foure and that the whole is greater then a part and as hee is sure of those things which hee sees with his eyes and feeles with his hands That a man may have this assurance of his present estate the Scripture plainly shewes 1 Ioh. 3. 14. We know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren Whereupon sayes Austine Let none aske man let every one returne unto his own heart if there he can finde brotherly love let him be secure that he is passed from death to life So Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit himselfe doth beare witnesse with our spirits that we are the sonnes of God Upon which words Cajetan saith thus By this testimony we see clearly that we must believe that we are the sons of God So also 1 Ioh. 3. 24. Hereby we know that he viz. Christ abideth in us by the Spirit which he hath given us And 1 Cor. 2. 12. We have received the spirit of God that we may know the things that are freely given unto us of God Bellarmine sayes this place is not meant of the knowledge of Gods benefits which belong unto this or that man in particular but of the knowledge of those benefits which God hath prepared for his Elect as the inheritance and glory of the Kingdome of Heaven But if the Apostle speakes onely of our knowing what good things God hath prepared in generall for the Elect what is this more then appertaines to the very Devils for they know that God hath prepared Heaven and happinesse for the Elect Cajetan therefore is more ingenuous expounding it of the holy Ghost infused into the Apostles and causing them certainly to know the gifts of God that were in them The Apostles saith hee had a certaine knowledge that Faith Hope Charity and other gifts were freely given unto them of God To adde but one place more viz. that 1 Ioh. 5. 13. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God that you may know that ye have eternall life True sayes Bellarmine the Apostle saith indeed These things I write unto you that believe that you may know that you have eternall life but hee doth not say These things I write unto you that you may know that you believe as you ought to believe But say I the Apostle here did suppose that they that truly believe may know that they doe so for otherwise how should they that believe know that therefore they have life eternall except they first know that they doe believe Now for the Scriptures objected against us that 1 Cor. 9. 27. Lest having preached to others I my selfe should be a cast-away cannot be so understood as that Paul was uncertaine either of his present justification or of his future glorification for that will not consist with many other sayings of his before cited The meaning therefore is onely this that Pauls care was that his Preaching and his conversation might be suitable and that the one might not confound the other The word here rendred cast-away and 2 Cor. 13. 5. reprobate is neither here nor there taken in opposition to elect but is as much as reproved so the word properly doth import as without the privative Particle it signifies approved 1 Cor. 11. 19. That Rom. 11. 20. Thou standest by faith be not high minded but fear is nothing against assurance of salvation which doth well consist with feare viz. such a feare as is opposit to high-mindednesse this feare making us keepe close unto God and not to depart from him Ier. 32. 40. And whereas it is said Rom. 11. 22. Lest thou also mayst or as wee reade it otherwise thou also shalt be cut off it is spoken by the Apostle to the Church of Rome and serves well to shew that any particular visible Church even that of Rome may faile but from hence cannot be inferred that a true Believer may fall away and perish Neither is the assurance of salvation infringed by that Phil. 2. 12. Worke out your own salvation with fear and trembling For as for our working out of our salvation it hinders not but that we may be assured of our salvation We may be assured of that which yet wee must use meanes to obtaine Ezekiah was assured that fifteene yeares should be added unto his life because God by his Prophet had told him so Isai 38. 5. Yet hee used meanes for his recovery v. 21. and so no question but he did for the preservation of his life by eating and drinking and the like Paul also was assured that both hee and all in the Ship with him should escape because God by his Angell had revealed it unto him Act. 27. 23 24 25. yet neverthelesse he saw it needfull to use meanes whereby they might escape Acts 27. 31. And for those words with feare and trembling they doe not imply diffidence and doubting but humility and lowlinesse of minde feare and trembling being here the same as Romans 11. 20. viz. that which is opposit to pride and high-mindednesse The Apostle 2 Cor. 7. 15. saith that the Corinthians received Titus with fear and trembling that is with all humility and reverence So we must worke out our own salvation with fear and trembling that is with reverence and with godly feare as is expressed Heb. 12. 28. But this is no argument at all why wee may not be assured of our salvation no more then it followes that therefore the Corinthians could not be assured of Titus his love and good will towards them and that be came unto them for their good because they received him in that manner David Psal 2. 11. bids serve the Lord with feare and rejoyce with trembling Therefore there may bee feare and trembling and yet rejoycing too and consequently assurance of Gods love and favour for without assurance of it there can be no sound rejoycing in it Joy as Ramundus de Sabunde observes doth arise from this that one knowes that he hath that which he hath and not meerly from this that he hath it Now for the fathers here alleged by the Marquess viz. Am. Ser. 5. in Psal 118. Basil in Constit Monast cap. 2. Hiero. li. 2. advers Pelag. Chrys hom 87. in Ioh. Aug. in Psal 40. Bern. Ser. 3. de Advent Ser. 1. de Sept. I answer it 's true Ambrose saith David desired that his reproach which he suspected might be taken away either because he had thought in his heart but had not done it and though it were abolished by repentance yet he was fearfull lest perhaps the reproch of it did yet remaine and therefore he prayes God to take it away who alone knows that which even he may be ignorant of that hath done it But this doth not argue that a man cannot in Ambroses judgement be assured of his salvation it onely shewes contrary to what the Papists hold that a man cannot be justified and
take away the meanes of reconciliation For I must confesse ingenuously yet under the highest correction that there is not a thing that I ever understood lesse then that assertion of the Scriptures being judge of Controversies though in some sence I must and will acknowledge it but not as it is a book consisting of papers words and letters for as we commonly say in matters of civill differences the Law shall be the judge between us we do not meane that every man shall run unto the Law books or that any Lawyer himselfe shall search his Law-cases and thereupon possesse himselfe of any thing that is in question between him and another without a legall tryall and determination by lawfull Judges constituted to that same purpose In like manner saving knowledge and Divine Truths are the portion that all Gods children lay fast claime unto yet they must not be their own carvers though it is their own meat that is before them whilst they have a mother at the table They must not slight all Orders Constitutions Appeales and Rules of Faith saving knowledge and Divine Truths are not to be wrested from the Scripture by private hands for then the Scripture were of private interpretation which is against the Apostles Rule Neither are those undefiled incorruptible and immaculate inheritances which are reserved for us in heaven to be conveighed unto us by any Privy-seales For there is nothing more absurd to my understanding then to say that the thing contested which is the true meaning of the Scriptures shall be Judge of the Contestation no way inferiour to that absurditie which would follow which would be this if we should leave the deciding of the sence of the words of the Law to the preoccupated understanding of one of the Advocates neither is this all the absurditie that doth arise upon this supposition for if you grant this to one you must grant it to any one and to every one if there were but two how will you reconcile them both If you grant that this judicature must be in many there are many manyes which of the manyes will you have decide but that and you satisfie all For if you make the Scripture the Judge of Controversie you make the reader Judge of the Scripture as a man consists of a soule and body so the Scripture consists of the letter and the sence if I make the dead letter my Judge I am the greatest and simplest idolater in the world it will tell me no more then it told the Indian Emperour Powhaton who asking the Jesuite how he knew all that to be true which he had told him and the Jesuite answering him that Gods word did tell him so The Emperour asked him where it was he shewed him his Bible The Emperour after that he had held it in his hands a pretty while answered It tells me nothing But you will say you can read and so you will find the meaning out of the significant Character and when you have done as you apprehend it so it must be and so the Scripture is nothing else but your meaning wherefore necessitie requires an externall Judge for determination of differences besides the Scriptures And we can have no better recourses to any then to such as the Scripture it selfe calls upon us to heare which is the Church which Church would be found out King Doctor Saint John in his first Epistle tells us that the holy Scripture is that to whose truth the Spirit beareth witnesse And John the Evangelist tells us that the Scripture is that which gives a greater Testimonie of Christ then John the Baptist Saint Luke tells us that if we believe not the Scripture we would not believe though one were risen from the dead and Christ himselfe who raised men from death to life tells us they cannot believe his words if they believe not in Moses writings Saint Peter tells us that the holy Scripture is surer then a voice from heaven Saint Paul tells us that it is lively in operation and whereby the Spirits demonstrates his power and that it is able to make a man wise to salvation able to save our soules and that it is sufficient too to make us believe in Christ to life everlasting John 20. As in every seed there is a Spirit which meeting with earth heat and moisture grows to perfection so the seed of the word wherin Gods holy Spirit being sowen in the heart inlivened by the heart of faith and watered with the teares of repentance soon fructifies without any further Circumstance Doctor It doth so but Your Majestie presupposes all this while husband-men and husbandry barnes and threshing floors winnowing and uniting these several grains into one loafe before it can become childrens bread All that Your Majestie hath said concerning the Scriptures sufficiencie is true provided that those Scriptures be duly handled for as the Law is sufficient to determine right and keep all in peace and quietnesse yet the execution of that sufficiencie cannot he performed without Courts and Judges so when we have granted the Scriptures to be all that the most reverend estimation can attribute unto them yet Religion cannot be exercised nor differences in Religion reconciled without a Judge For as Saint Ierom tells us who was no great friend to Popes or Bishops Si non una exors quaedam imminens detur potestas tot efficerentur in Ecclesia schismata quot Sacerdotes Wherefore I would faine find out that which the Scripture bids me heare Audi Ecclesiam I would faine referre my selfe to that to which the Scripture commands me to appeale and tells me that if I do not I shall be a Heathen and a Publican Dic Ecclesiae which Church Saint Paul in his first Epistle calls the pillar and foundation of Truth of which the Prophet Ezekiel saith I will place my Sanctification in the midst of her for ever and the Prophet Esay that the Lord would never forsake her in whose light the people should walke and Kings in the brightnesse of her Orient Against which our Saviour saith The gates of Hell shall not prevaile with whom our Saviour saith He would be alwayes unto the end of the world And from whom the Spirit of Truth should never depart For although the Psalmist tells us that the word of the Lord is clear inlightning the eyes yet the same Prophet said to God Enlighten mine eyes that I may see the marvels of thy Law And Saint Iohn tells us that the booke of God hath seven Seals and it was not every one that was thought worthy to open it onely the lambe The Disciples had been ignorant if Iesus had not opened the Scriptures unto them The Eunuch could not understand them without an Interpreter and Saint Peter tells us that the Scripture is not of private Interpretation and that in his brother Pauls Epistles there are many things hard to be understood which ignorant and light-headed-men wrest to their owne perdition Wherefore though as
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 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
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
often But saith he as it is appointed unto men to die once c. So Christ was once offered c. Bellarmine also averres that unto a true sacrifice it is required that the thing which is offered unto God for a sacrifice be plainly destroyed that is that it cease to be what it was before So that if Christ bee offered up in the Eucharist a true and proper Sacrifice then hee must be destroyed hee must cease to be what he was before Whether or no it be blasphemy to affirme this of Christ let all judge Bellarmine indeed afterward indeavours to answer this argument Let us see what he saith The argument hee propounds thus The sacrifice that is offered must be slaine Therefore if Christ be sacrificed in every Masse he must every moment in a thousand places be cruelly slaine To this hee answers thus The sacrifice of the Masse is a most true sacrifice and yet doth not require the killing of that which is offered For killing is only required in the offering of a thing that hath life and which is offered in the forme of a thing that hath life as when Lambes Calves Birds and the like are offered whose destruction consists in death But when the forme of the sacrifice is of a thing without life as of Bread Wine Frankincense and the like killing cannot be required but only such a consuming of the thing as is agreeable to it In the Masse therefore Christ is indeed offered who is a thing having life and he is offered in the forme of a thing having life in respect of representation where onely a death representative is required but not death indeed But as he is a reall and properly so called sacrifice he is offered in the forme of Bread and Wine according to the order of Melchisedech and therefore in the forme of a thing without life Wherefore the consuming of this sacrifice ought not to be Killing but Eating I have rehearsed his words at large that so his answer may be seene at full But though there be many wordes which hee useth yet it is somewhat hard to know what hee meaneth Certainly this is a very strange kinde of sacrifice that he speaketh of Christ is offered up a sacrifice both in the forme of a thing that hath life and also in the forme of a thing that is without life And as hee is offered in the forme of a thing that hath life hee is onely offered in respect of representation but as he is offered in the forme of a thing that is without life hee is really and indeed offered So that Christ being offered in the forme of a thing that hath life his death is represented but he being offered in the forme of a thing that is without life his death is not represented and much lesse is it really executed and yet Christ is so really and properly sacrificed These things do but very unhandsomely hang together But whereas hee saith that the consuming of this sacrifice is the eating of it I demand is Christs Body so eaten as that it ceaseth to be what it was before If it be not as certainly it is not Christs Body being now glorified and so free from all mutation then is it not truly and properly sacrificed Bellarmine himselfe telling us as I have shewed before that whatsoever is truly and properly sacrificed is so destroyed as that it ceaseth to be what it was before To talke here of consuming the species or forme of bread so that it ceaseth to be what it was before is nothing to the purpose for they maintaine that the Body and Blood of the Lord are that sacrifice which is properly offered and sacrificed in the Masse And whereas Bellarmine also speaketh of Christs being offered in the forme of Bread and Wine according to the Order of Melchisedech I desire to know by whom CHRIST is so offered For either by himselfe or by the Priest that saith Masse Not by himselfe for here we speak of Christs being offered in the Eucharist which is not administred by Christ hee being now in Heaven Nor by the Priest on Earth there being no Priest after the order of Melchisedech but Christ only Psal 110. 4. Heb. 7. 15 c. And thus indeed there is no Priest upon Earth that is properly so called and consequently there is no true and proper sacrifice to be offered For every sacrifice presupposeth a Priest to offer it and such as the sacrifice is such also must the Priest be hee must be a Priest properly so called if it be a sacrifice properly so called But there is no such Priest upon Earth there being none as I have shewed after the order of Melchisedech nor yet any after the order of Aaron for that order is abolished as all the Leviticall sacrifices are And of any other order besides these we read not in the Scripture Againe in a sacrifice properly so called it must be some sensible thing as our Adversaries themselves acknowledge that is offered But Christ is not sensible in the Eucharist for by what sense is hee there discerned And therefore neither is hee there truly and properly sacrificed Neither was this Doctrine viz. that Christ is properly sacrificed in the Eucharist received in the Church of Rome for more then 1100 years after Christ as appeares by the Master of the Sentences Peter Lombard who propounds the question whether that which the Priest doth be properly a sacrifice and whether Christ be sacrificed daily or were only once sacrificed And to this hee answers that that which is offered and consecrated by the Priest is called a sacrifice and an offering because it it a memoriall and representation of the true sacrifice and holy immolation that was made in the Altar of the Crosse And Christ died once on the crosse and was there sacrificed in himselfe but he is daily sacrificed in the Sacrament because in the Sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was done once Here we plainly see that he determines that Christ is not properly sacrificed in the Sacrament but improperly in that his sacrificing of himselfe upon the crosse is remembred and represented in the Sacrament which is no more then the Apostle saith viz. that Christs death is shewed forth in the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. 26. And thus Ambrose as Lombard doth cite him Although we offer daily it is for the remembrance of his death We also offer now but that which we doe is a remembrance of the sacrifice which Christ offered To this purpose also he cites Austine Now for the places alledged by the Marquesse the first viz. Mal. 1. 11. doth not particularly concerne the Eucharist but generally the spirituall worship and service which the Prophet foreshewed should be performed unto God in the time of the New Testament and which should not be confined and limited to one certaine place and as the solemne worship and service of God in the time of the old
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
c. It is answered that there were two conversions the first of the Brittains the second of the Saxons we onely require this justice from you as you are English not Welch-men for the Church of England involves all the Brittains within her Communion for the Brittains have not now any distinct Church from the Church of England Now if Your Majestie please I expect your further Objections King My Lord I have not done with you yet though particular Churches may fall away in their severall respects of obedience to one supreme Authority yet it follows not that the Church should be thereby divided for as long as they agree in the unity of the same spirit and the bond of peace the Church is still at unitie as so many sheaves of corne are not unbound because they are severed Many sheaves may belong to one field to one man and may be carryed to one barne and be servient to the same table Unity may consist in this as well as in being hudled up together in a rick with one cock-sheave above the rest I have an hundred pieces in my pocket I find them something heavie I divide the summe halfe in one pocket and halfe in another and subdivide them afterwards in two severall lesser pockets The moneys is divided but the summe is not broke the hundred pounds is as whole as when it was together because it belongs to the same man and is in the same possession so though we divide our selves from Rome if neither of us divide our selves from Christ we agree in him who is the Center of all unitie though we differ in matter of depending upon one another But my Lord of Worcester we are got into such a large field of discourse that the greatest Schollers of them all can sooner shew us the way in then out of it therefore before we goe too far let us retire lest we lose our selves and therefore I pray my Lord satisfie me in these particulars Why doe you leave out the second Commandement and cut another in two why doe you with-hold the Cup from the Laytie why have you seven Sacraments when Christ instituted but two why doe you abuse the World with such a fable as Purgatory and make ignorant fooles believe you can fish soules from thence with silver hookes why doe you pray to Saints and worship Images Those are the offences which are given by your Church of Rome unto the Church of Christ of these things I would be satisfied Marq. Sir although the Church be undefiled yet she may not be spotlesse to severall apprehensions For the Church is compared to the Moon that is full of spots but they are but spots of our fancying though the Church be never so comly yet she is described unto us to have black eye-browes which may to some be as great an occasion of dislike as they are to others foyles which set her off more lovely We must not make our fancies judgements of condemnation to her with whom Christ so much was ravished For Your Majesties Objections and first as to that of leaving out the second Commandment and cutting another in two I beseech Your Majestie who called them Commandments who told you they were ten who told you which were first and second c. The Scripture onely called them words those words but these and these words were never divided in the Scriptures into ten Commandments but two Tables the Church did all this and might as well have named them twenty as ten Commandments that which Your Majestie calls the second Commandment is but the explanation of the first and is not razed out of the Bible but for brevitie sake in the manualls it is left out as the rest of the Commandment is left out concerning the Sabbath and others wherefore the same Church which gave them their Name their Number and their Distinction may in their breviats leave out what she deems to be but exposition and deliver what she thinks for substance without any such heavie charge as being blottable out of the booke of life for diminishing the word of God For withholding the Cup from the Laytie where did Christ either give or command to be given either the Bread or the Wine to any such Drink ye all of this but they were all Apostles to whom he said so there were neither Lay-men or women there If the Church allowed them afterwards to receive it either in one or both kinds they ought to be satisfied therewith accordingly but not question the Churches Actions She that could alter the Sabbath into the Lords day and change the dipping of the Baptised over head and eares in water to a little sprinkling upon the face by reason of some emergencies and inconveniencies occasioned by the difference of Seasons and Countries may upon the like occasion accordingly dispose of the manner of her Administration of her Sacraments Neither was this done without great reason the world had not wine in all her Countries but it had bread Wherefore it was thought for uniformity sake that they might not be unlike to one another but all receive alike that they should onely receive the Bread which was to be had in every place and not the Cup in regard that Wine was not every where to be had I wonder that any body should be so much offended at any such thing for Bread and Wine doe signifie Christ crucified I appeal to common reason if a dead body doth not represent a passion as much as if we saw the bloud lie by it If you grant the Churches Power in other matters and rest satisfied therein why do you boggle at this especially when any Priest where Wine is to be had if you desire it he will give it you But if upon every mans call the Church should fall to reforming upon every seeming fault which may be but supposed to be found the people would never stop untill they had made such a through Reformation in all parts as they have done in the greatest part of Germany where there is not a man to Preach or hear the Gospell to eat the Bread or drink the Wine you never pickt so many holes in our Coates as this licentiousnesse hath done in yours For our seven Sacraments she that called the Articles of our Faith 12 the Beatitudes 8 the Graces 3 the Virtues 4 called these 7 and might have called them 17 if she had thought it meet A Sacrament is nothing else but what is done with a holy mind and why Sacrament either in Name or Number should be confin'd to Christs onely Institution I see no cause for it If I can prove that God did institute such a thing in Paradise as he did Marriage shall not I call that a Sacrament as well as what was instituted by Christ when he was upon the Earth If Christ institutes the Order of giving and receiving the holy Ghost shall not I call this the Sacrament of Orders If Christ injoynes us all repentance
dici in quibusdam locis sacrae Scripturae ab i is quae in aliis locis aperta perspicua sunt explicantur Hom 13. in Gen. Those things which may seeme to be ambiguous and obscure in certaine places of the holy Scripture must be explicated from those places which else-where are plain and manifest Augustinus Ille qui cor habet quod precisum est iungat Scripturae legat superiora vel inferiora inveniet sensum Let him who hath a precise heart joyne it unto the Scriptures and let him observe what goes before and that which follows after and he shall find out the sense Gregorius saith Ser. 49. De verbis Domini Per Scripturam loquitur Deus omne quod vult voluntas dei sicut in testamento sic in evangelio inquiratur By Scripture God speaks his whole mind and the will of God as in the old Testament so in the new is to be found out Optatus contra Parmenonem lib. 5. Num quis aequior arbiter veritatis divinae quam Deus aut ubi deus manifestius loquitur quam in verbo suo Is there a better judge of the divine verity then God himselfe or where doth God more manifestly declare himselfe then in his owne word What breath shall we believe then but that which is the breath of God the holy Scriptures for it seems all one to Saint Paul to say dicit Scriptura the Scripture saith Rom. 4. 3. and dicit Deus the Lord saith Rom. 9. 17. The Scripture hath concluded all under sin Gal. 3. 22. for that which Rom. 11. 32. he saith God hath concluded all c. how shall we otherwise conclude then but with the Apostle 1 Cor. 2. 12. 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 They who know not this spirit do deride it but this spirit is hidden Manna Apo. 2. 17. which God giveth them to eat who shall overcome it is the white stone wherein the new name is written which no man knoweth but he that received it Wherefore we see the Scripture is the rule by which all differences may be composed it is the light wherein we must walke the food of our souls an antidote that expels any infection the onely sword that kils the enemy the onely plaster that can cure our wounds and the onely documents that can be given towards the attainment of everlasting salvation The Marquesses reply to the Kings Paper May it please your most excellent Majesty YOur Majestie is pleased to wave all the marks of the true Church and to make recourse unto the Scriptures I humbly take leave to aske your Majesty what heretique that ever was did not doe so How shall the greatest heretique in the world be confuted or censured if any man may be permitted to appeale to Scriptures margind with his own notes senc'd with his owne meaning and enlivened with his owne private spirit to what end were those marks so fully both by the Prophets the Apostles and our Saviour himselfe set downe if we make no use of them To what use are land-marks set up if Marriners will not believe them to be such Yet notwithstanding after that I have said what I have to say in removall of certain obstacles that lie in the way I shall lead your Majesty to my Church through the full body of the Scriptures or not at all and then I shall leave it to your royall heart to judge when you shall see that we have Scripture on our side whether or no the interpretation thereof be likelier to be true that hath been adjudged so by Councels renowned Fathers famous for sanctity and holinesse of life continued for the space of a thousand or twelve hundred years by your owne confession universally acknowledged or that such a one as Luther his word shall be taken either without Scripture or against it with sic volo and sic jubeo a man who confessed himselfe that he received his doctrine from the Devil or such a one as Calvin and their associates notoriously infamous in their lives and conversations plain Rebels to their Moses and Aaron united to the same person should counter ballance all the worthies determinations of Councels and the continued practice which so many ages produced If your Majestie meanes by the Church all the professors of the Gospel all that are Christians are so the true Church then we are so in your owne sense and you in ours then none who believe in the blessed Trinity the Articles of the Creed none who deny the Scriptures to be the word of God let them construe them as they please can be hereticall or of a wrong Religion therefore we must contradistinguish them thus and by the Protestant Church and Religion we must understand those opinions which the Protestants hold contrary to the Church of Rome and by the Romane the opinions which they hold dissenting from the Protestant and then we will see whether we have Scripture for our Religion or not and whether you have Scripture for what you maintaine and whose opinions are most approved of by the Primitive times and Fathers and what ground your late Divines have built their new opinions upon and then I shall give you Majestie an answer to the objection which you make against our Church viz. That she hath forsaken her first love and fallen from the principles which she held when she converted us to Christianity But first to the removall of those rubs in our way and then I shall shew as much reverence to the Scripture as any Protestant in the world and shall endeavour to shew your Majesty that the Scriptures are the Basis or foundation upon which our Church is built Your Majesty was pleased to urge the errors of certaine 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 severally 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 spiritui sancto nobis Acts 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 errors would be swallowed up in a generall Councel and be no more considerable in respect of the whole then so many heat-drops of error can stand in competition with a cloud
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
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
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
saved by his owne inherent righteousnesse because though he be otherwise never so righteous yet still there is some sinne in him which hee knoweth not of according to that of the Apostle which Ambrose there citeth I know nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby justified 1 Cor. 4. 4. The Apostle denieth that hee was justified by that righteousnesse that was in him though hee had the testimony of a good conscience to rejoyce in 2 Cor. 1. 12. yet was hee neverthelesse assured that hee was justified and should be saved through faith in Christ Jesus as hath been proved before from Rom. 8. 33. c. and from other places This was all that Ambrose meant as appeares by his words immediately going before those objected The Apostle hee saith Explaines Davids meaning saying I know nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby justified He knew that he was a man and did take heed to himselfe as he could that he might not sin after his Baptisme therefore he knew nothing by himselfe but because he was a man he confessed himselfe a sinner knowing that Iesus alone is the true light who did no sin neither was guile found in his mouth that he alone is justified i. e. perfectly just in himselfe who was truly without all sin That which Basil whose words I find in Bellarmine though otherwise I have him not to peruse saith is directly to the same purpose and imports no more then that of Ambrose We doe not understand saith he many things wherein we sin Therefore the Apostle saith I know nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby justified that is I sin in many things and am not aware of it For Hierome hee is too loosely cited both by the Marquesse and before him by Bellarmine there being eleven long Chapters in that booke which is mentioned but in which of them he saith any thing against us they doe not tell us However the words objected are these There are righteous men to whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked and there are wicked men to whom it happeneth according to the worke of the righteous This is said viz. Eccles 8. 14. because certaine judgement belongs only unto God These words by search I finde in Hierome but it plainly appeares that his scope onely is to prove against the Pelagians that no man in this life is so righteous as to be without sinne which is not against us in this controversie but for us in another as hath beene shewed before A little after those words Hierome saith thus What mortall man is not taken with some errour And that the righteous shall scarcely be saved 1 Pet. 4. 18. because in some things or rather indeed in all things he stands in needs of Gods mercy In the former Chapter Hierome brings in that of S. Paul I know nothing by my selfe c. and saith that though the Apostle were not conscious to himselfe of sinne yet hee did not justifie himselfe because hee had read Psal 19. 13. who can understand his his faults Thus then his testimony makes indeed against the perfection of a mans own righteousnesse but not against his assurance of salvation which may well stand without the other Chrysostome in the place cited comments upon that Ioh. 21. 17. Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time lovest thou me and hee saith that Peter feared lest now hee thought himselfe to love Christ when hee did not as before he was deceived in thinking himselfe stout and constant when it proved otherwise But 1. Though Chrysostome so take the words of Peter as if he might then be mistaken in that opinion which hee had of himselfe yet it does not follow that therefore hee should hold that a man cannot be assured that hee hath saving grace in him 2. Austine gives another and a better reason why Peter was grieved that Christ did aske him that question the third time viz. because thereby Christ as he thought seemed not to believe him not that hee suspected his owne heart but hee feared that Christ did suspect him because he did aske him the same question thrice over Maldonate the Jesuite cites Theodorus Heracleotes as also thus expounding it and saying that therefore Peter answered Lord thou knowest all things thou knowest that I love Thee as if hee should have said Thou that knowest all things canst not but know that it is true that I say and therefore why doest thou aske mee so often as if thou didst not believe me This Exposition Maldonate doth prefer before the other of Chrysostome which he also mentioneth and saith that Peter saying Lord thou knowest did speak so not so much out of modesty as to confirme that which hee had said viz. that he loved Christ by Christs own testimony Austine in Psal 40. hath nothing that I can see to the purpose I suppose it should be in Psalme 41. from whence Bellarmine doth produce this I know that the righteousnesse of God doth remaine whether my righteousnesse may remaine I know not For the Apostle doth make me to feare saying Let him that thinketh he standeth take heede lest he fall 1 Cor. 10. 12. I acknowledge these words of Austine but that which followes immediately shewes the meaning of them Therefore saith hee because I have no strength or stability in my selfe neither have I hope of my selfe my soule is troubled toward my selfe Wouldest thou not have it troubled Doe not abide in thy selfe but say unto thee O Lord have I lift up my soule Psal 25. 1. Heare this more plainly Doe not hope of thy selfe but of thy God For if thou doest hope of thy selfe thy soule will be troubled towards thee because it hath not yet found whereby it may be secure of thee Therefore because my soule is troubled towards me what remaines but humility that the soule doe not presume of it selfe Thus it clearly appeares that Austine spake not against assurance of salvation but onely against selfe confidence and presumption The last Father alledged is Bernard who saith This doth adde to the heape of care and to the weight of feare that when as it 's necessary to looke both to mine own and my Neighbours conscience neither of them is sufficiently knowne unto me Both are an unsearchable depth both are night unto me But Bernard onely meanes that it 's very hard for a man to know his owne heart because of the deceitfulnesse of it not but that by the Spirit of God a man may know it so farre forth as to be assured of the truth of Grace in him which hath beene proved before by Bernards testimony in diverse places So elsewhere hee saith indeed Who can say I am of the Elect I am of those that are predestinate unto life I am of the number of Gods children who I say can say these things the Scripture saying on the contrary Man knowes not whether
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
was the custome then to call upon the holy Angels for their patronage But to say as the Marquesse doth that it appears by these words that they used then to call upon the Saints departed is contrary to the tenet of the Romanists who hold that during the time of the old Testament praying unto the deceased Saints was not in use because then the Saints that departed out of this life as they hold did not goe to Heaven nor enjoy happinesse But the truth is those words Iob 5. 1. Call now c. and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne make neither for the invocation of Saints nor of Angels the meaning of Eliphaz being onely to convince Iob that none is punished as he was except he were wicked and therefore he bids him shew any of the Saints if hee could that was so punished as hee was For this was the error of Eliphaz and the other two friends of Iob that they thought Iob could not be a godly man because God did so afflict him Therefore God said his Anger was kindled against them because they had not spoken of him the thing that was right Iob. 42. 7. For the Fathers which are here objected the first viz. Dionys is cited cap. 7 but of what For hee wrote diverse Bookes But his testimony is of little worth it being uncertaine who hee was and when hee lived and this being evident to all that have any the least taste of him that hee was not as is pretended that Dionysius that is mentioned Acts 17. 34. which his fustian and bombast-stile doth sufficiently declare The next is Athanasius but I finde no such peece as Ser. de Annunt either in his workes as they are extant both in Greeke and Latine nor in Bellarmines Index or Catalogue of them which he hath in his Booke of Ecclesiasticall writers If perhaps the Marquesse meant Ser de Sanctissimâ Deiparâ Bellarmine in that same booke censures it as not belonging to Athanasius but to some other long after his time and in some thing as it seemes not very sound Basil I have not to peruse nor Maximus Chrysostome in the place quoted viz. Hom. 66. de Pop. Antioch doth indeed seeme to speake for praying unto Saints to pray for us But wee must remember how hee is reckoned among them who held that the Saints departed are not yet in glory and therefore if the Romanists will have him speake agreably to this position they must not have him for a patron in this cause touching the invocation of Saints And upon the same ground must they also let goe Bernard who is likewise noted for the same opinion though the truth is hee lived in very corrupt times and therefore it is no marvell if hee did draw some dreggs it is indeed a marvell that hee was not more corrupted and infected then he was There remaines onely Hierome who in the end of his Epitaph or Funerall Oration concerning Paula addresseth his speech unto her bidding her farwell and helpe him with her prayers But 1. I have shewed before that Bellarmine doth overthrow the foundation that Hierome buildes upon viz. that the Saints departed are every where and so can heare and understand whatsoever any stand in need of and desire of them which Bellarmine confesseth to be incompetible to any meere creature as indeed it is this being a property that belongs unto God only 2. When the Fathers sometimes speak in that manner to the Saints deceased their speeches proceeded rather from affection then from judgement and are Rhetoricall rather then Theologicall expressions As appeares by that of Gregory Nazianzen who in his first Oration against Iulian speakes thus unto Constantine who was then dead And heare O thou soule of the great Constantine if thou hast any sense or understanding of these things Where the Greeke Scholiast notes that Nazianzen did imitate Isocrates a Heathen Oratour This is spoken saith hee in imitation of Isocrates as if he should say If thou hast any power to heare the things that are here spoken And observe how Nazianzen whom Hierome calleth his Master spake doubtfully making it a question whether the Saints departed doe understand things here upon Earth 3. Austine who lived in the same time with Hierome in his booke of true Religion speaking of the Saints deparred saith plainly They are to be honoured for imitation but not to be worshipped for Religion And in the last booke of that famous worke intituled Of the City of God in the tenth Chapter of it speaking of the Martyrs hee saith that in the celebration of the Eucharist they were mentioned in their place and order viz. to praise God for them and to stir up others to the imitation of them but yet that they were not invocated and that no prayers were put up unto them This may suffice to shew how farre in this point they of the Roman Church are departed both from the Rule of Gods Word and also from the judgement and practice of the ancient Fathers We hold saith the Marquesse Confirmation necessary you not We have Scripture for it Acts 8. 14. Peter and Iohn prayed for them that they might receive the holy Ghost for as yet he was falne upon none of them onely they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus then laid they their hands on them and they received the holy Ghost Where we see the holy Ghost was given in Confirmation which was not given in Baptisme Also Heb. 6. 1. Therefore leaving the principles of the Doctrine of Christ let us goe on unto perfection not laying against the foundation of Repentance from dead workes and of Faith toward God of Baptisme and of laying on of hands The Fathers affirme the same Tertul. de Resur S. Pacian de Bapt. S. Amb. de sacr S. Hierome contra Lucif S Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 1. speaking both of Baptisme and Confirmation saith Then they may be sanctified and be the sons of God if they be borne in both Sacraments Answ Concerning Confirmation the Romanists make it a Sacrament properly so called of the same nature with Baptisme and the Lords Supper The matter of this Sacrament they make to be a certaine Ointment compounded after a speciall manner and consecrated by a Bishop wherewith the person to be confirmed is anointed in the forehead in the forme of a crosse The forme of the Sacrament they make to consist in these words I signe thee with the signe of the Crosse and confirme thee with the Chrisme or ointment of salvation in the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost The effect of this Sacrament they say is to confer true sanctifying grace and that more abundantly then Baptisme doth in respect of the strengthening of the soule against the assaults of Satan Now this Confirmation Protestants deny to be a Sacrament as having no institution nor any ground for it in the Scripture The
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
wee reade of 1 Tim. 5. 9. they of the Church of Rome allow as well young as old of both Sexes to vow to live unmarried Estius himselfe upon the place saith that the Apostle requires that age because in that there useth to be no danger of incontinency But hee addes presently after that in the Apostles time they had no Monasteries or close places to keepe Women in professing continency that so they might not freely wander abroad unto men I doe easily believe that there were indeed as then no such places nor yet any such profession neither excepting such Widdowes as the Apostle speakes of of whom more anon But withall I suppose that although wandering abroad may be an occasion of defilement as the example of Dinah sheweth yet walles and barres are not enough to preserve chastity And howsoever this is nothing to those young Priests that vow chastity and yet are not shut up in that manner as their Nunnes are That to be able to live a single life is no common gift and consequently that such a life is not to be so commonly vowed as now it is in the Church of Rome diverse of the Fathers doe informe us though some of them went too farre in this kinde Hilary speaking of those severall kindes of Eunuches mentioned by our Saviour Mat. 19. saith that one is so by nature viz. he that is borne so another so by necessity viz. hee that is made so and the third so by will viz. he that in hope of the Heavenly Kingdome hath determined to be so And such hee saith Christ would have us to be if marke that yet wee be able Hierome a man of excellent learning and of great piety of all the ancient Fathers seemes most exorbitant as concerning Virginity surely in his writings against Iovinian hee expresseth himselfe many times very harshly as thus If it be good not to touch a woman then it is evill to touch a woman And againe What kinde of good I pray you is that which hinders from praying So hee wrests the words of the Apostle as if he spake of ordinary Prayer taking no notice of fasting which the Apostle joynes with Prayer 1 Cor. 7. 5. The Apostle hee saith elsewhere bids pray alwayes If wee must pray alwayes then wee must never doe the office of married persons For whensoever I render due benevolence to my wife I cannot pray And in the same manner againe If wee must pray alwayes then wee must alwayes be free from Marriage And citing those words Woe to them that are with child c. Mat. 24. 19. hee saith Not harlots and brothelhouses are here condemned of whose condemnation there is no doubt but great bellies and the crying of infants and the fruits and effects of Marriages Thus also doth hee wrest that spoken to our first Parents Bee fruitfull and multiply and replenish the Earth Gen. 1. 28. Marriage saith he doth replenish the Earth but virginity doth replenish Paradise And he saith that Adam and Eve before they had sinned were virgins but after the fall and out of Paradise they were Married Whereas nothing is more cleare in the Scripture then this that God did joyne Adam and Eve together in Marriage before the fall when they were in Paradise Diverse other such like inconvenient passages hee hath being carried away with the heate of contention Yet even Hierome himselfe in that very booke doth shew that to live unmarried is no ordinary matter nor for every one to undertake This saith hee is a hard matter and all doe not receive it but they to whom it is given And againe Doe not feare lest all become Virgins Virginity is a hard thing and therefore rare because hard If all could be virgins the Lord would never say Let him that is able to receive it receive it Neither would the Apostle be so fearfull in perswading to virginity saying Now concerning virgins I have no Commandement of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 7. 25. And in his commentary upon Mat. 19. Christ saith hee inferres Hee that is able to receive it let him receive it that every one may consider his strength whether he be able to performe those things that are required of unmarried persons For virginity of it self is pleasing and alluring any one unto it but mens strength is to be considered that he that is able to receive it may receive it It 's true Hierome saith there a little before that hee that askes it and labours for it may receive it but that must be understood if God see it to be for his glory and our good So is that to be interpreted Aske and it shall be given unto you Mat. 7. 7. And so also that What things soever yee desire when yee pray believe that yee receive them and yee shall have them Mar. 11. 24. The Lord will give grace and glory as the Psalmist saith Psal 84. 11. And so consequently he will give all things that have a necessary connexion with grace and glory such things may simply and absolutely be prayed for But virginity is not of that nature and therefore there can be no such assurance of obtaining it although we pray for it Gregory also saith that those words of our Saviour All doe not receive this saying shew that all are not capable of it and that it is a thing hard to be obtained And hee saith that they that are unmarried are to be admonished to get into the haven of Wedlock if they endure the stormes of temptation so as to endanger their salvation And that because it it written It is better to marry then to burne Indeed hee addes immediately that it is no sinne for them to marry if yet they have not vowed that which is better hee meanes to live unmarried But the question is how such could lawfully vow a single life not knowing how unmeete they should be for it And how obligatory such a vow is wee shall consider anon But thus also Bernard complaining of the incontinency of the Clergy in his time I wish saith hee that they who are about to build a Tower would sit down and count the cost lest they prove unable to finish what they take in hand I would that they who cannot containe would be affraid rashly to professe perfection and to give up their names to a single life For it is a costly Tower and a great Word which all are not able to receive Now for the other charge against Protestants viz. that they hold that such as have made vowes to live unmarried are not bound to keepe them I answer they hold indeed that such vowes being made and tending to the prejudice of a mans soule by exposing him to unavoidable danger of Fornication without using the remedy of Marriage doe not binde but are better broken then kept even as it had beene better that Herod had broken his Oath then that he should keepe it so as for his Oathes sake
this sense agrees with that which is said of Christ 2 Cor. 13. 4. For though he was crucified through weakenesse yet hee liveth by the power of God Besides if wee should reade quickened in the Spirit and by Spirit understand Christs Soule it would follow that Christs Soule was sometime dead This was Austines argument against that Exposition as is observed by Bellarmine Who saith that the argument doth not conclude for that often in the Scripture that is said to be quickned which is not put to death But his answer is not satisfactory For though it is true that in the Scripture to quicken or to make alive is sometimes no more then to preserve and keepe alive as 1 Sam. 27. 11. and 2 Sam. 8. 2. where both in the Originall and in the vulgar Latine the word used doth signifie to make alive Yet neverthelesse nothing in Scripture is said to be made that is kept alive but that which is obnoxious unto death and may die but Christs Soule and generally the Soules of men are of an immortall nature and doe not die when the body dyeth Besides what great matter was it as Estius observes if when Christs Body died his Soule did remaine alive when as even in the worst men that are the soule doth not die as being by nature immortall And therefore hee saith it is better understood thus Christ was quickned in the Spirit that is hee was made a quickning Spirit viz. when hee rose from death unto life immortall And hee cites that 1 Cor. 15. 45. The first man Adam was made a living Soule the last Adam was made a quickning spirit But that sense will not well suite the words of Peter which doe not shew what Christ is made being risen againe but in what respect and by what meanes hee did rise againe viz. by the spirit that is by his Divine Nature as in the flesh that is his humane Nature hee was put to death But againe it is objected that S. Peter saith Christ went and preached to the spirits in prisons therefore it is meant of the soule not of his Divine Nature in which respect it cannot be said but improperly that hee went I answer there is no necessity to take it properly in the words of Peter more then in the words of Paul Ephes 2. 17. when hee saith that Christ came and Preached peace unto the Ephesians which must be meant of comming and Preaching by the Apostle for otherwise Christ in his owne person did not come and preach unto them And thus Estius notes it to be expounded by Ambrose the Interlineary Glosse Aquinas Lyra and Cajetane It is objected againe that by spirits in prison cannot be understood living men except S. Peter should on purpose speake improperly and obscurely I answer according to Bezaes Exposition which in his particular doth differ from Austines and is the more probable not living men but the soules of men separated from their bodies are termed spirits in prison as being in the prison of Hell when Peter wrote of them though they were not so but were joyned to their bodies and so both soules and bodies joyned together were living men when Christ preached unto them But Bellarmine further objects that 1 Pet. 4. 6. where it is said that the Gospell was preached to the dead which hee will have so understood as that men being dead and departed out of this life the Gospell was Preached unto them But the true and genuine meaning of the words rather is this that the Gospell was Preached to them that are now dead though they were not dead but alive when the Gospell was preached unto them Even as in the verse immediately going before it is said that Christ will judge both the quick and the dead that is those that are now alive or shall be alive at Christs comming and those that are now dead or shall be dead at Christs comming who yet shall not be judged whiles they are dead but they shall be raised up and made alive and so be judged As therefore Peter calles them dead because so they are now and were when hee wrote of them though they shall not be dead but alive when they shall be judged So for the same reason hee calles them dead to whom the Gospell was preached though when the Gospell was preached unto them they were alive and not dead And in like manner hee calles them spirits in prison to whom Christ went and Preached because so they were when hee wrote though they were not so when Christ went and preached unto them But Bellarmine chargeth Beza with being so bold as to change the Text because where they reade the spirits that were in prison hee reades the spirits that are in prison But as Beslarmine himselfe could not but confesse in the Originall there is neither that were nor that are but the words are as our Translatours render them the spirits in prison so that either the words that were or that are may be understood as the sense will beare Estius confesseth that some I suppose he meanes some not Protestants understand that are but hee holds it better to understand that were as the verbe is of the Pretertense preached But this reason is of no moment For if because the word Preached hath reference to the time past therefore it must be meant of the Spirits that were in prison when Christ Preached unto them by the same reason when it is said that Christ shall judge both the quick and the dead because shall judge doth respect the time to come therefore also it must be meant of those that shall be dead when Christ shall judge them But this doth not follow and so neither doth the other And thus I hope it may appear that those words of Peter make nothing for Limbus Patrum The fourth and last place of Scripture which is alledged by the Marquesse is Zach. 9. 11. where the pit that is spoken of hee saith cannot be the place of the damned nor the Grave But what then must it therefore be Limbus Patrum It doth not follow for by the pit there may be something else meant then either the place of the damned or the Grave or Limbus Patrum viz. the Babylonish captivity as the Rabbines upon the place expound it Bellarmine citing Calvin for this Exposition saith that it hath no probability because immediatly before there is a prophecy of Christ Rejoyce greatly O Daughter of Sion behold thy King commeth unto thee c. Therefore saith he how should these things cohere if the captivity of Babylon were spoken of I answer well enough the Prophet having told them of Christs comming unto them might well presently after speak of their deliverance out of captivity as a great benefit which they had allready obtained through Christ in whom all the promises are yea and in him amen 2 Cor. 1. 20. and whereby they might be assured of far
God so nigh at hand how doe things heavenly and eternall succeede things earthly and fading if after this life the soules of Christians may continue many hundred years perhaps in the flames of Purgatory before they can get to Heaven Might not this well make every one to feare death and to tremble at the approach of it Might not a Christian at his Death well cry out with the Heathen Emperour O poore Soule whither art thou now going But Cyprian goes on and citing that of Simeon Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace for mine eyes have seene thy salvation he addes that then the servants of God have peace then they have free and calme quietnesse when being taken out of the tempests of this world we arrive at the haven of eternall rest and security when as this death being past we come to immortality And so againe God doth promise immortality and eternity unto thee when thou goest out of the world and doest thou doubt 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 How profitable it is to goe out of the World Christ himselfe the Master of our salvation and welfare doth shew who when his Disciples were sorrowfull because he said he was to leave them said If you had loved me you would rejoyce because I goe to the Father Joh. 14. 28. teaching us that we should rather rejoyce then be sorry when they depart out of the world whom we love who are dear unto us Thus also Hierome writing to Paula to comfort her concerning the Death of her Daughter Blaesilla saith Let the dead be lamented but such an one whom the place of torment doth receive whom Hell doth devoure for whose punishment the everlasting fire doth burne We whose departure a troupe of Angels doth accompany whom Christ doth come to meet are more grieved or as some reade gravemur let us be more grieved if we abide longer in this Tabernacle of death because so long as we abide here we are as pilgrimes absent from the Lord. Let that desire possesse us woe is me that my pilgrimage is prolonged c. Austine plainly saith that the Catholike faith by Divine authority doth believe the first place to be the Kingdome of Heaven the second to be Hell where every apostate or such us are aliens from the faith of Christ doe suffer everlasting punishments a third place we are altogether ignorant of yea we finde in the holy Scriptures that there is no such place Bellarmine answers that Austine there speakes of those places which are everlasting Which indeed is true for he speakes of Heaven and of Hell the place of torment which are everlasting places for those to abide in that are in them But withall hee saith that there is no third place viz. for those that depart out of this life Besides how can the Romanists yeeld that there is no everlasting place besides Heaven and Hell viz. Gehenna which is the word that Austine useth the Hell of the damned when as they hold a Limbus infantium an everlasting place for Infants to abide in that die without Baptisme which place they make to be distinct both from Heaven and from the place of torment For there they say such children as die unbaptized suffer the punishment of losse whereby the place differs from Heaven but not the punishment of sense whereby it differs from the Hell of the damned But Bellarmine proves that Austine or whosoever was the Authour of the booke called Hypognosticon did not deny that there is a third place to abide in for a time after this life because the Catholike faith doth teach that besides Heaven and Hell there was before Christs death Abrahams bosome where the soules of the holy Fathers did abide I answer that Abrahams bosome was any such Limbus Patrum as the Romanists imagine was no part of Austines Creede as I have shewed before out of Austines undoubted writings And therefore Erasmus though Bellarmine unjustly carpe at him for it might well write Purgatory in the margent over against those words a third place we are altogether ignorant of signifying that Purgatory is a third place of which the Catholike faith is ignorant But what neede is there to alledge particular Fathers when as the Bishop of Rochester who was beheaded in the reigne of Henry the Eighth for maintaining the Popes supremacy in his booke against Luther as hee is cited by Polydore Vergill who was an agent here in England for the Pope in the time of Henry 8. when as I say that Authour confesseth that Purgatory is never or very seldome mentioned by the antient writers and that the Grecians to this day doe not believe that there is any such thing as Purgatory Now for the place of Scripture which the Marquesse saith they have for Purgatory viz. 1 Cor. 3. 13 15. First it is to be observed that whereas Bellarmine doth alledge diverse other places besides this for proofe of Purgatory the Marquesse waves all the other and mentiones onely this conceiving it as it seemes more plaine and pregnant then the rest Yet 2. Bellarmine tells us and bids us marke it that this is one of the most obscure places of all the Scripture though withall hee saith it is one of the most usefull places because from thence they have as hee supposeth a foundation both for Purgatory and for veniall sinnes But as hath beene observed before out of Austine the Scripture is cleare in those things which concerne faith and therefore we must not build pointes of faith upon obscure places Now so obscure is this place viz. 1 Cor. 3. 13 15. that Bellarmine spendes a long Chapter meerely in the explication of it And yet when all is done nothing can be made of it for Purgatory For Bellarmine confutes those that thinke Purgatory to be meant by the fire mentioned v. 13. The fire shall try every mans worke of what sort it is and he proves that the fire there mentioned is the fire of Gods severe and just judgement which is not a purging and afflicting but a proving and examining fire So that Bellarmine doth take away one halfe of the Marquesses quotation and indeed the whole quotation For though Bellarmine would have those words v. 15. he himselfe shall be saved yet so as by fire to be understood of Purgatory yet who seeth not that it is absurd to take the word fire otherwise there then v. 13. And therefore Estius upon the place saith that it is evident that one and the same fire is meant in both Verses Which fire hee will have to be that which shall burne up the World at the last day So also Bellarmine notes some to understand it as some of the tribulations of this life and some
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
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
transferre to the Father that which was Christs most proper work Who doth not now see that Calvin is most farre from saying that which is charged upon him 20. But the Marquesse notwithstanding the word lastly did seem to speak as much hath not yet done with Calvin but further taxeth him for saying God is author of all those things which these Popish Judges would have to happen by his idle sufferance Calvin in the place cited not barely saith that it is so but saith that he hath plainly shewed by Scripture that it is so And therefore it had been meet that Calvins proofs should have been examined before his doctrine were condemned Calvin abhorres that position that God is the author of sinne as may be seen in the very next Section to that which the Marquesse citeth Yet he proveth by many places of Scripture that God doth not onely permit those things wherein men sinne but also in some respect is the author of them As for example that God was the author of Shimei's cursing not as it was his sinne but as it was Davids affliction So David acknowledged saying The LORD hath said unto him curse David 2 Sam. 16. 10. And again v. 11. The LORD hath bidden him 21. The next and last charge against Calvin is little or nothing different from that immediately preceding viz. that he saith Our sinnes are not only by Gods permission but by his decree and will The Marquesse speaks of Calvins famous brethren condemning this blasphemy But they whom he mentioneth are I think all Lutherans and so ready to make the worst they can of any thing that they finde in Calvin But whereas in the conclusion he saith What Scriptures or Fathers is there for all this Surely Calvin hath alleadged many Scriptures for that which he asserteth which it had been meet to take some notice of as I have said before He also cites Austine determining thus That men sinne it is of themselves but that by sinning they doe this or that it is by the power of God who divideth the darknesse as he pleaseth And thus have I also answered those things that are in point of Doctrine objected against Calvin After Calvin the Marquesse deals with Zuinglius and objects divers things against his Doctrine 1. Zuinglius saith the Marquesse confesseth himself to have been instructed against the Masse by a certain admonisher which he knew not whether it was black or white It is true Zuinglius relates how having disputed with a Scribe about the meaning of those words This is my body and having been urged to produce some place which is not a parable where the word is doth import as much as signifieth lie was much troubled about it in his sleep and thought that one whether black or white he could not remember stood by him and bade him alleadge that in Exod. 12. 11. It is the Lords Passeover Whereupon he awaked and rose and considered the place and presently after preached upon it so that such as did a little stick before were fully satisfied Now though Mr. Breerley and after him the Marquesse make a great matter of this and say that is derided by learned Protestants they cite some Lutherans as great adversaries to Zuinglius in the matter of the Sacrament as the Papists are yet I see nothing in it that is liable to any just exception For it is usuall with men to be troubled in their sleep about that wherein they have been busied before and sometimes it happens that in their sleep that is represented unto them which before with all their study they could not finde out As Austine somewhere I do not now remember the place but I have read it in him tels of one that taught Rhetorick and being troubled about the meaning of something that he met with and was to treat of to his Schollars in his sleep he thought that Austine did explain it unto him But that which here they take hold of perhaps is this that Zuinglius saith he did not know whether his admonisher were black or white they seem to understand this so as if he knew not whether that admonisher were an evill or a good spirit But if they so take it they bewray too much ignorance of the Latine tongue wherein it is usual and indeed a proverbial speech to say I know not whether he be black or white that is he is one altogether unknown unto me Erasmus in his Adages sufficiently shews this to be the meaning of the words and cites Cicero Quintilian Apuleius Hierome using them in this sense 2. The Marquesse saith that Zuinglius is taxed by Calvin for depraving the Scripture for changing the word est and putting in significat in his Translation of the New Testament But the Marquesse doth not tell us where Calvin doth thus taxe Zuinglius and I suspect that there is some mistake in that word Calvin and that it should be some other name 3. Hee chargeth Zuinglius with saying that these sayings and the like If thou wilt enter into life keepe the Commandements c. are superfluous and hyperbolical But in the place alleadged viz. Tom. 1. Fol. 137. Zuinglius hath no such matter there is no mention made of those words If thou wilt enter into life c. 4. Zuinglius is taxed for saying that Original sinne cannot damne us calling it but a disease or contagion It is true Zuinglius saith that Original sin is a disease but such an one as of it selfe is not capable nor can infer damnation except a man being corrupted with this contagion transgresse the Law of God which then useth to happen when he sees and understands the Law given unto him And in this I plead not for Zuinglius I confesse he erred and is worthy to be taxed But I do not know any Protestants that do second him in this I speak not of Socinians Arminians c. but such as are otherwise sound and orthodox Neither should the Romanists here so much taxe Zuinglius seeing they hold that Concupiscence after Baptisme though it remain the same that it was before is in it self properly no sinne but is onely called sinne because it proceeds from sinne and inclines unto sinne Yea they hold that had man been created as they suppose he might have been in his pure naturals that is in a meer natural condition not having any supernatural grace superadded to his nature he should have had the same concupiscence which now he hath in the state of corrupt nature The state of man since the fall of Adam they say doth not differ more from the state of man in his pure naturals then one that is stripped of his cloaths differs from one that is naked having never had cloaths And therefore they say the corruption of mans nature doth not proceed from the want of any natural gift nor from
point at takes upon him to refell that which some others answer in the behalf of Beza but never takes notice of this which Beza hath said in his own behalf But the Marquesse returns to Luther and besides other things which he objects against him but proves only by the testimony of his adversaries or by such pieces of Luthers own Works as I have not liberty to peruse he taxeth him for giving such opprobrious termes to King Henry 8. Ans It is true K. Hen. 8. having written or at least some other in his name against Luther and his Doctrine Luther did return answer so as to shew but small respect to the person against whom he wrote But afterwards Luther in an Epistle which he wrote to the King confessed his fault humbly craving pardon and offering to write a publike recantation and to do the King honour if he should require it Indeed the King not answering Luthers expectation but instead of accepting his submission setting forth another book against him with his Epistle annexed to it and insulting over him as if he had recanted his doctrine Luther made answer to this book also yet so as to abstain from those terms of contumely and reproach which before he had used only shewing that he was firm and stedfast in his doctrine yea daily more and more confirmed in it and that no mans person how great soever he were should be of any esteem with him so as to bring him to any recantation in that respect The Marquesse having censured some of the prime Doctors of the Reformed Churches falls to censure the people as being generally averse from all honesty and godlines and to this end he all eadgeth the words of Luther and some others who complain of the vitious and corrupt wayes of those that live under the pure preaching of the Gospel and he concludes How could the people be better when their Ministers were so bad Bellarmine urging also some of these testimonies proceeds so farre in his censure as to say that though among them of the Church of Rome for that he means by the Catholike Church there be many bad yet among Protestants whom after his manner he terms Hereticks there is none good and this he saith is notorious But if both Ministers and people were bad as their adversaries pretend yet might their doctrine and profession be good for all that It was the Apostles complaint in his time All seek their own not the things that are Jesus Christs Phil. 2. 21. Yet the doctrine of Jesus Christ which they preached and professed was never a whit the worse for all this though with some it might be worse accounted of In like manner the Prophets frequently complain of the people of the Jews whose Religion neverthelesse was the only true Religion in the world See Isa 1. 4 5 6. Jer. 5. 1. 2. 9. 2. c. Ezek. 22. 2. c. and so many other places And that the Protestant doctrine is not to blame what ever the Preachers and professors of it be may appear by those very testimonies which the Marquesse and other alledge For in that as they shew Ministers tax and reprove people for being so bad it argues that the doctrine delivered unto them is good though they make no good use of it But that Protestants are so universally bad as that Bellarmine should say there is none good among them is too grosse an aspersion and wondrous impudence it is to adde that this is notorious to all that know them I will only cite the testimony of Bodinus one that never withdrew himself for any thing I finde from communion with the Church of Rome He speaking of Geneva where Calvin and Beza were Ministers of the Gospel exceedingly commends the discipline there used Then which he saith nothing could be imagined greater and more divine for the restraining of mens lusts and those vices which by humane Laws and Judgements could no way be reformed Insomuch that no whoredomes no drunkennesse no dancings no beggars no idle persons are found in that City But to proceed the Marquesse in the conclusion of all that he hath in this kinde relates horrible things of Calvin in respect both of his life and death alleadging that they are written by two knowne and approved Protestant Authors One of these Authors whose words the Marquesse alleadgeth was indeed a Protestant but a great Lutheran to wit Schlusselberg and a professed adversary unto Calvin and I presume so also was the other who the Marquesse saith did write the life of Calvin and confirme that which is said by the former to wit Herennius though I have not heard of him before Mr. Breerley so far as I finde never mentions him though he make very frequent use of Schlusselberg whose words concerning Calvin here cited by the Marquesse he all eadgeth in two several places of his Apology But however Bolsecus is the man from whom at first did proceed whatsoever any have in disgrace of Calvin either for his life or death Now this Author lived some while at Geneva where Calvin was and being opposed by him it seems for some things which he could not approve he both became Calvins bitter enemy and also turned back to Popery and was a Papist at that very time when he wrote of Calvin as is confessed by Mr. Breerley who saith that therefore he doth purposely forbear to urge his testimony in which respect also it may be the Marquesse made no mention of this Author because he would not seem in this case to alleadge any of their own Church But to what porpose is it that they forbear to cite Bolsecus when as they cite those who have nothing in this kinde but from Bolsecus He was the first and for some while the only man that did traduce Calvin as concerning his life and death And therefore Bellarmine as writing before those whom Mr. Breerley and the Marquesse mention alleadgeth only Bolsecus as relating things that concerne Calvin of this nature But if Mr. Breerley and so other Romanists could think there was just cause to except against the testimonies of Benno and others concerning Pope Hildebrand called Gregory 7. alleadging that they were his adversaries and took part with the Emperour against him though yet Benno was a Cardinal and the rest were all Romanists what candour and ingenuity is there to alleadge against Calvin the testimonies of those who did professe themselves adversaries unto him Besides that Bolsecus the first deviser of these calumnies was one of their own party For the things that are objected That concerning the manner of Calvins death appears most false by what Beza hath written of it who being with Calvin at Geneva when he dyed had more cause to know the truth then Bolsecus who was removed I think from Geneva before that time And the other particular about Calvins being stigmatized is clearly