authority of the Church as if were it not for the authority of the Church the Scripture were of no force neither could deserve any credit So the Romanists do frequently pervert those words of Austine but Austines meaning was only this that the Churches authority by way of introduction was a means to bring him to beleeve the Gospel by propounding and commending the Gospel unto him as a thing to be beleeved whereas otherwise he should not have given heed to it nor taken notice of it not as if he did finally rest in the authority of the Church and resolve his faith into it No for as I have shewed before he would have the Church it selfe sought in the Scripture and proved by it Had not the woman of Samaria told those among whom she lived of Christ they had not come to the knowledge of him much lesse to beleeve in him yet having heard Christ himselfe they did not rest in the testimony of the woman but said unto her Now we beleeve not because of thy saying for we have heard him our selves and know that this is indeed the Christ and the Saviour of the world Joh. 4. 42. So should not the Church hold out unto us the Scriptures we should not know much lesse beleeve them but at length God by his Spirit opening our understandings that we may understand the Scriptures Luke 24. 45. we come to be convinced by the Scriptures themselves that they are the Oracles of God and of divine authority Melchior Canus a learned Writer of the Church of Rome holds that the formall reason of our faith is not the authority of the Church that is that the last resolution of our faith is not into the Churches testimony And he saith that he could not dissemble their errour who hold that our faith is to be reduced thither as to the utmost cause of beleeving For the confuting of this errour he saith belongs that Ioh. 4. Now we beleeve not because of thy saying for we our selves have heard him and know c. The same authour averres that the authority of the Church is not a reason by it selfe moving to beleeve but only a cause or meanes without which we should not beleeve viz. Because as he addes the Church doth propound unto us that the Scripture is the word of God and except the Church did so propound it we should never ordinarily come to beleeve it yet we doe not therefore beleeve the Scripture to be Gods word because the Church doth say it but because God doth reveal it If the Church saith he doth make way for us to know such sacred books we must not therefore rest there but we must goe further and must relye on Gods solid truth And then he brings in that very speech of Austine and shewes what he meant by it Hereby is understood saith he what Austine meant when he said I should not beleeve the Gospell except the authority of the Church did move me And again By the Catholikes I had beleeved the Gospell For Austine had to doe with the Manichees who without dispute would have a certain Gospell of theirs beleeved and so would establish the faith of the Manichees Austine therefore askes them what they would doe if they did light upon a man who did not beleeve so much as the Gospell what kind of perswasion they would use to bring him to their opinion He affirmes that himselfe could not be otherwise brought to embrace the Gospell but that the authority of the Church did overcome him He doth not therefore teach that the faith of the Gospell is grounded upon the Churches authority but only that there is no certain way whereby either infidels or novices in the faith may have entrance to the holy books but one and the same consent of the Catholike Church This he himselfe hath sufficiently explicated in the fourth Chapter of that Epistle and in his book to Honoratus concerning the benefit of beleeving I have thus largely cited the words of this learned Romanist because no Protestant can speak more clearly and more fully to the purpose That which the Marquesse after addeth is nothing against us viz. That there was a Church before there was any Scripture that though the Scripture be a light yet we have need of some to guide us though it be the food of our soules yet there must be some to administer it unto us though it be an antidote against the infection of the devill yet it is not for every one to be a compounder of the ingredients that though it be the onely sword and buckler to defend the Church from her Ghostly enemies yet this doth not exclude the noble army of Martyrs and the holy Church which through all the world doth acknowledg Christ All this I say is nothing at all against us who do so assert the authority of the Scripture as that we doe not evacuate the Churches ministery Timothy must preach but it is the word viz. of God contained in the Scriptures which he must preach 2 Tim. 4. 2. If any man speak for the instructing of others he must speak as the Oracles of God 1 Pet. 4. 11. He must confirm that which he doth speak by the Scriptures And so on the other side they that hear must take heed how and what they hear Luke 8. 18. Mark 4. 24. They must not beleeve every Spirit but must try the Spirits whether they be of God 1 John 4. 1. They must to the Law and to the Testimony for that if any speak not according to this word it is because they have no light in them Isai 8. 20. They must search the Scriptures diligently to see whether the things delivered unto them be so or no. Acts 17. 11. OF THE CHVRCH of ENGLAND THE SECOND PART OF THE Rejoynder to the Marquess of WORCESTER'S Reply MAJESTIE' 's Answer to the said Marquesse's Plea for the ROMISH RELIGION THE Marquesse saith that he will now consider the Opinions of Protestants apart from them of the Church of Rome and begin with the Church of England The Religion of this Church he saith as it is in opposition to theirs consists wholly in denying for that what she affirms they affirm the same as the Real presence the Infallibility Visibility Universality and Unity of the Church Confession and Remission of sinnes Free-will Possibility of keeping the Commandments c. And you may as well saith he deny the blessed Trinity for we have no such word in Scripture only inference as that which you have already denied for which we have plain Scripture c. But 1. it is not altogether so that what the Church of England doth affirm the same they of the Church of Rome do affirm also For the Church of England Art 9. doth affirm alleadging the authority of the Apostle for proof thereof that Concupiscence hath of it self the nature of sinne even in the regenerate which the Romanists deny the Councel of Trent accurseth
do of his good pleasure Phil. 2. 13. Therefore saith Austine we will but God doth worke this will in us therefore wee worke but God doth worke this worke in us of his good pleasure This is expedient for us both to believe and to speake this is pious this is true that so confession may bee humble and submisse and that all may be ascribed unto God And thus I hope it may sufficiently appeare that we have no cause to decline either the authority of the Scriptures or the testimonies of Fathers in this point concerning Free-will I come now to those Scriptures and Fathers which the Marquesse doth alledge against us Three places of Scripture are cited for proofe of Free-will such as our Adversaries maintaine and wee impugne First that 1 Cor. 7. 37. it is misprinted 1 Cor. 17. Hee that standeth stedfast in his heart having no necessity but hath power over his own will and hath so decreed in his heart that hee will keepe his virgin doth well But what is there here to prove Free-will Perhaps those words hath power over his own will But the Apostle there speakes of a man that hath a daughter marriageable yet determines to keepe her unmarried which the Apostle approves so that the man have no necessity that is no necessary cause of giving his daughter in marriage but hath power over his owne will that is hath power to effect and accomplish that which hee willeth so as no inconvenience to ensue upon it After this manner doth Cajetan himselfe in his Commentaries upon the place expound these wordes but hath power over his own will viz. to accomplish it in that the Virgin doth consent to abstaine from marriage For if shee should dissent then the Father should not have power of accomplishing his own will Thus Cajetan now what is this to the controversie about free will though I know Bellarmine also brings it in as also another place as little to the purpose namely that 2 Cor. 9. 7. Every man according as hee purposeth in his heart so let him give not grudgingly or of necessity for God loveth a chearfull giver Men must give almes willingly and chearfully therefore men have free will It doth not follow no more then that because men must serve God with a perfect heart and with a willing minde 1 Chron. 28. 9. therefore of themselves by the power of Free-will they are able to do it The Rhemists tacitely confesse these places to be impertinent to the point in hand passing them over in their Annotations and making no use of them as they are ready enough to doe when they meet with any thing which they thinke doth make for them The next place is Deut. 30. 19. not as it is printed 11. I have set before you life and death blessing and cursing chuse life that thou and thy seed may live This place Bellarmine presumes much upon saying that hee sees not what can bee answered to it And so the English Papists who translated the old Testament at Doway in their notes upon the place say what Doctor can more plainly teach Free-will in man then this Text of holy Scripture But what is the reason of all this confidence because man is bidden to chuse life doth it therefore follow that of himselfe hee is free and able to doe it why So man is bidden to worke out his own salvation Phil. 2. 12. yet as the Apostle addes immediately v. 13. it is God that doth worke in him both the Will and the Deed. Man is bidden to come unto Christ Isai 53. 3. yet can hee not come except the Father draw him Ioh. 6. 44. Man is bidden to arise from the dead Ephes 5. 14. Can he therefore being dead quicken himself Surely the same Apostle tells us in the same Epistle that it is God that doth quicken those that are dead in trespasses and sinnes Ephes 2. 5. There is no more force in that place of Deuteronomie for proofe of Free-will then in any other place of Scripture which containeth in it precept or exhortation And indeed our adversaries doe pretend that all such places are for them And so did the Pelagians of old object such places but Austine answers them that though it 's true God doth not command man to doe that which cannot bee done by him yet hee commandeth us to doe what wee are not able to doe viz. of our selves that wee may seeke unto him to make us able Thus the people of God do Turne unto me saith God Ioel 2. 12. Turne thou us unto thee say the people of God Lam. 5. 21. And by comparing places of Scripture together we may finde that what God doth require of his people the same hee doth promise unto them Wash yee make yee cleane saith he Isai 1. 16. But Ezek. 36. 25. I will sprinkle cleane water upon you saith hee and you shall be cleane So Ezek. 18. 31. God commands saying Make you a new heart and a new spirit But Ezek. 36. 26. hee promiseth this very thing A new heart also will I give you and a new spirit will I put with in you And accordingly David prayed unto God to worke this in him Create in me a clean heart O Lord and renew a right spirit within me Psal 51. 10. And that of Austine is well known Give O Lord what thou doest command and then command what thou willest Besides as Bradwardine observed long agoe impotency and inability to performe a duty proceeding from a mans own fault doth nothing excuse him either by the Law of God or man A bankrupt may justly be required to pay his debt though hee be not able to pay it Againe Gods Precepts and Exhortations are not in vaine though man by the power of his own Free-will be not able to doe what is required because God doth make those very Precepts and Exhortations meanes whereby to worke that in his elect which hee doth require of them When Christ spake to Lazarus being dead and buried saying Lazarus come forth Joh. 11. this was not in vaine though its certaine a man that 's dead and laid in the grave hath no power of himselfe to come forth yet I say it was not in vaine that Christ spake so unto Lazarus for together with his word hee sent forth his Divine power and so inabled Lazarus to come forth as hee required So neither is it in vaine that God doth command men to doe things which of themselves they cannot doe because he accompanying his word with his spirit inables them to do what hee commands Verily verily I say unto you saith Christ the houre is comming and now is when the dead shall heare the voyce of the Son of God and they that heare shall live Joh. 5. 25. Our Saviour there speakes of such as are spiritually dead as appeares those words and now is and he shewes that his word is a powerfull and effectuall meanes viz. by the concurrence of
be unnaturall Subjects seditious troublesome and unquiet spirits members of Sathan enemies to the King and the Common-wealth of their owne native Country And lastly because your Church of England most followed Calvins doctrine of any of the rest I shall shew you what end he made answerable to his beginning and course of life written by two knowne and approved Protestant Authors viz. God in the rod of his fury visiting Calvin did horribly punish him before the fearfull hour of his unhappy death for he so struck this heretick with his mighty hand that being in despair and calling upon the Devill he gave up his wicked soule swearing cursing and blaspheming dying upon the disease of lyce and wormes increasing in a most loathsome ulcer about his privie parts so as none present could endure the stentch these things are objected unto Calvin in publick writing in which also horrible things are declared concerning his lasciviousnesse his sundry abominable vices and Sodomiticall lusts for which last he was by the Magistrate at Nayon under whom he lived branded on the shoulder with a hot borning iron And this is said of him by Schlusberg She which is likewise confirmed by Jo. Herennius It may be your Majestie may taxt me of bitternesse or for the discovery of nakednesse But I hope you will give me leave to look what staffe I leane upon when I am to looke down upon so great and terrible a precipice as Hell and to consider the rottennesse of the severall rounds of that ladder which is proposed to me for my ascent unto heaven and to forewarne others of the dangers I espie their owne words can be none of my railing nor their owne accusations my errour except it be a fault to take notice of what is published and make use of what I see Ex ore tuo was our Saviours rule and shall be mine There hath not been used one Catholick Author throughout the accusation and I take it to be the providenee of God that they should be thus infatuated as to accuse one another that good men may take heed how they rely upon such mens Judgements in order to their eternall Salvation As to Your Majesties Objection that we of the Church of Rome fell away from our selves and that you did not fall away from us as also to the common saying of all Protestants bidding us to returne to our selves and they will returne to us we accept of their offer we will doe so that is to say we will hold our selves to the same Doctrine which the Church of Rome held before she converted this Nation to Christianity and then they cannot say we fell away from them or from our selves whilst we maintaine the same Doctrine we held before you were of us that is to say whilst we maintain'd the same Doctrine that we maintained during the four first Councels acknowledged by most Protestants and during Saint August time concerning whom Luther himself acknowledged That after the sacred Scriptures there is no Doctor of the Church to be compared thereby excluding himself and all his associates from being preferr'd before him concerning whom Master Field of the Church writes that Saint Aug. was the greatest Father since the Apostles Concerning whom Covel writes that he did shine in learning above all that ever did or will appear Concerning whom Jewell appeals as to a true and Orthodox Doctor Concerning whom Mr. Forrester Non. Tessagraph calls him the Fathers Monarch And Concerning whom Gomer acknowledges his opinion to be most pure Concerning whom Master Whitaker doubts not but that he was a Protestant And lastly concerning whom your royall Father seemed to appeal when he objected unto Card. Peron That the face and exteriour form of the Church was changed since his time and far different to what it was in his dayes wherefore we will take a view of what it was then and see whether we lose or keep our ground and whether it be the same which you acknowledged then to be so firm Our Church believed then a true and reall presence and the orall manducation of the body of Christ in the Sacrament as the prince of the Sacramentarians acknowledged in these words from the time of S. Augustin which was for the space of twelve hundred yeares the opinion of corporall flesh had already got the mastery And in this quality she adored the Eucarist with outward gestures and adoration as the true and proper body of Christ Then the Church believed the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament even besides the time that it was in use And for this cause kept it after Consecration for Domesticall Communions to give to the sick to carry upon the Sea to send into far Provinces Then she believed that Communion under both kinds was not necessary for the sufficiency of participation but that all the body and all the bloud was taken in either kind And for this cause in Domesticall Communions in Communions for children for sick persons by Sea and at the hour of death it was distributed under one kind onely Then the Church believed that the Eucharist was a true full and intire sacrifice not onely Eucharisticall but propitiatory and offered it as well for the living as the dead The faithfull and devout people of the Church then made pilgrimages to the bodies of the Martyrs pray'd to the Martyrs to pray to God for them Celebrated their Feasts reverenced their Reliques in all honourable forms And when they had received help from God by the intercession of the said Martyrs they hung up in the Temples and upon the Altars erected to their memory images of those parts of their bodies that had been healed The Church then held the Apostolicall traditions to be equall to the Apostolicall writings and held for Apostolicall traditions all that the Church of Rome now embraceth under that Title She then offered prayers for the dead both publick and private to the end to procure for them ease and rest And held this custome as a thing necessary for the refreshment of their souls The Church then held the fast of the forty dayes of Lent for a custome not free but necessary and of Apostolicall tradition And out of the time of Pentecost fasted all the Frydayes in the year in memory of the death of Christ except Christmay-Day fell on a Fryday which she then excepted as an Apostolicall tradition The Church then held marriage after the vow of Virginity to be a sin and reputed those who married together after their vowes not onely for adulterers but also for incestuous persons The Church held then mingling of water with wine in the sacrifice of the Eucharist for a thing necessary and of Divine and Apostolicall tradition She held then exorcismes exsufflations and renunciations which are made in Batisme for sacred
Ceremonies and of Apostolicall tradition She held then besides Batisme and the Eucharist Confirmation Marriage Orders and extream Unction for true and proper Sacraments which the Church of Rome now acknowledgeth The Church in the Ceremonies of Baptisme used then oyl salt wax-lights exorcismes the signe of the Cross the word Ephata and other that accompany it none of them without reason and excellent signification The Church held then Baptisme for infants of absolute necessity and for this cause then permitted lay men to baptise in danger of death the Church used then holy water consecrated by certain words and Ceremonies and made use of it both for Baptisme and against inchantments and to make exorcismes and conjurations against evill spirits The Church held then divers degrees in the Ecclesiasticall Regiment to wit Bishops Priests Deacons Subdeacons the Acolite Exorcist Reader and Porter consesecrated and blessed them with divers Forms and Ceremonies And in the Episcopall Order acknowledged divers seats of Jurisdiction of positive right to wit Archbishops Primates Patriarchs and one Supereminent by Divine law which was the Pope without whom nothing could be decided appertaining to the universall Church and the want of whose presence either by himselfe or his Legats or his Confirmation made all Councels pretended to be universall unlawfull In the Church then the service was said throughout the East in Greek and throughout the West as well in Africa as in Europe in Latin although that in none of the provinces except in Italy and the Cities where the Romane Colonies resided the Latine tongue was understood by the common people She observed then the distinction of feasts and ordinary dayes the Distinction of Ecclesiasticall and lay habits the reverence of sacred vessels the custome of shaming and unction for the collation of orders the Ceremony of the Priest washing his hands at the Altar before the consecration of the Mysteries She then pronounced a part of the service at the Altar with a low voice made processions with the reliques of Martyrs kissed them carried them in clothes of silke and vessels of gold took and esteemed the dust from under their reliquaries accompanied the dead to their sepulchres with wax tapers in sign of joy for the certainty of their future resurrection The Church then had the picture of Christ and of his Saints both out of Churches and in them and upon the very Altars not to adore them with God like worship but by them to reverence the Souldiers and Champions of Christ The faithfull then used the sign of the Crosse in all their Conversations painted it on the portal of all the houses of the faithfull gave their blessing to the people with their hand by the signe of the Crosse imployed it to drive away evill spirits proposed in Jerusalem the very Crosse to be adored on good Friday Finally the Church held then that to the Catholick Church onely belongs the keeping of the Apostolicall 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 was neither Church nor Salvation Neither will I insist with you onely upon the word then but before and before and before that even to the first age of all will I shew you our doctrine of the reall presence and holy Sacrifice of the Masse Invocation of Saints Veneration of Reliques and Images Confession and Priestly absolution Purgatory and prayer for the dead Traditions c. In the fift Age or hundred of years Saint Augustine was for the reall and corporall presence In the fourth Age Saint Ambrose In the third Age Saint Cyprian In the second Age or hundred of years S. Irenaeus And in the first Age Saint Ignatius Martyr and Disciple of Saint John the Evangelist Concerning the honour and invocation of Saints In the fifth Age we find Saint Augustine praying to the Virgin Mary ond other Saints In the fourth Age we find Greg. Naz. praying to S. Basil the great In the third Age we find S. Origen praying to Father Abraham In the second Age Justin Martyr And in the first age in the Liturgy of S. James the lesse For the use and veneration of holy Reliques and Images and chiefly of the Holy Crosse in the fifth age Saint Augustine In the fourth Age Athanasius In the third Age Origen In the second Age St. Justin Martyr And in the first Age S. Ignatius Concerning Confession and Absolutions In the fifth Age S. August In the fourth Age S. Basil the Great In the third Age S. Cypr. In the second Age Tertull. And in the first Age S. Clement Now concerning Purgatory and Prayer for the dead in the fifth Age S. Augustin In the fourth Age S. Ambrose In the third Age S. Cypr. In the second Age Tertull. And in the first Age S. Clement e. Concerning Traditions in the fifth Age S. Aug. In the fourth Age S. Basil In the third Age S. Epiphanins In the second Age S. Irenaeus And in the first Age S. Dennis Now suppose that all these quotations be right The saving of a soul of your own soul of the soul of a King of the souls of so many Kingdoms and the gaining of that Kingdome for a reward which in comparison of these Earthly ones for which you so often fight so much strive and labour so much for to obtain your tetrarchate would be a gain for you to lose it so that you might but obtain that would be worth the search and when you have found them to be truly cited I dare trust your judgement that it will tell you that we have not changed our Countenance nor fled our Colours nor fallen away nor altered our Religion nor forsaken our first Love nor denyed our Principles nor brought Novelties into the Church but that we doe antiquum obtinere whereby we should be forsaken of you for forsaking our selves but rather that we should win you unto us by being still the same we were when we won you first unto us and were at the beginning And is it for the honour of the English Nation famous for the first Christian King and the first Christian Emperour to forsake her Mother Church so renowned for antiquity and to annex their Religion as a codicell to an appeal of a company of Protesters against a decree at Spira and to forsake so glorious a name as Catholick and to take a name upon them wherein they had neither right nor interest and then to take measure of the Scottish Discipline for the new fashion of their souls and to
make to themselves posies of the weedings of that Garden into which Christ himself came down upon which both the north and south-winds do blow in which is a well of living waters and streams from Lebanon about which is an enclosure of brotherly affection Will you forsake the Rose of Sharon and the Lillie of the Vallies for such a Nose-gay For I shall make it apparent unto your Majesty that the Doctrines which Protestants now hold as in opposition unto us were but so many condemned heresies by the Antient and Orthodoxall Fathers of the Church and never opposed by any of them As for example Protestants hold that the Church may Erre this they had from the Donatists for which they were frequently reproved by St. Augustin Protestants deny unwritten traditions and urge Scripture onely This they had from the Arrians who were condemned for it by St. Epiphanius and S. Augustin both Protestants teach that Priests may Marry this they had from Vigilantius who is condemned for it by St. Hieronimus Protestants deny prayer for the dead this they had from Arrius for which he is condemned by Saint August and Epiphanius both Protestants deny Invocation of Saints this they had from Vigilantius for which he was condemned by Saint Hieron Protestants deny Reverence to Images this they had from Xenias for which he is reproved by Nicephorus Protestants deny the reall Presence this they had from the Carpenaites who were saith Saint Augustin the first Hereticks that denied the reall Presence and that Judas was the first Suborner and Maintainer of this heresie Protestants deny Confession of sins to a Priest so did the Novatian Hereticks and the Montanists for which they are reproved by Saint Ambrose and Saint Hieron Protestants say that they are justified by Faith onely this they had from the pseudo-Apostles for which they are comdemned by St. Augustin Lastly as I have shewed Your Majesty that Your Church as it stands in opposition to ours is but a congeries of so many heresies to which I could easily make an enlargement but that I fear I have been too tedious already So I shall make it appeare that our Church as she stands in opposition unto yours is true and right even your selves being witnesses and you shall find our Doctrine among your owne Doctors First the Greek Church whom you court to your side as indeed they are Protestants according to your vulgar reception being you call all those Protestants who are or were in any Opposition to the Church of Rome though in their Tenents otherwise they never so much doe disagree For the Greek Church with which you so often hit us in the teeth and take to be of your faction she holds Invocation of Saints Adoration of Images Transubstantiation Cōmunion in one kind for the sick and many others Master Parker confesseth that Luther crossed himselfe morning and evening and is never seene to be painted praying but before a Crucifix As touching the Invocation of Saints saith Luther I think with the whole Christian Church and hold that Saints are to be honoured by us and invocated I never denyed Purgatory saith Luther and yet I believe it as I have often written and confessed If it is lawfull saith Luther for the Jews to have the picture of Caesar upon their Coins much more is it lawfull for Christians to have in their Churches Crosses and Images of Mary and lastly he maintained the reall Presence But let us goe a little further and consider what they held whom ye call your Predecessours under whom ye shrowd your Visibility and on whom you look beyond Luther for your Doctrines Patronage viz. First upon the Hussites who brake forth about the year 1400. they held seven Sacraments Transubstantiation the Popes primacy and the Masse as Fox in his acts and monuments acknowledgeth Let us goe further and consider Wickliffe our owne Countrey-man who appeared about the year 1370. he maintained holy water worship of Reliques and Images Intercession of the blessed Virgin Mary the rites and Ceremonies of the Masse all the seven Sacraments Moreover he held Opinions contrary and condemned both by Catholick and Protestants as that if a Bishop or Priest be in any mortal sin his Ordaining Consecrating or Baptizing is of no effect He condemned lawfull Oaths with the Anabaptists Lastly he maintained that any Ecclesiasticall Ministers were not to have any temporall possessions This last Opinion was such savory Doctrine that rather then some of those times would not hearken to that they would listen to all as the greedy appetites to Bishops Lands make some now adayes to hearken unto any thing that Cryers downe of Bishops shall foment To goe further yet to the Waldenses descended from the race of one Waldo a Merchant of Lions who brake out about the year 1220. These men held the reall Presence for which they were reproved by Calvin These men extolled the merit of voluntary poverty they held Transubstantiation and many other opinions which most Protestants no way allow And lastly I shall run your pedegree to the radix and utmost Derivation that the best read Herauld in the Protestant Genealogy can run its linc and that is to the Waldenses and to Berengarius who broacht his heresie in the year 1048. and he held all the points of Doctrine that we held onely he differed from us in the point of Transubstantiation And for this cause they took him into the name and number of Protestants and Reformers notwithstanding he presently afterwards recanted and died a Catholick So it ends where it never had beginning Finally if neither prescription of 1600 years possession and continuance of our Churches Doctrine nor our evidence out of the word of God nor the Fathers witnessings to that evidence nor the Decrees of Councels nor your owne acknowledgments be sufficient to mollifie and turne your royall heart there is no more means left for truth or me but I must leave it to God in whose hand are the hearts of Kings AN ANSWER TO THE Marquesse of WORCESTER His Reply to the KINGS Paper YOur MAJESTY is pleased to wave all the Markes of the true Church and to make recourse unto the Scriptures Ans 1. His MAJESTY did not wave all the Markes of the true Church assigned by the Marquesse but shewed them to be such as may without distinction and further explication belong to a false Church From Ier. 44. 16. His MAJESTY shewed that Antiquity Succession and Universality was alledged in defence of Idolatry That Demetrius Acts 19. alledged Antiquity and Universality for the worship of Diana and that Symmachus alledged Antiquity as a plea for all heathenish Idolatry and Superstition page 47. That Ezechiel bids Be not stiff-necked as your fore-fathers were page Ibid. These words the place being not cited I confesse I cannot
of the Covenant Gen. 17. 11. are an Explication of that which went before ver 10. viz. that Circumcision is the Covenant Now if the one be an Explication of the other then needs must the word Covenant be taken alike in both He is also contrary unto Reason for it is absurd to say that a Covenant doth properly signifie both a Promise and also an Instrument whereby the Promise is applyed As well may one say that Christs Body doth properly signifie both his Body and also the Sacrament of his Body A Covenant in the very nature of it being properly taken doth signifie a Promise and therefore the instrument whereby it is applyed cannot properly be the Covenant but onely the Token Pledge and Assurance of it It may as well be said that a Covenant may have two diverse and distinct natures as that a Covenant can be taken two diverse and distinct wayes and yet be taken properly both the one way and the other To those words It viz. the Lamb is the Lords passeover Exod. 12. 11. Bellarmine answers that the Speech is not Figurative but Proper The Lamb he saith was properly the Lords Passeover and mark his Reason Quia agnus immolabatur in memoriam illius transitus that is Because the Lamb was slain or sacrificed in memory of that passeover or passing over Now what greater absurdity can there be then this which here Bellarmine doth fall into He alledgeth that as a Reason of his assertion which indeed doth quite overthrow it For if the Lamb were slaine and sacrificed in memory of the Lords Passeover or passing over then was it not properly the Passeover it self but only a Signe and Memoriall of it As for those words 1 Cor. 10. 4. The Rock was Christ Bellarmine saith that not a Materiall but a Spirituall work is there meant and that therefore though the word Rock be taken Figuratively yet the proposition it selfe The Spirituall Rock was Christ is not figuratively but properly taken But it is evident that the Rock spoken of by the Apostle was a materiall Rock a Rock of Stone For the Apostle speaketh of a Rock which the Israelites drank of They drank of that Rock saith he Now that Rock which the Israelites drank of was a materiall Rock a Rock of Stone as Moses doth shew Exod. 17. and Numb 20. Austin never questioned this to be the meaning of the Apostles words After a sort saith he all things signifying seeme to be instead of those things which they signifie as it is said by the Apostle The Rocke was Christ because that Rock of which that is spoken did indeed signifie Christ These words of that learned Father are very remarkable that onely for the understanding of that particular place of Scripture but also for the determining of the maine Controversie betwixt us and our Romane Adversaries For he not onely saith that the Rock is said to have been Christ because it did signifie Christ supposing and taking it as granted that the Apostle spake of a materiall Rock but also he saith that after a sort all things signifying are instead of the things signified by them and therefore are called by the same names If our adversaries would minde this rule they would soon see that they have no cause to insist upon those words This is my Body and to urge the proper sense of them But for these words The Rock was Christ Bellarmine argueth that a materiall Rock is not there meant because the Apostle calleth it a spirituall Rock I answer so the Apostle there calleth Manna spirituall meat yet was Manna a materiall thing onely it had a spirituall signification And so also was the Rock a materiall Rock onely it 's called spirituall for the same reason Bellarmine objects that a materiall Rock did not follow the Israelites as the Apostle saith that the Rock did which hee speakes of for they dranke saith he of that spirituall Rock that followed them I answer 1. The materiall Rock may be said to have followed them that is to have satisfied their desire of water Thus as Beza observes Photius a Greek Author doth expound it and so also as Pareus testifies Lyra and Dionysius two Romish expositors Bellarmine notes Peter Martyr as thus expounding it neither hath he any thing against this exposition but only that the Greek Fathers and Erasmus interpret the word used by the Apostle comitante i. e. accompanying But this is nothing for they might meane accompanying in a metaphoricall sense viz. in respect of satisfying the desire Againe the Rock may be said to have followed the Israelites in that the water flowing forth of the Rock did follow them Genebrard a great man of the Romish party commenting upon those words Psal 78. 15. He clave the Rocks in the Wildernesse c. saith that the Septuagint and the vulgar Latine interpreter have it in the singular number Rock because by the Hebrew traditions there was but one Rock which was smitten and so sent forth water at severall times and in severall places and that this Rock did remove with the Israelites and follow them in their travells through the Wildernesse And this he saith is agreable to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. 4. But this is over Rabbinicall and therfore he addes that the Rock may be said to have followed the Israelites that is that the water which flowed out of the Rock did follow them either in that they themselves by their own art and industrie did derive and bring it to the place where they camped or that it was effected by Gods transmission and direction Bellarmine objects that a little after the Israelites did want water againe as as we read Num. 20. and therefore the water did not follow them But that want of water spoken of Num. 20. was not a little after but a long time after the other mentioned Exod. 17. For that in Exodus was the Israelites camped in Rephidim not long after they came out of Egypt and the other was when they camped in Kadesh in the fourtieth yeare after they left Egypt as is noted in the Hebrew Chronicle called Seder Olam cap. 9. Compare Numbers 33. 14. with 36. Genebrard in the place before cited meetes with this Objection that Bellarmine makes and answers that according to the Rabbins both ancient and moderne that which is recorded Num. 20. is meant of the same Rock that is spoken of Exod. 17. the water whereof they say did faile because of Miriams death which happened there in Kadesh untill upon the peoples murmuring againe it was drawn out of the same Rock the second time This conceit of the Rabbines is far from pleasing me onely I note how little force Bellarmines objection was of with his own copartner Genebrard Indeed this is enough to shew the vanity of the objection that as Genebrard notes the want of water in Kadesh was 38. years after that in Rephidim and therefore was not as Bellarmine
of God as Aaron was This you deny and not onely so but you so deny it as that your Church hath maintained and practiced it a long time for a woman to be head or supreme Moderatrix in the Church when you know that according to the Word of God in this respect a woman is not onely forbidden to be the head of the man but to have a tongue in her head 1 Tim. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 14. 34. Yet so hath this been denyed by you that many have beene hang'd drawn and quarter'd for not acknowledging it The Fathers are of our opinion c. All this is but to strike at the Title which hath beene given to our Kings and Queens viz. Supreme Heads or Governours and Governesses of the Church within their Dominions We know our Adversaries have much stomack'd and opposed this Title but we know no just cause that they have had for it We never made Kings or Queens Ministers of the Church so as to dispense the Word and Sacraments only we have attributed unto them this Power to look to and have a care of the Church that the Word be Preached and the Sacraments Administred by fit persons and in a right manner This is no more then belongs unto Kings and Queens as both Scriptures and Fathers doe informe us We see in the Scriptures that the good Kings of Iudah as Asia Iehoshaphat Hezekiah and Iosiah not to speak of David and Solomon who were Prophets as well as Kings and so may be excepted against as extraordinary persons did put forth their power in ordering the Affaires of the Church as well as of the Civill State Asa put down Idolatry and caused the People to enter into Covenant to serve the Lord 2 Chron. 15. Iehoshaphat took away the High Places and the Groves and made the Priests and Levites to goe and teach the People 2 Chron. 17. Hezekiah reformed what had been amisse in matter of Gods Worship caused the Priests and Levites to do their Duty and the Passeover to be solemnly kept 2 Chron. 29. 30 31. So Iosiah also destroyed Idolatry repaired the Temple and kept a most solemne Passeover causing both Priests and People to performe their Duty Austine acknowledgeth this power to belong unto Kings In this saith he Kings as they are commanded of God doe serve God as Kings if in their Kingdome they command good things and forbid evill things not only which belong unto humane Society but also which concerne Divine Religion And the same Father speaking of Christian Princes makes their happiness to lie in this That they make their power serviceable to Gods majesty in enlarging his worship as much as they are able This power also Christian Princes have exercised and have not been taxed for it as Constantine Theodosius c. See Mason de Minist Anglic. lib. 3. cap. 4. The exercising therefore of this power which we ascribe to Kings and Queenes is no taking that Honour to themselves which is spoken of Heb. 5. 4. Neither is it any teaching or speaking in the Church which the Apostle will not allow unto a woman 1 Tim. 2. 11 12. and 1 Cor. 14. 34. Neither is this crosse to what the Fathers whom the Marquesse citeth say which amounts to this that Ministers are to doe those things which belong unto Ministers and that in those things which concern their Ministery all even Kings and Queens are subject unto them All this is nothing against Kings and Queens having a power over Ministers so as to see them perform the Offices which belong unto them And it may seeme strange that the Marquesse should now so lately with so much eagernesse inveigh against that Title and Power given to that Queen of happy memory Q. Elizabeth as most unmeet for her when as Hart a Papist stiffe enough living in the Queens time by his Conference with Doctor Rainolds and Doctor Nowels Book against Dorman was so convinced that he confessed himself satisfied in this point and acknowledged that we ascribe no more unto Princes then Austine doth in the words before cited We say that Christ gave commission to his Disciples to forgive Sinnes you deny it and say that God onely can forgive sins we have Scripture for it Joh. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained And Joh. 20. 21. As my Father hath sent me even so send I you And how was that viz. with so great power as to forgive sins Mat. 9. 3. 8. where note that S. Matthew doth not set downe how that the people glorified God the Father who had given so great power unto God the Son but that he had given so great power unto men loc cit The Fathers are of this opinion c. It is strange that the Marquesse should say that we deny that Christ gave Commission to his Disciples to forgive Sinnes We confesse that the Scripture is clear for it that he did give them such a Commission onely the question is how the Commission is to be understood and what power it is that the Disciples had and so other Ministers have to forgive Sinnes It 's true we hold that God only can forgive sins and yet withall that men may forgive sins These are not contradictory the one to the other because as all Logitians know except the propositions be understood of one and the same thing in one and the same respect there is no contradiction Now when we say that onely God can forgive sins it is meant in one respect and when we say that men may forgive sinnes it is meant in another respect As the sin is against God so properly and authoritatively God alone can forgive it And this God doth challenge unto himself as his prerogative I even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions c. Isai 43. 25. And therefore the Scribes were right in this Who can forgive sins but God onely Mar. 2. 7. They were right in the Doctrine though wrong in the Application their position was good that God only can forgive Sins but their supposition was naught that Christ was but a meer Man and had not power to forgive Sins as he did This saith Hilary troubles the Scribes that a man doth forgive sin for they took Christ for a meer Man It is true none can forgive sinne but God only and therefore he that forgiveth is God because none forgiveth but God The same also is clearly and fully acknowledged by Gregory whom amongst other Fathers the Marquesse alledgeth against us He writing upon the second Penitentiall Psalme that is the 32. Psalme upon those words Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin he saith thus Thou who alone sparest who alone doest forgive sinnes For who can forgive sinnes but God onely And with these agreeth Irenaeus whom also the Marquesse bringeth in as a witnesse on his side He speaking of Christs forgiving of sinnes saith That thereby
There to justifie and to condemne are opposed-one to the other and to justifie is to repute just not to make just for so it should be no abomination to justifie the wicked but a very good worke For hee which converteth a sinner from the errour of his way shall save a soule from death c. Iames 5. 20. So Isai 5. 23. They are taxed who justifie the wicked for a reward Thus also God is said to justifie Isai 50. 8. Hee is neare that iustifieth mee who will contend with me And Rom. 8. 33 34. who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect it is God that justifieth Who is he that condemneth it is Christ that died c. But saith Bellarmine when God doth justifie the wicked by declaring him just he doth also make him just because the judgement of God is according to truth I answer true it is whom God doth justifie them also hee doth sanctifie yet it doth not follow that these two viz. to justifie and to sanctifie are one and the same David was a man truly sanctified yet hee knew and acknowledged that his righteousnesse whereby hee was sanctified was not such as that he could be justified by it and therefore cried Enter not into judgement with thy servant c. Psal 143. 2. And Blessed is the man whose iniquity is forgiven c. Psal 32. 1 2. yet is Gods judgement neverthelesse according to truth when hee accounteth those righteous and imputeth no sinne unto them who still have sinne in them and so cannot be justified by their owne righteousnesse because they whom God justifieth by faith are united unto Christ as members of his Body and so Christs righteousnesse is their righteousnesse and though not in themselves yet in Christ they are compleatly righteous He is called The Lord our righteousnesse Ier. 23. 6. And sayes the Apostle In him yee are complete Col. 2. 10. wherefore hee desired to be found in him not having his own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith Phil. 3. 9. And thus we hold that faith doth justifie not formally but instrumentally not because of it selfe but because of its object viz. Christ and his righteousnesse which faith apprehendeth and applieth For by faith wee receive Christ Ioh. 1. 12. And Christ doth dwell in our hearts by faith Ephes 3. 17. Diverse of the Church of Rome since the beginning of Reformation in this great point touching justification have inclined to us Ferus I cited before saying that Believers have yet much sinne but no condemnation because thorough faith in Christ they are reputed cleane Cardinall Contarenus his workes I have not neither can I alledge him of mine own knowledge but his words as I finde them cited by another are very full for our purpose Because saith hee wee come unto a twofold righteousnesse by faith a righteousnesse inherent in us c. and the righteousnesse of Christ given and imputed to us in that wee are ingraffed into Christ and put on Christ it remaines to inquire whether of these we must rely upon that wee may be justified before God that is accounted holy and just I doe altogether hold that it is piously and Christianly said that wee ought to reply as on a thing that is stable and doth surely support us on the righteousnesse of Christ given unto us and not on that holinesse and grace which is inherent in us For this righteousnesse of ours is but inchoated and imperfect which cannot preserve us so but that in many things we offend and sinne continually Therefore for this righteousnesse of ours wee cannot be accounted righteous and good in the sight of God so as it should become the sonnes of God to be good and holy But the righteousness of Christ given unto us is true and perfect righteousnesse which doth altogether please the eyes of God in which there is nothing that may offend God nothing which cannot fully please him On this therefore alone as sure and stable must we rely and for it alone must wee believe that wee are justified before God that is accounted and called iust I see not why we should desire more in point of justification then this amounts to Pighius also a stout Champion of the Church of Rome is as full and expresse for that which wee make the formall cause of justification as any can be It is cleare saith hee what sentence we should all have if God would have dealt with us in strict judgement if hee had not most mercifully succoured us in his Son and had not involved and wrapped us in his righteousnesse wee having none of our own that will serve our turne And againe In him therefore are wee justified not in our selves not with our own but with his righteousnesse which by reason of our communion with Him is imputed unto us Being empty of our owne righteousnesse wee are taught to seeke righteousnesse out of our selves in him And againe That our righteousnesse is placed in Christs obedience it is from hence that wee being incorporated into Him it is reckoned as if it were ours so that because of it we are accounted righteous And immediately he adds that as Iacob being cloathed with the robes of his elder brother obtained the blessing of his Father so we must be clothed with the righteousnesse of Christ our elder brother that God may bestow the blessing of justification upon us And againe God doth justifie us saith he of his free-goodnes whereby he doth embrace us in Christ whiles that he clothes us being ingraffed into him with Christs innocency and righteousnesse which as it is alone true and perfect able to indure the sight of God so it alone must be presented for us at the tribunall of Gods Iudgement This and much more to this purpose hath Pighius and hee saith that hee could not dissemble that this prime part of Christian Doctrine was rather obscured then illustrated by the Schoolemen with thorny questions and definitions and therefore he was the more diligent in the handling of this point shewing that none of the sons of Adam can be justified before God by their own righteousnesse and their own workes but that all must rely onely on the righteousnesse of God in Christ and that by it alone they being destitute of a righteousnesse of their owne are righteous before God Pighius is so plaine and home in this point that Bellarmine doth censure him as erroneous in it And yet so powerfull and prevalent it truth that it extorted even from Bellarmine himselfe this confession That because of the uncertainty of a mans owne righteousnesse and the danger of vaine glory it is most safe to repose all confidence only in Gods Mercy and Goodnesse By his own confession then it is most safe in matter of justification to renounce Workes and to flie onely to Faith in
no merit of his own but meerly Gods mercy And this was it that Nehemiah did flie unto even when hee recorded the good that hee had done Remember me O Lord said hee concerning this and what reward mee according to the greatnesse of my merit no but spare mee according to the greatnesse of thy mercy Neh. 13. 22. Bernard to this purpose againe It is enough unto merit to know that merits are not sufficient The Romish Doctrine of merits die not please Ferus a late member of that Church If thou wouldest keepe saith hee the grace and favour of God make no mention of thy Merits for God will give all things out of mercy Bellarmine himselfe though hee disputed eagerly for Merits yet it seemes durst not rely on them confessing as was shewed before that it is the safest course to put our whole trust meerely in Gods Mercy But the Marquesse saith that the Fathers were of their opinion citing Ambr. de apol David cap. 6. Hieron lib. 3. contra Pelag. Aug. de Spir. lit cap. ult And first for Ambrose in the place cited it 's true hee speakes merits but here wee must remember what one of their owne writers doth tell us namely Estius that the ancient Divines did often use the word Merit very largely and not properly And thus did Ambrose use the word saying Habet quis bona Merita one hath good Merits that is good workes which hee calles Merits because they doe impetrate or obtaine a reward though not properly merit it the ancients as Estius observes using merit for impetration But that Ambrose there did not make good workes to be truly and properly meritorious appeares by the words immediately following habet vitia atque peccata hee hath also vices and sins Now surely those good workes which have vices and sinnes mixed with them cannot be properly meritorious in that case there is great need to crave mercy but no cause to plead merit For Hierome lib. 3. contra Pelag. I finde nothing at all that doth so much as seeme to assert merits except perhaps those words here in this life is labour and striving there in the life to come is the reward of labour and vertue But reward doth not alwayes presuppose merit as I have shewed before Mercy I am sure and merit are inconsistent and Hierome in that very Book which the Marquesse citeth plainly testifieth that there is no man whose workes are so good and his obedience so perfect but that still hee hath need of Gods mercy And hee taxeth his adversarie Pelagius I thinke as proud and Pharisaicall for saying that he doth worthily lift up his hands to God and doth pray with a good conscience who can say Thou O Lord knowest how holy how innocent how pure from all fraud injury and rapine the hands are that I spread forth unto thee how just immaculate and free from all lying the lips are with which I powre forth prayers unto thee that thou mayest have mercy on mee Hee tells him that David sung another Song saying My wounds stinke and are corrupt because of my foolishnesse Psal 38. 5. Enter not into judgement with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal 143. 2. And that Esay lamented saying Woe is mee for I am undone because I am a man of uncleane lips c. Isal 6. 5. And hee askes him how after all this swelling and boasting of himselfe after all this confidence of his holinesse hee could pretend to desire Gods mercy For if hee were so holy and innocent so pure and perfect then he had no neede to pray in that manner viz. that God should have mercy on him This and more to this purpose hath Hierome in the place alledged but whether this be for Merits or against them is easie to judge Neither hath Austine in the place which the Marquesse citeth any thing that I can see to prove good workes meritorious but something to prove the contrary For having cited many places of Scripture which shew that none is so righteous as to be without sinne hee saith Hence it followeth that it is necessary for every one to forgive that hee may bee forgiven and if hee have any righteousnesse not to presume that he hath it of his own but to ascribe it to Gods grace and still to hunger and thirst for righteousness from God who doth so work in his Saints whiles they are in this life as that hee hath still something to adde to them that aske and to pardon them that confesse For that none living in this mortall body can be found so holy but that still hee hath neede of pardon And elsewhere he saith God doth crowne his own gifts not thy merits The Marquesse goes on saying we hold that Faith once had may be lost if wee have not care to preserve it you say it cannot we have Scripture for it viz. Luke 8. 13. They on the Rock are they which when they heare receive the Word with joy which for a while believe and in time of temptation fall away So 1 Tim. 1. 18 19. which some having put away have made shipwracks of their Faith Answ We doe not hold that Faith cannot be lost though a man have no care to preserve it but that God will worke such a care in those in whom hee hath wrought true justifying Faith that they shall never lose it I will put my feare saith hee in their hearts that they shall not depart from me Jer. 32. 40. Christ prayed for Peter that his faith might not faile Luke 22. 32. And so he prayed both for him and others even for all that belong unto him I pray for them saith he I pray not for the World but for them which thou hast given me for they are thine Joh. 17. 9. And vers 11. Holy Father keepe through thine own name those whom thou hast given mee So the Apostle telleth us that whom God did predestinate them hee also called viz. according to his purpose vers 28. and whom hee called them hee also justified and whom hee justified them hee also glorified Rom. 8. 30. This clearly shewes that all that are once justified shall certainly be glorified and consequently that justifying faith once had cannot be quite lost Againe They that truly believe are the sons of God Gal. 3. 26. Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever but the son abideth ever Joh. 8. 35. Therefore true Faith cannot be lost the children of God cannot fall away And to this doe the Fathers accord Cyprian is much to this purpose The strength of such as are truly faithfull doth remaine unmoveable and the integrity of those that feare God and love him with the whole heart doth continue stable and strong And again The Lord who is the protectour and defender of his people doth not suffer wheat to be taken away out of his floore onely chaffe
not say nor believe that he did then not into that Hell which they call Limbus Patrum 2. Those words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell as spoken by David Psal 16. and commented upon by Peter Acts 2. those words I say doe shew that Hell there mentioned could neither be the Hell of the damned nor Limbus Patrum or at least that there is no necessity to expound it of either For 1. It is spoken of as a great benefit a matter of joy and rejoycing that Christs Soule was not left in Hell Therefore my Heart is glad and my glory or Tongue rejoyced c. For thou wilt not leave c. Psal 16. 9 10. Acts 2. 26 27. But they that hold Christs descending either into the Hell of the damned or into Limbus Patrum make him to descend as a conquerour one that went either to triumph over the Devill in his owne place as it were or to deliver the soules that were in limbus Now why should it be accounted such a benefit such a matter of joy and rejoycing for one not to be left there where hee is onely as a conquerour and deliverer Bellarmine answers that it was a benefit to Christs Soule that it was quickly joyned againe unto the Body even as it was evill to the Soule to be separated from the Body And thus saith hee it was a benefit unto him to be delivered from Hell not in respect of the place but in respect of separation from the body But who seeth not that by this reason Christs Soule might as well be in Heaven as either in Limbus Patrum or the Hell of the damned For though Christs soule were in heaven yet it was a benefit unto it to be delivered out of that estate of separation which it was in 2. Those words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell were meant of Christs Resurrection as S. Peter telleth us Acts 2. 31. But Christs Resurrection though it did presuppose his being in Hell either as Hell is taken for the grave or for the state of death yet not as it is taken either for Limbus Patrum or for the place of torment Christ might well enough rise againe and yet never be in any such Hell as one of these is and the other is supposed to have beene 3. S. Peter shewes that David in those words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell spake not of himselfe but of Christ for that the words being understood of David were not true but most true as understood of Christ Men and Brethren let mee freely speake unto you concerning the Patriarch David that hee is both dead and buried and his Sepulcher remaineth with us to this day Therefore being a Prophet c. Acts 2. 29 30 31. Here by Davids Sepulcher remaning with them unto that day hee meanes that David was left in that Hell of which he speakes and so did not speake of himself but of some other viz. of Christ who was not left in it Thus also S. Paul having cited the latter part of the Verse Thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption hee also to prove that this was meant of Christ and not of David addes For David after he had served his own Generation by the Will of God fell asleepe and was laid with his Fathers and saw corruption But he whom God raised up saw no corruption Acts 13. 35 36 37. David spake not of himselfe but of Christ when hee said Thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption because David did see corruption which Christ did not see So David spake not of himselfe but of Christ when hee said Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell because Davids Soule was left in Hell where Christs Soule was not left This is the Apostles argument and herce it necessarily followes that by Hell cannot be meant either the place of torment or yet Limbus Patrum Not the place of torment for Davids soule was not left in that Hell it never came in it Nor yet can that Limbus be meant for even the Romanists themselves doe hold that it was quite emptied before that time that Peter spake and therefore Davids soule was not in it then whereas yet Peter signifies that then it was in that Hell of which hee spake By Hell therefore must be meant either the grave or the state of the dead Ruffinus in his Exposition of the Creed observes that in his time the Article of Christs descending into Hell was not in the Creed of the Roman Church and that the Easterne Churches had it not yet hee saith that it seemes to he implied in that which is spoken of Christs Buriall And it is observed that in all the ancient Creedes that were within 600 years after Christ except one which Ruffinus followed if the article of Christs buriall were mentioned then that of his descending into Hell was omitted and if his descending into Hell were mentioned then his buriall is omitted which argues that the antients did take these two viz. Christs buriall and his descending into Hell to import but one thing or to differ but very little and therefore thought it sufficient to mention either the one or the other It is most evident that the Hebrew word Sheol and so the Greeke Hades which Psal 16. and Acts 2. are rendred Hell are often taken for the grave Some of the Romanists deny that Sheol is ever so used but Genebrard who was sometimes Hebrew Professour at Paris doth confesse that they are in an errour and there are many places of Scripture to convince them Gen. 42. 38. If mischiefe befall him c. you shall bring down my gray haires with sorrow to Sheol i. e. the grave For to what Hell else should gray haires goe down So Gen. 44. 29. and 31. and 1 King 2. 6. And Iob. 17. 13. If I waite Sheol is mine House that is the grave as appeares v. 14. I have said to corruption thou art my Father and to the worme thou art my Mother and Sister So Psal 141. 7. Our bones lie scattered at the mouth of Sheol i. e. the grave So Genebrard upon the place expounds it juxta Sepulchrum i. e. by the grave whereas the vulgar Latine hath it secus infernum neare Hell But what Hell except the grave should dead mens bones lie scattered by So in many other places and in all these places the Greeke version hath Hades so that Bellarmine needed not to have made so strange a matter of it as hee doth that Henry Stephen in his great Thesaurus should say that Hades may be taken for the grave neither had he cause to say that Stephen could finde no Authour that did use the word in that sense I have not now Stephens Thesaurus to looke into but sure I am that a man of farre lesse reading then Stephen was of might have alledged many examples to that purpose And for the Hebrew word Sheol Genebrard
of everlasting fire All these Expositions Bellarmine relates and confutes as justly he may that being indeed the true Exposition which hee embraceth but doth not extend farre enough viz. that by fire is meant Gods Severe and just judgement whereby the workes of all must be tried as it were by fire though the Apostle there speake peculiarly of Ministers and of their Doctrine and so as it were by fire shall they be saved that adhere to the foundation Christ though their workes be found like wood hay and stubble vaine and unprofitable so that they suffer losse in that respect as having no reward nor benefit of those workes Now whereas the Marquesse saith that Austine interprets this place of Purgatory in his commentary upon Psal 37. I answer it is true Austine there doth cite or rather glance at this place and expound it as meant de emendatorio igne of a purging fire and saith that this fire is more grievous then any thing that a man can suffer in this life But besides what hath beene cited before out of Austine if Hypognosticon be his which Bellarmine thinkes not though hee saith the work is learned and profitable and done by some antient Authour but besides that I say Austine in his most elaborate peece de Civit. Dei handling this place of the Apostle shewes himselfe altogether unresolved whether there be any Purgatory fire after this life is ended Whether saith he they finde the fire of transitory tribulation burning up those secular affections which yet do not bring damnation there only in the other World or both there and here or therefore here that they may not find them there I do not gainesay because perhaps it is true Here we see Austine taking the point into consideration had no more then a perhaps hee was farre from being assured of that which they call Purgatory Bollarmine pointing at that place of Austine but not citing the words saith that Austine there doth onely doubt whether Purgatory fire be the same in substance with Hell-fire of which it is said Mat. 25. Depart into everlasting fire But it was his policy to conceale Austines words for all that have any view of them must needs see that he doubts whether there be any Purgatory fire in the World to come So the same Father in his Enchiridion which it seemes he wrote when he was old speakes as doubtfully as may be of Purgatory That there is some such thing also after this life is not incredible and whether it be so may be inquired But whether it be found or lie hid that some faithfull ones are so much the later or the sooner saved by a certaine Purgatory fire by how much they did more or lesse love these good things that perish yet not any such as of whom it is said that they shall not possesse Gods Kingdome Here hee makes it a question whether it be so or no and the most that hee saith is That it is not incredible which is farre from asserting it as a thing that ought to be believed Bellarmine saith that Austine here only doubts whether after this life soules be burnt with the fire of griefe for the losse of temporall things as here they use to be when they are forced to want things which they most desire But besides that the words of Austine which here also Bellarmine did prudently omit doe plainly refuse this glosse there is no sense at all that I can see in it For how should soules after this life grieve for the losse of temporall things Is there any use of temporall things after this life is ended How then should Austine make it a question whether soules in the other World are grieved and even burnt with griefe for the losse of these things which could doe them no good if they had them But againe in the preceding Chapter of the same Book Austine treating of this place 1 Cor. 3. 13 14 15. saith that the fire which the Apostle speaketh of must so be understood as that both passe through it both he that upâ—â— the foundation buildes Gold and Silver and pretious stones and hee that buildes wood hay and stubble and this hee clearly proves by the words of the Apostle Now this doth quite exclude Purgatory from being the fire there mentioned For they will not have Purgatory to touch him that buildes Gold and Silver and pretious Stones but onely him that buildes wood and hay and stubble Austine therefore makes this fire that the Apostle writes of to be tribulation and saith that a man is said to be saved yet as it were by fire because the losse of those things which hee loloved doth burne him with griefe yet nor subvert nor consume him because he is strongly fixed upon the foundation And this may suffice for Austines testimony which is objected against us The next is Ambrose who indeed saith that the Apostle in those words yet so as by fire doth shew that such a man shall be saved yet so as that he shall suffer the paines of fire that being purged by fire he may be saved and not as they that are perfidious be for ever tormented with everlasting fire Here hee interprets the Apostle indeed as speaking of a Purgatory fire but yet it doth not appeare that he meant it of a Purgatory after this life For notwithstanding any thing that I yet see to the contrary hee may be understood of the fire of affliction with which God doth purge his people here that so they may not perish hereafter 1 Cor. 11. 32. The same Authour if yet the same for many thinke that those Commentaries upon Paules Epistles are not Ambroses and that not without cause as Bellarmine judgeth in the other place that is pointed at as by the Marquesse so also by Bellarmine viz. Serm. 20. in Psal 118. toucheth upon the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 3. but how our adversaries can gaine any thing by him I cannot see Take heed saith hee thou doe not bring with thee wood or stubble which the fire may burne up 〈◊〉 Gods judgement Take heed lest being approved in one or two things thou bring that which in more workes doth offend If any ones worke shall be burnt he shall suffer losse yet he also may be saved by fire Whence it is gathered that the same man is in part saved and in part condemned Here Ambrose himselfe sufficiently shewes that hee speakes of the fire of Gods judgement whereof hee makes expresse mention Neither can he meane any such Purgatory as our adversaries plead for seeing hee speakes of that which shall befall a man at the last judgement for immediately before hee brings in that of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 10. We must all appeare before the judgement seate of Christ c. and then addes that before cited Take heed thou bring not with thee unto Gods Iudgement wood stubble c. Now when the day
there being 33. Chapters of that Booke which of them is meant wee cannot tell Neither is it much worth the inquiry for Erasmus shewes that Booke to be none of Austines in that the Authour inserts some verses out of Boetius who was long after Austine Besides other reasons which hee giveth yet Bellarmine asserting Austine to be the Authour of the Booke takes no notice of the reasons alledged against it though hee confesse that some doe doubt of it In the other place of Austine which is pointed at I finde indeed that hee doth cite the words of S. Iames but yet so as that our adversaries gaine litle by it For hee referreth those words of anointing with Oile c. unto bodily health and so inveigheth against those that by Charmes and Spels and the like superstitious and ungodly practices bring upon themselves manifold miseries Now bodily health is a thing which the Romanists have no respect unto in their Unction but use it directly for the good of the Soule even as they doe Baptisme and the Lords Supper And this also takes off the testimony of Chrysostome who shewing what benefit people have by Ministers or as hee calles them Priests saith that Parents cannot prevent so much as the bodily destruction of their children nor keepe off a Disease when it seizeth on them but these doe often preserve people alive when they are even ready to die and sometimes mitigate their paine and sometimes keepe them from being ill at all not onely by the helpe of their Doctrine and admonition but also of their prayers And then hee cites that Iam. 5. Is any sick among you Let him send for the Elders c. All this is nothing to the Romish Unction for besides that Chrysostome doth not at all speake of Priests anointing but of their teaching admonishing and praying and in this respect doth bring in the words of S. Iames besides this I say it is directly a corporall benefit which hee insisteth on as freedome from sicknesse mitigation of paine deliverance from Death and therefore that which hee saith makes nothing for extreme Unction which they of the Church of Rome say was instituted of God to this end that wee departing out of this mortall life may have a more ready way to Heaven And therefore they call it the Sacrament of such as goe out of this World What is this Sacrament then concerned in the words of Chrysostome who speakes onely of preserving life and health here in this World In the last place Venerable Bede is alledged But 1. Hee is against them in this as I have shewed before that he makes Marke and Iames to speake both of one and the same thing whereas diverse of them both say and prove that Marke doth not speake of Sacramentall Unction 2. By Elders Bede understandeth Elders in respect of age And hee saith expressely and alledgeth also Pope Innocentius for it that not onely Presbyters but also all Christians may use this Oile and anoint with it when either they or any belonging unto them have neede Which is enough to prove that he doth not make this Unction a Sacrament as they of the Church of Rome doe For saith Bellarmine it is of the essence of the Sacrament of extreme Unction that the Minister of it be a Priest and if a lay man doe anoint any it is of no force Yea the Councell of Trent sayes If any one shall say that not only a Priest is the proper Minister of extreme Vnction let him be anathema What doe they say to Bede then and to Innocentius whom Bede citeth They answer that Innocentius and Bede speak not of him that is to administer the Unction but of him that is to receive it But this is a very violent and forced interpretation and such as Bedes words will not admit For hee having said It is the custome of the Church that they that are weak should be anointed by Presbyters with consecrated Oile and by Prayer accompanying it be made whole immediately after he adds Neither only Presbyters but also as Pope Innocentius writeth all Christians may use this Oile by anointing with it either in their own or in their friends necessity It is manifest that Bede here speaketh of Christians using the Oile not so as to be anointed but so as to anoint with it and that both themselves and others as they saw cause 3. Bede also as appeares by his words even now cited makes this anointing with Oile which he saith the Church did use in his time to have reference to the body and the health of it neither doth he speak any thing of any spirituall effect that it should have upon the soule And thus also it appeares that he doth not speake of the Sacrament of extreme Vnction Cassander also confesseth that in the Church of Rome they have now departed from antiquity 1. In this that in more antient times they did not use as now they do to defer this anointing untill life were even in extreme danger and there was no hope of recovery 2. In this that antiently they used after this anointing if there were danger to receive the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood whereas now they have no such custome Yea the Carechisme of the Councell of Trent saith that before extreme Vnction the Sacrament of Penance and of the Eucharist is to be administred and that this is the perpetuall custome of the Catholike Church which is directly contrary to that which Cassander affirmeth But this I hope may be enough to shew that the Romish Sacrament of extreme Vnction hath no support either from the Scriptures or from the antient Fathers The Marquesse having waded thorough all the forementioned parts of controversie and as he supposeth proved the Scriptures to be on their side now sings as it were an Epinicion or a song of victory saying Thus most sacred Sir we have no reason to wave the Scriptures Umpirage so that you will hear it speak in the Mother language c. But how litle the Scriptures Umpirage doth favour them of the Church of Rome let the Reader judge by what hath been said on both sides the Scripture being understood in that sense which it selfe doth make out and to which also the antient Fathers and Doctors have subscribed which I suppose the Marquesse doth mean by the Scriptures Mother-language As for the Church of Rome it hath long shewed it selfe the Scriptures step-mother keeping it shut up in an unknown tongue or not permitting Christians the liberty to make use of it excepting such as can obtain a speciall dispensation for it yea in many things going directly contrary to the Scripture and even in a manner casting off the authority of it Here presently after the Marquesse brings in the saying of Austine Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae authoritas commoveret I should not beleeve the Gospel it selfe unlesse I were moved by the
And although this doth not justifie Luther as I do not desire to defend him or any man in that wherein he is to be condemned yet it might make his opposers the more mild that Eusebius and Hierome of old do shew that the authority of this Epistle was some while doubted of and Cardinal Cajetane Luthers contemporarie did somewhat scruple at it and so did he also argue against the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews Some also say that Erasmus censures this Epistle of James as not savouring of Apostolical authority But in that Edition which I have of Erasmus his notes upon the New Testament I finde no such censure but that he would not have us contend about the Author but to iâ— brace the matter acknowledging the Holy Ghost to be the Author of it This advice is worthy to be followed by Protestants as well as Papists 5. Luther is taxed for saying That Moses in his writings sheweth unpleasant stopped and angry lips in which the word of grace is not but of wrath death and sinne And that hee calls him a Gapler executioner and a cruel Serjeant This doth Mr. Breerley object against Luther and I grant that Luther indeed hath those words tom 3. in Psal 45. But he speaks of Moses onely as contradistinct to Christ as a meer Law-giver For the Law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ Joh. 1. 17. So Moses his ministration was the ministration of death 2 Cor. 3. 7. and the ministration of condemnation v. 9. The Law simply considered doth convince of sinne and condemn for sinne For by the Law is the knowledge of sinne Rom. 3. 20. And it saith Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. Now no man doth or can perform this and therefore saith the Apostle there as many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse And so the Law worketh wrath Rom. 4. 15. This is not through any fault of the Law but by reason of sinne which is a transgression of the Law 1 Joh. 3. 4. and so makes liable to the curse and condemnation which by the Law belongs to those that transgresse The Law saith Ambrose is not wrath but it worketh wrath that is punishment to him that sinneth in that it doth not pardon sin but revenge it And again The glory of Moses his countenance saith he had not the fruit of glory in that it did not profit any but rather hurt though not through its own fault but through the fault of those that sinne This is spoken of the Law as it stands in opposition to the Gospel wherein reconciliation and salvation through Christ is set forth And in this sense only did Luther speak of Moses as himself expresly sheweth 6. The Marquesse addes that for Luther's doctrine he holds a threefold Divinity or three kinds as there are three Persons For proof of this only Zuinglius is cited But Luther and he being such adversaries their testimonies one against the other are of small force Had any such thing been in Luthers writings the Romanists themselves I doubt not would have found it out and not have referred us only to Zuinglius for it Luther on Genes 1. doth expressely speak of three Persons but one Divinity as being the same in all the three Persons 7. That Luther is angry with the word Trinity calling it a humane invention and a thing that soundeth very coldly The place alledged I have not opportunity to examine but thus much I say that Luther believing the thing viz. that there are three Divine Persons as I have shewed immediately before I see not why he should dislike the word Trinity 8. That he justistifies the Arrians and saith they did very well in expelling the word Homousion being a word that his soule hated Thus also Duraeus and before him Campian and before them both Bellarmine chargeth Luther with saying that his soule did hate the word Homousion which the Orthodox Fathers used to shew against the Arrians the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father But they wrong Luther as their manner is For he doth not say that his soul did hate that word but that if his soul did hate it and he would not use it yet he should not be a heretick so that he did hold the thing signified by the word which the Fathers in the Nicene Councel did determine by the Scriptures He speaks thus in respect of the Papists who will not be content with Scripture-terms but will invent terms of their own to pervert the sense of Scriptures As Latomus against whom he writes would not call Concupiscence sinne as the Apostle cals it but a punishment of sinne Hereupon Luther I think went too far concerning the word Homousion though not so far as his Romish adversaries do charge him He saith that this word used in confutation of the Arrians is not to be objected against him For that many and those most excellent men did not receive it and that Hierome wished it were abolished And that although the Arrians did erre in the faith yet they did well however to require that a profane and new word might not be used in rules of faith For that the sincerity of Scripture is to be preserved and man is not to presume to speak either more clearly or more sincerely then God hath spoken I confesse that Luther in this seemeth to me to exceed as men are apt to do in favour of that cause which they prosecute But yet it appears that he was sound in the faith and did not comply with the Arrians who opposed the word Homousion not so much for the new invention as for the signification of it Mr. Breerly who hath also this charge against Luther as indeed he hath most of that which the Marquesse objecteth against Protestant Divines cites Luther against Latomus in the Edition of Wittembergh 1551. and saith that the latter Editions are altered and corrupted by Luthers Scholars as he had shewed he saith the like before viz. concerning that place where Luther they say did speak so reprochfully of S. James his Epistle But 1. This is not like the other For here he saith Luthers works were altered by his Scholars but there he saith they were altered by his adversaries 2. As I have shewed the other to be improbable so also is this For Luther died anno 1546. so that the Edition which was anno 1551. was five years after Luthers death and surely by that time Luthers Scholars had leisure enough to make such an alteration as Mr. Breerly speaks of in Luthers works if they had been so minded I cannot therefore but take this as a trick of Mr. Breerley's when he saw Campians quotation of Luther confuted by Dr. Whitaker to pretend some former Edition of
Civil Magistrate onely not allowing him power over the conscience This indeed is Christs prerogative and in this respect Christians are to be subject only unto Christ Ye are boâ—ght with a price be ye not the servants of men I Cor. 7. 23. We must indeed be subject to the higher power for conscience sake Rom. 13. 5. but that is because God who is Lord over the conscience doth command it so that it is not the Magistrates power but Gods only that doth reach the conscience 22. That the Husband in case the Wife refuse his bed may say unto her If thou wilt not another will if the Mistresse will not let the Maid come This being objected by Campian Dr. Whitaker answers that Luther counselled the Husband to speak thus to the Wife in terrorem so as thereby to affright her out of her obstinacie Yet he acknowledgeth that Luther in point of Divorce went too far and that he was not willing to plead for him Neither will I in any thing wherein he is justly taxed As I confesse he is in the two next particulars that follow which also concern the same subject if he did indeed assert those things which are alledged 23. That Polygamie is no more abrogated then the rest of Moses law and that it is free as being neither commanded nor forbidden Two places in Luthers Works are here quoted to make good this charge one whereof I cannot find but the other I meet with though not of that Edition indeed which is expressed and find that which is quite contrary to this here objected Luther commenting on Gen. 16. where Abraham by the advice of Sarah being barren took Hagar for his Concubine saith that Polygamie was then in use and so Abraham might of himself following the custome of the times have taken another wife but yet would not do it till Sarah did put him upon it And from this fact of Abraham he saith we must not frame an example as if we might do the like And that though the Old Testament did permit Polygamie yet now in the New Testament it is otherwise So that Luther so far as I find was far from making polygamie a thing indifferent and free for any that have a minde to it 24. That it is no more in his power to be without a woman then it is in his power to be no man and that it is more necessary then to eat drink purge or blow his nose Luther here speaks of himself and what his power was in this particular that he speaks of he had best cause to know Indeed Mr. Breerly together with these words cites some other sayings of Luther wherein he seems to speak generally of all as being altogether unable to contain from women And to this effect also the Marquesse here immediately after cites some words of Luther in Latine saying that not any of his English shall be accessory to the transportation of such a blast into his native language But it is usual with them of the Church of Rome to pervert if not the words yet the meaning of their adversaries and especially of Luther and Calvin against whom they bear the greatest hatred Candor and ingenuity would easily conceive that Luther spake in that manner of men as for most part they are viz. not having the gift of continencie which comparatively but few have Luthers own words as Mr. Breerly himself doth cite them sufficiently declare his meaning The young woman saith he that hath not this high gift of continencie can no more want a husband or a man then she can want meat drink sleep c. 25. Luther saith the Marquesse saith How can a man prepare himself to good seeing it is not in his power to make his wayes evil For God worketh the wicked work in the wicked One of Luthers books wherein he is said to speak thus I finde among his Works viz. de servo arbit But the Edition being diverse from this here mentioned I cannot finde the words that are objected If Luther have these words I doubt not but by the circumstances of the place it will appear that he was free from charging God foolishly however that expression seem harsh That God worketh the wicked work in the wicked Yet in some sense this may be affirmed For a wicked work may be considered as a work and as wicked As a work so it is from God who is the supreme cause of every thing that hath any entity or being in it But it is not from God as it is wicked for so it imports defect and therefore is not to be ascribed unto God who cannot any way be defective but it is to be imputed onely to the creature But though God be not the author of mens wicked works as they are wicked yet is he the orderer and disposer of them And thus Luther might well say It is not in mans power to make his wayes evill viz. so as he himself will but as God will who permitteth restraineth ordereth and disposeth mans waves as he pleaseth Thus as the Prophet saith The way of man is not in himself neither is it in man that walketh to direct his steps Jer. 10. 23. Bellarmine himselfe doth tell us That God by his wonderful power doth rule the hearts even of the wicked and doth restrain them so that they cannot effect endeavour will or think otherwise then be doth permit and doth turn their fault into their punishment and being both most powerful and most good doth use their evil wills for the accomplishing of much good And hee cites Augustine saying That God doth not make mens wills evill but hee maketh use of them as he pleaseth But the Cardinal speaks yet more fully God saith he doth not onely permit the wicked to do many evill things but also is president over their evill wils and doth rule and govern them yea wrest and bend N B by working invisibly in them so that although they be evill through their owne fault yet by the divine providence not positively but permissively they are ordered to one evill rather then to another This expression which Bellarmine here useth of Gods wresting and bending the wils of wicked men in their wicked designs is I think as high as any that either Luther or Calvin do use of whom yet the Romanists and amongst them Bellarmine himselfe complains as making God the authour of sinne though they disclaim and abhor the Position as much as they that are so invective against them Before the Marquesse hath fully done with Luther he hath by the way a fling at Zuinglius saying that he denies all Pauls Epistles to be sacred But in the place cited I finde it otherwise Zuinglius doth not deny all Pauls Epistles to be sacred yea he saith expresly that he doth not deny this onely he saith that Paul then when he wrote did not attribute so much to his Epistles
Testament was but should be performed in every place as well in one place as another This is that which our Saviour said to the Woman of Samaria Woman believe me the houre commeth when ye shall neither in this Mountaine nor yet at Ierusalem worship the Father The houre commeth and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth c. Joh. 4. 21 23. S. Paul also to the same purpose I will therefore that men pray every where lifting up holy hands c. 1 Tim. 2. 8. This is that incense and pure offering which the Prophet Malachy said should be offered unto God in every place This incense and pure Offering are the prayers of the Saints Revel 5. 8. And all spirituall sacrifices which Christians offer acceptable unto God thorough Iesus Christ 1 Pet. 2. 5. What is this to prove that Christ is truly and properly sacrificed in the Eucharist It is true the Fathers sometimes apply that place of Malachy to the Sacrament of the Eucharist but not as if Christ were there in that Sacrament truly and properly sacrificed nor as if that place concerned this Sacrament more then any other spirituall worship now to be performed under the new Testament Irenaeus in one Chapter applies it to the Sacrament and in the very next immediately after hee applies it to Prayer Having cited the words of Malachy In every place incense is offered to my Name and a pure offering immediately hee addes Now Iohn in the Revelation saith that incense are the Prayers of the Saints So also Hierome in his commentary upon the words of Malachy Now the Lord directs his speech to the Iewish Priests who offer the Blind and the Lame and the sick for sacrifice that they may know that spirituall sacrifices are to succeed carnall sacrifices And that not the blood of Buls and Goates but incense that is the Prayers of the Saints are to be offered unto the Lord and that not in one province of the world Iudea nor in one City of Iudea Hierusalem but in every place is offered an offering not impure as was offered by the people of Israel but pure as is offered in the ceremonies or services of Christians Here it is very observable that Hierome writing professedly upon the place of the Prophet to shew the meaning of it was so far from thinking it to be peculiarly meant of the Eucharist that hee doth not so much as mention that Sacrament otherwise then it is comprehended in those spirituall sacrifices which hee saith are here spoken of but as hee saith that spirituall sacrifices in generall are here signified so particularly hee applieth the words of the Prophet unto prayer saying that it is the incense which the Prophet speaketh of The other place of Scripture viz. Luke 22. 19. is as little to the purpose though Bellarmine also doth alledge and urge it in the same manner saying that Christ did not say Vobis datur frangitur effunditur sed pro vobis is given broken shed to you but for you But what of this Wee know and believe that Christs Body was given and his Blood shed for us on the crosse in remembrance whereof according to Christs institution wee receive the Sacrament but doth it therefore follow that Christ is properly offered and sacrificed in the Sacrament The ground of this conceit is that the word is in the present tense datur is given not in the future dabitur shall be given But this is too weake a foundation to build upon For Bellarmine cannot deny but that in the Scripture the present or the preter tense is often put for the future And well might it be so here Christ being now ready to be offered he instituting the Sacrament the same night that he was betrayed 1 Cor. 11. 23. the night before hee suffered And therefore Cardinall Cajetan was much more ingenuous then Cardinall Bellarmine For upon 1 Cor. 11. 23. he notes that both the Evangelists and also Paul relating the words of the institution of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper use the present tense is given or broken and is shed because when Christ did institute the Sacrament though his Body was not yet crucified nor his Blood shed yet the crucifying of his Body and the shedding of his Blood was at hand and in a manner present Yea the time of Christs suffering hee saith was then present as being then begun And therefore as when the day is begun wee may signifie in the present tense whatsoever is done that day so the day of Christs Passion being begun the Jewes beginning the day at the Evening all his Passion might be signified by a word of the present tense The present being taken Gramatically not for an instant but for a certaine time confusedly present The ancient Writers also have expounded the present tense used in the words of the institution by the future Heare Christ himselfe saith Origen saying unto thee This is my Blood which shall be shed c. So also Tertullian rehearseth Christs words thus This is my Body which shall be given for you And even the vulgar Latine Translation Mat. 26. 28. Mar. 14. 24. hath it in the future tense effundetur and so Luke 22. 20. fundetur shall be shed and 1 Cor. 11. 24. tradetur shall be given Now for the Fathers whom the Marquesse alledgeth as being of their opinion I answer the Fathers indeed doe frequently use the word sacrifice and offering when they speake of the Eucharist but it doth not therefore follow that according to their opinion there is a true and proper sacrifice offered in the Eucharist For it is certaine that they doe also frequently use the same words when they speake of those things which the Romanists themselves acknowledge to be no sacrifices properly so called even as the Scripture speaketh of the sacrifice of Prayer Psal 141. 2. of praise Heb. 13. 15. of Almes Heb. 13. 16. of our own selves Rom. 12. 1. And where the Fathers as the Marquesse observeth call the Eucharist an unbloodly sacrifice they sufficiently shew that properly Christ is not sacrificed in it For as Bellarmine himselfe doth tell us All sacrifices properly so called that the Scriptures speake of were to be destroyed and that by staying if they were things having life and if they were solid things without life as fine Floure Salt and Frankincense they were to be destroyed by burning Besides I have shewed before by the testimony of Lombard that the Fathers sometimes expressely speake of Christs being sacrificed in the Eucharist in that there is a commemoration and remembrance of the sacrifice which Christ upon the crosse did offer for us Bellarmine objects that Baptisme doth represent the death of Christ and yet none of the ancients doe ever call Baptisme a sacrifice and therefore the representation of Christs death alone could not be the cause why they call the Lords Supper a
sacifice I answer doubtlesse Bellarmines reading was sufficient to informe him that diverse ancient Writers call Baptisme a sacrifice Oecumenius upon Heb. 10. 26. saith that the meaning of those words there remaineth no more sacrifice for sinnes is that there is no second Baptisme to be expected For by sacrifice hee saith is there meant the crosse Christs Sacrifice on the crosse and Baptisme wherein that sacrifice is represented After the same manner and almost the same words writeth Theophylact upon that place to the Hebrewes Estius also upon the place saith that Chrysostome and his followers by sacrifice there understand either Baptisme or rather the death of Christ as it doth operate in Baptisme And Melchior Canus affirmes that most of the ancients did call Baptisme a sacrifice saying that there remaines no sacrifice for sinne because Baptisme cannot be repeated And he gives this reason why they spake so viz. because in Baptisme we die together with Christ and the sacrifice of the crosse by this Sacrament is applyed unto us for full forgivenesse of sinnes Therefore saith he by a metaphore they called Baptisme a sacrifice and said that after Baptisme there remaineth no sacrifice because there is no second Baptisme Thus then it may sufficiently appeare that there is nothing either in the Scriptures or in the Fathers to prove that in the Eucharist Christ is offered up unto the Father a sacrifice properly so called but that both Scriptures and Fathers are against it In the next place VVe say saith the Marquesse that the Sacrament or Orders confers grace upon those on whom the hands of the Presbytery are imposed you both deny it to be a Sacrament notwithstanding the holy Ghost is given unto them thereby and also you deny that it confers any interior grace at all upon them VVe have Scripture for what we hold viz. 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by prophecy and with laying on the hands of the Presbytery So 2 Tim. 1. 6. Stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands S. Aug. lib. 4. Quaest. super Num. S. Cypr. Epist ad Magnum Optat. Milevit the place beginneth Ne quis miretur Tertull. in Praescript the place beginneth Edant origines Answ That Orders or the Ordination of Ministers is a Sacrament truly and properly so called of the same nature with Baptisme and the Lords Supper they of the Church of Rome do hold and the Councell of Trent hath denounced Anathema against such as deny it Protestants on the other side though they doe not deny but that the name of Sacrament largely taken may be given to Ordination yet they deny that it is a Sacrament in that sense as Baptisme and the Lords Supper are Sacraments A Sacrament properly so called as the name is attributed to Baptisme and the Lords Supper is a Signe and Seale of the covenant of Grace confirming unto us that Christ is ours and we his that in him we are justified and through him shall be saved Thus circumcision was a Sacrament in the time of the old Testament a token of the Covenant betwixt God and his people Gen. 17. 11. a Seale of the righteousnesse of Faith Rom. 4. 11. So now is Baptisme Mat. 28. 19. Acts 22. 16. And so the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. 24 25. But thus Ordination is not a Sacrament not serving to signifie and seale the covenant of Grace as Baptisme and the Lords Supper doe Bellarmine saith that Calvin doth acknowledge Ordination to be a true Sacrament But Calvin so grants it to be a Sacrament as that he plainly shewes it to be no such Sacrament as Baptisme and the Lords Supper are As for the true office of a Presbyter or Elder saith hee which is commended unto us by the mouth of Christ I willingly account it a Sacrament For there is a ceremony first taken from the Scriptures and then also such as Paul doth testifie not to be empty and superfluous but a faithfull token and pledge of spirituall grace But presently after hee addes Christ hath promised the grace of the holy Ghost not for the expiating of sins but for the right governing of the Church Thus much also is yeelded by Chemnitius whom yet Bellarmine would make to dissent from Calvin There is saith hee a promise added that God will give grace and gifts whereby they who are lawfully called may rightly faithfully and profitably performe and execute those things which belong unto the Ministery Joh. 20. Receive the holy Ghost And afterwards againe This serious prayer saith hee used in the Ordination of Ministers because it builds upon Gods Precept and Promise is not in vaine And this is that which Paul saith The gift which is in thee by the laying on of hands Hee addes immediately If ordination be thus understood viz. of the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments the Apology of the confession at Auspurge hath long agoe declared what our Churches hold viz. that we are not unwilling to call Order a Sacrament And there it is added neither will we stick to call Laying on of hands a Sacrament For we have shewed before that the word Sacrament is of a large acception Thus Chemnitius whereby it may appeare that neither doth he dissent as Bellarmine pretends he doth from Melancthon the Author of the Apology of the confession at Auspurge though I have not now liberty to consult that Author And thus also it appeares that though Protestants deny Ordination to be a Sacrament of the same nature with Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord and that justifying and saving grace is either conferred or confirmed by it yet they doe not deny but that it may be called a Sacrament and that some interiour grace is conferred by it and that because of those very words of the Apostle which our Adversaries stand upon the gift that is in thee by the laying on of hands But Bellarmine will easily prove he saith that Ordination is a true Sacrament For saith hee the grace that is promised unto it is no common gift as Prophecy or the gift of Tongues but justifying Grace And this he proves by that Ioh. 20. Receive yee the holy Ghost For that gift which may be in the ungodly is never hee saith in the Scriptures called absolutely the holy Ghost He addes also that the gift spoken of 2 Tim. 1. 6. viz. which was given to Timothy in his Ordination was the spirit of love and of power and of a sound minde as it followes vers 7. I answer the places alledged doe not prove that justifying grace is promised or by promise annexed unto Ordination For 1. It is not true that the gift which may be in the wicked is never in the Scripture called the holy Ghost For Acts 19. 6. it is said of some that when Paul laid his hands upon them the holy Ghost came on them