any other Church besides the Romane she never had Communion She cannot be that one because she is but one nor Catholick because she agrees not with any nor Apostolick because she hath acknowledged such a fine and recovery that has quite cut off the entaile which would have otherwise descended unto her from the Apostles neither can she be holy because she is none of all the other three Now if these Attributes cannot belong unto the Protestant Religion and do clearly belong unto the Roman then is the Church of Rome the Catholick Church And that it doth I shall prove it by the marks which God Almighty hath given us whereby we should know her And the first is Universality All Nations shall flow unto her Esa 2. 2. And the Psalmist The heathen shall be thine inheritance and the uttermost part of the Earth for thy possession Psal 2. 2. And our Saviour Matth. 20. 14. This Gospell of the Kingdome shall be preached in all the world as a witnesse to all Nations c. Now I confesse that this glory is belonging to all Professors of the Christian Religion yet amongst all those who do professe the name of Christ I believe Your Majestie will consent with me herein that the Romane Church hath this forme of universality not onely above all different and distinct Professors of Religion but also beyond all Religions of the world Turkes or Heathens and that there is no place in the world where there are not Romance Catholicks which is manifestly wanting to all other Religions whatsoever Now I hope Your Majestie cannot say so of any Protestant Religion neither that Your Majestie will call all those who protest against the Church of Rome otherwise then Protestants but not Protestant Catholicks or Catholicks of the Protestant Religion being they are not religated within the same Communion and fellowships for then Religion would consist in protestation rather then unity in Nations falling off from one another rather then all Nations flowing to one another neither is it a Consideration altogether invalid that the Church of Rome hath kept possession of the name all along other reformed Churches leaving her in possession of the name and taking unto themselves new names according to their severall founders except the Church of England who is now her selfe become like a Chapter that is full of nothing else whose founder was such a one whose name it may be they were unwilling to owne For antiquity if we should inquire after the old paths which is the good way and walke therein as the Prophet Jeremiah adviseth us if we should take our Saviours rule Ab initio autem non fuit sic if we should observe his saying how the good seed was first sowed and then the tares If we should consider the pit from whence we were dug and the rock from whence we were hewen we shall find antiquity more applicatory to the Church of Rome then any Protestant Church But you will say your Religion is as ancient as ours having its procedure from Christ and his Apostles so say the Lutheran Protestants with their Doctrine of Consubstantiation and many other sorts of Protestants having other Tenents altogether contrary to what you hold how shall we reconcile you so say all hereticks that ever were how shall we confute them a part to set up themselmes against the whole and by the power of the sword to make themselves Judges in their owne causes is dealing that were it your case I am sure you would think it very hard I wish you may never find it so For Visibility Our Saviour compares his Church to a Citie placed on a hill according unto the Prophet Davids Prophesie a Tabernacle in the Sun It is likewise compared unto a candle in a candle-stick not under a bushell and saith our Saviour If they shall say unto you behold he is in the desart go ye not forth Behold he is in secret places believe it not forewarning us against obscure and invisible Congregations Now I beseech Your Majestie whether should I betake my selfe to a Church that was alwayes visible and gloriously eminent or to a Protestant Church that was never eminent and for the most part invisible shrowding their defection under an Apostolicall Expression of a woman in the Revelation who fled into the wildernesse for a thousand years as if an allegory could wipe out so many clear texts of Scripture as are set down by our Saviour and the Prophets concerning the Churches invisibility And I could not find any Church in the world to whom that Prophesie of Esay might more fitly appertain then to the Church of Rome I have set watch-men upon the walls which shall never hold their peace day nor night which I am sure no Protestant Church can apply to her selfe It is not enough to say I maintaine the same Faith and Religion which the Apostles taught and therefore I am of the true Church ancient and visible enough because as I have said before every heretick will say as much but if you cannot by these marks of the Church set down in Scripture clear your selves to be the true Church you vainly appeale to the Scriptures siding with you in any particular point for what can be more absurd then to appeale from Scripture setting things down clearly unto Scripture setting down things more obscurely There is no particular point of Doctrine in the holy Scripture so manifestly set downe as that concerning the Church and the Markes thereof nothing set down more copious and perspicuous then the visibility perpetuitie and amplitude of the Church So that Saint Augustin did not stick to say that the Scriptures were more clear about the Church then they were about Christ Let him answer for it He said so in his book de unitate Ecclesiae and this he said was the reason because God in his wisdome would have the Church to be described without any ambiguity that all Controversies about the Church may be clearly decided whereby questions about particular Doctrines may find determinations in her judgement and that Visibility might shew the way unto the most rude and ignorant and I know not any Church to whom it may more justly be attributed then to the Church of Rome whose Faith as in the beginning was spread through the whole world so all along and at this day it is generally known among all nations Next to this I prove the Catholick Church to be the Romane because a lawfull succession of Pastors is required in every true Church according to the Prophet Esay his Prophecie concerning her viz. My Spirit which is upon thee and the words which I have put into thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed from henceforth for ever This succession I can find onely in the Church of Rome This succession they onely can prove nons else offering to go about it This succession Saint
Author of the Treatise intituled De unctione Chrismatis who goes under the Name of Cyprian but appeares to have been some other shewes that this anointing which they use in confirmation was taken up in imitation of that anointing which was used in the time of the Law Bonaventure also who lived betwixt 1200 and 1300 yeares after Christ held that Confirmation was neither dispensed nor instituted by Christ And if it were not of Christs instituting it can be no Sacrament properly so called onely Christ as the Councell of Trents Catechisme doth acknowledge being the Author and Ordainer of every Sacrament And therefore the Councell of Trent denounceth Anathema against all those that shall deny any of the Sacraments to have been of Christs institution For that Acts 8. 14. 17. which the Marquesse alledgeth it is nothing to their Confirmation For 1. There was laying on of hands but no anointing with Chrisme nor signing with the signe of the Crosse 2. The giving of the holy Ghost there spoken of was in respect of some extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost as speaking with strange Tongues c. as Cajetan himselfe upon the place observeth and he solidly proveth it by this that Simon Magus saw that the holy Ghost was given by the laying on of the handes of the Apostles Besides Acts 19. 6. which place Bellarmine doth joyne with the other it is expressely said when Paul had laid his hands upon them the holy Ghost came on them and they spake with Tongues and prophecied That therefore which the Scripture speakes of the Apostles laying handes on some that had beene Baptized and conferring the holy Ghost upon them is far from proving that the Apostles did administer the Sacrament of Confirmation there being neither the matter nor the forme nor the effect of that pretended Sacrament Bonaventure saith plainly The Apostles did dispense neither the matter nor the forme And for the effect we have had already Cajetans Confession viz. that the effect of the Apostles laying on of their hands was a sensible giving of the holy Ghost and therefore not that which they make the effect of Confirmation For the other place of Scripture viz. Heb. 6. 2. what reason is there why by laying on of hands there mentioned should be meant the Sacrament of Confirmation which they will have to be administred with an ointment made of Oile and Balsome whereas that Scripture speakes of no anointing why may not that laying on of hands be the same with that 1 Tim. 5. 22. lay hands suddenly on no man viz. the laying on of hands used in the ordination of Ministers which also wee reade of 1 Tim. 4. 14. and 2 Tim. 1. 6. Or that laying on of hands which is mentioned Acts 8. and 19. whereby as hath beene shewed the extraordinary and sensible gifts of the holy Ghost were conferred upon Believers Thus Theophylact upon the place expounds it of laying on of hands whereby they received the holy Ghost so as to foretell things to come and to worke miracles Cajetan also understands it in like manner of that laying on of hands which was peculiar to those Primitive Christians For the Fathers alledged it is granted that the Fathers doe often speake of anointing and that they speake of it as of a Sacrament But diverse things are to be considered 1. That the word Sacrament is by ancient Writers taken very largely Bellarmine confesseth that in the vulgar Latine Translation of the Scriptures the word is used of many things that by the consent of all are no Sacraments properly so called So Cassander saith that besides those seven which the Church of Rome accounteth Sacraments there are some other things used among them which by a more large acception of the word are sometimes called Sacraments And that of those seven Sacraments it is certaine the Schoolemen themselves did not thinke them all to be alike properly called Sacraments And he instanceth in this very Sacrament of confirmation shewing that some of the Schoolmen namely Holcot did not take it for a Sacrament of like nature with Baptisme The same Author tells us that one shall hardly finde any before Peter Lombard who was 1145 yeares after CHRIST that did set downe a certaine and determinate number of the Sacraments But the Councell of Trent hath decreed If any shall say that the Sacraments of the new Testament were not all instituted by Iesus Christ our Lord or that they are either more or lesse then seven viz. Baptisme Confirmation Eucharist Penance Extreme unction Order and Marriage or that any of these is not a Sacrament truly and properly so called let him be anathema We may see therefore of what small standing the present Roman faith is 2. Some of the Fathers doe expressely tells us that the anointing which they used hath no foundation in the Scripture Basil speaking of it askes what written word hath taught it And so Bellarmine confesseth that there is no institution of it in the Scripture and that they have it onely by Tradition which yet hee saith is most certaine and no lesse to be believed then the written word it selfe But we are bidden goe to the Law and to the Testimony and are told that if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Isai 8. 20. 3. The Fathers so peake of their anointing as that they seeme to make it onely an Appendix of Baptisme Wee came to the water thou wentest in saith Ambrose then presently hee addes Thou wast anointed as a wrestler So Tertullian Being come out of that laver wee are anointed with the blessed anointing I know Pamelius makes that anointing there spoken of by Tertullian distinct from that used in Confirmation but Bellarmine cites those words as meant of confirmation So those very words of Cyprian which the Marquesse citeth Then they bee fully sanctified and be the Sonnes of God if they be borne of both Sacramments those very wordes I say doe argue that Cyprian though he seeme to speak of two Sacraments yet indeed accounted them but one Sacrament in that he makes one and the same effect of both viz. to be borne whereas they of Rome make birth onely the effect of Baptisme and strength the effect of Confirmation Neither doth it follow that in Cyprians judgement they are two distinct Sacraments because hee saith both Sacraments For so he might speak in respect of two severall signes though both used in one and the same Sacrament Even as Rabanus calleth the body and blood of Christ two Sacraments he means the consecrated bread and wine which though they make but one Sacrament yet because they are two sacramentall signes he calles them two Sacraments 4. Whereas the Fathers used to adde Confirmation presently after Baptisme whether it were one of years or an infant that was Baptized as is acknowledged by Bellarmine and other Romanists now they
Body that Christs Body may be understood to be given for the salvation of our body and his Blood for the salvation of our soule which is in the Blood And so also to signifie that Christ tooke both Body and Soule that he might redeeme both And therefore hee saith It is not without good cause that very many good men even of the Catholike profession being conversant in the reading both of Divine and Ecelesiasicall Writers doe most earnestly desire to partake of the Lords cup and by all meanes strive that this saving Sacrament of Christs Blood together with the Sacrament of his Body may againe use to be received according to the ancient custome of the universall Church which was continued for many Ages For the Scriptures which the Marquesse alledgeth the first of them viz. Ioh. 6. 51. doth not concerne the Sacrament which is not treated of in that Chapter as I have noted before and that according to the judgement of Iansenius a Romanist to whom may be added diverse others of the Church of Rome who as Bellarmine confesseth were of that opinion viz. Biel Cusanus Cajetan Tapper and Hesselius And even Bellarmine himselfe and others who hold that the Sacrament is spoken of in Ioh. 6. yet hold it not to be spoken of till after those words which the Marquesse citeth in those words which follow immediately after vers 51. And the bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the World in those words I say and the rest that follow almost to the end of the Chapter they say that our Saviour speakes of the Sacrament but not in any of the former words of the Chapter And if the Sacrament were spoken of in that Chapter those words v. 51. If any man eate of this bread he shall live for ever would not so much evince a sufficiency of communicating in one kinde as the words a little after viz. v. 53. Verely verely I say unto you Except you eate the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his Blood you have no life in you would evince a necessity of communicating in both kindes For if those words be understood of a Sacramentall eating and drinking it cannot be avoided but that by those very words as it is necessary to eate of the bread in the Sacrament so is it to drinke of the cup also For though by the forementioned concomitancy of the blood with the Body they say that when one kinde onely viz. bread is received the Blood of Christ is drunk as well as his Body is eaten yet as Iansenius well observes that outward act of taking the bread in the Sacrament cannot be called drinking It is rightly called eating saith hee because something is taken by way of meate but how is it called drinking when as nothing is received by way of drinke Neither is it certaine that in the other two places viz. Acts 2. 42. and Luke 24. 30. by breaking of bread is meant the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Cajetan expounds the former place of ordinary bread and the other place is expounded by Iansenius after the same manner Neither is it true that Bellarmine saith that Iansenius teacheth that Christ by that example would shew the fruit and benefit of the Sacrament received in one kinde Jansenius doth not speake of receiving the Sacrament in one kinde though I know hee did approve of it but onely saith that by the effect that followed the Lord would commend unto us the vertue of the Sacrament worthily received to wit that thereby our eyes are enlightned to know Iesus And whereas Austine and Theophylact are said to understand that in Luke 24. of the Sacrament Iansenius tells us that so many thinke but that indeed they did rather make mention of the Sacrament because it was not here spoken of in Luke but mystically commended and insinuated by our Saviour But suppose that the Sacrament were spoken of in those places as probably it is in Acts 2. because breaking of Bread is there joyned with Doctrine and Prayer yet there is no sufficient ground for communicating in one kinde For the figure Synecdoche wherby the part is put for the whole is not unusuall in the Scripture Thus Soule which is but a part of man is put for man All the Soules that came with Jacob c. that is all the persons Gen. 46. 26. So likewise flesh being a part of man is used for man I will not feare what flesh can doe unto me Psal 56. 4. that is what man can doe unto me as it is expressed vers 11. So whereas David saith In thy sight shall no man be justified Psal 143. 2. Paul hath it There shall no flesh be iustified in his sight Rom. 3. 20. Thus the whole celebration of the Sacrament may be termed breaking of bread because that is one and that an eminent part of it The Marquesse goes on still concerning the same Sacrament but so as in the Church of Rome it is changed into a Sacrifice We hold saith hee that Christ offered up unto his Father in the Sacrifice of the Masse as an expiation for the sinnes of the people is a true and proper Sacrifice This you deny this we prove by Scripture viz. Mal. 1. 11. From the rising of the Sunne to the going downe of the same my Name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place Incense shall be offered to my Name and a pure offering This could not be meant of the figurative offerings of the Iewes because it was spoken of the Gentiles neither can it be understood of the reall sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse because that was done but in one place and at one time and then and there not among the Gentiles neither Which could be no other but the daily sacrifice of the Masse which is and ever was from East to West a pure and daily sacrifice Luke 22. 19. This is my body which is given for you not to you therefore a sacrifice The Fathers are of this opinion Answ That Christ is offered up in the Eucharist a Sacrifice truly and properly so called Protestants have good cause to deny For the Eucharist is a Sacrament to be received by us not a sacrifice to be offered unto God Christ instituting the Sacrament gave it to his Disciples hee did not offer up himselfe as then unto his Father The Scripture tells us that Wee are sanctified through the offering of the Body of Iesus Christ once for all Heb. 10. 10. And immediately after there it followes that whereas the Leviticall Priests did often offer the same sacrifices Christ having offered one Sacrifice for sinnes for ever sate down on the right hand of God And Heb. 9. 25 26 27 28. the Apostle proves that Christ was not to be offered often because his offering was his suffering so that if hee should have been offered often then he should also have suffered
greater benefit by him even of deliverance from the captivity of sinne and Satan Estius in his Exposition of the hard places of Scripture treating of this place saith indeed that many understand it of Christs descending into Hell and delivering thence the soules of the just but withall hee tells us that it is diversly expounded and that one Exposition is that Christ by the Merit of his Passion did free all the Elect who were held captive under the power of the Devill And thus hee saith the pit wherein is no water is the captivity of mankinde in which so long as it is held it is empty of the water of Divine Grace Diverse Romanists doe cite Hierome as interpreting this place of the Prophet Zachary of Limbus Patrum and of Christs descending thither But they that peruse Hieromes owne words will finde that hee neither speakes of Christs descending nor of Limbus Patrum and that indeed hee meant onely that which Estius expresseth Hee giveth the sense of the Prophets words thus By the blood of thy passion thou through thy clemency hast delivered those who were held bound in the prison of Hell in which there is no mercy And hee addes a little after that the rich man spoken of Luke 16. was in that pit which was so void of all water of comfort that hee desired Lazarus might but dip the tip of his finger in water to coole his Tongue Here it is evident that Hierome by the pit without water understands the Hell of the damned which is without all comfort though the Marquesse say that place cannot here be meant Now whereas Hierome saith that Christ by his Passion did deliver those that were bound in that prison I suppose hee did not meane that any being once in Hell as that rich man that he mentioneth were afterwards delivered out of it himself seemes to exclude that sence when hee saith that in that prison there is no mercy viz. to be obtained but his meaning was that such as by reason of sinne were in the state of damnation Christ did deliver by his Passion But thus neither this place of Zachary nor any other place of Scripture doth prove a Limbus Patrum or that Christ descended into Hell in that sense as they of the Church of Rome maintaine For the Fathers whom the Marquesse citeth Austine in Psal 37. 1. hath nothing about Limbus Patrum or Christs descending into Hell and I have shewed before that he gathered by the Scripture that Abrahams bosome was no such Limbus as the Romanists imagine yea that hee held the Saints that died before Christs incarnation to have alwayes enjoyed the beatificall presence of Christs Divinity which is point blanke contrary to their opinion Hierome I grant in Ephes 4. 9. seemeth to speake for them where hee saith By the lower parts of the Earth is understood Hell to which our Lord and Saviour descended that he might victoriously carry with him to Heaven the soules of the Saints which were kept there Whereupon also after his Resurrection many bodies of the just were seene in the holy City But Hieromes meaning might be onely this that Christ by the vertue and efficacy of his death did deliver the Soules of all Saints whether before or after his comming from Hell which otherwise by reason of sinne was the place that did belong unto them Thus a little before upon those words when hee ascended up on high hee led captivity captive Hierome doth expresse himselfe saying Wee who now believe in Christ were taken captive by the Devill and were delivered over to his officers Therefore our Lord Iesus Christ came bringing with him the vessels of captivity and preached remission to those that were taken and deliverance to those that were bound and delivered us from the Chaines and Fetters of our enemies And having deliver'd us and by a new captivity brought us out of our old captivity he carried us with him into Heaven Hee cannot here meane that we were actually in Hell and then from thence delivered and carried up with Christ into Heaven But his meaning must needs be this that whereas sinne had brought us under condemnation so that nothing but Hell did remaine for us Christ by his death delivered us and made a way for us into Heaven into which otherwise wee could finde no entrance After the same manner very well may the other words be understood so as to import no such place as they call Limbus Patrum However hee meant yet it appeares sufficiently by the words of Austine before cited that the opinion of Limbus Patrum was not generally received in that time wherein Hierome lived Austine and hee being contemporaries The other Father yet remaining is Gregory but there is no such place as that mentioned viz. li. 13. Mor. ca. 20. for that booke hath onely 17. Chapters in it yet I finde Bellarmine also to cite Gregory after the very same manner yea and to bid us also see Cap. 21. But the words which Bellarmine citeth as out of Cap. 20. are indeed in Cap. 15. viz. Whiles our Master and Redeemer penetrating the cloysters of Hell did bring out from thence the soules of the Elect hee suffers not us to goe thither from whence by descending hee did deliver others These words of Gregory might admit of the same Exposition with those of Hierome before spoken of but that in the next Chapter he is more plaine saying The former Saints could indure adversity but yet they could not be delivered from Hell when they died because hee was not yet come who should descend thither without sinne that hee might deliver those who were held there by reason of sinne But the reason that Gregory here giveth is too weake for though Christ were not then come in the flesh yet his death was as effectuall to those that believed in him then as after his comming as I have proved before Neither is the gound or occasion of these words of Gregory good for hee buildes or comments upon that of Iob 17. 13. If I waite Sheol Hell as Gregory understands it is mine house But I have shewed before that Sheol doth not properly signifie Hell as either wee or our adversaries usually take the word but the Grave or the state of the dead And so the Chaldie Paraphrast there for Sheol hath that which signifieth the house of the Grave This appeares to be the meaning in that place by that which followes immediately after v. 14. I have said to corruption Thou art my Father to the worme thou art my Mother and Sister If our adversaries wil yet stand upon the authority of Gregory I answer that we are not tied to the authority of any in this kinde further then they concur with the Scripture and if we were yet Austines authority were to be preferred as being 200 years more antient then Gregory but of this point enough From Limbus Patrum wee must now passe to Purgatory
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
and fully refuted by Andreas Rivetus in his Jesuita Vapulans where he produceth the very Records of that City where this is said to have been done and sheweth by the inquisition that was there made concerning Calvin it being the place where he was born that nothing is objected against him but only his falling off from the Roman Religion And thus I hope both Calvin and others are sufficiently vindicated and purged from those aspersions that are cast upon them Now if I had a minde to recriminate I might easily to use the Marquesse his words inlarge my Paper to a volume of instances in their Popes Cardinals Monks Friars Priests and Jesuites not to speak of their other sort of people of whose monstrous wickednesse their own Authors have largely testified But I like not Camarinam hanc movere to stir this puddle I le onely cite one Distich of Mantuan who was somewhat before Luther and is commended by Bellarmine as a learned and godly Poet and one that wrote much in commendation of the Saints but see what he writes in commendation of Rome where the Popes Holinesse as they stile him hath his Palace Vivere qui sanctè cupitis discedite Româ Omnia eum liceant non licet esse bonum That is Depart from Rome if holy you would be For there may be all things but Pietie Towards the end of the Reply the Marquesse goes about to prove That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is the same still that it was at the first But 1. if all the testimonies were truly and pertinently alleadged yet are they not sufficient to evince what he asserteth not so much as one place of Scripture being produced for proof of any of those points on which he insisteth And therefore though those ancient Writers which are cited did indeed speak so much as is pretended yet there being no ground nor warrant for those things from the Scripture we may say in the words of our Saviour From the beginning it was not so 2. Most of the particulars which are mentioned I have spoken to before and have shewed that neither Scripture nor Fathers are on their side but both against them 3. And for some few points not touched before I shall briefly consider and examine what is objected The Marquesse saith That of old the Church did offer prayers for the dead both publike and private to the end to procure for them ease and rest c. Prayer for the dead as they of the Church of Rome do now use it is grounded upon Purgatory It is certain saith Bellarmine that the suffrages of the Church do not profit either the blessed or the damned but only those that are in Purgatory Now concerning Purgatory I have spoken enough before shewing that it hath no foundation in Scripture and also that the ancient Writers do give sufficient testimony against it That prayer for the dead therefore which the ancient Church did use was not such as the Church of Rome now useth It was not to deliver any out of Purgatory-pains which they were supposed to be in but to perfect and consummate their happinesse This may appear by Ambrose his praying for the Emrour Theodosius after he was dead He beleeved him to enjoy perpetuall light and tranquillity and to have obtained the reward of those things which he had done in the body yet he prayed for him but how That God would give him that perfect rest which he hath prepared for his Saints Ambrose also praied for the Emperor Valentinan after his death But did he thinke him to be in Purgatory No such matter He was perswaded that he was removed to a better estate that what he had sown upon earth he did then reap and that he did rest in the tranquillity of the Patriark Jacob. Yet he professeth that he would not cease to pray both for him and for his brother Gratian who was departed out of this life and as Ambrose believed translated into a better before him How doth he then pray for them Only thus That God would vouchsafe to raise them up with a speedy resurrection And thus the Church as it is in some ancient Liturgies used to pray unto God to remember all those that were departed in the hopes of the resurrection of life eternal The Marquesse cites Tertullian and Austine but besides that Tertulliun was faln into the heresie of Montanus when hee wrote that book which is cited as is noted by Pamelius and the book it selfe doth make manifest besides this I say Tertullian speaks of a womans praying for her deceased husband that he might have part in the first resurrection which savours of the opinion of the Chiliasts amongst whom he is reckoned by Hierome in his Catalogue of Ecolesiastical Writers where he speaks of Papias whom he notes as the first founder of that opinion As for Austine I have showed before that he was not resolved concerning Purgatory and therefore neither can any thing be concluded from about praying for the dead in that kind as they of the Roman Church do practise it After prayer for the dead the Marquesse speaks of the fast of Lent which he saith the Church anciently held for a custome not free but necessary and of Apostolical tradition and so to fast all the Fridayes in the year in memory of Christs death except Christmas-day fell on a Friday It is true Hierome as is alleadged speaks of a Fast of forty dayes which they used to observe and that according to the tradition of the Apostles But this tradition was very uncertain it seems and the observation of the Fast very various For Socrates an ancient Ecolesiastical historian records that somewhere they fasted three weeks before Easter somewhere six weeks and that in some places they began their Fast seven weeks before Easter but did fast only fifteen dayes not altogether but now one day now another And yet which he saith he wondred at all did call their Fast Quadragesimam A forty dayes Fast He sayes also moreover that they did not only thus differ in the number of dayes in which they fasted but also in the manner of their fasting For some as he relates did eat both fish and foul Some did abstain from egges and all fruit that is inclosed in a hard shell Some did eat nothing but dry bread Some not so much as that neither Some having fasted until the ninth houre three a clock in the afternoon ' did then use divers kindes of meats And he addes that seeing there is nothing in Scripture commanded concerning this matter it is manifest that the Apostles left it free to every one to do herein as he should think meet And the like also for the different manner of observing the Lent-fast in respect of the time hath Sozomen in his Ecclesiastical history who lived in the same time with the other viz. 440. years after
Certamen Religiosum OR A CONFERENCE BETWEEN The late King of ENGLAND and the late Lord Marquesse of Worcester concerning RELIGION TOGETHER WITH A VINDICATION OF THE PROTESTANT CAUSE From the Pretences of the Marquesse his Last Papers which the necessity of the KING's Affaires denyed him Oportunity to Answer LONDON Printed for W. Lee at the Turks Head in Fleet-street and R. Royston at the Angel in Ivie-lane 1651. TO THE READER COURTEOUS READER I Doe not desire by way of Preface to trouble Thee with many words but something I must crave leave to say that thou mayest the better understand the reason and nature of this ensuing worke It may be thou art not unacquainted with a Booke which now hath beene extant some years The title of it is Certamen Religiosum and it containeth in it a Conference which was held partly by word of mouth but chiefly by Writing betwixt the late King and the Marquesse of Worcester a stiffe defender of the Romish Religion To the Marquesses first Plea I speake of that which passed betwixt them in writing the King returned Answer but the Marquesse replying the Kings occasions it seemes would not permit him to rejoyne especially the Reply being so large and so thick lin'd with quotations that the perusall and examination of it would require no little time I know there are some who account this Conference no better then supposititious which reflecting upon the Publisher of it Doctor Baily he hath lately in a Preface to a Booke which hee hath set forth of his own vindicated himself and asserted the Conference For my part I know no cause to question the truth of the Relation neither as to my purpose is it much materiall whether there were any such Conference or if there were whether it were so mannaged as is related This I see that in the Booke before mentioned to wit Certamen Religiosum the Romish cause is set out in great pompe both Scriptures and Fathers being produced as asserting most of those opinions which they of the Church of Rome maintaine and we impugne and the Reader is left naked and unfurnished with any Armes and Weapons wherewith either to defend himselfe or to offend his adversary save onely as he shall be able to provide for himselfe and bring with him The first time that I heard the Booke mentioned which was about the last Spring it was spoken of as a Booke of no little danger and so I understand since diverse judge of it Yea I have heard that some have said that the Marquesse in this Reply hath done more for the Church of Rome then any have done before him When I got the Booke and looked a while into it though I saw no reason to conceive so highly of it as it seemes some have done yet I found in it I confesse much more then I expected so much as that I thought it operae pretium no mis-pent time to answer it This I have indeavoured how I have performed it is left to Thee Reader to judge The great difficulty in the undertaking did arise from the multitude of Authors that are alleged whether the Marquess himselfe did peruse these authors or tooke them upon trust from others I will not inquire much lesse determine especially considering how lax and loose the quotations are the words of the Authors being scarce once in a hundred times cited and sometimes onely the Authour named many times only the Book but no Chapter or Section mentioned In this respect it could not be expected that every allegation should receive a punctuall answer besides that as in the Rejoynder it selfe upon occasion I acknowledge sometimes for want of the Authour I had not liberty to examine what is alleged but this I presume will not be found so frequent nor yet at all prejudiciall to the maine so much still being said as may suffice to take off the force of that which is objected There is an answer already come forth to the Marquesses last Paper with which I have to deale The authour of it is a gentleman of much reading well versed in Greek and Latin writers both Ecclesiasticall and others as appears by this work which is all that I have seene of his though I hear of something else that he hath published not without great commendation I had undertaken this task before I had any intimation that another was about it and I think this of mine was at the Presse before the foresaid Answer came from it I could not confine my selfe to such narrow bounds as that Gentleman hath done in answer to the Marquesse for he hath others also besides him to deal with the reason of his concisenes is best knowne unto himselfe I have launched further into the deepe and have exspatiated more in the discussion of those points which are handled by the Marquesse yet so as that the Reader I hope will have no cause to complaine of proxility or to thinke me tedious I have divided the worke into two parts in the former part I have indeavoured to shew the ungroundednes of the Romish doctrine in those points which the Marquesse propoundeth and the repugnancy of it both to Scriptures and Fathers notwithstanding any thing he hath alleged in defence of it In the latter part I have laboured to wipe off those aspersions which the Marquesse doth cast upon diverse of our most eminent Divines and chiefe instruments in the worke of Reformation as Luther Calvin Zuing lius Melancthon and Beza partly in respect of their Doctrine and partly in respect of their conversation This the learned answerer before mentioned hath not attempted but I did not think it meete to wave it calumnies and reproches being more apt to prevaile with some then any other argument whatsoever Some points of controversie also which the Marquesse taketh occasion to bring in having not mentioned them before are insisted on in this second Part. Some perhaps may say Quorsum perditio haec What needed all this these controversies haveing bin sufficiently handled by our writers both at home and abroad long agoe I answer 'T is true they have bin so yet if the Marquesse thought it not enough that Bellarmine and many others of the Romish party have written largely in that behalfe but judged it meet to produce his own Plea I think there is as much reason why we should consider what he saith and that some answer should be given him that so none may boast as some are apt to doe in such a case that because hee is unanswered therfore he is unanswerable And besides though Nil dictum quod non dictum priùs the matter be not new yet there may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a handling of the same things in another manner yea and diverse treating of the same subject something may be found in one which is not in another But may some say there are many other great and grosse errours of late sprung up among us and these
your Religions antiquity and you shall find as much difference in their Articles and ours as can be between Churches that are most opposite Come home to your owne Countrey and derive your descent from Wickliffe and search for his Tenents in the booke of Martyrs and you shall find them quite contrary to ours neither amongst any of your moderne Protestants shall you find any other agreement but in this one thing that they all protest against the Pope Shew me but any Protestant Countrey in the world where Reformation as you call it ever set her foot where she was not as well attended with sacriledge as usher'd by Rebellion and I shall lay my hand upon my mouth for ever King My Lord my Lord you are gone beyond the scope of your Argument which required you to prove the Romane Church more Catholick then the Greek which you have not done you put me off with my being English and not a Grecian whereas when we speak of the universality of a Church I think that any man who is belonging to the universe is objectum rationis And if that be the manner of your Election then I am sure most voices must carry it for your alleaged submission of the Greek Church unto the Roman I believe it cannot be prov'd but it may be the Patriarch of Constantinople may submit unto the Pope of Rome and yet the Greek Church may not submit unto the Romane Marq. Sir it is no dishonour for the Sun to make its progress from East to West it is still the same Sun and the difference is onely in the shadowes which are made to differ according to the varieties of shapes that the severall substances are of East and West are two divisions but the same day neither can they be said or imagined to be greater or more extending one or other and the one may have the benefit of the Suns light though the other may have its glory and I believe no man of sober judgment can say that any Church in the world is more generally spread over the face of the whole world or that her glory shines in any place more conspicuously then at this day in Rome King My Lord if externall glory be the Sun-shine of the Gospel then the Church is there indeed but if internall sanctity and inward holynesse be the Essences of a Church then we may be as much to seek for such a Church within the Wals of Rome as any where else Marq. Who shall be Judge of that I pray observe the Injustice and Errours that will arise if every man may be admitted to be his owne judge you of the Church of England left your Mother the Church of Rome and Mother to all the Churches round about You forsook her and set up a new Church of your own Independent to her there comes a new generation and doth the like to you and a third generation that is likely to do the like to that and the Church falls and falls untill it falls to all the pieces of Independencie It is a hard case for a part to fall away from the whole and to be their owne judges Why should not Kent fall away from England and be their owne judges as well as England fall away from Christendome and be their own judges why should not a Parish in Kent fall away from the whole County and be their owne judges why should not one Family fall away from the whole Parish and be their owne judges why should not one man fall away in his opinion from that Family and be his owne judge If you grant one you must grant all and I feare me in doing one you have done all So that every man despiseth the Church whilst he is a Church in himselfe rayles against Popery and is the greatest Pope himselfe despiseth the Fathers and will enthrone his own judgment above the wisdome of the ancient refuseth Expositours that he may have his own sence and if he can start up but some new opinions he thinks himselfe as worthy a member of Christianity as if he were an Apostle to some new found land Now Sir though some do take the Church to be the Scriptures yet the Scriptures cannot be the Church because the Scriptures send us to the Church audi Ecclesiam dic Ecclesiae others take the Elect to be the Church yet this cannot be for we know not who are elect and who are not that which must be the Church must be a visible an eminent societie of men to whose Authority in cases of appeale and matter of judgement we are to acquiesce and subscribe And I appeale to Your Royall heart whether there be a Church in the world whom in these respects we ought to reverence and esteeme more then the Church of Rome and that the Church of Rome is externally glorious it doth not follow that therefore she is not internally holy for the Kings daughters clothing was of wrought gold as well as she was all glorious within and though she had never so many Divine graces within her yet she had honourable women without her as her attendants and for the question whether this inward glory is to be so much sought for within the gates of Rome is the question and not yet decided King My Lord I 'le deale as ingenuously with you as I can When the Romane Monarch stretch'd forth his arms from East to West he might make the Bishops of Romes oecumenacy as large as was his Empire and all the Churches in the world were bound to follow her Lawes and decretalls because God hath made such Emperours nursing Fathers of his Church as it was prophesied by the Divine Esay alwayes provided that the child be not pourtractured greater then the Nurse as hath been observed by the pride of your Bishops of Rome but when the severall Kingdoms of Christendome shook off the Romane Yoke I see no reason why the Bishop of Rome should expect obedience from the Clergie of other Countries any more then the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury should expect obedience from the Clergie of other Kingdoms And for your deriving your Authority from Saint Peter I know no reason why we may not as well derive our Authority from Simon Zelotes or Joseph of Arimathea or from Philip of whose planting the Gospell we have as good warrant as you have for Saint Peter his planting the Gospel in Rome But my Lord I must tell you that there are other Objections to be made against your Church which more condemns her if these were answered Marq. May it please Your Majestie to give me leave to speak a word or two to what I have said and then I shall humbly beg Your further Objections As to that of the Christian Kingdomes shaking off the Roman Yoke and falling to pieces which was so prophesied it should yet the Church should not doe so because it is said it shall remaine in unitie and for Your Majesties objection concerning Simon Zelotes Joseph of Arimathea
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
John 6. 63. They pervert our Saviours meaning into a contrary sense of their owne imagination viz. the flesh profiteth nothing that is to say Christs body is not in the Sacrament but in the Spirit that quickneth that is to say we must onely believe that Christ dyed for us but not that his body is there as if there were any need of so many inculcations pressures offences mis-believings of and in a thing that were no more but a bare memoriall of a thing being a thing nothing more usuall with the Israelites as the twelve stones which were erected as a sign of the children of Israels passing over Jordan That when your children shall ask their Fathers what is meant thereby then ye shall answer them c. Josh 4. there would not have been so much difficulty in the belief if there had not been more in the mysterie there would not have been so much offence taken at a memorandum nor so much stumbling at a figure The Fathers are of this opinion Saint Ignat. in Ep. ad Smir. Saint Justin Apol 2. ad Antonium Saint Cyprian Ser. 4. de lapsis Saint Ambr. lib. 4. de Sacram. Saint Remigius c. affirme the flesh of Christ to be in the Sacrament and the same flesh which the word of God took in the Virgins wombe Secondly We hold that there is in the Church an infallible rule for understanding of Scripture besides the Scripture it selfe this you deny this we have Scripture for as Rom. 12. 16. we must prophesie according to the rule of faith we are bid to walke according to this rule Gal. 6. 16. we must encrease our faith and preach the Gospel according to this rule 1 Cor. 10. 15. this rule of faith the holy Scriptures call a form of doctrine Romans 6. 17. a thing made ready to our hands 2. Cor. 10. 16. that we may not measure our selves by our selves 2 Cor. 10. 12. the depositions committed to the Churches trust 1 Tim. 6. 20. for avoiding of prophane and vain bablings and oppositions of sciences and by this rule of faith is not meant the holy Scriptures for that cannot do it as the Apostle tells us whilst there are unstable men who wrest this way and that way to their owne destruction but it is the tradition of the Church and her exposition as it is delivered from hand to hand as most plainly appears 2. Tim. 2. 2. viz. The things which thou hast heard of us not received in writing from me or others among many witnesses the same commit thou to faithfull men who shall be able to teach it to others also Of this opinion are the Fathers Saint Irenaeus 4. chap. 45. Tertul de praescr and Vincent lir in suo commentario saith It is very needfull in regard of so many errors proceeding from misinterpretations of Scripture that the line of propheticall and Apostolicall exposition should be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense and saith Tertullian prae script advers haeres chap. 11. We doe not admit our adversaries to dispute out of Scripture till they can shew who their Ancestors were and from whom they received the Scriptures for the ordinary course of Doctrine requires that the first question should be from whom and by whom and to whom the form of Christian Religion was delivered otherwise prescribing against him as a stranger for otherwise if a heathen should come by the Bible as the Eunuch came by the Prophesie of Esay and have no Philip to interpret it unto him he would find out a Religion rather according to his owne fancy then divine verity In matters of faith Christ bids us to observe and doe whatsoever they bid us who sit in Moses seat Mat. 22. 2. therefore surely there is something more to be observed then onely Scripture will you not as well believe what you hear Christ say as what ye hear his Ministers write you hear Christ when you hear them as well as you read Christ when you read his word He that heareth you heareth me Luke 10. 16. We say the Scriptures are not easie to be understood you say they are we have Scripture for it as is before manifested at large the Fathers say as much Saint Irenaeus lib. 2. chap. 47. Origen contr Cels and Saint Ambr. Epist 44. ad Constant calleth the Scripture a Sea and depth of propheticall riddles and Saint Hier. in praefat comment in Ephes and Saint Aug Epist 119. chap. 21. saith The things of holy Scripture which I know not are more then those that I know and Saint Denis Bishop of Corinth cited by Eusebius lib. 7. hist Eccless 20. saith of the Scriptures that the matter thereof was far more profound then his wit could reach We say that this Church cannot erre you say it can we have Scripture for what we say such Scripture that will tell you that fools cannot erre therein Esaiah 35. 8. such Scripture as will tell you if you neglect to hear it you shall be a heathen and a publican Mat. 18. 17. such Scripture as will tell you that this Church shall be unto Christ a glorious Church a Church that shall be without spot or wrinkle Ephesians 5. 27. such a Church as shall be enlivened for ever with his Spirit Isaiah 59. 21. The Fathers affirm the samme Saint Aug contra Crescon lib. 1. cap. 3. Saint Cypr Epist 55. ad Cornel. num 3. Saint Irenaeus lib. 3. chap. 4. Cum multis aliis We say the Church hath been alwaies visible you deny it we have the Scripture for it Mat. 5. 14 15. The light of the world a City upon a hill cannot be hid 2 Cor. 4. 3. Isaiah 22. The Fathers unanimously affirme the same Origen Hom 30. in Math That the Church is full of light even from the East to the West Saint Chrisost Hom 4. in 6. of Isaiah That it is easier for the Sun to be extinguished then the Church to be darkned Saint Aug tract in Joan calls them blind who doe not see so great a mountain and Saint Cypr de Unitate Ecclesiae We held the perpetuall universality of the Church and that the Church of Rome is such a Church you deny it we have Scripture for it Psal 2. 8. Rom. 1. 8. the Fathers affirm as much Saint Cypr ep 57. writing to Cornelius Pope of Rome saith whilst with you there is one mind and one voice the whole Church is confessed to be the Roman Church Saint Aug de unitate Eccles chap. 4. saith who so communicates not with the whole corps of Christendome certaine it is that they are not in the holy Catholike Church Saint Hier. in Apol. ad Ruffin saith that it is all one to say the Roman faith and the Catholick We hold the unity of the Church to be necessary in all points of faith you deny it the severall articles of your Protestant Churches deny it we have Scripture for it Eph. 4. 5. One Lord one Faith one
ascribing so much to the Church when as 't is well known contrary to what the Bishop of Rome and the Church generally did hold he held the re-baptizing of such as had been baptized by Heretikes Though Cyprian in this did erre yet his very erring in this shewes that hee thought the Church the generality of the visible Church not onely subject to error but indeed to have erred The last Father whom the Marquesse here mentioneth for though hee say cum multis aliis yet hee nameth no more is Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. where he saith It is not meet to seeke the truth among others which it is easie to take of the Church seeing the Apostles did lay in it as in a rich depository all things that concerne truth that every one that will may out of it receive the drinke of life This indeed is gloriously spoken of the Church and not Hyperbolically neither yet doth it not amount to this that the Church cannot erre The holy Scriptures wherein all saving truth is contained are committed to the Church and the Doctine of salvation is ordinarily held forth in and by the Church but hence it doth not follow that the Church that is such as beare sway in it is not subject to error All that Irenaeus saith of the Church is no more if so much as that of the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. 15. that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth which place it may seeme strange that the Marquesse pretermitteth Bellarmine disputing this point brings in those words in the very first place to prove that the Church cannot erre And whereas Calvin answers that the Church is so styled by the Apostle because in it the Scriptures are preserved and preached he replies that thus the Church should rather be compared to a Chest then to a Pillar But this is a frivolous objection for the Church doth not keepe the truth close and secret as a thing is kept in a chest but so as to professe and publish it and therefore is compared to a Pillar to which a thing is fastned and so hangeth that all may see it But that those words of the Apostle do not infer an infallibility of the Church and an exemption from errour is cleare by this that he speakes of a particular visible Church namely the Church of Ephesus now that a particular visible Church may erre our Adversaries will not deny and that very Church of Ephesus there spoken of doth sufficiently demonstrate The Apostle therefore in those words doth rather shew the duty of the Church then the dignity of it rather what it should be then what it alwayes is As when it is said Mal. 2. 7. Labia sacerdotis custodient scientiam The Priests lips shall keep knowledge that is as our translations rightly render it should keepe So the Jesuite Ribera doth expound it shall keepe that is saith he ought to keep The Marquesse here comes againe to the visibility of the Church and some other particulars before handled That the Church is alwayes visible he proves by Mat. 5. 14 15. The light of the World a City upon a Hill cannot be hid But I have shewed before these words Yee are the light of the world to be meant of the Apostles who as their own Iansenius expounds it were a light unto the World by their preaching So also Theophylact They did not enlighten saith hee one Nation but the whole world And the words following A City set upon a Hill cannot be hid he shewes to have been spoken by way of instruction Christ saith hee doth instruct them to be carefull and accurate in the ordering of their life as being to be seene of all As if hee should say Doe not thinke that you shall lie hid in a corner no you shall be conspicuous And therefore see that yee live unblameably that so you may not give offence to others This exposition sutes well with the admonition given vers 16. Let your light so shine forth before men that they seeing your good workes may glorifie your Father which is in Heaven The Marquesse here further addes 2 Cor. 4. 3. Isai 22. I suppose it should be Isai 2. 2. Now the former of these two places is not to the purpose viz. to prove a perpetuall visibility of the Church For how can that be inferred from those words of the Apostle If our Gospell be hid it is hid to them that are lost The Apostle having said vers 2. by manifestation of the truth commending our selves to every mans conscience in the sight of God because as Oecumenius notes it might be objected that the truth was not made manifest unto all for that all did not believe to prevent this Objection the Apostle addes If our Gospell be hid c. As if hee should say It is not our fault as if the Gospell were not plainly enough preached by us but it is their own fault who perish through their owne blindnesse That Isai 2. 2. is more to the purpose though not enough neither It is said that in the last dayes the Mountaine of the Lords House shall be established in the top of the Mountaines and shall be exalted above the Hills and all Nations shall flow unto it The Prophet there sheweth by metaphoricall expressions taken from Mount Sion where the Temple stood that by the preaching of the Gospell the Church should be increased and exalted farre above what it was before This prophesie was fulfilled by the bringing in of the Gentiles but the Prophet doth not say that in the times of the Gospell the Church should alwayes be so conspicuous and visible Neither doe the Fathers here alledged by the Marquesse viz. Origen Chrysostome Austine and Cyprian speake of the perpetuall condition of the Church but onely as it was in their time I have proved before by Scriptures and Fathers and even by the acknowledgement of our Adversaries that the Church is not perpetually visible After the Visibility of the Church the Marquesse speaketh of the Universality of it saying that the universality of the Church is perpetuall and that the Church of Rome is such a Church For proofe hereof hee citeth Psal 2. 8. Rom. 1. 8. Now the former place shewes that Christ should have the heathen for his inheritance and the ends of the Earth for his possession and consequently that the Church should not be confined as it was in the time of the Law to one Country but should be extended farre and wide throughout the World This also hath been fulfilled and yet shall be but hence it doth not follow that the Church is alwayes so universally extended throughout the World but that sometimes errors and heresies doe so prevaile and overspread all that the truth in comparison can finde no roome See before page 2. The other place viz. Rom. 1. 8. testifies indeed that the Church of Rome was a true Church and famous throughout the World but neither doth
he did declare who he was For if none can forgive sinnes but onely God and the Lord Christ did forgive them then it is manifest that he was the Word of God made the Son of Man c. and that as God he hath mercy on us and doth forgive us our debts which we owe unto God our Maker Accordingly also Ambrose another of those Fathers whom the Marquesse maketh to be of their opinion Whereas saith he Iewes say that onely God can forgive sinnes they doe indeed confesse Christ to be God and by their judgement bewray their perfidiousnesse c. They have a testimony for Christs Divinity they have no Faith for their owne Salvation Therefore great is the madnesse of the unbelieving people that when as they confesse that it belongs onely unto God to forgive sinnes yet they doe not beleeve God when he forgiveth sins So by this Argument the same Father proves the Holy Ghost to be God because he forgiveth Sins For that none can forgive sinnes but onely God as it is written Who can forgive sinnes but only God Thus Ambrose cites that saying of the Scribes as a most undoubted truth How then have Ministers power to forgive Sins In that the word of reconciliation is committed unto them 2 Cor. 5. 19. in that they are to preach remission of sinnes in Christs name Luk. 24. 47. Be it known unto you that through this man viz. Christ is preached unto you forgivenesse of sinnes said Paul Act. 13. 38. Ambrose observes that Christ first said to his Apostles Receive ye the holy Ghost and then Whose sins ye remit they are remitted Whence he gathers that it is the holy Ghost that doth indeed forgive Sins Men saith he doe onely afford their Ministery for the forgivenesse of sinnes they doe not exercise the authority of any power Neither doe they forgive sins in their Name but in the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Lombard called the Master of the Sentences and of School-divinity disputing this Question and shewing diverse Opinions about it determines thus That God only doth remit and retain sins and that yet God hath given power to the Church to bind and loose But that God himself doth bind and loose one way and the Church another way That God by himself alone doth forgive sinne so as to clense the soul from staine and to free it from the guilt of eternall death That he hath not given this power to Priests to whom yet he hath given power to loose and bind that is to declare men to be loosed or bound Whence our Lord first by himselfe made the Leper sound and then sent him to the Priests that they might declare him to be clean And hence he inferres that a Minister of the Gospell hath such power in remitting or retaining sins as the Priest in the Law had in clensing a Leper The Priest was said to make the Leper clean or unclean so the words are in the Originall Levit. 13. when he did pronounce and declare him to be clean or unclean So Ministers remit or retain sinnes when they pronounce and declare that sins are remitted or retained of God And in this Lombard followed Hierome who as his words cited by Lombard doe shew by this very similitude of the Leviticall Priest dealing with a Leper illustrates and sets forth the manner how a Minister doth now remit or retain sins Thus then I hope it may sufficiently appear that in this point both Scriptures and Fathers are for us and not against us as the Marquesse would have it We hold that we ought to confesse our sins unto our ghostly Father this ye deny saying that ye ought not to confesse your sins but unto God alone This we prove by Scripture Mat. 3. 5 6. Then went out Jerusalem and all Judea and were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sinnes This confession was no generall confession but in particular as appeares Acts 19. 18 19. And many that beleeved came and confessed and shewed their deeds The Fathers affirme the same c. For Confession of Sinnes Protestants doe not say that they ought not to confesse to any but God onely though they hold that ordinarily it sufficeth to confesse onely unto God and that there is no necessity of confessing to any other whereas they of the Church of Rome will have it necessary for every one man to confesse unto a Priest all his deadly sinnes and such indeed are all sinnes whatsoever without the mercy of God in Christ Rom. 6. 23. Gal. 3. 10. which by diligent examination he can find out together with all the severall circumstances whereby they are aggravated Thus hath the Councell of Trent decreed it And nothing will suffice to procure one that is Baptized remission of Sins without this Confession either in Re actually performed or in Voto in desire as Bellarmine doth expound it Who also stickes not to say that in all the Scripture there seems not to be any promise of for givenesse of sinnes made to those that confesse their sins unto God Which is a most impudent Assertion For David having said I acknowledged my sinne unto thee and mine iniquity have I not hid I said I will confesse my transgressions unto the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sinne he addes immediately for this shall every one that is godly make his prayer unto thee c. Psal 32. 5 6. Besides Aquinas and Bonaventure two prime Schoolemen hold that under the Law it was not ordinarily required of people to confesse in particular unto a Priest Bonaventure also cites Austine saying Oblatio sacrificiorum fuit confessio peccatorum The offering of sacrifices was the confession of sinnes whence hee inferreth that therefore it seemes there was no other confessing of sinnes but the offering of Sacrifices For those two places of Scripture cited by the Marquesse neither they nor any other doe speake of such a confession as they of the Church of Rome doe contend for Bellarmine holds that their Sacramentall confession as they call it viz. that confession which they make a part of the Sacrament of penance was not instituted till after Christs Resurrection and therefore he sayes it is no marvell if as Ambrose observes we reade of Peters teares but not of his confession That the Jewes therefore when they were baptized of Iohn confessed their sinnes Mat. 3. 5 6. is not enough to prove that confession which we now dispute of although it did appeare that the confession there spoken of was a particular confession which yet appeares not Cardinall Cajetane saith it was but a generall confession Neither indeed in probability could it be any more for how should Iohn have been able to heare such multitudes as came unto him to be baptized Ierusalem and all Iudea and all the region round about Iordan Mat. 3. 5. confesse all their sinnes in
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
doubts of Hee grants it but how No otherwise for any thing I can see then as wee doe grant it viz. that God if he please can give such a measure of grace unto men as to inable them perfectly to doe all that is commanded But Hierome immediately after shewes that none either doth or ever did so and that therefore all are guilty before God and stand in neede of his mercy If saith hee thou canst shew any that hath fulfilled all things required then thou canst shew one that doth not needs Gods merey shew that this hath been or that it now is So when Cyrill saith that even that precept Thou shalt not covet may be fulfilled by grace hee doth not oppose us nor wee him For wee doubt not but God is able to give grace whereby to fulfill it but wee deny that any onely Christ excepted ever had such grace as whereby to fulfill it Basil is cited at large no place being noted where he saith any thing about this point onely in Bellarmine I finde that upon those words Take heed to thy selfe hee saith that it is a wicked thing to say that the precepts of the Spirit are impossible Which wee yeeld so farre forth as any have the Spirit they may performe them but none have the Spirit in such full measure as to be able fully to performe whatsoever is commanded Origen in the place cited compares them to Women who say that they cannot keepe Gods Commandements Which must be understood of keeping them so as to have respect unto them and to study and indeavour to keepe them For otherwise if we speake of an exact and perfect keeping of the Commandements both men and women even the best upon Earth are farre from it For the flesh lusteth against the spirit saith the Apostle and the spirit against the flesh and these are contrary the one to the other so that you cannot do the things that you would Gal. 5. 17. Wee hold saith the Marquesse faith cannot justifie without workes Yee say good workes are not absolutely necessary unto salvation Wee have Scripture for what wee say 1 Cor. 13. 2. Though I have all Faith and have no Charity I am nothing And James 2. 24. By Workes a Man is justified and not by Faith onely Answ Protestants in opposition to them of the Church of Rome hold that Faith alone doth justifie and that Workes doe not concurre with Faith unto justification Yet withall they hold that Faith which doth justifie is not alone without workes Bellarmine confesseth that Calvin hath these very words It is Faith alone that doth justifie but yet Faith which doth justifie is not alone As the heate of the Sun alone is that which doth heate the Earth yet heate is not alone in the Sun but there is light also joyned with it And hee addes that Melancthon Brentius Chemnitius and other Protestants teach the same thing Therefore by Bellarmines owne confession Protestants are no enemies unto good workes Neither are they any whit injurious unto them in excluding them from having a share in justification as the Romanists are injurious unto Faith in making workes copartners with it in that respect We conclude saith S. Paul That a Man is justified by Faith without the deeds of the Law Rom. 3. 28. And in the next Chapter the Apostle proves by the example of Abraham that justification is by Faith without Workes For what saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousnesse Rom. 4. 3. He confirmes it also by the words of David Even as David also describes the blessednesse of the man to whom God imputeth righteousnesse without Workes saying blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven c. Rom. 4. 6 7 8. Mens workes are imperfect and so is all that righteousnesse of man that is inherent in him as hath been shewed before and therefore by his own workes and his own righteousnesse can none be justified By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified Rom. 3. 20. Bellarmine would have the Apostle when hee excludes Workes from justification onely to understand such workes as are done by the meere knowledge of the Law without grace But this cannot be his meaning For 1. when David cried out Enter not into judgement with thy servant O Lord for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal 143. 2. hee shewes that workes whatsoever they be are unable to justifie a man in the sight of God For it were most absurd and irrationall to imagine that David then doth onely deprecate Gods entring into judgement with him in respect of the Works which hee did without the assistance of Gods grace 2. The Apostle proves that justification is by Faith without Workes by that of David Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sinnes are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne Rom. 4. 6 7 8. Now the best man that is upon Earth hath need of this that his iniquities may be forgiven his sinnes covered and his transgressions not imputed unto him seeing there is no man as I have shewed before but iniquities sinnes and transgressions are found in him Therefore though a man be regenerate and sanctified yet his workes are not such as that he can be justified by them 3. The Apostle Gal. 3. 10. proves that none can be justified by the deeds of the Law because it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the Law to doe them Now no man though indued with grace and that in great measure doth continue in all things that the Law requireth as hath also been shewed before Therefore Workes as well with grace as without grace are unable to justifie But when our adversaries speake of justification they equivocate making it indeed the same with sanctification Dureus the Jesuite calles this new Divinity to say that by grace infused into us wee get newnesse of life and sanctification but yet are not thereby justified And hee askes what Scripture doth teach us to distinguish justification from sanctification Truly I thinke that these two viz justification and sanctification are sufficiently distinguished 1 Cor. 6. 11. But you are washed but you are sanctified but you are justified in the Name of the Lord Iesus and by the Spirit of our God There the Apostle shews that they were washed viz. both from the staine of sinne by sanctification which was wrought in them by the Spirit of God infusing grace into them and also from the guilt of sinne by justification which they obtained by faith in the Lord Jesus Besides the Scripture opposeth justification to condemnation and sheweth that to justifie is as much as to absolve and acquit from guilt to account and pronounce righteous Prov. 17. 15. He that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the just even they both are an abomination to the Lord.
easily assent unto it being our professed opinion as hath beene shewed before by Bellarmines owne confession that though faith alone doe justifie yet if it be such a faith as is alone and is not accompanied with good workes it is not that faith which doth justifie As little is that of Hilarie against us The safety of the Nations is all in faith and the life of all is in Gods Precepts That faith which alone doth justifie is not so alone but that there is joyned with it a care and indeavour to observe all Gods Precepts Of the same nature is that of Ambrose if Ambrose were the Author of those commentaries Faith alone is not sufficient it is necessary that faith worke by love and that men walke worthy of God Faith is not sufficient but there must also be added a life answerable and much care must be had that faith be not idle All this wee hold that faith must not be idle but operative and working through love and such is the nature of true justifying faith as the Apostle teacheth Gal. 5. 6. But all this is nothing against justification by faith alone without workes viz. as concurring unto justification In the next place the Marquesse pleades for the merit of good workes and that from Mat. 6. 27. so it is printed but it should be Mat. 16. 27. Hee shall reward every man according to his workes And Mat. 5. 12. Great is your reward in Heaven Reward at the end saith he presupposes merit in the worke the distinction of secun dum and propter opera is too nice to make such a division in the Church Answ But that mens good workes doe not merit any reward at the hands of God our Saviour hath sufficiently shewed saying When yee have done all things that are commanded you say Wee are unprofitable servants wee have done but what our duty was to do Luke 17. 10. If as Theophylact notes upon the place when wee have done all things that are commanded us we must take heede of thinking highly of our selves how much more ought wee to be farre from such presumption when as wee are so farre from obeying all Gods Commandements Besides if we doe any thing that is good wee doe it not of our selves by our own strength but it is God that doth inable us and make us to doe it and therefore properly wee cannot merit by it for wee are beholding unto God and not God beholding unto us for it I have laboured more abundantly then they all yet not I but the grace of God that was with mee saith the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. 10. Againe the reward which the godly receive in Heaven doth infinitly exceede their workes and therefore cannot bee merited by them The most that wee can doe is to suffer for the Name of Christ yet the sufferings of this present life are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us Rom. 8. 18. Both these reasons doth Bernard alledge against merits The merits of men saith hee are not such as that because of them life eternall should be due unto them of right or that God should doe them wrong if hee should not give it For to say nothing of this that all merits are Gods gifts and so man is rather indebted unto God for them then God unto man what are all merits unto so great glory Here Bernard useth indeed the word merits but so as that hee plainely denieth the thing which our adversaries understand by it and by a double argument confuteth their opinion Both these arguments also to this purpose before Bernard did Fulgentius use who speaking of eternall life saith It is not unjustly called grace because not only God doth recompence his gifts with his gifts but because the grace of Gods retribution doth so abound that it incomparably and ineffably exceedes all the merit of mans will and works though it be good and such as God hath given To this purpose hee cites Rom. 8. 18. and 2 Cor. 4. 17. And Gregorius Magnus not onely useth these same Arguments against the Merits of good workes but also hath that very distinction of secundum opera and propter opera which the Marqnesse so much disdaineth If saith Gregorie the happinesse of the Saints be mercy and be not acquired by Merits where is that which is written Thou will render to every one according to his workes If it be rendered according to workes how shall it be accounted mercy But it is one thing to render according to workes and another thing to render because of the workes themselves In that there is a rendring according to workes the quality of workes is considered so as that whose workes are found to be good his reward also shall be glorious For unto that blessed life in which wee live with God and of God no labour can be equall no workes comparable especially when as the Apostle saith The sufferings of this present time are not worthy of that glory which shall be revealed in us Besides also in this respect it may be justly called mercy because it is given for those workes which none can attaine unto without the prevention of Gods mercy Thus Gregorie who above a thousand yeeres agoe was Bishop of Rome both argues for us and also by a distinction answers that which is objected against us viz. that God doth render to all according to their workes And for the word reward which the Scripture often useth it doth not presuppose merit for a reward may proceede from the bounty of the giver not from the merit of the receiver They that wrought but one houre in the Vineyard though they received a penny as much as they that laboured all the day though I say they received this as the reward of their labour yet did they not merit it by their labour This very parable doth Prosper or who ever was the Author of the Booke de vocatione gentium apply in this manner without doubt saith hee they that were sent into the Vineyard at the eleventh houre and were made equall with those that wrought the whole day represent the condition of those whom to commend the excellency of grace Gods goodnesse doth reward in the end of the day and in the conclusion of life not paying the price of labour but powring out the riches of his bounty upon them whom hee hath chosen without labour that so they also who have indured much labour and yet have received no more then they that were last may understand that they have received the gift of grace not the reward viz. the deserved reward of their works Thus both Scriptures and Fathers are against the opinion of the Church of Rome as touching Merits I will adde to what hath beene already alledged that of Bernard Thy merit is Gods mercy I am not altogether without merit so long as hee is not without mercy See what merit it is that hee builds upon
one booke there are 24. and 16. in the other For the third place it 's true that Austine doth oftentimes in answer to the Articles imposed upon him deny that Gods predestination is the cause of mans non-perseverance as some did charge him to hold why any fall away hee shewes the cause to be in themselves not in God that it is not from Gods worke but from their owne will that they are not thrust that they may fall nor cast out that they may depart But that true justifying Faith once had may be lost hee sayes not any thing that way but much against it in other places as before is shewed In the next place Wee hold saith the Marquesse that God did never inevitably damne any man before hee was borne or as you say from all eternity You say hee did wee have Scripture for what wee say Wisd 1. 13. God made not death neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living 1 Tim. 2. 3 4. God our Saviour who will have all men to be saved 2 Pet. 3. 9. The Lord is not willing that any should die but that all should come to repentance And if you will not believe when hee saith so believe him when hee sweares it As I live saith the Lord I doe not delight in the death of a sinner Ans I doe not know any Protestant who saith that God did damne any man before hee was borne or from all eternity For how should that be damning being taken as usually it is for inflicting eternall punishment For how can a man before hee hath any being have eternall punishment inflicted upon him yet Bernard speaketh of his being damnatus antequam natus damned before hee was borne I suppose hee meant that before he came out of the wombe hee was in the estate of damnation by reason of the guilt of Adams sinne imputed to him and the corruption of nature inherent in him How ever this is certaine that as Bernard also saith predestination is before all times even from all eternity And Bellarmine observes that though the use of the Schooles hath so prevailed that they onely are said to be predestinate who are elected unto glory and so in the Scriptures predestination is not used but in that sense yet Austine doth call reprobation predestination to destruction Neither is there any question betwixt us and them of the Church of Rome but that reprobation as well as election is from all eternity And therefore as wee doe not say any more then they that God doth damne any man from eternity so they as well as wee doe say that God doth reprobate many from eternity even as many as hee doth not elect now the elect are but few in comparison as our Saviour tells us saying Many are called but few are chosen Mat. 22. 14. But some may and indeed doe say Gods reprobation is not the cause of any mans damnation but mans own sinne is the proper cause both of reprobation and damnation But though this be asserted by some of our adversaries yet others of that party will not approve of it For Reprobation saith Bellarmine doth comprehend two acts c. For first God hath not a will of saving them viz. the Reprobate And then he hath a will of damning them And in respect of the former act there is no cause of Reprobation on mans part Therefore mans sinne in Bellarmines judgementi is not the cause of Reprobation in respect of that act Now if God have not a will to save a man it is not possible that hee should be saved and if hee bee not saved hee must bee being damned And therefore from that act of Gods Reprobation which Bellarmine confesseth to have no cause on mans part there inevitable followes mans damnation though damnation be neither inflicted on man nor intended to be inflicted on him but for sinne Yet Bellarmine in that which hee saith is not so accurate as hee might be For non habere voluntatem salvandi not to have a will to save a man or not to will a mans salvation is properly no act but rather a negation of an act and therefore indeed Bellarmine calles it actum negativum a negative act but that as I said is indeed no act at all but a meere negation of it And therefore Alvarez maketh the first act of Reprobation to be a positive act whereby Gods Will is not to admit some unto life eternall It 's one thing not to have a will to save and another thing to have a will not to save the former is meerly negative but the latter is positive And hee proves that Reprobation doth include a positive act because the meere negative of not ordaining unto life eternall is even in respect of men and angells that onely may be but never shall be Those God doth not will to save and to glorifie yet properly they are not the objects of Gods Reprobation The same Alvarez saith that this positive act of Reprobation whereby Gods Will and Pleasure from eternity was not to admit some into his Kingdome was not conditionall but absolute and in order of nature before the fore-knowledge of the ill use of free-will And this hee proves from hence that the Apostle Rom. 9. having inferred from what hee had said of Predestination and Reprobation Therefore hee hath mercy on whom hee will have mercy and whom hee will hee hardeneth presently brings in the complaint of those who thinke it hard that God should predestinate and reprobate without having respect to merits Why then doth hee yet complaine for who hath resisted his Will And hee answers O man who art thou that repliest against God Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it Why hast thou made mee thus Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lumpe to make one vessell unto honour and another unto dishonour Now this answer and reproofe saith hee should have no place if God did not before the fore-knowledge of the ill use of Free-will reprobate some by an absolute and efficacious will For the Apostle might easily answer that it depends upon the good or ill use of mans free-will which God did fore-know that some are reprobated and not others And hee cites Austine saying Many are not saved not because they will not but because God will not which most clearly appeares in young infants This same Author also againe layes down this conclusion Reprobation whereby God determines not to give eternall life to some and to suffer them to sinne is not conditionall but absolute neither doth it presuppose in God the fore-knowledge or fore-sight of the ill deserts of the Reprobate or of his perseverance in sinne unto the end of his life And againe Neither actuall sinne nor originall nor both together fore-seene of God were the meritorious cause or motive of any ones Reprobation in respect of all the effects of it And
of Reprobation as the good merit of Election 2. To that question Is there unrighteousnesse with God he doth not answer that therefore there is not because the whole lumpe is depraved by sinne c. but he answers so as that he refers as well the Reprobation of these as the election of those unto the sole Will of God and so represses the curious inquirer O man who art thou c. 3. That comparison of a Potter of the same lumpe making one vessell unto honour and another unto dishonour doth exclude the supposition of a corrupt lumpe For here verily is nothing supposed in the lumpe but that it is indifferent and may be fashioned both the one way and the other Thus this learned Papist goes as farre in the point both of Election and of Reprobation as any Protestant that I know whatsoever Neither would he have us thinke that he goes alone for hee cites many as Lombard Hugo de S. Victore Aquinas Cajetan Lyra Titleman and Pererius as being of the same opinion with him and interpreting the words of the Apostle in the same manner And this I suppose may suffice to vindicate the Doctrine of Protestants even such as goe highest in this point as touching Reprobation Now for the Scriptures objected against us the first viz. Wis 1. 13. is not Canonicall Hierome brandes that booke called the the Wisdome of Solomon as falsly intituled and saith that it is no where to be found among the Hebrewes to whom the Oracles of God were committed Rom. 3. 2. and that the style doth smell of Greeke eloquence and that some ancient writers affirme it to be the worke of Philo a Jew Therefore saith he as the Church doth read indeed the Bookes of Judith Tobie and the Maccabees but doth not receive them amongst the Canonicall Scriptures so also doth it reade these two volumes viz. Ecclesiasticus and the wisdome of Solomon for the edifying of the people but not for the confirming of Ecclesiasticall Doctrines But suppose it were Canonicall the place alledged is answered to our hand by one of the Roman Church viz. Alvarez when it is said God made not death the meaning hee saith is that God doth not primarily of it selfe intend the death of any but in respect of some other great good that is joyned with it And againe that place hee saith is expounded of death in respect of the cause to wit sinne These expositions of the place doe free the Doctrine of Protestants from suffering any prejudice by it were the authority of it greater then indeed it is The next place is that 1 Tim. 2. 4. Who will have all men to be saved c. Austine gives diverse interpretations of those words First thus that the meaning is that God will have all to be saved that are saved and that none but such as hee will save can bee saved Secondly this that by all men are meant men of all sorts how ever distinguished Kings and private persons noble and ignoble c. This hee shewes to be agreeable both to the Context and also to the phrase of Scripture Luke 11. 42. You tithe Mint and Rue and every Herbe i. e. every kinde of Herbe This latter exposition of the Apostles words Alvarez saith is also followed by Fulgentius Beda and Anselme The same Alvarez relates two other interpretations which Austine gives of these words viz. first this God will have all men to be saved that is hee makes men to will or desire that all may be saved as the Spirit is said to make intercession for us Rom. 8. 26. that is makes us to make intercession or supplication c. Estius upon the place doth embrace this Exposition before any other VVho will have all men to be saved that is saith hee He willeth and maketh godly men to desire the salvation of all Though God will not save all but onely the Elect yet he will have all to be saved to wit by us as much as in us lies in that he commands us to seek the salvation of all and this desire and indeavour he workes in us This Exposition wee embrace rather then any of the rest The other Exposition which Alvarez relates is that the Apostle speakes of Gods antecedent will Thus hee saith Austine doth expound it in diverse places and for this Exposition hee also cites Damascene Prosper Theophylaot Oecumenius Aquinas as also Chrysostome and Ambrose and saith that it is common among the Doctors Now in the next Disputation hee tels us that Gods antecedent Will is that which respects the object simply considered and by it selfe and that this will is called antecedent not because it goes before the good or ill use of our will as some thinke but because it goes before that will whereby God respects the object considered with some adjunct which is the consequent and latter consideration of it If saith hee the salvation of the Reprobate be considered simply by it selfe so God doth will it but if it be considered as it hath adjoyned the privation or want of a greater good to wit the universall good of manifesting Gods Iustice in the Reprobate and of causing his Mercy the more to shine forth in the Elect so God doth not will it And in this respect were affirmed that God by a consequent will doth not will that all shall be saved but only such as are predestinate Now take any of all these foure Explications of the Apostles words wherein hee saith that God will have all men to be saved as for my part I like best either the second or the last take any of them I say and the Apostles words are nothing against that which Protestants hold concerning Reprobation As for that of Peter that God is not willing that any should perish 2 Pet. 3. 9. Bellarmine himselfe expounds both it and the former place viz. 1 Tim. 2. 4. of that Will of God which Divines call Gods Antecedent will Now what that Antecedent will of God is we have seene even now out of Alvarez if Bellarmine did understand it otherwise as Alvarez notes that some did hee is confuted by Alvarez in the place above cited Where hee also cites Austine saying Many are not saved not because they will not but because God will not which without all controversie is manifested in young children whence he inferrs that the condition which is included in Gods Antecedent will whereby he will have all men to be saved is not this if they will and if they doe not hinder it And Bellarmine himselfe also though he say It is most true that all are not saved because they will not for if they would God would not be wanting unto them Yet immediately hee addes But none can have a will to be saved except God by preventing and preparing the will make him to will it And why God doth not make all to will this who hath knowne the mind of the Lord
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
authority of the Church as if were it not for the authority of the Church the Scripture were of no force neither could deserve any credit So the Romanists do frequently pervert those words of Austine but Austines meaning was only this that the Churches authority by way of introduction was a means to bring him to beleeve the Gospel by propounding and commending the Gospel unto him as a thing to be beleeved whereas otherwise he should not have given heed to it nor taken notice of it not as if he did finally rest in the authority of the Church and resolve his faith into it No for as I have shewed before he would have the Church it selfe sought in the Scripture and proved by it Had not the woman of Samaria told those among whom she lived of Christ they had not come to the knowledge of him much lesse to beleeve in him yet having heard Christ himselfe they did not rest in the testimony of the woman but said unto her Now we beleeve not because of thy saying for we have heard him our selves and know that this is indeed the Christ and the Saviour of the world Joh. 4. 42. So should not the Church hold out unto us the Scriptures we should not know much lesse beleeve them but at length God by his Spirit opening our understandings that we may understand the Scriptures Luke 24. 45. we come to be convinced by the Scriptures themselves that they are the Oracles of God and of divine authority Melchior Canus a learned Writer of the Church of Rome holds that the formall reason of our faith is not the authority of the Church that is that the last resolution of our faith is not into the Churches testimony And he saith that he could not dissemble their errour who hold that our faith is to be reduced thither as to the utmost cause of beleeving For the confuting of this errour he saith belongs that Ioh. 4. Now we beleeve not because of thy saying for we our selves have heard him and know c. The same authour averres that the authority of the Church is not a reason by it selfe moving to beleeve but only a cause or meanes without which we should not beleeve viz. Because as he addes the Church doth propound unto us that the Scripture is the word of God and except the Church did so propound it we should never ordinarily come to beleeve it yet we doe not therefore beleeve the Scripture to be Gods word because the Church doth say it but because God doth reveal it If the Church saith he doth make way for us to know such sacred books we must not therefore rest there but we must goe further and must relye on Gods solid truth And then he brings in that very speech of Austine and shewes what he meant by it Hereby is understood saith he what Austine meant when he said I should not beleeve the Gospell except the authority of the Church did move me And again By the Catholikes I had beleeved the Gospell For Austine had to doe with the Manichees who without dispute would have a certain Gospell of theirs beleeved and so would establish the faith of the Manichees Austine therefore askes them what they would doe if they did light upon a man who did not beleeve so much as the Gospell what kind of perswasion they would use to bring him to their opinion He affirmes that himselfe could not be otherwise brought to embrace the Gospell but that the authority of the Church did overcome him He doth not therefore teach that the faith of the Gospell is grounded upon the Churches authority but only that there is no certain way whereby either infidels or novices in the faith may have entrance to the holy books but one and the same consent of the Catholike Church This he himselfe hath sufficiently explicated in the fourth Chapter of that Epistle and in his book to Honoratus concerning the benefit of beleeving I have thus largely cited the words of this learned Romanist because no Protestant can speak more clearly and more fully to the purpose That which the Marquesse after addeth is nothing against us viz. That there was a Church before there was any Scripture that though the Scripture be a light yet we have need of some to guide us though it be the food of our soules yet there must be some to administer it unto us though it be an antidote against the infection of the devill yet it is not for every one to be a compounder of the ingredients that though it be the onely sword and buckler to defend the Church from her Ghostly enemies yet this doth not exclude the noble army of Martyrs and the holy Church which through all the world doth acknowledg Christ All this I say is nothing at all against us who do so assert the authority of the Scripture as that we doe not evacuate the Churches ministery Timothy must preach but it is the word viz. of God contained in the Scriptures which he must preach 2 Tim. 4. 2. If any man speak for the instructing of others he must speak as the Oracles of God 1 Pet. 4. 11. He must confirm that which he doth speak by the Scriptures And so on the other side they that hear must take heed how and what they hear Luke 8. 18. Mark 4. 24. They must not beleeve every Spirit but must try the Spirits whether they be of God 1 John 4. 1. They must to the Law and to the Testimony for that if any speak not according to this word it is because they have no light in them Isai 8. 20. They must search the Scriptures diligently to see whether the things delivered unto them be so or no. Acts 17. 11. OF THE CHVRCH of ENGLAND THE SECOND PART OF THE Rejoynder to the Marquess of WORCESTER'S Reply MAJESTIE' 's Answer to the said Marquesse's Plea for the ROMISH RELIGION THE Marquesse saith that he will now consider the Opinions of Protestants apart from them of the Church of Rome and begin with the Church of England The Religion of this Church he saith as it is in opposition to theirs consists wholly in denying for that what she affirms they affirm the same as the Real presence the Infallibility Visibility Universality and Unity of the Church Confession and Remission of sinnes Free-will Possibility of keeping the Commandments c. And you may as well saith he deny the blessed Trinity for we have no such word in Scripture only inference as that which you have already denied for which we have plain Scripture c. But 1. it is not altogether so that what the Church of England doth affirm the same they of the Church of Rome do affirm also For the Church of England Art 9. doth affirm alleadging the authority of the Apostle for proof thereof that Concupiscence hath of it self the nature of sinne even in the regenerate which the Romanists deny the Councel of Trent accurseth
Dippers Shakers Adamists Luther complaining of seven Sects risen in two years And we of new Sects rising every day If we should consider the severall species of Independency how it hath brought Religion to nothing but Confusion we would conclude with Saint Angustine That it is necessary that rent and divided into small pieces we perish who have preferred the swelling pride of our haughty Stomacks before the most holy band of Catholick peace and Unity Whilst the Catholicks have no jars undecided no differences uncomposed having one common Father one Conductor and Adviser as Sir Edward Sands confesseth None contend about the Scripture all Consent and Credit the Fathers adhere to the Councels submit to the holy Sea of Rome And the Divisions that are are but humane dissentions as is confessed by Luther Beza Whitaker Fulk c. Thus Religion being at Unity with it selfe is the true Speculum Creatoris or looking glasse of the Creatour wherein the full proportion of a Deity may be seen but once broken into pieces it may represent divers faces but no true proportion and loseth at once both its value and its virtue I have thus presented Your Majesty with a view of the Cotholick Religion asserted by the Fathers and the Protestant Religion asserted by their founders I shall humbly desire Your Majesties further patience that Your Majestie will be pleased to consider the lives and Conversations of the one and of the other First the rare Sanctity and admired holinesse which all ages and writers have ascribed unto these holy Fathers And the strange and unheard of blasphemies vilenesse and wickednesse that are cast upon the other not by any of their Adversaries but by themselves upon one another If these testimonies had been by any of our side I could not have expected credit but being by Protestants themselves I cannot see how it should be denied Luther confesseth saith the learned Protestant Hospinian that he was taught by the devil that the Masse was naught and overcome with the devils reasons he abolisht it The same confessed by himselfe I ingeniously confesse saith Luther that I cannot henceforth place Zwinglius in the number of Christians and further he affirmes that he had lost whole Christ Zwinglius saith Schlusselburg after the manner of all Hereticks was stricken with the spirit of giddinesse and blindnesse deriving it from the etimologie of his name in dutch von dem Schwindel Gualterus calls Zwinglius the Author of War the disturber of peace proud and cruell and instances in his strange attempt against the Tygurines his fellows whom he forced by want and famine to follow his doctrine and that he dyed in armor and in the Warre And Luther saith he dyed like a thiefe because he would compell others to his error And he saith further that he denyed Christ and is damn'd He tells us also that the devill or the devills dam used to appeare to Carolose and taught him the exposition of this is my body As also that he possessed him corporally and that he was possessed with more devils then one Neither would he have any man wonder that he calls him devill for he saith he hath nothing to doe with him but has onely relation to him by whom he is obsest who speaks by him The last apparition of the devill to him which was three dayes before his death is recorded by Albert. If you look into Bezas Epigrams printed at Paris An. 1548. you will find pretty passages concerning his boy Andebers and his wench Candida and the businesse debated at large concerning which sin is to be preferr'd and his chusing the boy at last Sclusselberg said that Peter Martyr was a heretick and dyed so Nicolaus Selneverus said that Oecolampadius in his doctrine built upon the sand And Saith Luther Emser and Oecolampadius and such like were hiddenly slain by those horrible blowes and shakings of the devill Simlerus saith that Brentius Miricus and Andrew Musculus in their writings did nothing else but make way for the devill Luther saith Calvin was infected with many vices I would he had been more carefull in correcting his vices God for the sin of pride wherewith Luther exalted himself took away his true spirit We have found saith Oecalompadius in the faith and confession of Luthers 12. Articles whereof some are more vaine then is fitting some lesse faithfull and over-guilefully expounded others again are false and reprobate but some there are which plainly dissent from the Word of God and the Articles of Christian faith Thou O Luther saith Zwinglius corruptest and adulterest the Scriptures imitating therein the Marcionists and the Arians In translating and expounding of Scripture Luthers errors are many and manifest Zwinglius tells us that Luther affirms sometimes this and sometimes that of one and the same thing that he is never at one with himself taxing him with inconstancy and lightnesse in the word of God That he cares not what he saith though he be found contradicting the Oracles of God As sure as God is God so sure and devilish a lyer is Luther Luthers writings containe nothing but railing and reproaches insomuch that it maketh the Protestant Religion suspected and hated He calls an anointed King Hen. 8. of England a furious dolt indued with an impudent and whorish face without a vein of princely bloud in his whole body a lying Sophist a damnable rotten worm a basilisk the progeny of an Adder scurrilous lyer covered with a title of a King a clown a block-head foolish wicked and impudent Henry and saies that he lies like a scurrilous knave and thou liest in thy throat foolish and sacrilegious King Nor did he lesse raile at other Princes as at the Duke of Brunswick in his Booke called Wider hans worst written purposely against him as also against the Bishop of Mentz one of the Princes Electors And against the Princes of Germany No marvaile that he saith that he had eaten a peck or two of Salt with the Devill and that he knew the Devill very well and that the Devill knew him againe No marvaile that he confessed of himselfe that the Devill sometimes passed through his brains No marvaile that he said the Devill did more frequently sleep with him and cling to him closer then his Catharine No marvaile that he said that the Devil walked with him in his bed chamber and that he had one or two wonderfull Devils by whom he was diligently and carefully served and they no smal Devils but great ones yea Doctors of divinity amongst the Devils No marvaile that his fellow Prot. could wonder how marvelously he bewrayed himselfe with his Devils and that he could use such filthy words so replenished with all the Devils in Hell No marvaile that they said that never any man writ more
find but there are those which are equivalent Ez. 20. 30. Are yee polluted after the manner of your Fathers and commit you whoredome after their abominations So the Prophet Zachary cries Be ye not as your Fathers Zach. 1. 4. The like may be seen in other places His Majesty likewise alledgeth our Saviour telling us that we must not so much hearken to what was said by them of old time as to that which he shall tell us Mat. 5. 21. c. not as it is cited 21. 12. pag. 48. It is strange therefore that the Marquesse should say that all the markes of the true Church were waved by His Majesty As for the markes set down by the Marquesse our learned writers have over and over shewed the insufficiency of them so that there is no need now to say much First for Universality it is certaine that error may spread for a while more universally then truth So did Gentilisme for many ages it overspread in a manner the whole World Onely in Iudah was God known Psal 76. 1. Onely the people of the Iewes had Gods saving truth among them all the World besides did lie in grosse ignorance and damnable error Psal 147. 19 20. Ioh. 4. 22. Rom. 3. 1 2. 1 Thess 4. 5. Eph. 2. 11 12. Acts 14. 16. 17. 30. So for a while Arrianisme did beare all the sway in so much that as Hierome observed The World groaned and wondered to see it selfe become an Arrian So also did Pelagianisme as Bradwardine sometimes Archbishop of Canterbury complained As in times past saith he against one true Prophet there were 850 Prophets of Baal and the like to whom an innumerable company of people did adhere So also now in this cause how many O Lord doe with Pelagius fight for Free will against Thy Free-grace The whole World almost is gone into error after Pelagius And againe The whole World almost goeth after him and favoureth his errors whiles all almost thinke that by the strength of Free-will alone they can eschew evill and doe good The Scripture also hath foretold us that all the World should wonder after the beast Revel 13. 3. And that the whore of Babylon whereby that Rome is meant the Scripture is so cleare that even the Romanists themselves are forced to confesse it should sit upon many waters Revel 17. 1. and that by those waters are meant Peoples and Multitudes and Nations and Tongues v. 15. This note therefore viz. Universality is farre from proving the Church of Rome to be the true Church As for the Scriptures which the Marquesse citeth viz. Esay 2. 2. Psal 2. 8. not as it is mis-printed 2. and Mat. 24. not 20 14. these and the like places only shew that in the time of the Gospell the Church should not as before it was be confined to one Nation but should be extended unto all so that Gentiles as well as Jewes as well one Nation as another should have admittance into it the middle wall of partition being now broken down Ephes 2. 14. So that there is neither Greeke nor Iew circumcision nor uncircumcision Barbarian Scythian bond nor free but Christ is all and in all Col. 3. 11. 2. For Antiquity it is true the Prophet Ieremy bids Aske for the old paths where is the good way and walke therein Ier. 6. 16. And so we grant that primary antiquity is a sure note of truth for error being a deviation and swerving from truth it must needs be that truth is more ancient then error But there is a secondary antiquity which is no argument of truth For there is vetustas erroris as Cyprian observed long agoe an antiquity of error The woman of Samaria could say Our Fathers worshipped in this Mountaine yet our Saviour answered her Yee worship yee know not what Ioh. 4. 20. 22. And Symmachus whom His Majesty cited could bring in heathenish Rome thus pleading antiquity Let me use those ceremonies which mine ancestors have used It 's too late and too great an injury to reforme me now I am old This plea I dare say our adversaries themselves will not allow as used by Symmachus and why then should we allow it as they use it Thirdly for Visibility it is granted that ordinarily the Church is visible i. e. that there is a visible company of such as professe the truth though the places cited by the Marquesse doe not evince so much He saith David compares the Church to a Tabernacle in the Sun He meanes Psal 19. 4. where indeed according to the vulgar Latine translation it is He hath set his Tabernacle in the Sun but Genebrard is forced to expound it by an Hypallage thus He hath set the Sun in his Tabernacle that is in the heavens For as he confesseth the Hebrew runs thus He hath set a Tabernacle for the Sun in them Now what is this to the Visibility of the Church or how doth it concerne the Church at all Neither do I see that as the Marquesse alledgeth our Saviour compares the Church to a candle in a candlestick not under a bushell Mat. 5. 15. But either as Iansenius a Romish Writer doth expound it our Saviour there spake of his Apostles who as a candle in a candlestick were to give light unto the dark world by the preaching of the Gospel Or else in generall he shewed the duty of all viz. That in their places and callings they ought to be a means to in-lighten others especially by their good example This sense is agreeable to that which follows immediately ver 16. Let your light so shine forth before men c. So when our Saviour saith Mat. 24. 26. If they shall say unto you Behold he is in the desert go not forth Behold he is in the secret chambers beleeve it not It is nothing to the Churches visibility but onely he foreshews that many should come in his name pretending themselves to be Christ and forewarnes to beware of them These places alledged by the Marquesse are but little to the purpose though as I said it is granted that ordinarily the Church i. e. the company of such as professe the truth is visible Yet neverthelesse we hold that sometimes through persecution and prevalencie of error the Church may be so obscured as to be scarcely visible Thus it was in Elias his time when he complained unto God saying The children of Israel have forsaken thy Covenant throwne downe thine Altars and slaine thy Prophets with the sword and I even I am left and they seeke my life to take it away 1 King 19. 10. And what great visibility was there of the Church when both Priests and People were conspired together against Christ to put him to death and his Disciples also generally forsook him and fled from him So when the heresie of Arrius overspread all so that such as were orthodox and sound in the faith could scarce appear Hilarius who lived in
thinke it not meete to Confirme children untill they come to the use of reason and be able to confesse their faith The Catechisme set forth by the decree of the councell of Trent thinkes it requisite that children be either twelve years old or at least seven years old before they be confirmed And Durantus tells us that a Synod at Millan did decree and that hee sayes piously and religiously That the Sacrament of Confirmation should be administred to none under seven years old Thus have they by their own confession departed from the judgment and practice of the ancient Fathers themselves and why then should they presse us with it After Confirmation the Marquesse commeth to communicating in one kinde which they hold sufficient And he saith that they have Scripture for it viz. Ioh. 6. 51. not 15. If any man eate of this bread hee shall live for ever Whence hee inferrs If everlasting life be sufficient then it is also sufficient to communicate under one kinde So Acts 2. 42. They continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayer Where is no mention of the Cup and yet they remained stedfast in the Apostles Doctrine So also Luke 24. 30 35. Where Christ communicated hee saith his two Disciples under one kinde He addes that Austine Theophylact and Chrysostome expound that place of the Sacrament Answ The Scripture plainly shewes that our Saviour instituting the Sacrament of his Supper took and blessed and gave the Cup as well as the bread and commanded that to be drunk as well as this to be eaten in remembrance of him Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luke 22. 1 Cor. 11. And the Apostle tells us that As oft as we eate this bread and drinke the Cup of the Lord we shew forth the Lords death till he come 1 Cor. 11. 26. And he bids v. 28. Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of that Bread and drinke of that Cup. Protestants therefore have good reason to hold it necessary to communicate in both kindes and that it is utterly unlawfull to withhold the Cup from people as they in the Church of Rome do Our Adversaries thinke to put off those words of our Saviour Drinke yee all of this by saying that Christ spake so onely to the Apostles and therefore wee must not infer from them that the common sort of people are to drinke of the Cup in the Sacrament But 1. by this reason they may as well withhold the bread also from the people and so deprive them of the whole sacrament For when Christ gave the Bread and bad take eate he spake onely to the Apostles as well as when hee gave the cup and bad that all should drinke of it 2. The Apostle spake universally of all Christians requiring that having examined themselves they should not onely eate of the bread but drinke of the cup also All antiquity is here on our side How doe we teach or provoke them saith Cyprian to shed their blood in the confession of Christ if we deny them the blood of Christ when they are going to war-fare Or how doe we make them meete for the Cup of Martyrdome if we doe not first admit them to drinke the Lords Cup in the Church by the right of Communion Thus spake Cyprian and he spake in the name of a whole Synod of Affrick as Pamelius observes concerning such as though they had grossely offended yet were judged meete to be admitted to the Sacrament because of a persecution which was ready to come upon them that so they might be strengthened and prepared for it This clearly shewes that in Cyprians time all that did communicate at all did communicate in both kindes and not in one onely So also in another place Considering saith Cyprian that they therefore daily drinke the cup of Christs Blood that they also for Christ may shed their blood There is a decree of Pope Iulius recorded by Gratian wherein hee condemneth the practice of some who used to give unto people the bread dipped for a full communion This he saith is not consonant to the Gospell where we finde that the bread and the cup were given severally each by it selfe Much more we may suppose hee would have disliked that the bread alone without any manner of participation of the cup should have been administred Sure I am the reason that hee alledgeth is every whit as much against this as against the other So another Pope viz. Gelasius as the same Gratian relates hearing of some that would onely receive the bread but not the Cup bade that either they should receive the whole Sacrament or no part of it because the division of one and the same mystery hee saith cannot be without great Sacriledge And whereas they speake of a concomitancy of the blood with the body and so would have it sufficient to receive the bread onely the glosse upon that canon is expressely against them saying that the bread hath reference onely to Christs Body and the Wine onely to his Blood and that therefore the Sacrament is received in both kindes to signifie that Christ assumed both Body and Soule and that the participation of the Sacrament is available both to Soule and Body Wherefore it saith if the Sacrament should be received onely in one kinde in Bread onely it would shew that it availes onely for the good of the one viz. of the Body and not for the good of the other viz. of the Soule Not to multiply testimonies Cassander in the very beginning of the Article wherein he treates of this point ingenuously confesseth that the Universall Church of Christ to this day doth and the Westerne or Roman Church for more then a thousand years after Christ did especially in the solemne and ordinary dispensation of the Sacrament exhibit both kindes both Bread and Wine to all the members of Christ which he saith is manifest by innumerable testimonies of ancient Writers both Greek and Latine And hee addes that they were induced hereunto first by the institution and example of Christ who did give this Sacrament of his Body and Blood under two signes viz. Bread and Wine unto his Disciples as representing the person of faithfull Communicants And because in the Sacrament of the Blood they believed that a peculiar vertue and grace is signified So also for mysticall reasons of this institution which are diversly assigned by the ancient Writers As to represent the memory of Christs Passion in the offering of his Body and the shedding of his Blood according to that of Paul As oft as yee eate this Bread and Drinke the cup of the Lord yee shew forth the Lords death till hee come Also to signifie full refreshing and nourishing which consists in Meate and Drinke as Christ saith My flesh is meate indeed and my Blood is Drinke indeed Likewise to shew the redemption and preservation of Soule and
that if not through wantonnesse but through weaknesse they were forced to marry the Apostle would have them to doe it rather then to doe worse viz. burne with lust and commit Fornication For whereas the same authour saith It is not better for such as have vowed contineney to marry then to burne this is nothing else but a flat contradicting of the Apostle or at least a contradicting of that Rule We must not distinguish where the Law doth not distinguish And we finde in their own Canons that if Widdows did professe continency yet a snare was not to be cast upon them to wit as the Glosse doth expound it by separating them from their Husbands if they did marry or by forbidding them precisely to marry Another Canon also which they have injoynes no more but this that if such as professe Virginity did afterwards marry they should be ranked amongst those that did marry the second time viz. after the death of the first yoke fellow which marriage the Scripture doth clearly allow Rom. 7. 2 3. and 1 Cor. 7. 39. neither did any Orthodox Writer ever condemne it Their Canon-Law indeed debarres those that are twice married from being Priests grounding upon the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. 2. and Titus 1. 6. which places their owne Cardinall Cajetan doth yet interpret otherwise but yet grant that such doe not sinne They grant also that if any marry after a simple vow of continency the marriage doth stand good and is not to be dissolved For this they have a Canon out of Austine which runs thus Some say that they that marry after a vow are adulterers but I say unto you that they that divide such doe sinne grievously And another out of Theodorus thus If a man having a simple vow of virginity joyne himselfe to a Wife let him not afterwards put her away but let him doe penance three yeares And so Estius confesseth that we never reade in antient writers that if Widdowes who vowed continency did marry their marriage was voide and of none effect For saith hee their vow was not solemne But I have shewed before that the distinction of simple and solemne vow hath no ground in Scripture and that in respect of God a simple vow doth binde as much as a solemne And besides if as they alledge and cite some of the antients also for it one having vowed continency whether solemnely or simply is married unto Christ and therefore may much lesse marry another then one that is allready married to a mortall man then surely the marriage of such should much rather be judged adultery and be dissolved then the marriage of those who marry againe when they are already married Yet Bellarmine goes further and acknowledgeth that many prime Writers of the Church of Rome as Scotus Paludanus and Cajetane and generally as Panormitan doth relate all the Canonists affirme that onely by Ecclesiasticall right marriage made after a solemne vow is of no force And this opinion hee granteth to be probable So then by their own confessions it may appeare that there is no Law of God against it but that such as have vowed continency should marry if they be not able to performe what they have vowed And this may suffice for this point The Marquesse goes on thus We say Christ descended into Hell and delivered thence the soules of the Fathers yee deny it Wee have Scripture for it viz. Ephes 4. 8. When he ascended up on high he led captivity captive c. Descending first into the lower part of the Earth This lower part of the Earth could not be a grave for that was the upper part nor could it have beene the place of the damned for the Devils would have beene brought againe into Heaven More clearly Acts 2. 27. Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption There is Hell for his soule for a time and the grave for his body for a while Plainer yet 1 Pet. 3. 18 19. Being put to death in the flesh but quickned by the spirit by which also hee went and preached unto the spirits in prison This prison cannot be Heaven nor Hell as it is the place of the damned nor the grave as it is the place of rest Therefore it must be as S. Aug. Epist 99. ad Evod. saith some third place which third place the Fathers have called Limbus Patrum Also Zach. 9. 11. As for thee also by the blood of thy Covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water By this pit could not be meant the place of the damned for they have no share in the Covenant neither are they Christs prisoners but the Devils neither could this pit be the grave because Christs grave was a new pit where never any was laid before The Fathers affirm as much S. Hieron in 4. ad Ephes S. Greg. l. 13. Moral c. 20. S. Aug. in Psal 37. 1. Answ That Christ did descend into Hell in that sense as they of the Church of Some doe hold viz. into a Region of Hell called Limbus Patrum to deliver the faithfull thence that lived and died under the old Testament this Protestants deny and they have just cause to deny it For the Scripture doth not shew us any such Hell as this which they speake of much lesse that CHRIST did descend into it 1. The faithfull that were before Christ did enjoy the benefit of him as well as they that are since his comming We believe said Peter that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ wee shall be saved even as they Acts 15. 11. Therefore they were saved by Christ as well as we now are saved by him and consequently the faithfull then through Christ did goe to Heaven as well as now they doe 2. It is said of the faithfull of the old Testament that they confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims upon the Earth Heb. 11. 13. and that they did seeke a country v. 14. not an earthly country but a better country that is an Heavenly and that God did prepare for them a City v. 16. 3. Abrahams bosome as the place is called where the soules of the Saints of the old Testament were is so described in the Scripture as that it could be no such place as they call Limbus Patrum For 1. The soule of Lazarus was carried thither by Angels and therefore it should rather be Heaven then Hell 2. It was a place of comfort Luke 16. 25. But Austine could not finde hee saith with all his searching where the Scripture doth make Hell to be any place of comfort and hee thought this a good argument why Abrahams bosome could not be Hell 3. There was a great gulfe fixed betwixt the place where Lazarus was viz. Abrahams bosome and the place where the rich man was in torment Luke 16. 26. And hence also Austine inferreth that Abrahams bosome
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
to which the Marquesse doth next leade us We hold saith hee Purgatory fire where satisfaction shall be made for sinnes after death you deny it We have Scripture for it 1 Cor. 3. 13 15. The fire shall try every mans worke of what sort it is if any mans worke shall be burnt hee shall suffer losse but hee himselfe shall be saved yet so as by fire S. Aug. so interprets this place upon Psal 37. also S. Ambrose upon 1 Cor. 3. and ser 20. in Psal 118. S. Hier. l. 2. c. 13. advers Ioan. S. Greg. l. 4. dial c. 39. Origen Hom. 6. in cap. 15. Exod. If there be any such place as Purgatory it doth much more concerne us then Limbus Patrum which they hold to have been made void and of no use long agoe but this they pretend to continue still and to be of as much force as ever it was But we finde nothing in Scripture to prove any such place or any such fire as that of Purgatory wherein they that have not fully satisfied for their sinnes in this life must lie and frie untill they have made full satisfaction and then be taken out and conveyed to Heaven For thereore they call the place Purgatory and the fire Purgatory fire because they say in that place by that fire the Soules are purged which were not fully purged in this life that being so purged they may have entrance into Heaven But how doth this agree with the Scripture That tells us that the Blood of Iesus Christ cleanseth us from all sinne 1 Ioh. 1. 7. And that if any man sinne wee have an advocate with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous And he is the propitiation for our sinnes 1 Ioh. 2. 1 2. It is onely Christ who by his blood doth satisfie for our sinnes and so purge us from them we cannot doe it by any thing which we either doe or suffer in this life much lesse is it to be done by us hereafter when we are dead God doth indeed afflict his children here in this World thereby to purge them By this shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged and this is all the fruit to take away his sinne Isai 27. 9. But this affliction is onely castigatory not satisfactory When we are judged we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the World 1 Cor. 11. 32. After this life is ended there remaines no more affliction for the godly for any thing that we can finde in Scripture Wee know that if our earthly house of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God a house not made with hands eternall in the Heavens Therefore we are alwayes confident knowing that whiles wee are at home in the body wee are absent from the Lord. For we walke by Faith and not by sight We are confident I say willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. 2 Cor. 5. 1 6 7 8. The Apostle speakes there not peculiarly of himselfe or such eminent ones as he was but generally of all Believers as appeares by those words For we walke by faith and not by sight which is as true of every believer as it was of Paul Now if the faithfull when they depart out of this Tabernacle the body goe to their house prepared for them in Heaven and are present with the Lord and enjoy the sight of him then surely there is no such thing as Purgatory to keepe them I know not how long absent from God in paine and torment And so the Scripture tells us that they that die in the Lord are blessed and rest from their labours Revel 14. 13. But how are they blessed and how doe they rest from their labours if yet after they are dead they must endure Purgatory the paines whereof they say are most grievous and such as that no paines here in this life are to be compared with them Yea some hold that the least paine in Purgatory is greater then the greatest paine that is in this life And whereas Dominicus à Soto thought that none did continue in Purgatory above ten years Bellarmine confutes this by the custome of their Church praying for those that were known to be dead a hundred or two hundred yeares before Which argues that as they suppose soules may continue so long in Purgatory Yea he cites Bede who lived about 900 years agoe telling of one to whom was shewed the paines of Purgatory and it was told him that all the Soules in Purgatory should be delivered and saved in the day of judgement c. whence he infers that according to Bede some now dead yea that were dead many hundred years agoe must abide in Purgatory untill the day of judgement And will any call such blessed will any say that such rest from their labours In a word the Scripture tels us but of two places appointed for such as depart out of this life the one a place of comfort and the other a place of torment and withall it tells us that betwixt these two places there is such a great gulfe fixed that they that are in the one cannot passe unto the other Luke 16. 25 26. Neither doe wee want the testimonies of the antient Fathers for the asserting of this truth which we maintaine Cyprian saith that though the godly and the wicked fare alike here yet when this life is ended then their estates doe much differ We are contained saith hee for a while both good and bad in one house whatsoever doth happen within the house we suffer alike untill this temporall life being ended we are divided to the habitations either of eternall death or of immortality Hee makes no third place distinct from those of immortality and of everlasting death neither doth hee make any stay after the end of this life but that such as escape the habitation of endlesse death doe immediately passe to the habitation of immortality So the same Father againe The Kingdome now is very neare at hand c. now after earthly things follow heavenly after small things great after fading things eternall What place is there here for anxiety and carefulnesse who can now be fearfull and sad but he that hath neither hope nor faith For it is for him to feare death who is not willing to goe to Christ and it is for him to be unwilling to goe to Christ who doth not believe that he beginnes to reigne with Christ For it is written that the just doth live by faith If thou beest just if thou doest live by faith if thou doest indeed believe in God why being to be with Christ and being sure of the Lords promise doest thou not embrace this that thou art called unto Christ and reioyce that thou art freed from the Devill Thus in a time of mortality did Cyprian comfort and encourage Christians against the feare of death But how will all this consist with Purgatory How is the Kingdome of