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
their owne severall Dominions practising disobedience to their Superiours they teach it to their Inferiours The greatest Unitie the Protestants have is not in believing but in not believing in knowing rather what they are against then what they are for not so much in knowing what they would have as in knowing what they would not have But let these negative Religions take heed they meet not with a negative Salvation Neither can the Conversion of Nations be attributed to any other Church then to the Roman which is another mark of the true Church according to the Prophesies of Esay cap. 49. 23. Kings shall be thy nursing fathers and Queens thy nursing mothers And Esay 60. 16. Thou shalt suck the milk of the Gentiles and the breasts of Kings shall minister unto thee And Esay 60. 10. And thy Gates shall be continually open that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentiles and that their Kings may be brought And the Iles shall doe thee service And the Prophet David I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession c. Now no Protestant Church ever converted any one Nation Kingdome or People Many Protestant people have fallen away from the Church of Rome but this cannot be called conversion but rather perversion for the Romane Church may justly say of such these have not converted Nations from paganisme to Christianity which is the mark of the true Church These are they which went forth from us 1 Joh. 2. 19. Certaine that went forth from us Act. 15. 14. These are certaine men who rise out of our selves speaking perverse things Act. 20. 30. These were they who separated themselves Iude 19. which are marks of false and hereticall Churches But the Romane Church I find stretching forth her armes from East to West receiving and imbracing all within her Communion For the first three hundred years the Church grew down-ward like a strong building whose foundations are first laid in the earth whose stones are knit together in Unity by the morter that was tempered with the blood of her ten Persecutions Afterwards this building hasting upwards Constantine the great Emperour submitting his neek unto the yoke of Christ subdued all Christian Churches to Pope Sylvester then Pope of Rome from which time to these our dayes the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the outward and visible Church as is confessed by Napier a learned Protestant in his treatise upon the Revelation pag. 145. and all along hath added Kingdomes upon Kingdoms to her Communion untill she had incorporated into her selfe not onely Europe but Asia Africa and America as Simon Lythus a Protestant writer affirmeth viz. The Jesuits have filled Asia Africa and America with their Idols as he calls them for the late Conversions of the East and West-Indies by the Romans if you read Joan. Petrus Maffeus Hist Indicarum Jos Acosta de natur novi orbis You shall find that no Church in the world hath ever spread so farre and wide as the Church of Rome Wherefore I hope in this respect also I may safely conclude that the Church of Rome most justly deserves to be called the Catholick Church Neither is it a vainer thing to say that the Pope of Rome cannot be head of the Church because Christ himselfe is head thereof then it is for a man to say that the King of England cannot be King of England because God is King of all the earth Psal 46. 8. As if the King could not be Gods Vice-gerent and the peoples visible God so the Pope Christs Vicar or Deputy and the Churches visible head And let Kings beware how they give way to such Arguments as these lest at the last such inferences be made upon themselves As strange an inference is that how that the Church was not built upon Peter because it was built upon his Confession as if it might not be built casually upon the one and formally upon the other as if both these could not stand together As if the Confession of Peters Faith might not be the cause why Christ built his Church upon his Person as if Christ did not as well personally tell him Tu es Petrus as significantly super hanc Petram id est super istam Confessionem aedificabo Ecclesiam No lesse invalid is that Objection of Protestants against the oeconomacy of the Bishop of Rome viz. that saying of Greg. sometimes Bishop of that sea viz. He that intituled himself universall Bishop exalted himself like Lucifer above his brethren and was a fore-runner of Antichrist As if there were no more meanings in the word Universality than one as if there were not a Metaphoricall as well as a Literall and Grammaticall sense as if Saint Gregory might not censure this title of Universality in the Grammaticall and exclusive meaning which being so taken would have excluded all other Bishops from their Offices Essences and Proprieties which they held under Christ thereby depriving them of the Key of orders and yet still keep the Superiority viz. of one Bishop over another and himself over all in a Metaphoricall and transferent sense thereby still keeping the Key of Jurisdiction in his own hands and this not onely is but must be the meaning of Saint Gregory for he thus explicates the matter himself lib. 4. ind 13. cp 32. viz. The care of the Church hath been committed to the Prince of all the Apostles Saint Peter and yet had Saint Peter called himselfe the Universall Apostle in the first sence seeing that Christ Jesus made other Apostles as well as him he had been no Apostle himself but Antichrist and yet this hindred not but that the care and principality was committed unto Peter Whereby you may plainly see how he ascribes a head-ship over the Church whilst he denies the Universality of Episcopacy Wherefore having shewed Your Majesty my Church I humble beg that You will be pleased either to give me a few lines in answer hereunto or else to shew me Yours The KINGS Paper in Answer to the Marquesse MY Lord I have perused your Paper whereby I find that it is no strange thing to see Errour tryumph in Antiquity and flourish all those Ensignes of Universality Succession Unity Conversion of Nations c. in the face of Truth and nothing was so familiar either with the Iews or Gentiles as to besmear the face of Truth with spots of novelty For this was Ieremiahs case Ier. 44. 16. viz. As for the word which thou hast spoken unto us in the Name of the Lord we will not hearken unto thee but we will certainly doe whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our owne mouths to burn incense unto the Queen of heaven and to powre out drink-offerings unto her as we have done we and our fathers our Kings and our Princes in the Cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem as we have done there is Antiquity we and our Fathers there is
filthily more uncivilly more lewdly and beyond all bounds of Christian modesty then did Luther No marvel that he is so taxed for his obscenity in his Henzius Anglicus against King Hen. the eight for his beastlinesse in his Hans worst against the Jewes for his filthy mentioning of Hogs for his stincking repetition of turds and dunghils in his Schemhamphorise But if you will hear of his Master-piece you mast read the Book which he writ against the Pope where he asks him out of what mouth O Pope dost thou speak is it out of that from whence thy farts doe burst If it come thence keep it to thy selfe if it comes from that wherein thou powrest thy Corisca wine let the Dog fill that with his excrements good Asse doe not kick kick not my little Pope O my dear Asse doe not so fie how this little Pope hath bewrayed himselfe Is this the way to win to his side or to gaine souls to Christ or to reforme Churches or to confute heresies It is observed that Saint Paul in his Epistles repeated the sacred name of Jesus 500 times and it is the observation of the learned Tygurin Divines that so many times Luther hath used the name of Devill in his Bookes and it is no marvaile that they burst out into this admiration How wonderfull is Luther here with his Devils what impure words he useth with how many Devils doth he burst Nor marvail that Zwinglius saith to him we fill not our Books with so many Devils nor doe we bring so many armies of Devils against thee If you can expect to gather figgs from thorns or grapes from thistles then ye may expect words from a sanctified spirit to proceed from such a mouth else not What should I say more Melancthon tells us that Carolostadius was a barbarous fellow without wit without learning without common sense in whom was no signe of the holy Ghost but manifest tokens of impiety Lastly Hutterus Beza's owne fellow Protestant thus saies of him and casts this dirt in his face which is so shamelesse a testimony that you must give me leave to throw a latine vail over it viz. Beza in fine libri de absentia corporis Christi in coena scribit Candidae sive Amascae suae culum imo partem diversam magis adhuc pudendam mundiora esse quam illorum ora qui simpliciter verbis Christi inherentes credant se praesens Christi Corpus in coena sacra ore suo accipere And another Beza by his most filthy manners was a disgrace to honest Discipline who in sacrilegious verse published to the world his detestable loves his unlawfull carnall acts whoredoms and fowl adulteries not content that himselfe onely should like a hog wallow in the durt of wicked lusts but he must also pollute the ears of studious youth with his filth I could inlarge my Paper to a volume of like instances in others but these are the prime reformers of the Protestant Churches and how the people edified under their Doctrine these Narratives from their owne mouths shall tell you When we were seduced by the Pope saith Luther every man did willingly follow good works and now every man neither saith nor knoweth any thing but how to get all to himselfe by exactions pillage theft lying usury Certainly to speak the truth there is many times found Conscionable and plainer dealing amongst most Papists then among many Protestants And if we look narrowly to the ages past we shall find more godlinesse devotion and zeal though blind more love one toward another more fidelity and faithfulnesse every way in them then is now to be found in us If any man be desirous to see a great rabble of knaves of persons turbulent deceitfull Cosoners Usureis let him goe to any City where the Gospel is purely preached and he shall find them there by multitudes For it is more manifest then the day light that there were never among the Ethnicks Turks or infidels more unbridled and unruly persons with whom all virtue and honesty is quite extinct then are amongst the Professonrs of the Gospel The children of them of the reformed Gospel grow every day worse more untractable and dare commit such crimes as men of former times were never subject to If you cast your eyes upon Protestant Doctours you shall find that some of them moved through vaine glory envious zeal and a prejudicate opinion disorder the true Doctrine disperse and earnestly defend the false some of them without cause stir up contentions and with inconsiderate spight defend them many wrest their Doctrines every way of purpose to please their Princes and the people by whose grace and favour they are maintained they overthrow with their wicked life all that they had formerly built with their true doctrine How could the people be better when their Ministers were so bad like lips like lettice I will conclude all with the learned Protestant Zanchius and then you will neither wonder at one or other I have read saith he the Latine copy of the Apology and diligently read it over not without choller when I perceived what manner of writing very many let me not say for the most part but all doe use in the Churches of the reformed Gospel who would seeme notwithstanding to be Pastors Doctors and Pillars of the Church The state of the question that it may not be understood we often of set purpose over-cloud with darknesse things which are manifest we impudently deny things false we without shame avouch things plainly impious we propose as the first principles of faith things orthodoxall we condemne of heresie Scripture at our pleasure we detort to our owne dreams we boast of Fathers when we will follow nothing lesse then their doctrine to deceive to calumniate to raile is familiar with us so as we may defend our cause good or bad by right or by wrong all other things we turne upside down Oh times Oh manners It is no marvel that M. Sutcliff saies that the Protestant writers offered great violence to the Scriptures expounding them contrary both to antient Fathers History and common reason It is no marvel that Cambden tells us that Holland is a fruitfull province of heretiques It is no marvell that Your royall Father tells us that both Hungary and Bohemia abound with infinite varieties of sects It is no marvell that he said he could never see a Bible well translated into English and that the worst of all was the Geneva whereunto were added notes untrue seditious and savouring too much of dangerous and traiterous conceits It is no marvel that He protested before the great God that you should never find among the Highland or Border-theeves greater ingratitude more lies and vile perjuries then with those phanatick spirits It is no marvel that M. Bancroft said that the Puritans of Scotland were published in a Declaration by his Majestie to
one booke there are 24. and 16. in the other For the third place it 's true that Austine doth oftentimes in answer to the Articles imposed upon him deny that Gods predestination is the cause of mans non-perseverance as some did charge him to hold why any fall away hee shewes the cause to be in themselves not in God that it is not from Gods worke but from their owne will that they are not thrust that they may fall nor cast out that they may depart But that true justifying Faith once had may be lost hee sayes not any thing that way but much against it in other places as before is shewed In the next place Wee hold saith the Marquesse that God did never inevitably damne any man before hee was borne or as you say from all eternity You say hee did wee have Scripture for what wee say Wisd 1. 13. God made not death neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living 1 Tim. 2. 3 4. God our Saviour who will have all men to be saved 2 Pet. 3. 9. The Lord is not willing that any should die but that all should come to repentance And if you will not believe when hee saith so believe him when hee sweares it As I live saith the Lord I doe not delight in the death of a sinner Ans I doe not know any Protestant who saith that God did damne any man before hee was borne or from all eternity For how should that be damning being taken as usually it is for inflicting eternall punishment For how can a man before hee hath any being have eternall punishment inflicted upon him yet Bernard speaketh of his being damnatus antequam natus damned before hee was borne I suppose hee meant that before he came out of the wombe hee was in the estate of damnation by reason of the guilt of Adams sinne imputed to him and the corruption of nature inherent in him How ever this is certaine that as Bernard also saith predestination is before all times even from all eternity And Bellarmine observes that though the use of the Schooles hath so prevailed that they onely are said to be predestinate who are elected unto glory and so in the Scriptures predestination is not used but in that sense yet Austine doth call reprobation predestination to destruction Neither is there any question betwixt us and them of the Church of Rome but that reprobation as well as election is from all eternity And therefore as wee doe not say any more then they that God doth damne any man from eternity so they as well as wee doe say that God doth reprobate many from eternity even as many as hee doth not elect now the elect are but few in comparison as our Saviour tells us saying Many are called but few are chosen Mat. 22. 14. But some may and indeed doe say Gods reprobation is not the cause of any mans damnation but mans own sinne is the proper cause both of reprobation and damnation But though this be asserted by some of our adversaries yet others of that party will not approve of it For Reprobation saith Bellarmine doth comprehend two acts c. For first God hath not a will of saving them viz. the Reprobate And then he hath a will of damning them And in respect of the former act there is no cause of Reprobation on mans part Therefore mans sinne in Bellarmines judgementi is not the cause of Reprobation in respect of that act Now if God have not a will to save a man it is not possible that hee should be saved and if hee bee not saved hee must bee being damned And therefore from that act of Gods Reprobation which Bellarmine confesseth to have no cause on mans part there inevitable followes mans damnation though damnation be neither inflicted on man nor intended to be inflicted on him but for sinne Yet Bellarmine in that which hee saith is not so accurate as hee might be For non habere voluntatem salvandi not to have a will to save a man or not to will a mans salvation is properly no act but rather a negation of an act and therefore indeed Bellarmine calles it actum negativum a negative act but that as I said is indeed no act at all but a meere negation of it And therefore Alvarez maketh the first act of Reprobation to be a positive act whereby Gods Will is not to admit some unto life eternall It 's one thing not to have a will to save and another thing to have a will not to save the former is meerly negative but the latter is positive And hee proves that Reprobation doth include a positive act because the meere negative of not ordaining unto life eternall is even in respect of men and angells that onely may be but never shall be Those God doth not will to save and to glorifie yet properly they are not the objects of Gods Reprobation The same Alvarez saith that this positive act of Reprobation whereby Gods Will and Pleasure from eternity was not to admit some into his Kingdome was not conditionall but absolute and in order of nature before the fore-knowledge of the ill use of free-will And this hee proves from hence that the Apostle Rom. 9. having inferred from what hee had said of Predestination and Reprobation Therefore hee hath mercy on whom hee will have mercy and whom hee will hee hardeneth presently brings in the complaint of those who thinke it hard that God should predestinate and reprobate without having respect to merits Why then doth hee yet complaine for who hath resisted his Will And hee answers O man who art thou that repliest against God Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it Why hast thou made mee thus Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lumpe to make one vessell unto honour and another unto dishonour Now this answer and reproofe saith hee should have no place if God did not before the fore-knowledge of the ill use of Free-will reprobate some by an absolute and efficacious will For the Apostle might easily answer that it depends upon the good or ill use of mans free-will which God did fore-know that some are reprobated and not others And hee cites Austine saying Many are not saved not because they will not but because God will not which most clearly appeares in young infants This same Author also againe layes down this conclusion Reprobation whereby God determines not to give eternall life to some and to suffer them to sinne is not conditionall but absolute neither doth it presuppose in God the fore-knowledge or fore-sight of the ill deserts of the Reprobate or of his perseverance in sinne unto the end of his life And againe Neither actuall sinne nor originall nor both together fore-seene of God were the meritorious cause or motive of any ones Reprobation in respect of all the effects of it And
and who hath been his Counsellour Rom. 11. 34. The last place of Scripture which the Marquesse objecteth is Ezech. 33. 11. As I live saith the Lord I delight not in the death of a sinner Now to this also we have Alvarez to answer for us viz. first that it is meant of spirituall death which is by sinne Which God doth only permit but doth not delight in it And this Explication hee saith is confirmed by the words following but rather that he be converted and live And if it be expounded of the second death which is eternall damnation the meaning hee saith is that God will not inflict this upon any but for sinne But though God will not inflict damnation upon the Reprobate but for sinne yet this same Alvarez as I have shewed abundantly before and so other Writers of the Church of Rome doe tell us that God by his eternall Decree of Reprobation of his meere Will and Pleasure doth determine to suffer the Reprobate to sinne and so to damne them for it And thus now I have made it appeare I hope sufficiently that by the consent of the Romanists themselves the Scriptures alledged are not repugnant to the Doctrine of Protestants concerning Reprobation neither I thinke will the Fathers whom the Marquesse citeth be against it The first of them is Austine who as hath before been shewed is as much for us as we neede desire He is here produced against us but so as that I know not easily how to finde what he saith For onely li. 1. de Civit. Dei. is cited but no Chapter whereas there are no lesse then 36. in that booke this is a strange kinde of citing Authors but the fault may be in the Printer or in some other and not in the Marquesse As for Cyprian who is next cited I see not any thing in the place pointed at which is to this purpose except this Seeing it is written God made not death nor doth he rejoyce in the destruction of the living surely he that would not have any to perish desires that sinners may come to Repentance and that by Repentance they may returne unto life againe Now that which Cyprian here alledgeth viz. God made not death c. I have shewed before by the testimony of Hierome to be no Canonicall Scripture nor of sufficient force to decide any point of controversie as also that if it were yet by the acknowledgement of Alvarez it makes not against Gods Decree of Reprobation which wee maintaine It hath also beene shewed before in what sense God would have none to perish viz. by his Antecedent Will with which yet will stand the Decree of Reprobation as we hold it which likewise hath been shewed and that from both Bellarmine and from Alvarez also And that God desires sinners may come to Repentance and so to life Protestants that I know doe not deny though they hold that God doth give and so from all eternity did purpose to give Repentance unto some and not to others as hee pleaseth which I have also shewed to be acknowledged by Bellarmine Alvarez Estius and others of the Church of Rome And it is most cleare by that of the Apostle If God peradventure will give them Repentance 2 Tim. 2. 25. and that He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will he hardneth Rom. 9. 18. The third and last Father who is here alledged is Ambrose de Cain Abel lib. 2. but what Chapter whereas there are ten in that Booke is not mentioned Now I finde that Chap. 3. hath something which probably was aimed at by the Marquesse viz. this Christ therefore offered the helpe of healing unto all that whosoever perisheth may ascribe the cause of his death to himselfe who when he had a remedy whereby he might escape would not be cured And that Christs mercy towards all might be made manifest in that they that perish doe perish by their own negligence but they that are saved are freed according to Christs sentence who will have all men to be saved and to come to the acknowledgement of the truth Now I know no Protestant but hee will assent unto this that whosoever perish must ascribe the cause to themselves and that they perish through their own default I have before cited Calvin asserting thus much That none doe perish without their desert But this assertion of his is very well consistent with his Doctrine about Reprobation as I have shewed by the testimonies of diverse famous Writers of the Church of Rome And whereas Ambrose saith that such as perish had a remedy whereby they might escape and that they therefore perish because they would not be cured No Protestants I suppose will deny but that such as perish through unbeliefe if they did believe should be saved but yet neverthelesse not Protestants onely but Papists also as I have shewed doe hold that God from all eternity did decree and purpose to give faith unto some and not unto others and that meerely of his own will and pleasure And that therefore according to Austine whose words are cited before the prime and supreme cause why some are not saved is not because they will not but because God will not For that which Ambrose hath in the last place who will have all men to be saved c. enough hath beene said before to shew that in the judgement of Austine and diverse Romanists it is nothing against the absolute decree of Reprobation and so I have done with this point In the next place the Marquesse speakes of a mans assurance of his salvation saying that Protestants hold that a man ought to assure himselfe of it and to prove the contrary which they of the Roman Church doe hold he alledgeth 1 Cor. 9. 27. saying S. Paul was not assured but that whilest he Preached to others he himselfe might become a cast-away And Rom. 11. 20. Thou standest in the Faith be not high minded but feare c. lest thou also mayest be cut off And Phil. 2. 12. Worke out your own salvation with fear and termbling Answ Concerning this point Protestants hold 1. That a Christian may be assured of his salvation 2. That a Christian ought to labour for this assurance For the former of these positions wee have diverse places of Scriptures As first that Famous place Rom. 8. 35 36 37 38 39. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ shall Tribulation or Distresse or Persecution c. Nay in all these things we are more then conquerours through Him that loved us For I am perswaded that neither Death nor Life nor Angels nor principalities nor powers nor things present nor things to come nor height nor depth nor any other Creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. So also that 2 Cor. 5. 1. We know then if our earthly house of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a building
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
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