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
John 6. 63. They pervert our Saviours meaning into a contrary sense of their owne imagination viz. the flesh profiteth nothing that is to say Christs body is not in the Sacrament but in the Spirit that quickneth that is to say we must onely believe that Christ dyed for us but not that his body is there as if there were any need of so many inculcations pressures offences mis-believings of and in a thing that were no more but a bare memoriall of a thing being a thing nothing more usuall with the Israelites as the twelve stones which were erected as a sign of the children of Israels passing over Jordan That when your children shall ask their Fathers what is meant thereby then ye shall answer them c. Josh 4. there would not have been so much difficulty in the belief if there had not been more in the mysterie there would not have been so much offence taken at a memorandum nor so much stumbling at a figure The Fathers are of this opinion Saint Ignat. in Ep. ad Smir. Saint Justin Apol 2. ad Antonium Saint Cyprian Ser. 4. de lapsis Saint Ambr. lib. 4. de Sacram. Saint Remigius c. affirme the flesh of Christ to be in the Sacrament and the same flesh which the word of God took in the Virgins wombe Secondly We hold that there is in the Church an infallible rule for understanding of Scripture besides the Scripture it selfe this you deny this we have Scripture for as Rom. 12. 16. we must prophesie 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 Gospel according to this rule 1 Cor. 10. 15. this rule of faith the holy Scriptures call a form of doctrine Romans 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 prophane and vain bablings and oppositions of sciences and by this rule of faith is not meant the holy Scriptures for that cannot do it as the Apostle tells us whilst there are unstable men who wrest this way and that way to their owne destruction but it is the tradition of the Church and her exposition as it is delivered from hand to hand as most plainly appears 2. Tim. 2. 2. viz. 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 Of this opinion are the Fathers Saint Irenaeus 4. chap. 45. Tertul de praescr and Vincent lir in suo commentario saith It is very needfull in regard of so many errors proceeding from misinterpretations of Scripture that the line of propheticall and Apostolicall exposition should be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense and saith Tertullian prae script advers haeres chap. 11. We 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 form of Christian Religion was delivered otherwise prescribing against him as a stranger for otherwise if a heathen should come by the Bible as the Eunuch came by the Prophesie of Esay and have no Philip to interpret it unto him he would find out a Religion rather according to his owne fancy then divine verity In matters of faith Christ bids us to observe and doe whatsoever they bid us who sit in Moses seat Mat. 22. 2. 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 ye 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 Luke 10. 16. We say 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 Saint Irenaeus lib. 2. chap. 47. Origen contr Cels and Saint Ambr. Epist 44. ad Constant calleth the Scripture a Sea and depth of propheticall riddles and Saint Hier. in praefat comment in Ephes and Saint Aug Epist 119. chap. 21. saith The things of holy Scripture which I know not are more then those that I know and Saint Denis Bishop of Corinth cited by Eusebius lib. 7. hist Eccless 20. saith of the Scriptures that the matter thereof was far more profound then his wit could reach We say that this Church cannot erre you say it can we have Scripture for what we say such Scripture that will tell you that fools cannot erre therein Esaiah 35. 8. such Scripture as will tell you if you neglect to hear it you shall be a heathen and a publican Mat. 18. 17. such Scripture as will tell you that this Church shall be unto Christ a glorious Church a Church that shall be without spot or wrinkle Ephesians 5. 27. such a Church as shall be enlivened for ever with his Spirit Isaiah 59. 21. The Fathers affirm the samme Saint Aug contra Crescon lib. 1. cap. 3. Saint Cypr Epist 55. ad Cornel. num 3. Saint Irenaeus lib. 3. chap. 4. Cum multis aliis We say the Church hath been alwaies visible you deny it we have the Scripture for it Mat. 5. 14 15. The light of the world a City upon a hill cannot be hid 2 Cor. 4. 3. Isaiah 22. The Fathers unanimously affirme the same Origen Hom 30. in Math That the Church is full of light even from the East to the West Saint Chrisost Hom 4. in 6. of Isaiah That it is easier for the Sun to be extinguished then the Church to be darkned Saint Aug tract in Joan calls them blind who doe not see so great a mountain and Saint Cypr de Unitate Ecclesiae We held the perpetuall universality of the Church and that the Church of Rome is such a Church you deny it we have Scripture for it Psal 2. 8. Rom. 1. 8. the Fathers affirm as much Saint Cypr ep 57. writing to Cornelius Pope of Rome saith whilst with you there is one mind and one voice the whole Church is confessed to be the Roman Church Saint Aug de unitate Eccles chap. 4. saith who so communicates not with the whole corps of Christendome certaine it is that they are not in the holy Catholike Church Saint Hier. in Apol. ad Ruffin saith that it is all one to say the Roman faith and the Catholick We hold the unity of the Church to be necessary in all points of faith you deny it the severall articles of your Protestant Churches deny it we have Scripture for it Eph. 4. 5. One Lord one Faith one
Ceremonies and of Apostolicall tradition She held then besides Batisme and the Eucharist Confirmation Marriage Orders and extream Unction for true and proper Sacraments which the Church of Rome now acknowledgeth The Church in the Ceremonies of Baptisme used then oyl salt wax-lights exorcismes the signe of the Cross the word Ephata and other that accompany it none of them without reason and excellent signification The Church held then Baptisme for infants of absolute necessity and for this cause then permitted lay men to baptise in danger of death the Church used then holy water consecrated by certain words and Ceremonies and made use of it both for Baptisme and against inchantments and to make exorcismes and conjurations against evill spirits The Church held then divers degrees in the Ecclesiasticall Regiment to wit Bishops Priests Deacons Subdeacons the Acolite Exorcist Reader and Porter consesecrated and blessed them with divers Forms and Ceremonies And in the Episcopall Order acknowledged divers seats of Jurisdiction of positive right to wit Archbishops Primates Patriarchs and one Supereminent by Divine law which was the Pope without whom nothing could be decided appertaining to the universall Church and the want of whose presence either by himselfe or his Legats or his Confirmation made all Councels pretended to be universall unlawfull In the Church then the service was said throughout the East in Greek and throughout the West as well in Africa as in Europe in Latin although that in none of the provinces except in Italy and the Cities where the Romane Colonies resided the Latine tongue was understood by the common people She observed then the distinction of feasts and ordinary dayes the Distinction of Ecclesiasticall and lay habits the reverence of sacred vessels the custome of shaming and unction for the collation of orders the Ceremony of the Priest washing his hands at the Altar before the consecration of the Mysteries She then pronounced a part of the service at the Altar with a low voice made processions with the reliques of Martyrs kissed them carried them in clothes of silke and vessels of gold took and esteemed the dust from under their reliquaries accompanied the dead to their sepulchres with wax tapers in sign of joy for the certainty of their future resurrection The Church then had the picture of Christ and of his Saints both out of Churches and in them and upon the very Altars not to adore them with God like worship but by them to reverence the Souldiers and Champions of Christ The faithfull then used the sign of the Crosse in all their Conversations painted it on the portal of all the houses of the faithfull gave their blessing to the people with their hand by the signe of the Crosse imployed it to drive away evill spirits proposed in Jerusalem the very Crosse to be adored on good Friday Finally the Church held then that to the Catholick Church onely belongs the keeping of the Apostolicall tradition the Authority of interpretation of Scripture and the decision of Controversies of faith and that out of the succession of her communion of her Doctrine and her ministery there was neither Church nor Salvation Neither will I insist with you onely upon the word then but before and before and before that even to the first age of all will I shew you our doctrine of the reall presence and holy Sacrifice of the Masse Invocation of Saints Veneration of Reliques and Images Confession and Priestly absolution Purgatory and prayer for the dead Traditions c. In the fift Age or hundred of years Saint Augustine was for the reall and corporall presence In the fourth Age Saint Ambrose In the third Age Saint Cyprian In the second Age or hundred of years S. Irenaeus And in the first Age Saint Ignatius Martyr and Disciple of Saint John the Evangelist Concerning the honour and invocation of Saints In the fifth Age we find Saint Augustine praying to the Virgin Mary ond other Saints In the fourth Age we find Greg. Naz. praying to S. Basil the great In the third Age we find S. Origen praying to Father Abraham In the second Age Justin Martyr And in the first age in the Liturgy of S. James the lesse For the use and veneration of holy Reliques and Images and chiefly of the Holy Crosse in the fifth age Saint Augustine In the fourth Age Athanasius In the third Age Origen In the second Age St. Justin Martyr And in the first Age S. Ignatius Concerning Confession and Absolutions In the fifth Age S. August In the fourth Age S. Basil the Great In the third Age S. Cypr. In the second Age Tertull. And in the first Age S. Clement Now concerning Purgatory and Prayer for the dead in the fifth Age S. Augustin In the fourth Age S. Ambrose In the third Age S. Cypr. In the second Age Tertull. And in the first Age S. Clement e. Concerning Traditions in the fifth Age S. Aug. In the fourth Age S. Basil In the third Age S. Epiphanins In the second Age S. Irenaeus And in the first Age S. Dennis Now suppose that all these quotations be right The saving of a soul of your own soul of the soul of a King of the souls of so many Kingdoms and the gaining of that Kingdome for a reward which in comparison of these Earthly ones for which you so often fight so much strive and labour so much for to obtain your tetrarchate would be a gain for you to lose it so that you might but obtain that would be worth the search and when you have found them to be truly cited I dare trust your judgement that it will tell you that we have not changed our Countenance nor fled our Colours nor fallen away nor altered our Religion nor forsaken our first Love nor denyed our Principles nor brought Novelties into the Church but that we doe antiquum obtinere whereby we should be forsaken of you for forsaking our selves but rather that we should win you unto us by being still the same we were when we won you first unto us and were at the beginning And is it for the honour of the English Nation famous for the first Christian King and the first Christian Emperour to forsake her Mother Church so renowned for antiquity and to annex their Religion as a codicell to an appeal of a company of Protesters against a decree at Spira and to forsake so glorious a name as Catholick and to take a name upon them wherein they had neither right nor interest and then to take measure of the Scottish Discipline for the new fashion of their souls and to
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
Christ according to Bellarmines computation The Church saith the Marquesse held then mingling of water with wine in the sacrifice of the Eucharist for a thing necessary and of divine and Apostolical tradition Cyprian indeed in the place all eadged viz. Epist 63. doth speak of the mixture of wine and water in the Eucharist as a thing necessary to be obsered But 1. Austine hath taught us That it is no wrong to Cyprian to make a difference betwixt his writings and the Scriptures 2. Cyprian himselfe though speaking of another occasion doth shew us what we are here to answer Whence saith he is this tradition Did it come either from Christ in the Gospel or from the Apostles in their writings For God doth require us to do those things that are written saying to Joshua The book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth c. Jos 1. 8. And when Christ sent his Apostles he bade them baptize all Nations and teach them to observe whatsoever he commanded Mat. 28. 19. 20. If therefore it be commanded in the Gospel or contained either in the Epistles or in the Acts of the Apostles then let it be observed as a divine and holy tradition Now in the Epistle which the Marquesse alleadgeth Cyprian proveth against the Aquarians such as did use only water in the Eucharist that Christ in the institution of the Sacrament used wine this he proves by that which is written Mat. 26. 29. I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the Vine c. but that Christ also did use water he doth not prove neither can it be proved by the Scripture Yet our Divines do grant that probably Christ might mixe wine and water in the Sacramental cup not for any mystical signification nor as a matter of necessary observation but only as in those hot Countries they used commonly to drink wine mixed with water to abate the strength of it Neither do they therefore condemn them of the Church of Rome for using this mixture but for using it so as to make it a sinne not to use it Bellarmine indeed saith that it is no lesse certain that Christ did mixe water with wine when he instituted the Sacrament then that he did use any wine at all for that purpose For he saith neither the Evangelists nor Paul make any mention of wine when they speak of the cup in the Eucharist As for the words I will not drinke henceforth of the fruit of the Vine c. he saith S. Luke doth plainly shew they were spoken not of the cup in the Eucharist but that cup which was given after the eating of the Pascal Lamb. But this contradits Cyprian in that very Epistle which is alleadged against us For their citing these words he infers from them as a thing clear and evident that it was wine which Christ called his blood and that the Sacrament is not rightly celebrated if wine be wanting Yea Maldonate cites many of the ancient Writers besides Cyprian who understand those words of the cup in the Eucharist And whereas Bellarmine doth urge Luke 22. 17 18. to prove that those words I will not henceforth drink c. have reference to another cup and not that in the Eucharist Austine as himself confesseth taketh those words in Luke to be related by anticipation and not in their due order which Matthew and Mark observed And though he say that Austine did not diligently consider the place yet Jansenius writing professedly upon it approves Austins opinion rather then Hieroms who conceives two several cups to be spoken of in S. Lukes Gospel neither doth Bellarmine answer his argument which he doth alleadge for it But however he shews that the words as they are related by S. Matthew and S. Marke cannot be referred to any other cup then that in the Eucharist of which they make mention immediately before and of none other 3. Cyprian in this very point about the mingling of wine and water in the Eucharist doth differ as well from them of the Church of Rome as from Protestants For he makes this mixture of such necessity as to hold it no Sacrament if there be not in the cup both wine and water Otherwise if there bee either onely water or onely wine he holds it to be none of Christs Cup none of his Sacrament But Bellarmine taxeth Chemnitius for charging them of the Roman Church with this opinion and saith that very few of them do hold it Why then do they presse us with the testimony of Cyprian they themselves dissenting from him as well as we For it is over vain and frivolous that Bellarmine saith that though Cyprian spake in that manner yet perhaps he meant otherwise But to proceed The Marquesse saith that anciently the Church held exorcismes exsufflations and renuntiations which are made in Baptisme for sacred ceremonies and of Apostolical tradition And a little after The Church in the ceremonies of Baptisme used then oyle salt wax-light exorcismes the sign of the Crosse the word Ephata and other things that accompany it c. But 1. What authority is there from Gods word for all or any of these Ceremonies Let them be proved by the Scriptures and then we will acknowledge them for divine and holy traditions but otherwise we have no reason to do it And for this we have Cyprian to whom other ancient Writers might be added if need were to speak for us as I have shewed a little before though here among others he also be alleadged against us 2. Bellarmine speaking of rites and ceremonies saith That they must not so be multiplied as with their multitude to overwhelm Religion to which they ought to be subservient And for this he cites Austine But surely the ceremonies of Baptisme which the Marquesse here partly expresseth and partly intimateth Bellarmine doth reckon up particularly no fewer then two and twenty are so many as that they must needs overwhelme Baptisme 3. Some rites and ceremonies anciently used in Baptisme are now abolished in the Church of Rome Anciently they used to dip the person baptized thrice in the water which now Bellarmine saith is not so but in some places they dip once and in some place thrice neither being of the offence of the Sacrament But elsewhere he tels us that the Church hath determined in the fourth Councel of Toledo that there shall be but one dipping used in Baptisme So also Bellarmine amongst the ceremonies of Baptisme anciently used mentioneth the tasting of milk and hony or wine which ceremony yet he saith now is not in use Thus their Apostolical traditions as they call them they themselves can reject when they please The Church held then saith the Marquesse Baptisme for Infants of absolute necessity and for this cause thou permitted Lay-men to baptise in danger of death The absolute necessity of Baptisme is not here simply urged but
he was above two hundred years after Minutius and Gregory who was about as much after Paulinus was against the worshipping of any thing made with hands as appears by the words before cited Finally saith the Marquesse the Church then held that to the Catholick Church only belongs the keeping of the Apostolical tradition the authority of interpretation of Scripture and the decision of controversies of faith and that out of the succession of her communion of her doctrine and her ministery there neither was Church nor salvation 1. For Apostolical traditions enough hath been said before 2. And so also of interpretation of Scripture and decision of controversies of faith 3. I understand not what is meant by objecting against us that out of the Catholick Church there is no Church For the Catholick Church being the Church universal and so comprehending all particular Churches as parts and members of it who can doubt that there is no Church out of the Church Catholick But what is this to the Church of Rome which once indeed was a sound part of the Catholick Church but the Catholick Church it never was nor could be except a part could be the whole In that which follows page 101. c. there is nothing but the same matter as before only the form is somewhat altered and therefore there is no need that I should trouble either my self or the Reader any further about it only I shall adde one or two Animadversions 1. Whereas it is objected page 105. c. that Luther after his deserting the communion of the Church of Rome did yet hold some points of Popery and so also Husse and Wickliffe and others that otherwise opposed themselves against the errors and corruptions of that Church I answer That as Rome was not built at once so neither was it demolished at once but by degrees it is no marvel therefore if those worthy men did at least for a while retain some Romish opinions and practices after that in many things they had discovered the truth and stood up in defence of it 2. Whereas it is pretended page 106. that before Berengarius who was above 1000. years after Christ none did oppose that reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament which the Romanists maintain besides that I have sufficiently confuted this before the Marquesse might have seen from Bellarmine himself that there were some who above 200. years before Berengarius did oppose that doctrine which in this particular the Church of Rome now doth hold namely Bertram a Presbyter who was about 800. years after Christ and saith Bellarmine was one of the first that did call in question that doctrine But Bellarmine doth too much mince the matter for Bertram did more then call in question that reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament which the Romanists do hold he did plainly assert that which Protestants maintain viz. that the substance of bread and wine doth still remain after consecration as is to be seen in Hospinians first part of the Sacramentary history and so in others that cite that Author for the book it self I confesse I have not seen that I do remember But that is here worthy to be observed which the Romish censurers of Books say speaking of this book of Bertrams about the Sacrament Although say they we do not much value this book nor should greatly eare if it were no where to be found yet seeing it hath been often printed and read of very many c. and we sufer very many errours in other ancient Catholicks we extenuate them we excuse them and finding out some device we often deny them and fain some good sense of them when they are opposed in disputations or conflicts with the adversaries we see not why Bertram may not deserve the same favour and diligent recognition lest Hereticks prate against us and say that we burn antiquity and prohibit it when it makes for them Some things therefore in Bertrams book they will have to be quite left out and some things to be quite altered as namely for visibly to be read invisibly Such devices have they of the Church of Rome to corrupt ancient Writers when they make against them and then they pretend that all are for them Thus the Marquesse in the conclusion of his Reply page 230. pretends that they have the prescription of 1600. years possession and continuance of their Churches Doctrine and evidence out of the word of God and the Fathers witnessing to that evidence and the decrees of Councels and Protestants own acknowlegdements But what ground there is for this pretence let the Reader judge by comparing and considering what is said on both sides And so I also shall leave the successe of my labour unto God in whose hand are the hearts of all An Addition of some few things omitted in the fore-going REJOINDER THe Marquesse pag. 69. citeth Basil orat in 40 it is misprinted 44 Mart. as affirming that we may pray unto the Saints departed But in that Oration Basil affirms no such thing He shews indeed his approbation of praying not unto the Martyrs but which is quite another thing to God at the monuments of the Martyrs The most learned B. Usher observes That the memory of the Martyrs indeed was from the very beginning had in great reverence and at their Memorials and Martyria that is to say at the places wherein their bodies were laid which were the Churches whereunto the Christians did in those times usually resort prayers were ordinarily offered up unto God for whose cause they laid down their lives But this is no argument that they then prayed to the Martyrs though that errour might take occasion afterwards to creep in by this meanes The Marquesse taxeth Calvin for holding that Christs soule was subject to ignorance To what I have already said in answer to this charge I adde that in this particular Fulgentius was of the same minde with Calvin For confuting those that held Christ to have no humane soul he saith thus If we must believe that the humane nature in Christ wanted a soul what is it that in Christ being an Infant is said not to have known good and evil Then he cites Isa 7. 16. expounding it of Christ and addes Therefore the humane soule which is naturally made capable of reason in Christ being an Infant is said not to have known good and evil which according to the truth of the Gospel in Christ being a child is related to have increased in wisdome c. To that also that hath been said before concerning Calvins death let this be added How far Calvin was from despairing at his death as the Marquesse doth object may appear by what he wrote to his dear friend Farel when he looked for death every moment I hardly breath saith he and expect continually that breath should fail me It is enough that I live and dye to Christ who to those that are his is both
afraid he will not give you another day wherein you may so much as trie your fortune Your Majesty had forgot the monies which came unto you from unknown hands and were brought unto you by unknown faces when you promised you would never forsake your unknown friends you have forgotten the miraculous blessings of the Almighty upon those beginnings and how have you discountenanc'd distrusted dis-regarded I and disgraced the Catholiques all along and at last vowed an extirpation of them Doth not your Majesty see clearly how that in the two great Battailes the North and Naseby God shewed signes of his displeasure when in the first your Enemies were even at your mercy confusion fell upon you and you lost the day like a man that should so wound his Enemies that he could scarce stand and afterwards his owne sword should fly out of the hilt and leave the strong and skilfull to the mercy of his falling Enemies and in the second and I feare me the last Battaile that e're you 'le fight whilst your men were crying victory as I hear they had reason so to do your sword broke in the aire which made you a fugitive to your flying Enemies Sir I pray pardon my boldnesse for it is Gods cause that makes me so bold and no inclination of my owne to be so and give me leave to tell you that God is angry with you and will never be pleased untill you have taken new resolutions concerning your Religion which I pray God direct you or else you 'le fall from nought to worse from thence to nothing King My Lord I cannot so much blame as pitty your zeal the soundnesse of Religion is not to be tried by dint of sword nor must we judge of her truthes by the prosperity of events for then of all men Christians would be most miserable we are not to be thought no followers of Christ by observations drawne from what is crosse or otherwise but by taking up our crosse and following Christ Neither do I remember my Lord that I made any such vow before the Battaile of Naseby concerning Catholiques but some satisfaction I did give my Protestant Subjects who on the other side were perswaded that God blest us the worse for having so many Papists in our Army Marq. The difference is not great I pray God forgive you who have most reason to aske it King I think not so my Lord. Marq. Who shall be judge King I pray my Lord let us sit down and let reason take her seat Marq. Reason is no judge King But she may take her place Marq. Not above our Faith King But in our arguments Marq. I beseech your Majesty to give me a reason why you are so much offended with our Church King Truly my Lord I am much offended with your Church if you meane the Church of Rome if it were for no other reason but this for that she hath foisted into her legend so many ridiculous stories as are able to make as much as in them lies Christianitie it selfe a fable whereas if they had not done this wrong unto the tradition of the primitive Church we then had left unto us such rare and unquestionable verities as would have adorned and not dawb'd the Gospel whereas now we know not what is true or false Marq. Sir if it be allowed to question what the Catholick Church holds out for truth because that which they hold forth unto us seemes ridiculous and to picke and chuse verities according to our owne fancie and reject as novelties and forgeries what we please as impossibilites and fabulous the Scriptures themselves may as well suffer by this kind of tolleration for what more ridiculous then the Dialogue betweene Balaam and his Ass or that Sampsons strength should be in his hair or that he should slay a thousand men with the Jaw-bone of an Ass the Disputation betweene Saint Michael and the Devill about the body of Moses Philip's being taken up in the air and found at Azotus with a thousand the like strange and to our apprehension if we looke upon them with carnall eyes vaine and ridiculous but being they are recorded in Scripture which Scripture we hold for truth we admire but never question them so the fault may not be in the tradition of the Church but in the libertie which men assume to themselves to question the tradition And I beseech Your Majestie to consider the streaks that are drawn over the Divine writ as so many delenda's by such bold hands as those the Testaments were not like the two Tables delivered into the hands of any Moses by the immediate hand of God neither by the Ministration of Angels but men inspired with the holy Ghost writ whose writings by the Church were approved to be by inspiration which inspirations were called Scripture which Scriptures most of them as they are now received into our hands were not received into the Canon of the Church all within three hundred years after Christ why may not some bold spirits call all those Scriptures which were afterwards acknowledged to be Scripture and were not before forgeries Nay have not some such as blind as bold done it already Saint Hierom was the first that ever pickt a hole in the Scriptures and cut out so many books out of the word of God with the penknife of Apocrypha Ruffinus challengeth him for so doing and tells him of the gap that he hath opened for wild beasts to enter into this field of the Church and tread downe all ill corne Jerom gives his reasons because they were not found in the Originall Copie as if the same spirit which gave to those whom it did inspire the diversities of tongues should it selfe be tied to one language but withall he acknowledgeth thus much of those books which he had thus markt in the forehead Canonici sunt ad informandos mores sed non ad confirmandam fidem how poor a Distinction this is and how pernitious a president this was I leave it to Your Majestie to judge for after him Luther takes the like boldness and at once takes away the three Gospels of Mark Luke and John Others take away the epistle to the Hebrews others the epistle of Saint Jude others the second and third epistles of Saint Peter others the epistle of Saint James others the whole book of the Revelation Wherefore to permit what the Church proposes to be questionable by particular men is to bring down the Church the Scriptures and the Heavens upon our heads There was a Church before there was a Scripture which Scripture as to us had not beene the Word of God if the Church had not made it so by teaching us to believe it The preaching of the Gospell was before the writing of the Gospell the Divine Truth that dispersed it selfe over the face of the whole earth before it's Divinitie was comprised within the Canon of the Scripture was like that Primaeva Lux which the world received before the
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
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
yet by the holy Ghost there is meant such a gift of the holy Ghost as the wicked may receive viz. the gift of Tongues and Prophecy for so immediately it followes and they spake with Tongues and Prophesied 2. Neither doth it appeare that the Apostle 2 Tim. 1. 7. doth explaine what he meant by the gift mentioned vers 6. but having exhorted Timothy to stir up the gift that was in him by laying on of hands hee addes as a motive to inforce the exhortation For God hath not given unto us the spirit of feare but c. As if hee should say All true Christians have received this Spirit of God and more especially all faithfull Ministers therefore stir up the gift that is in thee c. But the end of Ordination is not the justification of the person ordained but the edification of others for whom hee is ordained Hee gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastours and Teachers Why for what end For the perfecting of the Saints for the worke of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ Ephes 4. 11 12. So Durandus an acute and learned Schoolemen saith that the Sacrament of Order is a spirituall medicine yet not for him that is ordained but for the people because by Ordination a man is made a dispenser of the Sacraments c. For the Fathers here objected there is onely one viz. Cyprian that I can punctually answer unto Hee in the place cited hath nothing that I finde about Ordination He speakes indeed there of imposition of hands for the receiving of the holy Ghost but the imposition of hands there spoken of was not by way of Ordination but by way of Confirmation of which I have spoken before For Cyprian there speakes of laying hands upon all that had beene baptized by Heretikes when they did returne to the Church and not of laying hands upon such as did receive Ordination The Marquesse himself in the point of Confirmation alledged Cyprians 71. Epistle and this which he now alledgeth is in respect of the former part of it of the same subject with that and the rest that follow as Pamelius noteth in the Argument of the Epistle The other Fathers are so cited that there is no examining what they say without more labour then the thing is worth or reason doth require Austine is cited in his questions upon Numbers now there are 65 questions upon that book but which of them is meant is not expressed In like manner are Optatus and Tertullian cited without any mention made of the booke wherein Optatus hath any thing to the purpose whereas there are seven Bookes which hee wrote or of the Chapter in which Tertullian de Praescript speaketh about Ordination whereas that Booke of Tertullian hath 53. chapters Neither doth Bellarimne in this controversie about Ordination alledge either Tertullian or Optatus at all nor Cyprian but only in a worke which himselfe confesseth to be none of Cyprians nor yet Austine in that place which the Marquesse citeth But how ever it is granted that the Fathers sometimes call Ordination a Sacrament and so doe Protestants too as hath beene shewed though they deny it to be a Sacrament of the same nature with Baptisme and the Lords Supper and so much as I have shewed Durandus himselfe doth acknowledge making it to be a remedy provided for the spirituall welfare of others and not of him that is ordained To proceede We hold saith the Marquesse that the Priest and other Religious persons who have vowed chastity to God may not marry afterwards You deny first that it is lawfull to make any such vowes and secondly that those who have made any such vows are not bound to keepe them We have Scripture for what we hold Deut. 23. 2. When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God thou shalt not slack to pay it for the Lord thy God will require it of thee So 1 Tim. 5. 11 12. But the younger widdowes refuse for when they have begun to wax wanton against the Lord they will marry having damnation because they have cast off their first Faith What can be meant hereby but the vow of chastity or by their first faith but some promise made to Christ in that behalfe Otherwise Marriage could not be damnable So all the ancient Fathers have expounded it S. Aug. de bono viduit cap. 9. S. Athanas de Virginit S. Epiphan haer 48. S. Hier. contra Iovin l. 1. c. 7. Answ One thing is here omitted by the Marquesse which yet we must observe viz. that they of the Church of Rome hold that Priests and Clergy-men as they are called ought not to Marry and that they restraine them from Marriage causing them to vow against it Some of them hold this to be of divine institution Bellarmine though he likes not that yet makes it to be an Apostolicall decree which indeed amounts to as much Costerus the Jesuite saith It is the most holy custome of the Roman Church agreeable to reason and the Scriptures and received from our ancestors not to admit any to holy Orders but him that is unmarried or that with the consent of his wife hath consecrated his chastity unto God And the same Author affirmes that Although a Priest finne grievously if hee commit Fornication yet much more if hee Marry And therefore hee concludes that Priests are by no meanes to be suffered to Marry Yet they may be suffered to commit fornication for so the Glosse upon Gratians Decrees tells us that it is commonly held that one ought not to be deposed for simple fornication And marke the reason because sath hee very few are found without that fault And so in another place They say that now none is to be deposed for fornication except he continue in it and that because our bodies are now more fraile then they were in times past How well doth this agree with the Scripture which saith that Marriage is honourable in all and the bed undefiled but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge Heb. 13. 4. But saith Bellarmine if Marriage be honorable in all then in those that are neare allied and in those that marry without the consent of their Parents I answer Marriage may be and is honorable in all and yet not all kind of Marriage It is lawfull for any to marry yet not to marry with any they that marry must marry in the Lord. 1 Cor. 7. 39. Bellarmine himselfe approves of Theophylacts Exposition viz. that Marriage is honourable in all that is in all that are lawfully joyned together whosoever they be Now such are all they whom the Scripture doth not exclude as it doth not the Clergy Gratian himselfe confesseth that it is but an Ecclesiasticall Law that forbids Priests to marry and that before this prohibition their Marriage was every where lawfull and so in his time was accounted in the Easterne
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
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