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
those other passages immediately before mentioned though there seems indeed some more colour for this allegation then for the other yet is there no just ground for this neither 11. The next charge against Calvin is that he saith That Christ manifested his own effeminatenesse by his shunning of death This also is of like nature with the former Calvin writing upon those words Joh. 12. 27. Now is my soul troubled c. saith that this doth seem to differ much from that which is next before For that there Christ shewed great courage exhorting his Disciples not only to suffer death but to suffer it willingly and defirously if the case so require but now by shunning death he confesseth his weaknesse or softnesse of spirit Then he addes by way of answer that yet here is nothing which doth not very well agree That it was expedient and necessary for our salvation that the Son of God should be so affected And that hence we are to know that Christs death was no sport or play unto him c. So then the word mollities which the Marquesse rendreth effeminatenesse and not unfitly I confesse for it properly signifieth softnesse and is used for softnesse of spirit that word I say is here applied to Christ in a way of objection though Calvin doth positively aver that Christ was deeply affected with the horror of his approaching death and that he was so indeed is most evident both by this and other places of the Evangelical history 12. The Marquesse addes He saith that Theeves and Malefactors hasten to death with obstinate resolution despising it with haughty courage others mildly suffer it But what constancie courage or stoutnesse was there in the Son of God who was astonished and in a manner stricken dead with fear of death How shameful a tendernesse was it to be so far tormented with fear of common death as to melt in bloody sweat and not be able to be comforted but by the sight of Angels Calvin disputes against those who would have it only a meer bodily death not having any curse and wrath of God annexed to it which Christ did fear But saith he let the godly Readers consider how honourable this is for Christ to have been more effemiuate and faint-hearted then most ordinary men Then follow the words objected Theeves and other Malefactors do hasten unto death with obstinate resolution c. The series of the Discourse doth plainly shew that Calvin speakes not positively but upon supposition that if it were so as some hold then all this would follow which he is so farre from asserting that by the absurdity of it he proves the erroniousnesse of their opinion whom he doth confute 13. The Marquesse proceeds in his charge against Calvin saying He saith that the same vehemencie took Christ from the present memory of the heavenly decree so that he forgot at that instant that he was sent hither to be our Redeemer This allegation I grant is true Calvin on Mat. 26. 39. hath these words indeed neither will I undertake the defence of all Calvins expressions or opinions I think it not so safe to ascribe forgetfulnesse unto Christ though as Calvin meant it I do not see that there is any impiety in it And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mar. 14. 33. importing horrour and astonishment may seem to make for it However Calvin was carefull to inculcate this that he would have none to think that there was any turbulencie and disorder in Christs affections as there is in ours but onely that Christ was stricken with fear and anxiety so far forth as the sound and intire nature of man can bear 14. Calvin is taxed for saying That Christs prayer was not premeditate but the force and extremity of grief wringed from him this hasty speech to which a correction was presently added and he chastiseth and recalleth that vow of his which he had let suddenly slip I acknowledge that Calvin hath these words in the same place viz. on Mat. 26. 39. neither do I much approve of them yet by what hath been said already it may appeare that Calvins meaning was good only so to set forth the anxiety of Christs soul as yet to exempt him from whatsoever is evil and sinful Bellarmine himself though he rake up and rack Calvins sayings to make them odious yet confesseth that he saith that Christs nature was perfect and that there was no inordinacie of affections in him But I will make use of the words of learned Dr. Field who hath answered these objections against Calvin long ago The Papists saith he impute I know not what blasphemy to Calvin for that he saith Christ corrected the desire and wish that suddenly came from him But they might easily understand if they pleased that he is far from thinking that any desire or expressing of desire was sudden in Christ as rising in him without consent of reason or that he was inconsiderate in any thing he did or spake but his meaning is that some desires which he expressed proceeded from inferior reason that considereth not all circumstances and that he corrected and revoked the same not as evil but as not proceeding from the full and perfect consideration of all things fit to be thought upon before a full resolution be passed Another learned man also saith that Calvin calls those words Neverthelesse not as I will but as thou wilt a correction in that sense as Rhetoricians are wont to use the figure so called not as if he did amend that which was ill spoken but seasonably to adde that which yet was not spoken And he cites Origen saying that Christ did in those words recall his desire and as it were recogitate So likewise he cites Hierome and the Interlineary Glosse saying that Christ did return into himself Hierome doth yet further paraphrase thus He saith Let not that be which I speak with a humane affection but that for which by thy will I descended to the earth The Jesuite Maldonate saith that Christ left the humane nature to act its part as it would have done if it had not been joyned with the divine nature nor had known any thing of Gods decree So he writes upon those words Father if it be possible c. And upon those Neverthelesse not as I will c. he saith A moderation is fitly added For he so shewes the infirmity of nature that yet he does not exceed the bounds of Gods will That which Maldonate here cals a moderation and Hierome cals a returning into himself and Origen and the Glosse call a recalling of the desire and a recogitating is as much as that which Calvin cals a correction 15. But the Marquesse proceeds and charges Calvin with these words Thus we see Christ to be on all sides so vexed as being over whelmed with desperation he ceased to call upon God which was as
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
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
sans raison He saith that Christ refused and denyed as much as lay in him to performe the office of a Mediator That he manifested his owne effeminatenesse by his shunning of death He saith that Theeves and malefactors hasten to death with obstinate resolution despising it with haughty courage others mildly suffer it but what constancy stoutnesse or courage was there in the Son of God who was astonished and in a manner striken dead with fear of death how shamefull a tendernesse was it to be so far tormented with fear of common death as to melt in bloudy sweat and not to be able to be comforted but by the sight of Angels And that the same vehemency took him from the present memory of the heavenly decree so that he forgot at that instant that he was sent hither to be our redeemer This prayer of Christ was not premeditate but the force and extremity of grief wringed from him this hasty speech to which a correction was presently added and a little before he chastiseth and recalleth that vow of his which he had let suddainly slip Thus doe we see Christ to be on all sides so vexed as being over-whelmed with desparation he ceased to call upon God which was as much as to renounce his salvation and this saith he a little before was not fained or as a thing only acted upon a stage That Christ in his soul suffered the terrible torments of a damned and forsaken man In the death of Christ occurs a spectacle full of desperation In this spectacle there was nothing but matter of extreame despair It is no marvell if it be said that Christ went downe into Hell since he suffered that death wherewith God in wrath striketh wicked doers That 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 Lastly Calvin holds it to be absurd that Christ should challenge to himselfe the glory of his owne resurrection when the Scripture saith he every where teacheth it to be the work of God the Father That God is the Author of all those things which these Popish Judges would have to happen onely by his idle sufferance Instit lib. cap. 18. Sect. 3. That our sins are not onely by his commission but decree and will 16. Sect. 1 2. lib. 2. cap. 4. Sect. 3 4. Which blasphemy is condemned by his famous brethren Fleming lib. de univers grat p. 109. Osiander Euchir Controvers p. 104. Schaffm de peccat causis p. 155. 27. Sitzlinus disput Theol. de providentia Dei Sect. 141. Insomuch that the Magistrates of Berne made it penall by their Laws for any man to preach or read any of his books or doctrine Vide literas Senat. Bern. ad ministros An. 1555. This man strikes neither at the right hand nor on the left but at the King of Israel himselfe who can thinke this mans mouth any slander or his invections a depravement when he belches forth such blasphemies against the Son of God in whom the fulnesse of the God-head dwelt bodily or who could thinke this man fit to reforme a Church when nothing more required reformation then his owne errours But what Scriptures or Fathers is there for all this The Doctrine of the Zwinglians ZWinglius confesseth himselfe to have been instructed against the Masse by a certaine admonisher which he knew not whether it was black or white The same derided as illusion by the learned Protestants The same as Luther's Devil largely set downe by himselfe He is taxed by Calvin for depraving the Scripture for changing the word est and putting in significat in his Translation of the New Testament He saies that these sayings and the like viz. If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments c. are but superfluous and hyperbolicall He denies that Originall sin can damne us calling it but a disease or contagion He maketh Baptizing of Infants a thing indifferent which may be used or left off That Princes may be deposed by the godly if they be wicked or goe contrary to the rule of Christ He saith that when we commit adultery or murder it is the work of God being the mover the Author or inciter c. God moveth the thiefe to kill c. he is forced to sin c. God hardned Pharaoh not speaking hyperbolically but he truly hardned him though he had resisted For which he is particularly reprehended by the learned Protestant Grawerus But where is there any Scripture or Fathers or Doctors of the Church that ever taught this Doctrine before Melancthons Doctrine FOr Melancthon he taught that there are three Divinities as there are three Persons For which he is reprehended by Stancarus He affirmes polygamy not to be against Jus Divinum and adviseth Hen. 8. unto it He teacheth peremptory resistance against Magistrates He inableth the inferiour Magistrate to alter Religion against the contrary Edicts of the Superiour So Calvin so Beza so Goodman so Danaeus so Knox so Buch so Bancroft so Fenners so Scutcliff so Hottomanus so Ficlerus so Renekerus all hold it lawfull to depose murder or to arraigne their Prince Call in forraigne ayd to assist them Bestow the Crown at their pleasure Destroy them either by peaceable practices or open War Propose rewards to such but where have they Scriptures or Fathers or times that shewed the practise of such doings before these latter times and latter practices The Doctrine of Andreas Musculus AS for Andreas Musculus he was not afraid openly to teach that the Divine Nature of Christ which is God died upon the crosse with his humane Nature Neither did he desist publickly to professe and spread abroad this Doctrine of the death of Christs Divinity And that by the help of Johannes Islebius Thus far It is manifest saith Simlerus forth of the writings of Brentius Myricus and Andreas Musculus that they make nothing of the ascention of Christ but a vanishing or disappearing What is this but making way for Mahomet but what Scriptures or Fathers or times hath he wherein this Doctrine was ever taught before The Divisions of Protestants IF Ye would but consider how the Lutherans are divided into Antinomians Osiandrians Majorists Synergists Stancarians Amsdorfians Flaccians Substantiarians Accidentarians Adjaphorists Musculans of Effingereans Vibiquilists c. So dissenting from and persecuting one another that they will not permit one another to live in the same Town in so much that Oecolampadius reckons up seventy seven changes not onely in their explanations of Scripture but also in certaine imaginary phantsies Or if we should consider the Divisions that are between the old and new Sacramentaries the old called Zwinglians the new Calvinists with us Puritans in France Hugonots in other places Formalists elsewhere Familists somewhere Brownists every where Arminians Seekers
Ceremonies and of Apostolicall tradition She held then besides Batisme and the Eucharist Confirmation Marriage Orders and extream Unction for true and proper Sacraments which the Church of Rome now acknowledgeth The Church in the Ceremonies of Baptisme used then oyl salt wax-lights exorcismes the signe of the Cross the word Ephata and other that accompany it none of them without reason and excellent signification The Church held then Baptisme for infants of absolute necessity and for this cause then permitted lay men to baptise in danger of death the Church used then holy water consecrated by certain words and Ceremonies and made use of it both for Baptisme and against inchantments and to make exorcismes and conjurations against evill spirits The Church held then divers degrees in the Ecclesiasticall Regiment to wit Bishops Priests Deacons Subdeacons the Acolite Exorcist Reader and Porter consesecrated and blessed them with divers Forms and Ceremonies And in the Episcopall Order acknowledged divers seats of Jurisdiction of positive right to wit Archbishops Primates Patriarchs and one Supereminent by Divine law which was the Pope without whom nothing could be decided appertaining to the universall Church and the want of whose presence either by himselfe or his Legats or his Confirmation made all Councels pretended to be universall unlawfull In the Church then the service was said throughout the East in Greek and throughout the West as well in Africa as in Europe in Latin although that in none of the provinces except in Italy and the Cities where the Romane Colonies resided the Latine tongue was understood by the common people She observed then the distinction of feasts and ordinary dayes the Distinction of Ecclesiasticall and lay habits the reverence of sacred vessels the custome of shaming and unction for the collation of orders the Ceremony of the Priest washing his hands at the Altar before the consecration of the Mysteries She then pronounced a part of the service at the Altar with a low voice made processions with the reliques of Martyrs kissed them carried them in clothes of silke and vessels of gold took and esteemed the dust from under their reliquaries accompanied the dead to their sepulchres with wax tapers in sign of joy for the certainty of their future resurrection The Church then had the picture of Christ and of his Saints both out of Churches and in them and upon the very Altars not to adore them with God like worship but by them to reverence the Souldiers and Champions of Christ The faithfull then used the sign of the Crosse in all their Conversations painted it on the portal of all the houses of the faithfull gave their blessing to the people with their hand by the signe of the Crosse imployed it to drive away evill spirits proposed in Jerusalem the very Crosse to be adored on good Friday Finally the Church held then that to the Catholick Church onely belongs the keeping of the Apostolicall tradition the Authority of interpretation of Scripture and the decision of Controversies of faith and that out of the succession of her communion of her Doctrine and her ministery there was neither Church nor Salvation Neither will I insist with you onely upon the word then but before and before and before that even to the first age of all will I shew you our doctrine of the reall presence and holy Sacrifice of the Masse Invocation of Saints Veneration of Reliques and Images Confession and Priestly absolution Purgatory and prayer for the dead Traditions c. In the fift Age or hundred of years Saint Augustine was for the reall and corporall presence In the fourth Age Saint Ambrose In the third Age Saint Cyprian In the second Age or hundred of years S. Irenaeus And in the first Age Saint Ignatius Martyr and Disciple of Saint John the Evangelist Concerning the honour and invocation of Saints In the fifth Age we find Saint Augustine praying to the Virgin Mary ond other Saints In the fourth Age we find Greg. Naz. praying to S. Basil the great In the third Age we find S. Origen praying to Father Abraham In the second Age Justin Martyr And in the first age in the Liturgy of S. James the lesse For the use and veneration of holy Reliques and Images and chiefly of the Holy Crosse in the fifth age Saint Augustine In the fourth Age Athanasius In the third Age Origen In the second Age St. Justin Martyr And in the first Age S. Ignatius Concerning Confession and Absolutions In the fifth Age S. August In the fourth Age S. Basil the Great In the third Age S. Cypr. In the second Age Tertull. And in the first Age S. Clement Now concerning Purgatory and Prayer for the dead in the fifth Age S. Augustin In the fourth Age S. Ambrose In the third Age S. Cypr. In the second Age Tertull. And in the first Age S. Clement e. Concerning Traditions in the fifth Age S. Aug. In the fourth Age S. Basil In the third Age S. Epiphanins In the second Age S. Irenaeus And in the first Age S. Dennis Now suppose that all these quotations be right The saving of a soul of your own soul of the soul of a King of the souls of so many Kingdoms and the gaining of that Kingdome for a reward which in comparison of these Earthly ones for which you so often fight so much strive and labour so much for to obtain your tetrarchate would be a gain for you to lose it so that you might but obtain that would be worth the search and when you have found them to be truly cited I dare trust your judgement that it will tell you that we have not changed our Countenance nor fled our Colours nor fallen away nor altered our Religion nor forsaken our first Love nor denyed our Principles nor brought Novelties into the Church but that we doe antiquum obtinere whereby we should be forsaken of you for forsaking our selves but rather that we should win you unto us by being still the same we were when we won you first unto us and were at the beginning And is it for the honour of the English Nation famous for the first Christian King and the first Christian Emperour to forsake her Mother Church so renowned for antiquity and to annex their Religion as a codicell to an appeal of a company of Protesters against a decree at Spira and to forsake so glorious a name as Catholick and to take a name upon them wherein they had neither right nor interest and then to take measure of the Scottish Discipline for the new fashion of their souls and to
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
of God an house not made with hands eternall in the Heavens And v. 6 7 8. Therefore we are alwayes confident knowing that whiles we are here in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walke by faith and not by sight We are confident I say and willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. And that Phil. 1. 21. To me to live is Christ and to die is gaine And that 2 Tim. 4. 18. The Lord shall deliver me from every evill work and will preserve me to his Heavenly Kingdom And in the same Chapter v. 6 7 8. I am now ready to be offered and my departure is at hand I have fought a good fight I have finished my course I have kept the faith henceforth is laid up for me the crown of righteousnesse c. So also S. Peter Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ who according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us againe unto a lively hope through the Resurrection of Iesus Christ from the dead unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that fadeth not away reserved in Heaven for us 1 Pet. 1. 3 4. This hope which believers have or may have of salvation is a lively hope it is a hope that maketh not ashamed Rom. 5. 5. because they are sure to obtaine that which they hope for and shall not be disappointed of it Hence it is also that believers rejoyce with joy unspeakable and full of glory 1 Pet. 1. 8. because they know they shall receive the end of their faith even the salvation of their soules v. 9. Wee have also Fathers to testifie this truth There flourisheth with us saith Cyprian the strength of hope and the firmness of faith and amongst the very ruines of the decaying world the minde is raised up and virtue is unmoveable and patience is ever joyfull and the soule is alwayes secure and confident of her God And immediatly hee confirmes this by that of the Prophet Habakkuk Although the fig-three shall not blossome c. yet I will rejoyce in the Lord I will joy in the God of my salvation Hab. 3. 17 18. So againe the same Father what place is there here for anxiety and carefulnesse who in the midst of these things can be fearfull and sad except he want hope and faith It is for him to fear death that would not go unto Christ it is for him to be unwilling to go to Christ that doth not believe that he doth begin to reigne with Christ For it is written The just shall live by faith If thou beest just and doest live by faith if thou doest truly believe in God seeing thou shalt be with Christ and art sure of Gods promise why doest thou not embrace this that thou art called unto Christ and art glad that thou art freed from the Devill God doth promise immortality and eternity to those that depart out of this life and thou doubtest 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 Here we see how earnest Cyprian is to prove that Christians may yea ought to be confident against the feare of death and that because they may and ought to be assured of the life to come Thus also Austine I believe saith hee him that promiseth The Saviour speaketh the truth promiseth he hath said unto me He that heareth my words and believeth him that sent me hath eternall life and is passed from death to life and shall not come into condemnation I have heard the words of my Lord I have believed Now whereas I was an unbeliever I am made a Believer as he hath said I am passed from death to life I come not into condemnation not by my presumption but by his promise To this purposes also Bernard The Sun of Righteousnesse arising saith hee the mystery concerning the predestinate and those that shall be made blessed which was so long hid beginnes after a sort to come up out of the depth of eternity whiles every one being called by feare and justified by love that is by Faith working through love as hee said a little before doth assure himselfe that he is of the number of the blessed Knowing that whom he hath justified them he hath also glorified For why Hee heares that he is called when he is moved with feare he perceives that he is justified when he is filled with love and shall he doubt of his being glorified And againe Thou hast O man saith hee the justifying spirit a revealer of this secret and so testifying unto thy spirit that thou also art the Son of God Acknowledge the counsell of God in thy justification For thy present justification is both a revelation of Gods Counsell and also a certaine preparation unto future glory Or truly predestination it selfe is rather a preparation and justification is rather an appropinquation unto it And againe Who is righteous but he that doth requite Gods love with love againe which is not done but when the spirit by Faith doth reveale unto a man Gods eternall purpose concerning his future salvation Which revelation surely is no other thing but the infusion of spirituall grace by which the deeds of the flesh are mortified and so a man is prepared for that Kingdome which flesh and blood do not possesse receiving together by one spirit both this that he is assured that he is loved and also this that hee doth love againe that so he may not be ungratefull to him of whom he is loved Thus both Scriptures and Fathers testifie that Christians may be assured of their salvation And that this assurance may be had may be proved also by all that hath beene said before concerning the stability of Faith once had and the certainty of persevering in the estate of grace if a man be once in it For hence it followeth that if a man can be assured that hee is in the estate of Grace hee may also be assured of his salvation Now that he may be assured of his being in the state of grace some of the Romish Church and that since Luthers time have maintained as namely Catharinus and the Author of the Booke called Enchiridium Coloniense both which are mentioned in this respect by Bellarmine And because the Councell of Trent Sess 6. c. 9. doth seeme to determine the contrary therefore Eisingrenius hath written a whole booke to shew that the determination of the Councell is not indeed against this that a man may be assured that he hath true grace in him The booke I have seene and read many yeeres agoe though now I have it not And I remember he holds that a man may be as sure that hee hath true grace and that his sinnes are forgiven as hee is sure that twice two make
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
not say nor believe that he did then not into that Hell which they call Limbus Patrum 2. Those words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell as spoken by David Psal 16. and commented upon by Peter Acts 2. those words I say doe shew that Hell there mentioned could neither be the Hell of the damned nor Limbus Patrum or at least that there is no necessity to expound it of either For 1. It is spoken of as a great benefit a matter of joy and rejoycing that Christs Soule was not left in Hell Therefore my Heart is glad and my glory or Tongue rejoyced c. For thou wilt not leave c. Psal 16. 9 10. Acts 2. 26 27. But they that hold Christs descending either into the Hell of the damned or into Limbus Patrum make him to descend as a conquerour one that went either to triumph over the Devill in his owne place as it were or to deliver the soules that were in limbus Now why should it be accounted such a benefit such a matter of joy and rejoycing for one not to be left there where hee is onely as a conquerour and deliverer Bellarmine answers that it was a benefit to Christs Soule that it was quickly joyned againe unto the Body even as it was evill to the Soule to be separated from the Body And thus saith hee it was a benefit unto him to be delivered from Hell not in respect of the place but in respect of separation from the body But who seeth not that by this reason Christs Soule might as well be in Heaven as either in Limbus Patrum or the Hell of the damned For though Christs soule were in heaven yet it was a benefit unto it to be delivered out of that estate of separation which it was in 2. Those words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell were meant of Christs Resurrection as S. Peter telleth us Acts 2. 31. But Christs Resurrection though it did presuppose his being in Hell either as Hell is taken for the grave or for the state of death yet not as it is taken either for Limbus Patrum or for the place of torment Christ might well enough rise againe and yet never be in any such Hell as one of these is and the other is supposed to have beene 3. S. Peter shewes that David in those words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell spake not of himselfe but of Christ for that the words being understood of David were not true but most true as understood of Christ Men and Brethren let mee freely speake unto you concerning the Patriarch David that hee is both dead and buried and his Sepulcher remaineth with us to this day Therefore being a Prophet c. Acts 2. 29 30 31. Here by Davids Sepulcher remaning with them unto that day hee meanes that David was left in that Hell of which he speakes and so did not speake of himself but of some other viz. of Christ who was not left in it Thus also S. Paul having cited the latter part of the Verse Thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption hee also to prove that this was meant of Christ and not of David addes For David after he had served his own Generation by the Will of God fell asleepe and was laid with his Fathers and saw corruption But he whom God raised up saw no corruption Acts 13. 35 36 37. David spake not of himselfe but of Christ when hee said Thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption because David did see corruption which Christ did not see So David spake not of himselfe but of Christ when hee said Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell because Davids Soule was left in Hell where Christs Soule was not left This is the Apostles argument and herce it necessarily followes that by Hell cannot be meant either the place of torment or yet Limbus Patrum Not the place of torment for Davids soule was not left in that Hell it never came in it Nor yet can that Limbus be meant for even the Romanists themselves doe hold that it was quite emptied before that time that Peter spake and therefore Davids soule was not in it then whereas yet Peter signifies that then it was in that Hell of which hee spake By Hell therefore must be meant either the grave or the state of the dead Ruffinus in his Exposition of the Creed observes that in his time the Article of Christs descending into Hell was not in the Creed of the Roman Church and that the Easterne Churches had it not yet hee saith that it seemes to he implied in that which is spoken of Christs Buriall And it is observed that in all the ancient Creedes that were within 600 years after Christ except one which Ruffinus followed if the article of Christs buriall were mentioned then that of his descending into Hell was omitted and if his descending into Hell were mentioned then his buriall is omitted which argues that the antients did take these two viz. Christs buriall and his descending into Hell to import but one thing or to differ but very little and therefore thought it sufficient to mention either the one or the other It is most evident that the Hebrew word Sheol and so the Greeke Hades which Psal 16. and Acts 2. are rendred Hell are often taken for the grave Some of the Romanists deny that Sheol is ever so used but Genebrard who was sometimes Hebrew Professour at Paris doth confesse that they are in an errour and there are many places of Scripture to convince them Gen. 42. 38. If mischiefe befall him c. you shall bring down my gray haires with sorrow to Sheol i. e. the grave For to what Hell else should gray haires goe down So Gen. 44. 29. and 31. and 1 King 2. 6. And Iob. 17. 13. If I waite Sheol is mine House that is the grave as appeares v. 14. I have said to corruption thou art my Father and to the worme thou art my Mother and Sister So Psal 141. 7. Our bones lie scattered at the mouth of Sheol i. e. the grave So Genebrard upon the place expounds it juxta Sepulchrum i. e. by the grave whereas the vulgar Latine hath it secus infernum neare Hell But what Hell except the grave should dead mens bones lie scattered by So in many other places and in all these places the Greeke version hath Hades so that Bellarmine needed not to have made so strange a matter of it as hee doth that Henry Stephen in his great Thesaurus should say that Hades may be taken for the grave neither had he cause to say that Stephen could finde no Authour that did use the word in that sense I have not now Stephens Thesaurus to looke into but sure I am that a man of farre lesse reading then Stephen was of might have alledged many examples to that purpose And for the Hebrew word Sheol Genebrard
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
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
this sense agrees with that which is said of Christ 2 Cor. 13. 4. For though he was crucified through weakenesse yet hee liveth by the power of God Besides if wee should reade quickened in the Spirit and by Spirit understand Christs Soule it would follow that Christs Soule was sometime dead This was Austines argument against that Exposition as is observed by Bellarmine Who saith that the argument doth not conclude for that often in the Scripture that is said to be quickned which is not put to death But his answer is not satisfactory For though it is true that in the Scripture to quicken or to make alive is sometimes no more then to preserve and keepe alive as 1 Sam. 27. 11. and 2 Sam. 8. 2. where both in the Originall and in the vulgar Latine the word used doth signifie to make alive Yet neverthelesse nothing in Scripture is said to be made that is kept alive but that which is obnoxious unto death and may die but Christs Soule and generally the Soules of men are of an immortall nature and doe not die when the body dyeth Besides what great matter was it as Estius observes if when Christs Body died his Soule did remaine alive when as even in the worst men that are the soule doth not die as being by nature immortall And therefore hee saith it is better understood thus Christ was quickned in the Spirit that is hee was made a quickning Spirit viz. when hee rose from death unto life immortall And hee cites that 1 Cor. 15. 45. The first man Adam was made a living Soule the last Adam was made a quickning spirit But that sense will not well suite the words of Peter which doe not shew what Christ is made being risen againe but in what respect and by what meanes hee did rise againe viz. by the spirit that is by his Divine Nature as in the flesh that is his humane Nature hee was put to death But againe it is objected that S. Peter saith Christ went and preached to the spirits in prisons therefore it is meant of the soule not of his Divine Nature in which respect it cannot be said but improperly that hee went I answer there is no necessity to take it properly in the words of Peter more then in the words of Paul Ephes 2. 17. when hee saith that Christ came and Preached peace unto the Ephesians which must be meant of comming and Preaching by the Apostle for otherwise Christ in his owne person did not come and preach unto them And thus Estius notes it to be expounded by Ambrose the Interlineary Glosse Aquinas Lyra and Cajetane It is objected againe that by spirits in prison cannot be understood living men except S. Peter should on purpose speake improperly and obscurely I answer according to Bezaes Exposition which in his particular doth differ from Austines and is the more probable not living men but the soules of men separated from their bodies are termed spirits in prison as being in the prison of Hell when Peter wrote of them though they were not so but were joyned to their bodies and so both soules and bodies joyned together were living men when Christ preached unto them But Bellarmine further objects that 1 Pet. 4. 6. where it is said that the Gospell was preached to the dead which hee will have so understood as that men being dead and departed out of this life the Gospell was Preached unto them But the true and genuine meaning of the words rather is this that the Gospell was Preached to them that are now dead though they were not dead but alive when the Gospell was preached unto them Even as in the verse immediately going before it is said that Christ will judge both the quick and the dead that is those that are now alive or shall be alive at Christs comming and those that are now dead or shall be dead at Christs comming who yet shall not be judged whiles they are dead but they shall be raised up and made alive and so be judged As therefore Peter calles them dead because so they are now and were when hee wrote of them though they shall not be dead but alive when they shall be judged So for the same reason hee calles them dead to whom the Gospell was preached though when the Gospell was preached unto them they were alive and not dead And in like manner hee calles them spirits in prison to whom Christ went and Preached because so they were when hee wrote though they were not so when Christ went and preached unto them But Bellarmine chargeth Beza with being so bold as to change the Text because where they reade the spirits that were in prison hee reades the spirits that are in prison But as Beslarmine himselfe could not but confesse in the Originall there is neither that were nor that are but the words are as our Translatours render them the spirits in prison so that either the words that were or that are may be understood as the sense will beare Estius confesseth that some I suppose he meanes some not Protestants understand that are but hee holds it better to understand that were as the verbe is of the Pretertense preached But this reason is of no moment For if because the word Preached hath reference to the time past therefore it must be meant of the Spirits that were in prison when Christ Preached unto them by the same reason when it is said that Christ shall judge both the quick and the dead because shall judge doth respect the time to come therefore also it must be meant of those that shall be dead when Christ shall judge them But this doth not follow and so neither doth the other And thus I hope it may appear that those words of Peter make nothing for Limbus Patrum The fourth and last place of Scripture which is alledged by the Marquesse is Zach. 9. 11. where the pit that is spoken of hee saith cannot be the place of the damned nor the Grave But what then must it therefore be Limbus Patrum It doth not follow for by the pit there may be something else meant then either the place of the damned or the Grave or Limbus Patrum viz. the Babylonish captivity as the Rabbines upon the place expound it Bellarmine citing Calvin for this Exposition saith that it hath no probability because immediatly before there is a prophecy of Christ Rejoyce greatly O Daughter of Sion behold thy King commeth unto thee c. Therefore saith he how should these things cohere if the captivity of Babylon were spoken of I answer well enough the Prophet having told them of Christs comming unto them might well presently after speak of their deliverance out of captivity as a great benefit which they had allready obtained through Christ in whom all the promises are yea and in him amen 2 Cor. 1. 20. and whereby they might be assured of far
there being 33. Chapters of that Booke which of them is meant wee cannot tell Neither is it much worth the inquiry for Erasmus shewes that Booke to be none of Austines in that the Authour inserts some verses out of Boetius who was long after Austine Besides other reasons which hee giveth yet Bellarmine asserting Austine to be the Authour of the Booke takes no notice of the reasons alledged against it though hee confesse that some doe doubt of it In the other place of Austine which is pointed at I finde indeed that hee doth cite the words of S. Iames but yet so as that our adversaries gaine litle by it For hee referreth those words of anointing with Oile c. unto bodily health and so inveigheth against those that by Charmes and Spels and the like superstitious and ungodly practices bring upon themselves manifold miseries Now bodily health is a thing which the Romanists have no respect unto in their Unction but use it directly for the good of the Soule even as they doe Baptisme and the Lords Supper And this also takes off the testimony of Chrysostome who shewing what benefit people have by Ministers or as hee calles them Priests saith that Parents cannot prevent so much as the bodily destruction of their children nor keepe off a Disease when it seizeth on them but these doe often preserve people alive when they are even ready to die and sometimes mitigate their paine and sometimes keepe them from being ill at all not onely by the helpe of their Doctrine and admonition but also of their prayers And then hee cites that Iam. 5. Is any sick among you Let him send for the Elders c. All this is nothing to the Romish Unction for besides that Chrysostome doth not at all speake of Priests anointing but of their teaching admonishing and praying and in this respect doth bring in the words of S. Iames besides this I say it is directly a corporall benefit which hee insisteth on as freedome from sicknesse mitigation of paine deliverance from Death and therefore that which hee saith makes nothing for extreme Unction which they of the Church of Rome say was instituted of God to this end that wee departing out of this mortall life may have a more ready way to Heaven And therefore they call it the Sacrament of such as goe out of this World What is this Sacrament then concerned in the words of Chrysostome who speakes onely of preserving life and health here in this World In the last place Venerable Bede is alledged But 1. Hee is against them in this as I have shewed before that he makes Marke and Iames to speake both of one and the same thing whereas diverse of them both say and prove that Marke doth not speake of Sacramentall Unction 2. By Elders Bede understandeth Elders in respect of age And hee saith expressely and alledgeth also Pope Innocentius for it that not onely Presbyters but also all Christians may use this Oile and anoint with it when either they or any belonging unto them have neede Which is enough to prove that he doth not make this Unction a Sacrament as they of the Church of Rome doe For saith Bellarmine it is of the essence of the Sacrament of extreme Unction that the Minister of it be a Priest and if a lay man doe anoint any it is of no force Yea the Councell of Trent sayes If any one shall say that not only a Priest is the proper Minister of extreme Vnction let him be anathema What doe they say to Bede then and to Innocentius whom Bede citeth They answer that Innocentius and Bede speak not of him that is to administer the Unction but of him that is to receive it But this is a very violent and forced interpretation and such as Bedes words will not admit For hee having said It is the custome of the Church that they that are weak should be anointed by Presbyters with consecrated Oile and by Prayer accompanying it be made whole immediately after he adds Neither only Presbyters but also as Pope Innocentius writeth all Christians may use this Oile by anointing with it either in their own or in their friends necessity It is manifest that Bede here speaketh of Christians using the Oile not so as to be anointed but so as to anoint with it and that both themselves and others as they saw cause 3. Bede also as appeares by his words even now cited makes this anointing with Oile which he saith the Church did use in his time to have reference to the body and the health of it neither doth he speak any thing of any spirituall effect that it should have upon the soule And thus also it appeares that he doth not speake of the Sacrament of extreme Vnction Cassander also confesseth that in the Church of Rome they have now departed from antiquity 1. In this that in more antient times they did not use as now they do to defer this anointing untill life were even in extreme danger and there was no hope of recovery 2. In this that antiently they used after this anointing if there were danger to receive the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood whereas now they have no such custome Yea the Carechisme of the Councell of Trent saith that before extreme Vnction the Sacrament of Penance and of the Eucharist is to be administred and that this is the perpetuall custome of the Catholike Church which is directly contrary to that which Cassander affirmeth But this I hope may be enough to shew that the Romish Sacrament of extreme Vnction hath no support either from the Scriptures or from the antient Fathers The Marquesse having waded thorough all the forementioned parts of controversie and as he supposeth proved the Scriptures to be on their side now sings as it were an Epinicion or a song of victory saying Thus most sacred Sir we have no reason to wave the Scriptures Umpirage so that you will hear it speak in the Mother language c. But how litle the Scriptures Umpirage doth favour them of the Church of Rome let the Reader judge by what hath been said on both sides the Scripture being understood in that sense which it selfe doth make out and to which also the antient Fathers and Doctors have subscribed which I suppose the Marquesse doth mean by the Scriptures Mother-language As for the Church of Rome it hath long shewed it selfe the Scriptures step-mother keeping it shut up in an unknown tongue or not permitting Christians the liberty to make use of it excepting such as can obtain a speciall dispensation for it yea in many things going directly contrary to the Scripture and even in a manner casting off the authority of it Here presently after the Marquesse brings in the saying of Austine Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae authoritas commoveret I should not beleeve the Gospel it selfe unlesse I were moved by the
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
point at takes upon him to refell that which some others answer in the behalf of Beza but never takes notice of this which Beza hath said in his own behalf But the Marquesse returns to Luther and besides other things which he objects against him but proves only by the testimony of his adversaries or by such pieces of Luthers own Works as I have not liberty to peruse he taxeth him for giving such opprobrious termes to King Henry 8. Ans It is true K. Hen. 8. having written or at least some other in his name against Luther and his Doctrine Luther did return answer so as to shew but small respect to the person against whom he wrote But afterwards Luther in an Epistle which he wrote to the King confessed his fault humbly craving pardon and offering to write a publike recantation and to do the King honour if he should require it Indeed the King not answering Luthers expectation but instead of accepting his submission setting forth another book against him with his Epistle annexed to it and insulting over him as if he had recanted his doctrine Luther made answer to this book also yet so as to abstain from those terms of contumely and reproach which before he had used only shewing that he was firm and stedfast in his doctrine yea daily more and more confirmed in it and that no mans person how great soever he were should be of any esteem with him so as to bring him to any recantation in that respect The Marquesse having censured some of the prime Doctors of the Reformed Churches falls to censure the people as being generally averse from all honesty and godlines and to this end he all eadgeth the words of Luther and some others who complain of the vitious and corrupt wayes of those that live under the pure preaching of the Gospel and he concludes How could the people be better when their Ministers were so bad Bellarmine urging also some of these testimonies proceeds so farre in his censure as to say that though among them of the Church of Rome for that he means by the Catholike Church there be many bad yet among Protestants whom after his manner he terms Hereticks there is none good and this he saith is notorious But if both Ministers and people were bad as their adversaries pretend yet might their doctrine and profession be good for all that It was the Apostles complaint in his time All seek their own not the things that are Jesus Christs Phil. 2. 21. Yet the doctrine of Jesus Christ which they preached and professed was never a whit the worse for all this though with some it might be worse accounted of In like manner the Prophets frequently complain of the people of the Jews whose Religion neverthelesse was the only true Religion in the world See Isa 1. 4 5 6. Jer. 5. 1. 2. 9. 2. c. Ezek. 22. 2. c. and so many other places And that the Protestant doctrine is not to blame what ever the Preachers and professors of it be may appear by those very testimonies which the Marquesse and other alledge For in that as they shew Ministers tax and reprove people for being so bad it argues that the doctrine delivered unto them is good though they make no good use of it But that Protestants are so universally bad as that Bellarmine should say there is none good among them is too grosse an aspersion and wondrous impudence it is to adde that this is notorious to all that know them I will only cite the testimony of Bodinus one that never withdrew himself for any thing I finde from communion with the Church of Rome He speaking of Geneva where Calvin and Beza were Ministers of the Gospel exceedingly commends the discipline there used Then which he saith nothing could be imagined greater and more divine for the restraining of mens lusts and those vices which by humane Laws and Judgements could no way be reformed Insomuch that no whoredomes no drunkennesse no dancings no beggars no idle persons are found in that City But to proceed the Marquesse in the conclusion of all that he hath in this kinde relates horrible things of Calvin in respect both of his life and death alleadging that they are written by two knowne and approved Protestant Authors One of these Authors whose words the Marquesse alleadgeth was indeed a Protestant but a great Lutheran to wit Schlusselberg and a professed adversary unto Calvin and I presume so also was the other who the Marquesse saith did write the life of Calvin and confirme that which is said by the former to wit Herennius though I have not heard of him before Mr. Breerley so far as I finde never mentions him though he make very frequent use of Schlusselberg whose words concerning Calvin here cited by the Marquesse he all eadgeth in two several places of his Apology But however Bolsecus is the man from whom at first did proceed whatsoever any have in disgrace of Calvin either for his life or death Now this Author lived some while at Geneva where Calvin was and being opposed by him it seems for some things which he could not approve he both became Calvins bitter enemy and also turned back to Popery and was a Papist at that very time when he wrote of Calvin as is confessed by Mr. Breerley who saith that therefore he doth purposely forbear to urge his testimony in which respect also it may be the Marquesse made no mention of this Author because he would not seem in this case to alleadge any of their own Church But to what porpose is it that they forbear to cite Bolsecus when as they cite those who have nothing in this kinde but from Bolsecus He was the first and for some while the only man that did traduce Calvin as concerning his life and death And therefore Bellarmine as writing before those whom Mr. Breerley and the Marquesse mention alleadgeth only Bolsecus as relating things that concerne Calvin of this nature But if Mr. Breerley and so other Romanists could think there was just cause to except against the testimonies of Benno and others concerning Pope Hildebrand called Gregory 7. alleadging that they were his adversaries and took part with the Emperour against him though yet Benno was a Cardinal and the rest were all Romanists what candour and ingenuity is there to alleadge against Calvin the testimonies of those who did professe themselves adversaries unto him Besides that Bolsecus the first deviser of these calumnies was one of their own party For the things that are objected That concerning the manner of Calvins death appears most false by what Beza hath written of it who being with Calvin at Geneva when he dyed had more cause to know the truth then Bolsecus who was removed I think from Geneva before that time And the other particular about Calvins being stigmatized is clearly