yet by the holy Ghost there is meant such a gift of the holy Ghost as the wicked may receive viz. the gift of Tongues and Prophecy for so immediately it followes and they spake with Tongues and Prophesied 2. Neither doth it appeare that the Apostle 2 Tim. 1. 7. doth explaine what he meant by the gift mentioned vers 6. but having exhorted Timothy to stir up the gift that was in him by laying on of hands hee addes as a motive to inforce the exhortation For God hath not given unto us the spirit of feare but c. As if hee should say All true Christians have received this Spirit of God and more especially all faithfull Ministers therefore stir up the gift that is in thee c. But the end of Ordination is not the justification of the person ordained but the edification of others for whom hee is ordained Hee gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastours and Teachers Why for what end For the perfecting of the Saints for the worke of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ Ephes 4. 11 12. So Durandus an acute and learned Schoolemen saith that the Sacrament of Order is a spirituall medicine yet not for him that is ordained but for the people because by Ordination a man is made a dispenser of the Sacraments c. For the Fathers here objected there is onely one viz. Cyprian that I can punctually answer unto Hee in the place cited hath nothing that I finde about Ordination He speakes indeed there of imposition of hands for the receiving of the holy Ghost but the imposition of hands there spoken of was not by way of Ordination but by way of Confirmation of which I have spoken before For Cyprian there speakes of laying hands upon all that had beene baptized by Heretikes when they did returne to the Church and not of laying hands upon such as did receive Ordination The Marquesse himself in the point of Confirmation alledged Cyprians 71. Epistle and this which he now alledgeth is in respect of the former part of it of the same subject with that and the rest that follow as Pamelius noteth in the Argument of the Epistle The other Fathers are so cited that there is no examining what they say without more labour then the thing is worth or reason doth require Austine is cited in his questions upon Numbers now there are 65 questions upon that book but which of them is meant is not expressed In like manner are Optatus and Tertullian cited without any mention made of the booke wherein Optatus hath any thing to the purpose whereas there are seven Bookes which hee wrote or of the Chapter in which Tertullian de Praescript speaketh about Ordination whereas that Booke of Tertullian hath 53. chapters Neither doth Bellarimne in this controversie about Ordination alledge either Tertullian or Optatus at all nor Cyprian but only in a worke which himselfe confesseth to be none of Cyprians nor yet Austine in that place which the Marquesse citeth But how ever it is granted that the Fathers sometimes call Ordination a Sacrament and so doe Protestants too as hath beene shewed though they deny it to be a Sacrament of the same nature with Baptisme and the Lords Supper and so much as I have shewed Durandus himselfe doth acknowledge making it to be a remedy provided for the spirituall welfare of others and not of him that is ordained To proceede We hold saith the Marquesse that the Priest and other Religious persons who have vowed chastity to God may not marry afterwards You deny first that it is lawfull to make any such vowes and secondly that those who have made any such vows are not bound to keepe them We have Scripture for what we hold Deut. 23. 2. When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God thou shalt not slack to pay it for the Lord thy God will require it of thee So 1 Tim. 5. 11 12. But the younger widdowes refuse for when they have begun to wax wanton against the Lord they will marry having damnation because they have cast off their first Faith What can be meant hereby but the vow of chastity or by their first faith but some promise made to Christ in that behalfe Otherwise Marriage could not be damnable So all the ancient Fathers have expounded it S. Aug. de bono viduit cap. 9. S. Athanas de Virginit S. Epiphan haer 48. S. Hier. contra Iovin l. 1. c. 7. Answ One thing is here omitted by the Marquesse which yet we must observe viz. that they of the Church of Rome hold that Priests and Clergy-men as they are called ought not to Marry and that they restraine them from Marriage causing them to vow against it Some of them hold this to be of divine institution Bellarmine though he likes not that yet makes it to be an Apostolicall decree which indeed amounts to as much Costerus the Jesuite saith It is the most holy custome of the Roman Church agreeable to reason and the Scriptures and received from our ancestors not to admit any to holy Orders but him that is unmarried or that with the consent of his wife hath consecrated his chastity unto God And the same Author affirmes that Although a Priest finne grievously if hee commit Fornication yet much more if hee Marry And therefore hee concludes that Priests are by no meanes to be suffered to Marry Yet they may be suffered to commit fornication for so the Glosse upon Gratians Decrees tells us that it is commonly held that one ought not to be deposed for simple fornication And marke the reason because sath hee very few are found without that fault And so in another place They say that now none is to be deposed for fornication except he continue in it and that because our bodies are now more fraile then they were in times past How well doth this agree with the Scripture which saith that Marriage is honourable in all and the bed undefiled but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge Heb. 13. 4. But saith Bellarmine if Marriage be honorable in all then in those that are neare allied and in those that marry without the consent of their Parents I answer Marriage may be and is honorable in all and yet not all kind of Marriage It is lawfull for any to marry yet not to marry with any they that marry must marry in the Lord. 1 Cor. 7. 39. Bellarmine himselfe approves of Theophylacts Exposition viz. that Marriage is honourable in all that is in all that are lawfully joyned together whosoever they be Now such are all they whom the Scripture doth not exclude as it doth not the Clergy Gratian himselfe confesseth that it is but an Ecclesiasticall Law that forbids Priests to marry and that before this prohibition their Marriage was every where lawfull and so in his time was accounted in the Easterne
sacifice I answer doubtlesse Bellarmines reading was sufficient to informe him that diverse ancient Writers call Baptisme a sacrifice Oecumenius upon Heb. 10. 26. saith that the meaning of those words there remaineth no more sacrifice for sinnes is that there is no second Baptisme to be expected For by sacrifice hee saith is there meant the crosse Christs Sacrifice on the crosse and Baptisme wherein that sacrifice is represented After the same manner and almost the same words writeth Theophylact upon that place to the Hebrewes Estius also upon the place saith that Chrysostome and his followers by sacrifice there understand either Baptisme or rather the death of Christ as it doth operate in Baptisme And Melchior Canus affirmes that most of the ancients did call Baptisme a sacrifice saying that there remaines no sacrifice for sinne because Baptisme cannot be repeated And he gives this reason why they spake so viz. because in Baptisme we die together with Christ and the sacrifice of the crosse by this Sacrament is applyed unto us for full forgivenesse of sinnes Therefore saith he by a metaphore they called Baptisme a sacrifice and said that after Baptisme there remaineth no sacrifice because there is no second Baptisme Thus then it may sufficiently appeare that there is nothing either in the Scriptures or in the Fathers to prove that in the Eucharist Christ is offered up unto the Father a sacrifice properly so called but that both Scriptures and Fathers are against it In the next place VVe say saith the Marquesse that the Sacrament or Orders confers grace upon those on whom the hands of the Presbytery are imposed you both deny it to be a Sacrament notwithstanding the holy Ghost is given unto them thereby and also you deny that it confers any interior grace at all upon them VVe have Scripture for what we hold viz. 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by prophecy and with laying on the hands of the Presbytery So 2 Tim. 1. 6. Stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands S. Aug. lib. 4. Quaest. super Num. S. Cypr. Epist ad Magnum Optat. Milevit the place beginneth Ne quis miretur Tertull. in Praescript the place beginneth Edant origines Answ That Orders or the Ordination of Ministers is a Sacrament truly and properly so called of the same nature with Baptisme and the Lords Supper they of the Church of Rome do hold and the Councell of Trent hath denounced Anathema against such as deny it Protestants on the other side though they doe not deny but that the name of Sacrament largely taken may be given to Ordination yet they deny that it is a Sacrament in that sense as Baptisme and the Lords Supper are Sacraments A Sacrament properly so called as the name is attributed to Baptisme and the Lords Supper is a Signe and Seale of the covenant of Grace confirming unto us that Christ is ours and we his that in him we are justified and through him shall be saved Thus circumcision was a Sacrament in the time of the old Testament a token of the Covenant betwixt God and his people Gen. 17. 11. a Seale of the righteousnesse of Faith Rom. 4. 11. So now is Baptisme Mat. 28. 19. Acts 22. 16. And so the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. 24 25. But thus Ordination is not a Sacrament not serving to signifie and seale the covenant of Grace as Baptisme and the Lords Supper doe Bellarmine saith that Calvin doth acknowledge Ordination to be a true Sacrament But Calvin so grants it to be a Sacrament as that he plainly shewes it to be no such Sacrament as Baptisme and the Lords Supper are As for the true office of a Presbyter or Elder saith hee which is commended unto us by the mouth of Christ I willingly account it a Sacrament For there is a ceremony first taken from the Scriptures and then also such as Paul doth testifie not to be empty and superfluous but a faithfull token and pledge of spirituall grace But presently after hee addes Christ hath promised the grace of the holy Ghost not for the expiating of sins but for the right governing of the Church Thus much also is yeelded by Chemnitius whom yet Bellarmine would make to dissent from Calvin There is saith hee a promise added that God will give grace and gifts whereby they who are lawfully called may rightly faithfully and profitably performe and execute those things which belong unto the Ministery Joh. 20. Receive the holy Ghost And afterwards againe This serious prayer saith hee used in the Ordination of Ministers because it builds upon Gods Precept and Promise is not in vaine And this is that which Paul saith The gift which is in thee by the laying on of hands Hee addes immediately If ordination be thus understood viz. of the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments the Apology of the confession at Auspurge hath long agoe declared what our Churches hold viz. that we are not unwilling to call Order a Sacrament And there it is added neither will we stick to call Laying on of hands a Sacrament For we have shewed before that the word Sacrament is of a large acception Thus Chemnitius whereby it may appeare that neither doth he dissent as Bellarmine pretends he doth from Melancthon the Author of the Apology of the confession at Auspurge though I have not now liberty to consult that Author And thus also it appeares that though Protestants deny Ordination to be a Sacrament of the same nature with Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord and that justifying and saving grace is either conferred or confirmed by it yet they doe not deny but that it may be called a Sacrament and that some interiour grace is conferred by it and that because of those very words of the Apostle which our Adversaries stand upon the gift that is in thee by the laying on of hands But Bellarmine will easily prove he saith that Ordination is a true Sacrament For saith hee the grace that is promised unto it is no common gift as Prophecy or the gift of Tongues but justifying Grace And this he proves by that Ioh. 20. Receive yee the holy Ghost For that gift which may be in the ungodly is never hee saith in the Scriptures called absolutely the holy Ghost He addes also that the gift spoken of 2 Tim. 1. 6. viz. which was given to Timothy in his Ordination was the spirit of love and of power and of a sound minde as it followes vers 7. I answer the places alledged doe not prove that justifying grace is promised or by promise annexed unto Ordination For 1. It is not true that the gift which may be in the wicked is never in the Scripture called the holy Ghost For Acts 19. 6. it is said of some that when Paul laid his hands upon them the holy Ghost came on them
afraid he will not give you another day wherein you may so much as trie your fortune Your Majesty had forgot the monies which came unto you from unknown hands and were brought unto you by unknown faces when you promised you would never forsake your unknown friends you have forgotten the miraculous blessings of the Almighty upon those beginnings and how have you discountenanc'd distrusted dis-regarded I and disgraced the Catholiques all along and at last vowed an extirpation of them Doth not your Majesty see clearly how that in the two great Battailes the North and Naseby God shewed signes of his displeasure when in the first your Enemies were even at your mercy confusion fell upon you and you lost the day like a man that should so wound his Enemies that he could scarce stand and afterwards his owne sword should fly out of the hilt and leave the strong and skilfull to the mercy of his falling Enemies and in the second and I feare me the last Battaile that e're you 'le fight whilst your men were crying victory as I hear they had reason so to do your sword broke in the aire which made you a fugitive to your flying Enemies Sir I pray pardon my boldnesse for it is Gods cause that makes me so bold and no inclination of my owne to be so and give me leave to tell you that God is angry with you and will never be pleased untill you have taken new resolutions concerning your Religion which I pray God direct you or else you 'le fall from nought to worse from thence to nothing King My Lord I cannot so much blame as pitty your zeal the soundnesse of Religion is not to be tried by dint of sword nor must we judge of her truthes by the prosperity of events for then of all men Christians would be most miserable we are not to be thought no followers of Christ by observations drawne from what is crosse or otherwise but by taking up our crosse and following Christ Neither do I remember my Lord that I made any such vow before the Battaile of Naseby concerning Catholiques but some satisfaction I did give my Protestant Subjects who on the other side were perswaded that God blest us the worse for having so many Papists in our Army Marq. The difference is not great I pray God forgive you who have most reason to aske it King I think not so my Lord. Marq. Who shall be judge King I pray my Lord let us sit down and let reason take her seat Marq. Reason is no judge King But she may take her place Marq. Not above our Faith King But in our arguments Marq. I beseech your Majesty to give me a reason why you are so much offended with our Church King Truly my Lord I am much offended with your Church if you meane the Church of Rome if it were for no other reason but this for that she hath foisted into her legend so many ridiculous stories as are able to make as much as in them lies Christianitie it selfe a fable whereas if they had not done this wrong unto the tradition of the primitive Church we then had left unto us such rare and unquestionable verities as would have adorned and not dawb'd the Gospel whereas now we know not what is true or false Marq. Sir if it be allowed to question what the Catholick Church holds out for truth because that which they hold forth unto us seemes ridiculous and to picke and chuse verities according to our owne fancie and reject as novelties and forgeries what we please as impossibilites and fabulous the Scriptures themselves may as well suffer by this kind of tolleration for what more ridiculous then the Dialogue betweene Balaam and his Ass or that Sampsons strength should be in his hair or that he should slay a thousand men with the Jaw-bone of an Ass the Disputation betweene Saint Michael and the Devill about the body of Moses Philip's being taken up in the air and found at Azotus with a thousand the like strange and to our apprehension if we looke upon them with carnall eyes vaine and ridiculous but being they are recorded in Scripture which Scripture we hold for truth we admire but never question them so the fault may not be in the tradition of the Church but in the libertie which men assume to themselves to question the tradition And I beseech Your Majestie to consider the streaks that are drawn over the Divine writ as so many delenda's by such bold hands as those the Testaments were not like the two Tables delivered into the hands of any Moses by the immediate hand of God neither by the Ministration of Angels but men inspired with the holy Ghost writ whose writings by the Church were approved to be by inspiration which inspirations were called Scripture which Scriptures most of them as they are now received into our hands were not received into the Canon of the Church all within three hundred years after Christ why may not some bold spirits call all those Scriptures which were afterwards acknowledged to be Scripture and were not before forgeries Nay have not some such as blind as bold done it already Saint Hierom was the first that ever pickt a hole in the Scriptures and cut out so many books out of the word of God with the penknife of Apocrypha Ruffinus challengeth him for so doing and tells him of the gap that he hath opened for wild beasts to enter into this field of the Church and tread downe all ill corne Jerom gives his reasons because they were not found in the Originall Copie as if the same spirit which gave to those whom it did inspire the diversities of tongues should it selfe be tied to one language but withall he acknowledgeth thus much of those books which he had thus markt in the forehead Canonici sunt ad informandos mores sed non ad confirmandam fidem how poor a Distinction this is and how pernitious a president this was I leave it to Your Majestie to judge for after him Luther takes the like boldness and at once takes away the three Gospels of Mark Luke and John Others take away the epistle to the Hebrews others the epistle of Saint Jude others the second and third epistles of Saint Peter others the epistle of Saint James others the whole book of the Revelation Wherefore to permit what the Church proposes to be questionable by particular men is to bring down the Church the Scriptures and the Heavens upon our heads There was a Church before there was a Scripture which Scripture as to us had not beene the Word of God if the Church had not made it so by teaching us to believe it The preaching of the Gospell was before the writing of the Gospell the Divine Truth that dispersed it selfe over the face of the whole earth before it's Divinitie was comprised within the Canon of the Scripture was like that Primaeva Lux which the world received before the
your Religions antiquity and you shall find as much difference in their Articles and ours as can be between Churches that are most opposite Come home to your owne Countrey and derive your descent from Wickliffe and search for his Tenents in the booke of Martyrs and you shall find them quite contrary to ours neither amongst any of your moderne Protestants shall you find any other agreement but in this one thing that they all protest against the Pope Shew me but any Protestant Countrey in the world where Reformation as you call it ever set her foot where she was not as well attended with sacriledge as usher'd by Rebellion and I shall lay my hand upon my mouth for ever King My Lord my Lord you are gone beyond the scope of your Argument which required you to prove the Romane Church more Catholick then the Greek which you have not done you put me off with my being English and not a Grecian whereas when we speak of the universality of a Church I think that any man who is belonging to the universe is objectum rationis And if that be the manner of your Election then I am sure most voices must carry it for your alleaged submission of the Greek Church unto the Roman I believe it cannot be prov'd but it may be the Patriarch of Constantinople may submit unto the Pope of Rome and yet the Greek Church may not submit unto the Romane Marq. Sir it is no dishonour for the Sun to make its progress from East to West it is still the same Sun and the difference is onely in the shadowes which are made to differ according to the varieties of shapes that the severall substances are of East and West are two divisions but the same day neither can they be said or imagined to be greater or more extending one or other and the one may have the benefit of the Suns light though the other may have its glory and I believe no man of sober judgment can say that any Church in the world is more generally spread over the face of the whole world or that her glory shines in any place more conspicuously then at this day in Rome King My Lord if externall glory be the Sun-shine of the Gospel then the Church is there indeed but if internall sanctity and inward holynesse be the Essences of a Church then we may be as much to seek for such a Church within the Wals of Rome as any where else Marq. Who shall be Judge of that I pray observe the Injustice and Errours that will arise if every man may be admitted to be his owne judge you of the Church of England left your Mother the Church of Rome and Mother to all the Churches round about You forsook her and set up a new Church of your own Independent to her there comes a new generation and doth the like to you and a third generation that is likely to do the like to that and the Church falls and falls untill it falls to all the pieces of Independencie It is a hard case for a part to fall away from the whole and to be their owne judges Why should not Kent fall away from England and be their owne judges as well as England fall away from Christendome and be their own judges why should not a Parish in Kent fall away from the whole County and be their owne judges why should not one Family fall away from the whole Parish and be their owne judges why should not one man fall away in his opinion from that Family and be his owne judge If you grant one you must grant all and I feare me in doing one you have done all So that every man despiseth the Church whilst he is a Church in himselfe rayles against Popery and is the greatest Pope himselfe despiseth the Fathers and will enthrone his own judgment above the wisdome of the ancient refuseth Expositours that he may have his own sence and if he can start up but some new opinions he thinks himselfe as worthy a member of Christianity as if he were an Apostle to some new found land Now Sir though some do take the Church to be the Scriptures yet the Scriptures cannot be the Church because the Scriptures send us to the Church audi Ecclesiam dic Ecclesiae others take the Elect to be the Church yet this cannot be for we know not who are elect and who are not that which must be the Church must be a visible an eminent societie of men to whose Authority in cases of appeale and matter of judgement we are to acquiesce and subscribe And I appeale to Your Royall heart whether there be a Church in the world whom in these respects we ought to reverence and esteeme more then the Church of Rome and that the Church of Rome is externally glorious it doth not follow that therefore she is not internally holy for the Kings daughters clothing was of wrought gold as well as she was all glorious within and though she had never so many Divine graces within her yet she had honourable women without her as her attendants and for the question whether this inward glory is to be so much sought for within the gates of Rome is the question and not yet decided King My Lord I 'le deale as ingenuously with you as I can When the Romane Monarch stretch'd forth his arms from East to West he might make the Bishops of Romes oecumenacy as large as was his Empire and all the Churches in the world were bound to follow her Lawes and decretalls because God hath made such Emperours nursing Fathers of his Church as it was prophesied by the Divine Esay alwayes provided that the child be not pourtractured greater then the Nurse as hath been observed by the pride of your Bishops of Rome but when the severall Kingdoms of Christendome shook off the Romane Yoke I see no reason why the Bishop of Rome should expect obedience from the Clergie of other Countries any more then the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury should expect obedience from the Clergie of other Kingdoms And for your deriving your Authority from Saint Peter I know no reason why we may not as well derive our Authority from Simon Zelotes or Joseph of Arimathea or from Philip of whose planting the Gospell we have as good warrant as you have for Saint Peter his planting the Gospel in Rome But my Lord I must tell you that there are other Objections to be made against your Church which more condemns her if these were answered Marq. May it please Your Majestie to give me leave to speak a word or two to what I have said and then I shall humbly beg Your further Objections As to that of the Christian Kingdomes shaking off the Roman Yoke and falling to pieces which was so prophesied it should yet the Church should not doe so because it is said it shall remaine in unitie and for Your Majesties objection concerning Simon Zelotes Joseph of Arimathea
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
John 6. 63. They pervert our Saviours meaning into a contrary sense of their owne imagination viz. the flesh profiteth nothing that is to say Christs body is not in the Sacrament but in the Spirit that quickneth that is to say we must onely believe that Christ dyed for us but not that his body is there as if there were any need of so many inculcations pressures offences mis-believings of and in a thing that were no more but a bare memoriall of a thing being a thing nothing more usuall with the Israelites as the twelve stones which were erected as a sign of the children of Israels passing over Jordan That when your children shall ask their Fathers what is meant thereby then ye shall answer them c. Josh 4. there would not have been so much difficulty in the belief if there had not been more in the mysterie there would not have been so much offence taken at a memorandum nor so much stumbling at a figure The Fathers are of this opinion Saint Ignat. in Ep. ad Smir. Saint Justin Apol 2. ad Antonium Saint Cyprian Ser. 4. de lapsis Saint Ambr. lib. 4. de Sacram. Saint Remigius c. affirme the flesh of Christ to be in the Sacrament and the same flesh which the word of God took in the Virgins wombe Secondly We hold that there is in the Church an infallible rule for understanding of Scripture besides the Scripture it selfe this you deny this we have Scripture for as Rom. 12. 16. we must prophesie according to the rule of faith we are bid to walke according to this rule Gal. 6. 16. we must encrease our faith and preach the Gospel according to this rule 1 Cor. 10. 15. this rule of faith the holy Scriptures call a form of doctrine Romans 6. 17. a thing made ready to our hands 2. Cor. 10. 16. that we may not measure our selves by our selves 2 Cor. 10. 12. the depositions committed to the Churches trust 1 Tim. 6. 20. for avoiding of prophane and vain bablings and oppositions of sciences and by this rule of faith is not meant the holy Scriptures for that cannot do it as the Apostle tells us whilst there are unstable men who wrest this way and that way to their owne destruction but it is the tradition of the Church and her exposition as it is delivered from hand to hand as most plainly appears 2. Tim. 2. 2. viz. The things which thou hast heard of us not received in writing from me or others among many witnesses the same commit thou to faithfull men who shall be able to teach it to others also Of this opinion are the Fathers Saint Irenaeus 4. chap. 45. Tertul de praescr and Vincent lir in suo commentario saith It is very needfull in regard of so many errors proceeding from misinterpretations of Scripture that the line of propheticall and Apostolicall exposition should be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense and saith Tertullian prae script advers haeres chap. 11. We doe not admit our adversaries to dispute out of Scripture till they can shew who their Ancestors were and from whom they received the Scriptures for the ordinary course of Doctrine requires that the first question should be from whom and by whom and to whom the form of Christian Religion was delivered otherwise prescribing against him as a stranger for otherwise if a heathen should come by the Bible as the Eunuch came by the Prophesie of Esay and have no Philip to interpret it unto him he would find out a Religion rather according to his owne fancy then divine verity In matters of faith Christ bids us to observe and doe whatsoever they bid us who sit in Moses seat Mat. 22. 2. therefore surely there is something more to be observed then onely Scripture will you not as well believe what you hear Christ say as what ye hear his Ministers write you hear Christ when you hear them as well as you read Christ when you read his word He that heareth you heareth me Luke 10. 16. We say the Scriptures are not easie to be understood you say they are we have Scripture for it as is before manifested at large the Fathers say as much Saint Irenaeus lib. 2. chap. 47. Origen contr Cels and Saint Ambr. Epist 44. ad Constant calleth the Scripture a Sea and depth of propheticall riddles and Saint Hier. in praefat comment in Ephes and Saint Aug Epist 119. chap. 21. saith The things of holy Scripture which I know not are more then those that I know and Saint Denis Bishop of Corinth cited by Eusebius lib. 7. hist Eccless 20. saith of the Scriptures that the matter thereof was far more profound then his wit could reach We say that this Church cannot erre you say it can we have Scripture for what we say such Scripture that will tell you that fools cannot erre therein Esaiah 35. 8. such Scripture as will tell you if you neglect to hear it you shall be a heathen and a publican Mat. 18. 17. such Scripture as will tell you that this Church shall be unto Christ a glorious Church a Church that shall be without spot or wrinkle Ephesians 5. 27. such a Church as shall be enlivened for ever with his Spirit Isaiah 59. 21. The Fathers affirm the samme Saint Aug contra Crescon lib. 1. cap. 3. Saint Cypr Epist 55. ad Cornel. num 3. Saint Irenaeus lib. 3. chap. 4. Cum multis aliis We say the Church hath been alwaies visible you deny it we have the Scripture for it Mat. 5. 14 15. The light of the world a City upon a hill cannot be hid 2 Cor. 4. 3. Isaiah 22. The Fathers unanimously affirme the same Origen Hom 30. in Math That the Church is full of light even from the East to the West Saint Chrisost Hom 4. in 6. of Isaiah That it is easier for the Sun to be extinguished then the Church to be darkned Saint Aug tract in Joan calls them blind who doe not see so great a mountain and Saint Cypr de Unitate Ecclesiae We held the perpetuall universality of the Church and that the Church of Rome is such a Church you deny it we have Scripture for it Psal 2. 8. Rom. 1. 8. the Fathers affirm as much Saint Cypr ep 57. writing to Cornelius Pope of Rome saith whilst with you there is one mind and one voice the whole Church is confessed to be the Roman Church Saint Aug de unitate Eccles chap. 4. saith who so communicates not with the whole corps of Christendome certaine it is that they are not in the holy Catholike Church Saint Hier. in Apol. ad Ruffin saith that it is all one to say the Roman faith and the Catholick We hold the unity of the Church to be necessary in all points of faith you deny it the severall articles of your Protestant Churches deny it we have Scripture for it Eph. 4. 5. One Lord one Faith one
Ceremonies and of Apostolicall tradition She held then besides Batisme and the Eucharist Confirmation Marriage Orders and extream Unction for true and proper Sacraments which the Church of Rome now acknowledgeth The Church in the Ceremonies of Baptisme used then oyl salt wax-lights exorcismes the signe of the Cross the word Ephata and other that accompany it none of them without reason and excellent signification The Church held then Baptisme for infants of absolute necessity and for this cause then permitted lay men to baptise in danger of death the Church used then holy water consecrated by certain words and Ceremonies and made use of it both for Baptisme and against inchantments and to make exorcismes and conjurations against evill spirits The Church held then divers degrees in the Ecclesiasticall Regiment to wit Bishops Priests Deacons Subdeacons the Acolite Exorcist Reader and Porter consesecrated and blessed them with divers Forms and Ceremonies And in the Episcopall Order acknowledged divers seats of Jurisdiction of positive right to wit Archbishops Primates Patriarchs and one Supereminent by Divine law which was the Pope without whom nothing could be decided appertaining to the universall Church and the want of whose presence either by himselfe or his Legats or his Confirmation made all Councels pretended to be universall unlawfull In the Church then the service was said throughout the East in Greek and throughout the West as well in Africa as in Europe in Latin although that in none of the provinces except in Italy and the Cities where the Romane Colonies resided the Latine tongue was understood by the common people She observed then the distinction of feasts and ordinary dayes the Distinction of Ecclesiasticall and lay habits the reverence of sacred vessels the custome of shaming and unction for the collation of orders the Ceremony of the Priest washing his hands at the Altar before the consecration of the Mysteries She then pronounced a part of the service at the Altar with a low voice made processions with the reliques of Martyrs kissed them carried them in clothes of silke and vessels of gold took and esteemed the dust from under their reliquaries accompanied the dead to their sepulchres with wax tapers in sign of joy for the certainty of their future resurrection The Church then had the picture of Christ and of his Saints both out of Churches and in them and upon the very Altars not to adore them with God like worship but by them to reverence the Souldiers and Champions of Christ The faithfull then used the sign of the Crosse in all their Conversations painted it on the portal of all the houses of the faithfull gave their blessing to the people with their hand by the signe of the Crosse imployed it to drive away evill spirits proposed in Jerusalem the very Crosse to be adored on good Friday Finally the Church held then that to the Catholick Church onely belongs the keeping of the Apostolicall tradition the Authority of interpretation of Scripture and the decision of Controversies of faith and that out of the succession of her communion of her Doctrine and her ministery there was neither Church nor Salvation Neither will I insist with you onely upon the word then but before and before and before that even to the first age of all will I shew you our doctrine of the reall presence and holy Sacrifice of the Masse Invocation of Saints Veneration of Reliques and Images Confession and Priestly absolution Purgatory and prayer for the dead Traditions c. In the fift Age or hundred of years Saint Augustine was for the reall and corporall presence In the fourth Age Saint Ambrose In the third Age Saint Cyprian In the second Age or hundred of years S. Irenaeus And in the first Age Saint Ignatius Martyr and Disciple of Saint John the Evangelist Concerning the honour and invocation of Saints In the fifth Age we find Saint Augustine praying to the Virgin Mary ond other Saints In the fourth Age we find Greg. Naz. praying to S. Basil the great In the third Age we find S. Origen praying to Father Abraham In the second Age Justin Martyr And in the first age in the Liturgy of S. James the lesse For the use and veneration of holy Reliques and Images and chiefly of the Holy Crosse in the fifth age Saint Augustine In the fourth Age Athanasius In the third Age Origen In the second Age St. Justin Martyr And in the first Age S. Ignatius Concerning Confession and Absolutions In the fifth Age S. August In the fourth Age S. Basil the Great In the third Age S. Cypr. In the second Age Tertull. And in the first Age S. Clement Now concerning Purgatory and Prayer for the dead in the fifth Age S. Augustin In the fourth Age S. Ambrose In the third Age S. Cypr. In the second Age Tertull. And in the first Age S. Clement e. Concerning Traditions in the fifth Age S. Aug. In the fourth Age S. Basil In the third Age S. Epiphanins In the second Age S. Irenaeus And in the first Age S. Dennis Now suppose that all these quotations be right The saving of a soul of your own soul of the soul of a King of the souls of so many Kingdoms and the gaining of that Kingdome for a reward which in comparison of these Earthly ones for which you so often fight so much strive and labour so much for to obtain your tetrarchate would be a gain for you to lose it so that you might but obtain that would be worth the search and when you have found them to be truly cited I dare trust your judgement that it will tell you that we have not changed our Countenance nor fled our Colours nor fallen away nor altered our Religion nor forsaken our first Love nor denyed our Principles nor brought Novelties into the Church but that we doe antiquum obtinere whereby we should be forsaken of you for forsaking our selves but rather that we should win you unto us by being still the same we were when we won you first unto us and were at the beginning And is it for the honour of the English Nation famous for the first Christian King and the first Christian Emperour to forsake her Mother Church so renowned for antiquity and to annex their Religion as a codicell to an appeal of a company of Protesters against a decree at Spira and to forsake so glorious a name as Catholick and to take a name upon them wherein they had neither right nor interest and then to take measure of the Scottish Discipline for the new fashion of their souls and to
make to themselves posies of the weedings of that Garden into which Christ himself came down upon which both the north and south-winds do blow in which is a well of living waters and streams from Lebanon about which is an enclosure of brotherly affection Will you forsake the Rose of Sharon and the Lillie of the Vallies for such a Nose-gay For I shall make it apparent unto your Majesty that the Doctrines which Protestants now hold as in opposition unto us were but so many condemned heresies by the Antient and Orthodoxall Fathers of the Church and never opposed by any of them As for example Protestants hold that the Church may Erre this they had from the Donatists for which they were frequently reproved by St. Augustin Protestants deny unwritten traditions and urge Scripture onely This they had from the Arrians who were condemned for it by St. Epiphanius and S. Augustin both Protestants teach that Priests may Marry this they had from Vigilantius who is condemned for it by St. Hieronimus Protestants deny prayer for the dead this they had from Arrius for which he is condemned by Saint August and Epiphanius both Protestants deny Invocation of Saints this they had from Vigilantius for which he was condemned by Saint Hieron Protestants deny Reverence to Images this they had from Xenias for which he is reproved by Nicephorus Protestants deny the reall Presence this they had from the Carpenaites who were saith Saint Augustin the first Hereticks that denied the reall Presence and that Judas was the first Suborner and Maintainer of this heresie Protestants deny Confession of sins to a Priest so did the Novatian Hereticks and the Montanists for which they are reproved by Saint Ambrose and Saint Hieron Protestants say that they are justified by Faith onely this they had from the pseudo-Apostles for which they are comdemned by St. Augustin Lastly as I have shewed Your Majesty that Your Church as it stands in opposition to ours is but a congeries of so many heresies to which I could easily make an enlargement but that I fear I have been too tedious already So I shall make it appeare that our Church as she stands in opposition unto yours is true and right even your selves being witnesses and you shall find our Doctrine among your owne Doctors First the Greek Church whom you court to your side as indeed they are Protestants according to your vulgar reception being you call all those Protestants who are or were in any Opposition to the Church of Rome though in their Tenents otherwise they never so much doe disagree For the Greek Church with which you so often hit us in the teeth and take to be of your faction she holds Invocation of Saints Adoration of Images Transubstantiation Cōmunion in one kind for the sick and many others Master Parker confesseth that Luther crossed himselfe morning and evening and is never seene to be painted praying but before a Crucifix As touching the Invocation of Saints saith Luther I think with the whole Christian Church and hold that Saints are to be honoured by us and invocated I never denyed Purgatory saith Luther and yet I believe it as I have often written and confessed If it is lawfull saith Luther for the Jews to have the picture of Caesar upon their Coins much more is it lawfull for Christians to have in their Churches Crosses and Images of Mary and lastly he maintained the reall Presence But let us goe a little further and consider what they held whom ye call your Predecessours under whom ye shrowd your Visibility and on whom you look beyond Luther for your Doctrines Patronage viz. First upon the Hussites who brake forth about the year 1400. they held seven Sacraments Transubstantiation the Popes primacy and the Masse as Fox in his acts and monuments acknowledgeth Let us goe further and consider Wickliffe our owne Countrey-man who appeared about the year 1370. he maintained holy water worship of Reliques and Images Intercession of the blessed Virgin Mary the rites and Ceremonies of the Masse all the seven Sacraments Moreover he held Opinions contrary and condemned both by Catholick and Protestants as that if a Bishop or Priest be in any mortal sin his Ordaining Consecrating or Baptizing is of no effect He condemned lawfull Oaths with the Anabaptists Lastly he maintained that any Ecclesiasticall Ministers were not to have any temporall possessions This last Opinion was such savory Doctrine that rather then some of those times would not hearken to that they would listen to all as the greedy appetites to Bishops Lands make some now adayes to hearken unto any thing that Cryers downe of Bishops shall foment To goe further yet to the Waldenses descended from the race of one Waldo a Merchant of Lions who brake out about the year 1220. These men held the reall Presence for which they were reproved by Calvin These men extolled the merit of voluntary poverty they held Transubstantiation and many other opinions which most Protestants no way allow And lastly I shall run your pedegree to the radix and utmost Derivation that the best read Herauld in the Protestant Genealogy can run its linc and that is to the Waldenses and to Berengarius who broacht his heresie in the year 1048. and he held all the points of Doctrine that we held onely he differed from us in the point of Transubstantiation And for this cause they took him into the name and number of Protestants and Reformers notwithstanding he presently afterwards recanted and died a Catholick So it ends where it never had beginning Finally if neither prescription of 1600 years possession and continuance of our Churches Doctrine nor our evidence out of the word of God nor the Fathers witnessings to that evidence nor the Decrees of Councels nor your owne acknowledgments be sufficient to mollifie and turne your royall heart there is no more means left for truth or me but I must leave it to God in whose hand are the hearts of Kings AN ANSWER TO THE Marquesse of WORCESTER His Reply to the KINGS Paper YOur MAJESTY is pleased to wave all the Markes of the true Church and to make recourse unto the Scriptures Ans 1. His MAJESTY did not wave all the Markes of the true Church assigned by the Marquesse but shewed them to be such as may without distinction and further explication belong to a false Church From Ier. 44. 16. His MAJESTY shewed that Antiquity Succession and Universality was alledged in defence of Idolatry That Demetrius Acts 19. alledged Antiquity and Universality for the worship of Diana and that Symmachus alledged Antiquity as a plea for all heathenish Idolatry and Superstition page 47. That Ezechiel bids Be not stiff-necked as your fore-fathers were page Ibid. These words the place being not cited I confesse I cannot
by the confession of all cannot properly but onely figuratively be Christs Flesh Bellarmine objects that the Hereticks spoken of by Ignatius denyed Christ to have true flesh holding that he was but seemingly borne crucified and raised againe And therefore hee saith they did not deny the Eucharist to signifie the flesh of Christ but onely to be the Flesh of Christ lest they should be forced to admit that Christ had true flesh But say I how could those Hereticks yeeld that Eucharist doth signifie the flesh of Christ and yet deny that Christ hath flesh For a thing must needs first be before there can be truly any signification of it Men saith Bellarmine may paint bodies which indeed are not But who will say that these Pictures are representations of bodies and not meere Pictures And this is all that Bellarmine could make out of Ignatius The next Father is Iustine Martyr who saith that the Bread in the Sacrament is not common Bread nor the Cup a common Cup. We say the same they are not common being sanctified and set apart for a holy use But doth this prove any transubstantiation our adversaries hold no substantiall change of the water in Baptisme and yet they will not say that it is common water I am sure it is farre more justly to be accounted Holy than that which they use to call Holy Water Iustine also saith That we are taught that the food in the Eucharist by which being changed our flesh and bloud is nourished is the flesh and bloud of that Iesus that was incarnate But this was so far from proving Transubstantiation that indeed it overthrowes it For in saying that we are nourished by the food the Bread and the Wine in the Sacrament he saith in effect that the substance of that food that Bread and Wine doth still remaine for otherwise how should we be nourished by it Christs Body and Bloud are not for our corporall nourishment of which Iustine speaketh neither can the bare Species or shewes of Bread and Wine afford any such nourishment But saith Bellarmine Iustine writing an Apology for Christians and their Religion was a prevaricatour and made the Christian Faith most odious by expressing himself so as he did whereas he might have avoided all superstition if he had believed that Christ is not so in the Sacrament as that the Bread is substantially changed and turned into his Body I answer that Iustines expressions are agreeable to our Saviours 1. This is my Body and therefore no more apt to render the Faith of Christians odious than the other Neither was it much to be feared that the Heathens to whom he wrote his Apology should not be able to understand the Figure whereby the signe is called that which it signifieth there was no need as Bellarmine scoffingly speakes that for the understanding of this Figure they should be conversant in the School of the Calvinists The next Father cited by the Marquesse is Cyprian who speaking of some that in time of Persecution denyed the Faith and yet presumed to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to let them see the hainousnesse of their presumption he first alledged some places of Scripture as Levit. 7. 19 20. and 1 Cor. 10. 21. and 11. 27. And then he addes All these things being despised and contemned violence is offered to Christs Body and Bloud and they now sinne against the Lord more by their hands and mouth then they did before when that they denyed him But what is there in all this to shew Cyprian held any such presence of Christ in the Sacrament as they of the Romish Church maintaine Yes saith Bellarmine for the Marquesse onely points at places but cites no words much lesse drawes any argument from them Cyprian did certainly beleeve Christ to be so in the Sacrament or else he would never have so aggravated the unworthy receiving of the Sacrament as to make it a greater sinne than to deny Christ before a persecutor But this reason is over-weak For first Cyprian being very Rhetoricall might a little hyperbolize in his expression And 2. without any Hyperbole at all the words may be made good and yet no Transubstantiation nor any corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament be supposed For the sin of denying Christ under Persecution might be and most probably was of infirmity and the sinne of receiving the Sacrament unworthily might be of presumption and so more hainous in that respect than the other In the same place Cyprian also relates some miraculous punishments which were inflicted on some that unworthily received the Sacrament and hence also Bellarmine infers that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament for that we doe not read he sayes of any such miracles shewed upon those who have unworthily medled with other Signes I answer yes we doe we read of Nadab and Abihu slain with fire from Heaven for offering Incense with strange Fire Levit. 10. and yet that Incense and the Altar on which it was offered were but Types and Figures So the Arke was but a Signe of Gods Presence and yet many thousands of the Bethshemites were destroyed for looking into it 1 Sam. 6. 4. so also was Uzza for presuming to touch it 2 Sam. 6. Next to Cyprian the Marquesse cites Ambrose Lib. 4. de Sacram. but no Chapter is cited by him Bellarmine cites Chap. 3 4 and 5. Now all that Ambrose saith chap. 3. as looking that way is but this That the Sacraments of Christians are more Divine then those of the Iewes Which we grant not in respect of the thing signified For Iesus Christ yesterday and to day and the same for ever Heb. 13. the same Christ was signified by the Jewish Sacraments as by ours but in respect of the manner of signifying Christ being more clearly signified by our Sacraments than he was by those which the Jewes had See 2 Cor. 3. 12. c. But chap. 4. Ambrose hath something that may seem to make more against us viz. That before Consecration it is Bread but when Consecration commeth then of Bread it is made the Flesh of Christ To this I answer that these words doe not inferre any Transubstantiation By Consecration of Bread is made Christs Flesh but Sacramentally not Substantially Figuratively not Properly And that Ambrose in those words did intend no substantiall change of the Bread appears by his owne words in the same Chapter If saith he there was such force in the speech of the Lord Iesus that things should begin to be that were not how much more operative is it that those things should be which were and should withall be changed into another thing Therefore in the judgement of Ambrose the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are what they were viz. in respect of substance yet by vertue of Christs institution are changed viz. in respect of signification Bellarmine to evade this testimony first sayes that Lanfrancus in
his book against Berengarius speaks of some Copies of Ambrose his Workes wherein those words were not Ut sint quae erant that is That those things should be which were But no such Copies either Printed or Manuscript it seems did Bellarmine meet with for otherwise I doubt not he would have given us notice of them Again with the same Lanfrancus he answers that those words are thus to be understood that in respect of outward shew the things which were still are but are changed in respect of inward substance But how can a thing be said to be what it was when as there is no substance of the thing remaining but onely a shew and appearance of it In the last place Bellarmine addes of his own that Ambrose meant If Christ could make a thing of nothing why can he not make a thing of something not by annihilating the thing but by changing it into that which is better But if a thing be changed substantially into another thing how doth it remain what it was before But so the things doe that Ambrose speaks of For Bellarmines criticisme is poor in distinguishing betwixt Ut sint id quod erant That they should be that which they were and Ut sint quae erant That the things should be that were as if these words did not import that the same substances still remain as well as the other when Christ turned Water into Wine can we say that his Word was operative and powerfull Ut esset quod erat in aliud mutaretur That that should be which was and that withall it should be changed into another thing I confesse I cannot see how the thing may be said truly and properly to be which was if it be substantially changed into some other thing Ambrose there a little after saith Tu ipse eras sed eras vetus creatura posteaquam consecratus es nova creatura esse coepisti Thou thy self wast but thou wast an old creature after thou art consecrated thou beginnest to be a new creature which cannot be meant of any substantiall change in us Chap. 5. the same Ambrose if it were Ambrose for Bellarmine is not very confident that Ambrose was the Author of those Books De Sacramentis saith indeed That before it is Consecrated it is Bread but when the words of Christ are come it is the Body of Christ But that it is so the Body of Christ as to be no longer Bread he doth not affirme That he was of another mind appears by the words before alledged And so much also may be gathered from that which he saith in this same Chapter viz. He that did eat Manna dyed but whose eateth this Body shall have remission of sins and shall live for ever Which cannot be understood of a Corporall eating of Christs Body but of a Spirituall eating of it Bellarmine cites some other sayings of Ambrose out of another Work of his viz. De iis qui mysteriis initiantur but they prove no more than these already cited neither doth the Marquesse refer us to them Yea in that same work Ambrose doth sufficiently declare himselfe against Transubstantiation For there he saith It is truly the Sacrament of Christs Flesh And after Consecration the Body of Christ is signified And again It is not therefore Corporali food but Spirituall Whence also the Apostle saith of the Type of it that our Fathers did eat Spirituall meat and did drink Spirituall drink 1 Cor. 10. The last Author Remigius is onely cited by the Marquesse at large neither doe I find him cited by Bellarmine at all and therefore untill we have some particular place cited out of him it is in vain to trouble our selves about him besides that his Antiquity is not such as that his Authority should much be stood upon being 890 years after Christ as Bellarmine sheweth in his book of Ecclesiasticall Writers Secondly saith the Marquesse We hold that there is in the Church an infallible Rule for understanding of Scripture besides the Scripture it self This you deny this we have Scripture for as Rom. 12. 6. We must prophecy according to the Rule of Faith We are bid to walke according to this Rule Gal. 6. 16. We must encrease our Faith and preach the Gospell according to this Rule 2 Cor. 10. 15. This rule of Faith the Holy Scriptures call a forme of Doctrine Rom. 6. 17. a thing made ready to our hands 2 Cor. 10. 16. that we may not measure our selves by our selves 2 Cor. 10. 12. the depositions committed to the Churches trust 1 Tim. 6. 20. for avoiding of profane and vaine bablings and oppositions of sciences And by this rule of faith is not meant the Holy Scriptures for that cannot doe it as the Apostle tells us whilst there are unstable men who wrest this way and that way to their own destruction but it is the tradition of the Church as it is delivered from hand to hand as most plainly appears 2 Tim. 2. 2. The things which thou hast heard of us not received in writing from me or others among many witnesses the same commit thou to faithfull men who shall be able to teach it to others also That there is any infallible Rule for understanding of Scripture or any other rule of Faith besides the Scripture we do deny and that by authority of the Scripture it self To the law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this Word it is because they have no light in them Isai 8. 20. Search the Scriptures for in them yee thinke to have eternall life and they are they that testifie of mee Joh. 5. 39. These were more noble then they of Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readinesse of minde and searched the Scriptures whether those things were so Acts 17. 11. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine for reproofe for correction for instruction in righteousnesse That the man of God may be perfect thoroughly furnished unto all good workes 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. Neither doe those places alledged by the Marquesse make for the contrary We must prophesie according to the rule of Faith saith the Apostle Rom. 12. 6. as the Marquesse hath it following therein the Rhemists translation as also their comment upon the place But the word in the originall signifies rather proportion then rule And I see not but that by the proportion of saith may be understood the measure of saith which is spoken of vers 3. But be it granted that proportion of faith is as much as rule of faith where doth the Apostle say that this rule of faith is any other then the Scripture it selfe The places before cited shew that we are referred to the Scripture as the rule whereby all doctrines are to be tried but no where doe I finde that wee are referred to any unwritten tradition Sure I am our Adversaries can evince no such thing from
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
he was above two hundred years after Minutius and Gregory who was about as much after Paulinus was against the worshipping of any thing made with hands as appears by the words before cited Finally saith the Marquesse the Church then held that to the Catholick Church only belongs the keeping of the Apostolical tradition the authority of interpretation of Scripture and the decision of controversies of faith and that out of the succession of her communion of her doctrine and her ministery there neither was Church nor salvation 1. For Apostolical traditions enough hath been said before 2. And so also of interpretation of Scripture and decision of controversies of faith 3. I understand not what is meant by objecting against us that out of the Catholick Church there is no Church For the Catholick Church being the Church universal and so comprehending all particular Churches as parts and members of it who can doubt that there is no Church out of the Church Catholick But what is this to the Church of Rome which once indeed was a sound part of the Catholick Church but the Catholick Church it never was nor could be except a part could be the whole In that which follows page 101. c. there is nothing but the same matter as before only the form is somewhat altered and therefore there is no need that I should trouble either my self or the Reader any further about it only I shall adde one or two Animadversions 1. Whereas it is objected page 105. c. that Luther after his deserting the communion of the Church of Rome did yet hold some points of Popery and so also Husse and Wickliffe and others that otherwise opposed themselves against the errors and corruptions of that Church I answer That as Rome was not built at once so neither was it demolished at once but by degrees it is no marvel therefore if those worthy men did at least for a while retain some Romish opinions and practices after that in many things they had discovered the truth and stood up in defence of it 2. Whereas it is pretended page 106. that before Berengarius who was above 1000. years after Christ none did oppose that reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament which the Romanists maintain besides that I have sufficiently confuted this before the Marquesse might have seen from Bellarmine himself that there were some who above 200. years before Berengarius did oppose that doctrine which in this particular the Church of Rome now doth hold namely Bertram a Presbyter who was about 800. years after Christ and saith Bellarmine was one of the first that did call in question that doctrine But Bellarmine doth too much mince the matter for Bertram did more then call in question that reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament which the Romanists do hold he did plainly assert that which Protestants maintain viz. that the substance of bread and wine doth still remain after consecration as is to be seen in Hospinians first part of the Sacramentary history and so in others that cite that Author for the book it self I confesse I have not seen that I do remember But that is here worthy to be observed which the Romish censurers of Books say speaking of this book of Bertrams about the Sacrament Although say they we do not much value this book nor should greatly eare if it were no where to be found yet seeing it hath been often printed and read of very many c. and we sufer very many errours in other ancient Catholicks we extenuate them we excuse them and finding out some device we often deny them and fain some good sense of them when they are opposed in disputations or conflicts with the adversaries we see not why Bertram may not deserve the same favour and diligent recognition lest Hereticks prate against us and say that we burn antiquity and prohibit it when it makes for them Some things therefore in Bertrams book they will have to be quite left out and some things to be quite altered as namely for visibly to be read invisibly Such devices have they of the Church of Rome to corrupt ancient Writers when they make against them and then they pretend that all are for them Thus the Marquesse in the conclusion of his Reply page 230. pretends that they have the prescription of 1600. years possession and continuance of their Churches Doctrine and evidence out of the word of God and the Fathers witnessing to that evidence and the decrees of Councels and Protestants own acknowlegdements But what ground there is for this pretence let the Reader judge by comparing and considering what is said on both sides And so I also shall leave the successe of my labour unto God in whose hand are the hearts of all An Addition of some few things omitted in the fore-going REJOINDER THe Marquesse pag. 69. citeth Basil orat in 40 it is misprinted 44 Mart. as affirming that we may pray unto the Saints departed But in that Oration Basil affirms no such thing He shews indeed his approbation of praying not unto the Martyrs but which is quite another thing to God at the monuments of the Martyrs The most learned B. Usher observes That the memory of the Martyrs indeed was from the very beginning had in great reverence and at their Memorials and Martyria that is to say at the places wherein their bodies were laid which were the Churches whereunto the Christians did in those times usually resort prayers were ordinarily offered up unto God for whose cause they laid down their lives But this is no argument that they then prayed to the Martyrs though that errour might take occasion afterwards to creep in by this meanes The Marquesse taxeth Calvin for holding that Christs soule was subject to ignorance To what I have already said in answer to this charge I adde that in this particular Fulgentius was of the same minde with Calvin For confuting those that held Christ to have no humane soul he saith thus If we must believe that the humane nature in Christ wanted a soul what is it that in Christ being an Infant is said not to have known good and evil Then he cites Isa 7. 16. expounding it of Christ and addes Therefore the humane soule which is naturally made capable of reason in Christ being an Infant is said not to have known good and evil which according to the truth of the Gospel in Christ being a child is related to have increased in wisdome c. To that also that hath been said before concerning Calvins death let this be added How far Calvin was from despairing at his death as the Marquesse doth object may appear by what he wrote to his dear friend Farel when he looked for death every moment I hardly breath saith he and expect continually that breath should fail me It is enough that I live and dye to Christ who to those that are his is both