how all men are iustified before God and what is the vse of the sacraments in all men and therefore it is no extraordinary or exempt case but the common case of all the faithfull that righteousnes saith the Apostle might be imputed to them also Rom. 4. 11. Secondly although Isaac with many other were first circumcised and after iustified yet this is perpetuall they were no more iustified by circumcision then Abraham who was iustified before he was circumcised but by faith onely and therefore the Sacraments are seales of the iustice of faith whether the iustice of faith goe before or follow after Argum. 2. Augustine saith In Isaac qui octauo die circumcisus fuit praecessit signaculū iustitiae fidei et quoniam patris fidem imitatus est secuta est in crescente ipsa iustitia cuius signaculum in infante praecesserat In Isaac who was circumcised the eight day the seale of the righteousnes of faith went before and because he did follow his fathers faith as he grew iustice it selfe followed the seale whereof went before in his infancy Ergo circumcision was a seale as well to Isaac as to Abraham and so consequently to all THE SECOND QVESTION OF THE efficacie and vertue of the Sacraments THis question also hath diuerse partes First whether the Sacraments do giue or conferre grace by the worke wrought Secondly of the difference of the Sacraments of the olde and new testament Thirdly whether the Sacraments of the new law doe imprint a signe or character in the soule that can neuer be put out Fourthly of the necessity of the Sacraments THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE SACRAMENTS of them selues doe giue or conferre grace The Papistes error 92 THe Sacraments giue grace ex opere operato by the worke wrought that is by force and vertue of the worke and word done and said in the sacrament Rhemist Act. 22. sect 1. So that not faith onely iustifieth but the Sacraments also and other workes of religion Rhemist Rom. 6. sect 5. The Sacraments then are immediate instruments and efficient causes of our iustification not mediately as they nourish and encrease our faith but properly and in themselues Faith in the receiuer giueth no efficacie to the Sacrament but onely taketh away the lets and impediments which might hinder the efficacie of the Sacrament as the drynes of the wood maketh it to burne the better yet is it no efficient cause of the burning which is the fire onely but onely a helpe Thus they compare the Sacrament working of it selfe to fire that burneth and faith is as the drying of the wood but a disposing and preparing of the hart Bellarm. lib. 2. de sacram cap. 1. Argum. 1. Be baptized and wash away thy sinnes Act. 22. ver 16. The Sacrament of Baptisme doth of it selfe wash away sinnes Rhemist And we see in S. Iames that remission of sinnes is annexed to the vnction with oyle Rhemist 1. Timoth. 4.14 Ergo the Sacraments giue and conferre grace Ans. 1. To the first we answer that the text ioyneth with the Sacrament the inuocation of the name of God to the which saluation is promised Rom. 10.13 to wash away sinnes wherefore that place maketh nothing for your purpose Secondly in the other place health of body is promised by the gift of miracles but remission of sinnes is said to be obtained by the praier of the Elders The praier of faith shall saue the sick Iam. 5.15 Argum. 2. S. Paul saith He hath cleansed his Church by the lauer of water in the word Ephes. 5.26 Ergo baptisme is an instrumental cause of our iustification Bellarm. Ans. 1. It is not vnusuall in the Scripture to call the signe or Sacrament by the thing signified as Exod. 12.11 the Paschall Lambe is called the Passeouer whereas it was but a signe and memoriall thereof So Baptisme is called The lauer of regeneration Tit. 3.5 because it is a sure signe of our regeneration by the holy Ghost Secondly the Apostle in this place expoundeth himselfe for he saith that We are washed by water in the word that is the outward element doth send and referre vs to the word and promise of God whereof it is a seale The Protestants THe sacraments haue no power to giue or conferre grace to the receiuer neither are they immediate instruments of our iustification instrumentall meanes they are to encrease and confirme our faith in the promises of God of themselues they haue no operation but as the spirit of God worketh by them our internall senses being moued and quickened by those externall obiects Neither doe we say that the sacraments are bare and naked signes of spirituall graces but they doe verily exhibite and represent Christ to as many as by faith are able and meete to apprehend him So to conclude looke how the word of God worketh being preached so doe the sacraments but the word doth no otherwise iustifie vs but by working faith at the hearing thereof So sacraments doe serue for the encrease of our faith faith is not a seruant and handmaide to the sacraments as the Iesuite declared by the homely similitude of the fire and drie wood but faith is the more principall and the sacraments haue no other vse or end then as they are helpes for the strengthening of our faith Grace of themselues they can giue or conferre none Argum. 1. Rom. 1.17 The iust shall liue by faith Ergo he liueth not that is he is not iustified by any worke wrought as by the sacraments but onely by faith faith therefore giueth life and efficacie to the sacramentes it is not contained absolutely in themselues Againe Saint Paul saith That faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousnes before he was circumcised Rom. 4.10 Ergo he was not iustified by circumcision no more are we by the sacraments but both he and we are iustified onely by faith Argum. 2. Saint Peter sayth Baptisme saueth vs not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but in that a good conscience maketh request vnto God by the resurrection of Christ 1. Pet. 3.21 Ergo it is faith in the resurrection of Christ which worketh in vs peace of conscience and not the outward washing that saueth or iustifieth Kemnitij argum Augustine thus writeth Aliud est aqua sacramenti aliud aqua quae significat spiritum dei ista visibilis est abluit corpus significat quid fit in anima per illum spiritum anima mundatur saginatur The water of the Sacrament is one thing the water which signifieth the spirit is another the one is visible and washeth the flesh and signifieth what is done in the soule but by the spirit the soule is cleansed The Sacrament of Baptisme then by this fathers sentence and so all other sacraments doe not giue grace but signifie onely and represent grace THE SECOND PART OF THE difference of the olde and new Sacraments error 93 THe sacrifices and ceremonies of the olde law were so farre
First that they doe not onely signifie but exhibite and represent vnto vs after a liuely manner the spirituall things which are signified Secondly they must haue the institution perpetuall commandement of Christ. Thirdly the sacraments of the new law must succeede in the place of the olde Hereupon we will inferre that there are but two sacraments in the new Testament Baptisme and the Lords Supper Argum. 1. These two alone are not onely signes of heauenly things but seales and pledges vnto vs thereof whereby our fayth is strengthened and our hope confirmed in the promises of God as the remission of sinnes is represented in Baptisme Act. 2.38 the death of Christ shewed foorth in the Eucharist 1. Corinth 11.26 The like commendation is not giuen of any other of their sacraments Argum. 2. Christ onely commaunded these two sacraments to bee vsed for euer in his Church to such spirituall purposes as Baptisme is instituted and commaunded Math. 28.19 the Lords Supper likewise Math. 26. Many other ceremonies Christ vsed himselfe as lifting vp of hands the tempering of clay and spittle his Apostles imposition of hands and anoynting with oyle But he hath not layd his commaundement vpon these ceremonies enioyning vs perpetually to keepe them as he hath charged vs with the other two Argum. 3. The sacraments of the newe Testament succeede in the roume of them of the olde Baptisme standeth in stead of Circumcision the Lordes Supper is come in place of the Paschal Lambe But they cannot shew what old sacraments those fiue other newly inuented confirmation orders penance matrimony extreame vnction doe succeede and supplie Ergo they are none And beside if all these should be sacraments and so seuen in all we should haue more in number then the Iewes had which is not to bee admitted for they had but two ordinary sacraments Circumcision and the Paschall Lambe two extraordinarie as their baptisme in the red sea and the clowde and their eating of the Manna and drinking of the rocke 1. Corin. 10.2.3 So they should haue but foure sacraments for your seuen Other legall rites ceremonies and sacrifices they had and many typical shadowes and significations but no more sacraments then we haue heard Augustine yeeldeth to haue no more sacraments then onely two As Eua was made out of Adams side as hee was asleepe Sic ex latere domini dormientis in cruce manauerunt sacramenta ex quibus formaretur ecclesia So out of the Lordes side sleeping vpon the crosse the sacraments of the Church issued that is water and blood by the which he vnderstandeth the two sacraments THE SECOND PART OF THE order and degree of the sacraments among them selues The Papists error 97 IF any man shall say that these seuen sacraments are of equall dignitie and not one in some respect to be preferred before the other let him be accursed Concil Trident. sess 7. can 3. In diuers respects one sacrament may excell another as Baptisme excelleth the rest because of remission of sinnes thereby effected or as we say represented Orders excell in respect of the minister because they are onely say they conferred by a Bishop Matrimony excelleth in respect of the signification the coniunction of Christ and his Church But simply the Eucharist exceedeth all because of the substance of the sacrament the reall and bodily presence of Christ. Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 28. Answer First that Baptisme and the Eucharist exceede all the other we do easily admit for we holde them to be no sacraments and therefore we stand not vpon their seuerall priuiledges Secondly neither Baptisme is more excellent then the Lords Supper because it representeth the remission of sinnes for that also is insinuated in the other for how can we shew foorth the Lords death which is done in that sacrament vnlesse we call to minde the benefits purchased by his death as remission of sinnes Neither doth the Eucharist goe beyond Baptisme in regard of a more full presence of Christ for he is not otherwise present in one sacrament then in the other presenting himselfe in both spiritually to be apprehended of the worthy receiuer as for that carnal and grosse presence of the body of Christ in the sacrament we acknowledge none as afterward it shall more fully appeare when wee come in order to that question Augustine sheweth that Christ is no otherwise present in the Eucharist then in the preaching of the word for the manner of his presence Eucharistia panis noster quotidianus est quod vobis tracto panis quotidianus est quod in ecclesia lectiones quotidie auditis panis quotidianus est the Eucharist or sacrament of thankesgiuing is our dayly bread that which I handle and preach to you is our daylie bread that which you heare read daylie in the Church is our daylie bread If Christ then be no more really present in the sacrament then in the worde what is become of the preeminence that the one sacrament in that respect should haue aboue the other The Protestants THat the one sacrament should be so much extolled aboue the other namely the Lords Supper to be preferred before Baptisme as the more worthy and excellent sacrament we finde no such thing in the word of God but that both of them are of like dignitie in themselues and to be had equally and indifferently in most high accompt thus it is prooued Argum. 1 They are both commaunded and instituted by the same authoritie of our Lord Iesus Christ neither is one by the first institution aduanced aboue the other Secondly there is the same matter and substance of both sacraments Christ Iesus with all his benefites Thirdly one and the same end of them both which is the increase and strengthening of our fayth in the promises of God Ergo they are both of equall dignitie and worthynes Let them say now which is the more worthy thing Baptisme or the word preached no doubt they will preferre Baptisme for they holde that the sacraments doe giue grace by the worke wrought and so doth not the worde yea they are offended because we say that the sacraments are no otherwaies instruments of our iustification then the word preached is but that the one worketh by the hearing the other by the senses of seeing handling tasting but they all serue to one end namely to beget and increase fayth in vs. This our assertion they vtterly mislike Bellarm. lib. 2. de sacram cap. 2. Whereby it appeareth that they preferre Baptisme before the word We then thus reason out of Augustine He thus writeth Dicite mihi quid plus videtur vobis verbum dei an corpus Christi respondere debetis quod non sit minus verbum dei Tell me which is the chiefer in your opinion the word of God or the body of Christ that is the sacrament of his body ye must answere that the word of God is not inferior Homil. 26. Hence we frame this argument The word of God is equiualent to
the sacrament of the Lords bodie Baptisme is equiualent to the word of God by our aduersaries own confession Ergo also it is of equall value and dignitie with the other sacrament THE TWELFTH GENERALL CONTROVERSY OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISME THis controuersie standeth vpon diuers questions 1. Of the name and definition of Baptisme Secondly of the partes of Baptisme Thirdly of the necessitie of Baptisme Fourthly of the Minister of Baptisme Fiftly of the parties which are to be baptized Sixtly of the effects of Baptisme Seuenthly of the difference of Christs Baptisme and Iohns Eightly of the ceremonies of Baptisme THE FIRST QVESTION OF THE NAME and definition of Baptisme COncerning the name there is no question betweene vs for the name of Baptisme hath the originall and beginning from the scripture Saint Paul vseth this word Coloss. 2.12 We are buryed with him through Baptisme And againe Heb. 6.2 All the question is about the definition of Baptisme The Papists error 98 THey define Baptisme to bee a sacrament of regeneration by water in the worde that is not which signifieth and sealeth vnto vs our regeneration and assureth vs of remission of sinnes but actually iustifieth and regenerateth vs Bellarm. lib. 1. de Baptism cap. 1. The Protestants WE rather according to the scriptures define baptisme to be a signe or seale of our regeneration and new birth whereby wee are assured that as verily by fayth in the blood of Christ we are cleansed from our sinnes as our bodies are washed with water in the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost So that Baptisme doth not actually bestow remission of sinnes by the work wrought but is a pledge and seale of the righteousnesse of fayth as Saint Paul sayth of Circumcision Rom. 4.11 for it is not the washing of the flesh by water but the establishing of the heart with fayth and grace that saueth vs 1. Pet. 3.21 See this poynt handled more at large Controuers 11. next before quest 2. part 1. Augustine saith Per fidem renascimur in baptismate by fayth wee are borne agayne in Baptisme De tempor serm 53. It is then the proper act of fayth to regenerate vs not of Baptisme the vse and end whereof is to strengthen and increase our fayth THE SECOND QVESTION OF THE PARTES which are the matter and forme of Baptisme AS touching the matter that is the externall element vsed in Baptisme there is no question betweene vs but that it ought to bee plaine and common water Act. 10.47 Saint Peter saith Can any man forbid water that these should not bee baptized Wherefore wee condemne the foolish and vngodly practises and inuentions of heretikes that either exclude water altogether as the Manichees with others or doe vse any other element as the Iacobites that in stead of water burned them that were to be baptized with a whot yron or as the Aethiopians which are called Abissines that vsed fire in stead of water misconstruing the words of the Gospell Matth. 2.11 That Christ should baptize with the holy Ghost and with fire which is not literally to bee vnderstoode but thereby is signified the internall and forceable working of the spirite which kindleth zeale and loue in our hearts as fire Concerning the forme of Baptisme we all agree that no other is to be vsed then that prescribed by our Sauiour Christ to baptize in the name of the Father the Sonne and holy Ghost that it is neither lawfull to change this forme in sense as many heretikes haue done nor yet in words as to leaue out any of the three persons in Trinitie and inclusiuely to vnderstand them by naming of one for whereas some alleadge that place Act. 2.38 Bee yee baptized in the name of Iesus Christ for remission of sinnes to proue that it is lawfull onely in the name of Christ to baptize wee are to vnderstand that the forme of Baptisme is not in that place expresly set downe but the scope onely and end of Baptisme which is to assure vs of remission of sinnes in the name of Christ as Beza very well noteth vpon that place The point of difference betweene vs concerning the forme of Baptisme is this The Papists THey are bold to affirme that this forme of Baptisme to baptize in the name error 99 of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost is not fully concluded out of Scripture but deliuered by tradition for say they the commandement of Christ to baptize in the name of the Trinitie Matth. 28. may bee vnderstoode thus to baptize them into the faith of the Trinitie or by the authoritie of the Trinitie And it were sufficient by those words to doe and performe it in act without saying the wordes were it not that wee haue otherwise learned by tradition that this very forme of wordes is to bee kept Bellarmine de baptism lib. 1. cap. 3. The Protestants WE neede no tradition for this matter the very forme which is to bee vsed in Baptisme is plainely proued out of the Scriptures for that commandement of Christ Goe and baptize c. doth necessarily imply a forme of speech to be vsed Wee grant that in the Scriptures this word name is taken for power vertue authoritie as Act. 3.6 In the name of Iesus arise and walke So also as there is a Baptisme with water there may be a baptizing with fire Matth. 3.11 Wherefore if part of the commandement bee to bee taken properlie and literally as this Goe and baptize why not the rest also In the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost If then the whole commaundement bee properly and plainely vnderstoode how can they baptize in the name of the Trinitie vnlesse the Trinitie bee spoken and named Secondly it appeareth also out of other places of Scripture that this forme was vsed in the Apostles time As Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water why these should not be baptized which haue receiued the holy Ghost as well as wee As if Saint Peter should haue reasoned thus these haue receiued the giftes of the holy Ghost Ergo they may be also baptized in the name of the holy Ghost Likewise Act. 19.2 When the brethren at Ephesus had answered Paul that they had not heard whether there were a holy Ghost he saith vnto them Vnto what then were you baptized By this interrogatorie it appeareth it was their manner to baptize in the name of the holy Ghost and so consequently of the whole Trinitie Wee haue no cause then to flie vnto tradition this matter being so plainely decided by the Scripture Augustin tract in Iohann 80. Vpon those wordes of our Sauiour Iohn 15.3 You are cleane thorough the word which I haue spoken vnto you Detrahe verbum quid est aqua nisi aqua Accedit verbum ad elementum fit sacramentum Take away the word and what remaineth in Baptisme but bare water let the word be ioyned to the element and it maketh a Sacrament The forme then of Baptisme is the word which Christ
annot Hebr. 7. sect 7. Wherefore they which minister vnder the Gospell are worthilie called Priests which word doth so certainely implie the authoritie of sacrificing that it is by vse made the onely English of Sacerdos Rhemist act 14. sect 3. The Protestants FIrst we hold it to be a great blasphemie to say that the Priesthood sacrifice of Christ vpō the Crosse is not that sacrifice or Priesthood into the which the old sacrifice Priesthood was translated changed The Apostle proueth the contrary for that sacrifice whereby the new Testament is established is that whereunto the old sacrifice and Priesthoode is translated but this is done by the singular sacrifice of Christ who is the suretie of a better testament Hebr. 7.23 Ergo his singular sacrifice vpon the crosse is that whereinto the old Leuiticall sacrifices are changed and no other Againe the Priesthoode after Melchisedechs order is that into the which the old Priesthoode is changed but the Priesthoode of Christ vpon the Crosse was after that order Ergo. But here they are not ashamed to denie that the sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse was after Melchisedechs order but doe most impudently and blasphemously affirme that it was after the order of Aaron Heskin lib. 1. cap. 13. And thus euery vile massemonger shall be more properly a Priest after Melchisedechs order then Christ himselfe Secondly none but Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech for vnto whome the Lord saide Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech to him the Lord saith also in the same Psalme Sit thou at my right hand Psal. 110. But this cānot agree to any popish Priest therefore not the other Againe the Apostle maketh this difference betweene the Priesthoode of the lawe and the Gospell because then there were many Priests they being prohibited by death to continue but Christ is the onely Priest of the New Testament because he dieth not Heb. 7 23.24 If they answer as they doe that although there be many Priestes yet it is but one Priesthoode because Christ concurreth with them in the actes of the Priesthoode Rhemist We answer first Christ concurreth with his faithfull ministers in the actes of their Ministerie but no such Priesthoode doe wee acknowledge Secondly so Christ concurred in the actes of the Leuiticall Priesthoode and the sacrifices of the law that were rightly offered wherefore this concurrence of Christ dooth no more take away the multitude of Priests in the Gospell then it did in the lawe Thirdly concerning the name of Priests in their sense as it implieth an authoritie of sacrificing we vtterly abhor it secondly but as it is deriued of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth an Elder we refuse it not but wish rather that it had not bin abused in cōmō speach to signifie popish sacrificers Thirdly as for the word sacerdos which may be englished a sacrificer we finde it no where in the New Testament giuen to the ministers of the Gospell and so much Bellarmine confesseth cap. 17. And therefore vnfitly and vnproperly agreeth vnto them If some of the fathers haue confounded the names of Sacerdos and Presbyter they are not to be commended The word Sacerdos a sacrificer being a proper name of the Leuitical Priests cannot properly be attributed to the Ministers of the Gospell To conclude this word Priest as it is the English of Sacerdos we doe not approue but as it giueth the sense of Presbyter from whence it is deriued we condemne it not for so it signifieth nothing else but an Elder If common vse of speech haue drawne it to a contrarie sense it would be amended Augustine saith Sacerdotiū Iudaeorum nemo dubitat c. No faithful mā doubteth but that the Priesthood of the law was a figure of the royall Priesthoode in the Church whereby all that pertaine to the bodie of Christ are consecrated He acknowledgeth no other Priesthood abiding in the Church then that whereby all Christians are made Priests to offer spirituall sacrifices vnto God through Christ. THE THIRD QVESTION OF THE VERTVE AND efficacie falsely ascribed to the sacrifice of the Masse The Papists 1. THey blasphemously affirme that it is a sacrifice propitiatorie that is auailable error 130 to obtaine ex opere operato by the very worke wrought remission and pardon of all their sinnes Trident. Concil sess 22. can 3. Argum. Christ himselfe sayth in the institution This is my blood shed for you for the remission of sinnes Ergo the sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable for remission of sinnes Bellarm. lib. 2. de miss cap. 2. The Protestants Ans. FIrst Christ instituted no sacrifice as we declared afore but onely a Sacrament in remembrance of his death and passion Secondly the Sacrament rightly administred serueth to assure our faith of remission of sinnes by the death of Christ but it doth not by it owne vertue conferre remission of sinnes neither profiteth by the worke wrought for the Apostle sayth That without faith it is impossible to please God Hebr. 11.6 wherefore no action is accepted of God not proceeding of faith Argum. The Apostle sayth Where there is remission of sinnes there is no more sacrifice for sinne Hebr. 10.18 Seeing then remission of sinnes is fully obtained by the death and sacrifice of Christ there can be no more sacrifice for sinne Ergo the Masse is no sacrifice for sinne The Papists 2. THe sacrifice of the Masse is not onely propitiatorie for sinnes but auaileable error 131 to obtaine all other benefites as peace tranquilitie health and such like Bellarm. cap. 3. Argum. S. Paul willeth That prayers and intercessions should be made for all men especially for Kings that we may leade a godly and a peaceable life 1. Timoth. 1.1 These are the prayers which are made in the celebration of the Masse Bellarm. The Protestants Ans. FIrst the Apostle speaketh generally of al prayers made by whomsoeuer as it appeareth vers 8. Therefore this place is vnfitly applied to the praiers of Priests in the Masse Secondly this place proueth that temporall benefites are obtained by faithfull prayers not by the sacrifice of the Masse which S. Paul neuer knewe Thirdly Augustine indeed expoundeth this place of the publike prayers of the Church vsed in the administration of the Sacrament for he calleth it Domini mensam the Lords table not the altar he meaneth nothing lesse then your popish Masse Argum. It is contrarie to the institution of Christ to applie the Sacrament for any such temporall or external vse It was ordained to be receiued in remembrance of Christs death to assure vs by faith of remission of sinnes and other spirituall blessings not to giue vs assurance of health peace life prosperitie for the obtaining of such blessings according to the will of God other meanes are appoynted The ministerie of the Sacraments no more serueth for such vses then the preaching of the word THE FOVRTH QVESTION FOR WHOM THE sacrifice of
our mindes our willes are altogether passiue in respect of the generall power and naturall motion of willing thinking and vnderstanding they are also actiue The seuerall poynts then wherein we and our aduersaries dissent about free will are these 1. They say that man was neuer without free will but it is made more free by grace Rhemist Iohn 8. sect 2. that is our free will is not altogether corrupt but there remaineth some freedome therein euen before grace Ans. Cleane contrarie to S. Paul who denieth that in his flesh dwelleth any good thing Rom. 7.18 but sayth he by nature was wholly sold vnto sinne vers 14. How then can there remaine any goodnes in our will without grace Augustine consenteth Laborant homines inuenire in voluntate quid boni sit nostrum quod non sit ex Deo quod quomodo inueniri possit ignoro Men doe labour to finde some goodnes in the will that is of our selues and not of God but I am altogether ignorant how any such thing should be found 2. The beginning of our calling and the first motions and stirrings of the heart are of grace but to consent is wholly in our power so belike God beginneth the good worke and we continue it This is right the old Pelagian heresie Gratiam Dei non ad singulos actus dari That the grace of God need not be giuen at euery assay but it is enough if God giue a hint and shewe vs the beginning and we will performe the rest This heresie is confuted by Augustine Epistol 106. And in another place Nos eam gratiam volumus saith he qua non solum reuelatur sapientia sed amatur non suadetur bonum sed persuadetur We vnderstand that grace by the which wisedome is not only reuealed but loued we are not moued and stirred only to good things but throughly perswaded Wherefore it is not God that beginneth the good worke in vs onely but also continueth and finisheth it for all things are by Iesus Christ 1. Corinth 8.7 no good thing in vs but by him 3. They also renew another heresie of the Pelagians who taught That what men are commanded to doe by free will facilius impleri per gratiam is but more easily performed by grace What els doe the Rhemists say giuing this note that although the Gentiles do especially beleeue by Gods grace yet they doe beleeue by their free will Act. 13.2 So grace helpeth them only more especially fully or easely to beleeue Whereupon it followeth that they may beleeue without grace though not so especially Now then we are to proue against our aduersaries that our free will hath no power at all of it selfe to will or doe that which is good no further then it is guided and not onely in part assisted but wholly directed by the spirit of God Argum. 1. Philipp 2.13 God worketh in vs both the will and the deede yea and the thought to 2. Cor. 3.5 He sayth not God and we worke but he himselfe worketh he is all in all Argum. 2. Iohn 6.44 No man commeth to me vnlesse my father draw him But he is not drawne that giueth assent of his owne accord for so they say that God first toucheth the heart with his spirit and then it is in the power of man to giue consent But the scripture speaketh otherwise how that God draweth vs he draweth our will and maketh vs to giue assent vnto his grace He it is that taketh away the stonie heart and giueth an heart of flesh Ezech. 11.19 Ergo he prepareth and addresseth the will wholly For like as a stone hath no fleshy nature in it no more hath the naturall will of men any goodnesse dwelling therein Augustine Quicquid vult bonum quicquid potest à Domino est quia sine me ait Dominus nihil potestis facere Iohn 15. Whatsoeuer a man either willeth or is able to doe it is of God as the Lord sayth in the Gospell Without me you can doe nothing Ergo without grace the will is able to doe nothing it is then wholly corrupt in it selfe It followeth therefore that our will and Gods grace worke not together but God by his spirit worketh alone in vs. THE SECOND QVESTION of Faith THe parts of the question First what faith is Secondly of the diuers kindes of faith Thirdly of the forme of faith Fourthly how we are iustified by faith Fiftly whether faith be meritorious Sixtly whether it be in our owne power Seuenthly whether faith may be lost Eightly whether wicked men haue faith THE FIRST PART WHAT FAITH IS whereby we are iustified The Papists error 76 IVstifying faith or faith that iustifieth is not that assured beleefe and confidence of the heart whereby we are perswaded that our sinnes are forgiuen vs in Christ Concil Trident. sess 6. can 13. It is a generall or vniuersall beleeuing the articles of Christs death and resurrection not any fond speciall faith fiducia or confidence of each mans owne saluation Rhemist Rom. 4. sect 9. Argum. Abrahams faith was nothing els but his beleefe of a certaine article reuealed vnto him from God and credite giuen to Gods speeches Rhemist ibid. Ans. Abrahams faith was not onely a generall or historicall beleefe that Gods speeches were true but a sure confidence and trust in God that his promises pertained vnto him and that he himselfe should bee blessed in that promised seede as our Sauiour testifieth Iohn 8.56 Abraham desired to see my day and he sawe it and was glad For whereof sprang that exceeding ioy in Abraham but vpon that certaine hope and perswasion which he had of his owne saluation in Christ The Protestants A Iustifying faith is not onely a generall beleefe of the articles of faith that Christ was borne dyed rose againe for them that beleeue but it is an assured and stedfast confidence whereby euery faithfull man particularly doth applie to himselfe the generall promises of God for the hope of remission of his sinnes in Christ that Christ dyed rose againe and did all the rest euen for him Argum. 1. Saint Iames sayth The diuels also doe beleeue that God is and doe tremble yea no doubt but they beleeue the word of God is true and confesse all the articles of the faith for they acknowledge Christ to be the Sonne of the liuing God Mark 5.7 But the faith of diuels is no iustifying faith Ergo neither this historicall and generall faith Argum. 2. Saint Paul was saued by no other faith then the common iustifying faith of all Christians but this faith wrought a particular perswasion in him From henceforth is layd vp for me a crowne of righteousnes 2. Timoth. 8. Ergo such ought the faith of all Christians to be Augustine sayth Nos non simul omnes sed paulatim singulatim credentes congregamur in vnam quandam ciuitatem We sayth he not beleeuing all at once but euery man asunder and by himselfe are gathered into one
by good workes Rhemist Rom. 2.3 Ans. This is but a late and new deuice of the first and second iustification as afterward we wil shew in the proper place The scripture teacheth vs that not onely the beginning of our righteousnes but the finishing and perfiting of it is onely by grace in Christ Ephes. 2.5.6 When we were dead in our sinnes he hath quickned vs together in Christ by whose grace yee are saued and hath raysed vs vp and made vs sit together in heauenly places We see that this saluation by grace bringeth vs vp to heauen Ergo both the first second iustification are of grace for they can bring vs no further then to heauen Rhemist 2. Workes done of nature without or before fayth cannot merite but workes done by Gods grace may and are ioyned with it as causes of saluation Ans. Not onely the workes of nature but euen of grace also are excluded Wee are saued saith the Apostle by grace through fayth not of workes And then he sheweth what workes namely good workes such as the Lord hath ordayned for vs to walke in Ephes. 2.9.10 Ergo workes also of grace wrought in vs by the spirite of God are shut out from being any causes of our saluation I conclude with Augustine vpon those wordes of the Psalme Let the Lord alway be magnified Peccatores magnificetur vt vocet consiteris magnificetur vt ignoscat iam iustè viuis magnificetur vt regat perseueras vsque ad finem magnificetur vt te glorificet Art thou a sinner let God be magnified in calling thee doest thou confesse thy sinnes let him be magnified in forgiuing them doest thou liue well let him be magnified in directing thee doest thou continue to the end let him be magnified in glorifiing thee God is as much to be praysed for all things wrought after our calâ—ing and conuersion as for mercy shewed before All then is wholly to bee ascribed to Gods grace and mercie nothing is left for our merite or desert THE FOVRTH PART OF THE distinction of merites The Papists THey make two kindes of merite Meritum de coâ—gruo merite of congruitie error 91 such are the preparatiue workes before iustification as were the prayers almes deeds of Cornelius Act. 10. which though they be not simply meritorious ex debito iustitiae by the due debt of iustice yet they deserue at Gods handes of congruitie because hee doth graciously accept them Act. 10. sect 5. The other kinde they call meritum de condigno merite of condignitie when the reward is iustly due by debt such are the workes done in the second iustification which are truely meritorious and worthy of heauen Gabriel Biel. Rhemist Rom. 2. sect 3. The Protestants FIrst wee vtterly denie any such merite of condignitie For Saint Paul sayth that the afflictions of this life are not condigne of the glory to come Rom. 8.18 Condignitie then is wholly remoued and taken away Secondly a rewarde of congruitie in some sorte we graunt but neither for any thing done before fayth or iustification for it is impossible without fayth to please God or doe any thing acceptable vnto him Hebr. 6.6 Neither is it of congruitie for the merite of our workes but it is congruum it is agreeable to the mercie and iustice of God in respect of his promise graciously made in Christ to rewarde the faithfull obedience of his seruants so then the congruitie is on Gods behalfe not in respect of our workes We are iustified sayth the Apostle Gratis per gratiam freely by grace Rom. 3.24 Ergo there is no merite either of congruitie or condignitie seeing all is done freely Augustine sayth Quid ille latro attulerat de fauce ad iudicium de iudicio ad crucem de cruce in Paradisum I pray you what merite did the theefe bring with him from the prison to iudgemeÌ„t from the iudgement place to the crosse from the crosse to Paradise Here was neither merite of congruitie nor condignitie THE FIFT PART OF THE MANner of meriting The Papists OVr workes they say are pleasing and acceptable vnto God euen after error 92 the same manner that Christ and his workes were Tapper ex Tileman loc 11. Err. 14. Christes paynes of their owne nature compared to his glorie were not any whit comparable yet they were meritorious and worthy of heauen not for the greatnes of them but for the worthines of his person So our works not of their owne nature but as they are of grace are meritorious of the ioyes of heauen Rhemist Rom. 8.18 The Protestants FIrst it is a great blasphemie to say that Christs passions in themselues deserued not that glory which he hath purchased for vs neither that there was any comparison betweene them for then how could he haue fully satisfied the wrath of God Christ hath payed the ransome for our sinnes Wee are redeemed with his precious blood as of a lambe vnspotted 1. Pet. 1.19 His blood was the price of our redemption therefore of it selfe meritorious It was not in respect of Christ of grace but of merite in him Vnto vs his redemption is of grace Rom. 3.24 Wherefore his passion being the passion of the Sonne of God was a full satisfaction and worthy desert of that glory which hee hath purchased for vs. Secondly it is another great blasphemy to match and compare in the way and maner of meriting Christs workes and ours together For first there is no merite at all in vs vnto saluation we haue no merites but Christs and are saued onely by fayth in him not by workes Ephes. 2.8 Secondly by your own confession our works are not of their nature meritorious but of grace But Christs workes were of themselues full of merite without any externall helpe or accession of grace for in himselfe did all fulnes dwell Coloss. 1.19 Augustine very well sheweth the great difference in the way of meriting betweene Christ and vs thus writing Quantum interest cum duo sint in carcere interreum visitatorem eius illum causa premit illum humanitas adduxit sic in istu mortalitate nos reatu tenebamur Christus misericordia descendit Looke what difference there is when two are in prison together betweene the prisoner and his friend that commeth to visite him the one is there of necessitie the other commeth of good will Such difference is there betweene Christ vs for when we were deteined in the prison of this mortalitie for the guilt of our sinnes Christ came in mercy to visite vs. How can there now be any proportionable or like way of meriting in the guiltie prisoner and the innocent and friendly visiter THE FOVRTH QVESTION of Iustification THe partes of this question First of the preparatiue workes to iustification Secondly of the 2. kindes of iustification the first second Thirdly of inherent iustice Fourthly of Iustification only by fayth They folow now in order THE FIRST PART OF THE PREparatiue workes The Papists
IVSTIFIcation onely by fayth The Papists error 94 FAyth is not the only cause of our iustificatiō but there are other also as hope charitie almes deedes and other vertues Rhemist Roman 8. sect 6. Yea workes are more principall then fayth in the matter of iustification Iam. 2. sect 7. Whosoeuer therefore sayth that a man is iustified onely by fayth and that nothing els is required to iustification we pronounce him accursed Trident. Concil sess 6. can 9. Argum. 1. Rom. 8.24 We are saued by hope Ergo not onely by fayth Rhemist Answ. 1. We are sayd to be saued by hope not because wee are thereby iustified but because by hope we do expect and waite for our saluation which is not yet accomplished as it followeth vers 25. If wee hope for that wee see not then doe we with patience abide for it Argum. 2. Galath 5.6 Fayth that worketh by charitie Fayth then hath her whole actiuitie and operation toward saluation of charitie It doth not therefore iustifie vs alone but fayth and charitie together of the which charitie is the more principall Rhemist ibid. Answ. We graunt that it is a working fayth that doth iustifie as the Apostle here sayth but not as it worketh but as it apprehendeth and beleeueth Charitie is a principall effect of fayth and followeth it how then can fayth receiue actiuitie from charitie the effect doth not giue life to the cause You know Augustine often sayth Opera non praecedunt iustificandum sed sequuntur iustificatum Workes goe not before vnto iustification but followe in him that is already iustified But if charitie should beget fayth then workes proceeding of charitie should goe before fayth by the which wee are iustified The Apostle sayth Without fayth it is impossible to please God Hebr. 11.6 Ergo neither doth charitie please God without fayth Fayth giueth actiuitie to charitie how then can it receiue that which it giueth Argum. 3. Iam. 2.24 We see how that of deedes a man is iustified and not of fayth onely Ergo we are not iustified by fayth onely Rhemist Answ. Saint Iames is not contrary to his fellow Apostle Saint Paul who concludeth Rom. 3.28 that We are iustified by fayth without workes that is as much to say as by fayth onely And he excludeth not onely workes of nature or of the law but euen workes of grace which God hath ordayned Ephes 2.10 Therefore S. Iames in saying we are not iustified by faith onely meaneth not that iustification whereby we are made iust before God for then he should impugne Saint Pauls principles But by iustifiyng or being iustified he vnderstandeth nothing els but to be declared iust as well before men as in the sight of God which declaration is testified and shewed forth by our workes proceeding of faith Thus the word iustified is taken Rom. 3.4 That thou maist be iustified in thy words that is knowne or declared to be iust Augustine also sayth Iustificabuntur id est iusti habebuntur They shall be iustified that is counted iust as we also say Sanctificetur nomen id est sanctum habeatur Let thy name bee sanctified that is reputed and acknowledged to be holy amongst men The Protestants WE are not enemies to good workes as our aduersaries falsely charge vs nay we preach good workes we exhort to good workes we establish good workes teaching the right vse of them out of the word of God which is not to concurre or be ioyned with faith in our iustification but to follow necessarily and issue out of faith as liuely testimonies thereof to the glorie of God the example of others and our comfort but faith it is onely which as a liuely instrument ordained of God doth assure vs of our iustification by grace in Christ. Argum. 1. Saluation is ascribed onely to beleefe Mark 16.16 Act. 16.31 But it is the propertie of faith onely to beleeue not of hope or charitie the effect of hope is by patience to abide Rom. 8.25 The operations also of loue are set forth 1. Corinth 13. Where amongst other Loue is sayd to beleeue all things that is mutuall loue amongst men is not mistrustfull but taketh all things in good part but to beleeue the things of God it is the propertie onely of faith as Augustine vpon those words of the Apostle How shall they call vpon him on whom they haue not beleeued In his duobus tria illa intuere fides credit spes charitas orant In these two behold those three faith beleeueth hope and charitie pray Faith therefore onely beleeueth and so consequently onely iustifieth Enchirid. cap. 7. Argum. 2. Our iustification and saluation is of the meere grace and mercie of God not at al of any merite or desert in vs Ergo we are iustified only through faith for it is of grace that we are saued through faith Ephes. 2.8 That all is to bee ascribed onely to the mercie and grace of God the Apostle euery where sheweth Rom. 9.12 It is not in him that willeth or runneth but in God that sheweth mercie We are iustified freely by grace Rom. 3.24 What hast thou that thou hast not receiued Augustine saith Intelligenda est gratia Dei per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum qua sola liberamur à malo We must vnderstand the grace of God by Iesus Christ by the which we are onely deliuered from euill Si quid boni est magni vel parui donum tuum est nostrum non est nisi malum si quid boni vnquam habui à te recepi If there bee any good in vs much or little it is thy gift nothing is ours but the euill in vs Ergo all good things are of God and onely of his grace and therefore our iustification Argum. 3. There are many euident places which doe attribute our iustification to faith without workes Rom. 3.28.11.8 Ephes. 2.8.9 In all these places in plaine termes We are sayd to bee iustified by faith without workes As for those friuolous euasions that the Apostle speaketh of the first iustification not of the second or of the workes of nature or of the lawe not of grace we haue answered before Quaest. 2. part 3. artic 3. If they will oppose that saying of S. Iames. 2.24 we answere with Augustine Nec Apostoli sunt inter se aduersi ille dicit Abrahae opus omnibus notum in filij immolatione magnum opus sed ex fide laudo fructum boni operis sed in fide agnosco radicem The Apostles are not contrarie one to the other he sayth Abrahams worke was knowne to all in offering vp his sonne a great worke but of faith I praise the fruite but it was rooted in faith His meaning then is this that Abraham was iustified that is declared to men to be iust by this worke HERE FOLLOW SVCH CONTROVERSIES AS doe arise betweene the Protestants and Papists about the natures of Christ. WE haue now through Gods gracious assistance entreated of all those
the vniuersal companie of the wicked Reuel 13. ve 1. And this is the name or number of the beast it must be vnderstood by their own confession of a companie and congregation and not of one singular person The Protestants THat Antichrist which is interpreted an aduersary or against Christ shal not be one man as the Papists imagine that the Popes might be disburdened and discharged of this name who are many but that it is a whole body companie and sinagogue and a succession of heretikes we doe thus proue it 1 The mysterie of iniquitie wrought in Paules time then was there a way in preparing for Antichrist 2. Thes. 2. But it is vnpossible for one man to continue from Paules time to the end of the worlde Ergo Antichrist is not one man but a succession of heretikes Bellarmine answereth if the mysterie of iniquitie began in Paules time that is the kingdome of Antichrist and you will needes make Rome the seate of Antichrist belike S. Paul and S. Peter were the Antichrists for there were no Bishops of Rome beside at that time Ans. First that Antichrist begā then to work euen in Rome it cānot be denied seeing the Papists confesse that Simon Magus first broched his heresie there and that Peter calleth Rome Babylon It is not necessarie that the mysterie of iniquity should so soone creepe into the very chaire of the Pastors and Bishops that should come to passe in the full reuelation of Antichrist It is sufficient that it wrought closely amongst the false apostles wherefore the Iesuits obiection concerning Peter and Paule is ridiculous Fulk Anno. 2. Thes. 2. sect 9. 2 S. Paul saith that there must come a departing or apostasie generall falling from the faith for that an apostacie signifieth a relinquishing of the faith not a departure from the Romane Empire Now this generall falling away from the faith cannot be accomplished in one man but it sheweth a whole bodie or companie whereof Antichrist is the head one man of sinne succeeding another by succession and this apostacie cannot be wrought at one time but it shall come to passe in seuerall ages for how is it possible that at once such a generall apostacie should be Ergo Antichrist shall not be one particular man Argum. Caluini Neither can the Iesuite thus shift off the argument to say that this generall apostacie is but a preparation to the kingdome of Antichrist not that he shall then bee presently come for S Paul ioyneth both these together There must come a departing first that the man of sinne be disclosed vers 3. So that this very apostacie and departing shall be a disclosing and manifest declaration of Antichrist 3 Iohn 3.7 The Apostle sayth Many deceiuers are come into the world which confesse not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh the same is the deceiuer and the Antichrist Marke then one deceiuer is many deceiuers one Antichrist many Antichrists 1. Iohn 2.18 Ergo Antichrist shall not be one man but many Argument Ful. annot 2. Thess. 2. sect 8. 4 Augustine sheweth how that in his time this place of S. Paul was not expounded of any one man but of a whole bodie Nonnulli non ipsum principent sed vniuersum quodammodo corpus eius simul cum suo principe hoc loco intelligi Antichristum volunt Some saith he doe take Antichrist not for the head alone but for the whole bodie and multitude together with their prince And their coniecture is this because these words vers 7. He which withholdeth are vnderstood of the Empire Emperours of Rome which were many so the man of sinne which is described as in the person of one may fitly be vnderstood of a succession of many THE SECOND PART WHETHER ANTICHIST be yet come and how long he shall continue The Papists THe Romish Iesuites doe hold that Antichrist is not yet come neither can they tell when he shal come But this they say boldly that Henoch and Elias error 57 who liue all this while in Paradise shall come immediatly before Antichrist and that Antichrist when he is come shall raigne but three yeeres and an halfe and then shall the world end Bellarm. cap. 4. lib. 3. de pontif Rhemist 11. Apocal. sect 2.4 1 The Romane Empire must vtterly be destroyed layd wast before Antichrist come as S. Paul sayth That which withholdeth must first be taken away 2. Thess. 2.7 that is the Romane Empire But the Empire yet remayneth for the Emperour is knowne by name and there are also prince electors of the Empire Ergo Antichrist is not yet come Bellarm. cap. 5. Answere It is true that the Romane Empire while it retayned and kept the ancient dignitie maiestie and power thereof was an hinderance and let to the tyrannie of Antichrist but when it began to decay then Antichrist set in his foote First it was not necessarie therefore that the Empire should vtterly be extinguished but so much onely taken away namely the ancient honour and imperiall maiestie therof as hindered Antichrist and so we finde that the Romane Empire was more then halfe decayed when Antichrist crept into Rome Secondly the imperiall power must in some sort be restored by Antichrist for the Pope vsurped the same authoritie which the Emperours had yea greater for the whore is described sitting vpon the beast Apocal. 17. which is the Empire and therefore it is sayd vers 8. The beast that was and is not and yet is for the ancient Empire both is and is not It is because the power thereof is translated to the Pope it is not that is not in that kingly manner as it was in times past Apocal. 13.12 The beast that rose out of the earth with two hornes like a lamb did all that the first beast could doe before him that is the power of the Empire was in the Pope Thirdly Apocal. 13.15 It is sayd that the image of the beast remayned that the other beast gaue a spirit vnto the image of the beast So is it at this day the name and image of the Empire remayneth but the maiestie and power is gone And who giueth life to the image but the Pope he confirmeth and ratifieth the election of the Emperour Wherefore this rather is an argument that Antichrist is alreadie come because nothing but the image of the beast remayneth 2 Antichrist shall raigne three yeeres and an halfe but if hee were alreadie come he must needes haue raigned diuers hundred yeeres alreadie Bellarmin cap. 8. They proue this raigne of Antichrist for this short season out of those places of Daniel 7.25 A time times and halfe a time and Apocal. 12.14 Also it is described by dayes 1260. dayes and by moneths 11.2 two and fourtie moneths which all come to one reckoning and make three yeeres and an halfe Answere First the time is also set downe by the name of three dayes and an halfe Apocal. 11.11 How then is it likely that 1260.
Minister SOme things are yeelded vnto of both sides First that no man ought to take vpon him to administer the Sacraments vnlesse he be thereunto lawfully called and ordeined by the Church sauing that they make exception of Baptisme which in case of necessity as they teach may be giuen by the hands of lay men or women but of this matter we shall haue fitter occasion afterward to consider Secondly it is agreed that the efficacy or vertue of the Sacrament dependeth not of the faith or honesty of the Minister but a faithfull man may receiue the sacrament worthily euen at the hands of an vnworthy Minister The Papists THe point of difference betweene vs is this They do teach that the efficacie error 90 perfection and being of the Sacrament doth necessarily depend of the intention of the Minister so that they holde it to be no sacrament if the Minister haue not Intentionem faciendi quod facit ecclesia A full purpose and intent in ministring the Sacrament to doe that which the Church doth that is to consecrate the elements and to make a Sacrament Trident. concil sess 7. canon 11. Bellarm. cap. 27. So that by this rule if the Ministers intention be not wholy vpō the busines he hath in hand it shall be no Sacrament Argum. If the Ministers intention were not necessary to make a sacrament when it chaunceth that the gospell is read at the table by a Minister there being both bread and wine set before them and he in reading saith This is my body and This is my blood straightwaies all that bread wine should be consecrate and become a sacrament but because his intention is wanting it is none Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. But what if the Minister should haue a fantastical conceite and intent as he readeth to consecrate all the bread wine vpon the table then it should seeme by your rule that it must needs be a sacrament which were euen as absurd a thing as the other 2. There are other lets impediments from hauing a sacrament at the table thē the intention of the minister being wanting or kept back for the elements are not consecrated nor the Sacrament made by the bare pronouncing of the words but the whole institutiō ought to be obserued there must be eating drinking taking and doing al in the remēbrāce of the death of Christ there must be distributing receiuing inuocatiō thākesgiuing the whole action in the sacramēt is the cōsecration therof these things thē being wāting there can be no Sacrament The Protestants IF the Sacrament be administred aright according to the institution of Christ whatsoeuer the Minister be howsoeuer affected be he neuer so prophane in his hart without any godly purpose or intention yet to the worthie receiuer it ceaseth not to be a Sacrament Caluin in antidot concil Tridentin sess 7. canon 11. Argum. 1. The word of God with what intention soeuer it be preached yet may haue his effect and worke faith in the hearer So Christ be preached saith S. Paul whether vnder pretence or sincerely I therein ioy Philip. 1.18 Ergo the Sacraments also may haue their efficacie without the intent of the Minister argum Lutheri Argu. 2. If the effect of the Sacrament consisteth vpon the intention of the Minister then should euery man be vncertaine whether any thing be wrought in him or he haue receiued any benefit by the Sacrament because he knoweth not the intent of another mans hart and so should he be depriued of the spirituall comfort which he might reape by the Sacrament Caluin Augustine saith Sacramentum Baptismi tam sacrum est vt nec homicida vel ebrioso ministrante polluatur The Sacrament of Baptisme is so holy that it cannot either by a murtherer or drunken person ministring it be defiled And I pray you is it not like to be a good intention that should enter into the harts of such lewd and wicked men Therfore without any good intention euen by the hands of such may the Sacraments be giuen THE FOVRTH PART WHETHER THE Sacraments be seales of the promises of God The Papistes error 91 THey vtterly deny that the Sacraments be pledges and seales vnto vs of the promises of God or that therby our faith is nourished and confirmed and we assured of free remission of sinnes by the death of Christ neither that the sacraments were ordeyned for any such end Bellarm. lib. 1. de sacram cap. 14. Argum. 1. If the sacraments confirme vnto vs the promises of God in his word then must they of necessitie be more euident and better known vnto vs then is the word of God for that which is lesse knowen and not so notorious cannot perswade vs of that which we haue better knowledge of But such are the Sacraments which are not so euident being called mysteries of religion as are the words of God Ergo Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. It is strange to see that you should now contend for the euidence and plainenes of Scripture which you haue locked vp from the people with no other pretence then because they are hard and obscure and dangerous ro be read of the simple Secondly you doe not well in comparing the word and the sacraments together for they cannot be diuorsed or separated for the word giueth life to the sacraments the sacraments againe giue liuely testimony and witnes to the truth of the word But let this be the question not whether the writing by it selfe and the seale by it selfe are of greatest force but whether an instrument with a seale be not of greater euidence and strength then without it So the word of God which doth but beate vpon the sence of hearing must of necessitie not in it self but in respect of vs worke more effectually being sealed by the sacraments where we receiue instruction by two other sences of ours the sight and the taste The Protestants THat the Sacraments are ordeined of God to be pledges and seales of his promises made vnto vs in Christ that as verily as the externall elements are applied to the outward man so our soules spiritually are refreshed with an assured hope of the remission of our sinnes in Christ and so the sacraments to be seales onely of the righteousnes of faith and not giuers or workers of grace in vs it is euident out of the Scripture Argum. 1. Abraham receiued the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnes of faith Rom. 4.1 Circumcision then was to Abraham a seale of the righteousnes of faith that is that he was iustified by faith Ergo so are all other sacraments Rhemist Indeede circumcision was a seale to Abraham for he was iust before and receiued this sacrament as a seale thereof afterward But it foloweth not that it was so in all for in Isaac his sonne and so consequently in the rest the Sacrament went before and iustice followed annot Rom. 4. sect 8. Ans. 1. The Apostle setteth forth the example of Abraham to shew
Augustine Si Laicus baptismum dederit nulla cogente necessitate alieni muneris vsurpatio est If a Lay man doe baptize where there is no necessitie it is an vsurping of another mans office But there is no such necessitie to cause him so to doe Ergo. THE FIFT QVESTION OF SVCH AS are to be admitted to baptisme Of the Baptisme of Infants part 1. THat infants are to bee baptized it is fully agreed and concluded betweene vs. Which point we doe strongly maintaine by the Scriptures against the Anabaptists of our age But herein we dissent from our aduersaries The Papists error 104 1. THey affirme that the Baptisme of children and infants is grounded vpon tradition and not vpon Scripture Bellarmine lib. 4. de verbo dei cap. 9. The Protestants IT were very hard if we had no more certaine ground for the baptizing of infants then tradition which is but a feeble weapon to fight against heretikes withall we haue manifest proofes out of Scripture for it First they belong vnto the couenant Genes 17. I will bee thy God and the God of thy seede Ergo they haue right to the signe of the couenant Secondly they are called holy which are borne of faithfull parents 1. Cor. 7.14 Ergo are not to be denied Baptisme Thirdly they are redeemed by the blood of Christ who died for all the children of God Iohn 11.52 To them belongeth the kingdome of God Ergo also Baptisme which is a pledge of remission of sinnes and eternall life Fourthly it is also proued by the practise of the Apostles who baptized whole families with all that thereunto belonged Act 16.33 Fiftly Augustine also proueth it out of Scripture by comparing our Baptisme with the circumcision of the Iewes Veraciter coniâ—cere possumus quid valeat in paruulis baptismi sacramentum ex circumcisione carnis quam prior populus accepit How auailable Baptisme is in little ones we may gesse by the circumcision which the former people in the lawe receiued Ergo not onely by tradition but chiefely by Scripture the lawfulnes of childrens Baptisme is confirmed The Papists 2. BAptisme they say giueth grace and faith to the infant that had none before error 105 Rhemist Galath 3. sect 6. This then is their opinion that infants though actually fully they haue not faith as other haue yet there is a certaine habite of faith and hope infused into them in Baptisme so that partly they doe beleeue of themselues and partly by the faith of others namely of them that bring them to Baptisme Bellarm. lib. 1. de baptism cap. 11. Argum. Without faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 Rom. 3.28 We hold that a man is iustified by faith Ergo children if they haue no faith are neither iustified neither yet doe please God Bellarm. Ans. First these places doe as wel proue that children haue an absolute perfit and actuall faith for it is a perfect faith that iustifieth vs and maketh vs acceptable to God which I am sure our aduersaries will not yeeld vnto Secondly the iustification and saluation of children dependeth of the free election of God Rom. 9.11 And that which faith worketh in those that are of vnderstanding the spirit of God is able to effect in infants by some secret way best knowne to himselfe The Protestants THat infants neither haue faith in themselues nor yet are profited or furthered to their saluation by the faith of others it is thus proued Argum. 1. Saint Paul saith Faith commeth by hearing and hearing by the word of God Rom. 10.17 But infants can neither heare nor vnderstand the word of God Ergo no faith is wrought in them Argum. 2. There is no habituall or potentiall faith that pleaseth God but the iustifying faith is alwaies actuall working by loue Galath 5.6 Ergo children haue either no faith or it must needes bee an actuall or working faith Argum. 3. Infants are not iustified nor relieued or helped forward towards their saluation by the faith of their parents or Godfathers when they are baptized for the Scripture saith The iust shall liue by faith Rom. 1.17 that is by his owne faith not the faith of another Augustine denieth that children are illuminate in their mindes when they are baptized Si illuminati essent ipsum baptismum laeti susciperent cui videmus eos cum magnis fletibus reluctari If they were illuminate they would ioyfullie receiue Baptisme which we see them to striue against with great crying And why should the Apostle say Bee yee not children in vnderstanding 1. Corinth 14.20 if so be their mindes were illuminate Wherefore that saying in the Gospell saith hee This is the light that lighteth euerie one that commeth into the world Iohn 1.9 Whereby they would proue that children doe receiue light at their verie first comming into the world is thus to bee vnderstoode Quia nullus hominum illuminatur nisi lumine illo veritatis because no man is lightened but onely by that light What now is become of that lumen fidei the light of faith which you say is infused into children in Baptisme AN APPENDIX OF THE POpish vse in baptizing of Bels. The Papists error 106 THey begin now to be ashamed of the blinde practises of their superstitious and ignorant forefathers for Bellarmine flatly denieth that bels are baptized amongst them but they are onely consecrate and halowed for diuine vses as other Church vessels are lib. 4. de Roman pontific cap. 12. The Protestants IT is a great shame for them to denie so manifest a thing For in the halowing of bels first there were Godfathers chosen secondly they gaue names to the bels thirdly the bels had new garments put vpon them as is accustomed to bee done to Christians in their Baptisme Fourthly the baptizing of bels was onely permitted to the Bishops suffragane whereas their Priests and Deacons did vsually baptize infants all this sheweth that it was not onely a Baptisme which they bestowed vpon bels but in a more principall kinde then common Baptisme was This was one of the greeuances which the Princes of Germanie complained of in the assembly at Noremberge that the suffraganes exacted of the people such great summes of money for the baptizing of bels with what face then can they denie this vngodlie custome of theirs in Christening and baptizing of bels THE SIXT QVESTION OF THE effects and fruites of Baptisme THe partes of this question are these first whether our sinnes are wholly remitted and cleane taken away in Baptisme Secondly whether Baptisme serueth onely for the remission of sinnes that are past Thirdly of the liberties and priuiledges which are obtained by Baptisme which partes are now seuerally to be handled THE FIRST PART WHETHER IN BAPtisme our sinnes be cleane taken away The Papists THe sinnes which are past they affirme not onely by the grace of Christ error 107 receiued in Baptisme to be forgiuen and pardoned and no more imputed but euen wholly to be rased
chapter of Iohn cannot be so vnderstoode as they expound it First Christ speaketh not onely of the sacramentall eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood but generally of the spirituall participation by fayth whether in the sacrament or without which is wrought in vs by the holy Ghost 1. If it be vnderstoode of the sacrament then it will follow that no man can be saued vnlesse he doe receiue the sacrament for Christ saith vers 53. Except you eate my flesh and drink my blood you cannot haue life in you This I am sure they will hardly grant that the Eucharist also should bee necessarie as they make Baptisme to saluation 2. If Christ hath relation to the sacrament then must it of necessitie bee ministred in both kindes for in euery place he ioyneth both these together the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood Augustine also thus writeth vpon these wordes Hoc est manducare illam escam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentemin se habere This it is to eate that flesh and to drinke that drinke to abide in Christ and to haue him abiding in vs but this may be done without the sacrament Ergo it is not necessary to vnderstand it of the sacrament Secondly though we should graunt that this whole treatise Iohn 6. may fitlie be referred to the sacrament yet the wordes must be taken figuratiuelie for the spirituall eating and drinking of Christ in the sacrament and not otherwise 1 Vers. 35. Christ so expoundeth his owne words I am the bread of life he that commeth to me shall not hunger and he that beleeueth in me shall not thirst To eate then and to drinke Christ is to beleeue in him 2 Christ vnderstandeth another manner of eating of his flesh then the Capernaites did But they imagined that Christ would giue his very flesh and blood to bee eaten And therefore they went away offended and sayd This is an hard saying vers 60. Therefore Christ to correct their erronious conceit sayth vnto them that his words were spirite and life that is spiritually to be vnderstoode verse 63. So Augustine interpreteth those wordes of Christ as if he had sayd Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum You must vnderstand spiritually that which I haue sayd You shall not eate this body which you see nor drinke that blood which shall be shed for you Sacramentum vobis aliquod commendaui spiritualiter intellectum viuisicabit vos I haue commended a certaine mystery and sacrament vnto you which being spiritually vnderstood shall quicken you The Papists ARgum. 3. Christ in the institution of this sacrament sayd vnto his Apostles after hee had giuen thanks and blessed Hoc est corpus meum This is my bodie that is that which is contayned in this bread or vnder the formes of this bread is my very body Bellarm. cap. 9. So that these wordes must needes be taken properly not to bee a trope or figure 1 It is not the manner of the scriptures to set down flatte precepts and commaundements and directorie rules in obscure termes or figuratiue speeches but plainely and euidently therefore it is not like that Christ being now to prescribe vnto his Apostles the perpetuall lawe and forme of this sacrament would speake obscurely 2 Though he spake by parables and signes to the Pharisies yet there was no cause why he should so doe none being present but his Apostles Bellarmin ibid. Ans. 1. It is very well that you will now though I thinke vnawares grant vnto vs that the precepts and rules in scripture are set downe simply and playnely wherefore the scriptures cannot bee so hard and obscure as you would beare vs in hand they are for if the precepts and rules of fayth be euidently in scripture expressed as you seeme to confesse what reason haue you to keepe back the people from the reading of scripture 2 It is false that the scriptures vse no figures nor tropes in the declaration of the lawes and sacraments of the Church for sayth not Saint Paul speaking of the sacraments of the Iewes Petra erat Christus the rock was Christ 1. Cor. 10.4 that is signified Christ Likewise in the 17. vers We that are many are one bread that is our spirituall vnitie and coniunction is represented in that we are partakers of one bread 3 Sometimes our Sauiour would speake darkely being alone with his Apostles thereby to stirre them vp more diligently to attend vnto his wordes as when he biddeth them beware of the leauen of the Pharisies Mark 8.15 Yet this speech of our Sauiour Christ vttered in the hearing of his Apostles This is my bodie was neither so darke nor obscure that the Apostles neede much bee troubled about the vnderstanding Nay many things being spoken in borrowed and metaphoricall wordes are vttered with greater grace and carrie a fuller sense When Christ sayd I am the doore Iohn 10.9 I am the vine Iohn 15.1 he spake by figure as he doth here for neither was he a vine or a doore as the bread was not his bodie Yet which of the Apostles was there that vnderstoode him not when he called himselfe a vine and a doore Neither could they doubt of our Sauiour Christs meaning here Contra. Now on the other side we will make it playne that these words of Christ are spoken tropically 1 Where Christ sayth according to Saint Luke This cuppe is the new Testament in my blood Luk. 22.23 we must needes admitte a double trope or figure for first the cuppe is taken for that which was contayned in the cuppe Secondly the wine in the cuppe was not the newe Testament but a signe of the new Testament If then in one parte of the sacrament hee spake by a figure why not also in the other when he sayth This is my bodie that is a liuely signe and seale thereof 2 It is no vnusuall phrase in the scripture to say this is that is signifieth as Genes 17.10 Circumcision is called the couenant it selfe where it was a signe onely of it And Exod. 12.11 the Lambe is called the Lords passeouer which it betokened onely In the same sense Christ sayth This is my bodie that is exhibiteth and representeth vnto you my bodie Augustine so expoundeth these wordes Non dubitauit Dominus dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum daret signum corpus sui Christ doubted not to say This is my bodie when hee gaue a signe and sacrament of his bodie The Protestants THat Christ is present with all his benefites in the sacrament wee doe willingly graunt neither doe we thinke that the elements of bread and wine are bare and naked signes of the bodie and blood of Christ but Christ is verily by them exhibited vnto vs and spiritually by fayth we are truely made partakers of his precious bodie blood not that Christ descendeth from heauen to vs but we ascend by faith and in spirit vnto him yea we confesse
not onely of remission of sinnes but that Christ is become our righteousnes and sanctification 1. Cor. 1.30 that he will assist vs with his spirite and replenish our harts with grace Ioh. 4.14 yea the spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ is a pledge vnto vs of the resurrection and of life eternall Ioh. 6.54 But that amongst the rest it also assureth vs of remission of sinnes thus it is proued Argum. Christ after S. Mathew saith This is the blood of the new testament that is shed for many for remission of sinnes Math. 26.28 But the new testament includeth a promise of remission of sinnes Iere. 31.34 Yea our Sauiour setteth it downe in plaine termes for why els should our Sauiour make expresse mention of forgiuenes of sinnes if this sacrament did not serue for that vse Secondly we doe holde that to haue a liuely faith in the promises of God with repentance for our sinnes and a full purpose to amend our liues is a sufficient preparation for the Communion and that this sacrament is a soueraigne remedy for a troubled conscience Neither ought men to refraine from the Communion till they haue fully satisfied for their sinnes as the Papists teach and are cleered in their conscience of all their sinnes for so few or none at all should be admitted to the Lords table but in whom faith hath alredy wrought repentance in some measure he may safely receiue the sacrament for his further comfort and assurance of remission of sinnes Argum. Iohn 6.35 He that beleeueth in me saith Christ shall neuer thirst S. Paul also exhorteth men to examine themselues 1. Corin. 11.28 which is nothing els as himselfe expondethu it then to proue whether they be in the faith 2. Cor. 13.5 Ergo the examination or triall of faith is a sufficient preparation for the Lords table Augustine saith Ad Deum acceditur fide sectando corde inhiando charitate currando We come or haue accesse vnto God in folowing him by faith seeking him in our heart and running to him with loue In Psalm 33. concion 2. Ergo by fayth we haue accesse vnto God Rom. 5.2 but a liuely fayth which worketh by loue Galath 5.6 THE SEVENTH QVESTION OF THE manner to be obserued in receiuing the communion The Papists 1 THey holde it in no wise lawfull for Christians otherwise then fasting to error 121 receiue the communion and that they ought to eate nothing before they doe communicate vnlesse it be in a case of great necessitie Concil Constantiens sess 13. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 22. ratione 4. The Protestants 1 WHat they here vnderstand by necessitie it may be doubted seeing they themselues will not graunt the like necessitie to be in the Eucharist as they say there is of Baptisme All sacraments we graunt are necessary that is profitable expedient requisite so often as they may bee had But none so necessary that the want thereof vnto a faythfull man that in heart doth wish and desire them can be any hindrance to his saluation 2 That it is lawfull for any man to eate before he come to the communion if his stomack be weake and not able to fast so long for otherwise if a man can abstaine we wish him so to do rather Saint Paul sheweth writing to the Corinthians 1. cap. 11.34 If any man be hungry let him eate at home Some of them he sayth came hungry some drunken vers 21. the Apostle commendeth neither but telleth them if they bee hungry they haue houses to eate in Againe in that our Sauiour Christ after supper instituted the sacrament it doth euidently declare vnto vs that it is no sinne to eate or drink before we receiue the sacrament Augustine sayth Neminem cogimus dominica illa coena prandere sed nulli etiam contradicere audemus We compell none to take the Lords Supper in dinner while or after dinner neither dare wee forbid any so to doe so hee maketh it a thing indifferent to communicate fasting or otherwise The Papists 2 THey binde the people onely once in the yeare to receiue the communion error 122 at Easter time and take it to be fully sufficient for them so to doe Concil Trident. sess 13. can 9. The Protestants 2 THis decree of theirs is contrary to the practise of the Apostles whom the Rhemists confesse to haue ministred the sacrament to the Christians daylie Annotat. Act. 2. sect 6. So expounding the wordes of the text They continued dayly in breaking of bread 2. It seemeth also to be contrary to Saint Pauls rule who speaketh of often communicating Doe this sayth he as oft as you drink it 1. Corinth 11.25 For seeing the eating of that bread and drinking of that cuppe is nothing els but a shewing foorth of the Lords death till he come who seeth not that it ought oftener then once or twice in the yere to be receiued seeing the death of Christ ought continually to be remembred and shewed foorth 3 Therefore Augustine doth boldely reprehend their custome that content themselues with once receiuing in the yeare Si panis quotidianus est cur post annum illum sumas accipe quotidie quod quotidie tibi prosit If it be thy daylie bread why doest thou take it but yearely take that daylie and continually which may profit thee daylie In Luk. serm 28. THE EIGHT QVESTION OF RECEIuing the Sacrament in one kinde The Papists error 123 CHristians say they are not bound by any commaundement of GOD to receiue the sacrament in both kinds Concil Trident. sess 21. can 1. And whosoeuer saith that the Church hath erred or done amisse in decreeing that lay men and the Clergie not saying Masse should receiue in the one kinde that is bread onely Or that it is lawfull for them to communicate in both contrary to the determination of the Church let him bee accursed Concil Trident sess 21. can 2. Rhemist Iohn 6. sect 11. Bellarmin lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 20. Argum. 1. Christ is all and whole in euery parte of the sacrament his blood by a certaine concomitance is in the bread his flesh by the like concomitance is in the cup for otherwise Christ should be deuided But euery spirit sayth the Apostle that dissolueth Iesus is of God 1. Iohn 4.3 Wherefore hee that receiueth in one kinde is as well partaker of whole Christ and of the full grace and effect of the sacrament as if hee receiued in both Bellarmin cap. 21. Ans. 1. We denie any such concomitance of the blood and flesh of Christ in the sacrament for he is not in his carnall presence with his very flesh and blood there included as we haue shewed before the bread and wine are signes onely of his body and blood and therefore Christ is not diuided they being the signes onely and not the thing signified 2 The place alleadged out of Saint Iohn is greatly abused and corrupted by them while they choose rather to follow their