A General View of Papistry

The Papists.

THis is their best reason for the authority of this book, because Baruch was Jeremiah's scribe: and therefore Baruch cannot be refused, unless also we doubt of Jeremiah. Bellarm. lib. 1. de verbo. Dei. cap. 8.

The Protestants.

THis book was neither written by Jeremiah nor Baruch: first because it is in Greek: if either Jeremiah or Baruch had written it, it is most like they would have written in Hebrew. Secondly, the phrase and manner of speech showeth that it was never written in Hebrew: for in the 6. Chapter in the Epistle of Jeremiah, it is said that the Israelites should be in captivity seven generations, that is 70. years, but it cannot be found in any Hebrew book that generation is taken for the space of 70. years.

The Papists.

ONe of their chief Arguments, besides testimonies and authorities, which would make to great a Volume, is this (which is common also to the rest of the Apocrypha) they are read in the Church, & have been of ancient time, Ergo they are Canonical. I answer, that it is no good argument. Jerome saith plainly, Legit Ecclesia, sedeos inter Scripturas Canonicas non recipit, Praefat. in lib. Solomon. The Church indeed (saith he) readeth them, yet for all that they are not Canonical. And Augustine was wont to read unto the people the Epistles of the Donatists, and his answers unto them. Epist. 203.

The Protestants.

THe most of our reasons against the authority of the 7. Chapters added to Esther (for of the 10 first Chapters, which are found in the Hebrew, we make no doubt at all) are drawn from the matter of the book it self.

1 In the second of the Canonical Esther. ver. 16. it is said that the conspiracy of the two Eunuchs against the king, was in the 7. year of Ahasuerus : but in the 11. Chap. ver. 2. of the Apocryphal Esther, we read that Mardocheus did dream of this conspiracy in the second year. Bellarmine answereth, that both are true, for the dream was in the second year, & the conspiracy in the seventh; so belike, there was five years between. But in the 11. Chapter, it is said that Mardocheus was much troubled about that dream, and the next night after his dream the conspiracy was enterprised.

2 The true history of Esther saith that Mardocheus had no reward at that time of the king. cap. 6.3. but the forged story saith, that at the same time the king gave him great gifts, which cannot be meant, of that great honor which afterward was bestowed upon Mardoche: for then Haman (being hanged the same day) could work him no despite, whereas the forged story saith, that after the king had rewarded him, then Haman began to stomach him, because of those two Eunuchs.

3 Again the story which is added, was written many years after Mardoches & Esther's death, under the reign of Ptolomaeus & Cleopatra, as it appeareth. cap. 11.1. it is not like therefore to be a true story: Bellarmins ridiculous conjecture is this, that there were two stories writ̄ in Hebrew of Esther, the one cōpendious & short, which we now have: the other more large, which might be translated by Lisimachus there spoken of cap. 11. whose translation we now only have, the original being perished. What goodly guesses here be, to make Canonical Scripture? what need two books of one thing? If the first were written by the spirit of God and so were Canonical, what need a second? the spirit of God useth not to correct his own writings: and this cannot be that ample and large story imagined, being shorter, and not so full as the first.

4 Besides the false story saith, that Haman was a Macedonian. Cap. 16. v. 10. the true story saith, he was an Agagite or Amalekite. cap. 8.3. how can these two agree? Nay the forged book saith, that Haman would have destroyed the king, & so conveyed the kimgdome of the Persians to the Macedonians: which could in no wise be: for the kingdom of the Macedonians was not yet spoken of: and so it continued in small or no reputation till Phillippus the father of Alexander, who was many years after. Vide plura▪ Whitach. quaest. 1. cap. 8. De Scriptures.

5 In the latter Chapters that is repeated, which was set down in the former part, which argueth, that the story was not writ̄ by one mā: and it is not like he would write one part in Hebrew, another in Greek. If any say (as the Jesuit saith) that this part was in Hebrew, and being translated into Greek, was lost: why was one part rather lost then the other? and was it not as like to be preserved in Hebrew as in Greek? These are very bare and suspicious conjectures.

The Papists.

Our adversaries reason thus: they say that S. Paul. Rom. 11.34. using this speech: who hath known the Lord's mind or been his counselor? doth allege it out of the 4. Chapter of this book. v. 13. Ergo it is Canonical. We answer. First the Apostle seemeth not in that place to cite any testimony, though the words which he useth▪ may else where be found. Secondly though the like words are read in the book of Wisdom, yet is it not necessary the Apostle should borrow them frō thence, but rather they are alleged out of the 40. of Isaiah. 13. Where the Prophet saith, who hath instructed the spirit of God or was his counselor? And this also is the opiniō of the Rhemistes, that S. Paul in that place useth the Prophets words.

The Protestants.

Our reasons against the authority of this book are these and such like.

1 Because this book is not found in the Hebrew, but written only in Greek: wherefore it is not Canonical seeing the Jews had all the oracles of God.

2 Philo a Jew is thought by the Papists them selves to be the author of this book, who lived after Christ in the time of Caligula, neither him self was a Christian or believed in Christ: therefore an unlike man to be a writer of Canonical Scripture. Bellarmine saith, it was another Philo, who was more ancient. Indeed Josephus maketh mention of a Philo before this time, but he was an Heathen and no Jew.

3 If this book were written by Solomon, why is it not extant in Hebrew? for Solomon wrote in Hebrew & not in Greek. Many of the Papists also do prove, that it was not written by Solomon: for though Solomon in the 2. Chapter be brought in praying unto God: that is no good argument to prove Solomon the author, for the author might speak in the person of Solomon.

The Papists.

THey have none but common and general arguments for the authority of this book, as that it was of old read in the church, & diverse of the fathers alleged testimonies out of it. All this proveth not, as we have shown before, that it was Canonical, but that it was well esteemed and thought of, because of many wholesome and good precepts which are contained in it.

The Protestants.

WE do thus improve the authority of this book.

1 The author in the Preface saith, that he trāslateth in this book such things, as before were collected by his grandfather in Hebrew, and excuseth him self, because that things translated out of the Hebrew do loose the grace, and have not the same force: so then it appeareth that this book cannot be Canonical being imperfect: neither was his grandfathers work (which is now lost) to be thought any part of the Scripture, seeing he was no Prophet him self, but a compiler and a collector of certain things out of the Prophets.

2 He exhorteth his countrymen to take it in good worth, and so craveth pardon: but the spirit of God useth not to make any such excuse, whose works are most perfect, and fear not the judgment of men.

3 This book saith. cap. 46. v. 20. that Samuel prophesied after his death, & from the earth lift up his voice. Whereas the Canonical Scripture saith not that it was Samuel, but that Saul so imagined, and thought it to be Samuel. 1. Sam. 28. And Augustine thinketh it was, phantasma Samuelis, but a show only and representation of Samuel, and an illusion of the devil. Lib. ad Dulcitiū, quaest. 6. For it is not to be thought, that the devil cā disease the souls of any men, much less of Saints departed.

The Papists.

[error 7] THere are two strange Assertions of our adversaries concerning this matter. First they affirm that the scripture may have diverse senses and meanings in the same place. The sense of the scripture is either literal (say they) & historical, which is the first & most proper sense; or spiritual, that is an higher sense derived out of the other, and it is of three kinds, Allegorical, Tropologicall, Anagogical: they show by particular instance and induction, that the scripture besides the literal sense may have these also.

The Allegorical sense is, when besides the plain historical and literal meaning, somewhat is signified which by an allegory is referred unto Christ or the Church, as Gal. 4. beside the truth of the story of the bond and free woman, S. Paul applieth it unto the two Testaments, Ergo one place may have more senses then one.

The Tropologicall sense is, when as there is somewhat signified appertaining to manners, as Deut. 25. Thou shalt not mussell the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn, this by S. Paul is applied to the Ministers of the Gospel, 1. Cor. 9. Ergo, the scripture hath diverse senses.

The Anagogical sense is, whē the place is applied to decipher & set forth the kingdom of heaven and eternal things, as Psal. 94. I sware unto them, if they should enter into my rest: this is literally understood of the rest in Canaan, & spiritually of life eternal, Ergo many senses: thus reasoneth. Bellarmine. lib. 3. de Scripture. cap. 3.

The Protestants.

WE affirm that of one place of scripture there can be but one sense, which we call the literal sense, when as the words are either taken properly, or figuratively to express the thing which is meant: as in this place, the seed of the woman shall break the Serpents head, the literal sense is of Christ, who should triumph over Satan, though it be spoken in a borrowed and figurative speech. There can be therefore but one sense, which is the literal: as for those three kinds, they are not diverse senses, but diverse applications only and collections out of one and the same sense.

1 It shall appear by a several induction of all these kinds: In the first example of the Allegorical sense Galathes 4, the Apostle saith not that there is a double sense, but that it may be allegorically applied, which is historically set down. There is then but one sense of the place, part whereof consisteth in the story, part in the allegory: so that the whole sense is contained in them both. Concerning the second example of the Tropologicall: there is not a twofold sense of that place, but one whole general sense; that as the mouth of the ox was not to be musled, so the Minister of the Gospel must be provided for. Likewise of the Anagogical kind: it is not one sense to understand the rest of Canaan, another of the kingdom of God: but there is one whole sense, that as they for their Idolatry were deprived of the land of promise, so we should take heed lest by our disobedience we lose the hope of the kingdom of heavē. So we conclude that those are not diverse senses, but one sense diversely applied.

2 The literal sense is the only sense of the place, because out of that sense only may an argument strongly be framed: wherefore seeing allegories and tropes do not conclude, they are not the senses of the place. An allegory or type may be part of the literal sense, and then it concludeth: but when an allegory is framed beside the literal sense, it concludeth not, and therefore is no part of the sense: as to reason thus, the oxes mouth must not be musled, Ergo the Minister must be maintained, it followeth well, because it is part of the sense: but allegories devised beside the sense prove not, though they may illustrate.

The Papists.

THeir other assertion is this, that it is lawful to allegorise scripture both in the old and New Testament. Bellarm. lib. 3. cap. 3. They reason thus. Rhemens. [error 8] annot. Heb. 4. ver. 5. The Apostle applieth the rest of the Sabbath to the eternal rest. Ergo, the like applications of the fathers are lawful. See annot. Heb. 7.2. the Apostle (say they) findeth great mysteries, even in the very names: Ergo it is lawful to make allegories.

The Protestants.

WE say, it is dangerous to make allegories of Scripture without the warrant and direction of God's spirit: this was the occasion that diverse of the ancient fathers greatly erred: as the Jesuit him self reprehēdeath Papias, Justinus, Lactantius, for allegorising that place Revel. 20. which made them fall into the error of the Chiliastes, by false interpreting of the thousand years there mentioned.

To their arguments our learned countryman D. Fulk answereth. First, it followeth not, because it was lawful for the Apostles governed by the spirit to make allegories, that it is therefore lawful for others. Secondly, whē the fathers or any other writers can be assured of the same spirit, which the holy writers had, and of the like dexterity in understanding and expounding Scripture, they may likewise be bold to make allegories.

Let us hear what Augustine saith of this matter. Sicut mihi multum errare videntur, qui nullas res gestas aliquid aliud praeter id, quod eo modo gesta sunt, significare arbitrantur: ita multum audere, qui prorsus ibi omnia significationib. allegoricis inuoluta esse contendunt. As they are much deceived, which think that the stories in the scripture do signify no other thing, but that which was done: so they are to rash and bold, that would draw all things to allegories, which they read in scripture. Ergo, it is not lawful for any to invent allegories of scripture, as it seemeth good to them selves.

The Papists.

[error 9] IT was decreed in the Council of Trent, that scripture should be expounded, as the Church expoundeth it, and according to the common and consonant consent of the fathers, Sect. 4. The Rhemistes say; that the sense of the scriptures must be learned of the fathers and pastors of the Church. Praefat. Sect. 18. If the fathers agree not, the matter is referred to a general Council: if there it be not determined, we must have recourse to the Pope and his Cardinals. The Jesuit dare not refer the matter to the Pope alone to expound scripture, but joineth the College of Cardinals with him. Bellarm. lib. 3. de script. cap. 3.

1 They object that place Deut. 17.9. where the people are commanded to resort unto the Priest or Judge in doubtful matters. Ergo, there ought to be a chief and supreme judge in Ecclesiastical matters, Bellarm. We answer. First, here the civil Magistrate and the Judge are joined together, as ver. 12. Wherefore if they will gather hereby, that the Pope must be supreme Judge in all Ecclesiastical matters, then the Emperor ought to be as well in civil. Secondly, the text saith, they shall come to the Priests. ver. 9. assigning many, not to one only Priest. Thirdly, they must judge according to the law. v. 11. not as they list thē selves. Fourthly, here is no mentiō made of doubts in interpreting scripture, but of controversies that may fall out between man and man, either Ecclesiastical to be decided by the Priest, or civil by the Magistrate. Fifthly, we grant that in every country there ought be a supreme and high seat of judgment for determining of controuersiall matters between men: but it followeth not that there should be a supreme judge over the whole Church especially in such matters as this concerning the sense of the scriptures, which i • not committed to the judgment of men, neither is any such controversy named in that place. ver. 8.

2 Ecclesiastes 12.11. The wisemā compareth the words of the wise to nails which are fastened, given by one pastor: Ergo the Pope is supreme judge. We answer, the wise men are here understood to be the Pastors and Ministers of God's word, but this one pastor signifieth neither the high Priest in the old law, nor the Pope in the new, but Jesus Christ, the high shepherd for our souls. What great boldness is this to attribute that to the Pope, which is only proper to Christ?

3 They also pick out some places in the New Testament, as Math. 16.19. to thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Christ saith so to Peter, Ergo the Pope hath authority to expound scripture. We answer. First, by the keys here is meant commission to preach the Gospel, not only to expound doubts. Secondly, they were given to all the Apostles, not to Peter only, Math. 28. v. 18.19. Thirdly, the Pope is not successor of Peter, no more then any other godly Bishop, nor so much unless he follow Peters steps. So they abuse that place Math. 18.17. he that will not hear the Church &c. Ergo the Bishops and chief pastors must expound the doubt in scriptures. Aunswere. First, our Savior speaketh here of the discipline of the Church, of corrections and admonitions, not of interpreting scripture, which dependeth not vpō the will & fantacie of Pope, Cardinals, or Popish Councils, but must be tried by the scriptures them selves. Secondly, we must give ear to the Church, but with a double condition: we must be sure it is the Church of God, secondly, we must not hear them, contrary to the scriptures, but so long as they do teach the doctrine of Christ.

The Protestants.

WE have a more compendious way to come to the understanding of the scripture: It were to long whē we doubt of any place to stay till we have the general consent of the pastors of the Church, or to expect a general Council, or go up to Rome. And it were to much to trouble the Popes gravity with every questiō: The Lord hath shown us a more easy and ready way: see that we need not ascend to heaven or cōpass the earth or pass the Alps: but the word of God is amongst us, the scriptures them selves and the spirit of God opening our harts do teach us how to understand them: the interpretation of Scripture is not assigned to any succession of pastors, or tried to any place or persons. Our arguments follow, some few of them.

1 That only hath power to give the sense of Scripture, which doth beget us faith: the spirit only by the Scriptures begetteth faith. Rom. 10.17. faith cometh of hearing the word, Ergo the spirit of God is the only interpreter of scripture. The proposition also is clear: for seeing the Scripture is the true sense and meaning thereof, if any should give the sense of the scripture, but that which worketh faith, then upon him should our faith be grounded. If the Pope therefore give the sense of Scripture, and our faith ariseth of the Scripture understood, then our faith is built upon the Popes sense. argum. Whitach. 2. & 9.

2 The Scriptures cā not be interpreted but by the same spirit, wherewith they were writ̄, but that spirit is found nowhere but in the Scriptures, Ergo. The first part the Papists them selves grant: the second is thus proved: the spirit of the Apostles is not given by secret inspiration, that savoreth of Anabaptism: where is it thē to be found? whether is it like that S. Peters spirit should be found in the Popes chair, or in his Epistles? or if they have S. Peters spirit, where is S. Paul's found but in his writings? Yet it is all one spirit, & appeareth not else where but in the Scriptures: where every man may find it as well as the Pope: the spiritual man judgeth all things. 1. Cor. 2.15. you have an ointment from him that is holy, and you have known all things: and ver. 27. you need not that any mā teach you. By these places it is evident, that every faithful man by the spirit of God may understand the scriptures.

3 The doctrine of the Church must be examined by the Scriptures, Ergo the scriptures are not to stand to the judgment of the Church. The former part is proved by the example of the Berrheans. Act. 17.11. If they did well in examining Paul's doctrine, much more may the decrees of the Pope, Church, Councils be examined by the scriptures. But they knew not whether Paul was an Apostle or not▪ therefore they might examine his doctrine, saith the Jesuit. Answer, it is no matter for the person of Paul, they examined his doctrine, which dependeth not upon the person. Secondly, they could not be ignorant of his Apostleship, who was famous throughout the Churches. Thirdly, they doubted only whether Paul was an Apostle, but we are sure the Pope is none, neither successor of any Apostle, but very Antichrist, Ergo we have more just cause to examine his decrees.

4 Lastly, let Augustine speak: Nouit charitas vestra omnes nos vnum magistrum habere, & sub illo condiscipulos esse, nec ideo magistri sumus, quia de superiore loco loquimur vobis, sed magister est omnium, qui habitat in nobis omnib. You know brethren (saith he) that we are all fellow scholars under one master, and though we speak to you out of an higher place, yet are we not your master, he is the teacher and master of us all that dwelleth in our harts. Ergo the spirit of God speaking in the scriptures is the chief and best interpreter thereof.

The Papists.

[error 10] Our adversaries prescribe this method and course to be takē in expounding of scripture, which consisteth in four rules: the general peactise of the Church, the consonant interpretation of the fathers, the decrees of general Councils, lastly the rule of faith, consisting partly of the scriptures, partly of traditions vnwrittē, Stapleton. Cōcerning the three first, we have already touched them in part: they appear to be insufficient. First, the Councils and fathers he made chief interpreters of Scripture before, and now they are but means: what other chief judge then is there to use these means? surely none but the scriptures. Secondly, these means are most uncertain, the practice of the Church is often changed, fathers agree not in their expositions, and Councils cannot always be had.

Concerning the rule of faith consisting of unwritten verities: he groundeth it falsely upon that place. Rom. 12.6. let us prophecy according to the rule of faith, and Gal. 6.16. as many as walk according to this rule. This rule was a certain platform of Religion, given by the Apostles before the Scriptures were written, according to the which (say they) the Scriptures were afterward compiled by the Apostles. Rhemens. in Rom. 12.6. Answer, S. Paul meaneth no other rule, but that which is set down in his writings, no other form of doctrine but that contained in his Epistles, as in the 6. to the Galatians, speaking of this rule, he alludeth to the former verse, where he saith he rejoiced in nothing but in the Cross of Christ: his rule therefore is to receive Christ only without the ceremonies or works of the law: against the which heresy he disputeth in the whole Epistle. But of all other it is a great blasphemy to say that the Apostles set down the Scriptures by a rule, as though the spirit of God, by whom they spake, had need of any such direction.

The Protestants.

WHen we say that the scriptures must expound them selves, our meaning is, that by certain compendious and ready means, we should labor to understand the scriptures by them selves: the means are especially these four. First, to have recourse to the original tongue, as in the Old Testament to the Hebrew, in the new to the Greek: as 1. Tim. 2.15. through bearing of children they shall be saved, if they continue in faith and love: In the English it is doubtful, whether this clause, if they continue in faith, be referred to children, or to those that bear them: but read the Greek and the doubt is removed: for bearing of children is all one word in the original 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so that it must needs be understood of the women: for this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ bearing of children is in the singular number, that which followeth of the plural, and it is but an action, not a person, so that it should be improperly said, if they continue▪ that is, in bearing of children.

Stapleton objecteth against this mean: that it is not now needful, seeing there is a perfect and absolute translatiō authorised by the Council of Trent, he meaneth the vulgare Latin. We answer. First, it is no perfect but an erroneous translation, and very corrupt. Secondly, if it were never so perfect, yet for more certainty, it is profitable to search the original: every man will trust his own skill, rather then another man's. Thirdly, the Council did fondly in authorising an old blind translation, before the authentical copies of the Hebrew and Greek.

2 Secondly, the scope of the place, the circumstance of it, with that which goeth before, and cometh after must, be wayghed, which will bring great light to the place we have in hand: an example we have 1. Pet. 4.8. love covereth multitude of sins: the Papists gather out of these words, that love doth justify us before God and taketh away our sins: but by the circunstance of the place, the Apostole saying immediately before: have fervent love among you, it is evident he understandeth brotherly love amongst our selves, whereby faults are buried, forgiven, and forgotten.

Stapleton objecteth: that this is but an uncertain way, and many times faileth: for the scripture passeth many times from one matter and argument to another: how then can it help to consider the circumstance of the place being of a diverse matter? We answer, we say not that any of these means serveth for every place, but when one faileth, to use another: when the circumstance helpeth not, to run to the original, if there we find, no succor to compare places together, and when we may, to use them all, or the most.

3 Thirdly the conference of places is very profitable, as James. 2.21. Abraham was justified by works, compare it with that place Rom. 4.2. there S. Paul saith flatly that Abraham was not justified by works: Wherefore seeing one Apostle is not contrary to the other: we must needs gather, that this word justified is diversely taken, Paul saith that Abraham was not justified that is, made righteous before God by his works. James saith he was justified, that is declared to be just before men, and so Thom. Aquinas expoundeth it.

Stapleton objecteth, that this means in comparing of places is of it self many times of small force. Answer, as though we affirm that these means must be used asunder, and not rather jointly together, and where one faileth, another to help. Secondly, some things are found but once in the scriptures. Aunswere, they are then either very plain, or not greatly necessary. Thirdly, heretics have erred in comparing of Scripture. Answer, they compared them not diligently, nor with a sincere mind, but corruptly and negligently.

4 The fourth rule is the analogy and proportion of faith, which is nothing else but the sum & grounds of Religiō gathered out of scripture, such as are contained in the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the ten Commandments, and in our whole Catechism. We must take heed, that in the interpretation of Scripture we swerve not from this rule of faith, nor impugn any principle of Religion. Wherefore the Papists interpretation of those words of Christ we do reject. Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body: who would have the very flesh of Christ present in the Sacrament: for this is against the article of the Creed, that Christ is ascended into heaven, and there sitteth till his coming again in judgment.

Concerning these means, thus writeth Augustine. Rarissime inuenitur ambiguitas in verbis proprijs, quam non aut circumstantia ipsa sermonis qua cognoscitur Scripturarum intentio, aut interpretum collatio, aut praecedentes soluat inspectio, de doctrine. Christ. lib. 3.4. There is almost no ambiguity in any word properly used (that is not metaphorical or borrowed) which may not either by the circumstance of the place, the conference and comparing of interpreters, or by looking into the originals, easily be taken away. Augustine we see approveth this method, though our adversaries like it not.

Besides these, prayer must be used before we enterprise anything, that the Lord would direct us. And they which cā not so easily take this course, which is prescribed, shall do well to seek help of learned and godly expositors, or to consult with their Pastors and Ministers. Ex Whitacher. quaest. 5. cap. 9.

The Papists.

THe Jesuit laboreth to prove, that the Scriptures are not simply necessary: [error 11] which we deny not, for meat is not simply necessary, for God may preserve man without: so in respect of God nothing is simply necessary: God is not necessarily tied to use this or that means: but his arguments do tend to this end, to show that the scriptures are not necessary at all, and may be spared in the Church (so saith Petrus a Soto ) the Scripture was not always extant, and it is not necessary unto faith: And the Scripture it not now so necessary since Christ, as it was afore. Tilman. de verbo Dei error. 17.

1 There was no Scripture from Adam to Moses, for the space of two thousand years, and yet true Religion was kept and continued, and why might not true Religiō be as well preserved a 1500. year after Christ without scripture, as afore.

We answer: It followeth not, because in times past God taught his church by a lively voice, that the written word is not necessary now: for the Lord saw it good, that his word should be left in writing, that we might have a certain rule of our faith in this corrupt and sinful age. And what else is this, but to cōtroll the wisdom of God, saying it is not necessary or needful for the Church, which the Lord saw to be needful: for if the Lord had thought it as good for us to be taught without Scripture, as in that simple and innocent age of the world (I mean innocent in respect of us) he would not have moved and stirred up his Apostles to write.

2 After the time of Moses, when the law was written, yet there were many that feared God amongst the Gentiles, which had not the Scriptures, as Job, and the other his friends, Ergo the scripture not necessary. The Jews also them selves used traditions more then Scriptures, as Psal. 44. v. 1.2. the fathers did report the works of God to their children: by the negligence also of the Priests the law was lost, as 2. King. 22. we read that the volume of the law was found, which had been missing a long time.

We answer. First, evē the faithful amongst the Gentiles did read the scripture, as the Eunuke Act. 8. had the book of the Prophet Isaiah. Secondly, the Jews declared the works of God unto their children, but the same were also written, as how the heathen were cast out before them, and of their deliverance out of Egypt: those were the things they heard of their fathers, as we read Psal. 44. & 78. yet all these things are recorded in the books of Moses. Thirdly, what though the Priests were negligent in preserving the scriptures, it is no good argument to prove that therefore they are not necessary, neither was the whole book of the law lost, but either Moses own manuscript, or the book of Deuteronomy. Yet he hath proved nothing.

3 The Church after Christ wanted the Scriptures many years, Ergo they are not necessary.

We answer, it is a great untruth: for the old Testament the Church could not be without, and the New Testament was written not long after in the age of the Apostles: whose lively voice and preachings were unto them, as their writings are now to us. See now, what strong arguments they bring: the scriptures were not necessary in the time of the Patriarchs, when God taught them by his own voice, they were not necessary in the time of the Prophets and Apostles, when they had mē inspired of God to teach them, Ergo they are not now necessary, when neither God teacheth from heaven, neither have we any Prophets or Apostles to instruct us by heavenly revelations: nay rather because they were not necessary then, when they had other effectual means, notwithstanding they are necessary now, seeing there is no other way of instruction left unto us.

The Protestants.

THat the scriptures are necessary for the people of God, the reading, preaching, and understanding whereof is the only and ordinary means to beget faith in us, we thus prove out of the Scriptures them selves.

1 The scriptures contain necessary knowledge to salvation, which cannot be learned but out of the scripture, Ergo they are necessary. The knowledge of the law is necessary, but that only is derived from the Scripture: as the Apostle witnesseth Rom. 7.7. he had not known lust to be sin, unless the law had said, thou shalt not lust. And if the right knowledge of the law is not learned, but out of the scripture: much more the knowledge of the Gospel, is more high and mystical, and more strange unto our nature.

2 That whereby we are kept frō error and doubtfulness in matters of faith is necessary: but this is performed by the scripture, Ergo. First the Scripture keepeth us from error. Math. 22.29. ye err not knowing the scriptures (saith our Savior). The ignorance of scripture was cause of their error. Secondly, if our knowledge were only built upon tradition without scripture, we should be doubtful and uncertain of the truth, so S. Luke saith in his Preface to Theophilus : I have written (saith he) that thou mightest be certain of those things, whereof thou hast been instructed: Hence we conclude, that although we might know the truth without scripture, as Theophilus did, yet we cannot know it certainly without.

3 If the scriptures be not necessary, then we may be without them, but this cannot be, Ergo the scriptures cannot be spared: for then God had done a needless and superfluous work in stirring up the Prophets and Apostles to write. S. Paul saith, that whatsoever is writ̄, is written for our learning, that through patience and consolation of the scriptures we might have hope. Rom. 15.4. The Lord saw in wisdom that his people could not be without the Scriptures, which are necessary for their learning, for their comfort, and to strengthen their hope: how then dare our adversaries say, that the scriptures are not necessary, seeing these things wrought in us by the scriptures, knowledge, consolation, hope, are most necessary.

4 Let Augustine now put in his verdict: Illud credo, quod etiā hinc diuinorū eloquiorum clarissima authoritas esset, si homo illud sine dispendio salutis ignorare non posset. de peccator. merit. & remiss. lib. 2.36. I think (saith he) that even concerning this matter (speaking of the original or beginning of the soul) the Scriptures would not have been silent, if we might not safelie be ignorant of this matter, without danger of salvation, Ergo whatsoever is necessary to saluatiō, is only to be found in scripture (for other matters there not expressed, there in no danger in not knowing them) therefore the Scriptures by this Fathers judgment are most necessary.

The Papists.

THey do straungely affirm, that the Scriptures contain not all things necessary [error 12] to be known concerning faith and manners, and that they are not sufficient without traditions. Bellarm. cap. 3.4. Lindanus a Papist saith, that the scriptures contain not all things necessary to salvation. Andradius, that their approved traditions are of equal authority with the Scripture▪ Ex Tilman. de verbo error. 2.

1 First, the Jesuit thus reasoneth against the sufficiency of Scripture. There are diverse books of canonical Scripture lost and perished, Ergo that part of canonical scripture, which remaineth is not sufficient: that much is lost, he thus proveth: 1. Chron. cap. vlt. mention is made of the books of Nathan & Gad. 2. Chron. 9. of the books of Ahiiah & Ieedo: & in the new Testament. Col. 4. of the Epistle of S. Paul to the Laodiceans: all those books are lost.

We answer. First, we deny not, but that some books are now wanting, which were part of canonical scripture, & yet that which remaineth is sufficient: as some of Solomons books are perished, which he wrote of herbs & plāts, and many of his Proverbs: the Lord saw that they were not so greatly necessary for us to salvation. Secondly, there is not so much wanting, as the Jesuit would bear us in hand, for the books of the Prophets which he nameth, are the same with the books of the Chronicles & of the Kings, which no doubt were writ̄ by those Prophets. And as for the Epistle of S. Paul to the Laodiceās, there was never any such: the text is, written from the Laodiceans, it was the Epistle rather of the Laodiceans to S. Paul, unto the which he partly maketh answer in the Epistle to the Colossians, and therefore he would have it read also in their Church.

2 If the Apostles had any such meaning to contrive in the scriptures the sum of faith and all necessary knowledge, it is very like Christ would have given them some express commandment so to do: but we read not of any such strict commandment, Ergo they had no such purpose. Bellarmine.

We answer. First, they them selves dare not deny, but that the Apostles wrote by the instinct of the spirit: what is that else, but the commandment of God? Acts. 16.6. Paul was forbidden of the holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia: and ver. 10. when he had seen a vision of a man of Macedonia appearing unto him: the Apostle concludeth that they were called of God: wherefore what they did by the secret moving of the spirit, was done at the commandment of God. Secondly, Apocal. 11.1.14.13. John is bid̄ to write that which he saw: no doubt the other Apostles had the like commandment.

3 There are many points, which we ought in no wise to be ignorant of, which the scriptures speak either obscurelie of, or not at all.

First, these things are obscurely and doubtfully set down in Scripture, the equality of the persons in Trinity, the proceeding of the holy Ghost, from the Father and the Son, the doctrine of original sin.

We answer. First, if these things be found at all in the Scriptures, it is sufficient concerning the question we have in hand. Secondly, the Scripture doth manifestly declare the truth in all those points, the equality of the persons is directly proved. 1. John. 5.7. the procession of the spirit. John. 15.26. the spirit is there said to be sent frō the Father & the Son. And John. 14.26. Original sin is described plainly by the Apostle. Rom. 5.12. though the name be not found in Scripture.

Secondly, there are diverse things necessary to be known, not at all declared in Scripture. First, as that Marie continued a perpetual Virgin. We answer, the Scripture saith everywhere she was a Virgin, neither maketh mention of any children she had, and therefore out of the Scripture we gather, that she continued. Secondly, Basil saith that it is sufficient to know she was a Virgin before the birth of Christ. Secondly, to know that the Pasch or Easter must be kept upon the Lord's day is necessary. Aunswere, there is no such necessiitie in it to salvation: neither needed the Church so much to have contended about it in times past: these are the mighty weapons, which our adversaries use.

The Protestants.

WE do not affirm, as our adversaries charge us, that all things necessary to salvation, are expressly contained in scripture, that is, in so many words: but this we hold, that all things, which are necessarily to be known of us, are either expressly declared in Scripture, or necessarily concluded out of Scripture, and so contained in them. We also grant, that it was not Gospel only which was written, but all that Christ and his Apostles taught by lively voice: the whole sum whereof and substance is contained in the written word: and so we conclude, that nothing necessary to salvation either concerning faith or manners, is else where to be found but in the holy Scriptures.

1 S. Paul saith: if we, or an Angel preach unto you otherwise then that which we have preached, let him be accursed, Ergo the Scripture containeth all things necessary.

First, the Jesuit answereth, that S. Paul speaketh not only of his writings, but also of his preachings which were not written.

We answer, that the sum of all S. Paul's preachings is contained in his Epistles and other holy writings: for S. Paul confirmed his doctrine out of the scriptures, as Act. 17.10. the Berrheans examined his doctrine by the scriptures, and found it to be consonant, and to agree in all things.

Secondly, he condemneth, those which preach anything, not besides or otherwise, but contrary: and therefore not any other doctrine besides Scripture is forbidden, but that which is contrary. We answer, whatsoever is imposed as necessary to salvation beside the Scripture, praeter Scripturas, is also contra Scripturas, contrary to Scripture, as are all Popish traditions, which they lay a necessity upon, both beside and contrary to Scripture. Neither did those false Apostles against whom S. Paul writeth so much, bring in another or contrary Gospel, as the Apostle saith ver. 7. as they did labor to corrupt and pervert that Gospel, which S. Paul taught. Therefore all traditions whether praeter, or contra, beside or contrary to Scripture, are notably by this place overthrown.

2 John. 20.31. these things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, & that in believing ye might have life through his name, Ergo the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation: for they suffice to work in us faith, and faith bringeth us to eternal life.

First, Bellarmine answereth, that John speaketh only of that which he had written. Aunswere. If this one Apostles writings were able to work faith, the whole body of Scripture much more: but he rather speaketh of all other holy writings, of the Apostles, for he was the suruiuer of them all, & acknowledged their writings and approved them. Secondly (saith he) the Apostle saith not that those writings only suffice, but they are profitable, and referred to this end to work faith. Aunswere. The Scripture is not one of the means, but the sole, whole, and only means: for if they perfectly work faith, what need any other helps: but the first is true, for they do beget in us a perfect faith, which shall bring us to eternal life, Ergo they are the only means of faith.

3 The whole Scripture (saith S. Paul ) is profitable to teach, to improve, to correct, and instruct in righteousness. 2. Tim. 3.16. Ergo it containeth all things necessary: for what else is requisite besides these four, to teach the right faith, improve error, to instruct in righteousness and virtue, & to correct vice?

First they answer, the Apostle meaneth as well every book of Scripture, as the whole, every part therefore hath this perfection as well as the whole. But you will not say, that every book containeth all things necessary to salvation: therefore this perfection is not so to be taken.

We answer. First, S. Paul understandeth the body of Scripture as ver. 15. thou hast known the Scriptures, he speaketh of them all. Secondly, if every part had these vtilities, you might as well conclude that every word and syllable hath them, for they are parts of Scripture. Thirdly, it appeareth by these four great vtilities here set down, that the Apostle meaneth not any part or partes of Scripture, but the whole, for every part of Scripture is not profitable for all these ends, but the whole.

Secondly, they say it followeth not: the Scripture is profitable, therefore sufficient, they also grant it is profitable. Aunswere, but we conclude out of S. Paul, that the Scripture is not only profitable, but sufficient, as it followeth v. 17. that the man of God may be absolute, perfectly instructed to every good work. If then the scriptures are able perfectly to instruct us, then are they sufficient, then need we no other helps.

4 Lastly, Augustine thus writeth, in Psal. 66. Ne putetis (saith he) ex alijs Scriptures petendum, quod forte hic deest. Think not (saith he) that it is to be found in any other writings if it be not in Scripture. And in another place: In Euangelio quaeramus, nam si ibi non inuenimus, vbi inueniemus? Let us (saith he) seek to be resolved in the Gospel, if we find not there, where shall we find it? Ergo by the judgment of Augustine there is no truth necessary to be known, which is not to be found in the Scripture.

The Papists.

[error 13] THey understand by this word tradition, doctrine, precepts, and ceremonies, with other usages of the Church, which are not written in the scriptures. They do not say that all their traditions are necessary, but they make diverse kinds of them: some are universal, observed in the whole Church, some particular: some are free, some necessary, some are Apostolical, invented by the Apostles, some Ecclesiastical by the Church: so thus they conclude: all traditions decreed in Councils, and judged Apostolical: & whatsoever the Church of Rome receiveth as Apostolical, are not to be doubted, but to be Apostolical indeed. Secondly, all Apostolical traditions are of equal authority with the writings of the Apostles. Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2. & 9. and they are that part of the word of God which is unwritten, as well as the scriptures are that part which is written: Let us see what arguments they bring for these traditions.

1 They give an instance of certain traditions, as the Baptism of infants, and the not rebaptising of those, which were before Baptized by heretics: We answer, these two customs of the Church are grounded upon scripture: for as childrē were in the time of the law Circūcised, so are they now under the Gospel Baptized: and that promise Gene. 17. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, as it belonged to them and their children, so doth it appertain to us and our children.

Concerning the other point, that they whom heretics have once Baptized, ought not to be Baptized again: S. Augustine doth prove it out of the scripture. Ephe. 4. there is one Faith, one Baptism, Ergo not to be repeated.

But now they come in with other traditions, as the Lenton fast, which they use most fondly and superstitiously: the eight Ecclesiastical orders, Bishops, Prists, Decons, Subdeacons, Acolythistes, Readers, Exorcistes, Door-keepers, the worshipping of Images, with many other: these they would face us out to be Apostolical traditions, and to have been universally observed, which are but their vain brags, and Thrasonicall crakes: they shall never prove them universal, much less Apostolical: And because they find no scripture to establish these their superstitious fantasies by, they fly unto tradition, which is their only haven, where they hope to find succor: but all in vain. Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 9. Consul. Whitacher. quaest. 6. cap. 4.

2 They proceed and allege scripture for their traditions, as that place John. 16.12. I have many things to say, but you cannot bear them now, Ergo say they, there are many traditions not written.

We answer. First, it followeth not, because Christ declared not all things at that time, that therefore he kept them from his Apostles all together. Nay whatsoever afterwards the Apostles learned of the spirit of God, they had heard before of Christ, for it was the office of the spirit, but to put them in remembrance of Christ's sayings. John. 14.26. which they had heard before, but understood them not, and so forgot them. Wherefore these things, which Christ forbeareth to speak, are the same things, which are contained in the Apostles writings. Secondly, if there were other matters, which Christ uttered not, how followeth it, nay what great presumptiō is it to say, that those trifles and apish toys, which the Papists use in their Idolatrous sacrifice, and their other beggarly ceremonies (which boys may well laugh at) are those profound matters, which the Apostles were not then able to conceive.

3 That of all other, they take to be an invincible place. 2. Thess. 2.15. keep the instructions or traditions, which ye have been taught either by word, or by Epistle, Ergo there are traditions besides scripture.

We answer: when S. Paul wrote this Epistle, all the scriptures were not writ̄: wherefore besides these two short Epistles, which do not contain the sum of the Gospel, nor all necessary precepts, he by his preaching supplied, what was wanting, and so declared unto them the whole mystery of the Gospel, as he saith. 1. Thess. 2.2. these he calleth his traditions, because yet he had not written his other Epistles, wherein those instructions and traditions are contained. This then is but a weak argument: the Thessalonians had other instructions and traditions beside the two Epistles writ̄ unto them, Ergo they had other traditions, beside all the writings of S. Paul and the other Apostles: this is their main and weighty argument.

The Protestants.

FIrst, we grant, that all things are not written which our Savior Christ and the Apostles taught, and that it was the Gospel, which they preached, as well as this which is written: yet in substance they preached the same Gospel, which now is expressed in the scripture: neither was there any necessary precept delivered in their Sermons, which is not now to be found in the scriptures. Secondly, we deny not but there were certain rites and orders ordained by the Apostles in diverse churches, which were not committed to writing, because they were not to continue and endure forever in the Church: as that precept Act. 16. that the Gentiles should abstain from strangled, and from blood. Thirdly, we also grant that the Church may use external rites and orders either left by tradition, or ordained by the Church for decency and comelynesse, and tending to edification. But we constantly affirm, that there are no traditions in the Church of God necessary to salvation beside scripture: wherein all things are contained necessary to salvation, both concerning faith and manners.

1 It is not lawful, as to take ought from the word of God, so to add anything unto it. Deut. 12.32. Apocal. 22.18. But they which bring in traditions necessary beside the scriptures, do add unto them, Ergo.

To the proposition the Jesuit answereth, that all addition to the word of God is not forbidden, for the Prophets did write after Moses, & the Apostles after the Evangelists. We answer: that those holy men had authority from God to compile scripture, if the Papists have the like Apostolic authority for their traditions, let them show it, and we will believe them. Secondly, the Prophets did but explain Moses, and expound the law, and the Apostles did as it were set forth their Commentaries upon the Gospel: this therefore was no addition, because they did not derogate from the perfection of the scriptures any way.

To the assumptiō they answer, that their traditions are but expositions of Scripture. We answer, their traditions are clean contrary to Scripture, as the worshipping of Images, and the sacrifice of their Mass: and they add to Scripture, making it imperfect, saying, it doth not contain all things necessary to salvation. Wherefore they cannot escape that curse, which they run into that add to the word of God.

2 All traditions among the Jews besides the law were condemned Math. 15.3. Ergo all unwritten traditions now must be abolished. The Jesuit answereth. First, Christ condemned not the ancient traditions of Moses, but those which were newly and lately invented. Aunswere, first the Scripture maketh no mention of any such traditions of Moses: Christ biddeth them search the Scriptures, not run unto traditions. Secondly, these seemed to be ancient traditions, bearing the name of Elders traditions, and they were in great authority amongst, the Jews: most like because of some long continuance.

Secondly (saith he) Christ findeth fault with wicked and impious traditions. Aunswere. First, their traditions were not openly and plainly evil and pernicious, but had some show of holiness, as the washing of pots, and tables, and beds. I would the Papists did not here take thē selves by the nose, whose traditions come nearer to open impiety, and blasphemy, then theirs did. Secondly, Christ in opposing the Scripture against traditions, therein condemneth all traditions not written, besides the Scripture.

3 If Paul preaching the whole Gospel. Act. 20.27. did say none other things then Moses and the Prophets, then all things necessary to salvation are contained in the Scriptures. For it cannot be said to be a whole and perfect Gospel, if anything necessary to salvation be wanting. But Paul preached nothing, but out of Moses and the Prophets. Act. 26.22. Ergo much more now is the Scripture a perfect rule of faith: we having beside Moses and the Prophets, the holy writings of the Evangelists and Apostles.

4 Last of all, although we might multiply many arguments, but these I trust, strongly concluding out of Scripture, may serve as a sufficient bulwark against all Popish paper▪ bullets. Let us hear in the knitting up the judgment of Augustine. In his rebus inquit, in quib nihil certi statuit Scriptura, mos populi Dei, vel instituta maiorum, pro lege tenenda. Epist. 86. In all those things (saith he) speaking of external rules, and ceremonies, of the which we have no certain rule out of Scripture, the custom of the people of God, and the godly constitutions of our forefathers must stand for a law: but concerning matters of faith and good manners the Scriptures do give certain rules: as in another place: In ijs quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt, inueniuntur illa omnia, quae continent fidem, moresque viuendi, De doctrine. Christian. 2.9. all things appertaining to faith, and the rule of life, are plainly expressed in the Scripture, Ergo by the sentence of Augustine, traditions besides scripture have nothing to do with the doctrine of faith and manners, but do consist only in external rites and customs of the Church.

The Papists.

THey affirm that not only the predestinate, but evē reprobates also may belong unto the Church, and be true members thereof. Bellarmine. Lib. 3. de [error 14] Eccles. cap. 7. Nay they deny that the elect which are unborn, and not yet called, do appertain to the Church of Christ. Rhemistes. annot. in. 1. Tim. 3. Sect. 10. This then is generally their opinion, that there is no internal grace or virtue required in the menbers of the Church, but only the external and public outward profession. Bellarmine. cap. 2. And therefore they doubt not to say that even wicked men and reprobates remaining in the public profession of the Church, are true members of the body of Christ. Rhemistes. annot. in Johan. 15. Sect. 1.

1 They first allege certain places of Scripture, as Math. 3. the Church is compared to a barn floor, where there is both chaff and corn. Math. 13. to a net cast into the sea, where all manner of fish are gathered together. 2. Tim. 2. to a house, wherein there be vessels of honor and dishonor, Ergo both good & bad are members of the Church. Bellarmine. cap. 7. lib. 3.

We answer. All these places must be understood of the visible Church: which is known by the public preaching of the word, and therefore Math. 3. compared to a fan, and Math. 13. to a draw net, the Apostles, pastors and teachers are the fisher men. Wherefore we deny not but that wicked men may be in the Church, but not of it: yea they may be members of the visible Church for a time, but cannot be truly engraffed into the body of Christ. Fulk. annot. Johan. 15. Sect. 1.

2 The Church (say they) is compared to a body. 1. Cor. 12. as in the body there are some partes, which have neither sense nor life: so in the Church there are some menbers, which have neither faith nor charity, which is the life of the Church, Ergo wicked men may be right members of the Church. Bellarm. cap. 10. there may be also some fruitless branches in the vine, and so evil men may be members of Christ. Rhemist. annot. 15. Johan. 1. every branch not bearing fruit in me shall be cast forth, Ergo there may be fruitless branches in Christ.

We answer to the first, who would have said, as the Jesuit doth, that there are partes in the body, that receive neither life nor sense of the body: doth he mean the nails and hears, as he seemeth to give instance in the end of the Chapter: but they are no partes of the body but excrements: he is so deep in his sophistry, that he hath forgotten Philosophy: and yet they receive some gift from the body, for they grow & increase, but the wicked receive no grace at all from the Church. The Rhemistes yet are more reasonable, that say the wicked in the church, are as ill humors and superfluous excrements in the body, rather then lively partes thereof. 1. Johan. 2. Sect. 10.

To the second, is a dead bow or a branch, I pray you, any part of the tree? I think not: the tree cannot conveniently spare any one of the partes thereof: but the dead partes are hurtful and cumbersome, and it doth the tree good to cut them of. But that they have prevented us, we would have used no better argument against them, then this drawn from the resemblance of a man's body: for as what is in the body receiving no life nor power from the body is not properly a part of the body, howsoever it seem to be joined to the body: so the wicked although they be in the outward face of the Church, yet because they are not partakers of the spiritual life thereof by Christ, are not truly to be judged members of it.

3 If wicked men should not be right members of the Church, but the faithful and predestinate, we should be uncertain which is the true Church, which is not to be admitted, because the whole doctrine, and all the principles of Religion do depend of the testimony of the Church. Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 10.

We answer. First, although it is necessary that the true Church should be certainly known, yet not for that cause, which the Jesuit pretendeth: for the Religion of Christians is grounded upon the Scriptures, and although the true Church doth give a notable testimony thereunto, yet doth not our faith depend upon their witness, testimony, or allowance. Secondly, the true visible Church is certainly known by the preaching of the word and the right use of the Sacraments: so that we doubt not but there is the true Church, where we find these marks: neither is it needful to know the estate of every particular member thereof, for so long, as all actions in the Church are directed and ordered by the rule of God's word, we need not to doubt to commit our selves to that Church, howsoever otherwise men do stand before God: and yet, so much as is necessary, the faithful may be judged & known by their fruits.

Thirdly, though we admit that wicked men are menbers: yet the uncertainty remaineth still: for they them selves hold that neither men not Baptized, or persons excommunicate, or heretics can be of the Church: but many may live in the Church, whom we know not to be Baptized, which may be ipso facto, by the deed doing excommunicate without public sentence, and heretics also: wherefore even amongst themselves they are uncertain, who are members of the Church.

The Protestants.

WE hold that the Catholic Church consisteth only of the predestinate, and comprehendeth the universal number of all those which shall be saved, not only those now living on earth, but all that have been since the beginning of the world: of this Church S. Paul was even being a persecutor, for he was never a member of the devil nor reprobate, as John Hus saith articul. 2. Of this Church Judas the traitor never was, though he were reputed for a Disciple of Christ for a while Huss. articul. 7. Therefore the wicked and reprobate though they live in the outward assembly of Christians, are no more the true members of Christ, then the tares in the field may be counted wheat or good corn.

1 The true members of Christ, are also his sheep, the wicked are not the sheep of Christ, Ergo neither his members.

The sheep of Christ hear his voice: they do not hear his voice, Ergo if they shall answer, that hypocrites and wicked men do hear Christ's voice, so long as they continue in the outward profession of Christians, we thus improve it: Christ's sheep do follow him in life and example John. 15.4. but so do not they. If it shall be yet answered that they may also a while walk in Christ's steps: this is not enough, for all Christ's shall be saved. ver. 9. wherefor the Gospel understandeth such followers, as continue to the end.

2 Christ is the head of his Church, and all the partes thereof, but he is not the head of the wicked & reprobate, Ergo. The Jesuit granteth that he is the head, even of those partes that shall perish. Bellarmine. cap. 7. We thus answer, Christ is the head only of those, for whom he gave him self. Ephe. 5.23.25: but he gave not him self for the wicked, Ergo. If this be denied, we thus proceed, Christ died only for those whom he sanctifieth and cleanseth, to make them a glorious Church without spot and wrinkle. Ephe. 5.26.27. But this cannot agree any wise to the wicked, Ergo.

3 The Church of God is the whole family of the children of God in heaven and earth, Ephe. 3.15. they both make but one Church, the wicked are not of this family: for who would say that the Saints in heaven, and wicked and reprobate men upon the earth, are fellow servants, and of one household, Ergo they are not of the Catholic Church.

4 Of all other that is a most evident place. 1. John. 2.19. they went out of us, but were not of us, Ergo heretics and reprobates are not of the church. Bellarmine answereth: though they were not of us, that is, of the Church: animis & voluntate, in soul, and mind, and purpose of heart, yet they were of us, externa profession, in external profession. Thus they are not ashamed, such is there great boldness, to contradict the scriptures, for the Apostle saith, non erāt ex nobis, they were not of us: they say, yes, forsooth, after a sort, erāt ex nobis, they were of us: the Apostle saith nay, they say yea, he saith indeed exierunt ex nobis, they went out of us, which soundeth nothing like, as erant ex nobis, they were of us, as the Jesuit subtillie would conclude.

5 Let Augustine speak for us both, Illa columba, vnica, pudica, casta, sponsa sine macula & ruga non intelligitur, nisi in bonis, iustis, sanctis. That lovely dove (saith he) the chaste, undefiled, and unspotted spouse (that is the Church of God) is only understood of those that are righteous, faithful, holy, Ergo the wicked are not of the Church, which is the spouse of Christ.

The Papists.

THey do affirm that the Catholic Church is and hath been always visible: [error 15] not so visible, because it might be seen, but that it hath been always actually visible, & not seen only unto the menbers of the church, but notoriously know̄ to the whole world. Rhemens. annot in Math. cap. 5. Sect. 3. Neither do they mean any particular Church so to have been visible, but the universal catholic church, which they define to be a visible cōgregatiō of all faithful men. Canisius. cap. de fide & Symbol. articul. 18. Bellarmine. lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 12. ration. 7.

1 The foundation of the Church is visible: therefore the Church is visible: the proportion they prove thus: for whether we affirm Christ, or Peter to be the foundatiō of the Church: both of them are now visible in him which is the Vicare of Christ, and Peters successor.

We answer. First, we utterly deny either Peter to be the foundation of the Church, or else the Pope to be his lawful successor: for Peter is no more the foundation of the Church, then all the Prophets and Apostles. Ephe. 2.20. whose doctrine is the foundation, not their persons. And as for the Pope, we care not so much for outward successiō in place, which notwithstanding they cannot prove to have been perpetual without interruption, as we do require a succession of faith and doctrine. Secondly, we affirm that Christ is the foundation, but not the visible beholding of Christ, with the carnal eyes, but believing in his name, for when Peter had uttered that notable confession of Christ, he said that flesh and blood had not revealed it but his father in heaven: but if the beholding of Christ, had given Peter a sight of the foundation, thē flesh had revealed it unto him, his carnal eyes had brought him to Christ. Thirdly, we may much better return this argument upon them selves: that because the foundation of the Church, which is faith in Christ, is invisible, therefore the Church is invisible.

2 They heap up many places of Scriptures, but to small purpose as Math. 18. tell the Church. Acts. 15. when they came to Jerusalem they were received of the Church, Philip. 3.6. Paul persecuted the Church: how could the church be persecuted, how could it receive the Apostles, if it were not visible? Bellarmine. cap. 12.

We answer, what goodly reasons here be: a particular church such as was at Jerusalem may be seen, Ergo the catholic and universal. Secondly, a particular church may be sometime visible, Ergo always. Thirdly, the church is visible unto the faithful, as in time of persecution, for to Paul it was not known, when he persecuted it, but only to the brethren, Ergo it is visible to the world. For these three points they must prove that the catholic church not a particular is visible, that the Church is not sometime but always visible, yea and to the world, or else they say nothing: for shame masters make better arguments.

3 He hath set his tabernacle in the sun. Psal. 19. The Church is as a City upon an hill, Math. 5. Ergo it is always visible. Bellarmine. ibid. Rhemist. Math. 5. Sect. 3.

We answer. First, the Apostles them selves, even at this time, when Christ spake these words unto them, were not so in sole, or in monte, in the sun, or upon the hill, that they were seen of the world, nay they were not seen nor acknowledged of the Scribes and Pharisees in Jewry: the Church is seen of the faithful, it is visible to them that search for her out of the Scriptures: they that cā see the mountain, shall see the City, the mountain is Christ, the City is the Church. No marvel if the Church be not always visible to the world, for they see not, neither do they know Christ. Secondly, the church is said to be on a hill: because the truth seeketh no corners, heretics and false t • achers fly into the desert and into secret places, Math. 24. ver. 26. But the truth is not ashamed: the Apostles confessed Christ, evē before Kings and Princes, Mark 13.19. so Augustine expoundeth it. Cont. Faustum. lib. 13. cap. 13.

The Protestants.

COncerning the catholic church, we hold, that because, it is an article of our faith, it is always unto the world invisible, and not to be espied but by the eyes of faith. Fulk. Math. 5. Sect. 5.

Concerning particular churches▪ if by visible, they understand that which may be seen, so we grant they are always visible. Fulk. Act. 11. v. 24. If for that which is actually visible: we say it is not so always visible to the world, nay it may sometimes be so hid and secret, that the members know not one another. Fulk. in Math. 5. Sect. 3.

1 To the Hebrews it is thus written. cap. 13. v. 18.23.24. you are not come to the moūtaine, which might be touched, but to the City of the living God, the celestial Jerusalem, &c. Ergo the church is invisible, and here opposed to the visible hill of Sinai.

Bellarmine answereth, that this is understood of the triumphant church in heaven, not of the militant upon earth.

To this we make answer, the Apostle understandeth the whole universal church in heaven and earth, which both make but one family, Ephe. 3.15. for here he nameth not only the spirits of just men which are in heaven, but the faithful upon earth, whose names are written in heaven: the congregatiō (saith he) of the first borne: the words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a gathering together, collection or congregation, which must needs be understood of men upon earth. Again (saith he) ye are come, not ye shall come: they had now left the smoking mountain Sinai, and were come to Zion, the church under the Gospel. Wherefore this is a most firm and invincible argument: the catholic church is the universal number of God's chosen in heaven and in earth, Ergo invisible.

2 We will give an instance: In the days of Elias the church was not visible, for he camplaineth, and saith that he was only left alone, 1. King. 19.10. Ergo the church is not always visible.

The Rhemistes answer. First, at that time the church was visible in Judea, the soldiers were numbered to 1000. thousand, 2. Chron. 17. We answer again. First, belike they have taken a more exact account of them then the Lord him self: for he (saith he) had reserved 7000, 1. King. 19.18. that had not bowed their knees to Baal, they say there were ten hundred thousand. Again Elias, if he had known such a number, could not have been left so comfortless, as in grief of heart to desire to die. But be it granted that the church was visible in Judea at this time, though it were not so to Elias : yet where was that visible church in the days of Achaz, and Manasseh, when Judea fell also to Idolatry? Thirdly, to believe that there is an holy catholic church is an article of our faith, Ergo it is invisible.

Bellarmine answereth. First, the holiness of the church is invisible. We reply, so the church is partly visible, partly invisible by his confession. First, why thē do ye define the catholic church to be a visible cōgregatiō, if it be not wholly & altogether visible? they know that difinitio must cōuenire definito, the definitiō must agree wholly to that which is defined: but now it is not: for they say, the catholic holy church is partly visible as it is a church, partly invisible as it is holy. Secondly, do we not say in the Creed, Credo Catholicam, as well as Credo Sanctam, I believe a catholic church, as well as I believe the holy church? then it is also invisible, as it is catholic, because this also is part of the article: see I pray you what shifting is here?

Secondly, he answereth, that something is seen in the church, something believed: for we see that visible company of men, which make the church, but whether that company be the true church, we do not see it, but believe it.

We reply again. First, the Jesuit hath not yet proved that something is seen in the church, something believed: but one thing is seen, namely the congregation as they are men, another thing is believed, that they are the church: the sight and belief now by his own confession are not both in the church. Secondly, we deny that the universal company of the catholic church, which is the number of the predestinate can be seen, therefore all is believed, and nothing seen. Thirdly, he saith that by faith we know which is the true church: Ergo by faith we know which are the members of the church: Ergo by faith the menbers do know them selves to be of the Church: therefore faith is requisite in the true members of the church: thē unfaithful men cannot be true members of the church, which point the Jesuit strongly before maintained against us. Mendacem oportet esse memorem, a liar had need have a good memory: lest he tell contrary tales, and so hath the Jesuit here, for before he denied that faith was requisite to make a true member of the church: here he saith that without faith a menber cā not be known, much less therefore made.

3 The Rhemistes confess in these very words, that in the reign of (their imagined and supposed) Antichrist the external state of the Roman church, and public intercourse of the faithful with the same shall cease, and that there shall be only a communion in heart with it, and practice in secret, Annot. in. 2. Thess. 2. Sect. 10. Where then (I pray you) shall be your tabernaculum in sole, ciuitas in monte, candela splendens in domo: your tabernacle in the sun, your City in a mountain, your candle shining in the house, that is, say you, in the world. Math. 5. Sect. 3. Ergo out of their own words we conclude, that the church shall not always be visible, and notoriously known in the world.

Lastly, we will conclude with Augustine. Aliquando in sola domo Noah Ecclesia erat: in solo Abraham Ecclesia erat: in solo Loth & domo eius Ecclesia erat: in solo Enoch Ecclesia erat: Sometime the church was only in Henochs house, sometime only in Noah, some time in Abraham alone, in Loth & his house. How then hath the church been always so visible and notoriously know̄ to the world, when it hath lain hidden some time in one house, yea in one man.

The Papists.

THey do teach that the catholic church cannot possibly err, not only in matters absolutely necessary to salvation, but not in anything, which [error 16] it imposeth and commandeth, whether it be contained in the word of God or not: yea that it cannot err in these things, which beside the word of God are commanded. And by the church here, they do mean not only the Pastors and Bishops, but the whole company of the faithful: so that neither that which all the pastors of the church do teach, can be erroneous, nor what is received generally of the whole church. Bellarm. de Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 14. Rhemist. annot an Johan. 14. ver. 16.

1 The church (say they) is the pillar of truth▪ 1. Tim. 3. Ergo it cannot err. We answer. First, it is no otherwise the pillar of truth, then a virgin without spot and wrinkle, Ephe. 5.27. As that place doth not privilege the church frō all sin and imperfection of life, so neither doth this place exempt her from all error in doctrine. Secondly, she is called the pillar of truth in respect of us, because the truth is preserved in the true church, and is not else where to be found: not because the truth dependeth upon the church: for S. Paul sendeth not Timothy in this place to learn of the church, as though it could not possibly be deceived: but (saith he) these things have I written, that thou mayst know how to behave thyself in the house of God. ver. 14.15. Ergo the word of God is the rule of truth, and the church hath no warrant, to be kept from error, but as she is lead and governed by the word of God. Thirdly, the argument followeth not, for Peter was a pillar and yet erred. Gallat. 2.9.11.

2 They heap many arguments together. The church hath the spirit of God, to lead it into all truth, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Math. 16. God hath given it Apostles, teachers, Evangelists to keep it in the truth. Ephe. 4. Christ hath prayed for the church, that it may be sanctified in the verity. John. 17. Christ prayed that Peters faith should not fail, Ergo the church cannot err. Rhemens. annot. 1. Timoth. 3.15.

We answer: everyone of the elect hath the spirit of God, neither shall the gates of hell prevail against the faith of any one of the elect to overthrow it: Christ prayeth for everyone of his Disciples that they may be sanctified in the truth. John. 17.20. wherefore it followeth as well by these arguments, that no one faithful man can fall into error. The pastors and teachers, so long as they follow the Apostles doctrine, may keep the church from error, but it is not gathered out of that place. Ephe. 4. that the pastors if they swerve from God's word cannot err.

Concerning Peter, Christ prayed for him that his faith should not fail in that grievous temptation, which he fell into. Secondly, he prayed not for him as governor of the church, but as he prayeth for every faithful man. John. 17.23. Thirdly, for all this prayer Peter erred▪ Gallat. 2.

3 This argument was used in the Council of Basel: the Church is without spot, and wrinkle. Ephe. 5.27. Ergo without error.

We answer. First, S. Paul speaketh there of a glorious church, such as it shall be in the kingdom of heaven, not of the church as it is upon earth: so Revel. 7.14. The elders, which sat round about the throne, which are the Saints in heaven, were seen in long white robes, which they had washed white in the blood of the Lamb.

2 It followeth out of this place that the church is as well without sin, as free from error: which the divines in the Council did also grant. But seeing by their own confession every member of the church, being clothed in this mortal flesh sinneth, how can the church be without sin? If the church consist of men, and all men are sinners, how is the church free? If all the partes and members be sinful, how is not the whole also polluted with sin? If all the partes of the body be sick and diseased, how can the whole be sound? The church also is not ashamed to confess her self to be black. Cant. 1.5. she shall be made beautiful and glorious without all spot & blemish in the kingdom of God: and even now also is made righteous and just before God through Christ: not because she hath no sin, but because it is remitted: and although some errors and imperfections remain, yet shall they be no hinderance to her salvation.

The Protestants.

WE doubt not to say, that the church of God may err in some points not necessary to salvation: but cannot fall clean away from God into any damnable error. Fulk. annot. in Ephe. 5. ver. 29. That the church may err, as we say, we do show it thus: and by the Church, we understand the whole company and congregation, the pastors with the people.

1 When our Savior Christ suffered, the church erred in faith, Ergo it may err: the proposition is thus proved. The church was either in the Scribes and Pharisees, or else in the Apostles: but both of them erred: they in putting Christ to death, the other in their incredulity, not believing rightly in the resurrection of Christ.

Bellarmine answereth, first that the Pharisees were privileged not to err, only till the coming of Christ. We reply again. First, after Christ was come they sat in Moses chair, and Christ biddeth they should be heard. Math. 23.2. if they erred not afore, neither could they now, for they were not displaced out of Moses chair: but the truth is, they never had any such privilege not to err. Secondly, if the Pharisees were now prone to error, then by our adversaries own confession, they ceased to be the church, Ergo the church was not now visible, for in them it was not: and the Apostles fled from Christ, and shifted for them selves: how could then the church be visible to the world?

Secondly, the Jesuit answereth concerning the Apostles. First, the Apostles were not yet entered into their office and Bishoprike, but only appointed to it, and therefore they might err. We reply again. First they were not only appointed Apostles, but partly already they had exercised their Apostleship: for they were sent forth to preach the Gospel, and had power and commission to work miracles, and heal diseases Math. 10▪ how then is not the Jesuit ashamed to say, that they were not yet Pastors nor Apostles? Secondly, if the Pharisees erred, and the Apostles erred, then all the world was in error, Ergo by their saying at this instant there was no church upon the earth, which is a great absurdity, for the church erreth not, they say.

Secondly, (saith the Jesuit) the Apostles erred not in faith: they were reproved for not believing the resurrection: which belief because they had not yet received, they could not loose it. We reply. First, though they had not erred in any material point: yet if there were any error at all in them, it is sufficient for our purpose: that they erred it is manifest, for they fled away from Christ. Secondly, he excuseth them for their infidelity concerning the resurrection, because this faith they had not yet received. But had not Christ (I pray you) often instructed them of this matter: and if this were no such error in them, then Christ was to sharp in reproving them for their infidelity. Thirdly, it appeareth, that they wholly were deceived concerning the Messiah: Luke. 24.21. the two Disciples say, they trusted that it had been he that should have delivered Israel: see then what weak answers these are: did these fellows think, that their glosses should not be examined? or that their dreams should be taken for oracles?

2 The church of the Jews erred before our Savior Christ's coming, Ergo the true church may err.

The proposition is proved: In the time of the reign of good kings, they did offer sacrifice upon hill altars, but only to the Lord, which was an error. 2. Kings. 12.3.14.4. The feast of the Passover was not kept so precisely according to God's word at any time before, no not in the reign of the best kings, as it was in the 18. year of Josiah reign, 2. King. 23.22. The feast of Tabernacles had not been so solemnly and truly kept from the days of Joshua, as it was in Nehemiah's time▪ Nehem. 8.18. Ergo all this while the church of the Jews erred somewhat in the external worship of God. Fulk. Ephes. cap. 5. Sect. 4.

3 Augustine saith, Quomodo erit Ecclesia in isto tempore, perfecta sine macula & ruga, cuius menbra non mendaciter confitentur se habere peccata. How can the church be perfect in this life, without spot or wrinkle, whose members do truly confess, that they are not without sin? Ergo the church sinneth and is imperfect, and why not subject to error? But in the Council of Basel it was denied, as ye heard, that the church could sin.

The Papists.

[error 17] THey hold that it is impossible that the visible church should utterly fail upon the earth, and fall from God, but that there shall always be a visible and known church upon the earth, having a perpetual succession of Pastors and Doctors, where the true worship of God shall be preserved and kept. Bellarmine. lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 13.

1 These and such places of Scripture they stand upon, Math. 16. the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, Math. 28. I will be with you to the end of the world. Psal. 88. his throne shall be as the Sun, and endure as the Moon, Ergo the visible church shall not fail upon earth. Bellarmine.

We answer: that these places must be understood, of the catholic and universal church, whereof we deny not, but every true particular church is a part. This church is the spouse of Christ, this church shall not perish, this is the kingdom of Christ, with this church will he always be present to the end of the world: we deny not but that the invisible church shall continue upon the earth so long as the world endureth. Secondly, those places are improperly understood of the visible church, for therein are both good and bad: how thē can that be the spouse of Christ, where there are many infidels and wicked ones, which have not espoused themselves unto him? how can it be called his kingdom, whereas it is not of all acknowledged? But in the true catholic church all and everyone are espoused to Christ: all and everyone have the kingdom of God within them, as it is Luke. 17. ver. 21.

2 They do abuse that place of S. Paul Ephe. 4.11. he gave some to be Apostles, some Evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the gathering together of the Saints: Ergo the church shall always be visible till all the Saints are gathered together. Bellarmine. cap. 13. Rhemistes. Ephes. 4. Sect. 5.

We answer: this place proveth that the church hath never wanted pastors and teachers for the continuance of the truth, neither shall ever be without them, as the Lord said by the Prophet Isaiah. 59. ver. 21. My spirit, which is vpō thee, & my words which I have put into thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor the mouth of thy seed forever. We therefore deny not but that in all ages, yea in the most ignorant times of Popery, God raised up faithful teachers unto his church: although they were not mitred and croziard Bishops, neither could show any outward pomp or boast of any glorious successiō: Such were Gulielmus de S. Amore, Arnoldus de noua villa. an. 1240. Berengarius, Joachim Abbas, in the time of Innocentius 3. Wikclef, Bruto, Swinderby, Badby, and others about. anno. 1400. with many, which were not known to the world: for the truth never in any age wanted witnesses.

By the continuance of the truth and right faith, we gather, that there have been always faithful teachers, though not notorious to the world, and shall be: but who they were, and where they lived, what pomp, what authority they were of, it is not material to know: wherefore an outward visible succession of Bishops and Pastors is not necessary for the continuance of the truth: neither can it be concluded out of this place.

3 Thus they reason, there have been always some faithful men, which have outwardly professed their faith: for if they dissembled or cloaked their profession, then were they not faithful: Ergo the church hath been always visible, as in the time of persecution. Bellarmine.

We answer. First, the Jesuit doth clean pervert and change the state of the question: for he defineth a visible church, to be multitudo congregata, in qua sint praelati & subditi: a multitude or company gathered together, where there are both Prelates and Bishops, and people obedient unto them. And now he giveth an instance of persecution, wherein some faithful Christians may give an outward profession of their faith: where is now that multitude congregate together? where is that jurisdiction of Prelates? where is that visible and glorious succession? We deny not but that in time of persecution the faithful may be known to them selves: and yet some time they are not: for in Israel there were seven thousand faithful beside Elias, yet he knew none of them. But it followeth not, that therefore the church is then visible to the world, and notoriously known to men, for so the Rhemistes say, in Math. 5. Sect. 3. & Act. 11. Sect. 3. Thus they fly manifestly from the question.

The Protestants.

WE deny not, but that the catholic universal church, as it hath hitherto continued since the beginning of the world, so shall it endure to the end: the Lord shall never want upon earth a company of faithful men, which shall truly serve him: though it be not necessary, neither hath always been seen, that they should be in any one place. A visible church we define to be a congregation of men, amongst whom the word is truly preached, and the Sacraments administered: such a Church hath not always been, neither can we be assured that it shall always be found upon the earth, wherein the worship of God publicly and visibly is practiced.

1 In the reign of Ahaz king of Judah there was no visible church, where the pure worship of God was practiced, for both Israel under Pekah, and Judah under Ahaz, fell to Idolatry, and followed the custom of the Gentiles. 2. Kings. 16.3. yea Uriah the high Priest consented with the king to set up Idolatry. Likewise in the days of Manasseh, who did evil after the abomination of the heathen. 2. Kings. 21.2. there was no place, where God was publicly worshipped. for Judah was corrupted, Israel was carried away captive, Ergo there was a time, when there was no visible Church.

2 In the Passion of our Savior there was no visible church, such a church we still mean, as where there are, Prelati & subditi, pastores & oues, Prelates and people, pastors and sheep. We prove it thus.

The visible Church was not amongst the Pharisees and Priests, for they shamefully and wickedly erred. Bellarmine. 17. It was not among the Apostles, for they also erred, therefore after the Papists opiniō they were not the Church: for the Church (say they) erreth not. Secondly he saith, they were yet but material partes, not formal, that is, not Bishops or Pastors, how then could there be a visible Church, which was without the formal and principal parts, that is Pastors and Bishops, Ergo there was then no visible Church.

3 When the abhominatiō of desolation shall stand in the temple, & there shall be a general defection and apostasy from the faith, then shall the visible church fail upon earth: But the first is true Math. 24.15. 2. Thess. 2.3. Ergo.

To the first place the Jesuit answereth that it must be understood of the destruction of the temple. cap. 16. But the Rhemistes more liberal then so, affirm that it shall be especially accomplished in Antichrists time, when as the sacrifice of the Mass shall utterly be abolished. annot. in Math. 24. ver. 15.

To the next place, concerning that defectiō & apostasy, which S. Paul speaketh of, first he saith, that it shall be a defection from the Roman Empire: but the Rhemistes say, it shall be a defection frō most points of Christian Religion. Secondly, the Jesuit answereth, that though it be a defection from the Roman faith, yet it shall not be general but particular: but the Rhemistes better advised grant it shall be a revolt of kingdoms, people's, provinces: & the public intercourse of the faithful with the church of Rome shall cease, they shall only communicate with it in heart. annot. in 2. Thess. 2. Sect. 6.

Now out of their own words we conclude: there shall be a time whē as the public service of God shall cease, there shall be desolation in the Churches and temples of Christians: there shall be then no public intercourse with the Church, but a private communicating in heart, Ergo there shall be a time, when there shall be no outward visible Church notoriously and famously known: Ergo our adversaries are in an error, & are condemned by their own mouth.