filthily more uncivilly more lewdly and beyond all bounds of Christian modesty then did Luther No marvel that he is so taxed for his obscenity in his Henzius Anglicus against King Hen. the eight for his beastlinesse in his Hans worst against the Jewes for his filthy mentioning of Hogs for his stincking repetition of turds and dunghils in his Schemhamphorise But if you will hear of his Master-piece you mast read the Book which he writ against the Pope where he asks him out of what mouth O Pope dost thou speak is it out of that from whence thy farts doe burst If it come thence keep it to thy selfe if it comes from that wherein thou powrest thy Corisca wine let the Dog fill that with his excrements good Asse doe not kick kick not my little Pope O my dear Asse doe not so fie how this little Pope hath bewrayed himselfe Is this the way to win to his side or to gaine souls to Christ or to reforme Churches or to confute heresies It is observed that Saint Paul in his Epistles repeated the sacred name of Jesus 500 times and it is the observation of the learned Tygurin Divines that so many times Luther hath used the name of Devill in his Bookes and it is no marvaile that they burst out into this admiration How wonderfull is Luther here with his Devils what impure words he useth with how many Devils doth he burst Nor marvail that Zwinglius saith to him we fill not our Books with so many Devils nor doe we bring so many armies of Devils against thee If you can expect to gather figgs from thorns or grapes from thistles then ye may expect words from a sanctified spirit to proceed from such a mouth else not What should I say more Melancthon tells us that Carolostadius was a barbarous fellow without wit without learning without common sense in whom was no signe of the holy Ghost but manifest tokens of impiety Lastly Hutterus Beza's owne fellow Protestant thus saies of him and casts this dirt in his face which is so shamelesse a testimony that you must give me leave to throw a latine vail over it viz. Beza in fine libri de absentia corporis Christi in coena scribit Candidae sive Amascae suae culum imo partem diversam magis adhuc pudendam mundiora esse quam illorum ora qui simpliciter verbis Christi inherentes credant se praesens Christi Corpus in coena sacra ore suo accipere And another Beza by his most filthy manners was a disgrace to honest Discipline who in sacrilegious verse published to the world his detestable loves his unlawfull carnall acts whoredoms and fowl adulteries not content that himselfe onely should like a hog wallow in the durt of wicked lusts but he must also pollute the ears of studious youth with his filth I could inlarge my Paper to a volume of like instances in others but these are the prime reformers of the Protestant Churches and how the people edified under their Doctrine these Narratives from their owne mouths shall tell you When we were seduced by the Pope saith Luther every man did willingly follow good works and now every man neither saith nor knoweth any thing but how to get all to himselfe by exactions pillage theft lying usury Certainly to speak the truth there is many times found Conscionable and plainer dealing amongst most Papists then among many Protestants And if we look narrowly to the ages past we shall find more godlinesse devotion and zeal though blind more love one toward another more fidelity and faithfulnesse every way in them then is now to be found in us If any man be desirous to see a great rabble of knaves of persons turbulent deceitfull Cosoners Usureis let him goe to any City where the Gospel is purely preached and he shall find them there by multitudes For it is more manifest then the day light that there were never among the Ethnicks Turks or infidels more unbridled and unruly persons with whom all virtue and honesty is quite extinct then are amongst the Professonrs of the Gospel The children of them of the reformed Gospel grow every day worse more untractable and dare commit such crimes as men of former times were never subject to If you cast your eyes upon Protestant Doctours you shall find that some of them moved through vaine glory envious zeal and a prejudicate opinion disorder the true Doctrine disperse and earnestly defend the false some of them without cause stir up contentions and with inconsiderate spight defend them many wrest their Doctrines every way of purpose to please their Princes and the people by whose grace and favour they are maintained they overthrow with their wicked life all that they had formerly built with their true doctrine How could the people be better when their Ministers were so bad like lips like lettice I will conclude all with the learned Protestant Zanchius and then you will neither wonder at one or other I have read saith he the Latine copy of the Apology and diligently read it over not without choller when I perceived what manner of writing very many let me not say for the most part but all doe use in the Churches of the reformed Gospel who would seeme notwithstanding to be Pastors Doctors and Pillars of the Church The state of the question that it may not be understood we often of set purpose over-cloud with darknesse things which are manifest we impudently deny things false we without shame avouch things plainly impious we propose as the first principles of faith things orthodoxall we condemne of heresie Scripture at our pleasure we detort to our owne dreams we boast of Fathers when we will follow nothing lesse then their doctrine to deceive to calumniate to raile is familiar with us so as we may defend our cause good or bad by right or by wrong all other things we turne upside down Oh times Oh manners It is no marvel that M. Sutcliff saies that the Protestant writers offered great violence to the Scriptures expounding them contrary both to antient Fathers History and common reason It is no marvel that Cambden tells us that Holland is a fruitfull province of heretiques It is no marvell that Your royall Father tells us that both Hungary and Bohemia abound with infinite varieties of sects It is no marvell that he said he could never see a Bible well translated into English and that the worst of all was the Geneva whereunto were added notes untrue seditious and savouring too much of dangerous and traiterous conceits It is no marvel that He protested before the great God that you should never find among the Highland or Border-theeves greater ingratitude more lies and vile perjuries then with those phanatick spirits It is no marvel that M. Bancroft said that the Puritans of Scotland were published in a Declaration by his Majestie to
his book against Berengarius speaks of some Copies of Ambrose his Workes wherein those words were not Ut sint quae erant that is That those things should be which were But no such Copies either Printed or Manuscript it seems did Bellarmine meet with for otherwise I doubt not he would have given us notice of them Again with the same Lanfrancus he answers that those words are thus to be understood that in respect of outward shew the things which were still are but are changed in respect of inward substance But how can a thing be said to be what it was when as there is no substance of the thing remaining but onely a shew and appearance of it In the last place Bellarmine addes of his own that Ambrose meant If Christ could make a thing of nothing why can he not make a thing of something not by annihilating the thing but by changing it into that which is better But if a thing be changed substantially into another thing how doth it remain what it was before But so the things doe that Ambrose speaks of For Bellarmines criticisme is poor in distinguishing betwixt Ut sint id quod erant That they should be that which they were and Ut sint quae erant That the things should be that were as if these words did not import that the same substances still remain as well as the other when Christ turned Water into Wine can we say that his Word was operative and powerfull Ut esset quod erat in aliud mutaretur That that should be which was and that withall it should be changed into another thing I confesse I cannot see how the thing may be said truly and properly to be which was if it be substantially changed into some other thing Ambrose there a little after saith Tu ipse eras sed eras vetus creatura posteaquam consecratus es nova creatura esse coepisti Thou thy self wast but thou wast an old creature after thou art consecrated thou beginnest to be a new creature which cannot be meant of any substantiall change in us Chap. 5. the same Ambrose if it were Ambrose for Bellarmine is not very confident that Ambrose was the Author of those Books De Sacramentis saith indeed That before it is Consecrated it is Bread but when the words of Christ are come it is the Body of Christ But that it is so the Body of Christ as to be no longer Bread he doth not affirme That he was of another mind appears by the words before alledged And so much also may be gathered from that which he saith in this same Chapter viz. He that did eat Manna dyed but whose eateth this Body shall have remission of sins and shall live for ever Which cannot be understood of a Corporall eating of Christs Body but of a Spirituall eating of it Bellarmine cites some other sayings of Ambrose out of another Work of his viz. De iis qui mysteriis initiantur but they prove no more than these already cited neither doth the Marquesse refer us to them Yea in that same work Ambrose doth sufficiently declare himselfe against Transubstantiation For there he saith It is truly the Sacrament of Christs Flesh And after Consecration the Body of Christ is signified And again It is not therefore Corporali food but Spirituall Whence also the Apostle saith of the Type of it that our Fathers did eat Spirituall meat and did drink Spirituall drink 1 Cor. 10. The last Author Remigius is onely cited by the Marquesse at large neither doe I find him cited by Bellarmine at all and therefore untill we have some particular place cited out of him it is in vain to trouble our selves about him besides that his Antiquity is not such as that his Authority should much be stood upon being 890 years after Christ as Bellarmine sheweth in his book of Ecclesiasticall Writers Secondly saith the Marquesse We hold that there is in the Church an infallible Rule for understanding of Scripture besides the Scripture it self This you deny this we have Scripture for as Rom. 12. 6. We must prophecy according to the Rule of Faith We are bid to walke according to this Rule Gal. 6. 16. We must encrease our Faith and preach the Gospell according to this Rule 2 Cor. 10. 15. This rule of Faith the Holy Scriptures call a forme of Doctrine Rom. 6. 17. a thing made ready to our hands 2 Cor. 10. 16. that we may not measure our selves by our selves 2 Cor. 10. 12. the depositions committed to the Churches trust 1 Tim. 6. 20. for avoiding of profane and vaine bablings and oppositions of sciences And by this rule of faith is not meant the Holy Scriptures for that cannot doe it as the Apostle tells us whilst there are unstable men who wrest this way and that way to their own destruction but it is the tradition of the Church as it is delivered from hand to hand as most plainly appears 2 Tim. 2. 2. The things which thou hast heard of us not received in writing from me or others among many witnesses the same commit thou to faithfull men who shall be able to teach it to others also That there is any infallible Rule for understanding of Scripture or any other rule of Faith besides the Scripture we do deny and that by authority of the Scripture it self To the law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this Word it is because they have no light in them Isai 8. 20. Search the Scriptures for in them yee thinke to have eternall life and they are they that testifie of mee Joh. 5. 39. These were more noble then they of Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readinesse of minde and searched the Scriptures whether those things were so Acts 17. 11. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine for reproofe for correction for instruction in righteousnesse That the man of God may be perfect thoroughly furnished unto all good workes 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. Neither doe those places alledged by the Marquesse make for the contrary We must prophesie according to the rule of Faith saith the Apostle Rom. 12. 6. as the Marquesse hath it following therein the Rhemists translation as also their comment upon the place But the word in the originall signifies rather proportion then rule And I see not but that by the proportion of saith may be understood the measure of saith which is spoken of vers 3. But be it granted that proportion of faith is as much as rule of faith where doth the Apostle say that this rule of faith is any other then the Scripture it selfe The places before cited shew that we are referred to the Scripture as the rule whereby all doctrines are to be tried but no where doe I finde that wee are referred to any unwritten tradition Sure I am our Adversaries can evince no such thing from
particular That it was no generall confession but in particular the Marquesse saith appeares by Acts 19. 18 19. But if this confession spoken of Acts 19. were in particular doth it follow that therefore the other mentioned Mat. 3. was so also I see no force at all in this consequence the confessions being made by severall persons at severall times and upon severall occasions Cajetan indeed doth parallell these two places together but so as that he maketh them both to speake of a generall confession or a confession onely of such sinnes as were publick and notorious Neither of them hee saith was a sacramentall confession but onely a profession that they did repent of their life past However these places of Scripture can make nothing for Popish confession which is injoyned and forced as without which they say salvation is not to be expected but this which the Scriptures here speake of was voluntary and free the persons that confessed did it of their own accord The Popish confession is auricular as it is called secret in the eare of a Priest this appeares to have been open and publick The Popish confession is a particular enumeration of all known sinnes this if it were of any particular sinnes at all as that mentioned Acts 19. may seeme to have been yet onely of such as more especially did trouble their conscience as may be collected from Acts 19. 20. and in such a case to confesse not onely unto God but also unto men and especially unto Ministers Protestants doe not condemne but hold requisite onely they condemne that manner of confession which in the Church of Rome is maintained and practised And no marvell seeing some of the Roman Church themselves have shewed a great dislike of it Beatus Rhenanus a man of great learning and never that I know withdrawing from the communion of the Church of Rome speakes of the Romish confession as a thing but of late devised and by himselfe little observed Hee cites also one Grilerius whom he calles a grave and holy Divine that was a long time Preacher at Strasburg who hee saith did often testifie among his friends that according to the late Roman dictates it is impossible to confesse and thereupon did write a Booke in the German tongue which he intituled Of the disease of confession then which disease saith Rhenanus they that are troubled with it deny that any is more grievous For the Fathers cited by the Marquesse the supposed Clemens whatsoever he say need not much trouble us the Epistles going under his name are suspected and scrupled at by Bellarmine himselfe in his Booke of Ecclesiasticall Writers and therefore it seemes he thought it not meete to alledge his authority in this point as the Marquesse doth Origen also is cited li. 3. a strange citation I suppose it should be in Levit. Hom. 3. for thence Bellarmine doth fetch a testimony to prove their confession But when as Chemnitius alledged something out of those Homilies upon Leviticus against Popish Traditions ascribing them unto Cyrill as also the Rhemists doe adding that some say they are Origens Bellarmine answers with disdaine that those Homilies are not Cyrils but Origens or some others hee could not tell whose who did destroy the Letter of the Scripture that he might establish mysticall senses out of his own head and that therefore those Homilies are of no great authority But were the authority of those Homilies never so great and unquestionable I see not how they make any thing for that confession which our adversaries maintaine and wee impugne Hom. 3. Origen or who ever was the author saith that if wee prevent Satan and accuse our selves we shall escape the malice of Satan who is our adversary and our accuser But to whom we should accuse our selves by confessing our sins this Author shews not Bellarmin indeed saith that hee speakes of confessing unto a Priest but in the words as Bellarmine himselfe doth cite them there is neither Priest nor any other to whom confession of sinne should be made expressed And farre more congruous it is to understand it so that as Satan doth accuse us unto God as he accused Iob though falsly Iob 1. and 2. And see Revel 12. 10. So we should prevent him by accusing our selves and confessing our sinnes unto God also Indeed Hom. 2. that author doth speake of confessing sinne unto a Priest but that is onely in some speciall case when sinne doth lie so sore upon the conscience That a sinner doth wash his bed with his teares and his teares are his meat day night In which case no Protestants that I know but hold it good and requisite to lay open the malady to such as are most likely to apply a remedy Thus also seemes that to be understood which the Marquesse bringeth out of Paulinus writing the life of Ambrose for that is meant by the quotation which is mis-printed Amb. Ex Paulsino viz. that Ambrose sat to heare confession Paulinus saith of Ambrose that he would rejoyce with those that did rejoyce and weep with those that wept And that whensoever any came to confesse their sinnes unto him hee would so weepe as to constraine the party confessing to weepe also The Marquesse further citeth Ambr. Orat. in muliere peccatrice it should be I presume in mulierem peccdtricem but I finde no such peece among Ambrose his workes However if Ambrose any where doth say as hee is cited confesse freely to the Priest the hidden sinnes of thy soule yet it doth not appeare that hee doth require this otherwise then in the case before mentioned Irenaeus also is cited lib. 1. cap. 9. and Tertull. lib. de Poenitent Now these speak of publike confession and so speake not to our Adversaries purpose the very word which they use for confession viz. Exomologesis is commonly so used for that confession which is publike Irenaeus speakes of some Women who had followed Marcus an Heretick but when they were converted to the Church they confessed their wickednesse their sinne being open and scandalous they made open and publike confession of it It 's true Irenaeus saith that those women confessed how they had beene defiled by Marcus and how much they had loved him which was more then any could have known but by their own confession Yet this hinders not but that the confession was publike they first confessing publikely that which was publikely known to shew the sincerity of their Repentance the more might proceede to confesse also that which was secret yet was a concomitant of that which was publike viz. their adhering unto the Heretick Tertullian also clearly speakes of publike confession that which was made inter Patres atque conservos amongst Brethren and fellow-servants so that the whole body would grieve for the paine of one member The body saith he cannot rejoyce at the paine of one member It must needs all sorrow with it and labour together for
of Reprobation as the good merit of Election 2. To that question Is there unrighteousnesse with God he doth not answer that therefore there is not because the whole lumpe is depraved by sinne c. but he answers so as that he refers as well the Reprobation of these as the election of those unto the sole Will of God and so represses the curious inquirer O man who art thou c. 3. That comparison of a Potter of the same lumpe making one vessell unto honour and another unto dishonour doth exclude the supposition of a corrupt lumpe For here verily is nothing supposed in the lumpe but that it is indifferent and may be fashioned both the one way and the other Thus this learned Papist goes as farre in the point both of Election and of Reprobation as any Protestant that I know whatsoever Neither would he have us thinke that he goes alone for hee cites many as Lombard Hugo de S. Victore Aquinas Cajetan Lyra Titleman and Pererius as being of the same opinion with him and interpreting the words of the Apostle in the same manner And this I suppose may suffice to vindicate the Doctrine of Protestants even such as goe highest in this point as touching Reprobation Now for the Scriptures objected against us the first viz. Wis 1. 13. is not Canonicall Hierome brandes that booke called the the Wisdome of Solomon as falsly intituled and saith that it is no where to be found among the Hebrewes to whom the Oracles of God were committed Rom. 3. 2. and that the style doth smell of Greeke eloquence and that some ancient writers affirme it to be the worke of Philo a Jew Therefore saith he as the Church doth read indeed the Bookes of Judith Tobie and the Maccabees but doth not receive them amongst the Canonicall Scriptures so also doth it reade these two volumes viz. Ecclesiasticus and the wisdome of Solomon for the edifying of the people but not for the confirming of Ecclesiasticall Doctrines But suppose it were Canonicall the place alledged is answered to our hand by one of the Roman Church viz. Alvarez when it is said God made not death the meaning hee saith is that God doth not primarily of it selfe intend the death of any but in respect of some other great good that is joyned with it And againe that place hee saith is expounded of death in respect of the cause to wit sinne These expositions of the place doe free the Doctrine of Protestants from suffering any prejudice by it were the authority of it greater then indeed it is The next place is that 1 Tim. 2. 4. Who will have all men to be saved c. Austine gives diverse interpretations of those words First thus that the meaning is that God will have all to be saved that are saved and that none but such as hee will save can bee saved Secondly this that by all men are meant men of all sorts how ever distinguished Kings and private persons noble and ignoble c. This hee shewes to be agreeable both to the Context and also to the phrase of Scripture Luke 11. 42. You tithe Mint and Rue and every Herbe i. e. every kinde of Herbe This latter exposition of the Apostles words Alvarez saith is also followed by Fulgentius Beda and Anselme The same Alvarez relates two other interpretations which Austine gives of these words viz. first this God will have all men to be saved that is hee makes men to will or desire that all may be saved as the Spirit is said to make intercession for us Rom. 8. 26. that is makes us to make intercession or supplication c. Estius upon the place doth embrace this Exposition before any other VVho will have all men to be saved that is saith hee He willeth and maketh godly men to desire the salvation of all Though God will not save all but onely the Elect yet he will have all to be saved to wit by us as much as in us lies in that he commands us to seek the salvation of all and this desire and indeavour he workes in us This Exposition wee embrace rather then any of the rest The other Exposition which Alvarez relates is that the Apostle speakes of Gods antecedent will Thus hee saith Austine doth expound it in diverse places and for this Exposition hee also cites Damascene Prosper Theophylaot Oecumenius Aquinas as also Chrysostome and Ambrose and saith that it is common among the Doctors Now in the next Disputation hee tels us that Gods antecedent Will is that which respects the object simply considered and by it selfe and that this will is called antecedent not because it goes before the good or ill use of our will as some thinke but because it goes before that will whereby God respects the object considered with some adjunct which is the consequent and latter consideration of it If saith hee the salvation of the Reprobate be considered simply by it selfe so God doth will it but if it be considered as it hath adjoyned the privation or want of a greater good to wit the universall good of manifesting Gods Iustice in the Reprobate and of causing his Mercy the more to shine forth in the Elect so God doth not will it And in this respect were affirmed that God by a consequent will doth not will that all shall be saved but only such as are predestinate Now take any of all these foure Explications of the Apostles words wherein hee saith that God will have all men to be saved as for my part I like best either the second or the last take any of them I say and the Apostles words are nothing against that which Protestants hold concerning Reprobation As for that of Peter that God is not willing that any should perish 2 Pet. 3. 9. Bellarmine himselfe expounds both it and the former place viz. 1 Tim. 2. 4. of that Will of God which Divines call Gods Antecedent will Now what that Antecedent will of God is we have seene even now out of Alvarez if Bellarmine did understand it otherwise as Alvarez notes that some did hee is confuted by Alvarez in the place above cited Where hee also cites Austine saying Many are not saved not because they will not but because God will not which without all controversie is manifested in young children whence he inferrs that the condition which is included in Gods Antecedent will whereby he will have all men to be saved is not this if they will and if they doe not hinder it And Bellarmine himselfe also though he say It is most true that all are not saved because they will not for if they would God would not be wanting unto them Yet immediately hee addes But none can have a will to be saved except God by preventing and preparing the will make him to will it And why God doth not make all to will this who hath knowne the mind of the Lord
was the custome then to call upon the holy Angels for their patronage But to say as the Marquesse doth that it appears by these words that they used then to call upon the Saints departed is contrary to the tenet of the Romanists who hold that during the time of the old Testament praying unto the deceased Saints was not in use because then the Saints that departed out of this life as they hold did not goe to Heaven nor enjoy happinesse But the truth is those words Iob 5. 1. Call now c. and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne make neither for the invocation of Saints nor of Angels the meaning of Eliphaz being onely to convince Iob that none is punished as he was except he were wicked and therefore he bids him shew any of the Saints if hee could that was so punished as hee was For this was the error of Eliphaz and the other two friends of Iob that they thought Iob could not be a godly man because God did so afflict him Therefore God said his Anger was kindled against them because they had not spoken of him the thing that was right Iob. 42. 7. For the Fathers which are here objected the first viz. Dionys is cited cap. 7 but of what For hee wrote diverse Bookes But his testimony is of little worth it being uncertaine who hee was and when hee lived and this being evident to all that have any the least taste of him that hee was not as is pretended that Dionysius that is mentioned Acts 17. 34. which his fustian and bombast-stile doth sufficiently declare The next is Athanasius but I finde no such peece as Ser. de Annunt either in his workes as they are extant both in Greeke and Latine nor in Bellarmines Index or Catalogue of them which he hath in his Booke of Ecclesiasticall writers If perhaps the Marquesse meant Ser de Sanctissimâ Deiparâ Bellarmine in that same booke censures it as not belonging to Athanasius but to some other long after his time and in some thing as it seemes not very sound Basil I have not to peruse nor Maximus Chrysostome in the place quoted viz. Hom. 66. de Pop. Antioch doth indeed seeme to speake for praying unto Saints to pray for us But wee must remember how hee is reckoned among them who held that the Saints departed are not yet in glory and therefore if the Romanists will have him speake agreably to this position they must not have him for a patron in this cause touching the invocation of Saints And upon the same ground must they also let goe Bernard who is likewise noted for the same opinion though the truth is hee lived in very corrupt times and therefore it is no marvell if hee did draw some dreggs it is indeed a marvell that hee was not more corrupted and infected then he was There remaines onely Hierome who in the end of his Epitaph or Funerall Oration concerning Paula addresseth his speech unto her bidding her farwell and helpe him with her prayers But 1. I have shewed before that Bellarmine doth overthrow the foundation that Hierome buildes upon viz. that the Saints departed are every where and so can heare and understand whatsoever any stand in need of and desire of them which Bellarmine confesseth to be incompetible to any meere creature as indeed it is this being a property that belongs unto God only 2. When the Fathers sometimes speak in that manner to the Saints deceased their speeches proceeded rather from affection then from judgement and are Rhetoricall rather then Theologicall expressions As appeares by that of Gregory Nazianzen who in his first Oration against Iulian speakes thus unto Constantine who was then dead And heare O thou soule of the great Constantine if thou hast any sense or understanding of these things Where the Greeke Scholiast notes that Nazianzen did imitate Isocrates a Heathen Oratour This is spoken saith hee in imitation of Isocrates as if he should say If thou hast any power to heare the things that are here spoken And observe how Nazianzen whom Hierome calleth his Master spake doubtfully making it a question whether the Saints departed doe understand things here upon Earth 3. Austine who lived in the same time with Hierome in his booke of true Religion speaking of the Saints deparred saith plainly They are to be honoured for imitation but not to be worshipped for Religion And in the last booke of that famous worke intituled Of the City of God in the tenth Chapter of it speaking of the Martyrs hee saith that in the celebration of the Eucharist they were mentioned in their place and order viz. to praise God for them and to stir up others to the imitation of them but yet that they were not invocated and that no prayers were put up unto them This may suffice to shew how farre in this point they of the Roman Church are departed both from the Rule of Gods Word and also from the judgement and practice of the ancient Fathers We hold saith the Marquesse Confirmation necessary you not We have Scripture for it Acts 8. 14. Peter and Iohn prayed for them that they might receive the holy Ghost for as yet he was falne upon none of them onely they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus then laid they their hands on them and they received the holy Ghost Where we see the holy Ghost was given in Confirmation which was not given in Baptisme Also Heb. 6. 1. Therefore leaving the principles of the Doctrine of Christ let us goe on unto perfection not laying against the foundation of Repentance from dead workes and of Faith toward God of Baptisme and of laying on of hands The Fathers affirme the same Tertul. de Resur S. Pacian de Bapt. S. Amb. de sacr S. Hierome contra Lucif S Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 1. speaking both of Baptisme and Confirmation saith Then they may be sanctified and be the sons of God if they be borne in both Sacraments Answ Concerning Confirmation the Romanists make it a Sacrament properly so called of the same nature with Baptisme and the Lords Supper The matter of this Sacrament they make to be a certaine Ointment compounded after a speciall manner and consecrated by a Bishop wherewith the person to be confirmed is anointed in the forehead in the forme of a crosse The forme of the Sacrament they make to consist in these words I signe thee with the signe of the Crosse and confirme thee with the Chrisme or ointment of salvation in the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost The effect of this Sacrament they say is to confer true sanctifying grace and that more abundantly then Baptisme doth in respect of the strengthening of the soule against the assaults of Satan Now this Confirmation Protestants deny to be a Sacrament as having no institution nor any ground for it in the Scripture The
God so nigh at hand how doe things heavenly and eternall succeede things earthly and fading if after this life the soules of Christians may continue many hundred years perhaps in the flames of Purgatory before they can get to Heaven Might not this well make every one to feare death and to tremble at the approach of it Might not a Christian at his Death well cry out with the Heathen Emperour O poore Soule whither art thou now going But Cyprian goes on and citing that of Simeon Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace for mine eyes have seene thy salvation he addes that then the servants of God have peace then they have free and calme quietnesse when being taken out of the tempests of this world we arrive at the haven of eternall rest and security when as this death being past we come to immortality And so againe God doth promise immortality and eternity unto thee when thou goest out of the world and doest thou doubt This is not at all to know God this is to offend Christ the Lord and Master of believers with the sinne of unbeliefe this is to be in the Church the house of Faith and yet to have no Faith How profitable it is to goe out of the World Christ himselfe the Master of our salvation and welfare doth shew who when his Disciples were sorrowfull because he said he was to leave them said If you had loved me you would rejoyce because I goe to the Father Joh. 14. 28. teaching us that we should rather rejoyce then be sorry when they depart out of the world whom we love who are dear unto us Thus also Hierome writing to Paula to comfort her concerning the Death of her Daughter Blaesilla saith Let the dead be lamented but such an one whom the place of torment doth receive whom Hell doth devoure for whose punishment the everlasting fire doth burne We whose departure a troupe of Angels doth accompany whom Christ doth come to meet are more grieved or as some reade gravemur let us be more grieved if we abide longer in this Tabernacle of death because so long as we abide here we are as pilgrimes absent from the Lord. Let that desire possesse us woe is me that my pilgrimage is prolonged c. Austine plainly saith that the Catholike faith by Divine authority doth believe the first place to be the Kingdome of Heaven the second to be Hell where every apostate or such us are aliens from the faith of Christ doe suffer everlasting punishments a third place we are altogether ignorant of yea we finde in the holy Scriptures that there is no such place Bellarmine answers that Austine there speakes of those places which are everlasting Which indeed is true for he speakes of Heaven and of Hell the place of torment which are everlasting places for those to abide in that are in them But withall hee saith that there is no third place viz. for those that depart out of this life Besides how can the Romanists yeeld that there is no everlasting place besides Heaven and Hell viz. Gehenna which is the word that Austine useth the Hell of the damned when as they hold a Limbus infantium an everlasting place for Infants to abide in that die without Baptisme which place they make to be distinct both from Heaven and from the place of torment For there they say such children as die unbaptized suffer the punishment of losse whereby the place differs from Heaven but not the punishment of sense whereby it differs from the Hell of the damned But Bellarmine proves that Austine or whosoever was the Authour of the booke called Hypognosticon did not deny that there is a third place to abide in for a time after this life because the Catholike faith doth teach that besides Heaven and Hell there was before Christs death Abrahams bosome where the soules of the holy Fathers did abide I answer that Abrahams bosome was any such Limbus Patrum as the Romanists imagine was no part of Austines Creede as I have shewed before out of Austines undoubted writings And therefore Erasmus though Bellarmine unjustly carpe at him for it might well write Purgatory in the margent over against those words a third place we are altogether ignorant of signifying that Purgatory is a third place of which the Catholike faith is ignorant But what neede is there to alledge particular Fathers when as the Bishop of Rochester who was beheaded in the reigne of Henry the Eighth for maintaining the Popes supremacy in his booke against Luther as hee is cited by Polydore Vergill who was an agent here in England for the Pope in the time of Henry 8. when as I say that Authour confesseth that Purgatory is never or very seldome mentioned by the antient writers and that the Grecians to this day doe not believe that there is any such thing as Purgatory Now for the place of Scripture which the Marquesse saith they have for Purgatory viz. 1 Cor. 3. 13 15. First it is to be observed that whereas Bellarmine doth alledge diverse other places besides this for proofe of Purgatory the Marquesse waves all the other and mentiones onely this conceiving it as it seemes more plaine and pregnant then the rest Yet 2. Bellarmine tells us and bids us marke it that this is one of the most obscure places of all the Scripture though withall hee saith it is one of the most usefull places because from thence they have as hee supposeth a foundation both for Purgatory and for veniall sinnes But as hath beene observed before out of Austine the Scripture is cleare in those things which concerne faith and therefore we must not build pointes of faith upon obscure places Now so obscure is this place viz. 1 Cor. 3. 13 15. that Bellarmine spendes a long Chapter meerely in the explication of it And yet when all is done nothing can be made of it for Purgatory For Bellarmine confutes those that thinke Purgatory to be meant by the fire mentioned v. 13. The fire shall try every mans worke of what sort it is and he proves that the fire there mentioned is the fire of Gods severe and just judgement which is not a purging and afflicting but a proving and examining fire So that Bellarmine doth take away one halfe of the Marquesses quotation and indeed the whole quotation For though Bellarmine would have those words v. 15. he himselfe shall be saved yet so as by fire to be understood of Purgatory yet who seeth not that it is absurd to take the word fire otherwise there then v. 13. And therefore Estius upon the place saith that it is evident that one and the same fire is meant in both Verses Which fire hee will have to be that which shall burne up the World at the last day So also Bellarmine notes some to understand it as some of the tribulations of this life and some
the accesse of any evill quality c. It s true some of the Romish writers are of another opinion but Bellarmine shews that the most of them hold thus yea he alleadges that this is the determination of two Popes and that therefore all ought to hold it 5. Zuinglius is said to make baptizing of Infants a thing indifferent which may be used or left off Zuinglius complains of the Catabaptists in his time for keeping such a stirre because children were baptized saying That the matter was not of such moment as that there should be so much stir about it though there were no testimonies at all to prove it It is he saith an external thing and ceremonial which as other external things the Church may lawfully either use or omit as she sees it make for edification and salvation Here Zuinglius seems only to mean thus much that the Church for avoiding of tumults and combustions may for a while forbear the administration of Pedobaptisme Yet Zuinglius was far from holding the baptizing of children to be a thing indifferent For he saith that it succeded in the room of Circumcision And that to hinder children from receiving Baptisme is as much as to repel them from Christ 6. Zuinglius is censured for saying That Princes may be deposed by the godly if they be wicked and go contrary to the rule of Christ I grant that Zuinglius hath words to this purpose But as a learned Writer observes Zuinglius living in a Republick did not sufficiently consider the Laws and rights of Kingdomes He thought that all Kingdomes were elective none successive and hereditary which was his errour And hereupon that they to whom belonged the right of election did reserve this power to themselves that if the King did not keepe his oath but did rule tyrannically they might depose him Zuinglius also in the place cited by the Marquesse hath these words which also the forementioned Authour doth relate Non est quèd eum trucides nec ut bellum tumultum quis excitet sed aliis viis res tenianda quia in pace vocavit nos Deus 1 Cor. 7. that is Thou must not kill him nor must any raise warre or tumult but the matter must be attempted some other way for God hath called us in peace 1 Cor. 7. Concerning Zuinglius his opinion in this point see likewise B. Bilson in his book entituled The true difference betwixt Christian subjection and Antichristian rebellion pag. 513 c. But when the Romanists taxe Zuinglius and so other Protestant writers for stich doctrine what do they else but verifie that of the Poet Clodius accusat moechos Catalina Cethegum What do they else but tax others for that wherein themselves are most fatilty See B. Bils ibid. p. 425 c. Rivet Jes vap cap. 12. 7. In the last place Zuinglius is charged with this saying That when we commit adultery or murder it is the work of God being the mover the author or inciter c. God inoveth the thief to kill c. he is foreed to sinne c. That learned Protestant viz. Graweras by whom the Marquesse saith Zuinglius is reprehended for this was a Lutheran and so as ready to reprehend any thing in Zuinglius as they of the Church of Rome are But let Zuinglius speak for himself The Law saith he being given unto man he alwayes sinnes when he doth any thing against the Law although he neither is nor lives nor works but in God from God and by God But that which God worketh by man is reckoned as a fault in man but not in God For man is under a law but God is free c. Therefore one and the same act to wit adultery or murder as it is of God the author mover and inciter so it is no crime but as it is of man so it is a crime and a wickednesse For God is not bound by any law but man is even condemned by the Law Here Zuinglius teacheth no other doctrine then as I have shewed before Aquinas doth and no learned Romanist I am sure will gainsay viz. that God is the author of that which is sinne in man as adultery or murther yet not as it is sinne viz. an irregularity and swerving from the Law but only as it is an action and hath some entity or being in it Whereas he speaks of Gods forcing man to sinne though I do not like the expression yet it is but like to that which Bellarmine whose words I cited before useth when he saith that God doth bend and wrest the wills of wicked men The meaning of them both I suppose is that God by his over-ruling providence doth so order it that though as was also cited before out of Austin men do wickedly of themselves yet he maketh them to do this rather then that as he pleaseth The Marquesse now comes to Melancthon and his doctrine And 1. he chargeth him with teaching that there are three Divinities as there are three Persons Stancarus whom the Marquesse cites as reprehending Melancthon for this was Melancthons adversary and therefore his testimony in this case is of no weight But the Marquesse also cites Melancthons Common-Places an 1545. Now in Melancthons Works set forth in four Volumes at Wittemberge an 1580. in the Index of the Books contained in the first Volume the last Edition of those Common-Places is said to have been in the year 1545. though afterwards where the Common-Places themselves are exhibited the last Editidition of them is said to have been an 1543. But thus it seems the last Edition was at least an 1545. if not before Now it is not probable that if such a grosse error had slipt from Melancthon in his Common-Places it would have been in the last Edition of them However I find no such thing in them as is alleadged but the quite contrary viz. Una est aeterna Essentia divina that is There is one eternal divine Essence And again Sunt tres Personae Divinitatis that is There are three Persons of the Divinity So that Melancthon doth acknowledge but one Divinity though three Divine Persons 2. The Marquesse saith That he affirms Polygamie not to be against Jus divinum and adviseth Hen. 8. to it I find no such peece among Melancthons Works as Concil Theol. which the Marquesse citeth to make good this accusation But I finde Examen Theologicum and in it the contrary to this which Melancthon is here charged with Wee have seen many saith he who did neglect the usual Lawes of Marriages because we read how of old they had many wives and Jacob married two sisters But we must judge not by examples but by Laws and in a matter of such moment as this let Gods precepts be considered It is most certain that the first Law of Marriage was so established that one man and one
and fully refuted by Andreas Rivetus in his Jesuita Vapulans where he produceth the very Records of that City where this is said to have been done and sheweth by the inquisition that was there made concerning Calvin it being the place where he was born that nothing is objected against him but only his falling off from the Roman Religion And thus I hope both Calvin and others are sufficiently vindicated and purged from those aspersions that are cast upon them Now if I had a minde to recriminate I might easily to use the Marquesse his words inlarge my Paper to a volume of instances in their Popes Cardinals Monks Friars Priests and Jesuites not to speak of their other sort of people of whose monstrous wickednesse their own Authors have largely testified But I like not Camarinam hanc movere to stir this puddle I le onely cite one Distich of Mantuan who was somewhat before Luther and is commended by Bellarmine as a learned and godly Poet and one that wrote much in commendation of the Saints but see what he writes in commendation of Rome where the Popes Holinesse as they stile him hath his Palace Vivere qui sanctè cupitis discedite Româ Omnia eum liceant non licet esse bonum That is Depart from Rome if holy you would be For there may be all things but Pietie Towards the end of the Reply the Marquesse goes about to prove That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is the same still that it was at the first But 1. if all the testimonies were truly and pertinently alleadged yet are they not sufficient to evince what he asserteth not so much as one place of Scripture being produced for proof of any of those points on which he insisteth And therefore though those ancient Writers which are cited did indeed speak so much as is pretended yet there being no ground nor warrant for those things from the Scripture we may say in the words of our Saviour From the beginning it was not so 2. Most of the particulars which are mentioned I have spoken to before and have shewed that neither Scripture nor Fathers are on their side but both against them 3. And for some few points not touched before I shall briefly consider and examine what is objected The Marquesse saith That of old the Church did offer prayers for the dead both publike and private to the end to procure for them ease and rest c. Prayer for the dead as they of the Church of Rome do now use it is grounded upon Purgatory It is certain saith Bellarmine that the suffrages of the Church do not profit either the blessed or the damned but only those that are in Purgatory Now concerning Purgatory I have spoken enough before shewing that it hath no foundation in Scripture and also that the ancient Writers do give sufficient testimony against it That prayer for the dead therefore which the ancient Church did use was not such as the Church of Rome now useth It was not to deliver any out of Purgatory-pains which they were supposed to be in but to perfect and consummate their happinesse This may appear by Ambrose his praying for the Emrour Theodosius after he was dead He beleeved him to enjoy perpetuall light and tranquillity and to have obtained the reward of those things which he had done in the body yet he prayed for him but how That God would give him that perfect rest which he hath prepared for his Saints Ambrose also praied for the Emperor Valentinan after his death But did he thinke him to be in Purgatory No such matter He was perswaded that he was removed to a better estate that what he had sown upon earth he did then reap and that he did rest in the tranquillity of the Patriark Jacob. Yet he professeth that he would not cease to pray both for him and for his brother Gratian who was departed out of this life and as Ambrose believed translated into a better before him How doth he then pray for them Only thus That God would vouchsafe to raise them up with a speedy resurrection And thus the Church as it is in some ancient Liturgies used to pray unto God to remember all those that were departed in the hopes of the resurrection of life eternal The Marquesse cites Tertullian and Austine but besides that Tertulliun was faln into the heresie of Montanus when hee wrote that book which is cited as is noted by Pamelius and the book it selfe doth make manifest besides this I say Tertullian speaks of a womans praying for her deceased husband that he might have part in the first resurrection which savours of the opinion of the Chiliasts amongst whom he is reckoned by Hierome in his Catalogue of Ecolesiastical Writers where he speaks of Papias whom he notes as the first founder of that opinion As for Austine I have showed before that he was not resolved concerning Purgatory and therefore neither can any thing be concluded from about praying for the dead in that kind as they of the Roman Church do practise it After prayer for the dead the Marquesse speaks of the fast of Lent which he saith the Church anciently held for a custome not free but necessary and of Apostolical tradition and so to fast all the Fridayes in the year in memory of Christs death except Christmas-day fell on a Friday It is true Hierome as is alleadged speaks of a Fast of forty dayes which they used to observe and that according to the tradition of the Apostles But this tradition was very uncertain it seems and the observation of the Fast very various For Socrates an ancient Ecolesiastical historian records that somewhere they fasted three weeks before Easter somewhere six weeks and that in some places they began their Fast seven weeks before Easter but did fast only fifteen dayes not altogether but now one day now another And yet which he saith he wondred at all did call their Fast Quadragesimam A forty dayes Fast He sayes also moreover that they did not only thus differ in the number of dayes in which they fasted but also in the manner of their fasting For some as he relates did eat both fish and foul Some did abstain from egges and all fruit that is inclosed in a hard shell Some did eat nothing but dry bread Some not so much as that neither Some having fasted until the ninth houre three a clock in the afternoon ' did then use divers kindes of meats And he addes that seeing there is nothing in Scripture commanded concerning this matter it is manifest that the Apostles left it free to every one to do herein as he should think meet And the like also for the different manner of observing the Lent-fast in respect of the time hath Sozomen in his Ecclesiastical history who lived in the same time with the other viz. 440. years after
he was above two hundred years after Minutius and Gregory who was about as much after Paulinus was against the worshipping of any thing made with hands as appears by the words before cited Finally saith the Marquesse the Church then held that to the Catholick Church only belongs the keeping of the Apostolical tradition the authority of interpretation of Scripture and the decision of controversies of faith and that out of the succession of her communion of her doctrine and her ministery there neither was Church nor salvation 1. For Apostolical traditions enough hath been said before 2. And so also of interpretation of Scripture and decision of controversies of faith 3. I understand not what is meant by objecting against us that out of the Catholick Church there is no Church For the Catholick Church being the Church universal and so comprehending all particular Churches as parts and members of it who can doubt that there is no Church out of the Church Catholick But what is this to the Church of Rome which once indeed was a sound part of the Catholick Church but the Catholick Church it never was nor could be except a part could be the whole In that which follows page 101. c. there is nothing but the same matter as before only the form is somewhat altered and therefore there is no need that I should trouble either my self or the Reader any further about it only I shall adde one or two Animadversions 1. Whereas it is objected page 105. c. that Luther after his deserting the communion of the Church of Rome did yet hold some points of Popery and so also Husse and Wickliffe and others that otherwise opposed themselves against the errors and corruptions of that Church I answer That as Rome was not built at once so neither was it demolished at once but by degrees it is no marvel therefore if those worthy men did at least for a while retain some Romish opinions and practices after that in many things they had discovered the truth and stood up in defence of it 2. Whereas it is pretended page 106. that before Berengarius who was above 1000. years after Christ none did oppose that reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament which the Romanists maintain besides that I have sufficiently confuted this before the Marquesse might have seen from Bellarmine himself that there were some who above 200. years before Berengarius did oppose that doctrine which in this particular the Church of Rome now doth hold namely Bertram a Presbyter who was about 800. years after Christ and saith Bellarmine was one of the first that did call in question that doctrine But Bellarmine doth too much mince the matter for Bertram did more then call in question that reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament which the Romanists do hold he did plainly assert that which Protestants maintain viz. that the substance of bread and wine doth still remain after consecration as is to be seen in Hospinians first part of the Sacramentary history and so in others that cite that Author for the book it self I confesse I have not seen that I do remember But that is here worthy to be observed which the Romish censurers of Books say speaking of this book of Bertrams about the Sacrament Although say they we do not much value this book nor should greatly eare if it were no where to be found yet seeing it hath been often printed and read of very many c. and we sufer very many errours in other ancient Catholicks we extenuate them we excuse them and finding out some device we often deny them and fain some good sense of them when they are opposed in disputations or conflicts with the adversaries we see not why Bertram may not deserve the same favour and diligent recognition lest Hereticks prate against us and say that we burn antiquity and prohibit it when it makes for them Some things therefore in Bertrams book they will have to be quite left out and some things to be quite altered as namely for visibly to be read invisibly Such devices have they of the Church of Rome to corrupt ancient Writers when they make against them and then they pretend that all are for them Thus the Marquesse in the conclusion of his Reply page 230. pretends that they have the prescription of 1600. years possession and continuance of their Churches Doctrine and evidence out of the word of God and the Fathers witnessing to that evidence and the decrees of Councels and Protestants own acknowlegdements But what ground there is for this pretence let the Reader judge by comparing and considering what is said on both sides And so I also shall leave the successe of my labour unto God in whose hand are the hearts of all An Addition of some few things omitted in the fore-going REJOINDER THe Marquesse pag. 69. citeth Basil orat in 40 it is misprinted 44 Mart. as affirming that we may pray unto the Saints departed But in that Oration Basil affirms no such thing He shews indeed his approbation of praying not unto the Martyrs but which is quite another thing to God at the monuments of the Martyrs The most learned B. Usher observes That the memory of the Martyrs indeed was from the very beginning had in great reverence and at their Memorials and Martyria that is to say at the places wherein their bodies were laid which were the Churches whereunto the Christians did in those times usually resort prayers were ordinarily offered up unto God for whose cause they laid down their lives But this is no argument that they then prayed to the Martyrs though that errour might take occasion afterwards to creep in by this meanes The Marquesse taxeth Calvin for holding that Christs soule was subject to ignorance To what I have already said in answer to this charge I adde that in this particular Fulgentius was of the same minde with Calvin For confuting those that held Christ to have no humane soul he saith thus If we must believe that the humane nature in Christ wanted a soul what is it that in Christ being an Infant is said not to have known good and evil Then he cites Isa 7. 16. expounding it of Christ and addes Therefore the humane soule which is naturally made capable of reason in Christ being an Infant is said not to have known good and evil which according to the truth of the Gospel in Christ being a child is related to have increased in wisdome c. To that also that hath been said before concerning Calvins death let this be added How far Calvin was from despairing at his death as the Marquesse doth object may appear by what he wrote to his dear friend Farel when he looked for death every moment I hardly breath saith he and expect continually that breath should fail me It is enough that I live and dye to Christ who to those that are his is both