Testament was but should be performed in every place as well in one place as another This is that which our Saviour said to the Woman of Samaria Woman believe me the houre commeth when ye shall neither in this Mountaine nor yet at Ierusalem worship the Father The houre commeth and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth c. Joh. 4. 21 23. S. Paul also to the same purpose I will therefore that men pray every where lifting up holy hands c. 1 Tim. 2. 8. This is that incense and pure offering which the Prophet Malachy said should be offered unto God in every place This incense and pure Offering are the prayers of the Saints Revel 5. 8. And all spirituall sacrifices which Christians offer acceptable unto God thorough Iesus Christ 1 Pet. 2. 5. What is this to prove that Christ is truly and properly sacrificed in the Eucharist It is true the Fathers sometimes apply that place of Malachy to the Sacrament of the Eucharist but not as if Christ were there in that Sacrament truly and properly sacrificed nor as if that place concerned this Sacrament more then any other spirituall worship now to be performed under the new Testament Irenaeus in one Chapter applies it to the Sacrament and in the very next immediately after hee applies it to Prayer Having cited the words of Malachy In every place incense is offered to my Name and a pure offering immediately hee addes Now Iohn in the Revelation saith that incense are the Prayers of the Saints So also Hierome in his commentary upon the words of Malachy Now the Lord directs his speech to the Iewish Priests who offer the Blind and the Lame and the sick for sacrifice that they may know that spirituall sacrifices are to succeed carnall sacrifices And that not the blood of Buls and Goates but incense that is the Prayers of the Saints are to be offered unto the Lord and that not in one province of the world Iudea nor in one City of Iudea Hierusalem but in every place is offered an offering not impure as was offered by the people of Israel but pure as is offered in the ceremonies or services of Christians Here it is very observable that Hierome writing professedly upon the place of the Prophet to shew the meaning of it was so far from thinking it to be peculiarly meant of the Eucharist that hee doth not so much as mention that Sacrament otherwise then it is comprehended in those spirituall sacrifices which hee saith are here spoken of but as hee saith that spirituall sacrifices in generall are here signified so particularly hee applieth the words of the Prophet unto prayer saying that it is the incense which the Prophet speaketh of The other place of Scripture viz. Luke 22. 19. is as little to the purpose though Bellarmine also doth alledge and urge it in the same manner saying that Christ did not say Vobis datur frangitur effunditur sed pro vobis is given broken shed to you but for you But what of this Wee know and believe that Christs Body was given and his Blood shed for us on the crosse in remembrance whereof according to Christs institution wee receive the Sacrament but doth it therefore follow that Christ is properly offered and sacrificed in the Sacrament The ground of this conceit is that the word is in the present tense datur is given not in the future dabitur shall be given But this is too weake a foundation to build upon For Bellarmine cannot deny but that in the Scripture the present or the preter tense is often put for the future And well might it be so here Christ being now ready to be offered he instituting the Sacrament the same night that he was betrayed 1 Cor. 11. 23. the night before hee suffered And therefore Cardinall Cajetan was much more ingenuous then Cardinall Bellarmine For upon 1 Cor. 11. 23. he notes that both the Evangelists and also Paul relating the words of the institution of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper use the present tense is given or broken and is shed because when Christ did institute the Sacrament though his Body was not yet crucified nor his Blood shed yet the crucifying of his Body and the shedding of his Blood was at hand and in a manner present Yea the time of Christs suffering hee saith was then present as being then begun And therefore as when the day is begun wee may signifie in the present tense whatsoever is done that day so the day of Christs Passion being begun the Jewes beginning the day at the Evening all his Passion might be signified by a word of the present tense The present being taken Gramatically not for an instant but for a certaine time confusedly present The ancient Writers also have expounded the present tense used in the words of the institution by the future Heare Christ himselfe saith Origen saying unto thee This is my Blood which shall be shed c. So also Tertullian rehearseth Christs words thus This is my Body which shall be given for you And even the vulgar Latine Translation Mat. 26. 28. Mar. 14. 24. hath it in the future tense effundetur and so Luke 22. 20. fundetur shall be shed and 1 Cor. 11. 24. tradetur shall be given Now for the Fathers whom the Marquesse alledgeth as being of their opinion I answer the Fathers indeed doe frequently use the word sacrifice and offering when they speake of the Eucharist but it doth not therefore follow that according to their opinion there is a true and proper sacrifice offered in the Eucharist For it is certaine that they doe also frequently use the same words when they speake of those things which the Romanists themselves acknowledge to be no sacrifices properly so called even as the Scripture speaketh of the sacrifice of Prayer Psal 141. 2. of praise Heb. 13. 15. of Almes Heb. 13. 16. of our own selves Rom. 12. 1. And where the Fathers as the Marquesse observeth call the Eucharist an unbloodly sacrifice they sufficiently shew that properly Christ is not sacrificed in it For as Bellarmine himselfe doth tell us All sacrifices properly so called that the Scriptures speake of were to be destroyed and that by staying if they were things having life and if they were solid things without life as fine Floure Salt and Frankincense they were to be destroyed by burning Besides I have shewed before by the testimony of Lombard that the Fathers sometimes expressely speake of Christs being sacrificed in the Eucharist in that there is a commemoration and remembrance of the sacrifice which Christ upon the crosse did offer for us Bellarmine objects that Baptisme doth represent the death of Christ and yet none of the ancients doe ever call Baptisme a sacrifice and therefore the representation of Christs death alone could not be the cause why they call the Lords Supper a
take away the meanes of reconciliation For I must confesse ingenuously yet under the highest correction that there is not a thing that I ever understood lesse then that assertion of the Scriptures being judge of Controversies though in some sence I must and will acknowledge it but not as it is a book consisting of papers words and letters for as we commonly say in matters of civill differences the Law shall be the judge between us we do not meane that every man shall run unto the Law books or that any Lawyer himselfe shall search his Law-cases and thereupon possesse himselfe of any thing that is in question between him and another without a legall tryall and determination by lawfull Judges constituted to that same purpose In like manner saving knowledge and Divine Truths are the portion that all Gods children lay fast claime unto yet they must not be their own carvers though it is their own meat that is before them whilst they have a mother at the table They must not slight all Orders Constitutions Appeales and Rules of Faith saving knowledge and Divine Truths are not to be wrested from the Scripture by private hands for then the Scripture were of private interpretation which is against the Apostles Rule Neither are those undefiled incorruptible and immaculate inheritances which are reserved for us in heaven to be conveighed unto us by any Privy-seales For there is nothing more absurd to my understanding then to say that the thing contested which is the true meaning of the Scriptures shall be Judge of the Contestation no way inferiour to that absurditie which would follow which would be this if we should leave the deciding of the sence of the words of the Law to the preoccupated understanding of one of the Advocates neither is this all the absurditie that doth arise upon this supposition for if you grant this to one you must grant it to any one and to every one if there were but two how will you reconcile them both If you grant that this judicature must be in many there are many manyes which of the manyes will you have decide but that and you satisfie all For if you make the Scripture the Judge of Controversie you make the reader Judge of the Scripture as a man consists of a soule and body so the Scripture consists of the letter and the sence if I make the dead letter my Judge I am the greatest and simplest idolater in the world it will tell me no more then it told the Indian Emperour Powhaton who asking the Jesuite how he knew all that to be true which he had told him and the Jesuite answering him that Gods word did tell him so The Emperour asked him where it was he shewed him his Bible The Emperour after that he had held it in his hands a pretty while answered It tells me nothing But you will say you can read and so you will find the meaning out of the significant Character and when you have done as you apprehend it so it must be and so the Scripture is nothing else but your meaning wherefore necessitie requires an externall Judge for determination of differences besides the Scriptures And we can have no better recourses to any then to such as the Scripture it selfe calls upon us to heare which is the Church which Church would be found out King Doctor Saint John in his first Epistle tells us that the holy Scripture is that to whose truth the Spirit beareth witnesse And John the Evangelist tells us that the Scripture is that which gives a greater Testimonie of Christ then John the Baptist Saint Luke tells us that if we believe not the Scripture we would not believe though one were risen from the dead and Christ himselfe who raised men from death to life tells us they cannot believe his words if they believe not in Moses writings Saint Peter tells us that the holy Scripture is surer then a voice from heaven Saint Paul tells us that it is lively in operation and whereby the Spirits demonstrates his power and that it is able to make a man wise to salvation able to save our soules and that it is sufficient too to make us believe in Christ to life everlasting John 20. As in every seed there is a Spirit which meeting with earth heat and moisture grows to perfection so the seed of the word wherin Gods holy Spirit being sowen in the heart inlivened by the heart of faith and watered with the teares of repentance soon fructifies without any further Circumstance Doctor It doth so but Your Majestie presupposes all this while husband-men and husbandry barnes and threshing floors winnowing and uniting these several grains into one loafe before it can become childrens bread All that Your Majestie hath said concerning the Scriptures sufficiencie is true provided that those Scriptures be duly handled for as the Law is sufficient to determine right and keep all in peace and quietnesse yet the execution of that sufficiencie cannot he performed without Courts and Judges so when we have granted the Scriptures to be all that the most reverend estimation can attribute unto them yet Religion cannot be exercised nor differences in Religion reconciled without a Judge For as Saint Ierom tells us who was no great friend to Popes or Bishops Si non una exors quaedam imminens detur potestas tot efficerentur in Ecclesia schismata quot Sacerdotes Wherefore I would faine find out that which the Scripture bids me heare Audi Ecclesiam I would faine referre my selfe to that to which the Scripture commands me to appeale and tells me that if I do not I shall be a Heathen and a Publican Dic Ecclesiae which Church Saint Paul in his first Epistle calls the pillar and foundation of Truth of which the Prophet Ezekiel saith I will place my Sanctification in the midst of her for ever and the Prophet Esay that the Lord would never forsake her in whose light the people should walke and Kings in the brightnesse of her Orient Against which our Saviour saith The gates of Hell shall not prevaile with whom our Saviour saith He would be alwayes unto the end of the world And from whom the Spirit of Truth should never depart For although the Psalmist tells us that the word of the Lord is clear inlightning the eyes yet the same Prophet said to God Enlighten mine eyes that I may see the marvels of thy Law And Saint Iohn tells us that the booke of God hath seven Seals and it was not every one that was thought worthy to open it onely the lambe The Disciples had been ignorant if Iesus had not opened the Scriptures unto them The Eunuch could not understand them without an Interpreter and Saint Peter tells us that the Scripture is not of private Interpretation and that in his brother Pauls Epistles there are many things hard to be understood which ignorant and light-headed-men wrest to their owne perdition Wherefore though as
of witnesses to the divine truth and be no more prejudicicall to their generall determinations then so many exceptions are prejudiciall to a generall rule Neither is a particular defection in any man any exception against his testimony except it be in the thing wherein he is deficient for otherwise we should be of the nature of the flies who onely prey upon corruption leaving all the rest of the body that is whole unregarded Secondly Your Majesty taxes generall Councels for committing errors If Your Majesty would be pleased to search into the times wherein those Councels were called Your Majesty shall find that the Church was then under persecution and how that Arrian Emperours rather made Assemblies of Divines then called any Generall Councels and if we should suppose them to be generall and free Councels yet they could not be erroneous in any particular mans judgement untill a like generall Councell should have concluded the former to be erroneous except you will allow particulars to condemne generalls and private men the whole Church all generall Councels from the first unto the last that ever were or shall be makes but one Church and though in their intervals there be no session of persons yet there is perpetuall virtue in their decretals to which every man ought to appeale for judgement in point of controversie Now as it is a maxim in our law Nullum tempus occurrit regi so it is a maxim in divinity Nullum tempus occurrit deo Ubi deus est as he promised I will be with you alwaies unto the end of the world that is with his Church in directing her chief Officers in all their consultations relating either to the truth of her doctrine or the manner of her discipline wherefore if it should be granted that the Church had at any time determined amisse the Church cannot be said to have erred because you must not take the particular time for the Catholick Church because the Church is as well Catholick for time as territory except that you will make rectification an error For as in civil affairs if that we should take advantage of the Parliaments nulling former acts and thereupon conclude that we will be no more regulated by its lawes we should breed confusion in the Common-wealth for as they alter their laws upon experience of present inconveniences so the Councels change their decrees according to that further knowledge which the holy writ assures us shall encrease in the latter daies provided that this knowledge be improved by means approved of and not by every enthusiastick that shall oppose himselfe against the whole Church If I recall my own words it is no error but an avoidance of error so where the same power rectifies it selfe though some things formerly have been decreed amisse yet that cannot render the decrees of generall Councels not binding or incident to error quoad ad nos though in themselves and pro tempore they may be so As to Your Majesties objecting the errors of the holy Apostles and pen-men of the holy Ghost and Your inference thereupon viz. That truth is no where to be found but in holy Scripture under Your Majesties correction I take this to be the greatest argument against the private spirit urged by your Majesty its leading us into all truth that could possibly be found out For if such men as they indued with the holy Ghost inabled with the power of working miracles so sanctified in their callings and enlightened in their understandings could erre how can any man lesse qualified assume to himselfe a freedome from not erring by the assistance of a private spirit Lastly as to Your Majesties quotations of so many Fathers for the Scriptures easinesse and plainnesse to be understood If the Scriptures themselves doe tell us that they are hard to be understood so that the unlearned and unstable wrest them to their owne destruction 2 Peter 3. 16. and if the Scripture tells us that the Eunuch could not understand them except some man should guide him as Acts 8. 13. and if the Scripture tells us that Christs owne Disciples could not understand them untill Christ himselfe expounds them unto them as Luke 24 25. and if the Scriptures tell us how the Angel wept much because no man was able either in heaven or earth to open the Book sealed with seven seals nor to look upon it as Apoc. 5. 1. then certainly all these sayings of theirs are either to be set to the errata's that are behind their books or else we must look out some other meaning of their words then what Your Majesty hath inferr'd from thence as thus they were easie id est in aliquibus but not in omnibus locis or thus they were easie as to the attainment of particular salvation but not as to the generall cognisance of all the divine mystery therein contained requisite for the Churches understanding and by her alone and her consultations and discusments guided by an extraordinary and promised assistance onely to be found out of which as to every ordinary man this knowledge is not necessary so hereof he is not capable First we hold the reall presence you deny it we say his body is there you say there is nothing but bare bread we have Scripture for it Mat. 20. 26. Take eat this is my body so Luke 22. 19. This is my body which is given for you You say that the bread which we must eat in the Sacrament is but dead bread Christ saith that that bread is living bread you say how can this man give us his flesh to eat we say that that was the objection of Jews and Infidels 1 John 6. 25. not of Christians and believers you say it was spoken figuratively we say it was spoken really re vera or as we translate it indeed John 6. 55. But as the Jews did so doe ye First murmur that Christ should be bread John 6. 41. Secondly that that bread should be flesh Iohn 6. 52. And thirdly that that flesh should be meat indeed John 6. 55. untill at last you cry out with the unbelievers this is a hard saying who can heare it Iohn 6. 60. had this been but a figure certainly Christ would have removed the doubt when he saw them so offended at the reality John 6. 61. He would not have confirmed his saying in terminis with promise of a greater wonder John 6. 62. you may as well deny his incarnation his ascention and ask how could the man come down from heaven and goe up againe if incomprehensibility should be sufficient to occasion such scruples in your breasts and that which is worse then naught you have made our Saviours conclusion an argument against the premises for where our Saviour tels them thus to argue according unto flesh and bloud in these words the flesh profiteth nothing and that if they will be enlivened in their understanding they must have faith to believe it in these words it is the Spirit that quickneth
errour in one thing he is so in another thing and therefore his bare testimony except it have something to support it is not sufficient to rely upon The testimony of the Lord is sure saith David Psal 19. 7. because he can neither deceive nor be deceived But man may and therefore his testimony as his is not sure No Let God be true and every man a lyar saith the Apostle Rom. 3. 4. 2. For a generall Councell why it should necessarily be exempt from Errour I see nothing here alledged by the Marquesse except it be that Acts 15. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us But the inference made from that Councell wherein the Apostles themselves did sit and give sentence to prove that no generall Councell can Erre is no better than if one should argue that a particular Father or Doctor is infallible because a particular Apostle was so in that which he either wrote or preached For we must take heed of entertaining such a thought although the Marquesses words do seem to imply so much as that each particular Apostle might fall into Errour though all of them together could not For how then should we be able to build our faith upon those Scriptures which were composed by particular Apostles and not by a whole Councell of them It 's true as his Majesty observed pag. 50. the Apostles were ignorant and erronious in some things but not in any thing that they delivered unto People to believe and obey either by word or writing for then as I said we could have no certainty of the Scriptures we could not be built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets as Believers are Ephes 2. 20. But that generall Councells may erre Austin made no question Who knowes not saith he that Provinciall and Nationall Councells doe yeild to the authority of Generall Councells and that Generall Councells are often amended the former by the latter that being after found out which before lay hid It is well known that the Romanists reject the authority of the Councels of Constance and Basil two Generall Councels when they determine the Pope to be inferiour and subject to a Generall Councell Indeed generally the Pontificians make little account of a Councel though otherwise never so generall except it be confirmed by the Pope Bellarmine makes it a clear case and without all difficulty that Generall Councells may Erre if the Fathers of the Councell define any thing when as the Legates of the Pope dissent from them or if the Legates themselves do consent but so as to go against the instructions which the Pope gave them And he further holds that in case the Legates had no certain instructions from the Pope the Councell may Erre and that before the Popes Confirmation of it the judgment of a Generall Councell is not infallible The Marquesse himself pag. 55. c. doth seeme to assent unto His Majesty taxing Generall Councells for committing Errours but some passages he hath which to me seeme very strange If saith he we should suppose them to be Generall and free Councels yet they could not be Erronious in any particular mans judgement untill a like Generall Councell should have concluded the former to be Erronious By this Assertion Arrianisme being confirmed by the Councell of Ariminum Athanasius and every particular man should have assented to it untill another Generall Councell had determined against it but this is such a position as I dare say our Romish adversaries themselves will not allow Again If it should be granted saith the Marquesse that the Church had at any time determined amisse the Church cannot be said to have erred because you must not take the particular time for the Catholike Church because the Church is as well Catholike for time as territory except you will make rectification an errour But when our adversaries of Rome speak of the Churches freedome from errour they understand it of the Church representative a generall Councel It is one and the same thing saith Bellarmine that the Church cannot erre in determining matters of faith and that Bishops cannot erre But severally they may erre therefore being gathered together they shall be free from errour So then if a Generall Councell may erre at any one time it is sufficient to overthrow their Tenet that the Church cannot erre That the Church represented in a Generall Councell may after rectifie what before was amisse and that also by the determination of a Generall Councell is so farre from proving that the Church as they take it cannot Erre that on the contrary it proves that it may Erre For though rectification be not errour yet it doth presuppose Errour Again If I recall mine own words saith the Marquesse it is no Errour but an avoidance of Errour So where the same power Rectifies it self though some things formerly have been Decreed amisse yet that cannot render the Decrees of Generall Councels not binding or incident to Errour quoad nos though in themselves pro tempore they may be so I answer it is without all doubt that for one to recall his words being Erronious is no Errour but a correcting of Errour yet this doth clearly shew a man to be subject to Errour And so if the Church at one time in a Generall Councell may Rectifie what at another time in a Generall Councell it had Decreed amisse it evidently appears that the Church in a Generall Councell may Erre For otherwise what need of Rectification were there if there had been no Errour And certainly if the Decrees of Generall Councells be Erronious as the Marquesse denies not but they may be they are not binding Quoad nos we are not bound to assent unto them but rather to dissent from them For we are not bound to embrace Errour but to embrace Truth Prove all things hold fast that which is good saith the Apostle 1 Thes 5. 21. By the Marquesses reason the Decree of the Councell of Ariminum confirming the Heresie of Arrius should for the time have been binding so that neither Athanasius nor any other should have presumed to oppose it or to dissent from it untill another Generall Councell had declared against it As to your Majesties objecting the Errours of the Holy Apostles and Pen-men of the Holy Ghost and your inference thereupon viz. that Truth is no where to be found but in holy Scripture under your Majesties correction I take this to be the greatest argument against the private Spirit urged by your Majesty its leading us into all Truth that could possibly be found out For if such men as they indued with the Holy Ghost innobled with the power of working Miracles so sanctified in their callings and inlightned in their understandings could Erre how can any man lesse qualified assume to himselfe a freedome from Erring by the assistance of a private Spirit 1. His Majesty was farre from thinking that the Apostles as Pen-men of the
Holy Ghost could Erre For then there were no room for that inference That Truth is no where to be found but in Holy Scripture 2. His Majesty spake not of any private Spirit but of the Spirit of God leading us into all Truth alledging that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 2. 12. We have received not the spirit of the world but the spirit which is of God that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God It 's true if any under pretence of the Spirit goe contrary to the Word as too many doe whether they be particular Persons or generall Councells that doe so it is a private Spirit viz. their owne Spirit that they are guided by Therefore Saint Iohn bids Believe not every spirit but trie the spirits whether they be of God because many false Prophets many that falsly pretend the Spirit are gone out into the world 1 Iohn 4. 1. But whoever they be that goe according to the Word though they be particular and private persons yet it is not their own particular and private Spirit but the Spirit of God that doth guide them The Scripture was given by inspiration of God 2 Tim. 3. 16. Therefore it is Gods Spirit and not Mans that doth speak in and by the Scriptures Lastly as to your Majesties quotation of so many Fathers for the Scriptures easinesse and plainnesse to be understand If the Scriptures themselves doe tell us that they are hard to be understood c. 1. His Majesty did not quote many Fathers nor any at all to prove that the Scriptures are every where plain and easie to be understood but to shew that the Scriptures are their own interpreters which are His Majesties words pag. 50. To prove this which is a most certain truth His Majesty quoted indeed many Fathers as Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Crysostome Basil Austine Gregory and Optatus The Scriptures quoted by the Marquesse make nothing against this viz. 2 Pet. 3. 16. Act. 8. 31. not as it is mis-printed 13. Luke 24. 25. rather 45. Apoc. 5. 4. where not the Angel as the Marquesse saith but Iohn wept because none was found worthy to open and to read the Book Neither doth it appear that by the Book there mentioned is meant the Scripture as the Marquesse seemeth to suppose And so indeed many have thought as the Jesuit Ribera telleth us who yet neverthelesse professeth that he did not see how historically this could be For this Book was shut and sealed as he observes untill that time that Iohn had this Revelation when as all the other Apostles were deceived so that the Scripture if it were the Book there spoken of was alwayes shut to Peter and Paul and the other Apostles The other places I grant do shew that in the Scriptures there are some things obscure and difficult at least to some but this is nothing against the Scriptures being their own interpreters What is obscure in one place must be cleared by some other place or else without extraordinary revelation I see not how we should attain to the understanding of it No need therefore to put those sayings of the Fathers cited by His Majesty among the Errata's that are behind their Books as the Marquesse speaketh pag. 57. where he addes Or else we must look out some other meaning of their words than what your Maj hath inferred from thence as thus they were easie in aliquibus locis but not in omnibus locis or thus they were easie as to the attainment of particular salvation but not as to the generall cognizance of all the Divine Mystery therein contained c. But this is nothing contrary to his Majesties inference which was only this That the Scriptures are their own Interpreters i. e. that Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture not that the Scriptures are clear in all points and in all places it sufficeth that which the Marquesse himselfe doth seeme to yeild they are clear in those things which concern Salvation And this was Austines determination In those things saith he which are plainly set down in the Scriptures are found all those things which concern faith and good life Yea so much the Scripture doth testimony of it self The testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple Psal 19. 7. The entrance of thy words giveth light it giveth understanding to the simple Psal 119. 130. From a child thou hast known the Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation c. 2 Tim. 3. 15. First we hold the reall presence you deny it we say his Body is there you say there is nothing but bare Bread we have Scripture for it Mat. 20. for 26. 26. Take eat this is my Body So Luke 22. 19. This is my Body which is given for you Here the Marquesse comes to performe that which before he promised pag. 53 54. viz. to shew that in those points wherein they and we differ the Scriptures are on their side and not on ours And he begins with the controversie about the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper alledging those words This is my Body as a clear proof of their opinion viz. that after Consecration there is no longer the substance of Bread but that the Bread is transubstantiated and turned into the substance of Christs Body But doth it appear that those words This is my Body are to be understood properly any more than those Gen. 17. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee every man-child among you shall be circumcised There Circumcision is called Gods Covenant whereas properly it was not the Covenant it self but the token of the Covenant as it is called immediately after ver 11. So Exod. 12. 13. and in other places the Lamb is called the Lords Passeover whereas properly it was not the Passeover but a Token of the Passeover being slain and eaten in remembrance of the Lords passing over the houses of the Israelites when he saw the First-born of the Aegyptians Exod. 12. 13. And thus also it 's said 1 Cor. 10. 4. that the Rock was Christ How could that be Not in respect of Substance but in respect of Signification the Rock signified Christ was a Type and a Figure of Christ Bellarmine I know doth indeavour to elude all these instances as if the speeches were not Figurative but Proper To that place concerning Circumcision he answereth that both Speeches are proper viz. Circumcision is the Covenant and Circumcision is the Token of the Covenant Circumcision he saith was the Token of the Covenant as the Covenant is taken for Gods Promise and it was also the Covenant it self as the Covenant is taken for the Instrument whereby the Promise is applyed But here Bellarmine is contrary both to himself and to Reason He is contrary to himselfe for a little before he saith that these words Circumcision is the Token
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