drowned, but only floated. Reineccius to. 4. Arm. c. 15. Sanctification increaseth and decreaseth, but not justification. Kemnice in locis. part. 2. tit. de Argum. writeth, that when in Scripture God is required to judge us, or reward us according to our justice, that speech is not of the justice of person, but of our cause or controversy with other men. And again: That same: ye are clean joan. 13. And ye are washed and sanctified. 1. Cor. 7. is to be understood imputatively: Whitaker ad Rat. 8. Camp. Faith, hope and charity do make us just, inchoately not absolutely. Perkins de Praedest to 1. distingui●heth grace into that which represseth; which he sayeth is common to reprobates & into that which reneweth, which he maketh proper to the elect. Et in Cath ref. Count 4. c. 4. sayeth: Adam had imputed justice according to the substance thereof, but not according to imputation. Illyricusin Clavae part. 2. tract. 6. Sin is abolished by right & promise for the time to come, but not in act and deed. Gesner in Comp. loco. 22. In Scripture those are called i●st, who a●ound with justice, according to the doctrine of the law, not of the Gospel Scarpe de Iust. Cont. 1. justification effectively is immediately of Christ alone, but sanctification is of the holy Ghost. justification quitteth us in the judgement of God, not sanctification. Et Cont. 7. There is a twoefould ablution of sin; the first is of the guilt, and this is justification: the second is of the inherence thereof, and this is sanctification. Bullinger. dec. 3. serm. 9 There is a double justice, iustificant and obedient. Polanus part. 2. thes. The grace which Adam received in creation, was not grace which maketh grateful. Et in Disp. private. Sins are blotted out by penance not causatively, but ostensively. Rivet. tract. 3. sec. 26. We are perfectively imputatively just, but inherently just, only imperfectly.  
Touching the law: they distinguish in this new sort: It is 
Of God's law.  abrogated from the faithful according to rigour and imputation, no according to obligation: There is a twoefould fulfilling of the law: legal and Evangelicall. Man's law bindeth in general, not in particular. Whitaker libr 8. cont. Dur. sect. 96. sayeth. The Decalogue is taken away in part, but not simply. Caluin in Actor. 15. vers. 10. The commandments are an unsupportable yoke for to be exacted, not for doctrine. Pareus l. 2. de justif. cap. 7. They are heavy concerning perfection, not for inchoation. Reineccius to. 4. Arm. cap. 13. They are light in respect of imputation and inchoation, but not of perfect fulfilling. Bucan in Instit. loco. 19 To the regenerate, the law is possible by imputation of the satisfaction of Christ, and by inchoation of newness. Scarpius de justif. Cont. 12. The law is possible for outward precepts, not inward; in part not in whole, or by inchoation, or in Christ, not in ourselves. Musculus in locis titul. de Legibus: Christians fulfil the law perfectly in Christ, imperfectly in themselves. Polanus in disput. private. 40. The regenerate keep the precepts of God by by imputation, but themselves keep them not. Reineccius tom. 4. Armat. cap. 13. According to the law none is worthy before God, but according to the Gospel, the godly are worthy before God.  
These and many such other distinctions never heard 
What only distinctions Protestants say they allow.  of before among Christians, have Protestants devised, against which at this present I object only this, that themselves teach, that no distinctions are to be admitted in Divinity, which are not gathered out of express and plain places of Scripture. For thus Whitaker. Contr. 4. quaest. 1. cap. 3. That rule is much to be esteemed: That in divinity no distinctions are to be allowed, but such as are proved by plain passages of Scripture: And lib. 2. de Concupisc. cap. 7. We may say and defend what we will, if such distinctions be accepted. Sadeel ad Repetit. Sophism. Turriani: It is a theological rule: All distinctions in divinity must be proved by express places of Scripture. The like hath Perkins l. de Caena. to. 1. col. 861. and others.  
Their most usual distinctions wherewith most commonly 
Most usual distinctions with Protest.  they delude the testimonies of Scripture, are these, though perhaps all of them use not the very self same terms. To wit: Before men, not before God: or which cometh all to one: It seemeth so, but is not: By this distinction they delude all those testimonies of Scripture, which teach that reprobate or evil men may believe, do good works, be in the Church, that reprobates may be justified, that good works do justify, redeem sins or the like: Which they expound, before men, not before God, or in show, not in deed. An other usual distinction of theirs is: In itself, or in an other thing. By this they delude those testimonies of Scripture, which say that good men are just, worthy of God, fulfil the law, that baptism forgiveth sins, Alms delivereth from death, and such like, which they expound, in an other, not in themselves: as that good men are just, worthy of God, fulfil the law, in Christ not in themselves: that alms delivereth from death, not in itself, but in faith, as sayeth Confessio Augustana. c. de Implet. legis, and that baptism remitteth sins not in itself but in faith. So Caluin in Act. 2. v. 38. A third usual distinction of theirs is, Significantly not Causally: By this they delude those testimonies of Scripture, which teach that Sacraments work grace, Priests remit sins, good works do justify, do cause life everlasting, and the like. Which they expound Significantly or ostensively, not Causally. Their fourth accustomed distinction, is In part, not simply or wholly, Thus they delude those testimonies which avouch that there is inherent justice, that sinners are taken away, that good men's good works are good, and such like, which they expound, In part, not simply or wholly. Their fift usual distinction is: A saying of the law, not of the Gospel. Thus they delude all the sentences of Scripture, which declare that justice and life everlasting is to be purchased by good works, that the keeping of the law is necessary to life, and such like. For these kind of sayings, they will have to be only of the law not of the Gospel. But their most usual distinction of all is. Figuratively not Properly: which kind of deluding the Scripture is most ample and containeth almost all the former kinds. For what seemeth to be, & is not, is figuratively not properly. Likewise what is in part, and not simply, what is not in itself but in another, is figuratively and not properly. Yet because this their distinction would wax stolen, if it were used under the same terms in all places, and the vanity thereof would easily appear if nakedly it were applied to some places, therefore at least in words and with some little differences they have divided it into diverse. Peculiarly by this distinction they delude all those testimonies of Scripture, which teach that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, that eternal life is a reward, that the Apostles are the foundations of the Church, that the Gospel is a law, Christ a law giver, descended into hell, that there is in the Church an altar, a sacrifice, and the like. These forsooth are their fine plasters which they apply to cure all the wounds which are given them by the sword of the word of God, which if they will let other Heretics use in such sort as they do, nothing at all will be proved out of Scripture.  
Wherefore thus I frame my 22. argument. They who besides their opposition to the express words of holy Scripture related in the first book, are forced in many and great matters to device frivolous and verbal distinctions, and such as destroy themselves, and were never heard of before among Christians, they contradict the true sense of holy Scripture. Protestants do so. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER XXIII. THAT PROTESTANTS CONFESS THE uniform consent of Fathers, Counsels, and of the Church to be against them, and neglect and condemn it.  
THE 23. argument wherewith we will prove the opposition of Protestants with the Scripture, shallbe, because sometimes they be forced to acknowledge that they contradict the uniform consent of the Fathers, Counsels, and Church, yea neglect and contemn it.  
That sometimes they confess the uniform consent 
Protest. confess that ●hey are against Fathers. How many soever.  of the Fathers, Counsels, and Church is against them, is manifest. For thus writeth Luther in 2. Petri to. 5. fol. 490. Here stumbled how many soever either Fathers are Doctors have heretofore expounded the Scripture, as when that Math. 16. Thou art Peter etc. they interpreted of the Pope. Tom. 2. l. de lib. arbit. fol 480. What availeth it, if one shall rely upon the ancient Fathers approved by the course of so many ages? Were 
All of them.  they not all of them together blind? Et to. 6. in Gen. c. 42. Here surely all the Fathers, Austin, Ambrose, etc. were deceived, nor understood any thing, Kemnice in loc. part. 1. p. 166. All antiquity with one mouth reject those propositions: That all things that are done, are done necessarily: That men sin of necessity. And yet Protestants teach so, as appeareth. l. 1. c. 2. art. 8. etc. 21. art. 1. & 2. Schlusselburg to. 8. Catal. p. 379. We deny that 
The ancient Doctors.  the ancient Doctors of the Church were catholics every where, for they were deceived sometimes and perverted some articles of faith. Zuingle in Respons. ad Epist. Constant. to. 1. speaking of the exposition of Malachias touching sacrifice in the Church, sayeth: The exposition of the Ancient is rejected. And l. de Baptism. to. 2. We must say, that almost all whosoever have 
Almost all from the Apostles. Ould and new. All Divines.  written upon baptism even from the very Apostles time, have erred from the mark, and that not in few points. Wherefore we will see what thing baptism is after a fare other manner, than either the ancient or the new writers, yea then those of our days have done, Ib. fol. 74. Nether they only say that (Saint Ihons' baptism is different from Christ's) but also all Divines whom I remember ever to have read, do follow this their sentence most constantly. Ib. in Paraen. fol. 603. They were Fathers begot the Popedom, the most wicked brood of Antichrist. Bullinger dec. 4. serm. 10. It is true which they say, that the ancients prated for the dead. Gualther. in Actor. 19 hom. 125. It is evident, that the Fathers abused this place: It deceived them, that they thought Ihons' baptism of water and Christ's to be different. P. Martyr l. de votis. Surely that I may confess that which is true, we have them (Fathers) harder against us in this cause. In 1. Cor. 15. All the Fathers make for this opinion. Again: We 
All the Fathers.  confess freely that the Fathers make differences of rewards. Zanchius de Eccles. cap. 9 tom. 8. The Father's exposition is not admitted in this place. Again: The Father's exposition is 
The Fathers.  not admitted in this place; Upon this rock that is, upon Peter Musculus in locis tit. de signis. The Fathers do attribute more efficacy to our Sacraments, then to those of the old testament, in so much as they say they be effectual signs of grace. This error is to be beaten out of the heads of all the faithful. Ib. tit. de bapt. The Fathers did deny salvation to the children of Christians taken away by death before they were baptised. Caluin in 1. Cor. 7. v. 5. 
The Fathers.  Let no man marvel, that in this matter we freely descent from the Fathers. Again: Fathers erred in approving inconsiderately the vow of chastity. Ib. v. 7. The Fathers will have virginity to be a worship of God. Now therein is a pernicious error. In Act 19 v. 9 With the Fathers that opinion had force, that Ihons' and Christ's baptisms were different. And for brevity's sake to omit his 
In how many points Caluin is against the Fathers.  words, 2. Inst. c. 2. §. 4. he confesseth, that the Fathers be against him touching free will. c. 4. §. 3. touching permission of sin. c. 14. §. 3. touching Christ mediator as he is God. c. 16. §. 9 touching the descent of Christ to hell. Et l. 3. c. 4. §. 38 39 touching satisfaction. c. 5. §. 10. touching prayer for the dead. Et l. 4. c. 15. §. 7. touching the difference betwixt S. Ihons' and Christ's Baptism, & §. 20. touchings laics baptising in case of necessity. c. 17. §. 39 touching the carrying of the Eucharist to the sick. c. 18. §. 10. touching Sacrifice. Et §. 43. touching exufflation and chrism in baptism. The like he acknowledgeth Luc. 7. v. 13. Math. 19 v. 9 & 17. 1. Cor. 15. v. 10. Hebr. 7. v. 9 & other where often. Beza in resp. ad Cast. vo. 1. Theol. We see, that this place especially was wrested by the Fathers for to prove their limbus. And the Fathers from hence also devised that descent of Christ's soul into hell: Besides in Marc. 1. v. 4. In act. 2. v. 27. In c. 19 v. 2. In Rom. 4. v. 11. and otherwhere oftentimes, he professeth to disagree from the Fathers. Dan. Contr. 3. p. 277. sayeth, that the Fathers have most naughtily expounded that saying of Christ Math. 16. Thou art Peter, of the person of Peter. Et. p. 281. They have most naughtily expounded the place. Sadeel ad art. abiur. 26. We hold this article (of Christ's descent) but we understand it otherwise than the Fathers did. Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 5. c. 7. We confess indeed, that some Popish errors are ancient, and held and defended of the Fathers, which truly we do freely and openly profess. Lib. 6. cont. Dur. sect. 7. Your 
Popery is errors of the Fathers.  mingle mangle of Popish religion is pached up of the errors of the Fathers. lib. 8. sect. 7. Both of them justly exclude that fictitious limbus of the Fathers. l. 2. de Script. p. 280. Luther durst descent from the Fathers, whom he perceived plainly to descent from the Scriptures. Perkins in Gal. 1. vers. 8 Many doctrines 
From the time of the Apoles.  have been received and believed even from the time of the Apostles, of the intercession of Saints, of the prayer to the dead, and for the dead in purgatory, and the the like, and these doctrines have been confirmed by diverse revelations. Spalata. l. 5. de Repub. c. 11. n. 41. That Priests do truly and properly forgive sins 
Common consent of Fathers. Vniversally received.  by the keys, is the most common consent of the Fathers. cap. 8. numero. 37. It was a most ancient custom and most universally received in the Church, that prayers and oblations should be made for the dead. Sutclif. l. 1. de Eccles. Bellarmin meaneth any consent whatsoever with the Fathers in doctrine of free will, of men's satisfactions for sins, of limbus, of purgatory, of prayer for the dead, of prayer to the dead, of forbiddacne of marriage, and other such like doctrines: This consent we deny to be a note of the Church, for in all these things they did dot consent with the 
Ancient fathers with mutual consent.  Apostolical Church. Duditius in Beza epist. 1. sayeth thus: If it be truth which the ancient Fathers have professed with mutual consent, that is all on the Papists side. Thus they touching their dissent from the Fathers.  
In like manner they confess, that they descent from the Church and Counsels. For thus P. Martyr in 1. Cor. 3. That 
The Church always prayed for dead. The ancient Church. The Church at 500  also useth to be objected to us. That the Church hath always prayed for the dead: which truly I do not deny. Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 5. c. 7. I answer. True it is, that Caluin sayeth and the Centurie writers, that the ancient Church erred in many things, as of limbus, of free will, of merit of works, and the other things before rehearsed. Again: I say that the Church which was 500 or 600. years after Christ did not hold in all points the doctrine of the Apostles. For she held some errors. Casaubon. epist. ad Cardin. Perron. It was a most ancient custom, that in the public prayers of the Church remembrance should be made of the 
The ancient Church.  dead, and rest prayed for them of God. The ancient Church by this means approved her faith of the resurrection to come. Zuinglius in Elencho. tom. 2. speaking of the ceremonies 
In the beginning of the Church. General Counsels  of baptism, sayeth: We know, that in the beginning of the Church these things were used. The like they confess touching Counsels. For thus Confessio Anglica. art. 21. General Counsels may err, and sometimes have erred even in the things which belong to the rule of piety. urban Regius in Interpret. 
All Counsels The ancient Counsels.  loc. to 1. It is more clear than the light, that all Counsels have perniciously erred. Caluin. 4 Insit. c. 9 §. 10. There is some thing wanting even in those ancient and purer Counsels. There was a notable example hereof in the Council of Nice. Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 7. c 7. avoucheth, that the Council of Nice and Chalcedon have erred.  
Nether do Protestants only descent from the uniform consent of Fathers, Counsels, and Church, but also they make small account thereof. For thus P. Martyr in loc. Tit. 
Not Fathers even agreeing.  Script. §. 16. But at least (say they) then are the Fathers to be allowed, when they agree amongst themselves. No not then always. Et lib. de votis. As long as we abide in the Fathers, we shall always remain in the same errors. Whitaker. Cont. 1. q. 5. c: 8. The agreeing exposition of the Fathers, is no rule of expounding 
Not witnesses without exception.  Scriptures. Cont. 2. q. 7. c. 7. We deny not but the Fathers be witness of the truth, but so as they be not without exception, for all have erred. l. 6. cont. Dur. sect. 3. The consent of Fathers is not sure and free from error. Et ad Demonst. 7. Sanderi. 
Not the whole Senate of Fathers.  Nether will we think, that thou hast demonstrated any thing, though thou couldst bring the whole Senate of Fathers against us. Rainolds in his Conference p. 151. Truth is not to 
Not all.  be tried by consent of Fathers. Psal. 150. If not one or two of the Fathers, but all have thought it, nor thought it only but have written it, nor written it only but thought it, not obscurely but clearly, nor seldom but often, nor for a time but perpetually, yet their consent were not secure. And he termeth universality, antiquity, consent, rotten posts. Yea in his 5. Thesis he will have the Roman Church to be no true Church, because she forbiddeth the Scriptures to be expounded contrary to that sense which our holy mother the Church doth hold, or contrary to the uniform consent of Fathers. By which forbiddance (sayeth he) are often rejected those senses which the spirit by the tenor of the words and sentences doth teach to be the meaning of the holy text. Morton in Apol. part. 1. l. 1. c. 69. Sometimes neglecting the persons (of the Fathers) it is most safe to fech the prime antiquity out of the Apostolical writings. Which is (sayeth he) the 
Protest. defence, to reject the Fathers.  prore and puppe of the Protestants defence. Caluin 4. Instit. c. 9 §. 12. Let no names of Counsels, of Pastors, of Bishops hinder us, that we try not all the spirits of them all with the square of God's word, for to find whether they be of God. Daneus Contr. p. 289. Touching the saying of the Fathers, this is our brief answer to them all: We regard not what the Fathers have said, but how 
Saying of Fathers not regarded.  truly. Et Cont. 5. p. 698. We must not look what the Fathers have written, but what they should have written. Vorstius in Antib. p. 395. The Protestants do not think that they ought much to care, what the ancient Fathers have thought or written of this 
Not to be cared for.  matter. Pareus l. 5. de Iust. c. 5. I say that Scripture is to be expounded by Scripture, not by Fathers. Et l. 2. de Grat. c. 14. Though all the Fathers agreed well, yet were it weak. Reineccius to. 1. Arm. 
Not all fathers together  c. 9 When all Doctors of the Church with a common consent do teach some thing to come from Apostolical tradition, is that to be believed to be Apostolical tradition? No. Gerlachius disp. 22. de Eccles. The Fathers have strayed from the path of truth, not in these only wherein they disagree with themselves and with others, but in those also which they have uniformly delivered. Celius Secundus de Amplit. regni Dei. lib. 1. Should then the 
Their authority nothing at all.  authority of so many ancient Fathers, the consent of ages avail nothings? Nothing at all. Polanus in thes. part. 3. p. 546. We cite them (testimonies of Fathers) especially when we handle points of religion controverted with Papists, not for our sake but for Papists, that we may refute Papists by the Fathers, whom they have 
Fathers cited as Heathens.  made their judges: as in old time the, Fathers refuted the Heathen by the testimonies of the Sibyls, of Poets, Philosophers, orators, and Heathen Historians. As therefore the Fathers used the testimonies of Heathens against Heathens: So we produce the testimonies of Fathers against Papists. Muscul. in loc. tit. de Scrip. As for me, I require not the testimonies of Fathers for to give authority to Canonical Scripture, and to make distinction between it and the Father's writings, contenting myself with the authority and canon of the Scripture itself. But because our adversary's endeavour to trouble the truth by pretext of Fathers, I well allege them where they are against their endeavours, but when they cite any thing out of the Father's writings against us, I plainly say that I will not bind myself to their authority.  
In like sort they make little reckoning of the Church & 
Authority of the Church availeth nothing.  Counsels. For thus writeth Whitaker ad Rat. 3. Camp. Can the Church afford us no confirmation of doctrine, no arguments of faith? None. Et Cont. 1. q. 5. c. 10. The practice of the Church, is the opinion of men. The sentences of the Fathers, is an opinion of 
Merely humane.  men. The definition of Counsels is the judgement of men. Vorstius in Antib. pag. 1. sayeth, that the testimony of the Church is merely humane, Et p. 382. An Argument from the practice of the ancient Church concludeth nothing. 
Protest. contemn Father's Church and Counsels. Not to be regarded. Contemned.   
Finally they profess to contemn both Father's Church, and Counsels. For thus writeth Luther de ser. arb. to. 2. fol. 433. The Father's authority is not to be regarded. Et l. de Concil. Twenty years ago I was forced to contemn the Father's commentaries. Melancthon. in loc. edit. An. 1523. I am of opinion that in matters of religion men's commentaries are to be fled like the plague. Reineccius to. 4. Armat. cap. 15. There are Fathers who hold the same error with the Papists, whose testimonies we reject as false and fond. Bullinger dec. 5. Serm. 4. We answer in one word to the ancient writers of the Church, whom they object unto us, testifying I know not what of Peter's primacy, we do not so much care what the Father's thought, 
Little moved.  as what Christ hath instituted. Caluin. 3. Institut. cap. 14. §. 38. I am little moved with those things which every where are to be found in the writings of the Father's touching satisfaction. Et de ver. reform. Nether care I for the sentences of the Fathers which these Moderators bring for to tread down the truth. 
What to do with Father's  Humphrey in Proregom. What have we to do with Fathers, with flesh and blood, or what pertaineth it to us what the false synods of Bishops do decree. Whitaker lib. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 62. I care little for the Fathers. Sect. 69. I care not what 
We care not. What to do with Counsels.  the Father's thought of Ihons' baptism. Cont. 1. q. 5. c. 10. What have we to do with Churches or Counsels, unless they show that those things which they define be agreeable to Scripture. Et l. de Script. c. 1. sect. 7. An argument which is taken from the bare testimony of the Church to confirm the Scriptures, or any part of them, or any point of our faith, I say is invalide, uneffectuall and unfit to persuade. jewel in Apol part. 4. sayeth, that 
Way of the Church fanatical.  the way to find the truth by God speaking in the Church and Counsels, is very uncertain, very dangerous, and in a manner fanatical.  
Thus thou seest Reader, that Protestants confess, that in many and great matters, the Fathers, the ancient, all Fathers, all from the Apostles time, the ancient Fathers with mutual consent, all antiquity: likewise, the ancient Church, the Church of the first 500 or 600. years, the Church in the very beginning: Finally general Counsels, all general Counsels are opposite to them: and that the Catholic doctrine doth consist of the sentences of the Fathers, hath been believed and received since the Apostles time, and all delivered by the Fathers with mutual consent. Moreover thou seest, how little they esteem the uniform consent of Fathers, Church, and Counsels, yea in plain terms profess to contemn it. I dispute not now, how the uniform consent of Fathers, of the Church, and Counsels is infallible in matters of faith: which hath been manifestly proved by many Catholics writers, only I propose to the Readers consideration, how much 
Note.  Protestants do prejudice their cause in the judgement of all reasonable men, by rejecting and contemning the uniform consent of Fathers, of the Church and Counsels, touching the exposition of Scripture. Forsooth young men contemn most ancient; few, very many; disagreeing, those that most agree; men of mean wit or learning, those that were most witty and learned: men of small diligence, those that have been most diligent: vulgar, yea profane men, those that were most holy: neither will admit such and so many men now happily reigning with Christ, who neither knew us nor them, so that could not be partial, either for judges, or arbiters, or witnesses sufficient of the sense of Scripture, but quite reject them as insufficient to decide this controversy. Surely hereby it is evident, that the sense which Protestants attribute to the Scripture, is not evident, and consequently no point of faith, seeing so many, so learned, so witty, so holy, so diligent searchers of Scripture in so many ages could not find it. For as Andrews sayeth in Tortura Torti: It is monstrous, if among so many eyes, eagles eyes, eyes daily conversant in Scriptures (I add eyes lightened by the holy Ghost) none perceived this sense grounded as they say must plainly— If it had been most plainly grounded, I think some Father would have seen through a lattice at least he would not have denied it, and taught the contrary: Yea it followeth that the sense in which Catholics expound the Scripture: is manifest, seeing so many and so great Fathers have uniformly delivered it, nor delivered it only, but also condemned those who followed that sense which the Protestants embrace, as Heretics, as shall appear in the Chapter following. I add also that Casaubon in his epistle to Card Perron thus writeth: The King will willingly grant, that now it is not lawful 
No end of controversies without the Fathers.  for any to condemn those things, which are evident to have been approved by the Fathers of the first ages by an uniform consent for good and lawful. Again: If the testimony and weight of the primitive Church be taken away, the King willingly granteth that amongst men the controversies of these times will never have an end. Luther also in Defence. verb. Caenae. to. 7. If this frame of the world shall continue some ages, humane means willbe again set down, after the manner of the Fathers, for to take away distinctions, and laws and decrees willbe made for to reconcile and to keep agreement in religion.  
In form therefore thus I make my 23. argument Who not only gainsay the express words of holy Scripture in such sort as hath been set down in the former book, but also confess, that in many and gerat matters, they contrary to the uniform consent of holy Fathers, of the Church and Counsels, yea reject and contemn it, they are also contrary to the true sense of holy Scripture. Protestants do so. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER XXIV. THAT PROTESTANTS CONFESS, that their doctrine was in old time condemned for Heresy.  
THE 24. argument for to prove that Protestants contradict the right sense of holy Scripture, shallbe because it is so manifest that much of their doctrine was in old time condemned of the Fathers for heresy, as themselves confess it.  
For touching the heresies of Aërius, thus writeth Bucan. Instit. loc. 42. Did the Fathers rightly reckon the opinion 
Protest. confess they hold the heresies: Of Aerius.  of Aërius who made no distinction between a Bishop and a Priest, amongst heresies? No more surely, than these other his opinions. 1. That we ought not to make prayers or offerings for the dead. 2. That dead Saints are not to be prayed unto. 3. That there ought not to be any set days of fasting. Beza respon ad Serau. c. 32. Surely Seravia, if thou dost think Aërius to have been an Heretic in those three former points, all the reformed Churches this day are Heretics to thee, as well as they are to the Papists. Vorstius in Antibel. p. 201. Aërius was unjustly condemned of heresy by the Fathers. Angelocrator. l. 7. de chronol. The opinions of Aërius a most learned man, that he rejected prayer for dead and set fast, and made a Priest equal to a Bishop, were to be borne withal, unless with Aërius he had impugned the Trinity. Whitaker. Cont. 2. q. 5. cap. 7. Epiphanius indeed and Austin after him, put Aërius amongst Heretics. But if he held nothing but these points, he was no Hereike. Cartwright Replica. 2. p. 618. If it must prevail against me, that Aerius an Heretics would make a Bishop and Priest all one, whom Epiphanius a Catholic thought to be distinct and different by the word of God, or that Austin reckoned it amongst the heresies of of Aërius; by this way will rise a great prejudice to the truth, wherewith we believe, that we ought not to pray for the dead, nor offer sacrifice for them. For Epiphanius to. 1. haer. 7. calleth this an heresy of Aërius, and of the same judgement is Austin. haer. 51. which notwithstanding is orthodox doctrine. Gratianus Antiiesuita part. 1. pagin. 528. Surely if one take away those things which Aërius is rather feigned then proved to have held with the Arians about the divinity of Christ, there willbe nothing which may be justly and deservedly reprehended in his doctrine. Daneus in libr. Augustini de Haeres. capit. 53. The Aërians were quickly suppressed, because they were oppugned by the common consent of all Bishops. 1. Aërius taught that a Priest did not differ from a Bishop in order and degree. Which doctrine I see not why it should be condemned. 2. That prayers are not to be made for the dead, because they cannot be helped by such suffrages of ours. Why Christians should not admit this, I see not. 3. That fasts are not be appointed upon certain set and solemn days yearly, as was the fast of lent: for that all this kind of anniversary fasts is superstitious, and not to be used of Christians. Which surely is true. 4. That there is no pascha among christians which is to be kept and celebrated. Nether ought this opinion of the Aërians to be condemned, because it is true. Wherefore we have not noted these men among Heretics.  
Touching the heresies of jovinian, thus writeth the 
Of jovinian.  same Daneus l. cit. c. 82. jovinian did equal marriage with single life, and virginity, for that both of them are of themselues indifferent and no part of God's true worship, as also because etc. This why it should be erroneus, neither Hierome proveth, nor any other of the Fathers hath proved. Whitaker loc. cit. jovinian thought that the choice of meats and fasting was not meritorious. I answer. Is the choice of meats, meritorious? Follie. To fast for this end to merit eternal life, is to abuse fasting. We willingly agree with jovinian in this point. jovinian taught that marriage was equal to virginity in dignity and merit. So also Paul, so Christ, so we all teach. Indeed Hierome invetheth against jovinian for this cause. Hunfre. ad Rat. 3. Camp. We grant, it is true which Sanders sayeth of the jovinians and Protestants: That fasting or abstinence from some certain meats profiteth nothing.  
Touching the heresies of Vigilantius thus Humfre loc. cit. 
Of Vigilantius.  He taught, that the reliks' of Saints are not to be worshipped. And we also. Vigilantius taught, that there was no need to light torches, or to wachat the sepulchers of Martyrs. And why should not we teach the same, and much rather? He taught that Saints are not to be worshipped, nor that men ought superstitiously to run to their monuments: We say the same. Vorstius in Antibel. p. 162. The heresies alleged of Bellarmin, are indeed no heresies, for example, which he allegeth out of Hierome touching jovinian and Vigilantius, and out of Epiphanius touching Aerius and some few others. Angelocrator loc. cit. Vigilantius, a Frenchman, but a most learned Prelate in Spain, denieth, that Saints are to be reverenced, and would, have riches to be preferred before poverty: Against him Hierome wrote. Beza in 2. part. resp. ad Acta Montisb. Hierome defending an ill cause, that is invocation of Saints against Vigilantius etc. Luther in Postilla Exalt. Sanctae Crucis: Vigilantius wrote of this matter (worship of reliks') against whom Hierome earnestly opposed himself; which I wish had not been done, and if Vigilantius his book were extant as Hieroms' is, I believe Vigilantius wrote more Christianely of this matter then Hierome. Serranus count. Hayum part. 3. The discreet Reader seethe, that Hierome in that book against Vigilantius passeth not only the bounds of modesty, but also of truth. jewel in Defence. Apol. part. 1. c. 2. sect. 3. Hierome reproveth Vigilantius that he reprehended wakes, invocation of Saints, worship of relics, lights, and other such things. 
Of Origen.   
As for the heresies of Origen, thus writeth Spalatensis l. 5. de Repub. c. 6. n. 44. Origen was shroudly taxed of Theophilus, because he held that the Sacraments did not work sanctification by the work (as I may so speak) wrought, but only by the work of the worker, and that God doth not use material and insensible creatures to import sanctification to men. But Theophilus whilst he doth reprove this opinion or error of Origen, is all etc. And yet herein Protestants teach as Origen did, as appeareth by what hath been related l. 1. cap. 10. artic. 7.  
Finally Daneus Contr. 4. pag. 770. confesseth to agree 
Of Messalians, and Novatians  with the Messalians, that habitual concupiscence in the just is sin: and with novatians, that Christians are not to be anointed.  
Thou seest Reader that Protestants plainly confess, that they defend the condemned doctrine, of Aërius, jovinian, Vigilantius, Origen, Messalians, Novatians: and that S. Austin, S. Hierome, S. Epiphanians, Fathers, Bishops with common consent of all, did condemn their doctrines for heresies, and them for heretics. Whom I advice to consider well those words of Beza written of a late heretic epist. 81. He plainly and without dissimulation holdeth and accounteth Origen, Aërius, Heluidius etc. not for Heretics, but for maintainers of the truth. These are such things, as that now it may only seem to be wanting to set the Devil himself in the throne of God and of truth. And Epist. 16. What I 
Good counsel of Beza.  admonished before, I admonish now in the Lord again and again, to wit, that at lest they would consider with themselves from whom and to whom are they gone. For that I may imitate the words of S. Austin l. 2. cont. julian. c. 10. Hath long time so confounded the highest with the lowest: Shall light so be termed darkness, and darkness light, that Aërius, jovinian, Vigilantius, become to see, and Austin, Hierome, Epiphanius be blind.  
But in some I thus argue in the 24. place: whose doctrine in many and greatest points is opposite to the express words of Scripture, and beside (as themselves confess) was condemned of the ancient Church and holy Fathers, for heresy, that is repugnant to the true sense of Scripture: But such is the doctrine of Protestants. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER XXV. THAT PROTESTANTS THEMSELVES sometimes confess that diverse of their opinions be blasphemous.  
THE 25. argument wherewith we will prove that Protestants contradict the true sense of the Scripture, shallbe, because it is so manifest that diverse of their doctrines which in the former book I shown to be opposite to the express words of Scripture, are blasphemous, as partly the very Authors of them, partly other learned Protestants being compelled by their conscience and the evidency of the matter do confess it.  
Concerning God: Protestant's teach that he willeth sin, 
Blasphemy: that God willeth sin.  as hath been seen l. 1. c. 2. art. 1. Which doctrine to be blasphemous, thus confesseth Caluin in Resp. ad Nebulon. p. 732. Was it a doubtful blasphemy, to make God the author of of sin, to will sin, to thrust to sin? Beza de Praed. count. castle. vol. 1. Theol. p. 372. Out of these things none of these blasphemies followeth, to wit, either that God is the author of sin, or is delighted with sin, or also willeth sin. Et p. 397. It cannot be said without blasphemy, that God willeth injustice. Ib. l. Quest. & Resp. p. 681. What then? Shall we say, that God willeth iniquity? God forbid. For this is the most horrible blasphemy of all. Zanchius l. 3. de Nat. Dei c. 4. We should surely say; that God is the cause and author of sin, if we should say that properly speaking he willeth sin, or would have sin to be done. Hutterus in Analysi Conf. Aug. p. 625. The blasphemy of Sacramentaries is execrable; who are not ashamed to refer the most doleful fall of our first parents and all that world of evils, which thereon ensued, not in regard of the punishment, but of the sin, unto an absolute and eternal decree of God, and to his effectual working and immutable will Et p. seq. But let heaven be astonished & the elements amazed at such mostrous blasphemies, whereof no pious man should suffer to hear the only outward noise without shaking, much less should assent unto them in his heart. And joannes Andrae in Colloquio Montisb. p. 422. This assertion (that man fell by Gods will) is impious and horrible to hear, and so contrary to the express and revealed word of God.  
They teach also that God willeth sin even as it is 
That God willeth sin as sin.  sin, as hath been showed lib. 1. cap. art. 2. But that this is blasphemous, is acknowledged by Beza l. de Praedest. p. 410. in the words: If ever we had thought to speak or write, that sins as sins proceed from the will of God, we would confess, that we were worthy of all punishment. Lobechius also Disp. 21. This principle of Divinity is firmly to be held and to be believed with all our heart: that God neither willeth nor commandeth ill deeds as they are such, much less worketh or helpeth them, or by an eternal decree doth destinate or secretly drive men to commit them.  
They teach also, that God worketh sin and is the 
That God is cause of sin.  cause and author of it as is to be seen l. 1. c. 2. art. 4. And yet Caluin. l. de Provident. p. 742. aliâs 736. confesseth, that it is a monstrous blasphemy, that wickedness is done not only by the will of God, but also he being the author thereof. And pag. 471. Thou wranglest with me, as if I had said, that sin is the just work of God, which in all my writings I ever more detest. Instruct. contr. Libertin. cap. 14. God must deny himself and become a Devil, if he did work evil, which these men do attribute unto him. The like he hath libr. de Praedestin. pag. 711. And in Actor. 2. ver. 23. sayeth: I deny that God is the author of evil, because in this word an evil affection is insinuated. Beza in Absters. Calumn. Heshus. pag. 316. calleth it blasphemy: That God worketh the wickedness of the wicked. And de Praedest. count. castle. p. 401. God forbid, that any of ours should have said or written, as thou avonchest, that God either give, or permit, or work an evil will, or any wicked or filthy desires: when as even our thoughts do altogether abhor from these kind of blasphemies. P. Mart. in locis class 1. c. 14. If God wrought sin, he were a sinner. Kemnice in locis part. 1. 'tis de Causa Peccati: All men's minds and ears do so abhor from that speech: God is the cause of sin, that therefore the Manichees did feign an other God. Vrsin. in Miscellan. p. 72. Thou sayest, that these are the speeches of many of men: God doth effectually work in the reprobate, that they sin: With all our heart we accurse this speech and doctrine. Whitaker ad Rat. 9 Campia. That is horrible, Campian, and not to be spoken which thou sayest; that any should make God the Author of sin, He deserveth that God should streigth with a thunder bolt cast him into the bottomless pit of hell. Pareus in Colleg. Theol. 1. disput. 2. The Fathers justly condemned that impious doctrine of the Manichees and Libertins, ascribing the cause of fall and sin to God the Creator. And Disput. 3. God was not, nor is not the efficient cause of sin, which heretofore was the blasphemy of the Manichees, and now is of some Libertines.  
They teach that God doth predestinate and ordain 
That he predestinated men to sin.  men to sin, as is related l. 1. c. 2. art. 5. Which to be blasphemous, confesseth Vorstius in Amica Collat. sect. 89. in the words: which doctrine (that God doth destinate men to sin) I scarce believe that thyself wilt think to be void of blasphemy if thou dost well consider it. Hutter in Anal. Confess. August. c. 9 The troop of Sacramentaries, Beza, Caluin, Renecher, doth not fear to write with a most execrable and most wonderful blasphemy, that some are fatally and absolutely destinated not only to their last end, to wit, damnation, but also to the causes between, even to infidelity itself, by an absolute decree of reprobation which goeth before all causes. Episcopius apud Hom. in Specim. Contr. Belg. p. 36. Great injustice and hypocrisy should be attributed to God, if by a secret will he did define and ordain that those things should be done, which by his revealed will he forbiddeth and will not have done. Arminius ib. sayeth: Bellarmin objecteth against the opinion of our Doctors, that thereof will follow, that God is the Author of sin, that God truly sinneth, that God alone sinneth, and that sin is no sin: By this complaint I see no wrong done to your doctrine, Perkins.  
They teach, that God doth command sin, as we have proved l. 1. c. 2. art. 6. Which to be blasphemy confesseth 
That he commandeth sin.  Beza in Resp. ad Acta Montisbel. pag. 182. in these words: That God commandeth that which he will not, punisheth that which he commandeth, is the author of evil: surely all these things are full of horrible impiety and blasphemy. And Zanchius in Depuls'. calum. to. 7. col. 255. I have always taught, that it is blasphemy, to say, that God commandeth, men to sin.  
They teach that God doth push and tempt men to 
That he tempts to sin.  sin, as is to be seen l. 1. c. 2. art. 7. And yet Caluin Resp. ad Nebulon. p 732. sayeth: Was it a doubtful blasphemy: that God pusheth men to sin? And in 1. joan. 3. v 8. It is proper to the Devil, to push men to sin. De Praedest. pag. 711. If ever I had said, that it had been done by the instinct of the holy Ghost, that the first man should forsake God, perhaps Pighius might justly iusult over me. Beza de Praedest. vol. 1. Theol. p. 404. The name of Tentation doth not agree to God, sith it signifieth nothing but enticement to evil, which God can no ways do. In Math. 3. v. 3. Tentations which entice us to evil, come not but from Satan. And in Respons. ad Acta Montisb. part. 2. pag. 186. Nether he, being infinitely good, could push a created good to evil. Melancthon in Schlusselb. l. 1. Theol. Caluin. artic. 8. They do infer, that God doth push the minds and hearts of men to do wickedly: this is a damned error. Et lib. de Causa peccati. to. 2. That same Cyclopicall cavillation of some is to be rejected, that therefore God sinneth not in pushing men to evil, because there is no law for God. This Cyclopicall imagination is detestable. Whitaker ad Rat. 8. Camp. God did not add new spurs to David and judas for to sin. God forbid that any Christian should so much as think so. Hutter in Anal. pag. 683. It cannot be said or thought without great wickedness or impiety and blasphemy, that God is the efficient, impelling, inclining, cause of sin.  
They say that God imposeth necessity or forceth men 
That he forceth to sin.  to sin, as is showed. lib. 1. c. 2. art. 8. which to be blasphemy confesseth Whitaker libr. 8. cont. Dur. sect. 7. We have always rejected as blasphemous, that God doth force and push men to sin, and putteth evil wills into them. Kemnice in locis part. 1. pag. 169. condemneth this proposition: God forceth to sin. And Moulins in arnold's flights sayeth: That God doth push and necessitate to sin, is a horrible and Devilish doctrine.  
They teach that God doth justify a wicked man remaining 
That he justifieth the wicked.  wicked, as appeareth l. 1. cap. 2. artic. Which to be blasphemous, is acknowledged by Tilenus in Syntagm. c. 41. in these words: We deny not that he is made and is just, whom God pronounceth just: which surely the just judgement of the most just judge doth require, whose judgement is according to truth.  
They say that God doth not care for good works, as 
That he careth not for good works.  we have showed l. 1. cap. 2. art. 13. of which doctrine thus speaketh Melancthon Resp. ad art. 24. Bavar. What a horrible and barbarous speech is this? And Kemnice in loc. part. 2. tit. de bonis oper. termeth it a fanatical paradox.  
They say that God hath no will to save all, nor calleth 
That he hath no will to save all.  all to him, as is to be seen l. 1. cap. 2. art. 19 And never the less liber Concordiae c. 11. pronounceth that these doctrines are false, horrible, and blasphemous: That God hath no will that all men should do penance and believe the Gospel: That when God calleth us to him, he hath no will in earnest that all men should come to him: That God will not that all should be saved, but that some, not for their sins, but only for the decree, purpose and will of God are destinated to damnation, so as by no means they can obtain salvation. The same opinions Herbrand. in Compend. Theol. loc. de Elect. condemneth as blasphemous. And Gerlachius to. 2. disput. 16. sayeth: Impious, blasphemous, and pernicious to men's salvation are the doctrines that follow: That God willeth not that every men be saved: That it is false, that God hath made all mankind for no other end then for salvation: That God doth not call men to salvation. Graver in absurdis Caluin. c. 5. sect. 31. This opinion of Caluinists, that God hath no will that all men be saved, is extremely impious and blasphemous. In like manner james Andrew in Colloq. Montisb. p. 421. & 422.  
They teach that God of himself willeth the death 
That he willeth death & damnation.  and damnation of men, as appeareth. l. 1. cap. 2. art. 22. And yet Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theol. loco. 17. condemneth as blasphemous these opinions: That God hath destinated the greatest number of men to eternal damnation for the mere pleasure of his will: That he never loved those whom he hath destinated to damnation: That our first fathers fell by God's decree, will, and ordinance: That Christ died for the Elect only: That the merit of his passion pertaineth to the Elect only: That the promises of the Gospel are not universal: That God doth not in earnest call thereprobates by the Gospel: That the reprobate cannot be converted: That the elect falling into sin, retain grace. Gerlachius also Disp. 16. cit. sayeth that these are blasphemous positions: The reprobate are reprobated without any desert of theirs: That God sometime doth by his word signify that he willeth that which he willeth not; and that he will not that which indeed he will: That the Gospel is promulgated to some that they may be indurated. Homius disp. 60. writeth thus: If any should teach, that God hath decreed by his absolute will without any respect of sin, to damn men and to punish them with everlasting torments, he doubtless should blasphemously attribute manifest injustice to God. And Remonstrantes in Collat. Hagae after they had recited this opinion of the Contrare monstrantes: That God doth reprobate some for his pleasure and not for their sin; so that he would not give them faith or Christ, that he might surely bring them to their end by infidelity as by the fruit of this reprobation: they add p. 128. We object, that this doctrine is of itself so absurd and horrible, that to prove and refute the horror thereof, in a manner sufficieth to point at it.  
They teach also that God doth not damn men for sin, as 
That ●e damneth not for sin.  is showed l. 1. c. 2. art. 23. And yet Vrsin. in Miscel p. 87. giveth this censure hereof: This wicked and absurd doctrine, wherewith he concludeth an other no less false and absurd: That as many wicked as have perished, do perish, or shall perish, have not perished, do not perish or shall perish for their sins, but for incredultie only. Et Beza resp ad Acta Monti●. part. 2. p. 215. sayeth, that it is an intolerable speech that men are not damned for sin.  
Finally they teach that God by his omnipotency cannot make that Christ's body should be at once in diverse places, as is showed l. 1. c. 2. art. 23. And yet liber Concordiae c. 5. sayeth that it is horrible to say and hear, that God not with all his omnipotent power can make that Christ's body at the same can be substantially present in more than one place. Thus much of their confessed blasphemies against God.  
Touching Christ, they teach that his humanity is not 
Touching Christ.  to be worshipped or prayed unto l. 1. c. 3. art. 3. Which to be blasphemous thus teacheth Hutter in Anal. Confess. Aug. 
Blasphemy: that Christ's humanity is not to be worshipped.  art. 3. Away with that impious speech of Daneus blasphemously saying, that Christ's humane nature albeit personally united to the divinity, is not capable of whorshippe or religious hope. Gerlachius tom. 2. disput. 5. Now all the faithful see the execrable impiety of the Caluinists, who wickedly blaspheme that Christ as man is not to be worshipped or prayed unto. Reineccius tom. 2. Armat. c. 37. sayeth that the impiety of Daneus who denieth that Christ's humanity is religiously to be worshipped is to be refuted, not by words, but by thunderbolts, yea with the fire of hell.  
They teach that the humanity of Christ, or Christ as 
That Christ as man cannot give life, etc.  man, hath no power to give life to forgive sins, to work miracles, as we related l. 1. cap. 3. art. 4. Which to be blasphemous thus confesseth Hutter in Anal. cit. art. 3. For not (as the Sacramentaries do wickedly avouch) the of power miracles is to be attributed only to the divinity of Christ, but to his whole person, and therefore to both natures together. Gerlachius to 2. disp. 4. By these now may appear the impiety of the Caluinists, for they take from Christ power to give life. Musculus in Hospin. part. 2. Hist. f. 323. There is none but a plain wicked Atheist, who can deny, that to forgive sins is imparted to the finite humanity of Christ.  
They teach, that Christ was overwhelmed with desperation, 
That he despaired.  as is to be seen lib. 1. c. 3. art. 11. Which Zuinglius, in Histor. passionis to. 4. confesseth to be blasphemy saying. Away with their doctrine out of the Church of Christ, who affirm that Christ on the Cross despaired. And Tilenus in Syntagm. cap. 65. They are extremely infidels who despair of their salvation.  
They teach also that Christ died for the elect only, as 
That he died but for the elect.  hath been showed l. 1. c. 3. art. 18. Which Lobechius disp. 6. confesseth to be blasphemous in these words: The Caluinists affirm, that Christ died for the elect only and not for all men. By which blasphemy they not only deprive Christ of a great part of his honour, and the Church of comfort, but also contradict the holy Ghost to his face. The like hath Adamus Francisci. loco 17. and Gerlachius disput. 16. And Graverus in Absurdis Caluin. c. 5. sect. 58. sayeth that it is an absurd and blasphemous Caluinisticall doctrine. james Andreae in Beza resp. ad acta Montisb. p. 212. sayeth. It is a horrible doctrine of Beza, that Christ died not for the sins of the whole world.  
Finally they teach, that the blood of Christ wherewith 
That his blood is corrupted.  he redeemed us, is corrupted, and now no more in being: as appeareth l. 1. c. 3. art. 20. of which doctrine thus pronounceth Schlusselburg. lib. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 2. This is a horrible blasphemy, dishonourable to the blood of the Son of God with which we were redeemed.  
Touching the Scripture, they teach that it can be understood 
Touching Scripture.  without the holy Ghost: as is proved l. 1. c. 5. art. 2. Which doctrine thus condemneth Casaubon. Exercit. 16. cont. Baron. sect. 215. Baronius addeth, that the Scriptures cannot be understood without the help of God, and this he confirmeth with some testimonies of the Fathers, as if there were any Christian who denieth this or calleth it in doubt.  
Concerning the Church they teach that she doth not 
Touching the Church.  perpetually continue, as is proved l. 1. cap. 8. art. 4. Which Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 3. c. 2. confesseth to be basphemous in these words: Who denieth or doubteth that the Church is founded for ever and is to continue for ever, he is no Christian.  
Concerning Baptism: they teach that when water 
Touching Baptism.  wanteth it may be ministered in any other liquor, as is to be seen l. 1. cap. 10. art. 1. Which as blasphemous thus condemneth Hutter in Anal. Confess. p. 466. Beza is blasphemous, who affirmeth that he doth not against the will and pleasure of Christ, who either in administering baptism, useth milk or any other liquor whatsoever, or in these countries where there is no use of wine, or if be nature he abhor wine, doth in the Lord's supper use any other kind of drink. Et p. 490. The licence which Beza of his own head taketh, was sacrilegious, saying: If there want water, and yet the baptism of some cannot be differred with edification nor ought not, surely I would as well baptise with any other liquor as with water. The like judgement hereof giveth Graver in Absurdis Caluin. c. 4. sec. 6.  
They teach that Baptism doth not give grace, and that the children of the faithful are in the grace of God before they be baptised, l. 1. c. 10. art. 79. Which doctrine thus censureth Hutter in Anal cit. art. 13. It is the madness of the Sacramentarians, who will have that the grace of regeneration is not given by the use of Sacraments but that the children of the faithful and elect have it before. The like sayeth. Grau. l cit. sect. 10.  
Touching the holy Eucharist: they say that it is not the 
Touching the Eucharist.  body and blood of Christ. lib. 1. c. 11. art. 1. Which to be blasphemy thus judgeth Hutter in Anal. cit. pag. 536. It is extreme impudency, desperate boldness, horrible blasphemy, to oppose a contradictorte proposition to the words of Christ's institution. For Christ sayeth: This which I give you to eat, is my body. The Sacramentaries deny it, and say: That which thou givest us to eat, is not thy body. The like hath Musculus art. cit.  
They teach that Christ is not in the Supper. l. 1. c. 11. art. 1. And nevertheless thus writeth. Beza in Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 301. Many think, that we would exclude Christ from the Supper, which is plainly impious. We are so fare from saying, that Christ jesus is absent from the Supper, that above all men we most repugn this blasphemy.  
Concerning faith they teach that it is not simply necessary to salvation. l. 1. c. 13. art. 15. Which is blasphemous 
Touching Faith.  in the judgement of Luther in Genes. 47. tom. 6. Zuinglius (sayeth he) wrote of late that Numa Pompilius, Hercules, Scipio, Hector, do enjoy everlasting happiness in heaven with Peter and other Saints. Which is nothing else then plainly to confess that they think there is no faith no Christianity. The like sayeth Beza l. de puniend. Haeret.  
Touching good works they deny that it is necessary 
Touching good works.  they should be present when we are justified. l. 1. c. 14 art. 12. Of which doctrine thus pronounce the Electoral Ministers in Colloq. Aldel. p. 343. It is horrible dishonour to God and a barbarous doctrine, to profess, that in the very instant and act of justification, not only merit, but also necessity of the presence of good works is excluded.  
They say that all the good works of just men are sins and mere iniquities lib. 1. cap. 14. art. 2. Of which doctrine Zuinglius gives this verdict in Exposit. Fidei. to. 2. Some of ours have said paradox like, that every work of ours is abomination.  
They say also that we may not do good for reward. l. 1. c. 14. art. 19 Of which doctrine Remonstrantes in Collat. Hagae. p. 95 give this censure: Who deny that the faithful may do good works in regard of reward due to good works, he perverteth and denieth the nature of faith, of God's law, of eternal life and death.  
Touching sin: they teach that in the faithful it doth 
Touching sin.  not expel grace. l. 1. c. 16. art. 6. Of which Hutter thus writeth: They plainly make the Apostle a liar, who with open mouth pronounceth that every fornicator, unclean, and covetous man is excluded out of the kingdom of heaven: and also Christ our Saviour, who pronounceth this sentence against those that deny him: whosoever shall deny me etc.  
They teach that men shall not be damned for their sinful works, but only for incredulity. l 1. c. 16. art. 10. And yet Beza in 2. part. Resp. ad Acta Montisb. pag. 218. after he had recited these positions of james Andrews: Only incredulity damneth men: Men are not damned, because they have sinned: addeth: Durst ever man before this so impudently bring into God's Church, so false, so monstrous, so abominable doctrine? Et p. 215. Surely your speech seemed into lerable to us: that men are not damned for sin. The like hath Vrsin. in Miscellan. p. 84.  
Touching justification: they teach that a justified man 
Touching jusication.  cannot lose grace by any sin that he committeth: lib. 1. c. 17. art. 12. Which doctrine is thus censured by Wittembergenses in Schlusselb. lib. 1. Theol. art. 7. It is a great madness of the Anabaptistes and other frantic men, who say that the justified cannot fall, or at least not lose the holy Ghost, and become again guilty of God's wrath, albeit they break Gods commandments against their conscience. Hutter in Anal. cit. p. 562. It is a blasphemous speech of Zanchius, saying that forgiveness of sins once obtained is not made void by sins following, and that the holy Ghost once given to the justified remaineth with him for ever: And of Beza writing that Peter denying Christ, and David falling into adultery, did not lose the holy Ghost. Adamus Francisci. loc. 6. The Caluinists with a horrible madness imagine that the regenerate cannot fall into mortal sin, and that if they fall, notwithstanding they retain God's grace, the holy Ghost, and faith. Et Confess. August. c. 11. condemneth the Anabaptistes: who deny that they who are once justified can again lose the holy Ghost.  
They teach that a Sinner doth not cooperate to his conversesion, but that he is justified doing nothing as a log, or else rebelling. lib. 1. c. 17. art. 15. Which doctrine thus the Wittembergians condemn in Schlusselb. to. 5. Catal. Haer. With all our hearts we abhor from that doctrine dishonourable to God and full of Blasphemies against the Son of God: A man is converted not only as a log, but also resisting, and we say that by such speech not only security, and profane contempt of God, but also horrible sins of men are bolstered.  
Of free will, they teach that man hath no freedom in good or evil deeds. l. 1. c. 21. art. 2. Which doctrine Melancthon lib. de Causa Peccati to. 2. thus condemneth: We do not applaud the madness of the Stoics or Manichees, who are dishonourable to God and pernicious to man's life, feigning that men do necessarily commit sin.  
Finally james Andrews in Colloq. Montisb. condemned many doctrines of Beza as blasphemous, as pag. 381. That the elect though they sinne grievously do retain the holy Ghost. pag. 393. That only the elect infants are adopted in baptism. p. 447. That Christ died not for the sins of the whole world. p. 422. That God will have some to perish. Et p. 423. That God will not have mercy on some, and that he created some to this end to show his wrath in them. Vorstius also in Parasceve oftentimes condemneth Piscator's doctrine of blaphemie: And scarce is there any Protestant that writeth against an other who doth not accuse him of blasphemy.  
Wherefore let this be my 25. argument. Whose sundry doctrines are not only so opposite to the express words of Scripture as hath been showed in the first book, but also so blasphemous as sometimes the very Authors of them, partly other learned Protestants their brethren do confess it, they are opposite to the true meaning of holy Scripture But many doctrines of the Protestants are such. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER XXVI. THAT PROTESTANTS DO FRVSstrate and make void the ends of the coming and passion of Christ.  
MY 26. argument, wherewith I will prove that Protestant's contradict the true sense of holy Scripture shallbe, because many of their positions do frustrate and make void the coming and passion of Christ.  
For one end of the coming and passion of Christ was 
Protest. say Christ took, not away sin.  to take away and exhaust our sins: 1. joan. 3. v. 5. And you know, that he appeared to take away our sins. Hebr. 9 v. 28. Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many. But Protestants (as we shown l. 1. c. 17. art. 5.) say, that Christ did not take away or exhaust our sins but leaveth them in us.  
An other end of his coming and passion was to destroy and dissolve sin Hebr. 6. v. 6. this, that our old man is 
Nor destroyed sin.  crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed And cap. 9 ver. 26. But now once in the consummation of the worlds, to the destruction of sins, he hath appeared by his own host. And 1. joan. 3. vers. 8. For this appeared the Son of God, that he might dissolve the works of the Devil. But Protestants say that sin is not destroyed in the regenerate, but that it abideth and liveth in them, as is to be seen l. 1. c. 17. art. 5.  
A third end was to cleanse us from sin. Tit. 2. v. 14. 
Nor cleansed sin.  Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquities and might cleanse to himself a people acceptable. Et 1. joan. 1. v. 7. And the blood of jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. But Protestants say that the regenerate are not cleansed from sin, but remain unclean, impure, filthy, as is to be seen l. 1. c. 17. art 4.  
A fourth end was that we might be truly sanctified, 
Nor truly sanctified us.  and become holy and immaculate in the sight of God. joan. 17. v. 19 And for them I do sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. Ephes. 1. v. 4. As he chose us in him before the constitution of the world that we should be holy and immaculate in his sight in charity. But Protestants deny that we are truly sanctified, or holy and immaculate in the sight of God. See li. 1. c. 17. art. 3.  
A fift end was that we should follow or do good 
Nor made us to follow good works.  works Tit. 2. v. 14. That he might cleanse to himself a people acceptable, a pursuer of good works. But Protestants deny that our works are truly good, and say that they are mere sins. See l. 1. c. 14. art. 2.  
A sixth end was that we should live justly and piously in 
Nor mad us live in holiness before God.  holiness and justice before God Luc. 1. v. 74. That without fear being delivered from the hand of our enemies we may serve him in holiness and justice before him all our days. Tit. 2. v. 12. For the grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men, instructing us that denying impiety and worldly desires, we live soberly and justly and godly in this world. But Protestants deny that the works or lives of the just are pious, holy, or just before God. See lib. 1. cap. 14. art. 5. A seventh end of 
Nor made us to fulfil the law.  Christ's coming was, that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us. Rom. 8. v. 3. God sending his Son in the similitude of the flesh of sin, even of sin damned sin in the flesh, that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us. But Protestants say that the law cannot be fulfilled in us, but only in Christ. See lib. 1. c. 19 art. 1.  
An eight end was to preach a day of retribution Luc. 4. v. 19 To Euangelize unto the poor he sent me to preach the acceptable year of our Lord and the day of retribution. But Protestants deny that there is any day of reward or retribution, but only of mere bounty and liberality. See l. 1. c 18 art. 1. To these I add, that thus writeth Perkins in Gal. 1. v. 3. It is the fault of our age; that all profess Christ, yet many admit not Christ but their own devices, to wit, a Christ who must be a Saviour to deliver them from hell, but not a Lord to give them commandments, this they cannot suffer. But Protestants as we shown l. 1. c. art. 7. deny Christ to be a lawgiver or Lord to give commandments, according to Perkins admit not Christ, but their own devices.  
Wherefore thus I make my 26. argument. Whose doctrine 
Nor preached reward.  not only in so many and so great points is against the express words of God and in their usual sense, but also doth make void and frustrate so many ends of the coming and passion of Christ; it doth contradict the true sense of Scripture. Such is the Protestants doctrine. Therefore. etc.   

CHAPTER XXVII. THAT PROTESTANTS TAKE AWAY encouragements to virtue, yea all virtue: and in steed of them put allurements to vice and remove the impediments thereof.  
MY 27. argument, that Protestants contradict the true meaning of holy Scripture shallbe, because they take away the encouragements to virtue, yea all virtue out of the world, and in place of them put allurements to vice and remove the impediments thereof.  
They take away encouragements to virtue: because as 
Protest. take away encouragements to virtue.  we shown l. 1. c. 2. art. 13. they teach, that God careth not for good works. art. 14. that he is not honoured with them. art. 16. that he is not appeased with them: And c. 14. Art. 6. that there is no dignity or worth in them. Art. 7. that there is no reward promised to them. Art. 10. that all good works are equal before God. Art. 12. and 13. that they are not necessary to justification or salvation. Art. 15. that they are not cause of salvation. Art. 16. Not so much as a testimony of justification or salvation. Art. 18. that we ought not to do them. Cap. 17. artic. 15. That a sinner doth not cooperate to his justification. Cap. 18. art. 1. That salvation is no reward or retribution. Art. 2. No crown of justice. Art. 3. That it is of faith only. And cap. 21. art. 1. That our will is not free in moral works. Art. 3. That it doth not cooperate with the grace of God to good works. But who can deny, but that God's favour towards good works, their worth and reward, their efficacy and necessity to justification and salvation, man's freedom and cooperation to acts of virtue and salvation, be great spurs and encouragements to virtue. Which notwithstanding all, and others such like, Protestants take away.  
They take also away all virtue. For first they deny 
to fulfil the law.  diverse particular virtues, as faith, the root of all virtue, which they say is vicious and unworthy the name of virtue l. 1. c. 13. art. 12. They take away the highest degree of Chastity, to wit, virginity, c. 15. art. 2. and the perfectest part of Temperancie, to wit, Fasting, ib. art. 5. and all choice of meats artic. 7. They takeaway also prayer for all men art. 8. Vows art. 14. and Eremitical life. art. 15. Besides, they takeaway all inherent justice. c. 17. art. 8. and deny, that the justified are truly just. art. 3. or clean art. 4. but retain sin in them art. 5. Finally they take away all virtue. For they teach, that all the good works of sinners or of good men are sins, yea mere sins c. 14. art. 1. and 2. that they are filth, dungge, and stink in the face of God art. 3. But if all 
If all good works be sin there can be no virtue.  good works be sins, and mere sins, surely there is no virtue at all. For (as Whitaker sayeth. l. 2. de Pec. orig. c. 14.) Tell us, how sins can be good works. Which is much more true, if they be mere sins.  
They set also allurements to sin. For as is showed l. 
Protest. set allurements to sin.  1. c. 2. art. 1. they teach, that God willeth sin. art. 2. That sin pleaseth God. art. 4. That God worketh sin. art. 5. That God predestinateth to sin. artic. 6. That he commandeth to sin. art. 7. That he tempeth to sin. art. 8. That he necessitateth to sin. art. 10. That he justifieth the wicked remaining wicked. artic. 17. That he will not have his commandments kept. And cap. 3. artic. 11. That Christ was truly a sinner. c 4. art. 1. That the Angels in heaven do sin. c. 13. art. 17. That faith being alone doth justify. art. 23. That it can never be lost. c. 16. artic. 4. That sin must not be overcomen of us. art. 13. That the Elect do not sin. art. 16. That all usury is not sin. Et c. 19 art. 1. That the law of God is not possible. art. 2. That never any kept it. art. 3. That none ever loved God with all his heart. But what man in his wits can deny, that these Positions: Sin pleaseth God: God willeth, doth, commandeth sin: He predestinateth, necessitateth, tempteth to sin: He will not have his commandments kept: Christ and the Angels in heaven do sin: The wicked is justified remaining wicked, faith being alone doth justify, it can never be lost, sin must not be overcomen of the faithful, they themselves never sinne, and such like be great enticements to sin?  
They take away also the obstacles or impediments 
They remove impediments of sin.  of sin, in teaching (as we have showed l. 1. c. 2. art. 3.) That God hateth not sin. art. 9 That God hateth not the faithful when they work wickedness. art. 11. That he is not angry with the faithful whilst they sinne. art. 12. That he never punisheth for any sin committed. art. 23. That he damneth not men for sin. And c. 3. art. 7. That Christ gave no laws. art. 8. That he is no judge. c. 5. art. 6. That the Gospel promiseth salvation without any condition of works. art. 5. That it doth not reprove sin. c. 10. art. 8. That in baptism all sins, past, present, and to come, are forgiven. c. 16. art. 1. That sins are not imputed to the faithful art. 2. That they are not mortal to them. art. 5. That serving the flesh we may serve God. art. 6. That no sins cast of grace. art. 7. That sins can stand with grace. artic. 9 That to abstain from sins, is not necessary to salvation. artic. 10. That sin is not the cause of damnation. artic. 11. That we must not give account of sins. cap. 17. artic. 12. That justification is never lost. artic. 13. That the justified need not fear to fall. artic. 16. That he is to suffer no punishment at all. c. 18. art. 4. That the faithful are not to be judged. art. 4. That Hell is no place art. 7. That hell fire is no true fire. And cap. 19 art. 7. That the law is abrogated from the faithful But it is most evident, that taking away God's wrath, hatred, and punishment of sins and sinners, taking away Christ's law-giving and judgement: taking from men all fear of judgement damnation, wrath, and hatred of God, and of loss of justice and salvation: and putting security that men even committing heinous sins, are certain of God's love, of grace, and eternal salvation, and free from all punishment whatsoever, all impediments of sin on God's part are taken away, and if any believing this doctrine, do forbear sin, it proceedeth not but from a natural engrafted horror of sin, or else from fear or or shame of men.  
Yea so evident it is, that diverse positions of Protestants 
Protest. confess, that some of their opinions allure to sin.  are allurements to sin, as some Protestants confess it. For thus writ the Wittembergians cited before cap. 25. That to deny a man to cooperate to his conversion, doth settle horrible wickedness. Which yet Protestants deny lib. 1. cap. 17. artic. 15. Remonstrantes apud Hom. in Specim. Cont. Belg. pag. 126. say: The doctrine of their perseverance in faith who have once believed, is of it nature and condition sufficiet to engender a security in men, for to serve them as a cushion in midst of their sins. Again: Of itself it is hurtful to true piety and good manners. And yet Protestants teach thus, libr. 1. cap. 13. art. 23. Schlusselburg. tom. 7. Catal. writeth thus: To pardon sins to come, which one doth study to commit, is surely to grant an Epicurean licence to sin: And yet this is Protestant's doctrine l. 1. cap. 10. art. 8. Melancthon in Cocleus in art. 6. Confess. August. thus speaketh: Now it is usual to speak of faith, and faith cannot be understood, unless penance be preached: Surely they pour new wine into old vessels, who preach faith without penance, without doctrine of the fear of God, without the doctrine of the law, accustom the people to a carnal kind of security. That security is worse, than all the errors under Popery were. And yet Protestants say, that the Gospel doth not reprove sin, doth not preach penance, promiseth salvation upon condition of faith only, as is showed l. 1. c. 5. art. 5. 6. Hutter in Anal. Confess August. p. 571. writeth that: The error of the Anabaptists, who deny that men once justified can lose the holy Ghost, doth give full licence to commit all kind of villainy under the absolute perseverance of those that are once justified. And yet this is the doctrine of Protestants l. 1. c. 17. art. 12. other Protestants in Zanchius de Persever. to. 7. col. 159. say: that the opinion which teacheth, that the faithful cannot fall from grace, taketh away penance, looseth the reines to concupiscence, maketh a man secure that he dare sin even against his conscience. And Liber Concord. Luther. c. de bonis oper. That false and Epicurean opinion is sharply to be reproved, wherewith some feign that faith and grace once received or salvation cannot be lost by any sin or wickedness whatsoever, albeit it be most freely committed. Also other Protestants as Gualterus Praefat. Epist. Rom. reporteth, when they think seriously of piety, do fear, that we devise to easy a way to salvation, and lest this doctrine breed a licence to sin, and open, a gap for men to dare to do any thing. Moreover diverse of them confess, that men take occasion to sin by their doctrine, as Luther tom. 5. in Gal. 6. james Andrews Conc. 4. in Luc. 21. Perkins de Serm. Dom. to. 2. and in Gal. 5. ver. 13. and others in Erasmus in Epist. ad Fratres. Finally Luther in Postilla domest. Dom. 1. Aduentus sayeth. Oh sorrow: The world daily becometh worse by 
The world worse by Luther's doctrine  this doctrine: and Castalio in Caluin de Provident. These are the things (Caluin) which thy adversary's report of thy doctrine, and warn men to judge of this doctrine by the fruits thereof. For they say that thou and thy disciples carry many fruits of thy God, that most of you are contentious, revengeful, mindful of wrong; and endowed with such vices as thy God doth suggest.  
Where thus I argue in the 27. place. Whose doctrine is not only so opposite to the express words of Scripture as was seen in the first book, but also taketh away encouragements to virtue, yea all virtue out of the world, and removeth impediments of sin, and giveth allurements theertoe; that is opposite to the true sense of holy Scripture. But such is the doctrine of Protestants. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER XXVIII. THAT PROTESTANTS HAVE NO infallible interpretation of Scripture.  
THE 28. Argument to prove that Protestants must needs contradict the true sense of holy Scripture, is because they have no sure and infallible means to attain to the true meaning thereof. But before we prove that they have no infallible mean to come to the right sense of Scripture, we must prove that Scripture (at lest in some points of faith) needeth some means to interpret or expound it, to wit, either because no where it delivereth some points of faith so clearly, that the only words thereof sufffice to captivated the understanding: or because, though some where it deliver clearly enough some points of faith, yet other where it seemeth so to teach the contrary, as without some infallible interpreter it would seem uncertain whether of the two it did teach.  
That therefore Scripture doth not of itself teach 
That Scripture needeth an Interpreter.  clearly all points of faith, so as it need no interpreter for that purpose, I prove first out of the Scripture itself. For the holy Eunuch did read the Scripture speaking of the passion of Christ Actor. 8. and yet being asked of Philip whether he understood what he read, answered: And how can I, if none shall show me. You see, that the Scripture did not clearly foretell the passion of Christ, as that a pious man by the only words thereof without an interpreter could understand the meaning thereof. And Luk. vlt. v. 27. And beginning from Moses and all the Prophets, he did interpret unto them in all the Scriptures the things that were concerning him. Et v. 45. Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures. But if Christ's disciples did not understand the Scriptures which spoke of him, and the Apostles had need that Christ should open their understanding for to understand the Scriptures, it is evident that the Scriptures by themselves do not so plainly teach all matters of faith, as they need no interpretation for to be rightly understood of the faithful. Besides 2. Pet. vlt. it is said, that in S. Paul's epistles there are some things hard to be understood. And that these hard things do contain points of faith, is clear; both because without cause they should be limited to other things, as also because it is added, that the learned and unstable do deprave these hard things to their own destruction: but such things are especially matters of faith. Moreover, if the Scripture did so clearly teach all points of faith, that for them it needed no interpreter, it would follow, that the gift of interpretation had been superfluously given to the Church for to expound Scripture in matters belonging to faith.  
Secondly I prove this out of the Fathers: but for brevity's sake I will content myself with one testimony of S. Austin: He lib. de Vtil. cred c 7. to one that said: When I read the Scriptures, by myself I understood them: thus answereth: Is it so? Without some skill in poetry thou darest not read Terentian Maurus. Asper, Cornutus, Donatus, and many more are necessary for to understand any Poet, and thou fallest upon those books without a guide, and darest give thy opinion of them without a teacher. Lo how plainly he sayeth, that we can not understand the Scriptures by ourselves, and by how familiar an example he proveth it.  
Thirdly I prove it by the very confession of Protestant's. For 
Protest. confess that Scripture alone sufficeth not.  thus writeth Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 4. c. 1. When Bellarmin maketh this to be the state of the question; Whether the the Scripture by itself be so clear, as without any interpretation it sufficeth of itself to determine and decide all controversies of faith, he fighteth without an adversary, for surely in this point we are not against him. Again: They say, that we think (but falsely) that all things in Scripture, are plain, and that they without any interpretation are sufficient to determine all controversies. without Behold how plainly he denieth, that Protestants think, that Scripture of itself without any interpretation is sufficient to end all controversies of faith. And the like hath junius l. 3. de verb. Dei c. 3. When he granteth, that Scripture needeth an interpreter. Kemnice 1. part. Exa. p. 104. It hath need of the gift and help of interpretation. And the Magdeburgians Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. The Apostles thought, that the Scripture cannot be understood without the holy Ghost and an interpreter: and the same mean all other Protestant's, who admit that the Scripture is obscure, or that the gift of interpretation is needful for the exposition thereof. For doubtless they mean that, as well of such places of Scripture wherein points of faith are delivered, as of others: & this Caluin 4. Inst. c 17. §. 25. clearly enough insinuateth, where, when catholics objected, that they had the word of God wherein he affirmeth that the Eucharist is his body, he answereth: Indeed, if they may banish the gift of Interpretation out of the Church. Wherefore he thinketh, that there is in the Church the gift of Interpretation even for to expound Scriptures touching points of faith, such as the Eucharist is. Furthermore Plessie. l. 3. de Eccl. c. 3. writeth, that the controversy of Schism cannot be properly decided by the Scripture, because it is rather a question of fact, than doctrine. If therefore Scripture by itself can determine neither the question of Schism, nor yet all controversies of faith, it is manifest, that the interpretation of some is necessary, and that also infallible, because fallible interpretation is not sufficient to put us out of doubt. And surely Protestant's must needs teach, that Scripture by itself alone, is not sufficient to decide all controversies of faith, both because else it had decided all controversies amongst themselves, or between any that are not obstinate; as also because scarce in any controversies that are betwixt us and them, Scripture doth so much as in show directly and immediately give sentence for them, but they have need to confer places, and adjoin thereto some humane principle, and make an argument, for to draw in what manner soever their doctrine out of Scripture: which conference of places, adiunction of a humane principle, and discourse, seeing it is not made by the Scripture, but by Protestants by their gift of Interpretatation, they must needs grant, that the Scripture hath need of Interpretation for to determine all the controversies that are betwixt us and them. And for this cause, albeit 
When Protest. will have express Scripture, when consequence thereof.  when they put us to the proof, they use to cry, Nothing is to be believed which is not expressly in Scripture; yet when they are to prove, they will have it suffice, that it may be gathered out of Scripture by good consequence. For so say the Lutherans in Colloq. Ratisbon. Sess 3. & 13. Kemnice in 1. part. Exam. p. 320. Beza in Resp. ad Acta Montisb. part. 2 p. 46. & l. de Notis Eccles. Daneus Cont. 1. p. 86. Pareus l. 1. de justif. c. 16. Piscator de justif. l. 1. c. 5. Rivet. in Contr. tract. 1. sect. 18. and others commonly. And seeing this Inference by good consequence is not made by the Scripture, but by themselves, by their Interpretation, they must needs say, that besides the Scripture there is necessary some Interpreter for to know all points of faith.  
Now that Protestants have no infallible interpretation of Scripture, is manifest: First, because they confess, that 
Protest. have no infallible interpreter.  that they have no infallible Interpreter of Scripture. Pareus in Colleg. Theol 2. disp. 1. The word of God cannot abide any infallible Interpreter besides God himself who inspired the Scripture. Secondly, because they deny that the whole Senate of Fathers, the Catholic Church or general Counsels have the gift of infallible interpretation in all points of faith, and therefore ridiculously should they arrogate this gift to themselves. And seeing they teach, that all Pastors, together, and all the true Church (whichsoever it is) may err in matters of faith, they cannot challenge to their Pastors this infallible gift. Thirdly, for if they do infallibly interpret the Scripture in all points of faith, either they do it by means, or without means. Not without means: for such interpretation were Prophetical by immediate revelation from God, or rather enthusiastical by illusion from the Devil. Whereupon sayeth Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 4. c. 5. If the holy Ghost teach the Church to interpret these places of Scripture without means, 
Protest, require means to interpret.  this is enthusiastical, and anabaptistical, and extraordinary. For the Spirit teacheth now only by means, neither must we now look for new inspirations or revelations. Et Cont. 1. q. 5. c. 9 Now must we treat of the means to find the sense of Scripture. For sith the Scripture hath not a lively voice for us to hear, we must use some means for to find out which is the sense and meaning of the Scripture. Again: The Church hath always used some means for to expound the Scripture. But if they expound the Scripture by means, than (according to their own opinion) if their means be fallible, their interpretation also must be fallible. For thus Whitaker c. 3. cit. If by means, than such as the means be, such must needs the interpretation be. But the means, which Protestants have, are but humane and fallible. For (as they grant) they are no other than such as the Catholic Church, holy Fathers, & general Counsels have used. For thus Whitaker c. 3. cit. But the means (of the Church) to expound obscure places, are uncertain, doubtful, and ambiguous. And they must needs say so, because otherwise they must confess, that the Church is infallible in expounding the Scripture. Secondly, because the means 
Protest means, but humane.  which Protestants use, are these: Pondering of circumstances, of the style and Phrase of Scripture, conference of places, recurring to the Hebrew and Greek text, prayer, and the like, as ye may see in Rainolds Confer. lib. 2. divis. 2. Confess. Heluet. c. 2. Whitaker. Cont. 1. q. 5. c. 9 Humphrey ad Rat. 1. Camp. and others. But all these means are humane, for they be our pondering, our conference, our recurring, our prayer. And all humane means are fallible, as every man is subject to lie. Thirdly because no where in Scripture is there promised infallible assistance to them that use these means. And if any say, that it is promised to prayer, whatsoever we ask: first he maketh only prayer an infallible means. Again, it sufficeth not to pray how soever, but we must pray well and perseverantlie. For jac. 4. v. 3. it is said: Ye pray and obtain not, because ye pray ill. But it is not prayed well, that every private man by himself should understand the Scriptures; but rather ill, because the Scripture sayeth Malac. 2. The lips of the Priest keep knowledge, and they shall require the law out of his mouth. and Ephes. 4. He hath given Pastors and Doctors for the consumnation of Saints. Fourthly, because all use these means, Catholics, Heretics, jews, and yet all do not attain to the right sense of Scripture by them.  
Fiftly, because, Protestants themselves do insinuate 
Their means not infallible.  that these means are not infallible. For Whitaker besides the words already related, sayeth Cont. 1. q. 5. c. 9 & 10. That we must use these means rightly, and thereby declareth that these means are not infallible unless they be rightly used, and yet he doth not set down the mean how to use them rightly. Et c. 10. cit. addeth, that all these means must be accommodated to the rule of faith. Which be clearly enough showeth, that of themselves they are not infallible. Rainolds also loc. cit. sayeth: that all their means are vain. Unless God give eyes to see.  
Sixthly, these means are not only fallible, but also insufficient. 
Their means not common to all.  For we must not only know to confer places, but also what places are to be conferred, and what not, and with what places they are to be conferred, and with what not. Besides, we must know how we must confer. For otherwise (as Tertullian said of examining Scriptures) we may say of conferring: As if having ill examined all, we may not fall into error, by making choice of some evil. But the foresaied means teach us not this.  
Finally, these means are not common to all the faithful. For thus writeth Whitaker c. 9 cit. The unlearned know not how to use these means rightly: and Rainolds libr. cit. cap. 5. divis. 1. Because the infirm and unlearned sort of Christians have no skill to discern the right sense of Scripture from the false, he (Vincent) accommodateth himself to their infirmity, and giveth them external sensible means to know it. I ask therefore, whether unlearned Protestants do truly know the right sense of Scripture by means, or without means? If without means? they are Enthusiasts. If by means, there are others than those which Protestants assign. I let pass, that the Lutherans say, that the Sacramentaries had their exposition of the Scripture from the Devil, and that Luther professeth that he was taught of the Devil: as perhaps we shall prove an other time at large.  
Wherefore thus I make my 28. argument. They who in so many and weighty matters do expressly contradict such plain words of Scripture, and yet have no infallible way to attain to the true sense thereof, must needs contradict the true sense of Scripture. But Protestants be such. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER XXIX. THAT PROTESTANTS ARE FORCED to admit no judge in the Church, to whose judgement they will stand.  
THE 29. Argument wherewith we will prove, that Protestants are against the true sense of Scriptrue, shallbe, because their doctrine is so plainly against Scripture, as they dare not admit any judge thereof. For thus Zuinglius tom. 1. in Explanat. artic. 67. 
Protest admit judge.  I suffer no man to be judge in the matter of truth and faith. Whitaker Contr. 1. quaest. 5. c. 4. God hath reserved to himself the judgement of religion, and hath not granted it to any man. And Contr. 4. q. 1, c. 2. There is now no infallible judge on earth which is man. Vorstius in Antibel. pag. 80. We have proved, that only Christ or the holy Ghost speaking plainly in Scripture, is to be accounted this supreme judge of controversies of faith. Pareus in Colleg. Theol. 4. Disputatio. 2. The supreme judge of interpretations of Scripture and controversies of faith, from whom there is no Appeal, is is no man now, nor since the Apostles, neither Church, nor Council etc. Lutherans in Colloq. Ratisb. Session. 9 Prove this, that besides the written law, there must be an other visible judge appointed. The like sayeth Academia Nemausiensis Resp. ad Tournon. Eliensis resp. ad Apol. Bellarm. c. 14. Field l. 3. de Eccles. cap. 13 & 16. Moulins in his Bucler art. 3. sect. 6. and other Protestants commonly.  
But that there must needs be admitted a judge in the Church to whose judgement we must stand, I prove: First out of Scripture. For Deut. 17. it is said: If thou perceive that 
There must needs be a judge.  the judgement with thee be hard and doubtful thou shalt come to the Priests of the levitical stock and to the judge that shallbe at that time, and thou shalt ask of them who shall show thee the truth of the judgement, and thou shalt do whatsoever they that are precedents of the place, which our Lord shall choose, shall say and teach thee according to the law and shalt follow their sentence, neither shalt thou decline to the right hand, nor to the left hand. But he that shallbe proud refusing to obey the commandment of the Priest, who at that time ministereth to our Lord thy God, and the decree of the judge, that man shall die. Behold a judge instituted in the Church under the law, and him to be obeyed under pain of death. Likewise Math. 18. Christ sayeth: If he will not hear the Church, let him be to the as an Ethnik and Publican. And Actor. 15. When the Christians did disagree about the observation of jewish ceremonies, they appointed that Paul and Barnabas should go up, and certain others of the rest, to the Apostles, and Priests in Jerusalem upon this question, and all true Christians submitted themselves to their decree, and S. Paul commanded it to be kept. And the like practice hath been ever observed in the Church, and they held for Heretics who did not submit themselves to the judgement of a lawful Council.  
Secondely I prove it out of the Fathers. For thus S. Cyprian Epist. 55. For neither are Heresies risen or Schisms sprung from any other root, then because the Priest of God is not obeyed, nor believed that there is one priest for a time in the Church, and one judge for a time in steed of Christ. Lo to deny, that there is a judge in the Church in steed of Christ, is the occasion of all Heresies and Schisms. And S. Austin l. 1. cont. Crescon. c. 33. Whosoever feareth to be deceived in the obscurity of this question, let him ask the Church of it, whom the holy Scripture doth show without any doubt.  
Thirdly, because it was ever the custom of Heretics 
Heretics deny a judge.  to deny, that there is a judge in the Church. Whereupon the Donatists in Brevic. Collat. say that Christ must be the judge of this cause, stirring up envy to Catholics because they had requested a man to be judge.  
fourthly, I prove it by reason, because it is a plain argument of an evil cause, that the Patrons thereof dare not submit it to the judgement of any judge in the common wealth. Besides, there can be no peace in any society or commonwealth, unless beside the laws, there be some judge, who may determine matters, and to whose judgement men must stand. And who deny such judges, either maintain an ill cause, or love not peace, but continual brawls.  
For these and the like arguments, Protestants sometime 
Protest sometime admit a judge in Words.  in words do admit a judge in the Church. For thus Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 5. c. 4. I confess, that in every common wealth there ought to be judges, who may make an end of contentions amongst men. Et c. 7. God indeed hath left a judge to his Church, but who it is, now is question and debate between us and the Papists. Eliensis. cap. 14. cit. But beside the law, there is need of another lively judge. Who denieth that? Melancthon in Resp. ad Ant. Bavar. tom. 3. We openly confess, that there must be judgements in the Church. But indeed they will have the Scripture only to be this judge: For thus Zuinglius. disput. 1. to. 1. I will never admit any other judges beside the holy Scriptures. Which is in word to admit a judge, and in effect 
But not in effect.  to deny him. For the Scripture is the law of Christians, and therefore not their judge, who is to give sentence according to the law. And the Lutherans in Colloq. Ratisbon. sess 1. when they had said, that Scripture is the rule and square of faith, afterward do add: It is one thing to show the Iudge● another, to show the rule; Wherein they plainly distinguish the Scripture and the judge. Moreover the testimonies of Scriptures, of Fathers, and the reasons before alleged do prove, that there must be a lively or speaking judge in the Church, which is different from the law or Scripture. Finally it is fond, to make 
Protest judge can neither hear nor speak.  such a judge, and him only, who is both deaf and dumb, and who can neither hear those that contend, nor pronounce sentence, nor compel them to obey it. Furthermore (as hath been often said) in most controversies betwixt us and Protestants, Scripture doth not so much as seem to give sentence for Protestants, unless it be conferred by them and joined with some humane principle, and brought into sillogisticall form. Whereas a judge must be such, as by himself without any help of either of the parties, he can give sentence. Besides, the sentence of the judge, and especially if there can be no appeal from him, must be so clear, as no man can doubt for whether party it is; But such is not the sentence of Scripture in many controversies. Again there is controversy between us about diverse books, of which the rest of the Scripture sayeth nothing. Finally, before Moses, the Church had no Scripture, and for sometime after Christ, it had no part of the new testament, and yet she never wanted a judge. And (as we saw in the Chapter before) Protestant's confess, that Scripture of itself is not sufficient to determine all controversies of faith, and therefore not to judge all. Wherefore we must needs have some other judge.  
For these and the like causes some Protestants seeing how absurd it is, that Scripture is the only judge in the Church, say that Christ or the holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture, is the judge. Whitaker c. 7. cit. We say, that this judge is the holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture. In like sort Confess. Heluet. c. 12. Academia Nemaus: loc. cit. Lutherans in Colloq. Ratisb. sess. 9 and others. But seeing Christ or the holy Ghost is no otherwise in the Scripture, then as in a sign of his will, to say that the holy Ghost as he is in Scripture is judge, is no other thing indeed, then to say that the Scripture is judge. And as the King, as he is in his written laws, is not a sufficient judge of the common wealth, because else even after his death he should be judge, but beside there must be a living judge who both heareth and speaketh, who can hear the parties and give sentence: So neither is the holy Ghost a sufficient judge is in the holy Scripture.  
Others therefore acknowledge, that there must be in the Church a speaking judge or man. For thus Eliensis loc. cit. Wherefore we all of long time demand a free and lawful synod. 
Protest. admit a living judge in words.  And Lutherans in Colloq. cit. sess. 9 We profess, that God hath given some power to the Ministers and Doctors of the Church, to judge of controversies of religion. Nevertheless in truth they deny the very nature of the judge. For either they will not admit such a judge as we are bound to obeys, as appeareth by that they deny the universal Church, all Pastors, or general Counsels to be infallible, yea Moulins in the preface of his Bucler, sayeth, that there 
But not in effect.  can be no greater temereity then to desire that men sinners may be infallible judges of the sense of the law: And the Lutherans loc. cit. It is simply and absolutely certain, that the Ministry may err. But this in truth is to deny the judge, whose end is 
The judge in the Church admitteth not appeal.  to make peace and to compose debates: which he cannot do, unless men be bound to obey him: and all the foresaied authorities & reasons which prove that there ought to be a judge in the Church, prove also that he ought to be such from whom we may not appeal. Whereupon Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 5. c. 4. thus writeth: I answer, that those words (Deuteron. 17. cit.) are to be understood of authority to define hard contentions and controversies, as Ecclesiastical by the Minister, and political by the Magistrate, that there might be in both some from whom there should be no appeal: else there would be no end of contending. But this he meaneth only in the 
Nether in outward nor inward Court.  external or outward court, not in the inward court of conscience. For thus he addeth: A great weight of judgement was in the Priest, and what he had once determined, was good in the external court, that so controversies and debates might be ended. And Cont. 4. q 1. cap. 2. Controversies may be brought to the external Court, and there defined: but conscience resteth not in that Court. But this shift is easily refuted. First, because the destruction of the external Cour●e is without cause devised in this matter. secondly, because the peace of the Church especially consisteth in the internal court, to wit, in faith. Wherefore in this Court we may not appeal from the judge of the Church, otherwise there would never be peace of conscience. Thirdly, the practice of the Church in the Council of the Apostles, and in other general Counsels, showeth, that the judge of the Church hath power to end controversies even in the inward court of conscience. Finally, if one were bound to obey the judgement of the Church in the outward Court, and not in the inward, it would follow that sometimes he were bound to deny God's truth before men, to wit, if the Church should define against God's truth. Besides, the authority of the Church is spiritual and over the soul, and therefore her power of judging extendeth itself even to the inward Court of the ●oule.  
Wherefore let this be our 29. argument. Whose doctrine in many and weighty matters doth so contradict the express words of Scripture, as they dare not admit any judge in the Church, they are to be thought to contradict the true sense of the Scripture. But such are Protestants. Therefore etc.   

CHAPTER XXX. THAT PROTESTANTS DO SOMEtimes confess, that their doctrine doth contradict the holy Scripture.  
THE last proof which we will make to show, that Protestants do contradict the true sense of Scripture, shallbe taken from their own confession, wherewith sometimes they confess it implicitlie, sometimes plainly and expressly. Implicitly they confess it diverse ways. First because they acknowledge, that they 
Protest. cannot reconcile their doctrine with the Scripture.  know not how to reconcile their doctrine with the holy Scripture. Luther de seru. arbit. to. 2. fol. 466. How this is just, that he (God) condemneth those that deserve it not, is now incomprehensible: yet it is believed till the Son of man be revealed. Et f. 486. In the light of grace it is unanswerable, how God condemneth him, who with all his power can do nothing but sin and be guilty. Here both the light of nature and the light of Grace teach, that it is not the fault of wretched man, but of unjust God. Et to. 1. f. 390. It is a wonderful problem: that God rewardeth justice, which himself reputeth injustice. Melancthon in Rom. 9 edit. 1. This mystery is inexplicable: that God both willeth sins, and yet truly hateth them. Peter Martyr in locis Class. 1. c. 16. §. 9 It is no marvel, that we cannot understand, how it is not contrary to God's justice to punish sins, and by tempting to enforce them, because God can do more than we can understand. Caluin 1. Institut. capit. 18. §. 3. By reason of the weaknesses of our understanding we do not conceive, how (God) in different manner willeth and willeth the same thing. Again: Where we conceive not, how (God) will have that to be done, which he forbiddeth to do let us remember our weakness. Et 3. Instit. c. 24. §. 17. When he had said, that God willeth that, which he professeth that he will not; he addeth: Albeit according to our understanding, Gods will be manifold, yet in himself he willeth not this and that, but by his manifold wisdom maketh our understanding astonished, till it shallbe granted to us to know, that wonderfully he willeth that, which now seemeth contrary to his will. And cap. 11. §. 11. This is a marvellous manner of justifying, that they that are covered with Christ justice, fear not the judgement which they deserve, and whilst justly they condemn themselves, they are judged just out of themselves. De Praedest. pag. 704. Let our faith adore a fare of with decent sobriety the hidden counsel 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 mad partaker of the sin, as if he were either author or allower thereof, seeing it is clearly a secret fare beyond the reach of man's wit, let us not be ashamed to confess our ignorance. In joan. 12. ver. 27. But it seemeth, that this doth not become the Son of God, that an inconsiderate desire escapeth him, which he must straight renounce for to obey his Father. I confess (sayeth he) that truly this is the folly of the cross, which is a scandal to proud men. Nay, it is not the folly of the cross, but the impiety of Caluin to attribute an in considerate desire to Christ. And in Math. 26. vers. 39 If any object, that the first motion which should have been bridled, before it went further, was not temperate as it beseemed: I answer (sayeth he) that in this corruption of our nature there cannot be seen the fervour of passions with that temper which was in Christ; but we must yield this honour to the Son of God, that we judge not of him by ourselves. Forsooth the impostures of Caluin not only wanting all word of God, but also quite contrary thereto, must be believed, though they cannot be understood, and the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist and the like must not be believed because it cannot be understood. Beza in Explicat. Christianismi c. 3. After a wonderful and incomprehensible manner it pleaseth God, that even that, which as it is sin he alloweth not, yet is not done without his will. De Praedest. count. Cast. p. 340. When he had said, 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 difficulty is unexplicable for men. Again: How God is not in fault, if he ordain the causes of damnation, we think with the Apostle, that it is a question unexplicable for man's wit. Et in Colloq. Montisb. p. 427. There is no part of Christian doctrine from which sense and humane reason doth more abhor. Pareus l. 2. de Amiss. Grat. c. 13. after he had said p. 358. that God doth enforce men to sins as they are his secret judgements: addeth. p. 363. that this manner is unexplicable. Indeed this their excuse of the inexplicabilitie of the thing were tolerable, if the Scripture did clearly teach, what they say: but seeing it doth not clearly teach so, as appeareth by the answers of Catholics; yea so clearly teach the contrary, as Protestants are forced to confess, that they know not how to reconcile so many of their positions with the Scripture, it is a very great proof, that in very deed their doctrine is repugnant to Scripture.  
An other manner whereby implicitlie they confess, that 
Protest. confess that the words of Scripture seem against them.  their doctrine is repugnant to Scripture, is, because in many and great matters they acknowledge, that the words of Scripture, and such as are of purpose spoken for to declare unto us what we ought to believe of such matters, seem to favour us more than them, are hard to them and torment them shrewdly. Luther in Postill. Dom. 9 post. Trin. This day's Gospel, if it be nakedly looked into without the (Protestant) spirit, is plainly Papistical. 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 deny it. And in Explanat. art. 20. The places of Scripture at first sight seem to attribute some what to Merit. Bullinger Dec. 3. Serm. 9 We acknowledge, that the Scripture every were doth seem to attribute life and justice to good works. Rainolds in Confer. c. sect. 1. What if in that other place the Scripture in show do favour you more than us. And he addeth, that he easily granteth, that the show of the words of Scripture maketh more for us then for them. Again: I will grant, 〈◊〉 the words of Christ: This is my body, in show do favour more your real presence, than that sacramental which we maintain. And in an other place: In show of words our Saviour seemeth to have promised the keys to Peter only. Herbrand. in Compendio Theol. pag. 340. sayeth: If the letter be urged in those 
The letter against Protestants.  words of Daniel: Redeem thy sins by alms, they be contrary to their doctrine. The same confesseth Hunnius l. de justif. of those words of Toby: Alms delivereth from all sin and from death. And the same is evident by infinite places of Scripture, which Protestants are forced to expound figuratively because the propriety of the word is for us.  
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 term words of consecration. Here verily we must stretch all the veins of faith. Et in Resp. ad Billican. he sayeth, that he useth pulleys and presses to wring out the sense of the words of consecration, and addeth: We deny, that any one 
They need pulleys and presses.  little drop, at least sincere and pure, will come from them, un-unlesse they be pressed with the weight of other places. And again: How many had we some years ago, who could acquit themselves handsomely of those words of Christ, Thou art Peter etc. and show the figure of the speech? And yet it was no hindrance, that we could not handsomely dispatch ourselves 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 hindereth many: For the Scripture so often promising reward to works, seemeth to attribute some merit to them. Peter Martyr in Dom. 4. Hom. 
Protest. tormented with the words of Scripture.  21. The (Protestant) interpreters do torment themselves, in that Daniel seemeth to attribute redemption or remission of sins to man's justice and works of mercy. For they well admonish, that it is repugnant to the chief point of our religion. Daneus in c. 67. Enchir. Aug. sayeth, that saying of S. james: We are not justified by faith only: doth this day torment many, so that some have rejected the epistle, others have called it strawish. Kemnice in loc. to. 2. tit. de Argum. That saying of Daniel. c. 4. seemeth very hard against free justification.  
The third way by which they tacitelie confess, that 
Protest forced to deny their doctrine.  their doctrine is contrary to Scripture is, because when it maketh for their purpose, they deny that they teach many of those points which in the former book we have clearly showed that they plainly teach. And because they do this so frequently, as I need not bring many examples thereof, I will here cite only some few. Touching God: Pareus thus writeth Colleg. Theol. 9 disp. 32. It is a slander, that we simply say that God would and decreed that our first parents should fall. See l. 1. cap. 2. art. 5. Of Scripture: thus Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 4. cap. 1. Our adversary's attribute unto us this doctrine, as if we said, that the Catholic Church could fail, which is most false. See lib. 1. cap. 8. art. The same man. q 3. cit. c. 2. Our adversary's slander us, when they say, that we make such a Church, which sometime is no where, and can be seen of none. See l. 1. c. 8. art. 5. Touching the Eucharist, Eliensis Resp. ad Apol. Bellar. c. 1. We agree with you of the matter, all the contention is about the manner— A presence (I say) we believe, nor less real than you. Perkins in Cath. refor. Contr. 10. cap. 1. We believe and teach a real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Supper, and that not feigned, but true and real. Argentinenses in Hospin. part. 2. Histor. Be they accursed, who will have nothing to be exhibited here but a sign and figure. And Hospinian. himself. Our men never denied, that the body of Christ was truly in their Supper. Beza l. qq. sayeth, that it is a slander, that they exclude Christ from their Supper. Gratianus Antiiesuita p. 140. There is no controversy, whether the true body and blood of the Lord be contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Et Rivet. tract. 3. sec. 12. The question between us, is not simply, whether the body and blood of Christ be truly and really in this Sacrament. Et Spalatensis libr. contr. Suar. cap. 1. num. 39 Who denieth that the Eucharist is the only flesh and only blood of our Lord jesus Christ? See the contrary of all these lib. 1. c. 11. art. 1.  
Touching faith; thus writeth Peter Martyr in loc. Class. 3. §. 24. We make faith, hope, and charity, three different things, neither do we confound them, as our adversaries accuse us. See the contrary lib. 1. c. 13. art. 6. Of good works thus Tilenus in Syntag. cap. 46. It is a cruel slander of our adversaries, where they feign, that we teach, that all the works of the just be properly and simply sins. Et Rivet. tract. 3. sect. 31. None of ours sayeth absolutely, that all works are sin, neither say we, that they are mingled with sin absolutely. See the contrary lib. 1. c. 14. art. 2.  
Touching good works in particular; thus Rivet. tract. 1. sect. 73. We reject this position: That it is one of the conditions necessary to a Bishop, that he be married. See the contrary lib. 1. cap. 15. art. 4. Of reward: thus the some Rivet. 3. sect. 39 We deny not the reward of good works. See the contrary lib. 1. c. 14. art. 7. c. 18. arr. 1. Of free will thus Serranus l. 3. cont. Hayum. Doth any of ours deny, or ever denied, that those that are not regenerate do fall to sin of their prone and free will? See the contrary lib. 1. c. 16. art. 14.  
But finally they do plainly and expressly grant that 
Protest. confess much of their doctrine to be against Scripture. Of God.  many points of Protestants doctrine are contrary to Scripture. For touching God, thus writeth Confessio Saxon. c. God neither willeth sin, nor approveth, nor helpeth it, as it is written: when the Devil speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: and 1. joan. 3. Who committeth sin, is of the Devil. Gerlachius tom. 2. disput. 15. It is impossible, that God should will sin, of whom it is said. psalm. 5. Thou art not a God that willeth ini-inquitie. Et Polanus in Disput. private. p. 235. God neither willeth, nor can will the ill of offence or sin properly taken psal. 5. vers. 5. Melancthon in disput. to. 4. p. 623. The conference of the continual doctrine in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles doth show, that God neither wille●● nor worketh sin, as it is expressly said: Thou art not a Gad that willeth iniquity; And out of this same place Pareus in Colleg. Theol. 1. disp. 2. proveth, that Gods will is no efficient cause of sin. And yet Protestants teach both that God willeth sin, and worketh sin: See lib. 1. c. 2. art. 1. 4. They teach also, that God hath ordained and predestinated men to sin. l. 1. c. 2. art. 5. of which doctrine Melancthon in disp. to. 4. p. 572. giveth this censure. There are certain frantic fellows much worse than the Stoics, who teach, that God of himself doth ordain and predestinate heinous sins, and that he willeth them, and not only suffereth them. And in locis tit. de Causa Peccat. Sin is neither done of God, nor ordained of him. They teach, that God commandeth, urgeth and tempteth to sin. lib. 1. cap. 2. art. 7. Which is contrary to Scripture, by judgement of Rivet tract. 3. sect. 33. The Scripture expressly sayeth, that God will not iniquity, that he commandeth none to do ill, that he cannot tempt to ill. Moulins in his Bucler. p. 97. God doth not stir up men to do ill, as it is said ps. 45. Thou hast loved justice and hated iniquity. Et Calu. in Math. 4. v. 1. Whereupon we gather, that tentations which incite us to ill, come not from God. They teach that God is not angry with the faithful when they work iniquity. lib. 1. c. 2. art. 11. Which to be contrary to Scripture Protestants in Zanchius in Supplicat. confess in these words: God doth threaten his anger to all the transgressors of his law, and they cite thereto that Ps. 5. Thou hast hated all that work iniquity. They teach, that God hath no will that all should be saved, li. c. 2. art. 19 Which is against Scripture as confesseth Hemingius in these words in Enchir. clas. 3. They accuse God of a lie, whosoever think that he will not the salvation of some, as fare as pertaineth to the counsel of creation. Gesnerus in Compend. loc. 30. The Scripture doth plainly testify, that God hath in earnest a will that all should be saved. Affelman de Praed. §. 36. The Scripture testifieth by words, by oath, by telling, by oblation, that God would have all men saved. They teach, that God doth not call all men to him, nor offer his grace to them. l. 1. c. 2. art. 21. of which thus writeth Illyricus in Clavae part. 2. tract. 4. Some by misunderstanding predestination, use hurtefully to restrain the universal promises and callings of the Gospel, and to make them particulars: by which error of theirs, they quite overthrew the Gospel of Christ. Gerlachius to. 2. disp. 15. The plain testimonies of Scripture do prove the universal will of God. Hemingius in Schlus. l. 1. Theol. Calu. art. 11. Who deny grace to be universal, do corrupt the doctrine of the Gospel, oppose themselves and others. The like hath Confess. Saxon. c. 4. They deny, that God's wrath is appeased by good works l. 1. c. 2. art. 16. And yet thus hath Confessio Aug. art. 11. We confess, that by good works, present calamities are assuaged as I say teacheth c. 58. The like hath Apol. Conf. c. de resp. ad Argum.  
Touching Christ, they deny that he is God of God l. 1. 
Of Christ.  c. 3 art. 1. And yet the Ministers of Poland in Zanchius epist. 1. say it is judaisme: He denieth (say they) with the jews, that Christ is God of God. They teach, that Christ's humanity is not to be invocated or adored l. 1. c. 3. art. 3. Of which thus writeth Caluin Admonit. vlt. They pretend, that there is no where any precept of adoring Christ's body: Surely of Christ as man it is properly spoken: God hath exalted him, and given him etc. Wherefore Austin rightly gathereth from hence, that Christ's flesh is to be adored in the person of the Mediator. They teach, that Christ as man is not head of the Church l. 1. c. 3. art. 6. And yet thus writeth Kickerman. l. 3. System. p. 322. There is given also to the flesh of Christ for the union, the highest power of office, to be head of the Church: This is that which he sayeth: All power is given to me, that is, full power of government in the Church. They teach, that Christ is not judge as he is man. l. 1. c. 3. art. 8. And yet Lobechius disp. 19 Whence it is rightly gathered, that Christ hath judicial power, not only by his deity, but also by his humanity, as it is evident by manifest testimonies of Scripture. The like hath Caluin in Ro. 2. v. 16. They deny, that Christ's humanity hath power to give life l. 1. c. 3. art. 4. Of which thus Hutter in Anal. p. 293. Who shall dare to deny, that power of giving life was given to Christ's humanity, he doth manifestly accuse Christ, who, joan. 6. oftentimes attributeth this power to his flesh. They say, that Christ did not make a new testament. l. 1. c. 3. art. 9 of which point thus pronounceth Gerlachius to. 2. disp. 14. This is no other thing, then to contradict the Apostle. Et Schlusselb. l. 1. Theol. art. 17. The word of God teacheth, that there are two covenants or testaments, and not one and the same in substance. The same sayeth Illyricus praefat. in nou. testam. They deny, that Christ redeemed us with his blood or corporal death. l. 1. c. 3. art. 17. Of which doctrine this censure giveth Serranus contr. Hayum. part. 3. The Scripture affirmeth, that we are purged by the blood of Christ, that our sins are plainly expiated, that God, by that price paid for us, was truly appeased. Calu. res. ad Sadolet. p. 126. Run over all the Oracles of God, if the only blood of Christ be every where proposed for the price of satisfaction, for pacification, for oblation, with what bouldenesse darest thou etc. Moulins in his Bucler, p. 154. sayeth, that it is the sum of the Gospel, that Christ's death was a full and entire satisfaction. They say, that Christ did not dye for those that are damned. l. 1. c. 3. art. 18. Of which point thus writeth Hutter in Anal. art. 3. It is false which the Caluinists feign, that the sacrifice of the passion and death of Christ was not offered for all but for some only: The impiety of which doctrine all the Scripture doth greatly refute. Gerlachius to. 2. disput. 15. They lie horribly, that God the Father did appoint the satisfaction of his Son for some only: Against this blasphemy we oppose the most clear words of the Scripture. Polanus part. 3. thes. Christ died for all. Ro. 5. v. 2. Cor. 5. v. 15. And Roger Art. 3. putteth it as an error in faith. They say that the blood of Christ wherewith we were redeemed, is corrupted and now no more in being l. 1. c. 3. art. 20. Which Schusselb. l. 1. Theol. at. 20. proveth to be contrary to Scripture. They deny that the Soul of Christ descended into hell. l. 1. c. 3. art. 21. Which is contrary to Scripture as testifieth Lobechius disput. 6. in these words: We believe, and embrace with simple faith as true and agreeable to Scripture and the Creeds, that Christ truly descended into hell. Luther in ps. 16. According to the words of the Prophet, the Soul of Christ in substance descended into hell. They deny that Christ entered to his disciples the doors being shut l. 1. c. 3. art. 23. Which is repugnant to Scripture according to Luther in def. verb. cenae. to. 7. The testimonies (sayeth he) of Scripture are manifest, that Christ passed through the doors shut unto his disciples, And Zuinglius in Histor. resur. tom. 4. The Evangelist joan doth witness, that the doors were shut, and that jesus entered in the doors being shut. They deny that Christ prayeth for us in heaven l. 1. c. 3. art. 25. which is opposite to Scripture as Melancthon confesseth in resp. ad art Bavar. saying: He is to be detested, who denieth, that Christ now prayeth for us, sith it is plainly written to the Hebrews: Always living that he may pray for us. Et Kemnice in Exam. part. 3. c. de Inuoc. sayeth that it is repugnant to Scripture and depriveth Christ of a part of his Preisthood.  
Touching Angels and Saints: They teach that the glory 
Of Saintes.  of all Saints is equal. l. 1. c. 4. art. 3. which is against Scripture in the judgement of Caluin. in 1. Cor. 15. v. 41. It is most, true, and it is proved by the testimonies of Scripture, that there be different degrees of honour and glory of the Saints. They deny that Angels or Saints pray for us: cap. 4. art. 4. which the same Caluin avoucheth to be against Scripture: In Zachar. 1. v. 12. The Scripture witnesseth that Angels suppliantly pray to God for us: Zacharie sayeth that the Angel prayed: O Lord of hosts. Apol. Conf. Aug. c. de Inuoc. We grant that Angels pray for us. For there are testimonies Zach. 1. Where the Angel prayeth: O Lord of hosts. The same sayeth P. Martyr in Rom. 8. & Schlus. to. 8. Catal. p. 65. They deny that Angels offer up our prayers to God. l. 1. c. 4. art. 7. Which Beza teacheth to be contrary to Scripture in Apoc. 8. v. 3. John learned by this vision, that the prayers of Saints in this world, to wit, of those that daily offer to God pure sacrifices of prayers and good deeds, are offered to God by the ministry of Angels. They deny, that we ought to pray to Saints lib. 1. c. 4 art. 8. Which to be repugnant to Scripture thus confesseth Luther to. 1. de 1 precept. f. 12. I say that in any case we must recurre to the suffrages of Saints, as in job it is said: And turn thyself to some of the Saints, and as Solomon allegeth his father: Remember David O Lord. And also the Patriach jacob said of Ephraim and Manasse; let my name be invocated upon these children.  
Touching Scripture: they teach, that there is nothing 
Of Scripture.  hard in it. lib. 1. c. 5. art. 1. Which is against Scripture as confesseth Christian ad Portum lib. count. Verron. We confess (sayeth he) plainly with S. Peter, as in the Epistles of S. Paul, so in the Scripture, that there are many things hard to understand. Whitaker lib. 6. cont. Dur. sect. 22. I confess, as Peter sayeth, that there in Scriptures many things hard to understand. The like sayeth Pareus in Gal. 2. lect. 25. They teach, that the law is contrary to the Gospel. l. 1. c. 5. art. 7. Of which doctrine thus Serranus count. Hayum. part. 3. With a more gross and dangerous ignorance doth he oppose the law of Moses and the law of the Gospel like two principles of Maniche, as if they were contrary.  
Concerning S. Peter: They deny, that the Church was 
Of S. Peter.  founded upon him, l. 1. c. 6. art. 2. Which to be against Scripture thus confesseth Whitaker. Cont. 4. q. 2. cap. 2. We deny not, that Peter was the foundation and governor of the Church, and if they require, we will grant also, that this was promised to him in these words. Et. l. 5. cont. Dur. sec. 4. Who doth not confess, that Peter is the rock and foundation of the Church? They deny, that the keys of heaven were given to Peter l. 1. c. 6. art. 3. Which is against Scripture. For thus Spalatensis l. 1. de Rep. c. 7. Christ expressly sayeth to Peter: I will give the keys: wherefore fairewell they and let them be gone, who using force to the letter, will have the keys to be given or promised not immediately to Peter, but excluding Peter's person, either to the whole Church, or to some other that is not Peter. Et Whitaker. Cont. 4. q. 2. c. 4. I grant that the keys were promised to Peter, for the place doth convince that, and I will never repugn. Eliensis in resp. ad Apol. Bellar. c. 8. Who doubts that the keys, were promised to Peter? They deny that the Apostles were foundations of the Church l. 1. c. 6. art. 5. Which Rainolds in his Confer. c. 2. sec. 1. acknowledgeth to be against the Scripture in these words. The 12. Apostles are called 12. foundations Apoc. 21. v. 14. Et Serran. count. Hayum. part. 3. All the Prophets and Apostles are termed (in Scripture) foundations of the Church.  
Concerning Pastors of the Church: They deny that there 
Of Pastors.  are always some, l. 1. c. 7. art. 1. which thus censureth Melancthon apud Luther. 10. 1. f. 483. Where the Church is, there must be the right ordering of Ministers, because the ordination of Ministers is one of the proper gifts of the Church, according to that Ephes. 4. He gave Pastors etc. Kemnice in Exam. part. 2. tit. de ordine: The Son of God himself will have the Ministry of those that teach the Gospel to be conserved with a continual vocation in the Church. So Paul sayeth Ephes. 4. Et Caluin in Ephes. 4. vers. 13. Here (Paul) admonisheth, that the use of the Ministry is not for a time, but perpetual as long as we live in the world.  
Touching the Church: they deny that she doth perpetually 
Of the Church  endure. l. 1. c. 8. art. 4. And notwithstanding Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 3. c. 2. sayeth: Who denieth or doubteth, that the Church is founded for euer, and to continue for ever, he is no Christian. They deny also, that she is always visible l. 1. c. 8. art. 5. Which thus condemneth Daneus l. de visib. Eccles. Who denieth the true Church of God and her to have been visible from the beginning of the world, he doubtless showeth himself to be ignorant of the first page of the Bible. Et Reineccius to. 4. Arm. c. 3. The testimonies of Scripture teach, that the visible company never perisheth quite. They teach, that the Church can err even in fundamental points. lib. 1. c. 8. art. 6. And yet Caluin writeth 4. Instit. c. §. 10. By which words Paul doth signify, that to the end God's truth fail not in the world, the Church is a faithful keeper thereof.  
Touching Baptism: they deny that either water, or 
Of Baptism.  the naming of the B. Trinity is necessary thereto l. 1. c. 10. art. 1. 2. And yet Reineccius to. 4. Armat. c. 18. thus writeth: Beza most fondly imagineth that in want of water, we may use other liquor. And Beza l. quaestionum. & resp. vol. 3. If any should not baptise in the name of the Trinity, or for water, (especially wittingly) should use some other thing, surely this would not be the baptism which Christ instituted. Pareus in Colleg. Theol. 9 disp. 22. There is no Christian that doubteth, that the baptism of water according to Christ's institution ought to be administered only in the name of the Father etc. They deny that baptism is necessary to Infants. l. 1. c. 10. art. 9 Of which thing Melancthon in Catechesi tom. 3. giveth this judgement: I answer, that baptism is necessary to Infants, because Christ's commandment is universal, joan. 3. unless etc. Vrbanus Regius in Epist. ad Heminges to. 2. The Catholic Church doth rightly believe out of the Scriptures that Baptism is necessary to salvation. They deny that the children of the faithful are in state of damnation before they be baptised. l. 1. c. 10 art. 9 Which thus condemneth Schlusselburg. l. 1. Theol. art. 18. It may be proved many ways out of the word of God, that the children of the faithful are not holy from their mother's wombs. They say that baptism is not the laver of the soul, nor purgeth sins. l. 1. cap. 10. art. 6. And yet thus writeth Beza in Prae. 2. part. resp. ad Montisb. Did ever any Christian deny, that baptism is the laver of regeneration, which the Apostle witnesseth in express words. Et Shlusselb. l. 1. Theol. art. 18. This blasphemy of the Caluinists (that Baptism doth not purge sins) the holy Ghost in many places refuteth. In like sort Graver in Absurdis Caluin. c. 14. ser. 10.  
Touching the Eucharist: they deny, that it is the body 
Of the Eucharist.  and blood of Christ. l. 1. c. 11. art. 1. Which is against Scripture. For thus Muscul. in loc. tit. de Caena: I may not say, the bread of the Supper is not the body of the Lord. For in so saying I should contradict the Lord saying: This is my body. Again: Otherwise bread should not be the body of the Lord against his express word. Beza in Hosp. part. 2. f. 300. being asked whether he disliked that one should say: The bread of the Supper is the body of Christ, answered, No: for they are the words of Christ. Et Hosp. ib. f. 136. We deny not, that bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ: For Christ himself said: This is my body. They say, that those words: This is my body, must be thus expounded: This signifieth my body. Of which exposition Musculus in Schlusselb. l. 1. Theol. Caluin. art. 22. giveth this judgement: We must beware of that exposition, wherewith Christ's words are thought to be the same as if he had said: This signifieth my body. For this is not Christ's meaning, to show that this bread signifieth his body. They deny, that Christ gave us his body to eat or his blood to drink. l. 1. c. 11. art. 2. Which doctrine thus censureth Caluin l. de Neces. ref. Christ said in plain terms that he gave them his body. Beza epist. 5. But I answer, that is all one as to make Christ a liar, as who in clear and plain words sayeth, he gave them that body which was delivered for us. Et Apol. 1. contr. Saintem. p. 292. To deny all eating of flesh, were plainly to deny the very words of Christ. They deny that the Cup is the new testament l. 1. c. 11. art. 4. And yet Simlerus in Hosp. part. 2. f. 348. sayeth: The proper sense of these words, is: The Cup is the new testament or the blood of the new testament. james Andreae in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 38. To me it seemeth altogether new and unheard of that the Supper is denied to be the testament of Christ, against the plain words alleged out of Luke. Et Musculus in locis titul. de Caena: In Luke and Paul it is said of this Cup, that it is the new testament. They deny, that the Cup of the Eucharist was shed for us. l. 1. c. 11. art 6. And yet Illyricus in Luc. 22. v. 20. writeth: Which is poured out for you, in the Greek text must needs be referred to the Cup.  
Touching Matrimony: they deny that it is a Sacrament. 
Of Matrimony:  c. 12. art. 5. And yet thus professeth the Confession of Wittenberg. c. de Coniugio: We confess, that Marriage is a kind of life instituted and approved by God, and a mystery, as commonly it is expounded, a great Sacrament in Christ and the Church, as Paul sayeth.  
Touching faith: they deny that it can be without good 
Of Faith.  works l. 1. cap. 13. art. 8. which doctrine thus condemneth Schlusselburg. l. 1. Theol. art. 15. Aretius sayeth, that faith and good works are conjoined as the species and her propriety, as a man and reason; But we out of the word of God teach and learn that this doctrine is false. They deny that faith itself is imputed to us for justice. l. 1. c. 13. art. 19 And yet thus judgeth Vrbanus Regius in loc. fol. 46. Sincere faith on the mercy of God and jesus Christ, is our very justice. Faith is imputed for justice to the beleiver. Abraham believed and it was imputed to him for justice. They deny that the faith of the Hemorroïssa was pure libr. 1. capit. 13. articul. 25. And yet thus Bullinger in Marci 5. The power of true faith is singularly expressed  
Touching good works: they deny, that they are necessary 
Of good works.  to salvation. l. 1. c. 14. art. 13. And yet Piscator sayeth in Thes. loc. 10. The Scripture teacheth, that good works are necessary to salvation. The same say the Electorals in Colloq. Aldeburgico. They deny also, that good works are cause of salvation lib. 1. cap. 14. art. 15. And yet thus writeth Illyricus in Clavae tractat. 6. titul. de Var. bonum operum praed. We hear that to many effects and praises, and even salvation itself is attributed (in Scripture) to good works,— It is plain, that oftentimes somewhat to much praise is ascribed to good works, which doth not agree to them, nor is to be ascribed to them, if we will speak exactly, truly, and properly. They deny, that they are meritorious lib. 1. cap. 14. art. 8. And yet thus professeth Apollog. Confession. in Melancthon. tom. 3. Seeing works are some fulfilling of the law they are truly said to be meritorious, reward is rightly said to be due to them. Again: The text of Scripture sayeth that life everlasting is rendered to them. Which Protestants deny lib. 1. cap. 14. articul. 7. They deny also that they are to be done for God. lib. 1. cap. 14. art. 20. Of which point thus judgeth Kemnice in locis tit. de bonis oper. The testimonies of Scripture most clearly teach, that good works are to be done for God's sake.  
Touching virginity: they deny that it is counselled in Scripture l 1. c. 15. art. 4. And nevertheless Vrbanus Regius in locis fol. 372. sayeth: Virginity is counselled in the Gospel, not commanded. And in Interp. loc. 49. Virginity is only a counsel, not a precept.  
Concerning sin: they teach, that it can remain with 
Of sin.  justice l. 1. c. 16. art. 17. Yet thus pronuonceth Luther in Gal. 3. These are directly opposite: That a Christian is just and loved of God, and yet with all is a sinner. Again: How are these two contradictories true at once? I h●ue sins & am most worthy of the wrath of God, and the Father loveth me. They deny that sin putteth a man out of grace. l. 1 c. 16. art. 6. And yet thus writeth Hemingius in Enchir class. 2. If a penitent sin against his conscience, as David did with murder and adultery, he casteth of the holy Ghost, and becometh guilty of God's wrath, and unless he do penance falleth into eternal punishment. It is a horrible madness to say that such retain the holy Ghost, when as Paul sayeth plainly Gal. 5. The works of the flesh are manifest, and they that do such, shall not possess the kingdom of God. They deny that the widows (whereof S. Paul speaketh 1. Timoth.) did sin in marrying l. 1. c. 16. art. 15. And yet thus Bullinger in Tim. 5. Surely to marry, of itself, is no sin: But because they have once given their promise to Christ the spouse and to the Church, and of their own accord have left marriage, hereupon their marriage turneth to the disgrace of Christ, which is that which Paul termeth to become wanton against Christ. Bucer lib. 2. de Regno Christi c. 23. They who have given their first promise to God, of a single life, have indeed judgement and reprehension. Caluin upon this place sayeth that these widows: gave away their liberty to marry, and did free themselves from the bound of marriage for all their life, and did deprive themselves of the liberty to marry. How then did not they sin by marrying.  
Touching justification: they teach, that it is never last. 
Of justification.  l. 1. c. 17. art. 15. Which is contrary to Scripture to Scripture, as Confess. Saxon. cap. 11. confesseth in these words: By the saying of Luke: He goeth and bringeth other spirits, and the like sayings, it is manifest, that some regenerate do contristate and cast of the holy Ghost, and are afterward cast away of God, and become guilty of his wrath and eternal punishment.  
Touching eternal life: they deny that it is a reward. l. 1. 
Of eternal life.  c. 18. art. 1. And yet thus speaketh Apologia Confess. Aug. in Melancthon: tom. 3. The Scripture calleth eternal life, areward: Again: The name of reward in this manner agreeth to eternal life, because eternal life rewardeth good works.  
Touching Hell: they deny that it is a place. l. 1. c 18. act. 
Of Hell,  7. Which to be contrary to Scripture thus confesseth Bucanus loc. 4. Hell is a certain place hid and horrible, appointed of God for damned men and Angels to their eternal pain. Nu. 16. 30. Math. 8. 12. Et Piscat or l. 1. loc. 22. The Scripture every where testifieth, that the damned shall suffer these torments in hell, to wit a place under earth appointed for their punishment. And Regius in loc. tit. l de Peccato. The Scripture expressly deputeth two places for souls, heaven for the good, and hell for the bad.  
Touching the law of God: they deny that we may pray 
Of God's law.  for the fulfilling of it. lib. 1. c. 19 art. 5. And yet thus writeth Perkins in Explic. orat. Dom. Be done, that is, let obedience be given to it, let it be fulfilled of all men.  
Concerning man's will: they deny that it is free in evil 
Of man's will  l. 1. c. 21. art. 2. And yet thus writeth Regius in locis tit. de Peccato: To say with Maniche; that man cannot avoid sin; this error is heresy. Roger's on the 10. Article. The Manichees affirmed how man is not voluntarily brought but necessarily driven unto sin.  
These and many more Protestanticall doctrines Protestants themselves confess to be contrary to the true sense of holy Scripture. Why then may not we conclude, that Protestant's do contradict the holy Scripture, seeing besides all the foresaied arguments, they themselves plainly confess it of many points of their doctrine: Which was the end and scope of this work.   

PERORATION Or Conclusion to the Reader.  
Thou hast seen (good Reader) in this work, 
catholics advantages for, Scripture over Protestants.  what great advantage catholics have over Protestants even for the written word of God or holy Scripture. Thou hast seen, that the Catholic doctrine in more than two hundred and sixty points of controversy relieth upon the express word of God; whereas the Protestants Doctrine relieth upon humane principles, humane conferences, humane consequences, that is, upon the word of man. Thou hast seen, that the holy Scripture in all these foresaied articles giveth sentence for the Catholic doctrine, and condemneth the Protestant, in express words, and those purposely spoken, and in their plain & usual sense, in which such words use to be spoken and taken of men: then the which no sentence can be given clearer or manifester. Thou hast seen how many, how voluntary, how intolerable corruptions both of the words and sense of Scripture Protestants are forced to make, lest they should seem to be condemned by the sentence of holy Scripture. They have now that judge to whom alone they appeal, let them hear him, let them submit themselves to his sentence. He speaketh plainly, directly, and purposely, and (as I said) in the plain and usual sense in which men use such words, that I may not say also in the sense, in which he is understood of the holy Fathers and the Catholic Church. Now all and the only pretext of Protestants touching the Scripture is taken away. For who, unless he will shut his eyes, doth not see, but that they are most plainly condemned of the Scripture, who are condemned of it in so many, and so weighty articles, in such plain words, and so clear sense, and that it is but a vain struggling to seek to obscure the clearness of such a sentence by humane glosses and expositions, such as were never wanting, nor ever willbe wanting to any heretic? The Protestants have often cried, that the Scripture is the only rule and foundation of faith, that faith relieth only upon Scripture: which I would to God they would follow in the foresaied 260. articles, and let go their own glosses and consequences, which are not sound in Scripture, and follow them who produce the express word of God against the word of man. Which counsel though it of itself be most reasonable, yet because they will more willingly follow it when they shall hear it approved by their own Masters, I will here set down the words of some of them. Luther in Postilla in Festo Assumpt. Always 
Protest. advice us to follow them that follow Scripture.  stick to th●se things, which are clearly delivered by the Scriptures: and rely not upon that which hath not manifest authority in Scripture. The Protestante Princes in Praefar. libr. Concordiae. In true simplicity of faith they shall firmly insist in the plain words of Christ: which is the surest manner and fittest to teach the ignorant. Melancthon in Acts Wormat. tom. 4. When the letter is plain, it is manifest we must not go from it. Et ib. in Resp. ad Staphilum: Nether is it to to be doubted, but that the letter, when there is no obscurity or anbiguitie, is to be preferred before all the decrees of all men. Again: Where the word is manifest, and without obscurity or ambiguity: it is impiety to teach or think the contrary. And in Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 115. What willbe in time of tentation, 
Hearken to this, Protestants.  when the conscience shall ask what cause it had to go from the recaved doctrine of the Church: Then these words: This is my body, willbe lightnings. What will the terrified mind oppose against these, with what Scripture, with what word of God, will she strengthen and persuade herself, that it was need to interpret them by a metaphor. They seem not to be well acquainted with these disputes, who so much delight in wit, as them more admire subtly devised reasons then the words of Scripture. james Andrews in Colloq. Montisbel. pag. 456. Let them examine and judge the doctrine of both parts, not by humane glosses, but by the word of God. Zuinglius libr. de Author. sedit. tom. 2. As often as thou seest Christian Doctors to contend and disagree, stick to him who bringeth a clear, evident, and express oracle of God. Caluin. l. de ver. ref. p. 326. We deny, that it is lawful for us to go from the certain words of Christ. And 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 35. Our souls rely upon the only certain 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 away the things which are approved by most certain and evident testimonies of Scripture. And de ver. peccat. remissio. No opinion is Theological, which is against the express places of Scripture. Fulk. in Hebr. 6. not. 3. Nether is the exposition of any man to be received, that goeth directly against the words of the text, and the manifold testimonies of the Scripture. Vorstius in Amica Collatine sec. 101. Who simply so affirm and teach all these things, they are secure before God, because they can safely retire themselves under the shield of the holy Scripture; But who deny them, or by marvellous glosses obscure or corrupt them, thy find no where sure footing. There is nothing more secure, than simply to stick to the clear word of God expounded by itself: and contrariwise, nothing more dangerous, then to add or detract never so little of our own, especially in matters of so great moment. Thus the chief Protestant masters, which if either themselves would have followed, or their disciples yet would follow, soon would there be an end of these controversies.  
With what assurance (o God) may catholics appear 
Confidence of Cath. for their faith.  before thy tribunal for to answer for the faith which they maintain against Protestants, seeing they find it is avouched in so many and so great articles by thy express words spoken not by the way, but of set purpose to tell us what thou wouldst have us believe of these matters, and in their clear and plain sense, which they manifestly bear, and in which such words use to be taken of men, so that unless thou do deceive then or be deceived, they cannot in these points be deceived? But with what distrust 
Desperation of Protest.  or rather desperation will Protestants appear, seeing they have left that which so express words of God do avouch, & follow that which they most clearly condemn, & only humane consequences, humane glosses, humane subtleties do uphould? Then these words of God, willbe (as Melancthon said) lightnings, or as S. Austin speaketh, thunderings 
Lib. 1. contr. Parm. c. 2.  and heavenly lightnings, and Protestants consequences, figures, and glosses, will vanish to nothing. Then it will clearly appear, that Protestants without all word of God, without all divine authority, but only upon their own fancies have preferred their consequences, their conferences, their idle reasons before Gods express word, and that they might not seem to have done so, have changed the true and native sense of God's words into a strange, figurative, and violent sense. And shall we 
Never any so contrary to Scripture as Protestants.  think, that these men are Ghospelers, restorers of the Gospel, or sent of God, and their doctrine the pure Gospel? Whereas never was there doctrine more opposite to the Gospel, nor ever any who in so many and weighty matters, so directly opposed themselves to the plain words and open sense of the Gospel. O boldness of men that durst do thus against the express word of God himself. O impudency of them who would avouch such doctrine, for the Gospel. And o blindnesses or madness of them, who suffer themselves to be deceived of such men in a matter so evident. O bewiched and blinded men, awaken at length, open your eyes, consider your estate, search the Scriptures here set before your eyes, and compare them with the doctrine of your Masters, and consider whether they who in so many and so great matters speak so contrary, can speak with the same spirit, think the same thing. Demand of your Masters 1. by what authority 
Demands to be made to Ministers.  of God, by what word of God, they dare speak contrary to the words and phrase of Scripture, of so many and so great matters: 2. by what authority or word of God, they dare think of so many and so great matters, otherwise then the express word of God spoken purposely and in it plain and open sense, taught them to think. 3. By what authority or word of God, they have changed the proper usual and manifest sense of his words, into figurative, unusual, and violent senses,  
If they can allege no express authority or word of 
Ministers draw men from Gods express word to their consequences.  God for their so doing (as in truth in most of these Articles they can give no colour of God's express word) but oneliepretend their consequences, their conferences, their reasons, suffer not yourselves by this most deceitful and fond humane pretext to be drawn from Gods express and their manifest sense. Let us (sayeth S. Austin) hear 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 divine and supernatural things which cannot be known of us but by his words, and speaking of them purposely for to declare his mind concerning 
Note.  them, should so often and in so many and so wheigtie points, think otherwise then he speaketh, or otherwise think then his words do show, or otherwise then men to whom he speaketh use to understand them, and yet not once should expressly say the contrary, is not God's word but the ghesses and suspicions, yea the impostures and lies of men. In this point therefore consisteth almost all the 
The Sum whether catholics or Protest, be to be followed.  sum of deliberation whether catholics or Protestants be to be followed, to wit, whether in supernatural matters, which cannot be known but by Gods express words, we ought to follow rather the express words of God purposely spoken of him for to tell us those matters, 
Is whether God's word, or man's reason.  rather than the consequences, conferences, & reasons, of some new slart up men not well agreeing among themselves: Then the which consultation none can be easier. For if even in matters which are subject to sense & reason, we ought to prefer God's word before reason of what men soever; how much more in things which fare surpass the reach of men's sense or reason, ought we to prefer it before the reasons of a few, new, and jangling fellows? Let that faith live, flourish, and triumph, which 
Let that faith prevail which Scripture most favoureth.  in divine matters that cannot be known but by God's words, is authorized by God's express word spoken of purpose to declare God's mind, and in the plain and open sense wherein men use to take such words, and against which sense no other express words are directly contrary: And let that faith, or rather infidelity, fall, perish, vanish, which in more than 260. articles is condemned of such words of God and in such a sense, and in most points is only 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 book, which I desire to fasten and engrave in thy memory: which yet will be more forcible, if thou add to them things which I have set before thy eyes in thy second book. For there I have showed, that the holy Scripture doth so manifestly condemn the Protestants doctrine, as that touching the letter thereof, they are forced to reject some openly, others privily to scrape out, to call some in doubt, to add some, to translate some wrong, and change the order of others: Touching the propositions 
How the sayings.  of Scripture, they are compelled to say, that some of them were certainly known of God himself, others not spoken according to his own mind, others spoken ironically, mimeticallie, hyperbolically, by fiction and amplification: and to change universal propositions into particulars, unlimited into limited, absolute into conditionals, these that were spoken simply into those that were spoken in part, and those that were spoken of one time, into those that were spoken of an other. Touching the single 
How the simple words.  words of Scripture, they are forced, those words which signify the doing of a thing, to expound of endeavour to do it; those which signify the cause, to expound of the way or means to an end: Which signify that a thing is, to expound that it ought to be: Which signify a true thing, to expound of an apparent or sign thereof: to expound words, by divers, by disparate, or unlikely, yea by opposites or contraries: to device all kind of figures when the propriety of the word is against them: to find out new & and never heard of distinctions: to reject the unanimous exposition of Fathers, Church, and Counsels: to frustrate the ends of the passion of Christ: to take out of the world all true virtue, and to open the way to all vice: to confess, that they hold opinions her to fore condemned for heresies of the Church and Fathers: to acknowledge that some of their opinions are plainly blasphemous: and finally (which is the end of this work) directly opposite to holy Scripture. Who (I say) in more than 260. articles of controversy, not only oppose themselves to the express words of Scripture, spoken of purpose to tell us God's meaning concerning matters that fare pass all man's reach, in their proper sense, and in which men usually understand them, and to which no other places of Scripture are directly opposite: but also, lay violent hands upon the sacred letter or word, change almost all the kinds of propositions which the Scripture useth, impiously deprave the sense of the words, reject the exposition of Fathers, Church, and Counsels, make void the ends of Christ's passion take away all virtue and bring in vice, and finally confess, that diverse of their opinions are blasphemous & contrary to scripture, they are to be accounted, avoided and eschewed, not only as Heretics condemned by the Scripture and holy Church, but even of themselves.  

A note to the Reader.  
I HAVE not set down the editions of the Protestants books which I cite in this work, because I have done that in my book 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 answer either that book or this. Moreover in this English work I do 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 leaf or page as I was in the Latin edition, because the unlearned will not be able to seek the Latin, and the learned Reader will rather (I suppose) peruse my Latin copy, where he shall find the leaves or pages as carefully cited as I could do by the errors of the Scribe or Printer, whose fault no discreet 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 leaves or pages together: So that the one of them may bring the Reader to the place which I allege, if the other chance to be misprinted.    
Laus Deo Virginique Matri.   


AN INDEX OF THE CHAPTERS and Articles contained in the first book.  

CHAPTR 1. Of the owners of Scripture.  
Whether catholics or Protestants be true owners of the Scripture.   

CHAP. 2. Of God.  


ARt. 2. Whether God willeth sin. page. 45.  
2. Whether sin pleaseth God. p. 49.  
3. Whether God hateth sin. p. 50.  
4. Whether God worketh sin. p. 51.  
5. Whether God ordaineth sin to be. p. 33.  
6. Whether God commandeth sin? p. 56.  
7. Whether God tempteth to sin? p. 57  
8. Whether God necessitateth to sin? p. 59  
9 Whether God hateth all that sin? p. 61.  
10. Whether God justifieth the sinner remaining a sinner? p. 62.  
11. Whether God be angry with the faithful when they sin? p. 65.  
12. Whether God be delighted with good works. p. 67.  
14. Whether God be served by good works. p. 69.  
15. Whether God esteem of good works which are not commanded? 70.  
16. Whether God be appeased by good works? p. 71.  
17. Whether God will have his commandments kept. p. 73.  
18. Whether God loveth all men. p. 75.  
19 Whether God would have all men to be saved. p. 77.  
20. Whether God would have some converted who will not convert. p. 78.  
21. Whether God call all men. p. 80.  
22. Whether God of himself will the death and damnation of men. p. 81.  
23. Whether God damneth men for sin? p. 85.  
24. Whether God can do all things. p. 86.  
25. Whether God can make a Camel pass through a needls eye. p. 88  
26. Whether God can do that which shall never be. p. 90.  
27. Whether God's miracles be a sufficient proof of truth? p. 91.     

Chap. 3. Of Christ.  


Art. 1. Whether God the Son had his being of his Father. p. 96.  
2. Whether Christ was predestinated the Son of God. p. 97.  
3. Whether Christ as man is to be adored. p. 98.  
4. Whether Christ as man could work miracles. p. 100  
5. Whether Christ's humanity be every where. p. 102.  
6. Whether Christ as man be head of the Church. p. 104.  
7. Whether Christ as man made laws? p. 105.  
8. Whether Christ as man be judge? 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 do the office of a Redeemer? p. 116.  
13 Whether he was assured of his salvation? 118  
14 Whether he had commandment to give his life for us? 120  
15 Whether he merited any thing for himself? 121  
16 Whether he sufficiently redeemed us? 123  
17. Whether he redeemed us with his blood? 125  
18. Whether he died for reprobates? 127  
19 Whether he died for all? 129  
20. Whether his blood be corrupted? 131  
21. Whether his soul descended to hell? 132  
22. Whether he suffered the pains of hell? 134  
23. Whether he entered to his disciples, the doors being shut? 136  
24. Whether he penetrated the heavens? 138  
25. Whether he prayeth for us in heaven? 139     

Chap. 4. Of Angels and Saints.  


Art. 1. Whether Angels and Saints do the will of God? 144  
2. Whether Saints enjoy their felicity? 145  
3. Whether the glory of Saints be equal? 147  
4. Whether Angels and Saints pray for us. 148  
5. Whether Saints have care of us? 150  
6. Whether they hear our prayers. 152.  
7. Whether Angels offer our prayers to God? 153  
8. Whether they be to be prayed unto? 155  
9 Whether God be to be prayed unto by the names of Saints? 156  
10. Whether God have mercy on us for Saints sake? 158  
11. Whether Angels or Saints be to be bowed unto? 159  
12. Whether Saints be to be imitated of us? 161  
13. Whether holy men receive us into heavenly tabernacles? 162  
14. Whether any Saint may be termed our hope? 163  
15. Whether any had power to work Miracles? 164  
16. Whether Saints do reign with Christ? 166  
17. Whether any was full of grace? 167     

Chap. 5. Of the Scripture or word of God.  


Art. 1. Whether any place of Scripture be hard to understand? 170  
2. Whether Scripture can be understood without the holy Ghost? 172  
3. Whether the Gospel contain any law? 174  
4. Whether the Gospel preach penance? 167  
5. Whether the Gospel reprove sin? 178  
6. Whether the Ghopell promise salvation without condition of works? 180  
7. Whether the Gospel be contrary to the law? 182  
8. Whether the law of Moses commanded faith in Christ? 184.  
9 Whether any unwritten traditions be to be kept? 186     

Chap. 6. Of S. Peter and the Apostles.  


Art. 1. Whether S. Peter were first of the Apostles? 189.  
2. Whether the Church was built on S. Peter? 190.  
3. Whether the keys were given to him? 192.  
4. Whether his faith failed? 193.  
5. Whether the Apostles were foundations of the Church? 195.  
6. Whether the Apostles were simply to be heard? 196.  
7. Whether they were sufficient witnesses of the truth? 198  
8. Whether they learned any point after Christ's ascension? 200.  
9 Whether judas was truly a disciple? 201.  
10. Whether judas was a Bishop? 202.     

Chap. 7. Of Pastors of the Church.  


Art. 1. Whether Pastors always continue? 204.  
2. Whether authority be in the Pastors? 206.  
3. Whether one Pastor can excommunicate? 208.  
4. Whether Pastors can make laws? 209.  
5. Whether Bishops be rulers of the Church? 210  
6. Whether they rule the Church? 211.  
7. Whether Pastors be to be called Priests? 213.  
8. Whether a Pastor can be without calling? 214.  
9 Whether a Pastor may have temporal jurisdiction? 216.  
10 Whether Moses were a Priest? 218.     

Chap. 8. Of the Church.  


Art. 1. Whether the Church be one? 220.  
2. Whether ill men be of the Church? 223.  
3 Whether reprobats be of the Church? 225.  
4 Whether the Church ever continue? 226.  
5. Whether it be always visible? 228.  
6. Whether it be infallible? 230.  
7. Whether it be simply to be heard? 231.  
8. Whether truth relieth on the Church? 232.     

Chap. 9 Of Temples or material Churches.  


Art. 1. Whether Churches be for private Prayers? 235.  
2. Whether Churches be to be adorned? 237.  
3. Whether Images may be set in Churches?  
4. Whether Heatens thought their idols to be Gods? 240     

Chap. 10. Of Baptism.  


Art. 1. Whether water be necessary to baptism? p. 242.  
2. Whether invocation of the Trinity be necessary to baptism? p. 243.  
3. Whether baptism be necessary as by precept? p. 245.  
4. Whether it be necessary as a mean? p. 246.  
5. Whether Simon Magus and such were baptised? p. 248.  
6. Whether baptism be effectual in reprobats. p. 150.  
7. Whether baptism cleanseth sin? p. 252.  
8. Whether it pardoneth sins to come? p. 256.  
9 Whether before baptism children be in state of damnation? p. 258.  
10. Whether the baptism of S. John and of Christ were different? p. 261.  
11. Whether certain Ephesians had received S. Ihons' baptism? p. 262.  
12. Whether they had heard of the holy Ghost? p. 264.     

Chap. 11. Of the Eucharist.  


Art. 1. Whether the Eucharist be the body and blood of Christ? p. 266.  
2. Whether Christ's flesh be to be eaten, and his blood to be drunk? p. 280.  
3. Whether Christ gave the blood of the new testament to be drunk? p. 283.  
4. Whether the Eucharistical Chalice be Christ's testament? p. 284.  
5. Vhether at the time of his Supper his blood was shed? p. 286.  
6. Whether the Eucharistical Chalice was shed for us? p. 288.  
7. Whether bread be necessary to the Eucharist? p. 289.  
8. Whether the Eucharist be to be made of azime bread? p. 290.  
9 Whether bread and wine whereof the Eucharist is made, be to be blessed? p. 292.  
10. Whether there ought to be any preparation to the Eucharist? p. 293.  
11. Whether there be any Sacrifice in the Church? p. 295.  
12. Whether is there any altar in the Church. p. 296.  
13. Whether the Paschal lamb was sacrificed? p. 297.     

Chap. 12. Of the other Sacraments.  


Art. 1. Whether Priests can forgive sins? p. 300.  
2. Whether we must confess our sins. p. 302.  
3. Whether grace be given by imposition of hands? p. 305.  
4. Whether hands be to be imposed upon those that are baptised? p. 305.  
5. Whether Matrimony be a Sacrament? p. 306.  
6. Whether one may marry after divorce. p. 307.  
7. Whether the sick are to be anoiled? p. 310.  
8. Whether the new Sacraments excel the old. p. 311.     

Chap. 13. Of faith.  


Art. 1. Whether faith be a work? 314.  
2. Whether faith believe only God his promises. 315.  
3. Whether to believe that Christ is God, be justifying faith? 317.  
4. Whether faith be one? 319.  
5. Whether all articles of faith may be believed without the holy Ghost. 321.  
6. Whether faith differ from hope and charity? 322.  
7. Whether faith be greater than charity? 324.  
8. Whether faith be without charity? 325.  
9 Whether it be without confession? 328.  
10. Whether without good works it be dead? 329.  
11. Whether faith whereof S. james speaketh be justifying faith? 331.  
12. Whether any faith be perfect? 333.  
13. Whether faith be perfected by good works. 331.  
14. Whether by faith we only know that we are justified? 336.  
15. Whether faith be necessary to justification or salvation. 338.  
16. Whether faith be any cause of iustificatien? 340.  
17. Whether faith alone can justify. 342.  
18. Whether faith justify, as it is belief. 344.  
19 Whether faith itself be imputed to justice. 346  
20. Whether faith be proper to the just. 348  
21 Whether it be proper to the Elect? 350  
22. Whether faith come by hearing? 352  
23. Whether faith be ever lost? 353  
24. Whether faith be rewarded? 355  
25. Whether the faith of those who touched Christ's garments, were pure? 356     

Chap. 14. Of good works in general.  


Art. 1. Whether any work of a Sinner may be good. p. 360  
2 Whether every good work, be sin? 362  
3 Whether good works, be a sweet smell to God, 364  
4 Whether good works be fully good? 366  
5 Whether they be just or justice in the sight of God? 369  
6 Whether in good works there be any worth? 371  
7 Whether eternal life be promised to good works? 373  
8 Whether good works be meritorious. 374  
9 Whether there may be glory in good works? 376  
10 Whether all good works be equal before God? 378  
11 Whether good works be commanded of God? 379  
12 Whether they be necessary to justification? 381  
13 Whether they be necessary to salvation? 384  
14 Whether they be profitable to salvation or justification? 387  
15 Whether they be any cause of salvation? 390  
16 Whether they be a testimony of justification or predestination? 393  
17 Whether they be a cause of God's love towards us? 395  
18 Whether we ought to do good works? 396  
19 Whether they may be done for reward? 399  
20 Whether they be to be done for the glory of God? 401     

Chap. 15. Of works in particular.  


Art. 1. Whether it be good not to marry? 406  
2 Whether virginity, be a virtue? 406.  
3. Whether the state of virginity be better than marriage? 408  
4. Whether God would have men to live single? 410  
5. Whether Fasting be a virtue? 412.  
6. Whether fasting be a preservative against the Devil? 414.  
7. Whether choice of meats be laudable? 415.  
8 Whether we may pray for all? 416.  
9 Whether we may pray for the dead? 417.  
10 Whether we may pray for that which God hath not promised? 419  
11. Whether any obtain for the worth of their prayer? 421.  
12. Whether we may pray in an unknown tongue? 422.  
13. Whether we be commanded to say our lords prayer? 423  
14. Whether we may make vows? 424  
15. Whether alms deliver from death and sin? 426  
16. Whether we may give all to the poor? 427  
17. Whether penance be commanded to all? 428  
18 Whether affliction of the body be a part of penance? 429.  
19 Whether penance of the Ninivites was good? 431  
20. Whether Eremitical life be lawful?     

Chap. 16. Of Sins.  


Art. 1. Whether sins be imputed to the faithful? 435.  
2. Whether any sin be mortal to the Elect and faithful? 437.  
3. Whether only incredulity be sin? 438.  
4. Whether sin ought to be overcomen of us? 440.  
5. Whether any that serve the flesh, can serve God? 441.  
6 Whether by grevous sins we fall from grace? 442.  
7 Whether sin can stand with justice?  
8. Whether sin may be redeemed by good works? 447.  
9 Whether to abstain from great sins, be necessary to salvation? 448  
10. Whether sin be the cause of damnation? 451.  
11. Whether we must give account of our sins? 453.  
12. Whether the justified commit ill? p. 454.  
13. Whether the justified commit sin? 455.  
14 Whether the justified ever do sin wilfully? 457.  
15 Whether the widows 1. Tim. 5. did sin in marrying? 458.  
16 Whether usury be sin? 459.  
17. Whether all sinned in Adam? 460.  
18. Whether there is original sin? 461.     

Chap. 17. Of justification.  


Art. 1. Whether justification be of works? 465.  
2. Whether it be of faith only? 467.  
3. Whether the justified be just in God's fight? 469.  
4. Whether the justified be clean? 472  
5. Whether sin remain in the justified? 474.  
6. Whether sins be simply forgiven? 477.  
7. Whether all the justified be equally just? 478  
8. Whether there is any inherent justice? 478  
9 Whether inherent justice can be imputed. 481.  
10. Whether the justified be infallibly certain of their justice? 482.  
11. Whether penance go before justification? 845.  
12. Whether justification can be lost? 487.  
13. Whether the justified may fear to fall? 489.  
14. Whether justification be proper to the Elect? 492.  
15. Whether we cooperate to our justification? 493.  
16. Whether after justification any punishment remain? 496     

Chapt. 18. Of life and death everlasting.  


ART. 1. Whether life everlasting be a reward? p. 499.  
2. Whether it be a crown of justice? 501.  
3. Whether it be of faith only? 503.  
4. Whether all men be to be judged? 505  
5. Whether eternal life be to be rendered to any? 506.  
6. Whether the souls of the Reprobates do now suffer in Hell. 507.  
7. Whether Hell be any place? 509.  
8. Whether Hell fire be true fire? 510.     

Chapt. 19 Of God's law.  


ART. 1. Whether God's law be possible? 513.  
2. Whether ever any kept God's law? 515.  
3. Whether any loved God in all the●● heart? 517.  
4. Whether God's law be in th● heart of any? 519.  
5. Whether we ● 〈◊〉 ● that we may keep God's law? 520.  
6. Whether the keeping of God's law be necessary to salvation? 521.  
7. Whether the law of God be abrogated from the faithful. 522.     

Chapt. 20. Of man's law and superiority.  


ART. 1. Whether there be any Superiority among Christians? 526.  
2. Whether man can make laws? 527.  
3. Whether man's law bindeth the conscience? 529.     

Chapt. 21. Of free will.  


ART. Whether man be free in indifferent matters? 532.  
2. Whether man be free in moral matters? 534.  
3. Whether man cooperate with God's grace to good? 536.     

Chap. 22. Of man's Soul.  


ART. 1. Whether man's Soul be immortal? 539.  
2. Whether Man's soul be the form of his body? 545.  
3 Whether there be any resurrection of the dead? 547.      

THE INDEX. OF THE CHAPTERS CONTAINED in the second book.  


CHAPTER. 1. That Protestants contradict the tru● sense of Scripture, because i● so many points they gainsay the express words thereof. pag. 549.  
Chapt. 2. That Protestants confess, they contradict the sense of those words, which the Cathol. Church long since, and many of themselves now, believe to be the words of God. p. 611.  
Chapt. 3. That Protestants are forced to use violence to that part of Scripture which they receive. p. 615.  
Chapt. 4. That Protestants overthrow all force of the words of Scripture, yea contemn and deride them. p. 620.  
Chapt. 5. That Protestants say, that words of Scripture which make against them, were not spoken of certain knowledge. p. 630.  
Chapt. 6. That Protestants say, that many weighty sayings of the Scripture were not spoken according to the mind of the speakers. p. 633.  
Chapt. 7. That Protestants are forced to say, that the Scripture speaketh ironically, etc. p. 640.  
Chapt. 8. That Protestants are forced to turn the most general speeches of the Scripture into particulars. p. 647.  
Chapt. 9 That Protestants limitate many propositions, not limitated by the Scripture. p. 654.  
Chapt. 10. That Protestants change many absolute speeches of Scripture into conditionals. p. 665.  
Chapt. 11. That Protestants change conditional speeches of Scripture into absolute. p. 668.  
Chapt. 12. That Protestants change many causal speeches of Scripture into not causal. p. 670.  
Chapt. 13. That what is simply spoken of Scripture, they make to be spoken in part. p. 674.  
Chapt. 14. That they will not understand the speeches of Scripture of that time of which it speaketh. p. 678.  
Chapt. 15. That of many sayings of Scripture they make one. p. 681.  
Chapt. 16. That words which signify effecting a thing, they expound of endeavouring. p. 683.  
Chapt. 17. That words which signify a cause, they expound of a way or mean. p. 686.  
Chap. 18. That words which signify a thing to be, they expound, that it ought to be. p. 689.  
Chapt. 19 That words signifying a true thing, they expound of an apparent. p. 690.  
Chapt. 20. That they are forced to expound the words of Scripture, by diverse, by disparats, and contraries. p. 696.  
Chapt. 21. That they are forced to device impropriety of words and all figures. p. 712.  
Chapt. 22. That they are forced to coin many distinctions, frivolous, repugnant, and unheard of. p. 719.  
Chapt. 23. That they confess that they teach against the uniform consent of Fathers, the Church, and Counsels. p. 731.  
Chapt. 24. That they confess that they teach old damned heresies. p. 740.  
Chapt. 25. That they confess that some of the Protestants opinions are blasphemous. p. 744.  
Chapt. 26. That they make frustrate the ends of Christ's incarnation and passion. p. 755.  
Chapt. 27. That they take away all virtue, and open a way to all sin. p. 758.  
Chapt. 28. That they have no infallible interpretation of Scripture. p. 763.  
Chapt. 29. That they admit no judge to whose judgement they will stand. p. 769.  
Chapt. 30. That sometimes they confess their doctrine to be contrary to holy Scripture. p. 757.  
Peroration or Conclusion to the Reader. p. 791.     
FINIS.   

Faults escaped in the printing.  

In the Preface to the book.  
Page 5. line 8. let is. Correction, let us. ibid. l. 26. sixth. cor. sixty. p. 8. l. 15. is most. cor. is a most. ib. ease. cor. easy. ib. l. 38 deal. all p. 9 l. 10. gods. cor. God. p. 12. l. 2. thief. cor. these. p. 15. l. 34. for as cor. so for as. p. 17. l. 37. like most &c. cor. like boost of them all. But this most. etc. p. 19 l. 7. proporse is cor. propose. p. 20. l. 37. Word. cor. work. p. 23. l. 31. proportions cor. propositions. p. 25. l. 27. Works. cor. work is. p. 26. l 10. if cite. cor. I cite. p. 27. l. 20. thaught cor. taught.   

In the book.  
Pag. 2. line. 18. hold cor. hold. p. 3. l. 28. herie cor. heir. p. 6. l. 1. with cor. with them. p. 10. l. 28. for better cor. far better. p. 14. l. 20. be cor. he. p. 20. l. 19 rock. cor. the rock. p. 23. l. 21. right cor. night. ib. l. 27. image cor. of Image. ib. l 28. not cor. nor. p. 25. l. 2. whas head cor. washed. p 28. l. 36. sweel cor. sweet. p. 48. l. 3. damnations cor. damnation. p. 49. l. 33. doth cor. doth. p, 50. l. 23. aboves cor. above. p. 51. l. 13. un cor. unto. p. 52 l. 10. is cor. his. p. 53. l. 21. it cor. is. p. 55. l. 11. to will cor. to wit. p. 56. l. 25. for cor. for to. p. 65. l. 5. punisheth cor. he punisheth. ib. l. 16. hath anger cor. hath no anger. p. 68 l 17 Manlins cor. Moulins. p. 69. l. 19 to will cor. to wit. p. 74. l. 31. declare cor. deelared. p. 80. l. 13 came cor. come. p. 81. l. 22. burdered cor. burdened. p. 82. l 32. shalt cor. that. p. 92. l 36. as once cor. at once. p 102. l 22. forgiven cor. forgiving. p. 105 l. 3. know cor. bow. p 123. l. 26. obut cor. but. p. 138 l. 14. cannot be cor. cannot but be. ib. l. 35. bought cor. brought. p. 145. l. 27. came cor. come. p. 146. l. 19 enjoined cor. enjoyed. p. 155. l. 19 two cor. to. p. 156. l. 17. any cor. an. p. 177. l. 16. workesse cor. works. p. 182. l. 3 may's cor. ways. p. 191. l. 24. opposition cor. exposition. p. 193 l. 23. affirmeth cor. denyeth. p. 194. l. 1. affirm cor. deny. ib l. 3. deny cor. affirm. p. 202 l. 5. one cor. are. ib l 26. deny cor. affirm. p. 209 l. 23. devil cor. dwell. p. 210. l. 24. priests cor. priest. p. 211. l. 13. whether do, cor. whether Pastors do. p 313. l 17. follows cor. fellows. p. 215. l. 17. port cor. part. p. 218. l. 20. as cor was p. 260. l. 1. roshly cor. rashly. p. 269. l. 26. if cor. of. p. 271. l. 34. of pastry cor. or pastry. p. 274. l. 35. if the cor. of the. p. 278 l. ●8. them cor. then. p. 289. l. 10. he cor. be. ib. l. 20. ad cor. and p. 305. l. 17. descricbed cor. described. p. 309. l. 1. of cor a. ib. l. 25. husband cor her husband. p. 315 l 20. to God cor. God. p. 317. l 27. belevie cor. believe. p. 328. l 22. with cor. with heart. p. 331. l. 6. faith sayeth cor. sith faith. p 341. l. 1. Catholics cor. Protestants. p. 342 l. 4. not cor nor. p 343. l. 12. strange cor. strong. p 346. l. 12. derswasion cor. persuasion. p 349. l. 17. this cor. they. p. 355. l. 15. leefe cor lose. p. 357 l. 16. saving cor. saying. p. 365 l. 18. art cor. are. p. 377. l. 5. Come cor. Rom. p. 396. l. 19 yovehall cor. you shall. p. 409. l. 3. of self cor of itself p. 420. l. 21. promise cor. promised p. 426. l. 26. suo cor. sua. p. 444. l. 9 him, not cor him not. p. 448. l. 22. each cor. death. p 458. l. 23. faith cor, sayeth p. 460 l. 9 with cor. which p 465. l. 17. then cor. them. p. 487. l. 22 as cor. of. p. 489 l. 18 let cor. let. p. 490. l. 17. to cor. to be ib. l. 20. that cor. then. p. 514 l. 8. the cor. then. p. 522. l. 5. bunod cor. bound. p. 542. l. 19 alone cor. all one p 543 l 17. styme cor. slime. p. 545. l. 12. thoum, y cor. thou, my p. 550. l 22. as cor. of. p. 634. l. 3 there cor. their. p. 636. l 30 prayed cor. prayers. p. 639. l. 12. and time deal tyme. ib l 24. boasting cor. that boasting. p. 656. l. 13. fourth cor. forth. 657 l. 29. uniusall cor universal p 659 l 6. of cor. if p 662. l 18. conceive cor. conceived. p. 664 l 27 as cor. as to. p. 673. l. 28. of kind cor. kind of. p 690. l. 27 month cor. mouth p. 691 l. 2. the cor. he p. 698. l. 29 be confessed cor. confess. p. 704. l 2. to cor. to be p. 709. l. 22. merly cor merrily p. 728. l. 29 perfectively cor perfectly. p 732. l. 4. are cor or. p 734. l. 21. forbiddacne cor. forbiddance. ib. l. 32. dot cor. not p. 743. l 14. must cor most p. 748. l. 31 men cor. man. p. 750 l. 25. of power cor. power of. p 764. l, 10. learned cor. unlearned. p. 773 l 6. is in cor. in p. 774. l. 4. destruction cor. distinction. p. 775 l. 28. willeth cor. willeth not. p. 790. l. 20. last cor. lost. p 793 l. 18. them cor. they. p. 794. l. 19 then cor. them.   

In the Margins.  
Pag. 20. not rock cor. not the rock. ib keyos cor. keys p. 27. divarce cor. divorce. ib advantrie cor. adultery ib. to work cor. a work p. 65 ever cor. Eue. p. 118. the cor. he p. 146 heaven cor hear. p. 161. followed cor. followed p 223. bod cor. bad. p. 226. have cor. have. p. 240 theirs cor. their p. 258. sote cor. state. p. 276. ward. cor. word. p. 278. thou cor then. p. 309. livings cor. living. p. 327. thou cor. then. p 350. all cor. at all. p 361. sinners cor. of sinners. p. 367 perfiled cor. perfited. p. 403. ghost cor. good p 475 reted cor. remitted. p. 539. returnet cor. returneth. p. 659. thing cor. think p. 695. general of cor. general way of. p. 713. imperpely cor. improperly.   
FINIS.