doe rather call for our care and diligence to suppresse them For answer unto this I grant that the prevailing errours of the times are mainly to be opposed yet as our Saviour said in another case this ought to be done and the other not to be left undone Yea Popery is the grand evill that doth infest the Church and by how much it is the more inveterate the more diffused by so much the danger of it is the greater and it requires the more opposition There is also a speciall warning to come out of Babylon Revel 18. 4. and certainly it will availe us little to come out except we also keepe out of it And if we would keep our selves out of Babylon we must keepe the Babylonish Doctrine from finding entertainment with us This will aske no little care no humane policy in the world I think being greater then that which is used either for the supporting of that doctrine where it is or the introducing of it where it is not embraced Shall we thinke that the Romanists are idle in these busy times Though few doe shew themselves as the Marquesse did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with open face yet we may well suspect that many are working so as that by how much they are the lesse conspicuous by so much they are the more dangerous And as David in a certaine case said to the woman of Tekoah Is not the hand of Joab with thee in all this So in respect of that heape of heterodox opinions that is among us may it not be said Is not the hand of a Iesuite in all this Diverse Pamphlets in these times have admonished us to beware and among the rest one intituled Mutatus Polemo what ever the Authors designe were doth speake not a little to this purpose Before these trouble some times began some have either expressed as Mr. Archer or intimated as Mr. Mede that in their opinion Popery shall yet againe for a while universally prevaile in those Countries and Nations out of which it hath bin expelled If this be so as for any thing I see I may hope the contrary may it not be feared that as those many Antichrists as they are called 1 Joh. 2. 18. that is those many heretikes that were in the primitive times did make way for the rise of that great Antichrist so these in our times may make way for the restauration of him And whereas we have heard long since of Romes Master-peece I see not how any Romish designe can better deserve this title then so to debase the Ministery and to decry learning as the practice of many is in these times Hoc Ithacus velit hoc magno mercentur Atreidae The Chieftaines of the Church of Rome can desire nothing more then that among their adversaries the Ministery should be cast down and learning overthrown For then why should they doubt but that they may soon reduce all unto them none being now of any competent ability to oppose them It is observed by those that are acquainted with Ecclesiasticall History that when Learning was the lowest then Popery got to be highest as the one decayed so the other was advanced and on the otherside that the restauration of good literature did make way for the Reformation of Religion Surely if Popery overspread againe barbarisme and illiteratenesse is a most likely means to effect it Neither are the Papists I suppose lesse politick and wise in their generation then Julian the Apostate was who could see no fairer way whereby to re establish Gentilisme then by indeavouring to devest Christians of Learning a thing so vile and odious that Ammianus Marcellinus himselfe though a Pagan and a great admirer of Julian was ashamed of it and shewed great dislike of Julian for it calling it a cruell part and a thing to be buried in perpetuall silence But I have held Thee Reader longer then I did intend I will preface no further but praying unto the Lord to preserve his Church from errors without and to purge it from errors within I rest Thy Friend and lover in the truth C C. The CONTENTS of the FIRST PART OF THE REIOYNDER 1 OF the marks of the true Church which they of the Church of Rome assigne as Universality Antiquity Visibility Succession of Pastors unity in Doctrine and the Coversion of Nations Page 107 to 114 2 Of having recourse unto the Scriptures in matters that concern Religion 114 115 116 3 Of relying either on Fathers singly and severally considered or on a generall Councel 116 117 118 119 4 That the Apostles as Pen-men of the Holy Ghost could not erre 120 5 Of the easiness and plainness of the Scriptures 120 121 6 Of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper 122 to 140 7 Whether the Church hath any infallible rule besides the Scripture for the understanding of Scripture 140 to 147 8 Againe of the Scriptures being easie to be understood 147 148 9 Whether the Church can erre or not 148 to 152 10 Againe of the Visibility of the Church 152 153 11 Of the Universality of the Church 153 to 158 12 Of the unity of the Church in matters of faith 158 159 13 Of Kings and Queens being Heads or Governours and Governesses of the Church within their Dominions 159 160 14 Of the Ministers power to forgive sins 159 as 't is misprinted to 162 15 Of confessing sins to a ghostly Father 162 to 172 16 Of works of Superogation 172 to 176 17 Of Free-will 176 to 195 18 Of the possibility of keeping the Commandements 196 to 201 19 Of Justification by faith alone 201 to 211 20 Of Merits 211 to 216 21 Whether justifying faith may be lost 216 to 221 22 Of Reprobation 221 to 239 23 Of assurance of Salvation 239 to 251 24 Whether every Believer hath a peculiar Angel to be his guardian 251 to 254 25 Of the Angels praying for us and knowing our thoughts 254 255 256 26 Of praying to the Angels 256 to 261 27 Whether the Saints deceased know our affairs here below 261 to 266 28 Of the Saints deceased praying for us 266 to 269 29 Of praying to the Saints deceased 269 to 276 30 Of Confirmation whether it be a Sacrament properly so called 276 to 281 31 Of communicating in one kinde 281 to 287 32 Of the sacrifice of the Masse as they call it or whether Christ be truly and properly offered up and sacrificed in the Eucharist or Lords Supper 287 to 296 33 Whether Orders or rather Ordination be a Sacrament of like nature with Baptisme and the Lord Supper 296 to 301 34 Of Vows of chastity and of the Marriage of Ecclesiastical persons 301 to 318 35 Of Christs descending into Hell 319 to 340 36 Of Purgatory 340 to 355 37 Of extreme Unction 355 to 363 38 Of the saying of Austine Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae Authoritas commoveret I should not believe or should not have
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
any other Church besides the Romane she never had Communion She cannot be that one because she is but one nor Catholick because she agrees not with any nor Apostolick because she hath acknowledged such a fine and recovery that has quite cut off the entaile which would have otherwise descended unto her from the Apostles neither can she be holy because she is none of all the other three Now if these Attributes cannot belong unto the Protestant Religion and do clearly belong unto the Roman then is the Church of Rome the Catholick Church And that it doth I shall prove it by the marks which God Almighty hath given us whereby we should know her And the first is Universality All Nations shall flow unto her Esa 2. 2. And the Psalmist The heathen shall be thine inheritance and the uttermost part of the Earth for thy possession Psal 2. 2. And our Saviour Matth. 20. 14. This Gospell of the Kingdome shall be preached in all the world as a witnesse to all Nations c. Now I confesse that this glory is belonging to all Professors of the Christian Religion yet amongst all those who do professe the name of Christ I believe Your Majestie will consent with me herein that the Romane Church hath this forme of universality not onely above all different and distinct Professors of Religion but also beyond all Religions of the world Turkes or Heathens and that there is no place in the world where there are not Romance Catholicks which is manifestly wanting to all other Religions whatsoever Now I hope Your Majestie cannot say so of any Protestant Religion neither that Your Majestie will call all those who protest against the Church of Rome otherwise then Protestants but not Protestant Catholicks or Catholicks of the Protestant Religion being they are not religated within the same Communion and fellowships for then Religion would consist in protestation rather then unity in Nations falling off from one another rather then all Nations flowing to one another neither is it a Consideration altogether invalid that the Church of Rome hath kept possession of the name all along other reformed Churches leaving her in possession of the name and taking unto themselves new names according to their severall founders except the Church of England who is now her selfe become like a Chapter that is full of nothing else whose founder was such a one whose name it may be they were unwilling to owne For antiquity if we should inquire after the old paths which is the good way and walke therein as the Prophet Jeremiah adviseth us if we should take our Saviours rule Ab initio autem non fuit sic if we should observe his saying how the good seed was first sowed and then the tares If we should consider the pit from whence we were dug and the rock from whence we were hewen we shall find antiquity more applicatory to the Church of Rome then any Protestant Church But you will say your Religion is as ancient as ours having its procedure from Christ and his Apostles so say the Lutheran Protestants with their Doctrine of Consubstantiation and many other sorts of Protestants having other Tenents altogether contrary to what you hold how shall we reconcile you so say all hereticks that ever were how shall we confute them a part to set up themselmes against the whole and by the power of the sword to make themselves Judges in their owne causes is dealing that were it your case I am sure you would think it very hard I wish you may never find it so For Visibility Our Saviour compares his Church to a Citie placed on a hill according unto the Prophet Davids Prophesie a Tabernacle in the Sun It is likewise compared unto a candle in a candle-stick not under a bushell and saith our Saviour If they shall say unto you behold he is in the desart go ye not forth Behold he is in secret places believe it not forewarning us against obscure and invisible Congregations Now I beseech Your Majestie whether should I betake my selfe to a Church that was alwayes visible and gloriously eminent or to a Protestant Church that was never eminent and for the most part invisible shrowding their defection under an Apostolicall Expression of a woman in the Revelation who fled into the wildernesse for a thousand years as if an allegory could wipe out so many clear texts of Scripture as are set down by our Saviour and the Prophets concerning the Churches invisibility And I could not find any Church in the world to whom that Prophesie of Esay might more fitly appertain then to the Church of Rome I have set watch-men upon the walls which shall never hold their peace day nor night which I am sure no Protestant Church can apply to her selfe It is not enough to say I maintaine the same Faith and Religion which the Apostles taught and therefore I am of the true Church ancient and visible enough because as I have said before every heretick will say as much but if you cannot by these marks of the Church set down in Scripture clear your selves to be the true Church you vainly appeale to the Scriptures siding with you in any particular point for what can be more absurd then to appeale from Scripture setting things down clearly unto Scripture setting down things more obscurely There is no particular point of Doctrine in the holy Scripture so manifestly set downe as that concerning the Church and the Markes thereof nothing set down more copious and perspicuous then the visibility perpetuitie and amplitude of the Church So that Saint Augustin did not stick to say that the Scriptures were more clear about the Church then they were about Christ Let him answer for it He said so in his book de unitate Ecclesiae and this he said was the reason because God in his wisdome would have the Church to be described without any ambiguity that all Controversies about the Church may be clearly decided whereby questions about particular Doctrines may find determinations in her judgement and that Visibility might shew the way unto the most rude and ignorant and I know not any Church to whom it may more justly be attributed then to the Church of Rome whose Faith as in the beginning was spread through the whole world so all along and at this day it is generally known among all nations Next to this I prove the Catholick Church to be the Romane because a lawfull succession of Pastors is required in every true Church according to the Prophet Esay his Prophecie concerning her viz. My Spirit which is upon thee and the words which I have put into thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed from henceforth for ever This succession I can find onely in the Church of Rome This succession they onely can prove nons else offering to go about it This succession Saint
acknowledgment The Fathers are on our side Orig. Hom. 2. in Levit. S. Chrys lib. 3. de Sacerd. S. Aug. in speculo Ser. 215. de temp Vener Bed in 6. Marke and S. James and many others Thus most Sacred SIR we have no reason to wave the Scriptures umpirage so that you will hear it speak in the mother language and not produce it as a witnesse on your side when the producers tell us nothing but their owne meaning in a language unknowne to all the former ages and then tell us that she saith so and they will have it so because he that hath a Bible and a sword shall carry away the meaning from him that hath a Bible and ne're a sword nor is it more blasphemy to say that the Scripture is the Churches off spring because it is the word of God then it is for me to say I am the sonne of such a man because God made me instrumentally I am so and so was shee for as saith Saint Aug Evangelio non crederum nisi me Ecclesiae anthoritas commoveret I should not believe the Gospel it selfe unlesse I were moved by the authority of the Church There was a Church before there was a Scripture take which Testament you please We grant you that the Scripture is the Originall of all light yet we see light before we see the Sun and we know there was a light when there was no Sun the one is but the body of the other We grant you the Scriptures to be the Celestiall globe but we must not grant you that every one knows how to use it or that it is necessary or possible they should We grant that the Scripture is a light to our feet and a lanthorne to our paths then you must grant me that it is requisite that we have a guide or else we may lose our way in the light as well as in the darke We grant you that it is the food of our souls yet there must be some body that must divide or break the bread We grant you that it is the onely antidote against the infection of the Devil yet it is not every ones profession to be a compounder of the ingredients We grant your Majesty the Scripture to be the only sword and buckler to defend a Church from her Ghostly enemies yet I hope you will not have the glorious company of the Apostles and the goodly fellow ship of the Prophets to exclude the noble Army of Martyrs and the holy Church which through all the world doth acknowledge Christ wherefore having shewne Your Majestie how much the Scriptures are ours I shall now consider your opinions apart from us and see how they are yours and who sides with You in Your opinion besides Your selves and first I shall crave the boldnesse to begin with the Protestants of the Church of England The Church of England WHose Religion as it is in opposition to ours consists altogether in denying for what she affirms we affirme the same as the Reall presence the infallibility visibility universality and unity of the Church confession and remission of sins free-will and possibility of keeping the Commandments c. All these things you deny and you may as well deny the blessed Trinity for we have no such word in Scripture onely inference then that which ye have already denyed and for which we have plaine Scripture Fathers Councels practise of the Church that which ye hold positive in your Discipline is more erroneous then that which is negative in your Doctrine as your maintaining a woman to be head Supreame or Moderatrix in the Church who by the Apostles rule is not to speak in the Church or that a Lay-man may be so what Scripture or Fathers or custome have ye for this or that a Lay-man as your Lay-Chancellour should excommunicate and deliver up soules to Sathan Whereas matters of so weighty concernment as delivering of mens soules into the Devils hands should not be executed and upon mature deliberation and immergent occasions and not by any but those who have the undoubted Authority lest otherwise you make the Authority it selfe to be doubted of A strange Religion whose Ministers are denyed the power of remitting sins whilst Lay-men are admitted to the power of retaining them and that upon every ordinary occasion as non-payment of fees and the like Whereas such practises as these have rendred the rod of Aaron no more formidable then a reed shaken with the wind so that you have brought it to this that whilst such men as these were permitted to excommunicate for a threepeny matter the people made not a three-peny matter of their Excommunication The Church of Saxony NOw for the Church of Saxony you shall find Luther a man not only obtruding new Doctrine upon his Disciples without Scripture or contrary to Scripture but also Doctrine denying Scripture to be Scripture and vilipending those books of Scripture which were received into the Canon and acknowledged to be the word of God in all ages As The book of Eccles saying That it hath never a perfect sentence in it and that the Author thereof had neither boots nor spurs but rid upon a long stick or begging shooes as he did when he was a Fryar And the book of Job that the argument thereof is a meer fiction invented onely for the setting downe of a true and lively example of patience That it is a false opinion and to be abolished that there are four Gospels and that the Gospel of S. John is only true That the Epistle of S. James is contentious swelling dry strawy and unworthy an Apostolical spirit And that Moses in his writings shewes unpleasant stopped and angry lips in which the word of grace is not but of wrath death and sin He calls him a Goaler Executioner and a cruell Serjeant For his doctrine He holds a threefold Divinity or three kinds as there are three persons whereupon Zwinglius taxes him for maning three Gods or three Natures in the Divinity He himselfe is angry with the word Trinity calling it a humane invention and a thing that soundeth very coldly He justifies the Arrians and saith they did very well in expelling the word Homousion being a word that his soule hated He affirmed that Christ was from all eternity even according to his humane nature taxed for it by Zwing in these words how can Christ then be said to be borne of a woman He affirmes that as Christ dyed with great pain so he seeems to have sustained pains in Hell after death That the divinity of Christ suffered or else he were none of his Christ That if the humane nature should only suffer for him that Christ were but a Saviour of a vile account and had need himselfe of another Saviour Luther held not onely consubstantiation but also saith Hospinian that the body and bloud of Christ both is and may be found according
Tertullian and so of Vincentius Tertullians words as he cites them are these wee doe not admit our adversaries to dispute out of Scripture till they can shew who their ancestors were and from whom they received the Scriptures For the ordinary course of Doctrine requires that the first question should be from whom and by whom and to whom the forme of Christian Religion was delivered otherwise prescribing against him as a stranger These words I cannot finde nor any like unto them in the place cited viz. de Praescrip cap. 11. elsewhere indeed in that booke I finde words like unto these though not the same However if wee should be tried by these words I see not how they will conclude against us For though the Heretickes with whom Tertullian had to doe might be convinced otherwise then by Scripture it followes not that therefore this is not the ordinary way whereby to convince Hereticks Thus Christ convinced the Sadduces that denied the Resurrection Mat. 22. 29. c. thus Apollos convinced the Jewes who denied Jesus to be the Christ Acts 18. 28. And thus the Apostles convinced those that urged Circumcision and the observing of the Jewish Law Acts 15. 15. c. And thus both other Fathers and even Tertullian himselfe doth usually dispute against Heretickes and confute them by the Scriptures But saith the Marquesse If a Heathen should come by the Bible as the Eunuch came by the prophecy of Esay and have no Philip to interpret it unto him hee would find out a Religion rather according to his own fancy then Divine verity Be it so yet here is nothing to prove that this Philip that is to interpret the Bible is not to fetch his interpretation from the Bible it selfe but from some unwritten tradition I come to Vincentius Lirinensis whose words produced by the Marquesse run thus It is very needfull in regard of so many errors proceeding from mis-interpretations of Scriptures that the line of propheticall and Apostolicall exposition should be directed according to the rule of the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense But I see not that in the opinion of Vincentius the rule of the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense is any other then the Scripture He insists much I am sure upon those words of the Apostle If wee or an Angell from heaven preach any other Gospell unto you then that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed Gal. 1. 8. Now as was noted before out of Irenaeus the Gospell which the Apostles preached they delivered unto us in the Scriptures and that is the foundation and pillar of our Faith Indeed all that Vincentius in his Commonitory against Heresies aimes at is this That the Faith once delivered to the Saints as Saint Iude speaks might be preserved To which end he descants well upon those words of the Apostle O Timothy keep that which is committed to thy trust 1 Tim. 6. 20. That which is committed to thee not that which is invented by thee that which thou hast received not that which thou hast devised a matter nōt of wit but of doctrine not of private usurpation but of publick tradition a thing brought unto thee not brought forth by thee in which thou art not to be an author but a keeper not an ordainer but an observer not a leader but a follower That this Depositum or thing committed to Timothy was any unwritten Tradition and not the doctrine of the Gospell contained in the Scripture neither doth Vincentius say neither can it be proved Bellarmine himself is forced to confesse That all things necessary for all are written by the Apostles Yea and that those things which have the testimony of Tradition he means unwritten tradition received in the whole Church are not usually such as concern most obscure questions And how then should such Tradition be the Rule of Faith and of Expounding the Scriptures The Marquesse saith that in matters of Faith Christ bids us to observe and doe whatsoever they bid us who sit in Moses Seat Mat. 23. 2 3. whence he infers Therefore surely there is something more to be observed then onely Scripture Will you not as well believe what you hear Christ say as what you hear his Ministers write You hear Christ when you hear them as well as you read Christ when you read his Word He that heareth you heareth me Luk. 10. 16. Thus the Marquesse but it was from our Saviours meaning that the people should doe simply and absolutely whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees who sate in Moses Seat should enjoyn Our Saviour meant nothing lesse for expresly he bade beware of the leaven of the Pharisees Mat. 16. 6. that is of the Doctrine of the Pharisees v. 12. Our Saviours meaning therefore was only this that whiles the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses Seat did deliver the Law and Doctrine of Moses people should hear and obey though otherwise they were most corrupt both in life Doctrine The Jesuite Maldonate doth thus expound the place as indeed it cannot with any probability be otherwise expounded When Christ saith he bids observe and doe what the Scribes and Pharisees say whiles they sit in Moses seat he speaks not of their Doctrine but of the Doctrine of the Law and of Moses For it is as if he should say All things that the Law and Moses shall say unto you the Scribes and Pharisees rehearsing it observe and do but after their workes doe not It 's true Christ doth tells us that they that hear his Ministers hear him but that is when they speak as his Ministers when they speak his Word not their owne As God said to the Prophet Ezekiel Thou shalt speak my Words unto them Ezek. 2. 7. And to the Prophet Ieremy Speak unto them all that I command thee Ier. 1. 17. And so Christ to his Apostles Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you Mat. 28. 20. So then we hear Christ indeed when we hear his Word spoken by his Ministers as well as we read Christ when we read his Word written in the Scriptures But that which we hear must be tried by that which we read that which is spoken by Ministers by that which is written in the Scriptures as hath been shewed before by Isai 8. 20. Ioh. 5. 39. Act. 17. 11. We say saith the Marquesse the Scriptures are not easie to be understood you say they are we have Scripture for it as is before manifested at large The Fathers say as much c. We doe not say that the Scriptures throughout in every part of them are easie to be understood but that they are so in things necessary unto Salvation This hath been shewed before by the testimony both of the Scripture it self and of Austine as likewise that the places of Scripture objected by the Marquesse doe make nothing against the easinesse of the Scripture either at all or at least in this sense Neither are the
ascribing so much to the Church when as 't is well known contrary to what the Bishop of Rome and the Church generally did hold he held the re-baptizing of such as had been baptized by Heretikes Though Cyprian in this did erre yet his very erring in this shewes that hee thought the Church the generality of the visible Church not onely subject to error but indeed to have erred The last Father whom the Marquesse here mentioneth for though hee say cum multis aliis yet hee nameth no more is Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. where he saith It is not meet to seeke the truth among others which it is easie to take of the Church seeing the Apostles did lay in it as in a rich depository all things that concerne truth that every one that will may out of it receive the drinke of life This indeed is gloriously spoken of the Church and not Hyperbolically neither yet doth it not amount to this that the Church cannot erre The holy Scriptures wherein all saving truth is contained are committed to the Church and the Doctine of salvation is ordinarily held forth in and by the Church but hence it doth not follow that the Church that is such as beare sway in it is not subject to error All that Irenaeus saith of the Church is no more if so much as that of the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. 15. that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth which place it may seeme strange that the Marquesse pretermitteth Bellarmine disputing this point brings in those words in the very first place to prove that the Church cannot erre And whereas Calvin answers that the Church is so styled by the Apostle because in it the Scriptures are preserved and preached he replies that thus the Church should rather be compared to a Chest then to a Pillar But this is a frivolous objection for the Church doth not keepe the truth close and secret as a thing is kept in a chest but so as to professe and publish it and therefore is compared to a Pillar to which a thing is fastned and so hangeth that all may see it But that those words of the Apostle do not infer an infallibility of the Church and an exemption from errour is cleare by this that he speakes of a particular visible Church namely the Church of Ephesus now that a particular visible Church may erre our Adversaries will not deny and that very Church of Ephesus there spoken of doth sufficiently demonstrate The Apostle therefore in those words doth rather shew the duty of the Church then the dignity of it rather what it should be then what it alwayes is As when it is said Mal. 2. 7. Labia sacerdotis custodient scientiam The Priests lips shall keep knowledge that is as our translations rightly render it should keepe So the Jesuite Ribera doth expound it shall keepe that is saith he ought to keep The Marquesse here comes againe to the visibility of the Church and some other particulars before handled That the Church is alwayes visible he proves by Mat. 5. 14 15. The light of the World a City upon a Hill cannot be hid But I have shewed before these words Yee are the light of the world to be meant of the Apostles who as their own Iansenius expounds it were a light unto the World by their preaching So also Theophylact They did not enlighten saith hee one Nation but the whole world And the words following A City set upon a Hill cannot be hid he shewes to have been spoken by way of instruction Christ saith hee doth instruct them to be carefull and accurate in the ordering of their life as being to be seene of all As if hee should say Doe not thinke that you shall lie hid in a corner no you shall be conspicuous And therefore see that yee live unblameably that so you may not give offence to others This exposition sutes well with the admonition given vers 16. Let your light so shine forth before men that they seeing your good workes may glorifie your Father which is in Heaven The Marquesse here further addes 2 Cor. 4. 3. Isai 22. I suppose it should be Isai 2. 2. Now the former of these two places is not to the purpose viz. to prove a perpetuall visibility of the Church For how can that be inferred from those words of the Apostle If our Gospell be hid it is hid to them that are lost The Apostle having said vers 2. by manifestation of the truth commending our selves to every mans conscience in the sight of God because as Oecumenius notes it might be objected that the truth was not made manifest unto all for that all did not believe to prevent this Objection the Apostle addes If our Gospell be hid c. As if hee should say It is not our fault as if the Gospell were not plainly enough preached by us but it is their own fault who perish through their owne blindnesse That Isai 2. 2. is more to the purpose though not enough neither It is said that in the last dayes the Mountaine of the Lords House shall be established in the top of the Mountaines and shall be exalted above the Hills and all Nations shall flow unto it The Prophet there sheweth by metaphoricall expressions taken from Mount Sion where the Temple stood that by the preaching of the Gospell the Church should be increased and exalted farre above what it was before This prophesie was fulfilled by the bringing in of the Gentiles but the Prophet doth not say that in the times of the Gospell the Church should alwayes be so conspicuous and visible Neither doe the Fathers here alledged by the Marquesse viz. Origen Chrysostome Austine and Cyprian speake of the perpetuall condition of the Church but onely as it was in their time I have proved before by Scriptures and Fathers and even by the acknowledgement of our Adversaries that the Church is not perpetually visible After the Visibility of the Church the Marquesse speaketh of the Universality of it saying that the universality of the Church is perpetuall and that the Church of Rome is such a Church For proofe hereof hee citeth Psal 2. 8. Rom. 1. 8. Now the former place shewes that Christ should have the heathen for his inheritance and the ends of the Earth for his possession and consequently that the Church should not be confined as it was in the time of the Law to one Country but should be extended farre and wide throughout the World This also hath been fulfilled and yet shall be but hence it doth not follow that the Church is alwayes so universally extended throughout the World but that sometimes errors and heresies doe so prevaile and overspread all that the truth in comparison can finde no roome See before page 2. The other place viz. Rom. 1. 8. testifies indeed that the Church of Rome was a true Church and famous throughout the World but neither doth
the Apostle there say neither so farre as I see can it in any congruity be said that the Church of Rome either is or was a Church universally spread thorough the World A part and an eminent part of the Church so universall it might be but the whole universall Church it could not be The Apostle there saith no more of the Romanes then he doth of the Thessalonians 1 Thess 1. 8. yet I presume our Adversaries will not therefore admit either the Church of Thessalonica to be universall or ever since the Apostles time to have continued sound and Orthodox And why then will they thinke to inforce so much from the Apostles words for the Church of Rome To these two places of Scripture the Marquesse addeth the testimonies of three Fathers viz. Cyprian Austine and Hierome But for the first of these his words are pitifully mistaken They are these Dum apud vos una animus unae vox est Ecclesia omnis Romana confessa est the Marquesse renders it thus whilst with you there is one minde and one voyce the whole Church is confessed to be the Roman Church whereas any that can understand Latine and wil minde the words may see that they are to be rendred thus whilest with you there is one minde and one voyce the whole Roman Church hath confessed Cyprian here wrote to Cornelius Bishop of Rome who together with others had before heathen persecutors confessed the faith For this Cyprian commends them and saith that they so confessing as they did and all being of one minde and one voyce the whole Roman Church did confesse This makes indeed for the soundnesse of the Roman Church as it was in Cyprians time but for the universality of it as if it were the universall Church or a Church universally diffused it makes nothing For Austines words de unit Eccles cap. 4. Who so doth not communicate with the whole corps of Christendome certaine it is that they are not in the holy Catholick Church I see not what they are to the purpose They cannot be so understood as that all must necessarily communicate with all that are of the corps of Christendome that is that professe themselves Christians For so all should be tied to communion with grosse and notorious Heretikes They must then be understood of communicating with all Christians so farre forth as they are indeed Christians but what is this to prove either the perpetuall universality of the Church or that the Church of Rome is such a Church Austine wrote against the Donatists who confined the Church to Affrike excluding all the World besides from being of the Church This is nothing against us who doe not confine the Church to any place whatsoever The last Father here cited is Hierom who as the Marquesse telleth us saith That it is all one to say the Roman Faith and the Catholike Faith But the Marquesses quotation of the place where this is to be found in Hierome is too laxe viz. in Apol. ad Ruffin it should be adversus Ruffin But there are two Apologies which Hierome wrote against Ruffin and one of them divided into severall Bookes it was meet therefore that the place should have been cited more particularly then it is Yet I think I have met with the place which the Marquesse meaneth which yet doth not speake so much as the Marquesse supposeth Ruffinus translating Origens workes which had many grosse errors in them into Latine to justifie himselfe said the Latine Reader shall finde nothing that differs from our faith Hereupon Hierome asked what faith he meant by our faith whether that faith which did flourish in the Church of Rome or that which was contained in the workes of Origen If saith hee he shall answer The Roman faith then are we Catholickes who have translated nothing of Origens error but if Origens blasphemy be his faith whilest he chargeth me with inconstancy he proves himselfe an Heretick Here indeed Hierome implieth the Roman faith and the Catholick faith to have been then when he wrote one and the same yet not simply but so farre forth as did concerne the errors of Origen But how can any justly hence conclude that in Hieromes Dialect it 's all one to say the Roman faith and the Catholick faith as if in Hieromes opinion the Roman faith and the Catholick faith in all points and at all times must needs be the same That Hierome did not overvalue the Church of Rome is evident For when the custome of that Church was objected against something that hee held hee rejected the authority of it with some disdaine saying If wee seek authority the World is greater then the City And againe what doe you bringing the custome of one City From Universality the Marquesse passeth to Unity saying that the unity of the Church is necessary in all points of faith and proving it first by Scriptures as Ephes 4. 5. Acts 4. 35. and 1 Cor. 1. 10. then by fathers as Austine contra Par. l. 3. c. 5. Cypr. de unit Eccles and Hilar. ad Constant. Now this unity of the Church hath been spoken of before and it hath beene shewed how far it is requisite as also how little cause they of the Church of Rome have either to applaud themselves for it or to upbraide the Reformed Churches for want of it There is one Lord one faith one baptisme faith the Apostle Eph. 4. 5. well suppose they of the Roman-church have one faith yet except they have the one faith this of which the Apostle speaketh what are they the better But indeed neither is their faith so one as they pretend there being many great and weighty points wherein they differ one from another See Gerard loc com de Eccles Sect. 240 c. On the other side as I have said before if the confessions of the reformed churches be look't upon rather then particular mens opinions or perhaps expressions there will no great difference in points of faith be found amongst them Acts 4. 35. here cited by the Marquesse is not to the purpose as not speakking of unity of faith but rather of affection 1 Cor. 1. 10. the Apostle exhorts them to unity and that there might be no divisions among them but because there was not such unity as was meet but there were divisions among them he doth not therefore say that they were no true Church In a word both the Scriptures and the Fathers are for the unity of the Church in points of Faith and so are we that the severall Articles of Protestant Churches deny this Unity the Marquesse affirmeth but doth not prove it We hold faith the Marquesse that every Minister of the Church especially the supreme Minister or Head thereof should be in a capacity of fungifying his Office in Preaching the Gospell Administring the Sacrament Baptizing Marrying and not otherwise This we have Scripture for Heb. No man taketh this honour unto himself but he that is called
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
take away the meanes of reconciliation For I must confesse ingenuously yet under the highest correction that there is not a thing that I ever understood lesse then that assertion of the Scriptures being judge of Controversies though in some sence I must and will acknowledge it but not as it is a book consisting of papers words and letters for as we commonly say in matters of civill differences the Law shall be the judge between us we do not meane that every man shall run unto the Law books or that any Lawyer himselfe shall search his Law-cases and thereupon possesse himselfe of any thing that is in question between him and another without a legall tryall and determination by lawfull Judges constituted to that same purpose In like manner saving knowledge and Divine Truths are the portion that all Gods children lay fast claime unto yet they must not be their own carvers though it is their own meat that is before them whilst they have a mother at the table They must not slight all Orders Constitutions Appeales and Rules of Faith saving knowledge and Divine Truths are not to be wrested from the Scripture by private hands for then the Scripture were of private interpretation which is against the Apostles Rule Neither are those undefiled incorruptible and immaculate inheritances which are reserved for us in heaven to be conveighed unto us by any Privy-seales For there is nothing more absurd to my understanding then to say that the thing contested which is the true meaning of the Scriptures shall be Judge of the Contestation no way inferiour to that absurditie which would follow which would be this if we should leave the deciding of the sence of the words of the Law to the preoccupated understanding of one of the Advocates neither is this all the absurditie that doth arise upon this supposition for if you grant this to one you must grant it to any one and to every one if there were but two how will you reconcile them both If you grant that this judicature must be in many there are many manyes which of the manyes will you have decide but that and you satisfie all For if you make the Scripture the Judge of Controversie you make the reader Judge of the Scripture as a man consists of a soule and body so the Scripture consists of the letter and the sence if I make the dead letter my Judge I am the greatest and simplest idolater in the world it will tell me no more then it told the Indian Emperour Powhaton who asking the Jesuite how he knew all that to be true which he had told him and the Jesuite answering him that Gods word did tell him so The Emperour asked him where it was he shewed him his Bible The Emperour after that he had held it in his hands a pretty while answered It tells me nothing But you will say you can read and so you will find the meaning out of the significant Character and when you have done as you apprehend it so it must be and so the Scripture is nothing else but your meaning wherefore necessitie requires an externall Judge for determination of differences besides the Scriptures And we can have no better recourses to any then to such as the Scripture it selfe calls upon us to heare which is the Church which Church would be found out King Doctor Saint John in his first Epistle tells us that the holy Scripture is that to whose truth the Spirit beareth witnesse And John the Evangelist tells us that the Scripture is that which gives a greater Testimonie of Christ then John the Baptist Saint Luke tells us that if we believe not the Scripture we would not believe though one were risen from the dead and Christ himselfe who raised men from death to life tells us they cannot believe his words if they believe not in Moses writings Saint Peter tells us that the holy Scripture is surer then a voice from heaven Saint Paul tells us that it is lively in operation and whereby the Spirits demonstrates his power and that it is able to make a man wise to salvation able to save our soules and that it is sufficient too to make us believe in Christ to life everlasting John 20. As in every seed there is a Spirit which meeting with earth heat and moisture grows to perfection so the seed of the word wherin Gods holy Spirit being sowen in the heart inlivened by the heart of faith and watered with the teares of repentance soon fructifies without any further Circumstance Doctor It doth so but Your Majestie presupposes all this while husband-men and husbandry barnes and threshing floors winnowing and uniting these several grains into one loafe before it can become childrens bread All that Your Majestie hath said concerning the Scriptures sufficiencie is true provided that those Scriptures be duly handled for as the Law is sufficient to determine right and keep all in peace and quietnesse yet the execution of that sufficiencie cannot he performed without Courts and Judges so when we have granted the Scriptures to be all that the most reverend estimation can attribute unto them yet Religion cannot be exercised nor differences in Religion reconciled without a Judge For as Saint Ierom tells us who was no great friend to Popes or Bishops Si non una exors quaedam imminens detur potestas tot efficerentur in Ecclesia schismata quot Sacerdotes Wherefore I would faine find out that which the Scripture bids me heare Audi Ecclesiam I would faine referre my selfe to that to which the Scripture commands me to appeale and tells me that if I do not I shall be a Heathen and a Publican Dic Ecclesiae which Church Saint Paul in his first Epistle calls the pillar and foundation of Truth of which the Prophet Ezekiel saith I will place my Sanctification in the midst of her for ever and the Prophet Esay that the Lord would never forsake her in whose light the people should walke and Kings in the brightnesse of her Orient Against which our Saviour saith The gates of Hell shall not prevaile with whom our Saviour saith He would be alwayes unto the end of the world And from whom the Spirit of Truth should never depart For although the Psalmist tells us that the word of the Lord is clear inlightning the eyes yet the same Prophet said to God Enlighten mine eyes that I may see the marvels of thy Law And Saint Iohn tells us that the booke of God hath seven Seals and it was not every one that was thought worthy to open it onely the lambe The Disciples had been ignorant if Iesus had not opened the Scriptures unto them The Eunuch could not understand them without an Interpreter and Saint Peter tells us that the Scripture is not of private Interpretation and that in his brother Pauls Epistles there are many things hard to be understood which ignorant and light-headed-men wrest to their owne perdition Wherefore though as
Succession In the Cities of Judah and Jerusalem There is Universalitie so Demetrius urged Antiquity and Universality for his godde 〈…〉 viz. That her Temple should not be despised 〈…〉 Magnificence destroyed whom all Asia and the world worshipped So Symachus that wise Senator though a bitter enemie to the Christians Servanda est inquit tot seculis fides sequendi sunt nobis parentes qui feliciter sequuti sunt suos we must defend that Religion which hath worne out so many ages and follow our Fathers steps who have so happily followed theirs So Prudentius would have put back Christianity it selfe viz. Nunc dogma nobis Christianum nascitur post evolutos mille demum Consules Now the Christian Doctrine begins to spring up after the revolution of a thousand Consul-ships But Ezekiel reads us another lecture Ne obdurate cervices vestras ut patres vestri cedite manum Iehovae ingredimini sanctuarium ejus quod sanctificavit in seculum colite Iehovam Deum vestrum Be not stiff-necked as your fore fathers were resist not the mighty God enter into his Sactuary which he hath consecrated for ever and worship ye the Lord your God Radbodus King of Phrygia being about to be baptized asked the Bishop what was become of all his ancestors who were dead without being baptized The Bishop answered that they were all in hell whereupon the King suddenly withdrew himselfe from the font saying Ibi profecto me illis Comitem adjungam Thither will I go unto them no lesse wise are they who had rather erre with fathers and Councels then rectifie their understanding by the word of God and square their faith according to its rules Our Saviour Christ saith we must not so much hearken to what has been said by them of old time Mat. 21. 12. as to that which he shall tell you where Auditis dictum esse antiquis is exploded and Ego dico vobis is come in its place which of them all can attribute that credit to be given unto him as is to be given to Saint Paul Yet he would not have us to be followers of him more then he is a follower of Christ 1 Cor. 11. 1. Wherefore if you cry never so loud Sancta mater Ecclesia sancta mater Ecclesia the holy mother Church holy mother Church as of old they had nothing to say for themselves but Templum Domini Templum Domini the Temple of the Lord the Temple of the Lord we will cry as loud againe with the Prophet Quomodo facta est meretrix Urbs fidelis how is the faith full City become a harlot if you vaunt never so much of your Roman Catholick Church we can tell you out of Saint John that she is become the Synagogue of Sathan neither is it impossible but that the house of prayers may be made a Den of theeves you call us hereticks we answer you with Saint Paul Act. 24. 14. After the way which you call heresie so worship we the God of our fathers believing all things which were written in the Law and the Prophets I will grant you that all those marks which you have set downe are marks of the true Church and I will grant you more that they were belonging to the Church of Rome but then you must grant me thus much that they are as well belonging to any other Chucch who hold and maintaine that Doctrine which the Church of Rome then maintained when she wrought those conversions and not at all to her if she have changed her first love and fallen from her old principles for it will do her no good to keep possession of the keyes when the lock is changed now to try whether she hath done so or no there can be no better way then by searching the Scriptures for though I grant you that the Catholick Church is the White in that Butt of earth at which we all must aime yet the Scripture is the heart centre or peg in the midst of that white that holds it up from whence we must measure especially when we are all in the white We are all of us in gremio Ecclesiae so that controversies cannot be decided by the Catholick Church but by the Scriptures which is the thing by which the nearenesse unto truth must be decided for that which must determine truth must not be fallible but whether you mean the consent of Fathers or the decrees of generall Counsels they both have erred I discover no Fathers nakednesse but deplore their infirmities that we should not trust in armes of flesh Tertullian was a montanist Cyprian a rebaptist Origen an Anthropomorphist Heirom a Monoganist Nazianzen an Angelist Eusebius an Arrian Saint Augustine had written so many errors as occasioned the writing of a whole booke of retractations they have often times contradicted one another and sometimes themselves Now for generall Counsels Did not that Concilium Ariminense conclude for the Arrian heresie Did not that Concilium Ephesinum conclude for the Eutichian heresie Did not that Concilium Carthaginense conclude it not lawfull for Priests to marry Was not Athanasius condemned In concilio Tyrioi Was not Eiconolatria established In concilio Nicaeno secundo What should I say more when the Apostles themselves lesse obnoxious to error either in life or doctrine more to be preferred then any or all the world besides one of them betraies his Saviour another denies him all forsake him They thought Christs Kingdome to have been of this world and a promise onely unto the Jewes and not unto the Gentiles and this after the resurrection They wondered that the holy Ghost should fall upon the Gentiles Saint John twice worshipped the Angel and was rebuked for it Apoc. 22. 8. Saint Paul saw how Peter walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel Gal. 2. 14. Not onely Peter but other of the Apostles were ignorant how the word of God was to be preached unto the Gentiles But who then shall rowl away the stone from the mouth of the monument Who shall expound the Scriptures to us one puls one way and another another by whom shall we be directed Scinditur incertum studia in contraria vulgus You that cry up the Fathers the Fathers so much shall hear how the Fathers doe tell us that the Scriptures are their owne interpreters Irenaeus who was scholler to Policarpus that was schollar to Saint Iohn lib. 3. cap. 12. thus saith Ostentiones quae sunt in Scriptur is non possunt ostendi nisi ex ipsis Scriptur is the evidences which are in Scripture cannot be manifested but out of the same Scripture Clemens Alexandrinus Nos ex ipsis de ipsis Scriptur is perfectè demonstrantes ex fide persuademus demonstrative Strom. li. 7. Out of the Scriptures themselves from the same Scriptures perfectly demonstrating doe we draw demonstrative perswasions from faith Crysost Sacra Scriptura seipsam exponit auditorem errare non sinit Basilius Magnus Quae ambiguè quae obscurè videntur
of witnesses to the divine truth and be no more prejudicicall to their generall determinations then so many exceptions are prejudiciall to a generall rule Neither is a particular defection in any man any exception against his testimony except it be in the thing wherein he is deficient for otherwise we should be of the nature of the flies who onely prey upon corruption leaving all the rest of the body that is whole unregarded Secondly Your Majesty taxes generall Councels for committing errors If Your Majesty would be pleased to search into the times wherein those Councels were called Your Majesty shall find that the Church was then under persecution and how that Arrian Emperours rather made Assemblies of Divines then called any Generall Councels and if we should suppose them to be generall and free Councels yet they could not be erroneous in any particular mans judgement untill a like generall Councell should have concluded the former to be erroneous except you will allow particulars to condemne generalls and private men the whole Church all generall Councels from the first unto the last that ever were or shall be makes but one Church and though in their intervals there be no session of persons yet there is perpetuall virtue in their decretals to which every man ought to appeale for judgement in point of controversie Now as it is a maxim in our law Nullum tempus occurrit regi so it is a maxim in divinity Nullum tempus occurrit deo Ubi deus est as he promised I will be with you alwaies unto the end of the world that is with his Church in directing her chief Officers in all their consultations relating either to the truth of her doctrine or the manner of her discipline wherefore if it should be granted that the Church had at any time determined amisse the Church cannot be said to have erred because you must not take the particular time for the Catholick Church because the Church is as well Catholick for time as territory except that you will make rectification an error For as in civil affairs if that we should take advantage of the Parliaments nulling former acts and thereupon conclude that we will be no more regulated by its lawes we should breed confusion in the Common-wealth for as they alter their laws upon experience of present inconveniences so the Councels change their decrees according to that further knowledge which the holy writ assures us shall encrease in the latter daies provided that this knowledge be improved by means approved of and not by every enthusiastick that shall oppose himselfe against the whole Church If I recall my own words it is no error but an avoidance of error so where the same power rectifies it selfe though some things formerly have been decreed amisse yet that cannot render the decrees of generall Councels not binding or incident to error quoad ad nos though in themselves and pro tempore they may be so As to Your Majesties objecting the errors of the holy Apostles and pen-men of the holy Ghost and Your inference thereupon viz. That truth is no where to be found but in holy Scripture under Your Majesties correction I take this to be the greatest argument against the private spirit urged by your Majesty its leading us into all truth that could possibly be found out For if such men as they indued with the holy Ghost inabled with the power of working miracles so sanctified in their callings and enlightened in their understandings could erre how can any man lesse qualified assume to himselfe a freedome from not erring by the assistance of a private spirit Lastly as to Your Majesties quotations of so many Fathers for the Scriptures easinesse and plainnesse to be understood If the Scriptures themselves doe tell us that they are hard to be understood so that the unlearned and unstable wrest them to their owne destruction 2 Peter 3. 16. and if the Scripture tells us that the Eunuch could not understand them except some man should guide him as Acts 8. 13. and if the Scripture tells us that Christs owne Disciples could not understand them untill Christ himselfe expounds them unto them as Luke 24 25. and if the Scriptures tell us how the Angel wept much because no man was able either in heaven or earth to open the Book sealed with seven seals nor to look upon it as Apoc. 5. 1. then certainly all these sayings of theirs are either to be set to the errata's that are behind their books or else we must look out some other meaning of their words then what Your Majesty hath inferr'd from thence as thus they were easie id est in aliquibus but not in omnibus locis or thus they were easie as to the attainment of particular salvation but not as to the generall cognisance of all the divine mystery therein contained requisite for the Churches understanding and by her alone and her consultations and discusments guided by an extraordinary and promised assistance onely to be found out of which as to every ordinary man this knowledge is not necessary so hereof he is not capable 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. 26. Take eat this is my body so Luke 22. 19. This is my body which is given for you You say that the bread which we must eat in the Sacrament is but dead bread Christ saith that that bread is living bread you say how can this man give us his flesh to eat we say that that was the objection of Jews and Infidels 1 John 6. 25. not of Christians and believers you say it was spoken figuratively we say it was spoken really re vera or as we translate it indeed John 6. 55. But as the Jews did so doe ye First murmur that Christ should be bread John 6. 41. Secondly that that bread should be flesh Iohn 6. 52. And thirdly that that flesh should be meat indeed John 6. 55. untill at last you cry out with the unbelievers this is a hard saying who can heare it Iohn 6. 60. had this been but a figure certainly Christ would have removed the doubt when he saw them so offended at the reality John 6. 61. He would not have confirmed his saying in terminis with promise of a greater wonder John 6. 62. you may as well deny his incarnation his ascention and ask how could the man come down from heaven and goe up againe if incomprehensibility should be sufficient to occasion such scruples in your breasts and that which is worse then naught you have made our Saviours conclusion an argument against the premises for where our Saviour tels them thus to argue according unto flesh and bloud in these words the flesh profiteth nothing and that if they will be enlivened in their understanding they must have faith to believe it in these words it is the Spirit that quickneth
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
errour in one thing he is so in another thing and therefore his bare testimony except it have something to support it is not sufficient to rely upon The testimony of the Lord is sure saith David Psal 19. 7. because he can neither deceive nor be deceived But man may and therefore his testimony as his is not sure No Let God be true and every man a lyar saith the Apostle Rom. 3. 4. 2. For a generall Councell why it should necessarily be exempt from Errour I see nothing here alledged by the Marquesse except it be that Acts 15. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us But the inference made from that Councell wherein the Apostles themselves did sit and give sentence to prove that no generall Councell can Erre is no better than if one should argue that a particular Father or Doctor is infallible because a particular Apostle was so in that which he either wrote or preached For we must take heed of entertaining such a thought although the Marquesses words do seem to imply so much as that each particular Apostle might fall into Errour though all of them together could not For how then should we be able to build our faith upon those Scriptures which were composed by particular Apostles and not by a whole Councell of them It 's true as his Majesty observed pag. 50. the Apostles were ignorant and erronious in some things but not in any thing that they delivered unto People to believe and obey either by word or writing for then as I said we could have no certainty of the Scriptures we could not be built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets as Believers are Ephes 2. 20. But that generall Councells may erre Austin made no question Who knowes not saith he that Provinciall and Nationall Councells doe yeild to the authority of Generall Councells and that Generall Councells are often amended the former by the latter that being after found out which before lay hid It is well known that the Romanists reject the authority of the Councels of Constance and Basil two Generall Councels when they determine the Pope to be inferiour and subject to a Generall Councell Indeed generally the Pontificians make little account of a Councel though otherwise never so generall except it be confirmed by the Pope Bellarmine makes it a clear case and without all difficulty that Generall Councells may Erre if the Fathers of the Councell define any thing when as the Legates of the Pope dissent from them or if the Legates themselves do consent but so as to go against the instructions which the Pope gave them And he further holds that in case the Legates had no certain instructions from the Pope the Councell may Erre and that before the Popes Confirmation of it the judgment of a Generall Councell is not infallible The Marquesse himself pag. 55. c. doth seeme to assent unto His Majesty taxing Generall Councells for committing Errours but some passages he hath which to me seeme very strange If saith he we should suppose them to be Generall and free Councels yet they could not be Erronious in any particular mans judgement untill a like Generall Councell should have concluded the former to be Erronious By this Assertion Arrianisme being confirmed by the Councell of Ariminum Athanasius and every particular man should have assented to it untill another Generall Councell had determined against it but this is such a position as I dare say our Romish adversaries themselves will not allow Again If it should be granted saith the Marquesse that the Church had at any time determined amisse the Church cannot be said to have erred because you must not take the particular time for the Catholike Church because the Church is as well Catholike for time as territory except you will make rectification an errour But when our adversaries of Rome speak of the Churches freedome from errour they understand it of the Church representative a generall Councel It is one and the same thing saith Bellarmine that the Church cannot erre in determining matters of faith and that Bishops cannot erre But severally they may erre therefore being gathered together they shall be free from errour So then if a Generall Councell may erre at any one time it is sufficient to overthrow their Tenet that the Church cannot erre That the Church represented in a Generall Councell may after rectifie what before was amisse and that also by the determination of a Generall Councell is so farre from proving that the Church as they take it cannot Erre that on the contrary it proves that it may Erre For though rectification be not errour yet it doth presuppose Errour Again If I recall mine own words saith the Marquesse it is no Errour but an avoidance of Errour So where the same power Rectifies it self though some things formerly have been Decreed amisse yet that cannot render the Decrees of Generall Councels not binding or incident to Errour quoad nos though in themselves pro tempore they may be so I answer it is without all doubt that for one to recall his words being Erronious is no Errour but a correcting of Errour yet this doth clearly shew a man to be subject to Errour And so if the Church at one time in a Generall Councell may Rectifie what at another time in a Generall Councell it had Decreed amisse it evidently appears that the Church in a Generall Councell may Erre For otherwise what need of Rectification were there if there had been no Errour And certainly if the Decrees of Generall Councells be Erronious as the Marquesse denies not but they may be they are not binding Quoad nos we are not bound to assent unto them but rather to dissent from them For we are not bound to embrace Errour but to embrace Truth Prove all things hold fast that which is good saith the Apostle 1 Thes 5. 21. By the Marquesses reason the Decree of the Councell of Ariminum confirming the Heresie of Arrius should for the time have been binding so that neither Athanasius nor any other should have presumed to oppose it or to dissent from it untill another Generall Councell had declared against it As to your Majesties objecting the Errours of the Holy Apostles and Pen-men of the Holy Ghost and your inference thereupon viz. that Truth is no where to be found but in holy Scripture under your Majesties correction I take this to be the greatest argument against the private Spirit urged by your Majesty its leading us into all Truth that could possibly be found out For if such men as they indued with the Holy Ghost innobled with the power of working Miracles so sanctified in their callings and inlightned in their understandings could Erre how can any man lesse qualified assume to himselfe a freedome from Erring by the assistance of a private Spirit 1. His Majesty was farre from thinking that the Apostles as Pen-men of the
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.
his book against Berengarius speaks of some Copies of Ambrose his Workes wherein those words were not Ut sint quae erant that is That those things should be which were But no such Copies either Printed or Manuscript it seems did Bellarmine meet with for otherwise I doubt not he would have given us notice of them Again with the same Lanfrancus he answers that those words are thus to be understood that in respect of outward shew the things which were still are but are changed in respect of inward substance But how can a thing be said to be what it was when as there is no substance of the thing remaining but onely a shew and appearance of it In the last place Bellarmine addes of his own that Ambrose meant If Christ could make a thing of nothing why can he not make a thing of something not by annihilating the thing but by changing it into that which is better But if a thing be changed substantially into another thing how doth it remain what it was before But so the things doe that Ambrose speaks of For Bellarmines criticisme is poor in distinguishing betwixt Ut sint id quod erant That they should be that which they were and Ut sint quae erant That the things should be that were as if these words did not import that the same substances still remain as well as the other when Christ turned Water into Wine can we say that his Word was operative and powerfull Ut esset quod erat in aliud mutaretur That that should be which was and that withall it should be changed into another thing I confesse I cannot see how the thing may be said truly and properly to be which was if it be substantially changed into some other thing Ambrose there a little after saith Tu ipse eras sed eras vetus creatura posteaquam consecratus es nova creatura esse coepisti Thou thy self wast but thou wast an old creature after thou art consecrated thou beginnest to be a new creature which cannot be meant of any substantiall change in us Chap. 5. the same Ambrose if it were Ambrose for Bellarmine is not very confident that Ambrose was the Author of those Books De Sacramentis saith indeed That before it is Consecrated it is Bread but when the words of Christ are come it is the Body of Christ But that it is so the Body of Christ as to be no longer Bread he doth not affirme That he was of another mind appears by the words before alledged And so much also may be gathered from that which he saith in this same Chapter viz. He that did eat Manna dyed but whose eateth this Body shall have remission of sins and shall live for ever Which cannot be understood of a Corporall eating of Christs Body but of a Spirituall eating of it Bellarmine cites some other sayings of Ambrose out of another Work of his viz. De iis qui mysteriis initiantur but they prove no more than these already cited neither doth the Marquesse refer us to them Yea in that same work Ambrose doth sufficiently declare himselfe against Transubstantiation For there he saith It is truly the Sacrament of Christs Flesh And after Consecration the Body of Christ is signified And again It is not therefore Corporali food but Spirituall Whence also the Apostle saith of the Type of it that our Fathers did eat Spirituall meat and did drink Spirituall drink 1 Cor. 10. The last Author Remigius is onely cited by the Marquesse at large neither doe I find him cited by Bellarmine at all and therefore untill we have some particular place cited out of him it is in vain to trouble our selves about him besides that his Antiquity is not such as that his Authority should much be stood upon being 890 years after Christ as Bellarmine sheweth in his book of Ecclesiasticall Writers Secondly saith the Marquesse We hold that there is in the Church an infallible Rule for understanding of Scripture besides the Scripture it self This you deny this we have Scripture for as Rom. 12. 6. We must prophecy according to the Rule of Faith We are bid to walke according to this Rule Gal. 6. 16. We must encrease our Faith and preach the Gospell according to this Rule 2 Cor. 10. 15. This rule of Faith the Holy Scriptures call a forme of Doctrine Rom. 6. 17. a thing made ready to our hands 2 Cor. 10. 16. that we may not measure our selves by our selves 2 Cor. 10. 12. the depositions committed to the Churches trust 1 Tim. 6. 20. for avoiding of profane and vaine bablings and oppositions of sciences And by this rule of faith is not meant the Holy Scriptures for that cannot doe it as the Apostle tells us whilst there are unstable men who wrest this way and that way to their own destruction but it is the tradition of the Church as it is delivered from hand to hand as most plainly appears 2 Tim. 2. 2. The things which thou hast heard of us not received in writing from me or others among many witnesses the same commit thou to faithfull men who shall be able to teach it to others also That there is any infallible Rule for understanding of Scripture or any other rule of Faith besides the Scripture we do deny and that by authority of the Scripture it self To the law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this Word it is because they have no light in them Isai 8. 20. Search the Scriptures for in them yee thinke to have eternall life and they are they that testifie of mee Joh. 5. 39. These were more noble then they of Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readinesse of minde and searched the Scriptures whether those things were so Acts 17. 11. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine for reproofe for correction for instruction in righteousnesse That the man of God may be perfect thoroughly furnished unto all good workes 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. Neither doe those places alledged by the Marquesse make for the contrary We must prophesie according to the rule of Faith saith the Apostle Rom. 12. 6. as the Marquesse hath it following therein the Rhemists translation as also their comment upon the place But the word in the originall signifies rather proportion then rule And I see not but that by the proportion of saith may be understood the measure of saith which is spoken of vers 3. But be it granted that proportion of faith is as much as rule of faith where doth the Apostle say that this rule of faith is any other then the Scripture it selfe The places before cited shew that we are referred to the Scripture as the rule whereby all doctrines are to be tried but no where doe I finde that wee are referred to any unwritten tradition Sure I am our Adversaries can evince no such thing from
the words of the Apostle Rom. 12. 6. Except we must to use the Marquesses expressions take them margin'd with their own notes sens'd with their own meaning and enlivened with their own private spirit As for the rule mentioned Gal. 6. 16. it is no generall rule of faith or of interpreting Scripture but a speciall rule that in Christ Iesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but a new creature as is cleare by the context ver 15. As many as walke according to this rule that is as Oecumenius expounds it as many as are content with this rule and this doctrine that all things are made a new creature and doe not subject themselves to the Law Neither is the place 2 Cor. 10. 15. to the purpose For the Apostle there speakes of a ruleby way of similitude as Cardinall Cajetan doth well expound it viz. that as an Architect or the like chiefe workman doth by rule divide the worke that is to be done and appoint under-workemen where they shall imploy themselves and how farre they shall reach so God did as it were by rule appoint Paul where he should preach the Gospell and how farre his imployment should extend in that kinde This plainly appeares to be the Apostles meaning by the two verses immediately preceding But we will not boast of things without our measure but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed unto us a measure to reach even unto you For we stretch not our selves beyond our measure as though wee reached not unto you for we are come as farre as you also in preaching the Gospell of Christ Then he addes Not boasting of things without our measure that is of other mens labours but having hope when your faith is encreased that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly To preach the Gospell in the regions beyond you and not to boast in another mans line of things made ready to our hand All may plainly see that here is nothing spoken of a rule of faith or a rule for the understanding of the Scripture And therefore most impertinently is 2 Cor. 10. 16. cited as if the Apostle there did speak of a rule of faith made ready to their hands And so also is that of not measuring our selves by our selves 2 Cor. 10. 12. Neither can our Adversaries ever be able to prove that by the forme of Doctrine mentioned Rom. 6. 17. the Apostle did meane any other Doctrine then what is contained in the Scripture or that any Doctrine but the Doctrine of the Scripture is meant by that which was committed to Timotheus trust 1 Tim. 6. 20. which the Apostle there bids him keepe avoiding profane and vaine bablings c. Though such as are unlearned and unstable wrest the Scriptures c. 2 Pet. 3. 16. yet the same Apostle in the same Epistle doth teach us to take heed to the Scripture as to a light shining in a darke place 2 Pet. 1. 19. That the Apostle spake of any unwritten tradition as a rule whereby to interpret Scriptures 2 Tim. 2. 2. can never be made good by the things which Timothy heard him and was to commit to faithfull men c. hee meant nothing but the Doctrine of the Gospell as the forementioned Cajetan doth truly interpret and that Doctrine I presume is no where to be found but in the Scripture Surely the Apostle in the next Chapter after tells Timothy that from a child hee had known the holy Scriptures which were able to make him wise unto salvation thorough faith which is in Christ Iesus 2 Tim. 3. 15. After the Scriptures the Marquesse cites the Fathers as being of this opinion viz. Ireneus l. 4. c. 45. Tertull. de Praescript and Vincent Lirin in suo Commentario perhaps it should be Commonitorio But it will not appeare that the Fathers held any rule of faith and of interpreting the Scripture besides the Scripture it selfe His Majesty as I noted before cited above twice as many Fathers as the Marquesse here alledgeth plainly testifying that the Scriptures are their own interpreters and that matters of faith are to be decided by them I will adde a few more testimonies of the Fathers to this purpose As wee doe not deny saith Hierome those things which are written so we refuse those things which are not written I adore saith Tertullian the fulnesse of the Scripture And againe Let Hermogenes saith hee shew that it is written If it be not written let him feare that woe appointed for those that either adde to the Scripture or detract from it Wee doe Cyprian no wrong saith Austine when wee distinguish any of his writings from the canonicall authority of the Divine Scriptures For not without cause is such a wholesome Ecclesiasticall rule of vigilancy constituted to which certaine Bookes of the Prophets and the Apostles belong which we may not at all dare to judge and according to which wee may freely judge of other writings whether they bee of Beleevers or of unbelievers And againe I am not bound saith hee by the authority of this Epistle viz. of Cyprian because I doe not account Cyprians writings as Canonicall but I examine them by those that are Canonicall and that which is in them agreeable to the authority of the Divine Scriptures I receive with his praise and what is not agreeable I refuse with his leave For the Fathers here cited by the Marquesse Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 45. hath nothing that may seeme to make that way except this Where saith hee the gifts of the Lord are placed there wee ought to learne truth of those with whom is that succession of the Church which is from the Apostles and that sound speech not to be reproved For they keepe that faith of ours which is in one God that made all things and increase that love which is towards the Son of God who did such great things for us and they without danger expound unto us the Scriptures neither blaspheming God nor dishonoring the Patriarcks nor contemning the Prophets Here Irenaeus speakes of some of whom truth was to be learnt who kept the faith and did expound the Scriptures without danger but hee doth not say that they had any unwritten rule of faith or any such rule whereby to expound the Scriptures No for so Irenaeus should not agree with himselfe who saith as His Majesty observed that the evidences which are in the Scriptures cannot be manifested but by the Scriptures themselves Adde hereunto another saying of the Father very pertinent to the purpose We have not known saith hee the dspensation of our salvation but by those by whom the Gospell came unto us which Gospell they preached aad afterward by the Will of God delivered unto us in the Scriptures as that which should be for the foundation and pillar of our Faith So much for Irenaeus The Marquesse cites the words of
saith he doth equally belong unto God and to every reasonable creature as well bad as good It is not lost nor diminished either by sinne or misery it is not greater in the Righteous then in the Sinner not more full in an Angell then in Man For as the consent of mans will being by Grace turned unto good therefore makes a man freely good and free in that which is good because he is made voluntary and not drawn against his will So being freely devolved into evill it makes a man neverthelesse free and spontaneous in evill being led by his own will and not compelled and enforced by any other to be evill Thus we see how Bernard doth agree with Calvin in making the freedome of mans will to consist in a spontaneity and a freedome from coaction and in holding that otherwise the will of man untill it be made free by Grace is not free to that which is good but necessitated unto sin and enslaved by it The freedome of the will then doth not consist in this that it is free and indifferent to chuse either good or evil For so God and the good Angels should not be free seeing they cannot will any thing but that which is good neither should the devils and damned souls be free seeing they cannot will any thing but that which is evill It is not therefore called Free-will saith Bradwardine because it can freely will and nill any thing whatsoever but because it can freely will any thing that is its object to be willed and nill any thing that is its object to be nilled In vain therefore doth Bellarmine pretend that our Divines make man altogether voide of Free-will for that they hold that if he have the help of Grace he cannot doe ill and if he want it he cannot doe well But it doth not follow that therefore they wholly deny Free-will it being rightly understood For though man having the help of Grace cannot doe ill and wanting it cannot doe well yet both in doing well by the help of Grace and in doing ill for want of it his will is free so as that he is not constrained and forced either the one way or the other even as both the good Angels and the bad are free in that which they do though the one cannot do ill nor the other well Our Adversaries make the will of man so free as being incited by Grace to be able to act or not to act as he pleaseth But how doth this agree with Scripture Who maketh thee to differ and what hast thou that thou hast not received 1 Cor. 4. 7. If a man could of himself by the power of his free-will embrace a good motion and consent unto it as well as refuse and reject it then he may make himself to differ from another and may have something that he hath not received No man commeth unto me except my Father draw him saith our Saviour Ioh. 6. 44. Here is a great commendation of Grace saith Austine none comes except he be drawn whom he drawes and whom he drawes not why he drawes this man and drawes not that doe not judge if thou wouldest not erre The Apostle tells us That we are not sufficient of our selves to think any thing as of our selves but all our sufficiency is of God 2 Cor. 3. 5. By which words of the Apostle Bernard proves that it is not in the power of mans free will without the Grace of God to consent unto a good motion seeing he cannot of himself so much as think a good thought which yet is lesse then to consent unto it So by the same words Bradwardine confutes those who hold that if God prevent a man by knocking and inciting then man of himself doth follow by opening and consenting But saith he having cited the words of the Apostle it is lesse to think then to believe And he doth well observe That this doctrine ascribes that which is the better and the greater unto man and that which is the worse and the lesse unto God For that without doubt it is better and more for our profit to open then to knock seeing that knocking without opening availes nothing but is rather hurtfull And citing a saying of S. Austine viz. Wee live more safe if wee give all to God and doe not commit our selves in part to him and in part to our selves hee addes Therefore to him doe I wholly commit my selfe with my whole devotion and to his most acceptable grace doe I wholly submit my selfe Surely David when hee prayed Vnite my heart to feare thy Name Psal 85. 11. was farre from meaning thus that God should so move him to obedience as that hee might either obey or not obey as hee pleased So when hee prayed Let mee not wander from thy Commandements Psal 119. 10. And make mee to goe in the path of thy Commandements v. 35. were it not most absurd to understand it thus Let me not wander except I will and make mee to goe if I will So when God promiseth I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walke in my statutes c. Ezek. 36. 27. And I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from mee Ier. 32. 40. it were most ridiculous to interpret it thus I will cause you to walk in my statutes if you will and that you shall not depart from me except you will God promiseth Ezek. 36. 26. to take away the stony heart that is the contumacy stubbornesse and disobedience of the heart and to give a heart of flesh that is to make the heart soft pliable and obedient By this and other places of Scripture Bradwardine confutes those who say that God by his Grace will convert a man if he doe not put a barre in the way Whatsoever saith hee this barre is said to be none can take it away but God and if hee will take it away it is irresistibly taken away Whence the Lord himselfe saith I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy Exodus 33. And againe I will take away the stony Heart Ezek. 36. So the Apostle He hath mercy on whom hee will have mercy c. Rom. 9. After these Scriptures hee brings in that of Austine worthy to be written in Letters of gold This grace saith hee which by the bounty of God is secretly infused into the hearts of men is refused by no hard heart For therefore it is infused that in the first place the hardnesse of the heart may bee taken away I 'le onely adde one Scripture more with Austines glosse upon it to shew that man being stirred up by preventing grace hath not by his own Free will power to consent unto and to doe that which is good but it is God who by his grace doth worke this in him So the Apostle plainly tells us It is God saith hee that worketh in you both to will and to
do of his good pleasure Phil. 2. 13. Therefore saith Austine we will but God doth worke this will in us therefore wee worke but God doth worke this worke in us of his good pleasure This is expedient for us both to believe and to speake this is pious this is true that so confession may bee humble and submisse and that all may be ascribed unto God And thus I hope it may sufficiently appeare that we have no cause to decline either the authority of the Scriptures or the testimonies of Fathers in this point concerning Free-will I come now to those Scriptures and Fathers which the Marquesse doth alledge against us Three places of Scripture are cited for proofe of Free-will such as our Adversaries maintaine and wee impugne First that 1 Cor. 7. 37. it is misprinted 1 Cor. 17. Hee that standeth stedfast in his heart having no necessity but hath power over his own will and hath so decreed in his heart that hee will keepe his virgin doth well But what is there here to prove Free-will Perhaps those words hath power over his own will But the Apostle there speakes of a man that hath a daughter marriageable yet determines to keepe her unmarried which the Apostle approves so that the man have no necessity that is no necessary cause of giving his daughter in marriage but hath power over his owne will that is hath power to effect and accomplish that which hee willeth so as no inconvenience to ensue upon it After this manner doth Cajetan himselfe in his Commentaries upon the place expound these wordes but hath power over his own will viz. to accomplish it in that the Virgin doth consent to abstaine from marriage For if shee should dissent then the Father should not have power of accomplishing his own will Thus Cajetan now what is this to the controversie about free will though I know Bellarmine also brings it in as also another place as little to the purpose namely that 2 Cor. 9. 7. Every man according as hee purposeth in his heart so let him give not grudgingly or of necessity for God loveth a chearfull giver Men must give almes willingly and chearfully therefore men have free will It doth not follow no more then that because men must serve God with a perfect heart and with a willing minde 1 Chron. 28. 9. therefore of themselves by the power of Free-will they are able to do it The Rhemists tacitely confesse these places to be impertinent to the point in hand passing them over in their Annotations and making no use of them as they are ready enough to doe when they meet with any thing which they thinke doth make for them The next place is Deut. 30. 19. not as it is printed 11. I have set before you life and death blessing and cursing chuse life that thou and thy seed may live This place Bellarmine presumes much upon saying that hee sees not what can bee answered to it And so the English Papists who translated the old Testament at Doway in their notes upon the place say what Doctor can more plainly teach Free-will in man then this Text of holy Scripture But what is the reason of all this confidence because man is bidden to chuse life doth it therefore follow that of himselfe hee is free and able to doe it why So man is bidden to worke out his own salvation Phil. 2. 12. yet as the Apostle addes immediately v. 13. it is God that doth worke in him both the Will and the Deed. Man is bidden to come unto Christ Isai 53. 3. yet can hee not come except the Father draw him Ioh. 6. 44. Man is bidden to arise from the dead Ephes 5. 14. Can he therefore being dead quicken himself Surely the same Apostle tells us in the same Epistle that it is God that doth quicken those that are dead in trespasses and sinnes Ephes 2. 5. There is no more force in that place of Deuteronomie for proofe of Free-will then in any other place of Scripture which containeth in it precept or exhortation And indeed our adversaries doe pretend that all such places are for them And so did the Pelagians of old object such places but Austine answers them that though it 's true God doth not command man to doe that which cannot bee done by him yet hee commandeth us to doe what wee are not able to doe viz. of our selves that wee may seeke unto him to make us able Thus the people of God do Turne unto me saith God Ioel 2. 12. Turne thou us unto thee say the people of God Lam. 5. 21. And by comparing places of Scripture together we may finde that what God doth require of his people the same hee doth promise unto them Wash yee make yee cleane saith he Isai 1. 16. But Ezek. 36. 25. I will sprinkle cleane water upon you saith hee and you shall be cleane So Ezek. 18. 31. God commands saying Make you a new heart and a new spirit But Ezek. 36. 26. hee promiseth this very thing A new heart also will I give you and a new spirit will I put with in you And accordingly David prayed unto God to worke this in him Create in me a clean heart O Lord and renew a right spirit within me Psal 51. 10. And that of Austine is well known Give O Lord what thou doest command and then command what thou willest Besides as Bradwardine observed long agoe impotency and inability to performe a duty proceeding from a mans own fault doth nothing excuse him either by the Law of God or man A bankrupt may justly be required to pay his debt though hee be not able to pay it Againe Gods Precepts and Exhortations are not in vaine though man by the power of his own Free-will be not able to doe what is required because God doth make those very Precepts and Exhortations meanes whereby to worke that in his elect which hee doth require of them When Christ spake to Lazarus being dead and buried saying Lazarus come forth Joh. 11. this was not in vaine though its certaine a man that 's dead and laid in the grave hath no power of himselfe to come forth yet I say it was not in vaine that Christ spake so unto Lazarus for together with his word hee sent forth his Divine power and so inabled Lazarus to come forth as hee required So neither is it in vaine that God doth command men to doe things which of themselves they cannot doe because he accompanying his word with his spirit inables them to do what hee commands Verily verily I say unto you saith Christ the houre is comming and now is when the dead shall heare the voyce of the Son of God and they that heare shall live Joh. 5. 25. Our Saviour there speakes of such as are spiritually dead as appeares those words and now is and he shewes that his word is a powerfull and effectuall meanes viz. by the concurrence of
doubts of Hee grants it but how No otherwise for any thing I can see then as wee doe grant it viz. that God if he please can give such a measure of grace unto men as to inable them perfectly to doe all that is commanded But Hierome immediately after shewes that none either doth or ever did so and that therefore all are guilty before God and stand in neede of his mercy If saith hee thou canst shew any that hath fulfilled all things required then thou canst shew one that doth not needs Gods merey shew that this hath been or that it now is So when Cyrill saith that even that precept Thou shalt not covet may be fulfilled by grace hee doth not oppose us nor wee him For wee doubt not but God is able to give grace whereby to fulfill it but wee deny that any onely Christ excepted ever had such grace as whereby to fulfill it Basil is cited at large no place being noted where he saith any thing about this point onely in Bellarmine I finde that upon those words Take heed to thy selfe hee saith that it is a wicked thing to say that the precepts of the Spirit are impossible Which wee yeeld so farre forth as any have the Spirit they may performe them but none have the Spirit in such full measure as to be able fully to performe whatsoever is commanded Origen in the place cited compares them to Women who say that they cannot keepe Gods Commandements Which must be understood of keeping them so as to have respect unto them and to study and indeavour to keepe them For otherwise if we speake of an exact and perfect keeping of the Commandements both men and women even the best upon Earth are farre from it For the flesh lusteth against the spirit saith the Apostle and the spirit against the flesh and these are contrary the one to the other so that you cannot do the things that you would Gal. 5. 17. Wee hold saith the Marquesse faith cannot justifie without workes Yee say good workes are not absolutely necessary unto salvation Wee have Scripture for what wee say 1 Cor. 13. 2. Though I have all Faith and have no Charity I am nothing And James 2. 24. By Workes a Man is justified and not by Faith onely Answ Protestants in opposition to them of the Church of Rome hold that Faith alone doth justifie and that Workes doe not concurre with Faith unto justification Yet withall they hold that Faith which doth justifie is not alone without workes Bellarmine confesseth that Calvin hath these very words It is Faith alone that doth justifie but yet Faith which doth justifie is not alone As the heate of the Sun alone is that which doth heate the Earth yet heate is not alone in the Sun but there is light also joyned with it And hee addes that Melancthon Brentius Chemnitius and other Protestants teach the same thing Therefore by Bellarmines owne confession Protestants are no enemies unto good workes Neither are they any whit injurious unto them in excluding them from having a share in justification as the Romanists are injurious unto Faith in making workes copartners with it in that respect We conclude saith S. Paul That a Man is justified by Faith without the deeds of the Law Rom. 3. 28. And in the next Chapter the Apostle proves by the example of Abraham that justification is by Faith without Workes For what saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousnesse Rom. 4. 3. He confirmes it also by the words of David Even as David also describes the blessednesse of the man to whom God imputeth righteousnesse without Workes saying blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven c. Rom. 4. 6 7 8. Mens workes are imperfect and so is all that righteousnesse of man that is inherent in him as hath been shewed before and therefore by his own workes and his own righteousnesse can none be justified By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified Rom. 3. 20. Bellarmine would have the Apostle when hee excludes Workes from justification onely to understand such workes as are done by the meere knowledge of the Law without grace But this cannot be his meaning For 1. when David cried out Enter not into judgement with thy servant O Lord for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal 143. 2. hee shewes that workes whatsoever they be are unable to justifie a man in the sight of God For it were most absurd and irrationall to imagine that David then doth onely deprecate Gods entring into judgement with him in respect of the Works which hee did without the assistance of Gods grace 2. The Apostle proves that justification is by Faith without Workes by that of David Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sinnes are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne Rom. 4. 6 7 8. Now the best man that is upon Earth hath need of this that his iniquities may be forgiven his sinnes covered and his transgressions not imputed unto him seeing there is no man as I have shewed before but iniquities sinnes and transgressions are found in him Therefore though a man be regenerate and sanctified yet his workes are not such as that he can be justified by them 3. The Apostle Gal. 3. 10. proves that none can be justified by the deeds of the Law because it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the Law to doe them Now no man though indued with grace and that in great measure doth continue in all things that the Law requireth as hath also been shewed before Therefore Workes as well with grace as without grace are unable to justifie But when our adversaries speake of justification they equivocate making it indeed the same with sanctification Dureus the Jesuite calles this new Divinity to say that by grace infused into us wee get newnesse of life and sanctification but yet are not thereby justified And hee askes what Scripture doth teach us to distinguish justification from sanctification Truly I thinke that these two viz justification and sanctification are sufficiently distinguished 1 Cor. 6. 11. But you are washed but you are sanctified but you are justified in the Name of the Lord Iesus and by the Spirit of our God There the Apostle shews that they were washed viz. both from the staine of sinne by sanctification which was wrought in them by the Spirit of God infusing grace into them and also from the guilt of sinne by justification which they obtained by faith in the Lord Jesus Besides the Scripture opposeth justification to condemnation and sheweth that to justifie is as much as to absolve and acquit from guilt to account and pronounce righteous Prov. 17. 15. He that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the just even they both are an abomination to the Lord.
there is no cause to be found in those that are not elected which is not as much to be found in those that are elected Thus also Doctor Twisse We say and say truly saith hee that many are appointed unto damnation before they are borne Yet we doe not say that any is appointed to suffer death but for sinne nor that the decree it selfe in respect of the act of him that decreeth doth any one moment goe before the foresight of sinne I see nothing in these Assertions of our Divines that hath any thing more horrid in it then that is which they of the Church of Rome before cited doe assert and yet some of these goe as high in the point of Predestination I thinke as any others Calvin himselfe as hee saith If wee cannot give a reason why God hath mercy on his own but because so it pleaseth him neither have we any cause why others are Reprobated but his Will So he saith withall If all by their condition be subject to condemnation how can they whom God doth predestinate unto destruction complaine that he doth deale unjustly with them Let all the sonnes of Adam come let them contend and dispute with their Creator because by his eternall providence before they were borne they were appointed to eternall misery What will they be able to object against this plea when God shall on the other side call them to areview of themselves If all be taken out of the corrupt Masse it is no wonder if they be subject to damnation Let them not therefore accuse God of iniquity if by his Eternall judgement they be appointed unto death to which whether they will or no themselves doe see that they are led by their own nature of its own accord And againe Although by Gods eternall Providence man is cast into that calamity which doth befall him yet he takes the matter of it from himselfe and not from God seeing for no other reason is he so undone but because he did degenerate from that purity wherein God created him and made himselfe vitious impure and perverse And againe we affirme that none do perish but by their own desert e And againe The cause of our damnation is in our selves Thus Calvin being heard speake for himselfe it plainly appeares that hee by the decree of Reprobation makes God the author of mans damnation no otherwise then diverse Romanists themselves doe And thus also Beza This saith hee is the sum of Pauls answer although God appoint either to love or to hatred whom he will without any respect of their qualifications yet he is free from all injustice because betwixt Gods eternall decree and the execution of it there are subordinate causes whereby God doth bring the elect unto salvation and doth justly damne the Reprobate For he saves the elect by mercy and damnes the Reprobate by induration so that they doe most foolishly who confouned the decree of Reprobation with damnation seeing that the cause of damnation is manifest to wit sinne but the Will of God is the onely cause of Reprobation Therefore God doth wrong to neither because both deserve destruction For mercy shewes that the Elect were miserable and therefore worthy because of sinne to be destroyed and induration presupposeth perversnesse in which the Reprobate are justly hardened The like he hath also againe a little after And whereas Beza saith that they doe not satisfie him who by the lumpe which the Apostle speakes of Rom. 9. 12. doe understand mankinde being corrupt because 1. That terme he thinkes doth not well agree to man being created much lesse to him being already corrupted And againe if the Apostle had some Vessells were made unto honour and some unto dishonour but seeing all Vessels were fitted for dishonour all mankinde being corrupted the Apostle would rather have said that some were left in that dishonour and some translated from it unto honour Finally except Paul goe up to the highest step the objection hee thinkes is not satisfied For that still it will be demanded whether that corruption came as it happened or according to Gods purpose and so the same difficulty will remaine still Therefore Paul hee saith by that most elegant similitude did allude unto Adams Creation and did ascend up even to Gods eternall purpose who before he did create mankinde did of his meere will and pleasure determine to shew forth his glory in saving some through his mercy and in destroying some by his just judgement This is no more then Estius on Rom. 9. doth subscribe unto In this disputation saith hee the Apostle doth not suppose the lumpe corrupt although that which the Apostle saith is true also of it according to Austines opinion For the Scriptures often using the comparison of a lumpe which the Potter doth fasten as he pleaseth speakes of the lumpe absolutely not supposing any fault in it but only considering the nature of it whereby it is fit to be fastned into any worke of the Potter And therefore the Apostle doth not say that the Potter of the same lumpe doth make one Vessell unto honour and leave another in dishonour but that of the same lumpe he doth make unto dishonour Neither doth he say that the thing formed doth not say to him that formed it Why hast thou left me in the corrupt lumpe but Why hast thou made me so that is a dishonorable and reprobate vessell Here wee see Estius both approves of Bezaes interpretation and also makes use of his reason for the confirming of it And hee addes that the Apostle in that similitude of a lumpe and a Potter doth not allude to Ier. 18. 6 but that rather there is a manifest allusion to Isai 45. 9. Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker Let the potsheard strive with the potsheards of the Earth shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it What makest thou or thy worke he hath no hands Which words hee saith doe verily signifie thus much that God of his meere pleasure doth so determine of mens estate either the one way or the other as a Potter doth make of clay what worke hee pleaseth And hitherto hee saith doth that belong which followeth Isai 45. 10. Woe unto him that saith unto his Father What begettest thou or to the woman What hast thou brought forth For saith hee what hath man deserved why his parents should ingender him such or such And a little before by diverse arguments he confutes those who thinke that the Apostle speaking of Reprobation doth suppose the lumpe of mankinde infected with originall sinne If saith he those things which the Apostle delivers in this Chapter be diligently considered it will fully appeare that as well Reprobation as Election is absolutely not of foreseene merits For 1. When he saith neither having done any good or evill he excludes as well the evill action of Esau as the good action of Jacob and consequently as well the ill merit
of Reprobation as the good merit of Election 2. To that question Is there unrighteousnesse with God he doth not answer that therefore there is not because the whole lumpe is depraved by sinne c. but he answers so as that he refers as well the Reprobation of these as the election of those unto the sole Will of God and so represses the curious inquirer O man who art thou c. 3. That comparison of a Potter of the same lumpe making one vessell unto honour and another unto dishonour doth exclude the supposition of a corrupt lumpe For here verily is nothing supposed in the lumpe but that it is indifferent and may be fashioned both the one way and the other Thus this learned Papist goes as farre in the point both of Election and of Reprobation as any Protestant that I know whatsoever Neither would he have us thinke that he goes alone for hee cites many as Lombard Hugo de S. Victore Aquinas Cajetan Lyra Titleman and Pererius as being of the same opinion with him and interpreting the words of the Apostle in the same manner And this I suppose may suffice to vindicate the Doctrine of Protestants even such as goe highest in this point as touching Reprobation Now for the Scriptures objected against us the first viz. Wis 1. 13. is not Canonicall Hierome brandes that booke called the the Wisdome of Solomon as falsly intituled and saith that it is no where to be found among the Hebrewes to whom the Oracles of God were committed Rom. 3. 2. and that the style doth smell of Greeke eloquence and that some ancient writers affirme it to be the worke of Philo a Jew Therefore saith he as the Church doth read indeed the Bookes of Judith Tobie and the Maccabees but doth not receive them amongst the Canonicall Scriptures so also doth it reade these two volumes viz. Ecclesiasticus and the wisdome of Solomon for the edifying of the people but not for the confirming of Ecclesiasticall Doctrines But suppose it were Canonicall the place alledged is answered to our hand by one of the Roman Church viz. Alvarez when it is said God made not death the meaning hee saith is that God doth not primarily of it selfe intend the death of any but in respect of some other great good that is joyned with it And againe that place hee saith is expounded of death in respect of the cause to wit sinne These expositions of the place doe free the Doctrine of Protestants from suffering any prejudice by it were the authority of it greater then indeed it is The next place is that 1 Tim. 2. 4. Who will have all men to be saved c. Austine gives diverse interpretations of those words First thus that the meaning is that God will have all to be saved that are saved and that none but such as hee will save can bee saved Secondly this that by all men are meant men of all sorts how ever distinguished Kings and private persons noble and ignoble c. This hee shewes to be agreeable both to the Context and also to the phrase of Scripture Luke 11. 42. You tithe Mint and Rue and every Herbe i. e. every kinde of Herbe This latter exposition of the Apostles words Alvarez saith is also followed by Fulgentius Beda and Anselme The same Alvarez relates two other interpretations which Austine gives of these words viz. first this God will have all men to be saved that is hee makes men to will or desire that all may be saved as the Spirit is said to make intercession for us Rom. 8. 26. that is makes us to make intercession or supplication c. Estius upon the place doth embrace this Exposition before any other VVho will have all men to be saved that is saith hee He willeth and maketh godly men to desire the salvation of all Though God will not save all but onely the Elect yet he will have all to be saved to wit by us as much as in us lies in that he commands us to seek the salvation of all and this desire and indeavour he workes in us This Exposition wee embrace rather then any of the rest The other Exposition which Alvarez relates is that the Apostle speakes of Gods antecedent will Thus hee saith Austine doth expound it in diverse places and for this Exposition hee also cites Damascene Prosper Theophylaot Oecumenius Aquinas as also Chrysostome and Ambrose and saith that it is common among the Doctors Now in the next Disputation hee tels us that Gods antecedent Will is that which respects the object simply considered and by it selfe and that this will is called antecedent not because it goes before the good or ill use of our will as some thinke but because it goes before that will whereby God respects the object considered with some adjunct which is the consequent and latter consideration of it If saith hee the salvation of the Reprobate be considered simply by it selfe so God doth will it but if it be considered as it hath adjoyned the privation or want of a greater good to wit the universall good of manifesting Gods Iustice in the Reprobate and of causing his Mercy the more to shine forth in the Elect so God doth not will it And in this respect were affirmed that God by a consequent will doth not will that all shall be saved but only such as are predestinate Now take any of all these foure Explications of the Apostles words wherein hee saith that God will have all men to be saved as for my part I like best either the second or the last take any of them I say and the Apostles words are nothing against that which Protestants hold concerning Reprobation As for that of Peter that God is not willing that any should perish 2 Pet. 3. 9. Bellarmine himselfe expounds both it and the former place viz. 1 Tim. 2. 4. of that Will of God which Divines call Gods Antecedent will Now what that Antecedent will of God is we have seene even now out of Alvarez if Bellarmine did understand it otherwise as Alvarez notes that some did hee is confuted by Alvarez in the place above cited Where hee also cites Austine saying Many are not saved not because they will not but because God will not which without all controversie is manifested in young children whence he inferrs that the condition which is included in Gods Antecedent will whereby he will have all men to be saved is not this if they will and if they doe not hinder it And Bellarmine himselfe also though he say It is most true that all are not saved because they will not for if they would God would not be wanting unto them Yet immediately hee addes But none can have a will to be saved except God by preventing and preparing the will make him to will it And why God doth not make all to will this who hath knowne the mind of the Lord
foure and that the whole is greater then a part and as hee is sure of those things which hee sees with his eyes and feeles with his hands That a man may have this assurance of his present estate the Scripture plainly shewes 1 Ioh. 3. 14. We know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren Whereupon sayes Austine Let none aske man let every one returne unto his own heart if there he can finde brotherly love let him be secure that he is passed from death to life So Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit himselfe doth beare witnesse with our spirits that we are the sonnes of God Upon which words Cajetan saith thus By this testimony we see clearly that we must believe that we are the sons of God So also 1 Ioh. 3. 24. Hereby we know that he viz. Christ abideth in us by the Spirit which he hath given us And 1 Cor. 2. 12. We have received the spirit of God that we may know the things that are freely given unto us of God Bellarmine sayes this place is not meant of the knowledge of Gods benefits which belong unto this or that man in particular but of the knowledge of those benefits which God hath prepared for his Elect as the inheritance and glory of the Kingdome of Heaven But if the Apostle speakes onely of our knowing what good things God hath prepared in generall for the Elect what is this more then appertaines to the very Devils for they know that God hath prepared Heaven and happinesse for the Elect Cajetan therefore is more ingenuous expounding it of the holy Ghost infused into the Apostles and causing them certainly to know the gifts of God that were in them The Apostles saith hee had a certaine knowledge that Faith Hope Charity and other gifts were freely given unto them of God To adde but one place more viz. that 1 Ioh. 5. 13. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God that you may know that ye have eternall life True sayes Bellarmine the Apostle saith indeed These things I write unto you that believe that you may know that you have eternall life but hee doth not say These things I write unto you that you may know that you believe as you ought to believe But say I the Apostle here did suppose that they that truly believe may know that they doe so for otherwise how should they that believe know that therefore they have life eternall except they first know that they doe believe Now for the Scriptures objected against us that 1 Cor. 9. 27. Lest having preached to others I my selfe should be a cast-away cannot be so understood as that Paul was uncertaine either of his present justification or of his future glorification for that will not consist with many other sayings of his before cited The meaning therefore is onely this that Pauls care was that his Preaching and his conversation might be suitable and that the one might not confound the other The word here rendred cast-away and 2 Cor. 13. 5. reprobate is neither here nor there taken in opposition to elect but is as much as reproved so the word properly doth import as without the privative Particle it signifies approved 1 Cor. 11. 19. That Rom. 11. 20. Thou standest by faith be not high minded but fear is nothing against assurance of salvation which doth well consist with feare viz. such a feare as is opposit to high-mindednesse this feare making us keepe close unto God and not to depart from him Ier. 32. 40. And whereas it is said Rom. 11. 22. Lest thou also mayst or as wee reade it otherwise thou also shalt be cut off it is spoken by the Apostle to the Church of Rome and serves well to shew that any particular visible Church even that of Rome may faile but from hence cannot be inferred that a true Believer may fall away and perish Neither is the assurance of salvation infringed by that Phil. 2. 12. Worke out your own salvation with fear and trembling For as for our working out of our salvation it hinders not but that we may be assured of our salvation We may be assured of that which yet wee must use meanes to obtaine Ezekiah was assured that fifteene yeares should be added unto his life because God by his Prophet had told him so Isai 38. 5. Yet hee used meanes for his recovery v. 21. and so no question but he did for the preservation of his life by eating and drinking and the like Paul also was assured that both hee and all in the Ship with him should escape because God by his Angell had revealed it unto him Act. 27. 23 24 25. yet neverthelesse he saw it needfull to use meanes whereby they might escape Acts 27. 31. And for those words with feare and trembling they doe not imply diffidence and doubting but humility and lowlinesse of minde feare and trembling being here the same as Romans 11. 20. viz. that which is opposit to pride and high-mindednesse The Apostle 2 Cor. 7. 15. saith that the Corinthians received Titus with fear and trembling that is with all humility and reverence So we must worke out our own salvation with fear and trembling that is with reverence and with godly feare as is expressed Heb. 12. 28. But this is no argument at all why wee may not be assured of our salvation no more then it followes that therefore the Corinthians could not be assured of Titus his love and good will towards them and that be came unto them for their good because they received him in that manner David Psal 2. 11. bids serve the Lord with feare and rejoyce with trembling Therefore there may bee feare and trembling and yet rejoycing too and consequently assurance of Gods love and favour for without assurance of it there can be no sound rejoycing in it Joy as Ramundus de Sabunde observes doth arise from this that one knowes that he hath that which he hath and not meerly from this that he hath it Now for the fathers here alleged by the Marquess viz. Am. Ser. 5. in Psal 118. Basil in Constit Monast cap. 2. Hiero. li. 2. advers Pelag. Chrys hom 87. in Ioh. Aug. in Psal 40. Bern. Ser. 3. de Advent Ser. 1. de Sept. I answer it 's true Ambrose saith David desired that his reproach which he suspected might be taken away either because he had thought in his heart but had not done it and though it were abolished by repentance yet he was fearfull lest perhaps the reproch of it did yet remaine and therefore he prayes God to take it away who alone knows that which even he may be ignorant of that hath done it But this doth not argue that a man cannot in Ambroses judgement be assured of his salvation it onely shewes contrary to what the Papists hold that a man cannot be justified and
Author of the Treatise intituled De unctione Chrismatis who goes under the Name of Cyprian but appeares to have been some other shewes that this anointing which they use in confirmation was taken up in imitation of that anointing which was used in the time of the Law Bonaventure also who lived betwixt 1200 and 1300 yeares after Christ held that Confirmation was neither dispensed nor instituted by Christ And if it were not of Christs instituting it can be no Sacrament properly so called onely Christ as the Councell of Trents Catechisme doth acknowledge being the Author and Ordainer of every Sacrament And therefore the Councell of Trent denounceth Anathema against all those that shall deny any of the Sacraments to have been of Christs institution For that Acts 8. 14. 17. which the Marquesse alledgeth it is nothing to their Confirmation For 1. There was laying on of hands but no anointing with Chrisme nor signing with the signe of the Crosse 2. The giving of the holy Ghost there spoken of was in respect of some extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost as speaking with strange Tongues c. as Cajetan himselfe upon the place observeth and he solidly proveth it by this that Simon Magus saw that the holy Ghost was given by the laying on of the handes of the Apostles Besides Acts 19. 6. which place Bellarmine doth joyne with the other it is expressely said when Paul had laid his hands upon them the holy Ghost came on them and they spake with Tongues and prophecied That therefore which the Scripture speakes of the Apostles laying handes on some that had beene Baptized and conferring the holy Ghost upon them is far from proving that the Apostles did administer the Sacrament of Confirmation there being neither the matter nor the forme nor the effect of that pretended Sacrament Bonaventure saith plainly The Apostles did dispense neither the matter nor the forme And for the effect we have had already Cajetans Confession viz. that the effect of the Apostles laying on of their hands was a sensible giving of the holy Ghost and therefore not that which they make the effect of Confirmation For the other place of Scripture viz. Heb. 6. 2. what reason is there why by laying on of hands there mentioned should be meant the Sacrament of Confirmation which they will have to be administred with an ointment made of Oile and Balsome whereas that Scripture speakes of no anointing why may not that laying on of hands be the same with that 1 Tim. 5. 22. lay hands suddenly on no man viz. the laying on of hands used in the ordination of Ministers which also wee reade of 1 Tim. 4. 14. and 2 Tim. 1. 6. Or that laying on of hands which is mentioned Acts 8. and 19. whereby as hath beene shewed the extraordinary and sensible gifts of the holy Ghost were conferred upon Believers Thus Theophylact upon the place expounds it of laying on of hands whereby they received the holy Ghost so as to foretell things to come and to worke miracles Cajetan also understands it in like manner of that laying on of hands which was peculiar to those Primitive Christians For the Fathers alledged it is granted that the Fathers doe often speake of anointing and that they speake of it as of a Sacrament But diverse things are to be considered 1. That the word Sacrament is by ancient Writers taken very largely Bellarmine confesseth that in the vulgar Latine Translation of the Scriptures the word is used of many things that by the consent of all are no Sacraments properly so called So Cassander saith that besides those seven which the Church of Rome accounteth Sacraments there are some other things used among them which by a more large acception of the word are sometimes called Sacraments And that of those seven Sacraments it is certaine the Schoolemen themselves did not thinke them all to be alike properly called Sacraments And he instanceth in this very Sacrament of confirmation shewing that some of the Schoolmen namely Holcot did not take it for a Sacrament of like nature with Baptisme The same Author tells us that one shall hardly finde any before Peter Lombard who was 1145 yeares after CHRIST that did set downe a certaine and determinate number of the Sacraments But the Councell of Trent hath decreed If any shall say that the Sacraments of the new Testament were not all instituted by Iesus Christ our Lord or that they are either more or lesse then seven viz. Baptisme Confirmation Eucharist Penance Extreme unction Order and Marriage or that any of these is not a Sacrament truly and properly so called let him be anathema We may see therefore of what small standing the present Roman faith is 2. Some of the Fathers doe expressely tells us that the anointing which they used hath no foundation in the Scripture Basil speaking of it askes what written word hath taught it And so Bellarmine confesseth that there is no institution of it in the Scripture and that they have it onely by Tradition which yet hee saith is most certaine and no lesse to be believed then the written word it selfe But we are bidden goe to the Law and to the Testimony and are told that if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Isai 8. 20. 3. The Fathers so peake of their anointing as that they seeme to make it onely an Appendix of Baptisme Wee came to the water thou wentest in saith Ambrose then presently hee addes Thou wast anointed as a wrestler So Tertullian Being come out of that laver wee are anointed with the blessed anointing I know Pamelius makes that anointing there spoken of by Tertullian distinct from that used in Confirmation but Bellarmine cites those words as meant of confirmation So those very words of Cyprian which the Marquesse citeth Then they bee fully sanctified and be the Sonnes of God if they be borne of both Sacramments those very wordes I say doe argue that Cyprian though he seeme to speak of two Sacraments yet indeed accounted them but one Sacrament in that he makes one and the same effect of both viz. to be borne whereas they of Rome make birth onely the effect of Baptisme and strength the effect of Confirmation Neither doth it follow that in Cyprians judgement they are two distinct Sacraments because hee saith both Sacraments For so he might speak in respect of two severall signes though both used in one and the same Sacrament Even as Rabanus calleth the body and blood of Christ two Sacraments he means the consecrated bread and wine which though they make but one Sacrament yet because they are two sacramentall signes he calles them two Sacraments 4. Whereas the Fathers used to adde Confirmation presently after Baptisme whether it were one of years or an infant that was Baptized as is acknowledged by Bellarmine and other Romanists now they
thinke it not meete to Confirme children untill they come to the use of reason and be able to confesse their faith The Catechisme set forth by the decree of the councell of Trent thinkes it requisite that children be either twelve years old or at least seven years old before they be confirmed And Durantus tells us that a Synod at Millan did decree and that hee sayes piously and religiously That the Sacrament of Confirmation should be administred to none under seven years old Thus have they by their own confession departed from the judgment and practice of the ancient Fathers themselves and why then should they presse us with it After Confirmation the Marquesse commeth to communicating in one kinde which they hold sufficient And he saith that they have Scripture for it viz. Ioh. 6. 51. not 15. If any man eate of this bread hee shall live for ever Whence hee inferrs If everlasting life be sufficient then it is also sufficient to communicate under one kinde So Acts 2. 42. They continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayer Where is no mention of the Cup and yet they remained stedfast in the Apostles Doctrine So also Luke 24. 30 35. Where Christ communicated hee saith his two Disciples under one kinde He addes that Austine Theophylact and Chrysostome expound that place of the Sacrament Answ The Scripture plainly shewes that our Saviour instituting the Sacrament of his Supper took and blessed and gave the Cup as well as the bread and commanded that to be drunk as well as this to be eaten in remembrance of him Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luke 22. 1 Cor. 11. And the Apostle tells us that As oft as we eate this bread and drinke the Cup of the Lord we shew forth the Lords death till he come 1 Cor. 11. 26. And he bids v. 28. Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of that Bread and drinke of that Cup. Protestants therefore have good reason to hold it necessary to communicate in both kindes and that it is utterly unlawfull to withhold the Cup from people as they in the Church of Rome do Our Adversaries thinke to put off those words of our Saviour Drinke yee all of this by saying that Christ spake so onely to the Apostles and therefore wee must not infer from them that the common sort of people are to drinke of the Cup in the Sacrament But 1. by this reason they may as well withhold the bread also from the people and so deprive them of the whole sacrament For when Christ gave the Bread and bad take eate he spake onely to the Apostles as well as when hee gave the cup and bad that all should drinke of it 2. The Apostle spake universally of all Christians requiring that having examined themselves they should not onely eate of the bread but drinke of the cup also All antiquity is here on our side How doe we teach or provoke them saith Cyprian to shed their blood in the confession of Christ if we deny them the blood of Christ when they are going to war-fare Or how doe we make them meete for the Cup of Martyrdome if we doe not first admit them to drinke the Lords Cup in the Church by the right of Communion Thus spake Cyprian and he spake in the name of a whole Synod of Affrick as Pamelius observes concerning such as though they had grossely offended yet were judged meete to be admitted to the Sacrament because of a persecution which was ready to come upon them that so they might be strengthened and prepared for it This clearly shewes that in Cyprians time all that did communicate at all did communicate in both kindes and not in one onely So also in another place Considering saith Cyprian that they therefore daily drinke the cup of Christs Blood that they also for Christ may shed their blood There is a decree of Pope Iulius recorded by Gratian wherein hee condemneth the practice of some who used to give unto people the bread dipped for a full communion This he saith is not consonant to the Gospell where we finde that the bread and the cup were given severally each by it selfe Much more we may suppose hee would have disliked that the bread alone without any manner of participation of the cup should have been administred Sure I am the reason that hee alledgeth is every whit as much against this as against the other So another Pope viz. Gelasius as the same Gratian relates hearing of some that would onely receive the bread but not the Cup bade that either they should receive the whole Sacrament or no part of it because the division of one and the same mystery hee saith cannot be without great Sacriledge And whereas they speake of a concomitancy of the blood with the body and so would have it sufficient to receive the bread onely the glosse upon that canon is expressely against them saying that the bread hath reference onely to Christs Body and the Wine onely to his Blood and that therefore the Sacrament is received in both kindes to signifie that Christ assumed both Body and Soule and that the participation of the Sacrament is available both to Soule and Body Wherefore it saith if the Sacrament should be received onely in one kinde in Bread onely it would shew that it availes onely for the good of the one viz. of the Body and not for the good of the other viz. of the Soule Not to multiply testimonies Cassander in the very beginning of the Article wherein he treates of this point ingenuously confesseth that the Universall Church of Christ to this day doth and the Westerne or Roman Church for more then a thousand years after Christ did especially in the solemne and ordinary dispensation of the Sacrament exhibit both kindes both Bread and Wine to all the members of Christ which he saith is manifest by innumerable testimonies of ancient Writers both Greek and Latine And hee addes that they were induced hereunto first by the institution and example of Christ who did give this Sacrament of his Body and Blood under two signes viz. Bread and Wine unto his Disciples as representing the person of faithfull Communicants And because in the Sacrament of the Blood they believed that a peculiar vertue and grace is signified So also for mysticall reasons of this institution which are diversly assigned by the ancient Writers As to represent the memory of Christs Passion in the offering of his Body and the shedding of his Blood according to that of Paul As oft as yee eate this Bread and Drinke the cup of the Lord yee shew forth the Lords death till hee come Also to signifie full refreshing and nourishing which consists in Meate and Drinke as Christ saith My flesh is meate indeed and my Blood is Drinke indeed Likewise to shew the redemption and preservation of Soule and
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
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
by the Pope as knowing it to be true which their own Law delivereth that in holinesse any old woman in knowledge many a Friar might out-go the Pope but in power and authority the whole world was under him yet at this day they do so generally cling to him and draw by his line as having no hope either of standing against their opposites but onely by him or of unity among themselves but onely in him that touch him and touch them c. And elsewhere in the same book It is a wonderful thing saith he to see what curious order and diligence they use to suffer nothing to be done or spring up among themselves which may any way give footing to the Religion which they so much hate And first for the Scriptures for as much as the Reformation seems grounded upon them c. though as well to beat back the irksome out-cries of their adversaries as also to give some satisfaction to their own that they might not think them so terribly afraid of the Bible they were content to let it be translated by some of their favourers into the vulgar as also some number of Copies to be saleable a while at the beginning yet since having husbed that former clamor and made better provision for the establishing of their Kingdome they have called all vulgar Bibles streightly in again yea the very Psalms of David which their famous Preacher B. Panigarola translated as doubting else the unavoidablenesse of those former inconveniences Neither yet in their very Sermons though they preach alwayes in a manner on the Gospel of the day do they read or any other wayes recite the Text but discourse onely on such points of it as they think fittest without more solemnity that no sound of Scripture may possesse the people although the use in France be otherwise for that matter Yea some parts of Scripture as S. Pauls Epistles they are so jealous of and think so dangerous that by report of divers for my self did not hear it some of their Jesuits of late in Italy in solemn Sermon and other their favourites elsewhere in private communication commending between them S. Peter for a worthy spirit have censured S. Paul for a hot-headed person who was transported so with his pangs of zeal and eagernesse beyond all compasse in sundry his disputes that there was no great reckoning to be made of his assertions yea he was dangerous to read as savouring of heresie in some places and better he had not written of those matters at all Agreeable to which I have heard other of their Catholicks deliver that it hath been heretofore very seriously consulted among them to have censured by some means and reformed the writings of S. Paul though for mine own part I must professe I can hardly believe this as being an attempt too too abominable and blasphemous and for these times too desperate a scandal But howsoever he of all others is least beholding to them whom of mine own knowledge and hearing some of them teach in the Pulpit not to have been secure of his preaching but by conference with St. Peter and other of the Apostles nor that he durst publish his Epistles till they had allowed them And as in the foundation of the Reformation which is the Scripture so much more in the edifice it self the doctrine and opinions they beat away all sound and eccho of them being not lawfull there to alleadge them no not to glance at them not to argue dispute of them no not to refute them In ordinary communication to talk of matter of Religion is odious and suspicious but to enter into any reasoning though but for argument sake without other scandal is prohibited and dangerous Yea it was once my fortune to be half threatned for no other fault then for debating with a Jew and upholding the truth of Christianity against him so unlawfull are all disputes of Religion whatsoever And their Friars even in France in their endeavours to convert others will say it is lawfull to perswade them but not so to dispute with them But in Italy this is much more exactly observed c. But the most strange thing as to me it seemed of all other is that those principal Writers who have employed themselves wholly in refuting from point to point the Protestants doctrine and arguments are so rare in Italy as by ordinary enquiry I beleeve not to be found The controversies of Cardinal Bellarmine I sought for in Venice in alplaces Neither that nor Gregory of Valentia nor any of suâ—â— quality could I ever in any Shop of Italy set eye on but in instead of them an infinite number of meer invectives and declamations which made me entertaine this suspicious conjecture that it might be their care that no part of the Protestants positions and allegations should be known they were so exact as to make discurrent in some sort even those very books which were constrained to recite them that they might refute them c. By these and other passages in that book which the Marquesse was pleased to cite we may see what a politique indeed yet withall a poor and pittiful Unity that is which is amongst them of the Church of Rome though the Marquesse here as also before about the begining of his Reply doth so boast of it But the Marquesse begins again to fall upon Protestant writers and to inveigh against them as guilty of strange and unheard of blasphemies vilenesse and wickednesse And as if the testimonies which he alleadgeth for proof hereof were not to be doubted of he saith that they are the testimonies of Protestants themselves and not of any of the Church of Rome But the most of his testimonies are those of Luther and his followers concerning Zuinglius and those that joined with him or the testimonies of these concerning the other Now these being adversaries one to the other as the Romanists are to them both the testimonies of the one against the other are to be accounted no more valid then if the testimonies of the Romanists had been alleadged against them Mr Breerley premonisheth him that shall undertake to answer his Apologie to forbear to urge the testimonies of such as persisted professed enemies to the Roman Sea and also of those who though but for a time did stand in some opposition against it Yet himself and from him the Marquesse usually doth urge the testimonies of those who were professed adversaries to them against whom they are urged But waving those particulars which are founded upon such testimonies as indeed the most are there are some other to which I shall endeavour to give answer 1. It is objected That Luther was taught by the Devil that the Masse was naught and overcome with the Devils reasons he abolisht it Ans It is true Luther himself doth at large relate how that about midnight when he awaked the Devil did dispute with him and convince him that