Empire as M. Downam rashelie auoucheth only because he would exceed Bellarmine in wordes since he cannot come neere him in proofes THE SIXT CHAPTER Conteyning the third Demonstration THE third demonstration saith Bellarmine is taken from the comming of Henoch and Helias who liue still and to this end that they may oppose themselues to Antichrist when he commeth conserue the elect in the Faith of Christ and at length conuert the Iewes which notwithstanding without doubt is not yet fulfilled There be foure places of Scripture concerning this matter the first Malac. 4. Behould I will send Elias the Prophet vnto you before the great daie of the Lord commeth and he will conuert the hartes of the Fathers to the Children and the hartes of the children to their Fathers The second Eccle. 48. where we read of Helias VVho wert receaued in a whirle-wynd of fire in a whirle-wynd of fyery horses who art written in the iudgments of tymes to asswage the Lordes anger to reconcile the hart of the Father to the sonne and to restore the Tribes of Israel And cap. 44. Henoch pleased God and was translated into Paradise to giue to Nations pennance The third Matth. 17. Helias indeed is to come shall restore all thinges The fourth Apoc. 11. I will giue to my two witnesses and they shall prophesie 1260. dayes Theodorus Bibliander alleadgeth also all these places in his Chronicle tab 14. but he saith that by Henoch and Helias are vnderstood all faithfull Ministers which God rayseth in the tyme of Antichrist of which sort were Luther Zuinglius and the rest and at length he concludeth VVherfore saith he it is a childish imaginatiō or a Iewish dream to expect either Helias or Henoch as persōs described by their particuler proprieties And the same teacheth Chytraeusin Comment Apoc. 11. and they prooue it because those thinges which are said of Helias by Malachie our Lord taught vs to be vnderstood of S. Iohn Baptish Matth. 11. He is Helias who is to come And S. Hierom in cap. 4. Malach. expoundeth it of all the quire of Prophets that is to say of the doctrine of all the Prophets But to vs it seemeth not a childish imagination but a most true opinion that Henoch and Elias shall come in their persons and that the contrary is eyther an heresie or an errour next doore to heresy It is proued first out of those foure Scriptures for that the wordes of Malachie cannot be vnderstood of any Doctors whatsoeuer as of Luther Zuinglius the like it is manifest for Malachie saith that the Iewes are to be conuerted by Helias and that he is chieflie to be sent for the Iewes as is manifest by that I will send vnto you And in Ecclesiasticus to restore the Tribes of Iacob But Luther and Zuinglius haue conuerted none of the Iewes That also they cannot be vnderstood litterallie of S. Iohn Baptist but only of Helias it is manifest because Malachie speaketh of the second comming of our Lord which shal be to iudge for so he saith Before the great and horrible day of the Lord commeth for the first comming is not called a great and horrible daie but an acceptable tyme and the day of saluation For which cause it is also added Least perhappes comming I strike the earth with anathema and curse that is to say least comming to iudgment and finding all wicked I condemne all the earth therfore I will send Helias that I may haue some to saue But in the first comming our Lord came not to iudge but to be iudged not to destroy but to saue To the wordes of our Lord Matth. 11. we wil answere a little after To S. Hierome Isay that though in Comment Malach he did not thinke that Malachie did speake of the true Helias yet in comment Matth. 11. 17. he thinketh teacheth the contrary Finallie S. Augustine lib. 20. Ciu. cap. 29. witnesseth that this is the common interpretation of the faithfull That likewise Ecclesiasticus speaketh of the persons of Henoch Helias and not of some other it is prooued for Ecclesiasticus saith that Henoch shall come to giue the Nations pennance who is translated into Paradise and that Helias shall come to restore the tribes of Israel who was taken away in a chariot of fiery horses which certainely agree not but to those particuler persons In which place I cannot sufficientlie meruaile what came into Bishop Iansenius his mind that expounding this place he should write Although it be the opinion of all the Ancients that Helias shall come yet it is not conuinced out of this place for it may be said that Ecclesiasticus wrote that according to the opinion receaued in his tyme by which it was belieued out of the wordes of Malachie that Helias shall trulie come before the Messias in his owne person whereas it was not to be fulfilled in his owne person but in him who was to come in the spirit and vertue of Helias For if it be so as Iansenius saith it followeth that Ecclesiasticus erred and wrote false thinges But if I be not deceaued Iansenius changed his opinion for writing in Cap. 17. Matth. he teacheth that the place of Malachie cannot be litterallie vnderstood but of the true Helias which he is likewise compelled to say of the place of Ecclesiasticus who without doubt expoundeth Malachy Now that the wordes of our Lord Matth. 17. are vnderstood of the true Helias yt is plaine because S. Iohn was alreadie come and had absolued his course and yet our Lord saith Helias shall come and that they are not vnderstood of all doctors but of one true Helias it may be proued first because the Apostles who moued the question of Helias where S. Peter S. Iames and S. Iohn and they tooke occasion by the Transfiguration of our Lord where they saw Moyses Helias wherefore when they aske why therefore doe the Scribes say that Helias must come first they speake of that Helias whome they had seene in the mountayne with Christ Therefore Christ answering Helias indeed shall come restore all thinges speaketh also of that particuler Helias who had appeared in the Transfiguration Secondly the same is manifest out of those wordes and he shall restore all thinges for S. Io. Baptist nor any other hath don that for torestore all thinges is to recall all Iewes and heretikes and perhappes many Catholikes deceaued by Antichrist to the true Faith But Bibliander vrgeth because our Lord Matth. 11. saith of S. Io. Baptist He is Helias who is to come as if he had said He is the Helias promised by Malachy I answere Our Lordes meaning is that S. Iohn was the Helias promised not litterally but allegoricallie for therefore he said first and if you will receaue him as if he said Helias indeed promised in his owne person is to come in the last comming yet if you will haue also some Helias in the first comming receaue Iohn Therefore also he addeth
opinion is that Antichrist shal be borne of the Tribe of Dan so affirme S. Irenaeus l. 5. S. Hippolytus Martyr orat de mundi consummat S. Ambrose l. de benedict Patriarch c. 7. S. Aug. quaest 22. in Iosue S. Prosper de promission praedict Dei part 4. Theodoret. quaest 109. in Gen. S. Greg. l. 31. moral c. 18. Beda Rupertus Arethas Richardus Ansel in Apoc. c. 7. They proue it out of Genesis 49. Fiat Dan coluber in via cerastes in semita c. and ex Hier. 8. Ex Dan audiuimus fremitum equorum eius c. Finally because Apoc. 7. where 12000. are signed by the Angel out of euery Tribe of the children of Israel the Tribe of Dan is omitted which seemeth to be done in hatred to Antichrist This opinion is very probable for the authority of so many Fathers and yet not altogeather certayne both because many of these Fathers do not say that they know it but insinuate it to be probable as also for that none of those Scriptures do conuynce For first Gen. 49. Iacob seemeth to speake litterally of Sampson when he saith Let Dan be made a Snake in the way an horned Serpent in the path and let him byte the heeles of the horse that the ryder may fall backeward For Sampson was of the Tribe of Dan and he was truly like a snake in the way to the Philistians for he met them in euery place and vexed them So S. Hierome expoundeth it in quaest Hebr. and surely Iacob seemeth to wish well to his Sonne when he saith these wordes and therefore not to foretell euill but good And if it be allegorically applyed to Antichrist it can be but a probable argument such as is drawne out of mysticall senses And without doubt Hieremie cap. 8. speaketh not of Antichrist nor of the Tribe of Dan but of Nabuchodonosor who was to come to ouerthrow Hierusalem through the Country which was called Dan as S. Hierome rightely expoundeth it vpon that place Now why Dan is omitted Apoc. 7. is vnknowne especially since Ephraim also is omitted whose Tribe is one of the greatest Besides these two probable assertions there are other two most certaine the one that Antichrist shall chiefly come for the Iewes and shal be receaued by them as the Messias The other that he shal be borne of the Nation of the Iewes and be circumcised and obserue the Sabboth at least for a tyme. This is proued first out of the Ghospell Ioan. 5. where our Lord saith to the Iewes I came in the name of my Father and you haue not receaued me if another come in his owne name him you will receaue Which place that it ought to be vnderstood of Antichrist we haue proued before cap. 2. Likewise out of the Apostle 2. Thessal 2. Because they haue not receaued the charity of Truth that they may be saued therefore God shall send them the operation of Errour that they may belieue a lye c. Caluin and other Heretikes in their Commentaries vpon these words expound this place of vs who because we haue not receaued their Ghospell are suffered to be seduced by the Antichrist of Rome But first they bring forth no witnesses but we haue all the Interpreters of our side who expound it of the Iewes See S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome Theodoretus Theophilactus Oecumenius Besides these S. Hierome quaest 11. ad Algasiam saith thus Antichrist shall doe all these thinges not with power but by the permission of God for the Iewes that because they would not receaue the charity of Truth that is the spirit of God by Christ that receauing our Sauiour they may be saued God shall send them not the worker but the worke or operation that is the fountayne of Errour that they may belieue a lye c. And also without the Commentaries of so many Fathers the thing it selfe speaketh that the Apostle speaketh of the Iewes for he saith that Antichrist is to be sent to those who would not receaue Christ Now who ought more and would not receaue Christ then the Iewes Where it is also to be noted that the Apostle sayd not because they will not receaue the Truth but because they haue not receaued Wherfore he speaketh of them who would not belieue when Christ and the Apostles preached Now it is manifest that in the Apostles tyme the Gentills receaued the Ghospell with exceeding great desire and the Iewes would not receaue it Moreouer besides S. Hierome the others already alleaged all the other Fathers teach the same as S. Irenaeus lib. 5 S. Hippolytus Mart. orat de cōsummatione mundi Theodoret in epit diuin decret cap. de Antichristo Sulpit. ex B. Martino l. 2. dial S. Cyril catech 15. S. Hilar. can 25. in Matth. S. Ambros l. 10. in Luc. in cap. 21. S. Chrysost S. August S. Cyril Alex. in cap. 5. Ioan. S. Gregor lib. 31. moral cap. 10. S. Damascen lib. 4. c. 28. And reason also perswadeth the same For without doubt Antichrist shall first ioyne himselfe to those who are ready to receaue him But the Iewes are of this sort who expect their Messias a temporall King as Antichrist shal be But the Christians expect indeed Antichrist but with feare and terrour not with ioy and desire Wherefore as Christ came first to the Iewes to whome he was promised and of whome he was expected and afterward drew the Gentills also vnto him So also Antichrist shall come first to the Iewes of whome he is expected and after by little and little shall subiect all Nations vnto him Now that Antichrist shal be a Iew and circumcised it is certaine and deduced out of that which hath ben sayd for the Iewes would neuer receaue one that were no Iew or that were vncircumcised for their Messias Yea because the Iewes expect their Messias of the family of Dauid and the Tribe of Iuda without doubt Antichrist although he be truly of the Tribe of Dan will faigne himselfe to be of the family of Dauid Secondly all the Ancients teach most cleerly that Antichrist shal be a Iew as those 12. alleadged a little before who say that he shal be of the Tribe of Dan and besides S. Ambrose who in 2. Thess 2. affirmeth that he shal be circumcised and S. Hierome who in cap. 11. Dan. saith that he shal be borne of the people of the Iewes and S. Martin apud Sulpit. l. 2. dial that Antichrist shall commaund that all be circumcised according to the law of Moyses and S. Ciryl who Cateches 15. affirmeth that he shal be very carefull of the Temple of Hierusalem that he may shew himselfe to be of the progeny of Dauid Finally S. Gregory who lib. 11. ep 3. saith that Antichrist shal be a reuerencer of the Saboth and other Iewish Cerimonies Hence we haue a most euident demonstration that the Pope is not Antichrist For from the yeare 606. in which our Aduersaryes say that Antichrist came it is manifest
in euerie Scripture of these foure both Henoch and Helias had byn named or at leastwise spoken of for so M. Downam seemeth to charge him saying forth with Howbeit this is a manifest vntruth for no place of Scripture speaketh of Henoch his returne But Bellarmines words are these Quatuor Scripturae exstāt de haec re There be foure Scriptures cōcerning this matter Now whether any of these places speake of Henoch his returne or no we shall see Downam alleageth Bellarmines wordes falslie ere long in the meane tyme it is sufficient that the Reader note M. Downams shuffling and that Bellarmine affirmeth not that all these Scriptures speake of Henoch nor yet that he is named in any of them wherefore his note in the first place is either malicious or foolish that this place maketh no mention of Henoch but onlie of Helias for of this there was neuer made any question but by himselfe Wherefore leauing these his shiftes let vs heare what he can answere to that place of Malachy He denieth that by Elias is meant Elias the Thesbite but Iohn the Baptist which he Malach. 4. will needes prooue also because Luc. 1. the Angell saith that S. Iohn should go before our Lord in the spirit and vertue of Helias Luc. 1. that he may turne the hartes of the Fathers vnto the Children c. but who seeth not that this is onlie to be Helias spirituallie and vertuallie or as Bellarmine speaketh allegorically which no Catholike denieth but withall wee affirme that Helias litterallie is to come in the tyme of Antichrist as Bellarm. proueth out of the place of Malachy which it seemeth M. Downam is loath to heare of and therefore he interrupteth him so disorderly with prouing when it is his turne to answere But we will beare with his rudenesse so that he will be satisfied with any reason Wherfore secondly be bringeth Matth. 11. where he saith that our Saviour most plainaly affirmeth I. IX that Iohn Baptist is that Helias who was to come But we must Matth. 11. tell him ere he passe any further that he is somewhat too bould to change our Sauiours wordes who not without great cause said not who was to come as M. Downā would make Downam corrupteth the Scripture him but who is to come signifying plainely that S. Iohn Baptist comming had not fulfilled the prophesie of Malachie since that Elias was still to come after him and consequentlie that S. Iohn Baptist was onlie Elias spirituallie c. as hath bene said because he endeauoured to conuert the Iewes which lyued then as Elias shall do those which shall liue in the time of Antichrist both of thē haue for office to prepare for our Sauiours comming S. Iohn for the first and Elias for the second I omit M. Downams exposition of the other words in that place as impertinent because they are not to this purpose and as for his railing wee must be content to put vp that and more at such good fellowes handes Thirdly M. Downā alleageth S. Hierome who affirmeth that the Iewes and Iudaizing Heretikes thinke that before their Messias Elias shall come and restore all thinges Hence it is that vnto Christ this question is propounded in the Ghospell what is that which the Pharisies say that Elias shall come To whom he answered Elias indeed shall come and if you will belieue he is alreadie come by Elias meaning Iohn And therefore saith M. Downam in Hieromes iudgemēt it is but the opinion of a Iudaizing heretike to expect the comming againe of Elias in his owne person But sure wee are that this is not S. Hieromes iudgement if wee speake of the second comming of our Sauiour since hee himselfe in the 17. of Matth. affirmeth of Helias that he shall come then iuxta corporis fidem in bodilie presence and that in the first comming he came by S. Iohn in vertue and spirit by which it most plainelie appeareth that hee onlie condemneth them for Iewes and Iudaizing heretikes which will not receaue any Messias till they first see Elias in his owne person because they expound the Prophet Malachy of the first comming of the Messias as M. Downam doth only they differ that M. Downā thinketh that Helias is not litterally spoken of In which point he erreth more grossely then they as we shall see afterward 3. Now that M. Downam hath spent his owne proofes be is content to begin to answere Bellarmines who proueth that Malachy speaketh of the second comming because he calleth it a great and horrible day Where M. Downam is not ashamed to say that Bellarmine giueth the lie to the spirit of God speaking in the Angel Luc. 1. and our Sauiour Matth. 11. 17. But Downame impudenty surely he deserueth to haue the lye giuen him that is not afraid nor ashamed to behaue himselfe so impudently VVell it is our hard happe to haue to doe with such men Let vs see what he answereth for the application of the Angell and our Sauiour wee haue already seene that it was only a spirituall vertuall or allegoricall application which hindereth not the litterall sense of the second comming as Bellarmine prooueth Malach. 3. v. 1. But M. Downam answereth to his argument that the first comming may also be called terrible which he confirmeth out of Malac. 3. v. 1. where he speaketh most plainly of the first cōming and yet saith who may abyde the day of his comming and who shall endure when he appeareth for he is like a purging fier and like fullers sope and he shall sit downe to try and fine the siluer But we may well oppose the authority of S. Augustine to M. Downam without doing him iniury He therfore lib. 18. Ciu. cap. 35. and lib. 20. cap. 25. 26. as likewise Euseb lib. 5. demonst Euang. cap. 28. and Theodoretus expound these wordes of the second comming though immediately before the Prophet spake of the first But yet we will do M. Downam the courtesy to graunt that they are to be vnderstood of the first with S. Cyril Rupertus and others so that he will admit their interpretation in other points for the sense is who can so much as think how great the glory of this day is by reason of the benefites which the Messias shall bring with him to mankind and who can sufficiently admire or rather looke vpon so great a light and goodnesse For he shal be like a purging fyre by reason of the labours and afflictions or rather of the holy Ghost which shall come in fyery tongues with which he shall purge the hartes of those which belieue in him like the sope or her be of Fullers by reason of his grace with which he shall make the soules of men most pure and white and he shall do this most seriously and with great diligence All which signifyeth not the torrible and horrible day but an acceptable and healthsome tyme. And heere by the way wee may
those of Bellarmin And first concerning 2. Thess 2. he leaueth his brethren the Magdeburgians 2. Thess 2. Downam caÌ„not defend the MagdeburgeÌ„ses in the plaine field neuer so much as opening his lips in their defence wherin he seemeth to acknowledge that Bellarmine confuted them throughly wherfore admitting that the place is wel explicated he denieth the consequence For sayth he Antichrist may aduance himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped and yet suffer â—ea require them to be worshipped In proofe wherof he bringeth three instaÌ„ces 1. Iupiter was supposted amongst the Heathens to aduance himselfe aboue all other Gods and yet suffered them to be worshipped as Gods 2. The second beast Apoc. 1â— doth the like with the Image of the former beast Apoc 1â— 3. The Pope also aduanceth himselfe aboue Angells Kings and Princes who are called Gods aboue the Saints the Host the Crosse and whatsoeuer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Church of Rome But M. Downam is much mistaken in the matter for Antichrist shall not only extoll himselfe aboue all other Gods but oppose himselfe against them all for so S. Paul Antichrist shall not extoll him self aboue all other Gods but also oppose himself against them all sayth Qui aduersatur extollitur who is opposed and extolled Now how this aduancing and opposing himselfe can stand with suffering yea requiring them to be worshipped as God wil be very hard for M. Downam or any other to explicate Iupiter was supposed by the Gentiles to be the Father and King of the other Gods but likewise he was supposed to loue them as his children and seruants and not to oppose himselfe vnto them The other two instances are both false and foolish for that second beast is not Antichrist as M. Downam supposeth nor yet aduanceth himself aboue the former Iupiter by which indeed Antichrist is signified and not the renowned Empire The Pope aduanceth not himselfe aboue the Angels Saints the Host the Crosse c. as M. Downam Downam belyeth the Pope belieth him He is indeed the Pastour and the Bishop of KIngs aswell as of others and in that respect preferred before them by Christ himselfe But what hindrance is this that he may not command Princes to be honored and obeied by their subiects as he doth Or what haue any of these comparisons to do with the odoration of God as God which he that is opposite and extolled aboue all them that take that name vpon them should suffer or require it to be giuen to others And besides it is plaine that this opposition and aduancement of Antichrist aboue all other Gods shall be for no other cause but because they are called Gods for if the cause were particuler the quarrell would not be so general As if it should be true of any King that he opposeth and aduaÌ„ceth himself aboue al that are called Kings it were euident that his quarrel against theÌ„ were no other then for that they were Kings and were to called and it were manifestly Why Antichrist aduanceth and opposeth him self aboue all other Gods against his will that any other King should raigne or be acknowledged for a King but himselfe and he would be far inough from suffering yea requiring that any of them should be worshipped and further also from acknowledging or worshipping any of them himselfe for King Secondly M. Downam confirmeth this his answere by the example of Antiochus Epiphanes who aduanceth himselfe against euery God yea against the God of Gods Dan. 11. 56. and yet he was neuer Antioch ' an Idolatour so mad as to professe himselfe the only God But to this the answere is easy that this place cannot be vnderstood of Antiochus but only of Antichrist as S. Hierome sheweth for this very reason that Antiochus did not aduance himselfe against euery God for he was a great Idolater himselfe Thirdly M. Downam supposeth that he hath proued Antichristianisme not to be open Atheisme but a mystery of iniquity c. But we proued before that it cannot be the mystery of iniquity yet it shall not Antichristianisme is not Atheisme properly be Atheisme since those which follow Antichrist shall take him for their God and he himselfe though openly he will worship no God because he will professe himselfe to be God himsefe yet secretly it is not vnprobable that he will adore the Diuell as his God Fourthly M. Downam argueth out of the text it selfe which he sayth doth not ascribe to Antichrist so great an extolling of himselfe as the Iesuite imagineth first because he is called a man of sinne and Sonne of perdition and therefore we are to conceaue of such an aduancement of himselfe as is incident to a mortall and wretched man But to this of the mortality I haue answered sufficiently before and the words of the text rather giue vs occasion to increase then any way to diminish Antichrists sinne since that he is called Antonomasticè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ille home peccati and filius ille perditionis that man of sinne and that sonne of perdition Antichrist shall commit the greatest sins when he cannot all Which giueth vs iust occasion to thinke that there shall be no sinne nor perdition possible for any man to run into from which Antichrist shall be free or rather because some sins be contrary one to the other that he shall fall into the depth of them all by imbracing the greatest when he caÌ„not all Secondly by al that is called God in this place M. Downam will haue vs to vnderstand all to whome the name of God is communicated as to Angels in Heauen to Kings and Princes on earth and of this aduancing aboue Kings he would haue this place vnderstood because afterward it is said that the Roman Empire hindered Antichrists aduancing or reuealing himselfe and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would haue vs to vnderstand any thing that is worshipped as God or wherin God is worshipped Such in the Church of Rome saith he are the Host the Crosse the Saints and their Images and reliques Aboue all which he thinketh that a man may aduance himselfe as the Pope doth and yet may acknowledg some other God besides himselfe But to How the Pope may be called God answere briefly though it be true that Kings c. and coÌ„sequently the Pope also may be called God in some sort yet M. Downam will neuer be able to proue that God himselfe is also called God and likewise the false Gods wherfore S. Paul must needs comprehend these also vnder all that â—â— called God And M. Downams proofe is very weake that because the Roman Empire is sayd to hinder Antichriste reuealing therfore he shall only aduance himselfe aboue it for though it be true that he cannot aduance himselfe till he be reuealed yet afterward he may and shall not only aboue the Roman Empire for that he did
for although you graunt not this yet the word of God doth graunt it for what is that which Ezechiel saith cap. 18. VVhen the impious shall turne himselfe from his impiety he shall quicken his soule What is that which Dan. saith cap. 4. Redeeme thy sinnes with almes What is that which Ionas saith cap. 3. God saw their workes fastings and hayrecloth and tooke compassion of them What is that which Christ saith Luc. 7. Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she loued much And not only S. Gregory but many Fathers before him taught the same S. Ambrose lib. 10. in Lucam Teares saith he do not aske but merit pardon S. Hierome lib. 2. aduers Pelagianos They who simply confesse their sinnes merit by humility the clemency of our Sauiour S. Augustine epist 105. Neither is the remission of sinnes it selfe without some merit if faith obtayne it for the merit of faith is not none with which faith he said God be propitious to me a sinner and the faithfull humbled descended iustifyed deseruealy c. And epist 106. If any shall say that Faith meriteth grace to worke well we cannot deny it yea we most freely confesse it Finally the last kind of workes is of those which are done by a man already iustifyed and proceed from the holy Ghost inhabiting the hart of man and diffusing charity in it To which workes whether you will or no we attribute merit not with which they merit remission of sinnes which went before and which cannot properly fall vnder merit but with which they truly and properly merit glory and euerlasting blessednesse for otherwise how would S. Paul say 2. Tim. 4. I haue fought a good fight I haue consummate my course I haue kept the faith Concerning the rest there is layd vp for me a crowne of Iustice which the iust Iudge will render mein that day For if euerlasting life be not truly the reward of good workes why calleth he it a Crowne of Iustice and not rather a gift of clemency Why saith he is it to be rendred and not giuen why by a iust iudge not by a liberall King Wherefore rightly S. Augustine ep 105. from whence saith he life euerlasting it selfe which doubtlesse in the end shall be had without faith and therefore is rendred to precedent merits yet because those merites to which it is rendred are not gotten by vs by our sufficiency but are done in vs by grace it also is called grace and not therefore because it is not giuen to merits but because the merits also of themselues are giuen to which it is giuen Neither do those two testimones of Scripture terrify vs I am he who take away iniquities and there is not saluation in any other for such testimonyes exclude another God another Christ another Sauiour and Phisitian of soules who may promise saluation the true God and Christ Iesus being excluded notwithstanding they exclude not faith hope charity pennance Sacraments with which as it were with certaine meanes and instruments God himselfe chiefly working the merit of Christ is applyed vnto vs for otherwise how do these sentences I am he who take away iniquityes and there is not saluation in any other agree with those Thy saith hath made thee safe Luc. 7. He will saue those who haue hoped in him Psal 36. he shall quicken his soule Ezech. 18. The seare of God expelleth sinne Ezech. 1. He that hath belieued and hath bene baptized shal be saued Marc. vlt. he that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Ioan. 6. But thus much of this Chytraeus But go forward §. III. Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that he who doth pennance and heareth the promise ought to belieue the promise and to determine that sinnes are remitted not only to others to Peter or to Paul but also to himselfe for Christ that he himselfe pleaseth God is receaued and heard by God and that we must haue accesse to God with this faith and daily inuocation The Papists contende that we must alway doubt whether we haue remission of sinnes which doubtfulnes is simply repugnant to faith and plainely heathen So he Bellarmine One Ghospell teacheth plainely inough that we must giue credit to Gods promises and all Catholikes teach that we must in no fort doubt of them But that remission of sinnes is absolutely promised by God to men we read in no place of our Ghospell And much lesse read we that euery one must certainely determine that his sinnes are forgiuen him that he pleaseth God and that he is receaued and heard by God And not without cause we ead not this because it would destroy the rest which is most plainely and cleerely read in it for what is more cleere then that which the wise man writeth Ecclesiast 9. There are iust and wise and their workes in the hand of God and yet a man knoweth not whether he be worthy of hatred or loue Likewise how manifest is that which Iob saith cap. 9. Although I shal be simple this very same my soule shal be ignorant of and after I feared all my workes knowing that thou wouldest not spare the offender Besides almost all Gods promises haue a condition annexed which no man can certainly know whether he haue fulfilled it as he ought or no. Matt. 19. If thou wilt enter into life keep the Comaundemēts Luc. 14. If any man cōmeth to me and hateth not Father and Mother and VVife and Children and Brethren and Sisters yea and his owne life besides he cannot be my Disciple Rom 8. The spirit himselfe giueth testimony to our spirits that we are the sonnes of God and if sonnes heyres also heyres truly of God and coheyres of Christ yet if we suffer with him that we may also be glorised with him Finally S. Ambrose much more ancient as we haue said then S. Gregory inserm 5. super Psalm 118. Hee would saith he haue his shame taken away which he suspected either because he had thought in his hart and not done it and though it were abolished by pennance yet be suspected least peraduenture his shame remayned still and therefore he prayeth to God to take it away who only knoweth that which he himselfe that did it may be ignorant of §. IIII. Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that there is one only propitiatory Sacrifice in the world c. Heb. 7. 10. Christ was once offered that he might take away sinne c. The Papists teach that Christ is offered euery day in the Sacrifice of the Masse to God the Father by Priests c. Bellarmine The Ghospell teacheth indeed that there is only one propitiatory Sacrifice in the world viz. which was once offered vpon the Crosse neyther do Catholikes deny this but the Ghospell no where teacheth that this only Sacrifice may not be euery day reiterated in mystery by the same chiefe B. Christ by the hands of Priests and this Catholikes affirme Neither do they only affirme it who haue bene since S. Gregories tyme but all the