confirmed in this resolution when I vnderslood how Luther Calvin hauing no Scripture for them but against them haue grosly abused it to maintaine their errour For Luther the first Apostle in this last age of this new doctrine did two notable iniuries to the word of God For Seeing that this prime article of his faith was not expresly contain'd in the Scripture by an vnparallel'd presumption he added the word sola or Alone to the Scripture in his German translation of the Bible And whereas S. Paul saith we account a man iustifyed by faith without the workes of the law he makes him say by faith alone And when this high temerity of adding to the word of God was obiected to him Luth. tom 5. Germ. fol. 141. dâ—m he defended it with most insolent words saying that a Papist and an asse was the same thing and that the word sola should remaine in his Bible although all the Papists in the world shoud go mad and be transformed to in Asses The second iniury that he did to the Scripture was not by Addition but by Diminution wherin he was much more liberal then in the first for he added only one word but he took away many hundreds Because finding that the words above cited of S. Iames epistle were clearly expresly against his doctrin he expunged the whole epistle out of the Canon of the holy Scriptures Luth in praef in novu n Test Luth in cap. 22. Genes calling it an epistle of straw vnworthy the Spirit of an Apostle Yea he arrived to that impudency that he said the Authour of that epistle delirat that is dotes or raves By these two practises I was moved to think that Luther could not be the second Elias the Restorer of purity true religioÌ„ who would not only reform the Church but also the Scriptures yea in such a manner as he hath incurred not one but both the curses threatned by S. Iohn for adding to and pareing from the Scriptures And by this I perceived also what little esteem they make of the Scripture when it makes against their errours Calvin went more subtilly to work for although he followed Luthers doctrin of Iustification yet he neither added the word Sola to the letter of the Scripture neither did he deny S. Iames epistle to be Canonical But what Luther added to the letter Calvin added to the sense and what Luther denyed the other corrupted For Calvin would have Iustification by faith only to be as firmly believed as if the word only were there in Scripture which indeed is all one as if he had added with Luther that word to the Scripture Then the words of S. Iames which are clearly opposite to his errour and for which Luther did reiect the whole epistle he doth so corrupt with new senses which Luthers more grosse head could not invent that they passe many mens senses vnderstandings too and are against the words of Scripture clearly against the sense of the holy Fathers For he saith faith alone doth iustify but not alone Some others of his Schollers explaine it thus fides sola iustificat sed non solitaria Others say faith doth iustify and not works but yet faith not without works or a man is iustifyed with works but not by works and works are the means but not the causes of Iustification But all these inventions are directly contrary to the words of S. Iames. For he saith man is iustifyed by works not by faith only He doth not say man is iustifyed with works but by works he doth not say he is iustifyed by faith only but not by faith only And after the same manner and expression that he ascribeth our iustification to faith he ascribs it also vnto works He neither speaks of causes nor means these are the Ministers words and not the word of God which is not cleared but rendred more obscure by them It was made appear to me that the question at first between the Catholiques Luther was whether good works were in any respect necessary to our iustification and not whether they were required as causes or conditions Luther said they were in no wise necessary or else none could be iustifyed since the best works of the greatest Saints are mortal sins And in this he spake consequentially to his principles But Calvin finding that the Catholiques by innumerable Scriptures and particularly by that place of S. Iames proved the necessity of good works vnto Iustification he invented a distinction not to cleare but to confound the matter that good works were necessary but not as causes and faith was the only cause of Iustification And this he did also very vnreasonably against the principle which he holds common with Luther to witt that all our best actions are deadly sins For if good works be in any manner necessary how can any be iustifyed according to Calvin who maintains there can be no good works but that all are mortal sins For if a condition be necessary to any effect then if the condition be not fulfilled the effect cannot be produced As approximation of wood vnto the fire is ordinarly called the condition without which the wood could not take fire Therefore as the wood if it were not put near the fire would not conceive fire so also if good works be a necessary condition vnto iustification as Calvin pretends no man can be iustifyed since according to him there can be no good works Therefore Calvin speaks very inconsequentially if not also falsly Moreover it was showen me that the Lutherans were so highly offended with these new glosses of Calvin his Schollers that they call them the doctrins of the new Papists more pernicious then these of the old and Illyricus Illyr in praef ep ad Rom. a famous Lutheran doth not stand to call these Calvinists Seducers who by diuerse waye saith he would elude the propositioÌ„ of S. Paul c. For this cause the Lutherans deny all necessity of good works vnto Salvation either as means or causes For this they professed at the conference of Altenberg Coll. Al ten col 4 f. 75. We conclude say they with that worthy saying of Luther If works be necessary vnto Salvation then none can be saved without works and then we would not be saved by faith only So I found at length that this prime article of our religion to witt that man is iustifyed by faith only after so many great brags is not in Scripture but against Scripture as the Lutherans vnderstand it and as Calvin takes it it s not only against Scripture but also against his own principle who makes the whole matter to end in Philosophical termes for the most part neither vnderstood by speakers nor hearers Of which matter I had not long ago a notable experience For being in a Gentlemans house in the countrey where there chanced to be a Minister of esteem'd learning two Roman Catholiques and diverse Protestants as the
as flat blasphemy And yet Calvin esteem's so much this blasphemous fancy that he makes it the price of our Redemption For thus he writes Nothing had been done Cal lib. 2 instit vt sup if Christ had onely dyed a Corporal death but it was also requisite that he should feele the severity of the wrath of God And when this was obiected as a blasphemy by F. Campian Whitaker did second sustaine it Vvitak lib. ◠cont Dureum sect 18. saying that Calvin wrote most truly that nothing had been done if Iesus Christ had onely suffered a corporal death Yea he calls this a doctrin most full of comfort These doctrines are so fals against the Scriptures which shew nothing more frequently and clearly then that we are redeemed by the blood and death of Christ and they are in themselues so absurd and blasphemous that we neede spend no more time in refutation of them for they are of the same kind with those of which S. Hierome speaks when he saith that to discover them is to vanquish them Yea some Ptotestants have written against them as Doctor Bilson B. of Winchester in his booke Bilson in Apol. Prot. tract 3. sect 3. num 40. which he intitles The full redemptein of mankind by the death and blood of Christ And in the defence of the article that Christ descended into hell c. But notwithstanding all the grosse absurdities of this sense invented by Calvin yet it was generally followed by the Presbyterians and by many other Protestants who denyed the local descent of Christs soule to hell For although it sounded very ill yet it behooved to be kep't by the Presbyterians for want of a better vntill a new one more commodious was found out which now lately hath been performed by the new Reformers of these times who see further and more clearly then M. Calvin who although he was famous in his owne generation and was reputed to be an Apostle sent extraordinarly by God to reforme the Church yet did not so much as know his Catechisme nor the true sense of the articles of his Creed but invented such a sense as some of his disciples haue abandonned it as false and others as blasphemous As Beza in his version of the Scripture turned Hell into Grave so he vnderstood this article of the Creed he descended into Hell that is He descended into the grave Which errour together with the former coruption invented by M. Calvin a learned Minister in Edinburgh did publickly refute in divers Sermons a little before the troubles for which he was much persecuted by the Puritans He shew that Bezas corruption made a grosse Tautology in the Apostles Creed or it made an explication more obscure then the thing it explained The Tautology would be very grosse to say Crucifyed dead and buryed he descended into the grave that would be twice buryed Or if you make descending into hell the explication of burial that is a rare Commentary to explicate a matter which is cleare and needs no Cōmentary by that which is more obscure and cannot yet be rightly vnderstood by Protestants as appeares by their dissensions The same Minister shew that both these vices were against the end of the Creed and the wisdome of the holy Apostles who made it short and plaine that it might serve the capacity of all men and therefore it was to be free of idle Tautologies and obscure Commentaries But at that time this Minister did not know that the Presbyterians were to deny the Creed to haue been composed by the Apostles by which his arguments are answered although by falling into grosser absurdities The third sense devised by the Presbyterians at Westminster is subiect to the like inconveniences that is both of Tautologies and obscure glosses For they say by that article He descended into Hell is vnderstood that he continued in the state of the dead and vnder the power of death till the third day For first it would be a Tautology to say dead and buryed and then repeate againe he remained dead or in the power of death that is sufficiently knowen by the words that follow to witt The third day he arose from the dead For he behoved to remaine dead so long as he was dead and he was dead till the third day that he arose from the dead So that the addition of he descended into hell vnderstood in the Ministers new coyned sense would not be onely superfluous but also ridiculous Then if they will make Christs descent to hell an explication of Christs remaining dead the Commentary would be more obscure then the text which is clear of it self How would the Presbyterians be pleased if one would say of Iohn Calvin or Knox or of their late Apostle M. Henderson that they are dead buryed descended into hell And if this man being accused before the Presbytery would bring in his owne defence the Ministers new Commentary that he meaned only by these words that they remained in the power state of death because they are not as yet risen from the dead I am morally perswaded what ever Commentary could be brought either their owne or any other the Presbyterians would be ill pleased with such a Text and would thinke it was sufficient to haue said that they were dead and buryed without this addition They descended into Hell But of all the expositions that ever I found on this article that of the late Protestant Bishop Vsher is the rarest which D. Vane speaking of the Ministers iuglings describes thus D. Vane Lost sheep pag. 243 1. Edit O what Serpentine wriglings and windings to escape the assaulters do they make O what perverse ridiculous and contradicting answers and evasions do some of them make In which they shew at once both much wit and much folly For fooles could not speake as they do and wise men would not In so much that B. Vsher Primat of Armagh a very learned man to avoid the Confession of Christs descent into Hell according to the article of the Creed in the plaine sense thereof doth so turne it and wind it that he makes the sense of the words He descended into hell to be He ascended into Heaven To such pitifull refuges doth the weaknesse of a bad cause drive them c. Thus he And so by this Bishops Commentary for descend we haue ascend and for Hell Heaven But all these senses being nowayes satisfactory the Presbyterians tooke the cleanliest easiest way to deny the Creed it self to be Apostolique that so men might not care much or take great notice of the sense when all authority is taken from the text That shift might in some manner serve their turne if this truth were not as expresly in the Scripture as it is in the Creed Now I would inquire at any man of conscience or ordinary discretion who will consider impartially these things what I should do in this case should I believe the Presbyterians who haue
ordinary discours now a dayes is concerning religion so I heard one at that time For the Minister taking occasion by hearing Cardinal Bellarmin named spake at first much in his praise saying that none of all the Popish Authors did relate so faithfully the Protestant Tenets nor argumented more clearly then he did Yet at length said the Minister after the Cardinal hath shewed the strength of his wit at the issue of the matter being convinced by the force of truth he concludes for the most part with the Protestants Wherevpon one of the Catholiques present said that he admired very much how Bellarmin who had written so much for Popry should be esteem'd a Protestāt merrily subioyn'd that himself was iust a Protestant as Bellarmin was After there had pass'd a little laughter occasioned by these words the other Catholique did gravely desire the Minister to shew wherein Bellarmin was a Protestant Wherevpon the Minister instanced in this same matter of Iustification and said that after Bellarmin had wearied himself by produceing many testimonies of Scriptures and Fathers to prove that we are iustifyed by works and not by faith only he in end yeelds the victory to tthe Proestants for he concludes That it is most safe to rely vpon the merits of Christ And so in one sentence he destroyeth what he had been building a long time To which the Catholique replyed that if Bellarmin was a Protestant for that then all Catholiques were Protestants for they all professed the same Neither was the Catholiques relying on Christ merits any way against iustification by good works more then the Protestants relying on the same merits was against their supposed Iustification by faith only But said he I admire very much how you ordinarly pretend so great advantage in your doctrin of Iustification by faith only which you esteem the principal article of your religion and yet it cannot be found in all the Scripture the only pretended ground of all your faith And how you can crye so much against the Catholiques for believing that we are iustifyed by works not by faith only which is expresly and word by word in the Scripture For doth not S. Iames clearly say Ye see that man is iustifyed by works and not by faith only The Minister finding himself thus engaged pass'd presently from the Scripture enquired of the Catholique whom he knew well enough not to be a profess'd Scholler If he had any Logique Who answered he had not much but he had sufficient for this purpose That there was not much Logique required to see what was contained in Scripture He would trust his owne eyes in that matter It was sufficient for him that he had on his side the expresse Scripture which is better then Logique But the Minister told him that although these words are in Scripture yet they must be vnderstood in a sound sense For works said he although they be necessary to iustification yet they are not the causes of it but in a very improper sense For you must vnderstand that there are diverse kinds of causes there is causa efficiens causa formalis and causa sine qua non which is not a cause properly Now works are not the efficient nor formal cause but only causa sine qua non They are via regni and not causa regnandi And so after this manner he made a long discours involving the matter in great obscurities passing the reach of the hearers if not also overpassing his own vnderstanding But the Catholique holding him still by his grounds told the Minister that his Logique was no Scripture and that the Protestants are brought to a low ebb when they are enforced to acknowlege that this prime article of their faith is not expresly in Scripture as they at first pretended And now when the quite opposite doctrine maintaind by the Catholiques against which the Ministers did so much raile is showē to be expresly in Scripture they are enforced to run from Scripture to their Logique which indeed is to yeeld the cause to the Catholiques and to quite ground For at first they pretended nothing but Scripture and now they flie to Aristotles Logique and that against the expresse words of Scripture making the whole matter end in a Logomachy which is so much the worse on the Protestants side seing they will not vse the very phrase of Scripture which the Catholiques keep And vpon this followes also another evil that the people being made to believe that they are iustifyed by faith only and not by works makes by natural Logique this inference which all the Ministers in the world with all their artificial Logique will not put out of their heads that good works are not necessary and so they altogether neglect them Thus ended that conference the Minister replying something but little to purpose with small satisfaction of some Protestants present who imagined that this prime article of their faith had been better grounded and that this Minister whom they much esteemed could haue said more then to acknowledge that his faith was against the words of Scripture and in end to run to his Philosophical distinctions which were not by them intelligible But albeit I was sufficiently satisfyed by what hath been said of the truth of the Catholique doctrin concerning Iustification yet being desirous that I might be able to discern more fully the deceits and obscurities which the Ministers invent to elude the clear Scriptures a Catholique whose assistance I required shew me that for this end it was necessary I should first know the nature of Iustification according to the doctrin of the Catholique Church For as a Rule said he is a measure to discern both what is right and what is crooked so truth is a manifestation both of it self and of falshood Wherevpon he had several discourses with me on this matter the summe of which I will briefly collect CHAP. XVI Of the Nature of Iustification according to the Catholique doctrine ALBEIT you haue seen evidently said the Catholique vnto me that according to the expresse Scriptures man is iustifyed by works not by faith only yet that you may know how this is done and what works are excluded from iustification according to S. Paul and what these works are by which we are iustifyed according to S. Iames yow must know the nature of Iustification of a sinner which according to the Catholique Church is thus described Iustification of a sinner is the translation of one from the state of sin into the state of grace a changing of one from being an enemy to make him become the friend of God There is the misery from which a sinner is delivered the happinesse to which he is brought Now that he may come from such a miserable condition to such a happy estate there are some preparations and dispositions required to go before in the soule of a sinner that is come to age of which kind only we here speak First God of
quite taken away For S. Iohn saith of Christ Behold the Lamb of God Iohn 1.29 Acts. 3.19 Mich. 7.19 Heb. 9.28 that taketh away the sins of the world And the spots of our Soules are said to be washed cleanged and our sins to be throwen into the bottome of the sea and to be blotted out and exhausted Therefore in iustification sins do not remaine but they are really taken away As the soule in Iustification is purged and cleanged from the filthinesse of sins which are so forgiven that they are really taken away so it is also beautifyed with inward grace and inherent iustice by which he who was before a sinner is renewed in the Spirit of his mind and hath the love of God powred forth in his heart by the holy Ghost This the Apostle sheweth 1. Cor. 6.11 when writing to the Corinthians he saith These things you were to witt fornicators adulterers c. but you are washed but you are sanctified but you are iustifyed in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God Ephes 4.24 And elswhere be renewed in the Spirit of your mind and put on the new man which according to God is created in iustice and holynesse of truth And writing to the Romans he saith Rom 5.5 The Charity of God is powred forth in our hearts by the holy Ghost which is given vs. I forbear to cite more testimonies Aug. de gâ—â—â—ia S. Augustin sheweth that this inherent iustice is the love of God The grace whereby we are iustifyed that is Christ cap. 30. Idem de nat gra c. 70. saith he the love of God poured into our hearts And elswhere Charity begun is iustice begun Charity encreased is iustice encreased great charity is great iustice and most perfect charity is most perfect iustice If therefore charity or the love of God which is powred into our Soules and consequently is inherent intrinsecal in them be the iustice by which we are made formally iust then our iustice is also inherent intrinsecal And hereby all the causes of our Iustification according to the doctrin of the Catholique Church may be clearly vnderstood Concil Trid. sess 6. c. 7. For the efficient cause is our mercyfull God the meritorious our Lord Iesus Christ the final cause the glory of God of Christ and life everlasting and the formal cause is the Iustice of God not that by which he himself is iust but that by which he makes vs iust and with which we being endowed are renewed in the Spirit of our mind and are not only reputed but truly are iust But said the Catholique to me that you may vnderstand more fully how we are made formally iust not by that iustice which is in God but by that iustice which proceeding from God is in vs I will illustrate the matter a litle more vnto yow As sin is the death of the soule so grace and iustice is the life of it Wherefore as the natural life of man is the formal cause of his living naturally so his spiritual life which is grace iustice is the formal cause of his living spiritually As then the natural life or soule of man by which he lives naturally albeit it be from God yet it is not that life by which God lives but it is that life communicated by God to man by which man lives and therefore cannot be any thing external but must be internal in man So the Spiritual life of the soule which is grace iustice by which man lives Spiritually is not the iustice which is in God or by which God is iust but that iuftice which is communicated by God to man whereby man is rendred iust and lives Spiritually and therefore must be internal in him since nothing can live either naturally or Spiritually by any thing which is external vnto it The example of the raising Lazarus from the the dead will yet more cleare this matter For if Christ calling Lazarus from the grave had not given him inward life Lazarus could not haue risen again and lived by the life of Christ which was without him But it was necessary for the resurection of Lazarus that his own life should be inwardly restored to him by Christ It is so in our case for a man who is raised by Christ from the death of sin vnto the life of righteousnesse must have grace or iustice which is the Spiritual life of the soule inwardly communicated to him by Christ the fountain and meritorious cause of all iustice and the source of all Spirituall life or else man could not be raised from the death of sin and live spiritually S. Augustin proves by the holy Scriptures that Christ came into the world Aug. â—ib de peccat mer. remis cap. 26. seq to give vs that Spiritual life I shall heep together saith he many testimonies which shall suffice by which it may appear that for no other cause Christ came into the flesh but that by the disposition of grace he might quicken save and illuminate all those to whom as members appoynted in his body he is head who before were placed in the death sicknesse darknesse of sin I shall only bring two or three of the many testimonies of Scripture which the holy Father heapeth vp there S. Paul saith Ephes 2.4 God who is rich in mercy for his exceeding charity wherwith he loved vs even when we were dead by sins quickned vs together in Christ by whose grace you are saved and raised vs vp with him c. Ibid. c. 4 v. 24. And again be renewed in the Spirit of your mind and put on the new man which according to God is created in Iustice and holynesse of the truth The same Apostle writing to the Colossians saith And you Coloss 2.13 when you were dead in the offenses and vncircumcision of the flesh did he quicken together with him pardoning you all offenses And to Titus he saith Titus 3. v. 5. that we are iustifyed by his grace Whence it is evident that these who haue been sinners and become iust are said to rise again to be quickneed by Christ to be renewed inwardly to be iustifyed by his grace But they could not rise from the death of sin nor be quickned renewed inwardly and be iustifyed by his grace vnlesse they had spiritual life which is grace or iustice inwardly coÌ„municated vnto theÌ„ Therefore these who rise froÌ„ the death of sin are iustifyed quickned inwardly renewed have the spiritual life of iustice flowing from the merits iustice of Christ inwardly remaining in them And hence doth appear clearly the truth of that which the Catholique Church teacheth to witt that we are made iust by the iustice of God not by that wherby he himself is iust but by which he makes vs iust For as nothing can make an man iust but iustice So it is not the external
be so abominable the other is no lesse detestable S. Augustin who censured so heavily the opinion of the Donatists who taught that the Church had perished every where except only among themselves as if he had foreseen this Presbyterian shift which pretends the Church had not perrished but was invisible writes thus against it Aug. de pastor c. 16. Some one may say It may be God hath other sheep but I know not where of which he taketh care but I know them not O how absurd is he vnto humane sense who imagines such things We have seen how this opinion is against the Scriptures Fathers and now in S. Augustins iudgment it 's against sense we shall see presently how it is against reason and famous Protestants All men ordinarly agree in this general notion of the Church that it is a society of people instructed in the faith of Christ governed by lawfull Pastors and having Communion together in the Christian Sacraments But if the Church were invisible there could be no instruction no governement no administration of Sacraments And hence will appear that an invisible Church is against all the ends for which God had established a Church vpon earth The first was to instruct and guide the members of the Church vnto the port of Salvation And for this end are necessary instruction in the faith administration of Sacraments which require visibility both in the Pâ—stors and in the people For invisible Pastors cannot instruct nor administrate Sacraments and therefore the Church which consists of Pastors people must be visible For as D. Humphrey saith Whilst the Ministers teach Humph Iesuit part 2 rat 3. others learn they administrate the Sacraments these receive them c. who seeth not these things is more blind then a Mâ—odiwarp But if the Church were invisible there could be no instruction consequently no faith no Sacraments so none could be directed in this invisible Church vnto the port of Salvation This sheweth that the Church must be visible at least to the members of it The second â—nd for which the Church was ordain'd was to receive the Gentils and to afford to all persons who are astray the means of salvation by entering into the Church This the Prophet Esay speaking of the Church foretold Esay 60.11 Thy gates shall be open continually day and night they shall not be shut that the strength of the Gentils may be brought vnto thee But if the Church had been invisible her gates had been worse then shut for they could never have been found to be knokt at and so the Gentils heretiques albeit never so desirous could never have entered which is against the Scriptures and goodnesse of God This reason proveth that the Church must be visible even to strangers The third end was to compose diffâ—rences which might arise among Christians according to that of our Saviour Math. 18.17 Tell the Church But had the Church been invisible she could neither have been told nor found Invisible Iudges cannot compose differences The fourth end was to oppose all errors heresies Ephes 4.11 For which cause God established Pastors in the Church to conserve the people in the true doctrine froÌ„ the circuÌ„vention of error But had the Church been invisible she could not have opposed heresies they had prevailed without coÌ„troul It there had been no Church to oppose heresies before the Protestants peep 't vp what had become of the Christian religion Surely it had been a puddle of errors or a Masse of Confusion So that this invisible Church is against all the cheef ends for which God established a Church vpon earth It is also against famous Protestants who sharply censure it Melanchton whom Luther equaleth to the Fathers Melan. in Concil Theol p. 393.394 calls it Monstruous It is necessary saith he to confesse the Church to be visible Wherevnto tendeth this monstruous speech which denyeth the visible Church It abolisheth all testimonies of Antiquity it causeth an endlesse confusion and induceth a Commonwealth of vnruly Ruffians or Atheists where no one careth for another Humph Ies par 2. rat 3. Enoch Claph in Antid schi p. â—7 D. Humphrey saith It is a manifest Conclusion that the Church ought to be conspicuous Another Protestant saith of the Puritans They affirm against the Scripture that the Church for some ages was not visible This cannot be a sound article of the Protestant religion which such Protestants so sharply censure Now we shall see how it is against Protestants principles yea and destroyes it self For they ordinarly assign two necessary marks of the Church to witt the right preaching of the word administration of the Sacraments To which the Presbyterians add their disciplin as a third mark I inquire then if this Church which some of them make invisible for 900. some for 1000. and others for 12. hundred years had preaching and Sacraments during that time or not If it had then it could not be invisible for invisible people can neither be instructed nor baptized If it had no preaching nor Sacraments then it hath been a miserable Church or rather no Church at all which wanted these two things which are necessary to constitute a Church If a famous Presbyterian Minister took occasion lately whilst he was baptizing a child on a cold winter day to say against the Anabaptists It is cold dipping to day I love not Sommer Sacraments May not any one say more iustly against the Presbyterians In many dayes an invisible Church cannot be found out I love not a Church wherein for a thowsand years above there were neither sommer nor winter Sacraments Moreover either this invisible Church had some government or it had none If it had any it could not be invisible as is evident and if that governement was Presbytâ—rian disciplin that Church had not been only visible to these who obey'd it but also very sensible to those who did not willingjy stoop to it or else it hath been very far different from the nature of our Scottish Presbytery If that invisible Church had no government then it wanted that which no society can want and without which there is no order but confusion Yea this invisible Church is such a rare device that it destroies it self For no Church albeit never so invisible can be imagined without internal faith at least Now faith coms by hearing Rom. 10.17 according to S. Paul and how shall they heare saith the same Apostle without a preacher But in an invisible Church there could be no preaching or instruction and so no faith and no faith no Church Not so much as an invisible one In a word this invisible Church which wanted preaching faith Sacraments and government hath been a miserable or rather a Chimerical Church Lastly this invisible Church doth highly disparage the Christian religion For it makes the Church of Christ of whose glory above the Synagogue of the Iewes so much is
practice of the whole Church against whose custome to dispute as S. Augustin affirmes is most insolent madnesse Therefore without or rather against all reason do you detest the Ceremonies of the Catholique Church No religion can be without Ceremonies and we see in the Scripture that all great mysteries are accompanyed with sublime significative Ceremonies as our Saviours Nativity Baptism Transfiguration Resurrection Ascension the Descent of the holy Ghost c. Our saviour also at all great solemn actions vsed many Ceremonies as at the raising of Lazarus the cureing of the man who was both deaf dumb Mark 7.33 and vpon many other occasions all which Ceremonies serve as Ornaments of religion presenting an external Maiesty to the senses and making the spiritual mysteries to be more clearly vnderstood to be received with greater reverence and to be more deeply imprinted in the hearts of the beholders The same might be easily verifyed of the Catholique Ceremonies Therefore you who vnder pretext of spirituality are profest Enemies to all Ceremonies do not take heed that you take all order decency from the Church service of God that you oppose the practice of Christ his Apostles and of the whole Primitive Church and do render the sublime mysteries of the Christian religion contemptible You renounce also to vse your words the Popes 5. bastard Sacraments But that is only proper to adulteresse Churches to have bastard Sacraments The Catholique Church has none but lawfull Sacraments instituted by her heavenly Spouse Iesus-Christ of admirable vertue grace as we have seen all these 5. to be But indeed you have made even those two which you keep bastard Sacraments by robbing them of all vertue and grace We shall only speak a word of your other Detestations which follow in this Section because some of them have been touched above First vnder the name of the Pope you detest the iudgment of the Catholique Church as cruel against infants dying without Baptism and for the absolute necessity of Baptism But this was also the iudgment of the Primitive Church yea of Christ himself who has said Iohn 3.5 vnlesse one be borne again of water the Spirit he shall not enter into the Kingdome of Heaven And therefore is not cruel as has been shewed above at more length Whereas your iudgment is both false and cruel against many children dying with Baptism excluding them from heaven Yea not only your Iudgment is cruel but also your practice suffering many children to dye without Baptisme Confer Hampton-Court for which cruelty King Iames affirmed that your Ministers who were guilty of it would be damned You accuse next the Catholique Church of blasphemy for beleeving the Reall Presence or Transubstantiation which you wisely make all one question and for teaching that the wicked receive the body of Christ But they are not blasphemous who do beleeve Christs words expressed by 3. Evangelists and one Apostle and who follow the constant doctrin of the holy Fathers of the auncient Church as the Catholiques do in this matter as has been shewed above And if the wicked did not receive the body of Christ how could they be guilty of it as the Apostles affirmes the vnworthy receivers of it to be But you are rather guilty of blasphemy even in the iudgment of Protestants who will not beleeve Christs clear words and deny thereby his Omnipotency Luther your first Apostles gives this Iudgment of you We censure as heretiques aliens from the Church of God the Zuinglians all Sacramentaries Luth. cont Lovanien Thes 27. who deny the body blood of Christ to be received with the Carnal Mouth in the Eucharist And a famous Doctor of his Church continues the same opinion of you for speaking of this same matter he saith the sect of the Calvinists is grown to such blasphemy and madnesse Conrad Shlussel Theol. Calvin l. 1. c. 3. that they dare call in question Gods omnipotency Then you accuse the Pope Catholique Church for Dispensations in solemn Oaths and Periuries But these are either vain or false allegations For it is certain that the Church may dispense sometimes with the bond of oaths as she may loose from punishments and free men from the bonds of sins according to that power which Christ gave to her saying whatsoever thou shall loose on earth Math. 16 shall be loosed in heaven c. But it must be for a iust cause and without the iust preiudice of others as Becan shewes Becan de ur iustitia quest 88. q. 11 or else the dispensation is not valid Periuries or false oaths need no Dispensations as you mistake or calumniate but must be only taken away by true Repentance as other sins are purged It is strange that you should deny the lawfull power of dispensing to the whole Catholique Church such as S. Paul vsed with the incestuous Corinthian and yet appropriate it to every one of your selves and should obiect that falsly as a crime to others whereof yourselves are so deeply guilty For it is known how many oaths vowes your first Reformers did either break or dispense with at their own hands and if we will beleeve King Iames Basilicon Doron p. 41. you are not behind with any in these enormities You accuse also falsly the Pope Catholique Church for dispensing in degrees of Mariage forbidden by the word of God that is by the Law of Christ vnlesse you will have the Ceremonial Law of the Iewes to be the Law of Christ and to oblige all Christians whence it would follow that if a man died without issue Deuter. 25.5 his brother should marie the Widow which yourselves do not observe but deny that it ought to be done The Church is so far from dispensing in degrees forbidden by the eternal Law of God that she has made Lawes forbidding dissolving Mariages in degrees not prohibited by the Eternal Law of God which serve as out-works to guard the divin Law She dispenseth indeed sometimes vpon good reason in her own lawes but never in the eternal Law of God which she professeth to be altogether indispensable Neither is the Pope and Catholique Church guilty of cruelty against the innocent divorced by forbidding them to marie vnlesse Christ himself and S. Paul be cruel and the Primitive Church which taught the same doctrine Luke 16.8 Our Saviour saith every one that putteth away his wife and marieth another committeth adulterie and he that marieth her committeth adulterie 1. Cor. 7.10 S Paul saith not I give commandment but our Lord that the wife depart not from her husband if she depart to remaine vnmaried or to be reconciled to her husband Whence it is clear that neither of the parties can marie so long as the other lives This was the doctrine of the holy Fathers and of the ancient Church S. Augustin proveth this in his bookes de adulterinis coniugijs