And although this doth not justifie Luther as I do not desire to defend him or any man in that wherein he is to be condemned yet it might make his opposers the more mild that Eusebius and Hierome of old do shew that the authority of this Epistle was some while doubted of and Cardinal Cajetane Luthers contemporarie did somewhat scruple at it and so did he also argue against the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews Some also say that Erasmus censures this Epistle of James as not savouring of Apostolical authority But in that Edition which I have of Erasmus his notes upon the New Testament I finde no such censure but that he would not have us contend about the Author but to iâ— brace the matter acknowledging the Holy Ghost to be the Author of it This advice is worthy to be followed by Protestants as well as Papists 5. Luther is taxed for saying That Moses in his writings sheweth unpleasant stopped and angry lips in which the word of grace is not but of wrath death and sinne And that hee calls him a Gapler executioner and a cruel Serjeant This doth Mr. Breerley object against Luther and I grant that Luther indeed hath those words tom 3. in Psal 45. But he speaks of Moses onely as contradistinct to Christ as a meer Law-giver For the Law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ Joh. 1. 17. So Moses his ministration was the ministration of death 2 Cor. 3. 7. and the ministration of condemnation v. 9. The Law simply considered doth convince of sinne and condemn for sinne For by the Law is the knowledge of sinne Rom. 3. 20. And it saith Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. Now no man doth or can perform this and therefore saith the Apostle there as many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse And so the Law worketh wrath Rom. 4. 15. This is not through any fault of the Law but by reason of sinne which is a transgression of the Law 1 Joh. 3. 4. and so makes liable to the curse and condemnation which by the Law belongs to those that transgresse The Law saith Ambrose is not wrath but it worketh wrath that is punishment to him that sinneth in that it doth not pardon sin but revenge it And again The glory of Moses his countenance saith he had not the fruit of glory in that it did not profit any but rather hurt though not through its own fault but through the fault of those that sinne This is spoken of the Law as it stands in opposition to the Gospel wherein reconciliation and salvation through Christ is set forth And in this sense only did Luther speak of Moses as himself expresly sheweth 6. The Marquesse addes that for Luther's doctrine he holds a threefold Divinity or three kinds as there are three Persons For proof of this only Zuinglius is cited But Luther and he being such adversaries their testimonies one against the other are of small force Had any such thing been in Luthers writings the Romanists themselves I doubt not would have found it out and not have referred us only to Zuinglius for it Luther on Genes 1. doth expressely speak of three Persons but one Divinity as being the same in all the three Persons 7. That Luther is angry with the word Trinity calling it a humane invention and a thing that soundeth very coldly The place alledged I have not opportunity to examine but thus much I say that Luther believing the thing viz. that there are three Divine Persons as I have shewed immediately before I see not why he should dislike the word Trinity 8. That he justistifies the Arrians and saith they did very well in expelling the word Homousion being a word that his soule hated Thus also Duraeus and before him Campian and before them both Bellarmine chargeth Luther with saying that his soule did hate the word Homousion which the Orthodox Fathers used to shew against the Arrians the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father But they wrong Luther as their manner is For he doth not say that his soul did hate that word but that if his soul did hate it and he would not use it yet he should not be a heretick so that he did hold the thing signified by the word which the Fathers in the Nicene Councel did determine by the Scriptures He speaks thus in respect of the Papists who will not be content with Scripture-terms but will invent terms of their own to pervert the sense of Scriptures As Latomus against whom he writes would not call Concupiscence sinne as the Apostle cals it but a punishment of sinne Hereupon Luther I think went too far concerning the word Homousion though not so far as his Romish adversaries do charge him He saith that this word used in confutation of the Arrians is not to be objected against him For that many and those most excellent men did not receive it and that Hierome wished it were abolished And that although the Arrians did erre in the faith yet they did well however to require that a profane and new word might not be used in rules of faith For that the sincerity of Scripture is to be preserved and man is not to presume to speak either more clearly or more sincerely then God hath spoken I confesse that Luther in this seemeth to me to exceed as men are apt to do in favour of that cause which they prosecute But yet it appears that he was sound in the faith and did not comply with the Arrians who opposed the word Homousion not so much for the new invention as for the signification of it Mr. Breerly who hath also this charge against Luther as indeed he hath most of that which the Marquesse objecteth against Protestant Divines cites Luther against Latomus in the Edition of Wittembergh 1551. and saith that the latter Editions are altered and corrupted by Luthers Scholars as he had shewed he saith the like before viz. concerning that place where Luther they say did speak so reprochfully of S. James his Epistle But 1. This is not like the other For here he saith Luthers works were altered by his Scholars but there he saith they were altered by his adversaries 2. As I have shewed the other to be improbable so also is this For Luther died anno 1546. so that the Edition which was anno 1551. was five years after Luthers death and surely by that time Luthers Scholars had leisure enough to make such an alteration as Mr. Breerly speaks of in Luthers works if they had been so minded I cannot therefore but take this as a trick of Mr. Breerley's when he saw Campians quotation of Luther confuted by Dr. Whitaker to pretend some former Edition of
the Roman Church have gone further in their censure of Chrysostome as Alvarez relates viz. that he held that election whereby we first accept those things that are good and resolve to doe them is before the grace of God and that then grace doth follow after whereby we are helped and God doth co-operate with us To this pur-pose I finde Tolet a Jesuite first and afterwards a Cardinall cited by Chamier though I have not his Booke now at hand to peruse And this may suffice for answer to Chrysostome yea and to those other two Fathers also that follow viz. Irenaeus and Cyrill the latter of these being by name and both of them implicitly excepted against by some of the Romanists themselves as appeares by what is cited in the margent as also by the reasons alledged by Alvarez and Iansenius why Chrysostome did exceede at least in his expressions viz. because he was so earnest against the Manichees and others and knew nothing of the contrary errour of the Pelagians which reasons might transport the other Fathers also It is true saith Alvarez that S. Chrysostome and other Fathers that wrote before the Heresie of Pelagius was risen up did speake little of the grace of Christ and much for the confirming of the liberty of the will against the heresie of the Manichees He addes that Austine also in his writings against the Pelagians did observe this and hee cites his words to this purpose Yea hee shewes that Austine in his Retractations was faine to answer in like manner for himself when as the Pelagians did make use of his former writings against the Manichees thereby to maintaine their opinion concerning the power of Free-will in opposition to the necessity and efficacy of Gods Grace Thus likewise Iansenius saith that after the Pelagian heresie was risen then Austine spake more exactly and more expresly of the Grace of God The Jesuit Maldonate doth tell us that Ammonius and Cyrill Theophylact and Euthymius so expound that No man commeth unto me except the Father draw him that they come too nigh the error of Pelagius viz. that all are not drawn because all are not worthy as if saith he before a man be drawn by grace unto grace hee could deserve grace which is to be worthy to be drawn But though Irenaeus and Cyrill be liable to these exceptions yet I see nothing in the places cited by the Marquesse wherein they make against us Irenaeus saith thus If it were not in us to doe these things or not to do them why did the Apostle and before him the Lord himself counsell us to doe some things and to abstaine from other things Here Irenaeus indeed sheweth that it is in us to doe or not to doe but hee doth not say that it is in nobis ex nobis in us of our selves by the power of our Free-will to doe things truly good He addes immediately that man from the beginning is free as God after whose likenesse hee was made is free Now this doth rather make against our adversaries then for them for it shewes that the freedome of mans will doth not consist in this that hee is free either to doe good or to doe evill seeing that God is not free in that manner hee being onely free to doe good but altogether uncapable of doing evill So man being determined by grace to that which is good yet is free because not constrained nor forced against his will in the doing of it and so on the other side hee is free in doing evill though of himselfe without grace he can doe nothing but evill As for the other Fathers viz. Cyrill that which hee saith in the place alledged is this wee cannot according to the doctrine of the Church and of the truth by any meanes deny the free power of man wich is called Free-will This is nothing against us who doe not as hath beene shewed before simply deny Free-will but onely so as our adversaries of the Church of Rome doe maintaine it To that which is in controversie betwixt us and our adversaries Cyrill here saith nothing and therefore his testimony is not to the purpose And so much for Free-will In the next place we hold it possible saith the Marquesse to keepe the Commandements you say it is impossible Wee have Scripture for it Luke 1. 6. And they were both righteous before God walking in all the Commandements and Ordinances of the Lord blamelesse And 1 Joh. 5. 3. His Commandements are not grievous For keeping the Commandements we hold not that it is simply impossible but that according to that measure of grace which God doth ordinarily bestow upon men here in this life it is not possible to keep them viz. so as not to be guilty of the breach of them If a man could fully and perfectly keep the Commandements then he should be without sin for sinne is nothing else but a transgression of the Law as Saint Iohn defines it 1 Iohn 3. 4. But the Scripture shewes that no man in this life is so perfect as to be without sinne There is not a just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not saith Solomon Eccles 7. 20. If we say that we have no sinne we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us saith Saint Iohn 1 John 1. 8. In many things we offend all saith Saint Iames Iam. 3. 2. And Christ hath taught all to pray for forgivenesse of sinnes Mat. 6. 12. which supposeth that all even the best that live upon earth have need of it that they are guilty of sinnes and so consequently come short of the full and perfect keeping of Gods Commandements Bellarmine thinks to elude these places by saying That we cannot indeed live without Veniall sinnes but that Veniall sinnes are not sinnes simply but onely imperfectly and in some respect and that they are not against the Law but only besides it But first Veniall sinnes are against the Law as being transgressions of it for else they are no sinnes at all that being the very nature of sinne to be a transgression of the Law 1 Iohn 3. 4. 2. There are no sins so veniall but that without the mercy of God in Christ they are damnable It being written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the Law to doe them Gal. 3. 10. And thirdly no man living upon earth is free from such sinnes as that he is able to stand if God shall enter into judgement with him If thou Lord shouldest mark iniquities O Lord who shall stand Psal 130. 3. Enter not into judgement with thy servant for in thy fight shall no man living be justified Psal 143. 2. The Fathers here are on our side Hierome having cited that of our Saviour Out of the hearts of men proceed evill thoughts adulteries fornications murders thefts covetousnesse c. addes Let him come forth that can testifie that these
doubts of Hee grants it but how No otherwise for any thing I can see then as wee doe grant it viz. that God if he please can give such a measure of grace unto men as to inable them perfectly to doe all that is commanded But Hierome immediately after shewes that none either doth or ever did so and that therefore all are guilty before God and stand in neede of his mercy If saith hee thou canst shew any that hath fulfilled all things required then thou canst shew one that doth not needs Gods merey shew that this hath been or that it now is So when Cyrill saith that even that precept Thou shalt not covet may be fulfilled by grace hee doth not oppose us nor wee him For wee doubt not but God is able to give grace whereby to fulfill it but wee deny that any onely Christ excepted ever had such grace as whereby to fulfill it Basil is cited at large no place being noted where he saith any thing about this point onely in Bellarmine I finde that upon those words Take heed to thy selfe hee saith that it is a wicked thing to say that the precepts of the Spirit are impossible Which wee yeeld so farre forth as any have the Spirit they may performe them but none have the Spirit in such full measure as to be able fully to performe whatsoever is commanded Origen in the place cited compares them to Women who say that they cannot keepe Gods Commandements Which must be understood of keeping them so as to have respect unto them and to study and indeavour to keepe them For otherwise if we speake of an exact and perfect keeping of the Commandements both men and women even the best upon Earth are farre from it For the flesh lusteth against the spirit saith the Apostle and the spirit against the flesh and these are contrary the one to the other so that you cannot do the things that you would Gal. 5. 17. Wee hold saith the Marquesse faith cannot justifie without workes Yee say good workes are not absolutely necessary unto salvation Wee have Scripture for what wee say 1 Cor. 13. 2. Though I have all Faith and have no Charity I am nothing And James 2. 24. By Workes a Man is justified and not by Faith onely Answ Protestants in opposition to them of the Church of Rome hold that Faith alone doth justifie and that Workes doe not concurre with Faith unto justification Yet withall they hold that Faith which doth justifie is not alone without workes Bellarmine confesseth that Calvin hath these very words It is Faith alone that doth justifie but yet Faith which doth justifie is not alone As the heate of the Sun alone is that which doth heate the Earth yet heate is not alone in the Sun but there is light also joyned with it And hee addes that Melancthon Brentius Chemnitius and other Protestants teach the same thing Therefore by Bellarmines owne confession Protestants are no enemies unto good workes Neither are they any whit injurious unto them in excluding them from having a share in justification as the Romanists are injurious unto Faith in making workes copartners with it in that respect We conclude saith S. Paul That a Man is justified by Faith without the deeds of the Law Rom. 3. 28. And in the next Chapter the Apostle proves by the example of Abraham that justification is by Faith without Workes For what saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousnesse Rom. 4. 3. He confirmes it also by the words of David Even as David also describes the blessednesse of the man to whom God imputeth righteousnesse without Workes saying blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven c. Rom. 4. 6 7 8. Mens workes are imperfect and so is all that righteousnesse of man that is inherent in him as hath been shewed before and therefore by his own workes and his own righteousnesse can none be justified By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified Rom. 3. 20. Bellarmine would have the Apostle when hee excludes Workes from justification onely to understand such workes as are done by the meere knowledge of the Law without grace But this cannot be his meaning For 1. when David cried out Enter not into judgement with thy servant O Lord for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal 143. 2. hee shewes that workes whatsoever they be are unable to justifie a man in the sight of God For it were most absurd and irrationall to imagine that David then doth onely deprecate Gods entring into judgement with him in respect of the Works which hee did without the assistance of Gods grace 2. The Apostle proves that justification is by Faith without Workes by that of David Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sinnes are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne Rom. 4. 6 7 8. Now the best man that is upon Earth hath need of this that his iniquities may be forgiven his sinnes covered and his transgressions not imputed unto him seeing there is no man as I have shewed before but iniquities sinnes and transgressions are found in him Therefore though a man be regenerate and sanctified yet his workes are not such as that he can be justified by them 3. The Apostle Gal. 3. 10. proves that none can be justified by the deeds of the Law because it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the Law to doe them Now no man though indued with grace and that in great measure doth continue in all things that the Law requireth as hath also been shewed before Therefore Workes as well with grace as without grace are unable to justifie But when our adversaries speake of justification they equivocate making it indeed the same with sanctification Dureus the Jesuite calles this new Divinity to say that by grace infused into us wee get newnesse of life and sanctification but yet are not thereby justified And hee askes what Scripture doth teach us to distinguish justification from sanctification Truly I thinke that these two viz justification and sanctification are sufficiently distinguished 1 Cor. 6. 11. But you are washed but you are sanctified but you are justified in the Name of the Lord Iesus and by the Spirit of our God There the Apostle shews that they were washed viz. both from the staine of sinne by sanctification which was wrought in them by the Spirit of God infusing grace into them and also from the guilt of sinne by justification which they obtained by faith in the Lord Jesus Besides the Scripture opposeth justification to condemnation and sheweth that to justifie is as much as to absolve and acquit from guilt to account and pronounce righteous Prov. 17. 15. He that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the just even they both are an abomination to the Lord.
Tertullian and so of Vincentius Tertullians words as he cites them are these wee doe not admit our adversaries to dispute out of Scripture till they can shew who their ancestors were and from whom they received the Scriptures For the ordinary course of Doctrine requires that the first question should be from whom and by whom and to whom the forme of Christian Religion was delivered otherwise prescribing against him as a stranger These words I cannot finde nor any like unto them in the place cited viz. de Praescrip cap. 11. elsewhere indeed in that booke I finde words like unto these though not the same However if wee should be tried by these words I see not how they will conclude against us For though the Heretickes with whom Tertullian had to doe might be convinced otherwise then by Scripture it followes not that therefore this is not the ordinary way whereby to convince Hereticks Thus Christ convinced the Sadduces that denied the Resurrection Mat. 22. 29. c. thus Apollos convinced the Jewes who denied Jesus to be the Christ Acts 18. 28. And thus the Apostles convinced those that urged Circumcision and the observing of the Jewish Law Acts 15. 15. c. And thus both other Fathers and even Tertullian himselfe doth usually dispute against Heretickes and confute them by the Scriptures But saith the Marquesse If a Heathen should come by the Bible as the Eunuch came by the prophecy of Esay and have no Philip to interpret it unto him hee would find out a Religion rather according to his own fancy then Divine verity Be it so yet here is nothing to prove that this Philip that is to interpret the Bible is not to fetch his interpretation from the Bible it selfe but from some unwritten tradition I come to Vincentius Lirinensis whose words produced by the Marquesse run thus It is very needfull in regard of so many errors proceeding from mis-interpretations of Scriptures that the line of propheticall and Apostolicall exposition should be directed according to the rule of the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense But I see not that in the opinion of Vincentius the rule of the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense is any other then the Scripture He insists much I am sure upon those words of the Apostle If wee or an Angell from heaven preach any other Gospell unto you then that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed Gal. 1. 8. Now as was noted before out of Irenaeus the Gospell which the Apostles preached they delivered unto us in the Scriptures and that is the foundation and pillar of our Faith Indeed all that Vincentius in his Commonitory against Heresies aimes at is this That the Faith once delivered to the Saints as Saint Iude speaks might be preserved To which end he descants well upon those words of the Apostle O Timothy keep that which is committed to thy trust 1 Tim. 6. 20. That which is committed to thee not that which is invented by thee that which thou hast received not that which thou hast devised a matter nōt of wit but of doctrine not of private usurpation but of publick tradition a thing brought unto thee not brought forth by thee in which thou art not to be an author but a keeper not an ordainer but an observer not a leader but a follower That this Depositum or thing committed to Timothy was any unwritten Tradition and not the doctrine of the Gospell contained in the Scripture neither doth Vincentius say neither can it be proved Bellarmine himself is forced to confesse That all things necessary for all are written by the Apostles Yea and that those things which have the testimony of Tradition he means unwritten tradition received in the whole Church are not usually such as concern most obscure questions And how then should such Tradition be the Rule of Faith and of Expounding the Scriptures The Marquesse saith that in matters of Faith Christ bids us to observe and doe whatsoever they bid us who sit in Moses Seat Mat. 23. 2 3. whence he infers Therefore surely there is something more to be observed then onely Scripture Will you not as well believe what you hear Christ say as what you hear his Ministers write You hear Christ when you hear them as well as you read Christ when you read his Word He that heareth you heareth me Luk. 10. 16. Thus the Marquesse but it was from our Saviours meaning that the people should doe simply and absolutely whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees who sate in Moses Seat should enjoyn Our Saviour meant nothing lesse for expresly he bade beware of the leaven of the Pharisees Mat. 16. 6. that is of the Doctrine of the Pharisees v. 12. Our Saviours meaning therefore was only this that whiles the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses Seat did deliver the Law and Doctrine of Moses people should hear and obey though otherwise they were most corrupt both in life Doctrine The Jesuite Maldonate doth thus expound the place as indeed it cannot with any probability be otherwise expounded When Christ saith he bids observe and doe what the Scribes and Pharisees say whiles they sit in Moses seat he speaks not of their Doctrine but of the Doctrine of the Law and of Moses For it is as if he should say All things that the Law and Moses shall say unto you the Scribes and Pharisees rehearsing it observe and do but after their workes doe not It 's true Christ doth tells us that they that hear his Ministers hear him but that is when they speak as his Ministers when they speak his Word not their owne As God said to the Prophet Ezekiel Thou shalt speak my Words unto them Ezek. 2. 7. And to the Prophet Ieremy Speak unto them all that I command thee Ier. 1. 17. And so Christ to his Apostles Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you Mat. 28. 20. So then we hear Christ indeed when we hear his Word spoken by his Ministers as well as we read Christ when we read his Word written in the Scriptures But that which we hear must be tried by that which we read that which is spoken by Ministers by that which is written in the Scriptures as hath been shewed before by Isai 8. 20. Ioh. 5. 39. Act. 17. 11. We say saith the Marquesse the Scriptures are not easie to be understood you say they are we have Scripture for it as is before manifested at large The Fathers say as much c. We doe not say that the Scriptures throughout in every part of them are easie to be understood but that they are so in things necessary unto Salvation This hath been shewed before by the testimony both of the Scripture it self and of Austine as likewise that the places of Scripture objected by the Marquesse doe make nothing against the easinesse of the Scripture either at all or at least in this sense Neither are the
There to justifie and to condemne are opposed-one to the other and to justifie is to repute just not to make just for so it should be no abomination to justifie the wicked but a very good worke For hee which converteth a sinner from the errour of his way shall save a soule from death c. Iames 5. 20. So Isai 5. 23. They are taxed who justifie the wicked for a reward Thus also God is said to justifie Isai 50. 8. Hee is neare that iustifieth mee who will contend with me And Rom. 8. 33 34. who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect it is God that justifieth Who is he that condemneth it is Christ that died c. But saith Bellarmine when God doth justifie the wicked by declaring him just he doth also make him just because the judgement of God is according to truth I answer true it is whom God doth justifie them also hee doth sanctifie yet it doth not follow that these two viz. to justifie and to sanctifie are one and the same David was a man truly sanctified yet hee knew and acknowledged that his righteousnesse whereby hee was sanctified was not such as that he could be justified by it and therefore cried Enter not into judgement with thy servant c. Psal 143. 2. And Blessed is the man whose iniquity is forgiven c. Psal 32. 1 2. yet is Gods judgement neverthelesse according to truth when hee accounteth those righteous and imputeth no sinne unto them who still have sinne in them and so cannot be justified by their owne righteousnesse because they whom God justifieth by faith are united unto Christ as members of his Body and so Christs righteousnesse is their righteousnesse and though not in themselves yet in Christ they are compleatly righteous He is called The Lord our righteousnesse Ier. 23. 6. And sayes the Apostle In him yee are complete Col. 2. 10. wherefore hee desired to be found in him not having his own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith Phil. 3. 9. And thus we hold that faith doth justifie not formally but instrumentally not because of it selfe but because of its object viz. Christ and his righteousnesse which faith apprehendeth and applieth For by faith wee receive Christ Ioh. 1. 12. And Christ doth dwell in our hearts by faith Ephes 3. 17. Diverse of the Church of Rome since the beginning of Reformation in this great point touching justification have inclined to us Ferus I cited before saying that Believers have yet much sinne but no condemnation because thorough faith in Christ they are reputed cleane Cardinall Contarenus his workes I have not neither can I alledge him of mine own knowledge but his words as I finde them cited by another are very full for our purpose Because saith hee wee come unto a twofold righteousnesse by faith a righteousnesse inherent in us c. and the righteousnesse of Christ given and imputed to us in that wee are ingraffed into Christ and put on Christ it remaines to inquire whether of these we must rely upon that wee may be justified before God that is accounted holy and just I doe altogether hold that it is piously and Christianly said that wee ought to reply as on a thing that is stable and doth surely support us on the righteousnesse of Christ given unto us and not on that holinesse and grace which is inherent in us For this righteousnesse of ours is but inchoated and imperfect which cannot preserve us so but that in many things we offend and sinne continually Therefore for this righteousnesse of ours wee cannot be accounted righteous and good in the sight of God so as it should become the sonnes of God to be good and holy But the righteousness of Christ given unto us is true and perfect righteousnesse which doth altogether please the eyes of God in which there is nothing that may offend God nothing which cannot fully please him On this therefore alone as sure and stable must we rely and for it alone must wee believe that wee are justified before God that is accounted and called iust I see not why we should desire more in point of justification then this amounts to Pighius also a stout Champion of the Church of Rome is as full and expresse for that which wee make the formall cause of justification as any can be It is cleare saith hee what sentence we should all have if God would have dealt with us in strict judgement if hee had not most mercifully succoured us in his Son and had not involved and wrapped us in his righteousnesse wee having none of our own that will serve our turne And againe In him therefore are wee justified not in our selves not with our own but with his righteousnesse which by reason of our communion with Him is imputed unto us Being empty of our owne righteousnesse wee are taught to seeke righteousnesse out of our selves in him And againe That our righteousnesse is placed in Christs obedience it is from hence that wee being incorporated into Him it is reckoned as if it were ours so that because of it we are accounted righteous And immediately he adds that as Iacob being cloathed with the robes of his elder brother obtained the blessing of his Father so we must be clothed with the righteousnesse of Christ our elder brother that God may bestow the blessing of justification upon us And againe God doth justifie us saith he of his free-goodnes whereby he doth embrace us in Christ whiles that he clothes us being ingraffed into him with Christs innocency and righteousnesse which as it is alone true and perfect able to indure the sight of God so it alone must be presented for us at the tribunall of Gods Iudgement This and much more to this purpose hath Pighius and hee saith that hee could not dissemble that this prime part of Christian Doctrine was rather obscured then illustrated by the Schoolemen with thorny questions and definitions and therefore he was the more diligent in the handling of this point shewing that none of the sons of Adam can be justified before God by their own righteousnesse and their own workes but that all must rely onely on the righteousnesse of God in Christ and that by it alone they being destitute of a righteousnesse of their owne are righteous before God Pighius is so plaine and home in this point that Bellarmine doth censure him as erroneous in it And yet so powerfull and prevalent it truth that it extorted even from Bellarmine himselfe this confession That because of the uncertainty of a mans owne righteousnesse and the danger of vaine glory it is most safe to repose all confidence only in Gods Mercy and Goodnesse By his own confession then it is most safe in matter of justification to renounce Workes and to flie onely to Faith in
the Lord Jesus The ancient Fathers also give testimony to this truth Hilarie hath these very words Fides sola iustificat i. e. Faith alone doth iustifie Austine in effect sayes the same when hee saith Our righteousnesse in this life is so great that it consists rather in forgivenesse of sinnes then in perfection of vertues And so when hee saith Woe even to the landable life of men if thou O Lord laying aside mercy shall enter into the examination of it To this purpose also is that which hee saith upon those words of David Enter not into judgement with thy servant O Lord c. How right soever saith hee I thinke my selfe thou bringest forth a rule out of thy treasure and triest me by it and I am found crooked Thus also Bernard Lord saith he I will make mention of thy righteousnesse onely for it also is mine seeing that thou of God art made unto me righteousnesse Must I feare lest this one righteousnesse will not suffice us both No it is not a short cloake that cannot cover two And againe It is sufficient for mee unto all righteousnesse to have him onely propitious against whom onely I have sinned Not to sinne is Gods righteousnesse mans righteousnesse is Gods indulgence Thus then in the point of justification wee have both Scriptures and Fathers yea and divers Papists also concurring with us As for the two places of Scripture alledged by the Marquesse the former viz. that 1 Corin. 13. 2. speaketh not of justifying Faith but of a Faith of working miracles as is cleare by the words themselves being fully cited which run thus Though I have all faith so that I could remove mountaines and have not charity I am nothing Oecumenius upon the place notes that by Faith there is not meant that Faith which is common to all Believers but a Faith peculiar to such as had the gift of working miracles And though Estius a learned Romanist in his Commentary upon the place seeke to draw it another way yet commenting upon 1 Cor. 12. 9. hee saith that the Greeke Expositors doe rightly understand it of that Faith which is spoken of Chap. 13. If I have all Faith c. that is of the Faith of signes and miracles as they call it which Faith hee saith is not properly a sanctifying grace but onely such a grace as is given for the benefit of others The other place viz. Jam. 2. 24. doth seeme to make against us but indeed it doth not For S. Iames saying that a man is justified by Workes and not by Faith onely meanes onely thus as Cajetan himselfe doth expound it that we are not justified by a barren Faith but by a Faith which is fruitfull in good Workes This appeares to be his meaning by his whole discourse from vers 14. to the end of the Chapter wherein hee bends himselfe against those who presume of such a faith as is without workes and more specially it may appeare by the verses immediately preceding wherein hee saith that Abraham was justified by workes when hee offered up Isaac and that Faith wrought with his workes and by workes was Faith made perfect and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousnesse Now this clearly shewes that Abraham was justified by Faith and not by workes onely his workes did shew that his Faith was a true justifying Faith indeed and not as it is in many that pretend and professe Faith a vaine shew of Faith and a meere shadow of it For that which S. Iames citeth Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousnesse was as appeares by the story in the booke of Genesis long before that Abraham offered up Isaac and by those very words Saint Paul proveth Rom. 4. that wee are justified by Faith and not by Workes Therefore when S. Iames saith that by Abrahams offering up of Isaac that Scripture was fulfilled the meaning is that thereby it did appeare that it was truly said of Abraham that hee believed God and it was counted unto him For righteousnesse his readinesse in that worke to obey God did demonstrate that hee believed God indeed and that his faith was of a right stampe Thus also is it said that by workes faith was made perfect viz. even as the Lord said unto Paul My strength is made perfect in weakenesse 2 Cor. 12. 9. that is Gods strength doth exercise it selfe and shew how great it is in mans weaknesse So Abrahams workes did shew how great his faith was in this sense his workes did make his faith perfect not that they did adde any thing unto it no more then mans weaknesse doth adde unto Gods strength This opinion of yours saith the Marquesse S. Aug. de fide oper cap. 14. saith was an old heresie in the Apostles time and in the Preface of his comment upon the 32. Psal he calles it the right way to hell and damnation See Origan 5. to the Rom. S. Hilar. chap. 7. in Mat. S. Ambr. 4. ad Heb. Answ Austine de fid oper c. 14. speakes nothing against our Opinion but something for it That which hee speaketh by way of reproofe is against those who so thinke that Faith alone will suffice as that they heede not to doe good workes nor to order their life and conversation aright But this is nothing to us who are farre from holding such a Faith as that sufficient But in the same place Austine hath this for our purpose that when the Apostle saith that a Man is justified by Faith without the Workes of the Law hee did not intend that the Workes of Righteousnesse should be contemned but that every one should know that hee may be justified by faith though the workes of the Law did not goe before For saith hee they follow a man being justified they doe not goe before a man being to be justified If as this Father affirmeth a man must first be justified before hee can doe good workes then good workes are no cause of justification but an effect of it For the other place of Austine which the Marquesse alledgeth there is none such that I can finde viz. no preface of his comment upon Psal 32. but in the comment it selfe I finde this which makes for us Doest thou not heare the Apostle The just shall live by Faith Thy faith is thy righteousnesse What Origen saith on Rom. 5. having not his workes now at hand I cannot tell but I see what Bellarmine cites out of him on Rom. 4. and perhaps so it should have been in the Marquesse his writing However there is no doubt but Bellarmine would have made use of it if there had been any thing more for his purpose on Rom. 5. Now on Rom. 4. Origen saith that whose believe Christ but doe not put off the old man with his deeds their faith cannot be imputed unto them for righteousnesse This wee doe
but such as were threescore years old or more But the greatest difficulty is what is meant by the first faith which the Apostle saith the younger Widdowes did cast off and therefore had damnation 1 Tim. 5. 12. It is true the antient Writers for most part expound it of a promise or covenant of a single life but all that goe this way doe not speake of any vow that was made neither Chrysostome nor Theophylact doth upon the place Yea some of the antients shew that they understood the Apostle as speaking of the Christian faith or the common faith as it is called Tit. 1. 4. sure I am some of them make use of the Apostles words and apply them that way Hierome speaking of Heretikes saith that they have cast off or made voide their first faith So Vincentius Lirinensis in his Booke against Heresies saith It is well knowne how grievously the blessed Apostle Paul doth inveigh against those who with wonderfull lightnesse are quickly removed from him that called them to the grace of Christ unto another Gospell which is not another who heape up to themselves teachers after their own lusts turning away their Eares from the truth being turned unto fables having damnation because they have made void their first faith Bellarmine therefore was more curious and criticall if not rather more captious and contentious then tender and respective of the credit of these antient Doctours when he said that faith here must be taken for covenant and vow yet there may be a covenant where there is no vow and cannot be taken for Christian faith because Christian faith is not rightly said to be made voide but to be lost or corrupted but covenants and vowes are most properly said to be made voide Hierom and Vincentius understood the propriety of words as well as Bellarmine who shewes himselfe barbarous in these very words wherein he so playes the critick yet they wee see thought it not improper to say that Heretikes make voide the faith which is necessarily meant of the Christian faith and not of any vow or covenant Nether doe I see but that wee may as properly say that faith being meant of the Christian faith is made voide as that the Law is made voide Heb. 10. 28. or that the grace of God is made voide Gal. 2. 21. wee reade it in the former place despised in the other place frustrate but the Greeke word in both places is the same with that in the Epistle to Timothy And as the words will well beare this sense viz. that it is the Christian faith which the Apostle saith some did cast off or make void so this sense is agreeable to the Apostles expressions in other places of this Epistle Holding faith and a good conscience which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwrack 1 Tim. 1. 19. If they continue in faith 1 Tim. 2. 15. Some shall depart from the faith 1 Tim. 4. 1. And in the very same Chapter in which are the words controverted If any provide not for his own c. hee hath denied the faith c. 1 Tim. 5. 8. So also in the other Epistle to Timothy who concerning the truth have erred c. and overthrow the faith of some 2 Tim. 2. 18. Men of corrupt minds reprobate concerning the faith 2 Tim. 3. 8. I have kept the faith 2 Tim. 4. 7. In all these places faith is understood of Christian faith and therefore probably so is it in that other place about which wee dispute So that this may well be the meaning of the place that they of whom the Apostle speakes being censured of the Church for their lightnesse and lasciviousnesse and not able to beare the disgrace did quite cast off the Christian faith which before they professed and so exposed themselves unto damnation I see nothing uncouth nor incongruous in this Exposition and it doth well agree with that which the Apostle saith a little after For some are allready turned after Satan 1 Tim. 5. 15. which words seeme to import a plaine and open renouncing of Christ as on the other side to come after CHRIST is as much as to professe his Name Mat. 16. 24. Luke 9. 23. Object But may some say the Apostle reproves these of whom hee speakes for that they begin to wax wanton against Christ and will marry which argues that they had vowed or professed continency for else why might they not marry The wife is bound by the Law so long as her husband liveth but if her husband be dead she is at liberty to be married to whom she will only in the Lord. 1 Cor. 7. 39. Ans I grant that those Widdowes though they did not vow yet by the very course of life which they entred upon did professe continency marriage and that course being inconsistent And justly might they be reproved both for their rashnesse in taking upon them that profession and for their lightnesse in falling off from it when there was no just cause for it The Apostle doth not simply condemne them for having a minde to marry but because out of wantonnesse they would needs marry And it might be called wantonnesse against Christ because they had addicted themselves to the service of Christ in his Church and Members which service they did desert by their wantonnesse And in this sense by their first faith may be meant the promise either formall or virtuall which those Widdowes did make unto the church that they would remaine Widdowes and not marry which promise they breaking meerely out of wantonnesse well might the Apostle say that they had damnation for it But all this proves not that it is sinfull and damnable for any that have vowed continency afterwards to marry Though Bellarmine will by no meanes endure that those words of the Apostle I will therefore that the younger Widdowes marry c. 1 Tim. 5. 14. be understood of such as had professed continency as if the Apostle would have such to marry if they could not containe So also Estius upon the place who saith that otherwise the Apostle should cast them headlong into damnation For if they have damnation who have a will to marry how much more they that doe marry But though I thinke that the Apostles direct meaning was that the younger Widdowes should not be admitted into the number of those who were by their place and calling to professe continency into which number hee would have none admitted under 60. years old yet Estius his reason is not valid For the Apostle doth not say that the younger Widdowes being admitted into that number and afterwards willing to marry or actually marrying therefore had damnation but because they would marry out of wantonnesse and so out of wantonnesse make voide their first faith viz. their promise of continency made to the Church if not their Christian Faith which before they professed Notwithstanding which sentence it followes not but
that if not through wantonnesse but through weaknesse they were forced to marry the Apostle would have them to doe it rather then to doe worse viz. burne with lust and commit Fornication For whereas the same authour saith It is not better for such as have vowed contineney to marry then to burne this is nothing else but a flat contradicting of the Apostle or at least a contradicting of that Rule We must not distinguish where the Law doth not distinguish And we finde in their own Canons that if Widdows did professe continency yet a snare was not to be cast upon them to wit as the Glosse doth expound it by separating them from their Husbands if they did marry or by forbidding them precisely to marry Another Canon also which they have injoynes no more but this that if such as professe Virginity did afterwards marry they should be ranked amongst those that did marry the second time viz. after the death of the first yoke fellow which marriage the Scripture doth clearly allow Rom. 7. 2 3. and 1 Cor. 7. 39. neither did any Orthodox Writer ever condemne it Their Canon-Law indeed debarres those that are twice married from being Priests grounding upon the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. 2. and Titus 1. 6. which places their owne Cardinall Cajetan doth yet interpret otherwise but yet grant that such doe not sinne They grant also that if any marry after a simple vow of continency the marriage doth stand good and is not to be dissolved For this they have a Canon out of Austine which runs thus Some say that they that marry after a vow are adulterers but I say unto you that they that divide such doe sinne grievously And another out of Theodorus thus If a man having a simple vow of virginity joyne himselfe to a Wife let him not afterwards put her away but let him doe penance three yeares And so Estius confesseth that we never reade in antient writers that if Widdowes who vowed continency did marry their marriage was voide and of none effect For saith hee their vow was not solemne But I have shewed before that the distinction of simple and solemne vow hath no ground in Scripture and that in respect of God a simple vow doth binde as much as a solemne And besides if as they alledge and cite some of the antients also for it one having vowed continency whether solemnely or simply is married unto Christ and therefore may much lesse marry another then one that is allready married to a mortall man then surely the marriage of such should much rather be judged adultery and be dissolved then the marriage of those who marry againe when they are already married Yet Bellarmine goes further and acknowledgeth that many prime Writers of the Church of Rome as Scotus Paludanus and Cajetane and generally as Panormitan doth relate all the Canonists affirme that onely by Ecclesiasticall right marriage made after a solemne vow is of no force And this opinion hee granteth to be probable So then by their own confessions it may appeare that there is no Law of God against it but that such as have vowed continency should marry if they be not able to performe what they have vowed And this may suffice for this point The Marquesse goes on thus We say Christ descended into Hell and delivered thence the soules of the Fathers yee deny it Wee have Scripture for it viz. Ephes 4. 8. When he ascended up on high he led captivity captive c. Descending first into the lower part of the Earth This lower part of the Earth could not be a grave for that was the upper part nor could it have beene the place of the damned for the Devils would have beene brought againe into Heaven More clearly Acts 2. 27. Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption There is Hell for his soule for a time and the grave for his body for a while Plainer yet 1 Pet. 3. 18 19. Being put to death in the flesh but quickned by the spirit by which also hee went and preached unto the spirits in prison This prison cannot be Heaven nor Hell as it is the place of the damned nor the grave as it is the place of rest Therefore it must be as S. Aug. Epist 99. ad Evod. saith some third place which third place the Fathers have called Limbus Patrum Also Zach. 9. 11. As for thee also by the blood of thy Covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water By this pit could not be meant the place of the damned for they have no share in the Covenant neither are they Christs prisoners but the Devils neither could this pit be the grave because Christs grave was a new pit where never any was laid before The Fathers affirm as much S. Hieron in 4. ad Ephes S. Greg. l. 13. Moral c. 20. S. Aug. in Psal 37. 1. Answ That Christ did descend into Hell in that sense as they of the Church of Some doe hold viz. into a Region of Hell called Limbus Patrum to deliver the faithfull thence that lived and died under the old Testament this Protestants deny and they have just cause to deny it For the Scripture doth not shew us any such Hell as this which they speake of much lesse that CHRIST did descend into it 1. The faithfull that were before Christ did enjoy the benefit of him as well as they that are since his comming We believe said Peter that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ wee shall be saved even as they Acts 15. 11. Therefore they were saved by Christ as well as we now are saved by him and consequently the faithfull then through Christ did goe to Heaven as well as now they doe 2. It is said of the faithfull of the old Testament that they confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims upon the Earth Heb. 11. 13. and that they did seeke a country v. 14. not an earthly country but a better country that is an Heavenly and that God did prepare for them a City v. 16. 3. Abrahams bosome as the place is called where the soules of the Saints of the old Testament were is so described in the Scripture as that it could be no such place as they call Limbus Patrum For 1. The soule of Lazarus was carried thither by Angels and therefore it should rather be Heaven then Hell 2. It was a place of comfort Luke 16. 25. But Austine could not finde hee saith with all his searching where the Scripture doth make Hell to be any place of comfort and hee thought this a good argument why Abrahams bosome could not be Hell 3. There was a great gulfe fixed betwixt the place where Lazarus was viz. Abrahams bosome and the place where the rich man was in torment Luke 16. 26. And hence also Austine inferreth that Abrahams bosome
Christ according to Bellarmines computation The Church saith the Marquesse held then mingling of water with wine in the sacrifice of the Eucharist for a thing necessary and of divine and Apostolical tradition Cyprian indeed in the place all eadged viz. Epist 63. doth speak of the mixture of wine and water in the Eucharist as a thing necessary to be obsered But 1. Austine hath taught us That it is no wrong to Cyprian to make a difference betwixt his writings and the Scriptures 2. Cyprian himselfe though speaking of another occasion doth shew us what we are here to answer Whence saith he is this tradition Did it come either from Christ in the Gospel or from the Apostles in their writings For God doth require us to do those things that are written saying to Joshua The book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth c. Jos 1. 8. And when Christ sent his Apostles he bade them baptize all Nations and teach them to observe whatsoever he commanded Mat. 28. 19. 20. If therefore it be commanded in the Gospel or contained either in the Epistles or in the Acts of the Apostles then let it be observed as a divine and holy tradition Now in the Epistle which the Marquesse alleadgeth Cyprian proveth against the Aquarians such as did use only water in the Eucharist that Christ in the institution of the Sacrament used wine this he proves by that which is written Mat. 26. 29. I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the Vine c. but that Christ also did use water he doth not prove neither can it be proved by the Scripture Yet our Divines do grant that probably Christ might mixe wine and water in the Sacramental cup not for any mystical signification nor as a matter of necessary observation but only as in those hot Countries they used commonly to drink wine mixed with water to abate the strength of it Neither do they therefore condemn them of the Church of Rome for using this mixture but for using it so as to make it a sinne not to use it Bellarmine indeed saith that it is no lesse certain that Christ did mixe water with wine when he instituted the Sacrament then that he did use any wine at all for that purpose For he saith neither the Evangelists nor Paul make any mention of wine when they speak of the cup in the Eucharist As for the words I will not drinke henceforth of the fruit of the Vine c. he saith S. Luke doth plainly shew they were spoken not of the cup in the Eucharist but that cup which was given after the eating of the Pascal Lamb. But this contradits Cyprian in that very Epistle which is alleadged against us For their citing these words he infers from them as a thing clear and evident that it was wine which Christ called his blood and that the Sacrament is not rightly celebrated if wine be wanting Yea Maldonate cites many of the ancient Writers besides Cyprian who understand those words of the cup in the Eucharist And whereas Bellarmine doth urge Luke 22. 17 18. to prove that those words I will not henceforth drink c. have reference to another cup and not that in the Eucharist Austine as himself confesseth taketh those words in Luke to be related by anticipation and not in their due order which Matthew and Mark observed And though he say that Austine did not diligently consider the place yet Jansenius writing professedly upon it approves Austins opinion rather then Hieroms who conceives two several cups to be spoken of in S. Lukes Gospel neither doth Bellarmine answer his argument which he doth alleadge for it But however he shews that the words as they are related by S. Matthew and S. Marke cannot be referred to any other cup then that in the Eucharist of which they make mention immediately before and of none other 3. Cyprian in this very point about the mingling of wine and water in the Eucharist doth differ as well from them of the Church of Rome as from Protestants For he makes this mixture of such necessity as to hold it no Sacrament if there be not in the cup both wine and water Otherwise if there bee either onely water or onely wine he holds it to be none of Christs Cup none of his Sacrament But Bellarmine taxeth Chemnitius for charging them of the Roman Church with this opinion and saith that very few of them do hold it Why then do they presse us with the testimony of Cyprian they themselves dissenting from him as well as we For it is over vain and frivolous that Bellarmine saith that though Cyprian spake in that manner yet perhaps he meant otherwise But to proceed The Marquesse saith that anciently the Church held exorcismes exsufflations and renuntiations which are made in Baptisme for sacred ceremonies and of Apostolical tradition And a little after The Church in the ceremonies of Baptisme used then oyle salt wax-light exorcismes the sign of the Crosse the word Ephata and other things that accompany it c. But 1. What authority is there from Gods word for all or any of these Ceremonies Let them be proved by the Scriptures and then we will acknowledge them for divine and holy traditions but otherwise we have no reason to do it And for this we have Cyprian to whom other ancient Writers might be added if need were to speak for us as I have shewed a little before though here among others he also be alleadged against us 2. Bellarmine speaking of rites and ceremonies saith That they must not so be multiplied as with their multitude to overwhelm Religion to which they ought to be subservient And for this he cites Austine But surely the ceremonies of Baptisme which the Marquesse here partly expresseth and partly intimateth Bellarmine doth reckon up particularly no fewer then two and twenty are so many as that they must needs overwhelme Baptisme 3. Some rites and ceremonies anciently used in Baptisme are now abolished in the Church of Rome Anciently they used to dip the person baptized thrice in the water which now Bellarmine saith is not so but in some places they dip once and in some place thrice neither being of the offence of the Sacrament But elsewhere he tels us that the Church hath determined in the fourth Councel of Toledo that there shall be but one dipping used in Baptisme So also Bellarmine amongst the ceremonies of Baptisme anciently used mentioneth the tasting of milk and hony or wine which ceremony yet he saith now is not in use Thus their Apostolical traditions as they call them they themselves can reject when they please The Church held then saith the Marquesse Baptisme for Infants of absolute necessity and for this cause thou permitted Lay-men to baptise in danger of death The absolute necessity of Baptisme is not here simply urged but