doubts of Hee grants it but how No otherwise for any thing I can see then as wee doe grant it viz. that God if he please can give such a measure of grace unto men as to inable them perfectly to doe all that is commanded But Hierome immediately after shewes that none either doth or ever did so and that therefore all are guilty before God and stand in neede of his mercy If saith hee thou canst shew any that hath fulfilled all things required then thou canst shew one that doth not needs Gods merey shew that this hath been or that it now is So when Cyrill saith that even that precept Thou shalt not covet may be fulfilled by grace hee doth not oppose us nor wee him For wee doubt not but God is able to give grace whereby to fulfill it but wee deny that any onely Christ excepted ever had such grace as whereby to fulfill it Basil is cited at large no place being noted where he saith any thing about this point onely in Bellarmine I finde that upon those words Take heed to thy selfe hee saith that it is a wicked thing to say that the precepts of the Spirit are impossible Which wee yeeld so farre forth as any have the Spirit they may performe them but none have the Spirit in such full measure as to be able fully to performe whatsoever is commanded Origen in the place cited compares them to Women who say that they cannot keepe Gods Commandements Which must be understood of keeping them so as to have respect unto them and to study and indeavour to keepe them For otherwise if we speake of an exact and perfect keeping of the Commandements both men and women even the best upon Earth are farre from it For the flesh lusteth against the spirit saith the Apostle and the spirit against the flesh and these are contrary the one to the other so that you cannot do the things that you would Gal. 5. 17. Wee hold saith the Marquesse faith cannot justifie without workes Yee say good workes are not absolutely necessary unto salvation Wee have Scripture for what wee say 1 Cor. 13. 2. Though I have all Faith and have no Charity I am nothing And James 2. 24. By Workes a Man is justified and not by Faith onely Answ Protestants in opposition to them of the Church of Rome hold that Faith alone doth justifie and that Workes doe not concurre with Faith unto justification Yet withall they hold that Faith which doth justifie is not alone without workes Bellarmine confesseth that Calvin hath these very words It is Faith alone that doth justifie but yet Faith which doth justifie is not alone As the heate of the Sun alone is that which doth heate the Earth yet heate is not alone in the Sun but there is light also joyned with it And hee addes that Melancthon Brentius Chemnitius and other Protestants teach the same thing Therefore by Bellarmines owne confession Protestants are no enemies unto good workes Neither are they any whit injurious unto them in excluding them from having a share in justification as the Romanists are injurious unto Faith in making workes copartners with it in that respect We conclude saith S. Paul That a Man is justified by Faith without the deeds of the Law Rom. 3. 28. And in the next Chapter the Apostle proves by the example of Abraham that justification is by Faith without Workes For what saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousnesse Rom. 4. 3. He confirmes it also by the words of David Even as David also describes the blessednesse of the man to whom God imputeth righteousnesse without Workes saying blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven c. Rom. 4. 6 7 8. Mens workes are imperfect and so is all that righteousnesse of man that is inherent in him as hath been shewed before and therefore by his own workes and his own righteousnesse can none be justified By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified Rom. 3. 20. Bellarmine would have the Apostle when hee excludes Workes from justification onely to understand such workes as are done by the meere knowledge of the Law without grace But this cannot be his meaning For 1. when David cried out Enter not into judgement with thy servant O Lord for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal 143. 2. hee shewes that workes whatsoever they be are unable to justifie a man in the sight of God For it were most absurd and irrationall to imagine that David then doth onely deprecate Gods entring into judgement with him in respect of the Works which hee did without the assistance of Gods grace 2. The Apostle proves that justification is by Faith without Workes by that of David Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sinnes are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne Rom. 4. 6 7 8. Now the best man that is upon Earth hath need of this that his iniquities may be forgiven his sinnes covered and his transgressions not imputed unto him seeing there is no man as I have shewed before but iniquities sinnes and transgressions are found in him Therefore though a man be regenerate and sanctified yet his workes are not such as that he can be justified by them 3. The Apostle Gal. 3. 10. proves that none can be justified by the deeds of the Law because it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the Law to doe them Now no man though indued with grace and that in great measure doth continue in all things that the Law requireth as hath also been shewed before Therefore Workes as well with grace as without grace are unable to justifie But when our adversaries speake of justification they equivocate making it indeed the same with sanctification Dureus the Jesuite calles this new Divinity to say that by grace infused into us wee get newnesse of life and sanctification but yet are not thereby justified And hee askes what Scripture doth teach us to distinguish justification from sanctification Truly I thinke that these two viz justification and sanctification are sufficiently distinguished 1 Cor. 6. 11. But you are washed but you are sanctified but you are justified in the Name of the Lord Iesus and by the Spirit of our God There the Apostle shews that they were washed viz. both from the staine of sinne by sanctification which was wrought in them by the Spirit of God infusing grace into them and also from the guilt of sinne by justification which they obtained by faith in the Lord Jesus Besides the Scripture opposeth justification to condemnation and sheweth that to justifie is as much as to absolve and acquit from guilt to account and pronounce righteous Prov. 17. 15. He that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the just even they both are an abomination to the Lord.
And although this doth not justifie Luther as I do not desire to defend him or any man in that wherein he is to be condemned yet it might make his opposers the more mild that Eusebius and Hierome of old do shew that the authority of this Epistle was some while doubted of and Cardinal Cajetane Luthers contemporarie did somewhat scruple at it and so did he also argue against the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews Some also say that Erasmus censures this Epistle of James as not savouring of Apostolical authority But in that Edition which I have of Erasmus his notes upon the New Testament I finde no such censure but that he would not have us contend about the Author but to iâ— brace the matter acknowledging the Holy Ghost to be the Author of it This advice is worthy to be followed by Protestants as well as Papists 5. Luther is taxed for saying That Moses in his writings sheweth unpleasant stopped and angry lips in which the word of grace is not but of wrath death and sinne And that hee calls him a Gapler executioner and a cruel Serjeant This doth Mr. Breerley object against Luther and I grant that Luther indeed hath those words tom 3. in Psal 45. But he speaks of Moses onely as contradistinct to Christ as a meer Law-giver For the Law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ Joh. 1. 17. So Moses his ministration was the ministration of death 2 Cor. 3. 7. and the ministration of condemnation v. 9. The Law simply considered doth convince of sinne and condemn for sinne For by the Law is the knowledge of sinne Rom. 3. 20. And it saith Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. Now no man doth or can perform this and therefore saith the Apostle there as many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse And so the Law worketh wrath Rom. 4. 15. This is not through any fault of the Law but by reason of sinne which is a transgression of the Law 1 Joh. 3. 4. and so makes liable to the curse and condemnation which by the Law belongs to those that transgresse The Law saith Ambrose is not wrath but it worketh wrath that is punishment to him that sinneth in that it doth not pardon sin but revenge it And again The glory of Moses his countenance saith he had not the fruit of glory in that it did not profit any but rather hurt though not through its own fault but through the fault of those that sinne This is spoken of the Law as it stands in opposition to the Gospel wherein reconciliation and salvation through Christ is set forth And in this sense only did Luther speak of Moses as himself expresly sheweth 6. The Marquesse addes that for Luther's doctrine he holds a threefold Divinity or three kinds as there are three Persons For proof of this only Zuinglius is cited But Luther and he being such adversaries their testimonies one against the other are of small force Had any such thing been in Luthers writings the Romanists themselves I doubt not would have found it out and not have referred us only to Zuinglius for it Luther on Genes 1. doth expressely speak of three Persons but one Divinity as being the same in all the three Persons 7. That Luther is angry with the word Trinity calling it a humane invention and a thing that soundeth very coldly The place alledged I have not opportunity to examine but thus much I say that Luther believing the thing viz. that there are three Divine Persons as I have shewed immediately before I see not why he should dislike the word Trinity 8. That he justistifies the Arrians and saith they did very well in expelling the word Homousion being a word that his soule hated Thus also Duraeus and before him Campian and before them both Bellarmine chargeth Luther with saying that his soule did hate the word Homousion which the Orthodox Fathers used to shew against the Arrians the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father But they wrong Luther as their manner is For he doth not say that his soul did hate that word but that if his soul did hate it and he would not use it yet he should not be a heretick so that he did hold the thing signified by the word which the Fathers in the Nicene Councel did determine by the Scriptures He speaks thus in respect of the Papists who will not be content with Scripture-terms but will invent terms of their own to pervert the sense of Scriptures As Latomus against whom he writes would not call Concupiscence sinne as the Apostle cals it but a punishment of sinne Hereupon Luther I think went too far concerning the word Homousion though not so far as his Romish adversaries do charge him He saith that this word used in confutation of the Arrians is not to be objected against him For that many and those most excellent men did not receive it and that Hierome wished it were abolished And that although the Arrians did erre in the faith yet they did well however to require that a profane and new word might not be used in rules of faith For that the sincerity of Scripture is to be preserved and man is not to presume to speak either more clearly or more sincerely then God hath spoken I confesse that Luther in this seemeth to me to exceed as men are apt to do in favour of that cause which they prosecute But yet it appears that he was sound in the faith and did not comply with the Arrians who opposed the word Homousion not so much for the new invention as for the signification of it Mr. Breerly who hath also this charge against Luther as indeed he hath most of that which the Marquesse objecteth against Protestant Divines cites Luther against Latomus in the Edition of Wittembergh 1551. and saith that the latter Editions are altered and corrupted by Luthers Scholars as he had shewed he saith the like before viz. concerning that place where Luther they say did speak so reprochfully of S. James his Epistle But 1. This is not like the other For here he saith Luthers works were altered by his Scholars but there he saith they were altered by his adversaries 2. As I have shewed the other to be improbable so also is this For Luther died anno 1546. so that the Edition which was anno 1551. was five years after Luthers death and surely by that time Luthers Scholars had leisure enough to make such an alteration as Mr. Breerly speaks of in Luthers works if they had been so minded I cannot therefore but take this as a trick of Mr. Breerley's when he saw Campians quotation of Luther confuted by Dr. Whitaker to pretend some former Edition of
he did declare who he was For if none can forgive sinnes but onely God and the Lord Christ did forgive them then it is manifest that he was the Word of God made the Son of Man c. and that as God he hath mercy on us and doth forgive us our debts which we owe unto God our Maker Accordingly also Ambrose another of those Fathers whom the Marquesse maketh to be of their opinion Whereas saith he Iewes say that onely God can forgive sinnes they doe indeed confesse Christ to be God and by their judgement bewray their perfidiousnesse c. They have a testimony for Christs Divinity they have no Faith for their owne Salvation Therefore great is the madnesse of the unbelieving people that when as they confesse that it belongs onely unto God to forgive sinnes yet they doe not beleeve God when he forgiveth sins So by this Argument the same Father proves the Holy Ghost to be God because he forgiveth Sins For that none can forgive sinnes but onely God as it is written Who can forgive sinnes but only God Thus Ambrose cites that saying of the Scribes as a most undoubted truth How then have Ministers power to forgive Sins In that the word of reconciliation is committed unto them 2 Cor. 5. 19. in that they are to preach remission of sinnes in Christs name Luk. 24. 47. Be it known unto you that through this man viz. Christ is preached unto you forgivenesse of sinnes said Paul Act. 13. 38. Ambrose observes that Christ first said to his Apostles Receive ye the holy Ghost and then Whose sins ye remit they are remitted Whence he gathers that it is the holy Ghost that doth indeed forgive Sins Men saith he doe onely afford their Ministery for the forgivenesse of sinnes they doe not exercise the authority of any power Neither doe they forgive sins in their Name but in the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Lombard called the Master of the Sentences and of School-divinity disputing this Question and shewing diverse Opinions about it determines thus That God only doth remit and retain sins and that yet God hath given power to the Church to bind and loose But that God himself doth bind and loose one way and the Church another way That God by himself alone doth forgive sinne so as to clense the soul from staine and to free it from the guilt of eternall death That he hath not given this power to Priests to whom yet he hath given power to loose and bind that is to declare men to be loosed or bound Whence our Lord first by himselfe made the Leper sound and then sent him to the Priests that they might declare him to be clean And hence he inferres that a Minister of the Gospell hath such power in remitting or retaining sins as the Priest in the Law had in clensing a Leper The Priest was said to make the Leper clean or unclean so the words are in the Originall Levit. 13. when he did pronounce and declare him to be clean or unclean So Ministers remit or retain sinnes when they pronounce and declare that sins are remitted or retained of God And in this Lombard followed Hierome who as his words cited by Lombard doe shew by this very similitude of the Leviticall Priest dealing with a Leper illustrates and sets forth the manner how a Minister doth now remit or retain sins Thus then I hope it may sufficiently appear that in this point both Scriptures and Fathers are for us and not against us as the Marquesse would have it We hold that we ought to confesse our sins unto our ghostly Father this ye deny saying that ye ought not to confesse your sins but unto God alone This we prove by Scripture Mat. 3. 5 6. Then went out Jerusalem and all Judea and were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sinnes This confession was no generall confession but in particular as appeares Acts 19. 18 19. And many that beleeved came and confessed and shewed their deeds The Fathers affirme the same c. For Confession of Sinnes Protestants doe not say that they ought not to confesse to any but God onely though they hold that ordinarily it sufficeth to confesse onely unto God and that there is no necessity of confessing to any other whereas they of the Church of Rome will have it necessary for every one man to confesse unto a Priest all his deadly sinnes and such indeed are all sinnes whatsoever without the mercy of God in Christ Rom. 6. 23. Gal. 3. 10. which by diligent examination he can find out together with all the severall circumstances whereby they are aggravated Thus hath the Councell of Trent decreed it And nothing will suffice to procure one that is Baptized remission of Sins without this Confession either in Re actually performed or in Voto in desire as Bellarmine doth expound it Who also stickes not to say that in all the Scripture there seems not to be any promise of for givenesse of sinnes made to those that confesse their sins unto God Which is a most impudent Assertion For David having said I acknowledged my sinne unto thee and mine iniquity have I not hid I said I will confesse my transgressions unto the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sinne he addes immediately for this shall every one that is godly make his prayer unto thee c. Psal 32. 5 6. Besides Aquinas and Bonaventure two prime Schoolemen hold that under the Law it was not ordinarily required of people to confesse in particular unto a Priest Bonaventure also cites Austine saying Oblatio sacrificiorum fuit confessio peccatorum The offering of sacrifices was the confession of sinnes whence hee inferreth that therefore it seemes there was no other confessing of sinnes but the offering of Sacrifices For those two places of Scripture cited by the Marquesse neither they nor any other doe speake of such a confession as they of the Church of Rome doe contend for Bellarmine holds that their Sacramentall confession as they call it viz. that confession which they make a part of the Sacrament of penance was not instituted till after Christs Resurrection and therefore he sayes it is no marvell if as Ambrose observes we reade of Peters teares but not of his confession That the Jewes therefore when they were baptized of Iohn confessed their sinnes Mat. 3. 5 6. is not enough to prove that confession which we now dispute of although it did appeare that the confession there spoken of was a particular confession which yet appeares not Cardinall Cajetane saith it was but a generall confession Neither indeed in probability could it be any more for how should Iohn have been able to heare such multitudes as came unto him to be baptized Ierusalem and all Iudea and all the region round about Iordan Mat. 3. 5. confesse all their sinnes in
the Roman Church have gone further in their censure of Chrysostome as Alvarez relates viz. that he held that election whereby we first accept those things that are good and resolve to doe them is before the grace of God and that then grace doth follow after whereby we are helped and God doth co-operate with us To this pur-pose I finde Tolet a Jesuite first and afterwards a Cardinall cited by Chamier though I have not his Booke now at hand to peruse And this may suffice for answer to Chrysostome yea and to those other two Fathers also that follow viz. Irenaeus and Cyrill the latter of these being by name and both of them implicitly excepted against by some of the Romanists themselves as appeares by what is cited in the margent as also by the reasons alledged by Alvarez and Iansenius why Chrysostome did exceede at least in his expressions viz. because he was so earnest against the Manichees and others and knew nothing of the contrary errour of the Pelagians which reasons might transport the other Fathers also It is true saith Alvarez that S. Chrysostome and other Fathers that wrote before the Heresie of Pelagius was risen up did speake little of the grace of Christ and much for the confirming of the liberty of the will against the heresie of the Manichees He addes that Austine also in his writings against the Pelagians did observe this and hee cites his words to this purpose Yea hee shewes that Austine in his Retractations was faine to answer in like manner for himself when as the Pelagians did make use of his former writings against the Manichees thereby to maintaine their opinion concerning the power of Free-will in opposition to the necessity and efficacy of Gods Grace Thus likewise Iansenius saith that after the Pelagian heresie was risen then Austine spake more exactly and more expresly of the Grace of God The Jesuit Maldonate doth tell us that Ammonius and Cyrill Theophylact and Euthymius so expound that No man commeth unto me except the Father draw him that they come too nigh the error of Pelagius viz. that all are not drawn because all are not worthy as if saith he before a man be drawn by grace unto grace hee could deserve grace which is to be worthy to be drawn But though Irenaeus and Cyrill be liable to these exceptions yet I see nothing in the places cited by the Marquesse wherein they make against us Irenaeus saith thus If it were not in us to doe these things or not to do them why did the Apostle and before him the Lord himself counsell us to doe some things and to abstaine from other things Here Irenaeus indeed sheweth that it is in us to doe or not to doe but hee doth not say that it is in nobis ex nobis in us of our selves by the power of our Free-will to doe things truly good He addes immediately that man from the beginning is free as God after whose likenesse hee was made is free Now this doth rather make against our adversaries then for them for it shewes that the freedome of mans will doth not consist in this that hee is free either to doe good or to doe evill seeing that God is not free in that manner hee being onely free to doe good but altogether uncapable of doing evill So man being determined by grace to that which is good yet is free because not constrained nor forced against his will in the doing of it and so on the other side hee is free in doing evill though of himselfe without grace he can doe nothing but evill As for the other Fathers viz. Cyrill that which hee saith in the place alledged is this wee cannot according to the doctrine of the Church and of the truth by any meanes deny the free power of man wich is called Free-will This is nothing against us who doe not as hath beene shewed before simply deny Free-will but onely so as our adversaries of the Church of Rome doe maintaine it To that which is in controversie betwixt us and our adversaries Cyrill here saith nothing and therefore his testimony is not to the purpose And so much for Free-will In the next place we hold it possible saith the Marquesse to keepe the Commandements you say it is impossible Wee have Scripture for it Luke 1. 6. And they were both righteous before God walking in all the Commandements and Ordinances of the Lord blamelesse And 1 Joh. 5. 3. His Commandements are not grievous For keeping the Commandements we hold not that it is simply impossible but that according to that measure of grace which God doth ordinarily bestow upon men here in this life it is not possible to keep them viz. so as not to be guilty of the breach of them If a man could fully and perfectly keep the Commandements then he should be without sin for sinne is nothing else but a transgression of the Law as Saint Iohn defines it 1 Iohn 3. 4. But the Scripture shewes that no man in this life is so perfect as to be without sinne There is not a just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not saith Solomon Eccles 7. 20. If we say that we have no sinne we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us saith Saint Iohn 1 John 1. 8. In many things we offend all saith Saint Iames Iam. 3. 2. And Christ hath taught all to pray for forgivenesse of sinnes Mat. 6. 12. which supposeth that all even the best that live upon earth have need of it that they are guilty of sinnes and so consequently come short of the full and perfect keeping of Gods Commandements Bellarmine thinks to elude these places by saying That we cannot indeed live without Veniall sinnes but that Veniall sinnes are not sinnes simply but onely imperfectly and in some respect and that they are not against the Law but only besides it But first Veniall sinnes are against the Law as being transgressions of it for else they are no sinnes at all that being the very nature of sinne to be a transgression of the Law 1 Iohn 3. 4. 2. There are no sins so veniall but that without the mercy of God in Christ they are damnable It being written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the Law to doe them Gal. 3. 10. And thirdly no man living upon earth is free from such sinnes as that he is able to stand if God shall enter into judgement with him If thou Lord shouldest mark iniquities O Lord who shall stand Psal 130. 3. Enter not into judgement with thy servant for in thy fight shall no man living be justified Psal 143. 2. The Fathers here are on our side Hierome having cited that of our Saviour Out of the hearts of men proceed evill thoughts adulteries fornications murders thefts covetousnesse c. addes Let him come forth that can testifie that these
that if not through wantonnesse but through weaknesse they were forced to marry the Apostle would have them to doe it rather then to doe worse viz. burne with lust and commit Fornication For whereas the same authour saith It is not better for such as have vowed contineney to marry then to burne this is nothing else but a flat contradicting of the Apostle or at least a contradicting of that Rule We must not distinguish where the Law doth not distinguish And we finde in their own Canons that if Widdows did professe continency yet a snare was not to be cast upon them to wit as the Glosse doth expound it by separating them from their Husbands if they did marry or by forbidding them precisely to marry Another Canon also which they have injoynes no more but this that if such as professe Virginity did afterwards marry they should be ranked amongst those that did marry the second time viz. after the death of the first yoke fellow which marriage the Scripture doth clearly allow Rom. 7. 2 3. and 1 Cor. 7. 39. neither did any Orthodox Writer ever condemne it Their canon-Canon-Law indeed debarres those that are twice married from being Priests grounding upon the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. 2. and Titus 1. 6. which places their owne Cardinall Cajetan doth yet interpret otherwise but yet grant that such doe not sinne They grant also that if any marry after a simple vow of continency the marriage doth stand good and is not to be dissolved For this they have a Canon out of Austine which runs thus Some say that they that marry after a vow are adulterers but I say unto you that they that divide such doe sinne grievously And another out of Theodorus thus If a man having a simple vow of virginity joyne himselfe to a Wife let him not afterwards put her away but let him doe penance three yeares And so Estius confesseth that we never reade in antient writers that if Widdowes who vowed continency did marry their marriage was voide and of none effect For saith hee their vow was not solemne But I have shewed before that the distinction of simple and solemne vow hath no ground in Scripture and that in respect of God a simple vow doth binde as much as a solemne And besides if as they alledge and cite some of the antients also for it one having vowed continency whether solemnely or simply is married unto Christ and therefore may much lesse marry another then one that is allready married to a mortall man then surely the marriage of such should much rather be judged adultery and be dissolved then the marriage of those who marry againe when they are already married Yet Bellarmine goes further and acknowledgeth that many prime Writers of the Church of Rome as Scotus Paludanus and Cajetane and generally as Panormitan doth relate all the Canonists affirme that onely by Ecclesiasticall right marriage made after a solemne vow is of no force And this opinion hee granteth to be probable So then by their own confessions it may appeare that there is no Law of God against it but that such as have vowed continency should marry if they be not able to performe what they have vowed And this may suffice for this point The Marquesse goes on thus We say Christ descended into Hell and delivered thence the soules of the Fathers yee deny it Wee have Scripture for it viz. Ephes 4. 8. When he ascended up on high he led captivity captive c. Descending first into the lower part of the Earth This lower part of the Earth could not be a grave for that was the upper part nor could it have beene the place of the damned for the Devils would have beene brought againe into Heaven More clearly Acts 2. 27. Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption There is Hell for his soule for a time and the grave for his body for a while Plainer yet 1 Pet. 3. 18 19. Being put to death in the flesh but quickned by the spirit by which also hee went and preached unto the spirits in prison This prison cannot be Heaven nor Hell as it is the place of the damned nor the grave as it is the place of rest Therefore it must be as S. Aug. Epist 99. ad Evod. saith some third place which third place the Fathers have called Limbus Patrum Also Zach. 9. 11. As for thee also by the blood of thy Covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water By this pit could not be meant the place of the damned for they have no share in the Covenant neither are they Christs prisoners but the Devils neither could this pit be the grave because Christs grave was a new pit where never any was laid before The Fathers affirm as much S. Hieron in 4. ad Ephes S. Greg. l. 13. Moral c. 20. S. Aug. in Psal 37. 1. Answ That Christ did descend into Hell in that sense as they of the Church of Some doe hold viz. into a Region of Hell called Limbus Patrum to deliver the faithfull thence that lived and died under the old Testament this Protestants deny and they have just cause to deny it For the Scripture doth not shew us any such Hell as this which they speake of much lesse that CHRIST did descend into it 1. The faithfull that were before Christ did enjoy the benefit of him as well as they that are since his comming We believe said Peter that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ wee shall be saved even as they Acts 15. 11. Therefore they were saved by Christ as well as we now are saved by him and consequently the faithfull then through Christ did goe to Heaven as well as now they doe 2. It is said of the faithfull of the old Testament that they confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims upon the Earth Heb. 11. 13. and that they did seeke a country v. 14. not an earthly country but a better country that is an Heavenly and that God did prepare for them a City v. 16. 3. Abrahams bosome as the place is called where the soules of the Saints of the old Testament were is so described in the Scripture as that it could be no such place as they call Limbus Patrum For 1. The soule of Lazarus was carried thither by Angels and therefore it should rather be Heaven then Hell 2. It was a place of comfort Luke 16. 25. But Austine could not finde hee saith with all his searching where the Scripture doth make Hell to be any place of comfort and hee thought this a good argument why Abrahams bosome could not be Hell 3. There was a great gulfe fixed betwixt the place where Lazarus was viz. Abrahams bosome and the place where the rich man was in torment Luke 16. 26. And hence also Austine inferreth that Abrahams bosome
and maintaine it to be lawfull and not onely so but the Picture of God the Father like an old man and many other things which I forbeare because I feare you have done your selfe more hurt then me good in depriving your selfe of the rest to which you are accustomed for whilst our Arguments do multiplie our time lessens to that of Saint James where it is said that faith profiteth nothing without good works I hope the Doctor here can tell you that Saint Paul saith that we are justified by Faith and not by the works of the Law Marq. Sir I believe the Doctor will neither tell Your Majestie nor me that Faith can justifie without works King That question the Doctor can soone decide what say you to it Doctor you must speak now Doctor If it may please Your Majestie it would be as great a disobedience to hold my peace now I am commanded to speak as it would have been a presumption in me to speak before I was commanded I am so far from thinking that either Faith without good works or that good works without Faith can justifie that I cannot believe that there is such a thing as either No more then I can imagine that there may be a tree bearing fruit without a root or that the Sun can be up before it be day or that a fire can have no heat for although it be possible that a man may do some good without Faith yet he cannot do good works without it for though we may naturally incline to some goodnesse as flowers and plants naturally grow to perfection Yet this good cannot be said to be wrought by us but by the hand of Faith and Faith her selfe where she is truly so can no more stand still then can the Sun in the Firmament or refuse to let her light so shine before men that they may see her good works then the same Sun can appeare in the same Firmament and dart no beams And whilst Faith and good works strive for the proprietie of Justification I do believe they both exclude a third which hath more right to our Justification then either For that which we call Justification by Faith is not properly Justification but onely an apprehension of it as that which we call Justification by good works is not properly Justification but onely a Declaration of it to be so exempli gratia I receive a pardon my hand that receiv's it doth not justifie 't is put in execution and read in open Court all this did not procure it me Doubtlesse there is a reward for the righteous doubtlesse there is a God that judgeth the Earth wherefore upon this ground of beliefe I work out my Salvation as well as I can and do all the good that lies in my power I do good works Doubtlesse this man hath some reason for what he doth it is because he hath store of Faith which believes there is a God and that that God will accept of his endeavours wherefore to him alone who hath given us Faith and hath wrought all our good works in us can we properly attribute the tearme of Justification Iustificatio apprehensiva we may conceive and beare in our hearts Iustificatio declarativa we may shew with our hands but Iustificatio Effectiva proper and effectuall Justification none can lay claim unto but Christ alone that as our sins were imputed unto Christ so his righteousnesse might be ours by imputation King Doctor I thank you in this point I believe you have reconciled us both Doctor May it please Your Majestie if the venome were taken out there is no wound in the Churches body but might soon be healed Marq. Hereat the Marquesse somewhat earnestly cryed Hold Sir You have said well in one respect but there are two wayes of Iustification in us and two without us Christ is a cause of Iustification by his grace and merits without us and so we are justified by Baptisme and we are justified by the gifts of God in us viz. Faith Hope and Charity Whereupon the King spake as quickly King But my Lord both Justifications come from Christ according to your owne saying That without us by his grace and merit that within us by his gifts and favour therefore Christ is all in all in the matter of Justification and therefore though there were a thousand wayes and meanes to our Justification yet there is but one effectuall cause and that is Christ Marq. How is it then that we are called by the Apostle Cooperarii Christo Fellow-workers together with Christ King The Doctor hath told you how already If you lie wallowing in sin and Christ helps you out your reaching of him your hand is a working together with Christ Yet for all that it cannot be said that you helped yourselfe out of the ditch for then there had been no need of Christ Your apprehending the succour that came unto you no way attributes the God have mercie to your selfe no more then the declaring your selfe to be alive by action is the cause of setting you upon your leggs so that we may divide this threefold Justification as Peter divided his three Tabernacles here is one for Moses and one for Elias I pray let us have one for Christ and let that be the chiefe Marq. And Reason good King I wish that all Controversies betwixt you and Us were as well decided I am fully satisfied in this point Doctor May it please Your Majestie A great many Controversies between us and the Papists might be soon decided if the Churches revenues which were every where taken away more or lesse where differences in Religion in severall parts of the world did arise in the Church were not an obstacle of the re-union like the stone which the Crab cast into the Oyster which hindred it from ever shutting it selfe againe like the division which happened between the Greek and Latine Church Photinus intrudes himselfe into the Patriarch-ship of Constantinople over the head of Ignatius the lawfull Patriarch thereof whom the Pope preserved in his Communion and then the difference of the Procession of the holy Ghost between those two Churches was fomented by the said Photinus lest the wound should heale too soon and the patient should not be held long enough in cure for the benefit of the Chyrurgion Sacriledge hath brought more divisions then the nature of their causes have required and the Universities play with edged tools whilst hungry stomacks run away with their meat wherefore since Your Majestie was pleased to discharge the watch that I had set before the dore of my lips I shall make bold to put Your Majestie in mind of holding my Lord to the demand which Your Majestie once made unto his Lordship concerning the true Church for if once that Question were throughly determined all Controversies not onely between Your Majestie and his Lordship but also all the Controversies that ever were started would soon be decided at a short race end and without this we
Baptisme Acts 4. 35. 1 Cor. 1. 10. The Fathers are of that opinion Saint Aug cont ep Par. l. 3. chap. 5. Saint Cyp. lib. de unitate ecclesiae nu 3. Saint Hyl. lib. ad Constantium Augustum We hold that every Minister of the Church especially the supreme Ministers or head thereof should be in a capacity of fungifying his office in preaching the Gospel administring the Sacraments baptizing marrying and not otherwise this we have Scripture for Heb. No man taketh this honour unto himselfe but he that is called of God as Aaron was this you deny and not onely so but you so deny it as that your Church hath maintained and practised it a long time for a woman to be head or supreme moderatrix in the Church when you know that according to the word of God in this respect a woman is not onely forbid to be the head of the man but to have a tongue in her head 1 Tim. 2. 11 12. 1 Cor. 14. 34. yet so hath this been denied by you that many have been hang'd drawn and quartered for not acknowledging it the Fathers are of our opinion herein Saint Damascen ser 1. Theod. hist Eccles lib. 4. chap. 28. Saint Ignat. Epist ad Philodolph Saint Chrysost Hom. 5. de verbis Isaiae We say that Christ gave commission to his Disciples to forgive sins you deny it and say that God only can forgive sins we have Scripture for it John 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosesoever sinnes ye retain they are retained and John 20. 21. As my Father hath sent me even so send I you and how was that viz. with so great power as to forgive sinnes Mat. 9. 3. 8. where note that Saint Matthew doth not set down how that the people glorified God the Father who had given so great power unto God the Son but that he had given so great power unto men loco citato The Fathers are of our opinion S. Aug. tract 49. in Joan. Saint Chrys de Sacerdotio l. 3. Saint Ambros l. 3. de penitentia St. Cyril l. 12. c. 50. saith it is not absurd to say That they should remit sinnes who have in them the Holy Ghost and Saint Basil l. 5. cont Eunom proved the Holy Ghost to be God and so confuted his heresie because the Holy Ghost forgave sinnes by the Apostles and S. Irenaeus l. 5. c. 13. so S. Greg. Hom. 6. Evang. We hold that we ought to confesse our sinnes unto our Ghostly Father this ye deny saying that ye ought not to confesse your sinnes but unto God alone this we prove out of Scripture Mat. 3. 5 6. Then went out Jerusalem and all Judah and were baptized of him in Iordan confessing their sinnes this confession was no generall confession but in particular as appears Acts 19. 18 19. And many that believed came and confessed and shewed their deeds The Fathers affirm the same S. Irenaeus l. 1. c. 9. Tert. lib. de Poenitentia where he reprehendeth some who for humane shamefac'dnesse neglected to goe to confession Saint Ambr. sate to hear confession Amb. ex Paulsino S. Clem. Ep. de fratr Dom. Origen l. 3. Chrys l. 3. de sacerd S. Ambr. orat in muliere peccatrice saith confesse freely to the Priest the hidden sins of thy soul We hold that men may doe works of supererogation this you deny This we prove by Scripture Mat. 19. 12. viz. There be Eunuches which have made themselves Eunuches for the Kingdome of Heaven he that is able to receive it let him receive it This is more then a Commandment as Saint Aug observes upon the place ser lib. de temp for of precepts it is not said keep them who is able but keep them absolutely The Fathers are of this opinion Saint Amb lib. de viduis Orig in c. 15. ad Rom. Euseb 1. demonstrat c. 8. Saint Chry hom 8. de act paenit Saint Greg. nicen 15. Moral c. 5. We say we have free-will you deny it we prove we have out of Scripture viz. 1 Cor. 17. He that standeth stedfast in his heart having no necessity but hath power over his own will and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin doth well Deut. 30. 11. I have have set before you life and death blessing and cursing chuse life that thou and thy seed may live And Christ himself said O Jerusalem Jerusalem how oft would I have gathered thy children together as a Hen gathers her Chickens and ye would not where Christ would and they would not there might have been a willingnesse as well as a willing or else Christ had wept in vain and to think that he did so were to make him an impostor The ancient Fathers are of our opinion Euseb Caesar de praep l. 1. c. 7. Saint Hilde Trin Saint Aug l. 1. ad Simp q. 4. Saint Ambr in Luc c. 12. Saint Chrys hom 19. in Gen Irenaeus l. 4. c. 72. S. Cyril l. 4. in Joan in c. 7. c. We hold it possible to keep the Commandments you say it is impossible we have Scripture for it Luke 1. 6. And they were both righteous before God walking in all the Commandments and Ordinances of the Lord blamelesse and 1 John 5. 3. His Commandments are not grievous The Fathers are for us Orig Hom 9. in Josue Saint Cyril lib. 4. cont Julian Saint Hyl in Psal 118. Saint Hier lib. 3. cont Pelag Saint Basil We say faith cannot justifie without works yee say good works are not absolutely necessary to salvation we have Scripture for what we say 1 Cor. 13. 2. Though I have all faith and have no charity I am nothing and James 2. 24. By works a man is justified and not by faith onely This opinion of yours Saint Aug lib. de fide oper cap. 14. saith was an old heresie in the Apostles time and in the preface of his Comment upon the 32. Psal he calls it the right way to hell and damnation See Orig in 5. to the Rom S. Hillar chap. 7. in Mat S. Amb 4. ad Heb c. We hold good works to be meritorious you deny it we have Scripture for it Mat. 6. 27. He shall reward every man according to his works Mat. 5. 12. Great is your reward in heaven Reward at the end presupposes merit in the worke the distinction of secundum and propter opera is too nice to make such a division in the Church The Fathers were of our opinion S. Amb de Apolog David cap. 6. S. Hier lib. 3. Cont Pelag S. Aug de Spiritu lit cap. ult and divers others We hold that faith once had may be lost if we have not care to preserve it You say it cannot we have Scripture for it viz. Luke 8. 13. They on the rock are they which when they hear receive the word with joy which for a while believe and in time of temptation fall away So 1 Tim. 1. 18 19. Which some having put
sayes a little after But though it had not been one halfe quarter of that time before the Israelites wanted water againe yet that is no argument why the Apostle speaking of the Rock that followed them should not meane a materiall and visible Rock for the materiall and visible Rock that is the water that flowed from it might follow the Israelites though but for while even so long as they encamped in Rephidim neither doth the Apostle say that it followed them either perpetually or for any long time but onely that it followed them But howsoever it be understood that the Rock followed them which I confesse is somewhat obscure how by the Rock there should be meant Christ as the efficient cause giving them water to drinke For to drinke of the Rock is there expressed in the same phrase as to drinke of the Cup 1 Cor. 11. 28. Neither I thinke can one in any congruity be said to drinke of a man that giveth him either water or any thing else to drinke but onely to drinke either of the liquour or metonymically of that wherein the liquour is contained Finally Bellarmine himselfe doth acknowledge that the materiall Rock which afforded the Israelites water to drinke was a figure of Christ and that the water proceeding from that Rock was a figure of Christs Blood onely he denies that so much is meant by the Apostle in those words they dranke of the spirituall Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ But I demand then from what place of Scripture if not from those words of the Apostle can so much bee gathered Iansenius a learned Romanist is more candid and free then Bellarmine for expounding the Parable of the sower he saith that the word is as when it is said The seed is the word of God c. Luke 8. 11. is put for signifieth as also there where it is said And the Rock was Christ And so also say we when 't is said This is my Body the meaning is This doth signifie my Body or This is a Signe a Token a Seal a Pledge of my Body The Lord saith Austine doubted not to say This is my Body when he gave the Signe of his Body And again speaking of those words Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his Bloud ye have no life in you Ioh. 6. 53. he saith That Christ seemeth to command some hainous act or some grosse wickednesse And that therefore it is a figurative speech requiring us to communicate with the Lords sufferings and sweetly and profitably to keep in memory that his flesh was Crucified and wounded for us And yet again He that is at enmity with Christ saith he doth neither eat his Flesh nor drink his Bloud although to the condemnation of his presumption he daily receive the Sacrament of so great a thing as well as others These saying of Austin doe sufficiently shew how he understood those words This is my Body and how far he was from being of the now-Romane Faith concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament Indeed these very words This is my Body which our Adversaries pretend to make so much for them are most strong against them and enough to throw down Transubstantiation For Christ saying This is my Body what is meant by the word This They of the Church of Rome cannot agree about it but some say one thing some another only by no means they will have Bread to be meant by it For they very well know that so their Transubstantiation were quite overthrown But look into the Scripture and mind it well and see if any thing else but Bread can be meant by the word This. It 's said Mat. 26. 26. Iesus took Bread and blessed it brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take eat This is my Body What is here meant by the word This What is it that Christ calls his Body That which he bade the Disciples take and eate And what was that That which he gave unto them And what was that That which he brake And what was that That which he blessed And what was that That which he took And what was that Bread For so expresly the Evangelist tells us that Iesus took Bread So then it was Bread that Christ took and Bread that he blessed and Bread that he brake and Bread that he gave to the Disciples and Bread that he bade them take and eat and Bread of which he spake saying This is my Body As if he should say This Bread which I have taken and blessed and broken and given unto you to eat even this Bread is my Body Now the word This relating unto Bread the speech must needs be Figurative and cannot be Proper For properly Bread cannot be Christs Body Bread and Christs Body being things of diverse and different natures and so it being impossible that properly one should be the other As when Christ called Herod a Fox and the Pharisees Serpents and Vipers the speeches are not Proper but Figurative so is it when he called Bread his Body it being no more possible that Bread should be the Body of Christ in propriety of speech then that a man should properly be a Fox a Serpent a Viper Besides doth not the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. speaking of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper continually call it Bread even after Consecration Indeed to distinguish it from ordinary and common Bread he calls it This Bread but yet still Bread the same in substance though not the same in use as before And which is worthy to be observed thus the Apostle calls it viz. Bread when he sharply reproves the Corinthians for their unworthy receiving of the Sacrament setting before them the grievousnesse of the sin and the greatnesse of the danger that they did incur by it Now what had been more forcible and effectuall to this end than for the Apostle if he had been of the Romish Faith to have told them that now it was not Bread though it seemed unto them to be so but that the substance of the Bread was gone and instead thereof was come the very substance of Christs Body He saith indeed That whoso eat that Bread and drink the Cup of the Lord unworthily are guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord But that is because that Bread and that Cup i. e. the Wine in the Cup are by the Lords own institution Signes and Seales of the Lords Body and Bloud so that the unworthy receiving of them is an indignity done to the things signified by them But to return to the Marquesse he citeth sundry passages in Iohn 6. where our Saviour speakes of eating his flesh and drinking his blood calling himselfe Bread living Bread and affirming that his Flesh is meat indeed and his Blood drinke indeed But all this is farre from proving that reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament which the Marquesse doth contend for For 1.
of God as Aaron was This you deny and not onely so but you so deny it as that your Church hath maintained and practiced it a long time for a woman to be head or supreme Moderatrix in the Church when you know that according to the Word of God in this respect a woman is not onely forbidden to be the head of the man but to have a tongue in her head 1 Tim. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 14. 34. Yet so hath this been denyed by you that many have beene hang'd drawn and quarter'd for not acknowledging it The Fathers are of our opinion c. All this is but to strike at the Title which hath beene given to our Kings and Queens viz. Supreme Heads or Governours and Governesses of the Church within their Dominions We know our Adversaries have much stomack'd and opposed this Title but we know no just cause that they have had for it We never made Kings or Queens Ministers of the Church so as to dispense the Word and Sacraments only we have attributed unto them this Power to look to and have a care of the Church that the Word be Preached and the Sacraments Administred by fit persons and in a right manner This is no more then belongs unto Kings and Queens as both Scriptures and Fathers doe informe us We see in the Scriptures that the good Kings of Iudah as Asia Iehoshaphat Hezekiah and Iosiah not to speak of David and Solomon who were Prophets as well as Kings and so may be excepted against as extraordinary persons did put forth their power in ordering the Affaires of the Church as well as of the Civill State Asa put down Idolatry and caused the People to enter into Covenant to serve the Lord 2 Chron. 15. Iehoshaphat took away the High Places and the Groves and made the Priests and Levites to goe and teach the People 2 Chron. 17. Hezekiah reformed what had been amisse in matter of Gods Worship caused the Priests and Levites to do their Duty and the Passeover to be solemnly kept 2 Chron. 29. 30 31. So Iosiah also destroyed Idolatry repaired the Temple and kept a most solemne Passeover causing both Priests and People to performe their Duty Austine acknowledgeth this power to belong unto Kings In this saith he Kings as they are commanded of God doe serve God as Kings if in their Kingdome they command good things and forbid evill things not only which belong unto humane Society but also which concerne Divine Religion And the same Father speaking of Christian Princes makes their happiness to lie in this That they make their power serviceable to Gods majesty in enlarging his worship as much as they are able This power also Christian Princes have exercised and have not been taxed for it as Constantine Theodosius c. See Mason de Minist Anglic. lib. 3. cap. 4. The exercising therefore of this power which we ascribe to Kings and Queenes is no taking that Honour to themselves which is spoken of Heb. 5. 4. Neither is it any teaching or speaking in the Church which the Apostle will not allow unto a woman 1 Tim. 2. 11 12. and 1 Cor. 14. 34. Neither is this crosse to what the Fathers whom the Marquesse citeth say which amounts to this that Ministers are to doe those things which belong unto Ministers and that in those things which concern their Ministery all even Kings and Queens are subject unto them All this is nothing against Kings and Queens having a power over Ministers so as to see them perform the Offices which belong unto them And it may seeme strange that the Marquesse should now so lately with so much eagernesse inveigh against that Title and Power given to that Queen of happy memory Q. Elizabeth as most unmeet for her when as Hart a Papist stiffe enough living in the Queens time by his Conference with Doctor Rainolds and Doctor Nowels Book against Dorman was so convinced that he confessed himself satisfied in this point and acknowledged that we ascribe no more unto Princes then Austine doth in the words before cited We say that Christ gave commission to his Disciples to forgive Sinnes you deny it and say that God onely can forgive sins we have Scripture for it Joh. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained And Joh. 20. 21. As my Father hath sent me even so send I you And how was that viz. with so great power as to forgive sins Mat. 9. 3. 8. where note that S. Matthew doth not set downe how that the people glorified God the Father who had given so great power unto God the Son but that he had given so great power unto men loc cit The Fathers are of this opinion c. It is strange that the Marquesse should say that we deny that Christ gave Commission to his Disciples to forgive Sinnes We confesse that the Scripture is clear for it that he did give them such a Commission onely the question is how the Commission is to be understood and what power it is that the Disciples had and so other Ministers have to forgive Sinnes It 's true we hold that God only can forgive sins and yet withall that men may forgive sins These are not contradictory the one to the other because as all Logitians know except the propositions be understood of one and the same thing in one and the same respect there is no contradiction Now when we say that onely God can forgive sins it is meant in one respect and when we say that men may forgive sinnes it is meant in another respect As the sin is against God so properly and authoritatively God alone can forgive it And this God doth challenge unto himself as his prerogative I even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions c. Isai 43. 25. And therefore the Scribes were right in this Who can forgive sins but God onely Mar. 2. 7. They were right in the Doctrine though wrong in the Application their position was good that God only can forgive Sins but their supposition was naught that Christ was but a meer Man and had not power to forgive Sins as he did This saith Hilary troubles the Scribes that a man doth forgive sin for they took Christ for a meer Man It is true none can forgive sinne but God only and therefore he that forgiveth is God because none forgiveth but God The same also is clearly and fully acknowledged by Gregory whom amongst other Fathers the Marquesse alledgeth against us He writing upon the second Penitentiall Psalme that is the 32. Psalme upon those words Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin he saith thus Thou who alone sparest who alone doest forgive sinnes For who can forgive sinnes but God onely And with these agreeth Irenaeus whom also the Marquesse bringeth in as a witnesse on his side He speaking of Christs forgiving of sinnes saith That thereby
the very word were abandoned many being so apt to stumble at it Chamier a famous Protestant Writer shewes that our Divines disputing against Free-will doe not simply deny it but in this sense that the will is equally propense and indifferent to good and evill This is that which they deny and against which they bend their disputations Wee doe not make a question saith hee also whether the will be free this wee have often testified and must still repeate it because of the importunity of our adversaries This then is that which we question what and how much that liberty of the will can availe in respect of that which is good And againe Wee have protested saith hee that wee hold Free-will though not such as the Pelagians held nor as the Papists hold Thus then wee hold that since the fall of Adam mans will is free to that which is evill but to that which is good it is not free untill by the grace of Christ it be made free If the Sonne shall make you free saith our Saviour then yee shall be free indeed Joh. 8. 36. But not till then How should they be free to that which is good who are dead in trespasses and sinnes as by nature all are Eph. 2. 1. who are sold unto sinne as the Apostle confesseth hee was so farre forth as hee was unregenerate Rom. 7. 14. and that in him that is in his flesh his corrupt nature no good dwelled vers 18. who are the servants of sinne as all are before their conversion Romans 6. 17. In this respect Luther might well intitle his booke as hee did of servile will rather then of Free-will to shew that this Free-will is by nature the servant of sinne S. Augustine in many places is as cleare and expresse for this which wee hold as can be imagined For what good saith he can lost man worke but so farre forth as hee is freed from that lost condition can hee by Free-will No such matter For man using Free-will amisse lost both himselfe and it For as hee that killes himselfe doth by living kill himselfe but by killing himselfe hee ceaseth to live So when by Free-will man did sinne sinne getting the victory Free-will was lost For of whom a man is overcome of the same hee is brought in bondage 2 Pet. 2. 19. What I pray can be the freedome of one that is brought into bondage except when it doth delight him to sinne And by this hee is free to sinne who is the servant of sinne Wherefore hee shall not be free to doe righteously unlesse being made free from sinne hee shall become the servant of righteousnesse And presently after But that freedome which is to doe well how shall man being in bondage and sold under sinne have except hee redeeme him who hath said If the Sonne shall make you free then you shall be free indeed Before this begin to be done in man how can any glory of Free-will in a good worke seeing hee is not yet free to doe well Bellarmine brings in the first peece of this saying of Austine and answers that Free-will is lost not in that it is quite abolished but in that it is held captive by the Devill as things are said to be lost which in time of war are in the power of the enemy But what is this but even to yeeld us that which wee contend for For if Free-will bee so lost as to bee held captive by Satan then surely the will untill it be set free by Christ is not free in respect of that which is truly good and accompanying salvation This will saith Austine which is free in things that are evill because it is delighted in things that are evill is therefore not free in things that are good because it is not made free And againe Without the Grace of God the will cannot be free seeing it is subject to lusts that doe overcome it and bring it into bondage And again How dare miserable men be proud of Free-will before they are made free These and many other Sentences of this Father are so full for our purpose that our Divines might well professe as they doe that in this point they fully accord with Austine But I will adde the testimonies of some other Fathers besides him While sin reignes saith Fulgentius a man hath Free-will but free without God not free under God that is free from Righteousnesse not free under Grace and so most ill and slavishly free because not made free by the free gift of God shewing mercy This he proves by Rom. 6. 22. and addes Therefore he cannot serve Righteousnesse who is free from Righteousnesse because so long as he is the servant of sinne he is onely able to serve him To the same effect also speaks Bernard By I know not what evill and wonderfull means saith he the will being changed by sinne and made worse doth bring a necessity upon it selfe so that neither necessity being voluntary can excuse the will nor the will being inticed can exclude necessity For it is after a sort a voluntary necessity For it is the will which when it was free made it self the servant of sinne by consenting unto sinne neverthelesse it is the will which keeps it self under sin by serving it willingly He shewes how the will is free being captivated by sin so free as that it sinneth willingly yet not so free as that it can refrain from sin seeing it hath made it selfe the servant of sinne and hath brought upon it self a necessity of sinning Thus saith he the soul after a wonderfull and evill manner under this voluntary and ill free necessity is both held in bondage and also is free in bondage because of necessity free because of will And which is more wonderfull and more miserable it is therefore guilty because it is free and therefore in bondage because guilty and so consequently therefore in bondage because free He addes a little after Now there is no escape for miserable man by his own free-will or any power in himself whom as I have said both the will doth make inexcusable and also necessity doth make incorrigible Elsewhere indeed Bernard seems to make the wil perpetually and of its own nature free from necessity for that necessary and voluntary seeme to be contrary one to the other But by necessity he means co-action and compulsion For speaking of consent he saith It is not compelled it is not extorted for it is of will not of necessity It neither denies it selfe nor affords it selfe to any but willingly For if it could be compelled against its will it were violent and not voluntary But where there is no will there is no consent For there is no consent but voluntary Therefore where there is consent there is will and where there is will there is freedom and this is that which I think is called Free-will And againe Freedome from necessity
do of his good pleasure Phil. 2. 13. Therefore saith Austine we will but God doth worke this will in us therefore wee worke but God doth worke this worke in us of his good pleasure This is expedient for us both to believe and to speake this is pious this is true that so confession may bee humble and submisse and that all may be ascribed unto God And thus I hope it may sufficiently appeare that we have no cause to decline either the authority of the Scriptures or the testimonies of Fathers in this point concerning Free-will I come now to those Scriptures and Fathers which the Marquesse doth alledge against us Three places of Scripture are cited for proofe of Free-will such as our Adversaries maintaine and wee impugne First that 1 Cor. 7. 37. it is misprinted 1 Cor. 17. Hee that standeth stedfast in his heart having no necessity but hath power over his own will and hath so decreed in his heart that hee will keepe his virgin doth well But what is there here to prove Free-will Perhaps those words hath power over his own will But the Apostle there speakes of a man that hath a daughter marriageable yet determines to keepe her unmarried which the Apostle approves so that the man have no necessity that is no necessary cause of giving his daughter in marriage but hath power over his owne will that is hath power to effect and accomplish that which hee willeth so as no inconvenience to ensue upon it After this manner doth Cajetan himselfe in his Commentaries upon the place expound these wordes but hath power over his own will viz. to accomplish it in that the Virgin doth consent to abstaine from marriage For if shee should dissent then the Father should not have power of accomplishing his own will Thus Cajetan now what is this to the controversie about free will though I know Bellarmine also brings it in as also another place as little to the purpose namely that 2 Cor. 9. 7. Every man according as hee purposeth in his heart so let him give not grudgingly or of necessity for God loveth a chearfull giver Men must give almes willingly and chearfully therefore men have free will It doth not follow no more then that because men must serve God with a perfect heart and with a willing minde 1 Chron. 28. 9. therefore of themselves by the power of Free-will they are able to do it The Rhemists tacitely confesse these places to be impertinent to the point in hand passing them over in their Annotations and making no use of them as they are ready enough to doe when they meet with any thing which they thinke doth make for them The next place is Deut. 30. 19. not as it is printed 11. I have set before you life and death blessing and cursing chuse life that thou and thy seed may live This place Bellarmine presumes much upon saying that hee sees not what can bee answered to it And so the English Papists who translated the old Testament at Doway in their notes upon the place say what Doctor can more plainly teach Free-will in man then this Text of holy Scripture But what is the reason of all this confidence because man is bidden to chuse life doth it therefore follow that of himselfe hee is free and able to doe it why So man is bidden to worke out his own salvation Phil. 2. 12. yet as the Apostle addes immediately v. 13. it is God that doth worke in him both the Will and the Deed. Man is bidden to come unto Christ Isai 53. 3. yet can hee not come except the Father draw him Ioh. 6. 44. Man is bidden to arise from the dead Ephes 5. 14. Can he therefore being dead quicken himself Surely the same Apostle tells us in the same Epistle that it is God that doth quicken those that are dead in trespasses and sinnes Ephes 2. 5. There is no more force in that place of Deuteronomie for proofe of Free-will then in any other place of Scripture which containeth in it precept or exhortation And indeed our adversaries doe pretend that all such places are for them And so did the Pelagians of old object such places but Austine answers them that though it 's true God doth not command man to doe that which cannot bee done by him yet hee commandeth us to doe what wee are not able to doe viz. of our selves that wee may seeke unto him to make us able Thus the people of God do Turne unto me saith God Ioel 2. 12. Turne thou us unto thee say the people of God Lam. 5. 21. And by comparing places of Scripture together we may finde that what God doth require of his people the same hee doth promise unto them Wash yee make yee cleane saith he Isai 1. 16. But Ezek. 36. 25. I will sprinkle cleane water upon you saith hee and you shall be cleane So Ezek. 18. 31. God commands saying Make you a new heart and a new spirit But Ezek. 36. 26. hee promiseth this very thing A new heart also will I give you and a new spirit will I put with in you And accordingly David prayed unto God to worke this in him Create in me a clean heart O Lord and renew a right spirit within me Psal 51. 10. And that of Austine is well known Give O Lord what thou doest command and then command what thou willest Besides as Bradwardine observed long agoe impotency and inability to performe a duty proceeding from a mans own fault doth nothing excuse him either by the Law of God or man A bankrupt may justly be required to pay his debt though hee be not able to pay it Againe Gods Precepts and Exhortations are not in vaine though man by the power of his own Free-will be not able to doe what is required because God doth make those very Precepts and Exhortations meanes whereby to worke that in his elect which hee doth require of them When Christ spake to Lazarus being dead and buried saying Lazarus come forth Joh. 11. this was not in vaine though its certaine a man that 's dead and laid in the grave hath no power of himselfe to come forth yet I say it was not in vaine that Christ spake so unto Lazarus for together with his word hee sent forth his Divine power and so inabled Lazarus to come forth as hee required So neither is it in vaine that God doth command men to doe things which of themselves they cannot doe because he accompanying his word with his spirit inables them to do what hee commands Verily verily I say unto you saith Christ the houre is comming and now is when the dead shall heare the voyce of the Son of God and they that heare shall live Joh. 5. 25. Our Saviour there speakes of such as are spiritually dead as appeares those words and now is and he shewes that his word is a powerfull and effectuall meanes viz. by the concurrence of
hee takes Aquinas to be resolute in this point and hee cites him saying As predestination doth include a will to conferre grace and glory so Reprobation doth include a will to suffer one to fall into sinne and to inslict the punishment of damnation for sinne Hence Alvarez inferres that according to Aquinas the permission of the first sinne for which a Reprobate is damned is the effect of Reprobation And hee addes that of this permission there is no cause in the Reprobate Because before the permission of the first sinne and before the first sinne there is no other sinne for if there were then it were not simply the first sinne or man should commit some other sinne before which God did not permit whereas no sinne can be committed but by Gods permission He cites also Aquinas againe speaking thus why God doth chuse some to glory and reprobate others there is no reason but onely Gods Will. And having cited that of the Apostle Rom. 9. The children being not yet borne neither having done any good or evill that the purpose of God according to election might stand not of workes but of him that calleth it was said unto her The elder should serve the younger As it is written Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated having cited this I say hee addes that the Apostle here both Austine and Aquinas avouching as much plainly signifies that in the absolute Election and Reprobation of Men God did not looke at Mens merits or demerits but of his own pleasure did chuse and predestinate one to glory and not predestinate another but by an absolute will did determine to suffer him to sinne and to be hardened or to persevere in sinne to the end of his life and to inflict eternall punishment upon him for sin Hee brings in also Austine confuting those who say that Esau and Iacob being not yet borne God did therefore hate the one and love the other because hee did foresee the workes that they would doe Who said Austine can but wonder that the Apostle should not finde out this acute reason for hee did not see it c. No but flies to this hee saith to Moses I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy c. So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy And that none of our Romish adversaries may sleight Austine in this point Alvarez about the beginning of his Worke hath a Disputation to shew what authority this Fathers judgement is of in the point of Grace and Predestination Hee shewes that not onely Prosper but also many Bishops of Rome did approve of Austines Doctrine concerning these points and did determine it to be sound and good And therefore in the testimony of Austine wee have many testimonies and such as are irrefragable with those with whom now wee have to doe But let us heare what some other late Writers of the Church of Rome doe say as to this point concerning Reprobation God from eternity saith Cardinall Cajetan doth truly chuse some and reprobate others doth love some and hate others in that from eternity his will is to vouchsafe some the helpe of his grace whereby to bring them to eternall glory and from eternity also his will is to leave some to themselves and not to afford them that gracious help which he hath decreed to afford the Elect. And this is for God to hate and to reprobate them with which yet it doth well stand that none is damned but by his owne workes because neither the Sentence nor Execution of damnation is before that such Reprobates doe sinne So also †Estius saith that the Apostle Rom. 9. doth teach that neither mens Election nor their Reprobation is from the Merits of workes but that God by the meere pleasure of his wil doth chuse some and Reprobate others And againe upon those words O man who are thou that repliest against God c. hee saith that the Apostles intent was to answer not so much the objection as the cause of objecting And that therefore he answers concerning the Will of God Electing and Reprobating and denies that the reason of it is to be inquired by man who is Gods creature and made by him yea that by the example of a potter the Apostle shewes that God doth this out of the liberty of his Will without any other reason And he addes that Thomas Aquinas did also thus rightly expound the words of the Apostle Bradwardine who intituled the book which hee wrote of the cause of God is not to be omitted Hee saith It 's true God doth not eternally punish any without his fault going before temporally and abiding eternally yet God did not eternally reprobate any because of sinne as a cause antecedently moving Gods will What doe our Divines say even such as are of the more rigid sort as concerning this high and abstruse point of Reprobation what I say doe they lay more then is said by these great and eminent Doctours of the Church of Rome and before them by Austine and before both him and them as both hee and they conceived by the Apostle Paul himselfe The Decree of Reprobation saith Bishop Davenant is not thus to be conceived I will damne Judas whether he believe or not believe repent or not repent for this were contrary to the truth of the Evangelicall promises but thus I am absolutely determined not to give unto Judas that speciall grace which would cause him to believe and repent and I am absolutely purposed to permit him to incurre his own demnation by his voluntary obstinacy and finall impenitency And againe It must here first of all be considered that Reprobatio aeterna nihil ponit in reprobato that is That eternall reprobation doth put nothing in the person that is reprobated It putteth onely in God a firme Decree of permitting such persons to fall into finall sinne and for it a firme decree of condemning them unto eternall punishment So both hee and diverse other of our Eng. lish Divines that were at the Synod of Dort being sent thither by King Iames as they hold that Reprobation which is the denying of election doth put in God an immutable will not to have mercy on such a person as is passed by in respect of giving eternall life And that foreseene unbeliefe is not the cause of non election So withall they lay down this position God doth damne none nor appoint unto Damnation but in respect of sinne So Doctor Ames saith that it is too great a slander to say that according to our opinion God did immediately decree mens damnation whether they be sinners or no. Our opinion saith hee is this that God did not choose some as he did chuse others but did determine to let them abide in their sinnes and for those sinnes to suffer the punishment of just damnation and that of this decree
there is no cause to be found in those that are not elected which is not as much to be found in those that are elected Thus also Doctor Twisse We say and say truly saith hee that many are appointed unto damnation before they are borne Yet we doe not say that any is appointed to suffer death but for sinne nor that the decree it selfe in respect of the act of him that decreeth doth any one moment goe before the foresight of sinne I see nothing in these Assertions of our Divines that hath any thing more horrid in it then that is which they of the Church of Rome before cited doe assert and yet some of these goe as high in the point of Predestination I thinke as any others Calvin himselfe as hee saith If wee cannot give a reason why God hath mercy on his own but because so it pleaseth him neither have we any cause why others are Reprobated but his Will So he saith withall If all by their condition be subject to condemnation how can they whom God doth predestinate unto destruction complaine that he doth deale unjustly with them Let all the sonnes of Adam come let them contend and dispute with their Creator because by his eternall providence before they were borne they were appointed to eternall misery What will they be able to object against this plea when God shall on the other side call them to areview of themselves If all be taken out of the corrupt Masse it is no wonder if they be subject to damnation Let them not therefore accuse God of iniquity if by his Eternall judgement they be appointed unto death to which whether they will or no themselves doe see that they are led by their own nature of its own accord And againe Although by Gods eternall Providence man is cast into that calamity which doth befall him yet he takes the matter of it from himselfe and not from God seeing for no other reason is he so undone but because he did degenerate from that purity wherein God created him and made himselfe vitious impure and perverse And againe we affirme that none do perish but by their own desert e And againe The cause of our damnation is in our selves Thus Calvin being heard speake for himselfe it plainly appeares that hee by the decree of Reprobation makes God the author of mans damnation no otherwise then diverse Romanists themselves doe And thus also Beza This saith hee is the sum of Pauls answer although God appoint either to love or to hatred whom he will without any respect of their qualifications yet he is free from all injustice because betwixt Gods eternall decree and the execution of it there are subordinate causes whereby God doth bring the elect unto salvation and doth justly damne the Reprobate For he saves the elect by mercy and damnes the Reprobate by induration so that they doe most foolishly who confouned the decree of Reprobation with damnation seeing that the cause of damnation is manifest to wit sinne but the Will of God is the onely cause of Reprobation Therefore God doth wrong to neither because both deserve destruction For mercy shewes that the Elect were miserable and therefore worthy because of sinne to be destroyed and induration presupposeth perversnesse in which the Reprobate are justly hardened The like he hath also againe a little after And whereas Beza saith that they doe not satisfie him who by the lumpe which the Apostle speakes of Rom. 9. 12. doe understand mankinde being corrupt because 1. That terme he thinkes doth not well agree to man being created much lesse to him being already corrupted And againe if the Apostle had some Vessells were made unto honour and some unto dishonour but seeing all Vessels were fitted for dishonour all mankinde being corrupted the Apostle would rather have said that some were left in that dishonour and some translated from it unto honour Finally except Paul goe up to the highest step the objection hee thinkes is not satisfied For that still it will be demanded whether that corruption came as it happened or according to Gods purpose and so the same difficulty will remaine still Therefore Paul hee saith by that most elegant similitude did allude unto Adams Creation and did ascend up even to Gods eternall purpose who before he did create mankinde did of his meere will and pleasure determine to shew forth his glory in saving some through his mercy and in destroying some by his just judgement This is no more then Estius on Rom. 9. doth subscribe unto In this disputation saith hee the Apostle doth not suppose the lumpe corrupt although that which the Apostle saith is true also of it according to Austines opinion For the Scriptures often using the comparison of a lumpe which the Potter doth fasten as he pleaseth speakes of the lumpe absolutely not supposing any fault in it but only considering the nature of it whereby it is fit to be fastned into any worke of the Potter And therefore the Apostle doth not say that the Potter of the same lumpe doth make one Vessell unto honour and leave another in dishonour but that of the same lumpe he doth make unto dishonour Neither doth he say that the thing formed doth not say to him that formed it Why hast thou left me in the corrupt lumpe but Why hast thou made me so that is a dishonorable and reprobate vessell Here wee see Estius both approves of Bezaes interpretation and also makes use of his reason for the confirming of it And hee addes that the Apostle in that similitude of a lumpe and a Potter doth not allude to Ier. 18. 6 but that rather there is a manifest allusion to Isai 45. 9. Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker Let the potsheard strive with the potsheards of the Earth shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it What makest thou or thy worke he hath no hands Which words hee saith doe verily signifie thus much that God of his meere pleasure doth so determine of mens estate either the one way or the other as a Potter doth make of clay what worke hee pleaseth And hitherto hee saith doth that belong which followeth Isai 45. 10. Woe unto him that saith unto his Father What begettest thou or to the woman What hast thou brought forth For saith hee what hath man deserved why his parents should ingender him such or such And a little before by diverse arguments he confutes those who thinke that the Apostle speaking of Reprobation doth suppose the lumpe of mankinde infected with originall sinne If saith he those things which the Apostle delivers in this Chapter be diligently considered it will fully appeare that as well Reprobation as Election is absolutely not of foreseene merits For 1. When he saith neither having done any good or evill he excludes as well the evill action of Esau as the good action of Jacob and consequently as well the ill merit
saved by his owne inherent righteousnesse because though he be otherwise never so righteous yet still there is some sinne in him which hee knoweth not of according to that of the Apostle which Ambrose there citeth I know nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby justified 1 Cor. 4. 4. The Apostle denieth that hee was justified by that righteousnesse that was in him though hee had the testimony of a good conscience to rejoyce in 2 Cor. 1. 12. yet was hee neverthelesse assured that hee was justified and should be saved through faith in Christ Jesus as hath been proved before from Rom. 8. 33. c. and from other places This was all that Ambrose meant as appeares by his words immediately going before those objected The Apostle hee saith Explaines Davids meaning saying I know nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby justified He knew that he was a man and did take heed to himselfe as he could that he might not sin after his Baptisme therefore he knew nothing by himselfe but because he was a man he confessed himselfe a sinner knowing that Iesus alone is the true light who did no sin neither was guile found in his mouth that he alone is justified i. e. perfectly just in himselfe who was truly without all sin That which Basil whose words I find in Bellarmine though otherwise I have him not to peruse saith is directly to the same purpose and imports no more then that of Ambrose We doe not understand saith he many things wherein we sin Therefore the Apostle saith I know nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby justified that is I sin in many things and am not aware of it For Hierome hee is too loosely cited both by the Marquesse and before him by Bellarmine there being eleven long Chapters in that booke which is mentioned but in which of them he saith any thing against us they doe not tell us However the words objected are these There are righteous men to whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked and there are wicked men to whom it happeneth according to the worke of the righteous This is said viz. Eccles 8. 14. because certaine judgement belongs only unto God These words by search I finde in Hierome but it plainly appeares that his scope onely is to prove against the Pelagians that no man in this life is so righteous as to be without sinne which is not against us in this controversie but for us in another as hath beene shewed before A little after those words Hierome saith thus What mortall man is not taken with some errour And that the righteous shall scarcely be saved 1 Pet. 4. 18. because in some things or rather indeed in all things he stands in needs of Gods mercy In the former Chapter Hierome brings in that of S. Paul I know nothing by my selfe c. and saith that though the Apostle were not conscious to himselfe of sinne yet hee did not justifie himselfe because hee had read Psal 19. 13. who can understand his his faults Thus then his testimony makes indeed against the perfection of a mans own righteousnesse but not against his assurance of salvation which may well stand without the other Chrysostome in the place cited comments upon that Ioh. 21. 17. Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time lovest thou me and hee saith that Peter feared lest now hee thought himselfe to love Christ when hee did not as before he was deceived in thinking himselfe stout and constant when it proved otherwise But 1. Though Chrysostome so take the words of Peter as if he might then be mistaken in that opinion which hee had of himselfe yet it does not follow that therefore hee should hold that a man cannot be assured that hee hath saving grace in him 2. Austine gives another and a better reason why Peter was grieved that Christ did aske him that question the third time viz. because thereby Christ as he thought seemed not to believe him not that hee suspected his owne heart but hee feared that Christ did suspect him because he did aske him the same question thrice over Maldonate the Jesuite cites Theodorus Heracleotes as also thus expounding it and saying that therefore Peter answered Lord thou knowest all things thou knowest that I love Thee as if hee should have said Thou that knowest all things canst not but know that it is true that I say and therefore why doest thou aske mee so often as if thou didst not believe me This Exposition Maldonate doth prefer before the other of Chrysostome which he also mentioneth and saith that Peter saying Lord thou knowest did speak so not so much out of modesty as to confirme that which hee had said viz. that he loved Christ by Christs own testimony Austine in Psal 40. hath nothing that I can see to the purpose I suppose it should be in Psalme 41. from whence Bellarmine doth produce this I know that the righteousnesse of God doth remaine whether my righteousnesse may remaine I know not For the Apostle doth make me to feare saying Let him that thinketh he standeth take heede lest he fall 1 Cor. 10. 12. I acknowledge these words of Austine but that which followes immediately shewes the meaning of them Therefore saith hee because I have no strength or stability in my selfe neither have I hope of my selfe my soule is troubled toward my selfe Wouldest thou not have it troubled Doe not abide in thy selfe but say unto thee O Lord have I lift up my soule Psal 25. 1. Heare this more plainly Doe not hope of thy selfe but of thy God For if thou doest hope of thy selfe thy soule will be troubled towards thee because it hath not yet found whereby it may be secure of thee Therefore because my soule is troubled towards me what remaines but humility that the soule doe not presume of it selfe Thus it clearly appeares that Austine spake not against assurance of salvation but onely against selfe confidence and presumption The last Father alledged is Bernard who saith This doth adde to the heape of care and to the weight of feare that when as it 's necessary to looke both to mine own and my Neighbours conscience neither of them is sufficiently knowne unto me Both are an unsearchable depth both are night unto me But Bernard onely meanes that it 's very hard for a man to know his owne heart because of the deceitfulnesse of it not but that by the Spirit of God a man may know it so farre forth as to be assured of the truth of Grace in him which hath beene proved before by Bernards testimony in diverse places So elsewhere hee saith indeed Who can say I am of the Elect I am of those that are predestinate unto life I am of the number of Gods children who I say can say these things the Scripture saying on the contrary Man knowes not whether
authority of the Church as if were it not for the authority of the Church the Scripture were of no force neither could deserve any credit So the Romanists do frequently pervert those words of Austine but Austines meaning was only this that the Churches authority by way of introduction was a means to bring him to beleeve the Gospel by propounding and commending the Gospel unto him as a thing to be beleeved whereas otherwise he should not have given heed to it nor taken notice of it not as if he did finally rest in the authority of the Church and resolve his faith into it No for as I have shewed before he would have the Church it selfe sought in the Scripture and proved by it Had not the woman of Samaria told those among whom she lived of Christ they had not come to the knowledge of him much lesse to beleeve in him yet having heard Christ himselfe they did not rest in the testimony of the woman but said unto her Now we beleeve not because of thy saying for we have heard him our selves and know that this is indeed the Christ and the Saviour of the world Joh. 4. 42. So should not the Church hold out unto us the Scriptures we should not know much lesse beleeve them but at length God by his Spirit opening our understandings that we may understand the Scriptures Luke 24. 45. we come to be convinced by the Scriptures themselves that they are the Oracles of God and of divine authority Melchior Canus a learned Writer of the Church of Rome holds that the formall reason of our faith is not the authority of the Church that is that the last resolution of our faith is not into the Churches testimony And he saith that he could not dissemble their errour who hold that our faith is to be reduced thither as to the utmost cause of beleeving For the confuting of this errour he saith belongs that Ioh. 4. Now we beleeve not because of thy saying for we our selves have heard him and know c. The same authour averres that the authority of the Church is not a reason by it selfe moving to beleeve but only a cause or meanes without which we should not beleeve viz. Because as he addes the Church doth propound unto us that the Scripture is the word of God and except the Church did so propound it we should never ordinarily come to beleeve it yet we doe not therefore beleeve the Scripture to be Gods word because the Church doth say it but because God doth reveal it If the Church saith he doth make way for us to know such sacred books we must not therefore rest there but we must goe further and must relye on Gods solid truth And then he brings in that very speech of Austine and shewes what he meant by it Hereby is understood saith he what Austine meant when he said I should not beleeve the Gospell except the authority of the Church did move me And again By the Catholikes I had beleeved the Gospell For Austine had to doe with the Manichees who without dispute would have a certain Gospell of theirs beleeved and so would establish the faith of the Manichees Austine therefore askes them what they would doe if they did light upon a man who did not beleeve so much as the Gospell what kind of perswasion they would use to bring him to their opinion He affirmes that himselfe could not be otherwise brought to embrace the Gospell but that the authority of the Church did overcome him He doth not therefore teach that the faith of the Gospell is grounded upon the Churches authority but only that there is no certain way whereby either infidels or novices in the faith may have entrance to the holy books but one and the same consent of the Catholike Church This he himselfe hath sufficiently explicated in the fourth Chapter of that Epistle and in his book to Honoratus concerning the benefit of beleeving I have thus largely cited the words of this learned Romanist because no Protestant can speak more clearly and more fully to the purpose That which the Marquesse after addeth is nothing against us viz. That there was a Church before there was any Scripture that though the Scripture be a light yet we have need of some to guide us though it be the food of our soules yet there must be some to administer it unto us though it be an antidote against the infection of the devill yet it is not for every one to be a compounder of the ingredients that though it be the onely sword and buckler to defend the Church from her Ghostly enemies yet this doth not exclude the noble army of Martyrs and the holy Church which through all the world doth acknowledg Christ All this I say is nothing at all against us who do so assert the authority of the Scripture as that we doe not evacuate the Churches ministery Timothy must preach but it is the word viz. of God contained in the Scriptures which he must preach 2 Tim. 4. 2. If any man speak for the instructing of others he must speak as the Oracles of God 1 Pet. 4. 11. He must confirm that which he doth speak by the Scriptures And so on the other side they that hear must take heed how and what they hear Luke 8. 18. Mark 4. 24. They must not beleeve every Spirit but must try the Spirits whether they be of God 1 John 4. 1. They must to the Law and to the Testimony for that if any speak not according to this word it is because they have no light in them Isai 8. 20. They must search the Scriptures diligently to see whether the things delivered unto them be so or no. Acts 17. 11. OF THE CHVRCH of ENGLAND THE SECOND PART OF THE Rejoynder to the Marquess of WORCESTER'S Reply MAJESTIE' 's Answer to the said Marquesse's Plea for the ROMISH RELIGION THE Marquesse saith that he will now consider the Opinions of Protestants apart from them of the Church of Rome and begin with the Church of England The Religion of this Church he saith as it is in opposition to theirs consists wholly in denying for that what she affirms they affirm the same as the Real presence the Infallibility Visibility Universality and Unity of the Church Confession and Remission of sinnes Free-will Possibility of keeping the Commandments c. And you may as well saith he deny the blessed Trinity for we have no such word in Scripture only inference as that which you have already denied for which we have plain Scripture c. But 1. it is not altogether so that what the Church of England doth affirm the same they of the Church of Rome do affirm also For the Church of England Art 9. doth affirm alleadging the authority of the Apostle for proof thereof that Concupiscence hath of it self the nature of sinne even in the regenerate which the Romanists deny the Councel of Trent accurseth
the Masse which for many years he had celebrated was evil and unlawful as being most repugnant to Christs institution This many of the Romish writers upbraid him with as if the Masse must needs therfore be good because the Devil did plead against it Protestants make use of those very arguments which the Devil did urge in his dispute with Luther But though the Devil be a liar and hath alwayes some evil and false end at which he aims yet the thing it self which he saith is not alwayes false For he confessed Christ to be the Son of God Mat. 8. 29. and Paul and his companions to be the servants of the most high God which did shew the way of salvation Act. 16. 17. Neither do I see any reason why Luther might not come to see his error and to correct it by the Devils dispute with him though the Devil intended no such matter as well as Monica Austin's mother came to see her vice and to abandon it by being upbraided with it by one whose intent was nothing lesse then to work such an effect upon her Mr. Breerley will not admit that the Devil in that dispute did seek to drive Luther to despaire But Luther whom any indifferent man will rather believe in this case did judge otherwise of it It is true saith he the Devil is a liar but an artificial liar his lies are more cunning and crafty then man is able to imagine He layes hold on some clear truth that cannot be denied and doth urge it so subtilly and doth so varnish his lie as to deceive even those that are most wary As that thought which he put into Judas was true I have betraied innocent blood this Judas could not deny But this was a lie Therfore I must despair of Gods mercy Yet did the Devil bring him to this Therefore when the Devil doth urge the greatnesse of sinne he doth not lie but herein he lieth that he would make me to despair of Gods grace I confessed being convinced by the law of God before the Devil that I sinned but with Peter I turn me unto Christ c. This plainly shewes what in Luthers judgment the Devill did aime at though he failed in his designe Neither is this answer impertinent as Mr. Breerley also doth pretend as may sufficiently appear by what I have said before It makes nothing he saith to prove that the Devill therefore did not instruct Luther against the Masse But what if Luther were convinced of his errour by those arguments which the Devill urged against him only to drive him to despaire This doth but set forth the wisdom and goodnesse of God in making use of the malice of the Devill for the good of those whom he loveth As Austine observeth in the reformation which God wrought in his Mother when she was a young girle by the means of a maid that falling out with her cast her in the teeth with her wine-bibbing thinking only to reproach and vex her but God by the distemper of the one did work a cure upon the other From Luther the Marquess passeth to Zuinglius saying that Gualterus calls him the author of warre the disturber of peace proud and cruell and instances in his strange attempts against the Tigurines his fellowes whom he forced by want and famine to follow his Doctrine and that he died in armour and in the warre When I only looked upon the place as cited by the Marquess viz. In Apolog. pro Zuing. I could not but admire that Gualterus in his Apologie for Zuinglius should write thus of him But examining the truth of the Quotation I am much more filled with admiration For Gaulterus is made to charge Zuinglius with these things which he doth purposely and professedly clear him of complaining of those that do charge him with them He shews that Zuinglius was not the author of that war which was betwixt the Tigurines and their neighbours It was the fashion he saith among the Tigurines when they went to war in behalf of their country to have their Ministers along with them And so Zuinglius went out to battel and died in it and that armed yet not either as chief Commander or Ensigne-bearer but only as a good Citizen and faithful Pastor who might not leave his people in such an exigence And whereas the Marquess speaks of Gualterus his instancing in Zuinglius his strange attempts against the Tigurines c. it was a great oversight in him For Gualterus only taxeth them who say Zuinglius Tigurinis novi exquisitifacinoris contra socios audendi author fuerit vt videl victus inopiâ famis necessitate eos in suas partes concedere cogeret c. that is That Zuinglius caused the Tigurines to attempt a strange enterprise against their companions other Helvetians that were their confederates so as by want and famine to force them to joyn with them c. Thus all this great charge brought against Zuinglius is built meerly upon mistakes The next that the Marquesse falls upon is Beza upon whom is cast a most foul asperfion That in his Epigrams he hath Verses concerning his Boy Andebert and his Wench Candida and that having debated at large which sinne is to be preferr'd he chooseth the Boy at last Answ If Beza had indeed sometime been guilty of this vile enormity which is fained of him what could any justly inferre from hence but that the grace of God did eminently appeare in that change which afterwards was wrought in him The Apostle having spoken of such as are guilty of grosse sinnes and among the rest of this here charged upon Beza saith to the Corinthians And such were some of you but you are washed but you are sanctified but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God I Cor. 6. II. But it can never be proved that Beza was guilty of such wickednesse though divers both Romanists and Lutherans have charged him with it Beza hath made answer for himself I. He confesseth that in his younger years he had exercised his Poetical faculty by composing amatorious Verses but he saith it is no equal dealing that what he did in sport should be interpreted as done in earnest 2. He professeth that he had by a publike writing rejected and disavowed those Verses and complaineth of his adversaries who would not suffer them to be abolished 3. He sheweth that this Candida spoken of in his Epigrams is but a fained name 4. That Andebert who is also mentioned in those Epigrams was a man of known integrity and of great dignity in France and that therefore an odious thing it was so to pervert that great friendship and familiarity which he had with him as to turn it into that execrable filthinesse not to be named Mr. Breerley who sets down a great many of those Verses which the Marquesse doth but