WOrkes done before iustification though they suffice not to saluation error 93 yet be acceptable preparatiues to the grace of iustification and such as moue God to mercie As were the almes deedes and prayer in Cornelius Act. 10. sect 5. Rhemist The Protestants Ans. COrnelius prayers and almes were not without fayth as Augustine confesseth Non sine aliqua fide donabat orabat He did not giue almes pray without some fayth And he proueth it by that saying of the Apostle Rom. 10.14 How shall they call on him in whom they haue not beleeued Seeing then Cornelius had fayth his iustification also was begun for so soone as fayth commeth it iustifieth These were not then workes preparatiue to fayth and iustification but the fruites of his fayth and iustification begun Argum. Before fayth come there can be no workes of preparation acceptable to God because Without fayth it is impossible to please God Hebr. 11.6 Augustine also sayth Ea ipsa opera ante fidem quae videntur hominibus laudabilia inania sunt those very workes which seeme to be commendable before fayth are altogether vaine and vnprofitable If they be vaine they are no preparations to fayth THE SECOND PART OF THE two kindes of iustification The Papists error 94 THere is a first iustification which is meerely of grace without workes as when an Infidel is made iust who had no acceptable workes before to be iustified by The second iustification is that wherein hee that is in Gods grace daylie proceedeth in by good workes Rhemist Rom. 2.3 This iustification and sanctification are all one Concil Trident. sess 6. cap. 7. And it is augmented and increased by the merite of worke sess 6. can 24. Argum. Of the first iustification S. Paul speaketh where he saith We are iustified by fayth without workes Rom 3.28 Of the second Saint Iames intreateth A man is iustified by workes and not of fayth onely 2.24 Rhemist Ans. This your deuice of first and second iustification is but a new deuice not yet 60. yeare olde your second iustification is nothing els but the effect fruits of iustification before God and a declaration that wee are iust before men Saint Paul and Saint Iames do speake of one and the same iustification by faith But they take the word diuersly for Saint Iames by iustifiyng meaneth nothing els but a testifiyng or declaration of our iustification before men And in this sense is the word taken Math. 11.19 Wisdome is iustified of her children that is declared to be iust The Protestants FIrst iustification and sanctification are two diuers things We are iustified by fayth onely by the imputation of the righteousnes of Christ Roman 4.7 We are sanctified when by fayth working by loue we walke in newnes of life These two are perpetually distinguished in the scriptures I meane iustification and sanctification 1. Corinth 1.30 6.11 and Galath 5.25 If wee liue in the spirite let vs walke in the spirite Our iustification is the liuing in the spirit our sanctification the walking in the spirite Secondly our workes can be no cause of the increase of our iustification and the grace of God in vs But both our iustification and sanctification are the free gifts of God For what hast thou that thou hast not receiued 1. Corint 4.7 This was the olde Pelagian heresie that the grace of God is giuen according to our workes confuted by Augustine Epistol 106. Gratia iam non erit gratia quia secundum merita datur nam merces fidei auctae erit merces coeptae Thus grace shal be no grace for it is giuen according to merite for the increase of fayth or iustice is made the hyre or wages of fayth that is begun Thirdly the scripture speaketh but of one iustification which glorification followeth Rom. 8.30 Whom he iustified them also hee glorified vnles you will haue another iustification to come after our glorificatiō Likewise Rom. 4. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen ver 7. The iustification in remission of sinnes doth make a man blessed Ergo it is the onely sufficient iustification And Augustine accordingly sayth Donando delicta fecit se debitorem coronae by forgiuing our sinnes he hath made himselfe a debtor for the crowne or reward We see heauen is promised at the first remission of our sinnes what neede then any other iustification Wherefore it is a false and blasphemous decree in the Councel of Trent that wee are not iustified onely by remission of our sinnes sess 6. can 11. THE THIRD PART OF inherent iustice The Papists THey teach that men are not iustified by the onely imputation of the righteousnes error 95 of Christ Trid. Concil sess 6. can 11. Neither that wee are formally made iust by the righteousnes of Christ can 10. but by iustice inherent in vs whereby we are not onely reputed and accounted iust but are truely called iust and are so indeede sess 6. cap. 7. Rhemist Rom. cap. 2. sect 4. Argum. Rom. 2.13 Not the hearers of the law but the doers are iustified Ergo we are iustified by an inherent iustice Rhemist Ans. 1. Saint Paul speaketh of the iustification of the law and proueth by this argument that none could be iustified by the law because none were able to doe it And without performing of the law there was no iustification by the law what is this to the iustification of fayth 2. But if we will vnderstand it of the true iustification of Christians it must so be taken as August saith Non vt factorib iustificatio accedat sed factores legis iustificatio praecedat not that iustification doth come to the doers but that it goeth before the doers of the law The Protestants WE acknowledge an inherent iustice in all faithful men beleeuers but it is imperfect not able to iustifie them before God it is no other then sanctification which is a fruit of iustification But that iustice whereby we are iust before God not falsely accounted but made truly iust by God is by the righteousnes of Christ onely which we apprehend by fayth Argum. That iustice whereby we haue peace with God is the only iustice whereby we are iustified before God for vntil we are cleared and made iust before God it is impossible to haue peace with him But this is onely the iustice of faith Rom. 5.1 Ergo by this iustice onely are we iust before God August hath a good speech Si dixerimus quod nihil iustitiae habemus aduersum Dei dona mētimur si enim iustitiae nihil habemus nec fidem habemus si autem fidem habemus iam aliquid habemus iustitiae If we say we haue no iustice at all in vs we do belye the good gifts of God for if we haue no iustice we haue no faith But if we haue faith then haue we some iustice in vs. Here Augustine acknowledgeth no inherent iustice but onely the iustice of fayth THE FOVRTH PART OF
was lawfull for them to read the scriptures much more for all Christians The Iesuite aunswereth that our knowledge is greater then theirs not in all scripture but in the misteries for our redemption onely We answere this is all we desire for if the misterie of saluation and redemption be plainly opened in the scripture why should not the people be admitted to the reading of the word to be confirmed in the knowledge of their redemption who seeth not what sillie aunsweres these be 4 Augustine thus writeth of this matter In ijs inquit quae aperte in Scripturis â—osita sunt inueniuntur ea omnia quae fidem continent moresque viuendi De doctrin Christia lib. 2. cap. 9. The plaine and easie places of scripture conteine all things necessarie vnto faith and good life Ergo the doctrine of saluation in the scriptures is not hard and difficult but easie of good Christians to be vnderstood THE SIXT QVESTION CONCERNING the interpretation of Scripture THis question doth diuide it selfe into three partes First concerning the diuerse senses of the scripture Secondly to whoÌ„ the chief authoritie to expound scripture is committed Thidly what meanes must be vsed in the interpretation of scripture THE FIRST PART OF THE SIXTH QVEstion of the diuerse senses of Scripture The Papistes error 7 THere are two straunge Assertions of our aduersaries coÌ„cerning this matter First they affirme that the scripture may haue diuerse senses and meanings in the same place The sense of the scripture is either literall say they historicall which is the first most proper sense or spirituall that is an higher sense deriued out of the other and it is of three kinds Allegoricall Tropologicall Anagogicall they shew by particular instance and induction that the scripture besides the literall sense may haue these also The Allegoricall sense is when besides the plaine historicall and literall meaning somewhat is signified which by an allegorie is referred vnto Christ or the Church as Gal. 4. beside the truth of the storie of the bond and free woman S. Paule applieth it vnto the two Testaments Ergo one place may haue more senses then one The Tropologicall sense is when as there is somewhat signified appertaining to manners as Deut. 25. Thou shalt not mussell the mouth of the oxe that treadeth out the corne this by S. Paule is applied to the Ministers of the Gospell 1. Cor. 9. Ergo the scripture hath diuerse senses The Anagogicall sense is wheÌ„ the place is applied to decipher set forth the kingdome of heauen and eternall things as Psal. 94. I sware vnto them if they should enter into my rest this is literally vnderstood of the rest in Canaan spiritually of life eternall Ergo many senses thus reasoneth Bellarmin lib. 3. de Scriptur cap. 3. The Protestantes WE affirme that of one place of scripture there can be but one sense which we call the literall sense when as the wordes are either taken properly or figuratiuely to expresse the thing which is meant as in this place the seede of the woman shall breake the Serpents head the literall sense is of Christ who should triumph ouer Sathan though it be spoken in a borowed and figuratiue speach There can be therefore but one sense which is the literall as for those three kinds they are not diuerse senses but diuerse applicatioÌ„s onely and collections out of one and the same sense 1 It shall appeare by a seuerall induction of all these kindes In the first example of the Allegoricall sense Galathes 4 the Apostle saith not that there is a double sense but that it may be allegorically applied which is historically set downe There is then but one sense of the place part whereof consisteth in the storie part in the allegorie so that the whole sense is conteined in them both Concerning the second exaÌ„ple of the Tropologicall there is not a twofold sense of that place but one whole generall sense that as the mouth of the oxe was not to be musled so the Minister of the Gospell must be prouided for Likewise of the Anagogicall kind it is not one sense to vnderstaÌ„d the rest of Canaan an other of the kingdome of God but there is one whole sense that as they for their Idolatrie were depriued of the land of promise so we should take heede lest by our disobedience we lose the hope of the kingdome of heaueÌ„ So we coÌ„clude that those are not diuerse senses but one sense diuersly applied 2 The literal sense is the onely sense of the place because out of that sense onely may an argument strongly be framed wherefore seeing allegories and tropes do not coÌ„clude they are not the senses of the place An allegorie or type may be part of the literall sense and then it concludeth but when an allegorie is framed beside the literall sense it concludeth not and therefore is no part of the sense as to reason thus the oxes mouth must not be musled Ergo the Minister must be maintained it foloweth well because it is part of the sense but allegories deuised beside the sense proue not though they may illustrate The Papistes THeir other assertion is this that it is lawfull to allegorise scripture both in the old and new Testament Bellarm. lib. 3. cap. 3. They reason thus Rhemens error 8 annot Heb. 4. ver 5. The Apostle applieth the rest of the Sabboth to the eternall rest Ergo the like applications of the fathers are lawfull See annot Heb. 7.2 the Apostle say they findeth great misteries euen in the very names Ergo it is lawfull to make allegories The Protestantes WE say it is daungerous to make allegories of Scripture without the warrant and direction of Gods spirite this was the occasion that diuerse of the auncient fathers greatly erred as the Iesuite him selfe repreheÌ„deth Papias Iustinus Lactantius for allegorising that place Reuel 20. which made them fall into the error of the Chiliastes by false interpreting of the thousand yeares there mentioned To their argumeÌ„ts our learned countryman D. Fulk answereth First it foloweth not because it was lawfull for the Apostles gouerned by the spirite to make allegories that it is therfore lawfull for others Secondly wheÌ„ the fathers or any other writers can be assured of the same spirite which the holy writers had and of the like dexteritie in vnderstanding and expounding Scripture they may likewise be bold to make allegories Let vs heare what Augustine saith of this matter Sicut mihi multum errare videntur qui nullas res gestas aliquid aliud praeter id quod eo modo gesta sunt significare arbitrantur ita multum audere qui prorsus ibi omnia significationib allegoricis inuoluta esse contendunt As they are much deceiued which thinke that the stories in the scripture do signifie no other thing but that which was done so they are to rash and bold that would draw all things to allegories which they read in scripture Ergo it is not
lawfull for any to inuent allegories of scripture as it seemeth good to them selues THE SECOND PART OF THE SIXTH QVEtion to whom the chief authoritie to expound Scripture is committed The Papistes error 9 IT was decreed in the Councell of Trent that scripture should be expoūded as the Church expoundeth it and according to the common and consonant cōsent of the fathers Sect. 4. The Rhemistes say that the sense of the scriptures must be learned of the fathers and pastors of the Church Praefat. Sect. 18. If the fathers agree not the matter is referred to a generall Councell if there it be not determined we must haue recourse to the Pope and his Cardinals The Iesuite dare not referre the matter to the Pope alone to expound scripture but ioyneth the Colledge of Cardinals with him Bellarm. lib. 3. de script cap. 3. 1 They obiect that place Deut. 17.9 where the people are commaunded to resorte vnto the Priest or Iudge in doubtfull matters Ergo there ought to be a chief and supreme iudge in Ecclesiasticall matters Bellarm. We aunswere First here the ciuill Magistrate and the Iudge are ioyned together as ver 12. Wherefore if they will gather hereby that the Pope must be supreme Iudge in all Ecclesiasticall matters then the Emperour ought to be as well in ciuill Secōdly the text saith they shal come to the Priests ver 9. assigning many not to one onely Priest Thirdly they must iudge according to the law v. 11. not as they list thē selues Fourthly here is no mentiō made of doubts in interpreting scripture but of controuersies that may fall out betweene man and man either Ecclesiasticall to be decided by the Priest or ciuill by the Magistrate Fiftly we graunt that in euery country there ought be a supreme and high seate of iudgement for determining of controuersiall matters betweene men but it foloweth not that there should be a supreme iudge ouer the whole Church especially in such matters as this concerning the sense of the scriptures which i◠not commited to the iudgement of men neither is any such controuersie named in that palce ver 8. 2 Ecclesiastes 12.11 The wisemā cōpareth the wordes of the wise to nayles which are fastned geuen by one pastor Ergo the Pope is supreme iudge We aunswere the wise men are here vnderstood to be the Pastors and Ministers of Gods word but this one pastor signifieth neither the high Priest in the old law nor the Pope in the new but Iesus Christ the high shepheard for our soules What great boldnesse is this to attribute that to the Pope which is onely proper to Christ 3 They also picke out some places in the new Testament as Math. 16.19 to thee will I geue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen Christ saith so to Peter Ergo the Pope hath authoritie to expound scripture We aunswere First by the keyes here is meant commission to preach the Gospell not onely to expound doubtes Secōdly they were geuen to all the Apostles not to Peter onely Math. 28. v. 18.19 Thirdly the Pope is not successor of Peter no more then any other godly Bishop nor so much vnlesse he folow Peters steps So they abuse that place Math. 18.17 he that will not heare the Church c. Ergo the Bishops and chief pastors must expound the doubt in scriptures Aunswere First our Sauiour speaketh here of the discipline of the Church of correctiōs and admonitions not of interpreting scripture which dependeth not vpō the will fantacie of Pope Cardinals or Popish Councels but must be tryed by the scriptures them selues Secondly we must geue eare to the Church but with a double condition we must be sure it is the Church of God secōdly we must not heare them cōtrary to the scriptures but so long as they do teach the doctrine of Christ. The Protestants WE haue a more compendious way to come to the vnderstanding of the scripture It were to lōg whē we doubt of any place to stay till we haue the generall consent of the pastors of the Church or to expect a generall Councell or go vp to Rome And it were to much to trouble the Popes grauitie with euery questiō The Lord hath shewed vs a more easie and ready way see that we neede not ascend to heauen or cōpasse the earth or passe the Alpes but the word of God is amongest vs the scriptures them selues and the spirite of God opening our harts do teach vs how to vnderstand them the interpretation of Scripture is not assigned to any succession of pastors or tryed to any place or persons Our arguments folow some few of them 1 That onely hath power to geue the sense of Scripture which doth beget vs faith the spirite onely by the Scriptures begetteth faith Rom. 10.17 faith commeth of hearing the word Ergo the spirit of God is the onely interpreter of scripture The proposition also is cleare for seeing the Scripture is the true sense and meaning therof if any should geue the sense of the scripture but that which worketh faith then vpon him should our faith be grounded If the Pope therefore geue the sense of Scripture and our faith ariseth of the Scripture vnderstood then our faith is builded vpon the Popes sense argum Whitach 2. 9. 2 The Scriptures cā not be interpreted but by the same spirit wherewith they were writtē but that spirite is found no where but in the Scriptures Ergo. The first part the Papistes them selues graunt the second is thus proued the spirite of the Apostles is not geuen by secret inspiration that sauoureth of Anabaptisme where is it thē to be found whether is it like that S. Peters spirite should be found in the Popes chaire or in his Epistles or if they haue S. Peters spirite where is S. Paules found but in his writings Yet it is all one spirite appeareth not els where but in the Scriptures where euery man may finde it as wel as the Pope the spirituall man iudgeth all things 1. Cor. 2.15 you haue an oyntment from him that is holy and you haue knowen all things and ver 27. you need not that any mā teach you By these places it is euident that euery faithfull man by the spirite of God may vnderstand the scriptures 3 The doctrine of the Church must be examined by the Scriptures Ergo the scriptures are not to stand to the iudgement of the Church The former part is proued by the example of the Berrheans Act. 17.11 If they did well in examining Paules doctrine much more may the decrees of the Pope Church Coūcels be examined by the scriptures But they knew not whether Paule was an Apostle or not therefore they might examine his doctrine saith the Iesuite Answere it is no matter for the person of Paule they examined his doctrine which dependeth not vpon the person Secondly they could not be ignoraunt of his Apostleship who was famous throughout the Churches Thirdly they doubted onely whether Paul was an
names of some other Apostles as Iames and Iohn were called Boanerges the sonnes of thunder Mark 3. Therefore this was no such preeminence to Peter neither is it true that Peter was almost called by no other name for he is oftē in the Gospel after this called by his old name Simon Mat. 16.17 17 25. Fulk Annot. in Ioh. 1. sec. 7. Secondly againe saith Bellarmine the text is aedificabo I will build my Church but if Christ be here taken for the rocke his Church was built alreadie for many beleeued in him But Peter was not made the foundation of his Church till afterward after his resurrection and therefore hee saith I will build Wee answere First it is a corrupt glosse to say the Church of Christ was not builded till after the resurrection for seeing that many beleeued before in Christ and made a Church either they must graunt that the Church was without a foundation or else that the foundation was changed from Christ to Peter Secondlie it is taken therefore for the enlarging and increasing of the Church of GOD. It followeth not because Christ saith I will build and his Church was begun to bee built alreadie that therefore another kinde of building must bee excogitate no more then because Christ gaue his spirite to the Apostles Matth. 10.1 and againe Iohn 20.22 and yet biddeth them stay at Ierusalem till they should receiue the holie Ghost Acts. 1.7 that therefore they should looke for another holy Ghost or as though they had not receiued the holy Ghost before But as the sending of the holy Ghost is meant for the increase and more plentifull measure thereof so is the building of the Church here taken for the increase of the building Wee yet further answere with Augustine super hanc petram quam confessus es aedificabo ecclesiam vppon this rocke which thou hast confessed will I build my Church so that in this place is meant not Peter to bee the rocke but either Christ whome he confessed or his saith whereby he confessed him which commeth all to one effect There is no great difference whether wee say the Church is builded vppon Christ or faith is the foundation of the Church for faith is an apprehension of Christ but of the person of Peter it can no more bee vnderstoode then of the rest of the Apostles who in some sence are called the foundation of the Church namely in respect of their holy Apostolick doctrine vpon the which the Church is built Ephes. 2.20 Bellarmine and the Iesuites denie not but here is relation also to the faith of Peter but faith considered in his person We answere if they meane Peters particular faith which was a proper adiunct to himselfe the vniuersall Church cannot be built vpon that faith seeing when Peter dyed his faith also as a proper accident to his person ceased if they vnderstand that generall faith whereby Peter in the name of all the rest made this confession then they all are as well made pillars and foundations of the Church as he because it was their generall confession Fulk annot in 16. Matth. sect 8. 3 Another place which our aduersaries mightely vrge are those words which follow verse 19. I will giue vnto thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen whatsoeuer thou shalt binde in earth shal be bound in Heauen Ergo Peter had especiall iurisdiction giuen him more then any of the rest Bellarmine cap. 12. Wee answere First as Peter confessed in the name of all the rest so this power is geuen him not onelie for the rest as the Rhemists falslie charge vs that we make Peter a proctor for others but together with the rest Peters person must be excluded for immediately after he deserued for a certaine slip of his person to bee called Sathan it were an vnfit match the same person at the same time to be honoured with the glorious title of the rock of Christ and to sustaine so great a rebuke as to bee called Sathan Secondlie here is no more promised to Peter then vnto all the rest of the Apostles Matth. 18.18 They likewise haue authoritie giuen them to binde and loose and it is performed to them all alike Iohn 20.23 2 By the keyes here cannot be vnderstoode that large iurisdiction which the Papists dreame of as not onely the authoritie and chaire of doctrine iudgement knoweledge discretion betweene true and false doctrine all which we graunt together with Peter to haue been giuen to al the Apostles besides But say they hereby is signified the height of gouernement the power of making lawes of calling Councels and confirming them of ordeyning Bishops and Pastors finally to dispense the goods of the Church spirituall and temporall all this is added without ground neither had either Peter or any of the Apostles this ample authoritie no nor the Bishops of Rome for many hundred yeares after Christ. For this plenarie power of the keyes when they signifie a soueraigne and chiefe and surpassing power are so onely giuen vnto Christ and to no mortall creature He is saide to haue the keye of Dauid who openeth and no man shutteth who shutteth and no man openeth Apocalip 3.7 Fulk Annot. 16. Matth. sect 13. Lastly I will oppose the iudgement of the Fathers of the Church who alleadge out of Augustine that Peter receiued the keyes for the whole Church and out of Ambrose that when Christ said to Peter pasce oues the blessed Apostle toke not charge of them alone saith he but together with vs and we together with him Fax pag. 675. 4 Other arguments they alleadge for the primacie and preeminence of Peter as Matthew 10. Hee is named in the first place Bellarmine cap. 18. Wee answere this mought bee because Peter was the most auncient in yeeres or one of the first that was called But howsoeuer it was it is no great matter for this order is not alwaie kept as Galath 2. Paul nameth Iames first Iames Cephas Iohn saith hee verse 9. the Iesuits best shift is heere to denie the text saying it should bee read Cephas Iames Iohn vnlesse Iames bee named first because he was Bishop of Ierusalem Marke I pray you Ergo at Ierusalem Peter was not before Iames but next vnto him therfore not prince of the Apostles Bellarm. cap. 18. Againe say they Peter standeth vp in the election of Matthias Acts 1. preacheth the first Sermon Acts 2. Acts. 15. Peter speaketh first Wee answere to the first Wee denie not a primacie of order to haue been in Peter but it followeth not that hee which speaketh first or giueth the first voyce should bee the head and commaunder of the rest to the second wee also graunt that Peter in zeale promptnes and forwardnes was not behinde any of the Apostles but euen with the first for in him was that saying of Christ verified vppon the woman Shee loued much because much was forgiuen her Luk 7 So was it with Peter to whome Christ forgaue much
yeare after Christ and that being expelled the citie by Claudius with the rest of the Iewes he returned to Ierusalem and there spake with Paul and after that went to Rome agayne and there ended his life This answere we shewe to bee very insufficient First Act. 15.2 it appeareth that there was as it were a standing and set councel of the Apostles at Ierusalem of the which Peter was one for the Church thought good to send vp to the Apostles and Elders which were at Ierusalem Secondly till the 18. yeare when this Councel was held it seemeth that Peter had laboured onely or especially amongst the Iewes of whom there were then but fewe at Rome for saith the Apostle he that was mightie in Peter in the Apostleship ouer the circumcision was also mightie in me Gal. 2.8 Therfore Peter was not knowne to haue laboured vntill this time in the circumcision Thirdly afterward it is more like he went to Antiochia then to Rome for after this Paul rebuked Peter at Antioch Gal. 2. Fourthly these are but bare coniectures of our aduersaries and craftie euasion without scripture but seeing we appose them out of scripture it is great reason they should likewise answere vs out of scripture 3 We haue diuers other obections also out of the scriptures as first that if Peter were at Rome it is not like that Paul would leaue him out in his salutation in the end of his Epistle Rō 16. sent to the brethren Our aduersaries answere but very simplie that at that time when S. Paul wrote his Epistle either Peter was not at Rome or els Paul might write some especiall letters to him by himselfe and this Epistle enclosed in them such goodly coniectures they haue But I pray you what needed S. Paul to haue written vnto the Romanes if S. Peter so faithfull and vigilant a Pastor were continually amongst them Other places also of scripture we haue as Philipp 2.20 speaking of Timothy he saith I haue none like minded to him that will faithfully care for your matters Coloss. 4.11 These onely are my workfellowes 2. Timoth. 4.11 onely Luke is with me Ergo Peter all this while was not at Rome for Paul would not haue left him out of the number of his fellowe-helpers at the lest he would not haue commended Timothy though he were a worthie yong man before him That which Bellarmine answereth is iust nothing that S. Paul speaketh in those places onely of his domesticall helpers which did minister vnto him When S. Paul speaketh plainly of his fellowe labourers these onely are my workfellowes to the kingdome of God Coloss. 4.11 An other argumēt doth arise out of S. Pauls words 2. Timoth. 4.16 At my first answering no man assisted me Ergo it is like that Peter was not then at Rome for he would not haue forsaken Paul Bellarmine answereth that he speaketh onely of such fauourers as hee had in Caesars court that they would not make sute for him to the Emperour But this is a weake solution First it appeareth by that which followeth that they left him without helpe in his open Apologie or defence they did not assist me sayth he but the Lord assisted me that is gaue me strength to defend my cause so that the word assisting must bee taken in the same sense before that they fayled him in that wherein God assisted him that is in speaking boldly in the defence of the truth Secondly it is proued by the diuers successe that he had at his first and second answering at the first all left him but at the next many were emboldened through his bonds what to doe more frankly to speake the word Philipp 1.14 Ergo at the first they forsooke him because they were afrayd to speake the word THE SECOND PART WHETHER PETER were Bishop of Rome error 39 OVr aduersaries would gladly bring it about that Peter was Bishop of Rome there enthronised and sate in the Bishoplike chayre many yeares and after left it to his successors 1 The Romane faith was first planted by Peter for he first preached to the Gentiles Act. 15.7 Ergo he was the first Bishop Answere First that Peter first preached to the Gentiles it is contrarie to the storie of the Acts for Paul was conuerted before Peter sawe the vision from heauen Act. 10. before which time Peter made a great question whether it were lawfull to preach to the Gentiles But Paul immediatly after his conuersion preached to the Gentiles Galath 2. therefore before Peter Neither is there any thing to the contrarie Act. 15.7 the Gentiles beleeued by S. Peters mouth as he sayth but not first Secondly that Peter first preached not at Rome it is thus gathered because it is not like that the Christian faith being spread farre abroad could be kept from Rome the space of 12. yeares for so long it was by their account before Peter came to Rome Agayne there were diuers that dwelled at Rome which heard the Apostles speake diuers tongues Act. 2. being straungers then and soiourners at Ierusalem and Rom. 16.7 he maketh mention of Andronicus and Iunia which were in Christ before him By these it is most like that the Christian faith was first sowed at Rome Thirdly it is more like that Paul preached at Rome before Peter for when he came to Rome he called the Iewes together who sayd vnto him that they had heard nothing concerning him by letters or from the brethren out of Iudea Act. 28.22 But if Peter had beene there Paul no doubt should haue been knowne at the least by name The Iewes also say vnto him wee will heare of thee what thou thinkest and some of them were perswaded by Paul some beleeued not It seemeth by this place that the Iewes in Rome had not heard of the Gospell before But if Peter had been amongst them who had an especiall charge of the circumcision he would haue had the greatest care of the Iewes to winne them to Christ. Fourthly though Peter had first preached to the Romanes it would not followe that therefore he was Bishop there for Paul first founded the Church of Ephesus yet they say Iohn was first Bishop there wherefore they should gayne nothing by this argument if it were true but that Peter was the first preacher and conuerter of the Romanes to the faith The Protestants IF wee take the name of Bishop generally for that office which hath the publique cure and charge of soules in that sense we denye not but Peter and the rest of the Apostles may be called Episcopi Bishops as Christ is called the shepheard and Bishop of our soules 1. Pet. 2.23 But taking it strictly for a Bishop of this or that place which is called Episcopus intitulatus a Bishop entituled wee denie that either Peter or Paul were Bishops Fox pag. 15. 1 Paul was Apostolus Gentium the Apostle of the Gentiles and Peter of the circumcision therefore it is more like that Paul was chiefe Pastor of the Romanes because
how all men are iustified before God and what is the vse of the sacraments in all men and therefore it is no extraordinary or exempt case but the common case of all the faithfull that righteousnes saith the Apostle might be imputed to them also Rom. 4. 11. Secondly although Isaac with many other were first circumcised and after iustified yet this is perpetuall they were no more iustified by circumcision then Abraham who was iustified before he was circumcised but by faith onely and therefore the Sacraments are seales of the iustice of faith whether the iustice of faith goe before or follow after Argum. 2. Augustine saith In Isaac qui octauo die circumcisus fuit praecessit signaculū iustitiae fidei et quoniam patris fidem imitatus est secuta est in crescente ipsa iustitia cuius signaculum in infante praecesserat In Isaac who was circumcised the eight day the seale of the righteousnes of faith went before and because he did follow his fathers faith as he grew iustice it selfe followed the seale whereof went before in his infancy Ergo circumcision was a seale as well to Isaac as to Abraham and so consequently to all THE SECOND QVESTION OF THE efficacie and vertue of the Sacraments THis question also hath diuerse partes First whether the Sacraments do giue or conferre grace by the worke wrought Secondly of the difference of the Sacraments of the olde and new testament Thirdly whether the Sacraments of the new law doe imprint a signe or character in the soule that can neuer be put out Fourthly of the necessity of the Sacraments THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE SACRAMENTS of them selues doe giue or conferre grace The Papistes error 92 THe Sacraments giue grace ex opere operato by the worke wrought that is by force and vertue of the worke and word done and said in the sacrament Rhemist Act. 22. sect 1. So that not faith onely iustifieth but the Sacraments also and other workes of religion Rhemist Rom. 6. sect 5. The Sacraments then are immediate instruments and efficient causes of our iustification not mediately as they nourish and encrease our faith but properly and in themselues Faith in the receiuer giueth no efficacie to the Sacrament but onely taketh away the lets and impediments which might hinder the efficacie of the Sacrament as the drynes of the wood maketh it to burne the better yet is it no efficient cause of the burning which is the fire onely but onely a helpe Thus they compare the Sacrament working of it selfe to fire that burneth and faith is as the drying of the wood but a disposing and preparing of the hart Bellarm. lib. 2. de sacram cap. 1. Argum. 1. Be baptized and wash away thy sinnes Act. 22. ver 16. The Sacrament of Baptisme doth of it selfe wash away sinnes Rhemist And we see in S. Iames that remission of sinnes is annexed to the vnction with oyle Rhemist 1. Timoth. 4.14 Ergo the Sacraments giue and conferre grace Ans. 1. To the first we answer that the text ioyneth with the Sacrament the inuocation of the name of God to the which saluation is promised Rom. 10.13 to wash away sinnes wherefore that place maketh nothing for your purpose Secondly in the other place health of body is promised by the gift of miracles but remission of sinnes is said to be obtained by the praier of the Elders The praier of faith shall saue the sick Iam. 5.15 Argum. 2. S. Paul saith He hath cleansed his Church by the lauer of water in the word Ephes. 5.26 Ergo baptisme is an instrumental cause of our iustification Bellarm. Ans. 1. It is not vnusuall in the Scripture to call the signe or Sacrament by the thing signified as Exod. 12.11 the Paschall Lambe is called the Passeouer whereas it was but a signe and memoriall thereof So Baptisme is called The lauer of regeneration Tit. 3.5 because it is a sure signe of our regeneration by the holy Ghost Secondly the Apostle in this place expoundeth himselfe for he saith that We are washed by water in the word that is the outward element doth send and referre vs to the word and promise of God whereof it is a seale The Protestants THe sacraments haue no power to giue or conferre grace to the receiuer neither are they immediate instruments of our iustification instrumentall meanes they are to encrease and confirme our faith in the promises of God of themselues they haue no operation but as the spirit of God worketh by them our internall senses being moued and quickened by those externall obiects Neither doe we say that the sacraments are bare and naked signes of spirituall graces but they doe verily exhibite and represent Christ to as many as by faith are able and meete to apprehend him So to conclude looke how the word of God worketh being preached so doe the sacraments but the word doth no otherwise iustifie vs but by working faith at the hearing thereof So sacraments doe serue for the encrease of our faith faith is not a seruant and handmaide to the sacraments as the Iesuite declared by the homely similitude of the fire and drie wood but faith is the more principall and the sacraments haue no other vse or end then as they are helpes for the strengthening of our faith Grace of themselues they can giue or conferre none Argum. 1. Rom. 1.17 The iust shall liue by faith Ergo he liueth not that is he is not iustified by any worke wrought as by the sacraments but onely by faith faith therefore giueth life and efficacie to the sacramentes it is not contained absolutely in themselues Againe Saint Paul saith That faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousnes before he was circumcised Rom. 4.10 Ergo he was not iustified by circumcision no more are we by the sacraments but both he and we are iustified onely by faith Argum. 2. Saint Peter sayth Baptisme saueth vs not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but in that a good conscience maketh request vnto God by the resurrection of Christ 1. Pet. 3.21 Ergo it is faith in the resurrection of Christ which worketh in vs peace of conscience and not the outward washing that saueth or iustifieth Kemnitij argum Augustine thus writeth Aliud est aqua sacramenti aliud aqua quae significat spiritum dei ista visibilis est abluit corpus significat quid fit in anima per illum spiritum anima mundatur saginatur The water of the Sacrament is one thing the water which signifieth the spirit is another the one is visible and washeth the flesh and signifieth what is done in the soule but by the spirit the soule is cleansed The Sacrament of Baptisme then by this fathers sentence and so all other sacraments doe not giue grace but signifie onely and represent grace THE SECOND PART OF THE difference of the olde and new Sacraments error 93 THe sacrifices and ceremonies of the olde law were so farre
lier Augustine sayth of Christ Secundum corporalem praesentiam simul in sole luna cruce esse non potest Christ according to his corporall presence cannot be in the Sunne the Moone and vpon the Crosse all at one time And concerning the other poynt he writeth thus Spatia locorum tolle corporibus nusquam erunt quia nusquam erunt nec erunt Take away space of place from bodies and they shall be no where and if they be in no place then are they not at all Argum. 2. The reall and carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament is a thing superfluous needles and vnprofitable First the fauour of God in the remission of sinnes through Christ is as well sealed vnto vs in Baptisme as in the Lords Supper what neede then the carnal presence in the one more then in the other Secondly that Christ is in bodie present in the Sacrament is not perceiued by any sense for they neither tast him see him nor feele him it must be then a worke of faith but by faith Christ is as well apprehended being absent as being supposed in this manner to be present Ergo this kind of presence is needles Argum. 3. It is an inglorious vnworthie and vnseemely thing that the glorious and impassible bodie of Christ should be inclosed in the formes of bread and wine deuoured and chawed eaten and gnawed of mice subiect to mould and rottennes to be spilt vpon the ground burnt in the fire for all these inconueniences must needes follow vpon the carnall presence Bellarm. It is no more inglorious or impossible for these things now to happen to the bodie of Christ thē it was for him to be carried in his mothers womb to be swathed in swadling bands and to be subiect to iniuries which were done to his bodie vpon earth Ans. First as though there be the like reason of the passible bodie of Christ while he liued in the world which was buffeted whipped pearced with nayles crucified and of his glorious and impassible bodie now that it may in like manner be rent and diuided Secondly neither was it possible that Christs passible bodie should be subiect to the like infirmities as to rottennes corruption consumption in the fire as his bodie is now in the Sacrament If it were then verified in Christ Thou shalt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption for his bodie did not putrifie or corrupt in the graue much more is it true in the glorious bodie of Christ that it cannot suffer any such things How then are you not ashamed to affirme that the bread and wine are made in the Sacrament the very bodie and blood of Christ seeing those elements if they be kept long will waxe sower and mouldie and fall to corruption which things once to thinke of the glorious bodie of Christ were great impietie Leaue off for shame then these your grosse opinions so much derogatorie to the glorie and honour of Christ. THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERNING Transubstantiation The Papists IF any man shall say that there remaineth the substance of bread and wine in the Sacrament after the words of consecration or shall denye that the whole error 115 substance of bread is changed and conuerted into the bodie of Christ and the whole substance of wine into the blood of Christ the formes and shewes onely of bread and wine remaining which singular and miraculous conuersion the Church calleth Transubstantiation let him be accursed Concil Tridentin sess 13. can 2. Bellarm. lib. 3. de sacra euchar cap. 19. Rhemist Matth. 17. sect 1. Argum. 1. Christ transfigured his bodie marueilously in the Mount as wee reade Math. 17. sect 1. Ergo he is able to exhibite his bodie vnder the formes of bread and wine Rhemist Ans. First your argument followeth not Christ could giue a glorious forme to his passible bodie Ergo he can take away the essentiall properties of his naturall bodie and yet keepe a true bodie stil. Or thus Christ could glorifie his bodie not yet glorified Ergo he can or will dishonour his glorious impassible bodie by enclosing it vnder the formes of base creatures to be deuoured of dogs and mice which is honoured and worshipped of the Angels and Saints in heauen Secondly the question is not so much of Christs power as of his will therefore you conclude not aright Christ is able to doe it Ergo he will Argum. 2. He that seeth water turned into wine by the power of Christ need not to doubt how he changeth bread into his bodie Rhemist Ioh. 2. sect 2. Ans. First when you can bring any warrant out of scripture for your imagined conuersion as we haue for this miracle we will giue eare vnto you Secondly and when it shall appeare to the senses that the bread is changed into flesh as the water was knowne to be turned into the wine by the colour and tast we shall then no more doubt of this conuersion of the bread then they did of the other of water Thirdly if Christ could alter and change the substances of creatures what reason haue you to giue such an omnipotent power to euery priest with a fewe words to doe as much as Christ himselfe could when he was present Fourthly all this proueth but an abilitie and power in Christ not a will or purpose to worke any such change or conuersion Argum. 3. Though the substance of bread and wine be chaunged yet the formes remaine still for these causes First because if the formes also should be changed there should be no sensible signe left and so no Sacrament Secondly the faith of the receiuer is the better tried this way who beleeueth the flesh of Christ to be present though he see it not Thirdly Christ would not haue the formes altered because man abhorreth to eate humane flesh in the proper shape Bellarm. cap. 22. Ans. First your first reason is insufficient for neither doe the bare and naked signes or accidents of the elements make a Sacrament but the substance of thē for betweene the Sacrament and the thing thereby represented there ought to be some conueniencie and agreement namely as the bodie is nourished by bread and wine so doth the soule feed vpon the bodie and bloud of Christ. But they are not the accidents of bread and wine that nourish vs but the substance Ergo not the accidents but the substance is the visible signe Likewise in Baptisme it is not the forme or outward accident of water that is the signe but the substance of water that washeth 2. It is a more liuely operation of faith to beleeue in Christ absent in heauen then present in earth although he appeare not to the senses And Christ is indeed properly the obiect of faith as he is now in heauen Hope saith the Apostle entreth into that which is within the vaile whither our forerunner Iesus is entred for vs Heb. 6.19 Faith and hope therefore doe leade vs to things within the vaile that is things
life or quickening to bee made a true and right faith The words then are thus to be read and distinguished So faith without works is dead that is this kinde of faith which neither worketh nor euer shall Not thus Faith is dead without workes as though a true faith were quickened by works But euen as the bodie is dead hauing neither soule nor the operations thereof life motion sense so this vaine speculatiue kinde of faith is dead both wanting the spirite and soule that is hauing not one sparke of true faith neither the operations and fruites thereof which a liuely faith sheweth by loue as the soule worketh life and motion in the bodie for a liuely faith can neuer bee without workes And a dead faith will neuer haue workes but remaineth dead for euer Wee must not therefore thinke that it is one and the same faith which sometime is dead without workes and againe is made aliue and quickened when workes come But wee must vnderstand two kindes of faith one altogether voide of good workes which is onely a faith in name and a verie dead faith Another is a liuelie faith alwaies working and this can neuer become a dead faith so neither can the other bee euer made a liuelie faith Argum. That charitie is not the forme or any cause of faith but the effect rather and fruite thereof we doe learne out of the word of God Christ saith Iohn 3.18 Hee that beleeueth shall not bee condemned but is alreadie passed from death to life Iohn 5.24 Faith then is able to saue vs and alone iustifieth vs before God without loue which alwaies foloweth a true faith but is not ioyned or made a partner with it in the matter of iustification But faith could doe nothing without the forme thereof Ergo charitie is not the forme of faith Saint Paul also faith Faith which worketh by loue Galath 5.6 The being and substance of faith is one thing the working another Loue onely concurreth with faith in the working it is no part of the essence or being of faith August Ea sola bona opera dicenda sunt quae fiunt per dilectionem haec necesse est antecedat fides vt inde ista non ab istis incipiat illa Those onely are to bee counted good workes which are wrought by loue faith of necessitie must goe before for they must take their beginning from faith and not faith from them Faith then goeth before loue that worketh therefore loue is not the forme of faith for forma prior est re formata the forme should goe before the thing formed THE FOVRTH PART HOW MEN are iustified by faith The Papists WEe are saide to bee iustified by faith because faith is the beginning error 81 foundation and the roote of iustification Concil Triden sess 6. cap. 8. Faith then by their sentence doth not fully iustifie the beleeuer but is the beginning way and preparation onely to iustification Andrad ex Tilem de fide err 11. Rhemist Rom. 3. sect 3. The Protestants FAith is not the beginning onely of our iustification but the principall and onely worker thereof neither are wee iustified in part or in whole by any other meanes then by faith Argum. He that is at peace with God is fully and perfectly iustified his conscience cleared and his sinnes remitted But by faith wee haue peace of conscience Ergo by faith wee are fullie and perfectly iustified Rom. 5.1 The Scripture also faith The iust man shall liue by faith Rom. 1.17 But wee liue not by iustification begun onely but perfited and finished Ergo our full iustification is by faith Augustine vpon these words Iohn 6.29 This is the worke of God that yee beleeue c. Si iustitia est opus Dei quomodo erit opus Dei vt credatur in eum nisi ipsa sit iustitia vt credamus in eum If iustice or righteousnes bee the worke of God how is it the worke of God to beleeue in him vnlesse it be righteousnes it selfe to beleeue in him See then it is not initium iustitiae credere sed ipsa iustitia it is not the beginning of iustice to beleeue but iustice and righteousnes it selfe THE FIFT PART WHETHER faith bee meritorious The Papists BY faith we doe merite eternall life Catechis Roman p. 121. ex Tilemann de error 82 fide err 20. Rhemists also ascribe meriting to faith Rom. 3. sect 3. Argum. Faith is a worke Ergo if we be iustified by faith wee are iustified by workes and soe consequently by merite The Protestants Ans. FAith in deed is a worke but not any of our owne works it is called the worke of God Iohn 6.29 God doth wholly worke it in vs Ergo wee cannot merite by it Argum. Saint Paul saith Ephes. 2.8 By grace are you saued through faith not of yourselues for it is the gift of God not of workes least any man should boast himselfe Faith then is no meritorious cause of our iustification but onely an instrumentall meanes whereby we doe apprehend the grace of God offered in Christ God giueth both faith and the end of faith Vtrumque Dei est as Augustine saith quod iubet quod offertur Beleeue and thou shalt be saued both come of God the thing commanded that is faith and the thing offered namely saluation Ergo all is of grace THE SIXT PART WHETHER to beleeue bee in mans power The Papists RHemist Act. 13. sect 2. giue this note that the Gentiles beleeued by their error 83 owne free will though principallie by Gods grace therefore to beleeue partly consisteth in mans free will though not altogether this is their opinion The Protestants FAith is the meere gift of God Ephes. 2.8 and wholly commeth from God it is not either in part or whole of our selues Argum. Rom. 11.36 Of him through him and for him are all thinges Ergo fidei initium ex ipso neque hoc excepto ex ipso sunt caetera Therefore saith Augustine the beginning of our faith is of him vnlesse wee will say that all things else are of God this onely excepted And afterward hee sheweth that our faith is wholly of God not part of him part of our selues Sic enim homo quasi componet cum Deo vt partem fidei sibi vendicet partem Deo relinquat So man shall as it were compound with God to chalenge part of faith to himselfe and leaue part for God THE SEVENTH PART WHEther faith may be lost The Papists error 84 A Man may fall away from the faith which once truely he had as Saint Paul saith of some They had made shipwrack of faith 1. Timoth. 1.19 Rhemist ibid. Ergo true faith may be lost The Protestants Ans. THe Apostle saith Some hauing put away a good cōscience made shipwrack of faith Such a faith in deed that hath not a good cōscience may be lost for it is not a true liuely faith but a dead fruitelesse faith Argum. But hee that once