much as to renounce his salvation and this the Marquesse saith he saith a little before was not fained or as a thing only acted upon a stage Surely all that have any spark of Christianity in them must needs assent to Calvin in this that Christs passion as the Evangelists relate it was not fained nor acted upon a stage though it seems they of the Church of Rome on Good Friday as they call it use to make a kind of Stage-play of it But how unworthily is Calvin here used He is made to say that Christ was overwhelmed with desperation ceased to call upon God and did as much as renounce his salvation But any that look into the place alleadged may see that Calvin is far from this blasphemy That which he saith is this that the wicked enemies of Christ by Satans instigation deriding him when he cried Eli Eli c. did labour to overwhelm him with desperation and to make him cease calling upon God which had been as much as to renounce salvation As before Calvin was made positively to aver that which hee brought in by way of objection so here that is censured as spoken by him which he only speaks of Christs enemies But it is worthy to be observed that immediately after those words which are so pitifully perverted Calvin comforts himself and others with this consideration that if our words which are right and good be depraved and slandered it is no marvel seeing Christ himself was thus dealt with But to proceed 16. Calvin as is alleadged saith That Christ in his soul suffered the terrible torments of a damned and forsaken man This allegation is true and so also is that which follows in the next passage but two and I note it here because it is of the same nature It is no marvel if it be said that Christ went down into hell since he suffered that death wherewith God in wrath striketh wicked doers Calvin hath these sayings in the place alleadged viz. Instit lib. 2. cap. 16. sect 10. I am not of Calvins mind for the meaning of the article about Christs descent into hell as I have elsewhere shewed And peradventure Calvin might go too far in exaggerating the sufferings of Christs soul as others in this may be too remisse But when Calvin speaketh of Christ suffering the torments of a damned man he means such torments as are without all mixture of sin for that he alwayes removes far from Christ as I have shewed before And that Christ did suffer the torments of a forsaken man his own words upon the crosse do shew My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Christ had speciall cause as Jansenius observes to complaine that he was forsaken of his God in that he had the divine nature united to him and his humane nature did not feel any comfort of it And in this respect it may be said that Christ suffered that death wherewith God in wrath doth strike wicked doers though in other respects there was great difference 17. Calvin is charged with this saying In the death of Christ occus a spectacle full of desperation Calvins meaning will easily appear to any that look upon his words as they are in the place quoted He speaks of Joseph of Arimathea his courage in begging of Pilate Christs body to bury it saying Now when in Christs death occurs a spectacle full of desperation which might have been able to break a stout heart whence hath he on the sudden such a generous spirit that in the midst of terrors fearing nothing he should not doubt to proceed further then when all was quiet Any may here plainly see that Calvin speaks not of any desperation that Christ in his death did fall into but his meaning is that a natural man yea one that had but a small measure of faith could have apprehended nothing in Christs death but matter of desperation And surely this appears by the words of the two Disciples not to speak of the deportment of the Apostles We trusted that it had been he that should have redeemed Israel Luke 24. 21. Another sentence is here immediately after cited out of Calvin viz. In this spectacle there was nothing but matter of extreme despair The very words shew it to carry the same sense with the former though otherwise I can say nothing to it the place from which it is taken being mis-cited for on Joh. 14. 6 Calvin hath no such thing 18. The Marquesse taxeth Calvin for saying Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father holds but a second degree with him in honour and rule and is but his Vicar Calvin on Mat. 26. 64. doth say That Christ is said to sit at the right hand of the Father because he hath as it were after him the second seat of honour and rule and because he is his Vicar So that Calvin indeed doth not say that Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father but that Christ as sitting at the right hand of his Father holds but a second degree c. that is that Christs sitting at the right hand of God though it import great honour and dignity yet such as whereby Christ is but in a second degree of honour under the Father And surely this is most true it belonging unto Christ as man to sit at the right hand of God as the Councel of Trents Catechisme doth teach the honour and dignity which that sitting imports though otherwise it be most great yet must needs be inferior to that which belongs to the Father and so also to Christ as he is one and the same God with the Father 19. Lastly saith the Marquesse Calvin holds it absurd that Christ should challenge to himself the glory of his own resurrection when the Scripture every where teacheth it to be the work of the Father It may seem wonderful that mens words and writings should be thus depraved Two places of Calvin are cited for proof of this which is alleadged against him Now in the former place viz. on Joh. 2. 19. he saith thus Here Christ doth challenge to himself the glory of his resurrection when as the Scripture usually doth testifie that this is the work of God the Father But these two do well agree together For the Scripture to commend unto us Gods power doth expresly ascribe this to the Father that he raised his Son from the dead but here Christ peculiarly sets forth his own Divinity And Paul doth reconcile both Rom. 8. 11. For the Spirit which he maketh to be the Author of the resurrection he promiscuously cals sometimes the Spirit of Christ sometimes the Spirit of the Father So also in the other place viz. on Rom. 8. 11. Surely saith he Christ rose again of himself and by his own power But as he used to transcribe to the Father whatsoever divine power is in him so the Apostle doth not improperly
afraid he will not give you another day wherein you may so much as trie your fortune Your Majesty had forgot the monies which came unto you from unknown hands and were brought unto you by unknown faces when you promised you would never forsake your unknown friends you have forgotten the miraculous blessings of the Almighty upon those beginnings and how have you discountenanc'd distrusted dis-regarded I and disgraced the Catholiques all along and at last vowed an extirpation of them Doth not your Majesty see clearly how that in the two great Battailes the North and Naseby God shewed signes of his displeasure when in the first your Enemies were even at your mercy confusion fell upon you and you lost the day like a man that should so wound his Enemies that he could scarce stand and afterwards his owne sword should fly out of the hilt and leave the strong and skilfull to the mercy of his falling Enemies and in the second and I feare me the last Battaile that e're you 'le fight whilst your men were crying victory as I hear they had reason so to do your sword broke in the aire which made you a fugitive to your flying Enemies Sir I pray pardon my boldnesse for it is Gods cause that makes me so bold and no inclination of my owne to be so and give me leave to tell you that God is angry with you and will never be pleased untill you have taken new resolutions concerning your Religion which I pray God direct you or else you 'le fall from nought to worse from thence to nothing King My Lord I cannot so much blame as pitty your zeal the soundnesse of Religion is not to be tried by dint of sword nor must we judge of her truthes by the prosperity of events for then of all men Christians would be most miserable we are not to be thought no followers of Christ by observations drawne from what is crosse or otherwise but by taking up our crosse and following Christ Neither do I remember my Lord that I made any such vow before the Battaile of Naseby concerning Catholiques but some satisfaction I did give my Protestant Subjects who on the other side were perswaded that God blest us the worse for having so many Papists in our Army Marq. The difference is not great I pray God forgive you who have most reason to aske it King I think not so my Lord. Marq. Who shall be judge King I pray my Lord let us sit down and let reason take her seat Marq. Reason is no judge King But she may take her place Marq. Not above our Faith King But in our arguments Marq. I beseech your Majesty to give me a reason why you are so much offended with our Church King Truly my Lord I am much offended with your Church if you meane the Church of Rome if it were for no other reason but this for that she hath foisted into her legend so many ridiculous stories as are able to make as much as in them lies Christianitie it selfe a fable whereas if they had not done this wrong unto the tradition of the primitive Church we then had left unto us such rare and unquestionable verities as would have adorned and not dawb'd the Gospel whereas now we know not what is true or false Marq. Sir if it be allowed to question what the Catholick Church holds out for truth because that which they hold forth unto us seemes ridiculous and to picke and chuse verities according to our owne fancie and reject as novelties and forgeries what we please as impossibilites and fabulous the Scriptures themselves may as well suffer by this kind of tolleration for what more ridiculous then the Dialogue betweene Balaam and his Ass or that Sampsons strength should be in his hair or that he should slay a thousand men with the Jaw-bone of an Ass the Disputation betweene Saint Michael and the Devill about the body of Moses Philip's being taken up in the air and found at Azotus with a thousand the like strange and to our apprehension if we looke upon them with carnall eyes vaine and ridiculous but being they are recorded in Scripture which Scripture we hold for truth we admire but never question them so the fault may not be in the tradition of the Church but in the libertie which men assume to themselves to question the tradition And I beseech Your Majestie to consider the streaks that are drawn over the Divine writ as so many delenda's by such bold hands as those the Testaments were not like the two Tables delivered into the hands of any Moses by the immediate hand of God neither by the Ministration of Angels but men inspired with the holy Ghost writ whose writings by the Church were approved to be by inspiration which inspirations were called Scripture which Scriptures most of them as they are now received into our hands were not received into the Canon of the Church all within three hundred years after Christ why may not some bold spirits call all those Scriptures which were afterwards acknowledged to be Scripture and were not before forgeries Nay have not some such as blind as bold done it already Saint Hierom was the first that ever pickt a hole in the Scriptures and cut out so many books out of the word of God with the penknife of Apocrypha Ruffinus challengeth him for so doing and tells him of the gap that he hath opened for wild beasts to enter into this field of the Church and tread downe all ill corne Jerom gives his reasons because they were not found in the Originall Copie as if the same spirit which gave to those whom it did inspire the diversities of tongues should it selfe be tied to one language but withall he acknowledgeth thus much of those books which he had thus markt in the forehead Canonici sunt ad informandos mores sed non ad confirmandam fidem how poor a Distinction this is and how pernitious a president this was I leave it to Your Majestie to judge for after him Luther takes the like boldness and at once takes away the three Gospels of Mark Luke and John Others take away the epistle to the Hebrews others the epistle of Saint Jude others the second and third epistles of Saint Peter others the epistle of Saint James others the whole book of the Revelation Wherefore to permit what the Church proposes to be questionable by particular men is to bring down the Church the Scriptures and the Heavens upon our heads There was a Church before there was a Scripture which Scripture as to us had not beene the Word of God if the Church had not made it so by teaching us to believe it The preaching of the Gospell was before the writing of the Gospell the Divine Truth that dispersed it selfe over the face of the whole earth before it's Divinitie was comprised within the Canon of the Scripture was like that Primaeva Lux which the world received before the
light was gathered into the body of the Sun this body so glorious and comfortable is but the same light which was before we cannot make it another though it be otherwise And therefore though the Church and the Scripture like the light that is concomitant and precedent to the Sun be distinct in tearms yet they are but one and the same no man can see the Sun but by it's own light shut your eyes from this light and you cannot behold the body of the Sun Shut your eyes against one and you are blind in both he never had God to be his Father who had not the Church to be his Mother If you admit Sillogismes à priori you will meet with many paralogismes à posteriori cry downe the Churches Authoritie and pull out the Scriptures efficacie give but the Church the lie now and then and you shall have enough will tell you the Scripture is false here and there they who have set so little by the tradition of the Church have set by halfe the Scriptures and will at last throw all away wherefore in a word as to deny any part of the Scripture were to open a vein so to question any thing which the Church proposes is to teare the seamelesse Coat of Christ and to pierce his body King My Lord I see you are better provided with Arguments then I am with memorie to run through the series of your Discourse satisfie me but in one thing and I shall soone yeild to all that you have said and that is concerning this Catholick Church you talke of I know the creed tells us that we must believe it and Christ tells us that we must hear it but neither tell us that that is the Church of Rome Marq. Gratious Sir the creed tells us that it is the Catholick Church and Saint Paul tells us in his epistle to the Romans that their faith was spread abroad through the whole world King That was the Faith which the Romanes then believed which is nothing to the Roman Faith which is now believed Marq. The Roman Faith then and now are the same King I deny that my Lord. Marq. When did they alter their Faith King That requires a librarie Neither is it requisite that I tell you the time when if the envious man sowes his tares whilst the husband-man was asleep and afterwards he awakes and sees the tares are they not tares because the husband-man knowes not when they were sown Marq. And if it please Your Majestie in a thing that is so apparent your similitude holds good but the differences between us and the Protestants are not so without dispute as that it is yet granted by the major part of Christians that they are errours which we believe contrary to your Tenents and therefore the similitude holds not but I shall humbly intreat Your Majestie to consider the proofs which the learned Cardinal Peroone hath made concerning this particular in his answer to your Royall Father his Apologie to all Christian Princes where he proves how that all the Tenents which are in controversie now between you and us were practised in the Church of Christ within the first three hundred years wherefore I think it would be no injury to reason to require belief that that which hath been so long continued in the Church and so universally received and no time can be set down when those Tenents or Ceremonies did arise must needs be Catholick for time and place and Apostolicall for institution though we have no warrant from the Scriptures to believe them to be such For the Apostle Saint Paul commanded Timothy to keep fast the things which he had delivered unto him as well by word as by writ Wherefore if we will believe no tradition we may come at last to believe no writings King That was your owne fault wherefore I blame your Church for the way to make the Scriptures not believed were to adde unto them new inventions and say they were Scriptures Marq. If the Church of Christ had so mean esteeme then as amongst some she hath now certainly the former books received into her Canon would have been much prejudiced by the admittance of the latter wherefore if the Church be questionable then all is brought in question King My Lord you have not satisfied me where this Church is and as concerning the Cardinals book I have seen it and have read a part of it but doe not remember neither doe I believe that he hath prov'd that which you say Marq. It may be the proofes were in that part of the book which Your Majesty did not read and as for my proving the Roman Church to be this Church by which we should be all guided I thus shall doe my endeavour That Church whose Doctrine is most Catholick and universall must be the Catholick Church but the Roman Church is such Ergo. King My Lord I deny your Minor the Romane Church is not most universall the Grecian Church is far more spreading and if it were not it were no Argument for the Church of the Mahumetanes is larger then both Marq. First This is no Argument either for an English Man or a Protestant but for a Grecian or Mahumetane not for an English Man because he received his Conversion from Rome and therefore he in Reason should not look beyond Rome or the Doctrine that Rome practised then when they converted England nor for a Protestant because he is as far distant from the Grecian Church in matter of opinion as from the Romane and therefore he need not look for that which he hath no desire to find besides the Greek Church hath long agoe submitted to the Church of Rome and there is no reason that others should make Arguments for her who are not of her when she stands in no competition her selfe besides there is not in any place wherever the Greek Church is or hath beene planted where there are not Roman Catholicks but there are diverse Countreys in Christendome where there is not one Professour of the Greek Church neither is there a place in all the Turks Dominions where there are not Romane Catholicks nor in any part of the world where there are not multitudes of Romanes neither is there a Protestant Countrey in Christendome where there are not Romane Catholicks numberlesse but not a Protestant amongst the Natives neither of Spaine or Italy Shew me but one Protestant Countrey in the world who ever deserted the Romane Faith but they did it by Rebellion except England and there the King and the Bishops were the principall reformers I pray God they doe not both suffer for it Shew me but one reformed Church that is of the opinion of another aske an English Protestant where was your Religion before Luther and he will tell you of Hus and Jerom of Prague search for their Tenents and you shall find them as far different from the English Protestant as they are from one another run to the Waldenses for
take away the meanes of reconciliation For I must confesse ingenuously yet under the highest correction that there is not a thing that I ever understood lesse then that assertion of the Scriptures being judge of Controversies though in some sence I must and will acknowledge it but not as it is a book consisting of papers words and letters for as we commonly say in matters of civill differences the Law shall be the judge between us we do not meane that every man shall run unto the Law books or that any Lawyer himselfe shall search his Law-cases and thereupon possesse himselfe of any thing that is in question between him and another without a legall tryall and determination by lawfull Judges constituted to that same purpose In like manner saving knowledge and Divine Truths are the portion that all Gods children lay fast claime unto yet they must not be their own carvers though it is their own meat that is before them whilst they have a mother at the table They must not slight all Orders Constitutions Appeales and Rules of Faith saving knowledge and Divine Truths are not to be wrested from the Scripture by private hands for then the Scripture were of private interpretation which is against the Apostles Rule Neither are those undefiled incorruptible and immaculate inheritances which are reserved for us in heaven to be conveighed unto us by any Privy-seales For there is nothing more absurd to my understanding then to say that the thing contested which is the true meaning of the Scriptures shall be Judge of the Contestation no way inferiour to that absurditie which would follow which would be this if we should leave the deciding of the sence of the words of the Law to the preoccupated understanding of one of the Advocates neither is this all the absurditie that doth arise upon this supposition for if you grant this to one you must grant it to any one and to every one if there were but two how will you reconcile them both If you grant that this judicature must be in many there are many manyes which of the manyes will you have decide but that and you satisfie all For if you make the Scripture the Judge of Controversie you make the reader Judge of the Scripture as a man consists of a soule and body so the Scripture consists of the letter and the sence if I make the dead letter my Judge I am the greatest and simplest idolater in the world it will tell me no more then it told the Indian Emperour Powhaton who asking the Jesuite how he knew all that to be true which he had told him and the Jesuite answering him that Gods word did tell him so The Emperour asked him where it was he shewed him his Bible The Emperour after that he had held it in his hands a pretty while answered It tells me nothing But you will say you can read and so you will find the meaning out of the significant Character and when you have done as you apprehend it so it must be and so the Scripture is nothing else but your meaning wherefore necessitie requires an externall Judge for determination of differences besides the Scriptures And we can have no better recourses to any then to such as the Scripture it selfe calls upon us to heare which is the Church which Church would be found out King Doctor Saint John in his first Epistle tells us that the holy Scripture is that to whose truth the Spirit beareth witnesse And John the Evangelist tells us that the Scripture is that which gives a greater Testimonie of Christ then John the Baptist Saint Luke tells us that if we believe not the Scripture we would not believe though one were risen from the dead and Christ himselfe who raised men from death to life tells us they cannot believe his words if they believe not in Moses writings Saint Peter tells us that the holy Scripture is surer then a voice from heaven Saint Paul tells us that it is lively in operation and whereby the Spirits demonstrates his power and that it is able to make a man wise to salvation able to save our soules and that it is sufficient too to make us believe in Christ to life everlasting John 20. As in every seed there is a Spirit which meeting with earth heat and moisture grows to perfection so the seed of the word wherin Gods holy Spirit being sowen in the heart inlivened by the heart of faith and watered with the teares of repentance soon fructifies without any further Circumstance Doctor It doth so but Your Majestie presupposes all this while husband-men and husbandry barnes and threshing floors winnowing and uniting these several grains into one loafe before it can become childrens bread All that Your Majestie hath said concerning the Scriptures sufficiencie is true provided that those Scriptures be duly handled for as the Law is sufficient to determine right and keep all in peace and quietnesse yet the execution of that sufficiencie cannot he performed without Courts and Judges so when we have granted the Scriptures to be all that the most reverend estimation can attribute unto them yet Religion cannot be exercised nor differences in Religion reconciled without a Judge For as Saint Ierom tells us who was no great friend to Popes or Bishops Si non una exors quaedam imminens detur potestas tot efficerentur in Ecclesia schismata quot Sacerdotes Wherefore I would faine find out that which the Scripture bids me heare Audi Ecclesiam I would faine referre my selfe to that to which the Scripture commands me to appeale and tells me that if I do not I shall be a Heathen and a Publican Dic Ecclesiae which Church Saint Paul in his first Epistle calls the pillar and foundation of Truth of which the Prophet Ezekiel saith I will place my Sanctification in the midst of her for ever and the Prophet Esay that the Lord would never forsake her in whose light the people should walke and Kings in the brightnesse of her Orient Against which our Saviour saith The gates of Hell shall not prevaile with whom our Saviour saith He would be alwayes unto the end of the world And from whom the Spirit of Truth should never depart For although the Psalmist tells us that the word of the Lord is clear inlightning the eyes yet the same Prophet said to God Enlighten mine eyes that I may see the marvels of thy Law And Saint Iohn tells us that the booke of God hath seven Seals and it was not every one that was thought worthy to open it onely the lambe The Disciples had been ignorant if Iesus had not opened the Scriptures unto them The Eunuch could not understand them without an Interpreter and Saint Peter tells us that the Scripture is not of private Interpretation and that in his brother Pauls Epistles there are many things hard to be understood which ignorant and light-headed-men wrest to their owne perdition Wherefore though as
the words of the Apostle Rom. 12. 6. Except we must to use the Marquesses expressions take them margin'd with their own notes sens'd with their own meaning and enlivened with their own private spirit As for the rule mentioned Gal. 6. 16. it is no generall rule of faith or of interpreting Scripture but a speciall rule that in Christ Iesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but a new creature as is cleare by the context ver 15. As many as walke according to this rule that is as Oecumenius expounds it as many as are content with this rule and this doctrine that all things are made a new creature and doe not subject themselves to the Law Neither is the place 2 Cor. 10. 15. to the purpose For the Apostle there speakes of a ruleby way of similitude as Cardinall Cajetan doth well expound it viz. that as an Architect or the like chiefe workman doth by rule divide the worke that is to be done and appoint under-workemen where they shall imploy themselves and how farre they shall reach so God did as it were by rule appoint Paul where he should preach the Gospell and how farre his imployment should extend in that kinde This plainly appeares to be the Apostles meaning by the two verses immediately preceding But we will not boast of things without our measure but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed unto us a measure to reach even unto you For we stretch not our selves beyond our measure as though wee reached not unto you for we are come as farre as you also in preaching the Gospell of Christ Then he addes Not boasting of things without our measure that is of other mens labours but having hope when your faith is encreased that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly To preach the Gospell in the regions beyond you and not to boast in another mans line of things made ready to our hand All may plainly see that here is nothing spoken of a rule of faith or a rule for the understanding of the Scripture And therefore most impertinently is 2 Cor. 10. 16. cited as if the Apostle there did speak of a rule of faith made ready to their hands And so also is that of not measuring our selves by our selves 2 Cor. 10. 12. Neither can our Adversaries ever be able to prove that by the forme of Doctrine mentioned Rom. 6. 17. the Apostle did meane any other Doctrine then what is contained in the Scripture or that any Doctrine but the Doctrine of the Scripture is meant by that which was committed to Timotheus trust 1 Tim. 6. 20. which the Apostle there bids him keepe avoiding profane and vaine bablings c. Though such as are unlearned and unstable wrest the Scriptures c. 2 Pet. 3. 16. yet the same Apostle in the same Epistle doth teach us to take heed to the Scripture as to a light shining in a darke place 2 Pet. 1. 19. That the Apostle spake of any unwritten tradition as a rule whereby to interpret Scriptures 2 Tim. 2. 2. can never be made good by the things which Timothy heard him and was to commit to faithfull men c. hee meant nothing but the Doctrine of the Gospell as the forementioned Cajetan doth truly interpret and that Doctrine I presume is no where to be found but in the Scripture Surely the Apostle in the next Chapter after tells Timothy that from a child hee had known the holy Scriptures which were able to make him wise unto salvation thorough faith which is in Christ Iesus 2 Tim. 3. 15. After the Scriptures the Marquesse cites the Fathers as being of this opinion viz. Ireneus l. 4. c. 45. Tertull. de Praescript and Vincent Lirin in suo Commentario perhaps it should be Commonitorio But it will not appeare that the Fathers held any rule of faith and of interpreting the Scripture besides the Scripture it selfe His Majesty as I noted before cited above twice as many Fathers as the Marquesse here alledgeth plainly testifying that the Scriptures are their own interpreters and that matters of faith are to be decided by them I will adde a few more testimonies of the Fathers to this purpose As wee doe not deny saith Hierome those things which are written so we refuse those things which are not written I adore saith Tertullian the fulnesse of the Scripture And againe Let Hermogenes saith hee shew that it is written If it be not written let him feare that woe appointed for those that either adde to the Scripture or detract from it Wee doe Cyprian no wrong saith Austine when wee distinguish any of his writings from the canonicall authority of the Divine Scriptures For not without cause is such a wholesome Ecclesiasticall rule of vigilancy constituted to which certaine Bookes of the Prophets and the Apostles belong which we may not at all dare to judge and according to which wee may freely judge of other writings whether they bee of Beleevers or of unbelievers And againe I am not bound saith hee by the authority of this Epistle viz. of Cyprian because I doe not account Cyprians writings as Canonicall but I examine them by those that are Canonicall and that which is in them agreeable to the authority of the Divine Scriptures I receive with his praise and what is not agreeable I refuse with his leave For the Fathers here cited by the Marquesse Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 45. hath nothing that may seeme to make that way except this Where saith hee the gifts of the Lord are placed there wee ought to learne truth of those with whom is that succession of the Church which is from the Apostles and that sound speech not to be reproved For they keepe that faith of ours which is in one God that made all things and increase that love which is towards the Son of God who did such great things for us and they without danger expound unto us the Scriptures neither blaspheming God nor dishonoring the Patriarcks nor contemning the Prophets Here Irenaeus speakes of some of whom truth was to be learnt who kept the faith and did expound the Scriptures without danger but hee doth not say that they had any unwritten rule of faith or any such rule whereby to expound the Scriptures No for so Irenaeus should not agree with himselfe who saith as His Majesty observed that the evidences which are in the Scriptures cannot be manifested but by the Scriptures themselves Adde hereunto another saying of the Father very pertinent to the purpose We have not known saith hee the dspensation of our salvation but by those by whom the Gospell came unto us which Gospell they preached aad afterward by the Will of God delivered unto us in the Scriptures as that which should be for the foundation and pillar of our Faith So much for Irenaeus The Marquesse cites the words of
the Lord Jesus The ancient Fathers also give testimony to this truth Hilarie hath these very words Fides sola iustificat i. e. Faith alone doth iustifie Austine in effect sayes the same when hee saith Our righteousnesse in this life is so great that it consists rather in forgivenesse of sinnes then in perfection of vertues And so when hee saith Woe even to the landable life of men if thou O Lord laying aside mercy shall enter into the examination of it To this purpose also is that which hee saith upon those words of David Enter not into judgement with thy servant O Lord c. How right soever saith hee I thinke my selfe thou bringest forth a rule out of thy treasure and triest me by it and I am found crooked Thus also Bernard Lord saith he I will make mention of thy righteousnesse onely for it also is mine seeing that thou of God art made unto me righteousnesse Must I feare lest this one righteousnesse will not suffice us both No it is not a short cloake that cannot cover two And againe It is sufficient for mee unto all righteousnesse to have him onely propitious against whom onely I have sinned Not to sinne is Gods righteousnesse mans righteousnesse is Gods indulgence Thus then in the point of justification wee have both Scriptures and Fathers yea and divers Papists also concurring with us As for the two places of Scripture alledged by the Marquesse the former viz. that 1 Corin. 13. 2. speaketh not of justifying Faith but of a Faith of working miracles as is cleare by the words themselves being fully cited which run thus Though I have all faith so that I could remove mountaines and have not charity I am nothing Oecumenius upon the place notes that by Faith there is not meant that Faith which is common to all Believers but a Faith peculiar to such as had the gift of working miracles And though Estius a learned Romanist in his Commentary upon the place seeke to draw it another way yet commenting upon 1 Cor. 12. 9. hee saith that the Greeke Expositors doe rightly understand it of that Faith which is spoken of Chap. 13. If I have all Faith c. that is of the Faith of signes and miracles as they call it which Faith hee saith is not properly a sanctifying grace but onely such a grace as is given for the benefit of others The other place viz. Jam. 2. 24. doth seeme to make against us but indeed it doth not For S. Iames saying that a man is justified by Workes and not by Faith onely meanes onely thus as Cajetan himselfe doth expound it that we are not justified by a barren Faith but by a Faith which is fruitfull in good Workes This appeares to be his meaning by his whole discourse from vers 14. to the end of the Chapter wherein hee bends himselfe against those who presume of such a faith as is without workes and more specially it may appeare by the verses immediately preceding wherein hee saith that Abraham was justified by workes when hee offered up Isaac and that Faith wrought with his workes and by workes was Faith made perfect and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousnesse Now this clearly shewes that Abraham was justified by Faith and not by workes onely his workes did shew that his Faith was a true justifying Faith indeed and not as it is in many that pretend and professe Faith a vaine shew of Faith and a meere shadow of it For that which S. Iames citeth Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousnesse was as appeares by the story in the booke of Genesis long before that Abraham offered up Isaac and by those very words Saint Paul proveth Rom. 4. that wee are justified by Faith and not by Workes Therefore when S. Iames saith that by Abrahams offering up of Isaac that Scripture was fulfilled the meaning is that thereby it did appeare that it was truly said of Abraham that hee believed God and it was counted unto him For righteousnesse his readinesse in that worke to obey God did demonstrate that hee believed God indeed and that his faith was of a right stampe Thus also is it said that by workes faith was made perfect viz. even as the Lord said unto Paul My strength is made perfect in weakenesse 2 Cor. 12. 9. that is Gods strength doth exercise it selfe and shew how great it is in mans weaknesse So Abrahams workes did shew how great his faith was in this sense his workes did make his faith perfect not that they did adde any thing unto it no more then mans weaknesse doth adde unto Gods strength This opinion of yours saith the Marquesse S. Aug. de fide oper cap. 14. saith was an old heresie in the Apostles time and in the Preface of his comment upon the 32. Psal he calles it the right way to hell and damnation See Origan 5. to the Rom. S. Hilar. chap. 7. in Mat. S. Ambr. 4. ad Heb. Answ Austine de fid oper c. 14. speakes nothing against our Opinion but something for it That which hee speaketh by way of reproofe is against those who so thinke that Faith alone will suffice as that they heede not to doe good workes nor to order their life and conversation aright But this is nothing to us who are farre from holding such a Faith as that sufficient But in the same place Austine hath this for our purpose that when the Apostle saith that a Man is justified by Faith without the Workes of the Law hee did not intend that the Workes of Righteousnesse should be contemned but that every one should know that hee may be justified by faith though the workes of the Law did not goe before For saith hee they follow a man being justified they doe not goe before a man being to be justified If as this Father affirmeth a man must first be justified before hee can doe good workes then good workes are no cause of justification but an effect of it For the other place of Austine which the Marquesse alledgeth there is none such that I can finde viz. no preface of his comment upon Psal 32. but in the comment it selfe I finde this which makes for us Doest thou not heare the Apostle The just shall live by Faith Thy faith is thy righteousnesse What Origen saith on Rom. 5. having not his workes now at hand I cannot tell but I see what Bellarmine cites out of him on Rom. 4. and perhaps so it should have been in the Marquesse his writing However there is no doubt but Bellarmine would have made use of it if there had been any thing more for his purpose on Rom. 5. Now on Rom. 4. Origen saith that whose believe Christ but doe not put off the old man with his deeds their faith cannot be imputed unto them for righteousnesse This wee doe
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
not so boldly say unto all the Saints pray for us but would sometimes desire of God to reveale our prayers unto them And for the other Opinion which remaines hee sayes no more but onely that it is probable So that wee see by our adversaries owne confession they have no certainty of this that the Saints in Heaven are particularly acquainted with things here on Earth Some may say that they are certaine that it is so though they be uncertain how it comes to be so I answer indeed if the Scripture did affirme that so it is then wee might and ought to be assured of it though wee could not see why it is so But the Scripture is so farre from affirming it that it denies it as I have shewed and therefore they that maintaine it must both answer the Scripture where it is denied and also by Scripture prove the contrary assertion which they neither doe nor can doe That place cited by the Marquesse viz. Luke 16. 29. is not of force to prove it For 1. Some Romish Expositors and namely Iansenius doth confesse that it is doubtfull whether that which is spoken of the rich man and Lazarus and so of Abraham be any more then a Parable and if it be a History and a Narration of a thing done yet this hee saith must needs be confessed that all things did not happen so as they are related For that it is certaine that the rich man being in Hell did not speake with a Tongue nor with bodily Eyes did see Abraham and Lazarus in his bosome nor did complaine of the scorching of his Tongue nor did desire water to cole it Therefore hee saith Christ did accommodate himselfe to our capacity and declare the things of the life to come after the manner of the things of this life so that those things are to be understood allegorically and spiritually whether it be a bare Parable or a true History And for the words objected he sheweth that they are more easie to be understood if this part of Scripture be taken not for a History but onely for a Parable For then it may be said that Christ did feigne these things which were not done indeed onely to instruct and admonish those that are alive that they should not think to excuse their impenitency by this that they were never informed of the estate of the life to come by any that did returne from it That men might not thinke thus he saith that Christ did bring in the rich man desiring Abraham to send Lazarus to his Brethren that so he might also bring in the answer of Abraham who was of great authority among the Jewes by which answer that conceit is reproved and confuted For Abraham confuting that opinion of the common sort of people answered If they heare not Moses and the Prophets neither will they believe although one should arise from the dead Thus then that place doth not evince that Abraham knew that the Jewes had the writings of Moses and of the Prophets 2. Suppose that part of Scripture to be a History and that Abraham did indeed know that the writings of Moses and the Prophets were upon the Earth yet it doth not therefore follow that hee knew all the severall things done amongst men What God would please to reveale hee might know but how much that is who can tell yea the Romanists themselves do hold that neither Abraham nor any other during the time of the old Testament did understand the estate of men here alive Although the ground of this opinion of theirs be not good viz. because as then they did not enjoy the blessednesse of the life to come yet however this is sufficient to extort from them this place of Luke and to shew that they by their own principles can draw no argument from it for their Purpose For the Fathers which the Marquesse alledgeth I can onely looke into Hierome as being destitute of both the other But I have here and continually almost cause to complaine of the Marquesses quotations they being so wide as here and in many other places they are For there are 14. Chapters of this booke of Hierome that is mentioned but in which of these Chapters any thing to the purpose is to be found is not expressed yet with much adoe I finde that Hierome seemeth to suppose that Paula being dead knew this estate But I finde in another place viz. Adversus Vigilantium cap. 2. that Hierome makes the Saints departed to be every where and by consequence to know what is done any where But Bellarmine likes not to build upon such a foundation confessing that truly and properly to be every where is a thing that doth not belong either to the soules of men or to the Angels From the knowledge which the Saints deceased are pretended to have of our affaires the Marquesse passeth to their praying for us This hee proves by Revel 5. 8. The 24. Elders fell downe before the Lambe having every one of them Harpes and golden Vials full of odours which are the prayers of the Saints And by Baruch 3. 4. O Lord Almighty thou God of Israel heare now the prayers of the dead Israelites Hee addes also the testimonies of Aug. Ser. 15. de verb. Apostoli Hilar. in Psal 129. and Damas de Fide l. 4. c. 16. Ans That the Saints in Heaven do not pray for us in particular appeares by what hath beene proved already viz. that our particular affaires are not knowne unto them That they pray for us in generall Protestants doe not deny about this wee doe not contend saith Amesius against Bellarmine And Bellarmine himselfe cites the Apology of the Augustane Confession granting thus much that the Saints in Heaven doe pray for the Church in generall But for that place Revel 5. 8. I see not how it makes for the purpose For neither doth it appeare that the 24. Elders there mentioned are the Saints departed nor if they be is it said that they pray for the Church here upon Earth Indeed the Rhemists upon the place say Hereby it is plaine that the Saints in Heaven offer up the prayers of faithfull and holy persons in Earth c. And hence they infer That the Protestants have no excuse of their errour That the Saints have no knowledge of our affaires or desires But there is no such thing as they speake of plaine by this place of Scripture except to use the Marquesses words it be margin'd with their own notes senc'd with their own meaning and enlivened with their own private spirit They take it for granted as the Marquess also doth after them that the Saints in Heaven are meant by the 24. Elders and that the Saints after mentioned are the Saints upon Earth whereas the former of these is so farre from being evident that their own Jesuite Ribera doth tell us that Concerning the 24 Elders the opinion of the Fathers
Christ according to Bellarmines computation The Church saith the Marquesse held then mingling of water with wine in the sacrifice of the Eucharist for a thing necessary and of divine and Apostolical tradition Cyprian indeed in the place all eadged viz. Epist 63. doth speak of the mixture of wine and water in the Eucharist as a thing necessary to be obsered But 1. Austine hath taught us That it is no wrong to Cyprian to make a difference betwixt his writings and the Scriptures 2. Cyprian himselfe though speaking of another occasion doth shew us what we are here to answer Whence saith he is this tradition Did it come either from Christ in the Gospel or from the Apostles in their writings For God doth require us to do those things that are written saying to Joshua The book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth c. Jos 1. 8. And when Christ sent his Apostles he bade them baptize all Nations and teach them to observe whatsoever he commanded Mat. 28. 19. 20. If therefore it be commanded in the Gospel or contained either in the Epistles or in the Acts of the Apostles then let it be observed as a divine and holy tradition Now in the Epistle which the Marquesse alleadgeth Cyprian proveth against the Aquarians such as did use only water in the Eucharist that Christ in the institution of the Sacrament used wine this he proves by that which is written Mat. 26. 29. I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the Vine c. but that Christ also did use water he doth not prove neither can it be proved by the Scripture Yet our Divines do grant that probably Christ might mixe wine and water in the Sacramental cup not for any mystical signification nor as a matter of necessary observation but only as in those hot Countries they used commonly to drink wine mixed with water to abate the strength of it Neither do they therefore condemn them of the Church of Rome for using this mixture but for using it so as to make it a sinne not to use it Bellarmine indeed saith that it is no lesse certain that Christ did mixe water with wine when he instituted the Sacrament then that he did use any wine at all for that purpose For he saith neither the Evangelists nor Paul make any mention of wine when they speak of the cup in the Eucharist As for the words I will not drinke henceforth of the fruit of the Vine c. he saith S. Luke doth plainly shew they were spoken not of the cup in the Eucharist but that cup which was given after the eating of the Pascal Lamb. But this contradits Cyprian in that very Epistle which is alleadged against us For their citing these words he infers from them as a thing clear and evident that it was wine which Christ called his blood and that the Sacrament is not rightly celebrated if wine be wanting Yea Maldonate cites many of the ancient Writers besides Cyprian who understand those words of the cup in the Eucharist And whereas Bellarmine doth urge Luke 22. 17 18. to prove that those words I will not henceforth drink c. have reference to another cup and not that in the Eucharist Austine as himself confesseth taketh those words in Luke to be related by anticipation and not in their due order which Matthew and Mark observed And though he say that Austine did not diligently consider the place yet Jansenius writing professedly upon it approves Austins opinion rather then Hieroms who conceives two several cups to be spoken of in S. Lukes Gospel neither doth Bellarmine answer his argument which he doth alleadge for it But however he shews that the words as they are related by S. Matthew and S. Marke cannot be referred to any other cup then that in the Eucharist of which they make mention immediately before and of none other 3. Cyprian in this very point about the mingling of wine and water in the Eucharist doth differ as well from them of the Church of Rome as from Protestants For he makes this mixture of such necessity as to hold it no Sacrament if there be not in the cup both wine and water Otherwise if there bee either onely water or onely wine he holds it to be none of Christs Cup none of his Sacrament But Bellarmine taxeth Chemnitius for charging them of the Roman Church with this opinion and saith that very few of them do hold it Why then do they presse us with the testimony of Cyprian they themselves dissenting from him as well as we For it is over vain and frivolous that Bellarmine saith that though Cyprian spake in that manner yet perhaps he meant otherwise But to proceed The Marquesse saith that anciently the Church held exorcismes exsufflations and renuntiations which are made in Baptisme for sacred ceremonies and of Apostolical tradition And a little after The Church in the ceremonies of Baptisme used then oyle salt wax-light exorcismes the sign of the Crosse the word Ephata and other things that accompany it c. But 1. What authority is there from Gods word for all or any of these Ceremonies Let them be proved by the Scriptures and then we will acknowledge them for divine and holy traditions but otherwise we have no reason to do it And for this we have Cyprian to whom other ancient Writers might be added if need were to speak for us as I have shewed a little before though here among others he also be alleadged against us 2. Bellarmine speaking of rites and ceremonies saith That they must not so be multiplied as with their multitude to overwhelm Religion to which they ought to be subservient And for this he cites Austine But surely the ceremonies of Baptisme which the Marquesse here partly expresseth and partly intimateth Bellarmine doth reckon up particularly no fewer then two and twenty are so many as that they must needs overwhelme Baptisme 3. Some rites and ceremonies anciently used in Baptisme are now abolished in the Church of Rome Anciently they used to dip the person baptized thrice in the water which now Bellarmine saith is not so but in some places they dip once and in some place thrice neither being of the offence of the Sacrament But elsewhere he tels us that the Church hath determined in the fourth Councel of Toledo that there shall be but one dipping used in Baptisme So also Bellarmine amongst the ceremonies of Baptisme anciently used mentioneth the tasting of milk and hony or wine which ceremony yet he saith now is not in use Thus their Apostolical traditions as they call them they themselves can reject when they please The Church held then saith the Marquesse Baptisme for Infants of absolute necessity and for this cause thou permitted Lay-men to baptise in danger of death The absolute necessity of Baptisme is not here simply urged but
c. It is answered that there were two conversions the first of the Brittains the second of the Saxons we onely require this justice from you as you are English not Welch-men for the Church of England involves all the Brittains within her Communion for the Brittains have not now any distinct Church from the Church of England Now if Your Majestie please I expect your further Objections King My Lord I have not done with you yet though particular Churches may fall away in their severall respects of obedience to one supreme Authority yet it follows not that the Church should be thereby divided for as long as they agree in the unity of the same spirit and the bond of peace the Church is still at unitie as so many sheaves of corne are not unbound because they are severed Many sheaves may belong to one field to one man and may be carryed to one barne and be servient to the same table Unity may consist in this as well as in being hudled up together in a rick with one cock-sheave above the rest I have an hundred pieces in my pocket I find them something heavie I divide the summe halfe in one pocket and halfe in another and subdivide them afterwards in two severall lesser pockets The moneys is divided but the summe is not broke the hundred pounds is as whole as when it was together because it belongs to the same man and is in the same possession so though we divide our selves from Rome if neither of us divide our selves from Christ we agree in him who is the Center of all unitie though we differ in matter of depending upon one another But my Lord of Worcester we are got into such a large field of discourse that the greatest Schollers of them all can sooner shew us the way in then out of it therefore before we goe too far let us retire lest we lose our selves and therefore I pray my Lord satisfie me in these particulars Why doe you leave out the second Commandement and cut another in two why doe you with-hold the Cup from the Laytie why have you seven Sacraments when Christ instituted but two why doe you abuse the World with such a fable as Purgatory and make ignorant fooles believe you can fish soules from thence with silver hookes why doe you pray to Saints and worship Images Those are the offences which are given by your Church of Rome unto the Church of Christ of these things I would be satisfied Marq. Sir although the Church be undefiled yet she may not be spotlesse to severall apprehensions For the Church is compared to the Moon that is full of spots but they are but spots of our fancying though the Church be never so comly yet she is described unto us to have black eye-browes which may to some be as great an occasion of dislike as they are to others foyles which set her off more lovely We must not make our fancies judgements of condemnation to her with whom Christ so much was ravished For Your Majesties Objections and first as to that of leaving out the second Commandment and cutting another in two I beseech Your Majestie who called them Commandments who told you they were ten who told you which were first and second c. The Scripture onely called them words those words but these and these words were never divided in the Scriptures into ten Commandments but two Tables the Church did all this and might as well have named them twenty as ten Commandments that which Your Majestie calls the second Commandment is but the explanation of the first and is not razed out of the Bible but for brevitie sake in the manualls it is left out as the rest of the Commandment is left out concerning the Sabbath and others wherefore the same Church which gave them their Name their Number and their Distinction may in their breviats leave out what she deems to be but exposition and deliver what she thinks for substance without any such heavie charge as being blottable out of the booke of life for diminishing the word of God For withholding the Cup from the Laytie where did Christ either give or command to be given either the Bread or the Wine to any such Drink ye all of this but they were all Apostles to whom he said so there were neither Lay-men or women there If the Church allowed them afterwards to receive it either in one or both kinds they ought to be satisfied therewith accordingly but not question the Churches Actions She that could alter the Sabbath into the Lords day and change the dipping of the Baptised over head and eares in water to a little sprinkling upon the face by reason of some emergencies and inconveniencies occasioned by the difference of Seasons and Countries may upon the like occasion accordingly dispose of the manner of her Administration of her Sacraments Neither was this done without great reason the world had not wine in all her Countries but it had bread Wherefore it was thought for uniformity sake that they might not be unlike to one another but all receive alike that they should onely receive the Bread which was to be had in every place and not the Cup in regard that Wine was not every where to be had I wonder that any body should be so much offended at any such thing for Bread and Wine doe signifie Christ crucified I appeal to common reason if a dead body doth not represent a passion as much as if we saw the bloud lie by it If you grant the Churches Power in other matters and rest satisfied therein why do you boggle at this especially when any Priest where Wine is to be had if you desire it he will give it you But if upon every mans call the Church should fall to reforming upon every seeming fault which may be but supposed to be found the people would never stop untill they had made such a through Reformation in all parts as they have done in the greatest part of Germany where there is not a man to Preach or hear the Gospell to eat the Bread or drink the Wine you never pickt so many holes in our Coates as this licentiousnesse hath done in yours For our seven Sacraments she that called the Articles of our Faith 12 the Beatitudes 8 the Graces 3 the Virtues 4 called these 7 and might have called them 17 if she had thought it meet A Sacrament is nothing else but what is done with a holy mind and why Sacrament either in Name or Number should be confin'd to Christs onely Institution I see no cause for it If I can prove that God did institute such a thing in Paradise as he did Marriage shall not I call that a Sacrament as well as what was instituted by Christ when he was upon the Earth If Christ institutes the Order of giving and receiving the holy Ghost shall not I call this the Sacrament of Orders If Christ injoynes us all repentance
Saint Chrysostom saith Omnia clara sunt plana ex scriptur is divinis quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt yet no man ever hath yet defined what are necessary and what not What points are fundamentall and what are not fundamentall Necessary to Salvation is one thing and necessary for knowledge as an improvement of our faith is another thing for the first if a man keeps the Commandments and believes all the Articles of the Creed he may be saved though he never read a word of Scripture but much more assuredly if he meditates upon Gods word with the Psalmist day and night But if he meanes to walk by the rule of Gods word and to search the Scriptures he must lay hold upon the meanes that God hath ordained whereby he may attaine unto the true understanding of them for as Saint Paul saith God hath placed in the Church Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Doctors to the end we should be no more little children blown about with every wind of Doctrine therefore it is not for babes in understanding to take upon them to understand those things wherein so great a Prophet as the Prophet David confessed the darknesse of his owne ignorance And though it be true the Scripture is a river through which a lambe may wade and an Elephant may swim yet it is to be supposed and understood that the lambe must wade but onely through where the river is foordable It doth not suppose the river to be all alike in depth for such a river was never heard of but there may be places in the river where the lambe may swim as well as the Elephant otherwise it is impossible that an Elephant should swim in the same depth where a lambe may wade though in the same river he may neither is it the meaning of that place that the child of God may wade through the Scripture without directions help or Judges but that the meannest capacitie qualified with a harmelesse innocence and desirous to wade through that river of living waters to eternall life may find so much of Comfort and heavenly knowledge there easily to be obtained that he may easily wade through to his eternall Salvation and that there are also places in the same river wherein the highest speculations may plunge themselves in the deep mysteries of God Wherefore with pardon crav'd for my presumption in holding Your Majestie in so tedious a discourse as also for my boldnesse in obtruding my opinion which is except as incomparable Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall pollicy hath well observed the Churches Authority be required herein as necessary hereunto we shall be so far from agreeing upon the true meaning of the Scripture that the outward letter sealed with the inward witnesse of the Spirit being all hereticks have quoted Scripture and pretended Spirit will not be a warrant sufficient enough for any private man to judge so much as the Scripture to be Scripture or the Gospell it selfe to be the Gospell of Christ This Church being found out and her Authority allowed of all controversies would be soone decided and although we allow the Scripture to be the lock upon the door which is Christ yet we must allow the Church to be the Key that must open it as Saint Ambrose in his 38. Sermons calls the agreement of the Apostles in the Articles of our beliefe Clavis Scripturae one of whose Articles is I believe the holy Catholick Church As the Lion wants neither strength nor courage nor power nor weapons to seize upon his prey yet he wants a nose to find it out wherefore by naturall instinct he takes to his assistance the little Jack-call a quick sented beast who runs before the Lion and having found out the prey in his language gives the Lion notice of it who soberly untill such time as he fixes his eyes upon the bootie makes his advance but once comming within view of it with a more speed then the swiftest running can make he jumps upon it and seizes it Now to apply this to our purpose Christ crucified is the main substance of the Gospell according to the Apostles saying I desire to know nothing but Iesus and him crucified This crucified Christ is the nourishment of our soules according to our Saviours own words Ubi Cadaver ibi aquilae Thereby drawing his Disciples from the curious speculation of his body glorified to the profitable meditation of his body crucified It is the prey of the Elect the dead Carkasse feedeth the Eagles Christ crucified nourisheth his Saints according to Saint Iohns saying except we eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud we have no life in us him we must mastigate and chew by faith traject and convey him into our hearts as nutriment by meditation and digest him by Coalition whereby we grow one with Christ and Christ becomes one with us according to that saying of Tertullian Auditu devorandus est intellectu ruminandus fide digerendus Now for the true understanding of the Scriptures which is no other thing then the finding out of Iesus and him crucified who is the very life of the Scriptures which body of Divinity is nourished with no other food and all its veines fil'd with no other bloud though this heavenly food the Scripture have neither force nor power to seize upon its prey but is endued with a lively spirit able to overcome the greatest ignorance yet there is a quick sented assistant called Ecclesia or Church which is derived from a verbe which signifies to call which must be the Jack-call to which this powerfull seeker after this prey must joyne it selfe or else it will never be able to find it out and when we are called we must go soberly to work untill by this means we have attained unto the true understanding and sight thereof and then let the Lion like the Eagle Maher-shalal hashbaz as the Prophet Esay cap. 8. v. 3. tells us make hast to the prey make speed to the spoile Saint Paul confirmes the use of this Etymologie writing to the Corinthians viz. To the Saints called and the Ephesians cap. 4. he tells us if ye would be in one body and in one spirit and of one mind you must be as you are called in our hope of your vocation and in his Epistle of the Colossians cap. 3. he tells us that if we will have the peace of Christ to rule in our hearts that is it by which we are called in one selfe body where we must allow a constitution or Society of men called to that purpose and whose calling it is to procure unto us this peace and unitie in the Church or we shall never find it Thus when dissention arose between Paul and Barnabas concerning Circumcision their disputations could effect nothing but heat untill the Apostles and Elders met together and determined the matter there must be a society of men that can say Bene visum fuit nobis Spiritui sancto or
Succession In the Cities of Judah and Jerusalem There is Universalitie so Demetrius urged Antiquity and Universality for his godde 〈…〉 viz. That her Temple should not be despised 〈…〉 Magnificence destroyed whom all Asia and the world worshipped So Symachus that wise Senator though a bitter enemie to the Christians Servanda est inquit tot seculis fides sequendi sunt nobis parentes qui feliciter sequuti sunt suos we must defend that Religion which hath worne out so many ages and follow our Fathers steps who have so happily followed theirs So Prudentius would have put back Christianity it selfe viz. Nunc dogma nobis Christianum nascitur post evolutos mille demum Consules Now the Christian Doctrine begins to spring up after the revolution of a thousand Consul-ships But Ezekiel reads us another lecture Ne obdurate cervices vestras ut patres vestri cedite manum Iehovae ingredimini sanctuarium ejus quod sanctificavit in seculum colite Iehovam Deum vestrum Be not stiff-necked as your fore fathers were resist not the mighty God enter into his Sactuary which he hath consecrated for ever and worship ye the Lord your God Radbodus King of Phrygia being about to be baptized asked the Bishop what was become of all his ancestors who were dead without being baptized The Bishop answered that they were all in hell whereupon the King suddenly withdrew himselfe from the font saying Ibi profecto me illis Comitem adjungam Thither will I go unto them no lesse wise are they who had rather erre with fathers and Councels then rectifie their understanding by the word of God and square their faith according to its rules Our Saviour Christ saith we must not so much hearken to what has been said by them of old time Mat. 21. 12. as to that which he shall tell you where Auditis dictum esse antiquis is exploded and Ego dico vobis is come in its place which of them all can attribute that credit to be given unto him as is to be given to Saint Paul Yet he would not have us to be followers of him more then he is a follower of Christ 1 Cor. 11. 1. Wherefore if you cry never so loud Sancta mater Ecclesia sancta mater Ecclesia the holy mother Church holy mother Church as of old they had nothing to say for themselves but Templum Domini Templum Domini the Temple of the Lord the Temple of the Lord we will cry as loud againe with the Prophet Quomodo facta est meretrix Urbs fidelis how is the faith full City become a harlot if you vaunt never so much of your Roman Catholick Church we can tell you out of Saint John that she is become the Synagogue of Sathan neither is it impossible but that the house of prayers may be made a Den of theeves you call us hereticks we answer you with Saint Paul Act. 24. 14. After the way which you call heresie so worship we the God of our fathers believing all things which were written in the Law and the Prophets I will grant you that all those marks which you have set downe are marks of the true Church and I will grant you more that they were belonging to the Church of Rome but then you must grant me thus much that they are as well belonging to any other Chucch who hold and maintaine that Doctrine which the Church of Rome then maintained when she wrought those conversions and not at all to her if she have changed her first love and fallen from her old principles for it will do her no good to keep possession of the keyes when the lock is changed now to try whether she hath done so or no there can be no better way then by searching the Scriptures for though I grant you that the Catholick Church is the White in that Butt of earth at which we all must aime yet the Scripture is the heart centre or peg in the midst of that white that holds it up from whence we must measure especially when we are all in the white We are all of us in gremio Ecclesiae so that controversies cannot be decided by the Catholick Church but by the Scriptures which is the thing by which the nearenesse unto truth must be decided for that which must determine truth must not be fallible but whether you mean the consent of Fathers or the decrees of generall Counsels they both have erred I discover no Fathers nakednesse but deplore their infirmities that we should not trust in armes of flesh Tertullian was a montanist Cyprian a rebaptist Origen an Anthropomorphist Heirom a Monoganist Nazianzen an Angelist Eusebius an Arrian Saint Augustine had written so many errors as occasioned the writing of a whole booke of retractations they have often times contradicted one another and sometimes themselves Now for generall Counsels Did not that Concilium Ariminense conclude for the Arrian heresie Did not that Concilium Ephesinum conclude for the Eutichian heresie Did not that Concilium Carthaginense conclude it not lawfull for Priests to marry Was not Athanasius condemned In concilio Tyrioi Was not Eiconolatria established In concilio Nicaeno secundo What should I say more when the Apostles themselves lesse obnoxious to error either in life or doctrine more to be preferred then any or all the world besides one of them betraies his Saviour another denies him all forsake him They thought Christs Kingdome to have been of this world and a promise onely unto the Jewes and not unto the Gentiles and this after the resurrection They wondered that the holy Ghost should fall upon the Gentiles Saint John twice worshipped the Angel and was rebuked for it Apoc. 22. 8. Saint Paul saw how Peter walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel Gal. 2. 14. Not onely Peter but other of the Apostles were ignorant how the word of God was to be preached unto the Gentiles But who then shall rowl away the stone from the mouth of the monument Who shall expound the Scriptures to us one puls one way and another another by whom shall we be directed Scinditur incertum studia in contraria vulgus You that cry up the Fathers the Fathers so much shall hear how the Fathers doe tell us that the Scriptures are their owne interpreters Irenaeus who was scholler to Policarpus that was schollar to Saint Iohn lib. 3. cap. 12. thus saith Ostentiones quae sunt in Scriptur is non possunt ostendi nisi ex ipsis Scriptur is the evidences which are in Scripture cannot be manifested but out of the same Scripture Clemens Alexandrinus Nos ex ipsis de ipsis Scriptur is perfectè demonstrantes ex fide persuademus demonstrative Strom. li. 7. Out of the Scriptures themselves from the same Scriptures perfectly demonstrating doe we draw demonstrative perswasions from faith Crysost Sacra Scriptura seipsam exponit auditorem errare non sinit Basilius Magnus Quae ambiguè quae obscurè videntur
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
away have made shipwrack of their faith This is frequently affirmed amongst the Fathers see S. Aug de gratia lib. arbit de correp gratia ad articulos We hold that God did never inevitably damn any man before he was born or as you say from all eternity you say he did we have Scripture for what we say Wis 1. 13. God made not death neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living 1 Tim. 2. 34. 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 he saies so believe him when he swears it As I live saith the Lord I doe not delight in the death of a sinner The Fathers are of our opinion S. Aug. lib. 1. Civit. Dei Tertul. Orat. cap. 8. Saint Cypr. lib. 4. Epist 2. and Saint Amb. lib. 2. de Cani Abel We hold that no man ought infallibly to assure himselfe of his salvation you say he ought the Scripture saith we ought not 1 Cor. 9. 27. S. Paul was not assured but that whilst he preached unto others he himselfe might become a cast-away Rom. 11. 20. Thou standest in the faith be not high-minded but fear c. least thou also maist be cut off Phil. 2. 12. Worke out your salvation with fear and trembling The Fathers are of our opinion Amb Ser. 5. in Psal 118. S. Basil in Constil Monast chap. 2. S. Hier lib. 2. Advers Pelagian S. Crysost Hom. 87. in Joan. S. Aug in Psal 40. S. Bernard Ser. 3. de Advent and Ser. 1. de Sept. saith Who can say I am of the Elect We say that every man hath an Angel guardian you say he hath not we have Scripture for it viz. Mat. 18. 10. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones for I say unto you that in heaven their Angels doe alwaies behold the face of my Father Acts 12. 13. S. Peter knocking at the door they say it is his Angel they believed this in the Apostles time the Fathers believed it along S. Greg. Dial. lib. 4. cap. 58. S. Athanas de Communi Essentia S. Chrys Hom. 2. in ep ad Colos lib. 6. de Sacer. Greg. Turonens lib. de gloria Martyr S. Aug. ep ad Probam cap. 19. and S. Jer. upon these words Their Angels Mat 17. 10. calls it a great dignity which every one hath from his Nativity We say the Angels pray for us knowing our thoughts and deeds you deny it we have Scripture for it Zach. 1. 9 10 11 12. Then the Angel of the Lord answered and said O Lord of Hosts how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the Cities of Judah against whom thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years Apoc. 8. 4. And the smoake of the incense of the prayers of the Saints ascended from the hand of the Angel before the Lord. This place was so understood by Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. and S. Hillary in Psal 129. tells us This intercession of Angels Gods nature needeth not but our infirmities doe So S. Amb. lib. de viduis Victor utic lib. 3. de persecutione Vandalorum We hold it lawfull to pray unto them you not we have Scripture for it Gen. 48. 16. The Angel which redeemed me from all evill blesse these lads c. Hosea 12. 4. He had power over the Angel and prevailed he wept and made supplications unto them Saint Augustine expounding these words of Job 19. 21. Have pitty upon me O ye my friends for the hand of the Lord is upon me saith that holy Job addressed himselfe to the Angels We hold that the Saints deceased know what passeth here on earth you say they know not we have Scripture for it Luke 16. 29. where Abraham knew that there were Moses and the Prophets Books here on earth which he himselfe had never seen when he was alive The Fathers say as much Euseb Ser. de Ann. S. Hier. in Epit. Paulae S. Maxim Ser. de S. Agnete We say they pray for us you not we have Scripture for it Apoc. 5. 8. The twenty four Elders fell downe before the Lambe having every one of them Harpes and golden Viols full of odours which are the prayers of the Saints Baruch 3. 4. O Lord Almighty thou God of Israel hear now the prayers of the dead Israelites The Fathers were of this opinion S. Aug. Ser. 15. de verbis Apost S. Hilar. in Psal 129. S. Damas lib. 4. de fide cap. 16. We hold that we may pray to them you not we have Scripture for it Luke 16. 24. Father Abraham have mercy on me and send Lazarus c. You bid us shew one proof for the lawfulnesse hereof when here are two Saints pray'd unto in one verse and though Dives were in Hell yet Abraham in Heaven would not have expostulated with him so much without a non nobis Domine if it had been in it selfe a thing not lawfull You will say it is a parable yet a jury of ten Fathers of the grand inquest as Theophil Tertul. Clem. Alex. S. Chrys S. Jer. S. Amb. S. Aug. S. Greg. Euthem and Ven. Beda give their verdict that it was a true History but suppose it were a parable yet every parable is either true in the persons named or else may be true in some others The Holy Ghost tells no lies nor fables nor speaks not to us in parables consisting either of impossibilities or things improbable Job 5. 1. Call now if there be any that will answer thee and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne It had been a frivolous thing in Eliphaz to have asked Job the question if invocation of Saints had not been the practise of that time The Fathers affirme the same S. Diony c. 7. S. Athan. Ser. de Anunt S. Basil Orat. 44. in Mat. S. Chrys Hom. 66. ad Popul S. Hier. pray'd to S. Paula in Epitaph S. Paulae S. Maximus to S. Agnes Ser. de S. Agnete S. Bern. to our blessed Lady We hold Confirmation necessary you not we have Scripture for it Acts 8. 14. Peter and John prayed for them that they might receive the holy Ghost for as yet he was fallen upon none of them onely they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus 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 go on unto perfection not laying againe the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God of Baptisme and of Laying on of hands The Fathers affirme the same Tert. lib. de Resurrect Carn S. Pacian lib. de Bapt. S. Amb. lib. de Sac. S. Hier. Cont. Lucif S. Cypr. lib. 2. Ep. 1. speaking both of
acknowledgment The Fathers are on our side Orig. Hom. 2. in Levit. S. Chrys lib. 3. de Sacerd. S. Aug. in speculo Ser. 215. de temp Vener Bed in 6. Marke and S. James and many others Thus most Sacred SIR we have no reason to wave the Scriptures umpirage so that you will hear it speak in the mother language and not produce it as a witnesse on your side when the producers tell us nothing but their owne meaning in a language unknowne to all the former ages and then tell us that she saith so and they will have it so because he that hath a Bible and a sword shall carry away the meaning from him that hath a Bible and ne're a sword nor is it more blasphemy to say that the Scripture is the Churches off spring because it is the word of God then it is for me to say I am the sonne of such a man because God made me instrumentally I am so and so was shee for as saith Saint Aug Evangelio non crederum nisi me Ecclesiae anthoritas commoveret I should not believe the Gospel it selfe unlesse I were moved by the authority of the Church There was a Church before there was a Scripture take which Testament you please We grant you that the Scripture is the Originall of all light yet we see light before we see the Sun and we know there was a light when there was no Sun the one is but the body of the other We grant you the Scriptures to be the Celestiall globe but we must not grant you that every one knows how to use it or that it is necessary or possible they should We grant that the Scripture is a light to our feet and a lanthorne to our paths then you must grant me that it is requisite that we have a guide or else we may lose our way in the light as well as in the darke We grant you that it is the food of our souls yet there must be some body that must divide or break the bread We grant you that it is the onely antidote against the infection of the Devil yet it is not every ones profession to be a compounder of the ingredients We grant your Majesty the Scripture to be the only sword and buckler to defend a Church from her Ghostly enemies yet I hope you will not have the glorious company of the Apostles and the goodly fellow ship of the Prophets to exclude the noble Army of Martyrs and the holy Church which through all the world doth acknowledge Christ wherefore having shewne Your Majestie how much the Scriptures are ours I shall now consider your opinions apart from us and see how they are yours and who sides with You in Your opinion besides Your selves and first I shall crave the boldnesse to begin with the Protestants of the Church of England The Church of England WHose Religion as it is in opposition to ours consists altogether in denying for what she affirms we affirme the same as the Reall presence the infallibility visibility universality and unity of the Church confession and remission of sins free-will and possibility of keeping the Commandments c. All these things you deny and you may as well deny the blessed Trinity for we have no such word in Scripture onely inference then that which ye have already denyed and for which we have plaine Scripture Fathers Councels practise of the Church that which ye hold positive in your Discipline is more erroneous then that which is negative in your Doctrine as your maintaining a woman to be head Supreame or Moderatrix in the Church who by the Apostles rule is not to speak in the Church or that a Lay-man may be so what Scripture or Fathers or custome have ye for this or that a Lay-man as your Lay-Chancellour should excommunicate and deliver up soules to Sathan Whereas matters of so weighty concernment as delivering of mens soules into the Devils hands should not be executed and upon mature deliberation and immergent occasions and not by any but those who have the undoubted Authority lest otherwise you make the Authority it selfe to be doubted of A strange Religion whose Ministers are denyed the power of remitting sins whilst Lay-men are admitted to the power of retaining them and that upon every ordinary occasion as non-payment of fees and the like Whereas such practises as these have rendred the rod of Aaron no more formidable then a reed shaken with the wind so that you have brought it to this that whilst such men as these were permitted to excommunicate for a threepeny matter the people made not a three-peny matter of their Excommunication The Church of Saxony NOw for the Church of Saxony you shall find Luther a man not only obtruding new Doctrine upon his Disciples without Scripture or contrary to Scripture but also Doctrine denying Scripture to be Scripture and vilipending those books of Scripture which were received into the Canon and acknowledged to be the word of God in all ages As The book of Eccles saying That it hath never a perfect sentence in it and that the Author thereof had neither boots nor spurs but rid upon a long stick or begging shooes as he did when he was a Fryar And the book of Job that the argument thereof is a meer fiction invented onely for the setting downe of a true and lively example of patience That it is a false opinion and to be abolished that there are four Gospels and that the Gospel of S. John is only true That the Epistle of S. James is contentious swelling dry strawy and unworthy an Apostolical spirit And that Moses in his writings shewes unpleasant stopped and angry lips in which the word of grace is not but of wrath death and sin He calls him a Goaler Executioner and a cruell Serjeant For his doctrine He holds a threefold Divinity or three kinds as there are three persons whereupon Zwinglius taxes him for maning three Gods or three Natures in the Divinity He himselfe is angry with the word Trinity calling it a humane invention and a thing that soundeth very coldly He justifies the Arrians and saith they did very well in expelling the word Homousion being a word that his soule hated He affirmed that Christ was from all eternity even according to his humane nature taxed for it by Zwing in these words how can Christ then be said to be borne of a woman He affirmes that as Christ dyed with great pain so he seeems to have sustained pains in Hell after death That the divinity of Christ suffered or else he were none of his Christ That if the humane nature should only suffer for him that Christ were but a Saviour of a vile account and had need himselfe of another Saviour Luther held not onely consubstantiation but also saith Hospinian that the body and bloud of Christ both is and may be found according
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
conversion so as to convert meer Infidels yet in the other kinde viz. in converting mis-believers they have done much This the Marquesse pag. 44. is pleased to call perversion rather then conversion but that must be judged by the consideration of the Doctrines held by Protestants As for those conversions wrought in the Indies by the Romanists we may well conceive that it was not so much the word preached by the Jesuits as the sword brandished by the Spaniards that did worke them Franciscus de Victoria a learned Writer among the Papists writing of the Indians saith he did not see that the Christian faith was so propounded and declared to them as that under the guilt of a new sin they were bound to embrace it He heard he sayes of no Miracles and Signes that were wrought nor of very good examples of life that were given but on the contrary of many scandalous acts and many impieties Whereupon he conceiveth that Christian religion was not so conveniently and properly preached to that barbarous people as that they were bound to acquiesce in it though he grants that there were many religious and other Ecclesiasticall men who both by life and example and also by diligent preaching did sufficiently doe their indeavour but that they were hindred by others who minded other matters Thus I have as briefly as I could gone over the markes which the Marquesse assigneth of the true Church and that because he saith that his Majesty did wave them all whereas indeed his Majesty did not wholly wave them though as his occasions would not suffer him to return any answer at all to the Marquesses reply so neither would they it's likely permit him to answer the former Paper so fully as otherwise he would have done Whereas the Marquesse saith that His Majesty is pleased to make recourse unto the Scriptures This is surely the course that all ought to follow that wil discusse matters of Religion they ought to have recourse to the Scriptures by which all such matters are to be tried and determined To the Law and to the testimony saith the Prophet Esay if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Augustine speaking of the Donatists bade let them shew their Church onely by the Canonicall bookes of the Scriptures professing that he would not have any to beleeve that he was in the true Church because of the commendation that Optatus Ambrose and many others did give of it And againe Let us not heare saith he Thus say I thus sayest thou but let us heare Thus saith the Lord. Let those things be removed out of the way which we alledge one against another otherwise then from the Bookes of Canonicall Scripture I will not have the holy Church demonstrated by humane tokens but by divine Oracles But saith the Marquesse What Heretick that ever was did not do so How shall the greatest Heretick in the World be confuted or censured if any man may be permitted to appeale to Scriptures margin'd with his own notes sens'd with his owne meaning and enlivened with his owne private spirit to what end were those markes so fully both by the Prophets the Apostles and our Saviour himselfe set down if we make no use of them Answ 1. Though Hereticks make recourse unto Scripture it follows not that therefore this is not the course which ought to be followed or that therefore they are Hereticks that doe it The Marquesse himselfe did make recourse unto Scripture in setting down the markes of the true Church and so also doth he in handling sundry points in controversie betwixt Papists and Protestants This course therefore himselfe being Judge is not to be condemned neither certainly is it however Hereticks may abuse it Though Hereticks will alledge Scripture in defence of their Heresics yet are they neverthelesse to be confuted by Scripture The Sadduces thought by Scripture to overthrow the resurrection yet by Scripture did our Saviour convince them Mat. 22. 23. 32. Yea when the Devill himselfe did cite Scripture our Saviour did not therefore dislike it but made use of it for the resisting of Satan and the repelling of his temptation Mat. 4. 6 7. 2. It 's true none may appeal to Scriptures margin'd with their own Notes sens'd with their own meaning and enliven'd with their own private spirit It 's to no purpose to alledge Scripture except that sense in which it is alledged may be made good by Scripture The Jewish Rabbin as Master Selden cites him saith well All interpretation of Scripture which is not grounded upon the Scripture is vaine But what this makes against his Majesties making recourse unto the Scriptures or against any mans taking that course in disputes of this nature I doe not see For that his Majesty did so make recourse unto Scripture the Marquesse doth not say neither ought any man to be charged in this kind except it can be proved that he is indeed guilty 3. It doth not yet appear that the particulars before mentioned viz. Universality Antiquity Visibility Succession of Pastours Unity in Doctrine and Conversion of Nations that these I say were set down either by our Saviour or his Apostles or the Prophets as marks of the True Church at least so as to make any thing for the Marquesses purpose viz. to prove the Church of Rome to be the True Church Your Majesty was pleased to urge the Errours of certain Fathers to the prejudice of their Authority Which I conceive would have been so had they been all Montanists Rebaptists all Anthropomorphists and all of them generally guilty of the faults wherewith they were soverally charged in the particulars seeing that when we produce a Father we doe not intend to produce a man in whose mouth was never found guile the infallibility being never attributed by us otherwise then unto the Church not unto particular Church men As your Majesty hath most excellently observed in the failings of the holy Apostles who erred after they had received the Holy Ghost in so ample manner But when they were all gathered together in Councell and could send about their Edicts with these Capitall Letters in the Front Visum est Sipritui Sancto nobis Act. 15. 28. then I hope your Majesty cannot say that it was possible for them to Erre So though the Fathers might erre in particulars yet those particular Errours would be swallowed up in a Generall Councell c. Here the Marquesse grants that the Fathers singly and severally considered may erre but not if gathered together in a generall Councell But first doth not this invalidate the authority of the Fathers when they are severally cited as they are in this Reply frequently by the Marquesse Indeed here presently after he addes Neither is a particular defection in any man any exception against his testimony except it be in the thing wherein he is deficient But certainly if a man be liable to
errour in one thing he is so in another thing and therefore his bare testimony except it have something to support it is not sufficient to rely upon The testimony of the Lord is sure saith David Psal 19. 7. because he can neither deceive nor be deceived But man may and therefore his testimony as his is not sure No Let God be true and every man a lyar saith the Apostle Rom. 3. 4. 2. For a generall Councell why it should necessarily be exempt from Errour I see nothing here alledged by the Marquesse except it be that Acts 15. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us But the inference made from that Councell wherein the Apostles themselves did sit and give sentence to prove that no generall Councell can Erre is no better than if one should argue that a particular Father or Doctor is infallible because a particular Apostle was so in that which he either wrote or preached For we must take heed of entertaining such a thought although the Marquesses words do seem to imply so much as that each particular Apostle might fall into Errour though all of them together could not For how then should we be able to build our faith upon those Scriptures which were composed by particular Apostles and not by a whole Councell of them It 's true as his Majesty observed pag. 50. the Apostles were ignorant and erronious in some things but not in any thing that they delivered unto People to believe and obey either by word or writing for then as I said we could have no certainty of the Scriptures we could not be built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets as Believers are Ephes 2. 20. But that generall Councells may erre Austin made no question Who knowes not saith he that Provinciall and Nationall Councells doe yeild to the authority of Generall Councells and that Generall Councells are often amended the former by the latter that being after found out which before lay hid It is well known that the Romanists reject the authority of the Councels of Constance and Basil two Generall Councels when they determine the Pope to be inferiour and subject to a Generall Councell Indeed generally the Pontificians make little account of a Councel though otherwise never so generall except it be confirmed by the Pope Bellarmine makes it a clear case and without all difficulty that Generall Councells may Erre if the Fathers of the Councell define any thing when as the Legates of the Pope dissent from them or if the Legates themselves do consent but so as to go against the instructions which the Pope gave them And he further holds that in case the Legates had no certain instructions from the Pope the Councell may Erre and that before the Popes Confirmation of it the judgment of a Generall Councell is not infallible The Marquesse himself pag. 55. c. doth seeme to assent unto His Majesty taxing Generall Councells for committing Errours but some passages he hath which to me seeme very strange If saith he we should suppose them to be Generall and free Councels yet they could not be Erronious in any particular mans judgement untill a like Generall Councell should have concluded the former to be Erronious By this Assertion Arrianisme being confirmed by the Councell of Ariminum Athanasius and every particular man should have assented to it untill another Generall Councell had determined against it but this is such a position as I dare say our Romish adversaries themselves will not allow Again If it should be granted saith the Marquesse that the Church had at any time determined amisse the Church cannot be said to have erred because you must not take the particular time for the Catholike Church because the Church is as well Catholike for time as territory except you will make rectification an errour But when our adversaries of Rome speak of the Churches freedome from errour they understand it of the Church representative a generall Councel It is one and the same thing saith Bellarmine that the Church cannot erre in determining matters of faith and that Bishops cannot erre But severally they may erre therefore being gathered together they shall be free from errour So then if a Generall Councell may erre at any one time it is sufficient to overthrow their Tenet that the Church cannot erre That the Church represented in a Generall Councell may after rectifie what before was amisse and that also by the determination of a Generall Councell is so farre from proving that the Church as they take it cannot Erre that on the contrary it proves that it may Erre For though rectification be not errour yet it doth presuppose Errour Again If I recall mine own words saith the Marquesse it is no Errour but an avoidance of Errour So where the same power Rectifies it self though some things formerly have been Decreed amisse yet that cannot render the Decrees of Generall Councels not binding or incident to Errour quoad nos though in themselves pro tempore they may be so I answer it is without all doubt that for one to recall his words being Erronious is no Errour but a correcting of Errour yet this doth clearly shew a man to be subject to Errour And so if the Church at one time in a Generall Councell may Rectifie what at another time in a Generall Councell it had Decreed amisse it evidently appears that the Church in a Generall Councell may Erre For otherwise what need of Rectification were there if there had been no Errour And certainly if the Decrees of Generall Councells be Erronious as the Marquesse denies not but they may be they are not binding Quoad nos we are not bound to assent unto them but rather to dissent from them For we are not bound to embrace Errour but to embrace Truth Prove all things hold fast that which is good saith the Apostle 1 Thes 5. 21. By the Marquesses reason the Decree of the Councell of Ariminum confirming the Heresie of Arrius should for the time have been binding so that neither Athanasius nor any other should have presumed to oppose it or to dissent from it untill another Generall Councell had declared against it As to your Majesties objecting the Errours of the Holy Apostles and Pen-men of the Holy Ghost and your inference thereupon viz. that Truth is no where to be found but in holy Scripture under your Majesties correction I take this to be the greatest argument against the private Spirit urged by your Majesty its leading us into all Truth that could possibly be found out For if such men as they indued with the Holy Ghost innobled with the power of working Miracles so sanctified in their callings and inlightned in their understandings could Erre how can any man lesse qualified assume to himselfe a freedome from Erring by the assistance of a private Spirit 1. His Majesty was farre from thinking that the Apostles as Pen-men of the
Holy Ghost could Erre For then there were no room for that inference That Truth is no where to be found but in Holy Scripture 2. His Majesty spake not of any private Spirit but of the Spirit of God leading us into all Truth alledging that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 2. 12. We have received not the spirit of the world but the spirit which is of God that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God It 's true if any under pretence of the Spirit goe contrary to the Word as too many doe whether they be particular Persons or generall Councells that doe so it is a private Spirit viz. their owne Spirit that they are guided by Therefore Saint Iohn bids Believe not every spirit but trie the spirits whether they be of God because many false Prophets many that falsly pretend the Spirit are gone out into the world 1 Iohn 4. 1. But whoever they be that goe according to the Word though they be particular and private persons yet it is not their own particular and private Spirit but the Spirit of God that doth guide them The Scripture was given by inspiration of God 2 Tim. 3. 16. Therefore it is Gods Spirit and not Mans that doth speak in and by the Scriptures Lastly as to your Majesties quotation of so many Fathers for the Scriptures easinesse and plainnesse to be understand If the Scriptures themselves doe tell us that they are hard to be understood c. 1. His Majesty did not quote many Fathers nor any at all to prove that the Scriptures are every where plain and easie to be understood but to shew that the Scriptures are their own interpreters which are His Majesties words pag. 50. To prove this which is a most certain truth His Majesty quoted indeed many Fathers as Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Crysostome Basil Austine Gregory and Optatus The Scriptures quoted by the Marquesse make nothing against this viz. 2 Pet. 3. 16. Act. 8. 31. not as it is mis-printed 13. Luke 24. 25. rather 45. Apoc. 5. 4. where not the Angel as the Marquesse saith but Iohn wept because none was found worthy to open and to read the Book Neither doth it appear that by the Book there mentioned is meant the Scripture as the Marquesse seemeth to suppose And so indeed many have thought as the Jesuit Ribera telleth us who yet neverthelesse professeth that he did not see how historically this could be For this Book was shut and sealed as he observes untill that time that Iohn had this Revelation when as all the other Apostles were deceived so that the Scripture if it were the Book there spoken of was alwayes shut to Peter and Paul and the other Apostles The other places I grant do shew that in the Scriptures there are some things obscure and difficult at least to some but this is nothing against the Scriptures being their own interpreters What is obscure in one place must be cleared by some other place or else without extraordinary revelation I see not how we should attain to the understanding of it No need therefore to put those sayings of the Fathers cited by His Majesty among the Errata's that are behind their Books as the Marquesse speaketh pag. 57. where he addes Or else we must look out some other meaning of their words than what your Maj hath inferred from thence as thus they were easie in aliquibus locis but not in omnibus locis or thus they were easie as to the attainment of particular salvation but not as to the generall cognizance of all the Divine Mystery therein contained c. But this is nothing contrary to his Majesties inference which was only this That the Scriptures are their own Interpreters i. e. that Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture not that the Scriptures are clear in all points and in all places it sufficeth that which the Marquesse himselfe doth seeme to yeild they are clear in those things which concern Salvation And this was Austines determination In those things saith he which are plainly set down in the Scriptures are found all those things which concern faith and good life Yea so much the Scripture doth testimony of it self The testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple Psal 19. 7. The entrance of thy words giveth light it giveth understanding to the simple Psal 119. 130. From a child thou hast known the Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation c. 2 Tim. 3. 15. First we hold the reall presence you deny it we say his Body is there you say there is nothing but bare Bread we have Scripture for it Mat. 20. for 26. 26. Take eat this is my Body So Luke 22. 19. This is my Body which is given for you Here the Marquesse comes to performe that which before he promised pag. 53 54. viz. to shew that in those points wherein they and we differ the Scriptures are on their side and not on ours And he begins with the controversie about the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper alledging those words This is my Body as a clear proof of their opinion viz. that after Consecration there is no longer the substance of Bread but that the Bread is transubstantiated and turned into the substance of Christs Body But doth it appear that those words This is my Body are to be understood properly any more than those Gen. 17. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee every man-child among you shall be circumcised There Circumcision is called Gods Covenant whereas properly it was not the Covenant it self but the token of the Covenant as it is called immediately after ver 11. So Exod. 12. 13. and in other places the Lamb is called the Lords Passeover whereas properly it was not the Passeover but a Token of the Passeover being slain and eaten in remembrance of the Lords passing over the houses of the Israelites when he saw the First-born of the Aegyptians Exod. 12. 13. And thus also it 's said 1 Cor. 10. 4. that the Rock was Christ How could that be Not in respect of Substance but in respect of Signification the Rock signified Christ was a Type and a Figure of Christ Bellarmine I know doth indeavour to elude all these instances as if the speeches were not Figurative but Proper To that place concerning Circumcision he answereth that both Speeches are proper viz. Circumcision is the Covenant and Circumcision is the Token of the Covenant Circumcision he saith was the Token of the Covenant as the Covenant is taken for Gods Promise and it was also the Covenant it self as the Covenant is taken for the Instrument whereby the Promise is applyed But here Bellarmine is contrary both to himself and to Reason He is contrary to himselfe for a little before he saith that these words Circumcision is the Token
of the Covenant Gen. 17. 11. are an Explication of that which went before ver 10. viz. that Circumcision is the Covenant Now if the one be an Explication of the other then needs must the word Covenant be taken alike in both He is also contrary unto Reason for it is absurd to say that a Covenant doth properly signifie both a Promise and also an Instrument whereby the Promise is applyed As well may one say that Christs Body doth properly signifie both his Body and also the Sacrament of his Body A Covenant in the very nature of it being properly taken doth signifie a Promise and therefore the instrument whereby it is applyed cannot properly be the Covenant but onely the Token Pledge and Assurance of it It may as well be said that a Covenant may have two diverse and distinct natures as that a Covenant can be taken two diverse and distinct wayes and yet be taken properly both the one way and the other To those words It viz. the Lamb is the Lords passeover Exod. 12. 11. Bellarmine answers that the Speech is not Figurative but Proper The Lamb he saith was properly the Lords Passeover and mark his Reason Quia agnus immolabatur in memoriam illius transitus that is Because the Lamb was slain or sacrificed in memory of that passeover or passing over Now what greater absurdity can there be then this which here Bellarmine doth fall into He alledgeth that as a Reason of his assertion which indeed doth quite overthrow it For if the Lamb were slaine and sacrificed in memory of the Lords Passeover or passing over then was it not properly the Passeover it self but only a Signe and Memoriall of it As for those words 1 Cor. 10. 4. The Rock was Christ Bellarmine saith that not a Materiall but a Spirituall work is there meant and that therefore though the word Rock be taken Figuratively yet the proposition it selfe The Spirituall Rock was Christ is not figuratively but properly taken But it is evident that the Rock spoken of by the Apostle was a materiall Rock a Rock of Stone For the Apostle speaketh of a Rock which the Israelites drank of They drank of that Rock saith he Now that Rock which the Israelites drank of was a materiall Rock a Rock of Stone as Moses doth shew Exod. 17. and Numb 20. Austin never questioned this to be the meaning of the Apostles words After a sort saith he all things signifying seeme to be instead of those things which they signifie as it is said by the Apostle The Rocke was Christ because that Rock of which that is spoken did indeed signifie Christ These words of that learned Father are very remarkable that onely for the understanding of that particular place of Scripture but also for the determining of the maine Controversie betwixt us and our Romane Adversaries For he not onely saith that the Rock is said to have been Christ because it did signifie Christ supposing and taking it as granted that the Apostle spake of a materiall Rock but also he saith that after a sort all things signifying are instead of the things signified by them and therefore are called by the same names If our adversaries would minde this rule they would soon see that they have no cause to insist upon those words This is my Body and to urge the proper sense of them But for these words The Rock was Christ Bellarmine argueth that a materiall Rock is not there meant because the Apostle calleth it a spirituall Rock I answer so the Apostle there calleth Manna spirituall meat yet was Manna a materiall thing onely it had a spirituall signification And so also was the Rock a materiall Rock onely it 's called spirituall for the same reason Bellarmine objects that a materiall Rock did not follow the Israelites as the Apostle saith that the Rock did which hee speakes of for they dranke saith he of that spirituall Rock that followed them I answer 1. The materiall Rock may be said to have followed them that is to have satisfied their desire of water Thus as Beza observes Photius a Greek Author doth expound it and so also as Pareus testifies Lyra and Dionysius two Romish expositors Bellarmine notes Peter Martyr as thus expounding it neither hath he any thing against this exposition but only that the Greek Fathers and Erasmus interpret the word used by the Apostle comitante i. e. accompanying But this is nothing for they might meane accompanying in a metaphoricall sense viz. in respect of satisfying the desire Againe the Rock may be said to have followed the Israelites in that the water flowing forth of the Rock did follow them Genebrard a great man of the Romish party commenting upon those words Psal 78. 15. He clave the Rocks in the Wildernesse c. saith that the Septuagint and the vulgar Latine interpreter have it in the singular number Rock because by the Hebrew traditions there was but one Rock which was smitten and so sent forth water at severall times and in severall places and that this Rock did remove with the Israelites and follow them in their travells through the Wildernesse And this he saith is agreable to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. 4. But this is over Rabbinicall and therfore he addes that the Rock may be said to have followed the Israelites that is that the water which flowed out of the Rock did follow them either in that they themselves by their own art and industrie did derive and bring it to the place where they camped or that it was effected by Gods transmission and direction Bellarmine objects that a little after the Israelites did want water againe as as we read Num. 20. and therefore the water did not follow them But that want of water spoken of Num. 20. was not a little after but a long time after the other mentioned Exod. 17. For that in Exodus was the Israelites camped in Rephidim not long after they came out of Egypt and the other was when they camped in Kadesh in the fourtieth yeare after they left Egypt as is noted in the Hebrew Chronicle called Seder Olam cap. 9. Compare Numbers 33. 14. with 36. Genebrard in the place before cited meetes with this Objection that Bellarmine makes and answers that according to the Rabbins both ancient and moderne that which is recorded Num. 20. is meant of the same Rock that is spoken of Exod. 17. the water whereof they say did faile because of Miriams death which happened there in Kadesh untill upon the peoples murmuring againe it was drawn out of the same Rock the second time This conceit of the Rabbines is far from pleasing me onely I note how little force Bellarmines objection was of with his own copartner Genebrard Indeed this is enough to shew the vanity of the objection that as Genebrard notes the want of water in Kadesh was 38. years after that in Rephidim and therefore was not as Bellarmine
sayes a little after But though it had not been one halfe quarter of that time before the Israelites wanted water againe yet that is no argument why the Apostle speaking of the Rock that followed them should not meane a materiall and visible Rock for the materiall and visible Rock that is the water that flowed from it might follow the Israelites though but for while even so long as they encamped in Rephidim neither doth the Apostle say that it followed them either perpetually or for any long time but onely that it followed them But howsoever it be understood that the Rock followed them which I confesse is somewhat obscure how by the Rock there should be meant Christ as the efficient cause giving them water to drinke For to drinke of the Rock is there expressed in the same phrase as to drinke of the Cup 1 Cor. 11. 28. Neither I thinke can one in any congruity be said to drinke of a man that giveth him either water or any thing else to drinke but onely to drinke either of the liquour or metonymically of that wherein the liquour is contained Finally Bellarmine himselfe doth acknowledge that the materiall Rock which afforded the Israelites water to drinke was a figure of Christ and that the water proceeding from that Rock was a figure of Christs Blood onely he denies that so much is meant by the Apostle in those words they dranke of the spirituall Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ But I demand then from what place of Scripture if not from those words of the Apostle can so much bee gathered Iansenius a learned Romanist is more candid and free then Bellarmine for expounding the Parable of the sower he saith that the word is as when it is said The seed is the word of God c. Luke 8. 11. is put for signifieth as also there where it is said And the Rock was Christ And so also say we when 't is said This is my Body the meaning is This doth signifie my Body or This is a Signe a Token a Seal a Pledge of my Body The Lord saith Austine doubted not to say This is my Body when he gave the Signe of his Body And again speaking of those words Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his Bloud ye have no life in you Ioh. 6. 53. he saith That Christ seemeth to command some hainous act or some grosse wickednesse And that therefore it is a figurative speech requiring us to communicate with the Lords sufferings and sweetly and profitably to keep in memory that his flesh was Crucified and wounded for us And yet again He that is at enmity with Christ saith he doth neither eat his Flesh nor drink his Bloud although to the condemnation of his presumption he daily receive the Sacrament of so great a thing as well as others These saying of Austin doe sufficiently shew how he understood those words This is my Body and how far he was from being of the now-Romane Faith concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament Indeed these very words This is my Body which our Adversaries pretend to make so much for them are most strong against them and enough to throw down Transubstantiation For Christ saying This is my Body what is meant by the word This They of the Church of Rome cannot agree about it but some say one thing some another only by no means they will have Bread to be meant by it For they very well know that so their Transubstantiation were quite overthrown But look into the Scripture and mind it well and see if any thing else but Bread can be meant by the word This. It 's said Mat. 26. 26. Iesus took Bread and blessed it brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take eat This is my Body What is here meant by the word This What is it that Christ calls his Body That which he bade the Disciples take and eate And what was that That which he gave unto them And what was that That which he brake And what was that That which he blessed And what was that That which he took And what was that Bread For so expresly the Evangelist tells us that Iesus took Bread So then it was Bread that Christ took and Bread that he blessed and Bread that he brake and Bread that he gave to the Disciples and Bread that he bade them take and eat and Bread of which he spake saying This is my Body As if he should say This Bread which I have taken and blessed and broken and given unto you to eat even this Bread is my Body Now the word This relating unto Bread the speech must needs be Figurative and cannot be Proper For properly Bread cannot be Christs Body Bread and Christs Body being things of diverse and different natures and so it being impossible that properly one should be the other As when Christ called Herod a Fox and the Pharisees Serpents and Vipers the speeches are not Proper but Figurative so is it when he called Bread his Body it being no more possible that Bread should be the Body of Christ in propriety of speech then that a man should properly be a Fox a Serpent a Viper Besides doth not the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. speaking of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper continually call it Bread even after Consecration Indeed to distinguish it from ordinary and common Bread he calls it This Bread but yet still Bread the same in substance though not the same in use as before And which is worthy to be observed thus the Apostle calls it viz. Bread when he sharply reproves the Corinthians for their unworthy receiving of the Sacrament setting before them the grievousnesse of the sin and the greatnesse of the danger that they did incur by it Now what had been more forcible and effectuall to this end than for the Apostle if he had been of the Romish Faith to have told them that now it was not Bread though it seemed unto them to be so but that the substance of the Bread was gone and instead thereof was come the very substance of Christs Body He saith indeed That whoso eat that Bread and drink the Cup of the Lord unworthily are guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord But that is because that Bread and that Cup i. e. the Wine in the Cup are by the Lords own institution Signes and Seales of the Lords Body and Bloud so that the unworthy receiving of them is an indignity done to the things signified by them But to return to the Marquesse he citeth sundry passages in Iohn 6. where our Saviour speakes of eating his flesh and drinking his blood calling himselfe Bread living Bread and affirming that his Flesh is meat indeed and his Blood drinke indeed But all this is farre from proving that reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament which the Marquesse doth contend for For 1.
his book against Berengarius speaks of some Copies of Ambrose his Workes wherein those words were not Ut sint quae erant that is That those things should be which were But no such Copies either Printed or Manuscript it seems did Bellarmine meet with for otherwise I doubt not he would have given us notice of them Again with the same Lanfrancus he answers that those words are thus to be understood that in respect of outward shew the things which were still are but are changed in respect of inward substance But how can a thing be said to be what it was when as there is no substance of the thing remaining but onely a shew and appearance of it In the last place Bellarmine addes of his own that Ambrose meant If Christ could make a thing of nothing why can he not make a thing of something not by annihilating the thing but by changing it into that which is better But if a thing be changed substantially into another thing how doth it remain what it was before But so the things doe that Ambrose speaks of For Bellarmines criticisme is poor in distinguishing betwixt Ut sint id quod erant That they should be that which they were and Ut sint quae erant That the things should be that were as if these words did not import that the same substances still remain as well as the other when Christ turned Water into Wine can we say that his Word was operative and powerfull Ut esset quod erat in aliud mutaretur That that should be which was and that withall it should be changed into another thing I confesse I cannot see how the thing may be said truly and properly to be which was if it be substantially changed into some other thing Ambrose there a little after saith Tu ipse eras sed eras vetus creatura posteaquam consecratus es nova creatura esse coepisti Thou thy self wast but thou wast an old creature after thou art consecrated thou beginnest to be a new creature which cannot be meant of any substantiall change in us Chap. 5. the same Ambrose if it were Ambrose for Bellarmine is not very confident that Ambrose was the Author of those Books De Sacramentis saith indeed That before it is Consecrated it is Bread but when the words of Christ are come it is the Body of Christ But that it is so the Body of Christ as to be no longer Bread he doth not affirme That he was of another mind appears by the words before alledged And so much also may be gathered from that which he saith in this same Chapter viz. He that did eat Manna dyed but whose eateth this Body shall have remission of sins and shall live for ever Which cannot be understood of a Corporall eating of Christs Body but of a Spirituall eating of it Bellarmine cites some other sayings of Ambrose out of another Work of his viz. De iis qui mysteriis initiantur but they prove no more than these already cited neither doth the Marquesse refer us to them Yea in that same work Ambrose doth sufficiently declare himselfe against Transubstantiation For there he saith It is truly the Sacrament of Christs Flesh And after Consecration the Body of Christ is signified And again It is not therefore Corporali food but Spirituall Whence also the Apostle saith of the Type of it that our Fathers did eat Spirituall meat and did drink Spirituall drink 1 Cor. 10. The last Author Remigius is onely cited by the Marquesse at large neither doe I find him cited by Bellarmine at all and therefore untill we have some particular place cited out of him it is in vain to trouble our selves about him besides that his Antiquity is not such as that his Authority should much be stood upon being 890 years after Christ as Bellarmine sheweth in his book of Ecclesiasticall Writers Secondly saith the Marquesse We hold that there is in the Church an infallible Rule for understanding of Scripture besides the Scripture it self This you deny this we have Scripture for as Rom. 12. 6. We must prophecy according to the Rule of Faith We are bid to walke according to this Rule Gal. 6. 16. We must encrease our Faith and preach the Gospell according to this Rule 2 Cor. 10. 15. This rule of Faith the Holy Scriptures call a forme of Doctrine Rom. 6. 17. a thing made ready to our hands 2 Cor. 10. 16. that we may not measure our selves by our selves 2 Cor. 10. 12. the depositions committed to the Churches trust 1 Tim. 6. 20. for avoiding of profane and vaine bablings and oppositions of sciences And by this rule of faith is not meant the Holy Scriptures for that cannot doe it as the Apostle tells us whilst there are unstable men who wrest this way and that way to their own destruction but it is the tradition of the Church as it is delivered from hand to hand as most plainly appears 2 Tim. 2. 2. The things which thou hast heard of us not received in writing from me or others among many witnesses the same commit thou to faithfull men who shall be able to teach it to others also That there is any infallible Rule for understanding of Scripture or any other rule of Faith besides the Scripture we do deny and that by authority of the Scripture it self To the law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this Word it is because they have no light in them Isai 8. 20. Search the Scriptures for in them yee thinke to have eternall life and they are they that testifie of mee Joh. 5. 39. These were more noble then they of Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readinesse of minde and searched the Scriptures whether those things were so Acts 17. 11. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine for reproofe for correction for instruction in righteousnesse That the man of God may be perfect thoroughly furnished unto all good workes 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. Neither doe those places alledged by the Marquesse make for the contrary We must prophesie according to the rule of Faith saith the Apostle Rom. 12. 6. as the Marquesse hath it following therein the Rhemists translation as also their comment upon the place But the word in the originall signifies rather proportion then rule And I see not but that by the proportion of saith may be understood the measure of saith which is spoken of vers 3. But be it granted that proportion of faith is as much as rule of faith where doth the Apostle say that this rule of faith is any other then the Scripture it selfe The places before cited shew that we are referred to the Scripture as the rule whereby all doctrines are to be tried but no where doe I finde that wee are referred to any unwritten tradition Sure I am our Adversaries can evince no such thing from
Tertullian and so of Vincentius Tertullians words as he cites them are these wee doe not admit our adversaries to dispute out of Scripture till they can shew who their ancestors were and from whom they received the Scriptures For the ordinary course of Doctrine requires that the first question should be from whom and by whom and to whom the forme of Christian Religion was delivered otherwise prescribing against him as a stranger These words I cannot finde nor any like unto them in the place cited viz. de Praescrip cap. 11. elsewhere indeed in that booke I finde words like unto these though not the same However if wee should be tried by these words I see not how they will conclude against us For though the Heretickes with whom Tertullian had to doe might be convinced otherwise then by Scripture it followes not that therefore this is not the ordinary way whereby to convince Hereticks Thus Christ convinced the Sadduces that denied the Resurrection Mat. 22. 29. c. thus Apollos convinced the Jewes who denied Jesus to be the Christ Acts 18. 28. And thus the Apostles convinced those that urged Circumcision and the observing of the Jewish Law Acts 15. 15. c. And thus both other Fathers and even Tertullian himselfe doth usually dispute against Heretickes and confute them by the Scriptures But saith the Marquesse If a Heathen should come by the Bible as the Eunuch came by the prophecy of Esay and have no Philip to interpret it unto him hee would find out a Religion rather according to his own fancy then Divine verity Be it so yet here is nothing to prove that this Philip that is to interpret the Bible is not to fetch his interpretation from the Bible it selfe but from some unwritten tradition I come to Vincentius Lirinensis whose words produced by the Marquesse run thus It is very needfull in regard of so many errors proceeding from mis-interpretations of Scriptures that the line of propheticall and Apostolicall exposition should be directed according to the rule of the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense But I see not that in the opinion of Vincentius the rule of the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense is any other then the Scripture He insists much I am sure upon those words of the Apostle If wee or an Angell from heaven preach any other Gospell unto you then that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed Gal. 1. 8. Now as was noted before out of Irenaeus the Gospell which the Apostles preached they delivered unto us in the Scriptures and that is the foundation and pillar of our Faith Indeed all that Vincentius in his Commonitory against Heresies aimes at is this That the Faith once delivered to the Saints as Saint Iude speaks might be preserved To which end he descants well upon those words of the Apostle O Timothy keep that which is committed to thy trust 1 Tim. 6. 20. That which is committed to thee not that which is invented by thee that which thou hast received not that which thou hast devised a matter nōt of wit but of doctrine not of private usurpation but of publick tradition a thing brought unto thee not brought forth by thee in which thou art not to be an author but a keeper not an ordainer but an observer not a leader but a follower That this Depositum or thing committed to Timothy was any unwritten Tradition and not the doctrine of the Gospell contained in the Scripture neither doth Vincentius say neither can it be proved Bellarmine himself is forced to confesse That all things necessary for all are written by the Apostles Yea and that those things which have the testimony of Tradition he means unwritten tradition received in the whole Church are not usually such as concern most obscure questions And how then should such Tradition be the Rule of Faith and of Expounding the Scriptures The Marquesse saith that in matters of Faith Christ bids us to observe and doe whatsoever they bid us who sit in Moses Seat Mat. 23. 2 3. whence he infers Therefore surely there is something more to be observed then onely Scripture Will you not as well believe what you hear Christ say as what you hear his Ministers write You hear Christ when you hear them as well as you read Christ when you read his Word He that heareth you heareth me Luk. 10. 16. Thus the Marquesse but it was from our Saviours meaning that the people should doe simply and absolutely whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees who sate in Moses Seat should enjoyn Our Saviour meant nothing lesse for expresly he bade beware of the leaven of the Pharisees Mat. 16. 6. that is of the Doctrine of the Pharisees v. 12. Our Saviours meaning therefore was only this that whiles the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses Seat did deliver the Law and Doctrine of Moses people should hear and obey though otherwise they were most corrupt both in life Doctrine The Jesuite Maldonate doth thus expound the place as indeed it cannot with any probability be otherwise expounded When Christ saith he bids observe and doe what the Scribes and Pharisees say whiles they sit in Moses seat he speaks not of their Doctrine but of the Doctrine of the Law and of Moses For it is as if he should say All things that the Law and Moses shall say unto you the Scribes and Pharisees rehearsing it observe and do but after their workes doe not It 's true Christ doth tells us that they that hear his Ministers hear him but that is when they speak as his Ministers when they speak his Word not their owne As God said to the Prophet Ezekiel Thou shalt speak my Words unto them Ezek. 2. 7. And to the Prophet Ieremy Speak unto them all that I command thee Ier. 1. 17. And so Christ to his Apostles Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you Mat. 28. 20. So then we hear Christ indeed when we hear his Word spoken by his Ministers as well as we read Christ when we read his Word written in the Scriptures But that which we hear must be tried by that which we read that which is spoken by Ministers by that which is written in the Scriptures as hath been shewed before by Isai 8. 20. Ioh. 5. 39. Act. 17. 11. We say saith the Marquesse the Scriptures are not easie to be understood you say they are we have Scripture for it as is before manifested at large The Fathers say as much c. We doe not say that the Scriptures throughout in every part of them are easie to be understood but that they are so in things necessary unto Salvation This hath been shewed before by the testimony both of the Scripture it self and of Austine as likewise that the places of Scripture objected by the Marquesse doe make nothing against the easinesse of the Scripture either at all or at least in this sense Neither are the
Fathers here alledged by the Marquesse against it Irenaeus whose words the Marquesse produceth not but Bellarmine doth saith onely that of those things which are contained in the Scriptures quaedam some are such that we must commend unto God meaning that we cannot perfectly know them This is nothing repugnant to what we say Nor that which is said by Origen whom the Marquesse onely citeth at large contra Cels but I find both the book and the words in Bellarmine viz. that the Scripture is Multis locis obscura in many places obscure of which what Protestant I marvell doth make any question So when Ambrose Epist 44. calleth the Scripture a Sea and a depth of propheticall Riddles And Hierom Praefat. comment in Ephes saith that he took great pains to understand the Scripture And Austine Epist 119. cap. 21. saith that the things of Holy Scripture which he knew not were more than those he knew And Dionysius B. of Corinth cited by Eusebius Hist l. 7. c. 20 saith that the matter of the Scriptures was farre more profound then his Wit could reach what is all this against Protestants who onely hold that the Scriptures in things that concern Faith and Manners are not so obscure but that they ought to be read or heard by all and that all may profit by the reading or hearing of them And in this sense Bellarmine yeildeth that Chrysostome in diverse places doth affirme the Scriptures to be plain and easie viz. to shake off the lazinesse of many who might if they would read the Scriptures with much benefit And besides we hold that where the Scripture is obscure the interpretation of it is to be fetched from the Scripture it self against which these Fathers say nothing but both diverse of these and also diverse others as hath been shewed doe plainly avouch it The Marquesse proceeds saying 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 Esay 35. 8. Such Scripture that 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 that shall be without spot or wrinkle Ephes 5. 27. Such a Church as shall be enlivened for ever with his Spirit Esay 59. 21. The Fathers affirme the same c. Concerning the Churches erring or not erring we must distinguish of the Church and of Errour The Church is either visible which consisteth both of good and bad which therefore is compared to a Net c. Mat. 13. 47. c. or invisible which consisteth onely of the Elect and true Beleevers The Lord knoweth who are his 2 Tim. 2. 19. Men may know who professe themselves to be his but who are indeed only God knoweth All the Elect they are the Church saith Bernard And to the same effect Austine The Church consisteth of those that are good who build upon the Rock not of those that build upon the Sand. As for Errour it is either damnable or not damnable Now it is granted that the invisible Church cannot erre damnably For this is that Church which Christ speaketh of and saith That the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Mat. 16. 18. But for the Church Visible whether our Adversaries mean the Church Virtuall whereby they understand the Pope or the Church Representative that is a Generall Councell we hold that it may Erre and that damnably The Scriptures alledged are not against this assertion That Esai 35. 8. speaks not of the Church but of a Way called there The Way of Holinesse so sure and safe that Wayfaring men though fooles shall not Erre therein That Mat. 18. 17. onely shewes that a member of the Church being justly admonished by the Church ought to submit to the Admonition of it or else is to be accounted as a Publican or Heathen But this is farre from proving the Churches infallibility That Ephes 5. 27. shewes not what the Church is here in this world but what it shall be hereafter in the world to come It is not so to be understood saith Austine as if the Church were now so but that it is prepared that it may be so And accordingly Bede In the Kingdome of Heaven the Church shall be fully and perfectly without spot or wrinkle c. For when as the Apostle did not only say that he might present it to himself a Church not having spot or wrinkle but also added Glorious he sufficiently signified when it shall be without Spot or Wrinkle That Esai 59. 21. sheweth that God will give both his Word and his Spirit for ever unto his Church but it speaks of the invisible Church the Elect and Godly Such as turn from Transgression ver 20. not of any outward visible Church which hath no such priviledge but that it may Erre and so Erre as to cease to be a Church as the example of the Churches of Asia mentioned Revel 2. 3. doth make manifest For the Fathers the first whom the Marquesse citeth is Austine whom as before is shewed holdeth Generall Councells lyable to Errour and such as that the former may be corrected by the latter That therefore which he saith Contra Crescon l. 1. c. 33. so I presume it should be not cap. 3. as it is in the Marquesse his Paper viz. That we hold the truth of the Scriptures when we doe that which hath pleased the whole Church which the authority of the same Scriptures doth commend That I say must be understood so farre forth as the Scriptures doe commend the Church we do well and conformably to the Scriptures in conforming to it But I see not how Austine himself could hold the Church to be so commended in the Scriptures as that we must simply and absolutely doe what the Church pleaseth For then what need of having one Generall Councell to be corrected and amended by another Our Adversaries themselves when they please make no scruple of waving and altering that which was generally held and practiced in the Church I let passe saith Maldonate the opinion of Austine and of Innocentius which about 600. yeares did prevaile in the Church that the Eucharist is necessary even for Infants The thing is now declared by the Church both by the Custome of many Ages and also by the decree of the Councell of Trent that it is not onely not necessary for them but also that it is not meet to be given unto them Cyprian Epist 55. who is the next that the Marquesse citeth speaketh indeed of the Authority of the Church but how so as to censure and excommunicate those that deserve it about that hee writes unto Cornelius Bishop of Rome But this is much short of proving the Church to be infallible and that it cannot erre Cyprian was far from
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
the Apostle there say neither so farre as I see can it in any congruity be said that the Church of Rome either is or was a Church universally spread thorough the World A part and an eminent part of the Church so universall it might be but the whole universall Church it could not be The Apostle there saith no more of the Romanes then he doth of the Thessalonians 1 Thess 1. 8. yet I presume our Adversaries will not therefore admit either the Church of Thessalonica to be universall or ever since the Apostles time to have continued sound and Orthodox And why then will they thinke to inforce so much from the Apostles words for the Church of Rome To these two places of Scripture the Marquesse addeth the testimonies of three Fathers viz. Cyprian Austine and Hierome But for the first of these his words are pitifully mistaken They are these Dum apud vos una animus unae vox est Ecclesia omnis Romana confessa est the Marquesse renders it thus whilst with you there is one minde and one voyce the whole Church is confessed to be the Roman Church whereas any that can understand Latine and wil minde the words may see that they are to be rendred thus whilest with you there is one minde and one voyce the whole Roman Church hath confessed Cyprian here wrote to Cornelius Bishop of Rome who together with others had before heathen persecutors confessed the faith For this Cyprian commends them and saith that they so confessing as they did and all being of one minde and one voyce the whole Roman Church did confesse This makes indeed for the soundnesse of the Roman Church as it was in Cyprians time but for the universality of it as if it were the universall Church or a Church universally diffused it makes nothing For Austines words de unit Eccles cap. 4. Who so doth not communicate with the whole corps of Christendome certaine it is that they are not in the holy Catholick Church I see not what they are to the purpose They cannot be so understood as that all must necessarily communicate with all that are of the corps of Christendome that is that professe themselves Christians For so all should be tied to communion with grosse and notorious Heretikes They must then be understood of communicating with all Christians so farre forth as they are indeed Christians but what is this to prove either the perpetuall universality of the Church or that the Church of Rome is such a Church Austine wrote against the Donatists who confined the Church to Affrike excluding all the World besides from being of the Church This is nothing against us who doe not confine the Church to any place whatsoever The last Father here cited is Hierom who as the Marquesse telleth us saith That it is all one to say the Roman Faith and the Catholike Faith But the Marquesses quotation of the place where this is to be found in Hierome is too laxe viz. in Apol. ad Ruffin it should be adversus Ruffin But there are two Apologies which Hierome wrote against Ruffin and one of them divided into severall Bookes it was meet therefore that the place should have been cited more particularly then it is Yet I think I have met with the place which the Marquesse meaneth which yet doth not speake so much as the Marquesse supposeth Ruffinus translating Origens workes which had many grosse errors in them into Latine to justifie himselfe said the Latine Reader shall finde nothing that differs from our faith Hereupon Hierome asked what faith he meant by our faith whether that faith which did flourish in the Church of Rome or that which was contained in the workes of Origen If saith hee he shall answer The Roman faith then are we Catholickes who have translated nothing of Origens error but if Origens blasphemy be his faith whilest he chargeth me with inconstancy he proves himselfe an Heretick Here indeed Hierome implieth the Roman faith and the Catholick faith to have been then when he wrote one and the same yet not simply but so farre forth as did concerne the errors of Origen But how can any justly hence conclude that in Hieromes Dialect it 's all one to say the Roman faith and the Catholick faith as if in Hieromes opinion the Roman faith and the Catholick faith in all points and at all times must needs be the same That Hierome did not overvalue the Church of Rome is evident For when the custome of that Church was objected against something that hee held hee rejected the authority of it with some disdaine saying If wee seek authority the World is greater then the City And againe what doe you bringing the custome of one City From Universality the Marquesse passeth to Unity saying that the unity of the Church is necessary in all points of faith and proving it first by Scriptures as Ephes 4. 5. Acts 4. 35. and 1 Cor. 1. 10. then by fathers as Austine contra Par. l. 3. c. 5. Cypr. de unit Eccles and Hilar. ad Constant. Now this unity of the Church hath been spoken of before and it hath beene shewed how far it is requisite as also how little cause they of the Church of Rome have either to applaud themselves for it or to upbraide the Reformed Churches for want of it There is one Lord one faith one baptisme faith the Apostle Eph. 4. 5. well suppose they of the Roman-church have one faith yet except they have the one faith this of which the Apostle speaketh what are they the better But indeed neither is their faith so one as they pretend there being many great and weighty points wherein they differ one from another See Gerard loc com de Eccles Sect. 240 c. On the other side as I have said before if the confessions of the reformed churches be look't upon rather then particular mens opinions or perhaps expressions there will no great difference in points of faith be found amongst them Acts 4. 35. here cited by the Marquesse is not to the purpose as not speakking of unity of faith but rather of affection 1 Cor. 1. 10. the Apostle exhorts them to unity and that there might be no divisions among them but because there was not such unity as was meet but there were divisions among them he doth not therefore say that they were no true Church In a word both the Scriptures and the Fathers are for the unity of the Church in points of Faith and so are we that the severall Articles of Protestant Churches deny this Unity the Marquesse affirmeth but doth not prove it We hold faith the Marquesse that every Minister of the Church especially the supreme Minister or Head thereof should be in a capacity of fungifying his Office in Preaching the Gospell Administring the Sacrament Baptizing Marrying and not otherwise This we have Scripture for Heb. No man taketh this honour unto himself but he that is called
of God as Aaron was This you deny and not onely so but you so deny it as that your Church hath maintained and practiced it a long time for a woman to be head or supreme Moderatrix in the Church when you know that according to the Word of God in this respect a woman is not onely forbidden to be the head of the man but to have a tongue in her head 1 Tim. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 14. 34. Yet so hath this been denyed by you that many have beene hang'd drawn and quarter'd for not acknowledging it The Fathers are of our opinion c. All this is but to strike at the Title which hath beene given to our Kings and Queens viz. Supreme Heads or Governours and Governesses of the Church within their Dominions We know our Adversaries have much stomack'd and opposed this Title but we know no just cause that they have had for it We never made Kings or Queens Ministers of the Church so as to dispense the Word and Sacraments only we have attributed unto them this Power to look to and have a care of the Church that the Word be Preached and the Sacraments Administred by fit persons and in a right manner This is no more then belongs unto Kings and Queens as both Scriptures and Fathers doe informe us We see in the Scriptures that the good Kings of Iudah as Asia Iehoshaphat Hezekiah and Iosiah not to speak of David and Solomon who were Prophets as well as Kings and so may be excepted against as extraordinary persons did put forth their power in ordering the Affaires of the Church as well as of the Civill State Asa put down Idolatry and caused the People to enter into Covenant to serve the Lord 2 Chron. 15. Iehoshaphat took away the High Places and the Groves and made the Priests and Levites to goe and teach the People 2 Chron. 17. Hezekiah reformed what had been amisse in matter of Gods Worship caused the Priests and Levites to do their Duty and the Passeover to be solemnly kept 2 Chron. 29. 30 31. So Iosiah also destroyed Idolatry repaired the Temple and kept a most solemne Passeover causing both Priests and People to performe their Duty Austine acknowledgeth this power to belong unto Kings In this saith he Kings as they are commanded of God doe serve God as Kings if in their Kingdome they command good things and forbid evill things not only which belong unto humane Society but also which concerne Divine Religion And the same Father speaking of Christian Princes makes their happiness to lie in this That they make their power serviceable to Gods majesty in enlarging his worship as much as they are able This power also Christian Princes have exercised and have not been taxed for it as Constantine Theodosius c. See Mason de Minist Anglic. lib. 3. cap. 4. The exercising therefore of this power which we ascribe to Kings and Queenes is no taking that Honour to themselves which is spoken of Heb. 5. 4. Neither is it any teaching or speaking in the Church which the Apostle will not allow unto a woman 1 Tim. 2. 11 12. and 1 Cor. 14. 34. Neither is this crosse to what the Fathers whom the Marquesse citeth say which amounts to this that Ministers are to doe those things which belong unto Ministers and that in those things which concern their Ministery all even Kings and Queens are subject unto them All this is nothing against Kings and Queens having a power over Ministers so as to see them perform the Offices which belong unto them And it may seeme strange that the Marquesse should now so lately with so much eagernesse inveigh against that Title and Power given to that Queen of happy memory Q. Elizabeth as most unmeet for her when as Hart a Papist stiffe enough living in the Queens time by his Conference with Doctor Rainolds and Doctor Nowels Book against Dorman was so convinced that he confessed himself satisfied in this point and acknowledged that we ascribe no more unto Princes then Austine doth in the words before cited We say that Christ gave commission to his Disciples to forgive Sinnes you deny it and say that God onely can forgive sins we have Scripture for it Joh. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained And Joh. 20. 21. As my Father hath sent me even so send I you And how was that viz. with so great power as to forgive sins Mat. 9. 3. 8. where note that S. Matthew doth not set downe how that the people glorified God the Father who had given so great power unto God the Son but that he had given so great power unto men loc cit The Fathers are of this opinion c. It is strange that the Marquesse should say that we deny that Christ gave Commission to his Disciples to forgive Sinnes We confesse that the Scripture is clear for it that he did give them such a Commission onely the question is how the Commission is to be understood and what power it is that the Disciples had and so other Ministers have to forgive Sinnes It 's true we hold that God only can forgive sins and yet withall that men may forgive sins These are not contradictory the one to the other because as all Logitians know except the propositions be understood of one and the same thing in one and the same respect there is no contradiction Now when we say that onely God can forgive sins it is meant in one respect and when we say that men may forgive sinnes it is meant in another respect As the sin is against God so properly and authoritatively God alone can forgive it And this God doth challenge unto himself as his prerogative I even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions c. Isai 43. 25. And therefore the Scribes were right in this Who can forgive sins but God onely Mar. 2. 7. They were right in the Doctrine though wrong in the Application their position was good that God only can forgive Sins but their supposition was naught that Christ was but a meer Man and had not power to forgive Sins as he did This saith Hilary troubles the Scribes that a man doth forgive sin for they took Christ for a meer Man It is true none can forgive sinne but God only and therefore he that forgiveth is God because none forgiveth but God The same also is clearly and fully acknowledged by Gregory whom amongst other Fathers the Marquesse alledgeth against us He writing upon the second Penitentiall Psalme that is the 32. Psalme upon those words Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin he saith thus Thou who alone sparest who alone doest forgive sinnes For who can forgive sinnes but God onely And with these agreeth Irenaeus whom also the Marquesse bringeth in as a witnesse on his side He speaking of Christs forgiving of sinnes saith That thereby
he did declare who he was For if none can forgive sinnes but onely God and the Lord Christ did forgive them then it is manifest that he was the Word of God made the Son of Man c. and that as God he hath mercy on us and doth forgive us our debts which we owe unto God our Maker Accordingly also Ambrose another of those Fathers whom the Marquesse maketh to be of their opinion Whereas saith he Iewes say that onely God can forgive sinnes they doe indeed confesse Christ to be God and by their judgement bewray their perfidiousnesse c. They have a testimony for Christs Divinity they have no Faith for their owne Salvation Therefore great is the madnesse of the unbelieving people that when as they confesse that it belongs onely unto God to forgive sinnes yet they doe not beleeve God when he forgiveth sins So by this Argument the same Father proves the Holy Ghost to be God because he forgiveth Sins For that none can forgive sinnes but onely God as it is written Who can forgive sinnes but only God Thus Ambrose cites that saying of the Scribes as a most undoubted truth How then have Ministers power to forgive Sins In that the word of reconciliation is committed unto them 2 Cor. 5. 19. in that they are to preach remission of sinnes in Christs name Luk. 24. 47. Be it known unto you that through this man viz. Christ is preached unto you forgivenesse of sinnes said Paul Act. 13. 38. Ambrose observes that Christ first said to his Apostles Receive ye the holy Ghost and then Whose sins ye remit they are remitted Whence he gathers that it is the holy Ghost that doth indeed forgive Sins Men saith he doe onely afford their Ministery for the forgivenesse of sinnes they doe not exercise the authority of any power Neither doe they forgive sins in their Name but in the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Lombard called the Master of the Sentences and of School-divinity disputing this Question and shewing diverse Opinions about it determines thus That God only doth remit and retain sins and that yet God hath given power to the Church to bind and loose But that God himself doth bind and loose one way and the Church another way That God by himself alone doth forgive sinne so as to clense the soul from staine and to free it from the guilt of eternall death That he hath not given this power to Priests to whom yet he hath given power to loose and bind that is to declare men to be loosed or bound Whence our Lord first by himselfe made the Leper sound and then sent him to the Priests that they might declare him to be clean And hence he inferres that a Minister of the Gospell hath such power in remitting or retaining sins as the Priest in the Law had in clensing a Leper The Priest was said to make the Leper clean or unclean so the words are in the Originall Levit. 13. when he did pronounce and declare him to be clean or unclean So Ministers remit or retain sinnes when they pronounce and declare that sins are remitted or retained of God And in this Lombard followed Hierome who as his words cited by Lombard doe shew by this very similitude of the Leviticall Priest dealing with a Leper illustrates and sets forth the manner how a Minister doth now remit or retain sins Thus then I hope it may sufficiently appear that in this point both Scriptures and Fathers are for us and not against us as the Marquesse would have it We hold that we ought to confesse our sins unto our ghostly Father this ye deny saying that ye ought not to confesse your sins but unto God alone This we prove by Scripture Mat. 3. 5 6. Then went out Jerusalem and all Judea and were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sinnes This confession was no generall confession but in particular as appeares Acts 19. 18 19. And many that beleeved came and confessed and shewed their deeds The Fathers affirme the same c. For Confession of Sinnes Protestants doe not say that they ought not to confesse to any but God onely though they hold that ordinarily it sufficeth to confesse onely unto God and that there is no necessity of confessing to any other whereas they of the Church of Rome will have it necessary for every one man to confesse unto a Priest all his deadly sinnes and such indeed are all sinnes whatsoever without the mercy of God in Christ Rom. 6. 23. Gal. 3. 10. which by diligent examination he can find out together with all the severall circumstances whereby they are aggravated Thus hath the Councell of Trent decreed it And nothing will suffice to procure one that is Baptized remission of Sins without this Confession either in Re actually performed or in Voto in desire as Bellarmine doth expound it Who also stickes not to say that in all the Scripture there seems not to be any promise of for givenesse of sinnes made to those that confesse their sins unto God Which is a most impudent Assertion For David having said I acknowledged my sinne unto thee and mine iniquity have I not hid I said I will confesse my transgressions unto the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sinne he addes immediately for this shall every one that is godly make his prayer unto thee c. Psal 32. 5 6. Besides Aquinas and Bonaventure two prime Schoolemen hold that under the Law it was not ordinarily required of people to confesse in particular unto a Priest Bonaventure also cites Austine saying Oblatio sacrificiorum fuit confessio peccatorum The offering of sacrifices was the confession of sinnes whence hee inferreth that therefore it seemes there was no other confessing of sinnes but the offering of Sacrifices For those two places of Scripture cited by the Marquesse neither they nor any other doe speake of such a confession as they of the Church of Rome doe contend for Bellarmine holds that their Sacramentall confession as they call it viz. that confession which they make a part of the Sacrament of penance was not instituted till after Christs Resurrection and therefore he sayes it is no marvell if as Ambrose observes we reade of Peters teares but not of his confession That the Jewes therefore when they were baptized of Iohn confessed their sinnes Mat. 3. 5 6. is not enough to prove that confession which we now dispute of although it did appeare that the confession there spoken of was a particular confession which yet appeares not Cardinall Cajetane saith it was but a generall confession Neither indeed in probability could it be any more for how should Iohn have been able to heare such multitudes as came unto him to be baptized Ierusalem and all Iudea and all the region round about Iordan Mat. 3. 5. confesse all their sinnes in
things are not in his heart and I will confesse that full and perfect righteousnesse may be in this mortall body Who is there saith Leo so free from fault that there is not in him that which either justice may condemne or mercy may pardon In no thing to sinne is proper unto God saith Ambrose He means that no man in this life can attain unto that perfection for so he addes presently after He that bears about him flesh a mortall body is subject unto sinne Thus also Austine Who is there saith he in this life so clean but that he hath need to be made yet more and more clean And again The Church saith he in this life is so cleansed not that they that are justified have no mainders of sinne in them but that they have not any spot of criminall offence nor any wrinkle of falshood Accordingly speaks Gregory In this life saith hee many are without criminall offences but none can bee without sinne And presently after hee sayes that these sinnes which none can be without doe pollute the soule though they doe not destroy it Bernard interprets that of Saint Iohn He that is born of God sinneth not 1 Iohn 3. 9. thus He sinneth not that is he doth not continue in sinne Or thus He sinneth not that is it is as much as if he did not sinne because sinne is not imputed unto him And elsewhere he expressely yeeldeth that Gods Commandements are more then any can fully and perfectly observe The Commander saith he was not ignorant that the command did exceede mens strength but he iudged it profitable that they should be admonished of their insufficiency and that they should know to what perfection of righteousnesse they ought to endeavour as they are able Therefore by commanding things impossible he did not make men prevaricatours but humble that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may be subject unto God because by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be justified before him For receiving the Commanment and feeling a defect wee shall cry towards Heaven and God will have mercy on us and we shall know in that day that not by the workes of righteousnesse that we have done but according to his mercy he hath saved us Thus also some of the Church of Rome that have written since Luthers time have acknowledged that none in this life are free from sinne nor able to abide the judgement of God by their own righteousnesse which is in effect to acknowledge that none doe perfectly keepe Gods Commandements Thus Ferus speaking of such as are justified saith that they have indeed yet many sinnes but no condemnation because they are reputed clean for their faith in Christ And againe No man saith hee how holy soever is free from sin so long as hee lives in this World Therefore all have need to be purged daily So also Genebrard Seeing saith hee that none is perfectly righteous before God the fear of his just and pure judgement ought to affright all That is his comment upon the words of David Enter not into judgement with thy servant O Lord c. Psal 143. 2. Now for those two places of Scripture which the Marquesse alledgeth they come farre short of proving that possibility of keeping Gods Commandements which wee deny As for that Luk. 1. 6. it shewes indeed that Zacharias and Elizabeth had respect unto all Gods Commandements as all ought to have Psal 119. 6. but it doth not shew that they did perfectly keepe all Gods Commandements Hierome long agoe answered the Pelagians objecting these very persons and others spoken of in Scripture as righteous that they are called righteous not that they were without fault but because they were for most part vertuous And I marvell how any can alledge the example of Zacharias as one that did perfectly keep the Commandements though I know Bellarmine to this purpose doth alledge it when as in that very Chapter viz. Luk. 1. is related how hee sinned in not believing the message which by an Angell God sent unto him and how hee was punished and became dumbe a long time for it The other place viz. 1 Ioh. 5. 3. only shews that the Children of God do willingly and chearfully obey the will of God not that they doe fully and perfectly obey it I have rejoyced in the way of thy testimonies saith David Psal 119. 14. I will delight my selfe in thy statutes v. 1. 6. The Law of thy mouth is better unto me then thousands of gold and silver v. 72. How sweet are thy words unto my taste yea sweeter then hony to my mouth v. 103. More to be desired are they then gold yea then much fine gold sweeter also then Hony and the Hony combe Psal 19. 10. yet presently hee addes who can understand his errours cleanse thou me from secret faults vers 12. And elsewhere hee complaines saying Mine iniquities have taken hold upon me so that I am not able to looke up they are more then the haires of my head Psal 40. 12. And againe Iniquities prevaile against me Psal 65. 3. And as before noted hee cryes out Enter not into judgement with thy servant c. Psal 143. 2. The History of his life recorded in Scriptures evidently shewes that though Gods Commandements were as little grievous unto him as to any yet hee came short of a full and perfect observance of them The Marquesse addes The Fathers are for us Orig. Hom. 9. in Ios S. Cyrill lib. 4. contra Iulian. S. Hil. in Psal 1 18. S. Hieron lib. 3. contra Pelag. S. Basil But I have shewed already what little cause our adversaries have in this point to boast of the Fathers and that both Hierome whom the Marquesse here citeth and also diverse others assert the same that wee doe To those before mentioned I may adde another of these here alledged against us viz. Hilarie who in Psal 118. saith that none living is without sinne onely one viz. Christ did no sinne neither was guile found in his mouth Therefore when as Hilarie saith upon those words Psalme 119. 96. thy Commandement is exceeding broad that it is no hard matter if will be present to obey Gods Commandement hee speakes of such an obedience not which is every way compleat and perfect for then it should be easie to live without sinne but which God will accept as hee will that which is sincere though it be imperfect Otherwise even upon those very words Hilarie sheweth that man cannot perfectly obey Gods Commanments saying that they are so broad that they infinitely exceede the shallownesse of mans knowledge If mans knowledge cannot reach to the full extent of Gods Commandements much lesse can his practice doe it So that which Hierome saith though it may seeme to be against us yet indeed it is not God saith he hath commanded things possible So the Pelagian objected hee answers this none
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
which she heard the Scripture expressely saying v. 14. that she knew Peters voyce On the otherside if a Heavenly Angell be there meant it seemes to imply that they supposed the Angell that garded Peter and therefore is called his Angel to represent the person of Peter and to assume his voyce which conceit seemes very uncouth However if such an Angell be there meant yet onely this can be inferred from thence that Peter had his Angell to guard him but it followes not that therefore he had an Angell proper and peculiar to himselfe and that only one certaine Angell was appointed his guardian Neither doe the Fathers that are cited so far as I can see speake home to the point in question Gregory of whom mention is first made is here so impertinently alledged that I suppose there was some oversight in it For hee speakes nothing at all of the Angels guarding men but onely of their being present at the celebration of the Eucharist which is nothing to our present purpose Athanasius who is mentioned next saith onely that there are some supercaelestiall powers qui apud homines permanent that doe abide with men and are hominum paedagogi mens instructors or governours but of particular Angels belonging to particular men hee speakes nothing Chrysostome in one place which the Marquesse quoteth speakes of the Angels being present when the Eucharist is celebrated and of their conveying to Heaven the soules of such as immediately before their death with a pure conscience received that Sacrament which hee saith one told him that saw it but to the question now agitated I finde not that hee saith any thing in that place Indeed Hom. 3. not as it is misquoted Hom. 2. in Coloss hee citeth Mat. 18. 10. and saith Every Believer hath an Angell but this doth not necessarily import that each Believer hath his peculiar Angell What Gregorious Turonensis saith whose testimony is the next wanting his works I cannot yet examine The next after him is Austine but he is mis-alledged viz. Epist ad Probam cap. 19. Whereas there are but 16. Chapters in that Epistle which is wholly about prayer and hath nothing that I finde about Angels The last witnesse is Hierome who saith indeed Great is the dignity of soules that every one from his birth hath an Angell appointed to keepe him But it doth not appeare that he thought every one to have his peculiar Angell The contrary rather appeares by that which hee addes immediatly after viz. that hereupon Iohn Revel 2. 3. was bidden to write to the Angell of Ephesus Thyatira Philadelphia and the other foure Cburches there mentioned Though Hierome doe mis-interpret the Angels there spoken of in the Revelation and therefore both hee and some others of the ancients are in this rejected by Ribera yet thereby we may perceive that he did not hold every one to have a peculiar Angell but one Angell to be for a whole Church If it be said that there by Angell he meant Angells the singular number being put for the plurall the same may be said concerning the other words which are objected But enough of this point there is more controversie about those that follow We say saith the Marquesse the Angells pray for us knowing our thoughts and deeds you deny it We have Scipture for it Zach. 1. 9 10 11 12. Then the Angell of the Lord answered and said O Lord of hostes how long wilt thou not have mercy on Ierusalem and on the Cities of Iudah against whom thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten yeares Apoc. 8. 4. And the smoak of the incense of the prayers of the Saints ascended from the hand of the Angell before the Lord. This place was so understood by Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. and S. Hilary in Psal 129. tells us This intercession of Angels Gods Nature needeth not but our infirmities doe So S. Ambrose lib. de viduis Victor Utic lib. 3. de persecut Vandal Answ Had the Marquesse onely said that the Angels know our deedes and pray for us there had beene little cause to oppose but whereas hee saith that they know our thoughts that may not bee granted the Scripture making this Gods Prerogative For thou even thou onely knowest the hearts of all the children of men 1 Kings 8. 39. Theophylact therefore upon Luke 5. 22. saith that CHRIST proved himselfe to be God by this that as it is there said hee knew mens thoughts And the same also is observed by Iansenius in his Comment upon the place For that in Zach. 1. 12. some by the Angell there spoken of understand Christ the Angel or Messenger of the Covenant as he is called Mal. 3. 1. But others understand a created Angell viz. the Angell that talked with the Prophet Zachary and thence observe that the Angels pray for the Church This seemes more probable by the words immediately following And the Lord answered the Angell that talked with me v. 13. In the other place viz. Revel 8. 4. Ribera telleth us that many thinke the Angell there mentioned to be Christ And though he dislike that Exposition yet it is more then probable by that which is said v. 3. There was given him much incense that he should offer it with the prayers of all Saints c. For what can we well understand by that incense but Christs Merit and Meditation whereby the prayers of the Saints are acceptable and well pleasing unto God For the Fathers alledged Irenaeus speaketh not either of this Angell spoken of Revel 8. 4. or at all of Angells praying for us All that he saith is that there is an altar in Heaven to which our prayers must be directed and then hee cites Iohn saying in the Revelation that the Temple and Tabernacle of God was opened but this is nothing to the point in hand Hilary is truly cited speaking of the intercession of Angels he saith that not Gods Nature but our infirmity doth stand in need of it But as I said before I see not why wee should deny that the Angels pray for us for it doth not therefore sollow that wee may pray to them which is the next point to be considered Yet I should have liked it better if Hilary had grounded himselfe upon that place of Zachary which the Marquesse produced then that hee should build upon the Booke of Tobit as also doth Ambrose Ser. 92. for I finde nothing this way in the place which the Marquesse quoteth that Booke as Hierome long agoe hath censured it being Apocryphall and of no authority for the determining of matters of this nature What the last Author saith viz. Victor Vticensis being not furnished with his Booke I cannot tell neither is there neede to inquire after him hee being alledged for no more then Hilarie and hee asserting no more then I thinke may be granted But from the angels praying for us the Marquess passeth to
have seene that in the judgement of Athanasius hee would not then surely neither was it such an Angell of whom he himselfe did seeke to be blessed And Hierome upon the words of Hosea saith plainly that this angell is God None of the Fathers are here alledged against us but onely Austine whom I have shewed to testifie abundantly for us That which hee saith in the place quoted is that Iob seemeth to desire the angels to intreat for him or else some of the Saints But Pineda a Jesuite doth not like this Exposition but calles it allegoricall and expoundes it as it ought to be expounded of those friends of Iob that disputed with him If our adversaries shall reply that though Austine did not rightly expound the words of Iob yet however hee shewed it to be his opinion that the angells might be prayed unto I answer first Austine here maketh as well against them as against us For he speakes as much of Iobs praying unto Saints as unto angells now our adversaries hold as I shall shew more hereafter that in those times before Christs comming the Saints were not to be prayed unto Again Austine doth not say that Iob did pray either to Saints or angels but that hee desired yea onely that hee seemeth to have desired that they might pray for him Thirdly for one place wherein Austine speaketh obscurely and doubtfully for praying to angels wee have many plaine and evident testimonies of his against it as before I have shewed Lastly Austine himselfe hath taught us to believe neither him nor any other further then they accord with the Scriptures but that we may saving the reverence that is due unto them dissent from them when as they dissent from the truth Thus he saith he did in respect of the writings of others and so he would have others to doe in respect of his writings From the Angels the Marquess passeth to the Saints deceased saying We hold that the Saints deceased know what passeth here on Earth you say they know not we have Scripture for it Luke 16. 29. where Abraham knew that there were Moses and the Prophets bookes here on Earth which he himselfe had never seene when he was alive The Fathers say as much Euseb Ser. de Ann. S. Hiero. in Epit. Paulae S. Max. Ser. de Agnete Answ That the Saints deceased doe not know the particular affaires of men here on Earth the Scripture doth teach us Iob. 14. 21. His sonnes come to honour and he knoweth it not and they are brought low but he perceiveth it not of them There Iob speakes indefinitely of a man departed out of this life whether he be Saint or no Saint and sheweth that he doth not so much as understand the estate of such as had most neare relation unto him and how then shall we perswade our selves that hee doth understand the estate of others And from those words Isai 63. 16. Abraham is ignorant of us and Israel knoweth us not Austine doth inferre that the Dead are not acquainted with the affaires of the Living If not our parents saith hee what other dead persons know what we doe or suffer If so great Patriarkes Abraham and Jacob knew not how it fared with those that did descend from them how doe the dead intermeddle in knowing and helping the affaires of those that are alive For my part I thinke that place of Esay not so pertinent to the purpose but that the meaning of it is that the people of Israel were so degenerate that Abraham and Israel if they knew what manner of persons they were would not own them not acknowledge them for their posterity yet however Austine sheweth what his Opinion was concerning those that are deceased viz. that they are ignorant of the things that are done here which is evident enough by those words of Iob before cited Bellarmine sayes that Gregory upon the place doth answer that naturally the dead know not how it fares with the liking but that yet the Saints being glorified doe see in God all things quae nimirum ad ipsos pertinent viz. which doe belong unto them But Gregory upon those words of Iob saith thus As they that are alive know not where the soules of the dead are so they that are dead know not how they live that are after them Indeed hee addes presently after This yet is not to be thought of the holy soules because they that see the brightnesse of Almighty God are by no meanes to be thought ignorant of any thing besides Therefore he understands Iob as speaking onely of such dead persons as are unholy whereas indeed Iobs words are indefinite and indifferently to be understood of all that are dead except by speciall Revelation any thing done here below be made known unto them Thou destroyest the hope of man v. 19. viz. his hope of continuing here in this life Thou changest his countenance and sendest him away v. 20. This holdes in respect of all and then followes His sonnes come to honour and hee knoweth it not c. v. 21. So that the coherence of the words shews that they are meant generally of all that are deceased And that which Gregory saith of the Saints that seeing God in him they see all things Bellarmine himselfe it seemes did thinke too lavish and therefore he limits it to all things which concerne them or belong unto them Which limitation doth indeed mar his market for how doth it appeare that it belongs unto the Saints departed to understand particular occurrences here below and namely all the prayers that any shall make unto them which is the scope that they of the Church of Rome aime at when they speake of the Saints knowing things here on Earth but of that more God willing hereafter But for the Saints knowing our affaires it was it seemes in the time of Lombard above 1100 years after Christ a point not much believed For Lombard moving the question saith onely this It is not incredible that the soules of the Saints enjoying the vision of God doe understand humane and earthly affaires so far as concernes their joy and our helpe Hee doth not say that this is certaine but onely that it is not incredible And Bellarmine himselfe relating foure severall opinions about the manner how the Saints know things here upon Earth of two of them viz. that they know them by the relation of Angels or by being after a sort every where present hee saith plainly that neither of them doth satisfie and gives convincing Reasons for it And for the other two opinions viz. that the Saints from the beginning of their blessednesse doe in God see all things that any way appertaine unto them Or that God doth then reveale things unto the Saints when any at any time doe pray unto them hee likes not the latter of these because hee saith If the Saints did neede a new revelation upon every occasion the Church would
and of Expositors is so various that the more one reades them the more uncertaine he shall be And among other opinions hee faith that some by the 24. Elders understand the whole Church This Exposition indeed he dislikes upon this ground that the foure beasts spoken of are not comprehended in the 24. Elders But he enervates this reason himselfe understanding by the 24. Elders the most eminent among the Saints in Heaven and by the foure beasts the foure Evangelists who yet are of the number of those eminent Saints and so the foure beasts are also part of the 24 Elders onely hee saith they are mentioned apart by themselves as being out of that number because besides the excellencie which is common to them with others they have some excellency which is proper and peculiar to themselves By the thred of his own Exposition it appeares that his argument is of no force why the 24. Elders may not signifie the whole Church And although hee make it to be without doubt that the 24. Elders doe offer up the prayers of other Saints viz. which are upon Earth yet when it is said that the 24. Elders had golden Vialls full of odours which are the prayers of the Saints Revel 5. 8. I see not but that by the Saints there may be understood the 24. Elders themselves as well as any others If other Saints be meant distinct from the 24 Elders Master Medes Exposition seemes probable that by the 24 Elders are meant Ministers and by the foure beasts the rest of Gods people and so here by the Saints whose prayers are offered up by Ministers who in the publike Assemblies are the mouth of the people and offer up their prayers unto God for them But how ever it be thus much may sufficiently appeare by what hath beene said that the Romanists can evince nothing from this Scripture as to this point that the Saints in Heaven doe understand the particular estate of men here upon Earth and pray for them For the other place alledged viz. Baruch 3. 4. I give this answer that the Booke is not Canonicall the Jewes to whom were committed the oracles of God viz. the Scriptures of the old Testament Rom. 3. 2. Luke 16. 29. not owning it as is observed by Hierome who therefore did let it passe as himselfe testifieth For the Fathers that are cited Austine de verb. Apost Ser. 15. hath nothing that I see to the purpose Neither hath Hilary in Psalme 129. any thing about the Saints praying for us but onely about the Angels carrying the prayers of men unto God which hee fetcheth from the Booke of Tobit but to that I have spoken before Indeed in another place viz. upon Psalme 124. which Bellarmine produceth hee saith that neither the guards of the Saints nor the Munitions of Angels are wanting unto us But I see not how any more can be inferred from this then that the Saints doe in generall pray for us which wee doe not deny Neither doe the words of Damascen in the place quoted import more then thus when he saith that the Saints departed make intercessions for us and that therefore they are to be honoured by us This may well be understood of their praying in generall for us A little before indeed hee hath that which doth not sound well viz. that every good gift doth come downe from the Father of lights by them viz. the Saints departed to those that aske in faith without doubting The Scripture teacheth us no such thing concerning the Saints but attributeth this honour unto Christ that by him we obtaine of God whatsoever is good and needfull for us He that spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all how shall he not with him also freely give us all things Rom. 8. 32. But Damascene though a man famous in his generation yet is of no great antiquity being as Bellarmine computes 731 years after Christ and therefore his testimony is of the lesse force besides that some of the Romanists namely Sixtus Senensis doth note him as in some point of faith erroneous viz. about the proceeding of the holy Ghost But at length the Marquesse comes to our praying to the Saints that being the marke aimed at a long time Wee hold saith hee that we may pray unto them you not we have Scripture for it Luke 16. 24. Father Abraham have mercy on me and send Lazarus c. You bid us shew one proofe for the lawfulnesse hereof when here are two Saints prayed unto in one Verse And though Dives were in Hell yet Abraham in Heaven would not have expostulated with him so much without a non nobis domine if it had beene it selfe a thing not lawfull You will say it is a parable yet a jury of ten Fathers of the grand inquest as Theophil Tertull. Clem. Alex. S. Chrys S. Ier. S. Amb. S. August S. Greg. Euthym. and Ven. Beda give their verdict that it was a true History But suppose it were a parable yet every parable is either true in the persons named or else may be true in some others The holy Ghost tells us no lies nor fables nor speakes not to us in parables consisting either of impossibilities or things improbable Job 5. 1. Call now if there be any that will answer thee and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne It had been a frivolous thing in Eliphaz to have asked Job the question if invocation of Saints had not beene the practice of that time The Fathers affirme the same S. Dionys cap. 7. S. Athan. Ser. de Annunt S. Basil Orat. de 44. Martyr S. Chrys Hom. 66. ad Pop. S. Hierome prayed to Paula in Epitaph S. Paulae S. Maximus to S. Agnes Ser. de S. Agnete S. Bern. to our blessed Lady Answ This point of praying to Saints the Marquesse it seemes made great account of in that he bestowed so many words about it but the unlawfulnesse of this practice is cleare enough by that which I have said before about praying unto Angels For I have demonstrated both by authority of Scriptures and also by testimony of Fathers that prayer is to be made unto God onely And if the Saints doe not know our affaires here below as I have shewed that they doe not then it must needs be absurd and irrationall to pray unto them Yea although we should but onely desire them to pray for us as here we desire the prayers one of another But whatever our Adversaries sometimes may pretend yet they are farre from contenting themselves with this liberty though it be more then is allowed them Their praying unto the Saints is a worshipping of them as I have shewed before by their own confession Bellarmine also tells us that when they say the Saints are onely to be requested to pray for us they doe not meane but that we may say S. Peter have mercy on me save me open an entrance into
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
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
Testament was but should be performed in every place as well in one place as another This is that which our Saviour said to the Woman of Samaria Woman believe me the houre commeth when ye shall neither in this Mountaine nor yet at Ierusalem worship the Father The houre commeth and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth c. Joh. 4. 21 23. S. Paul also to the same purpose I will therefore that men pray every where lifting up holy hands c. 1 Tim. 2. 8. This is that incense and pure offering which the Prophet Malachy said should be offered unto God in every place This incense and pure Offering are the prayers of the Saints Revel 5. 8. And all spirituall sacrifices which Christians offer acceptable unto God thorough Iesus Christ 1 Pet. 2. 5. What is this to prove that Christ is truly and properly sacrificed in the Eucharist It is true the Fathers sometimes apply that place of Malachy to the Sacrament of the Eucharist but not as if Christ were there in that Sacrament truly and properly sacrificed nor as if that place concerned this Sacrament more then any other spirituall worship now to be performed under the new Testament Irenaeus in one Chapter applies it to the Sacrament and in the very next immediately after hee applies it to Prayer Having cited the words of Malachy In every place incense is offered to my Name and a pure offering immediately hee addes Now Iohn in the Revelation saith that incense are the Prayers of the Saints So also Hierome in his commentary upon the words of Malachy Now the Lord directs his speech to the Iewish Priests who offer the Blind and the Lame and the sick for sacrifice that they may know that spirituall sacrifices are to succeed carnall sacrifices And that not the blood of Buls and Goates but incense that is the Prayers of the Saints are to be offered unto the Lord and that not in one province of the world Iudea nor in one City of Iudea Hierusalem but in every place is offered an offering not impure as was offered by the people of Israel but pure as is offered in the ceremonies or services of Christians Here it is very observable that Hierome writing professedly upon the place of the Prophet to shew the meaning of it was so far from thinking it to be peculiarly meant of the Eucharist that hee doth not so much as mention that Sacrament otherwise then it is comprehended in those spirituall sacrifices which hee saith are here spoken of but as hee saith that spirituall sacrifices in generall are here signified so particularly hee applieth the words of the Prophet unto prayer saying that it is the incense which the Prophet speaketh of The other place of Scripture viz. Luke 22. 19. is as little to the purpose though Bellarmine also doth alledge and urge it in the same manner saying that Christ did not say Vobis datur frangitur effunditur sed pro vobis is given broken shed to you but for you But what of this Wee know and believe that Christs Body was given and his Blood shed for us on the crosse in remembrance whereof according to Christs institution wee receive the Sacrament but doth it therefore follow that Christ is properly offered and sacrificed in the Sacrament The ground of this conceit is that the word is in the present tense datur is given not in the future dabitur shall be given But this is too weake a foundation to build upon For Bellarmine cannot deny but that in the Scripture the present or the preter tense is often put for the future And well might it be so here Christ being now ready to be offered he instituting the Sacrament the same night that he was betrayed 1 Cor. 11. 23. the night before hee suffered And therefore Cardinall Cajetan was much more ingenuous then Cardinall Bellarmine For upon 1 Cor. 11. 23. he notes that both the Evangelists and also Paul relating the words of the institution of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper use the present tense is given or broken and is shed because when Christ did institute the Sacrament though his Body was not yet crucified nor his Blood shed yet the crucifying of his Body and the shedding of his Blood was at hand and in a manner present Yea the time of Christs suffering hee saith was then present as being then begun And therefore as when the day is begun wee may signifie in the present tense whatsoever is done that day so the day of Christs Passion being begun the Jewes beginning the day at the Evening all his Passion might be signified by a word of the present tense The present being taken Gramatically not for an instant but for a certaine time confusedly present The ancient Writers also have expounded the present tense used in the words of the institution by the future Heare Christ himselfe saith Origen saying unto thee This is my Blood which shall be shed c. So also Tertullian rehearseth Christs words thus This is my Body which shall be given for you And even the vulgar Latine Translation Mat. 26. 28. Mar. 14. 24. hath it in the future tense effundetur and so Luke 22. 20. fundetur shall be shed and 1 Cor. 11. 24. tradetur shall be given Now for the Fathers whom the Marquesse alledgeth as being of their opinion I answer the Fathers indeed doe frequently use the word sacrifice and offering when they speake of the Eucharist but it doth not therefore follow that according to their opinion there is a true and proper sacrifice offered in the Eucharist For it is certaine that they doe also frequently use the same words when they speake of those things which the Romanists themselves acknowledge to be no sacrifices properly so called even as the Scripture speaketh of the sacrifice of Prayer Psal 141. 2. of praise Heb. 13. 15. of Almes Heb. 13. 16. of our own selves Rom. 12. 1. And where the Fathers as the Marquesse observeth call the Eucharist an unbloodly sacrifice they sufficiently shew that properly Christ is not sacrificed in it For as Bellarmine himselfe doth tell us All sacrifices properly so called that the Scriptures speake of were to be destroyed and that by staying if they were things having life and if they were solid things without life as fine Floure Salt and Frankincense they were to be destroyed by burning Besides I have shewed before by the testimony of Lombard that the Fathers sometimes expressely speake of Christs being sacrificed in the Eucharist in that there is a commemoration and remembrance of the sacrifice which Christ upon the crosse did offer for us Bellarmine objects that Baptisme doth represent the death of Christ and yet none of the ancients doe ever call Baptisme a sacrifice and therefore the representation of Christs death alone could not be the cause why they call the Lords Supper a
to cause Iohn Baptist to be beheaded That of the Apostle holds good in respect of all To avoide Fornication let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her owne husband 1 Cor. 7. 2. And that v. 9. If they cannot containe let them marry for it is better to marry then to burne As therefore none ought simply and absolutely to vow a single life so if they have vowed they ought to repent of their rashnesse and not to adde sin to sin by keeping their vow whatsoever follow upon it but rather to marry then to burne with lust or to commit Fornication The Glosse upon Gratian tells us that in every Vow or Oath such generall conditions as these are understood If God will If I live If I be able And Gratian himselfe cites that of Isidore In evill promises breake thy word in a dishonest vow change thy purpose that which thou hast unadvisedly vowed doe not performe it is a wicked promise which is performed by wickednesse The same words are also cited by Lombard in his Sentences To this purpose also Aquinas He that voweth saith hee doth after a sort appoint a Law unto himselfe binding himselfe unto something which in it selfe and for most part is good Yet it may happen that in some case it is either simply evill or unprofitable or hinders a greater good which is against the nature of that which falls under a vow as appeares by what hath beene said before And therefore it is necessary that it be determined that in such a case a vow is not to be kept And so againe that Angelicall Doctour as they stile him If by observing a vow great and manifest grievance ensue a man ought not to keepe such a vow And Cyprian writing of some that had professed virginity but were found to act contrary to their profession upon that occasion gives this advice If they faithfully dedicate themselves to Christ let them continue honest and chast without any simulation and so being strong and stable let them expect the reward of virginity But if they will not or cannot persevere it is better that they marry then that they fall into the fire by their offences Bellarmine would have Cyprian here onely to admonish such as have not vowed continency rather to marry then to vow if they have not a firme purpose to persevere But the words of Cyprian cannot without violence done unto them be otherwise understood then of those Virgines who did dedicate themselves to Christ as hee speakes by professing continency And so Pamelius though hee make some use of that other Exposition of Cyprians words yet hee cannot but confesse that Cyprian spake of those Virgins that vowed chastity onely to mitigate the matter he will have Cyprian to speake of such as onely made a simple vow and not a solemne vow as they distinguish it But this is nothing for the Scripture speaking of the force of vowes and requiring the performance of them doth not use any such distinction nor give any intimation that a simple vow more then that which is solemne may be broken if it be just and lawfull A vow hath its power of binding not from the solemnity of it but from its nature viz. that it is a promise made to God whether it be made solemnely or no is not materiall though its true the more solemne that it is the greater is the scandall in the breaking of it but the sin otherwise is the same whether the vow be simple or solemne Aquinas speaking of a simple vow wherein no solemnity is used saith This vow is efficacious by divine right And Bonaventure cites this saying of Clemens A simple vow doth binde in respect of God no lesse then a solemne vow For the Scriptures alledged against us that Deut. 23. 2. and so diverse other places doe indeed require those that make a vow to performe it but this cannot be understood of all vows whatsoever but onely of lawfull vowes For as I have shewed unlawfull vowes are not to be kept but to be broken and I have also shewed that vowes of chastity when they prove snares and hinderances of chastity are unlawfull and so consequently to be broken There is more difficulty in the other place viz. 1 Tim. 5. 11 12. concerning which place also Bellarmine saith that nothing can there be meant by first faith but the vow of continency and that generally all ancient Writers did so understand it But it doth not appeare by any thing in the words of the Apostle that the widdowes which hee speaketh of did make any such vow although by entring into the number of Widdowes that were maintained by the publike charge of the Church and withall did service to the Church in attending the sick and the like they did in a sort professe that they intended to live unmarried What neede was there for such Widdowes to vow continency when as none of them were to be under 60. years old 1 Tim. 5. 9. Bellarmine tells us that the Apostle saying Let not a Widdow be chosen under threescore years old and The yonger Widdowes refuse that is doe not chuse them doth not speak of admission unto the vow of continency as if the yonger Widdowes might not be allowed to vow it but hee speakes either of election unto a certaine Office and Order of Deaconesse or which he thinkes more probable of admission into the number of those Widdowes which were maintained by the Church But there is scarce any thing sound in all this save that it is true indeed the Apostle doth not speake of admission to the vow of continency there being no such vowing in those times but it is evident that the Apostle speakes of admission to a kinde of profession of continency For therefore he bids refuse the yonger Widdowes because of their incontinency But the yonger Widdowes saith he refuse for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ they will marry 1 Tim. 5. 11. And vers 14. I will therefore that the yonger Women marry c. As if hee should say let not such as are not likely to containe be admitted among those who are to live unmarried Now these it seemes were such as both had a kinde of Office in the Church were Deaconesses as Phaebe is stilled Rom. 16. 1. according to the Originall and also had maintenance from the Church The former appeares by 1 Tim. 5. 9 10. The latter by 1 Tim. 5. 3 4. 16. So that whereas Bellarmine would make severall Expositions of these they are to be joyned together to make one intire Exposition And in both these respects viz. both in respect of the Office and in respect of the maintenance though more especially it seemes in respect of the Office these Widdowes were to remaine Widdowes and not to marry againe and that there might be little feare of their marrying the Apostle would have the younger Widdowes refused and none admitted
this sense agrees with that which is said of Christ 2 Cor. 13. 4. For though he was crucified through weakenesse yet hee liveth by the power of God Besides if wee should reade quickened in the Spirit and by Spirit understand Christs Soule it would follow that Christs Soule was sometime dead This was Austines argument against that Exposition as is observed by Bellarmine Who saith that the argument doth not conclude for that often in the Scripture that is said to be quickned which is not put to death But his answer is not satisfactory For though it is true that in the Scripture to quicken or to make alive is sometimes no more then to preserve and keepe alive as 1 Sam. 27. 11. and 2 Sam. 8. 2. where both in the Originall and in the vulgar Latine the word used doth signifie to make alive Yet neverthelesse nothing in Scripture is said to be made that is kept alive but that which is obnoxious unto death and may die but Christs Soule and generally the Soules of men are of an immortall nature and doe not die when the body dyeth Besides what great matter was it as Estius observes if when Christs Body died his Soule did remaine alive when as even in the worst men that are the soule doth not die as being by nature immortall And therefore hee saith it is better understood thus Christ was quickned in the Spirit that is hee was made a quickning Spirit viz. when hee rose from death unto life immortall And hee cites that 1 Cor. 15. 45. The first man Adam was made a living Soule the last Adam was made a quickning spirit But that sense will not well suite the words of Peter which doe not shew what Christ is made being risen againe but in what respect and by what meanes hee did rise againe viz. by the spirit that is by his Divine Nature as in the flesh that is his humane Nature hee was put to death But againe it is objected that S. Peter saith Christ went and preached to the spirits in prisons therefore it is meant of the soule not of his Divine Nature in which respect it cannot be said but improperly that hee went I answer there is no necessity to take it properly in the words of Peter more then in the words of Paul Ephes 2. 17. when hee saith that Christ came and Preached peace unto the Ephesians which must be meant of comming and Preaching by the Apostle for otherwise Christ in his owne person did not come and preach unto them And thus Estius notes it to be expounded by Ambrose the Interlineary Glosse Aquinas Lyra and Cajetane It is objected againe that by spirits in prison cannot be understood living men except S. Peter should on purpose speake improperly and obscurely I answer according to Bezaes Exposition which in his particular doth differ from Austines and is the more probable not living men but the soules of men separated from their bodies are termed spirits in prison as being in the prison of Hell when Peter wrote of them though they were not so but were joyned to their bodies and so both soules and bodies joyned together were living men when Christ preached unto them But Bellarmine further objects that 1 Pet. 4. 6. where it is said that the Gospell was preached to the dead which hee will have so understood as that men being dead and departed out of this life the Gospell was Preached unto them But the true and genuine meaning of the words rather is this that the Gospell was Preached to them that are now dead though they were not dead but alive when the Gospell was preached unto them Even as in the verse immediately going before it is said that Christ will judge both the quick and the dead that is those that are now alive or shall be alive at Christs comming and those that are now dead or shall be dead at Christs comming who yet shall not be judged whiles they are dead but they shall be raised up and made alive and so be judged As therefore Peter calles them dead because so they are now and were when hee wrote of them though they shall not be dead but alive when they shall be judged So for the same reason hee calles them dead to whom the Gospell was preached though when the Gospell was preached unto them they were alive and not dead And in like manner hee calles them spirits in prison to whom Christ went and Preached because so they were when hee wrote though they were not so when Christ went and preached unto them But Bellarmine chargeth Beza with being so bold as to change the Text because where they reade the spirits that were in prison hee reades the spirits that are in prison But as Beslarmine himselfe could not but confesse in the Originall there is neither that were nor that are but the words are as our Translatours render them the spirits in prison so that either the words that were or that are may be understood as the sense will beare Estius confesseth that some I suppose he meanes some not Protestants understand that are but hee holds it better to understand that were as the verbe is of the Pretertense preached But this reason is of no moment For if because the word Preached hath reference to the time past therefore it must be meant of the Spirits that were in prison when Christ Preached unto them by the same reason when it is said that Christ shall judge both the quick and the dead because shall judge doth respect the time to come therefore also it must be meant of those that shall be dead when Christ shall judge them But this doth not follow and so neither doth the other And thus I hope it may appear that those words of Peter make nothing for Limbus Patrum The fourth and last place of Scripture which is alledged by the Marquesse is Zach. 9. 11. where the pit that is spoken of hee saith cannot be the place of the damned nor the Grave But what then must it therefore be Limbus Patrum It doth not follow for by the pit there may be something else meant then either the place of the damned or the Grave or Limbus Patrum viz. the Babylonish captivity as the Rabbines upon the place expound it Bellarmine citing Calvin for this Exposition saith that it hath no probability because immediatly before there is a prophecy of Christ Rejoyce greatly O Daughter of Sion behold thy King commeth unto thee c. Therefore saith he how should these things cohere if the captivity of Babylon were spoken of I answer well enough the Prophet having told them of Christs comming unto them might well presently after speak of their deliverance out of captivity as a great benefit which they had allready obtained through Christ in whom all the promises are yea and in him amen 2 Cor. 1. 20. and whereby they might be assured of far
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
authority of the Church as if were it not for the authority of the Church the Scripture were of no force neither could deserve any credit So the Romanists do frequently pervert those words of Austine but Austines meaning was only this that the Churches authority by way of introduction was a means to bring him to beleeve the Gospel by propounding and commending the Gospel unto him as a thing to be beleeved whereas otherwise he should not have given heed to it nor taken notice of it not as if he did finally rest in the authority of the Church and resolve his faith into it No for as I have shewed before he would have the Church it selfe sought in the Scripture and proved by it Had not the woman of Samaria told those among whom she lived of Christ they had not come to the knowledge of him much lesse to beleeve in him yet having heard Christ himselfe they did not rest in the testimony of the woman but said unto her Now we beleeve not because of thy saying for we have heard him our selves and know that this is indeed the Christ and the Saviour of the world Joh. 4. 42. So should not the Church hold out unto us the Scriptures we should not know much lesse beleeve them but at length God by his Spirit opening our understandings that we may understand the Scriptures Luke 24. 45. we come to be convinced by the Scriptures themselves that they are the Oracles of God and of divine authority Melchior Canus a learned Writer of the Church of Rome holds that the formall reason of our faith is not the authority of the Church that is that the last resolution of our faith is not into the Churches testimony And he saith that he could not dissemble their errour who hold that our faith is to be reduced thither as to the utmost cause of beleeving For the confuting of this errour he saith belongs that Ioh. 4. Now we beleeve not because of thy saying for we our selves have heard him and know c. The same authour averres that the authority of the Church is not a reason by it selfe moving to beleeve but only a cause or meanes without which we should not beleeve viz. Because as he addes the Church doth propound unto us that the Scripture is the word of God and except the Church did so propound it we should never ordinarily come to beleeve it yet we doe not therefore beleeve the Scripture to be Gods word because the Church doth say it but because God doth reveal it If the Church saith he doth make way for us to know such sacred books we must not therefore rest there but we must goe further and must relye on Gods solid truth And then he brings in that very speech of Austine and shewes what he meant by it Hereby is understood saith he what Austine meant when he said I should not beleeve the Gospell except the authority of the Church did move me And again By the Catholikes I had beleeved the Gospell For Austine had to doe with the Manichees who without dispute would have a certain Gospell of theirs beleeved and so would establish the faith of the Manichees Austine therefore askes them what they would doe if they did light upon a man who did not beleeve so much as the Gospell what kind of perswasion they would use to bring him to their opinion He affirmes that himselfe could not be otherwise brought to embrace the Gospell but that the authority of the Church did overcome him He doth not therefore teach that the faith of the Gospell is grounded upon the Churches authority but only that there is no certain way whereby either infidels or novices in the faith may have entrance to the holy books but one and the same consent of the Catholike Church This he himselfe hath sufficiently explicated in the fourth Chapter of that Epistle and in his book to Honoratus concerning the benefit of beleeving I have thus largely cited the words of this learned Romanist because no Protestant can speak more clearly and more fully to the purpose That which the Marquesse after addeth is nothing against us viz. That there was a Church before there was any Scripture that though the Scripture be a light yet we have need of some to guide us though it be the food of our soules yet there must be some to administer it unto us though it be an antidote against the infection of the devill yet it is not for every one to be a compounder of the ingredients that though it be the onely sword and buckler to defend the Church from her Ghostly enemies yet this doth not exclude the noble army of Martyrs and the holy Church which through all the world doth acknowledg Christ All this I say is nothing at all against us who do so assert the authority of the Scripture as that we doe not evacuate the Churches ministery Timothy must preach but it is the word viz. of God contained in the Scriptures which he must preach 2 Tim. 4. 2. If any man speak for the instructing of others he must speak as the Oracles of God 1 Pet. 4. 11. He must confirm that which he doth speak by the Scriptures And so on the other side they that hear must take heed how and what they hear Luke 8. 18. Mark 4. 24. They must not beleeve every Spirit but must try the Spirits whether they be of God 1 John 4. 1. They must to the Law and to the Testimony for that if any speak not according to this word it is because they have no light in them Isai 8. 20. They must search the Scriptures diligently to see whether the things delivered unto them be so or no. Acts 17. 11. OF THE CHVRCH of ENGLAND THE SECOND PART OF THE Rejoynder to the Marquess of WORCESTER'S Reply MAJESTIE' 's Answer to the said Marquesse's Plea for the ROMISH RELIGION THE Marquesse saith that he will now consider the Opinions of Protestants apart from them of the Church of Rome and begin with the Church of England The Religion of this Church he saith as it is in opposition to theirs consists wholly in denying for that what she affirms they affirm the same as the Real presence the Infallibility Visibility Universality and Unity of the Church Confession and Remission of sinnes Free-will Possibility of keeping the Commandments c. And you may as well saith he deny the blessed Trinity for we have no such word in Scripture only inference as that which you have already denied for which we have plain Scripture c. But 1. it is not altogether so that what the Church of England doth affirm the same they of the Church of Rome do affirm also For the Church of England Art 9. doth affirm alleadging the authority of the Apostle for proof thereof that Concupiscence hath of it self the nature of sinne even in the regenerate which the Romanists deny the Councel of Trent accurseth
And although this doth not justifie Luther as I do not desire to defend him or any man in that wherein he is to be condemned yet it might make his opposers the more mild that Eusebius and Hierome of old do shew that the authority of this Epistle was some while doubted of and Cardinal Cajetane Luthers contemporarie did somewhat scruple at it and so did he also argue against the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews Some also say that Erasmus censures this Epistle of James as not savouring of Apostolical authority But in that Edition which I have of Erasmus his notes upon the New Testament I finde no such censure but that he would not have us contend about the Author but to iâ— brace the matter acknowledging the Holy Ghost to be the Author of it This advice is worthy to be followed by Protestants as well as Papists 5. Luther is taxed for saying That Moses in his writings sheweth unpleasant stopped and angry lips in which the word of grace is not but of wrath death and sinne And that hee calls him a Gapler executioner and a cruel Serjeant This doth Mr. Breerley object against Luther and I grant that Luther indeed hath those words tom 3. in Psal 45. But he speaks of Moses onely as contradistinct to Christ as a meer Law-giver For the Law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ Joh. 1. 17. So Moses his ministration was the ministration of death 2 Cor. 3. 7. and the ministration of condemnation v. 9. The Law simply considered doth convince of sinne and condemn for sinne For by the Law is the knowledge of sinne Rom. 3. 20. And it saith Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. Now no man doth or can perform this and therefore saith the Apostle there as many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse And so the Law worketh wrath Rom. 4. 15. This is not through any fault of the Law but by reason of sinne which is a transgression of the Law 1 Joh. 3. 4. and so makes liable to the curse and condemnation which by the Law belongs to those that transgresse The Law saith Ambrose is not wrath but it worketh wrath that is punishment to him that sinneth in that it doth not pardon sin but revenge it And again The glory of Moses his countenance saith he had not the fruit of glory in that it did not profit any but rather hurt though not through its own fault but through the fault of those that sinne This is spoken of the Law as it stands in opposition to the Gospel wherein reconciliation and salvation through Christ is set forth And in this sense only did Luther speak of Moses as himself expresly sheweth 6. The Marquesse addes that for Luther's doctrine he holds a threefold Divinity or three kinds as there are three Persons For proof of this only Zuinglius is cited But Luther and he being such adversaries their testimonies one against the other are of small force Had any such thing been in Luthers writings the Romanists themselves I doubt not would have found it out and not have referred us only to Zuinglius for it Luther on Genes 1. doth expressely speak of three Persons but one Divinity as being the same in all the three Persons 7. That Luther is angry with the word Trinity calling it a humane invention and a thing that soundeth very coldly The place alledged I have not opportunity to examine but thus much I say that Luther believing the thing viz. that there are three Divine Persons as I have shewed immediately before I see not why he should dislike the word Trinity 8. That he justistifies the Arrians and saith they did very well in expelling the word Homousion being a word that his soule hated Thus also Duraeus and before him Campian and before them both Bellarmine chargeth Luther with saying that his soule did hate the word Homousion which the Orthodox Fathers used to shew against the Arrians the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father But they wrong Luther as their manner is For he doth not say that his soul did hate that word but that if his soul did hate it and he would not use it yet he should not be a heretick so that he did hold the thing signified by the word which the Fathers in the Nicene Councel did determine by the Scriptures He speaks thus in respect of the Papists who will not be content with Scripture-terms but will invent terms of their own to pervert the sense of Scriptures As Latomus against whom he writes would not call Concupiscence sinne as the Apostle cals it but a punishment of sinne Hereupon Luther I think went too far concerning the word Homousion though not so far as his Romish adversaries do charge him He saith that this word used in confutation of the Arrians is not to be objected against him For that many and those most excellent men did not receive it and that Hierome wished it were abolished And that although the Arrians did erre in the faith yet they did well however to require that a profane and new word might not be used in rules of faith For that the sincerity of Scripture is to be preserved and man is not to presume to speak either more clearly or more sincerely then God hath spoken I confesse that Luther in this seemeth to me to exceed as men are apt to do in favour of that cause which they prosecute But yet it appears that he was sound in the faith and did not comply with the Arrians who opposed the word Homousion not so much for the new invention as for the signification of it Mr. Breerly who hath also this charge against Luther as indeed he hath most of that which the Marquesse objecteth against Protestant Divines cites Luther against Latomus in the Edition of Wittembergh 1551. and saith that the latter Editions are altered and corrupted by Luthers Scholars as he had shewed he saith the like before viz. concerning that place where Luther they say did speak so reprochfully of S. James his Epistle But 1. This is not like the other For here he saith Luthers works were altered by his Scholars but there he saith they were altered by his adversaries 2. As I have shewed the other to be improbable so also is this For Luther died anno 1546. so that the Edition which was anno 1551. was five years after Luthers death and surely by that time Luthers Scholars had leisure enough to make such an alteration as Mr. Breerly speaks of in Luthers works if they had been so minded I cannot therefore but take this as a trick of Mr. Breerley's when he saw Campians quotation of Luther confuted by Dr. Whitaker to pretend some former Edition of
transferre to the Father that which was Christs most proper work Who doth not now see that Calvin is most farre from saying that which is charged upon him 20. But the Marquesse notwithstanding the word lastly did seem to speak as much hath not yet done with Calvin but further taxeth him for saying God is author of all those things which these Popish Judges would have to happen by his idle sufferance Calvin in the place cited not barely saith that it is so but saith that he hath plainly shewed by Scripture that it is so And therefore it had been meet that Calvins proofs should have been examined before his doctrine were condemned Calvin abhorres that position that God is the author of sinne as may be seen in the very next Section to that which the Marquesse citeth Yet he proveth by many places of Scripture that God doth not onely permit those things wherein men sinne but also in some respect is the author of them As for example that God was the author of Shimei's cursing not as it was his sinne but as it was Davids affliction So David acknowledged saying The LORD hath said unto him curse David 2 Sam. 16. 10. And again v. 11. The LORD hath bidden him 21. The next and last charge against Calvin is little or nothing different from that immediately preceding viz. that he saith Our sinnes are not only by Gods permission but by his decree and will The Marquesse speaks of Calvins famous brethren condemning this blasphemy But they whom he mentioneth are I think all Lutherans and so ready to make the worst they can of any thing that they finde in Calvin But whereas in the conclusion he saith What Scriptures or Fathers is there for all this Surely Calvin hath alleadged many Scriptures for that which he asserteth which it had been meet to take some notice of as I have said before He also cites Austine determining thus That men sinne it is of themselves but that by sinning they doe this or that it is by the power of God who divideth the darknesse as he pleaseth And thus have I also answered those things that are in point of Doctrine objected against Calvin After Calvin the Marquesse deals with Zuinglius and objects divers things against his Doctrine 1. Zuinglius saith the Marquesse confesseth himself to have been instructed against the Masse by a certain admonisher which he knew not whether it was black or white It is true Zuinglius relates how having disputed with a Scribe about the meaning of those words This is my body and having been urged to produce some place which is not a parable where the word is doth import as much as signifieth lie was much troubled about it in his sleep and thought that one whether black or white he could not remember stood by him and bade him alleadge that in Exod. 12. 11. It is the Lords Passeover Whereupon he awaked and rose and considered the place and presently after preached upon it so that such as did a little stick before were fully satisfied Now though Mr. Breerley and after him the Marquesse make a great matter of this and say that is derided by learned Protestants they cite some Lutherans as great adversaries to Zuinglius in the matter of the Sacrament as the Papists are yet I see nothing in it that is liable to any just exception For it is usuall with men to be troubled in their sleep about that wherein they have been busied before and sometimes it happens that in their sleep that is represented unto them which before with all their study they could not finde out As Austine somewhere I do not now remember the place but I have read it in him tels of one that taught Rhetorick and being troubled about the meaning of something that he met with and was to treat of to his Schollars in his sleep he thought that Austine did explain it unto him But that which here they take hold of perhaps is this that Zuinglius saith he did not know whether his admonisher were black or white they seem to understand this so as if he knew not whether that admonisher were an evill or a good spirit But if they so take it they bewray too much ignorance of the Latine tongue wherein it is usual and indeed a proverbial speech to say I know not whether he be black or white that is he is one altogether unknown unto me Erasmus in his Adages sufficiently shews this to be the meaning of the words and cites Cicero Quintilian Apuleius Hierome using them in this sense 2. The Marquesse saith that Zuinglius is taxed by Calvin for depraving the Scripture for changing the word est and putting in significat in his Translation of the New Testament But the Marquesse doth not tell us where Calvin doth thus taxe Zuinglius and I suspect that there is some mistake in that word Calvin and that it should be some other name 3. Hee chargeth Zuinglius with saying that these sayings and the like If thou wilt enter into life keepe the Commandements c. are superfluous and hyperbolical But in the place alleadged viz. Tom. 1. Fol. 137. Zuinglius hath no such matter there is no mention made of those words If thou wilt enter into life c. 4. Zuinglius is taxed for saying that Original sinne cannot damne us calling it but a disease or contagion It is true Zuinglius saith that Original sin is a disease but such an one as of it selfe is not capable nor can infer damnation except a man being corrupted with this contagion transgresse the Law of God which then useth to happen when he sees and understands the Law given unto him And in this I plead not for Zuinglius I confesse he erred and is worthy to be taxed But I do not know any Protestants that do second him in this I speak not of Socinians Arminians c. but such as are otherwise sound and orthodox Neither should the Romanists here so much taxe Zuinglius seeing they hold that Concupiscence after Baptisme though it remain the same that it was before is in it self properly no sinne but is onely called sinne because it proceeds from sinne and inclines unto sinne Yea they hold that had man been created as they suppose he might have been in his pure naturals that is in a meer natural condition not having any supernatural grace superadded to his nature he should have had the same concupiscence which now he hath in the state of corrupt nature The state of man since the fall of Adam they say doth not differ more from the state of man in his pure naturals then one that is stripped of his cloaths differs from one that is naked having never had cloaths And therefore they say the corruption of mans nature doth not proceed from the want of any natural gift nor from
woman should be joyned together The Son of God doth draw us back to the first institution c. 3. He is said to teach peremptory resistance against Magistrates and to inable the inferiour Magistrate to alter Religion against the contrary Edicts of the Superiour For the latter part of this charge the Marquesse citeth Concil Theol. which book I finde not as I said amongst Melancthons Works For the former part he citeth Melancthon on Rom. 13. but in that place there is not a syllable that I can see whereby it may appear that Melancthon teacheth any resistance against the Magistrate All that I finde is that he teacheth Magistracie to be of God and answereth the arguments of the Anabaptists against it Here the Marquesse addes So Calvin so Beza so Goodman so Danaeus so Knox c. all hold it lawfull to depose murther or to arraign their Prince c. But where these Authours either all or any of them do hold thus he sheweth not he doth not so much as point at any of their writings where such doctrine may be found I know that some of these Authours here mentioned are charged in this kinde by Romish Writers but withall I know that the charges brought against them are answered See Rivet Jes Vap. cap. 13. § 9. 10 11. Bils of Christ subject Page 509. c. The former of these answers to what is alleadged against Calvin the latter to what is alleadged both against him and against Beza Goodman and Knox. But some of the Authours whom the Marquesse here citeth as being of this opinion concerning Magistrates he was much mistaken in viz. Bancroft who did declare himself so much the other way that he taxed some of these here mentioned by the Marquesse as being not respective enough of the honour due to Magistrates His book I have read though now I have it not nor do I perfectly remember the title of it I think also that there is the like mistake concerning Sutcliffe whom the Marquesse also joyneth with the 1 â—st I thinke that he also was so farre from teaching such doctrine that he did rather taxe those who did but seem to teach it But I am not so well assured of him as of the other After Melancthon the Marquesse speaketh of Andraeas Musculus who he saith was not afraid openly to teach that the Divine nature of Christ died upon the Crosse with his humane nature Wolfangus Musculus is an Author well known but Andraeas Musculus I confesse I have not heard of before so farre am I from being able to say what he holdeth but if he hold as the Marquesse here alleadgeth I shall be as ready to explode and abhor his opinion as any other In the next place the Marquesse speaketh of the divisions of Protestants which I confesse have been and are too great though divers of the Sects which he mentioneth I do not know that ever I read of before But what if Protestants differ among themselves and so must needs some of them be in error Yet may they for all this be in the truth so far forth as they all agree and consequently so far forth as they dissent from the Church of Rome There were many Sects among the Jews as Pharisees Sadduces and Herodians spoken of in Scripture and the Essenes mentioned by Josephus These differing one from another must certainly some of them erre yet as they agreed together in opposing Paganisme they were all right Whilst the Catholicks saith the Marquesse have no jars no differences uncomposed having one common Father one Conductor and Adviser as Sir Edw. Sands confesseth The Authours book which the Marquesse citeth I have but not so distinguished as that which he referreth unto and therefore I cannot finde the words which he alleadgeth But seeing mention is made of this book I think it meet here to insert some things out of it that so the Reader may perceive what manner of unity and agreement it is that is amongst them of the Church of Rome But now saith that worthy Authour to come to the view of their Ecclesiastical government not so much as it is reserred to the conduct of soules though that be the natural and proper end of that regiment but rather as it is addressed to the upholding of the worldly power and glory of their order to the advancing of their part and overthrow of their opposites which I suppose be the points they now chiefly respect I think I may truly say there was never yet State framed by mans wit in this world more powerful and forcible to work those effects never any either more wisely contrived and plotted or more constantly and diligently put in practice and execution insomuch that but for the natural weaknesse and untruth and dishonesty which being rotten at the heart abate the force of whatsoever is founded thereon their outward means were sufficient to subdue a whole world In their art they have certain head-assertions which as indemonstrable principles they urge all to receive and hold As That they are the Church of God within which great facility and without which no possibility of salvation That divine Prerogative gramed to them above all other Societies in the world doth preserve them everlastingly from erring in matter of faith and from falling from God That the Pope Christs deputy hath the keyes of heaven in his custody c. In these 〈◊〉 no doubt or question is tolerable and who so joyn with them in these shall finde great connivence in what other defect or difference soever c. And by this plot they have erected in the world a Monarchy more potent then ever any that hath been before it c. And afterward To what a miserable push saith he have they driven the world either in their pleading against them with such force of evidence or in their learning of them and joyning with them as to stop the month of the one and hang the faith of the other on this 〈◊〉 paradox I and my Church cannot possibly erre and this must you take upon our own words to be true For as for their conjectural evidence out of the Scripture there seems to be as much or more for the King of Spains not erring as there is for the Popes it being said by the wisest that the heart of the King is in the hands of God a divine sentence is in his lips and his mouth shall not transgresse in judgement And a little after Although it were perhaps not untruly said by a great Clerk of their own that the Popes not erring was but an opinion of policy and not of Theologie to give stay to the Laity not stop to the Divines of whom in such infinite controversies and jarrings NB about interpretations of Texts and conclusions of Science wherein many have spent a large part of their lives never any yet went neither at this day doth go to be resolved
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
he was above two hundred years after Minutius and Gregory who was about as much after Paulinus was against the worshipping of any thing made with hands as appears by the words before cited Finally saith the Marquesse the Church then held that to the Catholick Church only belongs the keeping of the Apostolical tradition the authority of interpretation of Scripture and the decision of controversies of faith and that out of the succession of her communion of her doctrine and her ministery there neither was Church nor salvation 1. For Apostolical traditions enough hath been said before 2. And so also of interpretation of Scripture and decision of controversies of faith 3. I understand not what is meant by objecting against us that out of the Catholick Church there is no Church For the Catholick Church being the Church universal and so comprehending all particular Churches as parts and members of it who can doubt that there is no Church out of the Church Catholick But what is this to the Church of Rome which once indeed was a sound part of the Catholick Church but the Catholick Church it never was nor could be except a part could be the whole In that which follows page 101. c. there is nothing but the same matter as before only the form is somewhat altered and therefore there is no need that I should trouble either my self or the Reader any further about it only I shall adde one or two Animadversions 1. Whereas it is objected page 105. c. that Luther after his deserting the communion of the Church of Rome did yet hold some points of Popery and so also Husse and Wickliffe and others that otherwise opposed themselves against the errors and corruptions of that Church I answer That as Rome was not built at once so neither was it demolished at once but by degrees it is no marvel therefore if those worthy men did at least for a while retain some Romish opinions and practices after that in many things they had discovered the truth and stood up in defence of it 2. Whereas it is pretended page 106. that before Berengarius who was above 1000. years after Christ none did oppose that reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament which the Romanists maintain besides that I have sufficiently confuted this before the Marquesse might have seen from Bellarmine himself that there were some who above 200. years before Berengarius did oppose that doctrine which in this particular the Church of Rome now doth hold namely Bertram a Presbyter who was about 800. years after Christ and saith Bellarmine was one of the first that did call in question that doctrine But Bellarmine doth too much mince the matter for Bertram did more then call in question that reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament which the Romanists do hold he did plainly assert that which Protestants maintain viz. that the substance of bread and wine doth still remain after consecration as is to be seen in Hospinians first part of the Sacramentary history and so in others that cite that Author for the book it self I confesse I have not seen that I do remember But that is here worthy to be observed which the Romish censurers of Books say speaking of this book of Bertrams about the Sacrament Although say they we do not much value this book nor should greatly eare if it were no where to be found yet seeing it hath been often printed and read of very many c. and we sufer very many errours in other ancient Catholicks we extenuate them we excuse them and finding out some device we often deny them and fain some good sense of them when they are opposed in disputations or conflicts with the adversaries we see not why Bertram may not deserve the same favour and diligent recognition lest Hereticks prate against us and say that we burn antiquity and prohibit it when it makes for them Some things therefore in Bertrams book they will have to be quite left out and some things to be quite altered as namely for visibly to be read invisibly Such devices have they of the Church of Rome to corrupt ancient Writers when they make against them and then they pretend that all are for them Thus the Marquesse in the conclusion of his Reply page 230. pretends that they have the prescription of 1600. years possession and continuance of their Churches Doctrine and evidence out of the word of God and the Fathers witnessing to that evidence and the decrees of Councels and Protestants own acknowlegdements But what ground there is for this pretence let the Reader judge by comparing and considering what is said on both sides And so I also shall leave the successe of my labour unto God in whose hand are the hearts of all An Addition of some few things omitted in the fore-going REJOINDER THe Marquesse pag. 69. citeth Basil orat in 40 it is misprinted 44 Mart. as affirming that we may pray unto the Saints departed But in that Oration Basil affirms no such thing He shews indeed his approbation of praying not unto the Martyrs but which is quite another thing to God at the monuments of the Martyrs The most learned B. Usher observes That the memory of the Martyrs indeed was from the very beginning had in great reverence and at their Memorials and Martyria that is to say at the places wherein their bodies were laid which were the Churches whereunto the Christians did in those times usually resort prayers were ordinarily offered up unto God for whose cause they laid down their lives But this is no argument that they then prayed to the Martyrs though that errour might take occasion afterwards to creep in by this meanes The Marquesse taxeth Calvin for holding that Christs soule was subject to ignorance To what I have already said in answer to this charge I adde that in this particular Fulgentius was of the same minde with Calvin For confuting those that held Christ to have no humane soul he saith thus If we must believe that the humane nature in Christ wanted a soul what is it that in Christ being an Infant is said not to have known good and evil Then he cites Isa 7. 16. expounding it of Christ and addes Therefore the humane soule which is naturally made capable of reason in Christ being an Infant is said not to have known good and evil which according to the truth of the Gospel in Christ being a child is related to have increased in wisdome c. To that also that hath been said before concerning Calvins death let this be added How far Calvin was from despairing at his death as the Marquesse doth object may appear by what he wrote to his dear friend Farel when he looked for death every moment I hardly breath saith he and expect continually that breath should fail me It is enough that I live and dye to Christ who to those that are his is both
do of his good pleasure Phil. 2. 13. Therefore saith Austine we will but God doth worke this will in us therefore wee worke but God doth worke this worke in us of his good pleasure This is expedient for us both to believe and to speake this is pious this is true that so confession may bee humble and submisse and that all may be ascribed unto God And thus I hope it may sufficiently appeare that we have no cause to decline either the authority of the Scriptures or the testimonies of Fathers in this point concerning Free-will I come now to those Scriptures and Fathers which the Marquesse doth alledge against us Three places of Scripture are cited for proofe of Free-will such as our Adversaries maintaine and wee impugne First that 1 Cor. 7. 37. it is misprinted 1 Cor. 17. Hee that standeth stedfast in his heart having no necessity but hath power over his own will and hath so decreed in his heart that hee will keepe his virgin doth well But what is there here to prove Free-will Perhaps those words hath power over his own will But the Apostle there speakes of a man that hath a daughter marriageable yet determines to keepe her unmarried which the Apostle approves so that the man have no necessity that is no necessary cause of giving his daughter in marriage but hath power over his owne will that is hath power to effect and accomplish that which hee willeth so as no inconvenience to ensue upon it After this manner doth Cajetan himselfe in his Commentaries upon the place expound these wordes but hath power over his own will viz. to accomplish it in that the Virgin doth consent to abstaine from marriage For if shee should dissent then the Father should not have power of accomplishing his own will Thus Cajetan now what is this to the controversie about free will though I know Bellarmine also brings it in as also another place as little to the purpose namely that 2 Cor. 9. 7. Every man according as hee purposeth in his heart so let him give not grudgingly or of necessity for God loveth a chearfull giver Men must give almes willingly and chearfully therefore men have free will It doth not follow no more then that because men must serve God with a perfect heart and with a willing minde 1 Chron. 28. 9. therefore of themselves by the power of Free-will they are able to do it The Rhemists tacitely confesse these places to be impertinent to the point in hand passing them over in their Annotations and making no use of them as they are ready enough to doe when they meet with any thing which they thinke doth make for them The next place is Deut. 30. 19. not as it is printed 11. I have set before you life and death blessing and cursing chuse life that thou and thy seed may live This place Bellarmine presumes much upon saying that hee sees not what can bee answered to it And so the English Papists who translated the old Testament at Doway in their notes upon the place say what Doctor can more plainly teach Free-will in man then this Text of holy Scripture But what is the reason of all this confidence because man is bidden to chuse life doth it therefore follow that of himselfe hee is free and able to doe it why So man is bidden to worke out his own salvation Phil. 2. 12. yet as the Apostle addes immediately v. 13. it is God that doth worke in him both the Will and the Deed. Man is bidden to come unto Christ Isai 53. 3. yet can hee not come except the Father draw him Ioh. 6. 44. Man is bidden to arise from the dead Ephes 5. 14. Can he therefore being dead quicken himself Surely the same Apostle tells us in the same Epistle that it is God that doth quicken those that are dead in trespasses and sinnes Ephes 2. 5. There is no more force in that place of Deuteronomie for proofe of Free-will then in any other place of Scripture which containeth in it precept or exhortation And indeed our adversaries doe pretend that all such places are for them And so did the Pelagians of old object such places but Austine answers them that though it 's true God doth not command man to doe that which cannot bee done by him yet hee commandeth us to doe what wee are not able to doe viz. of our selves that wee may seeke unto him to make us able Thus the people of God do Turne unto me saith God Ioel 2. 12. Turne thou us unto thee say the people of God Lam. 5. 21. And by comparing places of Scripture together we may finde that what God doth require of his people the same hee doth promise unto them Wash yee make yee cleane saith he Isai 1. 16. But Ezek. 36. 25. I will sprinkle cleane water upon you saith hee and you shall be cleane So Ezek. 18. 31. God commands saying Make you a new heart and a new spirit But Ezek. 36. 26. hee promiseth this very thing A new heart also will I give you and a new spirit will I put with in you And accordingly David prayed unto God to worke this in him Create in me a clean heart O Lord and renew a right spirit within me Psal 51. 10. And that of Austine is well known Give O Lord what thou doest command and then command what thou willest Besides as Bradwardine observed long agoe impotency and inability to performe a duty proceeding from a mans own fault doth nothing excuse him either by the Law of God or man A bankrupt may justly be required to pay his debt though hee be not able to pay it Againe Gods Precepts and Exhortations are not in vaine though man by the power of his own Free-will be not able to doe what is required because God doth make those very Precepts and Exhortations meanes whereby to worke that in his elect which hee doth require of them When Christ spake to Lazarus being dead and buried saying Lazarus come forth Joh. 11. this was not in vaine though its certaine a man that 's dead and laid in the grave hath no power of himselfe to come forth yet I say it was not in vaine that Christ spake so unto Lazarus for together with his word hee sent forth his Divine power and so inabled Lazarus to come forth as hee required So neither is it in vaine that God doth command men to doe things which of themselves they cannot doe because he accompanying his word with his spirit inables them to do what hee commands Verily verily I say unto you saith Christ the houre is comming and now is when the dead shall heare the voyce of the Son of God and they that heare shall live Joh. 5. 25. Our Saviour there speakes of such as are spiritually dead as appeares those words and now is and he shewes that his word is a powerfull and effectuall meanes viz. by the concurrence of
his spirit to work the life of grace in them The third and last place of Scripture which the Marquesse citeth for Free-will is that Mat. 23. 37. O Ierusalem Ierusalem how often would I have gathered thy children together as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her wings and yee would not But what doth this place prove That men have Free-will so farre forth as of themselves to resist and reject the offers of grace which wee nothing doubt of But the question is whether men have such a Free-will as that of themselves they can receive grace when it is offered This is that which wee deny neither doth the place alledged make any thing for proofe of it The Marquesse saith There might have been a willingnesse as well as an unwillingnesse so it should be though it be printed as well as a willing or else Christ had wept in vaine and to thinke that he did so were to make him an impostor I grant that there might have been a willingnesse but not by the power of Free-will except made free by grace it being God that doth worke both the will and the deed Phil. 2. 13. So the Jewes of whom Christ complained that they would not come unto him Ioh. 5. 40. might have come but yet of themselves they could not come not except it were given unto them of God Ioh. 6. 65. not except hee did draw them Ioh. 6. 44. Whereas the Marquesse speakes of Christs weeping his minde was it seemes upon another place viz. that Luk. 19. 41 42. where it is said that Christ drawing nigh to Ierusalem beheld it and wept over it saying If thou hadst known even thou at least in this thy day the things that belong unto thy peace but now they are hid from thine eyes But that Christ wept when he said O Ierusalem Ierusalem how often would I have gathered thy children c. this we do not find though the words be recorded both Mat. 27. 37. and also Luke 13. 34. But suppose that Christ had wept when he said O Ierusalem Ierusalem c. yet had not his weeping been in vaine though Ierusalem had no power of her selfe to doe that which there Christ speaks of For yet neverthelesse Christ shewed his affection towards Ierusalem even as he did towards Lazarus when he wept over him as he lay over the grave Behold how he loved him said the Jewes Iohn 11. 36. yet it is without all question that Lazarus of himself could not have come out of the grave except Christ by his Almighty power had raised him up Some perhaps may say But why did Christ complain of Ierusalem for her unwillingnesse if it were not in her power to be willing I answer because both her unwillingnesse and also her want of power to be willing was from her self it was her own fault and therefore she was justly complained of and reproved for it But againe some may say Ierusalem had sufficient grace whereby she might have been willing or else Christ would not have complained that she was unwilling I answer Ierusalem had a sufficiency of the means of Grace which she ought to have made use of and to have been wrought upon by but would not and therefore did Christ complain of her But Ierusalem had not a sufficiency of the Spirit of Grace without which she could not improve the means as she should have done and yet neverthelesse the complaint made of her was just For God having given unto man at first Grace sufficient to doe whatsoever he should require and this Grace being lost by mans own fault Eccles 7. 29. God is not bound to restore it but when and where he pleaseth and yet may justly require the obedience that is due unto him and complain for want of it as a man may justly demand his debt of a bankrupt and complain of him for not paying it though he be not able to pay it Raimundus de Sabunde a Popish Author is large in his expressions to this purpose That man being now corrupt and made quite contrary to what he was at first cannot pay that which he oweth unto God cannot love fear honour and obey God as he ought and that yet neverthelesse the debt still remaines this is still due unto God and man is not excused because though he be not able yet he himselfe is the cause of his inability and it is his owne fault that he is not able After the allegation of these places of Scriptures the Marquesse addes that the Ancient Fathers are of their Opinion viz. in point of Free-will and he cites Euseb Caesar de praep l. 1. c. 7. Hil. de Trinit Aug. l. 1. ad Simpl. q. 4. Ambr. in Luk. 12. Chrys hom 19. in Gen. Irenaeus l. 4. c. 72. Cyrill in Ioh. l. 4. c. 7. Now for diverse of the Antient Fathers and namely for Austine whom the Marquesse alledgeth against us and who indeed is chiefly to be looked at in this Controversie as having most occasion to declare himself in it by reason of the Pelagian Heresie which arose in his time I have sufficiently shewed before how far they are from compliance with our Adversaries But to come to a particular examination of the Authors and places that are cited First Eusebius in the place mentioned hath nothing at all that I can find about Free-will the whole Chapter being de Phoenicum Theologiâ about the Divinity of the Phoenicians Hilary is so cited that there is no looking after him for he wrote twelve books of the Trinity and here he is onely cited de Trin. 1. of the Trinity but in which of the twelve Books he saith any thing to this purpose is not mentioned As for Austine that which the Marquesse I presume intended is lib. 1. ad Simplic quaest 2. not q. 4. for there are but two Questions answered in the first Book in the second Book indeed there are more then four Questions but nothing about Free-will In the first Book and second Question there is something that may seeme to make for the Opinion of the Marquesse but much more is there which doth indeed make against it indeed so much that though Bellarmine cite diverse passages out of Austine for proof of Free-will yet he was more cautious it seemes then to cite any thing out of that which Austine wrote about it to Simplicianus Let us hear what Austine himself in his Retractations wherein he did review all his Works saith concerning his books written to Simplicianus and concerning that very Question in answer whereunto he hath much about Free-will In the solution of which question saith he mans Free-will was much laboured for but the Grace of God did overcome And this will clearly appear by perusing the Book it selfe and the question handled in it The question is about the meaning of those words Iacob have I loved and Esau have I hated and the rest that follow Rom. 9. Now among other things that Austine saith there