rejoyce in my sufferings for you and fill up that which is wanting of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his bodies sake which is the Church To which I answere The true meaning of these words in their own Aquinas words on this place is this saying These words according to the superfice might haue an ill sense as if Christs passion were not sufficient for our redemption but for filling up that which wants the sufferings of the saints wer to be added but this is hereticall sayeth he for the blood of Christ is sufficient for the redemption of many worlds himself being the propitiation for our sinnes but it is to be understood sayeth he that Christ and his Church make up but one mysticall person whose head is Christ and all the godlie are his bodie members thereof this then was wanting that as Christ had suffered in his naturall bodie so he was to suffer in Pauls person as a member of his mysticall bodie Christs sufferings in his bodie being for the redemptioÌ„ of his Church but the sufferings of the saints for the Church being for this that by their example the Church may be confirmed sayeth he where we see that the sufferings of the saints serve to the church for coÌ„formity confirmation but not as this Pamphleter would haue them to be a treasure for papall indulgences to bring in a treasure of money to the popes coffers The second place which he brings is Philip. 2. 30. wherein Paul exhorteth the Philippians to receiue Epaphroditus with all gladnes because for the work of Christ hee was neare to death to supplie their work of service towards him which as Aquinas says They were not able in their owne persons to performe to him which words of Paul no more proveth the Pamphleters point wherat he aimeth of the benefit of popish indulgences then that Rome is in Vtopia but showeth both his usuall impertinencie impudence and ignorance 18. THat no man can do works of supererogation VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Math. 19. 21. wher our Saviour sayeth to the young rich-man If thou will be perfect go sell all that which thou hast and give to the poor c. and follow me wheÌ„ce it plainlie appeareth sayeth he that a man by the assistance of Gods grace may do somthings counselled which are of more perfection than are things commanded To whom I answere 1. in their owne Ferus words on this place saying In these words is implyed that which is necessarie commanded to all to wit Poverty of spirit which is nothing else but with the heart to cleaue to no creature neither doeth the kingdome of heaven belong to any but to such as do so sayeth he 2. This coÌ„mand to this young at this time to sell all was a personall coÌ„mand given for this end to discover this young mans covetousnes and hypocrisie in saying he had keeped the whole law from his youth like that personall command given to Abraham of sacrificing Isaac to discover his great faith and obedience to all after ages And wee know that such personall coÌ„mands for tryall or discovery doth not tye all 3. The perfection of Angels is to do Gods Commandements as wee see Psal 103. 20. and in that petition of the Lords prayer Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven Yea Christs owne perfection was in this the doing of his Fathers will shall wretched sinfull man be able to go beyond the perfectioÌ„ of these The second place which he bringeth is 1. Cor. 7. 25. Now concerning virgins I haue no Commandement of the Lord yet I give my judgement we reade counsell sayeth hee and to do that which is counselled is not necessarie because one nevertheless may bee saved sayeth he To which place I answere 1. Not only the originâ—ll hath the word judgemeÌ„t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not counsell but also Cardinall Cajetan acknowledgeth the same on that place ingenouslie 2. By command the Apostle meaneth a generall command oblieging all persons at all times as the precepts of the Morall Law do and concerning such special coÌ„mands of living single and keeping virginitie hee showeth that he hath no such CoÌ„mandement of the Lord but in regard of the present condition of Christians lyable to daylie persecution he declares his judgement only that to live single in the estate of virginitie it is better then to liue in a married estate for their owne good but not that thereby they could supererogat at Gods hands therfore leaving it in the meane time free to every one to do as God hath distributed to every one his gifts as he speaketh 1. Cor. 7. 17. 3 Gerson de consult evang statu perfect and with him their Paludanus in lib. 3. sent d. 34. q. 3. do teach That some may attaine to as great hight of perfection living in marriage and possessing riches as we see in Abraham Iob as they who liue single or in the estate of povertie As also Jansenius in his concord on the Evangelists cap. 100. alleadging the authoritie of Aquinas teacheth That the perfection of a Christian life consisteth essentiallie in keeping of Gods Commandements Aquin 2 2. q. 184. art 3. and as we see Philip. 4. 8. beyond which in performance can no flesh go Lastlie We find in scripture Gods counsell to man his coÌ„mand to be all one as these places testifie psal 73. 24. Prov. 1. 25. 30. Jer. 49. 20. Act. 20. 27. and Revel 3. 18. How soever with man it may be said as it is proverbiall Counsell is no command The third place which he bringes is Math. 19 12. There be Eunuchs who haue made themselves so for the kingdome of heaven he that is able to receive it let him receive or keepe it now of precepts it is not said keepe them who may or is able but keep theÌ„ absolutlie sayeth he For answere 1. Let him hear the Iesuite Maldonats exposition upon this place saying The words receive it in this place signifieth the same as to understand for Christ thereby would say no other thing than elswhere hee useth to speake of any grave matter saying he that hath eares to heare let him heare sayeth he 2. These Eunnchs that made theÌ„selves such that is lives as Eunuchs chastlie and in a single life the text sayeth that they did it for themselves to attaine to the kingdome of heaven which everie one is bound to do and not to supererogat for others As for Origens words which hee alleadgeth on the 1. Rom. 15. saying These things which we do over aboue our dutie I find nowise in that place and though they were yet we must distinguish betweene duties to which wee are bound by a generall precept common to all as hath beene said duties to which we are not so bound but left to the performance therof according as every one findeth himself gifted or not which answere serveth also to that place alleadged out of
The 2. That Christ blessed and consecrated the bread but with a secret benediction unknowne to us whereby he Transsubstantiâ—â— the bread into his Bodie of which the Evangelists maketh mentieÌ„ when they say that he tooke bread and blessed it so that heerby Christs Bodie behoved to be preexistent in the sacrament by that blessing before he said this is my bodie that so that speech of his might be true The 3. is That our Saviour by these words this is my bodie made that coÌ„version of bread into his bodie but ttha be spoke these words twise though it be written but once and that first he spoke them softlie and unheard whereby he made the conversion and thereafter audiblie to teach them how thereafter they should make this conversion And the 4. opinion is That by these words this is my Bodie which be spake audiblie he made this conversion of bread into his owne Bodie 5. Herin again they greatly controvert to wit whereby the Priest daylie doth make this conversion 1. Some say as Durand in his rationale divinorum lib. 4. f. 63. and Biel on the canon of the masse lect 47. with others That the same is by vertue which Christ hath placed and made wherent in the words themselves of this is my Bodie 2. Others say That this conversion dependeth upon the intention of the Priest as Bellarmin sayeth The whole Church holdeth lib. 3. de justifi cap. 8. whose words are these The Sacrament without the intention of the priest cannot be made a Sacrament 3. Lombard their great Master of sentences lib. 4. dist 13. sayeth That it dependeth upon an Angels descending from heaven to consecrate the Hostie Whose words are these It is called the Masse because of the comming of the heavenlie Angell sayeth hee to consecrate the bodie of Christ according to the Priests prayer saying Omnipotent God command that these things be carried by the hands of thy holie Angel before thy high Altar therefore except the Angel come it cannot be called a Masse sayth he seing therefore as Bellarmin hath told us that it cannot be a Sacrament without the Priests intentioÌ„ and that no man can know the intention of another sayth Bellar. farr lesse be sure of an Angels coÌ„ming downe to comsecrate the bread turne it into Christs body I would theÌ„ on these grounds of their own ask any papist when he adoreth the hostie how he can be sure whether hee adoreth Christs body or onely a piece of bread which were most grosse Idolatrie as all must confess 6. To come to the words of consecration themselves 1 in generall next in particular let us see how they agree heerein 1. The most common opinion is that in generall they are to bee taken properlie and not figuratiuely but on the contrarie Bertram and the others with him forecited as also Cardinall Cajetan in 3. q. 78. art 1. holdeth that they are and may be taken figuratiuelie and after a Sacramentall manner of speech as wee see in Circumcision and the Passover yea more in the Popes owne canon Law de consecra dist 2. c. hoc est it is said ther That the heavenlie Sacrament which trulie representeth Christs flesh is called Christs Bodie but improperlie and not in veritie of the thing sayeth that place but by a mysticall signification so that the meaning is sayth the glosse it is called Christs Bodie that is it is a sign of his bodie 7. Next to come to the words in particular 1. The Catholicks do not agree sayth Bellarm. lib. 1. de Eucâ— cap. 11 in the manner of explicating what is properlie meaned by this Pronowne hoc or this in the words of consecration this is my Bodie in this there are two famous opinions sayth he the one that this pronowne hoc signifieth the Body of Christ the other is of S. Thomas sayeth he that it signifieth not the body of Christ precisâ—ie nor yet the bread as some hold but in coÌ„mon that substance be what it will which is under these formes so that the meaning is hoc this that is under this and thâ—se formes or accidents is my bodie Neither determinating it to the bread says Biel in can Missae lect 48. because so this speech should be false this bread is my Bodie nor to the bodie of Christ for this were absurd to say this bodie is my bodie sayeth he as also seing the vertue of the words of consecration depends on the pronouncing of the last word meum as Biel showeth in the same place therefore by hoc Christs bodie cannot bee understood Againe the same Biel in the place forecited sayeth that concerning this there are diverse opinions which he reduceth to two 1. That by hoc nothing at all is demonstrat and this Durand also declareth lib. 4. rat divin f. 64. 2. Some say that by hoc the bread is demonstrat so that the meaning should bee this bread is my bodie that is in a Sacramentall way the signe of my bodie But because this would seeme sayeth he to be hereticall therefore sayeth Richardus de sancto victore that it is a mixt demonstration partlie to the sense partlie to the understanding so that the meaning is this in which the bread which is seene is to be transsubstantiat is my bodie which must be believed and so the word is must be expounded in the future shall be this is likewise the opinioÌ„ of Richardê° de media villa and others but Alexander Ales expreâ—slie will haue by hoc the bread to bee demonstrat and thereafter to bee transsubstantiated by the words of consecration 8. They controvert no lesse likewise in the next words corpus meum or my bodie as Gabriel Biel showeth in his 37. lecture on the canon of the Masse Whether that bodie which Christ gave to his Disciples was his mortall and passible bodie or that which was immortall and impassible to these who say the first it is objected that then sayeth heâ— it is not the same bodie which is now given in the sacrament which is immortall and impassible and that the Masse is therefore called an unbloodie sacrifice Againe in the contrarie to these who hold that it was his immortall and impassible bodie it is likewise objected that this coâ—ld not be because his Bodie did afterward suffer and die being yet unglorified and therefore was mortall and passible Therefore sayeth Biel Hugo Cardinalis being straitned on both hands by the former contradictions concludeth for his part siding with neither of them saying That in this questioÌ„ as in such like others I professe sayeth hee that I will rather reverence than dispute such secrets and in simplicitie of faith I think this sufficient if we say that Christ gaue them such a bodie as pleased Him to give because Hee was Omnipotent And so leaveth the matter in doubt which of them it was and useth a short easie way to solve all questions 9 In the words also that followeth which is broken
will not leaue my soul in hel To which I answere 1. Their Arias Montanus in his interlineall Bible approven by the Universitie of Lovan and printed at Antuerp 1572. translates that place of the 16. psalout of which this of the Act. is taken thus Non derelinques animam meam in sepulâ—hro And Isidorus clarius on this place speaketh thus according to the Hebrew phrase the soule is put for the bodie which he was not to leaue in the grave And Bellarmin lib. 4. de Christo cap. 12. grantes that the hebrew word nephesh or anima is a generall word which somtimes signifieth the bodie as is cleare sayth he by many parts of scripture Wherof he instances one Gen. 37. 21. where Ruben sayth to his brehren concerning Joseph Non interficiamê° animaÌ„ ejus where the word anima is not taken for the soule properlie so called nor by a Trope for the man himself but properlie for his flesh or bodie sayeth he and as Nephesh somtimes signifieth the bodie so in the same sense is the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the septuagint Levit. 21. 1. 11. 2. The hebrew word Sheol also is taken two wayes in scripture to wit either for the receptacle of the corporall part of man after death and so it signifieth the graue which is not onlie called in the greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 1. Cor. 15. 55. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O graue where is thy victorie orelse it is taken for the receptacle of the spirituall part or soule of man after death and thus being taken it is translated Hell and then onlie and ever it signifieth the place of the damned out of which there is no deliverie as Augustin showeth at length in his 99. Epistle to Evodius and for probation that the word Sheol is taken for both these forenamed receptacles Their own Lyra's words on psal 114. are these In the hebrew sayth he for INFERNUS is put SHEOL which doth not onlie signifie Hell but also the graue as wee also see Gen. 42. 38. Job â—7 13. and psal 141. 7. A third exposition Romanists give of the word Sheol or Infernus signifying there by the estate of the dead in generall under the power of death whereof Peter speaketh Act. 2. 24. and thus doth their Jansenius expound in Prov. 15. 11. and Genebrard in psal 88. 48. Thus the words being cleared by Romanists theÌ„selves 1. then whither the meaning be this Thou will not leaue my bodie in the graue according to Arias Montanus translation of psal 16. 10. relating so to Christs resurrection which is the Apostles purpose to prove or 2. whither the meaning be Thou will not leaue mee under the power of death as Jansenius expoundeth or 3. whither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or soule be taken for the spirituall part of man and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or hell for the place of the damned yet howsoever I say the words be taken in any of the three former senses they shall never prove any popish Limbê° or any desceÌ„se of Christs soul thither because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Infernus when it is taken for the grave or that which is in place thereof as Gen. 43. 38. and Ionah 2. 2. It ever signifieth the place of the damned as both scripture showeth and Augustin forecited and I hope that papists themselves will never say that the soules of the Patriarchs went down thither Moreover coÌ„cerning the descense of Christs soule to hell Romanists themselves disagree thus 1. Scotus in 1. sent dist 11. q. 1. disclaimeth any warrant in the gospell for it 2. Bellarmin lib. 4. de Christo c. affirmeth that Christs soul descended locally to the place of the damned 3. Aquinas denyeth this as Bellar. showeth in the same place and sayeth that he onlie descended locallie to that part of hell which is called Limbus 4. Durand mantaineth that Christs soule descended to no part of hell locallie but virtualie onlie and by effect seing the scripture sayeth he distinguisheth nowise the hell of the damned froÌ„ any other place otherwise saith Durand in 3. sent dist 22. q. 3. his soule had beene in two places together seing he said to the theef on the Crosse this day thou shall be with me in Paradise And which virtuall descending of Christ into hell ProtestaÌ„ts likewise acknowledge Chamier speaking thus lib. 5. de Christo cap. 3. Moreover sayeth hee when we say Hee descended into hell we signifie therby the efficacie of Christs death wherby he overcame hell The fruit of which victorie not only appertaineth to them who were to come after but also to them who had long gone before sayeth hee The third place is 1. Pet. 3. 18. Being put to death in the flesh but quickned by the spirit by which also hee went preached to the spirits in prison Which he sayth wer the Fathers in Limbê° To which I answer That this place proveth no descending of Christs soule to Limbus for delivering of the fathers therefra Which shall be made clear by considdering 1. By what spirit Christ went and preached in the dayes of Noab 2. who were these spirits in prison to whom he went 3. The time when hee went First then the spirit by which Christ went and preached was not his humane soul but his divine spirit for so sayeth Augustin epist 99. ad Evodium as also Beda on this place O Ecumeniê° likewise and Athanasius which exposition Estius sayeth agreeth well with 2. Cor. 13. 4. Aquinas likewise part 3. q. 52. art 2. saith that it was by the spirit of his divinitie that he went preached sayth he by the mouth of just Noah Lyra in like-manner sayth That it was by the holie Ghost in Noah and in other good men So also speaketh Hugo Cardinalis the Iesuite Salmeron on this place Next Scripture it self testifieth in the same place That it was by that spirit by which he was quickned and raised from the dead and that this spirit was his divine spirit is witnessed Rom. 8. 11. by which also our mortall bodies shall bee quickned and which dwelleth in the Elect. And this is not Christs soule but his holie spirit as v. 9. Next the spirits to whom hee went are descrived 1. That they wer disobedient who abused the long suffering patience of God that waited for their repentance in the dayes of Noah which the patriarchs did not who ar praised so much for the contrary to wit their faith and obedience Heb. 11. 2. They ar said to be such spirits who wer in prison even then when Peter wrote this epistle as their own Andradius notes def coÌ„cil Trid. lib. 2. p. 17. 2 the Text it self declareth therefore wer not fred therfra at Christs Resurrection which was long before 3. The time when Christ by his spirit preached to these spirits in prison was as the text showeth In the dayes of Noah and not after his
call the righteous but sinners to Repentance these words to repentance are taken out which show the end of Christs comming and calling of sinners I might instance many more places as Ioh. 5. 16. 1. Cor. 15. 54 where a whole sentence is rased out but these shall 4. VVhich is grossest of all I shal instance where their Translation is directlie contrarie and contradictory to the Originall as 1. Gen 49. 24. it is said concerning IOSEPH The armes of his hands were made strong but in their vulgar Translation the words are The armes of his hands were made weake Next IOSUA 5. 6. it is said Vnto whom the LORD did sweare that hee would not showe them the Land but in their Translation it is quyte contrar That he would show them the Land Againe IOSUA 11. 19. it is said There was not a Citie that made peace with the Children of Israel saue the Hivits but in their Translation is said the contrar Ther was no City which did not render or make peace Likewise Psal 68. 22. it is said I will bring my people again from the deepes of the sea but the coÌ„trar is in their Translation saying I will bring my people downe to the deepths of the sea In likemanner in the new Testament 1. Cor. 15. 51. it is said Wee shall not all sleepe but wee shall all bee changed but in their Translation it is thus Wee shall indeed all rise againe but wee shall not all bee changed Where we see gross alteration aswell as contradiction And againe verse 55. where it is said O Death where is thy sting O graue where is thy victory Wee see againe in their Translation grosse alteration the words being these Death where is thy victory Death wher is thysting no word of the graue at all The like of which grosse corruptions adding to Gods Word taking from it and contradicting the same I defie al the Iesults Priests and papists in the World to challenge in our Translations Yea the more yet to convince this Pamphleter and all Romanists whatsoever concerning the viâ—iositie of their vulgar Translation as is said Deut. 32. 31. Even our Enemies being Judges I shall instance onely two or three examples in place of many wherein themselves in their English Rhemes Translation of the new Testament are forced to aknowledge the vitiositie of their vulgar latine by departing therefra and translating these places just as we do as 1. whereas Ioh. 12. 35. in their vulgar latine the words are adhuc modicum lumen in vobis est that is Yet a little whyle the light is in you the Rhemists themselves translate it thus as wee do and according to the Originall Yet a little while the light is with you Next Rom. 12. 19. whereas in the vulgare latine it is Non vosipsos defendentes that is not defending your selves against reason and scripture forbidding lawfull defence the Rhemists translate as wee do Not revenging your selves Again 1. Cor. 15. 34. whereas in the vulgare latine it is ad reverentiam vobis loquor that is I speake it to yoür reverence or honour the Rhemists translate as wee do according to the Original I speake to your shame The next thing to which in his Preface I am to answere is concerning the sense and meaning of the places of Scripture contraverted which hee sayeth is The ever constant and uniforme judgement of the Church and ancient Fathers who in every age since CHRIST haue understood the point in question in that sense sayeth hee which Catholicks now do Conforme therfore to these his words let us put to this Touch-stone which hee calleth the Rule of fayth some chiefe poynts of Poperie and see whether they agree with Scripture as the same is expounded by the whole stream of the ancient fathers in the primitive Church who haue written thereon or if they disagree not as farre therefra as Light doth from darknesse As. 1. To beginne with the mayne point of Poperie The Popes supremacie which the Pamphleter sayeth is grounded on Math. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this rock wâ—ll I build my Church understanding Peter to be this rock wherof Christ speaketh and yet by the constant and unanimous judgement of the ancient Fathers Church in their time that Text importeth no such papall supremacie nor that by that rock Peter is understood but either CHRIST himself or that fayth of CHRIST wherof Peter made confession As 1. All the greeke Fathers and the Easterne or greeke Church who oppose papall supremacie even unto this day and in particulare to speake bâ—â—h of greek and latine Fathers Origen Tract 1. in Math. 16 Chrisostome Tom. 3. serm de pentecoste Isidorus Pelusiota his disciple lib. 5. Epist 55. Theophylact in Math. 16. Augustin Tract 10. in 1. Epist Johannis Tract 124. in Johan Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae Ambrose in Epist ad Ephes cap. 2. Hilare lib. 6. de de Trinit and Pope Gregory himself Moral in Job lib. 28. cap. 8. and many more which consent of Fathers made Cardinall Cusanus to say de concord Cathol lib. 2. c. 13. altho it was said to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church yet by this rock sayth he we understand CHRIST himself whom he confesseth if Peter were to be understood by this rock as a ground-stone of the Church according to S. Ierome are not sayth he the rest of the Apostles ground-stones of the Church inlikemanner of whom it is spoken in the Revelation Wher by the Twelve stones of the foundation of that Citie Jernsalem which is the holy Church no man doubteth sayth he but all the Apostle are to be understood And therfore sayth that same Cardinall wee know that Peter received no more power from Christ than the other Apostles but were the self same that Peter was sayeth Cyprian de Uni eccles indued with a-lyke fellowship â—oth of honour and power And not only doth the forenamed fathers expound that place of Mathew as is said severally but the whole Fathers coÌ„veened in famous generall eâ—umenicall Councels haue decreed against any such Papall supremacie which Romanists would prove by that wrested place of Scripture as 1. That first and famous Councell of Nice anno 325. of 318. Bishops in the 6. Cannon thereof 2. The Councell of Constantinople anno 380. of 150. Bishops Can. 5. which as Bellarmin confesseth pref de Rom. pont withstood altogether any such suptemacie 3. The Councell of Ephesus anno 434. of 200. Bishops cap. 4. and the last is the 4. Councel of Chalcedon anno 454. of 430. Bishops which decreed peremptorly Act. 16. against any such supremacie as Bellvrmin grants in in his preface forenamed but non sine fraude or not without deceat sayeth hee such is popish pretended reverence of Antiquitie when it maketh against them And yet the present Roman Church doeth so farre disagree froÌ„ this exposition of Scripture which they pretend for papall supremacie and from
the famous Councells and Fathers forenamed who opposed the same as not to adhere to their sense of that place of Mathew or to their judgement of papall supremacie were now a-dayes damnable and rank heresie 2. Next to come to that proud doctrine of merite against which is that cleare Text of scripture Rom. 6. 23. where it is said The wages of sinne is death but Life Eternall is the gift of GOD. Which by the unanimous judgement of the ancient fathers Church is acknowledged to be against merits therefore sayeth their owne Cassander consult art 6. with a full consent all the ancient Fathers deliver that our whole confidence and hope both of pardon and eternall life is to be placed in the onely mercie of GOD and merite of Christ As we see particularly in ORGEN l. 4. in Rom. cap. 4. Hilare in Math. can 20. Ambrose in psal 118. Octon 20. Et in exhortatione ad virgines Basil in psal 52. 114. Jerom lib. 17. in Isaiam cap. 64. Chrisostom in Coloss hom 2. Augustin in psal 36. con 2. psal 32 con 1. psal 83. circa fineÌ„ As also psal 109 â—irca iâ—itiuÌ„ Cyril also of Alexandria hom 4. paschas Gregorie the first in psal 7. poenit Fulgentius ad Moninum lib. 1. cap. 10. and Haymo in psal 132. 1. Bernard ser 1. in annunc Mariae and many more And yet the present Roman Church differeth so farre froÌ„ Scripture the streame of Antiquitie expounding the same in this point That the Councell of Trent in the decree of the sixt Session thereof can 32. hath accursed all those that hold not the doctrine of mans meriting of eternall life by his owne good works and the Rhemists declare on Heb. 6. 10. That they are so fully worthie of eternall life and are the cause of salvation that God should be unjust if he rendred not heaven for them 3. For perfectioÌ„ of scripture against doctrinall traditions that place Gal. 1. 8. Though wee or an Angell from heaven preach any other beside that which wee haue preached unto you let him be accursed by the constaÌ„t unanimous judgement of the Church all ancient Fathers that ever write on that place the same is expounded to be the scriptures of the old new Testament onely beside which no other thing ought to be taught under paine of a curse as Basil in his summe of his Moralls 72. expoundeth so likewise Augustin in his third book against Petilian cap. 6. saying If an Angell from heaven preach to you any thing besids that which is in the scriptures of the Law and Gospell which yee haue received let him be accursed sayth the Apostle so also Vincen. Lyrinen adv haeres c. 35. 10. Neither sayeth the Apostle if they teach any thing contrar or repugnant sayeth Chrisostome Theophylact. on that place but if they teach never so small a point beside that that is add never so little more then that let him bee accursed And yet so farre doth the present Roman Church disagree from the true meaning of this Text of scripture which is given thereon by the whole streame of antiquitie in this point that shee hath decreed contrar thereunto in the Councell of Trent for doctrinall unwritten traditions 1. decreto sess 4. 4. Against that idolatrous worshiping and prayer to Angels that Text Coloss 2. 18. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntare humilitie and worshiping of Angels is expounded not onely by the ancient Fathers singly writing thereon as condemning all prayer to be made to them as we see in Chrisostom in Coloss 2. hom 9. and in Origen l. 7. 8. contra Celsum others but likewise by a whole Councell conveened together as Theodoret testifieth on Coloss 2. saying The Councell which conveened at Laodicea the cheif citie of Phrygia by a law did forbid prayer to Angels condemning the same as Idolatry wherby the communion both of Christ â—nd his Church was forsaken and therefore accursing the practisers thereof Can. 35. saying if any man be found to giue himself to this private idolatrie let him be accursed And yet the present RomaÌ„ Church doth so farr disagree froÌ„ this Apostolicall precept expounded by an unanimous coÌ„sent of ancient Fathers conveened in Councell that she will haue prayers put up to Angels and consequentlie shee is declared Idolatrous and accursed 5. I could instance many more places in points coÌ„troverted wherin they admitt not that sense which the streame of ancient Fathers giveth theron as Coloss 3. where it is said Let the word of Christ dwell in you richlie Which by the constant and unanimous exposition of Fathers is for peoples reading and knowledge of scripture as wee see in Chrisostome hom 9. â—n Coloss 10. in Iohan Augustin serm 55. de tempore Theodoret lib. 5. de Cur. graec affect and others which made their late Bishope Espenceus on Tit. 2. to say By the doctrine of the Apostle and conforme practise of of the primitive Church it is manifest that of old the reading of scripture was permitted to people and as venerable Beda showeth in his third book of the English ecclesiasticall historie cap. 5. but the forenamed shal suffice to show that in the points controverted they admitt not that to be the rule of faith which they pretend to be the rule but when it maketh against them they disdainfullie or impudentlie doth reject the same Lastly As for his Thrasonick brags wherein hee exceedeth all moderation and trueth I passe by theÌ„ as not worthy of any answere but that which in realitie and a solid way shall bee seene God willing in this ensueing reply to discover his frothy emptines fraud to any who is but indifferent judicious howsoever to others the blinded and imbrutished proselyts of such every thing that commeth from them is counted as of old the Oracles of Delphos were or as Diana was cryed up by the confused multitude Act. 19. 34. saying Great is Diana of the Ephesians AN ANSVVERE To the Touch-Stone of the Reformed Gospell 1. That there is not in the Church one and that an infallable rule for understanding the holy Scriptures and conserving of Vnitie in matters of saith THis assertion of our's as hee calleth it is contrary sayth hee to the expresse words of our own Bible which he nameth therafter To whom I answere 1. In generall that he beginneth with a grosse calâ—mny affirming that to be our assertion which is not for wee deny not to be in the Church an infallable rule of faith or for understanding the Scriptures and conserving unitie in the matters of faith as our Confession of faith showeth anno 1581. art 18. but affirmeth this rule of faith to bee the Scripture it self which is therfore called the Canon or rule of Scripture that the right understanding thereof in all matters of faith is to be had froÌ„ the scripture it self and that analogie of faith clearlie set downe therein or deryved
therefra as Pope Clement speaketh dist 37. cap. 14. saying that we should Ex ipsis Scripturis sensâ—m capere veritatis that is Take the meaning of the Trueth out of the Scriptures themselves which he calleth there integram firmam regulam veritatis or The full and firme rule of Trueth Next for answere to him in particulare he adduceth foure places of Scripture most impertinent which nowise maketh against any assertion of ours but whereby he only beats the wind These are 1. RoÌ„ 12. 2. where it is said Having then gifts according to the grace that is given to us whether Prophesie according to the proportion of faith the second is Phil. 3. 16 which sayeth Nevertheless whereunto wee haue alreadie attayned let us minde the same thing the third is Gal. 6. 16. which sayeth And as many as walk according to this rule peace be on them mercie the fourth is 1. Cor. 11. 16. which sayth We haue no such custom nor the Churches of God The First proving only as their owne Estius Professour at Duay showeth that all the doctrine of Teachers should be squared according to the rule and analogie of faith which wee also mayntaine and is contayned in Scripture the second as the same Estius showeth exhorteth onelie to Christian Unitie and concord The third as the same Estius likewise out of Chrisostome and Theophylact proveth that the Apostle speaketh not there of the rule of doctrine but of life which verse 15. hee calleth the new creature or holinesse to which he exhorteth them and as to that which he subjoyneth 2. Cor. 10. 15. as Cardinal Cajetan Catharinus and the ordinary gloss expoundeth The Apostle taking the Metaphor from workmeÌ„ to whom severally as by rule oâ— line their task is measured out doeth understand the limits onely of his Apostolicall mission and jurisdiction which was to the Gentiles of whom the Corinthians were a part as PETER was to the Jewes speciallie and as wee see Gal. 2. 7. And the fourth as Estius also showeth speaketh onely that the custome of the Church is not to bee contentious As for the testimonies of Fathers which hee bringeth heere and alongst this whole Pamphlet First I may answere to them in generall not in my words but in their own Gabriel Biels on the Canon of the Masse lect 41. saying Their authority coÌ„pelleth no maÌ„ to assent to their sayings except sayth he they be grounded on holy Scripture divine reveltion Therfore before this be manifest it is lawfull to controll their sayings sayeth hee and to bee of a contrary judgement wherefore sayeth S. Jerom If I say any thing which I shall not prove by one of the two Testaments let mee not bee believed no word then of traditions and S. Augustin sayeth hee in his 8. Epistle to Jerom speaketh thus saying This honour is onelie to be given to the holie canonick Scriptures that whatsoever they say therefore it must bee believed to bee true but as for others I reade them onelie upon this condition that however famous theâ— be for holines or learning I think it not true therefore because they haue thought so untill I bee otherwise perswaded by canonick Scriptures or probable reasons that they haue not erred from the Trueth and which is more sayeth hee we see that one holie father somtimes contradicteth another as holy Cyprian contradicteth Augustin concerning the rebaptising of Hereticks Scismaticks as likewise hee contradicteth Ierome concerning Pauls reprehending of Peter and so of many other like examples I might speake sayth he These are all their owne Bâ—eâ—s words and what little reckning Iesuits make of Fathers or their exposition of Scripture when they disagree with them and jump with those whom they call Calvinists I will showe by this one instance Maldonat on Ioh. 6. 62. bringeth Augustins exposition of that place which is also Beda and Ruperts exposition and with it another exposition whereof hee sayeth Hee will not deny that hee hath no other man as Authour thereof but yet sayth he I wil rather approve it than Augustins which of all other is the most probable because that this is more repugnant to the meaning of the Calvinists But not taking advantage either of Biels words or of these I come in particulare to Vincentius Lyrinensis words which he bringeth saying That the line of Propheticall Apostolicall expositioÌ„ should be directed according to the rule of the Ecclesiasticall Catholick sense but he forgets the words of that ancient Authour both before and after cap. 2. 35. wher he sayth before these words That the Scripture is a perfect rule full and more than sufficient for decision of al controversies in points of faith with which therefore all Ecclesiasticall and Catholick sense must agree and that onelie must be held which hath beene believed ever every where and by all And so this testimony maketh nothing against us and to which rule and words of Vincentius if wee will apply the points of Poperie as I haue showne by five particulars in answere to the Preface wee shall find them quyte contrary and disagreeable yea and to bee onelie meere novelties And albeit with Vincentiê° Bellar. lib. 4. de verbo c. 7. § ad hunc as also the Iesuit Sâ—lmeron in 1. Iohan 3. disp 25. § 30 affirme That wheÌ„ he Fathers all of theÌ„ or almost all agree in one judge-ment or in the exposition of any place of the scripture that then they giâ—e a sure and inevitable argument of Catholick veritie and of a sure and sound exposition of Scripture yet according to this rule let tryall be beside the former five but in this one point of poperie to wit The Virgin Mari's conception without sinne decreed in the Councell of Trent decreto 5. Sess 5. whether it bee of Catholick veritie or not and I hope it shall be found but a lurd errour and a blafphemous noveltie And that they go closs and crosse against the unanimous expositioÌ„ of Scripture which all the Fathers give and agree therin For example Rom. 5. 12. It is said of Adam In whoÌ„ all have sinned from which text all the holie fathers with one mouth sayeth their Bishop Canus loc theol lib. 7. cap. 1. affirmeth the blessed virgin to have been conceived in originall sinne of whome he citeth 18. their words in particular The like doth Cardinall cajetan in his treatise concerning this matter which he wrote to Pope Ieo the tenth â—om 2. opusc tract 1. cap. 5. The like also doeth the master of sentences witnesse lib. 3. dist 3. saying It may be truely said we must believe according to the unanimous testimonies of the holy fathers that the flesh which Christ tooke was formerly subject to sinne as the rest of the Virgins flesh but was sanctified made pure by the operation of the Holy Ghost therefore Bernard in his 174. Epistle to the channons of Lions having disputed that point Learnedly Concludes that Christ onely being excepted of all others
in us both the will and the deed In this sense also doth Cyrill speak whom hee bringeth saying Wâ—e cannot any wayes deny freedome of will in man And Augustin also speaking against manichean coaction and saying How should our Saviour reward everie one according to their works if there were not freewill conforme wherunto sayth the haromnie also of the coÌ„fessions of the reformed Churches ours in particular 1647. cap. 9. God hath indued the will of man with that natural libertie that it is neither forced nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to do good or evill So that wee acknowledge the will to be free as freedome is opposed to coaction but not free as able of it self to choyse the good that tendeth to salvation or that it is equallie propense to good as to evill as the Pelagians of old now papists maintaine Therefore said Bernard de gra lib. arb Let no man think that therfore it is called freewill which wee haue because it hath an equall power inclination to good as to evill seing it could fall by it self but not rise but by the holie Ghost 20. THat it is impossible to kepe Gods Comandements tho assisted with his grace and the holie Ghost VVHich he sayeth is contrary to Philip. 4. 13. where the the Apostle sayth That he can do all things through Christ. that strengthneth him Whereunto I answere That the word all things is not of further extent than these things whereof he speaketh in particular in the preceeding verse where hee sayeth In all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungrie to abound and to suffer neede Thus doth Sedulius and their owne canonized Aquinas expound this text as also their late Estiê° saying The meaning is all things before rehearsed what else I am to suffer I am able to do thorow Christ who enableth me so that he speaketh noâ— of his perfect fulfilling of the Law in generall the contrarie whereof hee confesseth Rom. 7. 23. The second place which he bringeth is Luke 1. 5. 6. where it is said of Zacharie Elizabeth That they walked in all the commandemenâ—s of the Lord blamelesse To which I answere 1. That this was the old Pelagian objection which they called their impenetrable Buckler as Ierome witnesseth lib. 1. cont Pelag with whom the papists heerin agree And to whom I answere in his words to the Pelagian That where it is said that they are called righteous this is sayth he as many others are called so in the holie scripture as Ioâ— Iehosaphat and Iosias not that they wanted all fault but are commended so because for the most part they wer vertuous for Zacharias himself was punished with dumbnes sayeth he and Ioâ— by his owne speech was rebuked and Iehosaphat Iosias are reported to haue done things which greatlie displeaseth God Next where it is said that Zacharie and Elizabeth walked in all the Commandements of God without blame that is without any grosse wickednes sayeth he but that they walked without sinne I deny sayeth he that any man can do so for that is coÌ„petent onlie to God Their owne Carthusian also with him their late Stella showeth That this is spoken according to that measure which is agreeable to humane conditioÌ„ but that there walking was not without sinne for there is none so righteous in this mortall life sayeth he The third place is Luke 11. 27. where Christ sayeth Yea rather blessed are they who heare the word keepe it To which I answere and to all such places that speake of keeping Gods word or commandements that such a keeping therof is heere meaned as there Carthusian sayeth Which is agreeable to humane condition in this life For as Ierome sayeth lib. 3. cont Pelag. If thou can showe me but one man who hath fulfilled the Commandements Thou may showe me a man that needes not Gods mercie sayeth he The fourth place is Luke 11. 2. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven To which I answer as their owne Carthusian also expoundeth That this is readilie reverendlie and sincerlie Qâ—antum nostra fragilitas permittit that is as farre as our frailtie permitteth sayeth he so that the word as hath relation not to that degree of perfect obedience which Angels performe in heaven but to the manner of doing the same as hath ben said by CarthusiaÌ„ as our frailtie permitteth which sufferes us not to be free of sinne of not doing Gods Will perfectlie and therefore in the same prayer wee are also taught to crave daylie forgivnes which we needed not if wee could obey Gods will perfectlie as the Angels do The last place is 1. Iohn 5. 3. For this is the love of God that we keepe his CoÌ„mandements which is coincident with the third place therefore alreadie answered As for any testimonies of Fathers he bringeth the words onlie one of Basil saying That it is an impious thing to say that the Commandements of God are impossible To which I answere Though hee telleth not where Basil speaketh so that it is impious indeed to say that Gods commandements are impossible to be keeped in any measure for wee see the contrarie in Zacharie and Elizabeth but to say that in this life they may be keped perfectlie without sinne or any breach of them that is lykewise impious plaine Pelagianisme or heresie therefore in this sense sayeth Ambrose on gal 3. which Aquinas citeth on the same place The Commandements ar such that it is impossible to kepe them sayeh he but I admire how hee citeth Hilarie in psal 118. whose words are these on the 39. verse in his contrar saying The Prophet being in the bodie speaketh and knoweth that no living man can be without sin except one whom he remembreth who had no sinne and in whose mouth was found no guile to wit Christ As also I have showne how opposit Ierome is to him l. 3. cont Pelag. whom notwithstanding he citeth as for him As Origen and Cyrill who no wise patronizeth him 21. THat faith onlie justifieth that good works are not absolutlie necessarie to salvation VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to 1 Cor. 13. 2. Though I haue all faith so that I could remove mountains I have not charitie I am nothing therefore faith onlie doth not justifie sayeth he To which I answere 1. That there is no word in this Text of Iustification but of the necessitie of charitie to be joyned with faith in a christian profession which no protestant ever yet denyed 2. The Apostle speaketh not of a justifying faith but as the words importeth of a faith of working Miracles which their owne Estius acknowledgeth saying on 1. Cor. 12. 9. The greeke Fathers do rightlie understand that faith heere of which is spoken cap. 13. 2. which they call the faith of signs and miracles which faith sayth he is of it self a grace onlie given for the benefit of others And so not a justifying
as Lombard and Carthusian forecited showeth for many children amongst the Israâ—lits dyed in the womb some in the birth and others after before the eight day aswell as the children of Christians do and it were a cruell doctrine to say that all such were damned as also during fourty years in the wildernes there was no circumcision used and yet wee must not yeeld that therefore all infants who died then without it were damned and cut off from their people As for Fathers he citeth only Augustin Pope Leo Ireneus CypriaÌ„ but setteth not down their words But he may remember as Maldonat witnesseth on Iohn 6. 53. that Augustin and Pope Innocent 1. were as much for the necessity of infants receiving the Eucharist which opinion sayth he generallie continued in the Church 600. years 38 THat the sacrament of confirmation is not necessarie nor to be used VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Act. 8. 14. wher it is said That Peter John having laid hands on them that were baptised they received the Holie Ghost To which I answere 1. Wee deny that confirmation is a sacrament at all seing that the Councell of Trent sess 7. can 1. affirmeth That all the Sacraments of the new Testament were instituted by Christ that the Romanists themselves as Alensis Bonaventure and Marsilius affirme that confirmation was not instituted by Christ as Bellarmin testifieth lib. de sacramentis in genere c. 23. 2. Suarez and Bellar. likewise granteth that the imposition of hands Act. 8. was not sacramentall Suarez disp 33. sect 3. and Bellarmin lib. 2. de confirm cap. 9. 3. Neither will Romanists themselves say that everie one that is confirmed by popish confirmation receiveth the Holie Ghost especiallie the miraculous gifts thereof which are here meaned nor that their confirmation produceth any such effect as the laying on of the Apostles hands did on them that were baptised Beside that there is neither the matter as anointing with Chrisme nor form as signing with the Crosse which in popish confirmation is used Neither doth that place Heb. 6. 1. prove any further than that of Act. 8. 14. which speaketh of Baptisme and the laying on of hands And as for Cyprians testimonie it speaks onlie of two sacraments but mentioneth not that popish confirmation was one of these two and giving that it were yet Bellarmin lib. 2. de effectu sacram cap. 24. and Cassander consult art 13. confesseth that both in scripture other Authours the name of sacrament is given to many things which by consent of all are not sacraments properlie and indeed 39 THat the bread in the Lords supper is but a figure or remembrance of the bodie of Christ received by faith and not his true bodie VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Luke 22. 15. where hee sayeth with desire I haue desired to eat this passover with you To which I answere 1. in generall that we never did hold that the bread in the supper of the Lord is but a bare figure or remembrance of Christs bodie and therfore sayeth the confession of our faith anno 1581. art 21. Wee utterlie damne the vanitie of these that affirme sacraments to be nothing but bare naked signes and in our late Confession anno 1647. fitted for the whole three kingdoms positivelie we say Wherin as reallie but spirituallie the Bodie and blood of Christ are present to the faith of Believers as the Elements themselves are to the outward senses and so speaketh Calvin in 1. Cor. 11. 24. but that in this sacrament wherein the soule is spirituallis fed the bread is transubstantiated into Christs bodie and received by the bodilie mouth this we deny as most erronius and hereticall 2. As to that place of Luke which hee bringeth to prove the same 1. the mans ignorance and impertinencie is to be admired wherin Christ only expresseth his great desire to eat the typicall passover with his disciples wherof himself was the substance 1. Cor. 5. 7. And which lamb being called the passover it being but a signe and memoriall of the Lords passing over the houses of the Isralits as we see Exod. 12. 13. and 13. 9. maketh against papists who will not admitt in the Eucharist such a sacramentall speech The second place which he bringeth is Luke 22. 16. wher Christ sayeth That he wil not drink any more of the fruit of the vine till it be fulfilled in the kingdome of God Which words sayeth he cannot be understood figurativelie more nor the former of eating the passover To whom we answere 1. That never any of us said any such thing that the words of eating the Passover were to bee understood figurativelie nor yet that these words are to be understood figurativelie but properlie which Christ speakes heer of drinking the fruit of the vine which pope Innocent the 3. declareth to be spokeÌ„ of the sacramentall cup de mysteriis Missae lib. 4. cap. 27. As also their own Iensenius cap. 131. p. 162. and Alfonsus a Castro lib 6. Tit. de Euchar. § sexta haeresis beside fathers as Origen tract 301. in Math. Chrisost Hom. 6â— in Math. Cyprian epist 68. ad Cecil and Beda in Luc. 22. Next these words are so farre from proving Transsubstantiation as that they quyte overthrow the same seing that which out Saviour drank at his last supper he calles it the fruit of the vine that is Wine in substance and not blood as what is eaten after consecration is likewise called by the Apostle bread not flesh 1. Cor. 11. 26. Therefore sayeth Chrisostome hom 83. in Math. speaking against some who used water in this sacrament in place of wine When our Saviour celebrated this mystery sayeth he he gaue unto his disciples wine calling it the fruit of the vine which produceth not water For as Theodoret sayeth dial 2. The mysticall signes departeth not after consecration froÌ„ their owne nature but remaineth in their former substance forme and figure and may be seen and touched as they were before The third place is Iohn 6. 51. wher Christ sayeth I am the living bread which came down from heaven being granted to bee living what else is it but his bodie sayth he To whom I answere 1 as Bellarmin witnesseth lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 5. all these Romanists to wit Gabriel Biel Cardinall Cusanus Thomas Aquinas Cardinall Cajetan Ruardus Tapperus Joannes Hesselius affirmes and Cornelius Jansenius especiallie concord cap. 59. unanswerablie proveth p. 387. 389. That this chapter medleth nowise with any sacramentall eating of Christs bodie or drinking his blood 2. This Text maketh rather against Transubstantion for tho Christ sayeth I am the living bread yet it followeth not that therfore his flesh was transsubstantiated into bread consequentlie no more doth it follow that when Christ said of the bread This is my bodie that therefore bread was transsubstantiated into His bodie The fourth and maine place is Math. 26. 26. Take eate This is my bodie To which I answere
particular devote prayer is this pure offering sayeth Lyra. The second place is Psal 110. 4. wher Christ is called A Priest after the order of Melchisedek whose sacrifice was made in bread and wine saith he as the Masse is now To whom I answer 1. That Melchisedecks sacrifice was not in bread and wine for that was the refreshment onlie which he brought furth to Abraham and his followers as Clemens Alexandrinus witnesseth therefore their owne vulgar hath the word protulit he brought furth and not the word obtulit he offered up 2. Cardinall Cajetan and with him Andradius sayeth there is nothing in that storie Gen. 14. 18. of any sacrifice or oblation that Melchisedek-offered up to God sayeth he but that be caused bring furth bread and wine as Iosepâ—us reporteth for the refreshment of the victors And therafter when hee cometh to these words And he blessed him behold heer sayth he is his Priestlie action according to Numb 6. 23. which therefore the Apostle mentioneth Heb. 7. 1. and proveth him therby to bee greater nor Abraham and consequentlie his Priesthood to be greater nor Levi's who was then in Abarhams loines because at that time Levi was both tythed and blessed by him The third place is Luke 22. 19. This is my bodie which was given for you To which I answere That of these words I haue already spoken by which heere they would make Christ to haue bene a Masse-priest and to haue sacrificed himself the night before he was sacrificed on the Crosse And so contrarie to Heb. 10. 14. That by one onlie offering hee hath not perfected for ever them who are sanctified but contrar to Heb. 7. 27. That Hee offered himself up twise whereas it was necessarie sayth Paull Heb. 9. 25. That he should not offer himself up ofter than once for then as he sayth hee must haue suffered ofter than once which the Apostle counteth a most grosse absurditie As for the testimonies of Fathers which hee bringeth who calleth that which Christ instituted at his last supper An unbloodie mysticall venerable sacrifice I answere in the words of Lombard their Master of sentences lib. 4. dist 12. q. si sit who showeth in what sense the fathers so calleth it saying That which is offered and consecrated is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is the remembrance and representation of that true sacrifice and holy reall oblation which was made on the Altar of the Cross which only was bloodie In likmanner sayeth Aquinas part 3. q. 83. art 1. It is called a sacrifice both because the celebration of this sacrament is an image and representatioÌ„ of the sacrifice of Christ as also because by this sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords passion sacrifice on the Cross So also speakes Gabriel Biel on the canon of the Masse lect 85. calling the Eucharist a sacrifice because it is a representation and memoriall sayeth he of that true and holy sacrifice offered on the Cross And subjoyneth this reason for as Augustin sayeth hee writteth to Simplician the Images of things useth to be called by their names whereof they are images as we say this is Cicero when it is but Cicero's picture sayeth he So in likmanner speaketh Lyra on Heb. 10. and many more Romanists So that it is false that Bellarmin sayth lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. That neither the scripture nor the fathers calleth that a sacrifice which is only a representation remembrance of a sacrifice And because this is their Idoll of the Masse which they adore therfore I will labour to overthrow this Dagon by some few arguments furnished by themselves as 1. A sacrifice and Priesthood are relatives sayeth Bellarmin lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. so that to a sacrifice properly so called a Priesthood also properlie called must be correspondent sayeth he whence it will follow that if the Masse be a sacrifice properly so called the Priest must be a Priest also properlie so called and if this bee he must be either after the order of Aaron which hath ceased or after the order of Melchisedeck this he cannot be because Christ living and being a Priest for ever after that order he hath no successour therein as we are taught Heb. 7. 23. 24. Next sayeth Bellar. in the same chapter § neque Melchisedecks sacrifice was bread and wine so sayth this Pamphleter wheÌ„ce it will follow that in the Masse in likmanner that which is offered up by the Priest giving that he were after the order of Melchisedeck must be bread and wine only and consequently not the flesh blood of Christ by transsubstantiation 3. If they will say that it is notwithstanding Christs owne bodie and blood that is offered up then out of Bellar. in the same place § 6. I reason thus in a sacrifice properlie so called there must be some sensible thing that is offered sayeth he but this cannot bee Christs bodie because by none of the senses as sight tast or touch can it be discerned to be there and as for the accidents of the bread as shape colour and taste I hope they will not say that this is the sensible thing which they offer up as a sacrifice 4. Saieth Bellar. in the same place § 8. To a true sacrifice is required that the thing which is offered be in the substance thereof destroyed that is that it be so changed sayth he that it cease to be what it was before Which to affirme of Christs bodie offered up in the Masse wer most horrid blasphemie 42 THat sacramentall unction is not to be used to the sick VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Iam. 5. 14. where the anointing of the sick with oyle is coÌ„manded To which I answere in Cardinall Cajetans words on this place saying Neither by these words themselves nor by the effects doth these words speake of sacramentall extreame unction but rather of that unction saieth he which the Lord Iesus did institute in the gospell to be exercised on the sick for the Text sayeth not if any be sick unto death bâ—t absolutlie if any bee sick sayeth he and further the effect is the raising up of the sick wheras extreame unction is not given but at the point of death sayeth hee besids this Iames biddeth call many elders and many anointers to one sick person which is altogether disagreable to the manner of extreame unction sayeth hee The second place is Mark 6. 13. And they anointed many with oyle who were sick and healed them wherunto the same Cardinall answereth thus This unction sayeth he was not sacramentall for it is evident that they used oyle heer for healing not for ministring any sacrament sayeth he as also it is cleare that thereupon followed health otherwise the vertue of healing oyle which was miraculous had not been known this effect is not found by extreame unction sayth he And of this same judgement with Cajetan were Ruardus Iansenius Dominicê° a Soto with
death which dayes were thousands of years before the same Therefore sayeth Beda they were the wicked carnall livers in the age that Noah lived in to whom Christ preached And so sayth Carthusian and this he did saieth Aquinas by the mouth of just Noah by the holie Ghost sayeth Lyra in Noah other good meÌ„ By all which it is cleare that it was not after Christs death that in his soule hee descended to any popish Limbus to deliver the godlie Patriarch's therfra Seing the Patriarch that was then alive in the days of Noah was onlie Noah himself The fourth place is Heb. 11. 40. God having provyded a better thing for us that they without us should not bee made perfect whence it followeth saieth he that these holie soules were detained till then in a place distinct from heaven and hell of the damned To whom I answere That no such thing followeth from these words but that the glorifying both in soul and bodie of these holie patâ—iarch's shall not be till the generall resurrection when both they and wee shall be perfectlie in both glorified together which is the exposition of Aquinas Cajetan and Lombard on this place Calling the glorifying of their soules after death the first robe or stole which they received and the second which they are to receive to be the glorifying also of their bodie at the last day This like wise is the exposion of their late Estius which he showeth to be also Augustins epist 99. and Evodium and 49. Treatise on John as also Chrisostoms and Erasmus in his paraphrase And coÌ„cludeth thus saying The Apostle therefore speaketh of the perfyting which is to be at the generall resurrection The fifth place is Math. 12. 40. That as Ionas was three dayes three nights in the Whales bellie so should the son of man be three dayes three nights in the heart of the earth which he expoundeth Hell To which I answere This is onlie spoken of Christs bodie in the graue and not the being of his soule in hell witnesse Chrisostome hom 44. in Math. 12. whose words are He sayeth not in the earth but in the heart of the earth to wit in the graue sayth he Thus also doth Gregorie Nyssen expound epist ad Eustachium So saieth Auselmus on Math. 12. He was in the heart of the earth to wit in the graue sayeth he Thus also doeth Ignatius expound epist ad Trallianos Euthâ—mius in Math. 12. Jerome also and Tertullian with diverse others thus also sayth their owne Lyra The son of man shall be in the heart of the earth three dayes three nights that is in the graue so speaketh their parisian Doctour Arboreus others And which answere serveth likewise for that of the Ephes 4. 9. which others object The sixth place is Math. 27. 52. And the graves were opened and many bodies of the saints which sleeped arose and came out of their graves after his resurrection To which I answere That heer is a resurrection of the bodies of the saints comming out of their graves but no comming of their soules out of any part of hel oâ— a popish Limbus The seventh place is Zach. 9. 11. By the blood of thy Covenant I haue let out thy prisoners furth of the pitt wherein there is no water That is the Fathers out of Limbus sayeth he To which I answere shortlie omitting Augustins exposition lib. 18. de civitate dei cap. 35. Of the deep of mans miserie by sinne out of which by Christs blood we are freed Bellar. himself answereth clearlie for us l. 1. de purg cap. 3. and showeth That no such thing as Limbus patrum can be meant heerby because their is water of comfort and refreshment in Limbus sayth he wheras in this pitt whereof Zacharie speaketh there is no water at all As for his last place 1. Sam. 28. 14. concerning Samuels apparition to Saull wee haue answered it alreadie that it was not Samuell but the Devill in his shape And which place is most impertinently brought to prove Christs descense into hel by the apparition of any such spirit coÌ„ming out of hell of the damned As for Fathers whom he onlie citeth Jerome explaineth himself on Ephes 4. 9. what he sayeth on v. 8. Next Augustin on psal 171. hath nothing of Limbus patruuÌ„ or Christs descense there and as for Gregorie there is no such place as he mentioneth lib. 3. Moral cap. 20. For that book hath onlie 17. chapters in it 47 THat there is no purgatorie fire or other prison wherein sinnâ—s may be satisfied for after this life VVHich saith he is contrar to 1. Cor. 3. 13. 15. The fire shall try everie mans work of what sort it is if any mans work be burnt he shal suffer losse yet he himself shall be saved yet so as by fire To which I answer or rather their owne Estius on this place saying Sindrie expoundeth this place sayeth he of Purgatorie wherein after this life and before the day of the last judgement the soules of the just are purged from their lighter sinnes but it appeareth that this cannot be said sayeth he both because the words showeth that the day of particular judgement is not to bee understood but of the generall judgement whereas the purging of the soules pertaineth to the particular judgement as also because the fire of purgatorie doth not try everie mans work sayth he but punisheth onlie the evill works of good men Bellarmin also lib. 1. de purg cap. 5. sayeth That the word fire in the 13. and 14. verses is to taken onlie allegoricallie and that the fire of purgatorie is not thereby to bee meant for of this fire the Apostle sayes it shall burne the work not the worker sayeth he and therefore a purging or afflicting fire of persons is not meant thereby onlie hee would haue the word fire in the 15. verse to bee taken in another sense than in the other two verses and therby to be meant the fire of purgatorie but Estius answereth unto him thus refuteth him saying That not without just cause it seemeth to be absurd that the Apostle in one Text of so few words would speake of fire in so diverse significations neither can any easilie be perswaded sayeth hee that in the third place a purgatorie fire of soules can be signified when as in the first and second place another and diverse fire from that is understood And then he subjoines after the naming of some Romanist Divines that hath expounded these words otherwise thaÌ„ hee doth saying Let none marvell that I haue not followed these authours in all things because that neither theÌ„selves amongst themselves do alwayes agree Such is his testimonie of their braged of unitie The second place is Iohn 11. 22. But I know that even now sayeth Martha to Christ Whatsoever thou will ask of God he will give it thee Ergo there is a fiâ—e of purgatorie is as good a consequence as to say ergo
Hezekiah was 2. Chron. 29. 15. 31 and Iosiah 2. Chron. 35. 2. 3. and 6. and as Nehemiah was 13. 7. 8. and 28. acting in matters ecclesiastical civilie but not usurping any power or practise as Vzziah did 2. Chron. 26. which belonged to the Priests office or of a Pastourall charge in doctrine discipline or administration of sacraments but as Princes should to cause and see that God be worshipped aright discipline be exercised as it ought within their Dominions that so as their power is from God so it may be imployed chieflie for God as nursing Fathers and mothers to his Church and as no scripture debarreth Princes and Magistrats froÌ„ medling with such causes in the manner forenamed but admitteth them to be Governours therein so likewise doth antiquitie as we may see in the person of Constantine the first Christian Emperour as Eusebius in his third book of his life c. 13. reporteth and of his carriage in the first Councell of Nice and decision of matters of faith whâ—â— medling the Emperours also â—ad in such causes Socrates likewise declareth in the pâ—oeme of his fifth book of ecclesiasticall historie Augustin also contra Cresconium lib. 3. cap. 51. and de Civit. Dei lib. 5. c. 24. Athanasius in his second Apologie p. 797. Graecolat appealing to the Emperour Constantine against the unjust proceedings of the Councell of Tyre in his behalf As Flavianus in the like case did to the Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian But I cannot marvell enough that this pamphleter should so touch upon a womans government of a particulare nationall Church in a civill way within her Dominion whil as a craftie vile Strumpet named Pope Iohn the eight did governe the whole Roman Church which they cal Catholick as Christs vicar and head thereof two years a moneth and foure dayes till going in procession and surprysed by paines of child-birth being upon the publick street delivered Shee thereafter died for which cause in detestation of the fact as Platina the Popes Secretarie all ancient Romanist histriographers speake No Pope ever since went that way in publick procession as Martinus Polonus Sigebert Fasciculus temporum Marianus Scotus and many others ancient Records do testifie whom I can produce And as for any testimonies of Fathers which he bringeth as Damascen's where he sayeth I consent not that the Church of God be governed by Kings and in Theodorets historie that one Eulogius said concerning the Emperour Valens coÌ„manding by his officer what did belong to a Bishop What was hee made Bishope sayeth he that day when he was crowned Emperour and Ignatius who commandeth all men even the Emperour himself to be obedient to the Bishope all these I say makes nothing against that which I haue said before but onlie against civill Princes their usurpation of what belongeth properlie and onlie to the Ecclesiasticall office and persons vested therwith in doctrin and discipline And if we will look to Antiquity we shall find that in this point popish doctrine debarring princes or the civill Magistrat from any medling in Ecclesiasticall effaires as Bellar. teaches lib. 1. de clericis c. 28. 29. joyneth hands with the ancieÌ„t hereticks the Donatists who did contend in likemanner that the cognition tryall and medling with Ecclesiasticall effaires belongeth nowise to the Magistrat And therfore this was the speech of Donatê° Quid est Imperatori cum Ecclesia or What hath the Emperour adoe with the Church as Optatus Milevitanê° declareth in his third book against Parmenian and Augustin likewise lib. 1. contra epist Parmeniani c. 7. epist 166. Whereas the harmonie of confessions of faith and ours in particulare 1581. art 24. sayeth Moreover to Kings Princes Rulers aâ—d Magistrats we affirme that chieflie and most principallie the conservation and purging of Religion appertaineth so that not onlie they are appointed for civill policie but also for maintainance of the true religion and for supressing of idolatrie and superstition as in David Iosaphat Ezekias Iosias and others highlie commended for their zeale in that case may be espyed in our later confession 1647. cap. 23. That for the better effecting wherof they haue power to call Synods to be present at them and to provyde that whatsoever is transacted in them bee according to the minde of God 13. THat Antichrist shall not be a particulare man and that the Pope is Antichrist VVHich he sayeth is contrary to 2. Thess 2. 3. where he is called That man of sinne c. and therefore a particulare man onlie Whereunto I answere in the Iesuit Ribera's words on Revel 17. 10. That it is not unusuall in Scripture that by one man many the like and of the same incorporation are signified sayeth hee which he proveth out of Math. 22. 11. where by One man that wanted the wedding garment many such are signified and out of Dan. 7. where by the King of the Medes and Persians not any individuall and one onlie person is signified but the whole succession of these Kings one after another likewise by the coÌ„sent of all Romanists that speech 2. Thess 2. 7. wher it is said Onlie he who now letteth will let till he be taken out of the way is to be understood not of an individuall Roman Emperour onelie but of the whole succession of the old Roman Emperours then resident at Rome in their full integrity Yea the papists even now when they say that the Pope is Christs vicar they meane not this or that Pope onlie but the whole succession of such one after another The second place is Revel 13. 18. Where the number 666. is called the number of a man whence hee concludeth That Antichrist shall be one onlie individuall man To which I answere that from the number of a man 666. to argue to the singularitie of a person is a bad consequence but by this number the Iesuite Ribera teacheth us better that Ireneus who lived neare to the Apostles times according to the coÌ„putation by the greek letters found it out to be Lateinos or Roman as their Church is called at this day Ecclesia latina seu Romana and the Pope Papa Romanus c. The third place is 1. Iohn 2. 22. That Antichrist denyeth the Father the Sonne which the Pope doeth not Whereunto I answere 1. That the word Antichrist is somtimes taken generallie for all these who openlie avowedly oppose Christ and his trueth and of such the Apostle Iohn speaketh verse 18. That even in his time there were many Antichrists And somtimes it is taken more strictlie as 2. Thess 2. for that great Antichrist to come wherby is signified the succession of such who under the profession of the Christian name shall notwithstanding oppose Christs trueth by all deceavablnesse of unrighteousnes and in deepest hypocrisie working in a mysterie and therefore is said to bee herned like the lamb but to speake like the dragon And in this sense we say that the Pope is Antichrist 2.
Hee who denyeth the sonne is said to deny the Father as wee see 1. Iohn 2. 23. Now the Sonne is denyed either directlie and in expresse words or indirectlie by consequence or in deeds as Augustin speaketh lib. contra Donatistas that this way the Pope denyeth the sonne in the veritie of his humane Nature by their transsubstantiation and in all his three offices as sole King of his Church sole Priest and sole Prophet by many learned divines hath beene clearlie proven the Pope also claiming all these three a Monarch of his Church on earth high Priest and infallible Prophet therof The fourth place which he bringeth is 2. Thess 2. 4. where it is said That Antichrist shall exalt himself aboue all that are called gods To which I answere that this place rather clearly proyeth him to be Antichrist it being evident that Princes and Kings are called so Psal 82. 6. and it is notour both by doctrine and practise that the Pope exalteth himself above all such as wee may see Extravag lib. 1. tit 8. cap. Vnam Sâ—nctam to the very making them kisse his feet deposing them and treading on their necks as Alexander the third did to the Emperour Frederick and as I haue showne at large in my late Treatise Of Antichrist painted and poynted out in his true colours The fifth place which he bringes is 2. Thess 2. 8. which sayeth That our Lord Jesus shall kill him with the spirit of his mouth at his comming which agreeth no more to the Pope he then That Christ is come the second time To which place I answer 1. That this deceatfull Seducer dealeth most falslie and fraudfullie in citing these words as if they were the words of our Bible whereas the words of our Translation according to the originall are these Whom our Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth destroy with the brightnes of his coÌ„ming and in the Rhemes translation it is thus whom our Lord Iesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with the manifestation of his advent So that the Apostle maketh two degrees of his destruction The first whereof he calleth a consumption by the spirit of his mouth a consumption we know is a lingring disease whereby one wasteth away piece and piece And this is by the spirit of Gods mouth whereby is signified Gods Word as wee see Gal. 3. 5. 1. Tim. 4. and 1. 1 Iohn 4. 1. And this consuming of Antichrist by this meane by the preaching of the everlasting gospell Revel 14. 6. we see praised be God in a good measure performed The second degree he calleth the destroying of him altogether by the brightnes or as the Rhemists speake by the manifestatioÌ„ of his coÌ„ming which wee hope in God also is drawing verie near The last place which he bringeth is Iohn 5. 43. I am come in my Fathers name ye receive me not if another shall come in his owne name him yee will receive To which I answer 1. That our Saviour speaketh not of Antichrist strictlie taken and by way of eminencie as he is described by Paull 2. Thess 24. who was to come and appeare after the dissolving of the ancient RomaÌ„ Empire but of false Prophets that were shortlie after Christs ascension to arise to deceiue the incredulous Iewes as histories report because they did not beleive but rejected the true Messias And this their owne Ferus declareth to bee the meaning of the place and diverse other Romanists 2. We see that the jewish Nation onlie were to receive these of whoÌ„ our Saviour speaketh But Antichrist of whoÌ„ the Apostle speakes 2. Thess 2. was to be an universall deceiver of multituds of peoples of nations and tongues which Revel 17. 15. are called the waters whereon the Whoore sitteth and whereunto the papall title of Vniversall Bishop doth therefore properlie agree 14. THat none but God caÌ„ forgive sinnes VVHich he sayeth is contrary to Iohn 20. 23. where it is said Whose sinnes yee forgive are forgiven them and Math. 9. 8. wher it is said When the multitude saw it they marvelled glorified God which had given such power to men To which I answere that this place of Iohn proveth onlie a Ministeriall power given by Christ to his Apostles and their successours which we deny not and which his owne words also on Math. 9. 8. doth only grant unto them saying Which tho they to wit the multitude knew to appertaine to God onlie by nature yet they perceived that it might be done by mans Ministrie on earth Wherfore we say 1. with Ambrose lib. 3. desp Sancto c. 19. Men says he doeth onlie afford their Ministrie to the remission of sinnes but they exercise not any right of authoritie Istirogant Divinitas donat sayeth hee that is They seeke it but God giveth it 2. Lombard also their Master of sentences teacheth how God only forgiveth sinnes properlie men Ministeriallie saying lib. 4. sent dist 18. God onlie remitteth and retaineth sinnes and yet he hath given power to the Church to do so but Hee remitteth and retaineth otherwise than the Church For he remitteth sins onlie by himself sayeth he because he purgeth the soule from the inward spot thereof and delivereth it from the debt of eternall death But he hath not given this power to Priests notwithstanding he hath given them power of binding and loosing that is sayeth he of declaring that men ar bound or loosed as the Priest declareth the Leper to be cleane whom first the Lord had cured and made cleane And therefore this is their Commission to preach repentance and remission of sinnes in Christs Name Luke 24. Act. 13. 38. And this Ministeriall power is that onlie which the Fathers whoÌ„ he citeth doth prove as out of Ambrose I haue alreadie showne 15. THat wee ought not to confesse our sinnes to any man but to God alone FIrst for confession of sinnes I will showe what wee hold and and 2. what wee oppose 1. then wee hold that ordinarlie it sufficeth to confesse only to God according to that Psal 32. 5. I said I will confesse my transgressions to the Lord but if any persons for any secret or hid sinne or his sinnes otherwise bee weyghted in conscience and cannot find of themselves comfort or counsell concerning such these aâ— the words of Calvin lib. 3. instit cap. 4. num 12. Let every faithfull man remember that this is his dutie if privilie he be so distrest and afflicted in conscienc thorow the sense of his sins that without the help of others he cannot be comforted see that he neglect not the remedie that the Lord offereth to him to wit that for his reliefe he use private confossion to his Pastour and for giving him comfoâ—t he privatlie implore his help whose office is both privatlie and publictlie by the doctrine of the gospell to comfort Gods people Wee oppose not then privat confession altogether to man being voluntarie free