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
to which the Marquesse doth next leade us We hold saith hee Purgatory fire where satisfaction shall be made for sinnes after death you deny it We have Scripture for it 1 Cor. 3. 13 15. The fire shall try every mans worke of what sort it is if any mans worke shall be burnt hee shall suffer losse but hee himselfe shall be saved yet so as by fire S. Aug. so interprets this place upon Psal 37. also S. Ambrose upon 1 Cor. 3. and ser 20. in Psal 118. S. Hier. l. 2. c. 13. advers Ioan. S. Greg. l. 4. dial c. 39. Origen Hom. 6. in cap. 15. Exod. If there be any such place as Purgatory it doth much more concerne us then Limbus Patrum which they hold to have been made void and of no use long agoe but this they pretend to continue still and to be of as much force as ever it was But we finde nothing in Scripture to prove any such place or any such fire as that of Purgatory wherein they that have not fully satisfied for their sinnes in this life must lie and frie untill they have made full satisfaction and then be taken out and conveyed to Heaven For thereore they call the place Purgatory and the fire Purgatory fire because they say in that place by that fire the Soules are purged which were not fully purged in this life that being so purged they may have entrance into Heaven But how doth this agree with the Scripture That tells us that the Blood of Iesus Christ cleanseth us from all sinne 1 Ioh. 1. 7. And that if any man sinne wee have an advocate with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous And he is the propitiation for our sinnes 1 Ioh. 2. 1 2. It is onely Christ who by his blood doth satisfie for our sinnes and so purge us from them we cannot doe it by any thing which we either doe or suffer in this life much lesse is it to be done by us hereafter when we are dead God doth indeed afflict his children here in this World thereby to purge them By this shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged and this is all the fruit to take away his sinne Isai 27. 9. But this affliction is onely castigatory not satisfactory When we are judged we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the World 1 Cor. 11. 32. After this life is ended there remaines no more affliction for the godly for any thing that we can finde in Scripture Wee know that if our earthly house of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God a house not made with hands eternall in the Heavens Therefore we are alwayes confident knowing that whiles wee are at home in the body wee are absent from the Lord. For we walke by Faith and not by sight We are confident I say willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. 2 Cor. 5. 1 6 7 8. The Apostle speakes there not peculiarly of himselfe or such eminent ones as he was but generally of all Believers as appeares by those words For we walke by faith and not by sight which is as true of every believer as it was of Paul Now if the faithfull when they depart out of this Tabernacle the body goe to their house prepared for them in Heaven and are present with the Lord and enjoy the sight of him then surely there is no such thing as Purgatory to keepe them I know not how long absent from God in paine and torment And so the Scripture tells us that they that die in the Lord are blessed and rest from their labours Revel 14. 13. But how are they blessed and how doe they rest from their labours if yet after they are dead they must endure Purgatory the paines whereof they say are most grievous and such as that no paines here in this life are to be compared with them Yea some hold that the least paine in Purgatory is greater then the greatest paine that is in this life And whereas Dominicus à Soto thought that none did continue in Purgatory above ten years Bellarmine confutes this by the custome of their Church praying for those that were known to be dead a hundred or two hundred yeares before Which argues that as they suppose soules may continue so long in Purgatory Yea he cites Bede who lived about 900 years agoe telling of one to whom was shewed the paines of Purgatory and it was told him that all the Soules in Purgatory should be delivered and saved in the day of judgement c. whence he infers that according to Bede some now dead yea that were dead many hundred years agoe must abide in Purgatory untill the day of judgement And will any call such blessed will any say that such rest from their labours In a word the Scripture tels us but of two places appointed for such as depart out of this life the one a place of comfort and the other a place of torment and withall it tells us that betwixt these two places there is such a great gulfe fixed that they that are in the one cannot passe unto the other Luke 16. 25 26. Neither doe wee want the testimonies of the antient Fathers for the asserting of this truth which we maintaine Cyprian saith that though the godly and the wicked fare alike here yet when this life is ended then their estates doe much differ We are contained saith hee for a while both good and bad in one house whatsoever doth happen within the house we suffer alike untill this temporall life being ended we are divided to the habitations either of eternall death or of immortality Hee makes no third place distinct from those of immortality and of everlasting death neither doth hee make any stay after the end of this life but that such as escape the habitation of endlesse death doe immediately passe to the habitation of immortality So the same Father againe The Kingdome now is very neare at hand c. now after earthly things follow heavenly after small things great after fading things eternall What place is there here for anxiety and carefulnesse who can now be fearfull and sad but he that hath neither hope nor faith For it is for him to feare death who is not willing to goe to Christ and it is for him to be unwilling to goe to Christ who doth not believe that he beginnes to reigne with Christ For it is written that the just doth live by faith If thou beest just if thou doest live by faith if thou doest indeed believe in God why being to be with Christ and being sure of the Lords promise doest thou not embrace this that thou art called unto Christ and reioyce that thou art freed from the Devill Thus in a time of mortality did Cyprian comfort and encourage Christians against the feare of death But how will all this consist with Purgatory How is the Kingdome of
light was gathered into the body of the Sun this body so glorious and comfortable is but the same light which was before we cannot make it another though it be otherwise And therefore though the Church and the Scripture like the light that is concomitant and precedent to the Sun be distinct in tearms yet they are but one and the same no man can see the Sun but by it's own light shut your eyes from this light and you cannot behold the body of the Sun Shut your eyes against one and you are blind in both he never had God to be his Father who had not the Church to be his Mother If you admit Sillogismes à priori you will meet with many paralogismes à posteriori cry downe the Churches Authoritie and pull out the Scriptures efficacie give but the Church the lie now and then and you shall have enough will tell you the Scripture is false here and there they who have set so little by the tradition of the Church have set by halfe the Scriptures and will at last throw all away wherefore in a word as to deny any part of the Scripture were to open a vein so to question any thing which the Church proposes is to teare the seamelesse Coat of Christ and to pierce his body King My Lord I see you are better provided with Arguments then I am with memorie to run through the series of your Discourse satisfie me but in one thing and I shall soone yeild to all that you have said and that is concerning this Catholick Church you talke of I know the creed tells us that we must believe it and Christ tells us that we must hear it but neither tell us that that is the Church of Rome Marq. Gratious Sir the creed tells us that it is the Catholick Church and Saint Paul tells us in his epistle to the Romans that their faith was spread abroad through the whole world King That was the Faith which the Romanes then believed which is nothing to the Roman Faith which is now believed Marq. The Roman Faith then and now are the same King I deny that my Lord. Marq. When did they alter their Faith King That requires a librarie Neither is it requisite that I tell you the time when if the envious man sowes his tares whilst the husband-man was asleep and afterwards he awakes and sees the tares are they not tares because the husband-man knowes not when they were sown Marq. And if it please Your Majestie in a thing that is so apparent your similitude holds good but the differences between us and the Protestants are not so without dispute as that it is yet granted by the major part of Christians that they are errours which we believe contrary to your Tenents and therefore the similitude holds not but I shall humbly intreat Your Majestie to consider the proofs which the learned Cardinal Peroone hath made concerning this particular in his answer to your Royall Father his Apologie to all Christian Princes where he proves how that all the Tenents which are in controversie now between you and us were practised in the Church of Christ within the first three hundred years wherefore I think it would be no injury to reason to require belief that that which hath been so long continued in the Church and so universally received and no time can be set down when those Tenents or Ceremonies did arise must needs be Catholick for time and place and Apostolicall for institution though we have no warrant from the Scriptures to believe them to be such For the Apostle Saint Paul commanded Timothy to keep fast the things which he had delivered unto him as well by word as by writ Wherefore if we will believe no tradition we may come at last to believe no writings King That was your owne fault wherefore I blame your Church for the way to make the Scriptures not believed were to adde unto them new inventions and say they were Scriptures Marq. If the Church of Christ had so mean esteeme then as amongst some she hath now certainly the former books received into her Canon would have been much prejudiced by the admittance of the latter wherefore if the Church be questionable then all is brought in question King My Lord you have not satisfied me where this Church is and as concerning the Cardinals book I have seen it and have read a part of it but doe not remember neither doe I believe that he hath prov'd that which you say Marq. It may be the proofes were in that part of the book which Your Majesty did not read and as for my proving the Roman Church to be this Church by which we should be all guided I thus shall doe my endeavour That Church whose Doctrine is most Catholick and universall must be the Catholick Church but the Roman Church is such Ergo. King My Lord I deny your Minor the Romane Church is not most universall the Grecian Church is far more spreading and if it were not it were no Argument for the Church of the Mahumetanes is larger then both Marq. First This is no Argument either for an English Man or a Protestant but for a Grecian or Mahumetane not for an English Man because he received his Conversion from Rome and therefore he in Reason should not look beyond Rome or the Doctrine that Rome practised then when they converted England nor for a Protestant because he is as far distant from the Grecian Church in matter of opinion as from the Romane and therefore he need not look for that which he hath no desire to find besides the Greek Church hath long agoe submitted to the Church of Rome and there is no reason that others should make Arguments for her who are not of her when she stands in no competition her selfe besides there is not in any place wherever the Greek Church is or hath beene planted where there are not Roman Catholicks but there are diverse Countreys in Christendome where there is not one Professour of the Greek Church neither is there a place in all the Turks Dominions where there are not Romane Catholicks nor in any part of the world where there are not multitudes of Romanes neither is there a Protestant Countrey in Christendome where there are not Romane Catholicks numberlesse but not a Protestant amongst the Natives neither of Spaine or Italy Shew me but one Protestant Countrey in the world who ever deserted the Romane Faith but they did it by Rebellion except England and there the King and the Bishops were the principall reformers I pray God they doe not both suffer for it Shew me but one reformed Church that is of the opinion of another aske an English Protestant where was your Religion before Luther and he will tell you of Hus and Jerom of Prague search for their Tenents and you shall find them as far different from the English Protestant as they are from one another run to the Waldenses for
your Religions antiquity and you shall find as much difference in their Articles and ours as can be between Churches that are most opposite Come home to your owne Countrey and derive your descent from Wickliffe and search for his Tenents in the booke of Martyrs and you shall find them quite contrary to ours neither amongst any of your moderne Protestants shall you find any other agreement but in this one thing that they all protest against the Pope Shew me but any Protestant Countrey in the world where Reformation as you call it ever set her foot where she was not as well attended with sacriledge as usher'd by Rebellion and I shall lay my hand upon my mouth for ever King My Lord my Lord you are gone beyond the scope of your Argument which required you to prove the Romane Church more Catholick then the Greek which you have not done you put me off with my being English and not a Grecian whereas when we speak of the universality of a Church I think that any man who is belonging to the universe is objectum rationis And if that be the manner of your Election then I am sure most voices must carry it for your alleaged submission of the Greek Church unto the Roman I believe it cannot be prov'd but it may be the Patriarch of Constantinople may submit unto the Pope of Rome and yet the Greek Church may not submit unto the Romane Marq. Sir it is no dishonour for the Sun to make its progress from East to West it is still the same Sun and the difference is onely in the shadowes which are made to differ according to the varieties of shapes that the severall substances are of East and West are two divisions but the same day neither can they be said or imagined to be greater or more extending one or other and the one may have the benefit of the Suns light though the other may have its glory and I believe no man of sober judgment can say that any Church in the world is more generally spread over the face of the whole world or that her glory shines in any place more conspicuously then at this day in Rome King My Lord if externall glory be the Sun-shine of the Gospel then the Church is there indeed but if internall sanctity and inward holynesse be the Essences of a Church then we may be as much to seek for such a Church within the Wals of Rome as any where else Marq. Who shall be Judge of that I pray observe the Injustice and Errours that will arise if every man may be admitted to be his owne judge you of the Church of England left your Mother the Church of Rome and Mother to all the Churches round about You forsook her and set up a new Church of your own Independent to her there comes a new generation and doth the like to you and a third generation that is likely to do the like to that and the Church falls and falls untill it falls to all the pieces of Independencie It is a hard case for a part to fall away from the whole and to be their owne judges Why should not Kent fall away from England and be their owne judges as well as England fall away from Christendome and be their own judges why should not a Parish in Kent fall away from the whole County and be their owne judges why should not one Family fall away from the whole Parish and be their owne judges why should not one man fall away in his opinion from that Family and be his owne judge If you grant one you must grant all and I feare me in doing one you have done all So that every man despiseth the Church whilst he is a Church in himselfe rayles against Popery and is the greatest Pope himselfe despiseth the Fathers and will enthrone his own judgment above the wisdome of the ancient refuseth Expositours that he may have his own sence and if he can start up but some new opinions he thinks himselfe as worthy a member of Christianity as if he were an Apostle to some new found land Now Sir though some do take the Church to be the Scriptures yet the Scriptures cannot be the Church because the Scriptures send us to the Church audi Ecclesiam dic Ecclesiae others take the Elect to be the Church yet this cannot be for we know not who are elect and who are not that which must be the Church must be a visible an eminent societie of men to whose Authority in cases of appeale and matter of judgement we are to acquiesce and subscribe And I appeale to Your Royall heart whether there be a Church in the world whom in these respects we ought to reverence and esteeme more then the Church of Rome and that the Church of Rome is externally glorious it doth not follow that therefore she is not internally holy for the Kings daughters clothing was of wrought gold as well as she was all glorious within and though she had never so many Divine graces within her yet she had honourable women without her as her attendants and for the question whether this inward glory is to be so much sought for within the gates of Rome is the question and not yet decided King My Lord I 'le deale as ingenuously with you as I can When the Romane Monarch stretch'd forth his arms from East to West he might make the Bishops of Romes oecumenacy as large as was his Empire and all the Churches in the world were bound to follow her Lawes and decretalls because God hath made such Emperours nursing Fathers of his Church as it was prophesied by the Divine Esay alwayes provided that the child be not pourtractured greater then the Nurse as hath been observed by the pride of your Bishops of Rome but when the severall Kingdoms of Christendome shook off the Romane Yoke I see no reason why the Bishop of Rome should expect obedience from the Clergie of other Countries any more then the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury should expect obedience from the Clergie of other Kingdoms And for your deriving your Authority from Saint Peter I know no reason why we may not as well derive our Authority from Simon Zelotes or Joseph of Arimathea or from Philip of whose planting the Gospell we have as good warrant as you have for Saint Peter his planting the Gospel in Rome But my Lord I must tell you that there are other Objections to be made against your Church which more condemns her if these were answered Marq. May it please Your Majestie to give me leave to speak a word or two to what I have said and then I shall humbly beg Your further Objections As to that of the Christian Kingdomes shaking off the Roman Yoke and falling to pieces which was so prophesied it should yet the Church should not doe so because it is said it shall remaine in unitie and for Your Majesties objection concerning Simon Zelotes Joseph of Arimathea
shall we not say repentance is a Sacrament If Christ blesseth little children and saith Suffer them to come unto me and forbid them not shall we not say that such confirmation is a Sacrament Truly I doe not understand their meaning They have taken away five which five either by God or Christ or the holy Ghost who are all one were instituted and yet they say they are not Sacraments because they were not instituted by Christ And the two that are left viz. Baptisme and the Lords Supper for the first you hold it necessary to Salvation and for the second you do not admit the reall presence so that of the two remaining you have taken away the necessity of the one and the reality of the other so farwell all Now for Purgatory I do believe we have as good ground for it out of this place of Scripture viz. He shall be purged yet so as if it were by fire as you can prove a Hell out of this place of Scripture He shall be cast into utter darknesse and into the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth Neither can you make more exceptions to our inference out of this place of Scripture to prove Purgatory then the Atheist if wits may be permitted to roame in such things as these once setled and believed generally will find ground enough to quarrell at your burning lake and the vaine Philosopher Contradictions enough in the description of the effects of those hellish Torments viz. weeping and gnashing of teeth the one having its procedure from heat the other from cold which are meer Contradictions and therefore fabulous take heed we doe not take away Hell in removing of Purgatory You see not how your laughing at Purgatory hath caused such laughing at Hell and Devils untill at last you shall see them bid the Heavens come down and pluck the Almighty out of his Throne If a Text of Scripture with the Churches Exposition be not sufficient for a man to rest both his Science and Conscience upon I know not where it will find a resting place it may shoot at Randome but never take so right an ayme and for the silver hooke you talk'd of I do not justifie the abuse of any I know there is a great difference betweene the Court of Rome and the Church of Rome and if these Errours were in the Church it selfe yet the tares must not be hastily pluckt out of the field of the Church lest the wheat be pluckt up with it Now for our praying to Saints there is no body that prayes to any Saints otherwise then as we on earth desire the benefit of one anothers prayers We do not believe that they can help us of themselves or that they have power to forgive sin but we believe that they are nearer to God his favour and more deare unto him and therefore we believe that he will heare them with or for us sooner then he will hear us when we pray upon our own account as we desire the prayers of some good and holy man whom we believe to be so hoping it will be a benefit unto us All that can be said against it is that they do not hear us I will not trouble Your Majestie with the Schoolmens Speculum Creatoris but I shall desire to be plaine When there is joy in heaven over every sinner that repenteth do you think that the Saints which are there are ignorant of the occasion of that joy or do they rejoyce at they know not what If the Saints in heaven do crie How long Lord how long holy and just dost thou not avenge our bloud upon them which dwell upon the earth if they know that their bloud is not yet avenged do they not know when a sinner is converted and if they know the time of conversion do they not know the time of prayer If Abraham knew that there were such men as Moses and the Prophets who was dead so many hundreds of years before their time can we say that they are ignorant think ye that those ministring Angels who are called Intelligencers give them no intelligence or that they gather nothing of intelligence by looking him in the face who is the fulnesse of knowledge and to all these the practice and opinion of so Catholick a Church God can onely forgive sins Christ can onely mediate but Saints whether in heaven or on the earth may intercede for one another Lastly for our worshipping of Images confounded be all they that worshipped them for me God is onely worthy to be worshipped but if I kneel before the Picture of my Saviour I worship him kneeling before his Picture the worship is in the heart and not in the knee and where the true God is in the intention there can be no Idolatrie O Sir Christian Religion is not a Protestation but a Gospel it would better consist with unity then opposition we hold it a peece of popery to knock our owne breasts with the fists of constitution whilst we hold it most Evangelicall to knock at our neighbours with a Cunstables staffe a pious care in a Mother Church labours to educate her own daughter and having fed her at her owne breasts all the gratitude she returns her mother is to call her whore Antichrist Babylon and all the spitefull and vile names that can be imagined they forget that saying of the Apostle St. James If any man among you seeme to be religious and bridleth not his tongue but deceiveth his own heart that mans Religion is in vaine Pure Religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this to visit the fatherlesse and widows in their affliction and to keep himselfe unspotted from the world What should I say more the Scriptures are made a nose of wax for every bold hand to wring it which way he pleaseth they are rejected by private men by whole books The Articles of our Creed are said not to be of the Apostles framing the Commandments not belonging to Christians impossible to be kept the Sacraments denied Charity not onely grown cold but quite starved and they will be sav'd by meanes quite contrary to what the Gospel which they seeme to professe sets down viz. by Faith without good works onely believe and that 's enough whereas the holy Apostle St. James tells us that faith profiteth nothing without good works Here the Marquesse was going on and His Majestie interrupted him King My Lord you let a flood-gate of Arguments out against my naked breast yet it doth not beare me any thing backwards you have spoken a great many things that no way concerns Us but such as we find fault with as much as you and other things to which I could easily give answer If I could take but some of that time and leasure that you have taken to compose your Arguments It is not onely the Picture of our Saviour but the Pictures of Saints which you both worship and adore
our praying to the angells We hold it lawfull saith hee to pray unto them you not We have Scripture for it Gen. 48. 16. The Angell which redeemed me from all evill blesse these Lads c. Hos 12. 4. He had power over the Angell and prevailed he wept and made supplications unto them S. Austine expounding these words of Job 19. 21. Have pitty upon me O yee my friends for the hand of the Lord is upon me saith that holy Job addressed himself to the Angels Answ That it is lawfull to pray unto angels Protestants deny and that justly there being no ground nor warrant for it in the Scripture but much against it For the Scripture every where teacheth and requireth us to pray unto God and to none other Call upon me in the day of trouble Psal 50. 15. After this manner therefore pray yee Our Father c. Mat. 6. 9. When yee pray say our Father c. Luke 11. 2. In the day of my trouble I will call upon thee Psal 85. 7. As for me I will call upon God Psal 55. 16. For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee Psal 32. 6. How shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed Rom. 10. 14. Now wee both professe in the Creed and so are taught in the Scripture to believe onely in God That your faith and hope might be in God 1 Pet. 1. 21. Ye believe in God believe also in me Joh. 14. 1. viz. because Christ who there speakes is God Prayer must proceede from the heart and not from the lips onely Give eare unto my prayer that goeth not out of fained lips Psal 17. 1. Vnto thee O Lord doe I lift up my soule Psal 25. 1. Poure forth your hearts unto him Psal 62. 8. Hannah spake in her heart c. 1 Sam. 1. 13. Now God only knoweth the heart as was shewed before The Fathers were of this minde Tertullian writing of prayer and expounding the Lords Prayer upon the first words of it saith We pray unto God And afterwards in the same book We commend our prayers unto God neither does hee speake of praying unto any other And elsewhere We call upon the Eternall God saith he for the safety of the Emperours And againe more fully to the purpose These things I cannot pray for from any other but from him from whom I know I shall obtaine because he it is who alone doth give them So Cyprian also writing of the Lords Prayer all along supposeth and taketh it for granted that it is God to whom wee must pray Hee saith that to pray otherwise then Christ hath taught us is not only ignorance but a sin also Now Christ hath taught us to pray unto God onely And Cyprian saith that Wee must pray with the heart rather then with the voyce because God heares not so much the voyce as the heart Hee saith that before prayer viz. in the Congregation the people were required to lift up their hearts and they used to answer wee lift them up unto the Lord whereby they were admonished to thinke of nothing but the Lord when they prayed And taxing those that pray negligently How doest thou request that God should heare thee when as thou doest not hear thy self And some of the ancients have proved Christ to be God by this very argument that hee is called upon and prayed unto If Christ be onely man saith Novatian Why is man called upon in prayers as Mediatour seeing that the invocation of a man is judged ineffectuall to afford salvation Though Novatian in some things proved an Heretike yet was hee not an Heretike in this yea Pamelius a Romanist tells us that he wrote this whiles for any thing that appeares he was a Catholik Thus also that great hammer of the Arians Athanasius proved Christ to be consubstantiall to the Fathet by that of the Apostle 1 Thess 3. 11. Now God himselfe and our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you For saith hee none would pray to receive from God and from the Angels or from any of the creatures Neither would any speake in this manner God and an Angell give unto thee But the Apostle askes of the Father and of the Son because of the unity of their nature and the uniforme manner of their giving And immediately after hee answers that place which the Marquesse alledgeth viz. Gen. 48. 16. The Angel that reedemed me from all evill blesse the Lads saying Jacob did not couple any of the created and naturall Angels with God the Creatour neither did he omit God that nourished him and desire a blessing for his nephewes from an Angell But in that he spake expressely of the Angell that redeemed him from all evill he shewed sufficiently that it was none of the created Angells but the Son of the Father whom he in his prayers joyned with the Father by whom God doth redeem whom he pleaseth For he knew him to be the Angell of the Fathers great Counsell neither did he in his words expresse any other but him that doth blesse and redeeme from evill Austine also in his booke of true Religion doth frequently assert that religious worship belongs not unto Angells but to God onely and consequently that Angels are not to be prayed unto Prayer and Invocation being as Bellarmine confesseth a singular kinde of adoration That saith Austine which the highest Angell doth worship is also to be worshipped by the lowest man Let us believe that the best Angels and the most excellent Ministers of God desire this that we together with themselves may worship only God by whose contemplation they are blessed Therefore we honour them with love not with service Rightly therefore is it written that a man was forbidden by an Angell to worship him and was required only to worship God under whom the Angell was mans fellow-servant Behold I worship only God c. Which of the Angells soever doth love this God I am sure doth also love me Therefore let Religion binde us only to the Almighty God Now for the two places of Scripture which the Marquesse objecteth one of them is already answered from Athanasius And the same answer also belongs to the other place viz. Hos 12. 4. the Angell there spoken of is not a created Angell but God himselfe as appeares by the words immediately going before v. 3. He had power with God then followes v. 4. yea he had power over the Angell and prevailed he wept also and made supplications unto him This shewes that God and the Angell there mentioned are one and the same This which the Prophet speaketh of Iacobs making supplications to the Angell hath reference to that Gen. 32. 26. I will not let thee go except thou blesse me as Hierome upon the place observeth Now if Iacob would not desire a blessing for his Nephewes from a created Angell and wee
and light sinnes as idle talking immoderate laughing c. But they of the Church of Rome doe now hold that mortall sinnes as they call them in respect of the punishment are sometimes remitted not here in this World but in the World to come 4. Gregory in that same place saith that the fire which the Apostle speakes of 1 Cor. 3. 13 15. may be understood of the fire of tribulation which is endured in this life What doe our adversaries now gaine by Gregory Hee takes away one principall place that they build upon for Purgatory he alledgeth many places from which by his own confession so much is evinced as indeed cannot consist with Purgatory hee builds upon a place which both in the judgement of other Fathers professedly commenting upon it and also by diverse reasons appeares to make nothing for Purgatory and concerning that Purgatory which he doth hold he comes short of the opinion of our adversaries all which things considered they can get little by his testimony The next and last Father objected against us is Origen whose testimonie if it were most cleare for a Purgatory after this life yet it were of small force he being censured as I have shewed before by Bellarmine as erroneous in this point holding that there shall be a Purgatory even after the day of judgement Yet Bellarmine also thought good to make use of his testimony viz. this He that is saved is saved by fire that if perhaps he have any lead mixed with him the fire may melt and consume it that so all may be made pure Gold Thus I confesse Origen writes in the place which the Marquesse citeth And so also in the same place hee hath these words which though Bellarmine doth not alledge yet some have thought to make for Purgatory and so they do as much as the other All must come to the fire all must come to the Fornace Where in the margent it is noted by Genebrard I suppose who was the overseer of that Edition that Origen speakes of Purgatory But it may easily appeare to any that looke into Origen that neither in these words nor in the other before cited Purgatory is meant by that fire and fornace whith he speakes of but affliction As the fornace saith hee doth try Gold so doth affliction the righteous And speaking of Peter he saith He was not so great nor such an one as that he had no mixture of lead in him He had some though but a little and therefore the Lord said unto him why didst thou doubt O thou of little faith And then immediately follow the words which Bellarmine alledgeth and the Marquesse I presume aimeth at Therefore he that is saved is saved by fire c. What is this to the Romish Purgatory I am confident they will not say that Peter had neede of this Purgatory yet hee had of that which Origen speakes of and so all whosoever they be it being affliction by which here in this life even the best are tried and also purified And thus much for Purgatory in the last place comes extreme unction Lastly saith the Marquesse We hold extreme Vnction to be a Sacrament you neither hold it to be a Sacrament neither do you practise it as a duty We have Scripture for it Jam. 5. 14. Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him in the Name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him Neither any nor all the Sacraments were or could be more effectuall to mens good nor more substantiall in matter nor more exquisite in forme nor more punctuall in the designation of its Ministery other Sacraments being bounded within the limits of the soules onely good this extends it selfe to the good both of soule and body He shall recover from his sicknesse and his sinnes shall be forgiven him And yet it is both left out in your practice and acknowledgement The Fathers are on our side Orig. hom 2. in Levit. Chrys l. 3. de Sacerd. Aug. in Speculo Ser. 215. de temp Vener Bed in 6. Mir. S. Iames and many others As for extreme Unction as they call it that is the anointing of the sick with oyl as the manner is in the Church of Rome Protestants do not acknowledge it to be either a Sacrament or a duty because they see no ground in Scripture either for the one or for the other The Scripture indeed in two places viz. that which the Marquesse citeth and Mar. 6. 13. doth speak of anointing the sick with oyle But that anointing was extraordinary peculiar to those times when there was as other extraordinary gifts bestowed upon men so the gift of healing which is mentioned Mat. 10. 1 8. and 1 Cor. 12. 9 30. in which places of Scripture this gift is ranked with casting out devills speaking with strange tongues and working of miracles And so Mark 6. 13. It is said of the Apostles They cast out many devils and anointed with oyle many that were sick and healed them It is plain that this anointing with oyle was of like nature with casting out of devils that is that it was a miraculous cure wrought by the Apostles And that in Saint Iames was of the same kinde with this in Saint Mark as I shall shew anon But now the gift of healing in that manner being ceased we say that the ceremony is to cease also and not to be used The Marquesse insisteth much upon the words of Saint Iames as being very clear and full to prove both that this anointing is a duty and also that it is a Sacrament And so the Romanists must hold because the Councell of Trent hath determined that the holy anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ our Lord as a Sacrament of the new Testament truly and properly so called and that this Sacrament is insinuated in Mark but commended to the faithfull and promulgated by James the Apostle and the Lords brother And who soever shall gain say this the Councell doth pronounce them accursed But there being two places of Scripture which mention this anointing with oyle it may seem strange that the Marquesse should alledge only the one and wholly wave the other wee shall see I hope by and by that this is as much as to quit both places they being both to one and the same purpose The Councell of Trent we see thought good to make use of both yet so as to lay the more weight upon that in Iames saying only that the Sacrament of anointing is insinuated in the other And so Bellarmine doth mainly build upon the words of Iames yet so as that he will have the words of Saint Mark to contain in them a figure and adumbration of this Sacrament which they call extreme Unction Let us
dici in quibusdam locis sacrae Scripturae ab i is quae in aliis locis aperta perspicua sunt explicantur Hom 13. in Gen. Those things which may seeme to be ambiguous and obscure in certaine places of the holy Scripture must be explicated from those places which else-where are plain and manifest Augustinus Ille qui cor habet quod precisum est iungat Scripturae legat superiora vel inferiora inveniet sensum Let him who hath a precise heart joyne it unto the Scriptures and let him observe what goes before and that which follows after and he shall find out the sense Gregorius saith Ser. 49. De verbis Domini Per Scripturam loquitur Deus omne quod vult voluntas dei sicut in testamento sic in evangelio inquiratur By Scripture God speaks his whole mind and the will of God as in the old Testament so in the new is to be found out Optatus contra Parmenonem lib. 5. Num quis aequior arbiter veritatis divinae quam Deus aut ubi deus manifestius loquitur quam in verbo suo Is there a better judge of the divine verity then God himselfe or where doth God more manifestly declare himselfe then in his owne word What breath shall we believe then but that which is the breath of God the holy Scriptures for it seems all one to Saint Paul to say dicit Scriptura the Scripture saith Rom. 4. 3. and dicit Deus the Lord saith Rom. 9. 17. The Scripture hath concluded all under sin Gal. 3. 22. for that which Rom. 11. 32. he saith God hath concluded all c. how shall we otherwise conclude then but with the Apostle 1 Cor. 2. 12. have received not the spirit of the world but the spirit which is of God that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God They who know not this spirit do deride it but this spirit is hidden Manna Apo. 2. 17. which God giveth them to eat who shall overcome it is the white stone wherein the new name is written which no man knoweth but he that received it Wherefore we see the Scripture is the rule by which all differences may be composed it is the light wherein we must walke the food of our souls an antidote that expels any infection the onely sword that kils the enemy the onely plaster that can cure our wounds and the onely documents that can be given towards the attainment of everlasting salvation The Marquesses reply to the Kings Paper May it please your most excellent Majesty YOur Majestie is pleased to wave all the marks of the true Church and to make recourse unto the Scriptures I humbly take leave to aske your Majesty what heretique that ever was did not doe so How shall the greatest heretique in the world be confuted or censured if any man may be permitted to appeale to Scriptures margind with his own notes senc'd with his owne meaning and enlivened with his owne private spirit to what end were those marks so fully both by the Prophets the Apostles and our Saviour himselfe set downe if we make no use of them To what use are land-marks set up if Marriners will not believe them to be such Yet notwithstanding after that I have said what I have to say in removall of certain obstacles that lie in the way I shall lead your Majesty to my Church through the full body of the Scriptures or not at all and then I shall leave it to your royall heart to judge when you shall see that we have Scripture on our side whether or no the interpretation thereof be likelier to be true that hath been adjudged so by Councels renowned Fathers famous for sanctity and holinesse of life continued for the space of a thousand or twelve hundred years by your owne confession universally acknowledged or that such a one as Luther his word shall be taken either without Scripture or against it with sic volo and sic jubeo a man who confessed himselfe that he received his doctrine from the Devil or such a one as Calvin and their associates notoriously infamous in their lives and conversations plain Rebels to their Moses and Aaron united to the same person should counter ballance all the worthies determinations of Councels and the continued practice which so many ages produced If your Majestie meanes by the Church all the professors of the Gospel all that are Christians are so the true Church then we are so in your owne sense and you in ours then none who believe in the blessed Trinity the Articles of the Creed none who deny the Scriptures to be the word of God let them construe them as they please can be hereticall or of a wrong Religion therefore we must contradistinguish them thus and by the Protestant Church and Religion we must understand those opinions which the Protestants hold contrary to the Church of Rome and by the Romane the opinions which they hold dissenting from the Protestant and then we will see whether we have Scripture for our Religion or not and whether you have Scripture for what you maintaine and whose opinions are most approved of by the Primitive times and Fathers and what ground your late Divines have built their new opinions upon and then I shall give you Majestie an answer to the objection which you make against our Church viz. That she hath forsaken her first love and fallen from the principles which she held when she converted us to Christianity But first to the removall of those rubs in our way and then I shall shew as much reverence to the Scripture as any Protestant in the world and shall endeavour to shew your Majesty that the Scriptures are the Basis or foundation upon which our Church is built Your Majesty was pleased to urge the errors of certaine Fathers to the prejudice of their authority which I conceive would have been so had they been all Montanists Rebaptists all Anthropomorphists and all of them generally guilty of the faults wherewith they were severally charged in the particulars seeing that when we produce a Father we doe not intend to produce a man in whose mouth was never found guile the infallibility being never attributed by us otherwise then unto the Church not unto particular Church-men as Your Majesty hath most excellently observed in the failings of the holy Apostles who erred after they had received the holy Ghost in so ample manner but when they were all gathered together in Councell and could send about their edicts with these capitall letters in the front Visum est spiritui sancto nobis Acts 15. 28. then I hope your Majesty cannot say that it was possible for them to erre So though the Fathers might erre in particulars yet those particular errors would be swallowed up in a generall Councel and be no more considerable in respect of the whole then so many heat-drops of error can stand in competition with a cloud
away have made shipwrack of their faith This is frequently affirmed amongst the Fathers see S. Aug de gratia lib. arbit de correp gratia ad articulos We hold that God did never inevitably damn any man before he was born or as you say from all eternity you say he did we have Scripture for what we say Wis 1. 13. God made not death neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living 1 Tim. 2. 34. God our Saviour who will have all men to be saved 2 Pet. 3. 9. The Lord is not willing that any should die but that all should come to repentance and if you will not believe when he saies so believe him when he swears it As I live saith the Lord I doe not delight in the death of a sinner The Fathers are of our opinion S. Aug. lib. 1. Civit. Dei Tertul. Orat. cap. 8. Saint Cypr. lib. 4. Epist 2. and Saint Amb. lib. 2. de Cani Abel We hold that no man ought infallibly to assure himselfe of his salvation you say he ought the Scripture saith we ought not 1 Cor. 9. 27. S. Paul was not assured but that whilst he preached unto others he himselfe might become a cast-away Rom. 11. 20. Thou standest in the faith be not high-minded but fear c. least thou also maist be cut off Phil. 2. 12. Worke out your salvation with fear and trembling The Fathers are of our opinion Amb Ser. 5. in Psal 118. S. Basil in Constil Monast chap. 2. S. Hier lib. 2. Advers Pelagian S. Crysost Hom. 87. in Joan. S. Aug in Psal 40. S. Bernard Ser. 3. de Advent and Ser. 1. de Sept. saith Who can say I am of the Elect We say that every man hath an Angel guardian you say he hath not we have Scripture for it viz. Mat. 18. 10. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones for I say unto you that in heaven their Angels doe alwaies behold the face of my Father Acts 12. 13. S. Peter knocking at the door they say it is his Angel they believed this in the Apostles time the Fathers believed it along S. Greg. Dial. lib. 4. cap. 58. S. Athanas de Communi Essentia S. Chrys Hom. 2. in ep ad Colos lib. 6. de Sacer. Greg. Turonens lib. de gloria Martyr S. Aug. ep ad Probam cap. 19. and S. Jer. upon these words Their Angels Mat 17. 10. calls it a great dignity which every one hath from his Nativity We say the Angels pray for us knowing our thoughts and deeds you deny it we have Scripture for it Zach. 1. 9 10 11 12. Then the Angel of the Lord answered and said O Lord of Hosts how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the Cities of Judah against whom thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years Apoc. 8. 4. And the smoake of the incense of the prayers of the Saints ascended from the hand of the Angel before the Lord. This place was so understood by Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. and S. Hillary in Psal 129. tells us This intercession of Angels Gods nature needeth not but our infirmities doe So S. Amb. lib. de viduis Victor utic lib. 3. de persecutione Vandalorum We hold it lawfull to pray unto them you not we have Scripture for it Gen. 48. 16. The Angel which redeemed me from all evill blesse these lads c. Hosea 12. 4. He had power over the Angel and prevailed he wept and made supplications unto them Saint Augustine expounding these words of Job 19. 21. Have pitty upon me O ye my friends for the hand of the Lord is upon me saith that holy Job addressed himselfe to the Angels We hold that the Saints deceased know what passeth here on earth you say they know not we have Scripture for it Luke 16. 29. where Abraham knew that there were Moses and the Prophets Books here on earth which he himselfe had never seen when he was alive The Fathers say as much Euseb Ser. de Ann. S. Hier. in Epit. Paulae S. Maxim Ser. de S. Agnete We say they pray for us you not we have Scripture for it Apoc. 5. 8. The twenty four Elders fell downe before the Lambe having every one of them Harpes and golden Viols full of odours which are the prayers of the Saints Baruch 3. 4. O Lord Almighty thou God of Israel hear now the prayers of the dead Israelites The Fathers were of this opinion S. Aug. Ser. 15. de verbis Apost S. Hilar. in Psal 129. S. Damas lib. 4. de fide cap. 16. We hold that we may pray to them you not we have Scripture for it Luke 16. 24. Father Abraham have mercy on me and send Lazarus c. You bid us shew one proof for the lawfulnesse hereof when here are two Saints pray'd unto in one verse and though Dives were in Hell yet Abraham in Heaven would not have expostulated with him so much without a non nobis Domine if it had been in it selfe a thing not lawfull You will say it is a parable yet a jury of ten Fathers of the grand inquest as Theophil Tertul. Clem. Alex. S. Chrys S. Jer. S. Amb. S. Aug. S. Greg. Euthem and Ven. Beda give their verdict that it was a true History but suppose it were a parable yet every parable is either true in the persons named or else may be true in some others The Holy Ghost tells no lies nor fables nor speaks not to us in parables consisting either of impossibilities or things improbable Job 5. 1. Call now if there be any that will answer thee and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne It had been a frivolous thing in Eliphaz to have asked Job the question if invocation of Saints had not been the practise of that time The Fathers affirme the same S. Diony c. 7. S. Athan. Ser. de Anunt S. Basil Orat. 44. in Mat. S. Chrys Hom. 66. ad Popul S. Hier. pray'd to S. Paula in Epitaph S. Paulae S. Maximus to S. Agnes Ser. de S. Agnete S. Bern. to our blessed Lady We hold Confirmation necessary you not we have Scripture for it Acts 8. 14. Peter and John prayed for them that they might receive the holy Ghost for as yet he was fallen upon none of them onely they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Then laid they their hands on them and they received the holy Ghost Where we see the holy Ghost was given in Confirmation which was not given in Baptisme also Heb. 6. 1. Therefore leaving the principles of the Doctrine of Christ let us go on unto perfection not laying againe the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God of Baptisme and of Laying on of hands The Fathers affirme the same Tert. lib. de Resurrect Carn S. Pacian lib. de Bapt. S. Amb. lib. de Sac. S. Hier. Cont. Lucif S. Cypr. lib. 2. Ep. 1. speaking both of
conversion so as to convert meer Infidels yet in the other kinde viz. in converting mis-believers they have done much This the Marquesse pag. 44. is pleased to call perversion rather then conversion but that must be judged by the consideration of the Doctrines held by Protestants As for those conversions wrought in the Indies by the Romanists we may well conceive that it was not so much the word preached by the Jesuits as the sword brandished by the Spaniards that did worke them Franciscus de Victoria a learned Writer among the Papists writing of the Indians saith he did not see that the Christian faith was so propounded and declared to them as that under the guilt of a new sin they were bound to embrace it He heard he sayes of no Miracles and Signes that were wrought nor of very good examples of life that were given but on the contrary of many scandalous acts and many impieties Whereupon he conceiveth that Christian religion was not so conveniently and properly preached to that barbarous people as that they were bound to acquiesce in it though he grants that there were many religious and other Ecclesiasticall men who both by life and example and also by diligent preaching did sufficiently doe their indeavour but that they were hindred by others who minded other matters Thus I have as briefly as I could gone over the markes which the Marquesse assigneth of the true Church and that because he saith that his Majesty did wave them all whereas indeed his Majesty did not wholly wave them though as his occasions would not suffer him to return any answer at all to the Marquesses reply so neither would they it's likely permit him to answer the former Paper so fully as otherwise he would have done Whereas the Marquesse saith that His Majesty is pleased to make recourse unto the Scriptures This is surely the course that all ought to follow that wil discusse matters of Religion they ought to have recourse to the Scriptures by which all such matters are to be tried and determined To the Law and to the testimony saith the Prophet Esay if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Augustine speaking of the Donatists bade let them shew their Church onely by the Canonicall bookes of the Scriptures professing that he would not have any to beleeve that he was in the true Church because of the commendation that Optatus Ambrose and many others did give of it And againe Let us not heare saith he Thus say I thus sayest thou but let us heare Thus saith the Lord. Let those things be removed out of the way which we alledge one against another otherwise then from the Bookes of Canonicall Scripture I will not have the holy Church demonstrated by humane tokens but by divine Oracles But saith the Marquesse What Heretick that ever was did not do so How shall the greatest Heretick in the World be confuted or censured if any man may be permitted to appeale to Scriptures margin'd with his own notes sens'd with his owne meaning and enlivened with his owne private spirit to what end were those markes so fully both by the Prophets the Apostles and our Saviour himselfe set down if we make no use of them Answ 1. Though Hereticks make recourse unto Scripture it follows not that therefore this is not the course which ought to be followed or that therefore they are Hereticks that doe it The Marquesse himselfe did make recourse unto Scripture in setting down the markes of the true Church and so also doth he in handling sundry points in controversie betwixt Papists and Protestants This course therefore himselfe being Judge is not to be condemned neither certainly is it however Hereticks may abuse it Though Hereticks will alledge Scripture in defence of their Heresics yet are they neverthelesse to be confuted by Scripture The Sadduces thought by Scripture to overthrow the resurrection yet by Scripture did our Saviour convince them Mat. 22. 23. 32. Yea when the Devill himselfe did cite Scripture our Saviour did not therefore dislike it but made use of it for the resisting of Satan and the repelling of his temptation Mat. 4. 6 7. 2. It 's true none may appeal to Scriptures margin'd with their own Notes sens'd with their own meaning and enliven'd with their own private spirit It 's to no purpose to alledge Scripture except that sense in which it is alledged may be made good by Scripture The Jewish Rabbin as Master Selden cites him saith well All interpretation of Scripture which is not grounded upon the Scripture is vaine But what this makes against his Majesties making recourse unto the Scriptures or against any mans taking that course in disputes of this nature I doe not see For that his Majesty did so make recourse unto Scripture the Marquesse doth not say neither ought any man to be charged in this kind except it can be proved that he is indeed guilty 3. It doth not yet appear that the particulars before mentioned viz. Universality Antiquity Visibility Succession of Pastours Unity in Doctrine and Conversion of Nations that these I say were set down either by our Saviour or his Apostles or the Prophets as marks of the True Church at least so as to make any thing for the Marquesses purpose viz. to prove the Church of Rome to be the True Church Your Majesty was pleased to urge the Errours of certain Fathers to the prejudice of their Authority Which I conceive would have been so had they been all Montanists Rebaptists all Anthropomorphists and all of them generally guilty of the faults wherewith they were soverally charged in the particulars seeing that when we produce a Father we doe not intend to produce a man in whose mouth was never found guile the infallibility being never attributed by us otherwise then unto the Church not unto particular Church men As your Majesty hath most excellently observed in the failings of the holy Apostles who erred after they had received the Holy Ghost in so ample manner But when they were all gathered together in Councell and could send about their Edicts with these Capitall Letters in the Front Visum est Sipritui Sancto nobis Act. 15. 28. then I hope your Majesty cannot say that it was possible for them to Erre So though the Fathers might erre in particulars yet those particular Errours would be swallowed up in a Generall Councell c. Here the Marquesse grants that the Fathers singly and severally considered may erre but not if gathered together in a generall Councell But first doth not this invalidate the authority of the Fathers when they are severally cited as they are in this Reply frequently by the Marquesse Indeed here presently after he addes Neither is a particular defection in any man any exception against his testimony except it be in the thing wherein he is deficient But certainly if a man be liable to
Holy Ghost could Erre For then there were no room for that inference That Truth is no where to be found but in Holy Scripture 2. His Majesty spake not of any private Spirit but of the Spirit of God leading us into all Truth alledging that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 2. 12. We have received not the spirit of the world but the spirit which is of God that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God It 's true if any under pretence of the Spirit goe contrary to the Word as too many doe whether they be particular Persons or generall Councells that doe so it is a private Spirit viz. their owne Spirit that they are guided by Therefore Saint Iohn bids Believe not every spirit but trie the spirits whether they be of God because many false Prophets many that falsly pretend the Spirit are gone out into the world 1 Iohn 4. 1. But whoever they be that goe according to the Word though they be particular and private persons yet it is not their own particular and private Spirit but the Spirit of God that doth guide them The Scripture was given by inspiration of God 2 Tim. 3. 16. Therefore it is Gods Spirit and not Mans that doth speak in and by the Scriptures Lastly as to your Majesties quotation of so many Fathers for the Scriptures easinesse and plainnesse to be understand If the Scriptures themselves doe tell us that they are hard to be understood c. 1. His Majesty did not quote many Fathers nor any at all to prove that the Scriptures are every where plain and easie to be understood but to shew that the Scriptures are their own interpreters which are His Majesties words pag. 50. To prove this which is a most certain truth His Majesty quoted indeed many Fathers as Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Crysostome Basil Austine Gregory and Optatus The Scriptures quoted by the Marquesse make nothing against this viz. 2 Pet. 3. 16. Act. 8. 31. not as it is mis-printed 13. Luke 24. 25. rather 45. Apoc. 5. 4. where not the Angel as the Marquesse saith but Iohn wept because none was found worthy to open and to read the Book Neither doth it appear that by the Book there mentioned is meant the Scripture as the Marquesse seemeth to suppose And so indeed many have thought as the Jesuit Ribera telleth us who yet neverthelesse professeth that he did not see how historically this could be For this Book was shut and sealed as he observes untill that time that Iohn had this Revelation when as all the other Apostles were deceived so that the Scripture if it were the Book there spoken of was alwayes shut to Peter and Paul and the other Apostles The other places I grant do shew that in the Scriptures there are some things obscure and difficult at least to some but this is nothing against the Scriptures being their own interpreters What is obscure in one place must be cleared by some other place or else without extraordinary revelation I see not how we should attain to the understanding of it No need therefore to put those sayings of the Fathers cited by His Majesty among the Errata's that are behind their Books as the Marquesse speaketh pag. 57. where he addes Or else we must look out some other meaning of their words than what your Maj hath inferred from thence as thus they were easie in aliquibus locis but not in omnibus locis or thus they were easie as to the attainment of particular salvation but not as to the generall cognizance of all the Divine Mystery therein contained c. But this is nothing contrary to his Majesties inference which was only this That the Scriptures are their own Interpreters i. e. that Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture not that the Scriptures are clear in all points and in all places it sufficeth that which the Marquesse himselfe doth seeme to yeild they are clear in those things which concern Salvation And this was Austines determination In those things saith he which are plainly set down in the Scriptures are found all those things which concern faith and good life Yea so much the Scripture doth testimony of it self The testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple Psal 19. 7. The entrance of thy words giveth light it giveth understanding to the simple Psal 119. 130. From a child thou hast known the Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation c. 2 Tim. 3. 15. First we hold the reall presence you deny it we say his Body is there you say there is nothing but bare Bread we have Scripture for it Mat. 20. for 26. 26. Take eat this is my Body So Luke 22. 19. This is my Body which is given for you Here the Marquesse comes to performe that which before he promised pag. 53 54. viz. to shew that in those points wherein they and we differ the Scriptures are on their side and not on ours And he begins with the controversie about the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper alledging those words This is my Body as a clear proof of their opinion viz. that after Consecration there is no longer the substance of Bread but that the Bread is transubstantiated and turned into the substance of Christs Body But doth it appear that those words This is my Body are to be understood properly any more than those Gen. 17. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee every man-child among you shall be circumcised There Circumcision is called Gods Covenant whereas properly it was not the Covenant it self but the token of the Covenant as it is called immediately after ver 11. So Exod. 12. 13. and in other places the Lamb is called the Lords Passeover whereas properly it was not the Passeover but a Token of the Passeover being slain and eaten in remembrance of the Lords passing over the houses of the Israelites when he saw the First-born of the Aegyptians Exod. 12. 13. And thus also it 's said 1 Cor. 10. 4. that the Rock was Christ How could that be Not in respect of Substance but in respect of Signification the Rock signified Christ was a Type and a Figure of Christ Bellarmine I know doth indeavour to elude all these instances as if the speeches were not Figurative but Proper To that place concerning Circumcision he answereth that both Speeches are proper viz. Circumcision is the Covenant and Circumcision is the Token of the Covenant Circumcision he saith was the Token of the Covenant as the Covenant is taken for Gods Promise and it was also the Covenant it self as the Covenant is taken for the Instrument whereby the Promise is applyed But here Bellarmine is contrary both to himself and to Reason He is contrary to himselfe for a little before he saith that these words Circumcision is the Token
of the Covenant Gen. 17. 11. are an Explication of that which went before ver 10. viz. that Circumcision is the Covenant Now if the one be an Explication of the other then needs must the word Covenant be taken alike in both He is also contrary unto Reason for it is absurd to say that a Covenant doth properly signifie both a Promise and also an Instrument whereby the Promise is applyed As well may one say that Christs Body doth properly signifie both his Body and also the Sacrament of his Body A Covenant in the very nature of it being properly taken doth signifie a Promise and therefore the instrument whereby it is applyed cannot properly be the Covenant but onely the Token Pledge and Assurance of it It may as well be said that a Covenant may have two diverse and distinct natures as that a Covenant can be taken two diverse and distinct wayes and yet be taken properly both the one way and the other To those words It viz. the Lamb is the Lords passeover Exod. 12. 11. Bellarmine answers that the Speech is not Figurative but Proper The Lamb he saith was properly the Lords Passeover and mark his Reason Quia agnus immolabatur in memoriam illius transitus that is Because the Lamb was slain or sacrificed in memory of that passeover or passing over Now what greater absurdity can there be then this which here Bellarmine doth fall into He alledgeth that as a Reason of his assertion which indeed doth quite overthrow it For if the Lamb were slaine and sacrificed in memory of the Lords Passeover or passing over then was it not properly the Passeover it self but only a Signe and Memoriall of it As for those words 1 Cor. 10. 4. The Rock was Christ Bellarmine saith that not a Materiall but a Spirituall work is there meant and that therefore though the word Rock be taken Figuratively yet the proposition it selfe The Spirituall Rock was Christ is not figuratively but properly taken But it is evident that the Rock spoken of by the Apostle was a materiall Rock a Rock of Stone For the Apostle speaketh of a Rock which the Israelites drank of They drank of that Rock saith he Now that Rock which the Israelites drank of was a materiall Rock a Rock of Stone as Moses doth shew Exod. 17. and Numb 20. Austin never questioned this to be the meaning of the Apostles words After a sort saith he all things signifying seeme to be instead of those things which they signifie as it is said by the Apostle The Rocke was Christ because that Rock of which that is spoken did indeed signifie Christ These words of that learned Father are very remarkable that onely for the understanding of that particular place of Scripture but also for the determining of the maine Controversie betwixt us and our Romane Adversaries For he not onely saith that the Rock is said to have been Christ because it did signifie Christ supposing and taking it as granted that the Apostle spake of a materiall Rock but also he saith that after a sort all things signifying are instead of the things signified by them and therefore are called by the same names If our adversaries would minde this rule they would soon see that they have no cause to insist upon those words This is my Body and to urge the proper sense of them But for these words The Rock was Christ Bellarmine argueth that a materiall Rock is not there meant because the Apostle calleth it a spirituall Rock I answer so the Apostle there calleth Manna spirituall meat yet was Manna a materiall thing onely it had a spirituall signification And so also was the Rock a materiall Rock onely it 's called spirituall for the same reason Bellarmine objects that a materiall Rock did not follow the Israelites as the Apostle saith that the Rock did which hee speakes of for they dranke saith he of that spirituall Rock that followed them I answer 1. The materiall Rock may be said to have followed them that is to have satisfied their desire of water Thus as Beza observes Photius a Greek Author doth expound it and so also as Pareus testifies Lyra and Dionysius two Romish expositors Bellarmine notes Peter Martyr as thus expounding it neither hath he any thing against this exposition but only that the Greek Fathers and Erasmus interpret the word used by the Apostle comitante i. e. accompanying But this is nothing for they might meane accompanying in a metaphoricall sense viz. in respect of satisfying the desire Againe the Rock may be said to have followed the Israelites in that the water flowing forth of the Rock did follow them Genebrard a great man of the Romish party commenting upon those words Psal 78. 15. He clave the Rocks in the Wildernesse c. saith that the Septuagint and the vulgar Latine interpreter have it in the singular number Rock because by the Hebrew traditions there was but one Rock which was smitten and so sent forth water at severall times and in severall places and that this Rock did remove with the Israelites and follow them in their travells through the Wildernesse And this he saith is agreable to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. 4. But this is over Rabbinicall and therfore he addes that the Rock may be said to have followed the Israelites that is that the water which flowed out of the Rock did follow them either in that they themselves by their own art and industrie did derive and bring it to the place where they camped or that it was effected by Gods transmission and direction Bellarmine objects that a little after the Israelites did want water againe as as we read Num. 20. and therefore the water did not follow them But that want of water spoken of Num. 20. was not a little after but a long time after the other mentioned Exod. 17. For that in Exodus was the Israelites camped in Rephidim not long after they came out of Egypt and the other was when they camped in Kadesh in the fourtieth yeare after they left Egypt as is noted in the Hebrew Chronicle called Seder Olam cap. 9. Compare Numbers 33. 14. with 36. Genebrard in the place before cited meetes with this Objection that Bellarmine makes and answers that according to the Rabbins both ancient and moderne that which is recorded Num. 20. is meant of the same Rock that is spoken of Exod. 17. the water whereof they say did faile because of Miriams death which happened there in Kadesh untill upon the peoples murmuring againe it was drawn out of the same Rock the second time This conceit of the Rabbines is far from pleasing me onely I note how little force Bellarmines objection was of with his own copartner Genebrard Indeed this is enough to shew the vanity of the objection that as Genebrard notes the want of water in Kadesh was 38. years after that in Rephidim and therefore was not as Bellarmine
sayes a little after But though it had not been one halfe quarter of that time before the Israelites wanted water againe yet that is no argument why the Apostle speaking of the Rock that followed them should not meane a materiall and visible Rock for the materiall and visible Rock that is the water that flowed from it might follow the Israelites though but for while even so long as they encamped in Rephidim neither doth the Apostle say that it followed them either perpetually or for any long time but onely that it followed them But howsoever it be understood that the Rock followed them which I confesse is somewhat obscure how by the Rock there should be meant Christ as the efficient cause giving them water to drinke For to drinke of the Rock is there expressed in the same phrase as to drinke of the Cup 1 Cor. 11. 28. Neither I thinke can one in any congruity be said to drinke of a man that giveth him either water or any thing else to drinke but onely to drinke either of the liquour or metonymically of that wherein the liquour is contained Finally Bellarmine himselfe doth acknowledge that the materiall Rock which afforded the Israelites water to drinke was a figure of Christ and that the water proceeding from that Rock was a figure of Christs Blood onely he denies that so much is meant by the Apostle in those words they dranke of the spirituall Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ But I demand then from what place of Scripture if not from those words of the Apostle can so much bee gathered Iansenius a learned Romanist is more candid and free then Bellarmine for expounding the Parable of the sower he saith that the word is as when it is said The seed is the word of God c. Luke 8. 11. is put for signifieth as also there where it is said And the Rock was Christ And so also say we when 't is said This is my Body the meaning is This doth signifie my Body or This is a Signe a Token a Seal a Pledge of my Body The Lord saith Austine doubted not to say This is my Body when he gave the Signe of his Body And again speaking of those words Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his Bloud ye have no life in you Ioh. 6. 53. he saith That Christ seemeth to command some hainous act or some grosse wickednesse And that therefore it is a figurative speech requiring us to communicate with the Lords sufferings and sweetly and profitably to keep in memory that his flesh was Crucified and wounded for us And yet again He that is at enmity with Christ saith he doth neither eat his Flesh nor drink his Bloud although to the condemnation of his presumption he daily receive the Sacrament of so great a thing as well as others These saying of Austin doe sufficiently shew how he understood those words This is my Body and how far he was from being of the now-Romane Faith concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament Indeed these very words This is my Body which our Adversaries pretend to make so much for them are most strong against them and enough to throw down Transubstantiation For Christ saying This is my Body what is meant by the word This They of the Church of Rome cannot agree about it but some say one thing some another only by no means they will have Bread to be meant by it For they very well know that so their Transubstantiation were quite overthrown But look into the Scripture and mind it well and see if any thing else but Bread can be meant by the word This. It 's said Mat. 26. 26. Iesus took Bread and blessed it brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take eat This is my Body What is here meant by the word This What is it that Christ calls his Body That which he bade the Disciples take and eate And what was that That which he gave unto them And what was that That which he brake And what was that That which he blessed And what was that That which he took And what was that Bread For so expresly the Evangelist tells us that Iesus took Bread So then it was Bread that Christ took and Bread that he blessed and Bread that he brake and Bread that he gave to the Disciples and Bread that he bade them take and eat and Bread of which he spake saying This is my Body As if he should say This Bread which I have taken and blessed and broken and given unto you to eat even this Bread is my Body Now the word This relating unto Bread the speech must needs be Figurative and cannot be Proper For properly Bread cannot be Christs Body Bread and Christs Body being things of diverse and different natures and so it being impossible that properly one should be the other As when Christ called Herod a Fox and the Pharisees Serpents and Vipers the speeches are not Proper but Figurative so is it when he called Bread his Body it being no more possible that Bread should be the Body of Christ in propriety of speech then that a man should properly be a Fox a Serpent a Viper Besides doth not the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. speaking of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper continually call it Bread even after Consecration Indeed to distinguish it from ordinary and common Bread he calls it This Bread but yet still Bread the same in substance though not the same in use as before And which is worthy to be observed thus the Apostle calls it viz. Bread when he sharply reproves the Corinthians for their unworthy receiving of the Sacrament setting before them the grievousnesse of the sin and the greatnesse of the danger that they did incur by it Now what had been more forcible and effectuall to this end than for the Apostle if he had been of the Romish Faith to have told them that now it was not Bread though it seemed unto them to be so but that the substance of the Bread was gone and instead thereof was come the very substance of Christs Body He saith indeed That whoso eat that Bread and drink the Cup of the Lord unworthily are guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord But that is because that Bread and that Cup i. e. the Wine in the Cup are by the Lords own institution Signes and Seales of the Lords Body and Bloud so that the unworthy receiving of them is an indignity done to the things signified by them But to return to the Marquesse he citeth sundry passages in Iohn 6. where our Saviour speakes of eating his flesh and drinking his blood calling himselfe Bread living Bread and affirming that his Flesh is meat indeed and his Blood drinke indeed But all this is farre from proving that reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament which the Marquesse doth contend for For 1.
he did declare who he was For if none can forgive sinnes but onely God and the Lord Christ did forgive them then it is manifest that he was the Word of God made the Son of Man c. and that as God he hath mercy on us and doth forgive us our debts which we owe unto God our Maker Accordingly also Ambrose another of those Fathers whom the Marquesse maketh to be of their opinion Whereas saith he Iewes say that onely God can forgive sinnes they doe indeed confesse Christ to be God and by their judgement bewray their perfidiousnesse c. They have a testimony for Christs Divinity they have no Faith for their owne Salvation Therefore great is the madnesse of the unbelieving people that when as they confesse that it belongs onely unto God to forgive sinnes yet they doe not beleeve God when he forgiveth sins So by this Argument the same Father proves the Holy Ghost to be God because he forgiveth Sins For that none can forgive sinnes but onely God as it is written Who can forgive sinnes but only God Thus Ambrose cites that saying of the Scribes as a most undoubted truth How then have Ministers power to forgive Sins In that the word of reconciliation is committed unto them 2 Cor. 5. 19. in that they are to preach remission of sinnes in Christs name Luk. 24. 47. Be it known unto you that through this man viz. Christ is preached unto you forgivenesse of sinnes said Paul Act. 13. 38. Ambrose observes that Christ first said to his Apostles Receive ye the holy Ghost and then Whose sins ye remit they are remitted Whence he gathers that it is the holy Ghost that doth indeed forgive Sins Men saith he doe onely afford their Ministery for the forgivenesse of sinnes they doe not exercise the authority of any power Neither doe they forgive sins in their Name but in the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Lombard called the Master of the Sentences and of School-divinity disputing this Question and shewing diverse Opinions about it determines thus That God only doth remit and retain sins and that yet God hath given power to the Church to bind and loose But that God himself doth bind and loose one way and the Church another way That God by himself alone doth forgive sinne so as to clense the soul from staine and to free it from the guilt of eternall death That he hath not given this power to Priests to whom yet he hath given power to loose and bind that is to declare men to be loosed or bound Whence our Lord first by himselfe made the Leper sound and then sent him to the Priests that they might declare him to be clean And hence he inferres that a Minister of the Gospell hath such power in remitting or retaining sins as the Priest in the Law had in clensing a Leper The Priest was said to make the Leper clean or unclean so the words are in the Originall Levit. 13. when he did pronounce and declare him to be clean or unclean So Ministers remit or retain sinnes when they pronounce and declare that sins are remitted or retained of God And in this Lombard followed Hierome who as his words cited by Lombard doe shew by this very similitude of the Leviticall Priest dealing with a Leper illustrates and sets forth the manner how a Minister doth now remit or retain sins Thus then I hope it may sufficiently appear that in this point both Scriptures and Fathers are for us and not against us as the Marquesse would have it We hold that we ought to confesse our sins unto our ghostly Father this ye deny saying that ye ought not to confesse your sins but unto God alone This we prove by Scripture Mat. 3. 5 6. Then went out Jerusalem and all Judea and were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sinnes This confession was no generall confession but in particular as appeares Acts 19. 18 19. And many that beleeved came and confessed and shewed their deeds The Fathers affirme the same c. For Confession of Sinnes Protestants doe not say that they ought not to confesse to any but God onely though they hold that ordinarily it sufficeth to confesse onely unto God and that there is no necessity of confessing to any other whereas they of the Church of Rome will have it necessary for every one man to confesse unto a Priest all his deadly sinnes and such indeed are all sinnes whatsoever without the mercy of God in Christ Rom. 6. 23. Gal. 3. 10. which by diligent examination he can find out together with all the severall circumstances whereby they are aggravated Thus hath the Councell of Trent decreed it And nothing will suffice to procure one that is Baptized remission of Sins without this Confession either in Re actually performed or in Voto in desire as Bellarmine doth expound it Who also stickes not to say that in all the Scripture there seems not to be any promise of for givenesse of sinnes made to those that confesse their sins unto God Which is a most impudent Assertion For David having said I acknowledged my sinne unto thee and mine iniquity have I not hid I said I will confesse my transgressions unto the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sinne he addes immediately for this shall every one that is godly make his prayer unto thee c. Psal 32. 5 6. Besides Aquinas and Bonaventure two prime Schoolemen hold that under the Law it was not ordinarily required of people to confesse in particular unto a Priest Bonaventure also cites Austine saying Oblatio sacrificiorum fuit confessio peccatorum The offering of sacrifices was the confession of sinnes whence hee inferreth that therefore it seemes there was no other confessing of sinnes but the offering of Sacrifices For those two places of Scripture cited by the Marquesse neither they nor any other doe speake of such a confession as they of the Church of Rome doe contend for Bellarmine holds that their Sacramentall confession as they call it viz. that confession which they make a part of the Sacrament of penance was not instituted till after Christs Resurrection and therefore he sayes it is no marvell if as Ambrose observes we reade of Peters teares but not of his confession That the Jewes therefore when they were baptized of Iohn confessed their sinnes Mat. 3. 5 6. is not enough to prove that confession which we now dispute of although it did appeare that the confession there spoken of was a particular confession which yet appeares not Cardinall Cajetane saith it was but a generall confession Neither indeed in probability could it be any more for how should Iohn have been able to heare such multitudes as came unto him to be baptized Ierusalem and all Iudea and all the region round about Iordan Mat. 3. 5. confesse all their sinnes in
a remedy Tertullian makes no mention of secret confession of sins as Rhenanus observes who conceiveth that secret confession did arise from publick confession people of their owne accord confessing secret sinnes secretly as they used to confesse open sins openly For saith he We no where read that this secret confession was injoyned he means by the Ancients One Father more there is whom the Marquesse here citeth namely Chrysostome lib. 3. de Sacerdot So Bellarmine having alledged something out of the former book of Chrysostome bids see also the third book But no doubt if there had been any thing more for Bellarmines purpose in the third book then in the second he would have been so good as to have set it before us Now the very words of Chrysostome as Bellarm cites out of lib. 2. de sacerd do shew that he speaks not of a necessity lying upon all to confesse all their sinnes to a Minister but onely that Christiani qui laborant Christians that are in a perplexed estate have need of this remedy Having thus shewed that the Fathers testifie nothing for Popish confession I shall shew how they testifie against it And to begin with him that was last mentioned Chrysostome is most copious in this kind Why art thou ashamed saith he and doest blush to confesse thy sinnes Doest thou speak to a man that he may upbraid thee Doest thou confesse to thy fellow servant that he may insult over thee To thy Lord to him that hath a care of thee to him that is kind to the Physitian thou doest shew thy wound Here he takes it for granted that there is ordinarily no necessity of confessing to any but to God onely So againe Art thou ashamed saith he to say that thou hast sinned Confesse then daily in thy prayr For doe I say confesse to thy fellow servant who may reproach thee No confesse unto God who doth cure thee Diverse such sayings hath this Father most plain and pregnant for our purpose Bellarmine with all his art and all his industry was not able to give a satisfactory answer to them He saith that Chrysostome spake onely of publick Confession not of private onely of that which is made in the open Congregation not of that which is made to a Priest in secret But it is evident that Chrysostome speaks against the necessity of confessing to any but onely unto God He bids Confesse in thy soul Make confession in thy thought Let God onely see thee confessing Such confession as this man hath nothing to do with either in publick or in private Bellarmine answers that in these places Chrysostome doth speak of confession not as it hath reference to the Priests absolution but as it hath reference to shame and confusion and in this latter respect he saith Chrysostome doth well admonish that it is not necessary to confesse unto man either in publique or in private but that it sufficeth to confesse with sorrow and tears unto God onely But here Bellarmine a thing not unusuall with him doth contradict himself For here he granteth that to confess only unto God is enough to work shame yet in another place he saith That shame useth not to be feared in that confession which is made onely unto God And againe Shamefac'dnesse hath no place in that confession which is made onely unto God These assertitions as they agree not with the truth see Ezr. 9. 6. so neither do they agree with the answer that here Bellarmine giveth unto Chrysost Where as Bellarm saith that Chrysost speaketh not of confession as having reference to the Priests absolution it is easily granted there being ordinarily no necessity of any such absolution Chrysostme willeth a man to confesse though but in his heart unto God assuring him that thereby he shall obtain Gods absolution and what need then of any others absolution Except in some speciall case viz. for the quieting of a troubled conscience and that one may the better enjoy the comfort of Gods absolution Thus for Chrysostme Austine also doth shew the no-necessity of confessing unto men which still must be understood excepting some particular case wherein it may be requisite What have I to doe saith he with men that they should hear my confessions as if they could heal all my diseases Bellarmine takes it in disdaine that these words of Austine should be alledged against their confession This he saith is nothing else but to delude the simple For that whosoever reads Austines Confessions cannot but know that he speakes not of Sacramentall Confession but of the Confession of sinnes past and forgiven by Baptisme which Confession was made to that end that thereby the mercy of God might be seen and praised But Austines words are of more force then thus to be evaded We willingly grant that Austine speaks not of Sacramentall Confession there being indeed no such Confession to be spoken of as they call Sacramentall no such I say truly so called and so much these very words of Austine doe sufficiently testifie For Sacramentall Confession as they call it is a Confession necessarily to be made unto a Priest or else no remission of sin they say committed after Baptisme can be obtained but Austine shewes that ordinarily Confessing unto men is not necessary Neither is it so that Austine in his book of Confessions doth only speak of his sins which he had committed before he was Baptized For in that tenth Book where he hath the words before cited he speaketh of sinnes which he was guilty of long after his Baptisme yea even then when he was writing his Confessions As namely impure Dreames and nocturnall pollutions as also excesse in Eating Diverse other particulars doth he also confesse saying that his life was full of such failings and that all his hope was onely in Gods exceeding great mercy To this purpose also Ambrose who speaking of Peter saith I find not what he spake I find that he wept And hence he infers that tears may procure pardon of sin though no verball Confession be made of it To this testimony of Ambrose Bellarmine answers that as then Sacramentall Confession was not instituted and therefore 't is no marvell if we doe not read of Peters confession And 't is very true that Sacramentall Confession neither then had nor at all hath any divine institution Again Bellarmine sayes that Tears of which Ambrose speaketh containe a kind of Confession in them This indeed is true in respect of God who knowes the heart and affection from whence Tears proceed and therefore David saith that the Lord had heard the voice of his weeping Psal 6. 8. which shewes that as the Tongue by speaking so the Eyes by weeping have a voice which God doth hear But what is this unto men who by tears alone without words can understand little Bellarmine grants that Tears are sufficient in that Confession which is made unto God who
is this which as I conceive the Marquesse aimed at Esau was not willing and did not run but if he had been willing and had run by the help of God he had obtained God would have given him both to will and to run except by contemning Gods Call he would be a Reprobate For God doth otherwise give us that we may will then he doth give us that which we have willed For that we may will God would have both to be his work and ours his by Calling ours by Following when we are called But that which we have willed God alone doth give that is to be able to do well and for ever to live happily Here I confesse Austine doth seeme to shew himself a patron of Free-will and we could not easily judge otherwise of him if we should look meerly upon these words and take them as his positive sentence But if we consider what Austine saith both before and after we shall see that he spake thus rather by way of objection then by way of determination Before these words he saith thus A wheel doth not therefore run well that it may be round but because it is round So no man doth therefore work well that he may receive grace but because he hath received it Austine therefore was not of that minde that Esau of himself by his free-will could have been willing and have run or that any when he is called and incited by Grace can by the power of Free-will follow and obey but it is grace that must work this in him To this purpose againe before the words objected If saith Austine Iacob did therefore believe because he would then God did not bestow faith on him but he by willing did afford it unto himself and so he had something which he received not Which is contrary to the words of the Apostle What hast thou that thou hast not received 1 Cor. 4. 7. But a little after those words that seeme to make for Free-will Austine expresseth himself more fully For having cited that of the Apostle Phil. 2. 12 13. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to doe of his good pleasure he addes The Apostle there sufficiently shewes that a good will it self is wrought in us by God For if therefore only it be said Rom. 9. It is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy because the will of man alone is not sufficient that he may justly and rightly except it be helped by the mercy of God then by this reason it may be said It is not of God that sheweth mercy but of man that willeth because the mercy of God alone is not sufficient unlesse the consent of our will be ad ded But that is manifest that we will in vain except God shew mercy This I know not how it can be said that God doth shew mercy in vain except we be willing For if God shew mercy then we are willing seeing it belongs to that same mercy to make us willing For it is God that worketh in us both to will and to doe of his good pleasure Again a little after having said by way of objection Free-will availeth much he answers Nay it is indeed but in those that are sold under sinne as all are till they be fred by Grace what doth it avail And againe when those things delight us whereby wee profit towards God this is inspired and given unto us by the grace of God it is not gotten by our consent industry or the merits of our workes because the consent of the will the industry of indeavour and workes fervent with charity are all the gift of God Thus then it is most manifest that in the place pointed at by the Marquesse Austine was most farre from maintaining such a Free-will as we oppose There is also a passage in Austines second book to Simplicianus quaest 1. which may seeme to make against us viz. That to will any thing is in the power of every one but to be able to doe any thing is not in the power of any But let Austine explain himself and shew his own meaning and that he doth in his Retractations That saith hee was spoken because we doe not say that any thing is in our power but that which is done when wee will Where first and chiefly is to will it selfe For immediately without any distance of time the will it selfe is present when wee will But this power also to live well wee receive from above when the will is prepared of the Lord. Thus carefull was that good Father to prevent the mistaking of his words lest any should thinke that hee did ascribe any thing to the power of Free-will in that which is good So much for Austine the next Father alledged is Ambrose who in the place cited viz. in Luk. 12. hath nothing above Free-will that I can finde After him followes Chrysostome who indeed in the place that is alledged goes far in his expressions concerning Free-will as if God onely did afford meanes and so leave it in the power of man to use them or not as hee pleaseth If therefore I except against his testimony in this point I have no meane men of the Church of Rome to beare mee out I know Bellarmine seemes to take it as a matter of great advantage that Calvin stands not here so much upon Chrysostome as one that did too much extoll the power of Free-will But was this onely Calvines judgement of Chrysostome Did not some of the Romanists themselves also think thus of him S. Chrysostom saith Alvarez a Romish Archbishop and a great Schoole-man sometimes doth wonderfully extoll the power of our Free-will speaking as it were hyperbolically whiles hee strives to impugne the errors of the Manichees and of the Gentiles who held that Man is still by nature as hee was first created of God or that by the violence of fate he is compelled to sinne So also Iansenius a Romish Bishop to whom also Alvarez doth referre us haveing mentioned something of Euthymius and Theophylact hee saith that those passages were taken from Chrysostome and that except they be warily read and understood they may give occasion of falling into the error of Pelagius who held that the beginning of faith and justification is from our selves and the consummation from God c. Chrysostome he saith meant well concerning the grace of God yet he wrote many things against the Manichees in commendation of Free-will attributing most things unto it without making any mention of Gods Grace which things he would not have written in that manner if hee could have foreseene that Pelagius his heresie would arise which as then was not risen or not known unto men Thus were see how these Authors though they excuse Chrysostomes meaning yet dislike his expression But some amongst those of
can be separated from the Church And againe Let none thinke that the good can depart out of the Church The winde doth not carry away the wheat neither doth the storme overthrow the Tree that hath taken solid roote The empty chaffe is tossed with the tempest the weake Trees are throwne down with the whirlewinde This the Apostle John doth curse and smite saying They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us 1 Joh. 2. 19. And to adde one testimony of his more Peter saith hee speaking for all and answering in the name of the Church saith Lord to whom shall we goe Thou hast the words of eternall life Joh. 6. 68. signifying that they who depart from Christ perish through their own fault but that the Church which believeth in Christ and once holdeth that which it hath knowne doth never altogether depart from him and that they are the Church who doe abide in the house of God but that they are not the planting of God the Father whom wee see not to be strengthened with the stability of wheat but to be blowne away with the breath of the enemy like chaffe that is to be dissipated Of whom John saith They went out from us but they were not of us c. Austine also citing those words of S. Iohn saith Hee doth not say that by going out they were made Aliens but that therefore they went out because they were Aliens Againe In that saith he thou departest and fliest away thou shewest thy selfe to be chaffe they that are wheate endure threshing And upon those words of our Saviour If yee continue in my word then you are my Disciples indeed Joh. 8. 31. hee saith thus Then they are indeed that which they are called if they continue in that for which they are so called So againe That is not indeed the Body of Christ saith hee which shall not be with him for ever So Tertullian saith that such as fall away were never true Believers and true Christians Hee saith man sees the outside of every one and thinkes what hee sees but God sees into the heart and therefore knowes who are his and roots out every Plant that hee hath not planted And let the chaffe of light faith saith hee flie away as much as it will with every blast of temptations by so much will the heape of Corne be the more cleane to be laid up in the Lords Garners Did not some of Christs Disciples being offended turne away yet the rest would not therefore leave him but they that knew him to be the word of life and sent of God did continue with him to the end It is a lesse matter if some did forsake his Apostle as Phygellus and Hermogenes and Philetus and Hymenaeus Then hee cites that of S. Iohn They went out from us but they were not of us c. Thus also Gregory speaking of the holy Ghost saith that in respect of some vertues he alwayes abides in the hearts of the Saints but in respect of some hee comes so as to goe away and goes away so as to come againe For in respect of Faith Hope and Charity and other good things without which there is no comming to Heaven as Humility Chastity Iustice and Mercy in respect of these hee never forsaketh the hearts of the upright But in respect of Prophecy Eloquence and working of miracles sometimes hee is with the Elect sometimes hee withdrawes himselfe from them This testimony of Gregory is also cited by Gratian who from thence and other testimonies of the Fathers inferrs thus much that Charity once had and it is as true of Faith for Charity cannot be without it but doth proceede from it 1 Tim. 1. 5. cannot be lost Thus wee have not onely the Scriptures and Fathers but also the Canon-law it selfe for us Those places which the Marquesse alledgeth to prove that faith may be lost doe not speake of justifying Faith whereby one is ingraffed into Christ and made a member of his Body but either of an outward profession of the Faith that is of the Doctrine of Faith as that 1 Tim. 1. 19. where the Apostle bids Timothy hold faith i. e. the Doctrine of Faith and a good conscience and addes that some having put away a good conscience concerning Faith did make shipwrack that is did forsake the Doctrine of Faith and fall into Heresie Such were Hymenaeus and Alexander whom hee mentioneth vers 20. and saith that he delivered them unto Satan that they might learne not to blaspheme And that which hee there calleth Faith hee calleth Truth 2 Tim. 2. 18. where speaking of Hymenaeus and Philetus hee saith who concerning the truth have erred saying that the Resurrection is past already He addes that hereby they did overthrow the Faith of some that is they did draw them from the Faith making them to embrace Heresie But that these seducers or seduced ones were ever such believers as that they were indued with justifying Faith the Apostle doth not say neither can it be proved Tertullian was of another minde as appeares by his words before cited Yea so was S. Iohn whose words to this purpose both Tertullian and other Fathers as I have shewed have made use of when hee saith speaking of such as those They went out from us but they were not of us c. 1 Joh. 2. 19. Or they speak of an Historicall Faith whereby one doth assent unto the truth of the Gospell and is somewhat affected with it but it doth not take roote in the heart as it is said Mat. 13. 21. yet hath hee not roote in himselfe and therefore this is not such a Faith as wee speake of when wee say that Faith cannot be lost viz. a Faith whereby Christ is received and doth dwell in the heart Ioh. 1. 12. Ephes 3. 17. For all that Faith which is spoken of Luke 8. 13. a man is but chaffe still and not true wheat whatsoever hee seeme either to himselfe or others They compared to the thorny ground who for a while believe are distinguished from such as have a good and honest heart Luke 8. 13. 15. Therefore those temporary believers are no sound and sincere Believers their heart is not right with God and therefore they are not stedfast in his Covenant Psal 78. 37. The Marquesse addes This is frequently affirmed by the Fathers viz. that Faith may be lost but hee cites onely Austine de grat lib. arb de corrept grat ad articulos Now I have produced many testimonies of Austine to the contrary as also of diverse other Fathers who speake very home to our purpose As for these places of Austine alledged against us the two first are justly to be waved For onely the bookes are cited but no Chapters whereas in the
one booke there are 24. and 16. in the other For the third place it 's true that Austine doth oftentimes in answer to the Articles imposed upon him deny that Gods predestination is the cause of mans non-perseverance as some did charge him to hold why any fall away hee shewes the cause to be in themselves not in God that it is not from Gods worke but from their owne will that they are not thrust that they may fall nor cast out that they may depart But that true justifying Faith once had may be lost hee sayes not any thing that way but much against it in other places as before is shewed In the next place Wee hold saith the Marquesse that God did never inevitably damne any man before hee was borne or as you say from all eternity You say hee did wee have Scripture for what wee say Wisd 1. 13. God made not death neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living 1 Tim. 2. 3 4. God our Saviour who will have all men to be saved 2 Pet. 3. 9. The Lord is not willing that any should die but that all should come to repentance And if you will not believe when hee saith so believe him when hee sweares it As I live saith the Lord I doe not delight in the death of a sinner Ans I doe not know any Protestant who saith that God did damne any man before hee was borne or from all eternity For how should that be damning being taken as usually it is for inflicting eternall punishment For how can a man before hee hath any being have eternall punishment inflicted upon him yet Bernard speaketh of his being damnatus antequam natus damned before hee was borne I suppose hee meant that before he came out of the wombe hee was in the estate of damnation by reason of the guilt of Adams sinne imputed to him and the corruption of nature inherent in him How ever this is certaine that as Bernard also saith predestination is before all times even from all eternity And Bellarmine observes that though the use of the Schooles hath so prevailed that they onely are said to be predestinate who are elected unto glory and so in the Scriptures predestination is not used but in that sense yet Austine doth call reprobation predestination to destruction Neither is there any question betwixt us and them of the Church of Rome but that reprobation as well as election is from all eternity And therefore as wee doe not say any more then they that God doth damne any man from eternity so they as well as wee doe say that God doth reprobate many from eternity even as many as hee doth not elect now the elect are but few in comparison as our Saviour tells us saying Many are called but few are chosen Mat. 22. 14. But some may and indeed doe say Gods reprobation is not the cause of any mans damnation but mans own sinne is the proper cause both of reprobation and damnation But though this be asserted by some of our adversaries yet others of that party will not approve of it For Reprobation saith Bellarmine doth comprehend two acts c. For first God hath not a will of saving them viz. the Reprobate And then he hath a will of damning them And in respect of the former act there is no cause of Reprobation on mans part Therefore mans sinne in Bellarmines judgementi is not the cause of Reprobation in respect of that act Now if God have not a will to save a man it is not possible that hee should be saved and if hee bee not saved hee must bee being damned And therefore from that act of Gods Reprobation which Bellarmine confesseth to have no cause on mans part there inevitable followes mans damnation though damnation be neither inflicted on man nor intended to be inflicted on him but for sinne Yet Bellarmine in that which hee saith is not so accurate as hee might be For non habere voluntatem salvandi not to have a will to save a man or not to will a mans salvation is properly no act but rather a negation of an act and therefore indeed Bellarmine calles it actum negativum a negative act but that as I said is indeed no act at all but a meere negation of it And therefore Alvarez maketh the first act of Reprobation to be a positive act whereby Gods Will is not to admit some unto life eternall It 's one thing not to have a will to save and another thing to have a will not to save the former is meerly negative but the latter is positive And hee proves that Reprobation doth include a positive act because the meere negative of not ordaining unto life eternall is even in respect of men and angells that onely may be but never shall be Those God doth not will to save and to glorifie yet properly they are not the objects of Gods Reprobation The same Alvarez saith that this positive act of Reprobation whereby Gods Will and Pleasure from eternity was not to admit some into his Kingdome was not conditionall but absolute and in order of nature before the fore-knowledge of the ill use of free-will And this hee proves from hence that the Apostle Rom. 9. having inferred from what hee had said of Predestination and Reprobation Therefore hee hath mercy on whom hee will have mercy and whom hee will hee hardeneth presently brings in the complaint of those who thinke it hard that God should predestinate and reprobate without having respect to merits Why then doth hee yet complaine for who hath resisted his Will And hee answers O man who art thou that repliest against God Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it Why hast thou made mee thus Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lumpe to make one vessell unto honour and another unto dishonour Now this answer and reproofe saith hee should have no place if God did not before the fore-knowledge of the ill use of Free-will reprobate some by an absolute and efficacious will For the Apostle might easily answer that it depends upon the good or ill use of mans free-will which God did fore-know that some are reprobated and not others And hee cites Austine saying Many are not saved not because they will not but because God will not which most clearly appeares in young infants This same Author also againe layes down this conclusion Reprobation whereby God determines not to give eternall life to some and to suffer them to sinne is not conditionall but absolute neither doth it presuppose in God the fore-knowledge or fore-sight of the ill deserts of the Reprobate or of his perseverance in sinne unto the end of his life And againe Neither actuall sinne nor originall nor both together fore-seene of God were the meritorious cause or motive of any ones Reprobation in respect of all the effects of it And
of God an house not made with hands eternall in the Heavens And v. 6 7 8. Therefore we are alwayes confident knowing that whiles we are here in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walke by faith and not by sight We are confident I say and willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. And that Phil. 1. 21. To me to live is Christ and to die is gaine And that 2 Tim. 4. 18. The Lord shall deliver me from every evill work and will preserve me to his Heavenly Kingdom And in the same Chapter v. 6 7 8. I am now ready to be offered and my departure is at hand I have fought a good fight I have finished my course I have kept the faith henceforth is laid up for me the crown of righteousnesse c. So also S. Peter Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ who according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us againe unto a lively hope through the Resurrection of Iesus Christ from the dead unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that fadeth not away reserved in Heaven for us 1 Pet. 1. 3 4. This hope which believers have or may have of salvation is a lively hope it is a hope that maketh not ashamed Rom. 5. 5. because they are sure to obtaine that which they hope for and shall not be disappointed of it Hence it is also that believers rejoyce with joy unspeakable and full of glory 1 Pet. 1. 8. because they know they shall receive the end of their faith even the salvation of their soules v. 9. Wee have also Fathers to testifie this truth There flourisheth with us saith Cyprian the strength of hope and the firmness of faith and amongst the very ruines of the decaying world the minde is raised up and virtue is unmoveable and patience is ever joyfull and the soule is alwayes secure and confident of her God And immediatly hee confirmes this by that of the Prophet Habakkuk Although the fig-three shall not blossome c. yet I will rejoyce in the Lord I will joy in the God of my salvation Hab. 3. 17 18. So againe the same Father what place is there here for anxiety and carefulnesse who in the midst of these things can be fearfull and sad except he want hope and faith It is for him to fear death that would not go unto Christ it is for him to be unwilling to go to Christ that doth not believe that he doth begin to reigne with Christ For it is written The just shall live by faith If thou beest just and doest live by faith if thou doest truly believe in God seeing thou shalt be with Christ and art sure of Gods promise why doest thou not embrace this that thou art called unto Christ and art glad that thou art freed from the Devill God doth promise immortality and eternity to those that depart out of this life and thou doubtest this is not at all to know God this is to offend Christ the Lord and Master of Believers with the sinne of unbeliefe this is to be in the Church the house of faith and yet to have no faith Here we see how earnest Cyprian is to prove that Christians may yea ought to be confident against the feare of death and that because they may and ought to be assured of the life to come Thus also Austine I believe saith hee him that promiseth The Saviour speaketh the truth promiseth he hath said unto me He that heareth my words and believeth him that sent me hath eternall life and is passed from death to life and shall not come into condemnation I have heard the words of my Lord I have believed Now whereas I was an unbeliever I am made a Believer as he hath said I am passed from death to life I come not into condemnation not by my presumption but by his promise To this purposes also Bernard The Sun of Righteousnesse arising saith hee the mystery concerning the predestinate and those that shall be made blessed which was so long hid beginnes after a sort to come up out of the depth of eternity whiles every one being called by feare and justified by love that is by Faith working through love as hee said a little before doth assure himselfe that he is of the number of the blessed Knowing that whom he hath justified them he hath also glorified For why Hee heares that he is called when he is moved with feare he perceives that he is justified when he is filled with love and shall he doubt of his being glorified And againe Thou hast O man saith hee the justifying spirit a revealer of this secret and so testifying unto thy spirit that thou also art the Son of God Acknowledge the counsell of God in thy justification For thy present justification is both a revelation of Gods Counsell and also a certaine preparation unto future glory Or truly predestination it selfe is rather a preparation and justification is rather an appropinquation unto it And againe Who is righteous but he that doth requite Gods love with love againe which is not done but when the spirit by Faith doth reveale unto a man Gods eternall purpose concerning his future salvation Which revelation surely is no other thing but the infusion of spirituall grace by which the deeds of the flesh are mortified and so a man is prepared for that Kingdome which flesh and blood do not possesse receiving together by one spirit both this that he is assured that he is loved and also this that hee doth love againe that so he may not be ungratefull to him of whom he is loved Thus both Scriptures and Fathers testifie that Christians may be assured of their salvation And that this assurance may be had may be proved also by all that hath beene said before concerning the stability of Faith once had and the certainty of persevering in the estate of grace if a man be once in it For hence it followeth that if a man can be assured that hee is in the estate of Grace hee may also be assured of his salvation Now that he may be assured of his being in the state of grace some of the Romish Church and that since Luthers time have maintained as namely Catharinus and the Author of the Booke called Enchiridium Coloniense both which are mentioned in this respect by Bellarmine And because the Councell of Trent Sess 6. c. 9. doth seeme to determine the contrary therefore Eisingrenius hath written a whole booke to shew that the determination of the Councell is not indeed against this that a man may be assured that he hath true grace in him The booke I have seene and read many yeeres agoe though now I have it not And I remember he holds that a man may be as sure that hee hath true grace and that his sinnes are forgiven as hee is sure that twice two make
saved by his owne inherent righteousnesse because though he be otherwise never so righteous yet still there is some sinne in him which hee knoweth not of according to that of the Apostle which Ambrose there citeth I know nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby justified 1 Cor. 4. 4. The Apostle denieth that hee was justified by that righteousnesse that was in him though hee had the testimony of a good conscience to rejoyce in 2 Cor. 1. 12. yet was hee neverthelesse assured that hee was justified and should be saved through faith in Christ Jesus as hath been proved before from Rom. 8. 33. c. and from other places This was all that Ambrose meant as appeares by his words immediately going before those objected The Apostle hee saith Explaines Davids meaning saying I know nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby justified He knew that he was a man and did take heed to himselfe as he could that he might not sin after his Baptisme therefore he knew nothing by himselfe but because he was a man he confessed himselfe a sinner knowing that Iesus alone is the true light who did no sin neither was guile found in his mouth that he alone is justified i. e. perfectly just in himselfe who was truly without all sin That which Basil whose words I find in Bellarmine though otherwise I have him not to peruse saith is directly to the same purpose and imports no more then that of Ambrose We doe not understand saith he many things wherein we sin Therefore the Apostle saith I know nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby justified that is I sin in many things and am not aware of it For Hierome hee is too loosely cited both by the Marquesse and before him by Bellarmine there being eleven long Chapters in that booke which is mentioned but in which of them he saith any thing against us they doe not tell us However the words objected are these There are righteous men to whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked and there are wicked men to whom it happeneth according to the worke of the righteous This is said viz. Eccles 8. 14. because certaine judgement belongs only unto God These words by search I finde in Hierome but it plainly appeares that his scope onely is to prove against the Pelagians that no man in this life is so righteous as to be without sinne which is not against us in this controversie but for us in another as hath beene shewed before A little after those words Hierome saith thus What mortall man is not taken with some errour And that the righteous shall scarcely be saved 1 Pet. 4. 18. because in some things or rather indeed in all things he stands in needs of Gods mercy In the former Chapter Hierome brings in that of S. Paul I know nothing by my selfe c. and saith that though the Apostle were not conscious to himselfe of sinne yet hee did not justifie himselfe because hee had read Psal 19. 13. who can understand his his faults Thus then his testimony makes indeed against the perfection of a mans own righteousnesse but not against his assurance of salvation which may well stand without the other Chrysostome in the place cited comments upon that Ioh. 21. 17. Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time lovest thou me and hee saith that Peter feared lest now hee thought himselfe to love Christ when hee did not as before he was deceived in thinking himselfe stout and constant when it proved otherwise But 1. Though Chrysostome so take the words of Peter as if he might then be mistaken in that opinion which hee had of himselfe yet it does not follow that therefore hee should hold that a man cannot be assured that hee hath saving grace in him 2. Austine gives another and a better reason why Peter was grieved that Christ did aske him that question the third time viz. because thereby Christ as he thought seemed not to believe him not that hee suspected his owne heart but hee feared that Christ did suspect him because he did aske him the same question thrice over Maldonate the Jesuite cites Theodorus Heracleotes as also thus expounding it and saying that therefore Peter answered Lord thou knowest all things thou knowest that I love Thee as if hee should have said Thou that knowest all things canst not but know that it is true that I say and therefore why doest thou aske mee so often as if thou didst not believe me This Exposition Maldonate doth prefer before the other of Chrysostome which he also mentioneth and saith that Peter saying Lord thou knowest did speak so not so much out of modesty as to confirme that which hee had said viz. that he loved Christ by Christs own testimony Austine in Psal 40. hath nothing that I can see to the purpose I suppose it should be in Psalme 41. from whence Bellarmine doth produce this I know that the righteousnesse of God doth remaine whether my righteousnesse may remaine I know not For the Apostle doth make me to feare saying Let him that thinketh he standeth take heede lest he fall 1 Cor. 10. 12. I acknowledge these words of Austine but that which followes immediately shewes the meaning of them Therefore saith hee because I have no strength or stability in my selfe neither have I hope of my selfe my soule is troubled toward my selfe Wouldest thou not have it troubled Doe not abide in thy selfe but say unto thee O Lord have I lift up my soule Psal 25. 1. Heare this more plainly Doe not hope of thy selfe but of thy God For if thou doest hope of thy selfe thy soule will be troubled towards thee because it hath not yet found whereby it may be secure of thee Therefore because my soule is troubled towards me what remaines but humility that the soule doe not presume of it selfe Thus it clearly appeares that Austine spake not against assurance of salvation but onely against selfe confidence and presumption The last Father alledged is Bernard who saith This doth adde to the heape of care and to the weight of feare that when as it 's necessary to looke both to mine own and my Neighbours conscience neither of them is sufficiently knowne unto me Both are an unsearchable depth both are night unto me But Bernard onely meanes that it 's very hard for a man to know his owne heart because of the deceitfulnesse of it not but that by the Spirit of God a man may know it so farre forth as to be assured of the truth of Grace in him which hath beene proved before by Bernards testimony in diverse places So elsewhere hee saith indeed Who can say I am of the Elect I am of those that are predestinate unto life I am of the number of Gods children who I say can say these things the Scripture saying on the contrary Man knowes not whether
sacifice I answer doubtlesse Bellarmines reading was sufficient to informe him that diverse ancient Writers call Baptisme a sacrifice Oecumenius upon Heb. 10. 26. saith that the meaning of those words there remaineth no more sacrifice for sinnes is that there is no second Baptisme to be expected For by sacrifice hee saith is there meant the crosse Christs Sacrifice on the crosse and Baptisme wherein that sacrifice is represented After the same manner and almost the same words writeth Theophylact upon that place to the Hebrewes Estius also upon the place saith that Chrysostome and his followers by sacrifice there understand either Baptisme or rather the death of Christ as it doth operate in Baptisme And Melchior Canus affirmes that most of the ancients did call Baptisme a sacrifice saying that there remaines no sacrifice for sinne because Baptisme cannot be repeated And he gives this reason why they spake so viz. because in Baptisme we die together with Christ and the sacrifice of the crosse by this Sacrament is applyed unto us for full forgivenesse of sinnes Therefore saith he by a metaphore they called Baptisme a sacrifice and said that after Baptisme there remaineth no sacrifice because there is no second Baptisme Thus then it may sufficiently appeare that there is nothing either in the Scriptures or in the Fathers to prove that in the Eucharist Christ is offered up unto the Father a sacrifice properly so called but that both Scriptures and Fathers are against it In the next place VVe say saith the Marquesse that the Sacrament or Orders confers grace upon those on whom the hands of the Presbytery are imposed you both deny it to be a Sacrament notwithstanding the holy Ghost is given unto them thereby and also you deny that it confers any interior grace at all upon them VVe have Scripture for what we hold viz. 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by prophecy and with laying on the hands of the Presbytery So 2 Tim. 1. 6. Stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands S. Aug. lib. 4. Quaest. super Num. S. Cypr. Epist ad Magnum Optat. Milevit the place beginneth Ne quis miretur Tertull. in Praescript the place beginneth Edant origines Answ That Orders or the Ordination of Ministers is a Sacrament truly and properly so called of the same nature with Baptisme and the Lords Supper they of the Church of Rome do hold and the Councell of Trent hath denounced Anathema against such as deny it Protestants on the other side though they doe not deny but that the name of Sacrament largely taken may be given to Ordination yet they deny that it is a Sacrament in that sense as Baptisme and the Lords Supper are Sacraments A Sacrament properly so called as the name is attributed to Baptisme and the Lords Supper is a Signe and Seale of the covenant of Grace confirming unto us that Christ is ours and we his that in him we are justified and through him shall be saved Thus circumcision was a Sacrament in the time of the old Testament a token of the Covenant betwixt God and his people Gen. 17. 11. a Seale of the righteousnesse of Faith Rom. 4. 11. So now is Baptisme Mat. 28. 19. Acts 22. 16. And so the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. 24 25. But thus Ordination is not a Sacrament not serving to signifie and seale the covenant of Grace as Baptisme and the Lords Supper doe Bellarmine saith that Calvin doth acknowledge Ordination to be a true Sacrament But Calvin so grants it to be a Sacrament as that he plainly shewes it to be no such Sacrament as Baptisme and the Lords Supper are As for the true office of a Presbyter or Elder saith hee which is commended unto us by the mouth of Christ I willingly account it a Sacrament For there is a ceremony first taken from the Scriptures and then also such as Paul doth testifie not to be empty and superfluous but a faithfull token and pledge of spirituall grace But presently after hee addes Christ hath promised the grace of the holy Ghost not for the expiating of sins but for the right governing of the Church Thus much also is yeelded by Chemnitius whom yet Bellarmine would make to dissent from Calvin There is saith hee a promise added that God will give grace and gifts whereby they who are lawfully called may rightly faithfully and profitably performe and execute those things which belong unto the Ministery Joh. 20. Receive the holy Ghost And afterwards againe This serious prayer saith hee used in the Ordination of Ministers because it builds upon Gods Precept and Promise is not in vaine And this is that which Paul saith The gift which is in thee by the laying on of hands Hee addes immediately If ordination be thus understood viz. of the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments the Apology of the confession at Auspurge hath long agoe declared what our Churches hold viz. that we are not unwilling to call Order a Sacrament And there it is added neither will we stick to call Laying on of hands a Sacrament For we have shewed before that the word Sacrament is of a large acception Thus Chemnitius whereby it may appeare that neither doth he dissent as Bellarmine pretends he doth from Melancthon the Author of the Apology of the confession at Auspurge though I have not now liberty to consult that Author And thus also it appeares that though Protestants deny Ordination to be a Sacrament of the same nature with Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord and that justifying and saving grace is either conferred or confirmed by it yet they doe not deny but that it may be called a Sacrament and that some interiour grace is conferred by it and that because of those very words of the Apostle which our Adversaries stand upon the gift that is in thee by the laying on of hands But Bellarmine will easily prove he saith that Ordination is a true Sacrament For saith hee the grace that is promised unto it is no common gift as Prophecy or the gift of Tongues but justifying Grace And this he proves by that Ioh. 20. Receive yee the holy Ghost For that gift which may be in the ungodly is never hee saith in the Scriptures called absolutely the holy Ghost He addes also that the gift spoken of 2 Tim. 1. 6. viz. which was given to Timothy in his Ordination was the spirit of love and of power and of a sound minde as it followes vers 7. I answer the places alledged doe not prove that justifying grace is promised or by promise annexed unto Ordination For 1. It is not true that the gift which may be in the wicked is never in the Scripture called the holy Ghost For Acts 19. 6. it is said of some that when Paul laid his hands upon them the holy Ghost came on them
wee reade of 1 Tim. 5. 9. they of the Church of Rome allow as well young as old of both Sexes to vow to live unmarried Estius himselfe upon the place saith that the Apostle requires that age because in that there useth to be no danger of incontinency But hee addes presently after that in the Apostles time they had no Monasteries or close places to keepe Women in professing continency that so they might not freely wander abroad unto men I doe easily believe that there were indeed as then no such places nor yet any such profession neither excepting such Widdowes as the Apostle speakes of of whom more anon But withall I suppose that although wandering abroad may be an occasion of defilement as the example of Dinah sheweth yet walles and barres are not enough to preserve chastity And howsoever this is nothing to those young Priests that vow chastity and yet are not shut up in that manner as their Nunnes are That to be able to live a single life is no common gift and consequently that such a life is not to be so commonly vowed as now it is in the Church of Rome diverse of the Fathers doe informe us though some of them went too farre in this kinde Hilary speaking of those severall kindes of Eunuches mentioned by our Saviour Mat. 19. saith that one is so by nature viz. he that is borne so another so by necessity viz. hee that is made so and the third so by will viz. he that in hope of the Heavenly Kingdome hath determined to be so And such hee saith Christ would have us to be if marke that yet wee be able Hierome a man of excellent learning and of great piety of all the ancient Fathers seemes most exorbitant as concerning Virginity surely in his writings against Iovinian hee expresseth himselfe many times very harshly as thus If it be good not to touch a woman then it is evill to touch a woman And againe What kinde of good I pray you is that which hinders from praying So hee wrests the words of the Apostle as if he spake of ordinary Prayer taking no notice of fasting which the Apostle joynes with Prayer 1 Cor. 7. 5. The Apostle hee saith elsewhere bids pray alwayes If wee must pray alwayes then wee must never doe the office of married persons For whensoever I render due benevolence to my wife I cannot pray And in the same manner againe If wee must pray alwayes then wee must alwayes be free from Marriage And citing those words Woe to them that are with child c. Mat. 24. 19. hee saith Not harlots and brothelhouses are here condemned of whose condemnation there is no doubt but great bellies and the crying of infants and the fruits and effects of Marriages Thus also doth hee wrest that spoken to our first Parents Bee fruitfull and multiply and replenish the Earth Gen. 1. 28. Marriage saith he doth replenish the Earth but virginity doth replenish Paradise And he saith that Adam and Eve before they had sinned were virgins but after the fall and out of Paradise they were Married Whereas nothing is more cleare in the Scripture then this that God did joyne Adam and Eve together in Marriage before the fall when they were in Paradise Diverse other such like inconvenient passages hee hath being carried away with the heate of contention Yet even Hierome himselfe in that very booke doth shew that to live unmarried is no ordinary matter nor for every one to undertake This saith hee is a hard matter and all doe not receive it but they to whom it is given And againe Doe not feare lest all become Virgins Virginity is a hard thing and therefore rare because hard If all could be virgins the Lord would never say Let him that is able to receive it receive it Neither would the Apostle be so fearfull in perswading to virginity saying Now concerning virgins I have no Commandement of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 7. 25. And in his commentary upon Mat. 19. Christ saith hee inferres Hee that is able to receive it let him receive it that every one may consider his strength whether he be able to performe those things that are required of unmarried persons For virginity of it self is pleasing and alluring any one unto it but mens strength is to be considered that he that is able to receive it may receive it It 's true Hierome saith there a little before that hee that askes it and labours for it may receive it but that must be understood if God see it to be for his glory and our good So is that to be interpreted Aske and it shall be given unto you Mat. 7. 7. And so also that What things soever yee desire when yee pray believe that yee receive them and yee shall have them Mar. 11. 24. The Lord will give grace and glory as the Psalmist saith Psal 84. 11. And so consequently he will give all things that have a necessary connexion with grace and glory such things may simply and absolutely be prayed for But virginity is not of that nature and therefore there can be no such assurance of obtaining it although we pray for it Gregory also saith that those words of our Saviour All doe not receive this saying shew that all are not capable of it and that it is a thing hard to be obtained And hee saith that they that are unmarried are to be admonished to get into the haven of Wedlock if they endure the stormes of temptation so as to endanger their salvation And that because it it written It is better to marry then to burne Indeed hee addes immediately that it is no sinne for them to marry if yet they have not vowed that which is better hee meanes to live unmarried But the question is how such could lawfully vow a single life not knowing how unmeete they should be for it And how obligatory such a vow is wee shall consider anon But thus also Bernard complaining of the incontinency of the Clergy in his time I wish saith hee that they who are about to build a Tower would sit down and count the cost lest they prove unable to finish what they take in hand I would that they who cannot containe would be affraid rashly to professe perfection and to give up their names to a single life For it is a costly Tower and a great Word which all are not able to receive Now for the other charge against Protestants viz. that they hold that such as have made vowes to live unmarried are not bound to keepe them I answer they hold indeed that such vowes being made and tending to the prejudice of a mans soule by exposing him to unavoidable danger of Fornication without using the remedy of Marriage doe not binde but are better broken then kept even as it had beene better that Herod had broken his Oath then that he should keepe it so as for his Oathes sake
that if not through wantonnesse but through weaknesse they were forced to marry the Apostle would have them to doe it rather then to doe worse viz. burne with lust and commit Fornication For whereas the same authour saith It is not better for such as have vowed contineney to marry then to burne this is nothing else but a flat contradicting of the Apostle or at least a contradicting of that Rule We must not distinguish where the Law doth not distinguish And we finde in their own Canons that if Widdows did professe continency yet a snare was not to be cast upon them to wit as the Glosse doth expound it by separating them from their Husbands if they did marry or by forbidding them precisely to marry Another Canon also which they have injoynes no more but this that if such as professe Virginity did afterwards marry they should be ranked amongst those that did marry the second time viz. after the death of the first yoke fellow which marriage the Scripture doth clearly allow Rom. 7. 2 3. and 1 Cor. 7. 39. neither did any Orthodox Writer ever condemne it Their Canon-Law indeed debarres those that are twice married from being Priests grounding upon the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. 2. and Titus 1. 6. which places their owne Cardinall Cajetan doth yet interpret otherwise but yet grant that such doe not sinne They grant also that if any marry after a simple vow of continency the marriage doth stand good and is not to be dissolved For this they have a Canon out of Austine which runs thus Some say that they that marry after a vow are adulterers but I say unto you that they that divide such doe sinne grievously And another out of Theodorus thus If a man having a simple vow of virginity joyne himselfe to a Wife let him not afterwards put her away but let him doe penance three yeares And so Estius confesseth that we never reade in antient writers that if Widdowes who vowed continency did marry their marriage was voide and of none effect For saith hee their vow was not solemne But I have shewed before that the distinction of simple and solemne vow hath no ground in Scripture and that in respect of God a simple vow doth binde as much as a solemne And besides if as they alledge and cite some of the antients also for it one having vowed continency whether solemnely or simply is married unto Christ and therefore may much lesse marry another then one that is allready married to a mortall man then surely the marriage of such should much rather be judged adultery and be dissolved then the marriage of those who marry againe when they are already married Yet Bellarmine goes further and acknowledgeth that many prime Writers of the Church of Rome as Scotus Paludanus and Cajetane and generally as Panormitan doth relate all the Canonists affirme that onely by Ecclesiasticall right marriage made after a solemne vow is of no force And this opinion hee granteth to be probable So then by their own confessions it may appeare that there is no Law of God against it but that such as have vowed continency should marry if they be not able to performe what they have vowed And this may suffice for this point The Marquesse goes on thus We say Christ descended into Hell and delivered thence the soules of the Fathers yee deny it Wee have Scripture for it viz. Ephes 4. 8. When he ascended up on high he led captivity captive c. Descending first into the lower part of the Earth This lower part of the Earth could not be a grave for that was the upper part nor could it have beene the place of the damned for the Devils would have beene brought againe into Heaven More clearly Acts 2. 27. Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption There is Hell for his soule for a time and the grave for his body for a while Plainer yet 1 Pet. 3. 18 19. Being put to death in the flesh but quickned by the spirit by which also hee went and preached unto the spirits in prison This prison cannot be Heaven nor Hell as it is the place of the damned nor the grave as it is the place of rest Therefore it must be as S. Aug. Epist 99. ad Evod. saith some third place which third place the Fathers have called Limbus Patrum Also Zach. 9. 11. As for thee also by the blood of thy Covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water By this pit could not be meant the place of the damned for they have no share in the Covenant neither are they Christs prisoners but the Devils neither could this pit be the grave because Christs grave was a new pit where never any was laid before The Fathers affirm as much S. Hieron in 4. ad Ephes S. Greg. l. 13. Moral c. 20. S. Aug. in Psal 37. 1. Answ That Christ did descend into Hell in that sense as they of the Church of Some doe hold viz. into a Region of Hell called Limbus Patrum to deliver the faithfull thence that lived and died under the old Testament this Protestants deny and they have just cause to deny it For the Scripture doth not shew us any such Hell as this which they speake of much lesse that CHRIST did descend into it 1. The faithfull that were before Christ did enjoy the benefit of him as well as they that are since his comming We believe said Peter that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ wee shall be saved even as they Acts 15. 11. Therefore they were saved by Christ as well as we now are saved by him and consequently the faithfull then through Christ did goe to Heaven as well as now they doe 2. It is said of the faithfull of the old Testament that they confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims upon the Earth Heb. 11. 13. and that they did seeke a country v. 14. not an earthly country but a better country that is an Heavenly and that God did prepare for them a City v. 16. 3. Abrahams bosome as the place is called where the soules of the Saints of the old Testament were is so described in the Scripture as that it could be no such place as they call Limbus Patrum For 1. The soule of Lazarus was carried thither by Angels and therefore it should rather be Heaven then Hell 2. It was a place of comfort Luke 16. 25. But Austine could not finde hee saith with all his searching where the Scripture doth make Hell to be any place of comfort and hee thought this a good argument why Abrahams bosome could not be Hell 3. There was a great gulfe fixed betwixt the place where Lazarus was viz. Abrahams bosome and the place where the rich man was in torment Luke 16. 26. And hence also Austine inferreth that Abrahams bosome
and Bellarmine pretend that the Chaldie Paraphrast and the Rabbines doe expound it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gehinnom which signifies the place where the damned are in torment But 1. If it were so this were nothing to that Limbus which they contend for 2. Neither is it true that those authors doe usually so expound the word For the Chaldie Paraphrast for the most part keepeth the Hebrew word Sheol it selfe onely sometimes it is a little changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Shiol and many times doth hee use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kebura or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Keburta that is the Grave to expresse the Hebrew Sheol by or which is the same in effect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be Keburta or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the house of the Grave As Iob. 7. 9. and 14. 13. and 17. 13. and 16. Psal 89. 48. and 141. 7. and Eccles 9. 10. In all these places doth the Chaldie Pharaphrast render the Hebrew word Sheol the grave or the house of the grave let any Romanist shew that hee renders it so often by that word which signifies the place of torment though as I said before that were nothing to their Limbus Patrum And thus also doe the Rabbines interpret the word Sheol R. Levi saith that Sheol doth signifie the Grave and that therefore it is put for Death 2 Sam. 22. 6. So also R. Nathan Mordecai in his Hebrew Concordance saith that the interpretation of Sheol is the Grave Aben Ezra also saith the same in his commentary on Gen. 37. 35. And moreover he taxeth the vulgar Latine Translatour for interpreting Sheol there Hell supposing him to have meant the Hell of the damned Kimchi likewise saith that those words Psal 16. 10. thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption are but a repetition of that which went before Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell Which shewes that hee tooke Sheol there rendred Hell for the Grave It is true sometimes the Rabbines expound Sheol by Gehinnam i. e. Hell the place of torment but they doe not hold that to be the simple and genuine signification of the word as appeares by R. Solomon on Gen. 37. 35. who saith that Sheol there according to the literall Exposition is the Grave and that Iacobs meaning was that hee would goe mourning to the Grave and would not be comforted but that according to the mysticall Exposition by Sheol there is meant Gehinnam the Hell of the damned So Kimchi upon those words Psal 9. 17. The wicked shall be turned into Hell where the Hebrew is Sheol interprets it Let the wicked be turned into the Grave and afterwards addes that mystically there by Sheol is understood Gehinnam the place of torment Obj. But they say that in these words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell the Grave cannot be meant by Hell because the Grave is not a place for the soule but for the body Answ The word Soule is sometimes put for the body or which is all one for man considered in respect of the body As Gen. 46. 26. All the soules that came with Iacob into Egypt which came out of his loines c. There by soules are meant bodies or persons in respect of their bodies for so generally both Protestants and Romanists doe hold that not the Soules properly but the Bodies of children doe proceede from the loines of their Parents Yea and sometimes by Soule is meant the Body when the Soule is departed out of it As Num. 19. 13. Whosoever toucheth the dead Body of any man c. There the word rendred dead Body is that which Psal 16. 10. and so usually elsewhere is rendred Soule Bellarmine to take away this answer saith that there is great difference betwixt the Hebrew word Nephesh and the Greeke Psyche both which are rendred soule For Nephesh hee saith is a most generall word and without any trope doth signifie both Soule and living creature yea and the Body also But the Greeke Psyche he saith and so the Latine Anima is not so generall as without a trope to signifie the whole living creature And therefore in Leviticus he saith one part is not put for another viz. the Soule for the Body but there is the word that usually signifies the Body it selfe or the whole is put for the part that is the living creature for the Body But in Acts 2. is used the word Psyche which doth signifie the Soule onely Thus Bellarmine but a pitty it is to see how a learned man rather then hee will submit to truth doth plunge himselfe into absurdity yea more absurdities then one But to passe by the rest this is most grosse that Bellarmine doth so distinguish betwixt Nephesh and Psyche as if the former sometimes did signifie the whole living creature or the Body onely but not so the latter when as in these very places of Leviticus which Bellarmine doth speake of viz. Levit. 21. 1. and 11. as in the Hebrew the word Nephesh so in the Greeke the word Psyche is used and therefore it is apparently false that the Greeke word Psyche doth signifie the Soule onely Yea but saith Bellarmine when even Nephesh is opposed to flesh it cannot be taken for flesh Now here soule is opposed to flesh his soule was not left in Hell neither his flesh did see corruption Acts 2. 31. And therefore here by no meanes can signifie a dead body I answer that in those words Acts 2. 31. there is no opposition betwixt Soule and Flesh no more then there is an opposition betwixt Leave and Forsake in those words Heb. 13. 6. I will not leave thee nor forsake thee So then notwithstanding any thing that is objected in those words Thou wilt not leave my Soule in Hell by Hell may be meant the Grave and by Soule the Body But if the word Soule be taken properly then by Hell is to be understood the power of death or the state of the dead And thus doe Romish Writers sometimes expound the word Hell As Iansenius upon those words Prov. 15. 11. Hell and destruction are before the Lord notes that by Hell and destruction is signified the state of the dead not onely of the damned as wee usually conceive when we heare those words but the state of all in generall that are departed out of this life So Genebrard expounds that Psalme 30. 3. Thou hast brought up my Soule from Sheol from Hell as the vulgar Latine reades it he expounds it I say thus Thou hast delivered me from the state of the dead So likewise the same author upon Psal 88. or 89. 48. saith Hell doth signifie the whole state of the dead Thus generally all that die whether they be godly or wicked are said as in respect of the Body to goe to the Grave so in respect of the Soule to descend into Hell This is the Law of humane necessity saith Hilary that
when mens bodies are buried their soules descend into Hell which descent the Lord to prove himselfe true man did not refuse The words also of S. Peter doe confirme this Exposition viz. that Hell in which Christs Soule was but was not left is the state of the dead or the Power of death Whom God hath raised up having loosed the paines of death because it was not possible that hee should be holden of it For David speaketh concerning him c. Acts 2. 24. c. To prove that CHRIST could not be held by death be still kept under the power of it Peter alledgeth the words of David concerning Christ Thou wilt not leave my Soule in Hell Therefore Christs not being left in Hell signifies nothing else but t is not being left under the power of death and consequently his being in Hell importeth nothing else but his being under the power of death under which hee was kept for a while viz. untill his Resurrection And this may suffice for answer to the Objection from Acts 2. 27. The next place Objected is 1 Pet. 3. 18 19. of which place I marvell that the Marquesse should say that it is yet plainer then either of the former Austine being consulted by Evodius about the meaning of that place confesseth that it did exceedingly puzzle him and that hee durst not affirme any thing about it And the Jesuite Lorinus in his Commentary upon it calles it difficillimum locum a most difficult place and rehearses ten severall Expositions of it And So Estius also upon the place saith This place in the judgement almost of all Interpreters is most difficult and is so diversly expounded that John Lorinus doth reckon up nine interpretations of it to which hee addes his own for the tenth and yet he hath not touched all neither And both he and Lorinus note that only Arias Montanus did thinke the place easie to be understood but withall that his Exposition of it is such as that others will not easily embrace it For as they relate Arias by the spirits in prison doth understand those eight persons that were shut up in the Arke which was a kinde of prison unto them Bellarmine also upon occasion of this controversie about Limbus Patrum and Christs descending into Hell treating of this place of Peter saith that it hath alwayes beene accounted a most obscure place Some have thought that by Prison in those words of Peter is meant Hell the place of torment and that Christ went and Preached there and that such as did then believe were delivered And thus Hilary seemes to have understood it who saith that the Apostle Peter doth testifie that when Christ descended into Hell exhortation was Preachde also to those that were in the Prison who had sometimes beene incredulous in the dayes of Noah For this opinion Hilary is taxed though not named by Bede as Estius observes who yet indeavours to excuse Hilary as not meaning by this Prison the Hell of the damned but Purgatory and in that sense Estius himselfe also doth understand the words of Peter viz. that by the spirits in prison are meant the soules of those that were in paine and torment for the expiating of their sinnes untill that Christ came and Preached deliverance unto them But of Purgatory I shall speake hereafter in the meane time so much is obtained that if the place be meant of Purgatory then not of Limbus Patrum for that place as they describe it did much differ from Purgatory as being a place they say in which was no paine or torment But it may seeme strange that the Marquesse should alledge Austine Epist 99. as holding that by the prison which Peter speaketh of is meant Limbus Patrum when as indeed Austine in that Epistle is much against it For besides what I have before cited out of that Epistle hee saith that Christ by the beatificall presence of his Divinity did never depart from those just persons that were in Abrahams bosome which the Marquesse saith is the same place with that called Limbus Patrum and therefore hee did not finde what Christ did for them when hee descended into Hell And having considered what hee could of the words of Peter hee rather thought that they did not speake of Hell at all And therefore by the spirits in prison hee conceived to be meant men that lived in the dayes of Noah whose soules were in their mortall bodies as in a prison to which men hee saith Christ by his Spirit in Noah did Preach though they yet neverthelesse would not believe Bellarmine and Estius and others doe acknowledge this to have beene the opinion of Austine in that Epistle concerning the words of Peter And Bellarmine also doth confesse that this of Austine doth differ but little from Bezaes Exposition of the place viz. that by the spirits in prison are meant the soules of men which were now when Peter wrote of them in prison that is in Hell to which men Christ by his Divine Spirit in Noah did Preach when they were alive upon Earth And surely any that are impartiall will judge this Exposition in that wherein it differs from Austines the more probable and yet Bellarmine to shew his partiality saith that hee would not have refuted Austines Exposition if Austine himselfe had beene altogether pleased with it Austines Exposition is embraced not onely by Bede whom Bellarmine onely mentions as herein following Austine but also by Aquinas and others as Estius observes who also addes that Hesselius a Romish Authour doth understand the place much after the same manner And as Lorinus doth relate Diegus Paiva one that wrote in defence of the Councell of Trent doth directly expound the words of Peter as Beza doth though hee would not have it thought that Paiva did receive his Exposition from Beza But against both Austines and Bezaes Exposition it is objected first that the Spirit by which Christ went and Preached to the spirits in prison 1 Pet. 3. 18 19. is opposed to the Flesh and therefore must signifie Christs Soule and not his Divine Nature I answer that Christs Divine Nature is most fitly understood there by the word Spirit even as by the word Flesh is to be understood not onely his Body but his whole humane Nature in respect of which nature Christ was put to death and was quickned by his Divine Nature Thus doth Oecumenius expound it Put to death in the nature of flesh that is the humane Nature and raised againe by the power of the Divine Nature And why should this Exposition seeme strange when as Flesh is put for Christs humane Nature Ioh. 1. 14. The word was made Flesh And so also Rom. 1. 3. and 9. 5. And therefore on the other side the word Spirit may well denote Christs Divine Nature For this Exposition Estius also cites Austine and Athanasius as alledged by Bede And he doth well observe that
greater benefit by him even of deliverance from the captivity of sinne and Satan Estius in his Exposition of the hard places of Scripture treating of this place saith indeed that many understand it of Christs descending into Hell and delivering thence the soules of the just but withall hee tells us that it is diversly expounded and that one Exposition is that Christ by the Merit of his Passion did free all the Elect who were held captive under the power of the Devill And thus hee saith the pit wherein is no water is the captivity of mankinde in which so long as it is held it is empty of the water of Divine Grace Diverse Romanists doe cite Hierome as interpreting this place of the Prophet Zachary of Limbus Patrum and of Christs descending thither But they that peruse Hieromes owne words will finde that hee neither speakes of Christs descending nor of Limbus Patrum and that indeed hee meant onely that which Estius expresseth Hee giveth the sense of the Prophets words thus By the blood of thy passion thou through thy clemency hast delivered those who were held bound in the prison of Hell in which there is no mercy And hee addes a little after that the rich man spoken of Luke 16. was in that pit which was so void of all water of comfort that hee desired Lazarus might but dip the tip of his finger in water to coole his Tongue Here it is evident that Hierome by the pit without water understands the Hell of the damned which is without all comfort though the Marquesse say that place cannot here be meant Now whereas Hierome saith that Christ by his Passion did deliver those that were bound in that prison I suppose hee did not meane that any being once in Hell as that rich man that he mentioneth were afterwards delivered out of it himself seemes to exclude that sence when hee saith that in that prison there is no mercy viz. to be obtained but his meaning was that such as by reason of sinne were in the state of damnation Christ did deliver by his Passion But thus neither this place of Zachary nor any other place of Scripture doth prove a Limbus Patrum or that Christ descended into Hell in that sense as they of the Church of Rome maintaine For the Fathers whom the Marquesse citeth Austine in Psal 37. 1. hath nothing about Limbus Patrum or Christs descending into Hell and I have shewed before that he gathered by the Scripture that Abrahams bosome was no such Limbus as the Romanists imagine yea that hee held the Saints that died before Christs incarnation to have alwayes enjoyed the beatificall presence of Christs Divinity which is point blanke contrary to their opinion Hierome I grant in Ephes 4. 9. seemeth to speake for them where hee saith By the lower parts of the Earth is understood Hell to which our Lord and Saviour descended that he might victoriously carry with him to Heaven the soules of the Saints which were kept there Whereupon also after his Resurrection many bodies of the just were seene in the holy City But Hieromes meaning might be onely this that Christ by the vertue and efficacy of his death did deliver the Soules of all Saints whether before or after his comming from Hell which otherwise by reason of sinne was the place that did belong unto them Thus a little before upon those words when hee ascended up on high hee led captivity captive Hierome doth expresse himselfe saying Wee who now believe in Christ were taken captive by the Devill and were delivered over to his officers Therefore our Lord Iesus Christ came bringing with him the vessels of captivity and preached remission to those that were taken and deliverance to those that were bound and delivered us from the Chaines and Fetters of our enemies And having deliver'd us and by a new captivity brought us out of our old captivity he carried us with him into Heaven Hee cannot here meane that we were actually in Hell and then from thence delivered and carried up with Christ into Heaven But his meaning must needs be this that whereas sinne had brought us under condemnation so that nothing but Hell did remaine for us Christ by his death delivered us and made a way for us into Heaven into which otherwise wee could finde no entrance After the same manner very well may the other words be understood so as to import no such place as they call Limbus Patrum However hee meant yet it appeares sufficiently by the words of Austine before cited that the opinion of Limbus Patrum was not generally received in that time wherein Hierome lived Austine and hee being contemporaries The other Father yet remaining is Gregory but there is no such place as that mentioned viz. li. 13. Mor. ca. 20. for that booke hath onely 17. Chapters in it yet I finde Bellarmine also to cite Gregory after the very same manner yea and to bid us also see Cap. 21. But the words which Bellarmine citeth as out of Cap. 20. are indeed in Cap. 15. viz. Whiles our Master and Redeemer penetrating the cloysters of Hell did bring out from thence the soules of the Elect hee suffers not us to goe thither from whence by descending hee did deliver others These words of Gregory might admit of the same Exposition with those of Hierome before spoken of but that in the next Chapter he is more plaine saying The former Saints could indure adversity but yet they could not be delivered from Hell when they died because hee was not yet come who should descend thither without sinne that hee might deliver those who were held there by reason of sinne But the reason that Gregory here giveth is too weake for though Christ were not then come in the flesh yet his death was as effectuall to those that believed in him then as after his comming as I have proved before Neither is the gound or occasion of these words of Gregory good for hee buildes or comments upon that of Iob 17. 13. If I waite Sheol Hell as Gregory understands it is mine house But I have shewed before that Sheol doth not properly signifie Hell as either wee or our adversaries usually take the word but the Grave or the state of the dead And so the Chaldie Paraphrast there for Sheol hath that which signifieth the house of the Grave This appeares to be the meaning in that place by that which followes immediately after v. 14. I have said to corruption Thou art my Father to the worme thou art my Mother and Sister If our adversaries wil yet stand upon the authority of Gregory I answer that we are not tied to the authority of any in this kinde further then they concur with the Scripture and if we were yet Austines authority were to be preferred as being 200 years more antient then Gregory but of this point enough From Limbus Patrum wee must now passe to Purgatory
Catechisme set forth by the decree of the Councel of Trent comming to explain the ten Commandements saith Although the Law was given by the Lord in the Mount to the Jews yet because by nature it was long before imprinted in the mindes of all and so God would have all at all times to obey him it will be very profitable diligently to explain these words in which by the Ministery of Moses the Law was promulgated to the Hebrews c. Here they clearly intimate that the ten Commandements do not concern Christians as published by Moses but as imprinted in the heart of man by nature which is all that Luther teacheth who both in his greater and lesser Catechisme expoundeth the ten Commandements which he would not have done if he had held that they do not bind Christians to the observing of them But this doctrine he expresly disclaimeth as I have already shewed 14. Luther is taxed for saying that faiâ—h except it be without even the least good works doth not justifie and is not faith Nothing is alleadged out of Luthers writings for proof of this but onely Câ—vels defence of Mr. Hooker is cited which book I have not to peruse yet I finde Bellarminâ— citing Luthers own words to this very purpose But Luthers meaning I suppose was onely this that in the work of justification faith is altogether without works so that no works concur with it unto justification not but that otherwise faith is accompanied with good works so that where faith true justifying faith is there wil be good works also Bellarmine indeed doth tell of some rigid Lutherans who so hold faith alone to justifie as not to admit other vertues so much as to be present with it And this he saith they would have to be Luthers opinion yet he confesseth Chemnitius a famous Lutheran to agree with Calvin in this that though faith alone doth justifie yet faith that doth justifie is not alone even as the heat of the Sun alone doth burn yet that heat is not alone but hath light joyned with it And for Luther himself his writings plainly shew that although he exclude works from having any thing to do in our justification as generally Protestants do yet he was no enemy to good works After that we have taught faith in Christ saith he we also teach good works And again We do not reject works and love as the adversaries do accuse us And again Faith not fained nor hypocritical but true and lively is that which doth exercise and urge good works through love So also again Some say if faith without works do justifie then let us not work onely let us beleeve and let us do what we will Not so ye ungodly saith Paul It is true that faith alone doth justifie but I speak of true faith which when it hath justified is not idle but doth work through love 15. Luther is charged with saying That we are equal in dignity and honour with St. Paul St. Peter the blessed Virgin Mary or all the Saints The Edition of Luthers Works which the Marquesse citeth not agreeing in the folio's with that which I meet with I cannot tell whether Luther saith thus or no or if he do in what sense he saith it but if he have such words I presume he meaneth in respect of imputed righteousnesse which is one and the same to all that beleeve not in respect of inherent righteousnesse which is more in some then in others In respect of imputed righteousnesse the Spouse of Christ here upon earth is all fair and there is no spot in her But in respect of inherent righteousnesse just men are not made perfect until hereafter in the life to come Heb. 12. 23. In this respect the inward man is renewed day by day 2 Cor. 4. 16. 16. That all the holinesse which they have used in fasting and prayer enduring labours chastising their bodies austerity and hardnesse of life may be daily performed by a hog or a dog Whether this charge be true I cannot examine for the reason even now alleadged Neither do I see how Luther or any rational man should make prayer a thing performable by a hog or a dog Otherwise who seeth not but that these bruit creatures may be made to fast see Jon. 3. 7. 8. and to endure bodily hardnesse The Apostle clearly distinguisheth betwixt bodily exercise and godlinesse 1 Tim. 4. 8. And both Scripture and experience shew that all these things mentioned by the Marquesse may be performed by the wicked as well I mean for the outward act as by the godly See Isa 1. 11. to 15. and Isa 58. 3. c. 17. Another charge against Luther is that he holdeth That in the absence of a Priest a woman or a boy or any Christian may obsolve It seems then that Luther doth not say that any may do it as well as a Priest for then what need to say in absence of a Priest And may not any Christian declare the glad tydings of salvation unto an afflicted conscience Doth not the Apostle speaking to Christians in general bid them comfort the feeble-minded 1 Thess 5. 14. As for that confession to and absolution by a Priest which the Romanists contend for we know no ground nor warrant in Scripture for it 18. The next charge is that he saith They onely communicate worthily who have confused and erronious consciences I finde this objected by Campian and answered by Dr. Whitaken so as to aknowledge the truth of the assertion in this sense that they only are meet for the Sacrament who are sensible of their sins and so of the need they have of Christ for the remission of them according to that of our Saviour The whole have no need of the Physitian but they that are sick Mat. 9. 12. 19. That a Priest especially in the New Testament is not made but born not consecrated but created Where Luther saith thus I cannot finde nor can I conjecture what he meaneth if he do say it 20. That the Sacrament were true though it were administred by the Devil How Luther is baited for this by Hospinian and Covel his fellow-Protestants as the Marquesse saith he is I wanting their books cannot see but it Luther meant of such a Devil as Christ spake of viz. a Judas Joh. 6. 70. neither Protestants nor Papists can justly oppose him they holding as generally they do that the vertue of the Sacrament doth not depend upon the dignity of him by whom it is administred 21. That among Christians no man can or ought to be a Magistrate but each one is to other equally subject and that among Christian men none is superior save one and only Christ This same charge is also brought against Luther by Mr. Breerley who yet hath that which is a sufficient answer to it For he cites Luther admonishing to obey the
in life and death advantage This as appears by the date of the Epistle Calvin wrote at Geneva the second day of May in the year 1564. and as Bucholcerus in his Chronology notes out of Beza the twenty seventh day of the same moneth he dyed The Marquesse page 99. speaks of Marriage as anciently held by the Church to be a true and proper Sacrament This particular I omitted having spoken of the rest which he there mentioneth to wit Confirmation Orders and Extreme Unction in answer to that which elsewhere he saith of them For Marriage therefore 1. There is nothing in the Scripture to prove it a Sacrament properly so called That of the Apostle so much insisted on This is a great mystery Ephes 5. 32. Their own Cardinal Cajetane upon the place confesseth to make nothing to the purpose 2. That the Fathers call Marriage a Sacrament doth not evince that they thought it to be of the same nature with Baptisme and the Lords Supper For as I have before shewed they often use the word Sacrament largely and apply it to divers things which even in our Adversaries account properly are no Sacraments 3. Durandus an acute and learned School-man who lived about the year 1320. doth hold that though Marriage be a sign of a holy thing to wit the conjunction of Christ and the Church and so in a large sense a Sacrament yet it is no Sacrament strictly and properly so called nor of the same nature with the other Sacraments of the New Testament to wit Baptisme and the Lords Supper and this he confirms by divers arguments I know Bellarmine indeavours to answer Durandus his arguments but his answers are consuted by Amesius and others and therefore I will not stand about them I will only prove from Bellarmine himself that Marriage is properly no Sacrament Every Sacrament properly so called is administred by some other and not by the same party to whom it is administred But Marriage is not administred by some other but by parties themselves that are married whiles they mutually expresse their consent one to the other Therefore Marriage is no Sacrament properly so called Bellarmine doth own both the Proposition and the Assumption and therefore he may not deny the Conclusion This is argumentum ad hominem as they call it of force against Bellarmine I do not see what he could or any holding his principles can answer to it But to make the argument simply and absolutely convincing I will frame it otherwise For indeed the Proposition laid down by Bellarmine is not simply and absolutely true to wit Every Sacrament properly so called is administred by some other and not by the same party to whom it is administred This is not essential to a Sacrament for then the Lords Supper should be no Sacrament to the Minister himselfe but only to those that communicate with him And so if Abraham did circumcise himselfe as is probable he did his Circumcision should have been no Sacrament unto him which is most absurd Thus therefore I frame the argument Every Sacrament of the New Testament is to be administred by such as are peculiarly appointed of God to be Ministers of his holy things But Marriage is not administred by such Therefore it is not a Sacrament of the New Testament In the Proposition I say Every Sacrament of the New Testament because whether it were so in respect of Circumcision the story of Zippordh and some other places of Scripture perhaps may make it questionable But for the Sacraments of the New Testament our Saviour hath ordained those that are Ministers of the word to have the administration of them also Mat. 28. 19 20. And the Apostle bids Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. The Sacraments therefore being the mysteries of God only the Ministers of Christ are now the stewards and dispencers of them But this is not necessarily requisite in the point of Marriage that a Minister should dispence it Though ordinarily a Minister be imployed in the celebration of Marriage for the instructing and exhorting of the parties married and for praying unto God for his blessing upon them yet this is not by Christs peculiar appointment but only as our Adversaries confesse by the Churches order and therefore not simply necessary Marriage were every way compleat though no Minister were imployed in it though in divers respects that is expedient but howsoever properly the parties themselves that are married are they by whom Marriage is administred whiles they give themselves each to other The End Errata in the First Part. Pag. 114. Properly read piously p. 121. deceived r. deceased p. 122. saw r. slew p. 123. work r. rock p. 124. that r. not p. 136. supposition r. suspition p. 166. Patres lege fratres p. 205. reply r. rely p. 214. thy merit r. my merit ibid. die r. did nomen l. nomine p. 215. discente l. dicente p. 222. So say the Translators c. That hath reference to those words Some may and indeed do say c. ibid. inevitable r. inevitably be being blot out being p. 230. If the Apostle had adde these words considered mankind as corrupt he would not have said p. 231. fastned r. fashioned p. 235. were affirmed r. we affirm p. 252. to r. do p. 262. liking r. living p. 291. Lombard who blot out who Errata in the Second Part. Pag. 26. this same r. the same p. 40. at least r. at furthest p. 45. commending r. contending * It was published Anno 1649. * See the Advertisement to the Reader perfixed to the late Kings workes set forth together in one volume †It is intituled as I remember Herba Parietis or The Wall-flower * Hamon L'Estrange Esquire Arch. of Christs personall raign on Earth Page 50. and 55. Mede on Revel 11. 7. Qui in historiarum Ecclesiasticarum lectione versati sunt Christiani populi ignorantiam Romanae sedis authoritatem simul auctam facilè animadvertere potuerunt Vicissimque ut bonarum literarum instauratione facessere caepit ignorantia ita Pontificis autoritas paulatim im ninui labascere visa est Gentillet Exam. Concil Trident. lib. 1. Sect. 7 8. vide plura Illud autem inclemens obruendum perenni silentio quòd arcebat docere Magistros Rhetoricos Grammaticos ritûs Christiani cultores Am. Marcell de Julia. lib. 22. * Naseby Fight Lincol. min. to K. James pag. 11. 13. Chem. Ex. Contr. Trid. part 1. pag. 55. Also Eucher p. 63. Questionum asceticarum secundum eptt regula trecentissima sexagessima * Saint Aug. so interprets this place upon the 37. Psal also S. Amb. upon 1 Cor. 3. and Ser. 20. in Psal 118. S. Hier. l. 2. cap. 13. ad vers Joan. S. Greg. lib. 4. dialog c. 39. Orig. hom 9. in c. 15. Exod. Ad Argent An. 1525. c Luther anvival tit de
Testament was but should be performed in every place as well in one place as another This is that which our Saviour said to the Woman of Samaria Woman believe me the houre commeth when ye shall neither in this Mountaine nor yet at Ierusalem worship the Father The houre commeth and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth c. Joh. 4. 21 23. S. Paul also to the same purpose I will therefore that men pray every where lifting up holy hands c. 1 Tim. 2. 8. This is that incense and pure offering which the Prophet Malachy said should be offered unto God in every place This incense and pure Offering are the prayers of the Saints Revel 5. 8. And all spirituall sacrifices which Christians offer acceptable unto God thorough Iesus Christ 1 Pet. 2. 5. What is this to prove that Christ is truly and properly sacrificed in the Eucharist It is true the Fathers sometimes apply that place of Malachy to the Sacrament of the Eucharist but not as if Christ were there in that Sacrament truly and properly sacrificed nor as if that place concerned this Sacrament more then any other spirituall worship now to be performed under the new Testament Irenaeus in one Chapter applies it to the Sacrament and in the very next immediately after hee applies it to Prayer Having cited the words of Malachy In every place incense is offered to my Name and a pure offering immediately hee addes Now Iohn in the Revelation saith that incense are the Prayers of the Saints So also Hierome in his commentary upon the words of Malachy Now the Lord directs his speech to the Iewish Priests who offer the Blind and the Lame and the sick for sacrifice that they may know that spirituall sacrifices are to succeed carnall sacrifices And that not the blood of Buls and Goates but incense that is the Prayers of the Saints are to be offered unto the Lord and that not in one province of the world Iudea nor in one City of Iudea Hierusalem but in every place is offered an offering not impure as was offered by the people of Israel but pure as is offered in the ceremonies or services of Christians Here it is very observable that Hierome writing professedly upon the place of the Prophet to shew the meaning of it was so far from thinking it to be peculiarly meant of the Eucharist that hee doth not so much as mention that Sacrament otherwise then it is comprehended in those spirituall sacrifices which hee saith are here spoken of but as hee saith that spirituall sacrifices in generall are here signified so particularly hee applieth the words of the Prophet unto prayer saying that it is the incense which the Prophet speaketh of The other place of Scripture viz. Luke 22. 19. is as little to the purpose though Bellarmine also doth alledge and urge it in the same manner saying that Christ did not say Vobis datur frangitur effunditur sed pro vobis is given broken shed to you but for you But what of this Wee know and believe that Christs Body was given and his Blood shed for us on the crosse in remembrance whereof according to Christs institution wee receive the Sacrament but doth it therefore follow that Christ is properly offered and sacrificed in the Sacrament The ground of this conceit is that the word is in the present tense datur is given not in the future dabitur shall be given But this is too weake a foundation to build upon For Bellarmine cannot deny but that in the Scripture the present or the preter tense is often put for the future And well might it be so here Christ being now ready to be offered he instituting the Sacrament the same night that he was betrayed 1 Cor. 11. 23. the night before hee suffered And therefore Cardinall Cajetan was much more ingenuous then Cardinall Bellarmine For upon 1 Cor. 11. 23. he notes that both the Evangelists and also Paul relating the words of the institution of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper use the present tense is given or broken and is shed because when Christ did institute the Sacrament though his Body was not yet crucified nor his Blood shed yet the crucifying of his Body and the shedding of his Blood was at hand and in a manner present Yea the time of Christs suffering hee saith was then present as being then begun And therefore as when the day is begun wee may signifie in the present tense whatsoever is done that day so the day of Christs Passion being begun the Jewes beginning the day at the Evening all his Passion might be signified by a word of the present tense The present being taken Gramatically not for an instant but for a certaine time confusedly present The ancient Writers also have expounded the present tense used in the words of the institution by the future Heare Christ himselfe saith Origen saying unto thee This is my Blood which shall be shed c. So also Tertullian rehearseth Christs words thus This is my Body which shall be given for you And even the vulgar Latine Translation Mat. 26. 28. Mar. 14. 24. hath it in the future tense effundetur and so Luke 22. 20. fundetur shall be shed and 1 Cor. 11. 24. tradetur shall be given Now for the Fathers whom the Marquesse alledgeth as being of their opinion I answer the Fathers indeed doe frequently use the word sacrifice and offering when they speake of the Eucharist but it doth not therefore follow that according to their opinion there is a true and proper sacrifice offered in the Eucharist For it is certaine that they doe also frequently use the same words when they speake of those things which the Romanists themselves acknowledge to be no sacrifices properly so called even as the Scripture speaketh of the sacrifice of Prayer Psal 141. 2. of praise Heb. 13. 15. of Almes Heb. 13. 16. of our own selves Rom. 12. 1. And where the Fathers as the Marquesse observeth call the Eucharist an unbloodly sacrifice they sufficiently shew that properly Christ is not sacrificed in it For as Bellarmine himselfe doth tell us All sacrifices properly so called that the Scriptures speake of were to be destroyed and that by staying if they were things having life and if they were solid things without life as fine Floure Salt and Frankincense they were to be destroyed by burning Besides I have shewed before by the testimony of Lombard that the Fathers sometimes expressely speake of Christs being sacrificed in the Eucharist in that there is a commemoration and remembrance of the sacrifice which Christ upon the crosse did offer for us Bellarmine objects that Baptisme doth represent the death of Christ and yet none of the ancients doe ever call Baptisme a sacrifice and therefore the representation of Christs death alone could not be the cause why they call the Lords Supper a