of Reprobation as the good merit of Election 2. To that question Is there unrighteousnesse with God he doth not answer that therefore there is not because the whole lumpe is depraved by sinne c. but he answers so as that he refers as well the Reprobation of these as the election of those unto the sole Will of God and so represses the curious inquirer O man who art thou c. 3. That comparison of a Potter of the same lumpe making one vessell unto honour and another unto dishonour doth exclude the supposition of a corrupt lumpe For here verily is nothing supposed in the lumpe but that it is indifferent and may be fashioned both the one way and the other Thus this learned Papist goes as farre in the point both of Election and of Reprobation as any Protestant that I know whatsoever Neither would he have us thinke that he goes alone for hee cites many as Lombard Hugo de S. Victore Aquinas Cajetan Lyra Titleman and Pererius as being of the same opinion with him and interpreting the words of the Apostle in the same manner And this I suppose may suffice to vindicate the Doctrine of Protestants even such as goe highest in this point as touching Reprobation Now for the Scriptures objected against us the first viz. Wis 1. 13. is not Canonicall Hierome brandes that booke called the the Wisdome of Solomon as falsly intituled and saith that it is no where to be found among the Hebrewes to whom the Oracles of God were committed Rom. 3. 2. and that the style doth smell of Greeke eloquence and that some ancient writers affirme it to be the worke of Philo a Jew Therefore saith he as the Church doth read indeed the Bookes of Judith Tobie and the Maccabees but doth not receive them amongst the Canonicall Scriptures so also doth it reade these two volumes viz. Ecclesiasticus and the wisdome of Solomon for the edifying of the people but not for the confirming of Ecclesiasticall Doctrines But suppose it were Canonicall the place alledged is answered to our hand by one of the Roman Church viz. Alvarez when it is said God made not death the meaning hee saith is that God doth not primarily of it selfe intend the death of any but in respect of some other great good that is joyned with it And againe that place hee saith is expounded of death in respect of the cause to wit sinne These expositions of the place doe free the Doctrine of Protestants from suffering any prejudice by it were the authority of it greater then indeed it is The next place is that 1 Tim. 2. 4. Who will have all men to be saved c. Austine gives diverse interpretations of those words First thus that the meaning is that God will have all to be saved that are saved and that none but such as hee will save can bee saved Secondly this that by all men are meant men of all sorts how ever distinguished Kings and private persons noble and ignoble c. This hee shewes to be agreeable both to the Context and also to the phrase of Scripture Luke 11. 42. You tithe Mint and Rue and every Herbe i. e. every kinde of Herbe This latter exposition of the Apostles words Alvarez saith is also followed by Fulgentius Beda and Anselme The same Alvarez relates two other interpretations which Austine gives of these words viz. first this God will have all men to be saved that is hee makes men to will or desire that all may be saved as the Spirit is said to make intercession for us Rom. 8. 26. that is makes us to make intercession or supplication c. Estius upon the place doth embrace this Exposition before any other VVho will have all men to be saved that is saith hee He willeth and maketh godly men to desire the salvation of all Though God will not save all but onely the Elect yet he will have all to be saved to wit by us as much as in us lies in that he commands us to seek the salvation of all and this desire and indeavour he workes in us This Exposition wee embrace rather then any of the rest The other Exposition which Alvarez relates is that the Apostle speakes of Gods antecedent will Thus hee saith Austine doth expound it in diverse places and for this Exposition hee also cites Damascene Prosper Theophylaot Oecumenius Aquinas as also Chrysostome and Ambrose and saith that it is common among the Doctors Now in the next Disputation hee tels us that Gods antecedent Will is that which respects the object simply considered and by it selfe and that this will is called antecedent not because it goes before the good or ill use of our will as some thinke but because it goes before that will whereby God respects the object considered with some adjunct which is the consequent and latter consideration of it If saith hee the salvation of the Reprobate be considered simply by it selfe so God doth will it but if it be considered as it hath adjoyned the privation or want of a greater good to wit the universall good of manifesting Gods Iustice in the Reprobate and of causing his Mercy the more to shine forth in the Elect so God doth not will it And in this respect were affirmed that God by a consequent will doth not will that all shall be saved but only such as are predestinate Now take any of all these foure Explications of the Apostles words wherein hee saith that God will have all men to be saved as for my part I like best either the second or the last take any of them I say and the Apostles words are nothing against that which Protestants hold concerning Reprobation As for that of Peter that God is not willing that any should perish 2 Pet. 3. 9. Bellarmine himselfe expounds both it and the former place viz. 1 Tim. 2. 4. of that Will of God which Divines call Gods Antecedent will Now what that Antecedent will of God is we have seene even now out of Alvarez if Bellarmine did understand it otherwise as Alvarez notes that some did hee is confuted by Alvarez in the place above cited Where hee also cites Austine saying Many are not saved not because they will not but because God will not which without all controversie is manifested in young children whence he inferrs that the condition which is included in Gods Antecedent will whereby he will have all men to be saved is not this if they will and if they doe not hinder it And Bellarmine himselfe also though he say It is most true that all are not saved because they will not for if they would God would not be wanting unto them Yet immediately hee addes But none can have a will to be saved except God by preventing and preparing the will make him to will it And why God doth not make all to will this who hath knowne the mind of the Lord
Certamen Religiosum OR A CONFERENCE BETWEEN The late King of ENGLAND and the late Lord Marquesse of Worcester concerning RELIGION TOGETHER WITH A VINDICATION OF THE PROTESTANT CAUSE From the Pretences of the Marquesse his Last Papers which the necessity of the KING's Affaires denyed him Oportunity to Answer LONDON Printed for W. Lee at the Turks Head in Fleet-street and R. Royston at the Angel in Ivie-lane 1651. TO THE READER COURTEOUS READER I Doe not desire by way of Preface to trouble Thee with many words but something I must crave leave to say that thou mayest the better understand the reason and nature of this ensuing worke It may be thou art not unacquainted with a Booke which now hath beene extant some years The title of it is Certamen Religiosum and it containeth in it a Conference which was held partly by word of mouth but chiefly by Writing betwixt the late King and the Marquesse of Worcester a stiffe defender of the Romish Religion To the Marquesses first Plea I speake of that which passed betwixt them in writing the King returned Answer but the Marquesse replying the Kings occasions it seemes would not permit him to rejoyne especially the Reply being so large and so thick lin'd with quotations that the perusall and examination of it would require no little time I know there are some who account this Conference no better then supposititious which reflecting upon the Publisher of it Doctor Baily he hath lately in a Preface to a Booke which hee hath set forth of his own vindicated himself and asserted the Conference For my part I know no cause to question the truth of the Relation neither as to my purpose is it much materiall whether there were any such Conference or if there were whether it were so mannaged as is related This I see that in the Booke before mentioned to wit Certamen Religiosum the Romish cause is set out in great pompe both Scriptures and Fathers being produced as asserting most of those opinions which they of the Church of Rome maintaine and we impugne and the Reader is left naked and unfurnished with any Armes and Weapons wherewith either to defend himselfe or to offend his adversary save onely as he shall be able to provide for himselfe and bring with him The first time that I heard the Booke mentioned which was about the last Spring it was spoken of as a Booke of no little danger and so I understand since diverse judge of it Yea I have heard that some have said that the Marquesse in this Reply hath done more for the Church of Rome then any have done before him When I got the Booke and looked a while into it though I saw no reason to conceive so highly of it as it seemes some have done yet I found in it I confesse much more then I expected so much as that I thought it operae pretium no mis-pent time to answer it This I have indeavoured how I have performed it is left to Thee Reader to judge The great difficulty in the undertaking did arise from the multitude of Authors that are alleged whether the Marquess himselfe did peruse these authors or tooke them upon trust from others I will not inquire much lesse determine especially considering how lax and loose the quotations are the words of the Authors being scarce once in a hundred times cited and sometimes onely the Authour named many times only the Book but no Chapter or Section mentioned In this respect it could not be expected that every allegation should receive a punctuall answer besides that as in the Rejoynder it selfe upon occasion I acknowledge sometimes for want of the Authour I had not liberty to examine what is alleged but this I presume will not be found so frequent nor yet at all prejudiciall to the maine so much still being said as may suffice to take off the force of that which is objected There is an answer already come forth to the Marquesses last Paper with which I have to deale The authour of it is a gentleman of much reading well versed in Greek and Latin writers both Ecclesiasticall and others as appears by this work which is all that I have seene of his though I hear of something else that he hath published not without great commendation I had undertaken this task before I had any intimation that another was about it and I think this of mine was at the Presse before the foresaid Answer came from it I could not confine my selfe to such narrow bounds as that Gentleman hath done in answer to the Marquesse for he hath others also besides him to deal with the reason of his concisenes is best knowne unto himselfe I have launched further into the deepe and have exspatiated more in the discussion of those points which are handled by the Marquesse yet so as that the Reader I hope will have no cause to complaine of proxility or to thinke me tedious I have divided the worke into two parts in the former part I have indeavoured to shew the ungroundednes of the Romish doctrine in those points which the Marquesse propoundeth and the repugnancy of it both to Scriptures and Fathers notwithstanding any thing he hath alleged in defence of it In the latter part I have laboured to wipe off those aspersions which the Marquesse doth cast upon diverse of our most eminent Divines and chiefe instruments in the worke of Reformation as Luther Calvin Zuing lius Melancthon and Beza partly in respect of their Doctrine and partly in respect of their conversation This the learned answerer before mentioned hath not attempted but I did not think it meete to wave it calumnies and reproches being more apt to prevaile with some then any other argument whatsoever Some points of controversie also which the Marquesse taketh occasion to bring in having not mentioned them before are insisted on in this second Part. Some perhaps may say Quorsum perditio haec What needed all this these controversies haveing bin sufficiently handled by our writers both at home and abroad long agoe I answer 'T is true they have bin so yet if the Marquesse thought it not enough that Bellarmine and many others of the Romish party have written largely in that behalfe but judged it meet to produce his own Plea I think there is as much reason why we should consider what he saith and that some answer should be given him that so none may boast as some are apt to doe in such a case that because hee is unanswered therfore he is unanswerable And besides though Nil dictum quod non dictum priùs the matter be not new yet there may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a handling of the same things in another manner yea and diverse treating of the same subject something may be found in one which is not in another But may some say there are many other great and grosse errours of late sprung up among us and these
and maintaine it to be lawfull and not onely so but the Picture of God the Father like an old man and many other things which I forbeare because I feare you have done your selfe more hurt then me good in depriving your selfe of the rest to which you are accustomed for whilst our Arguments do multiplie our time lessens to that of Saint James where it is said that faith profiteth nothing without good works I hope the Doctor here can tell you that Saint Paul saith that we are justified by Faith and not by the works of the Law Marq. Sir I believe the Doctor will neither tell Your Majestie nor me that Faith can justifie without works King That question the Doctor can soone decide what say you to it Doctor you must speak now Doctor If it may please Your Majestie it would be as great a disobedience to hold my peace now I am commanded to speak as it would have been a presumption in me to speak before I was commanded I am so far from thinking that either Faith without good works or that good works without Faith can justifie that I cannot believe that there is such a thing as either No more then I can imagine that there may be a tree bearing fruit without a root or that the Sun can be up before it be day or that a fire can have no heat for although it be possible that a man may do some good without Faith yet he cannot do good works without it for though we may naturally incline to some goodnesse as flowers and plants naturally grow to perfection Yet this good cannot be said to be wrought by us but by the hand of Faith and Faith her selfe where she is truly so can no more stand still then can the Sun in the Firmament or refuse to let her light so shine before men that they may see her good works then the same Sun can appeare in the same Firmament and dart no beams And whilst Faith and good works strive for the proprietie of Justification I do believe they both exclude a third which hath more right to our Justification then either For that which we call Justification by Faith is not properly Justification but onely an apprehension of it as that which we call Justification by good works is not properly Justification but onely a Declaration of it to be so exempli gratia I receive a pardon my hand that receiv's it doth not justifie 't is put in execution and read in open Court all this did not procure it me Doubtlesse there is a reward for the righteous doubtlesse there is a God that judgeth the Earth wherefore upon this ground of beliefe I work out my Salvation as well as I can and do all the good that lies in my power I do good works Doubtlesse this man hath some reason for what he doth it is because he hath store of Faith which believes there is a God and that that God will accept of his endeavours wherefore to him alone who hath given us Faith and hath wrought all our good works in us can we properly attribute the tearme of Justification Iustificatio apprehensiva we may conceive and beare in our hearts Iustificatio declarativa we may shew with our hands but Iustificatio Effectiva proper and effectuall Justification none can lay claim unto but Christ alone that as our sins were imputed unto Christ so his righteousnesse might be ours by imputation King Doctor I thank you in this point I believe you have reconciled us both Doctor May it please Your Majestie if the venome were taken out there is no wound in the Churches body but might soon be healed Marq. Hereat the Marquesse somewhat earnestly cryed Hold Sir You have said well in one respect but there are two wayes of Iustification in us and two without us Christ is a cause of Iustification by his grace and merits without us and so we are justified by Baptisme and we are justified by the gifts of God in us viz. Faith Hope and Charity Whereupon the King spake as quickly King But my Lord both Justifications come from Christ according to your owne saying That without us by his grace and merit that within us by his gifts and favour therefore Christ is all in all in the matter of Justification and therefore though there were a thousand wayes and meanes to our Justification yet there is but one effectuall cause and that is Christ Marq. How is it then that we are called by the Apostle Cooperarii Christo Fellow-workers together with Christ King The Doctor hath told you how already If you lie wallowing in sin and Christ helps you out your reaching of him your hand is a working together with Christ Yet for all that it cannot be said that you helped yourselfe out of the ditch for then there had been no need of Christ Your apprehending the succour that came unto you no way attributes the God have mercie to your selfe no more then the declaring your selfe to be alive by action is the cause of setting you upon your leggs so that we may divide this threefold Justification as Peter divided his three Tabernacles here is one for Moses and one for Elias I pray let us have one for Christ and let that be the chiefe Marq. And Reason good King I wish that all Controversies betwixt you and Us were as well decided I am fully satisfied in this point Doctor May it please Your Majestie A great many Controversies between us and the Papists might be soon decided if the Churches revenues which were every where taken away more or lesse where differences in Religion in severall parts of the world did arise in the Church were not an obstacle of the re-union like the stone which the Crab cast into the Oyster which hindred it from ever shutting it selfe againe like the division which happened between the Greek and Latine Church Photinus intrudes himselfe into the Patriarch-ship of Constantinople over the head of Ignatius the lawfull Patriarch thereof whom the Pope preserved in his Communion and then the difference of the Procession of the holy Ghost between those two Churches was fomented by the said Photinus lest the wound should heale too soon and the patient should not be held long enough in cure for the benefit of the Chyrurgion Sacriledge hath brought more divisions then the nature of their causes have required and the Universities play with edged tools whilst hungry stomacks run away with their meat wherefore since Your Majestie was pleased to discharge the watch that I had set before the dore of my lips I shall make bold to put Your Majestie in mind of holding my Lord to the demand which Your Majestie once made unto his Lordship concerning the true Church for if once that Question were throughly determined all Controversies not onely between Your Majestie and his Lordship but also all the Controversies that ever were started would soon be decided at a short race end and without this we
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
which she heard the Scripture expressely saying v. 14. that she knew Peters voyce On the otherside if a Heavenly Angell be there meant it seemes to imply that they supposed the Angell that garded Peter and therefore is called his Angel to represent the person of Peter and to assume his voyce which conceit seemes very uncouth However if such an Angell be there meant yet onely this can be inferred from thence that Peter had his Angell to guard him but it followes not that therefore he had an Angell proper and peculiar to himselfe and that only one certaine Angell was appointed his guardian Neither doe the Fathers that are cited so far as I can see speake home to the point in question Gregory of whom mention is first made is here so impertinently alledged that I suppose there was some oversight in it For hee speakes nothing at all of the Angels guarding men but onely of their being present at the celebration of the Eucharist which is nothing to our present purpose Athanasius who is mentioned next saith onely that there are some supercaelestiall powers qui apud homines permanent that doe abide with men and are hominum paedagogi mens instructors or governours but of particular Angels belonging to particular men hee speakes nothing Chrysostome in one place which the Marquesse quoteth speakes of the Angels being present when the Eucharist is celebrated and of their conveying to Heaven the soules of such as immediately before their death with a pure conscience received that Sacrament which hee saith one told him that saw it but to the question now agitated I finde not that hee saith any thing in that place Indeed Hom. 3. not as it is misquoted Hom. 2. in Coloss hee citeth Mat. 18. 10. and saith Every Believer hath an Angell but this doth not necessarily import that each Believer hath his peculiar Angell What Gregorious Turonensis saith whose testimony is the next wanting his works I cannot yet examine The next after him is Austine but he is mis-alledged viz. Epist ad Probam cap. 19. Whereas there are but 16. Chapters in that Epistle which is wholly about prayer and hath nothing that I finde about Angels The last witnesse is Hierome who saith indeed Great is the dignity of soules that every one from his birth hath an Angell appointed to keepe him But it doth not appeare that he thought every one to have his peculiar Angell The contrary rather appeares by that which hee addes immediatly after viz. that hereupon Iohn Revel 2. 3. was bidden to write to the Angell of Ephesus Thyatira Philadelphia and the other foure Cburches there mentioned Though Hierome doe mis-interpret the Angels there spoken of in the Revelation and therefore both hee and some others of the ancients are in this rejected by Ribera yet thereby we may perceive that he did not hold every one to have a peculiar Angell but one Angell to be for a whole Church If it be said that there by Angell he meant Angells the singular number being put for the plurall the same may be said concerning the other words which are objected But enough of this point there is more controversie about those that follow We say saith the Marquesse the Angells pray for us knowing our thoughts and deeds you deny it We have Scipture for it Zach. 1. 9 10 11 12. Then the Angell of the Lord answered and said O Lord of hostes how long wilt thou not have mercy on Ierusalem and on the Cities of Iudah against whom thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten yeares Apoc. 8. 4. And the smoak of the incense of the prayers of the Saints ascended from the hand of the Angell before the Lord. This place was so understood by Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. and S. Hilary in Psal 129. tells us This intercession of Angels Gods Nature needeth not but our infirmities doe So S. Ambrose lib. de viduis Victor Utic lib. 3. de persecut Vandal Answ Had the Marquesse onely said that the Angels know our deedes and pray for us there had beene little cause to oppose but whereas hee saith that they know our thoughts that may not bee granted the Scripture making this Gods Prerogative For thou even thou onely knowest the hearts of all the children of men 1 Kings 8. 39. Theophylact therefore upon Luke 5. 22. saith that CHRIST proved himselfe to be God by this that as it is there said hee knew mens thoughts And the same also is observed by Iansenius in his Comment upon the place For that in Zach. 1. 12. some by the Angell there spoken of understand Christ the Angel or Messenger of the Covenant as he is called Mal. 3. 1. But others understand a created Angell viz. the Angell that talked with the Prophet Zachary and thence observe that the Angels pray for the Church This seemes more probable by the words immediately following And the Lord answered the Angell that talked with me v. 13. In the other place viz. Revel 8. 4. Ribera telleth us that many thinke the Angell there mentioned to be Christ And though he dislike that Exposition yet it is more then probable by that which is said v. 3. There was given him much incense that he should offer it with the prayers of all Saints c. For what can we well understand by that incense but Christs Merit and Meditation whereby the prayers of the Saints are acceptable and well pleasing unto God For the Fathers alledged Irenaeus speaketh not either of this Angell spoken of Revel 8. 4. or at all of Angells praying for us All that he saith is that there is an altar in Heaven to which our prayers must be directed and then hee cites Iohn saying in the Revelation that the Temple and Tabernacle of God was opened but this is nothing to the point in hand Hilary is truly cited speaking of the intercession of Angels he saith that not Gods Nature but our infirmity doth stand in need of it But as I said before I see not why wee should deny that the Angels pray for us for it doth not therefore sollow that wee may pray to them which is the next point to be considered Yet I should have liked it better if Hilary had grounded himselfe upon that place of Zachary which the Marquesse produced then that hee should build upon the Booke of Tobit as also doth Ambrose Ser. 92. for I finde nothing this way in the place which the Marquesse quoteth that Booke as Hierome long agoe hath censured it being Apocryphall and of no authority for the determining of matters of this nature What the last Author saith viz. Victor Vticensis being not furnished with his Booke I cannot tell neither is there neede to inquire after him hee being alledged for no more then Hilarie and hee asserting no more then I thinke may be granted But from the angels praying for us the Marquess passeth to
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
point at takes upon him to refell that which some others answer in the behalf of Beza but never takes notice of this which Beza hath said in his own behalf But the Marquesse returns to Luther and besides other things which he objects against him but proves only by the testimony of his adversaries or by such pieces of Luthers own Works as I have not liberty to peruse he taxeth him for giving such opprobrious termes to King Henry 8. Ans It is true K. Hen. 8. having written or at least some other in his name against Luther and his Doctrine Luther did return answer so as to shew but small respect to the person against whom he wrote But afterwards Luther in an Epistle which he wrote to the King confessed his fault humbly craving pardon and offering to write a publike recantation and to do the King honour if he should require it Indeed the King not answering Luthers expectation but instead of accepting his submission setting forth another book against him with his Epistle annexed to it and insulting over him as if he had recanted his doctrine Luther made answer to this book also yet so as to abstain from those terms of contumely and reproach which before he had used only shewing that he was firm and stedfast in his doctrine yea daily more and more confirmed in it and that no mans person how great soever he were should be of any esteem with him so as to bring him to any recantation in that respect The Marquesse having censured some of the prime Doctors of the Reformed Churches falls to censure the people as being generally averse from all honesty and godlines and to this end he all eadgeth the words of Luther and some others who complain of the vitious and corrupt wayes of those that live under the pure preaching of the Gospel and he concludes How could the people be better when their Ministers were so bad Bellarmine urging also some of these testimonies proceeds so farre in his censure as to say that though among them of the Church of Rome for that he means by the Catholike Church there be many bad yet among Protestants whom after his manner he terms Hereticks there is none good and this he saith is notorious But if both Ministers and people were bad as their adversaries pretend yet might their doctrine and profession be good for all that It was the Apostles complaint in his time All seek their own not the things that are Jesus Christs Phil. 2. 21. Yet the doctrine of Jesus Christ which they preached and professed was never a whit the worse for all this though with some it might be worse accounted of In like manner the Prophets frequently complain of the people of the Jews whose Religion neverthelesse was the only true Religion in the world See Isa 1. 4 5 6. Jer. 5. 1. 2. 9. 2. c. Ezek. 22. 2. c. and so many other places And that the Protestant doctrine is not to blame what ever the Preachers and professors of it be may appear by those very testimonies which the Marquesse and other alledge For in that as they shew Ministers tax and reprove people for being so bad it argues that the doctrine delivered unto them is good though they make no good use of it But that Protestants are so universally bad as that Bellarmine should say there is none good among them is too grosse an aspersion and wondrous impudence it is to adde that this is notorious to all that know them I will only cite the testimony of Bodinus one that never withdrew himself for any thing I finde from communion with the Church of Rome He speaking of Geneva where Calvin and Beza were Ministers of the Gospel exceedingly commends the discipline there used Then which he saith nothing could be imagined greater and more divine for the restraining of mens lusts and those vices which by humane Laws and Judgements could no way be reformed Insomuch that no whoredomes no drunkennesse no dancings no beggars no idle persons are found in that City But to proceed the Marquesse in the conclusion of all that he hath in this kinde relates horrible things of Calvin in respect both of his life and death alleadging that they are written by two knowne and approved Protestant Authors One of these Authors whose words the Marquesse alleadgeth was indeed a Protestant but a great Lutheran to wit Schlusselberg and a professed adversary unto Calvin and I presume so also was the other who the Marquesse saith did write the life of Calvin and confirme that which is said by the former to wit Herennius though I have not heard of him before Mr. Breerley so far as I finde never mentions him though he make very frequent use of Schlusselberg whose words concerning Calvin here cited by the Marquesse he all eadgeth in two several places of his Apology But however Bolsecus is the man from whom at first did proceed whatsoever any have in disgrace of Calvin either for his life or death Now this Author lived some while at Geneva where Calvin was and being opposed by him it seems for some things which he could not approve he both became Calvins bitter enemy and also turned back to Popery and was a Papist at that very time when he wrote of Calvin as is confessed by Mr. Breerley who saith that therefore he doth purposely forbear to urge his testimony in which respect also it may be the Marquesse made no mention of this Author because he would not seem in this case to alleadge any of their own Church But to what porpose is it that they forbear to cite Bolsecus when as they cite those who have nothing in this kinde but from Bolsecus He was the first and for some while the only man that did traduce Calvin as concerning his life and death And therefore Bellarmine as writing before those whom Mr. Breerley and the Marquesse mention alleadgeth only Bolsecus as relating things that concerne Calvin of this nature But if Mr. Breerley and so other Romanists could think there was just cause to except against the testimonies of Benno and others concerning Pope Hildebrand called Gregory 7. alleadging that they were his adversaries and took part with the Emperour against him though yet Benno was a Cardinal and the rest were all Romanists what candour and ingenuity is there to alleadge against Calvin the testimonies of those who did professe themselves adversaries unto him Besides that Bolsecus the first deviser of these calumnies was one of their own party For the things that are objected That concerning the manner of Calvins death appears most false by what Beza hath written of it who being with Calvin at Geneva when he dyed had more cause to know the truth then Bolsecus who was removed I think from Geneva before that time And the other particular about Calvins being stigmatized is clearly