by Hierome came to be Pope there was such a conflict betwixt him and Urscicinus about it that in one day there were found in a Church 137. dead bodies of those that were slaine in the conflict This is related by Ammianus Marcellinus who lived in the same time when this happened And though he were no Christian yet that he did not write thus out of any ill affection towards Christians and a desire to disgrace them may appear as by that ingenuity and impartiality which he elsewhere usually shews in his history so by this that in this very place he much commends other Bishops of meaner places and saith that the Bps. of Rome might have been happy indeed if they would have imitated them and despising the greatnesse of the City would have lived sparingly and carried themselves humbly as other Bishops of the Roman Provinces did But so also for the same reason to wit the honour and dignity of Rome the Bishop thereof had some priviledge and preheminencie above others And so the first Councel of Constantinople decreed that the Bishop of Constantinople should have the second place to wit next after the Bishop of Rome because it was new Rome And afterwards the Councel of Chalcedon which was the fourth general Councel as that of Constantinople was the second for the very same reason confirmed the same plainly expressing thus much that because Rome had been the seat of the Empire therefore the Fathers had given the chief honour to the Bishop of that City and that now Constantinople being advanced to that honour Constantine having removed his seat thither it was meet that the Bishop of that place should likewise be advanced so as to be next to the Roman Bishop Thus it plainly appears even by this very Councel which the Marquesse alleadgeth that the dignity of the Bishop of Rome is built meerly upon humane authority and earthly consideration Neither doth Hierom attribute such supereminencie as is pretended to Damasus the Roman Bishop but being in the Eastern parts which were much infected with Arianisme and knowing that Damasus was free from that infection he consulted him about a point wherein he feared lest some Arians in the East might ensnare him But that Hierome did not hold the Bishop of Rome to be supereminent by divine Law is clear and evident by what he wrote to Evagrius namely this Wheresoever a Bishop is whether at Rome or at Eugubium whether at Constantinople or at Rhegium whether at Alexandria or at Tanis he hath the same merit and the same Priesthood The power of riches and the meannesse of poverty doth not make a Bishop either higher or lower but they are all the successours of the Apostles The Marquesse goes on saying 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 Latine although that in none of the Provinces except in Italy and the Cities where the Roman Colonies resided the Latine tongue was understood by the common people That divine Service should be performed in a tongue which the people understand not is most repugnant both to reason and Scripture The Apostle 1 Cor. 14. plainly and fully declares against it and shews the absurdity of it For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men but unto God for no man understandeth him v. 2. Now brethren if I come unto you speaking with tongues viz. unknown tongues what shall I profit you v. 6. And even things without life giving sound whether pipe or harp except they give a distinction in the sounds how shall it be known what is piped or harped v. 7. For if the Trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself to the battell v. 8. So likewise you except ye utter by the tongue words easie to be understood how shall it be known what is spoken for ye shall speak into the aire v. 9. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice I shall be unto him that speaketh a Barbarian and he that speaketh shall be a Barbarian unto me v. 11. Else when thou shalt blesse in the spirit how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest v. 16. In the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding that by my voice I might teach others also then ten thousand words in an unknown tongue v. 19. The case here is so clear that Cardinal Cajetan in his Commentary upon the place is forced to confesse That by this doctrine of the Apostle it is better for the edification of the people that publick prayers be made in a tongue which both the Clergy and the people understand then that they be in Latine And hereupon also he expresseth his dislike of the use of Organs and of chanting in Divine Service and saith that it were better such musical melody were laid aside and that Divine Service were so performed as that people might understand it Austine indeed shews that in his time and Country the Latine tongue was used in Divine Service but withall he shews that the people did understand it though they were not very Grammatical and exact in it And therefore sometimes barbarous words were permitted because the people were acquainted with them and understood them better then pure Latine words For this reason he saith in that place which the Marquesse citeth that floriet was used for florebit that is shall flourish And so elsewhere he saith that he would rather use the word ossum for a bone then os chusing rather to be reproved by Grammarians then that the people should not understand him And that the Latine tongue was then generally understood by the people where he lived is most evident also by that which he writeth in his Confessions to wit that though he had very much ado to learn the Greek tongue yet the Latine he learnt without difficulty even whilst his Nurse and others played with him and because he heard none speak any other Language The Marquesse to prove still that the Church of Rome is not changed but is the same that it was of old mentioneth divers things which the Church then he saith observed as distinction of Feasts and ordinary dayes c. 1. These are things of an inferiour alloy in comparison of many things wherein Protestants charge the Church of Rome to be altered from what of old it was 2. The same things might be observed of old yet not in the same manner as now in the Church of Rome they are viz. so as to place the worship of God in such things So they now do which makes Ferus though one of their own Authors cry out Behold our stupidity and perversenesse And again O preposterous Religion 3. If Protestants have abolished such things besides that they might lawfully do it God in
a remedy Tertullian makes no mention of secret confession of sins as Rhenanus observes who conceiveth that secret confession did arise from publick confession people of their owne accord confessing secret sinnes secretly as they used to confesse open sins openly For saith he We no where read that this secret confession was injoyned he means by the Ancients One Father more there is whom the Marquesse here citeth namely Chrysostome lib. 3. de Sacerdot So Bellarmine having alledged something out of the former book of Chrysostome bids see also the third book But no doubt if there had been any thing more for Bellarmines purpose in the third book then in the second he would have been so good as to have set it before us Now the very words of Chrysostome as Bellarm cites out of lib. 2. de sacerd do shew that he speaks not of a necessity lying upon all to confesse all their sinnes to a Minister but onely that Christiani qui laborant Christians that are in a perplexed estate have need of this remedy Having thus shewed that the Fathers testifie nothing for Popish confession I shall shew how they testifie against it And to begin with him that was last mentioned Chrysostome is most copious in this kind Why art thou ashamed saith he and doest blush to confesse thy sinnes Doest thou speak to a man that he may upbraid thee Doest thou confesse to thy fellow servant that he may insult over thee To thy Lord to him that hath a care of thee to him that is kind to the Physitian thou doest shew thy wound Here he takes it for granted that there is ordinarily no necessity of confessing to any but to God onely So againe Art thou ashamed saith he to say that thou hast sinned Confesse then daily in thy prayr For doe I say confesse to thy fellow servant who may reproach thee No confesse unto God who doth cure thee Diverse such sayings hath this Father most plain and pregnant for our purpose Bellarmine with all his art and all his industry was not able to give a satisfactory answer to them He saith that Chrysostome spake onely of publick Confession not of private onely of that which is made in the open Congregation not of that which is made to a Priest in secret But it is evident that Chrysostome speaks against the necessity of confessing to any but onely unto God He bids Confesse in thy soul Make confession in thy thought Let God onely see thee confessing Such confession as this man hath nothing to do with either in publick or in private Bellarmine answers that in these places Chrysostome doth speak of confession not as it hath reference to the Priests absolution but as it hath reference to shame and confusion and in this latter respect he saith Chrysostome doth well admonish that it is not necessary to confesse unto man either in publique or in private but that it sufficeth to confesse with sorrow and tears unto God onely But here Bellarmine a thing not unusuall with him doth contradict himself For here he granteth that to confess only unto God is enough to work shame yet in another place he saith That shame useth not to be feared in that confession which is made onely unto God And againe Shamefac'dnesse hath no place in that confession which is made onely unto God These assertitions as they agree not with the truth see Ezr. 9. 6. so neither do they agree with the answer that here Bellarmine giveth unto Chrysost Where as Bellarm saith that Chrysost speaketh not of confession as having reference to the Priests absolution it is easily granted there being ordinarily no necessity of any such absolution Chrysostme willeth a man to confesse though but in his heart unto God assuring him that thereby he shall obtain Gods absolution and what need then of any others absolution Except in some speciall case viz. for the quieting of a troubled conscience and that one may the better enjoy the comfort of Gods absolution Thus for Chrysostme Austine also doth shew the no-necessity of confessing unto men which still must be understood excepting some particular case wherein it may be requisite What have I to doe saith he with men that they should hear my confessions as if they could heal all my diseases Bellarmine takes it in disdaine that these words of Austine should be alledged against their confession This he saith is nothing else but to delude the simple For that whosoever reads Austines Confessions cannot but know that he speakes not of Sacramentall Confession but of the Confession of sinnes past and forgiven by Baptisme which Confession was made to that end that thereby the mercy of God might be seen and praised But Austines words are of more force then thus to be evaded We willingly grant that Austine speaks not of Sacramentall Confession there being indeed no such Confession to be spoken of as they call Sacramentall no such I say truly so called and so much these very words of Austine doe sufficiently testifie For Sacramentall Confession as they call it is a Confession necessarily to be made unto a Priest or else no remission of sin they say committed after Baptisme can be obtained but Austine shewes that ordinarily Confessing unto men is not necessary Neither is it so that Austine in his book of Confessions doth only speak of his sins which he had committed before he was Baptized For in that tenth Book where he hath the words before cited he speaketh of sinnes which he was guilty of long after his Baptisme yea even then when he was writing his Confessions As namely impure Dreames and nocturnall pollutions as also excesse in Eating Diverse other particulars doth he also confesse saying that his life was full of such failings and that all his hope was onely in Gods exceeding great mercy To this purpose also Ambrose who speaking of Peter saith I find not what he spake I find that he wept And hence he infers that tears may procure pardon of sin though no verball Confession be made of it To this testimony of Ambrose Bellarmine answers that as then Sacramentall Confession was not instituted and therefore 't is no marvell if we doe not read of Peters confession And 't is very true that Sacramentall Confession neither then had nor at all hath any divine institution Again Bellarmine sayes that Tears of which Ambrose speaketh containe a kind of Confession in them This indeed is true in respect of God who knowes the heart and affection from whence Tears proceed and therefore David saith that the Lord had heard the voice of his weeping Psal 6. 8. which shewes that as the Tongue by speaking so the Eyes by weeping have a voice which God doth hear But what is this unto men who by tears alone without words can understand little Bellarmine grants that Tears are sufficient in that Confession which is made unto God who
your Religions antiquity and you shall find as much difference in their Articles and ours as can be between Churches that are most opposite Come home to your owne Countrey and derive your descent from Wickliffe and search for his Tenents in the booke of Martyrs and you shall find them quite contrary to ours neither amongst any of your moderne Protestants shall you find any other agreement but in this one thing that they all protest against the Pope Shew me but any Protestant Countrey in the world where Reformation as you call it ever set her foot where she was not as well attended with sacriledge as usher'd by Rebellion and I shall lay my hand upon my mouth for ever King My Lord my Lord you are gone beyond the scope of your Argument which required you to prove the Romane Church more Catholick then the Greek which you have not done you put me off with my being English and not a Grecian whereas when we speak of the universality of a Church I think that any man who is belonging to the universe is objectum rationis And if that be the manner of your Election then I am sure most voices must carry it for your alleaged submission of the Greek Church unto the Roman I believe it cannot be prov'd but it may be the Patriarch of Constantinople may submit unto the Pope of Rome and yet the Greek Church may not submit unto the Romane Marq. Sir it is no dishonour for the Sun to make its progress from East to West it is still the same Sun and the difference is onely in the shadowes which are made to differ according to the varieties of shapes that the severall substances are of East and West are two divisions but the same day neither can they be said or imagined to be greater or more extending one or other and the one may have the benefit of the Suns light though the other may have its glory and I believe no man of sober judgment can say that any Church in the world is more generally spread over the face of the whole world or that her glory shines in any place more conspicuously then at this day in Rome King My Lord if externall glory be the Sun-shine of the Gospel then the Church is there indeed but if internall sanctity and inward holynesse be the Essences of a Church then we may be as much to seek for such a Church within the Wals of Rome as any where else Marq. Who shall be Judge of that I pray observe the Injustice and Errours that will arise if every man may be admitted to be his owne judge you of the Church of England left your Mother the Church of Rome and Mother to all the Churches round about You forsook her and set up a new Church of your own Independent to her there comes a new generation and doth the like to you and a third generation that is likely to do the like to that and the Church falls and falls untill it falls to all the pieces of Independencie It is a hard case for a part to fall away from the whole and to be their owne judges Why should not Kent fall away from England and be their owne judges as well as England fall away from Christendome and be their own judges why should not a Parish in Kent fall away from the whole County and be their owne judges why should not one Family fall away from the whole Parish and be their owne judges why should not one man fall away in his opinion from that Family and be his owne judge If you grant one you must grant all and I feare me in doing one you have done all So that every man despiseth the Church whilst he is a Church in himselfe rayles against Popery and is the greatest Pope himselfe despiseth the Fathers and will enthrone his own judgment above the wisdome of the ancient refuseth Expositours that he may have his own sence and if he can start up but some new opinions he thinks himselfe as worthy a member of Christianity as if he were an Apostle to some new found land Now Sir though some do take the Church to be the Scriptures yet the Scriptures cannot be the Church because the Scriptures send us to the Church audi Ecclesiam dic Ecclesiae others take the Elect to be the Church yet this cannot be for we know not who are elect and who are not that which must be the Church must be a visible an eminent societie of men to whose Authority in cases of appeale and matter of judgement we are to acquiesce and subscribe And I appeale to Your Royall heart whether there be a Church in the world whom in these respects we ought to reverence and esteeme more then the Church of Rome and that the Church of Rome is externally glorious it doth not follow that therefore she is not internally holy for the Kings daughters clothing was of wrought gold as well as she was all glorious within and though she had never so many Divine graces within her yet she had honourable women without her as her attendants and for the question whether this inward glory is to be so much sought for within the gates of Rome is the question and not yet decided King My Lord I 'le deale as ingenuously with you as I can When the Romane Monarch stretch'd forth his arms from East to West he might make the Bishops of Romes oecumenacy as large as was his Empire and all the Churches in the world were bound to follow her Lawes and decretalls because God hath made such Emperours nursing Fathers of his Church as it was prophesied by the Divine Esay alwayes provided that the child be not pourtractured greater then the Nurse as hath been observed by the pride of your Bishops of Rome but when the severall Kingdoms of Christendome shook off the Romane Yoke I see no reason why the Bishop of Rome should expect obedience from the Clergie of other Countries any more then the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury should expect obedience from the Clergie of other Kingdoms And for your deriving your Authority from Saint Peter I know no reason why we may not as well derive our Authority from Simon Zelotes or Joseph of Arimathea or from Philip of whose planting the Gospell we have as good warrant as you have for Saint Peter his planting the Gospel in Rome But my Lord I must tell you that there are other Objections to be made against your Church which more condemns her if these were answered Marq. May it please Your Majestie to give me leave to speak a word or two to what I have said and then I shall humbly beg Your further Objections As to that of the Christian Kingdomes shaking off the Roman Yoke and falling to pieces which was so prophesied it should yet the Church should not doe so because it is said it shall remaine in unitie and for Your Majesties objection concerning Simon Zelotes Joseph of Arimathea
conversion so as to convert meer Infidels yet in the other kinde viz. in converting mis-believers they have done much This the Marquesse pag. 44. is pleased to call perversion rather then conversion but that must be judged by the consideration of the Doctrines held by Protestants As for those conversions wrought in the Indies by the Romanists we may well conceive that it was not so much the word preached by the Jesuits as the sword brandished by the Spaniards that did worke them Franciscus de Victoria a learned Writer among the Papists writing of the Indians saith he did not see that the Christian faith was so propounded and declared to them as that under the guilt of a new sin they were bound to embrace it He heard he sayes of no Miracles and Signes that were wrought nor of very good examples of life that were given but on the contrary of many scandalous acts and many impieties Whereupon he conceiveth that Christian religion was not so conveniently and properly preached to that barbarous people as that they were bound to acquiesce in it though he grants that there were many religious and other Ecclesiasticall men who both by life and example and also by diligent preaching did sufficiently doe their indeavour but that they were hindred by others who minded other matters Thus I have as briefly as I could gone over the markes which the Marquesse assigneth of the true Church and that because he saith that his Majesty did wave them all whereas indeed his Majesty did not wholly wave them though as his occasions would not suffer him to return any answer at all to the Marquesses reply so neither would they it's likely permit him to answer the former Paper so fully as otherwise he would have done Whereas the Marquesse saith that His Majesty is pleased to make recourse unto the Scriptures This is surely the course that all ought to follow that wil discusse matters of Religion they ought to have recourse to the Scriptures by which all such matters are to be tried and determined To the Law and to the testimony saith the Prophet Esay if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Augustine speaking of the Donatists bade let them shew their Church onely by the Canonicall bookes of the Scriptures professing that he would not have any to beleeve that he was in the true Church because of the commendation that Optatus Ambrose and many others did give of it And againe Let us not heare saith he Thus say I thus sayest thou but let us heare Thus saith the Lord. Let those things be removed out of the way which we alledge one against another otherwise then from the Bookes of Canonicall Scripture I will not have the holy Church demonstrated by humane tokens but by divine Oracles But saith the Marquesse What Heretick that ever was did not do so How shall the greatest Heretick in the World be confuted or censured if any man may be permitted to appeale to Scriptures margin'd with his own notes sens'd with his owne meaning and enlivened with his owne private spirit to what end were those markes so fully both by the Prophets the Apostles and our Saviour himselfe set down if we make no use of them Answ 1. Though Hereticks make recourse unto Scripture it follows not that therefore this is not the course which ought to be followed or that therefore they are Hereticks that doe it The Marquesse himselfe did make recourse unto Scripture in setting down the markes of the true Church and so also doth he in handling sundry points in controversie betwixt Papists and Protestants This course therefore himselfe being Judge is not to be condemned neither certainly is it however Hereticks may abuse it Though Hereticks will alledge Scripture in defence of their Heresics yet are they neverthelesse to be confuted by Scripture The Sadduces thought by Scripture to overthrow the resurrection yet by Scripture did our Saviour convince them Mat. 22. 23. 32. Yea when the Devill himselfe did cite Scripture our Saviour did not therefore dislike it but made use of it for the resisting of Satan and the repelling of his temptation Mat. 4. 6 7. 2. It 's true none may appeal to Scriptures margin'd with their own Notes sens'd with their own meaning and enliven'd with their own private spirit It 's to no purpose to alledge Scripture except that sense in which it is alledged may be made good by Scripture The Jewish Rabbin as Master Selden cites him saith well All interpretation of Scripture which is not grounded upon the Scripture is vaine But what this makes against his Majesties making recourse unto the Scriptures or against any mans taking that course in disputes of this nature I doe not see For that his Majesty did so make recourse unto Scripture the Marquesse doth not say neither ought any man to be charged in this kind except it can be proved that he is indeed guilty 3. It doth not yet appear that the particulars before mentioned viz. Universality Antiquity Visibility Succession of Pastours Unity in Doctrine and Conversion of Nations that these I say were set down either by our Saviour or his Apostles or the Prophets as marks of the True Church at least so as to make any thing for the Marquesses purpose viz. to prove the Church of Rome to be the True Church Your Majesty was pleased to urge the Errours of certain Fathers to the prejudice of their Authority Which I conceive would have been so had they been all Montanists Rebaptists all Anthropomorphists and all of them generally guilty of the faults wherewith they were soverally charged in the particulars seeing that when we produce a Father we doe not intend to produce a man in whose mouth was never found guile the infallibility being never attributed by us otherwise then unto the Church not unto particular Church men As your Majesty hath most excellently observed in the failings of the holy Apostles who erred after they had received the Holy Ghost in so ample manner But when they were all gathered together in Councell and could send about their Edicts with these Capitall Letters in the Front Visum est Sipritui Sancto nobis Act. 15. 28. then I hope your Majesty cannot say that it was possible for them to Erre So though the Fathers might erre in particulars yet those particular Errours would be swallowed up in a Generall Councell c. Here the Marquesse grants that the Fathers singly and severally considered may erre but not if gathered together in a generall Councell But first doth not this invalidate the authority of the Fathers when they are severally cited as they are in this Reply frequently by the Marquesse Indeed here presently after he addes Neither is a particular defection in any man any exception against his testimony except it be in the thing wherein he is deficient But certainly if a man be liable to
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
of the Covenant Gen. 17. 11. are an Explication of that which went before ver 10. viz. that Circumcision is the Covenant Now if the one be an Explication of the other then needs must the word Covenant be taken alike in both He is also contrary unto Reason for it is absurd to say that a Covenant doth properly signifie both a Promise and also an Instrument whereby the Promise is applyed As well may one say that Christs Body doth properly signifie both his Body and also the Sacrament of his Body A Covenant in the very nature of it being properly taken doth signifie a Promise and therefore the instrument whereby it is applyed cannot properly be the Covenant but onely the Token Pledge and Assurance of it It may as well be said that a Covenant may have two diverse and distinct natures as that a Covenant can be taken two diverse and distinct wayes and yet be taken properly both the one way and the other To those words It viz. the Lamb is the Lords passeover Exod. 12. 11. Bellarmine answers that the Speech is not Figurative but Proper The Lamb he saith was properly the Lords Passeover and mark his Reason Quia agnus immolabatur in memoriam illius transitus that is Because the Lamb was slain or sacrificed in memory of that passeover or passing over Now what greater absurdity can there be then this which here Bellarmine doth fall into He alledgeth that as a Reason of his assertion which indeed doth quite overthrow it For if the Lamb were slaine and sacrificed in memory of the Lords Passeover or passing over then was it not properly the Passeover it self but only a Signe and Memoriall of it As for those words 1 Cor. 10. 4. The Rock was Christ Bellarmine saith that not a Materiall but a Spirituall work is there meant and that therefore though the word Rock be taken Figuratively yet the proposition it selfe The Spirituall Rock was Christ is not figuratively but properly taken But it is evident that the Rock spoken of by the Apostle was a materiall Rock a Rock of Stone For the Apostle speaketh of a Rock which the Israelites drank of They drank of that Rock saith he Now that Rock which the Israelites drank of was a materiall Rock a Rock of Stone as Moses doth shew Exod. 17. and Numb 20. Austin never questioned this to be the meaning of the Apostles words After a sort saith he all things signifying seeme to be instead of those things which they signifie as it is said by the Apostle The Rocke was Christ because that Rock of which that is spoken did indeed signifie Christ These words of that learned Father are very remarkable that onely for the understanding of that particular place of Scripture but also for the determining of the maine Controversie betwixt us and our Romane Adversaries For he not onely saith that the Rock is said to have been Christ because it did signifie Christ supposing and taking it as granted that the Apostle spake of a materiall Rock but also he saith that after a sort all things signifying are instead of the things signified by them and therefore are called by the same names If our adversaries would minde this rule they would soon see that they have no cause to insist upon those words This is my Body and to urge the proper sense of them But for these words The Rock was Christ Bellarmine argueth that a materiall Rock is not there meant because the Apostle calleth it a spirituall Rock I answer so the Apostle there calleth Manna spirituall meat yet was Manna a materiall thing onely it had a spirituall signification And so also was the Rock a materiall Rock onely it 's called spirituall for the same reason Bellarmine objects that a materiall Rock did not follow the Israelites as the Apostle saith that the Rock did which hee speakes of for they dranke saith he of that spirituall Rock that followed them I answer 1. The materiall Rock may be said to have followed them that is to have satisfied their desire of water Thus as Beza observes Photius a Greek Author doth expound it and so also as Pareus testifies Lyra and Dionysius two Romish expositors Bellarmine notes Peter Martyr as thus expounding it neither hath he any thing against this exposition but only that the Greek Fathers and Erasmus interpret the word used by the Apostle comitante i. e. accompanying But this is nothing for they might meane accompanying in a metaphoricall sense viz. in respect of satisfying the desire Againe the Rock may be said to have followed the Israelites in that the water flowing forth of the Rock did follow them Genebrard a great man of the Romish party commenting upon those words Psal 78. 15. He clave the Rocks in the Wildernesse c. saith that the Septuagint and the vulgar Latine interpreter have it in the singular number Rock because by the Hebrew traditions there was but one Rock which was smitten and so sent forth water at severall times and in severall places and that this Rock did remove with the Israelites and follow them in their travells through the Wildernesse And this he saith is agreable to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. 4. But this is over Rabbinicall and therfore he addes that the Rock may be said to have followed the Israelites that is that the water which flowed out of the Rock did follow them either in that they themselves by their own art and industrie did derive and bring it to the place where they camped or that it was effected by Gods transmission and direction Bellarmine objects that a little after the Israelites did want water againe as as we read Num. 20. and therefore the water did not follow them But that want of water spoken of Num. 20. was not a little after but a long time after the other mentioned Exod. 17. For that in Exodus was the Israelites camped in Rephidim not long after they came out of Egypt and the other was when they camped in Kadesh in the fourtieth yeare after they left Egypt as is noted in the Hebrew Chronicle called Seder Olam cap. 9. Compare Numbers 33. 14. with 36. Genebrard in the place before cited meetes with this Objection that Bellarmine makes and answers that according to the Rabbins both ancient and moderne that which is recorded Num. 20. is meant of the same Rock that is spoken of Exod. 17. the water whereof they say did faile because of Miriams death which happened there in Kadesh untill upon the peoples murmuring againe it was drawn out of the same Rock the second time This conceit of the Rabbines is far from pleasing me onely I note how little force Bellarmines objection was of with his own copartner Genebrard Indeed this is enough to shew the vanity of the objection that as Genebrard notes the want of water in Kadesh was 38. years after that in Rephidim and therefore was not as Bellarmine
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
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
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
particular That it was no generall confession but in particular the Marquesse saith appeares by Acts 19. 18 19. But if this confession spoken of Acts 19. were in particular doth it follow that therefore the other mentioned Mat. 3. was so also I see no force at all in this consequence the confessions being made by severall persons at severall times and upon severall occasions Cajetan indeed doth parallell these two places together but so as that he maketh them both to speake of a generall confession or a confession onely of such sinnes as were publick and notorious Neither of them hee saith was a sacramentall confession but onely a profession that they did repent of their life past However these places of Scripture can make nothing for Popish confession which is injoyned and forced as without which they say salvation is not to be expected but this which the Scriptures here speake of was voluntary and free the persons that confessed did it of their own accord The Popish confession is auricular as it is called secret in the eare of a Priest this appeares to have been open and publick The Popish confession is a particular enumeration of all known sinnes this if it were of any particular sinnes at all as that mentioned Acts 19. may seeme to have been yet onely of such as more especially did trouble their conscience as may be collected from Acts 19. 20. and in such a case to confesse not onely unto God but also unto men and especially unto Ministers Protestants doe not condemne but hold requisite onely they condemne that manner of confession which in the Church of Rome is maintained and practised And no marvell seeing some of the Roman Church themselves have shewed a great dislike of it Beatus Rhenanus a man of great learning and never that I know withdrawing from the communion of the Church of Rome speakes of the Romish confession as a thing but of late devised and by himselfe little observed Hee cites also one Grilerius whom he calles a grave and holy Divine that was a long time Preacher at Strasburg who hee saith did often testifie among his friends that according to the late Roman dictates it is impossible to confesse and thereupon did write a Booke in the German tongue which he intituled Of the disease of confession then which disease saith Rhenanus they that are troubled with it deny that any is more grievous For the Fathers cited by the Marquesse the supposed Clemens whatsoever he say need not much trouble us the Epistles going under his name are suspected and scrupled at by Bellarmine himselfe in his Booke of Ecclesiasticall Writers and therefore it seemes he thought it not meete to alledge his authority in this point as the Marquesse doth Origen also is cited li. 3. a strange citation I suppose it should be in Levit. Hom. 3. for thence Bellarmine doth fetch a testimony to prove their confession But when as Chemnitius alledged something out of those Homilies upon Leviticus against Popish Traditions ascribing them unto Cyrill as also the Rhemists doe adding that some say they are Origens Bellarmine answers with disdaine that those Homilies are not Cyrils but Origens or some others hee could not tell whose who did destroy the Letter of the Scripture that he might establish mysticall senses out of his own head and that therefore those Homilies are of no great authority But were the authority of those Homilies never so great and unquestionable I see not how they make any thing for that confession which our adversaries maintaine and wee impugne Hom. 3. Origen or who ever was the author saith that if wee prevent Satan and accuse our selves we shall escape the malice of Satan who is our adversary and our accuser But to whom we should accuse our selves by confessing our sins this Author shews not Bellarmin indeed saith that hee speakes of confessing unto a Priest but in the words as Bellarmine himselfe doth cite them there is neither Priest nor any other to whom confession of sinne should be made expressed And farre more congruous it is to understand it so that as Satan doth accuse us unto God as he accused Iob though falsly Iob 1. and 2. And see Revel 12. 10. So we should prevent him by accusing our selves and confessing our sinnes unto God also Indeed Hom. 2. that author doth speake of confessing sinne unto a Priest but that is onely in some speciall case when sinne doth lie so sore upon the conscience That a sinner doth wash his bed with his teares and his teares are his meat day night In which case no Protestants that I know but hold it good and requisite to lay open the malady to such as are most likely to apply a remedy Thus also seemes that to be understood which the Marquesse bringeth out of Paulinus writing the life of Ambrose for that is meant by the quotation which is mis-printed Amb. Ex Paulsino viz. that Ambrose sat to heare confession Paulinus saith of Ambrose that he would rejoyce with those that did rejoyce and weep with those that wept And that whensoever any came to confesse their sinnes unto him hee would so weepe as to constraine the party confessing to weepe also The Marquesse further citeth Ambr. Orat. in muliere peccatrice it should be I presume in mulierem peccdtricem but I finde no such peece among Ambrose his workes However if Ambrose any where doth say as hee is cited confesse freely to the Priest the hidden sinnes of thy soule yet it doth not appeare that hee doth require this otherwise then in the case before mentioned Irenaeus also is cited lib. 1. cap. 9. and Tertull. lib. de Poenitent Now these speak of publike confession and so speake not to our Adversaries purpose the very word which they use for confession viz. Exomologesis is commonly so used for that confession which is publike Irenaeus speakes of some Women who had followed Marcus an Heretick but when they were converted to the Church they confessed their wickednesse their sinne being open and scandalous they made open and publike confession of it It 's true Irenaeus saith that those women confessed how they had beene defiled by Marcus and how much they had loved him which was more then any could have known but by their own confession Yet this hinders not but that the confession was publike they first confessing publikely that which was publikely known to shew the sincerity of their Repentance the more might proceede to confesse also that which was secret yet was a concomitant of that which was publike viz. their adhering unto the Heretick Tertullian also clearly speakes of publike confession that which was made inter Patres atque conservos amongst Brethren and fellow-servants so that the whole body would grieve for the paine of one member The body saith he cannot rejoyce at the paine of one member It must needs all sorrow with it and labour together for
knoweth all things Well and Ambrose saith that Tears may suffice to procure pardon and therefore no necessity of any other Confession then what is made unto God only Thus also Hilary is clear for the sufficiency of Confession made onely unto God saying that David teacheth us to confesse only unto him who hath made the Olive fruitfull It 's true the Confession that David there viz. Psal 52. 9. speaks of is the Confession of Praise and of Thanksgiving but Hilary understands it of the confession of sins saying that David does not say I will confesse unto thee for ever and ever as immediately before he said I trust in the mercy of God for ever and ever but I will confesse unto thee for ever or whiles he lived in seculum because onely in the time of this life here are sinnes to be confessed So that however Hilary did mistake Davids meaning through the Ambiguity of the word Confitebor i. e. I will confesse or I will give thanks yet he clearly expresseth his own opinion that it is sufficient to confesse unto God only And this opinion was maintained by some in the Roman Church above a thousand years after Christ For Peter Lombard who was above 1100 years after Christ disputing this point touching Confession confesseth That some thought it sufficient to confesse onely unto God This Opinion was not accounted a Heresie by the Church of Rome it self untill the time of Pope Innocent the third about 1200 years after Christ when in the Councell of Lateran it was decreed necessary to confesse unto a Priest and not unto God only And therefore Bonaventure who lived a little after that Councell speaking of those who held it sufficient to confesse only unto God saith that if any now were of that opinion he were an Heretick because the contrary was determined in a Generall Councell but before that determination that Opinion was no Heresie Thus then we see by the acknowledgment of the Romish Doctors themselves that the necessity of Sacramentall Confession as they call it is not fetched either from Scriptures or Fathers but from Pope Innocent the Third and the Councell that was in his time To conclude this point touching Confession I will only adde one Argument for Confutation of the Romish Doctrine in this particular Such Confession as they of the Church of Rome require viz. a particular enumeration of all mortall sins with all their severall aggravating circumstances is not possible And therefore neither is it of divine institution Bellarmine answers that by this reason it is impossible to confesse unto God for that we hold that Confession made unto God must be intire not of some sins onely but of all And if we say that it is sufficient to confesse unto God all so farre forth as we can come to the knowledge of them adding that of David Psal 19. 13. Who can understand his errours Lord cleanse me from my secret faults Bellarmine saith that to confesse thus to a Priest doth suffice also But I say this answer will not satisfie for there is not the same reason of confessing unto God and of confessing to a Priest as they require it God knoweth all our sinnes before we confesse farre better then we our selves doe onely we are to confesse unto him to shew our selves humble and penitent But our Adversaries say that particular Confession must be made unto a Priest because otherwise he cannot tell how to judge so as either to remit sinnes or to retain them Now to this end it is not enough to confesse unto a Priest all that one can find out but it is necessary to confesse absolutely all that one is guilty of For otherwise how shall the Priest be able to judge of those sinnes which he knoweth not If he cannot judge of those sins which are confessed except they be confessed then neither can he judge of those sins which are not confessed because they are not confessed there is the same reason for the one as for the other If the Priest can judge of those sins that are not confessed by those that are confessed then may he also by hearing the confession of one or two sins judge of all the rest though no Confession be made of them Thus the Confession which our Adversaries contend for is either not possible or at least not necessary After Confession the Marquesse comes to workes of Supererogation which they say a man may doe viz. good works more excellent then those which the Law of God doth require And that a man may doe such workes the Marquesse proves by Mat. 19. 12. There be eunuches that have made themselves eunuches for the Kingdome of Heaven he that is able to receive it let him receive it This the Marquesse saith is more then a Commandement as S. Aug. observes upon the place Ser. lib. de temp it should be Serm. 61. de temp for of precepts it is not said Keep them who is able but keep them absolutely I answer it is true of generall precepts such as concern all they are to be kept absolutely by all but for speciall precepts which concern only some they are only to be kept by those whom they do concern And so those words He that is able to receive it let him receive it are a precept but limited and restrained viz. unto some certain persons who otherwise can without inconvenience live a single life they are required to doe it not as a thing simply necessary but as necessary for them not as a thing wherein perfection doth consist but as a means whereby the better to draw towards perfection viz. To serve the Lord without distraction 1 Cor. 7. 35. Neither doe the Fathers whom the Marquesse citeth hold any such works of Supererogation as the Romanists plead for viz. works more excellent and perfect then those which the Law of God prescribeth Ambrose seemes to speake more then the rest and therefore it may be hee is put in the first place though some that are cited are more ancient then hee They that have fulfilled the precept hee saith may say Wee are unprofitable servants wee have done what our duty was to doe This the Virgin saith not nor hee that sold his Goods viz. to give to the poore Thus Ambrose but have not these words need of a favourable interpretation For will our adversaries themselves say that there are any absolutely so perfect as that they need not confesse unto God that they are unprofitable servants what they will say I cannot tell but sure I am that Christs Disciples who were as perfect as any others were not so perfect For even to them did Christ speake those words When yee shall have done all these things which are commanded you say Wee are unprofitable servants wee have done but what was our duty to doe Luke 17. 10. It may be our Adversaries will say true when they had done all things commanded them they were to say
do of his good pleasure Phil. 2. 13. Therefore saith Austine we will but God doth worke this will in us therefore wee worke but God doth worke this worke in us of his good pleasure This is expedient for us both to believe and to speake this is pious this is true that so confession may bee humble and submisse and that all may be ascribed unto God And thus I hope it may sufficiently appeare that we have no cause to decline either the authority of the Scriptures or the testimonies of Fathers in this point concerning Free-will I come now to those Scriptures and Fathers which the Marquesse doth alledge against us Three places of Scripture are cited for proofe of Free-will such as our Adversaries maintaine and wee impugne First that 1 Cor. 7. 37. it is misprinted 1 Cor. 17. Hee that standeth stedfast in his heart having no necessity but hath power over his own will and hath so decreed in his heart that hee will keepe his virgin doth well But what is there here to prove Free-will Perhaps those words hath power over his own will But the Apostle there speakes of a man that hath a daughter marriageable yet determines to keepe her unmarried which the Apostle approves so that the man have no necessity that is no necessary cause of giving his daughter in marriage but hath power over his owne will that is hath power to effect and accomplish that which hee willeth so as no inconvenience to ensue upon it After this manner doth Cajetan himselfe in his Commentaries upon the place expound these wordes but hath power over his own will viz. to accomplish it in that the Virgin doth consent to abstaine from marriage For if shee should dissent then the Father should not have power of accomplishing his own will Thus Cajetan now what is this to the controversie about free will though I know Bellarmine also brings it in as also another place as little to the purpose namely that 2 Cor. 9. 7. Every man according as hee purposeth in his heart so let him give not grudgingly or of necessity for God loveth a chearfull giver Men must give almes willingly and chearfully therefore men have free will It doth not follow no more then that because men must serve God with a perfect heart and with a willing minde 1 Chron. 28. 9. therefore of themselves by the power of Free-will they are able to do it The Rhemists tacitely confesse these places to be impertinent to the point in hand passing them over in their Annotations and making no use of them as they are ready enough to doe when they meet with any thing which they thinke doth make for them The next place is Deut. 30. 19. not as it is printed 11. I have set before you life and death blessing and cursing chuse life that thou and thy seed may live This place Bellarmine presumes much upon saying that hee sees not what can bee answered to it And so the English Papists who translated the old Testament at Doway in their notes upon the place say what Doctor can more plainly teach Free-will in man then this Text of holy Scripture But what is the reason of all this confidence because man is bidden to chuse life doth it therefore follow that of himselfe hee is free and able to doe it why So man is bidden to worke out his own salvation Phil. 2. 12. yet as the Apostle addes immediately v. 13. it is God that doth worke in him both the Will and the Deed. Man is bidden to come unto Christ Isai 53. 3. yet can hee not come except the Father draw him Ioh. 6. 44. Man is bidden to arise from the dead Ephes 5. 14. Can he therefore being dead quicken himself Surely the same Apostle tells us in the same Epistle that it is God that doth quicken those that are dead in trespasses and sinnes Ephes 2. 5. There is no more force in that place of Deuteronomie for proofe of Free-will then in any other place of Scripture which containeth in it precept or exhortation And indeed our adversaries doe pretend that all such places are for them And so did the Pelagians of old object such places but Austine answers them that though it 's true God doth not command man to doe that which cannot bee done by him yet hee commandeth us to doe what wee are not able to doe viz. of our selves that wee may seeke unto him to make us able Thus the people of God do Turne unto me saith God Ioel 2. 12. Turne thou us unto thee say the people of God Lam. 5. 21. And by comparing places of Scripture together we may finde that what God doth require of his people the same hee doth promise unto them Wash yee make yee cleane saith he Isai 1. 16. But Ezek. 36. 25. I will sprinkle cleane water upon you saith hee and you shall be cleane So Ezek. 18. 31. God commands saying Make you a new heart and a new spirit But Ezek. 36. 26. hee promiseth this very thing A new heart also will I give you and a new spirit will I put with in you And accordingly David prayed unto God to worke this in him Create in me a clean heart O Lord and renew a right spirit within me Psal 51. 10. And that of Austine is well known Give O Lord what thou doest command and then command what thou willest Besides as Bradwardine observed long agoe impotency and inability to performe a duty proceeding from a mans own fault doth nothing excuse him either by the Law of God or man A bankrupt may justly be required to pay his debt though hee be not able to pay it Againe Gods Precepts and Exhortations are not in vaine though man by the power of his own Free-will be not able to doe what is required because God doth make those very Precepts and Exhortations meanes whereby to worke that in his elect which hee doth require of them When Christ spake to Lazarus being dead and buried saying Lazarus come forth Joh. 11. this was not in vaine though its certaine a man that 's dead and laid in the grave hath no power of himselfe to come forth yet I say it was not in vaine that Christ spake so unto Lazarus for together with his word hee sent forth his Divine power and so inabled Lazarus to come forth as hee required So neither is it in vaine that God doth command men to doe things which of themselves they cannot doe because he accompanying his word with his spirit inables them to do what hee commands Verily verily I say unto you saith Christ the houre is comming and now is when the dead shall heare the voyce of the Son of God and they that heare shall live Joh. 5. 25. Our Saviour there speakes of such as are spiritually dead as appeares those words and now is and he shewes that his word is a powerfull and effectuall meanes viz. by the concurrence of
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
the Roman Church have gone further in their censure of Chrysostome as Alvarez relates viz. that he held that election whereby we first accept those things that are good and resolve to doe them is before the grace of God and that then grace doth follow after whereby we are helped and God doth co-operate with us To this pur-pose I finde Tolet a Jesuite first and afterwards a Cardinall cited by Chamier though I have not his Booke now at hand to peruse And this may suffice for answer to Chrysostome yea and to those other two Fathers also that follow viz. Irenaeus and Cyrill the latter of these being by name and both of them implicitly excepted against by some of the Romanists themselves as appeares by what is cited in the margent as also by the reasons alledged by Alvarez and Iansenius why Chrysostome did exceede at least in his expressions viz. because he was so earnest against the Manichees and others and knew nothing of the contrary errour of the Pelagians which reasons might transport the other Fathers also It is true saith Alvarez that S. Chrysostome and other Fathers that wrote before the Heresie of Pelagius was risen up did speake little of the grace of Christ and much for the confirming of the liberty of the will against the heresie of the Manichees He addes that Austine also in his writings against the Pelagians did observe this and hee cites his words to this purpose Yea hee shewes that Austine in his Retractations was faine to answer in like manner for himself when as the Pelagians did make use of his former writings against the Manichees thereby to maintaine their opinion concerning the power of Free-will in opposition to the necessity and efficacy of Gods Grace Thus likewise Iansenius saith that after the Pelagian heresie was risen then Austine spake more exactly and more expresly of the Grace of God The Jesuit Maldonate doth tell us that Ammonius and Cyrill Theophylact and Euthymius so expound that No man commeth unto me except the Father draw him that they come too nigh the error of Pelagius viz. that all are not drawn because all are not worthy as if saith he before a man be drawn by grace unto grace hee could deserve grace which is to be worthy to be drawn But though Irenaeus and Cyrill be liable to these exceptions yet I see nothing in the places cited by the Marquesse wherein they make against us Irenaeus saith thus If it were not in us to doe these things or not to do them why did the Apostle and before him the Lord himself counsell us to doe some things and to abstaine from other things Here Irenaeus indeed sheweth that it is in us to doe or not to doe but hee doth not say that it is in nobis ex nobis in us of our selves by the power of our Free-will to doe things truly good He addes immediately that man from the beginning is free as God after whose likenesse hee was made is free Now this doth rather make against our adversaries then for them for it shewes that the freedome of mans will doth not consist in this that hee is free either to doe good or to doe evill seeing that God is not free in that manner hee being onely free to doe good but altogether uncapable of doing evill So man being determined by grace to that which is good yet is free because not constrained nor forced against his will in the doing of it and so on the other side hee is free in doing evill though of himselfe without grace he can doe nothing but evill As for the other Fathers viz. Cyrill that which hee saith in the place alledged is this wee cannot according to the doctrine of the Church and of the truth by any meanes deny the free power of man wich is called Free-will This is nothing against us who doe not as hath beene shewed before simply deny Free-will but onely so as our adversaries of the Church of Rome doe maintaine it To that which is in controversie betwixt us and our adversaries Cyrill here saith nothing and therefore his testimony is not to the purpose And so much for Free-will In the next place we hold it possible saith the Marquesse to keepe the Commandements you say it is impossible Wee have Scripture for it Luke 1. 6. And they were both righteous before God walking in all the Commandements and Ordinances of the Lord blamelesse And 1 Joh. 5. 3. His Commandements are not grievous For keeping the Commandements we hold not that it is simply impossible but that according to that measure of grace which God doth ordinarily bestow upon men here in this life it is not possible to keep them viz. so as not to be guilty of the breach of them If a man could fully and perfectly keep the Commandements then he should be without sin for sinne is nothing else but a transgression of the Law as Saint Iohn defines it 1 Iohn 3. 4. But the Scripture shewes that no man in this life is so perfect as to be without sinne There is not a just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not saith Solomon Eccles 7. 20. If we say that we have no sinne we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us saith Saint Iohn 1 John 1. 8. In many things we offend all saith Saint Iames Iam. 3. 2. And Christ hath taught all to pray for forgivenesse of sinnes Mat. 6. 12. which supposeth that all even the best that live upon earth have need of it that they are guilty of sinnes and so consequently come short of the full and perfect keeping of Gods Commandements Bellarmine thinks to elude these places by saying That we cannot indeed live without Veniall sinnes but that Veniall sinnes are not sinnes simply but onely imperfectly and in some respect and that they are not against the Law but only besides it But first Veniall sinnes are against the Law as being transgressions of it for else they are no sinnes at all that being the very nature of sinne to be a transgression of the Law 1 Iohn 3. 4. 2. There are no sins so veniall but that without the mercy of God in Christ they are damnable It being written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the Law to doe them Gal. 3. 10. And thirdly no man living upon earth is free from such sinnes as that he is able to stand if God shall enter into judgement with him If thou Lord shouldest mark iniquities O Lord who shall stand Psal 130. 3. Enter not into judgement with thy servant for in thy fight shall no man living be justified Psal 143. 2. The Fathers here are on our side Hierome having cited that of our Saviour Out of the hearts of men proceed evill thoughts adulteries fornications murders thefts covetousnesse c. addes Let him come forth that can testifie that these
things are not in his heart and I will confesse that full and perfect righteousnesse may be in this mortall body Who is there saith Leo so free from fault that there is not in him that which either justice may condemne or mercy may pardon In no thing to sinne is proper unto God saith Ambrose He means that no man in this life can attain unto that perfection for so he addes presently after He that bears about him flesh a mortall body is subject unto sinne Thus also Austine Who is there saith he in this life so clean but that he hath need to be made yet more and more clean And again The Church saith he in this life is so cleansed not that they that are justified have no mainders of sinne in them but that they have not any spot of criminall offence nor any wrinkle of falshood Accordingly speaks Gregory In this life saith hee many are without criminall offences but none can bee without sinne And presently after hee sayes that these sinnes which none can be without doe pollute the soule though they doe not destroy it Bernard interprets that of Saint Iohn He that is born of God sinneth not 1 Iohn 3. 9. thus He sinneth not that is he doth not continue in sinne Or thus He sinneth not that is it is as much as if he did not sinne because sinne is not imputed unto him And elsewhere he expressely yeeldeth that Gods Commandements are more then any can fully and perfectly observe The Commander saith he was not ignorant that the command did exceede mens strength but he iudged it profitable that they should be admonished of their insufficiency and that they should know to what perfection of righteousnesse they ought to endeavour as they are able Therefore by commanding things impossible he did not make men prevaricatours but humble that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may be subject unto God because by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be justified before him For receiving the Commanment and feeling a defect wee shall cry towards Heaven and God will have mercy on us and we shall know in that day that not by the workes of righteousnesse that we have done but according to his mercy he hath saved us Thus also some of the Church of Rome that have written since Luthers time have acknowledged that none in this life are free from sinne nor able to abide the judgement of God by their own righteousnesse which is in effect to acknowledge that none doe perfectly keepe Gods Commandements Thus Ferus speaking of such as are justified saith that they have indeed yet many sinnes but no condemnation because they are reputed clean for their faith in Christ And againe No man saith hee how holy soever is free from sin so long as hee lives in this World Therefore all have need to be purged daily So also Genebrard Seeing saith hee that none is perfectly righteous before God the fear of his just and pure judgement ought to affright all That is his comment upon the words of David Enter not into judgement with thy servant O Lord c. Psal 143. 2. Now for those two places of Scripture which the Marquesse alledgeth they come farre short of proving that possibility of keeping Gods Commandements which wee deny As for that Luk. 1. 6. it shewes indeed that Zacharias and Elizabeth had respect unto all Gods Commandements as all ought to have Psal 119. 6. but it doth not shew that they did perfectly keepe all Gods Commandements Hierome long agoe answered the Pelagians objecting these very persons and others spoken of in Scripture as righteous that they are called righteous not that they were without fault but because they were for most part vertuous And I marvell how any can alledge the example of Zacharias as one that did perfectly keep the Commandements though I know Bellarmine to this purpose doth alledge it when as in that very Chapter viz. Luk. 1. is related how hee sinned in not believing the message which by an Angell God sent unto him and how hee was punished and became dumbe a long time for it The other place viz. 1 Ioh. 5. 3. only shews that the Children of God do willingly and chearfully obey the will of God not that they doe fully and perfectly obey it I have rejoyced in the way of thy testimonies saith David Psal 119. 14. I will delight my selfe in thy statutes v. 1. 6. The Law of thy mouth is better unto me then thousands of gold and silver v. 72. How sweet are thy words unto my taste yea sweeter then hony to my mouth v. 103. More to be desired are they then gold yea then much fine gold sweeter also then Hony and the Hony combe Psal 19. 10. yet presently hee addes who can understand his errours cleanse thou me from secret faults vers 12. And elsewhere hee complaines saying Mine iniquities have taken hold upon me so that I am not able to looke up they are more then the haires of my head Psal 40. 12. And againe Iniquities prevaile against me Psal 65. 3. And as before noted hee cryes out Enter not into judgement with thy servant c. Psal 143. 2. The History of his life recorded in Scriptures evidently shewes that though Gods Commandements were as little grievous unto him as to any yet hee came short of a full and perfect observance of them The Marquesse addes The Fathers are for us Orig. Hom. 9. in Ios S. Cyrill lib. 4. contra Iulian. S. Hil. in Psal 1 18. S. Hieron lib. 3. contra Pelag. S. Basil But I have shewed already what little cause our adversaries have in this point to boast of the Fathers and that both Hierome whom the Marquesse here citeth and also diverse others assert the same that wee doe To those before mentioned I may adde another of these here alledged against us viz. Hilarie who in Psal 118. saith that none living is without sinne onely one viz. Christ did no sinne neither was guile found in his mouth Therefore when as Hilarie saith upon those words Psalme 119. 96. thy Commandement is exceeding broad that it is no hard matter if will be present to obey Gods Commandement hee speakes of such an obedience not which is every way compleat and perfect for then it should be easie to live without sinne but which God will accept as hee will that which is sincere though it be imperfect Otherwise even upon those very words Hilarie sheweth that man cannot perfectly obey Gods Commanments saying that they are so broad that they infinitely exceede the shallownesse of mans knowledge If mans knowledge cannot reach to the full extent of Gods Commandements much lesse can his practice doe it So that which Hierome saith though it may seeme to be against us yet indeed it is not God saith he hath commanded things possible So the Pelagian objected hee answers this none
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
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
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
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
our praying to the angells We hold it lawfull saith hee to pray unto them you not We have Scripture for it Gen. 48. 16. The Angell which redeemed me from all evill blesse these Lads c. Hos 12. 4. He had power over the Angell and prevailed he wept and made supplications unto them S. Austine expounding these words of Job 19. 21. Have pitty upon me O yee my friends for the hand of the Lord is upon me saith that holy Job addressed himself to the Angels Answ That it is lawfull to pray unto angels Protestants deny and that justly there being no ground nor warrant for it in the Scripture but much against it For the Scripture every where teacheth and requireth us to pray unto God and to none other Call upon me in the day of trouble Psal 50. 15. After this manner therefore pray yee Our Father c. Mat. 6. 9. When yee pray say our Father c. Luke 11. 2. In the day of my trouble I will call upon thee Psal 85. 7. As for me I will call upon God Psal 55. 16. For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee Psal 32. 6. How shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed Rom. 10. 14. Now wee both professe in the Creed and so are taught in the Scripture to believe onely in God That your faith and hope might be in God 1 Pet. 1. 21. Ye believe in God believe also in me Joh. 14. 1. viz. because Christ who there speakes is God Prayer must proceede from the heart and not from the lips onely Give eare unto my prayer that goeth not out of fained lips Psal 17. 1. Vnto thee O Lord doe I lift up my soule Psal 25. 1. Poure forth your hearts unto him Psal 62. 8. Hannah spake in her heart c. 1 Sam. 1. 13. Now God only knoweth the heart as was shewed before The Fathers were of this minde Tertullian writing of prayer and expounding the Lords Prayer upon the first words of it saith We pray unto God And afterwards in the same book We commend our prayers unto God neither does hee speake of praying unto any other And elsewhere We call upon the Eternall God saith he for the safety of the Emperours And againe more fully to the purpose These things I cannot pray for from any other but from him from whom I know I shall obtaine because he it is who alone doth give them So Cyprian also writing of the Lords Prayer all along supposeth and taketh it for granted that it is God to whom wee must pray Hee saith that to pray otherwise then Christ hath taught us is not only ignorance but a sin also Now Christ hath taught us to pray unto God onely And Cyprian saith that Wee must pray with the heart rather then with the voyce because God heares not so much the voyce as the heart Hee saith that before prayer viz. in the Congregation the people were required to lift up their hearts and they used to answer wee lift them up unto the Lord whereby they were admonished to thinke of nothing but the Lord when they prayed And taxing those that pray negligently How doest thou request that God should heare thee when as thou doest not hear thy self And some of the ancients have proved Christ to be God by this very argument that hee is called upon and prayed unto If Christ be onely man saith Novatian Why is man called upon in prayers as Mediatour seeing that the invocation of a man is judged ineffectuall to afford salvation Though Novatian in some things proved an Heretike yet was hee not an Heretike in this yea Pamelius a Romanist tells us that he wrote this whiles for any thing that appeares he was a Catholik Thus also that great hammer of the Arians Athanasius proved Christ to be consubstantiall to the Fathet by that of the Apostle 1 Thess 3. 11. Now God himselfe and our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you For saith hee none would pray to receive from God and from the Angels or from any of the creatures Neither would any speake in this manner God and an Angell give unto thee But the Apostle askes of the Father and of the Son because of the unity of their nature and the uniforme manner of their giving And immediately after hee answers that place which the Marquesse alledgeth viz. Gen. 48. 16. The Angel that reedemed me from all evill blesse the Lads saying Jacob did not couple any of the created and naturall Angels with God the Creatour neither did he omit God that nourished him and desire a blessing for his nephewes from an Angell But in that he spake expressely of the Angell that redeemed him from all evill he shewed sufficiently that it was none of the created Angells but the Son of the Father whom he in his prayers joyned with the Father by whom God doth redeem whom he pleaseth For he knew him to be the Angell of the Fathers great Counsell neither did he in his words expresse any other but him that doth blesse and redeeme from evill Austine also in his booke of true Religion doth frequently assert that religious worship belongs not unto Angells but to God onely and consequently that Angels are not to be prayed unto Prayer and Invocation being as Bellarmine confesseth a singular kinde of adoration That saith Austine which the highest Angell doth worship is also to be worshipped by the lowest man Let us believe that the best Angels and the most excellent Ministers of God desire this that we together with themselves may worship only God by whose contemplation they are blessed Therefore we honour them with love not with service Rightly therefore is it written that a man was forbidden by an Angell to worship him and was required only to worship God under whom the Angell was mans fellow-servant Behold I worship only God c. Which of the Angells soever doth love this God I am sure doth also love me Therefore let Religion binde us only to the Almighty God Now for the two places of Scripture which the Marquesse objecteth one of them is already answered from Athanasius And the same answer also belongs to the other place viz. Hos 12. 4. the Angell there spoken of is not a created Angell but God himselfe as appeares by the words immediately going before v. 3. He had power with God then followes v. 4. yea he had power over the Angell and prevailed he wept also and made supplications unto him This shewes that God and the Angell there mentioned are one and the same This which the Prophet speaketh of Iacobs making supplications to the Angell hath reference to that Gen. 32. 26. I will not let thee go except thou blesse me as Hierome upon the place observeth Now if Iacob would not desire a blessing for his Nephewes from a created Angell and wee
have seene that in the judgement of Athanasius hee would not then surely neither was it such an Angell of whom he himselfe did seeke to be blessed And Hierome upon the words of Hosea saith plainly that this angell is God None of the Fathers are here alledged against us but onely Austine whom I have shewed to testifie abundantly for us That which hee saith in the place quoted is that Iob seemeth to desire the angels to intreat for him or else some of the Saints But Pineda a Jesuite doth not like this Exposition but calles it allegoricall and expoundes it as it ought to be expounded of those friends of Iob that disputed with him If our adversaries shall reply that though Austine did not rightly expound the words of Iob yet however hee shewed it to be his opinion that the angells might be prayed unto I answer first Austine here maketh as well against them as against us For he speakes as much of Iobs praying unto Saints as unto angells now our adversaries hold as I shall shew more hereafter that in those times before Christs comming the Saints were not to be prayed unto Again Austine doth not say that Iob did pray either to Saints or angels but that hee desired yea onely that hee seemeth to have desired that they might pray for him Thirdly for one place wherein Austine speaketh obscurely and doubtfully for praying to angels wee have many plaine and evident testimonies of his against it as before I have shewed Lastly Austine himselfe hath taught us to believe neither him nor any other further then they accord with the Scriptures but that we may saving the reverence that is due unto them dissent from them when as they dissent from the truth Thus he saith he did in respect of the writings of others and so he would have others to doe in respect of his writings From the Angels the Marquess passeth to the Saints deceased saying We hold that the Saints deceased know what passeth here on Earth you say they know not we have Scripture for it Luke 16. 29. where Abraham knew that there were Moses and the Prophets bookes here on Earth which he himselfe had never seene when he was alive The Fathers say as much Euseb Ser. de Ann. S. Hiero. in Epit. Paulae S. Max. Ser. de Agnete Answ That the Saints deceased doe not know the particular affaires of men here on Earth the Scripture doth teach us Iob. 14. 21. His sonnes come to honour and he knoweth it not and they are brought low but he perceiveth it not of them There Iob speakes indefinitely of a man departed out of this life whether he be Saint or no Saint and sheweth that he doth not so much as understand the estate of such as had most neare relation unto him and how then shall we perswade our selves that hee doth understand the estate of others And from those words Isai 63. 16. Abraham is ignorant of us and Israel knoweth us not Austine doth inferre that the Dead are not acquainted with the affaires of the Living If not our parents saith hee what other dead persons know what we doe or suffer If so great Patriarkes Abraham and Jacob knew not how it fared with those that did descend from them how doe the dead intermeddle in knowing and helping the affaires of those that are alive For my part I thinke that place of Esay not so pertinent to the purpose but that the meaning of it is that the people of Israel were so degenerate that Abraham and Israel if they knew what manner of persons they were would not own them not acknowledge them for their posterity yet however Austine sheweth what his Opinion was concerning those that are deceased viz. that they are ignorant of the things that are done here which is evident enough by those words of Iob before cited Bellarmine sayes that Gregory upon the place doth answer that naturally the dead know not how it fares with the liking but that yet the Saints being glorified doe see in God all things quae nimirum ad ipsos pertinent viz. which doe belong unto them But Gregory upon those words of Iob saith thus As they that are alive know not where the soules of the dead are so they that are dead know not how they live that are after them Indeed hee addes presently after This yet is not to be thought of the holy soules because they that see the brightnesse of Almighty God are by no meanes to be thought ignorant of any thing besides Therefore he understands Iob as speaking onely of such dead persons as are unholy whereas indeed Iobs words are indefinite and indifferently to be understood of all that are dead except by speciall Revelation any thing done here below be made known unto them Thou destroyest the hope of man v. 19. viz. his hope of continuing here in this life Thou changest his countenance and sendest him away v. 20. This holdes in respect of all and then followes His sonnes come to honour and hee knoweth it not c. v. 21. So that the coherence of the words shews that they are meant generally of all that are deceased And that which Gregory saith of the Saints that seeing God in him they see all things Bellarmine himselfe it seemes did thinke too lavish and therefore he limits it to all things which concerne them or belong unto them Which limitation doth indeed mar his market for how doth it appeare that it belongs unto the Saints departed to understand particular occurrences here below and namely all the prayers that any shall make unto them which is the scope that they of the Church of Rome aime at when they speake of the Saints knowing things here on Earth but of that more God willing hereafter But for the Saints knowing our affaires it was it seemes in the time of Lombard above 1100 years after Christ a point not much believed For Lombard moving the question saith onely this It is not incredible that the soules of the Saints enjoying the vision of God doe understand humane and earthly affaires so far as concernes their joy and our helpe Hee doth not say that this is certaine but onely that it is not incredible And Bellarmine himselfe relating foure severall opinions about the manner how the Saints know things here upon Earth of two of them viz. that they know them by the relation of Angels or by being after a sort every where present hee saith plainly that neither of them doth satisfie and gives convincing Reasons for it And for the other two opinions viz. that the Saints from the beginning of their blessednesse doe in God see all things that any way appertaine unto them Or that God doth then reveale things unto the Saints when any at any time doe pray unto them hee likes not the latter of these because hee saith If the Saints did neede a new revelation upon every occasion the Church would
not so boldly say unto all the Saints pray for us but would sometimes desire of God to reveale our prayers unto them And for the other Opinion which remaines hee sayes no more but onely that it is probable So that wee see by our adversaries owne confession they have no certainty of this that the Saints in Heaven are particularly acquainted with things here on Earth Some may say that they are certaine that it is so though they be uncertain how it comes to be so I answer indeed if the Scripture did affirme that so it is then wee might and ought to be assured of it though wee could not see why it is so But the Scripture is so farre from affirming it that it denies it as I have shewed and therefore they that maintaine it must both answer the Scripture where it is denied and also by Scripture prove the contrary assertion which they neither doe nor can doe That place cited by the Marquesse viz. Luke 16. 29. is not of force to prove it For 1. Some Romish Expositors and namely Iansenius doth confesse that it is doubtfull whether that which is spoken of the rich man and Lazarus and so of Abraham be any more then a Parable and if it be a History and a Narration of a thing done yet this hee saith must needs be confessed that all things did not happen so as they are related For that it is certaine that the rich man being in Hell did not speake with a Tongue nor with bodily Eyes did see Abraham and Lazarus in his bosome nor did complaine of the scorching of his Tongue nor did desire water to cole it Therefore hee saith Christ did accommodate himselfe to our capacity and declare the things of the life to come after the manner of the things of this life so that those things are to be understood allegorically and spiritually whether it be a bare Parable or a true History And for the words objected he sheweth that they are more easie to be understood if this part of Scripture be taken not for a History but onely for a Parable For then it may be said that Christ did feigne these things which were not done indeed onely to instruct and admonish those that are alive that they should not think to excuse their impenitency by this that they were never informed of the estate of the life to come by any that did returne from it That men might not thinke thus he saith that Christ did bring in the rich man desiring Abraham to send Lazarus to his Brethren that so he might also bring in the answer of Abraham who was of great authority among the Jewes by which answer that conceit is reproved and confuted For Abraham confuting that opinion of the common sort of people answered If they heare not Moses and the Prophets neither will they believe although one should arise from the dead Thus then that place doth not evince that Abraham knew that the Jewes had the writings of Moses and of the Prophets 2. Suppose that part of Scripture to be a History and that Abraham did indeed know that the writings of Moses and the Prophets were upon the Earth yet it doth not therefore follow that hee knew all the severall things done amongst men What God would please to reveale hee might know but how much that is who can tell yea the Romanists themselves do hold that neither Abraham nor any other during the time of the old Testament did understand the estate of men here alive Although the ground of this opinion of theirs be not good viz. because as then they did not enjoy the blessednesse of the life to come yet however this is sufficient to extort from them this place of Luke and to shew that they by their own principles can draw no argument from it for their Purpose For the Fathers which the Marquesse alledgeth I can onely looke into Hierome as being destitute of both the other But I have here and continually almost cause to complaine of the Marquesses quotations they being so wide as here and in many other places they are For there are 14. Chapters of this booke of Hierome that is mentioned but in which of these Chapters any thing to the purpose is to be found is not expressed yet with much adoe I finde that Hierome seemeth to suppose that Paula being dead knew this estate But I finde in another place viz. Adversus Vigilantium cap. 2. that Hierome makes the Saints departed to be every where and by consequence to know what is done any where But Bellarmine likes not to build upon such a foundation confessing that truly and properly to be every where is a thing that doth not belong either to the soules of men or to the Angels From the knowledge which the Saints deceased are pretended to have of our affaires the Marquesse passeth to their praying for us This hee proves by Revel 5. 8. The 24. Elders fell downe before the Lambe having every one of them Harpes and golden Vials full of odours which are the prayers of the Saints And by Baruch 3. 4. O Lord Almighty thou God of Israel heare now the prayers of the dead Israelites Hee addes also the testimonies of Aug. Ser. 15. de verb. Apostoli Hilar. in Psal 129. and Damas de Fide l. 4. c. 16. Ans That the Saints in Heaven do not pray for us in particular appeares by what hath beene proved already viz. that our particular affaires are not knowne unto them That they pray for us in generall Protestants doe not deny about this wee doe not contend saith Amesius against Bellarmine And Bellarmine himselfe cites the Apology of the Augustane Confession granting thus much that the Saints in Heaven doe pray for the Church in generall But for that place Revel 5. 8. I see not how it makes for the purpose For neither doth it appeare that the 24. Elders there mentioned are the Saints departed nor if they be is it said that they pray for the Church here upon Earth Indeed the Rhemists upon the place say Hereby it is plaine that the Saints in Heaven offer up the prayers of faithfull and holy persons in Earth c. And hence they infer That the Protestants have no excuse of their errour That the Saints have no knowledge of our affaires or desires But there is no such thing as they speake of plaine by this place of Scripture except to use the Marquesses words it be margin'd with their own notes senc'd with their own meaning and enlivened with their own private spirit They take it for granted as the Marquess also doth after them that the Saints in Heaven are meant by the 24. Elders and that the Saints after mentioned are the Saints upon Earth whereas the former of these is so farre from being evident that their own Jesuite Ribera doth tell us that Concerning the 24 Elders the opinion of the Fathers
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
Body that Christs Body may be understood to be given for the salvation of our body and his Blood for the salvation of our soule which is in the Blood And so also to signifie that Christ tooke both Body and Soule that he might redeeme both And therefore hee saith It is not without good cause that very many good men even of the Catholike profession being conversant in the reading both of Divine and Ecelesiasicall Writers doe most earnestly desire to partake of the Lords cup and by all meanes strive that this saving Sacrament of Christs Blood together with the Sacrament of his Body may againe use to be received according to the ancient custome of the universall Church which was continued for many Ages For the Scriptures which the Marquesse alledgeth the first of them viz. Ioh. 6. 51. doth not concerne the Sacrament which is not treated of in that Chapter as I have noted before and that according to the judgement of Iansenius a Romanist to whom may be added diverse others of the Church of Rome who as Bellarmine confesseth were of that opinion viz. Biel Cusanus Cajetan Tapper and Hesselius And even Bellarmine himselfe and others who hold that the Sacrament is spoken of in Ioh. 6. yet hold it not to be spoken of till after those words which the Marquesse citeth in those words which follow immediately after vers 51. And the bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the World in those words I say and the rest that follow almost to the end of the Chapter they say that our Saviour speakes of the Sacrament but not in any of the former words of the Chapter And if the Sacrament were spoken of in that Chapter those words v. 51. If any man eate of this bread he shall live for ever would not so much evince a sufficiency of communicating in one kinde as the words a little after viz. v. 53. Verely verely I say unto you Except you eate the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his Blood you have no life in you would evince a necessity of communicating in both kindes For if those words be understood of a Sacramentall eating and drinking it cannot be avoided but that by those very words as it is necessary to eate of the bread in the Sacrament so is it to drinke of the cup also For though by the forementioned concomitancy of the blood with the Body they say that when one kinde onely viz. bread is received the Blood of Christ is drunk as well as his Body is eaten yet as Iansenius well observes that outward act of taking the bread in the Sacrament cannot be called drinking It is rightly called eating saith hee because something is taken by way of meate but how is it called drinking when as nothing is received by way of drinke Neither is it certaine that in the other two places viz. Acts 2. 42. and Luke 24. 30. by breaking of bread is meant the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Cajetan expounds the former place of ordinary bread and the other place is expounded by Iansenius after the same manner Neither is it true that Bellarmine saith that Iansenius teacheth that Christ by that example would shew the fruit and benefit of the Sacrament received in one kinde Jansenius doth not speake of receiving the Sacrament in one kinde though I know hee did approve of it but onely saith that by the effect that followed the Lord would commend unto us the vertue of the Sacrament worthily received to wit that thereby our eyes are enlightned to know Iesus And whereas Austine and Theophylact are said to understand that in Luke 24. of the Sacrament Iansenius tells us that so many thinke but that indeed they did rather make mention of the Sacrament because it was not here spoken of in Luke but mystically commended and insinuated by our Saviour But suppose that the Sacrament were spoken of in those places as probably it is in Acts 2. because breaking of Bread is there joyned with Doctrine and Prayer yet there is no sufficient ground for communicating in one kinde For the figure Synecdoche wherby the part is put for the whole is not unusuall in the Scripture Thus Soule which is but a part of man is put for man All the Soules that came with Jacob c. that is all the persons Gen. 46. 26. So likewise flesh being a part of man is used for man I will not feare what flesh can doe unto me Psal 56. 4. that is what man can doe unto me as it is expressed vers 11. So whereas David saith In thy sight shall no man be justified Psal 143. 2. Paul hath it There shall no flesh be iustified in his sight Rom. 3. 20. Thus the whole celebration of the Sacrament may be termed breaking of bread because that is one and that an eminent part of it The Marquesse goes on still concerning the same Sacrament but so as in the Church of Rome it is changed into a Sacrifice We hold saith hee that Christ offered up unto his Father in the Sacrifice of the Masse as an expiation for the sinnes of the people is a true and proper Sacrifice This you deny this we prove by Scripture viz. Mal. 1. 11. From the rising of the Sunne to the going downe of the same my Name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place Incense shall be offered to my Name and a pure offering This could not be meant of the figurative offerings of the Iewes because it was spoken of the Gentiles neither can it be understood of the reall sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse because that was done but in one place and at one time and then and there not among the Gentiles neither Which could be no other but the daily sacrifice of the Masse which is and ever was from East to West a pure and daily sacrifice Luke 22. 19. This is my body which is given for you not to you therefore a sacrifice The Fathers are of this opinion Answ That Christ is offered up in the Eucharist a Sacrifice truly and properly so called Protestants have good cause to deny For the Eucharist is a Sacrament to be received by us not a sacrifice to be offered unto God Christ instituting the Sacrament gave it to his Disciples hee did not offer up himselfe as then unto his Father The Scripture tells us that Wee are sanctified through the offering of the Body of Iesus Christ once for all Heb. 10. 10. And immediately after there it followes that whereas the Leviticall Priests did often offer the same sacrifices Christ having offered one Sacrifice for sinnes for ever sate down on the right hand of God And Heb. 9. 25 26 27 28. the Apostle proves that Christ was not to be offered often because his offering was his suffering so that if hee should have been offered often then he should also have suffered
Testament was but should be performed in every place as well in one place as another This is that which our Saviour said to the Woman of Samaria Woman believe me the houre commeth when ye shall neither in this Mountaine nor yet at Ierusalem worship the Father The houre commeth and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth c. Joh. 4. 21 23. S. Paul also to the same purpose I will therefore that men pray every where lifting up holy hands c. 1 Tim. 2. 8. This is that incense and pure offering which the Prophet Malachy said should be offered unto God in every place This incense and pure Offering are the prayers of the Saints Revel 5. 8. And all spirituall sacrifices which Christians offer acceptable unto God thorough Iesus Christ 1 Pet. 2. 5. What is this to prove that Christ is truly and properly sacrificed in the Eucharist It is true the Fathers sometimes apply that place of Malachy to the Sacrament of the Eucharist but not as if Christ were there in that Sacrament truly and properly sacrificed nor as if that place concerned this Sacrament more then any other spirituall worship now to be performed under the new Testament Irenaeus in one Chapter applies it to the Sacrament and in the very next immediately after hee applies it to Prayer Having cited the words of Malachy In every place incense is offered to my Name and a pure offering immediately hee addes Now Iohn in the Revelation saith that incense are the Prayers of the Saints So also Hierome in his commentary upon the words of Malachy Now the Lord directs his speech to the Iewish Priests who offer the Blind and the Lame and the sick for sacrifice that they may know that spirituall sacrifices are to succeed carnall sacrifices And that not the blood of Buls and Goates but incense that is the Prayers of the Saints are to be offered unto the Lord and that not in one province of the world Iudea nor in one City of Iudea Hierusalem but in every place is offered an offering not impure as was offered by the people of Israel but pure as is offered in the ceremonies or services of Christians Here it is very observable that Hierome writing professedly upon the place of the Prophet to shew the meaning of it was so far from thinking it to be peculiarly meant of the Eucharist that hee doth not so much as mention that Sacrament otherwise then it is comprehended in those spirituall sacrifices which hee saith are here spoken of but as hee saith that spirituall sacrifices in generall are here signified so particularly hee applieth the words of the Prophet unto prayer saying that it is the incense which the Prophet speaketh of The other place of Scripture viz. Luke 22. 19. is as little to the purpose though Bellarmine also doth alledge and urge it in the same manner saying that Christ did not say Vobis datur frangitur effunditur sed pro vobis is given broken shed to you but for you But what of this Wee know and believe that Christs Body was given and his Blood shed for us on the crosse in remembrance whereof according to Christs institution wee receive the Sacrament but doth it therefore follow that Christ is properly offered and sacrificed in the Sacrament The ground of this conceit is that the word is in the present tense datur is given not in the future dabitur shall be given But this is too weake a foundation to build upon For Bellarmine cannot deny but that in the Scripture the present or the preter tense is often put for the future And well might it be so here Christ being now ready to be offered he instituting the Sacrament the same night that he was betrayed 1 Cor. 11. 23. the night before hee suffered And therefore Cardinall Cajetan was much more ingenuous then Cardinall Bellarmine For upon 1 Cor. 11. 23. he notes that both the Evangelists and also Paul relating the words of the institution of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper use the present tense is given or broken and is shed because when Christ did institute the Sacrament though his Body was not yet crucified nor his Blood shed yet the crucifying of his Body and the shedding of his Blood was at hand and in a manner present Yea the time of Christs suffering hee saith was then present as being then begun And therefore as when the day is begun wee may signifie in the present tense whatsoever is done that day so the day of Christs Passion being begun the Jewes beginning the day at the Evening all his Passion might be signified by a word of the present tense The present being taken Gramatically not for an instant but for a certaine time confusedly present The ancient Writers also have expounded the present tense used in the words of the institution by the future Heare Christ himselfe saith Origen saying unto thee This is my Blood which shall be shed c. So also Tertullian rehearseth Christs words thus This is my Body which shall be given for you And even the vulgar Latine Translation Mat. 26. 28. Mar. 14. 24. hath it in the future tense effundetur and so Luke 22. 20. fundetur shall be shed and 1 Cor. 11. 24. tradetur shall be given Now for the Fathers whom the Marquesse alledgeth as being of their opinion I answer the Fathers indeed doe frequently use the word sacrifice and offering when they speake of the Eucharist but it doth not therefore follow that according to their opinion there is a true and proper sacrifice offered in the Eucharist For it is certaine that they doe also frequently use the same words when they speake of those things which the Romanists themselves acknowledge to be no sacrifices properly so called even as the Scripture speaketh of the sacrifice of Prayer Psal 141. 2. of praise Heb. 13. 15. of Almes Heb. 13. 16. of our own selves Rom. 12. 1. And where the Fathers as the Marquesse observeth call the Eucharist an unbloodly sacrifice they sufficiently shew that properly Christ is not sacrificed in it For as Bellarmine himselfe doth tell us All sacrifices properly so called that the Scriptures speake of were to be destroyed and that by staying if they were things having life and if they were solid things without life as fine Floure Salt and Frankincense they were to be destroyed by burning Besides I have shewed before by the testimony of Lombard that the Fathers sometimes expressely speake of Christs being sacrificed in the Eucharist in that there is a commemoration and remembrance of the sacrifice which Christ upon the crosse did offer for us Bellarmine objects that Baptisme doth represent the death of Christ and yet none of the ancients doe ever call Baptisme a sacrifice and therefore the representation of Christs death alone could not be the cause why they call the Lords Supper a
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
not say nor believe that he did then not into that Hell which they call Limbus Patrum 2. Those words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell as spoken by David Psal 16. and commented upon by Peter Acts 2. those words I say doe shew that Hell there mentioned could neither be the Hell of the damned nor Limbus Patrum or at least that there is no necessity to expound it of either For 1. It is spoken of as a great benefit a matter of joy and rejoycing that Christs Soule was not left in Hell Therefore my Heart is glad and my glory or Tongue rejoyced c. For thou wilt not leave c. Psal 16. 9 10. Acts 2. 26 27. But they that hold Christs descending either into the Hell of the damned or into Limbus Patrum make him to descend as a conquerour one that went either to triumph over the Devill in his owne place as it were or to deliver the soules that were in limbus Now why should it be accounted such a benefit such a matter of joy and rejoycing for one not to be left there where hee is onely as a conquerour and deliverer Bellarmine answers that it was a benefit to Christs Soule that it was quickly joyned againe unto the Body even as it was evill to the Soule to be separated from the Body And thus saith hee it was a benefit unto him to be delivered from Hell not in respect of the place but in respect of separation from the body But who seeth not that by this reason Christs Soule might as well be in Heaven as either in Limbus Patrum or the Hell of the damned For though Christs soule were in heaven yet it was a benefit unto it to be delivered out of that estate of separation which it was in 2. Those words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell were meant of Christs Resurrection as S. Peter telleth us Acts 2. 31. But Christs Resurrection though it did presuppose his being in Hell either as Hell is taken for the grave or for the state of death yet not as it is taken either for Limbus Patrum or for the place of torment Christ might well enough rise againe and yet never be in any such Hell as one of these is and the other is supposed to have beene 3. S. Peter shewes that David in those words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell spake not of himselfe but of Christ for that the words being understood of David were not true but most true as understood of Christ Men and Brethren let mee freely speake unto you concerning the Patriarch David that hee is both dead and buried and his Sepulcher remaineth with us to this day Therefore being a Prophet c. Acts 2. 29 30 31. Here by Davids Sepulcher remaning with them unto that day hee meanes that David was left in that Hell of which he speakes and so did not speake of himself but of some other viz. of Christ who was not left in it Thus also S. Paul having cited the latter part of the Verse Thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption hee also to prove that this was meant of Christ and not of David addes For David after he had served his own Generation by the Will of God fell asleepe and was laid with his Fathers and saw corruption But he whom God raised up saw no corruption Acts 13. 35 36 37. David spake not of himselfe but of Christ when hee said Thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption because David did see corruption which Christ did not see So David spake not of himselfe but of Christ when hee said Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell because Davids Soule was left in Hell where Christs Soule was not left This is the Apostles argument and herce it necessarily followes that by Hell cannot be meant either the place of torment or yet Limbus Patrum Not the place of torment for Davids soule was not left in that Hell it never came in it Nor yet can that Limbus be meant for even the Romanists themselves doe hold that it was quite emptied before that time that Peter spake and therefore Davids soule was not in it then whereas yet Peter signifies that then it was in that Hell of which hee spake By Hell therefore must be meant either the grave or the state of the dead Ruffinus in his Exposition of the Creed observes that in his time the Article of Christs descending into Hell was not in the Creed of the Roman Church and that the Easterne Churches had it not yet hee saith that it seemes to he implied in that which is spoken of Christs Buriall And it is observed that in all the ancient Creedes that were within 600 years after Christ except one which Ruffinus followed if the article of Christs buriall were mentioned then that of his descending into Hell was omitted and if his descending into Hell were mentioned then his buriall is omitted which argues that the antients did take these two viz. Christs buriall and his descending into Hell to import but one thing or to differ but very little and therefore thought it sufficient to mention either the one or the other It is most evident that the Hebrew word Sheol and so the Greeke Hades which Psal 16. and Acts 2. are rendred Hell are often taken for the grave Some of the Romanists deny that Sheol is ever so used but Genebrard who was sometimes Hebrew Professour at Paris doth confesse that they are in an errour and there are many places of Scripture to convince them Gen. 42. 38. If mischiefe befall him c. you shall bring down my gray haires with sorrow to Sheol i. e. the grave For to what Hell else should gray haires goe down So Gen. 44. 29. and 31. and 1 King 2. 6. And Iob. 17. 13. If I waite Sheol is mine House that is the grave as appeares v. 14. I have said to corruption thou art my Father and to the worme thou art my Mother and Sister So Psal 141. 7. Our bones lie scattered at the mouth of Sheol i. e. the grave So Genebrard upon the place expounds it juxta Sepulchrum i. e. by the grave whereas the vulgar Latine hath it secus infernum neare Hell But what Hell except the grave should dead mens bones lie scattered by So in many other places and in all these places the Greeke version hath Hades so that Bellarmine needed not to have made so strange a matter of it as hee doth that Henry Stephen in his great Thesaurus should say that Hades may be taken for the grave neither had he cause to say that Stephen could finde no Authour that did use the word in that sense I have not now Stephens Thesaurus to looke into but sure I am that a man of farre lesse reading then Stephen was of might have alledged many examples to that purpose And for the Hebrew word Sheol Genebrard
and Bellarmine pretend that the Chaldie Paraphrast and the Rabbines doe expound it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gehinnom which signifies the place where the damned are in torment But 1. If it were so this were nothing to that Limbus which they contend for 2. Neither is it true that those authors doe usually so expound the word For the Chaldie Paraphrast for the most part keepeth the Hebrew word Sheol it selfe onely sometimes it is a little changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Shiol and many times doth hee use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kebura or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Keburta that is the Grave to expresse the Hebrew Sheol by or which is the same in effect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be Keburta or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the house of the Grave As Iob. 7. 9. and 14. 13. and 17. 13. and 16. Psal 89. 48. and 141. 7. and Eccles 9. 10. In all these places doth the Chaldie Pharaphrast render the Hebrew word Sheol the grave or the house of the grave let any Romanist shew that hee renders it so often by that word which signifies the place of torment though as I said before that were nothing to their Limbus Patrum And thus also doe the Rabbines interpret the word Sheol R. Levi saith that Sheol doth signifie the Grave and that therefore it is put for Death 2 Sam. 22. 6. So also R. Nathan Mordecai in his Hebrew Concordance saith that the interpretation of Sheol is the Grave Aben Ezra also saith the same in his commentary on Gen. 37. 35. And moreover he taxeth the vulgar Latine Translatour for interpreting Sheol there Hell supposing him to have meant the Hell of the damned Kimchi likewise saith that those words Psal 16. 10. thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption are but a repetition of that which went before Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell Which shewes that hee tooke Sheol there rendred Hell for the Grave It is true sometimes the Rabbines expound Sheol by Gehinnam i. e. Hell the place of torment but they doe not hold that to be the simple and genuine signification of the word as appeares by R. Solomon on Gen. 37. 35. who saith that Sheol there according to the literall Exposition is the Grave and that Iacobs meaning was that hee would goe mourning to the Grave and would not be comforted but that according to the mysticall Exposition by Sheol there is meant Gehinnam the Hell of the damned So Kimchi upon those words Psal 9. 17. The wicked shall be turned into Hell where the Hebrew is Sheol interprets it Let the wicked be turned into the Grave and afterwards addes that mystically there by Sheol is understood Gehinnam the place of torment Obj. But they say that in these words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell the Grave cannot be meant by Hell because the Grave is not a place for the soule but for the body Answ The word Soule is sometimes put for the body or which is all one for man considered in respect of the body As Gen. 46. 26. All the soules that came with Iacob into Egypt which came out of his loines c. There by soules are meant bodies or persons in respect of their bodies for so generally both Protestants and Romanists doe hold that not the Soules properly but the Bodies of children doe proceede from the loines of their Parents Yea and sometimes by Soule is meant the Body when the Soule is departed out of it As Num. 19. 13. Whosoever toucheth the dead Body of any man c. There the word rendred dead Body is that which Psal 16. 10. and so usually elsewhere is rendred Soule Bellarmine to take away this answer saith that there is great difference betwixt the Hebrew word Nephesh and the Greeke Psyche both which are rendred soule For Nephesh hee saith is a most generall word and without any trope doth signifie both Soule and living creature yea and the Body also But the Greeke Psyche he saith and so the Latine Anima is not so generall as without a trope to signifie the whole living creature And therefore in Leviticus he saith one part is not put for another viz. the Soule for the Body but there is the word that usually signifies the Body it selfe or the whole is put for the part that is the living creature for the Body But in Acts 2. is used the word Psyche which doth signifie the Soule onely Thus Bellarmine but a pitty it is to see how a learned man rather then hee will submit to truth doth plunge himselfe into absurdity yea more absurdities then one But to passe by the rest this is most grosse that Bellarmine doth so distinguish betwixt Nephesh and Psyche as if the former sometimes did signifie the whole living creature or the Body onely but not so the latter when as in these very places of Leviticus which Bellarmine doth speake of viz. Levit. 21. 1. and 11. as in the Hebrew the word Nephesh so in the Greeke the word Psyche is used and therefore it is apparently false that the Greeke word Psyche doth signifie the Soule onely Yea but saith Bellarmine when even Nephesh is opposed to flesh it cannot be taken for flesh Now here soule is opposed to flesh his soule was not left in Hell neither his flesh did see corruption Acts 2. 31. And therefore here by no meanes can signifie a dead body I answer that in those words Acts 2. 31. there is no opposition betwixt Soule and Flesh no more then there is an opposition betwixt Leave and Forsake in those words Heb. 13. 6. I will not leave thee nor forsake thee So then notwithstanding any thing that is objected in those words Thou wilt not leave my Soule in Hell by Hell may be meant the Grave and by Soule the Body But if the word Soule be taken properly then by Hell is to be understood the power of death or the state of the dead And thus doe Romish Writers sometimes expound the word Hell As Iansenius upon those words Prov. 15. 11. Hell and destruction are before the Lord notes that by Hell and destruction is signified the state of the dead not onely of the damned as wee usually conceive when we heare those words but the state of all in generall that are departed out of this life So Genebrard expounds that Psalme 30. 3. Thou hast brought up my Soule from Sheol from Hell as the vulgar Latine reades it he expounds it I say thus Thou hast delivered me from the state of the dead So likewise the same author upon Psal 88. or 89. 48. saith Hell doth signifie the whole state of the dead Thus generally all that die whether they be godly or wicked are said as in respect of the Body to goe to the Grave so in respect of the Soule to descend into Hell This is the Law of humane necessity saith Hilary that
when mens bodies are buried their soules descend into Hell which descent the Lord to prove himselfe true man did not refuse The words also of S. Peter doe confirme this Exposition viz. that Hell in which Christs Soule was but was not left is the state of the dead or the Power of death Whom God hath raised up having loosed the paines of death because it was not possible that hee should be holden of it For David speaketh concerning him c. Acts 2. 24. c. To prove that CHRIST could not be held by death be still kept under the power of it Peter alledgeth the words of David concerning Christ Thou wilt not leave my Soule in Hell Therefore Christs not being left in Hell signifies nothing else but t is not being left under the power of death and consequently his being in Hell importeth nothing else but his being under the power of death under which hee was kept for a while viz. untill his Resurrection And this may suffice for answer to the Objection from Acts 2. 27. The next place Objected is 1 Pet. 3. 18 19. of which place I marvell that the Marquesse should say that it is yet plainer then either of the former Austine being consulted by Evodius about the meaning of that place confesseth that it did exceedingly puzzle him and that hee durst not affirme any thing about it And the Jesuite Lorinus in his Commentary upon it calles it difficillimum locum a most difficult place and rehearses ten severall Expositions of it And So Estius also upon the place saith This place in the judgement almost of all Interpreters is most difficult and is so diversly expounded that John Lorinus doth reckon up nine interpretations of it to which hee addes his own for the tenth and yet he hath not touched all neither And both he and Lorinus note that only Arias Montanus did thinke the place easie to be understood but withall that his Exposition of it is such as that others will not easily embrace it For as they relate Arias by the spirits in prison doth understand those eight persons that were shut up in the Arke which was a kinde of prison unto them Bellarmine also upon occasion of this controversie about Limbus Patrum and Christs descending into Hell treating of this place of Peter saith that it hath alwayes beene accounted a most obscure place Some have thought that by Prison in those words of Peter is meant Hell the place of torment and that Christ went and Preached there and that such as did then believe were delivered And thus Hilary seemes to have understood it who saith that the Apostle Peter doth testifie that when Christ descended into Hell exhortation was Preachde also to those that were in the Prison who had sometimes beene incredulous in the dayes of Noah For this opinion Hilary is taxed though not named by Bede as Estius observes who yet indeavours to excuse Hilary as not meaning by this Prison the Hell of the damned but Purgatory and in that sense Estius himselfe also doth understand the words of Peter viz. that by the spirits in prison are meant the soules of those that were in paine and torment for the expiating of their sinnes untill that Christ came and Preached deliverance unto them But of Purgatory I shall speake hereafter in the meane time so much is obtained that if the place be meant of Purgatory then not of Limbus Patrum for that place as they describe it did much differ from Purgatory as being a place they say in which was no paine or torment But it may seeme strange that the Marquesse should alledge Austine Epist 99. as holding that by the prison which Peter speaketh of is meant Limbus Patrum when as indeed Austine in that Epistle is much against it For besides what I have before cited out of that Epistle hee saith that Christ by the beatificall presence of his Divinity did never depart from those just persons that were in Abrahams bosome which the Marquesse saith is the same place with that called Limbus Patrum and therefore hee did not finde what Christ did for them when hee descended into Hell And having considered what hee could of the words of Peter hee rather thought that they did not speake of Hell at all And therefore by the spirits in prison hee conceived to be meant men that lived in the dayes of Noah whose soules were in their mortall bodies as in a prison to which men hee saith Christ by his Spirit in Noah did Preach though they yet neverthelesse would not believe Bellarmine and Estius and others doe acknowledge this to have beene the opinion of Austine in that Epistle concerning the words of Peter And Bellarmine also doth confesse that this of Austine doth differ but little from Bezaes Exposition of the place viz. that by the spirits in prison are meant the soules of men which were now when Peter wrote of them in prison that is in Hell to which men Christ by his Divine Spirit in Noah did Preach when they were alive upon Earth And surely any that are impartiall will judge this Exposition in that wherein it differs from Austines the more probable and yet Bellarmine to shew his partiality saith that hee would not have refuted Austines Exposition if Austine himselfe had beene altogether pleased with it Austines Exposition is embraced not onely by Bede whom Bellarmine onely mentions as herein following Austine but also by Aquinas and others as Estius observes who also addes that Hesselius a Romish Authour doth understand the place much after the same manner And as Lorinus doth relate Diegus Paiva one that wrote in defence of the Councell of Trent doth directly expound the words of Peter as Beza doth though hee would not have it thought that Paiva did receive his Exposition from Beza But against both Austines and Bezaes Exposition it is objected first that the Spirit by which Christ went and Preached to the spirits in prison 1 Pet. 3. 18 19. is opposed to the Flesh and therefore must signifie Christs Soule and not his Divine Nature I answer that Christs Divine Nature is most fitly understood there by the word Spirit even as by the word Flesh is to be understood not onely his Body but his whole humane Nature in respect of which nature Christ was put to death and was quickned by his Divine Nature Thus doth Oecumenius expound it Put to death in the nature of flesh that is the humane Nature and raised againe by the power of the Divine Nature And why should this Exposition seeme strange when as Flesh is put for Christs humane Nature Ioh. 1. 14. The word was made Flesh And so also Rom. 1. 3. and 9. 5. And therefore on the other side the word Spirit may well denote Christs Divine Nature For this Exposition Estius also cites Austine and Athanasius as alledged by Bede And he doth well observe that
greater benefit by him even of deliverance from the captivity of sinne and Satan Estius in his Exposition of the hard places of Scripture treating of this place saith indeed that many understand it of Christs descending into Hell and delivering thence the soules of the just but withall hee tells us that it is diversly expounded and that one Exposition is that Christ by the Merit of his Passion did free all the Elect who were held captive under the power of the Devill And thus hee saith the pit wherein is no water is the captivity of mankinde in which so long as it is held it is empty of the water of Divine Grace Diverse Romanists doe cite Hierome as interpreting this place of the Prophet Zachary of Limbus Patrum and of Christs descending thither But they that peruse Hieromes owne words will finde that hee neither speakes of Christs descending nor of Limbus Patrum and that indeed hee meant onely that which Estius expresseth Hee giveth the sense of the Prophets words thus By the blood of thy passion thou through thy clemency hast delivered those who were held bound in the prison of Hell in which there is no mercy And hee addes a little after that the rich man spoken of Luke 16. was in that pit which was so void of all water of comfort that hee desired Lazarus might but dip the tip of his finger in water to coole his Tongue Here it is evident that Hierome by the pit without water understands the Hell of the damned which is without all comfort though the Marquesse say that place cannot here be meant Now whereas Hierome saith that Christ by his Passion did deliver those that were bound in that prison I suppose hee did not meane that any being once in Hell as that rich man that he mentioneth were afterwards delivered out of it himself seemes to exclude that sence when hee saith that in that prison there is no mercy viz. to be obtained but his meaning was that such as by reason of sinne were in the state of damnation Christ did deliver by his Passion But thus neither this place of Zachary nor any other place of Scripture doth prove a Limbus Patrum or that Christ descended into Hell in that sense as they of the Church of Rome maintaine For the Fathers whom the Marquesse citeth Austine in Psal 37. 1. hath nothing about Limbus Patrum or Christs descending into Hell and I have shewed before that he gathered by the Scripture that Abrahams bosome was no such Limbus as the Romanists imagine yea that hee held the Saints that died before Christs incarnation to have alwayes enjoyed the beatificall presence of Christs Divinity which is point blanke contrary to their opinion Hierome I grant in Ephes 4. 9. seemeth to speake for them where hee saith By the lower parts of the Earth is understood Hell to which our Lord and Saviour descended that he might victoriously carry with him to Heaven the soules of the Saints which were kept there Whereupon also after his Resurrection many bodies of the just were seene in the holy City But Hieromes meaning might be onely this that Christ by the vertue and efficacy of his death did deliver the Soules of all Saints whether before or after his comming from Hell which otherwise by reason of sinne was the place that did belong unto them Thus a little before upon those words when hee ascended up on high hee led captivity captive Hierome doth expresse himselfe saying Wee who now believe in Christ were taken captive by the Devill and were delivered over to his officers Therefore our Lord Iesus Christ came bringing with him the vessels of captivity and preached remission to those that were taken and deliverance to those that were bound and delivered us from the Chaines and Fetters of our enemies And having deliver'd us and by a new captivity brought us out of our old captivity he carried us with him into Heaven Hee cannot here meane that we were actually in Hell and then from thence delivered and carried up with Christ into Heaven But his meaning must needs be this that whereas sinne had brought us under condemnation so that nothing but Hell did remaine for us Christ by his death delivered us and made a way for us into Heaven into which otherwise wee could finde no entrance After the same manner very well may the other words be understood so as to import no such place as they call Limbus Patrum However hee meant yet it appeares sufficiently by the words of Austine before cited that the opinion of Limbus Patrum was not generally received in that time wherein Hierome lived Austine and hee being contemporaries The other Father yet remaining is Gregory but there is no such place as that mentioned viz. li. 13. Mor. ca. 20. for that booke hath onely 17. Chapters in it yet I finde Bellarmine also to cite Gregory after the very same manner yea and to bid us also see Cap. 21. But the words which Bellarmine citeth as out of Cap. 20. are indeed in Cap. 15. viz. Whiles our Master and Redeemer penetrating the cloysters of Hell did bring out from thence the soules of the Elect hee suffers not us to goe thither from whence by descending hee did deliver others These words of Gregory might admit of the same Exposition with those of Hierome before spoken of but that in the next Chapter he is more plaine saying The former Saints could indure adversity but yet they could not be delivered from Hell when they died because hee was not yet come who should descend thither without sinne that hee might deliver those who were held there by reason of sinne But the reason that Gregory here giveth is too weake for though Christ were not then come in the flesh yet his death was as effectuall to those that believed in him then as after his comming as I have proved before Neither is the gound or occasion of these words of Gregory good for hee buildes or comments upon that of Iob 17. 13. If I waite Sheol Hell as Gregory understands it is mine house But I have shewed before that Sheol doth not properly signifie Hell as either wee or our adversaries usually take the word but the Grave or the state of the dead And so the Chaldie Paraphrast there for Sheol hath that which signifieth the house of the Grave This appeares to be the meaning in that place by that which followes immediately after v. 14. I have said to corruption Thou art my Father to the worme thou art my Mother and Sister If our adversaries wil yet stand upon the authority of Gregory I answer that we are not tied to the authority of any in this kinde further then they concur with the Scripture and if we were yet Austines authority were to be preferred as being 200 years more antient then Gregory but of this point enough From Limbus Patrum wee must now passe to Purgatory
to which the Marquesse doth next leade us We hold saith hee Purgatory fire where satisfaction shall be made for sinnes after death you deny it We have Scripture for it 1 Cor. 3. 13 15. The fire shall try every mans worke of what sort it is if any mans worke shall be burnt hee shall suffer losse but hee himselfe shall be saved yet so as by fire S. Aug. so interprets this place upon Psal 37. also S. Ambrose upon 1 Cor. 3. and ser 20. in Psal 118. S. Hier. l. 2. c. 13. advers Ioan. S. Greg. l. 4. dial c. 39. Origen Hom. 6. in cap. 15. Exod. If there be any such place as Purgatory it doth much more concerne us then Limbus Patrum which they hold to have been made void and of no use long agoe but this they pretend to continue still and to be of as much force as ever it was But we finde nothing in Scripture to prove any such place or any such fire as that of Purgatory wherein they that have not fully satisfied for their sinnes in this life must lie and frie untill they have made full satisfaction and then be taken out and conveyed to Heaven For thereore they call the place Purgatory and the fire Purgatory fire because they say in that place by that fire the Soules are purged which were not fully purged in this life that being so purged they may have entrance into Heaven But how doth this agree with the Scripture That tells us that the Blood of Iesus Christ cleanseth us from all sinne 1 Ioh. 1. 7. And that if any man sinne wee have an advocate with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous And he is the propitiation for our sinnes 1 Ioh. 2. 1 2. It is onely Christ who by his blood doth satisfie for our sinnes and so purge us from them we cannot doe it by any thing which we either doe or suffer in this life much lesse is it to be done by us hereafter when we are dead God doth indeed afflict his children here in this World thereby to purge them By this shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged and this is all the fruit to take away his sinne Isai 27. 9. But this affliction is onely castigatory not satisfactory When we are judged we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the World 1 Cor. 11. 32. After this life is ended there remaines no more affliction for the godly for any thing that we can finde in Scripture Wee know that if our earthly house of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God a house not made with hands eternall in the Heavens Therefore we are alwayes confident knowing that whiles wee are at home in the body wee are absent from the Lord. For we walke by Faith and not by sight We are confident I say willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. 2 Cor. 5. 1 6 7 8. The Apostle speakes there not peculiarly of himselfe or such eminent ones as he was but generally of all Believers as appeares by those words For we walke by faith and not by sight which is as true of every believer as it was of Paul Now if the faithfull when they depart out of this Tabernacle the body goe to their house prepared for them in Heaven and are present with the Lord and enjoy the sight of him then surely there is no such thing as Purgatory to keepe them I know not how long absent from God in paine and torment And so the Scripture tells us that they that die in the Lord are blessed and rest from their labours Revel 14. 13. But how are they blessed and how doe they rest from their labours if yet after they are dead they must endure Purgatory the paines whereof they say are most grievous and such as that no paines here in this life are to be compared with them Yea some hold that the least paine in Purgatory is greater then the greatest paine that is in this life And whereas Dominicus à Soto thought that none did continue in Purgatory above ten years Bellarmine confutes this by the custome of their Church praying for those that were known to be dead a hundred or two hundred yeares before Which argues that as they suppose soules may continue so long in Purgatory Yea he cites Bede who lived about 900 years agoe telling of one to whom was shewed the paines of Purgatory and it was told him that all the Soules in Purgatory should be delivered and saved in the day of judgement c. whence he infers that according to Bede some now dead yea that were dead many hundred years agoe must abide in Purgatory untill the day of judgement And will any call such blessed will any say that such rest from their labours In a word the Scripture tels us but of two places appointed for such as depart out of this life the one a place of comfort and the other a place of torment and withall it tells us that betwixt these two places there is such a great gulfe fixed that they that are in the one cannot passe unto the other Luke 16. 25 26. Neither doe wee want the testimonies of the antient Fathers for the asserting of this truth which we maintaine Cyprian saith that though the godly and the wicked fare alike here yet when this life is ended then their estates doe much differ We are contained saith hee for a while both good and bad in one house whatsoever doth happen within the house we suffer alike untill this temporall life being ended we are divided to the habitations either of eternall death or of immortality Hee makes no third place distinct from those of immortality and of everlasting death neither doth hee make any stay after the end of this life but that such as escape the habitation of endlesse death doe immediately passe to the habitation of immortality So the same Father againe The Kingdome now is very neare at hand c. now after earthly things follow heavenly after small things great after fading things eternall What place is there here for anxiety and carefulnesse who can now be fearfull and sad but he that hath neither hope nor faith For it is for him to feare death who is not willing to goe to Christ and it is for him to be unwilling to goe to Christ who doth not believe that he beginnes to reigne with Christ For it is written that the just doth live by faith If thou beest just if thou doest live by faith if thou doest indeed believe in God why being to be with Christ and being sure of the Lords promise doest thou not embrace this that thou art called unto Christ and reioyce that thou art freed from the Devill Thus in a time of mortality did Cyprian comfort and encourage Christians against the feare of death But how will all this consist with Purgatory How is the Kingdome of
of everlasting fire All these Expositions Bellarmine relates and confutes as justly he may that being indeed the true Exposition which hee embraceth but doth not extend farre enough viz. that by fire is meant Gods Severe and just judgement whereby the workes of all must be tried as it were by fire though the Apostle there speake peculiarly of Ministers and of their Doctrine and so as it were by fire shall they be saved that adhere to the foundation Christ though their workes be found like wood hay and stubble vaine and unprofitable so that they suffer losse in that respect as having no reward nor benefit of those workes Now whereas the Marquesse saith that Austine interprets this place of Purgatory in his commentary upon Psal 37. I answer it is true Austine there doth cite or rather glance at this place and expound it as meant de emendatorio igne of a purging fire and saith that this fire is more grievous then any thing that a man can suffer in this life But besides what hath beene cited before out of Austine if Hypognosticon be his which Bellarmine thinkes not though hee saith the work is learned and profitable and done by some antient Authour but besides that I say Austine in his most elaborate peece de Civit. Dei handling this place of the Apostle shewes himselfe altogether unresolved whether there be any Purgatory fire after this life is ended Whether saith he they finde the fire of transitory tribulation burning up those secular affections which yet do not bring damnation there only in the other World or both there and here or therefore here that they may not find them there I do not gainesay because perhaps it is true Here we see Austine taking the point into consideration had no more then a perhaps hee was farre from being assured of that which they call Purgatory Bollarmine pointing at that place of Austine but not citing the words saith that Austine there doth onely doubt whether Purgatory fire be the same in substance with Hell-fire of which it is said Mat. 25. Depart into everlasting fire But it was his policy to conceale Austines words for all that have any view of them must needs see that he doubts whether there be any Purgatory fire in the World to come So the same Father in his Enchiridion which it seemes he wrote when he was old speakes as doubtfully as may be of Purgatory That there is some such thing also after this life is not incredible and whether it be so may be inquired But whether it be found or lie hid that some faithfull ones are so much the later or the sooner saved by a certaine Purgatory fire by how much they did more or lesse love these good things that perish yet not any such as of whom it is said that they shall not possesse Gods Kingdome Here hee makes it a question whether it be so or no and the most that hee saith is That it is not incredible which is farre from asserting it as a thing that ought to be believed Bellarmine saith that Austine here only doubts whether after this life soules be burnt with the fire of griefe for the losse of temporall things as here they use to be when they are forced to want things which they most desire But besides that the words of Austine which here also Bellarmine did prudently omit doe plainly refuse this glosse there is no sense at all that I can see in it For how should soules after this life grieve for the losse of temporall things Is there any use of temporall things after this life is ended How then should Austine make it a question whether soules in the other World are grieved and even burnt with griefe for the losse of these things which could doe them no good if they had them But againe in the preceding Chapter of the same Book Austine treating of this place 1 Cor. 3. 13 14 15. saith that the fire which the Apostle speaketh of must so be understood as that both passe through it both he that upâ—â— the foundation buildes Gold and Silver and pretious stones and hee that buildes wood hay and stubble and this hee clearly proves by the words of the Apostle Now this doth quite exclude Purgatory from being the fire there mentioned For they will not have Purgatory to touch him that buildes Gold and Silver and pretious Stones but onely him that buildes wood and hay and stubble Austine therefore makes this fire that the Apostle writes of to be tribulation and saith that a man is said to be saved yet as it were by fire because the losse of those things which hee loloved doth burne him with griefe yet nor subvert nor consume him because he is strongly fixed upon the foundation And this may suffice for Austines testimony which is objected against us The next is Ambrose who indeed saith that the Apostle in those words yet so as by fire doth shew that such a man shall be saved yet so as that he shall suffer the paines of fire that being purged by fire he may be saved and not as they that are perfidious be for ever tormented with everlasting fire Here hee interprets the Apostle indeed as speaking of a Purgatory fire but yet it doth not appeare that he meant it of a Purgatory after this life For notwithstanding any thing that I yet see to the contrary hee may be understood of the fire of affliction with which God doth purge his people here that so they may not perish hereafter 1 Cor. 11. 32. The same Authour if yet the same for many thinke that those Commentaries upon Paules Epistles are not Ambroses and that not without cause as Bellarmine judgeth in the other place that is pointed at as by the Marquesse so also by Bellarmine viz. Serm. 20. in Psal 118. toucheth upon the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 3. but how our adversaries can gaine any thing by him I cannot see Take heed saith hee thou doe not bring with thee wood or stubble which the fire may burne up 〈◊〉 Gods judgement Take heed lest being approved in one or two things thou bring that which in more workes doth offend If any ones worke shall be burnt he shall suffer losse yet he also may be saved by fire Whence it is gathered that the same man is in part saved and in part condemned Here Ambrose himselfe sufficiently shewes that hee speakes of the fire of Gods judgement whereof hee makes expresse mention Neither can he meane any such Purgatory as our adversaries plead for seeing hee speakes of that which shall befall a man at the last judgement for immediately before hee brings in that of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 10. We must all appeare before the judgement seate of Christ c. and then addes that before cited Take heed thou bring not with thee unto Gods Iudgement wood stubble c. Now when the day
of judgement commeth then our adversaries hold that Purgatory ceaseth Bellarmine notes this as an errour in Origen that hee extends the time of Purgatory beyond the Resurrection So much therefore for Ambrose After him is cited Hierome lib. 2. cap. 13. advers Joan. I suppose it is meant of Iohn Bishop of Jerusalem to whom Epiphanius wrote an Epistle admonishing him to beware of the errour of Origen which it seemes hee suspected him to be guilty of this Epistle being written by Ephiphanius in Geeke Hierome translated into Latine and so it is inserted among the Epistles of Hierome being the 60 Epistle Then Hierome himselfe wrote a long Epistle which is the 61. to Pammachius about the errours of this Iohn of Jerusalem which Epistle is divided into 16 Chapters And after that another about the same subject to Theophilus which containes but three Chapters Therefore the Marquesse here must meane the Epistle to Pammachius which yet Chapt. 13. hath nothing at all about Purgatory Bellarmine cites nothing out of Hierome against Iohn of Jerusalem but something out of him against the Pelagians viz. this If Origen say that no reasonable creatures shall be destroyed and give repentance to the Devill what is that to us who say that the Devill and his Angels and all the wicked and ungodly do perish for ever and that Christians if they be prevented in sin shall be saved after punishment Here indeed Hierome seemes to make some Christians after this life to suffer punishment and yet to be saved But if hee doe speake of punishment to be endured after this life which is not cleare and certaine though I confesse it is probable by those words if they be prevented in sin yet he seemes withall to have held that some even after the day of judgement shall be punished yet so as to be saved which Bellarmine as I have shewed noted as an errour in Origen and therefore Hierome in this as it seemes following Origen doth dissent as well from Romanists as from Protestants Now that Hierome was of that opinion may appeare by that which hee saith a little before in the same Chapter That which thou puttest in the Chapter following saith he to his adversary that the unjust and sinners shall not be spared in the day of judgement but shall be burnt with everlasting fire who can endure that thou shouldest interdict Gods mercy and before the day of judgement Iudge of the Iudges sentence For thou sayest that it is written in Psal 103. Let the sinners faile from the Earth and the unjust that they be no more He doth not say that they shall be burnt with everlasting fire but that they faile from the Earth and oease to be unjust For it is one thing for them to cease from sin and from iniquity and another thing for them to perish for ever and to be burnt with everlasting fire Hierome seemes not to be so cleare in the other words for this that some are punished after this life and yet saved as hee is in these words for this that some shall be punished after the day of judgement so as thereby to cease from sinne and iniquity to be purged from it but not so as to perish for ever and to be burnt with everlasting fire Our adversaries therefore so farre as I can see must relinquish Hieromes testimony who either saith nothing at all for them or more then they would have After Hierome is cited Gregory lib. 4. dial cap. 39. It is true Gregory there saith that for some light faults we are to believe that there is a Purgatory fire before the last judgement But marke 1. Gregory there immediately before cites many places of Scripture as Ioh. 12. 35. Isai 49. 8. with 2 Cor. 6. 2. Eccles 9. 10. by which places hee saith it is certaine that such as every one is when he goeth out of this World such shall he be when he comes to Iudgement See then if these places of Scripture be not more cleare against Purgatory then that which hee after alledgeth is for it He alledgeth that Mat. 12. where it is said that hee that sinneth against the holy Ghost shall not forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come From whence he gathers that some sinnes are forgiven in this World and some in the World to come But 1. how will this stand with that which he said before For if some sinnes not forgiven in this world may be forgiven in the world to come how shall every one be found at the last judgement such as hee is when he dieth 2. The collection from that place of Matthew is not good For those words neither in this World nor in the World to come import neither more nor lesse then never as S. Marke expresseth it He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgivenesse Mark 3. 29. Theophylact expounds it thus he shall not be forgiven neither in this World nor in the World to come that is hee shall be punished both in this World and in the World to come And so also as Iansenius confesseth it is expounded by Chrysostome Some observe that neither in this World nor in the World to come is a Hebraisme for never Bellarmine saith that this is false but hee was not so conversant in the Jewish writings as to be fit to give sentence in this case Drusius who was better skill'd in that kinde citeth the Scholiast upon Ben Sira saying thus They that are of an intemperate tongue cannot be cured neither in this World nor in the World to come Besides Iansenius saith that this Conduplication neither in this World nor c. doth signifie that as this sinne shall not be forgiven in this World because of the enormity of it so much lesse shall it be forgiven in the World to come which is not a time of Grace as this present World is If it be not a time of grace how then can sinnes be pardoned in that World which here were not pardoned We grant that sinnes may be said to be forgiven in the World to come yet onely such sinnes as are forgiven in this World the forgivenesse of which sinnes shall be declared and made manifest in the day of judgement Bellarmine himselfe saith that every one is examined and receiveth his sentence when hee dieth and then some begin to be punished and some to be rewarded and yet neverthelesse these things are said to be done in the last Iudgement because then they shall be done most manifestly before all the World to the greater honour of the godly and the greater shame of the wicked Even so though sinnes are forgiven in this World or not at all yet they are said to be forgiven in the World to come because in the last judgement it shall be made manifest to all the World that they are forgiven 3. Gregory grants a Purgatory after this life onely for some small
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
take what they grant viz. that the anointing mentioned Mar. 6. was not properly sacramentall So much the Marquesse tacitely doth acknowledge and Bellarmine expresly citing for this opinion Ruardus Iansenius Dominicus à Soto and others yea confirming it by diverse arguments 1. Because that anointing which the Apostles used was referred onely or chiefly to the cure of the body as is manifest by the words of Saint Mark but Sacraments directly concern the soul and the body only by accident 2. The Apostles as then were not Priests and therefore could not administer Sacraments Though they did baptize yet he saith that is nothing because it is not so of the essence of Baptisme as it is of extreme Unction that he should be a Priest that doth administer it 3. The Apostles did promiscuously anoint all that were diseased the blinde and the lame c. but the Sacrament of Unction they hold is only for those that lie sick and are like to die 4. The Apostles did not enquire whether they whom they did anoint were baptized or no and it is altogether probable that many were anointed by them that were meer infidels But neither extreme unction nor any other Sacrament they say belongs unto those that are not baptized By these reasons Bellarmine proveth that the anoynting which we read of Mar. 6. was not the Sacrament of extreme Unction Now if this Sacrament be not meant in Mar. 6. neither is it in Iam 5. For by the testimony both of antient writers and also of modern Romanists the anointing which Saint Iames speaketh of is the same with that which Saint Mark mentioneth Beda upon the words of Saint Iames anointing him with oyle c. doth parallel that place with the other Mar. 6. saying We read in the Gospel that thus did the Apostles Thus also Theophylact upon the words of Saint Mark saith That the Apostles anointed with oyle only Mark doth relate which also Iames the Lords brother doth say Is any among you sick let him c. Iansenius confesseth that these Authours Beda and Theophylact doe testifie that the anointing spoken of Mar. 6. is such as Saint Iames doth mention in his Epistle and this he saith is evident by their words which he citeth Bellarmine doth attribute this opinion viz. that the same anointing is meant both Mar. 6. and Jam. 5. to Waldensis and Alphonsus de Castro two late writers though one of them was a good while before Luther both very zealous in defence of the Church of Rome yet I confesse that in Alphonsus where he speaks of extreme Unction I doe not find Mar. 6. mentioned Maldonate upon Mar. 6. is most vehement for this that the same anointing is spoken of there and Jam. 5. and takes it very ill that any of their Authours should hold otherwise and should say and write that the anointing which the Apostles used was not sacramentall for the healing of the soule but rather medicinall for the curing of the body and that the Sacrament of extreme Unction is not treated of in Mar. 6. Where then saith he is this Sacrament if it be not here Very good Ubi yet Bellarmine by unanswerable reasons hath proved that no such Sacrament is here viz. Mar. 6. and therefore by Maldonates own inference it is no where viz. in no place of Scripture to bee found Maldonate objecteth that the anointing Mar. 6. could not be medicinall because it was used for the healing of all diseases and because the Apostles were not to use medicines seeing it was not Physick but the Gospel which they professed But this is of no force for they whom Maldonate opposeth acknowledge that the oile which the Apostles anointed with did not naturally cure the diseased nor was used as a naturall medicine and they prove it by Maldonates own argument because naturally one medicine cannot cure all diseases But they say that by Christs institution upon this anointing with oile the sick were healed Maldonate would take away this answer saying that there was no need of any sign seeing that the cure which was wrought would work beliefe and that the using of oil would rather hinder faith for that thereby people might think that the cure was wrought by the naturall vertue of the oile and not by divine power But the reason which himselfe alledgeth would hold off people from any such conceit viz. because they might see that all manner of diseases were healed with one and the same oile and that therefore it could not be by the naturall vertue of it Besides that immediately upon the anointing with oile the sick were healed whereas naturally some time would have been spent before the cure was wrought Yet was not the anointing with oile superfluous no more then the laying on of hands which was used both for the healing of the sick Mar. 16. 18. and also for the giving of the Holy Ghost Acts 8. 17. though naturally that ceremony had as little vertue in that kinde as the other Thus then whiles some of our adversaries say that extreme Unction is not that which Saint Mark treateth of and others of them say that Saint Mark and Saint Iames doe both speake of one and the same Unction and that if extreme Unction be not spoken of Mark 6. we know not where to finde it in the Scripture betwixt them both wee may safely conclude that this Sacrament of theirs hath no firme foundation But because the Marquesse onely and others mainly build upon the words of S. Iames this is to be added that Cardinall Cajetane in his Commentary upon Iames doth not only parallel him with Marke but also doth both say and prove that he doth not speake of the Sacrament of éxtreme unction Because 1. The Text doth not say Is any sick unto death but absolutely Is any sick whereas extreme unction as they use it in the Church of Rome is onely for those of whose life there is no hope 2. The effect of S. Iames his anointing is the raising up the bodily amendment of the sick neither is any thing spoken but conditionally of the forgivenesse of sinnes Whereas extreme unction as the forme of it doth shew tends directly to the remission of sinnes 3. Iames bids send for many Elders to one sick person both to pray for him and to anoint him which is different from the manner of extreme unction Thus wee see how many of our adversaries by consequence and some of them directly grant that there is nothing in the Scripture for that extreme Unction which they use and maintaine to be a Sacrament Now for the humane testimonies which the Marquesse alledgeth the first is Origens who in the place mentioned hath nothing to the purpose He cites indeed the words of S. Iames which speake of anointing with Oile but it is not in respect of Unction but in respect of Confession of sinne that hee doth cite-them After him is cited Austine in Speculo but
there being 33. Chapters of that Booke which of them is meant wee cannot tell Neither is it much worth the inquiry for Erasmus shewes that Booke to be none of Austines in that the Authour inserts some verses out of Boetius who was long after Austine Besides other reasons which hee giveth yet Bellarmine asserting Austine to be the Authour of the Booke takes no notice of the reasons alledged against it though hee confesse that some doe doubt of it In the other place of Austine which is pointed at I finde indeed that hee doth cite the words of S. Iames but yet so as that our adversaries gaine litle by it For hee referreth those words of anointing with Oile c. unto bodily health and so inveigheth against those that by Charmes and Spels and the like superstitious and ungodly practices bring upon themselves manifold miseries Now bodily health is a thing which the Romanists have no respect unto in their Unction but use it directly for the good of the Soule even as they doe Baptisme and the Lords Supper And this also takes off the testimony of Chrysostome who shewing what benefit people have by Ministers or as hee calles them Priests saith that Parents cannot prevent so much as the bodily destruction of their children nor keepe off a Disease when it seizeth on them but these doe often preserve people alive when they are even ready to die and sometimes mitigate their paine and sometimes keepe them from being ill at all not onely by the helpe of their Doctrine and admonition but also of their prayers And then hee cites that Iam. 5. Is any sick among you Let him send for the Elders c. All this is nothing to the Romish Unction for besides that Chrysostome doth not at all speake of Priests anointing but of their teaching admonishing and praying and in this respect doth bring in the words of S. Iames besides this I say it is directly a corporall benefit which hee insisteth on as freedome from sicknesse mitigation of paine deliverance from Death and therefore that which hee saith makes nothing for extreme Unction which they of the Church of Rome say was instituted of God to this end that wee departing out of this mortall life may have a more ready way to Heaven And therefore they call it the Sacrament of such as goe out of this World What is this Sacrament then concerned in the words of Chrysostome who speakes onely of preserving life and health here in this World In the last place Venerable Bede is alledged But 1. Hee is against them in this as I have shewed before that he makes Marke and Iames to speake both of one and the same thing whereas diverse of them both say and prove that Marke doth not speake of Sacramentall Unction 2. By Elders Bede understandeth Elders in respect of age And hee saith expressely and alledgeth also Pope Innocentius for it that not onely Presbyters but also all Christians may use this Oile and anoint with it when either they or any belonging unto them have neede Which is enough to prove that he doth not make this Unction a Sacrament as they of the Church of Rome doe For saith Bellarmine it is of the essence of the Sacrament of extreme Unction that the Minister of it be a Priest and if a lay man doe anoint any it is of no force Yea the Councell of Trent sayes If any one shall say that not only a Priest is the proper Minister of extreme Vnction let him be anathema What doe they say to Bede then and to Innocentius whom Bede citeth They answer that Innocentius and Bede speak not of him that is to administer the Unction but of him that is to receive it But this is a very violent and forced interpretation and such as Bedes words will not admit For hee having said It is the custome of the Church that they that are weak should be anointed by Presbyters with consecrated Oile and by Prayer accompanying it be made whole immediately after he adds Neither only Presbyters but also as Pope Innocentius writeth all Christians may use this Oile by anointing with it either in their own or in their friends necessity It is manifest that Bede here speaketh of Christians using the Oile not so as to be anointed but so as to anoint with it and that both themselves and others as they saw cause 3. Bede also as appeares by his words even now cited makes this anointing with Oile which he saith the Church did use in his time to have reference to the body and the health of it neither doth he speak any thing of any spirituall effect that it should have upon the soule And thus also it appeares that he doth not speake of the Sacrament of extreme Vnction Cassander also confesseth that in the Church of Rome they have now departed from antiquity 1. In this that in more antient times they did not use as now they do to defer this anointing untill life were even in extreme danger and there was no hope of recovery 2. In this that antiently they used after this anointing if there were danger to receive the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood whereas now they have no such custome Yea the Carechisme of the Councell of Trent saith that before extreme Vnction the Sacrament of Penance and of the Eucharist is to be administred and that this is the perpetuall custome of the Catholike Church which is directly contrary to that which Cassander affirmeth But this I hope may be enough to shew that the Romish Sacrament of extreme Vnction hath no support either from the Scriptures or from the antient Fathers The Marquesse having waded thorough all the forementioned parts of controversie and as he supposeth proved the Scriptures to be on their side now sings as it were an Epinicion or a song of victory saying Thus most sacred Sir we have no reason to wave the Scriptures Umpirage so that you will hear it speak in the Mother language c. But how litle the Scriptures Umpirage doth favour them of the Church of Rome let the Reader judge by what hath been said on both sides the Scripture being understood in that sense which it selfe doth make out and to which also the antient Fathers and Doctors have subscribed which I suppose the Marquesse doth mean by the Scriptures Mother-language As for the Church of Rome it hath long shewed it selfe the Scriptures step-mother keeping it shut up in an unknown tongue or not permitting Christians the liberty to make use of it excepting such as can obtain a speciall dispensation for it yea in many things going directly contrary to the Scripture and even in a manner casting off the authority of it Here presently after the Marquesse brings in the saying of Austine Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae authoritas commoveret I should not beleeve the Gospel it selfe unlesse I were moved by the
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
Luthers Works as having it so as Campian alleadged And this is the more apparent in that Dureus professedly taking upon him the defence of Campian against Dr. Whitaker never so much as takes notice of that which the Doctor saith against Campian for falsifying the words of Luther so far was he from knowing of that pretended Edition anno 1551. which should have it forsooth just so as Campian quoted it 9. Luther as the Marquesse telleth us affirmed that Christ was from all eternity even according to his humane nature For proof hereof onely Zuinglius is cited But as I noted before Zuinglius his testimony is not sufficient to make good a charge against Luther Let Luthers words be produced and then it will appeare that he is justly charged 10. He affirms saith the Marquesse that as Christ died with great pain so he seems to have sustained paines in hell after death Indeed I finde such words in Luther on Plal. 16. and I acknowledge it to be a grosse errour so far am I from defending him in it But withall this I finde that Luther was nothing confident in that particular For he addes immediately that he would so understand the words of Peter Act. 2. 24. until he were better informed 11. That the Divinity of Christ suffered or else he were none of his Christ This also Bellarmine doth object against Luther and I confesse that if the word Divinity be strictly and properly taken the assertion is most erronious But Bellarmine probably was not ignorant that Aquinas observeth that because of the identity that is betwixt the divine Nature and the divine Person sometimes the Nature is put for the Person And that thus Austine saith that the divine Nature was conceived and born because the Person of the Son was conceived and born in respect of the humane nature So in like manner Luther might say that the Divinity or divine Nature did suffer because the Person of the Son did suffer according to the humane nature That Luther meant no otherwise then thus is clearly his words which I finde in Gerhard viz. these If I shall suffer my self to be perswaded that onely the humane nature did suffer for me truly Christ shall be a Saviour of small worth unto me for he himself at length will need a Saviour If perhaps that bewitching lady Reason will reclaim saying The Divinity cannot suffer nor dye thou shalt answer That indeed is true yet neverthelesse because the Divinity and the Humanity in Christ make one person therefore the Scripture because of the hypostatical union doth attribute to the Divinity all those things which happen to the Humanity and so to the Humanity those things which belong to the Divinity And truly thus it is indeed for we must needs confesse This Person Christ being pointed at doth suffer and dye But this Person is true God Therefore it is rightly said The Son of God doth suffer For though one part of him as I may so speak viz. the Deity doth not suffer yet that person which is God doth suffer in his other part viz. the Humanity For indeed the Son of God was crucified for us That same I say that same Person was crucified according to the Humanity And again If our sinnes and Gods weath due to our sinnes be weighed in one scale and in the other scale be put onely the death of humane nature or onely a man having sufered for us then the other scale will weigh us down to hel But if in the opposite scale be put the passion of God the death of God the blood of God or God having suffered for us then that scale will be more heavy and ponderous then all our sinnes and all Gods anger This doth abundantly shew that Luther was most orthodox in this point touching Christs Person and Natures And thus that also is answered which immediately followeth being indeed but the same with that which went before viz. That if the humane nature should onely suffer for him Christ were but a Saviour of vile account and had need himself of another Saviour In what sense Luther spake this and how sound and true it is in that sense wherein he spake it is evident by his own words before cited 12. The Marquesse cites Hospinian saying that Luther held the body and blood of Christ both is and may be found according to the substance not only in the bread and wine of the Eucharist or in the hearts of the faithfull but also in all creatures in fire water or in the rope and halter wherewith desperate persons hang themselves Whether Hospinian writ thus of Luther not having his book which is cited I cannot say Hospinian being though a Protestant yet against Luther in point of the Sacrament might peradventure wrest Luthers words beyond his meaning However if Luther did hold so I leave him to answer for himself or some other to answer for him I hold both him to have erred in his Consubstantiation and the Romanists in their Transubstantiation 13. Luther as is objected averreth that the ten Commandements belong not unto us for God did not lead us but the Jews forth of Egypt That Luther speaketh to this effect I grant yet was he far from teaching that Christians are free from the observation of the ten Commandements For immediately after that which the Marquesse citeth he saith thus Falsely therefore do fanaticall persons burthen us with the Law of Moses who spake nothing unto us Indeed we receive and acknowledge Moses as a teacher from whom we learn much wholesome doctrine as shall be shewed a little after But we do not acknowledge him our Lawgiver or Governour seeing he restraineâ— his Ministery to that people viz. the Jews Not to have other gods to fear God to trust in him and to obey him not to abuse his name to honor parents c. these things are to be observed by all and belong to all yet not because they were commanded by Moses but because these Laws which are rehearsed in the Deâ—alogue are imprinted in mans nature Wherefore also the heathens that knew not Moses and to whom God did not speak as he did to the Israelites knew that God is to be obeyed and worshipped that parents are to be honoured c. This doctrine of Luther is no other then they of the Roman Church do teach Estius a great Doctor of that Church writing upon those words Gal. 2. 19. I through the Law am dead to the Law saith Although the sense may seem more easie if it be understood of the Law as it is ceremonial yet may the whole Law given by Moses be understood so far forth as it was given by Moses For the whole legislative office of Moses doth cease by Christ neither is a Christian bound by the Law of the Decalogue but as it doth agree with the Law of nature and is renewed by Christ So the
Civil Magistrate onely not allowing him power over the conscience This indeed is Christs prerogative and in this respect Christians are to be subject only unto Christ Ye are boâ—ght with a price be ye not the servants of men I Cor. 7. 23. We must indeed be subject to the higher power for conscience sake Rom. 13. 5. but that is because God who is Lord over the conscience doth command it so that it is not the Magistrates power but Gods only that doth reach the conscience 22. That the Husband in case the Wife refuse his bed may say unto her If thou wilt not another will if the Mistresse will not let the Maid come This being objected by Campian Dr. Whitaker answers that Luther counselled the Husband to speak thus to the Wife in terrorem so as thereby to affright her out of her obstinacie Yet he acknowledgeth that Luther in point of Divorce went too far and that he was not willing to plead for him Neither will I in any thing wherein he is justly taxed As I confesse he is in the two next particulars that follow which also concern the same subject if he did indeed assert those things which are alledged 23. That Polygamie is no more abrogated then the rest of Moses law and that it is free as being neither commanded nor forbidden Two places in Luthers Works are here quoted to make good this charge one whereof I cannot find but the other I meet with though not of that Edition indeed which is expressed and find that which is quite contrary to this here objected Luther commenting on Gen. 16. where Abraham by the advice of Sarah being barren took Hagar for his Concubine saith that Polygamie was then in use and so Abraham might of himself following the custome of the times have taken another wife but yet would not do it till Sarah did put him upon it And from this fact of Abraham he saith we must not frame an example as if we might do the like And that though the Old Testament did permit Polygamie yet now in the New Testament it is otherwise So that Luther so far as I find was far from making polygamie a thing indifferent and free for any that have a minde to it 24. That it is no more in his power to be without a woman then it is in his power to be no man and that it is more necessary then to eat drink purge or blow his nose Luther here speaks of himself and what his power was in this particular that he speaks of he had best cause to know Indeed Mr. Breerly together with these words cites some other sayings of Luther wherein he seems to speak generally of all as being altogether unable to contain from women And to this effect also the Marquesse here immediately after cites some words of Luther in Latine saying that not any of his English shall be accessory to the transportation of such a blast into his native language But it is usual with them of the Church of Rome to pervert if not the words yet the meaning of their adversaries and especially of Luther and Calvin against whom they bear the greatest hatred Candor and ingenuity would easily conceive that Luther spake in that manner of men as for most part they are viz. not having the gift of continencie which comparatively but few have Luthers own words as Mr. Breerly himself doth cite them sufficiently declare his meaning The young woman saith he that hath not this high gift of continencie can no more want a husband or a man then she can want meat drink sleep c. 25. Luther saith the Marquesse saith How can a man prepare himself to good seeing it is not in his power to make his wayes evil For God worketh the wicked work in the wicked One of Luthers books wherein he is said to speak thus I finde among his Works viz. de servo arbit But the Edition being diverse from this here mentioned I cannot finde the words that are objected If Luther have these words I doubt not but by the circumstances of the place it will appear that he was free from charging God foolishly however that expression seem harsh That God worketh the wicked work in the wicked Yet in some sense this may be affirmed For a wicked work may be considered as a work and as wicked As a work so it is from God who is the supreme cause of every thing that hath any entity or being in it But it is not from God as it is wicked for so it imports defect and therefore is not to be ascribed unto God who cannot any way be defective but it is to be imputed onely to the creature But though God be not the author of mens wicked works as they are wicked yet is he the orderer and disposer of them And thus Luther might well say It is not in mans power to make his wayes evill viz. so as he himself will but as God will who permitteth restraineth ordereth and disposeth mans waves as he pleaseth Thus as the Prophet saith The way of man is not in himself neither is it in man that walketh to direct his steps Jer. 10. 23. Bellarmine himselfe doth tell us That God by his wonderful power doth rule the hearts even of the wicked and doth restrain them so that they cannot effect endeavour will or think otherwise then be doth permit and doth turn their fault into their punishment and being both most powerful and most good doth use their evil wills for the accomplishing of much good And hee cites Augustine saying That God doth not make mens wills evill but hee maketh use of them as he pleaseth But the Cardinal speaks yet more fully God saith he doth not onely permit the wicked to do many evill things but also is president over their evill wils and doth rule and govern them yea wrest and bend N B by working invisibly in them so that although they be evill through their owne fault yet by the divine providence not positively but permissively they are ordered to one evill rather then to another This expression which Bellarmine here useth of Gods wresting and bending the wils of wicked men in their wicked designs is I think as high as any that either Luther or Calvin do use of whom yet the Romanists and amongst them Bellarmine himselfe complains as making God the authour of sinne though they disclaim and abhor the Position as much as they that are so invective against them Before the Marquesse hath fully done with Luther he hath by the way a fling at Zuinglius saying that he denies all Pauls Epistles to be sacred But in the place cited I finde it otherwise Zuinglius doth not deny all Pauls Epistles to be sacred yea he saith expresly that he doth not deny this onely he saith that Paul then when he wrote did not attribute so much to his Epistles
as that whatsoever was contained in them should be sacred he thought that if the Apostle had done so it had been too much arrogancy in him wherein I am far from being of his minde There is nothing material which the Marquesse here doth further alleadge against Luther onely he citeth two or three passages wherein Luther doth vaunt of himself which though it may perhaps argue some vanity of the man yet doth it not argue any falsity of his doctrine I never required saith Luther that any should account me modest or holy but that all should embrace the Gospel Yet might he without any vain boasting say as the Marquesse objecteth Page 170. that he would not have his doctrine to be judged either by Men or Angels that is he being assured of its truth and agreeablenesse to Gods word he would not refer it to the censure either of Men or Angels so as to submit unto them if they should condemn it In this he had respect it seems to that of the Apostle Though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you then that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed Gal. 1. 8. And thus much for answer to those things which are alleadged against Luther In the next place the Marquesse fals upon Calvin and brings many charges against him but by the examination of the matter it will appear that Calvin is altogether as injuriously dealt with as Luther if not more 1. He maintains its said that three Essences do arise out of the holy Trinity I wish the Marquesse had either cited Calvins words or at least the place so as that I might have found what he saith But he onely citeth Tract Theol. p. 793. Where in the Edition which I have viz. Genev. an 1576. is no such thing to be found Neither need I to search into Calvins Works for the answering of this charge Bellarmine himself who would have been ready enough to find out any such grosse stuffe in him doth justifie him in this point confessing that Calvin doth acknowledge onely one nature in three distinct persons And that he doth plainly say that the Essence is communicated to the Son by the Father which also doth take away the next charge viz. That the Son hath his substance distinct from the Father and that he is a distinct God from the Father By Bellarmines own confession Calvins doctrine is directly contrary 2. He teacheth saith the Marquesse That the Father can neither wholly nor by parts communicate his nature to Christ but must withall be deprived thereof himself This is clearly confuted by Calvins words which Bellarmine alleadgeth If there be any differe we in the Essence viz. of the Father and the Son let them answer whether the Father did communicate it to the Son or no Now this could not be in part for it is not lawfull to make half a God Besides by this means they should foully tear in peeces Gods Essence It remains that the whole and intire Essence is common to the Father and the Son 3. Calvin is said to deny that the Son is begotten of the Fathers substance and to affirm that he is God of himself not God of God Divers Romanists besides and before the Marquesse would make Calvin guilty of some grosse herefie in saying that the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himself But Bellarmine hath a whole Chapter about this very point and doth clear Calvin from that aspersion which others cast upon him shewing that he spake of the Son not in respect of his Person but in respect of his Essence and that his meaning is that the Person of the Son is begotten of the Father but that the Essence of the Son is not begotten nor produced but is of it self So another learned Jesuite viz. Gregorius de Valentia as I finde him cited doth ingenuously confesse that Calvins doctrine in this point being rightly understood is sound and true viz. That the Son as he is essentially God is of himself and only is from the Father as he is a Person When the Fathers and Councels affirm the Son to be God of God he saith they take the word God personally viz. as it signifieth both the Person Father and of the Son yet saith he the Son as he is essentially God so he is not from another And in this sense he saith Epiphanius seemeth to have called the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is God of himself 4. He taxeth Calvin for saying That dream of the absolute power of God which the Schoolmen have brought in is execrable blasphemy Calvin in one of the places alleadged for the other I cannot consult saith thus Neither do we bring in the device of absolute power which as it is profane so we have just cause to detest it But Calvin was far from denying that absolute power of God whereby he is able to do whatsoever he pleaseth Only he seems to deny God to have such an absolute power as to be able to do any thing whether it be right or wrong For he addes immediately We do not fein God to be without law who is a law unto himself 5. It is objected against Calvin that those words The Father is greater then I Joh. 14. 28. he will not have restrained to the humane nature but will extend them to Christ as God and man Many places are cited for proof of this some whereof for want of the same Edition though I have the book I cannot examine viz. Tract Theol. p. 794. 792. my book in those pages hath nothing to the purpose And so also it is in all other places where the Marquesse doth cite those Theological Tractates Another place here also the Marquesse citeth which is as if it were not cited viz. Calvin on Mat. 22. the verse being not mentioned the quotation is to no purpose Two other places he cites also viz. Calvin Instit l. 2. c. 14. § 3. and on Joh. 17. 12. but in neither of these places doth Calvin speak any thing about those words My Father is greater then I. It may seem strange that the Marquess should here cite so many places out of Calvins Works and yet pretermit his Commentary upon those very words about which he taxeth him Now Calvin commenting upon those words saith That the Arians did wickedly abuse this testimony to prove that Christ is but a secondary God and not equal with the Father and that yet on the other side the Orthodox Fathers did not rightly interpret the words of Christs humane nature For that here neither Christs humane nature nor his eternal divinity he saith is spoken of but Christ according to the weaknesse of our capacity doth set himselfe in the midst betwixt God and us He explains it further thus Christ saith he doth not compare his Fathera Divinity with his own nor doth he compare his
humane nature with his Fathers divine essence but rather his present estate with that heavenly glory into which he was by and by to be received Though Calvins exposition here may seem somewhat quaint neither do I see why the received interpretation should not stand viz. that Christ spake of himself as he was man yet however Calvin plainly shews that he was farre from having any compliance with the Arians in denying the equality of the Sonne with the Father 6. Calvin is charged to sever the person of the Mediator from Christs divine person and to maintain with Nestorius two persons in Christ the one humane and the other divine Calvin had nothing to do with the heresie of Nestorius neither do the places alleadged prove him any whit guilty of it He speaks indeed of the person of the Mediator yet doth he not make that a distinct person from Christs divine person I meddle not yet saith he with the person of Mediator And again We do not yet speak of the person of Mediator His meaning plainly is this and no more then this that as yet he spake of Christ only as God and not as Mediator And when he saith that Christ took upon him the person and office of Mediator he seems to take the word person not for that which in Greek is hypostasis a substance subsisting by it self but as the Latines frequently use the word for quality or state Thus he seems to use the word Person in that after it immediately he adds the word office However Calvin doth expressely condemn the heresie of Nestorius and hath a whole Chapter to prove that in Christ two natures make but one Person Calvin therefore here hath hard measure being charged with Nestorianisme when as he not only in plaine tearms doth explode it but also doth bend his whole force against it 7. Calvin is taxed for saying That Christs soule was subject to ignorance and that this was the only difference betwixt us and him that our infirmities are of necessity and his were voluntary It is true Calvin understands that Luke 2. 40. and 52. so as that Christ as man was not perfect in knowledge at first no more then he was in stature And surely this seems to be the plain and simple meaning of the words especially those v. 52. And Jesus increased in wisdome and stature though others expound them that as Christ grew in age so he did shew forth his wisdome more and more But Jansenius confesseth that Ambrose saith that Christ as man did grow in knowledge And that the same exposition also is found under the name of Theophilus another ancient Author He addes indeed that these sayings of the Ancients are well understood by the Schoolmen of Christs wisdome acquired by use and experience when as before from his first conception he had the knowledge of all things infused into him Yet he speaks of this infused knowledge only as a thing which he thought very probable not as a thing which he held most certain And he confesseth that some I presume he means of the Church of Rome for otherwise he would not so much regard what they thought are of opinion that it cannot be proved by Scripture that such wisdome was infused into Christ from his conception whereby as man he should know all things at the very first and therefore they think the words of S. Luke more simply understood thus that Christ in respect of that wisdome which he had as man did truly grow as other men do though in a far greater measure Thus also did Erasmus who was before Calvin understand it not thinking it meet that the opinion of the Schoolmen should sway in this matter 8. Of like nature is that which followeth viz. that Calvin saith It is evident that ignorance was common to Christ with the Angels And that he particularizeth wherein viz. that He knew not the day of judgment nor that the fig-tree was barren till he came near it That Christ as man knew not what kind of tree it was untill he came nigh it Calvin thinks not Improbable yet he grants that Christ might on purpose go unto it though he were not ignorant oft the event Concerning the other place viz. Mar. 13. 32. he is more confident and so well might he be the Text being clear and expresse But of that day and houre knoweth no man no not the Angels which are in heaven neither the Son but the Father Some understand it so that Christ did not know it to make it known But thus neither doth the Father know it for he doth not make it known It is therefore to be understood of Christ in respect of his humane nature And so Cyril understands it as Jansenius confesseth though he himself rather likes the other exposition 9. The Marquesse saith that Calvin is not afraid to censure certain words of Christ to be but a weak confutation of what he sought to refute And that he sayes Christ seems here not to reason solidly This is just as if one should charge their Angelical Doctor Aquinas with saying That there seems to be no God and that God seems to be a body Or rather indeed with saying That there is no God and that God is a body For thus is Calvin dealt with commenting upon that Matth. 12. 25 26. Every Kingdome divided against it self c. If Satan cast out Satan c. by way of objection he saith This confutation may seem not very solid and then immediately he answers the objection Thus also in his Commentary upon that Mat. 9. 5. Whether is easier to say c. Christ saith he doth seem not to reason solidly c. Then presently he addes But the answer is easie c. Of this same nature are the five next following passages wherein Calvin is made to say that which as the manner of Expositors is for the better elucidating of that which they have in hand he only brings in as an objection and presently gives answer to it This is a peece of the strangest dealing that ever I met with I do not finde that the Marquesse had these allegations from any as many of the rest I see he had neither can I think him to have been of such an ignoble disposition as wittingly and wilfully so to pervert a mans words and meaning Therefore I suppose it was his immoderate desire to finde any thing in Calvin that might be liable to exception which made him hastily take hold of that which did occur never considering the true sense and meaning of it But to proceed 10. Calvin saith the Marquesse saith that Christ refused and denied as much as lay in him to perform the office of a Mediator It 's true Calvin hath these words but they also are part of an objection For the very next word is Respondeo I answer So that I might have joyned this with
those other passages immediately before mentioned though there seems indeed some more colour for this allegation then for the other yet is there no just ground for this neither 11. The next charge against Calvin is that he saith That Christ manifested his own effeminatenesse by his shunning of death This also is of like nature with the former Calvin writing upon those words Joh. 12. 27. Now is my soul troubled c. saith that this doth seem to differ much from that which is next before For that there Christ shewed great courage exhorting his Disciples not only to suffer death but to suffer it willingly and defirously if the case so require but now by shunning death he confesseth his weaknesse or softnesse of spirit Then he addes by way of answer that yet here is nothing which doth not very well agree That it was expedient and necessary for our salvation that the Son of God should be so affected And that hence we are to know that Christs death was no sport or play unto him c. So then the word mollities which the Marquesse rendreth effeminatenesse and not unfitly I confesse for it properly signifieth softnesse and is used for softnesse of spirit that word I say is here applied to Christ in a way of objection though Calvin doth positively aver that Christ was deeply affected with the horror of his approaching death and that he was so indeed is most evident both by this and other places of the Evangelical history 12. The Marquesse addes He saith that Theeves and Malefactors hasten to death with obstinate resolution despising it with haughty courage others mildly suffer it But what constancie courage or stoutnesse was there in the Son of God who was astonished and in a manner stricken dead with fear of death How shameful a tendernesse was it to be so far tormented with fear of common death as to melt in bloody sweat and not be able to be comforted but by the sight of Angels Calvin disputes against those who would have it only a meer bodily death not having any curse and wrath of God annexed to it which Christ did fear But saith he let the godly Readers consider how honourable this is for Christ to have been more effemiuate and faint-hearted then most ordinary men Then follow the words objected Theeves and other Malefactors do hasten unto death with obstinate resolution c. The series of the Discourse doth plainly shew that Calvin speakes not positively but upon supposition that if it were so as some hold then all this would follow which he is so farre from asserting that by the absurdity of it he proves the erroniousnesse of their opinion whom he doth confute 13. The Marquesse proceeds in his charge against Calvin saying He saith that the same vehemencie took Christ from the present memory of the heavenly decree so that he forgot at that instant that he was sent hither to be our Redeemer This allegation I grant is true Calvin on Mat. 26. 39. hath these words indeed neither will I undertake the defence of all Calvins expressions or opinions I think it not so safe to ascribe forgetfulnesse unto Christ though as Calvin meant it I do not see that there is any impiety in it And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mar. 14. 33. importing horrour and astonishment may seem to make for it However Calvin was carefull to inculcate this that he would have none to think that there was any turbulencie and disorder in Christs affections as there is in ours but onely that Christ was stricken with fear and anxiety so far forth as the sound and intire nature of man can bear 14. Calvin is taxed for saying That Christs prayer was not premeditate but the force and extremity of grief wringed from him this hasty speech to which a correction was presently added and he chastiseth and recalleth that vow of his which he had let suddenly slip I acknowledge that Calvin hath these words in the same place viz. on Mat. 26. 39. neither do I much approve of them yet by what hath been said already it may appeare that Calvins meaning was good only so to set forth the anxiety of Christs soul as yet to exempt him from whatsoever is evil and sinful Bellarmine himself though he rake up and rack Calvins sayings to make them odious yet confesseth that he saith that Christs nature was perfect and that there was no inordinacie of affections in him But I will make use of the words of learned Dr. Field who hath answered these objections against Calvin long ago The Papists saith he impute I know not what blasphemy to Calvin for that he saith Christ corrected the desire and wish that suddenly came from him But they might easily understand if they pleased that he is far from thinking that any desire or expressing of desire was sudden in Christ as rising in him without consent of reason or that he was inconsiderate in any thing he did or spake but his meaning is that some desires which he expressed proceeded from inferior reason that considereth not all circumstances and that he corrected and revoked the same not as evil but as not proceeding from the full and perfect consideration of all things fit to be thought upon before a full resolution be passed Another learned man also saith that Calvin calls those words Neverthelesse not as I will but as thou wilt a correction in that sense as Rhetoricians are wont to use the figure so called not as if he did amend that which was ill spoken but seasonably to adde that which yet was not spoken And he cites Origen saying that Christ did in those words recall his desire and as it were recogitate So likewise he cites Hierome and the Interlineary Glosse saying that Christ did return into himself Hierome doth yet further paraphrase thus He saith Let not that be which I speak with a humane affection but that for which by thy will I descended to the earth The Jesuite Maldonate saith that Christ left the humane nature to act its part as it would have done if it had not been joyned with the divine nature nor had known any thing of Gods decree So he writes upon those words Father if it be possible c. And upon those Neverthelesse not as I will c. he saith A moderation is fitly added For he so shewes the infirmity of nature that yet he does not exceed the bounds of Gods will That which Maldonate here cals a moderation and Hierome cals a returning into himself and Origen and the Glosse call a recalling of the desire and a recogitating is as much as that which Calvin cals a correction 15. But the Marquesse proceeds and charges Calvin with these words Thus we see Christ to be on all sides so vexed as being over whelmed with desperation he ceased to call upon God which was as
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
the accesse of any evill quality c. It s true some of the Romish writers are of another opinion but Bellarmine shews that the most of them hold thus yea he alleadges that this is the determination of two Popes and that therefore all ought to hold it 5. Zuinglius is said to make baptizing of Infants a thing indifferent which may be used or left off Zuinglius complains of the Catabaptists in his time for keeping such a stirre because children were baptized saying That the matter was not of such moment as that there should be so much stir about it though there were no testimonies at all to prove it It is he saith an external thing and ceremonial which as other external things the Church may lawfully either use or omit as she sees it make for edification and salvation Here Zuinglius seems only to mean thus much that the Church for avoiding of tumults and combustions may for a while forbear the administration of Pedobaptisme Yet Zuinglius was far from holding the baptizing of children to be a thing indifferent For he saith that it succeded in the room of Circumcision And that to hinder children from receiving Baptisme is as much as to repel them from Christ 6. Zuinglius is censured for saying That Princes may be deposed by the godly if they be wicked and go contrary to the rule of Christ I grant that Zuinglius hath words to this purpose But as a learned Writer observes Zuinglius living in a Republick did not sufficiently consider the Laws and rights of Kingdomes He thought that all Kingdomes were elective none successive and hereditary which was his errour And hereupon that they to whom belonged the right of election did reserve this power to themselves that if the King did not keepe his oath but did rule tyrannically they might depose him Zuinglius also in the place cited by the Marquesse hath these words which also the forementioned Authour doth relate Non est quèd eum trucides nec ut bellum tumultum quis excitet sed aliis viis res tenianda quia in pace vocavit nos Deus 1 Cor. 7. that is Thou must not kill him nor must any raise warre or tumult but the matter must be attempted some other way for God hath called us in peace 1 Cor. 7. Concerning Zuinglius his opinion in this point see likewise B. Bilson in his book entituled The true difference betwixt Christian subjection and Antichristian rebellion pag. 513 c. But when the Romanists taxe Zuinglius and so other Protestant writers for stich doctrine what do they else but verifie that of the Poet Clodius accusat moechos Catalina Cethegum What do they else but tax others for that wherein themselves are most fatilty See B. Bils ibid. p. 425 c. Rivet Jes vap cap. 12. 7. In the last place Zuinglius is charged with this saying That when we commit adultery or murder it is the work of God being the mover the author or inciter c. God inoveth the thief to kill c. he is foreed to sinne c. That learned Protestant viz. Graweras by whom the Marquesse saith Zuinglius is reprehended for this was a Lutheran and so as ready to reprehend any thing in Zuinglius as they of the Church of Rome are But let Zuinglius speak for himself The Law saith he being given unto man he alwayes sinnes when he doth any thing against the Law although he neither is nor lives nor works but in God from God and by God But that which God worketh by man is reckoned as a fault in man but not in God For man is under a law but God is free c. Therefore one and the same act to wit adultery or murder as it is of God the author mover and inciter so it is no crime but as it is of man so it is a crime and a wickednesse For God is not bound by any law but man is even condemned by the Law Here Zuinglius teacheth no other doctrine then as I have shewed before Aquinas doth and no learned Romanist I am sure will gainsay viz. that God is the author of that which is sinne in man as adultery or murther yet not as it is sinne viz. an irregularity and swerving from the Law but only as it is an action and hath some entity or being in it Whereas he speaks of Gods forcing man to sinne though I do not like the expression yet it is but like to that which Bellarmine whose words I cited before useth when he saith that God doth bend and wrest the wills of wicked men The meaning of them both I suppose is that God by his over-ruling providence doth so order it that though as was also cited before out of Austin men do wickedly of themselves yet he maketh them to do this rather then that as he pleaseth The Marquesse now comes to Melancthon and his doctrine And 1. he chargeth him with teaching that there are three Divinities as there are three Persons Stancarus whom the Marquesse cites as reprehending Melancthon for this was Melancthons adversary and therefore his testimony in this case is of no weight But the Marquesse also cites Melancthons Common-Places an 1545. Now in Melancthons Works set forth in four Volumes at Wittemberge an 1580. in the Index of the Books contained in the first Volume the last Edition of those Common-Places is said to have been in the year 1545. though afterwards where the Common-Places themselves are exhibited the last Editidition of them is said to have been an 1543. But thus it seems the last Edition was at least an 1545. if not before Now it is not probable that if such a grosse error had slipt from Melancthon in his Common-Places it would have been in the last Edition of them However I find no such thing in them as is alleadged but the quite contrary viz. Una est aeterna Essentia divina that is There is one eternal divine Essence And again Sunt tres Personae Divinitatis that is There are three Persons of the Divinity So that Melancthon doth acknowledge but one Divinity though three Divine Persons 2. The Marquesse saith That he affirms Polygamie not to be against Jus divinum and adviseth Hen. 8. to it I find no such peece among Melancthons Works as Concil Theol. which the Marquesse citeth to make good this accusation But I finde Examen Theologicum and in it the contrary to this which Melancthon is here charged with Wee have seen many saith he who did neglect the usual Lawes of Marriages because we read how of old they had many wives and Jacob married two sisters But we must judge not by examples but by Laws and in a matter of such moment as this let Gods precepts be considered It is most certain that the first Law of Marriage was so established that one man and one
and fully refuted by Andreas Rivetus in his Jesuita Vapulans where he produceth the very Records of that City where this is said to have been done and sheweth by the inquisition that was there made concerning Calvin it being the place where he was born that nothing is objected against him but only his falling off from the Roman Religion And thus I hope both Calvin and others are sufficiently vindicated and purged from those aspersions that are cast upon them Now if I had a minde to recriminate I might easily to use the Marquesse his words inlarge my Paper to a volume of instances in their Popes Cardinals Monks Friars Priests and Jesuites not to speak of their other sort of people of whose monstrous wickednesse their own Authors have largely testified But I like not Camarinam hanc movere to stir this puddle I le onely cite one Distich of Mantuan who was somewhat before Luther and is commended by Bellarmine as a learned and godly Poet and one that wrote much in commendation of the Saints but see what he writes in commendation of Rome where the Popes Holinesse as they stile him hath his Palace Vivere qui sanctè cupitis discedite Româ Omnia eum liceant non licet esse bonum That is Depart from Rome if holy you would be For there may be all things but Pietie Towards the end of the Reply the Marquesse goes about to prove That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is the same still that it was at the first But 1. if all the testimonies were truly and pertinently alleadged yet are they not sufficient to evince what he asserteth not so much as one place of Scripture being produced for proof of any of those points on which he insisteth And therefore though those ancient Writers which are cited did indeed speak so much as is pretended yet there being no ground nor warrant for those things from the Scripture we may say in the words of our Saviour From the beginning it was not so 2. Most of the particulars which are mentioned I have spoken to before and have shewed that neither Scripture nor Fathers are on their side but both against them 3. And for some few points not touched before I shall briefly consider and examine what is objected The Marquesse saith That of old the Church did offer prayers for the dead both publike and private to the end to procure for them ease and rest c. Prayer for the dead as they of the Church of Rome do now use it is grounded upon Purgatory It is certain saith Bellarmine that the suffrages of the Church do not profit either the blessed or the damned but only those that are in Purgatory Now concerning Purgatory I have spoken enough before shewing that it hath no foundation in Scripture and also that the ancient Writers do give sufficient testimony against it That prayer for the dead therefore which the ancient Church did use was not such as the Church of Rome now useth It was not to deliver any out of Purgatory-pains which they were supposed to be in but to perfect and consummate their happinesse This may appear by Ambrose his praying for the Emrour Theodosius after he was dead He beleeved him to enjoy perpetuall light and tranquillity and to have obtained the reward of those things which he had done in the body yet he prayed for him but how That God would give him that perfect rest which he hath prepared for his Saints Ambrose also praied for the Emperor Valentinan after his death But did he thinke him to be in Purgatory No such matter He was perswaded that he was removed to a better estate that what he had sown upon earth he did then reap and that he did rest in the tranquillity of the Patriark Jacob. Yet he professeth that he would not cease to pray both for him and for his brother Gratian who was departed out of this life and as Ambrose believed translated into a better before him How doth he then pray for them Only thus That God would vouchsafe to raise them up with a speedy resurrection And thus the Church as it is in some ancient Liturgies used to pray unto God to remember all those that were departed in the hopes of the resurrection of life eternal The Marquesse cites Tertullian and Austine but besides that Tertulliun was faln into the heresie of Montanus when hee wrote that book which is cited as is noted by Pamelius and the book it selfe doth make manifest besides this I say Tertullian speaks of a womans praying for her deceased husband that he might have part in the first resurrection which savours of the opinion of the Chiliasts amongst whom he is reckoned by Hierome in his Catalogue of Ecolesiastical Writers where he speaks of Papias whom he notes as the first founder of that opinion As for Austine I have showed before that he was not resolved concerning Purgatory and therefore neither can any thing be concluded from about praying for the dead in that kind as they of the Roman Church do practise it After prayer for the dead the Marquesse speaks of the fast of Lent which he saith the Church anciently held for a custome not free but necessary and of Apostolical tradition and so to fast all the Fridayes in the year in memory of Christs death except Christmas-day fell on a Friday It is true Hierome as is alleadged speaks of a Fast of forty dayes which they used to observe and that according to the tradition of the Apostles But this tradition was very uncertain it seems and the observation of the Fast very various For Socrates an ancient Ecolesiastical historian records that somewhere they fasted three weeks before Easter somewhere six weeks and that in some places they began their Fast seven weeks before Easter but did fast only fifteen dayes not altogether but now one day now another And yet which he saith he wondred at all did call their Fast Quadragesimam A forty dayes Fast He sayes also moreover that they did not only thus differ in the number of dayes in which they fasted but also in the manner of their fasting For some as he relates did eat both fish and foul Some did abstain from egges and all fruit that is inclosed in a hard shell Some did eat nothing but dry bread Some not so much as that neither Some having fasted until the ninth houre three a clock in the afternoon ' did then use divers kindes of meats And he addes that seeing there is nothing in Scripture commanded concerning this matter it is manifest that the Apostles left it free to every one to do herein as he should think meet And the like also for the different manner of observing the Lent-fast in respect of the time hath Sozomen in his Ecclesiastical history who lived in the same time with the other viz. 440. years after
Christ according to Bellarmines computation The Church saith the Marquesse held then mingling of water with wine in the sacrifice of the Eucharist for a thing necessary and of divine and Apostolical tradition Cyprian indeed in the place all eadged viz. Epist 63. doth speak of the mixture of wine and water in the Eucharist as a thing necessary to be obsered But 1. Austine hath taught us That it is no wrong to Cyprian to make a difference betwixt his writings and the Scriptures 2. Cyprian himselfe though speaking of another occasion doth shew us what we are here to answer Whence saith he is this tradition Did it come either from Christ in the Gospel or from the Apostles in their writings For God doth require us to do those things that are written saying to Joshua The book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth c. Jos 1. 8. And when Christ sent his Apostles he bade them baptize all Nations and teach them to observe whatsoever he commanded Mat. 28. 19. 20. If therefore it be commanded in the Gospel or contained either in the Epistles or in the Acts of the Apostles then let it be observed as a divine and holy tradition Now in the Epistle which the Marquesse alleadgeth Cyprian proveth against the Aquarians such as did use only water in the Eucharist that Christ in the institution of the Sacrament used wine this he proves by that which is written Mat. 26. 29. I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the Vine c. but that Christ also did use water he doth not prove neither can it be proved by the Scripture Yet our Divines do grant that probably Christ might mixe wine and water in the Sacramental cup not for any mystical signification nor as a matter of necessary observation but only as in those hot Countries they used commonly to drink wine mixed with water to abate the strength of it Neither do they therefore condemn them of the Church of Rome for using this mixture but for using it so as to make it a sinne not to use it Bellarmine indeed saith that it is no lesse certain that Christ did mixe water with wine when he instituted the Sacrament then that he did use any wine at all for that purpose For he saith neither the Evangelists nor Paul make any mention of wine when they speak of the cup in the Eucharist As for the words I will not drinke henceforth of the fruit of the Vine c. he saith S. Luke doth plainly shew they were spoken not of the cup in the Eucharist but that cup which was given after the eating of the Pascal Lamb. But this contradits Cyprian in that very Epistle which is alleadged against us For their citing these words he infers from them as a thing clear and evident that it was wine which Christ called his blood and that the Sacrament is not rightly celebrated if wine be wanting Yea Maldonate cites many of the ancient Writers besides Cyprian who understand those words of the cup in the Eucharist And whereas Bellarmine doth urge Luke 22. 17 18. to prove that those words I will not henceforth drink c. have reference to another cup and not that in the Eucharist Austine as himself confesseth taketh those words in Luke to be related by anticipation and not in their due order which Matthew and Mark observed And though he say that Austine did not diligently consider the place yet Jansenius writing professedly upon it approves Austins opinion rather then Hieroms who conceives two several cups to be spoken of in S. Lukes Gospel neither doth Bellarmine answer his argument which he doth alleadge for it But however he shews that the words as they are related by S. Matthew and S. Marke cannot be referred to any other cup then that in the Eucharist of which they make mention immediately before and of none other 3. Cyprian in this very point about the mingling of wine and water in the Eucharist doth differ as well from them of the Church of Rome as from Protestants For he makes this mixture of such necessity as to hold it no Sacrament if there be not in the cup both wine and water Otherwise if there bee either onely water or onely wine he holds it to be none of Christs Cup none of his Sacrament But Bellarmine taxeth Chemnitius for charging them of the Roman Church with this opinion and saith that very few of them do hold it Why then do they presse us with the testimony of Cyprian they themselves dissenting from him as well as we For it is over vain and frivolous that Bellarmine saith that though Cyprian spake in that manner yet perhaps he meant otherwise But to proceed The Marquesse saith that anciently the Church held exorcismes exsufflations and renuntiations which are made in Baptisme for sacred ceremonies and of Apostolical tradition And a little after The Church in the ceremonies of Baptisme used then oyle salt wax-light exorcismes the sign of the Crosse the word Ephata and other things that accompany it c. But 1. What authority is there from Gods word for all or any of these Ceremonies Let them be proved by the Scriptures and then we will acknowledge them for divine and holy traditions but otherwise we have no reason to do it And for this we have Cyprian to whom other ancient Writers might be added if need were to speak for us as I have shewed a little before though here among others he also be alleadged against us 2. Bellarmine speaking of rites and ceremonies saith That they must not so be multiplied as with their multitude to overwhelm Religion to which they ought to be subservient And for this he cites Austine But surely the ceremonies of Baptisme which the Marquesse here partly expresseth and partly intimateth Bellarmine doth reckon up particularly no fewer then two and twenty are so many as that they must needs overwhelme Baptisme 3. Some rites and ceremonies anciently used in Baptisme are now abolished in the Church of Rome Anciently they used to dip the person baptized thrice in the water which now Bellarmine saith is not so but in some places they dip once and in some place thrice neither being of the offence of the Sacrament But elsewhere he tels us that the Church hath determined in the fourth Councel of Toledo that there shall be but one dipping used in Baptisme So also Bellarmine amongst the ceremonies of Baptisme anciently used mentioneth the tasting of milk and hony or wine which ceremony yet he saith now is not in use Thus their Apostolical traditions as they call them they themselves can reject when they please The Church held then saith the Marquesse Baptisme for Infants of absolute necessity and for this cause thou permitted Lay-men to baptise in danger of death The absolute necessity of Baptisme is not here simply urged but
shall find this to be the sense That it was an Image like the image of Christ or of some Saint which was usually painted in Churches What can be a more violent perverting of words then this is Bellarmine therefore disliking this answer as also that which some others give saith that the more common and true answer is that those are none of Epiphanius his words but are supposititious But Hierome it seems took them for the words of Epiphanius for else he would not have translated them and joyned them to the Epistle as a part of it The Marquesse to prove the ancient use of Images cites Euseb de vita Const but he cites neither book nor chapter when as there are four books of that subject and in some of them above 70. in some above 60. and where the fewest above 50 chapters It may be he meaneth that which Eusebius relates lib. 1. cap. 22 c. viz. That Constantine in a vision from heaven saw the signe of the Crosse with this inscription In this overcome and being warned by Christ in his sleep to do it he caused that Figure to be painted in his Banner which he used in his warres But Dr. Rainolds hath long since shewed by the description which Eusebius makes cap. 25. that it was not properly the signe of Christs Crosse though it had some resemblance with a Crosse but was indeed the two first Letters of the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ joyned together thus so that it was the name of Christ that was thus represented unto Constantine And if it had been the very signe of Christs Crosse yet there being a special injunction for the making and using of it for I dare not discredit the relation it would not follow that therefore ordinarily the picture of Christs Crosse much lesse of Christ crucified is lawfull no more then it follows that the Jewes might lawfully have brought pictures and images into the Temple because God commanded Cherubims to be pictur'd in it The Marquesse also doth alleadge Basil in Martyr Bar. But 1. Bellarmine whom it is likely the Marquesse followed understands or would have others to understand Basil so as if he had seen the picture of Martyr Barlaam of whom he was speaking somwhere in the Church whereas in Basil there appears no such matter Only he calls upon the famous Painters and bids them shew forth their art in drawing the pourtraicture of this Martyr 2. I see not why by Painters there must be meant such as are properly so called but that the word may be taken metaphorically for Orators whom Basil would have to set forth the praises of the Martyr more lively then he had done 3. However it were in Basils time yet the more ancient Writers as Irenaeus Tertullian Arnobius and Minutius who are before cited shew that in their time Images were not in use And to those may be added Clemens Alexandrinus who was almost 200 yeares before Basil who proceeds so far as to make it unlawful for Christians to exercise the Art of Painting or Image-making so far was the Church then from using any such Pictures or Images as we now treat of And he tels the Heathens that they were very studious to make an Image as fair and beautiful as might be but had no care to keep themselves from being like to images in stupidity 4. A long time after Basil when images came to be used in Churches for history sake yet they were not worshipped Gregory Bishop of Rome above 200 years after Basils time hearing that Serenus Bishop of Massilia had broken certain Images that were in Churches because some did worship them wrote unto him about it and commended him for his zeal in not allowing Images to be worshipped yet disliked his breaking of them saying that such as cannot read may be instructed by them And to the same purpose he wrote unto him again willing him not to hinder the making of Images but by all means to hinder the worshipping of them But what more common now in the Church of Rome then to worship Images Their Trent-catechisme requires the Parish-Priest to instruct people that the worshipping of Images is not only lawful seeing that the honour done to them redounds to those things that are represented by them but also very profitable And the prime Doctors of the Church of Rome hold that the very same worship belongs to the Image which belongs to that which it represents The same reverence saith Aquinas is to be exhibited to the image of Christ as to Christ himself And therefore seeing Christ is worshipped with divine worship it follows that his Image is to be worshipped with divine worship So Bonoventure saith All reverence which is shewed to the image of Christ is shewed to Christ himself and therefore the image of Christ ought to be worshipped with divine worship And Bellarmine mentions divers of their School-men besides as Cajetane Marsilius Almain Carthusianus Capreolus and others that did hold this opinion And though he himselfe labour to qualifie the matter with distinctions which few understand yet he grants that improperly and by accident images may be worshipped with the same kinde of worship wherewith the sampler is worshipped And thus Preachers he saith speak to the image of Christ crucified and say Thou hast redeemed us thou hast reconciled us unto the Father I will only here adde the words of Sir Edwin Sands who speaking of the scandals of Christians which hinder the conversion of the Jews saith thus But the greatest scandal of all other is their worshipping of Images for which both Jews and Turks call them Idolatrous Christians And therefore they say for their comming to the Christian Sermons that as long as they shall see the Preacher direct his speech and prayer to that little woodden Crucifixe which stands on the Pulpit by him to call it his Lord and Saviour to kneel to it to imbrace it and kisse it to weep upon it as is the fashion of Italy this is preaching sufficient for them and perswades them more with the very sight of it to hate Christian Religion then any reason that the world can alleadge to love it Whereas the Marquesse speaks immediately after of the sign of the Crosse I grant that anciently it was much used by Christians as appears by Tertullian But besides that he confesseth that there is no Scripture for it and other things which likewise they did observe besides this I say he speaks nothing of adoring of the Crosse and Minutius Felix who lived about the same time with Tertullian is expresse against it When Cecillus objected against Christians that they worshipped the wood of a Crosse Minutius answered saying We neither worship nor desire Crosses The Author that the Marquesse alleadgeth to prove the ancient adoration of the Crosse viz. Paulinus I have not and therefore cannot examine what he saith but howsoever
of God as Aaron was This you deny and not onely so but you so deny it as that your Church hath maintained and practiced it a long time for a woman to be head or supreme Moderatrix in the Church when you know that according to the Word of God in this respect a woman is not onely forbidden to be the head of the man but to have a tongue in her head 1 Tim. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 14. 34. Yet so hath this been denyed by you that many have beene hang'd drawn and quarter'd for not acknowledging it The Fathers are of our opinion c. All this is but to strike at the Title which hath beene given to our Kings and Queens viz. Supreme Heads or Governours and Governesses of the Church within their Dominions We know our Adversaries have much stomack'd and opposed this Title but we know no just cause that they have had for it We never made Kings or Queens Ministers of the Church so as to dispense the Word and Sacraments only we have attributed unto them this Power to look to and have a care of the Church that the Word be Preached and the Sacraments Administred by fit persons and in a right manner This is no more then belongs unto Kings and Queens as both Scriptures and Fathers doe informe us We see in the Scriptures that the good Kings of Iudah as Asia Iehoshaphat Hezekiah and Iosiah not to speak of David and Solomon who were Prophets as well as Kings and so may be excepted against as extraordinary persons did put forth their power in ordering the Affaires of the Church as well as of the Civill State Asa put down Idolatry and caused the People to enter into Covenant to serve the Lord 2 Chron. 15. Iehoshaphat took away the High Places and the Groves and made the Priests and Levites to goe and teach the People 2 Chron. 17. Hezekiah reformed what had been amisse in matter of Gods Worship caused the Priests and Levites to do their Duty and the Passeover to be solemnly kept 2 Chron. 29. 30 31. So Iosiah also destroyed Idolatry repaired the Temple and kept a most solemne Passeover causing both Priests and People to performe their Duty Austine acknowledgeth this power to belong unto Kings In this saith he Kings as they are commanded of God doe serve God as Kings if in their Kingdome they command good things and forbid evill things not only which belong unto humane Society but also which concerne Divine Religion And the same Father speaking of Christian Princes makes their happiness to lie in this That they make their power serviceable to Gods majesty in enlarging his worship as much as they are able This power also Christian Princes have exercised and have not been taxed for it as Constantine Theodosius c. See Mason de Minist Anglic. lib. 3. cap. 4. The exercising therefore of this power which we ascribe to Kings and Queenes is no taking that Honour to themselves which is spoken of Heb. 5. 4. Neither is it any teaching or speaking in the Church which the Apostle will not allow unto a woman 1 Tim. 2. 11 12. and 1 Cor. 14. 34. Neither is this crosse to what the Fathers whom the Marquesse citeth say which amounts to this that Ministers are to doe those things which belong unto Ministers and that in those things which concern their Ministery all even Kings and Queens are subject unto them All this is nothing against Kings and Queens having a power over Ministers so as to see them perform the Offices which belong unto them And it may seeme strange that the Marquesse should now so lately with so much eagernesse inveigh against that Title and Power given to that Queen of happy memory Q. Elizabeth as most unmeet for her when as Hart a Papist stiffe enough living in the Queens time by his Conference with Doctor Rainolds and Doctor Nowels Book against Dorman was so convinced that he confessed himself satisfied in this point and acknowledged that we ascribe no more unto Princes then Austine doth in the words before cited We say that Christ gave commission to his Disciples to forgive Sinnes you deny it and say that God onely can forgive sins we have Scripture for it Joh. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained And Joh. 20. 21. As my Father hath sent me even so send I you And how was that viz. with so great power as to forgive sins Mat. 9. 3. 8. where note that S. Matthew doth not set downe how that the people glorified God the Father who had given so great power unto God the Son but that he had given so great power unto men loc cit The Fathers are of this opinion c. It is strange that the Marquesse should say that we deny that Christ gave Commission to his Disciples to forgive Sinnes We confesse that the Scripture is clear for it that he did give them such a Commission onely the question is how the Commission is to be understood and what power it is that the Disciples had and so other Ministers have to forgive Sinnes It 's true we hold that God only can forgive sins and yet withall that men may forgive sins These are not contradictory the one to the other because as all Logitians know except the propositions be understood of one and the same thing in one and the same respect there is no contradiction Now when we say that onely God can forgive sins it is meant in one respect and when we say that men may forgive sinnes it is meant in another respect As the sin is against God so properly and authoritatively God alone can forgive it And this God doth challenge unto himself as his prerogative I even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions c. Isai 43. 25. And therefore the Scribes were right in this Who can forgive sins but God onely Mar. 2. 7. They were right in the Doctrine though wrong in the Application their position was good that God only can forgive Sins but their supposition was naught that Christ was but a meer Man and had not power to forgive Sins as he did This saith Hilary troubles the Scribes that a man doth forgive sin for they took Christ for a meer Man It is true none can forgive sinne but God only and therefore he that forgiveth is God because none forgiveth but God The same also is clearly and fully acknowledged by Gregory whom amongst other Fathers the Marquesse alledgeth against us He writing upon the second Penitentiall Psalme that is the 32. Psalme upon those words Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin he saith thus Thou who alone sparest who alone doest forgive sinnes For who can forgive sinnes but God onely And with these agreeth Irenaeus whom also the Marquesse bringeth in as a witnesse on his side He speaking of Christs forgiving of sinnes saith That thereby
he did declare who he was For if none can forgive sinnes but onely God and the Lord Christ did forgive them then it is manifest that he was the Word of God made the Son of Man c. and that as God he hath mercy on us and doth forgive us our debts which we owe unto God our Maker Accordingly also Ambrose another of those Fathers whom the Marquesse maketh to be of their opinion Whereas saith he Iewes say that onely God can forgive sinnes they doe indeed confesse Christ to be God and by their judgement bewray their perfidiousnesse c. They have a testimony for Christs Divinity they have no Faith for their owne Salvation Therefore great is the madnesse of the unbelieving people that when as they confesse that it belongs onely unto God to forgive sinnes yet they doe not beleeve God when he forgiveth sins So by this Argument the same Father proves the Holy Ghost to be God because he forgiveth Sins For that none can forgive sinnes but onely God as it is written Who can forgive sinnes but only God Thus Ambrose cites that saying of the Scribes as a most undoubted truth How then have Ministers power to forgive Sins In that the word of reconciliation is committed unto them 2 Cor. 5. 19. in that they are to preach remission of sinnes in Christs name Luk. 24. 47. Be it known unto you that through this man viz. Christ is preached unto you forgivenesse of sinnes said Paul Act. 13. 38. Ambrose observes that Christ first said to his Apostles Receive ye the holy Ghost and then Whose sins ye remit they are remitted Whence he gathers that it is the holy Ghost that doth indeed forgive Sins Men saith he doe onely afford their Ministery for the forgivenesse of sinnes they doe not exercise the authority of any power Neither doe they forgive sins in their Name but in the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Lombard called the Master of the Sentences and of School-divinity disputing this Question and shewing diverse Opinions about it determines thus That God only doth remit and retain sins and that yet God hath given power to the Church to bind and loose But that God himself doth bind and loose one way and the Church another way That God by himself alone doth forgive sinne so as to clense the soul from staine and to free it from the guilt of eternall death That he hath not given this power to Priests to whom yet he hath given power to loose and bind that is to declare men to be loosed or bound Whence our Lord first by himselfe made the Leper sound and then sent him to the Priests that they might declare him to be clean And hence he inferres that a Minister of the Gospell hath such power in remitting or retaining sins as the Priest in the Law had in clensing a Leper The Priest was said to make the Leper clean or unclean so the words are in the Originall Levit. 13. when he did pronounce and declare him to be clean or unclean So Ministers remit or retain sinnes when they pronounce and declare that sins are remitted or retained of God And in this Lombard followed Hierome who as his words cited by Lombard doe shew by this very similitude of the Leviticall Priest dealing with a Leper illustrates and sets forth the manner how a Minister doth now remit or retain sins Thus then I hope it may sufficiently appear that in this point both Scriptures and Fathers are for us and not against us as the Marquesse would have it We hold that we ought to confesse our sins unto our ghostly Father this ye deny saying that ye ought not to confesse your sins but unto God alone This we prove by Scripture Mat. 3. 5 6. Then went out Jerusalem and all Judea and were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sinnes This confession was no generall confession but in particular as appeares Acts 19. 18 19. And many that beleeved came and confessed and shewed their deeds The Fathers affirme the same c. For Confession of Sinnes Protestants doe not say that they ought not to confesse to any but God onely though they hold that ordinarily it sufficeth to confesse onely unto God and that there is no necessity of confessing to any other whereas they of the Church of Rome will have it necessary for every one man to confesse unto a Priest all his deadly sinnes and such indeed are all sinnes whatsoever without the mercy of God in Christ Rom. 6. 23. Gal. 3. 10. which by diligent examination he can find out together with all the severall circumstances whereby they are aggravated Thus hath the Councell of Trent decreed it And nothing will suffice to procure one that is Baptized remission of Sins without this Confession either in Re actually performed or in Voto in desire as Bellarmine doth expound it Who also stickes not to say that in all the Scripture there seems not to be any promise of for givenesse of sinnes made to those that confesse their sins unto God Which is a most impudent Assertion For David having said I acknowledged my sinne unto thee and mine iniquity have I not hid I said I will confesse my transgressions unto the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sinne he addes immediately for this shall every one that is godly make his prayer unto thee c. Psal 32. 5 6. Besides Aquinas and Bonaventure two prime Schoolemen hold that under the Law it was not ordinarily required of people to confesse in particular unto a Priest Bonaventure also cites Austine saying Oblatio sacrificiorum fuit confessio peccatorum The offering of sacrifices was the confession of sinnes whence hee inferreth that therefore it seemes there was no other confessing of sinnes but the offering of Sacrifices For those two places of Scripture cited by the Marquesse neither they nor any other doe speake of such a confession as they of the Church of Rome doe contend for Bellarmine holds that their Sacramentall confession as they call it viz. that confession which they make a part of the Sacrament of penance was not instituted till after Christs Resurrection and therefore he sayes it is no marvell if as Ambrose observes we reade of Peters teares but not of his confession That the Jewes therefore when they were baptized of Iohn confessed their sinnes Mat. 3. 5 6. is not enough to prove that confession which we now dispute of although it did appeare that the confession there spoken of was a particular confession which yet appeares not Cardinall Cajetane saith it was but a generall confession Neither indeed in probability could it be any more for how should Iohn have been able to heare such multitudes as came unto him to be baptized Ierusalem and all Iudea and all the region round about Iordan Mat. 3. 5. confesse all their sinnes in