acknowledgment The Fathers are on our side Orig. Hom. 2. in Levit. S. Chrys lib. 3. de Sacerd. S. Aug. in speculo Ser. 215. de temp Vener Bed in 6. Marke and S. James and many others Thus most Sacred SIR we have no reason to wave the Scriptures umpirage so that you will hear it speak in the mother language and not produce it as a witnesse on your side when the producers tell us nothing but their owne meaning in a language unknowne to all the former ages and then tell us that she saith so and they will have it so because he that hath a Bible and a sword shall carry away the meaning from him that hath a Bible and ne're a sword nor is it more blasphemy to say that the Scripture is the Churches off spring because it is the word of God then it is for me to say I am the sonne of such a man because God made me instrumentally I am so and so was shee for as saith Saint Aug Evangelio non crederum nisi me Ecclesiae anthoritas commoveret I should not believe the Gospel it selfe unlesse I were moved by the authority of the Church There was a Church before there was a Scripture take which Testament you please We grant you that the Scripture is the Originall of all light yet we see light before we see the Sun and we know there was a light when there was no Sun the one is but the body of the other We grant you the Scriptures to be the Celestiall globe but we must not grant you that every one knows how to use it or that it is necessary or possible they should We grant that the Scripture is a light to our feet and a lanthorne to our paths then you must grant me that it is requisite that we have a guide or else we may lose our way in the light as well as in the darke We grant you that it is the food of our souls yet there must be some body that must divide or break the bread We grant you that it is the onely antidote against the infection of the Devil yet it is not every ones profession to be a compounder of the ingredients We grant your Majesty the Scripture to be the only sword and buckler to defend a Church from her Ghostly enemies yet I hope you will not have the glorious company of the Apostles and the goodly fellow ship of the Prophets to exclude the noble Army of Martyrs and the holy Church which through all the world doth acknowledge Christ wherefore having shewne Your Majestie how much the Scriptures are ours I shall now consider your opinions apart from us and see how they are yours and who sides with You in Your opinion besides Your selves and first I shall crave the boldnesse to begin with the Protestants of the Church of England The Church of England WHose Religion as it is in opposition to ours consists altogether in denying for what she affirms we affirme the same as the Reall presence the infallibility visibility universality and unity of the Church confession and remission of sins free-will and possibility of keeping the Commandments c. All these things you deny and you may as well deny the blessed Trinity for we have no such word in Scripture onely inference then that which ye have already denyed and for which we have plaine Scripture Fathers Councels practise of the Church that which ye hold positive in your Discipline is more erroneous then that which is negative in your Doctrine as your maintaining a woman to be head Supreame or Moderatrix in the Church who by the Apostles rule is not to speak in the Church or that a Lay-man may be so what Scripture or Fathers or custome have ye for this or that a Lay-man as your Lay-Chancellour should excommunicate and deliver up soules to Sathan Whereas matters of so weighty concernment as delivering of mens soules into the Devils hands should not be executed and upon mature deliberation and immergent occasions and not by any but those who have the undoubted Authority lest otherwise you make the Authority it selfe to be doubted of A strange Religion whose Ministers are denyed the power of remitting sins whilst Lay-men are admitted to the power of retaining them and that upon every ordinary occasion as non-payment of fees and the like Whereas such practises as these have rendred the rod of Aaron no more formidable then a reed shaken with the wind so that you have brought it to this that whilst such men as these were permitted to excommunicate for a threepeny matter the people made not a three-peny matter of their Excommunication The Church of Saxony NOw for the Church of Saxony you shall find Luther a man not only obtruding new Doctrine upon his Disciples without Scripture or contrary to Scripture but also Doctrine denying Scripture to be Scripture and vilipending those books of Scripture which were received into the Canon and acknowledged to be the word of God in all ages As The book of Eccles saying That it hath never a perfect sentence in it and that the Author thereof had neither boots nor spurs but rid upon a long stick or begging shooes as he did when he was a Fryar And the book of Job that the argument thereof is a meer fiction invented onely for the setting downe of a true and lively example of patience That it is a false opinion and to be abolished that there are four Gospels and that the Gospel of S. John is only true That the Epistle of S. James is contentious swelling dry strawy and unworthy an Apostolical spirit And that Moses in his writings shewes unpleasant stopped and angry lips in which the word of grace is not but of wrath death and sin He calls him a Goaler Executioner and a cruell Serjeant For his doctrine He holds a threefold Divinity or three kinds as there are three persons whereupon Zwinglius taxes him for maning three Gods or three Natures in the Divinity He himselfe is angry with the word Trinity calling it a humane invention and a thing that soundeth very coldly He justifies the Arrians and saith they did very well in expelling the word Homousion being a word that his soule hated He affirmed that Christ was from all eternity even according to his humane nature taxed for it by Zwing in these words how can Christ then be said to be borne of a woman He affirmes that as Christ dyed with great pain so he seeems to have sustained pains in Hell after death That the divinity of Christ suffered or else he were none of his Christ That if the humane nature should only suffer for him that Christ were but a Saviour of a vile account and had need himselfe of another Saviour Luther held not onely consubstantiation but also saith Hospinian that the body and bloud of Christ both is and may be found according
be unnaturall Subjects seditious troublesome and unquiet spirits members of Sathan enemies to the King and the Common-wealth of their owne native Country And lastly because your Church of England most followed Calvins doctrine of any of the rest I shall shew you what end he made answerable to his beginning and course of life written by two knowne and approved Protestant Authors viz. God in the rod of his fury visiting Calvin did horribly punish him before the fearfull hour of his unhappy death for he so struck this heretick with his mighty hand that being in despair and calling upon the Devill he gave up his wicked soule swearing cursing and blaspheming dying upon the disease of lyce and wormes increasing in a most loathsome ulcer about his privie parts so as none present could endure the stentch these things are objected unto Calvin in publick writing in which also horrible things are declared concerning his lasciviousnesse his sundry abominable vices and Sodomiticall lusts for which last he was by the Magistrate at Nayon under whom he lived branded on the shoulder with a hot borning iron And this is said of him by Schlusberg She which is likewise confirmed by Jo. Herennius It may be your Majestie may taxt me of bitternesse or for the discovery of nakednesse But I hope you will give me leave to look what staffe I leane upon when I am to looke down upon so great and terrible a precipice as Hell and to consider the rottennesse of the severall rounds of that ladder which is proposed to me for my ascent unto heaven and to forewarne others of the dangers I espie their owne words can be none of my railing nor their owne accusations my errour except it be a fault to take notice of what is published and make use of what I see Ex ore tuo was our Saviours rule and shall be mine There hath not been used one Catholick Author throughout the accusation and I take it to be the providenee of God that they should be thus infatuated as to accuse one another that good men may take heed how they rely upon such mens Judgements in order to their eternall Salvation As to Your Majesties Objection that we of the Church of Rome fell away from our selves and that you did not fall away from us as also to the common saying of all Protestants bidding us to returne to our selves and they will returne to us we accept of their offer we will doe so that is to say we will hold our selves to the same Doctrine which the Church of Rome held before she converted this Nation to Christianity and then they cannot say we fell away from them or from our selves whilst we maintaine the same Doctrine we held before you were of us that is to say whilst we maintain'd the same Doctrine that we maintained during the four first Councels acknowledged by most Protestants and during Saint August time concerning whom Luther himself acknowledged That after the sacred Scriptures there is no Doctor of the Church to be compared thereby excluding himself and all his associates from being preferr'd before him concerning whom Master Field of the Church writes that Saint Aug. was the greatest Father since the Apostles Concerning whom Covel writes that he did shine in learning above all that ever did or will appear Concerning whom Jewell appeals as to a true and Orthodox Doctor Concerning whom Mr. Forrester Non. Tessagraph calls him the Fathers Monarch And Concerning whom Gomer acknowledges his opinion to be most pure Concerning whom Master Whitaker doubts not but that he was a Protestant And lastly concerning whom your royall Father seemed to appeal when he objected unto Card. Peron That the face and exteriour form of the Church was changed since his time and far different to what it was in his dayes wherefore we will take a view of what it was then and see whether we lose or keep our ground and whether it be the same which you acknowledged then to be so firm Our Church believed then a true and reall presence and the orall manducation of the body of Christ in the Sacrament as the prince of the Sacramentarians acknowledged in these words from the time of S. Augustin which was for the space of twelve hundred yeares the opinion of corporall flesh had already got the mastery And in this quality she adored the Eucarist with outward gestures and adoration as the true and proper body of Christ Then the Church believed the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament even besides the time that it was in use And for this cause kept it after Consecration for Domesticall Communions to give to the sick to carry upon the Sea to send into far Provinces Then she believed that Communion under both kinds was not necessary for the sufficiency of participation but that all the body and all the bloud was taken in either kind And for this cause in Domesticall Communions in Communions for children for sick persons by Sea and at the hour of death it was distributed under one kind onely Then the Church believed that the Eucharist was a true full and intire sacrifice not onely Eucharisticall but propitiatory and offered it as well for the living as the dead The faithfull and devout people of the Church then made pilgrimages to the bodies of the Martyrs pray'd to the Martyrs to pray to God for them Celebrated their Feasts reverenced their Reliques in all honourable forms And when they had received help from God by the intercession of the said Martyrs they hung up in the Temples and upon the Altars erected to their memory images of those parts of their bodies that had been healed The Church then held the Apostolicall traditions to be equall to the Apostolicall writings and held for Apostolicall traditions all that the Church of Rome now embraceth under that Title She then offered prayers for the dead both publick and private to the end to procure for them ease and rest And held this custome as a thing necessary for the refreshment of their souls The Church then held the fast of the forty dayes of Lent for a custome not free but necessary and of Apostolicall tradition And out of the time of Pentecost fasted all the Frydayes in the year in memory of the death of Christ except Christmay-Day fell on a Fryday which she then excepted as an Apostolicall tradition The Church then held marriage after the vow of Virginity to be a sin and reputed those who married together after their vowes not onely for adulterers but also for incestuous persons The Church held then mingling of water with wine in the sacrifice of the Eucharist for a thing necessary and of Divine and Apostolicall tradition She held then exorcismes exsufflations and renunciations which are made in Batisme for sacred
when mens bodies are buried their soules descend into Hell which descent the Lord to prove himselfe true man did not refuse The words also of S. Peter doe confirme this Exposition viz. that Hell in which Christs Soule was but was not left is the state of the dead or the Power of death Whom God hath raised up having loosed the paines of death because it was not possible that hee should be holden of it For David speaketh concerning him c. Acts 2. 24. c. To prove that CHRIST could not be held by death be still kept under the power of it Peter alledgeth the words of David concerning Christ Thou wilt not leave my Soule in Hell Therefore Christs not being left in Hell signifies nothing else but t is not being left under the power of death and consequently his being in Hell importeth nothing else but his being under the power of death under which hee was kept for a while viz. untill his Resurrection And this may suffice for answer to the Objection from Acts 2. 27. The next place Objected is 1 Pet. 3. 18 19. of which place I marvell that the Marquesse should say that it is yet plainer then either of the former Austine being consulted by Evodius about the meaning of that place confesseth that it did exceedingly puzzle him and that hee durst not affirme any thing about it And the Jesuite Lorinus in his Commentary upon it calles it difficillimum locum a most difficult place and rehearses ten severall Expositions of it And So Estius also upon the place saith This place in the judgement almost of all Interpreters is most difficult and is so diversly expounded that John Lorinus doth reckon up nine interpretations of it to which hee addes his own for the tenth and yet he hath not touched all neither And both he and Lorinus note that only Arias Montanus did thinke the place easie to be understood but withall that his Exposition of it is such as that others will not easily embrace it For as they relate Arias by the spirits in prison doth understand those eight persons that were shut up in the Arke which was a kinde of prison unto them Bellarmine also upon occasion of this controversie about Limbus Patrum and Christs descending into Hell treating of this place of Peter saith that it hath alwayes beene accounted a most obscure place Some have thought that by Prison in those words of Peter is meant Hell the place of torment and that Christ went and Preached there and that such as did then believe were delivered And thus Hilary seemes to have understood it who saith that the Apostle Peter doth testifie that when Christ descended into Hell exhortation was Preachde also to those that were in the Prison who had sometimes beene incredulous in the dayes of Noah For this opinion Hilary is taxed though not named by Bede as Estius observes who yet indeavours to excuse Hilary as not meaning by this Prison the Hell of the damned but Purgatory and in that sense Estius himselfe also doth understand the words of Peter viz. that by the spirits in prison are meant the soules of those that were in paine and torment for the expiating of their sinnes untill that Christ came and Preached deliverance unto them But of Purgatory I shall speake hereafter in the meane time so much is obtained that if the place be meant of Purgatory then not of Limbus Patrum for that place as they describe it did much differ from Purgatory as being a place they say in which was no paine or torment But it may seeme strange that the Marquesse should alledge Austine Epist 99. as holding that by the prison which Peter speaketh of is meant Limbus Patrum when as indeed Austine in that Epistle is much against it For besides what I have before cited out of that Epistle hee saith that Christ by the beatificall presence of his Divinity did never depart from those just persons that were in Abrahams bosome which the Marquesse saith is the same place with that called Limbus Patrum and therefore hee did not finde what Christ did for them when hee descended into Hell And having considered what hee could of the words of Peter hee rather thought that they did not speake of Hell at all And therefore by the spirits in prison hee conceived to be meant men that lived in the dayes of Noah whose soules were in their mortall bodies as in a prison to which men hee saith Christ by his Spirit in Noah did Preach though they yet neverthelesse would not believe Bellarmine and Estius and others doe acknowledge this to have beene the opinion of Austine in that Epistle concerning the words of Peter And Bellarmine also doth confesse that this of Austine doth differ but little from Bezaes Exposition of the place viz. that by the spirits in prison are meant the soules of men which were now when Peter wrote of them in prison that is in Hell to which men Christ by his Divine Spirit in Noah did Preach when they were alive upon Earth And surely any that are impartiall will judge this Exposition in that wherein it differs from Austines the more probable and yet Bellarmine to shew his partiality saith that hee would not have refuted Austines Exposition if Austine himselfe had beene altogether pleased with it Austines Exposition is embraced not onely by Bede whom Bellarmine onely mentions as herein following Austine but also by Aquinas and others as Estius observes who also addes that Hesselius a Romish Authour doth understand the place much after the same manner And as Lorinus doth relate Diegus Paiva one that wrote in defence of the Councell of Trent doth directly expound the words of Peter as Beza doth though hee would not have it thought that Paiva did receive his Exposition from Beza But against both Austines and Bezaes Exposition it is objected first that the Spirit by which Christ went and Preached to the spirits in prison 1 Pet. 3. 18 19. is opposed to the Flesh and therefore must signifie Christs Soule and not his Divine Nature I answer that Christs Divine Nature is most fitly understood there by the word Spirit even as by the word Flesh is to be understood not onely his Body but his whole humane Nature in respect of which nature Christ was put to death and was quickned by his Divine Nature Thus doth Oecumenius expound it Put to death in the nature of flesh that is the humane Nature and raised againe by the power of the Divine Nature And why should this Exposition seeme strange when as Flesh is put for Christs humane Nature Ioh. 1. 14. The word was made Flesh And so also Rom. 1. 3. and 9. 5. And therefore on the other side the word Spirit may well denote Christs Divine Nature For this Exposition Estius also cites Austine and Athanasius as alledged by Bede And he doth well observe that
greater benefit by him even of deliverance from the captivity of sinne and Satan Estius in his Exposition of the hard places of Scripture treating of this place saith indeed that many understand it of Christs descending into Hell and delivering thence the soules of the just but withall hee tells us that it is diversly expounded and that one Exposition is that Christ by the Merit of his Passion did free all the Elect who were held captive under the power of the Devill And thus hee saith the pit wherein is no water is the captivity of mankinde in which so long as it is held it is empty of the water of Divine Grace Diverse Romanists doe cite Hierome as interpreting this place of the Prophet Zachary of Limbus Patrum and of Christs descending thither But they that peruse Hieromes owne words will finde that hee neither speakes of Christs descending nor of Limbus Patrum and that indeed hee meant onely that which Estius expresseth Hee giveth the sense of the Prophets words thus By the blood of thy passion thou through thy clemency hast delivered those who were held bound in the prison of Hell in which there is no mercy And hee addes a little after that the rich man spoken of Luke 16. was in that pit which was so void of all water of comfort that hee desired Lazarus might but dip the tip of his finger in water to coole his Tongue Here it is evident that Hierome by the pit without water understands the Hell of the damned which is without all comfort though the Marquesse say that place cannot here be meant Now whereas Hierome saith that Christ by his Passion did deliver those that were bound in that prison I suppose hee did not meane that any being once in Hell as that rich man that he mentioneth were afterwards delivered out of it himself seemes to exclude that sence when hee saith that in that prison there is no mercy viz. to be obtained but his meaning was that such as by reason of sinne were in the state of damnation Christ did deliver by his Passion But thus neither this place of Zachary nor any other place of Scripture doth prove a Limbus Patrum or that Christ descended into Hell in that sense as they of the Church of Rome maintaine For the Fathers whom the Marquesse citeth Austine in Psal 37. 1. hath nothing about Limbus Patrum or Christs descending into Hell and I have shewed before that he gathered by the Scripture that Abrahams bosome was no such Limbus as the Romanists imagine yea that hee held the Saints that died before Christs incarnation to have alwayes enjoyed the beatificall presence of Christs Divinity which is point blanke contrary to their opinion Hierome I grant in Ephes 4. 9. seemeth to speake for them where hee saith By the lower parts of the Earth is understood Hell to which our Lord and Saviour descended that he might victoriously carry with him to Heaven the soules of the Saints which were kept there Whereupon also after his Resurrection many bodies of the just were seene in the holy City But Hieromes meaning might be onely this that Christ by the vertue and efficacy of his death did deliver the Soules of all Saints whether before or after his comming from Hell which otherwise by reason of sinne was the place that did belong unto them Thus a little before upon those words when hee ascended up on high hee led captivity captive Hierome doth expresse himselfe saying Wee who now believe in Christ were taken captive by the Devill and were delivered over to his officers Therefore our Lord Iesus Christ came bringing with him the vessels of captivity and preached remission to those that were taken and deliverance to those that were bound and delivered us from the Chaines and Fetters of our enemies And having deliver'd us and by a new captivity brought us out of our old captivity he carried us with him into Heaven Hee cannot here meane that we were actually in Hell and then from thence delivered and carried up with Christ into Heaven But his meaning must needs be this that whereas sinne had brought us under condemnation so that nothing but Hell did remaine for us Christ by his death delivered us and made a way for us into Heaven into which otherwise wee could finde no entrance After the same manner very well may the other words be understood so as to import no such place as they call Limbus Patrum However hee meant yet it appeares sufficiently by the words of Austine before cited that the opinion of Limbus Patrum was not generally received in that time wherein Hierome lived Austine and hee being contemporaries The other Father yet remaining is Gregory but there is no such place as that mentioned viz. li. 13. Mor. ca. 20. for that booke hath onely 17. Chapters in it yet I finde Bellarmine also to cite Gregory after the very same manner yea and to bid us also see Cap. 21. But the words which Bellarmine citeth as out of Cap. 20. are indeed in Cap. 15. viz. Whiles our Master and Redeemer penetrating the cloysters of Hell did bring out from thence the soules of the Elect hee suffers not us to goe thither from whence by descending hee did deliver others These words of Gregory might admit of the same Exposition with those of Hierome before spoken of but that in the next Chapter he is more plaine saying The former Saints could indure adversity but yet they could not be delivered from Hell when they died because hee was not yet come who should descend thither without sinne that hee might deliver those who were held there by reason of sinne But the reason that Gregory here giveth is too weake for though Christ were not then come in the flesh yet his death was as effectuall to those that believed in him then as after his comming as I have proved before Neither is the gound or occasion of these words of Gregory good for hee buildes or comments upon that of Iob 17. 13. If I waite Sheol Hell as Gregory understands it is mine house But I have shewed before that Sheol doth not properly signifie Hell as either wee or our adversaries usually take the word but the Grave or the state of the dead And so the Chaldie Paraphrast there for Sheol hath that which signifieth the house of the Grave This appeares to be the meaning in that place by that which followes immediately after v. 14. I have said to corruption Thou art my Father to the worme thou art my Mother and Sister If our adversaries wil yet stand upon the authority of Gregory I answer that we are not tied to the authority of any in this kinde further then they concur with the Scripture and if we were yet Austines authority were to be preferred as being 200 years more antient then Gregory but of this point enough From Limbus Patrum wee must now passe to Purgatory
Luthers Works as having it so as Campian alleadged And this is the more apparent in that Dureus professedly taking upon him the defence of Campian against Dr. Whitaker never so much as takes notice of that which the Doctor saith against Campian for falsifying the words of Luther so far was he from knowing of that pretended Edition anno 1551. which should have it forsooth just so as Campian quoted it 9. Luther as the Marquesse telleth us affirmed that Christ was from all eternity even according to his humane nature For proof hereof onely Zuinglius is cited But as I noted before Zuinglius his testimony is not sufficient to make good a charge against Luther Let Luthers words be produced and then it will appeare that he is justly charged 10. He affirms saith the Marquesse that as Christ died with great pain so he seems to have sustained paines in hell after death Indeed I finde such words in Luther on Plal. 16. and I acknowledge it to be a grosse errour so far am I from defending him in it But withall this I finde that Luther was nothing confident in that particular For he addes immediately that he would so understand the words of Peter Act. 2. 24. until he were better informed 11. That the Divinity of Christ suffered or else he were none of his Christ This also Bellarmine doth object against Luther and I confesse that if the word Divinity be strictly and properly taken the assertion is most erronious But Bellarmine probably was not ignorant that Aquinas observeth that because of the identity that is betwixt the divine Nature and the divine Person sometimes the Nature is put for the Person And that thus Austine saith that the divine Nature was conceived and born because the Person of the Son was conceived and born in respect of the humane nature So in like manner Luther might say that the Divinity or divine Nature did suffer because the Person of the Son did suffer according to the humane nature That Luther meant no otherwise then thus is clearly his words which I finde in Gerhard viz. these If I shall suffer my self to be perswaded that onely the humane nature did suffer for me truly Christ shall be a Saviour of small worth unto me for he himself at length will need a Saviour If perhaps that bewitching lady Reason will reclaim saying The Divinity cannot suffer nor dye thou shalt answer That indeed is true yet neverthelesse because the Divinity and the Humanity in Christ make one person therefore the Scripture because of the hypostatical union doth attribute to the Divinity all those things which happen to the Humanity and so to the Humanity those things which belong to the Divinity And truly thus it is indeed for we must needs confesse This Person Christ being pointed at doth suffer and dye But this Person is true God Therefore it is rightly said The Son of God doth suffer For though one part of him as I may so speak viz. the Deity doth not suffer yet that person which is God doth suffer in his other part viz. the Humanity For indeed the Son of God was crucified for us That same I say that same Person was crucified according to the Humanity And again If our sinnes and Gods weath due to our sinnes be weighed in one scale and in the other scale be put onely the death of humane nature or onely a man having sufered for us then the other scale will weigh us down to hel But if in the opposite scale be put the passion of God the death of God the blood of God or God having suffered for us then that scale will be more heavy and ponderous then all our sinnes and all Gods anger This doth abundantly shew that Luther was most orthodox in this point touching Christs Person and Natures And thus that also is answered which immediately followeth being indeed but the same with that which went before viz. That if the humane nature should onely suffer for him Christ were but a Saviour of vile account and had need himself of another Saviour In what sense Luther spake this and how sound and true it is in that sense wherein he spake it is evident by his own words before cited 12. The Marquesse cites Hospinian saying that Luther held the body and blood of Christ both is and may be found according to the substance not only in the bread and wine of the Eucharist or in the hearts of the faithfull but also in all creatures in fire water or in the rope and halter wherewith desperate persons hang themselves Whether Hospinian writ thus of Luther not having his book which is cited I cannot say Hospinian being though a Protestant yet against Luther in point of the Sacrament might peradventure wrest Luthers words beyond his meaning However if Luther did hold so I leave him to answer for himself or some other to answer for him I hold both him to have erred in his Consubstantiation and the Romanists in their Transubstantiation 13. Luther as is objected averreth that the ten Commandements belong not unto us for God did not lead us but the Jews forth of Egypt That Luther speaketh to this effect I grant yet was he far from teaching that Christians are free from the observation of the ten Commandements For immediately after that which the Marquesse citeth he saith thus Falsely therefore do fanaticall persons burthen us with the Law of Moses who spake nothing unto us Indeed we receive and acknowledge Moses as a teacher from whom we learn much wholesome doctrine as shall be shewed a little after But we do not acknowledge him our Lawgiver or Governour seeing he restraineâ— his Ministery to that people viz. the Jews Not to have other gods to fear God to trust in him and to obey him not to abuse his name to honor parents c. these things are to be observed by all and belong to all yet not because they were commanded by Moses but because these Laws which are rehearsed in the Deâ—alogue are imprinted in mans nature Wherefore also the heathens that knew not Moses and to whom God did not speak as he did to the Israelites knew that God is to be obeyed and worshipped that parents are to be honoured c. This doctrine of Luther is no other then they of the Roman Church do teach Estius a great Doctor of that Church writing upon those words Gal. 2. 19. I through the Law am dead to the Law saith Although the sense may seem more easie if it be understood of the Law as it is ceremonial yet may the whole Law given by Moses be understood so far forth as it was given by Moses For the whole legislative office of Moses doth cease by Christ neither is a Christian bound by the Law of the Decalogue but as it doth agree with the Law of nature and is renewed by Christ So the
Baptisme and Confirmation saith Then they may be sanctified and be the sons of God if they be borne in both Sacraments We hold it sufficient to communicate in one kind you not we have Scripture for it John 6. 15. If any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever If everlasting life be sufficient then is it also sufficient to communicate under one kind So Acts 2. 42. And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship or communion and in breaking of bread and prayer where is no mention of the cup and yet they remained stedfast in the Apostles doctrine Luke 24. 30. 8. 35. where Christ communicated his two Disciples under one kind Saint Augustine and Theophylact lib. de Consens Evang. cap. 25. expound this place of the blessed Sacrament S. Chrys Hom. 17. oper imperfecti We hold that Christ offered up unto his Father in the Sacrifice of the Masse as an expiation for the sins of the people is a true and proper Sacrifice this you deny this we prove by Scripture viz. Malach. 1. 11. From the rising of the Sun unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place incense shall be offered to my name and a pure offering This could not be meant of the figurative offerings of the Jewes because it was spoken of the Gentiles neither can it be understood of the reall Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse because that was done but in one place and at one time and then and there not among the Gentiles neither which could be no other but the daily Sacrifice of the Masse which is and ever was from East to West a pure and daily Sacrifice Luke 22. 19. This is my body which is given for you not to you therefore a Sacrifice The Fathers are of this opinion S. Clem. Apost Const lib. 6. cap. 23. who calleth it a reasonable unbloudy and Mysticall Sacrament S. Aug. lib. 1. Cont. advers leg proph cap. 18. 19. calleth it a singular and most excellent Sacrifice S. Chrys Hom. in Psal 95. calleth it a pure and unbloudy host a heavenly and most reverend Sacrifice S. Greg. Nicen. Orat. 4. de Resurrect We say that the Sacrament of 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 inferiour grace at all upon them we have Scripture for what we hold viz. 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophesie and with the laying on the hands of the Presbytery So 1 Tim. 1. 6. Stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on my hands S. Aug. lib. 4. Quaest super Num. S. Cyp. Ep. ad Magnum Optatus Milevit the place beginneth ne quis miretur Tertul. in prescript The place beginneth Edant Origines We hold 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 vows and secondly That those who have made any such vowes are not bound to keep them we have Scripture for what we hold Deuteronomie 23. 22. 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 widows 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 antient Fathers have expounded it Saint Aug. lib. de bona viduit cap. 9. Saint Athanas lib. de Virginitat Saint Epiph Heres 48. Saint Hier. cont Jovin lib. cap. 7. We say Christ descended into Hell and delivered thence the Soules of the Fathers ye deny it we have Scripture for it viz. Ephes 4. 8. When he ascended up on high he led captivity captive c. Descending first into the lower part of the Earth This lower part of the Earth could not be a Grave for that was the upper part nor could it have been the place of the damned for the Devils would have been brought againe into heaven more clearly Acts 2. 27. Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption there is hell for his soule for a time and the grave for his body for a while plainer yet 1 Pet. 3. 18 19. Being put to death in the flesh but quickned by the Spirit by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison this prison cannot be heaven nor hell as it is the place of the damned nor the grave as it is the place of rest therefore it must be as Saint Aug. Epist 99. ad Evod. saith some third place which third place the Fathers have called Limbus patrum also Zachary 9. 11. As for thee also by the bloud of thy Covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is water by this pit could not be meant the place of the damned for they have no share in the Covenant neither are they Christs prisoners but the devils neither could this pit be the grave because Christs grave was a new pit where never any was laid before The Fathers affirme as much Saint Hier. in 4. ad Ephes Saint Greg. lib. 13. Moral cap. 20. Saint Aug in Psal 3. 7. ver 1. We hold purgatory fire where satisfaction shall be made for sinnes after death you deny it we have Scripture for it 1 Cor. 3. 13. 15. The fire shall try every mans work of what sort it is if any mans work shall be burnt he shall suffer losse but he himselfe shall be saved yet so as by fire Lastly We hold extreme Unction to be a Sacrament you neither hold it to be a Sacrament neither doe you practice it as a duty we have Scripture for it James 5. 13. Is any sick among you let him call the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyle in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him Neither any nor all the Sacraments were or could be more effectuall mens good nor more substantiall in matter nor more exquisite in forme nor more punctuall in designation of its ministry other Sacraments being bounded within the limits of the soules onely good this extends it selfe to the good both of soule and body he shall recover from his sicknesse and his sins shall be forgiven him and yet it is both left out in your practise and
Dippers Shakers Adamists Luther complaining of seven Sects risen in two years And we of new Sects rising every day If we should consider the severall species of Independency how it hath brought Religion to nothing but Confusion we would conclude with Saint Angustine That it is necessary that rent and divided into small pieces we perish who have preferred the swelling pride of our haughty Stomacks before the most holy band of Catholick peace and Unity Whilst the Catholicks have no jars undecided no differences uncomposed having one common Father one Conductor and Adviser as Sir Edward Sands confesseth None contend about the Scripture all Consent and Credit the Fathers adhere to the Councels submit to the holy Sea of Rome And the Divisions that are are but humane dissentions as is confessed by Luther Beza Whitaker Fulk c. Thus Religion being at Unity with it selfe is the true Speculum Creatoris or looking glasse of the Creatour wherein the full proportion of a Deity may be seen but once broken into pieces it may represent divers faces but no true proportion and loseth at once both its value and its virtue I have thus presented Your Majesty with a view of the Cotholick Religion asserted by the Fathers and the Protestant Religion asserted by their founders I shall humbly desire Your Majesties further patience that Your Majestie will be pleased to consider the lives and Conversations of the one and of the other First the rare Sanctity and admired holinesse which all ages and writers have ascribed unto these holy Fathers And the strange and unheard of blasphemies vilenesse and wickednesse that are cast upon the other not by any of their Adversaries but by themselves upon one another If these testimonies had been by any of our side I could not have expected credit but being by Protestants themselves I cannot see how it should be denied Luther confesseth saith the learned Protestant Hospinian that he was taught by the devil that the Masse was naught and overcome with the devils reasons he abolisht it The same confessed by himselfe I ingeniously confesse saith Luther that I cannot henceforth place Zwinglius in the number of Christians and further he affirmes that he had lost whole Christ Zwinglius saith Schlusselburg after the manner of all Hereticks was stricken with the spirit of giddinesse and blindnesse deriving it from the etimologie of his name in dutch von dem Schwindel Gualterus calls Zwinglius the Author of War the disturber of peace proud and cruell and instances in his strange attempt against the Tygurines his fellows whom he forced by want and famine to follow his doctrine and that he dyed in armor and in the Warre And Luther saith he dyed like a thiefe because he would compell others to his error And he saith further that he denyed Christ and is damn'd He tells us also that the devill or the devills dam used to appeare to Carolose and taught him the exposition of this is my body As also that he possessed him corporally and that he was possessed with more devils then one Neither would he have any man wonder that he calls him devill for he saith he hath nothing to doe with him but has onely relation to him by whom he is obsest who speaks by him The last apparition of the devill to him which was three dayes before his death is recorded by Albert. If you look into Bezas Epigrams printed at Paris An. 1548. you will find pretty passages concerning his boy Andebers and his wench Candida and the businesse debated at large concerning which sin is to be preferr'd and his chusing the boy at last Sclusselberg said that Peter Martyr was a heretick and dyed so Nicolaus Selneverus said that Oecolampadius in his doctrine built upon the sand And Saith Luther Emser and Oecolampadius and such like were hiddenly slain by those horrible blowes and shakings of the devill Simlerus saith that Brentius Miricus and Andrew Musculus in their writings did nothing else but make way for the devill Luther saith Calvin was infected with many vices I would he had been more carefull in correcting his vices God for the sin of pride wherewith Luther exalted himself took away his true spirit We have found saith Oecalompadius in the faith and confession of Luthers 12. Articles whereof some are more vaine then is fitting some lesse faithfull and over-guilefully expounded others again are false and reprobate but some there are which plainly dissent from the Word of God and the Articles of Christian faith Thou O Luther saith Zwinglius corruptest and adulterest the Scriptures imitating therein the Marcionists and the Arians In translating and expounding of Scripture Luthers errors are many and manifest Zwinglius tells us that Luther affirms sometimes this and sometimes that of one and the same thing that he is never at one with himself taxing him with inconstancy and lightnesse in the word of God That he cares not what he saith though he be found contradicting the Oracles of God As sure as God is God so sure and devilish a lyer is Luther Luthers writings containe nothing but railing and reproaches insomuch that it maketh the Protestant Religion suspected and hated He calls an anointed King Hen. 8. of England a furious dolt indued with an impudent and whorish face without a vein of princely bloud in his whole body a lying Sophist a damnable rotten worm a basilisk the progeny of an Adder scurrilous lyer covered with a title of a King a clown a block-head foolish wicked and impudent Henry and saies that he lies like a scurrilous knave and thou liest in thy throat foolish and sacrilegious King Nor did he lesse raile at other Princes as at the Duke of Brunswick in his Booke called Wider hans worst written purposely against him as also against the Bishop of Mentz one of the Princes Electors And against the Princes of Germany No marvaile that he saith that he had eaten a peck or two of Salt with the Devill and that he knew the Devill very well and that the Devill knew him againe No marvaile that he confessed of himselfe that the Devill sometimes passed through his brains No marvaile that he said the Devill did more frequently sleep with him and cling to him closer then his Catharine No marvaile that he said that the Devil walked with him in his bed chamber and that he had one or two wonderfull Devils by whom he was diligently and carefully served and they no smal Devils but great ones yea Doctors of divinity amongst the Devils No marvaile that his fellow Prot. could wonder how marvelously he bewrayed himselfe with his Devils and that he could use such filthy words so replenished with all the Devils in Hell No marvaile that they said that never any man writ more
there is no cause to be found in those that are not elected which is not as much to be found in those that are elected Thus also Doctor Twisse We say and say truly saith hee that many are appointed unto damnation before they are borne Yet we doe not say that any is appointed to suffer death but for sinne nor that the decree it selfe in respect of the act of him that decreeth doth any one moment goe before the foresight of sinne I see nothing in these Assertions of our Divines that hath any thing more horrid in it then that is which they of the Church of Rome before cited doe assert and yet some of these goe as high in the point of Predestination I thinke as any others Calvin himselfe as hee saith If wee cannot give a reason why God hath mercy on his own but because so it pleaseth him neither have we any cause why others are Reprobated but his Will So he saith withall If all by their condition be subject to condemnation how can they whom God doth predestinate unto destruction complaine that he doth deale unjustly with them Let all the sonnes of Adam come let them contend and dispute with their Creator because by his eternall providence before they were borne they were appointed to eternall misery What will they be able to object against this plea when God shall on the other side call them to areview of themselves If all be taken out of the corrupt Masse it is no wonder if they be subject to damnation Let them not therefore accuse God of iniquity if by his Eternall judgement they be appointed unto death to which whether they will or no themselves doe see that they are led by their own nature of its own accord And againe Although by Gods eternall Providence man is cast into that calamity which doth befall him yet he takes the matter of it from himselfe and not from God seeing for no other reason is he so undone but because he did degenerate from that purity wherein God created him and made himselfe vitious impure and perverse And againe we affirme that none do perish but by their own desert e And againe The cause of our damnation is in our selves Thus Calvin being heard speake for himselfe it plainly appeares that hee by the decree of Reprobation makes God the author of mans damnation no otherwise then diverse Romanists themselves doe And thus also Beza This saith hee is the sum of Pauls answer although God appoint either to love or to hatred whom he will without any respect of their qualifications yet he is free from all injustice because betwixt Gods eternall decree and the execution of it there are subordinate causes whereby God doth bring the elect unto salvation and doth justly damne the Reprobate For he saves the elect by mercy and damnes the Reprobate by induration so that they doe most foolishly who confouned the decree of Reprobation with damnation seeing that the cause of damnation is manifest to wit sinne but the Will of God is the onely cause of Reprobation Therefore God doth wrong to neither because both deserve destruction For mercy shewes that the Elect were miserable and therefore worthy because of sinne to be destroyed and induration presupposeth perversnesse in which the Reprobate are justly hardened The like he hath also againe a little after And whereas Beza saith that they doe not satisfie him who by the lumpe which the Apostle speakes of Rom. 9. 12. doe understand mankinde being corrupt because 1. That terme he thinkes doth not well agree to man being created much lesse to him being already corrupted And againe if the Apostle had some Vessells were made unto honour and some unto dishonour but seeing all Vessels were fitted for dishonour all mankinde being corrupted the Apostle would rather have said that some were left in that dishonour and some translated from it unto honour Finally except Paul goe up to the highest step the objection hee thinkes is not satisfied For that still it will be demanded whether that corruption came as it happened or according to Gods purpose and so the same difficulty will remaine still Therefore Paul hee saith by that most elegant similitude did allude unto Adams Creation and did ascend up even to Gods eternall purpose who before he did create mankinde did of his meere will and pleasure determine to shew forth his glory in saving some through his mercy and in destroying some by his just judgement This is no more then Estius on Rom. 9. doth subscribe unto In this disputation saith hee the Apostle doth not suppose the lumpe corrupt although that which the Apostle saith is true also of it according to Austines opinion For the Scriptures often using the comparison of a lumpe which the Potter doth fasten as he pleaseth speakes of the lumpe absolutely not supposing any fault in it but only considering the nature of it whereby it is fit to be fastned into any worke of the Potter And therefore the Apostle doth not say that the Potter of the same lumpe doth make one Vessell unto honour and leave another in dishonour but that of the same lumpe he doth make unto dishonour Neither doth he say that the thing formed doth not say to him that formed it Why hast thou left me in the corrupt lumpe but Why hast thou made me so that is a dishonorable and reprobate vessell Here wee see Estius both approves of Bezaes interpretation and also makes use of his reason for the confirming of it And hee addes that the Apostle in that similitude of a lumpe and a Potter doth not allude to Ier. 18. 6 but that rather there is a manifest allusion to Isai 45. 9. Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker Let the potsheard strive with the potsheards of the Earth shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it What makest thou or thy worke he hath no hands Which words hee saith doe verily signifie thus much that God of his meere pleasure doth so determine of mens estate either the one way or the other as a Potter doth make of clay what worke hee pleaseth And hitherto hee saith doth that belong which followeth Isai 45. 10. Woe unto him that saith unto his Father What begettest thou or to the woman What hast thou brought forth For saith hee what hath man deserved why his parents should ingender him such or such And a little before by diverse arguments he confutes those who thinke that the Apostle speaking of Reprobation doth suppose the lumpe of mankinde infected with originall sinne If saith he those things which the Apostle delivers in this Chapter be diligently considered it will fully appeare that as well Reprobation as Election is absolutely not of foreseene merits For 1. When he saith neither having done any good or evill he excludes as well the evill action of Esau as the good action of Jacob and consequently as well the ill merit
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
and who hath been his Counsellour Rom. 11. 34. The last place of Scripture which the Marquesse objecteth is Ezech. 33. 11. As I live saith the Lord I delight not in the death of a sinner Now to this also we have Alvarez to answer for us viz. first that it is meant of spirituall death which is by sinne Which God doth only permit but doth not delight in it And this Explication hee saith is confirmed by the words following but rather that he be converted and live And if it be expounded of the second death which is eternall damnation the meaning hee saith is that God will not inflict this upon any but for sinne But though God will not inflict damnation upon the Reprobate but for sinne yet this same Alvarez as I have shewed abundantly before and so other Writers of the Church of Rome doe tell us that God by his eternall Decree of Reprobation of his meere Will and Pleasure doth determine to suffer the Reprobate to sinne and so to damne them for it And thus now I have made it appeare I hope sufficiently that by the consent of the Romanists themselves the Scriptures alledged are not repugnant to the Doctrine of Protestants concerning Reprobation neither I thinke will the Fathers whom the Marquesse citeth be against it The first of them is Austine who as hath before been shewed is as much for us as we neede desire He is here produced against us but so as that I know not easily how to finde what he saith For onely li. 1. de Civit. Dei. is cited but no Chapter whereas there are no lesse then 36. in that booke this is a strange kinde of citing Authors but the fault may be in the Printer or in some other and not in the Marquesse As for Cyprian who is next cited I see not any thing in the place pointed at which is to this purpose except this Seeing it is written God made not death nor doth he rejoyce in the destruction of the living surely he that would not have any to perish desires that sinners may come to Repentance and that by Repentance they may returne unto life againe Now that which Cyprian here alledgeth viz. God made not death c. I have shewed before by the testimony of Hierome to be no Canonicall Scripture nor of sufficient force to decide any point of controversie as also that if it were yet by the acknowledgement of Alvarez it makes not against Gods Decree of Reprobation which wee maintaine It hath also beene shewed before in what sense God would have none to perish viz. by his Antecedent Will with which yet will stand the Decree of Reprobation as we hold it which likewise hath been shewed and that from both Bellarmine and from Alvarez also And that God desires sinners may come to Repentance and so to life Protestants that I know doe not deny though they hold that God doth give and so from all eternity did purpose to give Repentance unto some and not to others as hee pleaseth which I have also shewed to be acknowledged by Bellarmine Alvarez Estius and others of the Church of Rome And it is most cleare by that of the Apostle If God peradventure will give them Repentance 2 Tim. 2. 25. and that He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will he hardneth Rom. 9. 18. The third and last Father who is here alledged is Ambrose de Cain Abel lib. 2. but what Chapter whereas there are ten in that Booke is not mentioned Now I finde that Chap. 3. hath something which probably was aimed at by the Marquesse viz. this Christ therefore offered the helpe of healing unto all that whosoever perisheth may ascribe the cause of his death to himselfe who when he had a remedy whereby he might escape would not be cured And that Christs mercy towards all might be made manifest in that they that perish doe perish by their own negligence but they that are saved are freed according to Christs sentence who will have all men to be saved and to come to the acknowledgement of the truth Now I know no Protestant but hee will assent unto this that whosoever perish must ascribe the cause to themselves and that they perish through their own default I have before cited Calvin asserting thus much That none doe perish without their desert But this assertion of his is very well consistent with his Doctrine about Reprobation as I have shewed by the testimonies of diverse famous Writers of the Church of Rome And whereas Ambrose saith that such as perish had a remedy whereby they might escape and that they therefore perish because they would not be cured No Protestants I suppose will deny but that such as perish through unbeliefe if they did believe should be saved but yet neverthelesse not Protestants onely but Papists also as I have shewed doe hold that God from all eternity did decree and purpose to give faith unto some and not unto others and that meerely of his own will and pleasure And that therefore according to Austine whose words are cited before the prime and supreme cause why some are not saved is not because they will not but because God will not For that which Ambrose hath in the last place who will have all men to be saved c. enough hath beene said before to shew that in the judgement of Austine and diverse Romanists it is nothing against the absolute decree of Reprobation and so I have done with this point In the next place the Marquesse speakes of a mans assurance of his salvation saying that Protestants hold that a man ought to assure himselfe of it and to prove the contrary which they of the Roman Church doe hold he alledgeth 1 Cor. 9. 27. saying S. Paul was not assured but that whilest he Preached to others he himselfe might become a cast-away And Rom. 11. 20. Thou standest in the Faith be not high minded but feare c. lest thou also mayest be cut off And Phil. 2. 12. Worke out your own salvation with fear and termbling Answ Concerning this point Protestants hold 1. That a Christian may be assured of his salvation 2. That a Christian ought to labour for this assurance For the former of these positions wee have diverse places of Scriptures As first that Famous place Rom. 8. 35 36 37 38 39. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ shall Tribulation or Distresse or Persecution c. Nay in all these things we are more then conquerours through Him that loved us For I am perswaded that neither Death nor Life nor Angels nor principalities nor powers nor things present nor things to come nor height nor depth nor any other Creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. So also that 2 Cor. 5. 1. We know then if our earthly house of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a building
thinke it not meete to Confirme children untill they come to the use of reason and be able to confesse their faith The Catechisme set forth by the decree of the councell of Trent thinkes it requisite that children be either twelve years old or at least seven years old before they be confirmed And Durantus tells us that a Synod at Millan did decree and that hee sayes piously and religiously That the Sacrament of Confirmation should be administred to none under seven years old Thus have they by their own confession departed from the judgment and practice of the ancient Fathers themselves and why then should they presse us with it After Confirmation the Marquesse commeth to communicating in one kinde which they hold sufficient And he saith that they have Scripture for it viz. Ioh. 6. 51. not 15. If any man eate of this bread hee shall live for ever Whence hee inferrs If everlasting life be sufficient then it is also sufficient to communicate under one kinde So Acts 2. 42. They continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayer Where is no mention of the Cup and yet they remained stedfast in the Apostles Doctrine So also Luke 24. 30 35. Where Christ communicated hee saith his two Disciples under one kinde He addes that Austine Theophylact and Chrysostome expound that place of the Sacrament Answ The Scripture plainly shewes that our Saviour instituting the Sacrament of his Supper took and blessed and gave the Cup as well as the bread and commanded that to be drunk as well as this to be eaten in remembrance of him Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luke 22. 1 Cor. 11. And the Apostle tells us that As oft as we eate this bread and drinke the Cup of the Lord we shew forth the Lords death till he come 1 Cor. 11. 26. And he bids v. 28. Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of that Bread and drinke of that Cup. Protestants therefore have good reason to hold it necessary to communicate in both kindes and that it is utterly unlawfull to withhold the Cup from people as they in the Church of Rome do Our Adversaries thinke to put off those words of our Saviour Drinke yee all of this by saying that Christ spake so onely to the Apostles and therefore wee must not infer from them that the common sort of people are to drinke of the Cup in the Sacrament But 1. by this reason they may as well withhold the bread also from the people and so deprive them of the whole sacrament For when Christ gave the Bread and bad take eate he spake onely to the Apostles as well as when hee gave the cup and bad that all should drinke of it 2. The Apostle spake universally of all Christians requiring that having examined themselves they should not onely eate of the bread but drinke of the cup also All antiquity is here on our side How doe we teach or provoke them saith Cyprian to shed their blood in the confession of Christ if we deny them the blood of Christ when they are going to war-fare Or how doe we make them meete for the Cup of Martyrdome if we doe not first admit them to drinke the Lords Cup in the Church by the right of Communion Thus spake Cyprian and he spake in the name of a whole Synod of Affrick as Pamelius observes concerning such as though they had grossely offended yet were judged meete to be admitted to the Sacrament because of a persecution which was ready to come upon them that so they might be strengthened and prepared for it This clearly shewes that in Cyprians time all that did communicate at all did communicate in both kindes and not in one onely So also in another place Considering saith Cyprian that they therefore daily drinke the cup of Christs Blood that they also for Christ may shed their blood There is a decree of Pope Iulius recorded by Gratian wherein hee condemneth the practice of some who used to give unto people the bread dipped for a full communion This he saith is not consonant to the Gospell where we finde that the bread and the cup were given severally each by it selfe Much more we may suppose hee would have disliked that the bread alone without any manner of participation of the cup should have been administred Sure I am the reason that hee alledgeth is every whit as much against this as against the other So another Pope viz. Gelasius as the same Gratian relates hearing of some that would onely receive the bread but not the Cup bade that either they should receive the whole Sacrament or no part of it because the division of one and the same mystery hee saith cannot be without great Sacriledge And whereas they speake of a concomitancy of the blood with the body and so would have it sufficient to receive the bread onely the glosse upon that canon is expressely against them saying that the bread hath reference onely to Christs Body and the Wine onely to his Blood and that therefore the Sacrament is received in both kindes to signifie that Christ assumed both Body and Soule and that the participation of the Sacrament is available both to Soule and Body Wherefore it saith if the Sacrament should be received onely in one kinde in Bread onely it would shew that it availes onely for the good of the one viz. of the Body and not for the good of the other viz. of the Soule Not to multiply testimonies Cassander in the very beginning of the Article wherein he treates of this point ingenuously confesseth that the Universall Church of Christ to this day doth and the Westerne or Roman Church for more then a thousand years after Christ did especially in the solemne and ordinary dispensation of the Sacrament exhibit both kindes both Bread and Wine to all the members of Christ which he saith is manifest by innumerable testimonies of ancient Writers both Greek and Latine And hee addes that they were induced hereunto first by the institution and example of Christ who did give this Sacrament of his Body and Blood under two signes viz. Bread and Wine unto his Disciples as representing the person of faithfull Communicants And because in the Sacrament of the Blood they believed that a peculiar vertue and grace is signified So also for mysticall reasons of this institution which are diversly assigned by the ancient Writers As to represent the memory of Christs Passion in the offering of his Body and the shedding of his Blood according to that of Paul As oft as yee eate this Bread and Drinke the cup of the Lord yee shew forth the Lords death till hee come Also to signifie full refreshing and nourishing which consists in Meate and Drinke as Christ saith My flesh is meate indeed and my Blood is Drinke indeed Likewise to shew the redemption and preservation of Soule and
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
that if not through wantonnesse but through weaknesse they were forced to marry the Apostle would have them to doe it rather then to doe worse viz. burne with lust and commit Fornication For whereas the same authour saith It is not better for such as have vowed contineney to marry then to burne this is nothing else but a flat contradicting of the Apostle or at least a contradicting of that Rule We must not distinguish where the Law doth not distinguish And we finde in their own Canons that if Widdows did professe continency yet a snare was not to be cast upon them to wit as the Glosse doth expound it by separating them from their Husbands if they did marry or by forbidding them precisely to marry Another Canon also which they have injoynes no more but this that if such as professe Virginity did afterwards marry they should be ranked amongst those that did marry the second time viz. after the death of the first yoke fellow which marriage the Scripture doth clearly allow Rom. 7. 2 3. and 1 Cor. 7. 39. neither did any Orthodox Writer ever condemne it Their Canon-Law indeed debarres those that are twice married from being Priests grounding upon the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. 2. and Titus 1. 6. which places their owne Cardinall Cajetan doth yet interpret otherwise but yet grant that such doe not sinne They grant also that if any marry after a simple vow of continency the marriage doth stand good and is not to be dissolved For this they have a Canon out of Austine which runs thus Some say that they that marry after a vow are adulterers but I say unto you that they that divide such doe sinne grievously And another out of Theodorus thus If a man having a simple vow of virginity joyne himselfe to a Wife let him not afterwards put her away but let him doe penance three yeares And so Estius confesseth that we never reade in antient writers that if Widdowes who vowed continency did marry their marriage was voide and of none effect For saith hee their vow was not solemne But I have shewed before that the distinction of simple and solemne vow hath no ground in Scripture and that in respect of God a simple vow doth binde as much as a solemne And besides if as they alledge and cite some of the antients also for it one having vowed continency whether solemnely or simply is married unto Christ and therefore may much lesse marry another then one that is allready married to a mortall man then surely the marriage of such should much rather be judged adultery and be dissolved then the marriage of those who marry againe when they are already married Yet Bellarmine goes further and acknowledgeth that many prime Writers of the Church of Rome as Scotus Paludanus and Cajetane and generally as Panormitan doth relate all the Canonists affirme that onely by Ecclesiasticall right marriage made after a solemne vow is of no force And this opinion hee granteth to be probable So then by their own confessions it may appeare that there is no Law of God against it but that such as have vowed continency should marry if they be not able to performe what they have vowed And this may suffice for this point The Marquesse goes on thus We say Christ descended into Hell and delivered thence the soules of the Fathers yee deny it Wee have Scripture for it viz. Ephes 4. 8. When he ascended up on high he led captivity captive c. Descending first into the lower part of the Earth This lower part of the Earth could not be a grave for that was the upper part nor could it have beene the place of the damned for the Devils would have beene brought againe into Heaven More clearly Acts 2. 27. Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption There is Hell for his soule for a time and the grave for his body for a while Plainer yet 1 Pet. 3. 18 19. Being put to death in the flesh but quickned by the spirit by which also hee went and preached unto the spirits in prison This prison cannot be Heaven nor Hell as it is the place of the damned nor the grave as it is the place of rest Therefore it must be as S. Aug. Epist 99. ad Evod. saith some third place which third place the Fathers have called Limbus Patrum Also Zach. 9. 11. As for thee also by the blood of thy Covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water By this pit could not be meant the place of the damned for they have no share in the Covenant neither are they Christs prisoners but the Devils neither could this pit be the grave because Christs grave was a new pit where never any was laid before The Fathers affirm as much S. Hieron in 4. ad Ephes S. Greg. l. 13. Moral c. 20. S. Aug. in Psal 37. 1. Answ That Christ did descend into Hell in that sense as they of the Church of Some doe hold viz. into a Region of Hell called Limbus Patrum to deliver the faithfull thence that lived and died under the old Testament this Protestants deny and they have just cause to deny it For the Scripture doth not shew us any such Hell as this which they speake of much lesse that CHRIST did descend into it 1. The faithfull that were before Christ did enjoy the benefit of him as well as they that are since his comming We believe said Peter that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ wee shall be saved even as they Acts 15. 11. Therefore they were saved by Christ as well as we now are saved by him and consequently the faithfull then through Christ did goe to Heaven as well as now they doe 2. It is said of the faithfull of the old Testament that they confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims upon the Earth Heb. 11. 13. and that they did seeke a country v. 14. not an earthly country but a better country that is an Heavenly and that God did prepare for them a City v. 16. 3. Abrahams bosome as the place is called where the soules of the Saints of the old Testament were is so described in the Scripture as that it could be no such place as they call Limbus Patrum For 1. The soule of Lazarus was carried thither by Angels and therefore it should rather be Heaven then Hell 2. It was a place of comfort Luke 16. 25. But Austine could not finde hee saith with all his searching where the Scripture doth make Hell to be any place of comfort and hee thought this a good argument why Abrahams bosome could not be Hell 3. There was a great gulfe fixed betwixt the place where Lazarus was viz. Abrahams bosome and the place where the rich man was in torment Luke 16. 26. And hence also Austine inferreth that Abrahams bosome
and Bellarmine pretend that the Chaldie Paraphrast and the Rabbines doe expound it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gehinnom which signifies the place where the damned are in torment But 1. If it were so this were nothing to that Limbus which they contend for 2. Neither is it true that those authors doe usually so expound the word For the Chaldie Paraphrast for the most part keepeth the Hebrew word Sheol it selfe onely sometimes it is a little changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Shiol and many times doth hee use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kebura or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Keburta that is the Grave to expresse the Hebrew Sheol by or which is the same in effect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be Keburta or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the house of the Grave As Iob. 7. 9. and 14. 13. and 17. 13. and 16. Psal 89. 48. and 141. 7. and Eccles 9. 10. In all these places doth the Chaldie Pharaphrast render the Hebrew word Sheol the grave or the house of the grave let any Romanist shew that hee renders it so often by that word which signifies the place of torment though as I said before that were nothing to their Limbus Patrum And thus also doe the Rabbines interpret the word Sheol R. Levi saith that Sheol doth signifie the Grave and that therefore it is put for Death 2 Sam. 22. 6. So also R. Nathan Mordecai in his Hebrew Concordance saith that the interpretation of Sheol is the Grave Aben Ezra also saith the same in his commentary on Gen. 37. 35. And moreover he taxeth the vulgar Latine Translatour for interpreting Sheol there Hell supposing him to have meant the Hell of the damned Kimchi likewise saith that those words Psal 16. 10. thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption are but a repetition of that which went before Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell Which shewes that hee tooke Sheol there rendred Hell for the Grave It is true sometimes the Rabbines expound Sheol by Gehinnam i. e. Hell the place of torment but they doe not hold that to be the simple and genuine signification of the word as appeares by R. Solomon on Gen. 37. 35. who saith that Sheol there according to the literall Exposition is the Grave and that Iacobs meaning was that hee would goe mourning to the Grave and would not be comforted but that according to the mysticall Exposition by Sheol there is meant Gehinnam the Hell of the damned So Kimchi upon those words Psal 9. 17. The wicked shall be turned into Hell where the Hebrew is Sheol interprets it Let the wicked be turned into the Grave and afterwards addes that mystically there by Sheol is understood Gehinnam the place of torment Obj. But they say that in these words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell the Grave cannot be meant by Hell because the Grave is not a place for the soule but for the body Answ The word Soule is sometimes put for the body or which is all one for man considered in respect of the body As Gen. 46. 26. All the soules that came with Iacob into Egypt which came out of his loines c. There by soules are meant bodies or persons in respect of their bodies for so generally both Protestants and Romanists doe hold that not the Soules properly but the Bodies of children doe proceede from the loines of their Parents Yea and sometimes by Soule is meant the Body when the Soule is departed out of it As Num. 19. 13. Whosoever toucheth the dead Body of any man c. There the word rendred dead Body is that which Psal 16. 10. and so usually elsewhere is rendred Soule Bellarmine to take away this answer saith that there is great difference betwixt the Hebrew word Nephesh and the Greeke Psyche both which are rendred soule For Nephesh hee saith is a most generall word and without any trope doth signifie both Soule and living creature yea and the Body also But the Greeke Psyche he saith and so the Latine Anima is not so generall as without a trope to signifie the whole living creature And therefore in Leviticus he saith one part is not put for another viz. the Soule for the Body but there is the word that usually signifies the Body it selfe or the whole is put for the part that is the living creature for the Body But in Acts 2. is used the word Psyche which doth signifie the Soule onely Thus Bellarmine but a pitty it is to see how a learned man rather then hee will submit to truth doth plunge himselfe into absurdity yea more absurdities then one But to passe by the rest this is most grosse that Bellarmine doth so distinguish betwixt Nephesh and Psyche as if the former sometimes did signifie the whole living creature or the Body onely but not so the latter when as in these very places of Leviticus which Bellarmine doth speake of viz. Levit. 21. 1. and 11. as in the Hebrew the word Nephesh so in the Greeke the word Psyche is used and therefore it is apparently false that the Greeke word Psyche doth signifie the Soule onely Yea but saith Bellarmine when even Nephesh is opposed to flesh it cannot be taken for flesh Now here soule is opposed to flesh his soule was not left in Hell neither his flesh did see corruption Acts 2. 31. And therefore here by no meanes can signifie a dead body I answer that in those words Acts 2. 31. there is no opposition betwixt Soule and Flesh no more then there is an opposition betwixt Leave and Forsake in those words Heb. 13. 6. I will not leave thee nor forsake thee So then notwithstanding any thing that is objected in those words Thou wilt not leave my Soule in Hell by Hell may be meant the Grave and by Soule the Body But if the word Soule be taken properly then by Hell is to be understood the power of death or the state of the dead And thus doe Romish Writers sometimes expound the word Hell As Iansenius upon those words Prov. 15. 11. Hell and destruction are before the Lord notes that by Hell and destruction is signified the state of the dead not onely of the damned as wee usually conceive when we heare those words but the state of all in generall that are departed out of this life So Genebrard expounds that Psalme 30. 3. Thou hast brought up my Soule from Sheol from Hell as the vulgar Latine reades it he expounds it I say thus Thou hast delivered me from the state of the dead So likewise the same author upon Psal 88. or 89. 48. saith Hell doth signifie the whole state of the dead Thus generally all that die whether they be godly or wicked are said as in respect of the Body to goe to the Grave so in respect of the Soule to descend into Hell This is the Law of humane necessity saith Hilary that
God so nigh at hand how doe things heavenly and eternall succeede things earthly and fading if after this life the soules of Christians may continue many hundred years perhaps in the flames of Purgatory before they can get to Heaven Might not this well make every one to feare death and to tremble at the approach of it Might not a Christian at his Death well cry out with the Heathen Emperour O poore Soule whither art thou now going But Cyprian goes on and citing that of Simeon Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace for mine eyes have seene thy salvation he addes that then the servants of God have peace then they have free and calme quietnesse when being taken out of the tempests of this world we arrive at the haven of eternall rest and security when as this death being past we come to immortality And so againe God doth promise immortality and eternity unto thee when thou goest out of the world and doest thou doubt This is not at all to know God this is to offend Christ the Lord and Master of believers with the sinne of unbeliefe this is to be in the Church the house of Faith and yet to have no Faith How profitable it is to goe out of the World Christ himselfe the Master of our salvation and welfare doth shew who when his Disciples were sorrowfull because he said he was to leave them said If you had loved me you would rejoyce because I goe to the Father Joh. 14. 28. teaching us that we should rather rejoyce then be sorry when they depart out of the world whom we love who are dear unto us Thus also Hierome writing to Paula to comfort her concerning the Death of her Daughter Blaesilla saith Let the dead be lamented but such an one whom the place of torment doth receive whom Hell doth devoure for whose punishment the everlasting fire doth burne We whose departure a troupe of Angels doth accompany whom Christ doth come to meet are more grieved or as some reade gravemur let us be more grieved if we abide longer in this Tabernacle of death because so long as we abide here we are as pilgrimes absent from the Lord. Let that desire possesse us woe is me that my pilgrimage is prolonged c. Austine plainly saith that the Catholike faith by Divine authority doth believe the first place to be the Kingdome of Heaven the second to be Hell where every apostate or such us are aliens from the faith of Christ doe suffer everlasting punishments a third place we are altogether ignorant of yea we finde in the holy Scriptures that there is no such place Bellarmine answers that Austine there speakes of those places which are everlasting Which indeed is true for he speakes of Heaven and of Hell the place of torment which are everlasting places for those to abide in that are in them But withall hee saith that there is no third place viz. for those that depart out of this life Besides how can the Romanists yeeld that there is no everlasting place besides Heaven and Hell viz. Gehenna which is the word that Austine useth the Hell of the damned when as they hold a Limbus infantium an everlasting place for Infants to abide in that die without Baptisme which place they make to be distinct both from Heaven and from the place of torment For there they say such children as die unbaptized suffer the punishment of losse whereby the place differs from Heaven but not the punishment of sense whereby it differs from the Hell of the damned But Bellarmine proves that Austine or whosoever was the Authour of the booke called Hypognosticon did not deny that there is a third place to abide in for a time after this life because the Catholike faith doth teach that besides Heaven and Hell there was before Christs death Abrahams bosome where the soules of the holy Fathers did abide I answer that Abrahams bosome was any such Limbus Patrum as the Romanists imagine was no part of Austines Creede as I have shewed before out of Austines undoubted writings And therefore Erasmus though Bellarmine unjustly carpe at him for it might well write Purgatory in the margent over against those words a third place we are altogether ignorant of signifying that Purgatory is a third place of which the Catholike faith is ignorant But what neede is there to alledge particular Fathers when as the Bishop of Rochester who was beheaded in the reigne of Henry the Eighth for maintaining the Popes supremacy in his booke against Luther as hee is cited by Polydore Vergill who was an agent here in England for the Pope in the time of Henry 8. when as I say that Authour confesseth that Purgatory is never or very seldome mentioned by the antient writers and that the Grecians to this day doe not believe that there is any such thing as Purgatory Now for the place of Scripture which the Marquesse saith they have for Purgatory viz. 1 Cor. 3. 13 15. First it is to be observed that whereas Bellarmine doth alledge diverse other places besides this for proofe of Purgatory the Marquesse waves all the other and mentiones onely this conceiving it as it seemes more plaine and pregnant then the rest Yet 2. Bellarmine tells us and bids us marke it that this is one of the most obscure places of all the Scripture though withall hee saith it is one of the most usefull places because from thence they have as hee supposeth a foundation both for Purgatory and for veniall sinnes But as hath beene observed before out of Austine the Scripture is cleare in those things which concerne faith and therefore we must not build pointes of faith upon obscure places Now so obscure is this place viz. 1 Cor. 3. 13 15. that Bellarmine spendes a long Chapter meerely in the explication of it And yet when all is done nothing can be made of it for Purgatory For Bellarmine confutes those that thinke Purgatory to be meant by the fire mentioned v. 13. The fire shall try every mans worke of what sort it is and he proves that the fire there mentioned is the fire of Gods severe and just judgement which is not a purging and afflicting but a proving and examining fire So that Bellarmine doth take away one halfe of the Marquesses quotation and indeed the whole quotation For though Bellarmine would have those words v. 15. he himselfe shall be saved yet so as by fire to be understood of Purgatory yet who seeth not that it is absurd to take the word fire otherwise there then v. 13. And therefore Estius upon the place saith that it is evident that one and the same fire is meant in both Verses Which fire hee will have to be that which shall burne up the World at the last day So also Bellarmine notes some to understand it as some of the tribulations of this life and some
And although this doth not justifie Luther as I do not desire to defend him or any man in that wherein he is to be condemned yet it might make his opposers the more mild that Eusebius and Hierome of old do shew that the authority of this Epistle was some while doubted of and Cardinal Cajetane Luthers contemporarie did somewhat scruple at it and so did he also argue against the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews Some also say that Erasmus censures this Epistle of James as not savouring of Apostolical authority But in that Edition which I have of Erasmus his notes upon the New Testament I finde no such censure but that he would not have us contend about the Author but to iâ— brace the matter acknowledging the Holy Ghost to be the Author of it This advice is worthy to be followed by Protestants as well as Papists 5. Luther is taxed for saying That Moses in his writings sheweth unpleasant stopped and angry lips in which the word of grace is not but of wrath death and sinne And that hee calls him a Gapler executioner and a cruel Serjeant This doth Mr. Breerley object against Luther and I grant that Luther indeed hath those words tom 3. in Psal 45. But he speaks of Moses onely as contradistinct to Christ as a meer Law-giver For the Law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ Joh. 1. 17. So Moses his ministration was the ministration of death 2 Cor. 3. 7. and the ministration of condemnation v. 9. The Law simply considered doth convince of sinne and condemn for sinne For by the Law is the knowledge of sinne Rom. 3. 20. And it saith Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. Now no man doth or can perform this and therefore saith the Apostle there as many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse And so the Law worketh wrath Rom. 4. 15. This is not through any fault of the Law but by reason of sinne which is a transgression of the Law 1 Joh. 3. 4. and so makes liable to the curse and condemnation which by the Law belongs to those that transgresse The Law saith Ambrose is not wrath but it worketh wrath that is punishment to him that sinneth in that it doth not pardon sin but revenge it And again The glory of Moses his countenance saith he had not the fruit of glory in that it did not profit any but rather hurt though not through its own fault but through the fault of those that sinne This is spoken of the Law as it stands in opposition to the Gospel wherein reconciliation and salvation through Christ is set forth And in this sense only did Luther speak of Moses as himself expresly sheweth 6. The Marquesse addes that for Luther's doctrine he holds a threefold Divinity or three kinds as there are three Persons For proof of this only Zuinglius is cited But Luther and he being such adversaries their testimonies one against the other are of small force Had any such thing been in Luthers writings the Romanists themselves I doubt not would have found it out and not have referred us only to Zuinglius for it Luther on Genes 1. doth expressely speak of three Persons but one Divinity as being the same in all the three Persons 7. That Luther is angry with the word Trinity calling it a humane invention and a thing that soundeth very coldly The place alledged I have not opportunity to examine but thus much I say that Luther believing the thing viz. that there are three Divine Persons as I have shewed immediately before I see not why he should dislike the word Trinity 8. That he justistifies the Arrians and saith they did very well in expelling the word Homousion being a word that his soule hated Thus also Duraeus and before him Campian and before them both Bellarmine chargeth Luther with saying that his soule did hate the word Homousion which the Orthodox Fathers used to shew against the Arrians the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father But they wrong Luther as their manner is For he doth not say that his soul did hate that word but that if his soul did hate it and he would not use it yet he should not be a heretick so that he did hold the thing signified by the word which the Fathers in the Nicene Councel did determine by the Scriptures He speaks thus in respect of the Papists who will not be content with Scripture-terms but will invent terms of their own to pervert the sense of Scriptures As Latomus against whom he writes would not call Concupiscence sinne as the Apostle cals it but a punishment of sinne Hereupon Luther I think went too far concerning the word Homousion though not so far as his Romish adversaries do charge him He saith that this word used in confutation of the Arrians is not to be objected against him For that many and those most excellent men did not receive it and that Hierome wished it were abolished And that although the Arrians did erre in the faith yet they did well however to require that a profane and new word might not be used in rules of faith For that the sincerity of Scripture is to be preserved and man is not to presume to speak either more clearly or more sincerely then God hath spoken I confesse that Luther in this seemeth to me to exceed as men are apt to do in favour of that cause which they prosecute But yet it appears that he was sound in the faith and did not comply with the Arrians who opposed the word Homousion not so much for the new invention as for the signification of it Mr. Breerly who hath also this charge against Luther as indeed he hath most of that which the Marquesse objecteth against Protestant Divines cites Luther against Latomus in the Edition of Wittembergh 1551. and saith that the latter Editions are altered and corrupted by Luthers Scholars as he had shewed he saith the like before viz. concerning that place where Luther they say did speak so reprochfully of S. James his Epistle But 1. This is not like the other For here he saith Luthers works were altered by his Scholars but there he saith they were altered by his adversaries 2. As I have shewed the other to be improbable so also is this For Luther died anno 1546. so that the Edition which was anno 1551. was five years after Luthers death and surely by that time Luthers Scholars had leisure enough to make such an alteration as Mr. Breerly speaks of in Luthers works if they had been so minded I cannot therefore but take this as a trick of Mr. Breerley's when he saw Campians quotation of Luther confuted by Dr. Whitaker to pretend some former Edition of
much as to renounce his salvation and this the Marquesse saith he saith a little before was not fained or as a thing only acted upon a stage Surely all that have any spark of Christianity in them must needs assent to Calvin in this that Christs passion as the Evangelists relate it was not fained nor acted upon a stage though it seems they of the Church of Rome on Good Friday as they call it use to make a kind of Stage-play of it But how unworthily is Calvin here used He is made to say that Christ was overwhelmed with desperation ceased to call upon God and did as much as renounce his salvation But any that look into the place alleadged may see that Calvin is far from this blasphemy That which he saith is this that the wicked enemies of Christ by Satans instigation deriding him when he cried Eli Eli c. did labour to overwhelm him with desperation and to make him cease calling upon God which had been as much as to renounce salvation As before Calvin was made positively to aver that which hee brought in by way of objection so here that is censured as spoken by him which he only speaks of Christs enemies But it is worthy to be observed that immediately after those words which are so pitifully perverted Calvin comforts himself and others with this consideration that if our words which are right and good be depraved and slandered it is no marvel seeing Christ himself was thus dealt with But to proceed 16. Calvin as is alleadged saith That Christ in his soul suffered the terrible torments of a damned and forsaken man This allegation is true and so also is that which follows in the next passage but two and I note it here because it is of the same nature It is no marvel if it be said that Christ went down into hell since he suffered that death wherewith God in wrath striketh wicked doers Calvin hath these sayings in the place alleadged viz. Instit lib. 2. cap. 16. sect 10. I am not of Calvins mind for the meaning of the article about Christs descent into hell as I have elsewhere shewed And peradventure Calvin might go too far in exaggerating the sufferings of Christs soul as others in this may be too remisse But when Calvin speaketh of Christ suffering the torments of a damned man he means such torments as are without all mixture of sin for that he alwayes removes far from Christ as I have shewed before And that Christ did suffer the torments of a forsaken man his own words upon the crosse do shew My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Christ had speciall cause as Jansenius observes to complaine that he was forsaken of his God in that he had the divine nature united to him and his humane nature did not feel any comfort of it And in this respect it may be said that Christ suffered that death wherewith God in wrath doth strike wicked doers though in other respects there was great difference 17. Calvin is charged with this saying In the death of Christ occus a spectacle full of desperation Calvins meaning will easily appear to any that look upon his words as they are in the place quoted He speaks of Joseph of Arimathea his courage in begging of Pilate Christs body to bury it saying Now when in Christs death occurs a spectacle full of desperation which might have been able to break a stout heart whence hath he on the sudden such a generous spirit that in the midst of terrors fearing nothing he should not doubt to proceed further then when all was quiet Any may here plainly see that Calvin speaks not of any desperation that Christ in his death did fall into but his meaning is that a natural man yea one that had but a small measure of faith could have apprehended nothing in Christs death but matter of desperation And surely this appears by the words of the two Disciples not to speak of the deportment of the Apostles We trusted that it had been he that should have redeemed Israel Luke 24. 21. Another sentence is here immediately after cited out of Calvin viz. In this spectacle there was nothing but matter of extreme despair The very words shew it to carry the same sense with the former though otherwise I can say nothing to it the place from which it is taken being mis-cited for on Joh. 14. 6 Calvin hath no such thing 18. The Marquesse taxeth Calvin for saying Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father holds but a second degree with him in honour and rule and is but his Vicar Calvin on Mat. 26. 64. doth say That Christ is said to sit at the right hand of the Father because he hath as it were after him the second seat of honour and rule and because he is his Vicar So that Calvin indeed doth not say that Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father but that Christ as sitting at the right hand of his Father holds but a second degree c. that is that Christs sitting at the right hand of God though it import great honour and dignity yet such as whereby Christ is but in a second degree of honour under the Father And surely this is most true it belonging unto Christ as man to sit at the right hand of God as the Councel of Trents Catechisme doth teach the honour and dignity which that sitting imports though otherwise it be most great yet must needs be inferior to that which belongs to the Father and so also to Christ as he is one and the same God with the Father 19. Lastly saith the Marquesse Calvin holds it absurd that Christ should challenge to himself the glory of his own resurrection when the Scripture every where teacheth it to be the work of the Father It may seem wonderful that mens words and writings should be thus depraved Two places of Calvin are cited for proof of this which is alleadged against him Now in the former place viz. on Joh. 2. 19. he saith thus Here Christ doth challenge to himself the glory of his resurrection when as the Scripture usually doth testifie that this is the work of God the Father But these two do well agree together For the Scripture to commend unto us Gods power doth expresly ascribe this to the Father that he raised his Son from the dead but here Christ peculiarly sets forth his own Divinity And Paul doth reconcile both Rom. 8. 11. For the Spirit which he maketh to be the Author of the resurrection he promiscuously cals sometimes the Spirit of Christ sometimes the Spirit of the Father So also in the other place viz. on Rom. 8. 11. Surely saith he Christ rose again of himself and by his own power But as he used to transcribe to the Father whatsoever divine power is in him so the Apostle doth not improperly
and fully refuted by Andreas Rivetus in his Jesuita Vapulans where he produceth the very Records of that City where this is said to have been done and sheweth by the inquisition that was there made concerning Calvin it being the place where he was born that nothing is objected against him but only his falling off from the Roman Religion And thus I hope both Calvin and others are sufficiently vindicated and purged from those aspersions that are cast upon them Now if I had a minde to recriminate I might easily to use the Marquesse his words inlarge my Paper to a volume of instances in their Popes Cardinals Monks Friars Priests and Jesuites not to speak of their other sort of people of whose monstrous wickednesse their own Authors have largely testified But I like not Camarinam hanc movere to stir this puddle I le onely cite one Distich of Mantuan who was somewhat before Luther and is commended by Bellarmine as a learned and godly Poet and one that wrote much in commendation of the Saints but see what he writes in commendation of Rome where the Popes Holinesse as they stile him hath his Palace Vivere qui sanctè cupitis discedite Româ Omnia eum liceant non licet esse bonum That is Depart from Rome if holy you would be For there may be all things but Pietie Towards the end of the Reply the Marquesse goes about to prove That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is the same still that it was at the first But 1. if all the testimonies were truly and pertinently alleadged yet are they not sufficient to evince what he asserteth not so much as one place of Scripture being produced for proof of any of those points on which he insisteth And therefore though those ancient Writers which are cited did indeed speak so much as is pretended yet there being no ground nor warrant for those things from the Scripture we may say in the words of our Saviour From the beginning it was not so 2. Most of the particulars which are mentioned I have spoken to before and have shewed that neither Scripture nor Fathers are on their side but both against them 3. And for some few points not touched before I shall briefly consider and examine what is objected The Marquesse saith That of old the Church did offer prayers for the dead both publike and private to the end to procure for them ease and rest c. Prayer for the dead as they of the Church of Rome do now use it is grounded upon Purgatory It is certain saith Bellarmine that the suffrages of the Church do not profit either the blessed or the damned but only those that are in Purgatory Now concerning Purgatory I have spoken enough before shewing that it hath no foundation in Scripture and also that the ancient Writers do give sufficient testimony against it That prayer for the dead therefore which the ancient Church did use was not such as the Church of Rome now useth It was not to deliver any out of Purgatory-pains which they were supposed to be in but to perfect and consummate their happinesse This may appear by Ambrose his praying for the Emrour Theodosius after he was dead He beleeved him to enjoy perpetuall light and tranquillity and to have obtained the reward of those things which he had done in the body yet he prayed for him but how That God would give him that perfect rest which he hath prepared for his Saints Ambrose also praied for the Emperor Valentinan after his death But did he thinke him to be in Purgatory No such matter He was perswaded that he was removed to a better estate that what he had sown upon earth he did then reap and that he did rest in the tranquillity of the Patriark Jacob. Yet he professeth that he would not cease to pray both for him and for his brother Gratian who was departed out of this life and as Ambrose believed translated into a better before him How doth he then pray for them Only thus That God would vouchsafe to raise them up with a speedy resurrection And thus the Church as it is in some ancient Liturgies used to pray unto God to remember all those that were departed in the hopes of the resurrection of life eternal The Marquesse cites Tertullian and Austine but besides that Tertulliun was faln into the heresie of Montanus when hee wrote that book which is cited as is noted by Pamelius and the book it selfe doth make manifest besides this I say Tertullian speaks of a womans praying for her deceased husband that he might have part in the first resurrection which savours of the opinion of the Chiliasts amongst whom he is reckoned by Hierome in his Catalogue of Ecolesiastical Writers where he speaks of Papias whom he notes as the first founder of that opinion As for Austine I have showed before that he was not resolved concerning Purgatory and therefore neither can any thing be concluded from about praying for the dead in that kind as they of the Roman Church do practise it After prayer for the dead the Marquesse speaks of the fast of Lent which he saith the Church anciently held for a custome not free but necessary and of Apostolical tradition and so to fast all the Fridayes in the year in memory of Christs death except Christmas-day fell on a Friday It is true Hierome as is alleadged speaks of a Fast of forty dayes which they used to observe and that according to the tradition of the Apostles But this tradition was very uncertain it seems and the observation of the Fast very various For Socrates an ancient Ecolesiastical historian records that somewhere they fasted three weeks before Easter somewhere six weeks and that in some places they began their Fast seven weeks before Easter but did fast only fifteen dayes not altogether but now one day now another And yet which he saith he wondred at all did call their Fast Quadragesimam A forty dayes Fast He sayes also moreover that they did not only thus differ in the number of dayes in which they fasted but also in the manner of their fasting For some as he relates did eat both fish and foul Some did abstain from egges and all fruit that is inclosed in a hard shell Some did eat nothing but dry bread Some not so much as that neither Some having fasted until the ninth houre three a clock in the afternoon ' did then use divers kindes of meats And he addes that seeing there is nothing in Scripture commanded concerning this matter it is manifest that the Apostles left it free to every one to do herein as he should think meet And the like also for the different manner of observing the Lent-fast in respect of the time hath Sozomen in his Ecclesiastical history who lived in the same time with the other viz. 440. years after