Epist LX. Edit Oxon. and one Voice all the Roman Church hath confessed that is their Faith which the Apostle praised was be come famous as it follows in the next words and while they were thus Unanimous thus Valiant they gave great Examples of Vnanimity and Fortitude to the rest of their Brethren This is the meaning of Ecclesia omnis Romana confessa est They were all stedfast in their Faith which this poor man construes as if St. Cyprian owned Rome for the only Catholick Church By translating those words thus The whole Church is confessed to be the Roman Church Which he vehemently denied ordaining in a Council at Carthage according to Ancient Canons That every mans Cause should be heard there where the Crime was committed and commanded those to return home who had appealed to Rome which he shows was most just and reasonable unless the Authority of the Bishops in Africk seem less than the Authority of other Bishops to a few desperate and profligate persons who had already been judged and condemned by them Epist LIX This he writes in another Epistle to the same Cornelius to which I could add a great deal more if this were not sufficient to make such Writers as this blush if they have any shame left who make the whole Church to be the Roman Church St. Austin of whom I must say something lest they pretend we cannot answer what is allegded out of him and the whole Church of Africk in a Council of Two hundred Bishops made the same Opposition to the pretended Authority of the Roman Church and therefore could mean no such thing as this man would have in his Book of the Vnity of the Church Where he saith in the 3d Chapter That he would not have the Holy Church to be shown him out of Humane Teachings but out of the Divine Oracles and if the Holy Scriptures have design'd it in Africa alone c. whatsoever other Writings may say the Donatists he acknowledges will carry the Cause and none be the Church but they But he proceeds to show the Doctrine of the Scriptures is quite otherwise designing the Church to be spread throughout the World And then he goes on to say Chap. 4. that whosoever they be who believe in Jesus Christ the Head but yet do so dissent those are his words which this man recites imperfectly and treacherously from his Body which is the Church that their Communion is not with the whole Body wheresoever it is diffused but is found in some part separated it is manifest they are not in the Catholick Church Now this speaks no more of the Roman Church than of any other part of the Catholick Church and in truth makes them like the Donatists since their Communion is not with the whole Body which they absolutely refuse to admit to their Communion but they are found in a part of it seperated by themselves The rest which he quotes out of Saint Austin I assure the Reader is as much besides the matter and therefore I will not trouble him with it And I can find no such saying of St. Hierom in his Apology against Ruffinus But this I find L 3. the Roman Faith praised by the voice of the Apostle viz. I. Rom. 8. admits not such deceit and delusion into it c. Where it is to be noted That the Roman Faith commended by the Apostle is one thing and the Roman Church another And the Faith which they had in the Apostles time was certainly most pure but who shall secure us it is so now If we had the voice of an Angel from Heaven to tell us so we should not believe it because it is not what they then believed nor what they believed in St. Hierom's time but much altered in many Points And suppose St. Hierom had told us It is all one to say the Roman Faith and the Catholick Faith it must be meant of the then Roman Faith and it is no more than might have been said in the praise of any other Church which held the true Faith No nor more than is said for thus Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople writes in an Epistle * Council of Ephes p. 107. to Leo Bishop of Rome We also have obtained the name of New Rome and being built upon one and the same foundation of Faith the Prophets and Apostles mark that he doth not say on the Roman Church whâ—re Christ our Saviour and God is the Corner-stone are in the matter of faith nothing behind the elder Romans For in the Church of God there is none to be reckoned or numbred before the rest †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore let St. Paul glory and rejoice in us also c. i. e. if he were alive Nicephorus doubted not Saint Paul would have commended the Faith of that City as he had theirs at Old Rome for we as well as they following his Doctrine and Institutions wherein we are rooted are confirmed in the Confession of our Faith wherein we stand and rejoice c. X. The Reformers he saith hold That the Church's Vnity is not necessary in all points of Faith Answer THIS Writer hath so accustomed himself to Fraud and Deceit that we can scarce hope to have any truth from him For no Reformers hold any thing of this nature if by Points of Faith be meant what the Apostle means in the Text he quotes where he saith IV. Ephes 5. there is One Faith Which we believe is necessary to make One Church every part of which blessed be God at this very day is baptized into that one and the same Faith and no other contained in the common Creed of Christians called the Apostles Creed Therefore so far Church Vnity is still preserved But it is not necessary there should be unity in all Opinions that are not contrary to this Faith Nor should the Differences which may be among Christians about such matters break Unity of Communion And if they do those Churches which are thus broken and divided by not having external communion one with another may notwithstanding still remain both of them Members of the same one Catholick Church because they still retain the same one Catholick Faith Thus the Asian and Roman Churches in Pope Victor's time and the African and Roman in Stephen's time differed in external Communion and yet were still parts of one and the same Church of Christ This is more than I need have said in answer to him but I was willing to say something useful to the Reader who cannot but see that he produces Texts of Scripture to contradict his own Fancies not our Opinions We believe as the Apostle teaches us IV. Ephes 5. IV. Ephes 5. and from thence conclude That Unity is necessary in all points of Faith truly so called that is all things necessary to be believed Nor do we differ in any such things and therefore have the Unity requisite to one Church II. Jam. 10. The second
Chapter to that which he pretends to prove in the beginning That there is one Infallible Rule for understanding the Holy Scripture Which if he would have spoken sense he should have shown is Tradition But not a syllable of this He only endeavours to lose his Reader in a mist of Words He knew if he understood any thing there is no Traditive Interpretation of Scripture For if there be Why is there such difference among their own Interpreters in the Exposition of it Nay Why do they reject Ancient Interpretations of Scripture for which there is some Tradition As Maldonate a famous Jesuite doth upon XIX Matt. 11. Where he confesses XIX Mat. 11. that almost all expound those words as if the sense of them was that all men cannot live single because all have not the gift of continency And among these almost all he himself mentions Origen Greg. Nazianzene St. Ambrose But I cannot persuade my self saith he to follow this Interpretation A most remarkable instance of the partiality of these men who would tie us to receive the sense of One or Two and miscall us if we will not be bound up by them but take the Liberty to themselves of rejecting almost all when it serves their Interest II. The Protestants he saith affirm That in matters of Faith we must not rely upon the Judgment of the Church and Her Pastors but only upon the Written Word Answer OUR Doctrine is That the Written Word is the only Rule of our Faith And therefore we cannot rely barely upon the Judgment of the Church and of Her Pastors as Papists do but must have what they deliver proved out of the Word of God This is not contrary to our Bibles but conformable to them For they call us to the law and to the testimony VIII Isa 20. And the Apostles themselves we find nay our Blessed Lord and Saviour did not desire to be believed unless they spake according to the Scriptures unto which they appealed XXIV Luke 27.44 1 Cor. XV. 3 4. Whose express words if we contradict we are void of all sense but if we do not it must be confessed he is void of all shame in charging us with affirming that which is contrary to the express words of our own Bibles particularly XXIII XXIII Mat. v. 2 3. Mat. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do Let the Reader here seriously consider what a Front this Man hath who talks of express words when there is not an express Syllable in this place either of Church or of Pastors or of their Judgment or of Faith O! but he speaks of Scribes and Pharisees which is the same But doth this answer his Pretensions of giving us express Words and not words Tantamount And if Scribes and Pharises be equivalent to Church and Pastors it must be his own Church and Pastors for they are not our Paterns which is not much for their Honour to be the Successors of the Scribes and Pharisees Whose Authority sure was not such that our Saviour here required his Disciples to rely upon it in matters of Faith For if they had they must have rejected their Lord and Master and denied him to be the Christ Into this Ditch those blind Guides at last plunged those who blindly followed them Therefore all that our Saviour here meant is as wiser Men than this and Jesuits too acknowledg that they should obey them being Teachers in all things not repugnant to the Law and the Divine Commandments So the before-named Menochius upon the place to say nothing of the Ancients who would have thrust out of the Church such a Man as this who maintains that Christ taught his Disciples to obey those Pastors not only in some principal Matters but in all whatsoever without Distinction or Limitation Which I may truly say is a Doctrine of the Devil Nor is there any thing express in the next place and therefore he only makes his Inference from it X. Luke 16. which should have been this if he had known how to discourse That the Apostles were the Legats and Interpreters of Christ as Christ was of God Therefore he that despised the Apostles despised Christ as he that despised Christ despised God But what then Truly nothing to this Man's purpose For the Church and the Pastors now have not the Authority of Apostles If they had they would not desire no more than the Apostles did to be believed without proof from the Scriptures Upon the next place XVI Matth. 19. XVI Mat. 19. which is as impertinent he passes a very wise Note That our Saviour doth not say whosoever but whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth c. Whereby he shuts out St. Peter and his Successors to whom they commonly apply this Text from all Jurisdiction over Persons and confine it unto things only Let his Church reward him for this Service for we are not at all concerned in his Note but rather note how far he is still from bringing express Texts to his purpose here being as little express mention of Faith and of Pastors and of the Church and their Judgment as in the former places And if you will believe Menochius a better Interpreter than this our Saviour speaks of the Supreme Power of remitting or retaining Sins of excommunicating and absolving not a word that he could see of untying Knots and Difficulties in Matters of Faith He bids us see more places in XVII Deut. 8. c. But I would advise the Reader not to trouble himself to turn to them For the first and two last are nothing to his purpose and the second is directly against him For the Prophet doth not bid them go and ask the Priests their Opinion but ask them what the Law of God was in the case propounded And there is as little to be found in the Fathers the last of which is no Father For he lived in the time of our King Henry 1. and was a stickler for his Master Pope Vrban who in this Man's Logick is become the Church and her Pastors upon whose Judgment we must rely In good time they will be Judges in their own Cause and then the business is done III. His next Charge is that we affirm The Scriptures are easy to be understood and that therefore none ought to be restrained from reading of them Answer THIS is neither our Position nor is the contrary theirs For no Protestant will say That all Scriptures are easy to be understood Nor will any Papist say They are all hard to be understood Some are easy as much that is as is necessary to our Salvation Which is the express affirmation of St. Chrysostome in many places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things necessary are manifest Hom. 3. in 2 Thess Now let us see what there is expresly contrary to this in our Bible First St. Peter doth not say 2 Pet. III. 16. That the
Text II. Jam. 10. speaks not a word of Faith therefore instead of express words this man tells us by a likeness of reason it is the same in Faith that it is in Sin he who denies one Article denies all We deny none but only their New Articles which are no part of the Ancient Apostolick Catholick Faith IV. Act. 32. The next IV. Acts 32. speaks of the Brotherly affection and unanimity that was among the First Christians And that which follows 1 Cor. I. 10. 1 Cor. I. 10. doth not tell us what was but what ought to be in the Church For among those Corinthians there were very great Divisions as appears by that very Chapter Therefore he is still beside the Book and very childishly objects to us the Sects that are among us as an Argument we are not the true Believers the Apostle speaks of when the Apostolical Churches were not free from them while the Apostles lived nor is the Church of Rome or any other Church at such unity but there are various Sects among them He hath little to do who will trouble himself upon the account of such a Scribler as this to consider that heap of Texts which he hath hudled together without any order or any regard to his Point he was to prove What St. Austin also and the rest of his Fathers say about Unity doth not at all concern us who preserve that Unity which they have broken by preserving that One Faith from which they of the Church of Rome have departed For it will not suffice them to believe as the Apostles did but they have another Faith of their own devising This is that wherein we cannot unite with them And all the Unity they brag of is in truth no better than that of the Jews Hereticks and Pagans who as St. Austin * De Verbis Domini Serm. VI. speaks maintain an Vnity against Vnity In this they combine together to oppose that one Faith the Apostles delivered as insufficient to Salvation Which is a conspiracy in Error rather than unity in the Truth XI That St. Peter was not ordained by Christ the first Head or Chief among the Apostles and that among the Twelve none was greater or lesser than other Answer WE are now come to the great Point which is the support of the whole Roman Cause But he neither knows our Opinion about it nor their own or else dares not own what it is We believe Peter was the first Apostle and that he was a Chief though not the chief Apostle For there were others who were eminent that is Chiefs upon some account or other as well as himself 2 Cor. XI 5. XII 2. But what he means by a first Head or Chief neither we nor those of his own Religion know unless there were secondary Heads and Chiefs among the Apostles one over another This is strange language which none understands Peter was first in Order Place Precedence but not in Power Authority and Jurisdiction in these none was greater or lesser than another Which is not contrary to any Text in the Bible but most agreeable thereunto For so the Text saith X. Matth. 2. X. Matth. 2. and we needed not his Observation to inform us That all the Evangelists when they mention the Apostles which Christ chose put Peter first Which doth not signifie he was the worthiest of them all that no way appears but that he and Andrew his Brother were first called we expresly read and possibly he might be the Elder of the Two But if it did denote his Dignity and Worthiness it doth not prove his Authority over the rest as he is pleased to improve this Observation in the Conclusion of his Note upon this place for tho he had some eminent qualities in him which perhaps were not in others they gave him no Superiority in Power but in that every one of them was his equal What follows upon this Text is so frivolous and childish a reasoning it ought to be despised Next he betakes himself to the Rock XVI Matth. 18. mentioned XVI Matth. 18. which they have been told over and over again but they harden their hearts against it is not spoken of Peter as this man most impudently contrary to his own Bible makes the words sound but of the Faith which Peter confessed as the general current of Ecclesiastical Writers expound it But if we should by the Rock understand Peter it insinuates no Supremacy much less clearly insinuates it For none but such a man as this to whom the Bell clinks just as he thinks would have thought of that at the reading of the word Rock but rather of Firmness Stability or Solidity which the Word plainly enough imports but nothing of Authority Our Blessed Lord himself is not called a Rock or Stone with respect to his being the Soveraign and Absolute Pastor of his Church but because of the firm Foundation he gives to our Hope in God Next to those who by Rock understand as I said the Faith which Peter confessed the greatest number of Ancient Expositors understand thereby Christ himself Unto whom this man hath the face to say these words do not agree because he speaks of the time to come I will build as if Christ were not always what he ever was being the same to day yesterday and for ever It is a burning shame as we speak that such men as this should take upon them to be instructors and to write Books which have nothing in them but trifling observations and false allegations For after all should we grant Peter to be the Rock it will not exclude the rest of the Apostles from being so as much as he for the Church was built upon them all on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets II. Ephes 20. And accordingly St. John had represented to him not One alone but Twelve Foundations of the Wall of the New Jerusalem i. e. the Church of Christ which had in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lord XXI Rev. 14. The next place XVIII Matth. 18. XVIII Matth. 18. is so plain a promise to all the Apostles that it is impudence to restrain it to St. Peter or to conclude from thence any Preroragative to him above the rest especially if it be observed that when this Promise was fulfilled they were all equally partakers of it when our Saviour breathed on them and said unto them mark that he breathed on them all and said not to Peter alone but them i. e. the Apostles Receive ye the Holy Ghost Whos 's soever sins ye retain XX. John 22 23. they are retained c. XX. John 22 23. Now he falls a Reasoning again for alas express Texts fail him but it amounts to no more than this That our Saviour did not call him Simon in the forementioned place but gave him another name I am sorry for his ignorance that he did not know or for his dishonesty that he would not consider
of the Fish to drive away the Devil and David's Harp to keep the evil Spirit from Saul I cannot devise for I never read nor he neither that they were sanctified any way None of his Fathers tho half of them are young ones in comparison ascribe any supernatural vertue to such things and therefore it is to no purpose to consider what they say of any other kind of Holiness XXXVII That children may be saved by their Parents Faith without the Sacrament of Baptism Answer NOW he falls again to his old trade of downright calumniating our Doctrine For we teach That there is no Salvation for Infants in the ordinary way of the Church without Baptism Insomuch that by an express Canon LXIX every Minister is to be suspended for three months who suffers any Infant in his Parish to dye without Baptism being informed of its weakness and danger of death and desired to come and baptize the same And is not to be restored till he acknowledg his fault and promise before his Ordinary that he will not wittingly incur the like again But we do not tye God to those means to the use of which he hath tyed us and therefore do believe that by his infinite Grace and Mercy those Infants may be saved who without their own fault dye unbaptized And this was the Faith of the Ancient Church as appears from Socrates * L. V. Hist c. 22. who says In Thessaly they baptized only at Easter by which means many dyed unbaptized and by a Decree of Pope Leo I. which shows it was an universal custom in other places to baptize only twice a year which custom he saith hath been changed because a great many departed without Baptism But still this is an evidence they did not think it absolutely necessary nor do the greatest Doctors of the Roman Church such as Gabriel Biel Card. Cajetan and many others I could name condemn children to Hell who dye unbaptized but being the children of Faithful Parents look upon them as within the Covenant of Grace and capable of eternal life For which they give these reasons Frst The infinite Mercy of God who is not tied to the Sacraments which he hath ordained And secondly The like case under the Old Testament when Circumcision answered to our Baptism as this man acknowledges and the children dying unbaptized were notwithstanding saved by the sole Faith of their Parents So S. Bernard Epist 77. ad Hug. de S. Vict. and Cajetan in 3. part Thom. Q. 68. From whence we may gather That even this notion of childrens being saved by their parents Faith without Baptism is no more our opinion than it is theirs Some say so among us and so do some among them Matters therefore being thus stated all his Texts are already answered We say the very same our Saviour doth III. Joh. 5. III. Joh. 5. in the very entrance of our Office of Baptism Where we make it as a reason why the Church should pray That God will grant to the child that thing which by nature he cannot have c. But tho this be the ordinary way we dare not say it is the only God's Grace many of themselves acknowledge supplies the want of Baptism in extraordinary cases Thus even Lorinus a Jesuit in X. Act. 44. and he alledges St. Austin for it who was very rigid in this point that the invisible Sanctification sometimes is sufficient without the visible Sacrament when not by contempt of Religion but by mere necessity they are deprived of Baptism And thus Peter Lombard * L. IV. Distin 4. c. 2. understands this Text it is to be understood of those who can be baptized and contemn it III. Tit. 5. proves no more but that Baptism is the ordinary way and ought not to be neglected where it can be had From XVI Mark 16. he concludes peremptorily That children must be Baptized or not Saved XVI Mark 16. because they cannot believe which is to make Baptism more necessary than Belief Whereas they cannot be baptized but upon a supposition of belief as his own Church acknowledges in the Council of Trent * Sess VII Can. 14. Children wanting Faith in the first act are baptized in the Faith of the Church And therefore the true way of arguing from this place is that as our Lord saith He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved so he would have said had he thought Baptism absolutely necessary he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned But he only saith He that believeth not shall be damned which makes Faith only absolutely necessary And I showed before there are those in his own Church who think the Faith of the Parents sufficient for this purpose And thus the most learned of the Fathers expound those words of St. Paul 1 Cor. VII 14. 1 Cor. VII 14. particularly Theodoret The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife by the husband that is saith he hath hope of Salvation but if either he or she continue in this disease their seed shall partake of Salvation Which is but reason for if the unbelieving husband suppose should not have suffered the child begotten of his believing wife to be baptized who can think this child so dying perished His last Text XVII Gen. 14. XVII Gen. 14. proves no more but the necessity of both Circumcision and Baptism where they could be had as was shewn before For it is evident the children of Israel were not circumcised while they were in the Wilderness V. Josh 5. But who will say that all they who were born and died within that time which was forty years went without remedy to Hell His Fathers which he hath pickt up out of Bellarmine are not worth examining because some of them speak only against those who deny Infants to be regenerate in Baptism as St. Austin Epist 90. Others speak of it in such terms as are not easie to be understood for let him inform us what Irenaeus means in the place he quotes That our bodies have received unity by the washing of incorruption and our souls by the spirit And others speak such words of the necessity of Baptism as the Papists themselves will not abide by but confess St. Austin was too hard in his opinion which must admit of some exception And his opinion is condemned by later Fathers as they call them particularly St. Bernard who disputes against it at large in the Epistle before-mentioned As for St. Cyprian's Epistle to Fidus it is wholly against the opinion which that Bishop had received That children of two or three days old were not to be baptized but they were to stay till the eighth day as in Circumcision But there is not a word of the absolute necessity of Baptism but that none should be denied it tho newly born who the rather should be received because not their own sins but anothers was there remitted to them XXXVIII That the Sacrament
poor people withal Who may easily understand that St. John speaks of particular persons or of the Doctrines vented by certain persons who pretended to be inspired whom every particular Christian was bound to examine and try by this mark whether they contradicted what the Apostles taught which was sufficient if they did to discover them to be Impostors His Fathers he only names and therefor they signifie nothing to common Readers for whose sake I write this confutation of his folly Which makes him bring in Luther as saying the same that he doth that is giving him the lye who accuses Protestants of affirming that which the very chief of them according to him denies But whether Luther say as he makes him or in what sense I am not able to affirm for I cannot find the words VI. They affirm That St. Peter's Faith hath failed Answer THere needs no more to make him confess the truth of this than only to ask him whether St. Peter did not deny his Master which our Saviour supposes in the words immediately following those he quotes Luk. XXII 32. Luk. 22.32 When thou art converted strengthen thy Brethren He was therefore out of the way for a time which is all we mean when any of us say Peter's Faith hath failed Not finally but for that present He fell though he recovered himself So that this is an Equivocal Proposition Peter's Faith hath failed which is true and so is the contrary his faith hath not failed Both are true in different respects It did fail and that notoriously when he denied his Master over and over But it was more stedfast afterward even by his fall which our Saviour foreseeing prayed particularly for him that he might not utterly miscarry Which is no Prerogative as this man fancies it that Christ prayed principally for him but rather tended to his disparagement as denoting him to be weaker than the rest and indeed so much the weaker because in his own opinion he was the strongest The second Text Mat. 16.18 XVI Mat. 18. as he manages it is expresly to another purpose For he lays the weight of his Discourse it appears by the consequence he draws upon those words the gates of hell shall not prevail against What the Text saith expresly against it that is the Church not against thee that is Peter They that are wiser argue from the foregoing words Thou art Peter and upon this rock c. If this be to his purpose the faith of St. Peter must be the Rock upon which the Church is built which they do not love to hear of and if it be the Rock was thrown down and the gates of hell prevailed against it at the time before mention'd when he denied his Master Which made a great man * Dr. Jacks L. 3. c. 7. say Doubtless that Religion which hath no better ground of Infallibility than Peter 's faith which was not secured from a threefold denial of Christ was first planted by the spirit of error and Antichrist The third Text we had before in the second Chapter where I have answered his question XXIII Matth. 2 3 how Christ might command the people and his Disciples also to do whatsoever they that sat in Moses his chair bad them and yet those Doctors might err But to prove that Peter's faith could not fail he asserts the Scribes and Pharisees when they sat in Moses his Chair could not err which is to justifie their putting our Lord Christ to death Whither will not the folly of such men as this carry them who mind not when they overthrow the Christian Religion to establish their own conceits Nay this man doth not mind when he ruins even his own conceits For if the truth of Christian Religion hath been no better preserved by the Romanists in the Chair of St. Peter than the truth of the Jewish Religion was preserved by the Scribes and Pharisees in the Chair of Moses the Roman Church is certainly become Antichristian He hath pickt up a fourth Text which hath nothing in it of Peter XI Joh. 49 51. no more than the former but only tells us that the Jewish High Priest Prophecied XI Joh. 49 51. Yet this is an express Text forsooth to prove that Peter's faith could not fail It is not easie to have patience enough so much as to read such wretched nay wicked stuff as this Which still proves if it be to the purpose that the High Priest speaking forth of his Chair could not but determine truly and consequently gave a right judgment when he condemned Christ to be put to death For he sat in the same Chair when he passed sentence on Christ and when he thus Prophecied both were in a Council which was assembled on purpose to resolve what to do with him XI Joh. 47. XXVI Mat. 57. Here the good man is in great want of Fathers and contents himself because he cannot help it with Leo whose words he doth not rightly translate For Leo doth not say If the Head were invincible but if the Mind of the Chief were not conquered Worsted it was for the present though not quite overcome For he lost the confession of Faith with his mouth saith Theophylact though he kept the Faith or the seeds of faith as he speaks in his heart But unless a man do confess with his mouth as well as believe in his heart he cannot be saved Both are necessary unless St. Paul cross St. Peter X. Rom. 9 10. But what is all this to the purpose suppose St. Peter's faith did not fail what then Must we conclude from thence the Pope's faith cannot fail Stay there One of his own Communion a great man * Launoy Part V. Epist ad Jac. Bevillaq indeed hath shown that there being four Interpretations of this place XXII Luk. 32. the greatest number of Ecclesiastical Writers he reckons up XLIV and among the rest this Pope Leo expound it of the Faith of Peter alone which Christ prayed might not be lost in that time of Temptation which was a coming But next to this they are most numerous who think Christ prayed for the Vniversal Church that it may never fail in the faith In which number is Thomas Aquinas one of their Saints who expresly proves from this place that the Universal Church cannot err because he who was always heard by God said to Peter upon whose confession the Church is founded I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not Where it is evident he did not think our Lord prayed for Peter separately from the rest of the Church but for the whole Church whose person Peter sustained as St. Austin is wont to speak Or as Gregory the Great 's words are of which Church he was the first Member But this belongs to the next Head where he saith we affirm VII That the Church can err and hath erred WHich is true in one sense though not true in another For if by Church be meant the
because they faithfully reprehended themselves and therefore guile was not found in their mouth because if they had said they had no sin they had deceived themselves It is plain by this they did not look upon such persons as without all sin but only sincere and intire in their obedience to Christ's Commands Nay it is evident Zachary himself whom St. Luke so highly commends was not thus blameless as to be without all sin for he was much to blame in not believing the Angel who brought him a message from God and was punished for not believing it by being struck dumb till the Angel's word was fulfilled All his other Scriptures therefore and Fathers proving that which none of us deny are here alledged in vain He next of all saith we maintain XXI That Faith only justifieth and that Good Works are not absolutely necessary to Salvation Answer WHat shall one do with a man that opposeth he knows not what The first part of this Proposition is St. Paul's who in effect saith the same III. Rom. 28. II. Gal. 16. Therefore no man should be so bold as to contradict it but rather explain it which it is easie to do for when we say Faith only justifies this Faith includes in it a sincere purpose of good living without which we believe it will not justifie And therefore the second part of it is a new slander That we affirm Good works are not necessary to Salvation the direct contrary to which we heartily believe For it is absolutely necessary to our Salvation we all affirm that we act according to our Faith tho by such Good works we can merit nothing neither Justification nor Salvation But we are accounted righteous before God only for the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ by Faith not for our own works or deserving as the words are in the XIth Article of our Religion So that when we say by Faith it is manifest we exclude not Good works but only the merit of them And thus Luther himself shows upon V. Gal. That Faith alone will not suffice tho Faith alone justifies Therefore all his Scriptures might have been spared especially the first of them 1 Cor. XIII 2. 1 Cor. XIII 2. which speaks of a miraculous Faith and besides doth not contradict us who believe Faith without works will not avail to Salvation though let us do never so much we can never merit it by what we do The second Text II. Jam. 24. James II. 24. is agreeable to what we say That the Faith which justifies includes in it a purpose of well-doing Such an one as was in Abraham whose Faith in purposing to offer up Isaac was imputed to him for Righteousness tho he had not actually done as he purposed to do In like manner if any man sincerely profess the Christian Faith and be baptized he is justified tho he have not as yet brought forth the fruit of it in good works witness the Eunuch VIII Acts 37. which if he should not produce afterward he could not be saved St. Austin in that very Book and Chapter which he quotes expresly saith Good Works follow him that is justified they do not precede him that is to be justified What doth he think of the Thief upon the Cross who only believed and was not so much as baptized II James 14. is not contrary to what we say but according to it Mr. Calvin himself upon these very words saith Therefore we are saved by Faith because it joins us to God which is done no other way but that living by his Spirit we be governed by him St. Paul and St. James agree very well though the one say We are not justified by Faith only which is St. James's Doctrine and the other St. Paul in effect says We are justified by Faith only when he saith We are justified by Faith without Works As he shows in Abraham's case where he opposes Justification by Faith and Justification by Works and affirms Abraham was not justified by Works but by Faith St. James alledging the same case and the very same words proves he was justified by Works and not by Faith only Can any one think they make use of the same instance for quite contrary ends It is a wonder men do not learn this plain and easie truth from hence That Faith alone having in it a purpose of well-doing enters us into the state of Justification before we have done what we purpose but Good Works are necessary to continue us in this state and so may be said to justifie us that is continue our Justification which Faith only cannot do The last place V. Gal. 6. we have noted so well that we expresly declare in our XIIth Article That Good works cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's Judgment these are the great things we deny yet they do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith And the Doctrine of St. Austin * L. de Fâ—de Operib c. 14. is perfectly ours which I will set down because it explains all that I have said A good life is inseparable from Faith yea in truth Faith it self is a good life And again * Lib. Quest 83. q. 76. How can he that is justified by Faith chuse but work Righteousness But if any man when he hath believed presently depart this life the Justification of Faith remains with him no good work preceding because he came to it not by Merit but by Grace nor following because he was not suffered to remain in this life From whence it is manifest what the Apostle saith We conclude a man is justified by Faith without works All his other Scriptures therefore serve only to shew his Ignorance if not his Malice in charging us with the denial of that which we affirm That good works are necessary to Salvation His Fathers he had better have kept to himself for they frequently say Faith only justifies Even Origen * In Cap. III. upon that very Book the Epistle to the Romans affirms that Justification of Faith alone suffices tho a man hath not done any works Which he proves by the example of the Thief upon the Cross and the Woman in VII Luke to whom our Saviour said Go in peace thy Faith hath saved thee But perhaps saith he some reading this may think he may neglect to do well since Faith alone sufficeth to Justification To whom we say That if any man doth wickedly after Justification without doubt he despiseth the Grace of Justification Neither doth a man receive Forgiveness of sins for this that he may think he hath a License given him to sin again for a Pardon is given him not for sins to come but for sins that are past And what he saith upon the next Chapter not the Vth. as this man quotes him but the IVth doth not contradict this Faith cannot be imputed to those who believe in Christ but do not put off the old man with his unrighteous
but he returns to his old way of Calumniating For there is no such Position maintained among us but expresly the contrary in our XVIth Article After we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from Grace given and Faith is a Grace and Gift of God and fall into sin and by the Grace of God we may rise again c. The only question is Whether they that once have Saving Faith may lose it totally and finally In which there are various opinions not only among us but among themselves some saying it may be lost totally but not finally others that it may be lost in both regards But this is no matter of Faith but only of Opinion for which we do not break Communion All his Proofs therefore out of Scripture are perfectly impertinent for they prove what none of us deny That men may lose their Faith after they have received it As for his Fathers St. Austin in that very Book which he quotes * De correp gratia c. 12. asserts the direct contrary to what is here pretended to be his sense That there are some who cannot finally lose the Grace of God For comparing the Grace which Adam had with that which is now given to the Saints he saith To the first man who had received a power not to sin not to dye not to desert the good estate in which he was created was given the aid of Perseverance not whereby he was made that he should persevere but without which he could not by his Free-will have persevered But now to the Saints who are predestinated by God's Grace to the Kingdom of God there is not only given such an aid of Perseverance but such an one that Perseverance it self is given them not only that without this gift they cannot persevere but also that by this gift they cannot but persevere For our Saviour saith to his Apostles not only without me ye can do nothing XV. Joh. 5. but withal v. 16. Ye have not chosen me but I have chosen you that ye should go and bring forth fruit and that your fruit should remain I have quoted this at large that such Writers as I have to deal withal may blush if they can at such shameless Untruths as they father upon St. Austin And let a deeper blush colour this man's cheeks who quotes the Council of Trent which was but a little above a hundred years ago among the Ancient Fathers His next Charge is They maintain XXIV That God by his Will and inevitable Decree hath ordained from all Eternity who shall be damned and who saved Answer AND who is he that dares maintain the contrary When our Lord hath said in express terms XVI Mark 15 16. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned This is the eternal purpose of God in Christ which the Apostles were commanded to publish every where as his inevitable Decree concerning mankind which cannot be avoided That if they do not believe the Gospel which is preached to them they shall perish but if they sincerely believe it and be baptized they shall be saved This Babbler I doubt not would have said something else but he had not the wit viz. That we maintain God hath for his own mere Will and Pleasure without any respect to mens Faith or Unbelief resolved to damn some and to save others But this is not the Doctrine of our Church as he might have seen in our XVIIth Article If any among us teach such Doctrine it is no more than some of their own Doctors have taught And it is a most senseless thing to accuse us of that which if it be a fault they are as chargeable with it themselves His Scriptures prove nothing contrary to us but we expresly teach according to the first of them 1 Tim. II. 3. 1. Tim. II. 3. That we ought to receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture And therefore we must believe That God would have all men to be saved notwithstanding which such Triflers as this man is must be told that God will have some men to be damn'd as I show'd before and these two Propositions do not contradict one the other The next is of the same import 2 Pet. III. 9. 2 Pet. III. 9. God is not willing any should perish but that all should come to repentance And yet he is willing nay resolved that all those shall perish who will not repent For want of other Scriptures he runs to those that are Apochryphal and quotes a passage out of the Book of Wisdom which we believe to be Canonical enough in this point And then he returns to Scripture a great many Texts of which he jumbles together with some Apocrypha but if any one will take the pains to consult them he will find they do not contradict any thing that We or other Protestants affirm Even they who believe the absolute and irrespective Decree consent to what the Prophet Hosea saith XIII 9. which is his first place That every man's destruction is of himself He beats the air therefore in alledging those places and the sayings of the Fathers to which we subscribe and so do all other Protestants whose true opinion this poor Ignoramus did not understand and therefore could not oppose For those that say the cause why some are reprobated is God's Will and Pleasure yet maintain the cause of their Damnation and Destruction is their own sins This if he had questioned and ask'd them Why God reprobates this man rather than another they would have had St. Austin as ready at hand as he hath to answer for them You seek to know the Causes of God's Will when the Will of God is the very cause of all things that are For if the Will of God have a Cause there is something which antecedes his Will which it is impious to believe If any man therefore ask Why God made this The Answer is Because he would If he go on to ask Why would he He searches for something greater than God's Will when nothing greater can be found Let human temerity therefore bridle it self and not seek for that which is not lest he do not find that which is L. de Gen. contra Manich. C. 2. Further they hold saith he XXV That every one ought infallibly to assure himself of his Salvation and to believe that he is of the number of the Predestinate Answer NO man in his wits much less any Church ever uttered such foolish words as these which are inconsistent with the former Assertion That God hath resolved to damn some men How can they who say this oblige every man to believe he shall be Saved The most that any one hath said is that not every one but every true believer every one that is justified ought to be so assured So Bellarmine
in a known Tongue or had no Interpreter To hold his peace and speak to himself and to God v. 28. His Argument to justify their Practice is so silly that it cannot but make a good man sigh deeply to think that poor ignorant People should be mis led by such Ideots For he takes him who occupied the place of the unlearned in verse 16. to be one who was required or supposed to be there to supply the unlearned man's place That is saith he one who should have further understanding of that Tongue in which the Service of the Church is said Which he imagines is a proof the Service was not in the Vulgar Tongue for then there had been no need of one to supply the Ideots place c. This is such a gross piece of Duncery as his Master Bellarmine would have corrected if he had look'd into him or any of the Ancient and Modern Interpreters Who by one that takes up the place of the Vnlearned do not understand one that acts in the stead of an Vnlearned Person that 's a dull fancy never heard of among the Learned but one that sits in the Place or Bench is in the Form as we speak of the Vnlearned That is an Ignorant Person who is the man that the Apostle saith could not say Amen if he understood not what was said in the Thanksgiving So Menochius upon that Text He that sits among the Simple and Rude who are ignorant of Tongues how shall he say Amen That is approve thy Prayer if he do not understand it His Cavil therefore at the Geneva Ministers is foolish if not malicious for they translate the words honestly not deceitfully according to the certain sense of them there being no difference between an Ideot and he who supplies the place of an Ideot We know of no Reformed Churches where they do not say Amen to their Publick Prayers Here we are sure the People are enjoyned so to do Therefore it is another Slander if he object this to us who have not turned Amen into So be it as he says many of the Reformed Churches have done If it be true that any have expounded the word into others of like signification it was for the Edification of the People and no body hath just reason to find fault with them if the People did not understand its meaning Which they did in Greece as much as in Judea and therefore the Apostle had reason to retain it But he belies St. Austin as he hath done us when he makes him say It is not lawful to turn Amen into any other language without the scandal of the whole Church For he saith * L. 2. de Doct. Christ c. 10. There is such variety of Latin Interpreters of the Scripture as makes the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek necessary that when one doubts of the Latin recourse may be had thither this is worth marking for other purposes Tho some Hebrew words indeed we often find are not interpreted as Amen Allelujah Racha and Osanna c. Which Antiquity hath preserved partly for the more sacred Authority tho they might have been interpreted observe that as Amen and Allelujah partly because it 's said they cannot be translated into another tongue as the two other words Racha and Osanna In which discourse he says nothing of the unlawfulness of Translating the Hebrew words nor of the scandal their Translation would give but only of some of them particularly Amen being more venerable in the Original Language than in any other What he says in his Epistles I cannot stand to examine for in that Epistle which he quotes there is nothing to be found about this matter In conclusion he is driven to this shift to say That our own Service is not understood because it consists partly of the Psalms of David which he most falsly says are the hardest part of all the Bible and of Lessons out of the Old and New Testament which are not understood by the people But is this all that our Service consists of Have we not Prayers and Thanksgivings easie to be understood every word As in the other part of the Service they understand enough for their Edification whereas of their Mass the simple people understand nothing Or suppose they understand a little yet this will not make their case like ours because the people with us have all in their vulgar Language tho they do not every one understand all but they have not a word in their vulgar language tho some perhaps may understand a little of the Latin Tongue And what is the reason they dare not trust the Mass in the vulgar language Because it is hard to be understood No but quite contrary because the people would easily find things there which confute their own Religion and are conformable unto ours For who would believe Purgatory any longer who heard the Priest say in the vulgar tongue Lord remember thy servants and handmaids that are gone before us with the sign of Faith and sleep in the sleep of peace If they be in peace every one would be ready to say Then they are not burning in the Purgatory fire and what need I give my money to Pray them out from thence The like passages there are that would make them believe Transubstantiation to be a Fable and that it is a novel thing to have the Divine Service in an Vnknown Tongue which I have not room to mention But desire the Reader to observe how this practice is condemned out of the mouths of many great persons in their own Church I will name Two One is Cardinal Cajetan upon 1 Cor. XIV who saith Out of this Doctrine of Paul we learn That it is better for the Edification of the Church that the Publick Prayers which are said in the audience of the people should be said in the tongue common to Clerks and People than said in Latin A most ingenuous Confession in which he doth but follow one of their Saints viz. Anselm in his Exposition of the same Chapter That is good which thou sayest but another is not edified by thy words which he understands not Therefore since you meet in the Church for Edification those things ought to be said in the Church which may be understood by men and afford Edification to the hearers CONCLVSION NOW I leave all men who have a grain of common sense and common honesty whether this man who both in the Title and Conclusion of his Book pretends to judge us out of our own mouth II. Jam. 4. be not as St. James speaks a judge of evil thoughts That is as his Menochius expounds it one who reasons ill and therefore judgeth ill 1 Tim. I. 7. Who desiring to be a Teacher of others understands neither what he saith nor whereof he affirms As will be confessed by all who follow our Saviour's Rule VII John 24. Judge not according to appearance but judge righteous judgment FINIS ERRATA PAge 38. line 20. r. to be come P. 54. l. 26. r. of Religion P. 90. l. 24. r. all together P. 105. l. 1. r. Arts whereby P. 145. l. 24. r. 1 Cor. IX 27. P. 172. l. 25. r. heard of much less have ever seen P. 184. l. 5. r. Rich Man P. 187. l. 14. r. ad Pop. Antioch P. 193. l. 21. r. things done at P. 207. l. 15. r. solemn Rite P. 213. l. 6. r. most suitable P. 217. l. 16. r. Tert. Sum. Ibid. l. 17. r. mere impudence P. 218. l. 1. r. Bona for Bonell P. 224. l. 21. r. S. Victore P. 231. l. 21. r. speaking of Virgins P. 250. l. antepenult r. visible P. 253. l. 11. r. God's footstool P. 262. l. 14. r. of Fathers to countenance
acts Which very well agrees with what he said before and we with him Faith enters us into a state of acceptance with God but we cannot go to Heaven unless we bring forth the fruit of Faith in new Obedience So he explains himself most excellently in that very place a little before in these words which comprehend the whole business I think that the first beginnings and the very foundations of Salvation is Faith the progress and increase of the building is hope but the perfection and top of the whole work is Charity I will not trouble the Reader with what the rest of his Fathers say since they themselves are sensible their Cause is endangered by the Fathers Which is so notorious that they have taken care to have this passage expunged out of the very Index of St. Austin's works * Printed 1543. apud Ambr. Girau upon the Psalms Through Grace we are saved by Faith tho St. Paul affirms the same II. Ephes 8. And out of the very Text of St. Cyril upon Isaiah these words are ordered to be expunged by the Spanish Index of Gasp Quiroga the Grace of Faith is sufficient to the cleansing of sin and Christ dwells in our heart by Faith In I. Isa in 51. No wonder then they have dealt thus with later Authors of theirs own who followed the Fathers Doctrine particularly with Vatablus out of whose Annotations upon VIII Isa 32. they have ordered these words to be blotted out They that beliive in the Lord shall be saved but they that do not shall perish And these upon VIII Luk. Faith saveth XXII That no Good Works are Meritorious Answer AT last he speaks some truth tho very lamely For if by meritorious were meant nothing but that good works are highly valued by God when performed out of love to him and we deny our selves to serve him which undoubtedly he will reward with a glorious Recompence tho far transcending our services there would be no quarrel about this matter But by works meritorious they mean such as are no ways defective and have such an exact proportion to the Reward that God is bound in strict Justice to bestow or rather pay it Now this is it we deny believing that Good works in the rigour of Justice do not deserve eternal life as wages and this is it which they presume but can never prove His first Text XVI Mat. 17. XVI Matth. 17. is so far from express that quite contrary it saith God will only reward every man according to his works not for the merit of his works which imports them to be an adequate cause whereas according signifies nothing of a cause but only of a respect or comparison between the work and the reward so that they who have done evil shall be punished and they that have done good be blessed And he belies St. Austin according to the manner of their Catholick Sincerity to justifie his Interpretation For St. Austin speaks of the Punishment of Sinners Serm. XXXV de verbi Apost not of the Reward of the Righteous I beseech you brethren attend diligently and be ye afraid as well as I for he doth not say He will render to every one according to his mercy but according to their works he saith not a word of their Faith which this man put in of his own head for now he is merciful but then just Would to God they would take St. Austin's counsel and so diligently attend to this as to repent of their shameless Forgeries that they may find Mercy with God which hereafter will be denied The word for Reward in V. Matth. 12. is not to be interpreted Wages and Hire due to the work For the Labourers who came at the Eleventh Hour into the Vineyard as St. Hilary * In Psal 129. in fine observes received Mercedem their Reward not of the work but of Mercy Which is exactly according to St. Paul IV. Rom. 4. where he saith there is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which this man would have translated Wages Reward of Grace not of Debt Which place St. Austin * In Psal XXXI having occasion to mention thus glosses Now to him that worketh that is presumeth of his Works and saith that for their merit the Grace of Faith was given the Reward is not reckoned of Grace but of Debt What 's this but that our Reward is called Grace If it be Grace it is freely given What 's meant by freely given It cost thee nothing Thou didst no good and Remission of sins is bestowed upon thee I have quoted this at large that if it be possible such men as this may be put to the blush if not confounded As one would expect they should be when they read St. Paul who tho he say Death is the wages of sin yet saith Eternal Life is the Gift of God Which the Fathers take great notice of particularly St. Hierom he doth not say the wages of Righteousness as he had said the wages of sin for eternal life is not earned by our labour but graciously bestowed by God's gift The same Answer serves for the next place X. Matth. 42. and all such Texts And 2 Cor. V. 10. was answered before that we shall receive according to what we have done in the body they that have done well shall be rewarded above their deserts and they that have done evil receive what they have deserved Which is the highest encouragement unto well-doing to believe That God will do more abundantly for us out of his infinite bounty than we can ask or think and not consider our merits which are none at all but his own incomprehensible Goodness and Mercy They that teach otherways derogate from the Grace of God and proudly arrogate to themselves a worthiness of which creatures are not capable I need not examine that heap of Scriptures which he confusedly huddles together for they have no more in them than these we have already considered And as for the Fathers it is a most insufferable impudence to say as he doth That they unanimously confirm the same The quite contrary hath been unanswerably proved by our Writers That the Fathers from the first times down to Venerable Bede have taught as he doth That no man ought to think his own merits will suffice him to salvation but let him understand That he must be saved by the sole Grace of God * In Psal 31. It is frivolous to alledg the word Merit so often used by the Fathers for they mean no more thereby but obtaining that which they are said to merit So the word is used in innumerable places and in many Authors Insomuch that in the Passion of St. Maximilian it is said his Mother after he was killed merited his Body of the Judge that is she obtained it by her Intreaties Every Novice in Learning knows this XXIII Faith once had cannot possibly be lost Answer IT was not possible for him to go on to speak some Truth