John 6. 63. They pervert our Saviours meaning into a contrary sense of their owne imagination viz. the flesh profiteth nothing that is to say Christs body is not in the Sacrament but in the Spirit that quickneth that is to say we must onely believe that Christ dyed for us but not that his body is there as if there were any need of so many inculcations pressures offences mis-believings of and in a thing that were no more but a bare memoriall of a thing being a thing nothing more usuall with the Israelites as the twelve stones which were erected as a sign of the children of Israels passing over Jordan That when your children shall ask their Fathers what is meant thereby then ye shall answer them c. Josh 4. there would not have been so much difficulty in the belief if there had not been more in the mysterie there would not have been so much offence taken at a memorandum nor so much stumbling at a figure The Fathers are of this opinion Saint Ignat. in Ep. ad Smir. Saint Justin Apol 2. ad Antonium Saint Cyprian Ser. 4. de lapsis Saint Ambr. lib. 4. de Sacram. Saint Remigius c. affirme the flesh of Christ to be in the Sacrament and the same flesh which the word of God took in the Virgins wombe Secondly We hold that there is in the Church an infallible rule for understanding of Scripture besides the Scripture it selfe this you deny this we have Scripture for as Rom. 12. 16. we must prophesie according to the rule of faith we are bid to walke according to this rule Gal. 6. 16. we must encrease our faith and preach the Gospel according to this rule 1 Cor. 10. 15. this rule of faith the holy Scriptures call a form of doctrine Romans 6. 17. a thing made ready to our hands 2. Cor. 10. 16. that we may not measure our selves by our selves 2 Cor. 10. 12. the depositions committed to the Churches trust 1 Tim. 6. 20. for avoiding of prophane and vain bablings and oppositions of sciences and by this rule of faith is not meant the holy Scriptures for that cannot do it as the Apostle tells us whilst there are unstable men who wrest this way and that way to their owne destruction but it is the tradition of the Church and her exposition as it is delivered from hand to hand as most plainly appears 2. Tim. 2. 2. viz. The things which thou hast heard of us not received in writing from me or others among many witnesses the same commit thou to faithfull men who shall be able to teach it to others also Of this opinion are the Fathers Saint Irenaeus 4. chap. 45. Tertul de praescr and Vincent lir in suo commentario saith It is very needfull in regard of so many errors proceeding from misinterpretations of Scripture that the line of propheticall and Apostolicall exposition should be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense and saith Tertullian prae script advers haeres chap. 11. We doe not admit our adversaries to dispute out of Scripture till they can shew who their Ancestors were and from whom they received the Scriptures for the ordinary course of Doctrine requires that the first question should be from whom and by whom and to whom the form of Christian Religion was delivered otherwise prescribing against him as a stranger for otherwise if a heathen should come by the Bible as the Eunuch came by the Prophesie of Esay and have no Philip to interpret it unto him he would find out a Religion rather according to his owne fancy then divine verity In matters of faith Christ bids us to observe and doe whatsoever they bid us who sit in Moses seat Mat. 22. 2. therefore surely there is something more to be observed then onely Scripture will you not as well believe what you hear Christ say as what ye hear his Ministers write you hear Christ when you hear them as well as you read Christ when you read his word He that heareth you heareth me Luke 10. 16. We say the Scriptures are not easie to be understood you say they are we have Scripture for it as is before manifested at large the Fathers say as much Saint Irenaeus lib. 2. chap. 47. Origen contr Cels and Saint Ambr. Epist 44. ad Constant calleth the Scripture a Sea and depth of propheticall riddles and Saint Hier. in praefat comment in Ephes and Saint Aug Epist 119. chap. 21. saith The things of holy Scripture which I know not are more then those that I know and Saint Denis Bishop of Corinth cited by Eusebius lib. 7. hist Eccless 20. saith of the Scriptures that the matter thereof was far more profound then his wit could reach We say that this Church cannot erre you say it can we have Scripture for what we say such Scripture that will tell you that fools cannot erre therein Esaiah 35. 8. such Scripture as will tell you if you neglect to hear it you shall be a heathen and a publican Mat. 18. 17. such Scripture as will tell you that this Church shall be unto Christ a glorious Church a Church that shall be without spot or wrinkle Ephesians 5. 27. such a Church as shall be enlivened for ever with his Spirit Isaiah 59. 21. The Fathers affirm the samme Saint Aug contra Crescon lib. 1. cap. 3. Saint Cypr Epist 55. ad Cornel. num 3. Saint Irenaeus lib. 3. chap. 4. Cum multis aliis We say the Church hath been alwaies visible you deny it we have the Scripture for it Mat. 5. 14 15. The light of the world a City upon a hill cannot be hid 2 Cor. 4. 3. Isaiah 22. The Fathers unanimously affirme the same Origen Hom 30. in Math That the Church is full of light even from the East to the West Saint Chrisost Hom 4. in 6. of Isaiah That it is easier for the Sun to be extinguished then the Church to be darkned Saint Aug tract in Joan calls them blind who doe not see so great a mountain and Saint Cypr de Unitate Ecclesiae We held the perpetuall universality of the Church and that the Church of Rome is such a Church you deny it we have Scripture for it Psal 2. 8. Rom. 1. 8. the Fathers affirm as much Saint Cypr ep 57. writing to Cornelius Pope of Rome saith whilst with you there is one mind and one voice the whole Church is confessed to be the Roman Church Saint Aug de unitate Eccles chap. 4. saith who so communicates not with the whole corps of Christendome certaine it is that they are not in the holy Catholike Church Saint Hier. in Apol. ad Ruffin saith that it is all one to say the Roman faith and the Catholick We hold the unity of the Church to be necessary in all points of faith you deny it the severall articles of your Protestant Churches deny it we have Scripture for it Eph. 4. 5. One Lord one Faith one
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
Tertullian and so of Vincentius Tertullians words as he cites them are these wee doe not admit our adversaries to dispute out of Scripture till they can shew who their ancestors were and from whom they received the Scriptures For the ordinary course of Doctrine requires that the first question should be from whom and by whom and to whom the forme of Christian Religion was delivered otherwise prescribing against him as a stranger These words I cannot finde nor any like unto them in the place cited viz. de Praescrip cap. 11. elsewhere indeed in that booke I finde words like unto these though not the same However if wee should be tried by these words I see not how they will conclude against us For though the Heretickes with whom Tertullian had to doe might be convinced otherwise then by Scripture it followes not that therefore this is not the ordinary way whereby to convince Hereticks Thus Christ convinced the Sadduces that denied the Resurrection Mat. 22. 29. c. thus Apollos convinced the Jewes who denied Jesus to be the Christ Acts 18. 28. And thus the Apostles convinced those that urged Circumcision and the observing of the Jewish Law Acts 15. 15. c. And thus both other Fathers and even Tertullian himselfe doth usually dispute against Heretickes and confute them by the Scriptures But saith the Marquesse If a Heathen should come by the Bible as the Eunuch came by the prophecy of Esay and have no Philip to interpret it unto him hee would find out a Religion rather according to his own fancy then Divine verity Be it so yet here is nothing to prove that this Philip that is to interpret the Bible is not to fetch his interpretation from the Bible it selfe but from some unwritten tradition I come to Vincentius Lirinensis whose words produced by the Marquesse run thus It is very needfull in regard of so many errors proceeding from mis-interpretations of Scriptures that the line of propheticall and Apostolicall exposition should be directed according to the rule of the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense But I see not that in the opinion of Vincentius the rule of the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense is any other then the Scripture He insists much I am sure upon those words of the Apostle If wee or an Angell from heaven preach any other Gospell unto you then that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed Gal. 1. 8. Now as was noted before out of Irenaeus the Gospell which the Apostles preached they delivered unto us in the Scriptures and that is the foundation and pillar of our Faith Indeed all that Vincentius in his Commonitory against Heresies aimes at is this That the Faith once delivered to the Saints as Saint Iude speaks might be preserved To which end he descants well upon those words of the Apostle O Timothy keep that which is committed to thy trust 1 Tim. 6. 20. That which is committed to thee not that which is invented by thee that which thou hast received not that which thou hast devised a matter nōt of wit but of doctrine not of private usurpation but of publick tradition a thing brought unto thee not brought forth by thee in which thou art not to be an author but a keeper not an ordainer but an observer not a leader but a follower That this Depositum or thing committed to Timothy was any unwritten Tradition and not the doctrine of the Gospell contained in the Scripture neither doth Vincentius say neither can it be proved Bellarmine himself is forced to confesse That all things necessary for all are written by the Apostles Yea and that those things which have the testimony of Tradition he means unwritten tradition received in the whole Church are not usually such as concern most obscure questions And how then should such Tradition be the Rule of Faith and of Expounding the Scriptures The Marquesse saith that in matters of Faith Christ bids us to observe and doe whatsoever they bid us who sit in Moses Seat Mat. 23. 2 3. whence he infers Therefore surely there is something more to be observed then onely Scripture Will you not as well believe what you hear Christ say as what you hear his Ministers write You hear Christ when you hear them as well as you read Christ when you read his Word He that heareth you heareth me Luk. 10. 16. Thus the Marquesse but it was from our Saviours meaning that the people should doe simply and absolutely whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees who sate in Moses Seat should enjoyn Our Saviour meant nothing lesse for expresly he bade beware of the leaven of the Pharisees Mat. 16. 6. that is of the Doctrine of the Pharisees v. 12. Our Saviours meaning therefore was only this that whiles the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses Seat did deliver the Law and Doctrine of Moses people should hear and obey though otherwise they were most corrupt both in life Doctrine The Jesuite Maldonate doth thus expound the place as indeed it cannot with any probability be otherwise expounded When Christ saith he bids observe and doe what the Scribes and Pharisees say whiles they sit in Moses seat he speaks not of their Doctrine but of the Doctrine of the Law and of Moses For it is as if he should say All things that the Law and Moses shall say unto you the Scribes and Pharisees rehearsing it observe and do but after their workes doe not It 's true Christ doth tells us that they that hear his Ministers hear him but that is when they speak as his Ministers when they speak his Word not their owne As God said to the Prophet Ezekiel Thou shalt speak my Words unto them Ezek. 2. 7. And to the Prophet Ieremy Speak unto them all that I command thee Ier. 1. 17. And so Christ to his Apostles Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you Mat. 28. 20. So then we hear Christ indeed when we hear his Word spoken by his Ministers as well as we read Christ when we read his Word written in the Scriptures But that which we hear must be tried by that which we read that which is spoken by Ministers by that which is written in the Scriptures as hath been shewed before by Isai 8. 20. Ioh. 5. 39. Act. 17. 11. We say saith the Marquesse the Scriptures are not easie to be understood you say they are we have Scripture for it as is before manifested at large The Fathers say as much c. We doe not say that the Scriptures throughout in every part of them are easie to be understood but that they are so in things necessary unto Salvation This hath been shewed before by the testimony both of the Scripture it self and of Austine as likewise that the places of Scripture objected by the Marquesse doe make nothing against the easinesse of the Scripture either at all or at least in this sense Neither are the
no merit of his own but meerly Gods mercy And this was it that Nehemiah did flie unto even when hee recorded the good that hee had done Remember me O Lord said hee concerning this and what reward mee according to the greatnesse of my merit no but spare mee according to the greatnesse of thy mercy Neh. 13. 22. Bernard to this purpose againe It is enough unto merit to know that merits are not sufficient The Romish Doctrine of merits die not please Ferus a late member of that Church If thou wouldest keepe saith hee the grace and favour of God make no mention of thy Merits for God will give all things out of mercy Bellarmine himselfe though hee disputed eagerly for Merits yet it seemes durst not rely on them confessing as was shewed before that it is the safest course to put our whole trust meerely in Gods Mercy But the Marquesse saith that the Fathers were of their opinion citing Ambr. de apol David cap. 6. Hieron lib. 3. contra Pelag. Aug. de Spir. lit cap. ult And first for Ambrose in the place cited it 's true hee speakes merits but here wee must remember what one of their owne writers doth tell us namely Estius that the ancient Divines did often use the word Merit very largely and not properly And thus did Ambrose use the word saying Habet quis bona Merita one hath good Merits that is good workes which hee calles Merits because they doe impetrate or obtaine a reward though not properly merit it the ancients as Estius observes using merit for impetration But that Ambrose there did not make good workes to be truly and properly meritorious appeares by the words immediately following habet vitia atque peccata hee hath also vices and sins Now surely those good workes which have vices and sinnes mixed with them cannot be properly meritorious in that case there is great need to crave mercy but no cause to plead merit For Hierome lib. 3. contra Pelag. I finde nothing at all that doth so much as seeme to assert merits except perhaps those words here in this life is labour and striving there in the life to come is the reward of labour and vertue But reward doth not alwayes presuppose merit as I have shewed before Mercy I am sure and merit are inconsistent and Hierome in that very Book which the Marquesse citeth plainly testifieth that there is no man whose workes are so good and his obedience so perfect but that still hee hath need of Gods mercy And hee taxeth his adversarie Pelagius I thinke as proud and Pharisaicall for saying that he doth worthily lift up his hands to God and doth pray with a good conscience who can say Thou O Lord knowest how holy how innocent how pure from all fraud injury and rapine the hands are that I spread forth unto thee how just immaculate and free from all lying the lips are with which I powre forth prayers unto thee that thou mayest have mercy on mee Hee tells him that David sung another Song saying My wounds stinke and are corrupt because of my foolishnesse Psal 38. 5. Enter not into judgement with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal 143. 2. And that Esay lamented saying Woe is mee for I am undone because I am a man of uncleane lips c. Isal 6. 5. And hee askes him how after all this swelling and boasting of himselfe after all this confidence of his holinesse hee could pretend to desire Gods mercy For if hee were so holy and innocent so pure and perfect then he had no neede to pray in that manner viz. that God should have mercy on him This and more to this purpose hath Hierome in the place alledged but whether this be for Merits or against them is easie to judge Neither hath Austine in the place which the Marquesse citeth any thing that I can see to prove good workes meritorious but something to prove the contrary For having cited many places of Scripture which shew that none is so righteous as to be without sinne hee saith Hence it followeth that it is necessary for every one to forgive that hee may bee forgiven and if hee have any righteousnesse not to presume that he hath it of his own but to ascribe it to Gods grace and still to hunger and thirst for righteousness from God who doth so work in his Saints whiles they are in this life as that hee hath still something to adde to them that aske and to pardon them that confesse For that none living in this mortall body can be found so holy but that still hee hath neede of pardon And elsewhere he saith God doth crowne his own gifts not thy merits The Marquesse goes on saying we hold that Faith once had may be lost if wee 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 heare 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 away have made shipwracks of their Faith Answ We doe not hold that Faith cannot be lost though a man have no care to preserve it but that God will worke such a care in those in whom hee hath wrought true justifying Faith that they shall never lose it I will put my feare saith hee in their hearts that they shall not depart from me Jer. 32. 40. Christ prayed for Peter that his faith might not faile Luke 22. 32. And so he prayed both for him and others even for all that belong unto him I pray for them saith he I pray not for the World but for them which thou hast given me for they are thine Joh. 17. 9. And vers 11. Holy Father keepe through thine own name those whom thou hast given mee So the Apostle telleth us that whom God did predestinate them hee also called viz. according to his purpose vers 28. and whom hee called them hee also justified and whom hee justified them hee also glorified Rom. 8. 30. This clearly shewes that all that are once justified shall certainly be glorified and consequently that justifying faith once had cannot be quite lost Againe They that truly believe are the sons of God Gal. 3. 26. Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever but the son abideth ever Joh. 8. 35. Therefore true Faith cannot be lost the children of God cannot fall away And to this doe the Fathers accord Cyprian is much to this purpose The strength of such as are truly faithfull doth remaine unmoveable and the integrity of those that feare God and love him with the whole heart doth continue stable and strong And again The Lord who is the protectour and defender of his people doth not suffer wheat to be taken away out of his floore onely chaffe
of God an house not made with hands eternall in the Heavens And v. 6 7 8. Therefore we are alwayes confident knowing that whiles we are here in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walke by faith and not by sight We are confident I say and willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. And that Phil. 1. 21. To me to live is Christ and to die is gaine And that 2 Tim. 4. 18. The Lord shall deliver me from every evill work and will preserve me to his Heavenly Kingdom And in the same Chapter v. 6 7 8. I am now ready to be offered and my departure is at hand I have fought a good fight I have finished my course I have kept the faith henceforth is laid up for me the crown of righteousnesse c. So also S. Peter Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ who according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us againe unto a lively hope through the Resurrection of Iesus Christ from the dead unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that fadeth not away reserved in Heaven for us 1 Pet. 1. 3 4. This hope which believers have or may have of salvation is a lively hope it is a hope that maketh not ashamed Rom. 5. 5. because they are sure to obtaine that which they hope for and shall not be disappointed of it Hence it is also that believers rejoyce with joy unspeakable and full of glory 1 Pet. 1. 8. because they know they shall receive the end of their faith even the salvation of their soules v. 9. Wee have also Fathers to testifie this truth There flourisheth with us saith Cyprian the strength of hope and the firmness of faith and amongst the very ruines of the decaying world the minde is raised up and virtue is unmoveable and patience is ever joyfull and the soule is alwayes secure and confident of her God And immediatly hee confirmes this by that of the Prophet Habakkuk Although the fig-three shall not blossome c. yet I will rejoyce in the Lord I will joy in the God of my salvation Hab. 3. 17 18. So againe the same Father what place is there here for anxiety and carefulnesse who in the midst of these things can be fearfull and sad except he want hope and faith It is for him to fear death that would not go unto Christ it is for him to be unwilling to go to Christ that doth not believe that he doth begin to reigne with Christ For it is written The just shall live by faith If thou beest just and doest live by faith if thou doest truly believe in God seeing thou shalt be with Christ and art sure of Gods promise why doest thou not embrace this that thou art called unto Christ and art glad that thou art freed from the Devill God doth promise immortality and eternity to those that depart out of this life and thou doubtest this is not at all to know God this is to offend Christ the Lord and Master of Believers with the sinne of unbeliefe this is to be in the Church the house of faith and yet to have no faith Here we see how earnest Cyprian is to prove that Christians may yea ought to be confident against the feare of death and that because they may and ought to be assured of the life to come Thus also Austine I believe saith hee him that promiseth The Saviour speaketh the truth promiseth he hath said unto me He that heareth my words and believeth him that sent me hath eternall life and is passed from death to life and shall not come into condemnation I have heard the words of my Lord I have believed Now whereas I was an unbeliever I am made a Believer as he hath said I am passed from death to life I come not into condemnation not by my presumption but by his promise To this purposes also Bernard The Sun of Righteousnesse arising saith hee the mystery concerning the predestinate and those that shall be made blessed which was so long hid beginnes after a sort to come up out of the depth of eternity whiles every one being called by feare and justified by love that is by Faith working through love as hee said a little before doth assure himselfe that he is of the number of the blessed Knowing that whom he hath justified them he hath also glorified For why Hee heares that he is called when he is moved with feare he perceives that he is justified when he is filled with love and shall he doubt of his being glorified And againe Thou hast O man saith hee the justifying spirit a revealer of this secret and so testifying unto thy spirit that thou also art the Son of God Acknowledge the counsell of God in thy justification For thy present justification is both a revelation of Gods Counsell and also a certaine preparation unto future glory Or truly predestination it selfe is rather a preparation and justification is rather an appropinquation unto it And againe Who is righteous but he that doth requite Gods love with love againe which is not done but when the spirit by Faith doth reveale unto a man Gods eternall purpose concerning his future salvation Which revelation surely is no other thing but the infusion of spirituall grace by which the deeds of the flesh are mortified and so a man is prepared for that Kingdome which flesh and blood do not possesse receiving together by one spirit both this that he is assured that he is loved and also this that hee doth love againe that so he may not be ungratefull to him of whom he is loved Thus both Scriptures and Fathers testifie that Christians may be assured of their salvation And that this assurance may be had may be proved also by all that hath beene said before concerning the stability of Faith once had and the certainty of persevering in the estate of grace if a man be once in it For hence it followeth that if a man can be assured that hee is in the estate of Grace hee may also be assured of his salvation Now that he may be assured of his being in the state of grace some of the Romish Church and that since Luthers time have maintained as namely Catharinus and the Author of the Booke called Enchiridium Coloniense both which are mentioned in this respect by Bellarmine And because the Councell of Trent Sess 6. c. 9. doth seeme to determine the contrary therefore Eisingrenius hath written a whole booke to shew that the determination of the Councell is not indeed against this that a man may be assured that he hath true grace in him The booke I have seene and read many yeeres agoe though now I have it not And I remember he holds that a man may be as sure that hee hath true grace and that his sinnes are forgiven as hee is sure that twice two make
Saint Chrysostom saith Omnia clara sunt plana ex scriptur is divinis quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt yet no man ever hath yet defined what are necessary and what not What points are fundamentall and what are not fundamentall Necessary to Salvation is one thing and necessary for knowledge as an improvement of our faith is another thing for the first if a man keeps the Commandments and believes all the Articles of the Creed he may be saved though he never read a word of Scripture but much more assuredly if he meditates upon Gods word with the Psalmist day and night But if he meanes to walk by the rule of Gods word and to search the Scriptures he must lay hold upon the meanes that God hath ordained whereby he may attaine unto the true understanding of them for as Saint Paul saith God hath placed in the Church Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Doctors to the end we should be no more little children blown about with every wind of Doctrine therefore it is not for babes in understanding to take upon them to understand those things wherein so great a Prophet as the Prophet David confessed the darknesse of his owne ignorance And though it be true the Scripture is a river through which a lambe may wade and an Elephant may swim yet it is to be supposed and understood that the lambe must wade but onely through where the river is foordable It doth not suppose the river to be all alike in depth for such a river was never heard of but there may be places in the river where the lambe may swim as well as the Elephant otherwise it is impossible that an Elephant should swim in the same depth where a lambe may wade though in the same river he may neither is it the meaning of that place that the child of God may wade through the Scripture without directions help or Judges but that the meannest capacitie qualified with a harmelesse innocence and desirous to wade through that river of living waters to eternall life may find so much of Comfort and heavenly knowledge there easily to be obtained that he may easily wade through to his eternall Salvation and that there are also places in the same river wherein the highest speculations may plunge themselves in the deep mysteries of God Wherefore with pardon crav'd for my presumption in holding Your Majestie in so tedious a discourse as also for my boldnesse in obtruding my opinion which is except as incomparable Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall pollicy hath well observed the Churches Authority be required herein as necessary hereunto we shall be so far from agreeing upon the true meaning of the Scripture that the outward letter sealed with the inward witnesse of the Spirit being all hereticks have quoted Scripture and pretended Spirit will not be a warrant sufficient enough for any private man to judge so much as the Scripture to be Scripture or the Gospell it selfe to be the Gospell of Christ This Church being found out and her Authority allowed of all controversies would be soone decided and although we allow the Scripture to be the lock upon the door which is Christ yet we must allow the Church to be the Key that must open it as Saint Ambrose in his 38. Sermons calls the agreement of the Apostles in the Articles of our beliefe Clavis Scripturae one of whose Articles is I believe the holy Catholick Church As the Lion wants neither strength nor courage nor power nor weapons to seize upon his prey yet he wants a nose to find it out wherefore by naturall instinct he takes to his assistance the little Jack-call a quick sented beast who runs before the Lion and having found out the prey in his language gives the Lion notice of it who soberly untill such time as he fixes his eyes upon the bootie makes his advance but once comming within view of it with a more speed then the swiftest running can make he jumps upon it and seizes it Now to apply this to our purpose Christ crucified is the main substance of the Gospell according to the Apostles saying I desire to know nothing but Iesus and him crucified This crucified Christ is the nourishment of our soules according to our Saviours own words Ubi Cadaver ibi aquilae Thereby drawing his Disciples from the curious speculation of his body glorified to the profitable meditation of his body crucified It is the prey of the Elect the dead Carkasse feedeth the Eagles Christ crucified nourisheth his Saints according to Saint Iohns saying except we eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud we have no life in us him we must mastigate and chew by faith traject and convey him into our hearts as nutriment by meditation and digest him by Coalition whereby we grow one with Christ and Christ becomes one with us according to that saying of Tertullian Auditu devorandus est intellectu ruminandus fide digerendus Now for the true understanding of the Scriptures which is no other thing then the finding out of Iesus and him crucified who is the very life of the Scriptures which body of Divinity is nourished with no other food and all its veines fil'd with no other bloud though this heavenly food the Scripture have neither force nor power to seize upon its prey but is endued with a lively spirit able to overcome the greatest ignorance yet there is a quick sented assistant called Ecclesia or Church which is derived from a verbe which signifies to call which must be the Jack-call to which this powerfull seeker after this prey must joyne it selfe or else it will never be able to find it out and when we are called we must go soberly to work untill by this means we have attained unto the true understanding and sight thereof and then let the Lion like the Eagle Maher-shalal hashbaz as the Prophet Esay cap. 8. v. 3. tells us make hast to the prey make speed to the spoile Saint Paul confirmes the use of this Etymologie writing to the Corinthians viz. To the Saints called and the Ephesians cap. 4. he tells us if ye would be in one body and in one spirit and of one mind you must be as you are called in our hope of your vocation and in his Epistle of the Colossians cap. 3. he tells us that if we will have the peace of Christ to rule in our hearts that is it by which we are called in one selfe body where we must allow a constitution or Society of men called to that purpose and whose calling it is to procure unto us this peace and unitie in the Church or we shall never find it Thus when dissention arose between Paul and Barnabas concerning Circumcision their disputations could effect nothing but heat untill the Apostles and Elders met together and determined the matter there must be a society of men that can say Bene visum fuit nobis Spiritui sancto or
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
Dippers Shakers Adamists Luther complaining of seven Sects risen in two years And we of new Sects rising every day If we should consider the severall species of Independency how it hath brought Religion to nothing but Confusion we would conclude with Saint Angustine That it is necessary that rent and divided into small pieces we perish who have preferred the swelling pride of our haughty Stomacks before the most holy band of Catholick peace and Unity Whilst the Catholicks have no jars undecided no differences uncomposed having one common Father one Conductor and Adviser as Sir Edward Sands confesseth None contend about the Scripture all Consent and Credit the Fathers adhere to the Councels submit to the holy Sea of Rome And the Divisions that are are but humane dissentions as is confessed by Luther Beza Whitaker Fulk c. Thus Religion being at Unity with it selfe is the true Speculum Creatoris or looking glasse of the Creatour wherein the full proportion of a Deity may be seen but once broken into pieces it may represent divers faces but no true proportion and loseth at once both its value and its virtue I have thus presented Your Majesty with a view of the Cotholick Religion asserted by the Fathers and the Protestant Religion asserted by their founders I shall humbly desire Your Majesties further patience that Your Majestie will be pleased to consider the lives and Conversations of the one and of the other First the rare Sanctity and admired holinesse which all ages and writers have ascribed unto these holy Fathers And the strange and unheard of blasphemies vilenesse and wickednesse that are cast upon the other not by any of their Adversaries but by themselves upon one another If these testimonies had been by any of our side I could not have expected credit but being by Protestants themselves I cannot see how it should be denied Luther confesseth saith the learned Protestant Hospinian that he was taught by the devil that the Masse was naught and overcome with the devils reasons he abolisht it The same confessed by himselfe I ingeniously confesse saith Luther that I cannot henceforth place Zwinglius in the number of Christians and further he affirmes that he had lost whole Christ Zwinglius saith Schlusselburg after the manner of all Hereticks was stricken with the spirit of giddinesse and blindnesse deriving it from the etimologie of his name in dutch von dem Schwindel Gualterus calls Zwinglius the Author of War the disturber of peace proud and cruell and instances in his strange attempt against the Tygurines his fellows whom he forced by want and famine to follow his doctrine and that he dyed in armor and in the Warre And Luther saith he dyed like a thiefe because he would compell others to his error And he saith further that he denyed Christ and is damn'd He tells us also that the devill or the devills dam used to appeare to Carolose and taught him the exposition of this is my body As also that he possessed him corporally and that he was possessed with more devils then one Neither would he have any man wonder that he calls him devill for he saith he hath nothing to doe with him but has onely relation to him by whom he is obsest who speaks by him The last apparition of the devill to him which was three dayes before his death is recorded by Albert. If you look into Bezas Epigrams printed at Paris An. 1548. you will find pretty passages concerning his boy Andebers and his wench Candida and the businesse debated at large concerning which sin is to be preferr'd and his chusing the boy at last Sclusselberg said that Peter Martyr was a heretick and dyed so Nicolaus Selneverus said that Oecolampadius in his doctrine built upon the sand And Saith Luther Emser and Oecolampadius and such like were hiddenly slain by those horrible blowes and shakings of the devill Simlerus saith that Brentius Miricus and Andrew Musculus in their writings did nothing else but make way for the devill Luther saith Calvin was infected with many vices I would he had been more carefull in correcting his vices God for the sin of pride wherewith Luther exalted himself took away his true spirit We have found saith Oecalompadius in the faith and confession of Luthers 12. Articles whereof some are more vaine then is fitting some lesse faithfull and over-guilefully expounded others again are false and reprobate but some there are which plainly dissent from the Word of God and the Articles of Christian faith Thou O Luther saith Zwinglius corruptest and adulterest the Scriptures imitating therein the Marcionists and the Arians In translating and expounding of Scripture Luthers errors are many and manifest Zwinglius tells us that Luther affirms sometimes this and sometimes that of one and the same thing that he is never at one with himself taxing him with inconstancy and lightnesse in the word of God That he cares not what he saith though he be found contradicting the Oracles of God As sure as God is God so sure and devilish a lyer is Luther Luthers writings containe nothing but railing and reproaches insomuch that it maketh the Protestant Religion suspected and hated He calls an anointed King Hen. 8. of England a furious dolt indued with an impudent and whorish face without a vein of princely bloud in his whole body a lying Sophist a damnable rotten worm a basilisk the progeny of an Adder scurrilous lyer covered with a title of a King a clown a block-head foolish wicked and impudent Henry and saies that he lies like a scurrilous knave and thou liest in thy throat foolish and sacrilegious King Nor did he lesse raile at other Princes as at the Duke of Brunswick in his Booke called Wider hans worst written purposely against him as also against the Bishop of Mentz one of the Princes Electors And against the Princes of Germany No marvaile that he saith that he had eaten a peck or two of Salt with the Devill and that he knew the Devill very well and that the Devill knew him againe No marvaile that he confessed of himselfe that the Devill sometimes passed through his brains No marvaile that he said the Devill did more frequently sleep with him and cling to him closer then his Catharine No marvaile that he said that the Devil walked with him in his bed chamber and that he had one or two wonderfull Devils by whom he was diligently and carefully served and they no smal Devils but great ones yea Doctors of divinity amongst the Devils No marvaile that his fellow Prot. could wonder how marvelously he bewrayed himselfe with his Devils and that he could use such filthy words so replenished with all the Devils in Hell No marvaile that they said that never any man writ more
Ceremonies and of Apostolicall tradition She held then besides Batisme and the Eucharist Confirmation Marriage Orders and extream Unction for true and proper Sacraments which the Church of Rome now acknowledgeth The Church in the Ceremonies of Baptisme used then oyl salt wax-lights exorcismes the signe of the Cross the word Ephata and other that accompany it none of them without reason and excellent signification The Church held then Baptisme for infants of absolute necessity and for this cause then permitted lay men to baptise in danger of death the Church used then holy water consecrated by certain words and Ceremonies and made use of it both for Baptisme and against inchantments and to make exorcismes and conjurations against evill spirits The Church held then divers degrees in the Ecclesiasticall Regiment to wit Bishops Priests Deacons Subdeacons the Acolite Exorcist Reader and Porter consesecrated and blessed them with divers Forms and Ceremonies And in the Episcopall Order acknowledged divers seats of Jurisdiction of positive right to wit Archbishops Primates Patriarchs and one Supereminent by Divine law which was the Pope without whom nothing could be decided appertaining to the universall Church and the want of whose presence either by himselfe or his Legats or his Confirmation made all Councels pretended to be universall unlawfull In the Church then the service was said throughout the East in Greek and throughout the West as well in Africa as in Europe in Latin although that in none of the provinces except in Italy and the Cities where the Romane Colonies resided the Latine tongue was understood by the common people She observed then the distinction of feasts and ordinary dayes the Distinction of Ecclesiasticall and lay habits the reverence of sacred vessels the custome of shaming and unction for the collation of orders the Ceremony of the Priest washing his hands at the Altar before the consecration of the Mysteries She then pronounced a part of the service at the Altar with a low voice made processions with the reliques of Martyrs kissed them carried them in clothes of silke and vessels of gold took and esteemed the dust from under their reliquaries accompanied the dead to their sepulchres with wax tapers in sign of joy for the certainty of their future resurrection The Church then had the picture of Christ and of his Saints both out of Churches and in them and upon the very Altars not to adore them with God like worship but by them to reverence the Souldiers and Champions of Christ The faithfull then used the sign of the Crosse in all their Conversations painted it on the portal of all the houses of the faithfull gave their blessing to the people with their hand by the signe of the Crosse imployed it to drive away evill spirits proposed in Jerusalem the very Crosse to be adored on good Friday Finally the Church held then that to the Catholick Church onely belongs the keeping of the Apostolicall tradition the Authority of interpretation of Scripture and the decision of Controversies of faith and that out of the succession of her communion of her Doctrine and her ministery there was neither Church nor Salvation Neither will I insist with you onely upon the word then but before and before and before that even to the first age of all will I shew you our doctrine of the reall presence and holy Sacrifice of the Masse Invocation of Saints Veneration of Reliques and Images Confession and Priestly absolution Purgatory and prayer for the dead Traditions c. In the fift Age or hundred of years Saint Augustine was for the reall and corporall presence In the fourth Age Saint Ambrose In the third Age Saint Cyprian In the second Age or hundred of years S. Irenaeus And in the first Age Saint Ignatius Martyr and Disciple of Saint John the Evangelist Concerning the honour and invocation of Saints In the fifth Age we find Saint Augustine praying to the Virgin Mary ond other Saints In the fourth Age we find Greg. Naz. praying to S. Basil the great In the third Age we find S. Origen praying to Father Abraham In the second Age Justin Martyr And in the first age in the Liturgy of S. James the lesse For the use and veneration of holy Reliques and Images and chiefly of the Holy Crosse in the fifth age Saint Augustine In the fourth Age Athanasius In the third Age Origen In the second Age St. Justin Martyr And in the first Age S. Ignatius Concerning Confession and Absolutions In the fifth Age S. August In the fourth Age S. Basil the Great In the third Age S. Cypr. In the second Age Tertull. And in the first Age S. Clement Now concerning Purgatory and Prayer for the dead in the fifth Age S. Augustin In the fourth Age S. Ambrose In the third Age S. Cypr. In the second Age Tertull. And in the first Age S. Clement e. Concerning Traditions in the fifth Age S. Aug. In the fourth Age S. Basil In the third Age S. Epiphanins In the second Age S. Irenaeus And in the first Age S. Dennis Now suppose that all these quotations be right The saving of a soul of your own soul of the soul of a King of the souls of so many Kingdoms and the gaining of that Kingdome for a reward which in comparison of these Earthly ones for which you so often fight so much strive and labour so much for to obtain your tetrarchate would be a gain for you to lose it so that you might but obtain that would be worth the search and when you have found them to be truly cited I dare trust your judgement that it will tell you that we have not changed our Countenance nor fled our Colours nor fallen away nor altered our Religion nor forsaken our first Love nor denyed our Principles nor brought Novelties into the Church but that we doe antiquum obtinere whereby we should be forsaken of you for forsaking our selves but rather that we should win you unto us by being still the same we were when we won you first unto us and were at the beginning And is it for the honour of the English Nation famous for the first Christian King and the first Christian Emperour to forsake her Mother Church so renowned for antiquity and to annex their Religion as a codicell to an appeal of a company of Protesters against a decree at Spira and to forsake so glorious a name as Catholick and to take a name upon them wherein they had neither right nor interest and then to take measure of the Scottish Discipline for the new fashion of their souls and to
those times saith that mountains and woods and lakes and Prisons and deep pits were more safe then Churches and publick places of Gods worship these being all possessed by the Arrians and the true beleeving Christians having onely the other to lurke and lie hid in How visible also was the Church like to be when that should be fulfilled which is written Revel 13. 15 16 17. that as many as would not worship the Beast should be killed And that all both great and small should be forced to receive a marke in their right hand or in their foreheads And that none should buy or sell save he that had the marke or the name of the Beast or the number of his name Bellarmine himselfe saith It is certaine that the persecution by Antichrist shall be most grievous and most notorious so that all publick ceremonies of Religion and Sacrifices shall cease And againe that in the time of Antichrist the publike service of the Church shall cease through the grievousnesse of persecution and that Antichrist shall interdict all divine worship c. 4. For Succession of Pastours which the Marquesse saith is required in a true Church and is onely to be found in the Church of Rome We must distinguish of Succession There is a succession of Persons and a succession of Doctrine the former succession without the latter is to no purpose The Priests that condemned Christ had a personal succession but that was worth nothing they wanting doctrinall succession They did personally succeed those that were before them and they others and so on till they came to Aaron but they could not shew the like succession of their doctrine So neither can they of the Church of Rome shew that they hold the same faith which was delivered by the Apostles and therefore though they can shew that their Popes doe personally succeed one another from the very times of the Apostles it availes nothing Bellarmine though he struggle a little about it yet cannot deny but that a succession of persons is to be found is the Greek Church and therefore grants that it doth not necessarily follow that where such succession is there is also a true Church Yea he saith that all those Patriarchall Churches had for a long time Bishops that were manifest Heretiques and that therefore the succession of ancient Pastours was interrupted What is this else but to confesse that a succession of Pastours without a succession of the true doctrine is no mark of a true Church The ancient Doctors of the Church t is true have sometimes used this argument drawne from succession to convince Heretiques but so as to shew that a succession of doctrine did concur with a succession of persons Yea they plainly shew that it was succession of doctrine which they did stand upon and that without this they made no account of the other We must adhere unto those saith Ireneus who keep the doctrine of the Apostles This succession of doctrine he calls the principall succession So Ambrose They doe not succeed Peter who have not the faith of Peter And Tertullian speaking of Heretiques saith Their doctrine being compared with the Apostles doctrine shewes that it was not received from the Apostles nor from any Apostolicall teachers And speaking of Churches planted since the Apostles times he saith That they agreeing in the same faith are neverthelesse accounted Apostolicall for the consanguinity of doctrine 5. For Unity in doctrine by which the Marquesse proves the Roman Church to be the true Church I answer that Unity without Verity will not prove it and the one is not alwayes necessarily accompanyed with the other The words of the Prophets declare good unto the King with one mouth said the messenger to Micaiah 1 King 22. 13. They were about foure hundred Prophets ver 6. and all of them did agree in one yet they prophecyed falsly for all that there was a lying spirit in the mouth of all those Prophets how unanimous soever they were ver 22. Neither is there such unity in the Church of Rome as is pretended The difference betwixt the Dominicans and the Jesuits about Gods decrees the concurrence of his grace and the determination of mans will this difference I say betwixt them is as great and as important as any I think that is amongst Protestants Neither doth it suffice to say as the Marquesse doth that the Church hath not determined any thing in these points and therefore such difference about them is not against the Churches unity For if the Popes authority be so great and his judgement so infallible as they pretend why hath he not decided the controversie and so put an end to the difference long ere this Besides which the Marquesse took no notice of they of the Romane Church differ much about the very head of it the Pope himselfe For some will have him to be above a generall councell others hold the councell to be above the Pope and this also was the determination both of the councell of Constance and of the councell of Basill Finally I grant that unity in the truth is much to be desired and so much the places cited by the Marquesse doe prove viz. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Eph. 4. 3. Acts 2. 42. Phil. 1. 27. 2. 2. yet we see that the Apostle doth acknowledge the Church of Corinth a true Church notwithstanding the differences and divisions that were in it so that all dis-union of people is not enough to dischurch them Neither if the confessions of the reformed Churches be considered as they ought to be wil the differences that are among them however particular persons be exorbitant be found so many and so great though too many and too great I grant as our adversaries of Rome would make them 6. And lastly for the conversion of Nations which the Marquesse also will have to be a marke of the true Church and thereby prove that the Church of Rome is it and not the Church of Protestants I answer that the Scriptures which hee alledgeth viz. Esay 49. 23. and 60. 16. and Psal 2. 8. doe shew indeed that in the time of the Gospell the Gentiles should be converted and joyned to the Church which the Scripture of the New Testament and experience also shewes to have been accomplished But they doe not shew either that every true Church must necessarily evidence it selfe to be a true Church by working a conversion in infidels or that every Church that doth worke any conversion in that kind must therefore be acknowledged to be a true Church The Scribes and Pharisees did make Proselytes and were very zealous in it yet neverthelesse were guilty of grosse errors which all were to beware of as most pernicious Mat. 23. 15. Besides there is a conversion as from unbeliefe to faith so from misbeliefe to a right and found faith And though Protestants have done little or nothing it may be in the former kinde of
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
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.
as Iansenius not to name other of the Marquesses own party hath unanswerably proved Christ in Iohn 6. did not treat of the Sacrament but onely of the spirituall eating of his Flesh and the spirituall drinking of his Blood by faith 2. The words of our Saviour Iohn 6. if they must prove any transubstantiation at all will sooner prove the transubstantiation of Christs body into Bread then the transubstantiation of Bread into Christs body I am the Bread of life saith he Iohn 6. 35. 48. I am the living Bread c. ver 51. My flesh is meat indeed c. ver 55. If these sayings bee taken properly and without a figure they will prove a conversion not of Bread into the body of Christ but of the Body of Christ into Bread And the argument that Bradwardine useth against the Idols of the Pagans is by full proportion of as much force against our adversaries transubstantiation Perhaps saith he it is answered that a materiall Idoll after consecration rightly performed is transubstantiated and turned into God This conversion viz. of the Idoll into God is refelled because it appears to every sense all experience bearing witnesse that there is the same materiall Idoll that was before Therefore if there be any conversion made it seemes rather that God is converted into the Idoll then that the Idoll is converted into God This argument I say doth as strongly militate against the opinion of the Romanists concerning the reall presence For it no lesse appears to every sense all experience bearing witnesse that there 's the same materiall Bread that was before Therefore if there be any conversion made it seemes rather that Christs Body is converted into the Bread then that the Bread is converted into Christs Body The Marquesse saith that we with the Iewes and Infidells say How can this man give us his flesh to eate Ioh. 6. 52. But we say no such thing How should wee if wee believe Christ saying except yee eate the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his Blood you have no life in you vers 53. We know and acknowledge that we must eate the flesh of Christ but yet spiritually not as those unbelieving Iewes imagined being therein more like unto our Adversaries carnally For so our Adversaries hold that the wicked may eate the flesh of Christ and yet be never the better but receive it to their condemnation whereas the eating of Christs Flesh spoken of Ioh. 6. is a thing that doth accompany salvation Who so eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternall life c. v. 54. But saith the Marquesse Had this been but a figure certainly Christ would have removed the doubt when he saw them so offended at the reality Joh. 6. 61. He would not have confirmed his saying in terminis with promise of a greater wonder Joh. 6. 62. You may as well deny his Incarnation his Ascension and aske How could the man come down from Heaven and goe up againe I answer 1. A figure viz. in speech is not properly opposed to reality but to propriety The spirituall eating of Christs Flesh is a reall yet not a proper but a figurative a metaphoricall eating of it when Christ saith I am the true Vine Joh. 15. 1. there is a reality implied as well as when he saith My flesh is meate indeed Joh. 6. 55. yet no Romanist I presume but will grant that Christ is a Vine not properly but figuratively so called True Vine that is excellent incorruptible and spirituall Vine as Iansenius out of Euthymius doth expound it So meate indeed that is excellent incomparable and spirituall meate 2. For those words of our Saviour Iohn 6. 62. What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before they make nothing for our Adversaries but rather against them For our Saviour in those words most probably intended to let the Jewes see that he did not speak of a Carnall eating of his Flesh as they supposed but of a Spirituall eating of it So Austine understood those words as Iansenius notes and judgeth that exposition most probable And so the Jesuite Maldonate who cites Beda and Rupertus as following the same exposition confesseth that exposition more probable than any other that he met with Yea that he had no Author of that Interpretation which he embraced viz. What will ye doe when ye shall see me ascend into Heaven How much more then will ye be offended How much lesse will ye then believe Yet he saith that he did approve this rather then that of Austine though of all the rest most probable because this did more oppose the sense of the Calvinists which to him he saith was a great argument of the probability of it Here see and observe the disposition of a Jesuit what little reckoning he made of Fathers so he might but oppose Calvinists Bellarmine also thinks this a very literall exposition that Christs meaning was to shew that they should have greater cause to doubt after his Ascension then they had before And this exposition he saith seems to be Chrysostomes yet Iansenius attributeth another exposition unto Chrysostome and Maldonate confesseth that he found none to expound it in that manner Neither is this exposition agreeable to the letter For it is equally inconceiveable that Christ being on Earth should give his Flesh to many thousands to eat if it be meant of Carnall eating as that he should doe it being in Heaven But Bellarmine first hath another exposition of those words of our Saviour which here the Marquesse seemeth to follow viz. that our Saviour would confirme one wonderfull thing by another no lesse wonderfull if not more he means the wonderfull eating of his Flesh in their sense by his wonderfull Ascension into Heaven And this exposition he saith doth confirm their opinion for that if Christ had not promised to give his true Flesh in the Sacrament he needed not to prove his power by his Ascension I answer it doth argue an extraordinary power in Christ to give his Flesh to eat though there be no turning of the substance of the Bread in the Sacrament into the substance of his Flesh Bellarmine indeed saith it is no miracle such as the Jewes required of Christ Ioh 6. 30 31. that common Bread should signifie Christs Body or that Christs Body should be eaten by Faith But is this so ordinary and easie a matter that common Bread common for substance though not for use should so signifie the Body of Christ that by the due receiving of it the very Body of Christ should be received and so Christ and the Receiver be united together Spiritually even as Bread and he that eateth it are united together Corporally Is all this nothing except the Bread be substantially changed and turned into Christs Body Why then doth Bellarmine elswhere tell us that the Fathers refer the wonderfull effects of Baptisme for of
that Sacrament particularly doe almost all the Fathers speak which are cited by him to Gods Almighty power I am sure Bellarmine would not have us believe for all this that the substance of the water in Baptisme is changed into any other substance Where our Saviour tels them saith the Marquesse thus to argue according to 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 John 6. 63. They pervert our Saviours meaning into a contrary sense of their own imagination viz. The flesh profiteth nothing that is to say Christs Body is not in the Sacrament but it is the Spirit that quickneth that is to say we must onely believe that Christ dyed for us but not that his Body is there As if there were any need of so many inculcations pressures offences mis-believings of and in a thing that were no more but a bare memoriall of a thing being a thing nothing more usuall with the Israelites as the 12. stones which were erected as a signe of the children of Israels passing over Iordan c. Josh 4. Those words of our Saviour The Flesh profiteth nothing It is the Spirit that quickneth make also rather against our Adversaries opinion than for it For as Iansenius comments upon them our Saviour in those words signifies That his flesh is to be eaten in spirituall manner and not carnally which is that which we hold and maintain against them of the Church of Rome This exposition as the same Iansenius observes doth both answer the murmuring of the Jewes and also agree with the sentence following The words which I have spoken unto you they are spirit and they are life that is they are spirituall and to be understood spiritually and so they give life to those that hear them Thus he saith Austine doth interpret this sentence and a little before he cites Chrysostome Theophylact and others as understanding Christs words in this sense 2. To remove those offences and mis-beleevings which the Jewes had about the eating of Christs Flesh which he spake of they understanding his words in a carnall sense there was need enough of so many inculcations and pressures for we see that after all those inculcations and pressures yet our Adversaries will not be taken off from the like Carnall conceit as the offended and mis-beleeving Jewes had Our Adversaries would seeme indeed to be far from compliance with those Jewes because they doe not hold that Christs Flesh is to be eaten by bits so as to be divided one piece from another as those Jewes seeme to have imagined but that it is to be eaten though corporally yet in an invisible and indivisible manner But Pope Nicolas caused Berengarius to recant his opinion and to confesse That not only the Sacrament of Christs Body but the very body it selfe is sensually held in the Priests hands and torne by the Teeth of the Faithfull Which expressions are as harsh as our Adversaries can use when they would set forth the grosnesse of that conceit which the Jewes had about eating Christs Flesh And indeed so harsh are those expressions in Berengarius his recantation prescribed by the Pope that the Glosse upon it is forced to say Except you rightly understand the words of Berengarius hee might have said of Pope Nicolas who did prescribe them you will fall into a greater Heresie then he was in And therefore you must referre all to the species or shewes themselves for we doe not make any parts of Christs Body So then to free themselves from a Capernaiticall manner of eating Christs Flesh our adversaries hold that neither Christs body nor bread but onely the species or shewes of bread as quantity colour savour and the like meere accidents without a substance are torne with the teeth divided and broken And is this properly to eate Christs Body or is not this eating of Christs Flesh as immaginable as that of the Iewes whereas the Marquesse speaketh of a bare memoriall 1. Christ himselfe hath plainly taught us that the Sacrament is a memoriall of him saying Doe this in remembrance of me 2. We doe not say that Christ is barely remembred in the Sacrament but so remembred as also to be received viz. by such as have faith whereby to receive him For to receive Christ is to believe in him as is cleare Ioh. 1. 12. So that this receiving of Christ though it be a reall yet it is not a corporall but a spirituall receiving of him After the Scriptures the Marquesse cites some Fathers as Ignatius Epist ad Smyr Iustine Apol. 2. Cyprian Ser. 4. de Laps Ambros l. 4. de Sacram. and Remigius the place where not noted who he saith affirme the flesh of Christ to be in the Sacrament and the same flesh which the Word of God tooke in the Virgins Wombe Answ The question is not whether Christs Flesh be in the Sacrament but how it is in it concerning which these Fathers so farre as the Marquesse doth shew speake nothing To say that they speake of the same flesh which the Word of God tooke in the Wombe of the Virgin is onely to shew that they speake of Christs flesh properly so called but it doth not shew that they speake of that flesh being properly in the Sacrament I know no flesh of Christ properly so called but that which the Word made Flesh Ioh. 1. 14 tooke of the Virgin Mary but though it be granted as it is that this flesh of Christ is in the Sacrament yet still the question remaines whether this flesh of Christ be properly substantially and corporally in the Sacrament viz. under the species or shewes of bread as our Adversaries hold and to this question the Marquesse doth not say that the Fathers alledged by him doe speake any thing and therefore I might well let them passe without any further answer But to consider them and their testimonies more particularly First Ignatius his words as they are cited by Bellarmine are to this effect They meaning certaine Hereticks doe not admit Eucharists and oblations because they doe not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour which did suffer for our sins and which the Father of his goodnesse did raise up This testimony is nothing against us who doe not deny the Eucharist that is the bread in the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ onely wee say that it is not his flesh in a proper but in a figurative sense viz. as Austine in the words before cited observes the thing signifying being called by the name of the thing signified And this must be the meaning of Ignatius for hee speakes not of Christs flesh being in the Eucharist but of the Eucharist being Christs Flesh Whereby the Eucharist can be meant nothing but the Sacramentall bread and that as I have before demonstrated
his book against Berengarius speaks of some Copies of Ambrose his Workes wherein those words were not Ut sint quae erant that is That those things should be which were But no such Copies either Printed or Manuscript it seems did Bellarmine meet with for otherwise I doubt not he would have given us notice of them Again with the same Lanfrancus he answers that those words are thus to be understood that in respect of outward shew the things which were still are but are changed in respect of inward substance But how can a thing be said to be what it was when as there is no substance of the thing remaining but onely a shew and appearance of it In the last place Bellarmine addes of his own that Ambrose meant If Christ could make a thing of nothing why can he not make a thing of something not by annihilating the thing but by changing it into that which is better But if a thing be changed substantially into another thing how doth it remain what it was before But so the things doe that Ambrose speaks of For Bellarmines criticisme is poor in distinguishing betwixt Ut sint id quod erant That they should be that which they were and Ut sint quae erant That the things should be that were as if these words did not import that the same substances still remain as well as the other when Christ turned Water into Wine can we say that his Word was operative and powerfull Ut esset quod erat in aliud mutaretur That that should be which was and that withall it should be changed into another thing I confesse I cannot see how the thing may be said truly and properly to be which was if it be substantially changed into some other thing Ambrose there a little after saith Tu ipse eras sed eras vetus creatura posteaquam consecratus es nova creatura esse coepisti Thou thy self wast but thou wast an old creature after thou art consecrated thou beginnest to be a new creature which cannot be meant of any substantiall change in us Chap. 5. the same Ambrose if it were Ambrose for Bellarmine is not very confident that Ambrose was the Author of those Books De Sacramentis saith indeed That before it is Consecrated it is Bread but when the words of Christ are come it is the Body of Christ But that it is so the Body of Christ as to be no longer Bread he doth not affirme That he was of another mind appears by the words before alledged And so much also may be gathered from that which he saith in this same Chapter viz. He that did eat Manna dyed but whose eateth this Body shall have remission of sins and shall live for ever Which cannot be understood of a Corporall eating of Christs Body but of a Spirituall eating of it Bellarmine cites some other sayings of Ambrose out of another Work of his viz. De iis qui mysteriis initiantur but they prove no more than these already cited neither doth the Marquesse refer us to them Yea in that same work Ambrose doth sufficiently declare himselfe against Transubstantiation For there he saith It is truly the Sacrament of Christs Flesh And after Consecration the Body of Christ is signified And again It is not therefore Corporali food but Spirituall Whence also the Apostle saith of the Type of it that our Fathers did eat Spirituall meat and did drink Spirituall drink 1 Cor. 10. The last Author Remigius is onely cited by the Marquesse at large neither doe I find him cited by Bellarmine at all and therefore untill we have some particular place cited out of him it is in vain to trouble our selves about him besides that his Antiquity is not such as that his Authority should much be stood upon being 890 years after Christ as Bellarmine sheweth in his book of Ecclesiasticall Writers Secondly saith the Marquesse We hold that there is in the Church an infallible Rule for understanding of Scripture besides the Scripture it self This you deny this we have Scripture for as Rom. 12. 6. We must prophecy according to the Rule of Faith We are bid to walke according to this Rule Gal. 6. 16. We must encrease our Faith and preach the Gospell according to this Rule 2 Cor. 10. 15. This rule of Faith the Holy Scriptures call a forme of Doctrine Rom. 6. 17. a thing made ready to our hands 2 Cor. 10. 16. that we may not measure our selves by our selves 2 Cor. 10. 12. the depositions committed to the Churches trust 1 Tim. 6. 20. for avoiding of profane and vaine bablings and oppositions of sciences And by this rule of faith is not meant the Holy Scriptures for that cannot doe it as the Apostle tells us whilst there are unstable men who wrest this way and that way to their own destruction but it is the tradition of the Church as it is delivered from hand to hand as most plainly appears 2 Tim. 2. 2. The things which thou hast heard of us not received in writing from me or others among many witnesses the same commit thou to faithfull men who shall be able to teach it to others also That there is any infallible Rule for understanding of Scripture or any other rule of Faith besides the Scripture we do deny and that by authority of the Scripture it self To the law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this Word it is because they have no light in them Isai 8. 20. Search the Scriptures for in them yee thinke to have eternall life and they are they that testifie of mee Joh. 5. 39. These were more noble then they of Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readinesse of minde and searched the Scriptures whether those things were so Acts 17. 11. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine for reproofe for correction for instruction in righteousnesse That the man of God may be perfect thoroughly furnished unto all good workes 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. Neither doe those places alledged by the Marquesse make for the contrary We must prophesie according to the rule of Faith saith the Apostle Rom. 12. 6. as the Marquesse hath it following therein the Rhemists translation as also their comment upon the place But the word in the originall signifies rather proportion then rule And I see not but that by the proportion of saith may be understood the measure of saith which is spoken of vers 3. But be it granted that proportion of faith is as much as rule of faith where doth the Apostle say that this rule of faith is any other then the Scripture it selfe The places before cited shew that we are referred to the Scripture as the rule whereby all doctrines are to be tried but no where doe I finde that wee are referred to any unwritten tradition Sure I am our Adversaries can evince no such thing from
the words of the Apostle Rom. 12. 6. Except we must to use the Marquesses expressions take them margin'd with their own notes sens'd with their own meaning and enlivened with their own private spirit As for the rule mentioned Gal. 6. 16. it is no generall rule of faith or of interpreting Scripture but a speciall rule that in Christ Iesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but a new creature as is cleare by the context ver 15. As many as walke according to this rule that is as Oecumenius expounds it as many as are content with this rule and this doctrine that all things are made a new creature and doe not subject themselves to the Law Neither is the place 2 Cor. 10. 15. to the purpose For the Apostle there speakes of a ruleby way of similitude as Cardinall Cajetan doth well expound it viz. that as an Architect or the like chiefe workman doth by rule divide the worke that is to be done and appoint under-workemen where they shall imploy themselves and how farre they shall reach so God did as it were by rule appoint Paul where he should preach the Gospell and how farre his imployment should extend in that kinde This plainly appeares to be the Apostles meaning by the two verses immediately preceding But we will not boast of things without our measure but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed unto us a measure to reach even unto you For we stretch not our selves beyond our measure as though wee reached not unto you for we are come as farre as you also in preaching the Gospell of Christ Then he addes Not boasting of things without our measure that is of other mens labours but having hope when your faith is encreased that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly To preach the Gospell in the regions beyond you and not to boast in another mans line of things made ready to our hand All may plainly see that here is nothing spoken of a rule of faith or a rule for the understanding of the Scripture And therefore most impertinently is 2 Cor. 10. 16. cited as if the Apostle there did speak of a rule of faith made ready to their hands And so also is that of not measuring our selves by our selves 2 Cor. 10. 12. Neither can our Adversaries ever be able to prove that by the forme of Doctrine mentioned Rom. 6. 17. the Apostle did meane any other Doctrine then what is contained in the Scripture or that any Doctrine but the Doctrine of the Scripture is meant by that which was committed to Timotheus trust 1 Tim. 6. 20. which the Apostle there bids him keepe avoiding profane and vaine bablings c. Though such as are unlearned and unstable wrest the Scriptures c. 2 Pet. 3. 16. yet the same Apostle in the same Epistle doth teach us to take heed to the Scripture as to a light shining in a darke place 2 Pet. 1. 19. That the Apostle spake of any unwritten tradition as a rule whereby to interpret Scriptures 2 Tim. 2. 2. can never be made good by the things which Timothy heard him and was to commit to faithfull men c. hee meant nothing but the Doctrine of the Gospell as the forementioned Cajetan doth truly interpret and that Doctrine I presume is no where to be found but in the Scripture Surely the Apostle in the next Chapter after tells Timothy that from a child hee had known the holy Scriptures which were able to make him wise unto salvation thorough faith which is in Christ Iesus 2 Tim. 3. 15. After the Scriptures the Marquesse cites the Fathers as being of this opinion viz. Ireneus l. 4. c. 45. Tertull. de Praescript and Vincent Lirin in suo Commentario perhaps it should be Commonitorio But it will not appeare that the Fathers held any rule of faith and of interpreting the Scripture besides the Scripture it selfe His Majesty as I noted before cited above twice as many Fathers as the Marquesse here alledgeth plainly testifying that the Scriptures are their own interpreters and that matters of faith are to be decided by them I will adde a few more testimonies of the Fathers to this purpose As wee doe not deny saith Hierome those things which are written so we refuse those things which are not written I adore saith Tertullian the fulnesse of the Scripture And againe Let Hermogenes saith hee shew that it is written If it be not written let him feare that woe appointed for those that either adde to the Scripture or detract from it Wee doe Cyprian no wrong saith Austine when wee distinguish any of his writings from the canonicall authority of the Divine Scriptures For not without cause is such a wholesome Ecclesiasticall rule of vigilancy constituted to which certaine Bookes of the Prophets and the Apostles belong which we may not at all dare to judge and according to which wee may freely judge of other writings whether they bee of Beleevers or of unbelievers And againe I am not bound saith hee by the authority of this Epistle viz. of Cyprian because I doe not account Cyprians writings as Canonicall but I examine them by those that are Canonicall and that which is in them agreeable to the authority of the Divine Scriptures I receive with his praise and what is not agreeable I refuse with his leave For the Fathers here cited by the Marquesse Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 45. hath nothing that may seeme to make that way except this Where saith hee the gifts of the Lord are placed there wee ought to learne truth of those with whom is that succession of the Church which is from the Apostles and that sound speech not to be reproved For they keepe that faith of ours which is in one God that made all things and increase that love which is towards the Son of God who did such great things for us and they without danger expound unto us the Scriptures neither blaspheming God nor dishonoring the Patriarcks nor contemning the Prophets Here Irenaeus speakes of some of whom truth was to be learnt who kept the faith and did expound the Scriptures without danger but hee doth not say that they had any unwritten rule of faith or any such rule whereby to expound the Scriptures No for so Irenaeus should not agree with himselfe who saith as His Majesty observed that the evidences which are in the Scriptures cannot be manifested but by the Scriptures themselves Adde hereunto another saying of the Father very pertinent to the purpose We have not known saith hee the dspensation of our salvation but by those by whom the Gospell came unto us which Gospell they preached aad afterward by the Will of God delivered unto us in the Scriptures as that which should be for the foundation and pillar of our Faith So much for Irenaeus The Marquesse cites the words of
ascribing so much to the Church when as 't is well known contrary to what the Bishop of Rome and the Church generally did hold he held the re-baptizing of such as had been baptized by Heretikes Though Cyprian in this did erre yet his very erring in this shewes that hee thought the Church the generality of the visible Church not onely subject to error but indeed to have erred The last Father whom the Marquesse here mentioneth for though hee say cum multis aliis yet hee nameth no more is Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. where he saith It is not meet to seeke the truth among others which it is easie to take of the Church seeing the Apostles did lay in it as in a rich depository all things that concerne truth that every one that will may out of it receive the drinke of life This indeed is gloriously spoken of the Church and not Hyperbolically neither yet doth it not amount to this that the Church cannot erre The holy Scriptures wherein all saving truth is contained are committed to the Church and the Doctine of salvation is ordinarily held forth in and by the Church but hence it doth not follow that the Church that is such as beare sway in it is not subject to error All that Irenaeus saith of the Church is no more if so much as that of the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. 15. that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth which place it may seeme strange that the Marquesse pretermitteth Bellarmine disputing this point brings in those words in the very first place to prove that the Church cannot erre And whereas Calvin answers that the Church is so styled by the Apostle because in it the Scriptures are preserved and preached he replies that thus the Church should rather be compared to a Chest then to a Pillar But this is a frivolous objection for the Church doth not keepe the truth close and secret as a thing is kept in a chest but so as to professe and publish it and therefore is compared to a Pillar to which a thing is fastned and so hangeth that all may see it But that those words of the Apostle do not infer an infallibility of the Church and an exemption from errour is cleare by this that he speakes of a particular visible Church namely the Church of Ephesus now that a particular visible Church may erre our Adversaries will not deny and that very Church of Ephesus there spoken of doth sufficiently demonstrate The Apostle therefore in those words doth rather shew the duty of the Church then the dignity of it rather what it should be then what it alwayes is As when it is said Mal. 2. 7. Labia sacerdotis custodient scientiam The Priests lips shall keep knowledge that is as our translations rightly render it should keepe So the Jesuite Ribera doth expound it shall keepe that is saith he ought to keep The Marquesse here comes againe to the visibility of the Church and some other particulars before handled That the Church is alwayes visible he proves by Mat. 5. 14 15. The light of the World a City upon a Hill cannot be hid But I have shewed before these words Yee are the light of the world to be meant of the Apostles who as their own Iansenius expounds it were a light unto the World by their preaching So also Theophylact They did not enlighten saith hee one Nation but the whole world And the words following A City set upon a Hill cannot be hid he shewes to have been spoken by way of instruction Christ saith hee doth instruct them to be carefull and accurate in the ordering of their life as being to be seene of all As if hee should say Doe not thinke that you shall lie hid in a corner no you shall be conspicuous And therefore see that yee live unblameably that so you may not give offence to others This exposition sutes well with the admonition given vers 16. Let your light so shine forth before men that they seeing your good workes may glorifie your Father which is in Heaven The Marquesse here further addes 2 Cor. 4. 3. Isai 22. I suppose it should be Isai 2. 2. Now the former of these two places is not to the purpose viz. to prove a perpetuall visibility of the Church For how can that be inferred from those words of the Apostle If our Gospell be hid it is hid to them that are lost The Apostle having said vers 2. by manifestation of the truth commending our selves to every mans conscience in the sight of God because as Oecumenius notes it might be objected that the truth was not made manifest unto all for that all did not believe to prevent this Objection the Apostle addes If our Gospell be hid c. As if hee should say It is not our fault as if the Gospell were not plainly enough preached by us but it is their own fault who perish through their owne blindnesse That Isai 2. 2. is more to the purpose though not enough neither It is said that in the last dayes the Mountaine of the Lords House shall be established in the top of the Mountaines and shall be exalted above the Hills and all Nations shall flow unto it The Prophet there sheweth by metaphoricall expressions taken from Mount Sion where the Temple stood that by the preaching of the Gospell the Church should be increased and exalted farre above what it was before This prophesie was fulfilled by the bringing in of the Gentiles but the Prophet doth not say that in the times of the Gospell the Church should alwayes be so conspicuous and visible Neither doe the Fathers here alledged by the Marquesse viz. Origen Chrysostome Austine and Cyprian speake of the perpetuall condition of the Church but onely as it was in their time I have proved before by Scriptures and Fathers and even by the acknowledgement of our Adversaries that the Church is not perpetually visible After the Visibility of the Church the Marquesse speaketh of the Universality of it saying that the universality of the Church is perpetuall and that the Church of Rome is such a Church For proofe hereof hee citeth Psal 2. 8. Rom. 1. 8. Now the former place shewes that Christ should have the heathen for his inheritance and the ends of the Earth for his possession and consequently that the Church should not be confined as it was in the time of the Law to one Country but should be extended farre and wide throughout the World This also hath been fulfilled and yet shall be but hence it doth not follow that the Church is alwayes so universally extended throughout the World but that sometimes errors and heresies doe so prevaile and overspread all that the truth in comparison can finde no roome See before page 2. The other place viz. Rom. 1. 8. testifies indeed that the Church of Rome was a true Church and famous throughout the World but neither doth
is this which as I conceive the Marquesse aimed at Esau was not willing and did not run but if he had been willing and had run by the help of God he had obtained God would have given him both to will and to run except by contemning Gods Call he would be a Reprobate For God doth otherwise give us that we may will then he doth give us that which we have willed For that we may will God would have both to be his work and ours his by Calling ours by Following when we are called But that which we have willed God alone doth give that is to be able to do well and for ever to live happily Here I confesse Austine doth seeme to shew himself a patron of Free-will and we could not easily judge otherwise of him if we should look meerly upon these words and take them as his positive sentence But if we consider what Austine saith both before and after we shall see that he spake thus rather by way of objection then by way of determination Before these words he saith thus A wheel doth not therefore run well that it may be round but because it is round So no man doth therefore work well that he may receive grace but because he hath received it Austine therefore was not of that minde that Esau of himself by his free-will could have been willing and have run or that any when he is called and incited by Grace can by the power of Free-will follow and obey but it is grace that must work this in him To this purpose againe before the words objected If saith Austine Iacob did therefore believe because he would then God did not bestow faith on him but he by willing did afford it unto himself and so he had something which he received not Which is contrary to the words of the Apostle What hast thou that thou hast not received 1 Cor. 4. 7. But a little after those words that seeme to make for Free-will Austine expresseth himself more fully For having cited that of the Apostle Phil. 2. 12 13. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to doe of his good pleasure he addes The Apostle there sufficiently shewes that a good will it self is wrought in us by God For if therefore only it be said Rom. 9. It is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy because the will of man alone is not sufficient that he may justly and rightly except it be helped by the mercy of God then by this reason it may be said It is not of God that sheweth mercy but of man that willeth because the mercy of God alone is not sufficient unlesse the consent of our will be ad ded But that is manifest that we will in vain except God shew mercy This I know not how it can be said that God doth shew mercy in vain except we be willing For if God shew mercy then we are willing seeing it belongs to that same mercy to make us willing For it is God that worketh in us both to will and to doe of his good pleasure Again a little after having said by way of objection Free-will availeth much he answers Nay it is indeed but in those that are sold under sinne as all are till they be fred by Grace what doth it avail And againe when those things delight us whereby wee profit towards God this is inspired and given unto us by the grace of God it is not gotten by our consent industry or the merits of our workes because the consent of the will the industry of indeavour and workes fervent with charity are all the gift of God Thus then it is most manifest that in the place pointed at by the Marquesse Austine was most farre from maintaining such a Free-will as we oppose There is also a passage in Austines second book to Simplicianus quaest 1. which may seeme to make against us viz. That to will any thing is in the power of every one but to be able to doe any thing is not in the power of any But let Austine explain himself and shew his own meaning and that he doth in his Retractations That saith hee was spoken because we doe not say that any thing is in our power but that which is done when wee will Where first and chiefly is to will it selfe For immediately without any distance of time the will it selfe is present when wee will But this power also to live well wee receive from above when the will is prepared of the Lord. Thus carefull was that good Father to prevent the mistaking of his words lest any should thinke that hee did ascribe any thing to the power of Free-will in that which is good So much for Austine the next Father alledged is Ambrose who in the place cited viz. in Luk. 12. hath nothing above Free-will that I can finde After him followes Chrysostome who indeed in the place that is alledged goes far in his expressions concerning Free-will as if God onely did afford meanes and so leave it in the power of man to use them or not as hee pleaseth If therefore I except against his testimony in this point I have no meane men of the Church of Rome to beare mee out I know Bellarmine seemes to take it as a matter of great advantage that Calvin stands not here so much upon Chrysostome as one that did too much extoll the power of Free-will But was this onely Calvines judgement of Chrysostome Did not some of the Romanists themselves also think thus of him S. Chrysostom saith Alvarez a Romish Archbishop and a great Schoole-man sometimes doth wonderfully extoll the power of our Free-will speaking as it were hyperbolically whiles hee strives to impugne the errors of the Manichees and of the Gentiles who held that Man is still by nature as hee was first created of God or that by the violence of fate he is compelled to sinne So also Iansenius a Romish Bishop to whom also Alvarez doth referre us haveing mentioned something of Euthymius and Theophylact hee saith that those passages were taken from Chrysostome and that except they be warily read and understood they may give occasion of falling into the error of Pelagius who held that the beginning of faith and justification is from our selves and the consummation from God c. Chrysostome he saith meant well concerning the grace of God yet he wrote many things against the Manichees in commendation of Free-will attributing most things unto it without making any mention of Gods Grace which things he would not have written in that manner if hee could have foreseene that Pelagius his heresie would arise which as then was not risen or not known unto men Thus were see how these Authors though they excuse Chrysostomes meaning yet dislike his expression But some amongst those of
doubts of Hee grants it but how No otherwise for any thing I can see then as wee doe grant it viz. that God if he please can give such a measure of grace unto men as to inable them perfectly to doe all that is commanded But Hierome immediately after shewes that none either doth or ever did so and that therefore all are guilty before God and stand in neede of his mercy If saith hee thou canst shew any that hath fulfilled all things required then thou canst shew one that doth not needs Gods merey shew that this hath been or that it now is So when Cyrill saith that even that precept Thou shalt not covet may be fulfilled by grace hee doth not oppose us nor wee him For wee doubt not but God is able to give grace whereby to fulfill it but wee deny that any onely Christ excepted ever had such grace as whereby to fulfill it Basil is cited at large no place being noted where he saith any thing about this point onely in Bellarmine I finde that upon those words Take heed to thy selfe hee saith that it is a wicked thing to say that the precepts of the Spirit are impossible Which wee yeeld so farre forth as any have the Spirit they may performe them but none have the Spirit in such full measure as to be able fully to performe whatsoever is commanded Origen in the place cited compares them to Women who say that they cannot keepe Gods Commandements Which must be understood of keeping them so as to have respect unto them and to study and indeavour to keepe them For otherwise if we speake of an exact and perfect keeping of the Commandements both men and women even the best upon Earth are farre from it For the flesh lusteth against the spirit saith the Apostle and the spirit against the flesh and these are contrary the one to the other so that you cannot do the things that you would Gal. 5. 17. Wee hold saith the Marquesse faith cannot justifie without workes Yee say good workes are not absolutely necessary unto salvation Wee have Scripture for what wee say 1 Cor. 13. 2. Though I have all Faith and have no Charity I am nothing And James 2. 24. By Workes a Man is justified and not by Faith onely Answ Protestants in opposition to them of the Church of Rome hold that Faith alone doth justifie and that Workes doe not concurre with Faith unto justification Yet withall they hold that Faith which doth justifie is not alone without workes Bellarmine confesseth that Calvin hath these very words It is Faith alone that doth justifie but yet Faith which doth justifie is not alone As the heate of the Sun alone is that which doth heate the Earth yet heate is not alone in the Sun but there is light also joyned with it And hee addes that Melancthon Brentius Chemnitius and other Protestants teach the same thing Therefore by Bellarmines owne confession Protestants are no enemies unto good workes Neither are they any whit injurious unto them in excluding them from having a share in justification as the Romanists are injurious unto Faith in making workes copartners with it in that respect We conclude saith S. Paul That a Man is justified by Faith without the deeds of the Law Rom. 3. 28. And in the next Chapter the Apostle proves by the example of Abraham that justification is by Faith without Workes For what saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousnesse Rom. 4. 3. He confirmes it also by the words of David Even as David also describes the blessednesse of the man to whom God imputeth righteousnesse without Workes saying blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven c. Rom. 4. 6 7 8. Mens workes are imperfect and so is all that righteousnesse of man that is inherent in him as hath been shewed before and therefore by his own workes and his own righteousnesse can none be justified By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified Rom. 3. 20. Bellarmine would have the Apostle when hee excludes Workes from justification onely to understand such workes as are done by the meere knowledge of the Law without grace But this cannot be his meaning For 1. when David cried out Enter not into judgement with thy servant O Lord for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal 143. 2. hee shewes that workes whatsoever they be are unable to justifie a man in the sight of God For it were most absurd and irrationall to imagine that David then doth onely deprecate Gods entring into judgement with him in respect of the Works which hee did without the assistance of Gods grace 2. The Apostle proves that justification is by Faith without Workes by that of David Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sinnes are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne Rom. 4. 6 7 8. Now the best man that is upon Earth hath need of this that his iniquities may be forgiven his sinnes covered and his transgressions not imputed unto him seeing there is no man as I have shewed before but iniquities sinnes and transgressions are found in him Therefore though a man be regenerate and sanctified yet his workes are not such as that he can be justified by them 3. The Apostle Gal. 3. 10. proves that none can be justified by the deeds of the Law because it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the Law to doe them Now no man though indued with grace and that in great measure doth continue in all things that the Law requireth as hath also been shewed before Therefore Workes as well with grace as without grace are unable to justifie But when our adversaries speake of justification they equivocate making it indeed the same with sanctification Dureus the Jesuite calles this new Divinity to say that by grace infused into us wee get newnesse of life and sanctification but yet are not thereby justified And hee askes what Scripture doth teach us to distinguish justification from sanctification Truly I thinke that these two viz justification and sanctification are sufficiently distinguished 1 Cor. 6. 11. But you are washed but you are sanctified but you are justified in the Name of the Lord Iesus and by the Spirit of our God There the Apostle shews that they were washed viz. both from the staine of sinne by sanctification which was wrought in them by the Spirit of God infusing grace into them and also from the guilt of sinne by justification which they obtained by faith in the Lord Jesus Besides the Scripture opposeth justification to condemnation and sheweth that to justifie is as much as to absolve and acquit from guilt to account and pronounce righteous Prov. 17. 15. He that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the just even they both are an abomination to the Lord.
There to justifie and to condemne are opposed-one to the other and to justifie is to repute just not to make just for so it should be no abomination to justifie the wicked but a very good worke For hee which converteth a sinner from the errour of his way shall save a soule from death c. Iames 5. 20. So Isai 5. 23. They are taxed who justifie the wicked for a reward Thus also God is said to justifie Isai 50. 8. Hee is neare that iustifieth mee who will contend with me And Rom. 8. 33 34. who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect it is God that justifieth Who is he that condemneth it is Christ that died c. But saith Bellarmine when God doth justifie the wicked by declaring him just he doth also make him just because the judgement of God is according to truth I answer true it is whom God doth justifie them also hee doth sanctifie yet it doth not follow that these two viz. to justifie and to sanctifie are one and the same David was a man truly sanctified yet hee knew and acknowledged that his righteousnesse whereby hee was sanctified was not such as that he could be justified by it and therefore cried Enter not into judgement with thy servant c. Psal 143. 2. And Blessed is the man whose iniquity is forgiven c. Psal 32. 1 2. yet is Gods judgement neverthelesse according to truth when hee accounteth those righteous and imputeth no sinne unto them who still have sinne in them and so cannot be justified by their owne righteousnesse because they whom God justifieth by faith are united unto Christ as members of his Body and so Christs righteousnesse is their righteousnesse and though not in themselves yet in Christ they are compleatly righteous He is called The Lord our righteousnesse Ier. 23. 6. And sayes the Apostle In him yee are complete Col. 2. 10. wherefore hee desired to be found in him not having his own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith Phil. 3. 9. And thus we hold that faith doth justifie not formally but instrumentally not because of it selfe but because of its object viz. Christ and his righteousnesse which faith apprehendeth and applieth For by faith wee receive Christ Ioh. 1. 12. And Christ doth dwell in our hearts by faith Ephes 3. 17. Diverse of the Church of Rome since the beginning of Reformation in this great point touching justification have inclined to us Ferus I cited before saying that Believers have yet much sinne but no condemnation because thorough faith in Christ they are reputed cleane Cardinall Contarenus his workes I have not neither can I alledge him of mine own knowledge but his words as I finde them cited by another are very full for our purpose Because saith hee wee come unto a twofold righteousnesse by faith a righteousnesse inherent in us c. and the righteousnesse of Christ given and imputed to us in that wee are ingraffed into Christ and put on Christ it remaines to inquire whether of these we must rely upon that wee may be justified before God that is accounted holy and just I doe altogether hold that it is piously and Christianly said that wee ought to reply as on a thing that is stable and doth surely support us on the righteousnesse of Christ given unto us and not on that holinesse and grace which is inherent in us For this righteousnesse of ours is but inchoated and imperfect which cannot preserve us so but that in many things we offend and sinne continually Therefore for this righteousnesse of ours wee cannot be accounted righteous and good in the sight of God so as it should become the sonnes of God to be good and holy But the righteousness of Christ given unto us is true and perfect righteousnesse which doth altogether please the eyes of God in which there is nothing that may offend God nothing which cannot fully please him On this therefore alone as sure and stable must we rely and for it alone must wee believe that wee are justified before God that is accounted and called iust I see not why we should desire more in point of justification then this amounts to Pighius also a stout Champion of the Church of Rome is as full and expresse for that which wee make the formall cause of justification as any can be It is cleare saith hee what sentence we should all have if God would have dealt with us in strict judgement if hee had not most mercifully succoured us in his Son and had not involved and wrapped us in his righteousnesse wee having none of our own that will serve our turne And againe In him therefore are wee justified not in our selves not with our own but with his righteousnesse which by reason of our communion with Him is imputed unto us Being empty of our owne righteousnesse wee are taught to seeke righteousnesse out of our selves in him And againe That our righteousnesse is placed in Christs obedience it is from hence that wee being incorporated into Him it is reckoned as if it were ours so that because of it we are accounted righteous And immediately he adds that as Iacob being cloathed with the robes of his elder brother obtained the blessing of his Father so we must be clothed with the righteousnesse of Christ our elder brother that God may bestow the blessing of justification upon us And againe God doth justifie us saith he of his free-goodnes whereby he doth embrace us in Christ whiles that he clothes us being ingraffed into him with Christs innocency and righteousnesse which as it is alone true and perfect able to indure the sight of God so it alone must be presented for us at the tribunall of Gods Iudgement This and much more to this purpose hath Pighius and hee saith that hee could not dissemble that this prime part of Christian Doctrine was rather obscured then illustrated by the Schoolemen with thorny questions and definitions and therefore he was the more diligent in the handling of this point shewing that none of the sons of Adam can be justified before God by their own righteousnesse and their own workes but that all must rely onely on the righteousnesse of God in Christ and that by it alone they being destitute of a righteousnesse of their owne are righteous before God Pighius is so plaine and home in this point that Bellarmine doth censure him as erroneous in it And yet so powerfull and prevalent it truth that it extorted even from Bellarmine himselfe this confession That because of the uncertainty of a mans owne righteousnesse and the danger of vaine glory it is most safe to repose all confidence only in Gods Mercy and Goodnesse By his own confession then it is most safe in matter of justification to renounce Workes and to flie onely to Faith in
the Lord Jesus The ancient Fathers also give testimony to this truth Hilarie hath these very words Fides sola iustificat i. e. Faith alone doth iustifie Austine in effect sayes the same when hee saith Our righteousnesse in this life is so great that it consists rather in forgivenesse of sinnes then in perfection of vertues And so when hee saith Woe even to the landable life of men if thou O Lord laying aside mercy shall enter into the examination of it To this purpose also is that which hee saith upon those words of David Enter not into judgement with thy servant O Lord c. How right soever saith hee I thinke my selfe thou bringest forth a rule out of thy treasure and triest me by it and I am found crooked Thus also Bernard Lord saith he I will make mention of thy righteousnesse onely for it also is mine seeing that thou of God art made unto me righteousnesse Must I feare lest this one righteousnesse will not suffice us both No it is not a short cloake that cannot cover two And againe It is sufficient for mee unto all righteousnesse to have him onely propitious against whom onely I have sinned Not to sinne is Gods righteousnesse mans righteousnesse is Gods indulgence Thus then in the point of justification wee have both Scriptures and Fathers yea and divers Papists also concurring with us As for the two places of Scripture alledged by the Marquesse the former viz. that 1 Corin. 13. 2. speaketh not of justifying Faith but of a Faith of working miracles as is cleare by the words themselves being fully cited which run thus Though I have all faith so that I could remove mountaines and have not charity I am nothing Oecumenius upon the place notes that by Faith there is not meant that Faith which is common to all Believers but a Faith peculiar to such as had the gift of working miracles And though Estius a learned Romanist in his Commentary upon the place seeke to draw it another way yet commenting upon 1 Cor. 12. 9. hee saith that the Greeke Expositors doe rightly understand it of that Faith which is spoken of Chap. 13. If I have all Faith c. that is of the Faith of signes and miracles as they call it which Faith hee saith is not properly a sanctifying grace but onely such a grace as is given for the benefit of others The other place viz. Jam. 2. 24. doth seeme to make against us but indeed it doth not For S. Iames saying that a man is justified by Workes and not by Faith onely meanes onely thus as Cajetan himselfe doth expound it that we are not justified by a barren Faith but by a Faith which is fruitfull in good Workes This appeares to be his meaning by his whole discourse from vers 14. to the end of the Chapter wherein hee bends himselfe against those who presume of such a faith as is without workes and more specially it may appeare by the verses immediately preceding wherein hee saith that Abraham was justified by workes when hee offered up Isaac and that Faith wrought with his workes and by workes was Faith made perfect and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousnesse Now this clearly shewes that Abraham was justified by Faith and not by workes onely his workes did shew that his Faith was a true justifying Faith indeed and not as it is in many that pretend and professe Faith a vaine shew of Faith and a meere shadow of it For that which S. Iames citeth Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousnesse was as appeares by the story in the booke of Genesis long before that Abraham offered up Isaac and by those very words Saint Paul proveth Rom. 4. that wee are justified by Faith and not by Workes Therefore when S. Iames saith that by Abrahams offering up of Isaac that Scripture was fulfilled the meaning is that thereby it did appeare that it was truly said of Abraham that hee believed God and it was counted unto him For righteousnesse his readinesse in that worke to obey God did demonstrate that hee believed God indeed and that his faith was of a right stampe Thus also is it said that by workes faith was made perfect viz. even as the Lord said unto Paul My strength is made perfect in weakenesse 2 Cor. 12. 9. that is Gods strength doth exercise it selfe and shew how great it is in mans weaknesse So Abrahams workes did shew how great his faith was in this sense his workes did make his faith perfect not that they did adde any thing unto it no more then mans weaknesse doth adde unto Gods strength This opinion of yours saith the Marquesse S. Aug. 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 calles it the right way to hell and damnation See Origan 5. to the Rom. S. Hilar. chap. 7. in Mat. S. Ambr. 4. ad Heb. Answ Austine de fid oper c. 14. speakes nothing against our Opinion but something for it That which hee speaketh by way of reproofe is against those who so thinke that Faith alone will suffice as that they heede not to doe good workes nor to order their life and conversation aright But this is nothing to us who are farre from holding such a Faith as that sufficient But in the same place Austine hath this for our purpose that when the Apostle saith that a Man is justified by Faith without the Workes of the Law hee did not intend that the Workes of Righteousnesse should be contemned but that every one should know that hee may be justified by faith though the workes of the Law did not goe before For saith hee they follow a man being justified they doe not goe before a man being to be justified If as this Father affirmeth a man must first be justified before hee can doe good workes then good workes are no cause of justification but an effect of it For the other place of Austine which the Marquesse alledgeth there is none such that I can finde viz. no preface of his comment upon Psal 32. but in the comment it selfe I finde this which makes for us Doest thou not heare the Apostle The just shall live by Faith Thy faith is thy righteousnesse What Origen saith on Rom. 5. having not his workes now at hand I cannot tell but I see what Bellarmine cites out of him on Rom. 4. and perhaps so it should have been in the Marquesse his writing However there is no doubt but Bellarmine would have made use of it if there had been any thing more for his purpose on Rom. 5. Now on Rom. 4. Origen saith that whose believe Christ but doe not put off the old man with his deeds their faith cannot be imputed unto them for righteousnesse This wee doe
can be separated from the Church And againe Let none thinke that the good can depart out of the Church The winde doth not carry away the wheat neither doth the storme overthrow the Tree that hath taken solid roote The empty chaffe is tossed with the tempest the weake Trees are throwne down with the whirlewinde This the Apostle John doth curse and smite saying They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us 1 Joh. 2. 19. And to adde one testimony of his more Peter saith hee speaking for all and answering in the name of the Church saith Lord to whom shall we goe Thou hast the words of eternall life Joh. 6. 68. signifying that they who depart from Christ perish through their own fault but that the Church which believeth in Christ and once holdeth that which it hath knowne doth never altogether depart from him and that they are the Church who doe abide in the house of God but that they are not the planting of God the Father whom wee see not to be strengthened with the stability of wheat but to be blowne away with the breath of the enemy like chaffe that is to be dissipated Of whom John saith They went out from us but they were not of us c. Austine also citing those words of S. Iohn saith Hee doth not say that by going out they were made Aliens but that therefore they went out because they were Aliens Againe In that saith he thou departest and fliest away thou shewest thy selfe to be chaffe they that are wheate endure threshing And upon those words of our Saviour If yee continue in my word then you are my Disciples indeed Joh. 8. 31. hee saith thus Then they are indeed that which they are called if they continue in that for which they are so called So againe That is not indeed the Body of Christ saith hee which shall not be with him for ever So Tertullian saith that such as fall away were never true Believers and true Christians Hee saith man sees the outside of every one and thinkes what hee sees but God sees into the heart and therefore knowes who are his and roots out every Plant that hee hath not planted And let the chaffe of light faith saith hee flie away as much as it will with every blast of temptations by so much will the heape of Corne be the more cleane to be laid up in the Lords Garners Did not some of Christs Disciples being offended turne away yet the rest would not therefore leave him but they that knew him to be the word of life and sent of God did continue with him to the end It is a lesse matter if some did forsake his Apostle as Phygellus and Hermogenes and Philetus and Hymenaeus Then hee cites that of S. Iohn They went out from us but they were not of us c. Thus also Gregory speaking of the holy Ghost saith that in respect of some vertues he alwayes abides in the hearts of the Saints but in respect of some hee comes so as to goe away and goes away so as to come againe For in respect of Faith Hope and Charity and other good things without which there is no comming to Heaven as Humility Chastity Iustice and Mercy in respect of these hee never forsaketh the hearts of the upright But in respect of Prophecy Eloquence and working of miracles sometimes hee is with the Elect sometimes hee withdrawes himselfe from them This testimony of Gregory is also cited by Gratian who from thence and other testimonies of the Fathers inferrs thus much that Charity once had and it is as true of Faith for Charity cannot be without it but doth proceede from it 1 Tim. 1. 5. cannot be lost Thus wee have not onely the Scriptures and Fathers but also the Canon-law it selfe for us Those places which the Marquesse alledgeth to prove that faith may be lost doe not speake of justifying Faith whereby one is ingraffed into Christ and made a member of his Body but either of an outward profession of the Faith that is of the Doctrine of Faith as that 1 Tim. 1. 19. where the Apostle bids Timothy hold faith i. e. the Doctrine of Faith and a good conscience and addes that some having put away a good conscience concerning Faith did make shipwrack that is did forsake the Doctrine of Faith and fall into Heresie Such were Hymenaeus and Alexander whom hee mentioneth vers 20. and saith that he delivered them unto Satan that they might learne not to blaspheme And that which hee there calleth Faith hee calleth Truth 2 Tim. 2. 18. where speaking of Hymenaeus and Philetus hee saith who concerning the truth have erred saying that the Resurrection is past already He addes that hereby they did overthrow the Faith of some that is they did draw them from the Faith making them to embrace Heresie But that these seducers or seduced ones were ever such believers as that they were indued with justifying Faith the Apostle doth not say neither can it be proved Tertullian was of another minde as appeares by his words before cited Yea so was S. Iohn whose words to this purpose both Tertullian and other Fathers as I have shewed have made use of when hee saith speaking of such as those They went out from us but they were not of us c. 1 Joh. 2. 19. Or they speak of an Historicall Faith whereby one doth assent unto the truth of the Gospell and is somewhat affected with it but it doth not take roote in the heart as it is said Mat. 13. 21. yet hath hee not roote in himselfe and therefore this is not such a Faith as wee speake of when wee say that Faith cannot be lost viz. a Faith whereby Christ is received and doth dwell in the heart Ioh. 1. 12. Ephes 3. 17. For all that Faith which is spoken of Luke 8. 13. a man is but chaffe still and not true wheat whatsoever hee seeme either to himselfe or others They compared to the thorny ground who for a while believe are distinguished from such as have a good and honest heart Luke 8. 13. 15. Therefore those temporary believers are no sound and sincere Believers their heart is not right with God and therefore they are not stedfast in his Covenant Psal 78. 37. The Marquesse addes This is frequently affirmed by the Fathers viz. that Faith may be lost but hee cites onely Austine de grat lib. arb de corrept grat ad articulos Now I have produced many testimonies of Austine to the contrary as also of diverse other Fathers who speake very home to our purpose As for these places of Austine alledged against us the two first are justly to be waved For onely the bookes are cited but no Chapters whereas in the
and who hath been his Counsellour Rom. 11. 34. The last place of Scripture which the Marquesse objecteth is Ezech. 33. 11. As I live saith the Lord I delight not in the death of a sinner Now to this also we have Alvarez to answer for us viz. first that it is meant of spirituall death which is by sinne Which God doth only permit but doth not delight in it And this Explication hee saith is confirmed by the words following but rather that he be converted and live And if it be expounded of the second death which is eternall damnation the meaning hee saith is that God will not inflict this upon any but for sinne But though God will not inflict damnation upon the Reprobate but for sinne yet this same Alvarez as I have shewed abundantly before and so other Writers of the Church of Rome doe tell us that God by his eternall Decree of Reprobation of his meere Will and Pleasure doth determine to suffer the Reprobate to sinne and so to damne them for it And thus now I have made it appeare I hope sufficiently that by the consent of the Romanists themselves the Scriptures alledged are not repugnant to the Doctrine of Protestants concerning Reprobation neither I thinke will the Fathers whom the Marquesse citeth be against it The first of them is Austine who as hath before been shewed is as much for us as we neede desire He is here produced against us but so as that I know not easily how to finde what he saith For onely li. 1. de Civit. Dei. is cited but no Chapter whereas there are no lesse then 36. in that booke this is a strange kinde of citing Authors but the fault may be in the Printer or in some other and not in the Marquesse As for Cyprian who is next cited I see not any thing in the place pointed at which is to this purpose except this Seeing it is written God made not death nor doth he rejoyce in the destruction of the living surely he that would not have any to perish desires that sinners may come to Repentance and that by Repentance they may returne unto life againe Now that which Cyprian here alledgeth viz. God made not death c. I have shewed before by the testimony of Hierome to be no Canonicall Scripture nor of sufficient force to decide any point of controversie as also that if it were yet by the acknowledgement of Alvarez it makes not against Gods Decree of Reprobation which wee maintaine It hath also beene shewed before in what sense God would have none to perish viz. by his Antecedent Will with which yet will stand the Decree of Reprobation as we hold it which likewise hath been shewed and that from both Bellarmine and from Alvarez also And that God desires sinners may come to Repentance and so to life Protestants that I know doe not deny though they hold that God doth give and so from all eternity did purpose to give Repentance unto some and not to others as hee pleaseth which I have also shewed to be acknowledged by Bellarmine Alvarez Estius and others of the Church of Rome And it is most cleare by that of the Apostle If God peradventure will give them Repentance 2 Tim. 2. 25. and that He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will he hardneth Rom. 9. 18. The third and last Father who is here alledged is Ambrose de Cain Abel lib. 2. but what Chapter whereas there are ten in that Booke is not mentioned Now I finde that Chap. 3. hath something which probably was aimed at by the Marquesse viz. this Christ therefore offered the helpe of healing unto all that whosoever perisheth may ascribe the cause of his death to himselfe who when he had a remedy whereby he might escape would not be cured And that Christs mercy towards all might be made manifest in that they that perish doe perish by their own negligence but they that are saved are freed according to Christs sentence who will have all men to be saved and to come to the acknowledgement of the truth Now I know no Protestant but hee will assent unto this that whosoever perish must ascribe the cause to themselves and that they perish through their own default I have before cited Calvin asserting thus much That none doe perish without their desert But this assertion of his is very well consistent with his Doctrine about Reprobation as I have shewed by the testimonies of diverse famous Writers of the Church of Rome And whereas Ambrose saith that such as perish had a remedy whereby they might escape and that they therefore perish because they would not be cured No Protestants I suppose will deny but that such as perish through unbeliefe if they did believe should be saved but yet neverthelesse not Protestants onely but Papists also as I have shewed doe hold that God from all eternity did decree and purpose to give faith unto some and not unto others and that meerely of his own will and pleasure And that therefore according to Austine whose words are cited before the prime and supreme cause why some are not saved is not because they will not but because God will not For that which Ambrose hath in the last place who will have all men to be saved c. enough hath beene said before to shew that in the judgement of Austine and diverse Romanists it is nothing against the absolute decree of Reprobation and so I have done with this point In the next place the Marquesse speakes of a mans assurance of his salvation saying that Protestants hold that a man ought to assure himselfe of it and to prove the contrary which they of the Roman Church doe hold he alledgeth 1 Cor. 9. 27. saying S. Paul was not assured but that whilest he Preached to others he himselfe might become a cast-away And Rom. 11. 20. Thou standest in the Faith be not high minded but feare c. lest thou also mayest be cut off And Phil. 2. 12. Worke out your own salvation with fear and termbling Answ Concerning this point Protestants hold 1. That a Christian may be assured of his salvation 2. That a Christian ought to labour for this assurance For the former of these positions wee have diverse places of Scriptures As first that Famous place Rom. 8. 35 36 37 38 39. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ shall Tribulation or Distresse or Persecution c. Nay in all these things we are more then conquerours through Him that loved us For I am perswaded that neither Death nor Life nor Angels nor principalities nor powers nor things present nor things to come nor height nor depth nor any other Creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. So also that 2 Cor. 5. 1. We know then if our earthly house of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a building
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
Author of the Treatise intituled De unctione Chrismatis who goes under the Name of Cyprian but appeares to have been some other shewes that this anointing which they use in confirmation was taken up in imitation of that anointing which was used in the time of the Law Bonaventure also who lived betwixt 1200 and 1300 yeares after Christ held that Confirmation was neither dispensed nor instituted by Christ And if it were not of Christs instituting it can be no Sacrament properly so called onely Christ as the Councell of Trents Catechisme doth acknowledge being the Author and Ordainer of every Sacrament And therefore the Councell of Trent denounceth Anathema against all those that shall deny any of the Sacraments to have been of Christs institution For that Acts 8. 14. 17. which the Marquesse alledgeth it is nothing to their Confirmation For 1. There was laying on of hands but no anointing with Chrisme nor signing with the signe of the Crosse 2. The giving of the holy Ghost there spoken of was in respect of some extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost as speaking with strange Tongues c. as Cajetan himselfe upon the place observeth and he solidly proveth it by this that Simon Magus saw that the holy Ghost was given by the laying on of the handes of the Apostles Besides Acts 19. 6. which place Bellarmine doth joyne with the other it is expressely said when Paul had laid his hands upon them the holy Ghost came on them and they spake with Tongues and prophecied That therefore which the Scripture speakes of the Apostles laying handes on some that had beene Baptized and conferring the holy Ghost upon them is far from proving that the Apostles did administer the Sacrament of Confirmation there being neither the matter nor the forme nor the effect of that pretended Sacrament Bonaventure saith plainly The Apostles did dispense neither the matter nor the forme And for the effect we have had already Cajetans Confession viz. that the effect of the Apostles laying on of their hands was a sensible giving of the holy Ghost and therefore not that which they make the effect of Confirmation For the other place of Scripture viz. Heb. 6. 2. what reason is there why by laying on of hands there mentioned should be meant the Sacrament of Confirmation which they will have to be administred with an ointment made of Oile and Balsome whereas that Scripture speakes of no anointing why may not that laying on of hands be the same with that 1 Tim. 5. 22. lay hands suddenly on no man viz. the laying on of hands used in the ordination of Ministers which also wee reade of 1 Tim. 4. 14. and 2 Tim. 1. 6. Or that laying on of hands which is mentioned Acts 8. and 19. whereby as hath beene shewed the extraordinary and sensible gifts of the holy Ghost were conferred upon Believers Thus Theophylact upon the place expounds it of laying on of hands whereby they received the holy Ghost so as to foretell things to come and to worke miracles Cajetan also understands it in like manner of that laying on of hands which was peculiar to those Primitive Christians For the Fathers alledged it is granted that the Fathers doe often speake of anointing and that they speake of it as of a Sacrament But diverse things are to be considered 1. That the word Sacrament is by ancient Writers taken very largely Bellarmine confesseth that in the vulgar Latine Translation of the Scriptures the word is used of many things that by the consent of all are no Sacraments properly so called So Cassander saith that besides those seven which the Church of Rome accounteth Sacraments there are some other things used among them which by a more large acception of the word are sometimes called Sacraments And that of those seven Sacraments it is certaine the Schoolemen themselves did not thinke them all to be alike properly called Sacraments And he instanceth in this very Sacrament of confirmation shewing that some of the Schoolmen namely Holcot did not take it for a Sacrament of like nature with Baptisme The same Author tells us that one shall hardly finde any before Peter Lombard who was 1145 yeares after CHRIST that did set downe a certaine and determinate number of the Sacraments But the Councell of Trent hath decreed If any shall say that the Sacraments of the new Testament were not all instituted by Iesus Christ our Lord or that they are either more or lesse then seven viz. Baptisme Confirmation Eucharist Penance Extreme unction Order and Marriage or that any of these is not a Sacrament truly and properly so called let him be anathema We may see therefore of what small standing the present Roman faith is 2. Some of the Fathers doe expressely tells us that the anointing which they used hath no foundation in the Scripture Basil speaking of it askes what written word hath taught it And so Bellarmine confesseth that there is no institution of it in the Scripture and that they have it onely by Tradition which yet hee saith is most certaine and no lesse to be believed then the written word it selfe But we are bidden goe to the Law and to the Testimony and are told that if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Isai 8. 20. 3. The Fathers so peake of their anointing as that they seeme to make it onely an Appendix of Baptisme Wee came to the water thou wentest in saith Ambrose then presently hee addes Thou wast anointed as a wrestler So Tertullian Being come out of that laver wee are anointed with the blessed anointing I know Pamelius makes that anointing there spoken of by Tertullian distinct from that used in Confirmation but Bellarmine cites those words as meant of confirmation So those very words of Cyprian which the Marquesse citeth Then they bee fully sanctified and be the Sonnes of God if they be borne of both Sacramments those very wordes I say doe argue that Cyprian though he seeme to speak of two Sacraments yet indeed accounted them but one Sacrament in that he makes one and the same effect of both viz. to be borne whereas they of Rome make birth onely the effect of Baptisme and strength the effect of Confirmation Neither doth it follow that in Cyprians judgement they are two distinct Sacraments because hee saith both Sacraments For so he might speak in respect of two severall signes though both used in one and the same Sacrament Even as Rabanus calleth the body and blood of Christ two Sacraments he means the consecrated bread and wine which though they make but one Sacrament yet because they are two sacramentall signes he calles them two Sacraments 4. Whereas the Fathers used to adde Confirmation presently after Baptisme whether it were one of years or an infant that was Baptized as is acknowledged by Bellarmine and other Romanists now they
to cause Iohn Baptist to be beheaded That of the Apostle holds good in respect of all To avoide Fornication let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her owne husband 1 Cor. 7. 2. And that v. 9. If they cannot containe let them marry for it is better to marry then to burne As therefore none ought simply and absolutely to vow a single life so if they have vowed they ought to repent of their rashnesse and not to adde sin to sin by keeping their vow whatsoever follow upon it but rather to marry then to burne with lust or to commit Fornication The Glosse upon Gratian tells us that in every Vow or Oath such generall conditions as these are understood If God will If I live If I be able And Gratian himselfe cites that of Isidore In evill promises breake thy word in a dishonest vow change thy purpose that which thou hast unadvisedly vowed doe not performe it is a wicked promise which is performed by wickednesse The same words are also cited by Lombard in his Sentences To this purpose also Aquinas He that voweth saith hee doth after a sort appoint a Law unto himselfe binding himselfe unto something which in it selfe and for most part is good Yet it may happen that in some case it is either simply evill or unprofitable or hinders a greater good which is against the nature of that which falls under a vow as appeares by what hath beene said before And therefore it is necessary that it be determined that in such a case a vow is not to be kept And so againe that Angelicall Doctour as they stile him If by observing a vow great and manifest grievance ensue a man ought not to keepe such a vow And Cyprian writing of some that had professed virginity but were found to act contrary to their profession upon that occasion gives this advice If they faithfully dedicate themselves to Christ let them continue honest and chast without any simulation and so being strong and stable let them expect the reward of virginity But if they will not or cannot persevere it is better that they marry then that they fall into the fire by their offences Bellarmine would have Cyprian here onely to admonish such as have not vowed continency rather to marry then to vow if they have not a firme purpose to persevere But the words of Cyprian cannot without violence done unto them be otherwise understood then of those Virgines who did dedicate themselves to Christ as hee speakes by professing continency And so Pamelius though hee make some use of that other Exposition of Cyprians words yet hee cannot but confesse that Cyprian spake of those Virgins that vowed chastity onely to mitigate the matter he will have Cyprian to speake of such as onely made a simple vow and not a solemne vow as they distinguish it But this is nothing for the Scripture speaking of the force of vowes and requiring the performance of them doth not use any such distinction nor give any intimation that a simple vow more then that which is solemne may be broken if it be just and lawfull A vow hath its power of binding not from the solemnity of it but from its nature viz. that it is a promise made to God whether it be made solemnely or no is not materiall though its true the more solemne that it is the greater is the scandall in the breaking of it but the sin otherwise is the same whether the vow be simple or solemne Aquinas speaking of a simple vow wherein no solemnity is used saith This vow is efficacious by divine right And Bonaventure cites this saying of Clemens A simple vow doth binde in respect of God no lesse then a solemne vow For the Scriptures alledged against us that Deut. 23. 2. and so diverse other places doe indeed require those that make a vow to performe it but this cannot be understood of all vows whatsoever but onely of lawfull vowes For as I have shewed unlawfull vowes are not to be kept but to be broken and I have also shewed that vowes of chastity when they prove snares and hinderances of chastity are unlawfull and so consequently to be broken There is more difficulty in the other place viz. 1 Tim. 5. 11 12. concerning which place also Bellarmine saith that nothing can there be meant by first faith but the vow of continency and that generally all ancient Writers did so understand it But it doth not appeare by any thing in the words of the Apostle that the widdowes which hee speaketh of did make any such vow although by entring into the number of Widdowes that were maintained by the publike charge of the Church and withall did service to the Church in attending the sick and the like they did in a sort professe that they intended to live unmarried What neede was there for such Widdowes to vow continency when as none of them were to be under 60. years old 1 Tim. 5. 9. Bellarmine tells us that the Apostle saying Let not a Widdow be chosen under threescore years old and The yonger Widdowes refuse that is doe not chuse them doth not speak of admission unto the vow of continency as if the yonger Widdowes might not be allowed to vow it but hee speakes either of election unto a certaine Office and Order of Deaconesse or which he thinkes more probable of admission into the number of those Widdowes which were maintained by the Church But there is scarce any thing sound in all this save that it is true indeed the Apostle doth not speake of admission to the vow of continency there being no such vowing in those times but it is evident that the Apostle speakes of admission to a kinde of profession of continency For therefore he bids refuse the yonger Widdowes because of their incontinency But the yonger Widdowes saith he refuse for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ they will marry 1 Tim. 5. 11. And vers 14. I will therefore that the yonger Women marry c. As if hee should say let not such as are not likely to containe be admitted among those who are to live unmarried Now these it seemes were such as both had a kinde of Office in the Church were Deaconesses as Phaebe is stilled Rom. 16. 1. according to the Originall and also had maintenance from the Church The former appeares by 1 Tim. 5. 9 10. The latter by 1 Tim. 5. 3 4. 16. So that whereas Bellarmine would make severall Expositions of these they are to be joyned together to make one intire Exposition And in both these respects viz. both in respect of the Office and in respect of the maintenance though more especially it seemes in respect of the Office these Widdowes were to remaine Widdowes and not to marry againe and that there might be little feare of their marrying the Apostle would have the younger Widdowes refused and none admitted
but such as were threescore years old or more But the greatest difficulty is what is meant by the first faith which the Apostle saith the younger Widdowes did cast off and therefore had damnation 1 Tim. 5. 12. It is true the antient Writers for most part expound it of a promise or covenant of a single life but all that goe this way doe not speake of any vow that was made neither Chrysostome nor Theophylact doth upon the place Yea some of the antients shew that they understood the Apostle as speaking of the Christian faith or the common faith as it is called Tit. 1. 4. sure I am some of them make use of the Apostles words and apply them that way Hierome speaking of Heretikes saith that they have cast off or made voide their first faith So Vincentius Lirinensis in his Booke against Heresies saith It is well knowne how grievously the blessed Apostle Paul doth inveigh against those who with wonderfull lightnesse are quickly removed from him that called them to the grace of Christ unto another Gospell which is not another who heape up to themselves teachers after their own lusts turning away their Eares from the truth being turned unto fables having damnation because they have made void their first faith Bellarmine therefore was more curious and criticall if not rather more captious and contentious then tender and respective of the credit of these antient Doctours when he said that faith here must be taken for covenant and vow yet there may be a covenant where there is no vow and cannot be taken for Christian faith because Christian faith is not rightly said to be made voide but to be lost or corrupted but covenants and vowes are most properly said to be made voide Hierom and Vincentius understood the propriety of words as well as Bellarmine who shewes himselfe barbarous in these very words wherein he so playes the critick yet they wee see thought it not improper to say that Heretikes make voide the faith which is necessarily meant of the Christian faith and not of any vow or covenant Nether doe I see but that wee may as properly say that faith being meant of the Christian faith is made voide as that the Law is made voide Heb. 10. 28. or that the grace of God is made voide Gal. 2. 21. wee reade it in the former place despised in the other place frustrate but the Greeke word in both places is the same with that in the Epistle to Timothy And as the words will well beare this sense viz. that it is the Christian faith which the Apostle saith some did cast off or make void so this sense is agreeable to the Apostles expressions in other places of this Epistle Holding faith and a good conscience which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwrack 1 Tim. 1. 19. If they continue in faith 1 Tim. 2. 15. Some shall depart from the faith 1 Tim. 4. 1. And in the very same Chapter in which are the words controverted If any provide not for his own c. hee hath denied the faith c. 1 Tim. 5. 8. So also in the other Epistle to Timothy who concerning the truth have erred c. and overthrow the faith of some 2 Tim. 2. 18. Men of corrupt minds reprobate concerning the faith 2 Tim. 3. 8. I have kept the faith 2 Tim. 4. 7. In all these places faith is understood of Christian faith and therefore probably so is it in that other place about which wee dispute So that this may well be the meaning of the place that they of whom the Apostle speakes being censured of the Church for their lightnesse and lasciviousnesse and not able to beare the disgrace did quite cast off the Christian faith which before they professed and so exposed themselves unto damnation I see nothing uncouth nor incongruous in this Exposition and it doth well agree with that which the Apostle saith a little after For some are allready turned after Satan 1 Tim. 5. 15. which words seeme to import a plaine and open renouncing of Christ as on the other side to come after CHRIST is as much as to professe his Name Mat. 16. 24. Luke 9. 23. Object But may some say the Apostle reproves these of whom hee speakes for that they begin to wax wanton against Christ and will marry which argues that they had vowed or professed continency for else why might they not marry The wife is bound by the Law so long as her husband liveth but if her husband be dead she is at liberty to be married to whom she will only in the Lord. 1 Cor. 7. 39. Ans I grant that those Widdowes though they did not vow yet by the very course of life which they entred upon did professe continency marriage and that course being inconsistent And justly might they be reproved both for their rashnesse in taking upon them that profession and for their lightnesse in falling off from it when there was no just cause for it The Apostle doth not simply condemne them for having a minde to marry but because out of wantonnesse they would needs marry And it might be called wantonnesse against Christ because they had addicted themselves to the service of Christ in his Church and Members which service they did desert by their wantonnesse And in this sense by their first faith may be meant the promise either formall or virtuall which those Widdowes did make unto the church that they would remaine Widdowes and not marry which promise they breaking meerely out of wantonnesse well might the Apostle say that they had damnation for it But all this proves not that it is sinfull and damnable for any that have vowed continency afterwards to marry Though Bellarmine will by no meanes endure that those words of the Apostle I will therefore that the younger Widdowes marry c. 1 Tim. 5. 14. be understood of such as had professed continency as if the Apostle would have such to marry if they could not containe So also Estius upon the place who saith that otherwise the Apostle should cast them headlong into damnation For if they have damnation who have a will to marry how much more they that doe marry But though I thinke that the Apostles direct meaning was that the younger Widdowes should not be admitted into the number of those who were by their place and calling to professe continency into which number hee would have none admitted under 60. years old yet Estius his reason is not valid For the Apostle doth not say that the younger Widdowes being admitted into that number and afterwards willing to marry or actually marrying therefore had damnation but because they would marry out of wantonnesse and so out of wantonnesse make voide their first faith viz. their promise of continency made to the Church if not their Christian Faith which before they professed Notwithstanding which sentence it followes not but
and light sinnes as idle talking immoderate laughing c. But they of the Church of Rome doe now hold that mortall sinnes as they call them in respect of the punishment are sometimes remitted not here in this World but in the World to come 4. Gregory in that same place saith that the fire which the Apostle speakes of 1 Cor. 3. 13 15. may be understood of the fire of tribulation which is endured in this life What doe our adversaries now gaine by Gregory Hee takes away one principall place that they build upon for Purgatory he alledgeth many places from which by his own confession so much is evinced as indeed cannot consist with Purgatory hee builds upon a place which both in the judgement of other Fathers professedly commenting upon it and also by diverse reasons appeares to make nothing for Purgatory and concerning that Purgatory which he doth hold he comes short of the opinion of our adversaries all which things considered they can get little by his testimony The next and last Father objected against us is Origen whose testimonie if it were most cleare for a Purgatory after this life yet it were of small force he being censured as I have shewed before by Bellarmine as erroneous in this point holding that there shall be a Purgatory even after the day of judgement Yet Bellarmine also thought good to make use of his testimony viz. this He that is saved is saved by fire that if perhaps he have any lead mixed with him the fire may melt and consume it that so all may be made pure Gold Thus I confesse Origen writes in the place which the Marquesse citeth And so also in the same place hee hath these words which though Bellarmine doth not alledge yet some have thought to make for Purgatory and so they do as much as the other All must come to the fire all must come to the Fornace Where in the margent it is noted by Genebrard I suppose who was the overseer of that Edition that Origen speakes of Purgatory But it may easily appeare to any that looke into Origen that neither in these words nor in the other before cited Purgatory is meant by that fire and fornace whith he speakes of but affliction As the fornace saith hee doth try Gold so doth affliction the righteous And speaking of Peter he saith He was not so great nor such an one as that he had no mixture of lead in him He had some though but a little and therefore the Lord said unto him why didst thou doubt O thou of little faith And then immediately follow the words which Bellarmine alledgeth and the Marquesse I presume aimeth at Therefore he that is saved is saved by fire c. What is this to the Romish Purgatory I am confident they will not say that Peter had neede of this Purgatory yet hee had of that which Origen speakes of and so all whosoever they be it being affliction by which here in this life even the best are tried and also purified And thus much for Purgatory in the last place comes extreme unction Lastly saith the Marquesse We hold extreme Vnction to be a Sacrament you neither hold it to be a Sacrament neither do you practise it as a duty We have Scripture for it Jam. 5. 14. Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him in the Name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him Neither any nor all the Sacraments were or could be more effectuall to mens good nor more substantiall in matter nor more exquisite in forme nor more punctuall in the designation of its Ministery other Sacraments being bounded within the limits of the soules onely good this extends it selfe to the good both of soule and body He shall recover from his sicknesse and his sinnes shall be forgiven him And yet it is both left out in your practice and acknowledgement The Fathers are on our side Orig. hom 2. in Levit. Chrys l. 3. de Sacerd. Aug. in Speculo Ser. 215. de temp Vener Bed in 6. Mir. S. Iames and many others As for extreme Unction as they call it that is the anointing of the sick with oyl as the manner is in the Church of Rome Protestants do not acknowledge it to be either a Sacrament or a duty because they see no ground in Scripture either for the one or for the other The Scripture indeed in two places viz. that which the Marquesse citeth and Mar. 6. 13. doth speak of anointing the sick with oyle But that anointing was extraordinary peculiar to those times when there was as other extraordinary gifts bestowed upon men so the gift of healing which is mentioned Mat. 10. 1 8. and 1 Cor. 12. 9 30. in which places of Scripture this gift is ranked with casting out devills speaking with strange tongues and working of miracles And so Mark 6. 13. It is said of the Apostles They cast out many devils and anointed with oyle many that were sick and healed them It is plain that this anointing with oyle was of like nature with casting out of devils that is that it was a miraculous cure wrought by the Apostles And that in Saint Iames was of the same kinde with this in Saint Mark as I shall shew anon But now the gift of healing in that manner being ceased we say that the ceremony is to cease also and not to be used The Marquesse insisteth much upon the words of Saint Iames as being very clear and full to prove both that this anointing is a duty and also that it is a Sacrament And so the Romanists must hold because the Councell of Trent hath determined that the holy anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ our Lord as a Sacrament of the new Testament truly and properly so called and that this Sacrament is insinuated in Mark but commended to the faithfull and promulgated by James the Apostle and the Lords brother And who soever shall gain say this the Councell doth pronounce them accursed But there being two places of Scripture which mention this anointing with oyle it may seem strange that the Marquesse should alledge only the one and wholly wave the other wee shall see I hope by and by that this is as much as to quit both places they being both to one and the same purpose The Councell of Trent we see thought good to make use of both yet so as to lay the more weight upon that in Iames saying only that the Sacrament of anointing is insinuated in the other And so Bellarmine doth mainly build upon the words of Iames yet so as that he will have the words of Saint Mark to contain in them a figure and adumbration of this Sacrament which they call extreme Unction Let us
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
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
Catechisme set forth by the decree of the Councel of Trent comming to explain the ten Commandements saith Although the Law was given by the Lord in the Mount to the Jews yet because by nature it was long before imprinted in the mindes of all and so God would have all at all times to obey him it will be very profitable diligently to explain these words in which by the Ministery of Moses the Law was promulgated to the Hebrews c. Here they clearly intimate that the ten Commandements do not concern Christians as published by Moses but as imprinted in the heart of man by nature which is all that Luther teacheth who both in his greater and lesser Catechisme expoundeth the ten Commandements which he would not have done if he had held that they do not bind Christians to the observing of them But this doctrine he expresly disclaimeth as I have already shewed 14. Luther is taxed for saying that faiâ—h except it be without even the least good works doth not justifie and is not faith Nothing is alleadged out of Luthers writings for proof of this but onely Câ—vels defence of Mr. Hooker is cited which book I have not to peruse yet I finde Bellarminâ— citing Luthers own words to this very purpose But Luthers meaning I suppose was onely this that in the work of justification faith is altogether without works so that no works concur with it unto justification not but that otherwise faith is accompanied with good works so that where faith true justifying faith is there wil be good works also Bellarmine indeed doth tell of some rigid Lutherans who so hold faith alone to justifie as not to admit other vertues so much as to be present with it And this he saith they would have to be Luthers opinion yet he confesseth Chemnitius a famous Lutheran to agree with Calvin in this that though faith alone doth justifie yet faith that doth justifie is not alone even as the heat of the Sun alone doth burn yet that heat is not alone but hath light joyned with it And for Luther himself his writings plainly shew that although he exclude works from having any thing to do in our justification as generally Protestants do yet he was no enemy to good works After that we have taught faith in Christ saith he we also teach good works And again We do not reject works and love as the adversaries do accuse us And again Faith not fained nor hypocritical but true and lively is that which doth exercise and urge good works through love So also again Some say if faith without works do justifie then let us not work onely let us beleeve and let us do what we will Not so ye ungodly saith Paul It is true that faith alone doth justifie but I speak of true faith which when it hath justified is not idle but doth work through love 15. Luther is charged with saying That we are equal in dignity and honour with St. Paul St. Peter the blessed Virgin Mary or all the Saints The Edition of Luthers Works which the Marquesse citeth not agreeing in the folio's with that which I meet with I cannot tell whether Luther saith thus or no or if he do in what sense he saith it but if he have such words I presume he meaneth in respect of imputed righteousnesse which is one and the same to all that beleeve not in respect of inherent righteousnesse which is more in some then in others In respect of imputed righteousnesse the Spouse of Christ here upon earth is all fair and there is no spot in her But in respect of inherent righteousnesse just men are not made perfect until hereafter in the life to come Heb. 12. 23. In this respect the inward man is renewed day by day 2 Cor. 4. 16. 16. That all the holinesse which they have used in fasting and prayer enduring labours chastising their bodies austerity and hardnesse of life may be daily performed by a hog or a dog Whether this charge be true I cannot examine for the reason even now alleadged Neither do I see how Luther or any rational man should make prayer a thing performable by a hog or a dog Otherwise who seeth not but that these bruit creatures may be made to fast see Jon. 3. 7. 8. and to endure bodily hardnesse The Apostle clearly distinguisheth betwixt bodily exercise and godlinesse 1 Tim. 4. 8. And both Scripture and experience shew that all these things mentioned by the Marquesse may be performed by the wicked as well I mean for the outward act as by the godly See Isa 1. 11. to 15. and Isa 58. 3. c. 17. Another charge against Luther is that he holdeth That in the absence of a Priest a woman or a boy or any Christian may obsolve It seems then that Luther doth not say that any may do it as well as a Priest for then what need to say in absence of a Priest And may not any Christian declare the glad tydings of salvation unto an afflicted conscience Doth not the Apostle speaking to Christians in general bid them comfort the feeble-minded 1 Thess 5. 14. As for that confession to and absolution by a Priest which the Romanists contend for we know no ground nor warrant in Scripture for it 18. The next charge is that he saith They onely communicate worthily who have confused and erronious consciences I finde this objected by Campian and answered by Dr. Whitaken so as to aknowledge the truth of the assertion in this sense that they only are meet for the Sacrament who are sensible of their sins and so of the need they have of Christ for the remission of them according to that of our Saviour The whole have no need of the Physitian but they that are sick Mat. 9. 12. 19. That a Priest especially in the New Testament is not made but born not consecrated but created Where Luther saith thus I cannot finde nor can I conjecture what he meaneth if he do say it 20. That the Sacrament were true though it were administred by the Devil How Luther is baited for this by Hospinian and Covel his fellow-Protestants as the Marquesse saith he is I wanting their books cannot see but it Luther meant of such a Devil as Christ spake of viz. a Judas Joh. 6. 70. neither Protestants nor Papists can justly oppose him they holding as generally they do that the vertue of the Sacrament doth not depend upon the dignity of him by whom it is administred 21. That among Christians no man can or ought to be a Magistrate but each one is to other equally subject and that among Christian men none is superior save one and only Christ This same charge is also brought against Luther by Mr. Breerley who yet hath that which is a sufficient answer to it For he cites Luther admonishing to obey the
much as to renounce his salvation and this the Marquesse saith he saith a little before was not fained or as a thing only acted upon a stage Surely all that have any spark of Christianity in them must needs assent to Calvin in this that Christs passion as the Evangelists relate it was not fained nor acted upon a stage though it seems they of the Church of Rome on Good Friday as they call it use to make a kind of Stage-play of it But how unworthily is Calvin here used He is made to say that Christ was overwhelmed with desperation ceased to call upon God and did as much as renounce his salvation But any that look into the place alleadged may see that Calvin is far from this blasphemy That which he saith is this that the wicked enemies of Christ by Satans instigation deriding him when he cried Eli Eli c. did labour to overwhelm him with desperation and to make him cease calling upon God which had been as much as to renounce salvation As before Calvin was made positively to aver that which hee brought in by way of objection so here that is censured as spoken by him which he only speaks of Christs enemies But it is worthy to be observed that immediately after those words which are so pitifully perverted Calvin comforts himself and others with this consideration that if our words which are right and good be depraved and slandered it is no marvel seeing Christ himself was thus dealt with But to proceed 16. Calvin as is alleadged saith That Christ in his soul suffered the terrible torments of a damned and forsaken man This allegation is true and so also is that which follows in the next passage but two and I note it here because it is of the same nature It is no marvel if it be said that Christ went down into hell since he suffered that death wherewith God in wrath striketh wicked doers Calvin hath these sayings in the place alleadged viz. Instit lib. 2. cap. 16. sect 10. I am not of Calvins mind for the meaning of the article about Christs descent into hell as I have elsewhere shewed And peradventure Calvin might go too far in exaggerating the sufferings of Christs soul as others in this may be too remisse But when Calvin speaketh of Christ suffering the torments of a damned man he means such torments as are without all mixture of sin for that he alwayes removes far from Christ as I have shewed before And that Christ did suffer the torments of a forsaken man his own words upon the crosse do shew My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Christ had speciall cause as Jansenius observes to complaine that he was forsaken of his God in that he had the divine nature united to him and his humane nature did not feel any comfort of it And in this respect it may be said that Christ suffered that death wherewith God in wrath doth strike wicked doers though in other respects there was great difference 17. Calvin is charged with this saying In the death of Christ occus a spectacle full of desperation Calvins meaning will easily appear to any that look upon his words as they are in the place quoted He speaks of Joseph of Arimathea his courage in begging of Pilate Christs body to bury it saying Now when in Christs death occurs a spectacle full of desperation which might have been able to break a stout heart whence hath he on the sudden such a generous spirit that in the midst of terrors fearing nothing he should not doubt to proceed further then when all was quiet Any may here plainly see that Calvin speaks not of any desperation that Christ in his death did fall into but his meaning is that a natural man yea one that had but a small measure of faith could have apprehended nothing in Christs death but matter of desperation And surely this appears by the words of the two Disciples not to speak of the deportment of the Apostles We trusted that it had been he that should have redeemed Israel Luke 24. 21. Another sentence is here immediately after cited out of Calvin viz. In this spectacle there was nothing but matter of extreme despair The very words shew it to carry the same sense with the former though otherwise I can say nothing to it the place from which it is taken being mis-cited for on Joh. 14. 6 Calvin hath no such thing 18. The Marquesse taxeth Calvin for saying Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father holds but a second degree with him in honour and rule and is but his Vicar Calvin on Mat. 26. 64. doth say That Christ is said to sit at the right hand of the Father because he hath as it were after him the second seat of honour and rule and because he is his Vicar So that Calvin indeed doth not say that Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father but that Christ as sitting at the right hand of his Father holds but a second degree c. that is that Christs sitting at the right hand of God though it import great honour and dignity yet such as whereby Christ is but in a second degree of honour under the Father And surely this is most true it belonging unto Christ as man to sit at the right hand of God as the Councel of Trents Catechisme doth teach the honour and dignity which that sitting imports though otherwise it be most great yet must needs be inferior to that which belongs to the Father and so also to Christ as he is one and the same God with the Father 19. Lastly saith the Marquesse Calvin holds it absurd that Christ should challenge to himself the glory of his own resurrection when the Scripture every where teacheth it to be the work of the Father It may seem wonderful that mens words and writings should be thus depraved Two places of Calvin are cited for proof of this which is alleadged against him Now in the former place viz. on Joh. 2. 19. he saith thus Here Christ doth challenge to himself the glory of his resurrection when as the Scripture usually doth testifie that this is the work of God the Father But these two do well agree together For the Scripture to commend unto us Gods power doth expresly ascribe this to the Father that he raised his Son from the dead but here Christ peculiarly sets forth his own Divinity And Paul doth reconcile both Rom. 8. 11. For the Spirit which he maketh to be the Author of the resurrection he promiscuously cals sometimes the Spirit of Christ sometimes the Spirit of the Father So also in the other place viz. on Rom. 8. 11. Surely saith he Christ rose again of himself and by his own power But as he used to transcribe to the Father whatsoever divine power is in him so the Apostle doth not improperly
woman should be joyned together The Son of God doth draw us back to the first institution c. 3. He is said to teach peremptory resistance against Magistrates and to inable the inferiour Magistrate to alter Religion against the contrary Edicts of the Superiour For the latter part of this charge the Marquesse citeth Concil Theol. which book I finde not as I said amongst Melancthons Works For the former part he citeth Melancthon on Rom. 13. but in that place there is not a syllable that I can see whereby it may appear that Melancthon teacheth any resistance against the Magistrate All that I finde is that he teacheth Magistracie to be of God and answereth the arguments of the Anabaptists against it Here the Marquesse addes So Calvin so Beza so Goodman so Danaeus so Knox c. all hold it lawfull to depose murther or to arraign their Prince c. But where these Authours either all or any of them do hold thus he sheweth not he doth not so much as point at any of their writings where such doctrine may be found I know that some of these Authours here mentioned are charged in this kinde by Romish Writers but withall I know that the charges brought against them are answered See Rivet Jes Vap. cap. 13. § 9. 10 11. Bils of Christ subject Page 509. c. The former of these answers to what is alleadged against Calvin the latter to what is alleadged both against him and against Beza Goodman and Knox. But some of the Authours whom the Marquesse here citeth as being of this opinion concerning Magistrates he was much mistaken in viz. Bancroft who did declare himself so much the other way that he taxed some of these here mentioned by the Marquesse as being not respective enough of the honour due to Magistrates His book I have read though now I have it not nor do I perfectly remember the title of it I think also that there is the like mistake concerning Sutcliffe whom the Marquesse also joyneth with the 1 â—st I thinke that he also was so farre from teaching such doctrine that he did rather taxe those who did but seem to teach it But I am not so well assured of him as of the other After Melancthon the Marquesse speaketh of Andraeas Musculus who he saith was not afraid openly to teach that the Divine nature of Christ died upon the Crosse with his humane nature Wolfangus Musculus is an Author well known but Andraeas Musculus I confesse I have not heard of before so farre am I from being able to say what he holdeth but if he hold as the Marquesse here alleadgeth I shall be as ready to explode and abhor his opinion as any other In the next place the Marquesse speaketh of the divisions of Protestants which I confesse have been and are too great though divers of the Sects which he mentioneth I do not know that ever I read of before But what if Protestants differ among themselves and so must needs some of them be in error Yet may they for all this be in the truth so far forth as they all agree and consequently so far forth as they dissent from the Church of Rome There were many Sects among the Jews as Pharisees Sadduces and Herodians spoken of in Scripture and the Essenes mentioned by Josephus These differing one from another must certainly some of them erre yet as they agreed together in opposing Paganisme they were all right Whilst the Catholicks saith the Marquesse have no jars no differences uncomposed having one common Father one Conductor and Adviser as Sir Edw. Sands confesseth The Authours book which the Marquesse citeth I have but not so distinguished as that which he referreth unto and therefore I cannot finde the words which he alleadgeth But seeing mention is made of this book I think it meet here to insert some things out of it that so the Reader may perceive what manner of unity and agreement it is that is amongst them of the Church of Rome But now saith that worthy Authour to come to the view of their Ecclesiastical government not so much as it is reserred to the conduct of soules though that be the natural and proper end of that regiment but rather as it is addressed to the upholding of the worldly power and glory of their order to the advancing of their part and overthrow of their opposites which I suppose be the points they now chiefly respect I think I may truly say there was never yet State framed by mans wit in this world more powerful and forcible to work those effects never any either more wisely contrived and plotted or more constantly and diligently put in practice and execution insomuch that but for the natural weaknesse and untruth and dishonesty which being rotten at the heart abate the force of whatsoever is founded thereon their outward means were sufficient to subdue a whole world In their art they have certain head-assertions which as indemonstrable principles they urge all to receive and hold As That they are the Church of God within which great facility and without which no possibility of salvation That divine Prerogative gramed to them above all other Societies in the world doth preserve them everlastingly from erring in matter of faith and from falling from God That the Pope Christs deputy hath the keyes of heaven in his custody c. In these 〈◊〉 no doubt or question is tolerable and who so joyn with them in these shall finde great connivence in what other defect or difference soever c. And by this plot they have erected in the world a Monarchy more potent then ever any that hath been before it c. And afterward To what a miserable push saith he have they driven the world either in their pleading against them with such force of evidence or in their learning of them and joyning with them as to stop the month of the one and hang the faith of the other on this 〈◊〉 paradox I and my Church cannot possibly erre and this must you take upon our own words to be true For as for their conjectural evidence out of the Scripture there seems to be as much or more for the King of Spains not erring as there is for the Popes it being said by the wisest that the heart of the King is in the hands of God a divine sentence is in his lips and his mouth shall not transgresse in judgement And a little after Although it were perhaps not untruly said by a great Clerk of their own that the Popes not erring was but an opinion of policy and not of Theologie to give stay to the Laity not stop to the Divines of whom in such infinite controversies and jarrings NB about interpretations of Texts and conclusions of Science wherein many have spent a large part of their lives never any yet went neither at this day doth go to be resolved
point at takes upon him to refell that which some others answer in the behalf of Beza but never takes notice of this which Beza hath said in his own behalf But the Marquesse returns to Luther and besides other things which he objects against him but proves only by the testimony of his adversaries or by such pieces of Luthers own Works as I have not liberty to peruse he taxeth him for giving such opprobrious termes to King Henry 8. Ans It is true K. Hen. 8. having written or at least some other in his name against Luther and his Doctrine Luther did return answer so as to shew but small respect to the person against whom he wrote But afterwards Luther in an Epistle which he wrote to the King confessed his fault humbly craving pardon and offering to write a publike recantation and to do the King honour if he should require it Indeed the King not answering Luthers expectation but instead of accepting his submission setting forth another book against him with his Epistle annexed to it and insulting over him as if he had recanted his doctrine Luther made answer to this book also yet so as to abstain from those terms of contumely and reproach which before he had used only shewing that he was firm and stedfast in his doctrine yea daily more and more confirmed in it and that no mans person how great soever he were should be of any esteem with him so as to bring him to any recantation in that respect The Marquesse having censured some of the prime Doctors of the Reformed Churches falls to censure the people as being generally averse from all honesty and godlines and to this end he all eadgeth the words of Luther and some others who complain of the vitious and corrupt wayes of those that live under the pure preaching of the Gospel and he concludes How could the people be better when their Ministers were so bad Bellarmine urging also some of these testimonies proceeds so farre in his censure as to say that though among them of the Church of Rome for that he means by the Catholike Church there be many bad yet among Protestants whom after his manner he terms Hereticks there is none good and this he saith is notorious But if both Ministers and people were bad as their adversaries pretend yet might their doctrine and profession be good for all that It was the Apostles complaint in his time All seek their own not the things that are Jesus Christs Phil. 2. 21. Yet the doctrine of Jesus Christ which they preached and professed was never a whit the worse for all this though with some it might be worse accounted of In like manner the Prophets frequently complain of the people of the Jews whose Religion neverthelesse was the only true Religion in the world See Isa 1. 4 5 6. Jer. 5. 1. 2. 9. 2. c. Ezek. 22. 2. c. and so many other places And that the Protestant doctrine is not to blame what ever the Preachers and professors of it be may appear by those very testimonies which the Marquesse and other alledge For in that as they shew Ministers tax and reprove people for being so bad it argues that the doctrine delivered unto them is good though they make no good use of it But that Protestants are so universally bad as that Bellarmine should say there is none good among them is too grosse an aspersion and wondrous impudence it is to adde that this is notorious to all that know them I will only cite the testimony of Bodinus one that never withdrew himself for any thing I finde from communion with the Church of Rome He speaking of Geneva where Calvin and Beza were Ministers of the Gospel exceedingly commends the discipline there used Then which he saith nothing could be imagined greater and more divine for the restraining of mens lusts and those vices which by humane Laws and Judgements could no way be reformed Insomuch that no whoredomes no drunkennesse no dancings no beggars no idle persons are found in that City But to proceed the Marquesse in the conclusion of all that he hath in this kinde relates horrible things of Calvin in respect both of his life and death alleadging that they are written by two knowne and approved Protestant Authors One of these Authors whose words the Marquesse alleadgeth was indeed a Protestant but a great Lutheran to wit Schlusselberg and a professed adversary unto Calvin and I presume so also was the other who the Marquesse saith did write the life of Calvin and confirme that which is said by the former to wit Herennius though I have not heard of him before Mr. Breerley so far as I finde never mentions him though he make very frequent use of Schlusselberg whose words concerning Calvin here cited by the Marquesse he all eadgeth in two several places of his Apology But however Bolsecus is the man from whom at first did proceed whatsoever any have in disgrace of Calvin either for his life or death Now this Author lived some while at Geneva where Calvin was and being opposed by him it seems for some things which he could not approve he both became Calvins bitter enemy and also turned back to Popery and was a Papist at that very time when he wrote of Calvin as is confessed by Mr. Breerley who saith that therefore he doth purposely forbear to urge his testimony in which respect also it may be the Marquesse made no mention of this Author because he would not seem in this case to alleadge any of their own Church But to what porpose is it that they forbear to cite Bolsecus when as they cite those who have nothing in this kinde but from Bolsecus He was the first and for some while the only man that did traduce Calvin as concerning his life and death And therefore Bellarmine as writing before those whom Mr. Breerley and the Marquesse mention alleadgeth only Bolsecus as relating things that concerne Calvin of this nature But if Mr. Breerley and so other Romanists could think there was just cause to except against the testimonies of Benno and others concerning Pope Hildebrand called Gregory 7. alleadging that they were his adversaries and took part with the Emperour against him though yet Benno was a Cardinal and the rest were all Romanists what candour and ingenuity is there to alleadge against Calvin the testimonies of those who did professe themselves adversaries unto him Besides that Bolsecus the first deviser of these calumnies was one of their own party For the things that are objected That concerning the manner of Calvins death appears most false by what Beza hath written of it who being with Calvin at Geneva when he dyed had more cause to know the truth then Bolsecus who was removed I think from Geneva before that time And the other particular about Calvins being stigmatized is clearly