not looke either God or man in the face So then seeing this is the right sense and meaning of this word in this place and it is in no place found to signifie my Affiance you cannot with any probability hence conclude that such Affiance is the Effect of Faith and not Faith Vnto these three passages thus vouched by Bellarmine Heb. 11.1 Col. 2.2 Ro. 4.21 Rom. 5.1 Ro. 14.17.5.2 you may if you please adde sundry others of the like nature as namely those which attribute vnto Faith Subsistence of things hoped for euidence of things not seene Plerophorie or fulnesse of Assurance Peace with God Ioy in the Holy Ghost Spirituall glorying and boasting obsignation by the Spirit Eph. 1.13 Mat. 11.29 and finally Tranquillity and quietnesse of the soule all which I cannot but acknowledge to bee the fruits and effects of â—ustifying Faith But yet I deny that either they all or any of them haue the same definition with that Affiance which I haue made to bee the proper Act of that Faith And therefore to end this discourse whereunto not the force of your Conclusion which being barely affirmed might as easily haue beene reiected but onely the sincere desire I haue to leaue nothing vnsatisfied drew me I still pronounce that for any thing hitherto hath beene said Iustifying Faith is an Affiance Yet before I proceed any farther I must bee so bold as to plucke you by the eare and to call to your remembrance what erewhile you said namely that a man may rest his will vpon Christ and his merits and yet bee damned Which how it may agree with that which here you say that Rest on Christ is an effect of iustifying Faith I cannot such is my blindnesse see For it seemeth that where the effects of Iustifying Faith are there iustifying Faith also is whereupon it followeth that either this Resting on Christ cannot be in those that are to be damned because they want Iustifying Faith to worke this effect in them or that a man may bee damned hauing Iustifying Faith together with the effects thereof in him which by your owne confession is absurd or lastly that this Resting vpon Christ is not a fruit or effect of Iustifying Faith which is diametrally opposite vnto your Conclusion I beseech you Sir let vs at your leasure heare from you how either these strange Paradoxes may be verified or these seeming contradictions reconciled N. B. Besides this word Rest is ambiguous and may bee taken in ill part and may bee in many negligent and carelesse Christians which euery day and for euery sinne bring Christ to the Crosse and say wee will rest vpon Christ and in the meane time worke nothing worthy of the Name of a Christian but rather wallow in all kind of filthinesse And in this sense onely doe I say a man may bee damned with such a Rest vpon Christ I speake this to preuent your captious cauils It is fit for you therefore that take vpon you to see more then euer any learned man saw before your time to beware of all equiuocations and words doubtfull I. D. That the word Rest is ambiguous I saw well inough and therefore in my Treatise carefully distinguished the equiuocation thereof where if you marked it not you must blame your owne ouersight and not my Vnwarinesse For two kinds of Resting vpon Christ I said there were the one Sleight and Superficiall the other Setled and well grounded and this Setled and grounded Affiance I made to bee the Act of Iustifying Faith as there you may read more at large Now you to preuent captious cauils tell me that when you say a man may bee damned notwithstanding his Resting vpon Christ you vnderstand it of that which may bee in many negligent and carelesse Christians that is to say of Sleight and superficiall Affiance onely Wherein you shew your selfe too too both ridiculous and idle ridiculous in saying you speake this to preuent my captious cauils whereas indeed this very captious cauill of yours was in my Treatise as appeareth so manifestly preuented by mee Idle in arguing from sleight and superficiall Affiance vnto that which is Setled and Grounded on this manner for so in effect you confesse Sleight Affiance may bee in the Damned Ergo setled Affiance is not Iustifying Faith as if you should say An asse may haue a shadow Ergo the Body of a man is not a solid substance And thus to requite you with your owne Prouerbe you perish like the rat by bewraying your selfe for hauing vrged this argument now twice against mee and that with such confidence as if it alone were sufficient to batter downe the bulwarke of my Definition at length you tell ys very grauely and sadly that it is but paper shot which hitherto you haue discharged and that all the breaches you haue made may easily bee repaired by distinguishing an equiuocation Where you say I take vpon mee to see more then euer any learned man saw before my time it hath beene already sufficiently answered both in my Treatise in this Defence thereof Neuerthelesse because you harpe so often vpon this string this I adde that vnlesse you can demonstrate that it is impossible for a man of meane parts and gifts to see and obserue that which men of greater learning and deeper vnderstanding haue not obserued I know no reason why a man may not without taxation of modesty take vpon him in some things to see that which others haue not seene before him It is true that a Giant by reason of his tallnesse must needs see farther then a dwarfe or one that is but of a meane stature yet if you place a dwarfe aloft vpon the shoulders of a giant hee shall then bee able to see farther then the Giant himselfe can I am I confesse not vnto your seeming onely but in very deed a dwarfe as it were in Diuinity euen the least and meanest often thousand and those our Predecessors hauing beene so eminently and incomparably qualified with all kind of graces and endowments are as it were Giants in comparison of vs. And therefore it would bee intolerable both pride to thinke and impudence to say that of my selfe I could see as farre into the mysteries of Religion as they could But now being aduanced as it were vpon their shoulders and hauing the benefit of all those volumes which they wrote and in them of all whatsoeuer they knew why should it seeme strange that something comes within the compasse of my ken which they though eagle-sighted perceiued not And yet by your fauour Sir I take no such matter vpon mee or if I seeme to doe so I hope I doe it with all modestie and it can bee no more then this that out of such Premises as they haue taught mee I gather a Conclusion which they attended not N. B. For I tell you this if Master Perkins whom you say you blanked with your rare cunning dispute were desirous to sift this Genus
Sanc de celebâ—â— Miss It is true indeed that Honorius the third decreed that Priests should often teach their people reuerently to bow theÌ„selues at the Eleuation of the Hoste when Masse is said and when the Priest carries it to one that is sicke and I deny not but thereby he inteÌ„ded the Adoration of the Hoste But you should know that it is one thing to receiue the Communion Kneeling another thing to Kneele at the Eleuation when there is no Receiuing This Honorius decreed not that for ought I can learne Nay further what that gesture was which succeeded accubitus lying on beds whether it were kneeling or standing or sitting I suppose he who is well acquainted with Ecclesiasticall Story can hardly determine much lesse you whose reading therein passeth not beyond the booke of Martyrs Let euery one herein abound in his owne sence I for my part thinke it was Kneeling rather then any other because it is a gesture of most reuerence Lib. 4. c. 8. Hospinian a learned man who wrote the story of this Sacrament hath these words This Sacrament ought to bee handled with great Religion and reuerence according to the custome of euery Church with decent apparell temperate behauiour soberly religiously the head bare the knees bent and other such like free ceremonies And this reuerence or honour I doubt not but some of the Fathers aboue cited vnderstood by the word Adoration For to Adore sometime signifieth as all know externall reuerence and veneration exhibited by bodily gestures and speech vnto a thing as when the knees are bent the body is bowed the head vncouered the hands lifted vp c. Thus far Hospinian by whose iudgement Kneeling in all likely-hood was vsed long before Honorius liued or the Reall Presence was dreamed of Howsoeuer it is meere foppery to imagine that a thing in it selfe lawfull once abused to a bad end can neuer recouer its right againe and bee lawfully vsed and then taking this for granted to preiudice our reuerent receiuing by Romish practice and superstition I conclude therefore this point with that excellent saying of Origen Hom. 5. in Euang. when thou receiuest that holy meat and incorruptible banket when thou enioyest that Bread and Cup of life and eatest and drinkest the Body and Bloud of the Lord then the Lord entreth vnder thy roofe Thou therefore humbling thy selfe imitate the Centurion and say Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst come vnder my roofe The third argument 3 All shew of euill must bee eschewed 1. Thess 5.22 Kneeling is a shew of euill as of Bread worship Ergo Kneeling must bee eschewed First I interprete the Maior Saint Pauls words in the place by you quoted are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may bee rendred thus Abstaine from all kind of euill For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth kinde and in this sence the Syriacke translation vnderstandeth it And interpreting it thus the Maior is vniuersally and without exception true for no euill whatsoeuer being intrinsecally and formally so may in any case bee done Besides this exposition there is another more generally approued Abstaine from all shew of euill or euill shew For as euill it selfe must bee refrained that God bee not offended nor our Consciences disquieted so must shew of euill also bee auoided that wee scandall not our brother nor discredit our profession But in this sence the Maior is not vniuersally and without exception true For first it holds not in necessary duties commanded by God nor in things indifferent ordered by man For the substance must not bee neglected because of a shadow nor wee fall into the reall euils of Disobedience and Disloyalty to auoid the shew of euill Againe it holds not in Imaginary shewes such as are without ground fancied in the sicke braines of humorous and malecontented people but such onely as indeed carry with them a shrewd presumption of that euill whereof it is a shew And thus the Maior is granted vnto you in the former sence absolutely and simply in the latter respectiuely with these restrictions and limitations Now to the Minor I answere first Kneeling is not formally euill but of an indifferent and middle nature neither good nor euill and therefore is not forbidden by the former interpretation Abstaine from all kind of euill Secondly I denie it to bee a shew of euill For whereof Of Bread worship you say How so seing we are neither Transubstantiators nor Consubstantiators and haue long since openly before all men disclaimed both Eleuation Adâ—â—â—tion And to whom To Papist or Protestant Certainly neither for the one condemnes vs for not adoring and the other suspects vs not for adoring So that the Shew of Breadworship lieth not in our Kneeling but in your Imagination Which if it be a sufficient reason to barre vs from Kneeling I must entreat you for the same reason to abstaine from Sitting See Tertull. de orat c. 12. for I can easily imagine in it a shew of euill namely of Sleighting and Contemning the Sacrament Nay I must pray you to sit still and do nothing for what is it wherein a man may not fancie some euill shew or other Lastly suppose Kneeling haue the shew you speake of yet is it not to be forborne because it is in the number of those things that are excepted from the generall rule For it is commanded by authority and to receiue the Communion is a necessary duty which among us without Kneeling cannot bee done Now as I haue said to auoid seeming euill we may not be euill and for feare of a shadow loose the substance I meane the benefit and comfort of the Sacrament And thus your argument drawen from the shew of euill proues as you see but the shew of an argument I come to the last reason 4 If we may kneele to Bread and wine much more may We kneele to Angels But wee may not kneele to Angels Rev. 19.10 Ergo wee may not kneele to bread and wine This is that Fallacie which Logicians call Ignorance of the Elench when that is concluded which is not in question For our Question is Whether we may kneele at the receauing of the Sacrament but your Conclusion is wee may not kneele to Bread and Wine Neither shall there bee any quarell betweene vs about this point for we readily grant it you acknowledging further that your argument from the greater to the lesse sufficiently euinceth it For if we may not fall downe to adore an Angell much lesse may we do so to bread and wine And as we may not so wee do not Our Kneeling is not intended unto bread and wine but vnto God who in the Sacrament offereth vnto vs the blessed body and bloud of his sonne who is God also and to bee worshipped of vs for euermore You might therefore well haue forborne this argument which neither preiudiceth vs nor aduantageth your selfe any whit at all or if you haue any other meaning you should
same Father is so sacrilegious as to say there are three Substances in the Trinity It is not therefore so much to bee marked whence a word is deriued as what it is vsed to signifie and if it signifie many things as Faith doth then must wee inquire in what sense it is to be taken in the present question that so wee may build our doctrines not in the aëry sound of words but in the vertue of the things signified as Basil speaketh Contra Eunom lib. 2. Againe words as Logicians teach vs haue their originations sundry wayes and among the rest from the Effects Not to seeke far for an instance The third argument in a Syllogisme whereby the Conclusion is proued is by the Grecians called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Faith a word as you say deriued from a verbe signifying to bee perswaded and yet I thinke your selfe will acknowledge that here it hath the name from the Effect not because it is Perswasion but for that it doth beget Perswasion Whereupon it followeth likewise that Faith in our Question flowing from the same fountaine is not necessarily to signifie Assurance but may well be called so because by it euery true beleeuer may gather and conclude vnto himselfe Assurance Lastly although the Greeke and Hebrew words whence Faith commeth signifie to bee perswaded yet they doe not only signifie so For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Rabbi Kimhi saith implies Affiance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the middle voice imports as much whence commeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Confidence and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word growing vpon the same root that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth construed with the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to trust rest rely on Wherefore the originall words in either language being indifferently affected vnto both what reason can be rendred why faith in those languages should not as well beare the signification of Affiance as Assurance These reasons considered you see at length the weaknesse of your Achillean argument and how insufficient it is to perswade that Faith is a Perswasion Withall you may perceiue that if I would I might haue beene Philologos without any hazard vnto the definition of Faith which I maintaine and that there is no cause why either you should vpbraid mee with the odious name of Antipistos or I feare incurring infamie for any thing hitherto I haue said or written Howsoeuer sure I am my Theologie agreeth better with true Philologie then these virulent speeches with the rule of Charity or to shew by the way what a skilfull Pedant you are your preposterous deduction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primitiue from the Deriuatiue with the precepts of Grammer Treatise Bee not offended if I handle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and giue new tearmes to old matters N. B. Aristoph in Ran. Lucian in Pseudosophistâ You are no Constable neither haue you put on the Lions skinne to subdue vs to your commaund I tell you Master Downe wee are offended that you giue new tearmes to old Positions and handle them not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in this point you cannot bee permitted to doe but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is vtterly intolerable I will therefore say vnto you With S. Hierom Ep. ad Pammach Ocean Cur post quadringintos annos docere nos niteris quod ante nesciuimus How cōmeth it to passe that thou after 400. yeeres space goest about to teach vs that before we knew not And so to you how dare you deale after a new manner in so waightie a thing as is Faith opposing your iudgement to the iudgement of all the Church for these 1600. yeeres In Praescript Alas saith Tertullian qui estis vos vnde quando who are you whence are you and of what continuance In Gen. hom 3. lib. 3. ad Licent But suo ipsius iudicio perijt sorex By shewing your selfe you perish as saith Origen and Augustin of others Now perceiue wee that the iudgement of the whole Church cannot content you but still you must haue one inkhorne tearme or other of your owne to shew your itching eares Would not or could not all the learned men of the world define iustifying Faith and contenting themselues with the Genus and Difference satisfie you but that you would not onely dispute pro formâ against them which might bee in a Scholler for triall of wit tolerable but also publikely preach against their iudgements and proclaime them erronious only allowing your owne for true I. D. Indeed M. Baxter it is true I am no Constable if I were I thinke I should finde it a very troublesome office to haue such a turbulent spirit within my iurisdiction as you are And as for the Lions skin as you say I haue not put it on it is you that haue ietted vp and downe along time in it to the great scarring and affrighting of simple people Aesop But because your vntimely braying and the vnlucky appearance of your eares now bewray that it growes not to your backe you must be content to bee stript of it and to walke hereafter as you are in your owne hide You are offended you say that I giue new tearmes to old positions and handle them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after a new manner An offence not giuen but taken and therefore little to bee regarded For the Philosopher Categ c. 7. §. 16. though he would haue the common vse of speech to bee retained in familiar conuersation yet Artists sayth he haue liberty to inuent new tearmes so as they bee proper determined and adequated to the thing signified Simplic super Praedicam qual Academ Quaest lib. 1. In regard whereof himselfe doubted not first to vse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that which formerly in the Concrete was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither was Cicero afraid with out former example to call that Qualitas which the Grecians tearmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In a word how many tearmes are there now frequently vsed in schooles which vnto the ancients were vncouth and neuer heard of It cannot therefore bee a sufficient exception to say the tearme is new vnlesse with all you shew it is not proper enough to expresse the thing signified which here you cannot doe as by and by will appeare This I thinke you saw and thereupon very restrictiuely you say that in this point I cannot bee permitted so to doe And why I pray you not in this point as well as in others For it hath alwayes beene the custome of the Church of God euen in the highest points of Religion partly for the clearing of those parts that are obscure and darke in them partly for the preseruation of them against the innouations of heretiks to deuise new tearmes and as Athanasius speaketh In disp cum Ario coram Probo Gentili iudice things vnchangeably remayning to change the names of
lesse as a palsie hand may receiue as much though shakingly as doth the hand of a strong man stedfastly And thus with as much breuity as I could with auoiding of obscurity I haue deliuered my mind concerning the true nature and definition of iustifying Faith which whether wee haue or no how easie it is to finde out how full of sweet vse and comfort it is in comparison of the common receiued opinion not Eagles onely but Moles may see If any notwithstanding the euidence of my reasons shall persist in his former iudgement suo fruatur per me iudicio Let him abound in his owne sense but for my selfe my word shall alwayes bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the right is on my side Neuerthelesse if any by sound and substantiall arguments shall conuince mee I will not proue refractary or opinionate Ep. 9. ad Hier. In Retract but according to S. Augustins counsell vnto Hierome and his owne heroicall practice I will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and retract all I haue said or written For I count it a plaine token of a peruerse and illiberall mind for a man seeing his errour whereby he was misled rather to bend his wit for to find reason that he was not in error and so to bee mad with reason then to frame his wit and will to assent and yeeld to truth being demonstrated vnto him Hor. l. 1. ep 6. ad Numie But vntill that be giue me leaue to conclude with the Poët Si quid nouisti rectius istis Candidus imperti si non his vtere mecum If ought you know righter then here you see Impart it friendly els this vse with me I. D. A DEFENCE OF THE FORMER TREATISE OF IVSTIFYING FAITH Against the answer of N. B. N. B. IT had been good M. Downe you had been aduised and warned by Diphilus in Athenaeus who said Lib. 15. in fabula cui titulus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acceptâ candelâ candelabrum quaerebamus we tooke the candle before wee had the candlesticke meaning that it sauoureth not of prouidence to light the one before wee bee sure of the other Without doubt you would not then haue builded your doctrine here in this Cittie till you had layd a good foundation for the same euen Iesus Christ 1 Cor. 3.11 Apoc. 1. who standeth in the midst of the seuen golden Candlesticks and is the sole foundation of the eternall verity But such was the iudgement of God cast vpon vs for our sinnes Mat. 18. that refusing the wholesome doctrine of his Word and following fantasies and nouelties of our owne inuentions we should now giue heed to lying spirits and be led away with the spirit of error But we be to them by whom offences come you cannot escape the hand of God except you speedily repent and make satisfaction to this offended flock I. D. Indeed M. Baxter if I haue presumed to determine a question meerly Theologicall by such principles as are heterogeneall and Improper vnto the science of Diuinity I must needs confesse I haue foully faulted and iustly deserued the blame of Improuidence you lay vpon me Poster l. 1. c. 7. §. 1. 4. For it is impossible to demonstrate saith the Philosopher passing from one kind to another as for Arithmetike to demonstrate a probleme or conclusion in Geometrie Eccles 2.14 But had your eyes been where Solomon sayth a wise mans eyes should be when you read my writing you could not but perceiue that I had builded my doctrine vpon that very same good foundation you speake of euen Iesus Christ and his blessed word For whatsoeuer I haue affirmed throughout that whole discourse I haue sufficiently warranted either by expresse testimony of Scripture or which is equiualent by necessary collection from it Vnto your aduice therfore out of Diphilus in Athenaus I answer with the like but more sanctified words of Athanasius Orat. contra Arrian Loe we speake boldly out of the sacred Scriptures of holy and religious Faith and setting the candle as it were vpon the candlesticke doe wee thus pronounce of the nature and definition of Iustifying Faith But put case M. Baxter I had been mistaken either in the truth of the conclusion or in the proofes thereof yet considering at least wise the probability of the one and the comfortablenes of the other Charity I am sure would haue iudged the publishing thereof to haue proceeded to vse the words of Augustin rather from the errour of loue then the loue of error The more vncharitable are you that being not able to conuince mee of the least vntruth ranke me notwithstanding in the number of lying spirits and so peremptorily denounce wo and iudgement against me 1 King 19.12 Wherein as you bewray how little you fauour of his mild spirit who chose rather to come in a still and soft voice then in a tempest and whirlewind so greatly are you deceiued if you thinke such causes and idle meanes either affright or affect me No no I am not so simple to belieue that the earthquakes when moles beginne to heaue or that thunderbolts presently flie abroad the world when euery hot braine threatens fire from heauen Prou. 26.2 For as the bird by wandring and the swallow by flying escapeth so the vndeserued curse shall not come saith Solomon Act. 4.36 And therefore vnlesse you can proue mee in deliuering this doctrine to haue beene an vnaduised Barnabas I haue no cause to feare when you proue yourselfe but a rash and hasty Boanerges Mar. 3.17 N. B. Your Sermon made here in Bristol Nouemb. 5. 1601. stuffed with quirks full of elenchs and subtle distinctions wholly bent it selfe against the truth of God and hath shaken the well affected minds of many who by your Sophismes seduced scarce know by what means they shall bee saued Demosth in Philip. You gaue vs Mandragor as to drinke and vnder a sugred potion of your owne sole contriuing cast vpon vs the spirit of slumber Aristoph in Pluto Was it not a bold part thus in peace to play the Lion and rent in sunder vnder pretence of truth the blessed vnion of holy piety to deliuer such new coined strange vncouth and singular definitions diuisions or distinctions of Iustifying Faith being indeed Callida mendacia craftie vntruths Plaut Mostel Athen. Dipnos li. 3. Cic. pro Cluent as Apollo himselfe could by no meanes vnderstand to vse the phrase of Antiphanes and then to boast that scarce Archimedes could better and more liuely haue depainted his Theoremes then you iustifying Faith Theocrit hodaep then you forsooth had then against all writers old and new in one sole and sillie Sermon walking without fire in the darke delineated yea demonstrated as you say true Iustifying Faith the comfort of a Christian man I. D. Three heinous faults you charge my Sermon withall Vntruth in the Matter Sophistrie in the Manner and Breach of peace in the
anon and anon by Gods help will I farther maintaine it against you In the meane season let vs see how skilfully you can vse your buckler hand and ward of those arguments I obiect against you And that the reader may more easily concerne the course of our disputation and how pertinently things are applyed as hitherto before my Reply I haue set downe the words of your Answer so henceforward before your Answer will I set downe the words also of the Treatise I sent you Treatise I will not play the Philologer in shewing the diuerse vse and acceptation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Fides or quote Ciceros Fiat quod dictum est or Augustins Fac quod dicis for the Notation of it nor play the Philosopher in discoursing of Physicall or Morall or Ciuill Faith nor lastly will I speake of Theologicall Miraculous Faith N. B. No doubt but then we are like to heare good stuffe seeing at the first entrance into the lists you refuse to bee tried by those that best knew the meaning of the things which they would expresse Nomen quod rem notat quasi notamé nec aliter enunciari res possit nisi aliquo nomine Aug. de Gen. ad lit c. 7. lib. imperfecto Apoc. adu Gent. c. 46. Ib. ca. 3. and therefore found out names fit to note their natures But Tertullian could haue told you whose words you cite in your preface though falsly Sinominis inquit odium est quis nominum reatus quae nominum accusatio Nisi si aut barbarum sonat vox aliqua nominis aut infaustum aut maledicum aut impudicum If you find fault with the Word wherein doth the Word offend what can you say against it except the Word bee barbarous or ominous or slanderous or vnchast I. D. Stumbling at the threshold they say bodes no good and little hope doe you giue of honest and plaine dealing in the sequele that make your beginning with so fond and shamelesse a cauill For neither doe I refuse to be tried by those who found out the names of things neither doe my words import any disliking of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Fides only I omit to discourse of such things as are vulgarly knowne and not greatly materiall to my purpose Apolog. c. 2. 3. Tertullian indeed tels mee that the Gentiles sometimes hated the very name of Christian persecuting it with as much rigour in them that bare it as they did notorious wickednesse in others albeit the Name neither were barbarous nor ominous nor slanderous nor vnchast But what is this to the purpose vnlesse you say I am growne into as deep a detestation of the word Faith as Pagans were of the name of Christiā which none but an infidell can doe and no other then a Satanicall and diuellish spirit would obiect vnto mee For as the thing signified by the Word is that most noble grace of the Spirit of God which giueth the forme and being to a Christian man so the Word also I confesse hath from the beginning both beene sanctified by the Holy Ghost and religiously retained in the Church to signifie the same neither can it now without sacrilege and impiety either bee violated or disused It is not I therefore that finde fault or am offended with the Word it is you rather that offer open violence vnto the plainest sentence giuing withall strong suspicion that hauing once passed the bounds of modestie wilfully peruerting the state of the question you will hereafter steele your forehead and waxe rechlesse of saying any thing But I haue cited you say the words of Tertullian falsly Not so falsly as you haue cited him idly For wheras that Father saith Apol. c. 46. Philosophers player-like affect truth and affecting corrupt it as being ambitious of glory but Christians necessarily desire it and intirely practice it as being carefull of their saluation I report it somewhat more breefly thus Although Philosophers player-like affect the truth as being ambitious of glory yet Christians studiously follow it as being carefull of their Saluation So that omission of a word or twaine without any alteration of the sence in a matter neither hindering nor furthering the cause in hand or some such toy as Hierome speaketh Epist 101. ad Pammach is the crime you charge mee withall For the true meaning of the sentence I am sure I haue kept as for the words because I endited out of my memory being then in Bristol and vse not to cary my Library about with mee when I trauell abroad it was easie to mistake or forget some part of them N. B. But you knowing the very meaning of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 persuasus sum vel fui I haue beene or am perswaded whereof commeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 persuadere to perswade would haue stayed you from condemning vs that say Faith is a full perswasion Besides the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comming of that which a man simply is perswaded of Truth and the Greeke comming of the Passiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bee perswaded if you would might haue stayed you from incurring this infamy and me from this labour It had therefore as I thinke beene much better for you to haue been Philologos then Antipistos But let vs see how you proceed I. D. Kemnitius a graue and learned Diuine saith that so great a matter as is the Definition of iustifying Faith is not to bee committed only vnto Grammaticall disputations Loco de Iustif and yet so great store doe you make of one poore and naked Etymologie as if there need no more but the knowledge thereof to decide the controuersie For this you say if I would might haue stayed mee from condemning you and eased you from this labour Let vs therefore seeing you are so confident vpon it trie the strength of this Achilles Faith you say in the Greeke and Hebrew comes from a word signifying to bee perswaded Ergo Faith is a Perswasion Sir I deny your Consequence For first euery word beares not alwayes the signification of the primitiue from which it is deriued Arist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ca. 1. partly because the number of words being certaine and definite but infinite of things one word of necessity must haue more then one meaning partly by vse which is the rule and warrant of speech they oftentimes degenerate from their natiue and first signification into a strange and farre different meaning So that if your kind of reasoning may passe for currant great danger and error must needs ensue vpon it For example Hypostasis if wee regard the first originall thereof signifieth Substance and so saith Hierome all schooles of humane learning vnderstand it Epist 57. ad Damas. yet were it horrible blasphemie thereupon to conclude Ergo in the matter of the Trinity it must signifie so too for what mouth saith the
worketh eternall rest and peace But how doth this follow Faith is the cause of eternall quiet and resting from our labours in the Kingdome of Heauen Ergo it is the cause of Affiance and Resting vpon Christ here in this life for it is not necessary that that which causeth the one should also cause the other But if in your Conclusion when you say Faith is not a Rest you meane it is not that eternall rest what is that to mee who define not Faith by such a Rest So then your therefore either concluding beside the Question or being inferred vpon no Premisses deserueth of mee no answer at all Yet to take away all scruple let vs see what may be said for it Bellarmine to proue that Affiance is an Effect of Faith De iustif lib. 1. cap. 6. and consequently not Faith alledgeth and vrgeth three passages of Scripture but withall I must tell you that if hee dispute to the purpose hee must meane by Affiance no other then confident Perswasion or Assurance For his aduersaries as himselfe there saith defining Faith by Affiance vnderstand thereby that Speciall Faith whereby euery one applying to himselfe the diuine Promise belieueth or rather confidently trusteth that all his sins are forgiuen him by Christ So that if as he ought hee argue vnto the meaning of his aduersaries hee concludeth not against my Affiance but onely against your Perswasion or Assurance Neuerthelesse let vs examine those places seuerally and particularly The first is that of the Apostle to the Ephesians Eph. 3.12 In whom wee haue boldnesse and entrance with confidence by the Faith of him whence it followeth saith hee if confidence or Affiance be by Faith that Faith is not Affiance but the cause thereof for otherwise the sense would bee we haue entrance with confidence by confidence which is absurd To this I answer first that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Confidence oftentimes signifieth Perswasion or Assurance being deriued of a verbe that signifieth firmely to be Perswaded as where the Apostle saith Rom. 2.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou strongly perswadest thy selfe that thou art a guide of the blind Phil. 1.25 and againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this am I well assured of and therefore it is not necessary here to vnderstand it of my Affiance Secondly grant that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Affiance is meant yet doth it not follow that it is an effect of Iustifying Faith seeing by faith not Iustifying but Historicall Faith may bee vnderstood which is the meanes by which wee grow vnto Affiance Lastly let it be farther yeelded that both by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Affiance and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iustifying Faith are meant yet may Affiance this notwithstanding bee that Faith neither will any such absurdity ensue thereon For as when you say wee are assured by Faith you would thinke your selfe wronged if I should inferre thereupon that Faith is not Assurance but the cause thereof or that otherwise the sense would bee wee are assured by assurance so when the Apostle saith in Affiance by Faith why should he not also count himselfe as much abused if you gather from hence that Faith is not Affiance but the cause thereof or that else the speech would be absurd as if hee should say in Affiance by Affiance The reason of all in a word is because this forme of words may import that Affiance is the next and immediate Act of Iustifying Faith The second place is that saying of our Sauiour vnto the woman diseased with an issue of blood Mat. 9.22 Bee confident daughter thy Faith hath saued thee where saith hee Faith is againe in like sort distinguished from Affiance for the woman is moued to conceiue and entertaine Affiance who was already healed by Faith To this I answer that the word which our Sauiour vseth to the woman is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to be bold or couragious whence commeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Boldnes courage Exerc. 317.4 which as Iulius Scaliger saith is the motion of Fortitude vnto some worke and is opposed vnto Timerousnesse or Fearefulnesse Neither was it without speciall reason that our Sauiour chose that word rather then any other for finding that vertue proceeded from him and demanding who had touched him Luc. 8.47 the woman seeing that shee could conceale it came vnto him trembling and fell at his feet and declared what shee had done whereupon hee said vnto her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tremble not Daughter nor be dismay'd but cheere vp and bee of good courage for I assure thee thy Faith hath saued thee goe thy way in Peace Now this Boldnesse or courage I confesse is an effect of Faith nay oftentimes an effect of the effect of Faith namely Hope for as Despaire of victory causeth Fearefulnesse and deiection of Spirit so contrariwise Hope of victory maketh a man to bee bold and confident But vnlesse you can proue that this Boldnesse is the same with my Affiance which with all your skill you can neuer doe they being of so different natures you can neuer conclude from hence that Affiance is an effect of Faith The third and last place is that of the same Apostle vnto Timothy They which minister well shall get vnto themselues a good degree and much affiance in the Faith which is in Christ where saith hee 1 Tim. 3.13 Affiance is said to be acquired and gotten by Faith because Faith may bee without such Affiance Whereunto I answer that the word vsed in the originall is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which no way signifieth Affiance but libertie and freedome of speech whether wee vtter our mind vnto God by prayer as where the Apostle saith Heb. 4.16 Let vs come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with boldnesse and freedome of Speech vnto the Throne of grace or make profession of our Faith before men as where the same Apostle saith Cast not away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your free profession Heb. 10.35 as Beza translateth it And because this libertie and freedome proceedeth from the testimony of a good conscience and assurance of the loue and fauour of God Heb. 3.6 therefore is it sometimes vsed for Assurance as where the Apostle saith Whose house wee are if wee hold fast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that confidence and reioycing of Hope vnto the end meaning by Confidence saith Beza that most worthy effect of Faith whereby wee crye Abba Father Prou. 28.1 and sometimes for that Lion-like boldnesse which Salomon saith alwayes attendeth a good conscience and so doth the same Beza in this present place of Timothy vnderstand it Heb. 3.6 vide annot Tremel ad Heb. 4.16 And hence it is that the Syriacke oftentimes rendreth this word by Retection or Reuelation of the face because a good conscience lifteth vp the head and boldly sheweth the face whereas a guiltie minde hangeth downe the head and as one confounded and ashamed dares
fo◠〈◊〉 second question I thinke you will confesse pardon â—ee if I thinke amisse that you haue not skill enough with vnderstanding to read the Greeke Fathers in their Original but are faine to trust vnto Translations But I beseech you doe not Translators many times what through ignorance or neglicence or wilfulnesse mistake and peruert the meaning of their Author L. 2. c. 1. Ruffinus translated the Ecclesiasticall history of Eusebius and in it this passage of Clemens that Peter Iames and Iohn although Christ preferred them almost before all yet they tooke not the honour of Primacy to themselues but ordained Iames who was surnamed Iust Bishop of the Apostles A shrewd testimony for the Primacy of Iames against that of Peter but the error is in the translation the Greeke Eusebius hauing not Bishop of the Apostles but Bishop of Hierusalem Yet Marianus Scotus citeth the same out of Methodius iust according to Ruffins translation from whence perhaps it was taken Hist l. 2. c. 23. Eusebius himselfe in expresse tearmes affirmeth the Epistle of S. Iames to be Spurious but your Chrystopherson renders it so as if he had meant that not himselfe but some others in the Church had so esteemed it in former times And lastly not to stand longer vpon this point that very translation of Cyrillus Alexandrinus which you haue made by Trapezuntius you haue little reason much to trust vnto For as Bonauentura Vulcanius sheweth Praef. Ann. it is a very disorderly one wherein many things are omitted much is added of his owne and much peruersly translated To conclude therefore seeing the writings of the Fathers haue so many wayes and so notoriously beene abused by addition by subtraction by alteration by misquotation by mistranslation it followeth that infallible certainty from them you can haue none and so consequently that you cannot safely build your Faith vpon them To proceed the Scriptures you say are obscure and ambiguous and therefore you may not rest vpon them saue onely as they are expounded of the Fathers If so then if the Fathers also bee obscure and ambiguous neither may you rest your Faith vpon them Now certainly the Fathers are as darke and doubtfull as the Scripture If you thinke otherwise doe but read the works of Tertullian and Arnobius and let me afterward know your minde For my part I see no reason why the Scripture should bee more subiect to diuersity of interpretations according to the difference of times as Cardinall Cusan impiously affirmeth Ep. 2. 7. Cont. Whit. l. 2. p. 45. and Duraeus the Iesuit impudently defendeth then the writings of the Fathers What doe wee not vouch the Fathers on both sides are we not as confident vpon them as you whence commeth this I beseech you if they bee so cleere that no doubt can bee made of them And why doe you professe in your Flemish Expurgatorie Index that in ancient Catholike Writers yee tolerate many errors yee extenuate and excuse them and often deny them by deuising some shift and faining a sence vnto them when they are opposed against you What need I say all these tricks and fetches if there bee no obscurity in them If literall and Grammaticall construction may cary it the Fathers are directly ours and wee suppose they ment as they wrote neither can you make any shew of answer vnlesse you fall to expound the meaning of them And so as you remoue your Faith from the letter of the Scripture vnto the exposition of the Fathers so must you of force remoue the same againe from the letter of the Fathers vnto some other tribunall to determine the sence and meaning thereof Giue mee leaue to declare this by some few examples That Faith only iustifies Origen Cyprian Eusebius Caesariensis Hilary Basil Chrysostome Ambrose Augustin Cyril Primasius Hesychius Gennadius Oecumenius in expresse tearmes affirme agreeing therein with vs whose words I will not fayle to produce whensoeuer you shall require Against hauing of Images in Churches and the Adoration of them wee haue the precise words not onely of Lactantius and Epiphanius and other Fathers seuerally Epist ad Ioh. Hicrosol but nineteene Bishops together in the Councell of Eliberis and of the whole Councell of Frankford vnder Charles the Great Against the Bishop of Romes supremacy wee haue the plaine resolution of Pope Gregory Lib. 6. ep 30. that he is the forerunner of Antichrist whosoeuer desires to bee called Vniuersall Bishop And of the Generall Councell of Chalcedon Act. 16. giuing to the Bishop of Constantinople equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome And of two hundred seuenteene Bishops in the sixt Councell of Carthage among whom were Saint Augustin Prosper Gresians and many other worthy Fathers all decreeing that the Pope of Rome thenceforward should haue no authority ouer the African Churches Finally against Transubstantiation thus writeth Gelasius himselfe a Bishop of Rome De dâ—ab nat con Euâ—ych The Sacraments of the Body and Bloud of CHRIST which we receiue is a diuine thing wherefore by them wee are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet the substance of bread and wine ceaseth not to bee Thus also Theodoret Dial. 1. Hee who hath called meat and drinke that which naturally is his body and after cals himselfe a Vine he himselfe hath honoured the visible signes with the name of his Body and Bloud hauing not changed their nature but hauing added grace vnto nature And againe Dial. 10. The signes mysticall change not their nature after consecration for they remaine in their first substance figure and forme Hom. 11. Chysostom likewise if hee bee the Authour of the imperfect worke on Math. In the sacred vessels there is not the true Body of CHRIST but the mystery of his Body And Saint Augustin The Lord doubted not to say This is my Body Con. Adimant c. 12. when he gaue the signe of his Body Thus the Fathers in these few points neither is it hard to shew the like consent in the rest What Will you now subscribe vnto their words yea being taken in the right sense But who shall iudge of the 〈◊〉 on vnderstand them one way we another Shall 〈◊〉 learned Rabbies of your side Fic that were too partiall and they so enterfere in their answers that they cut and hew one the other miserably Reuerend Bishop Morton hath demonstrated this at large Preambleâ—ng Mitigator Take one of his examples The Councell of Bâ—â—beris forbiddeth the hauing of Images in Churches Do Imagin l. 2. c. 9. and Adoration of them Of Images representing Gods nature faith Andradâ—â—s No saith Bellarmine for such were not then in vse For feare test Gentiles should thinke Christians warshipped them idolatrously saith Sanders But the reason of the Canon agreeth not much with this exposition saith Bellarmine Because Christians seemed to worship those Images as Gods Ibid. saith Alen Cope But this exposition is not agreeable to the Canon saith
they may both find out what they haue not heard and examine what they haue heard This gift of God this Wisdome I meane and illumination of Gods Spirit vse I beseech you to the glory of the donour and the building of your selfe vp in your most holy Faith This you shall doe if shaking off this blind beliefe of the dictates and decrees of men you simply and absolutely yeeld all credence to God alone his word and to men no otherwise then vnder God and for God For as the same Lactantius saith with whose words I conclude Wisdome and Religion are so neerely ioyned together Ib. l. 4. c. 4. 1. c. 1. that they may not bee seuered one from the other in so much as neither any religion is to bee embraced without wisdome nor any wisdome to be approued without religion The Lord giue you a cleane heart and renew within you a right Spirit so prayeth for you from the bottome of his heart Your vnfained friend and louing brother IOHN DOWNE OF SITTING AND KNEELING AT THE COMMVNION VNTO the schedule you sent mee contayning your best reasons for Sitting against Kneeling I here returne you this short answer Your end doubtlesse was by strength of argument to withdraw mee from conformity in Kneeling my intent is by discouering the weaknesse of your arguments to worke you from singularity in Sitting The issue I leaue vnto God yet I trust that as my persuasion and example this last Easter as you know reduced diuers so my Reply through the blessing of God may also reclaime you God grant that being brethren and children of one common mother wee may with one accord obserue her orders and honor her authority Your writing first maintaines sitting then opposes kneeling Of sitting you affirme thus Wee ought to sit at the receiuing of the Elements of the Lords Supper In which Proposition I doubt of one tearme and suspect another The tearme I doubt of is this Wee ought to sit namely what you meane thereby For if either the nature of the Phrase or the Conclusion of your third Syllogisme may determine it then is it equiualent vnto this We must sit imports a necessity of sitting or that sitting is the only lawful I gesture But if we iudge thereof by the probable intention of the two first Syllogismes then the meaning thereof seemes to bee no more then this We may sit or sitting is a lawfull gesture In which sence now vnderstand you this Proposition In the first Then I deny it and say Sitting is not the onely lawfull gesture In the second Then I answer two things First you haue ill exprest your selfe vsing words that beare not your meaning for Wee ought imports a necessary duty and Wee may free choice and liberty Secondly I distinguish For if you vnderstand it Absolutely and Simply in it selfe then I grant Wee may sit for sitting is indifferent and so there shall bee no controuersie betwixt vs. But if you vnderstand it respectiuely and with regard vnto the Canons and constitutions of the Church then I say wee may not sit for the Church vnto whom wee owe obedience hath ordained otherwise Againe I suspect those words at the receiuing of the Elements of the Lords Supper for why doe you not say rather at the receiuing of the Body and Blood of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ especially seeing this is the nobler part of the Sacrament and the Elements are but shadowes of this substance Was it lest sitting might seeme too perfunctory and kneeling neuer a whit too reuerent for so sacred an action If so then are you guilty of no small fault thus to sleight the holy Sacrament for so poore an aduantage But perhaps it was done out of simplicity rather then cunning Howbeit taking vpon you to play the Logician and to dispute Syllogistically you ought to haue been more wary of your tearmes And so I passe vnto your arguments the first whereof is thus framed 1 A comely gesture ought to be vsed 1 Cor. 14.40 Sitting is a comely gesture for the affection of ioy must then bee stirred vp with which it agrees Mar. 14.22 23 24 25 26. Ergo sitting ought to bee vsed This is rather a Paralogisme then Syllogisme for the Propositions are indefinite and of no quantity and out of such Propositions nothing can Logically bee concluded But I will help to rectify your Syllogisme if first I may know what you would conclude The Conclusion must needs bee one of two either this Wee may sit or this Wee must sit Would you conclude Wee may sit in the sence aboue denied for so you ought Then must it thus bee formed Any comely gesture may be vsed notwithstanding the Churches ordinance sitting is a comely gesture Ergo sitting may bee vsed notwithstanding the Churches ordinance But so the Maior is vntrue For Magistrates haue authority to order things indifferent as they find it expedient to auoid confusion and to settle an vniformity and wee are bound not onely for feare but also for Conscience to obey Rom. 13.5 Neither doth the passage you quote for proofe of your Maior euince the contrary For Saint Paul commanding that all things bee done decently permitteth not euery one to vse his liberty as hee listeth In. 1. Cor. 14.40 but setteth bounds vnto vs rather as Caluin saith establisheth the lawfull orders of the Church seeing it cannot bee decent to affront authority and doe as we please But it may bee you would conclude that wee must sit or that sitting is the onely lawfull gesture Then must your argument bee thus framed A comely gesture onely is to bee vsed sitting onely is comely Ergo sitting onely is to bee vsed The Maior whereof I grant and acknowledge to bee sufficiently prooued but I deny the Minor For if sitting bee the onely comely gesture then is not onely the Church of England to bee condemned for kneeling but sundry other reformed Churches also for standing yea our Sauiour himselfe with all his Apostles who as in due place shall bee demonstrated sate not to say nothing that it is your singular opinion and that the man cannot bee named who held the same before you or holds it besides you For as for your reason that sitting agrees with the affection of ioy which then must bee stirred vp it is a very strange and vnreasonable one For first bee it that ioy must then bee stirred vp so must humility reuerence thankfulnesse also And therefore if sitting beecomely because it agreeth with the one Kneeling also is comely because it agreeth with the other Againe suppose that sitting agree with Ioy so doth leaping dancing exultation also Why then if Sitting by vertue of this agreement be comely are not the rest in like manner comely Lastly that Sitting is the embleme of Rest and that such posture of the body is fit for study counsell meditation I haue often heard and so much is meant by those old sayings The Romans conquer by
iustice but as it is an exercise or declaration or perfection of Faith 12 Concerning the word Faith sometimes it signifieth that sanctifying grace of Gods spirit whereby wee beleeue in or on God that is put all our affiance vpon God in Christ for Iustification and Saluation sometimes a naked assent or agreeing to all the truths contained in the Scripture specially such as are Euangelicall That is only of the Elect this the Diuels haue That either hath works following it as in Abraham or is great in child of works ready to trauell and bring forth if God giue time as in the theefe on the crosse This many times is without works and therefore dead and spiritles Of that S. Paul speaketh of this S. Iames. That sole but not solitary iustifies this being solitary iustifies not 13 In a word S. Paul speaks of the cause of Iustification S. Iames of the Effect S. Paul descends from the Cause to the Effect S. Iames ascends from the Effects to the Cause S. Paul resolues how wee may bee iustified S. Iames how wee may bee knowne to bee iustified S. Paul excludes works as being no Cause of Iustification S. Iames requires works as fruites of Iustification S. Paul denies works to go before them that are to bee iustified S. Iames affirmeth that they follow him that is iustified 14 Others distinguish and reconcile them thus Iustification is sometime vnderstood without implying Sanctification sometime as it implyeth also Sanctification with it In the former sence S. Paul taketh it when hee proueth that a man is iustified by Faith without works S. Iames in the latter when he concludeth that a man is iustified by works and not by Faith only And this I suppose to be a very sound interpretation 15 Howsoeuer that Faith alone without the works of the Law in the sence aboue deliuered doth iustifie these ancient Fathers auouch together with us Origen Cyprian Eusebius Caesariensis Hilarie Basil Chrysostome Ambrose Augustin Cyril Primasius Hesychius Gennadius Oecumenius whose direct and expresse words I can at any time produce Nay these late Papists also least it should be thought that none but Protestants hold it the Canons of Collein the authors of the booke offered by Caesar vnto the Protestant Collocutors in the assemblie of Ratisbon Pighius Cassander Stapulensis Peraldus Ferus and others who count themselues as good Catholiks as they that hold otherwise 16 And this only Faith is so sure an anchor of our soules and suchâ— fountaine of true comfort both in life and death that Charles the fift Steuen Gardiner Sir Christopher Blunt and sundrie others durst not at their death trust vnto their works but vnto Faith in Christ only And Cardinal Bellarmin after a long disputation touching the merit of works is faine to conclude that because of the vncertenty of our owne iustice and the danger of vaineglory the Safest course is to repose all our affiance in the only mercy and goodnes of God So that in his iudgement wee Protestants haue chosen the Safest course I for my part will neuer trust my soule vnto them who leauing so safe a course meane to hazard it through a more dangerous way OF THE AVTHORS AND AVTHORITY OF THE CREED AND WHY IT IS CALLED a Symbole THE inscription of the Creed seemes to father it on the holy Apostles calling it the Symbole of the Apostles So doe almost all the Fathers of the fourth age after Christ and downeward affirming that the Apostles hauing receiued the Holy Ghost at Ierusalem and being now ready to disperse themselues into all parts of the world to preach the Gospell thought it good before their parting to compile this Symbole that it might serue as a pledge of their vnity in the Faith and a canon for their doctrine and teaching Yea some of them proceed so farre as particularly to set downe what article was made by what Apostle whereof see Augustin in his hundred and fifteenth Sermon de tempore Now although it bee very hard for mee to sway against the streame of so maine authority yet can I not but doubt thereof Paraphr in Mat. Praef. and confesse with Erasmus I know not who made the Creed especially hauing so great probabilities for demonstrations I dare not call them that it should not bee done by the twelue Apostles For first were it compiled by them is it likely that Saint Luke writing the history of their Acts would haue omitted so principall a matter Sundry other things of farre lesse consequence hee hath carefully recorded but of this so important and weighty a businesse hee makes not so much as one word mention which certainly hee would neuer haue failed to doe had they done so Adde hereunto that not one of the ancient Fathers who liued within the three first Centuries of Christ speake of any such thing in any of their writings and yet they should best know it whose times were neerest vnto the Apostles This deep silence both of Saint Luke and all those ancient Doctors make it vnto mee more then probable that the Apostles neuer composed it Secondly as the silence of these worthies so the very language of the Creed conuinceth it to bee yonger then the Apostles For the word Catholike vsed in the Creed was not knowne in their time Can any man thinke that the Church should then bee called Catholike when it was not Catholike For when they say this Creed was compiled the Church was scarce begunne among the Iewes and the Apostles had no where as yet preached the Gospell among the Gentils But heare the expresse words of Pacianus Bishop of Barcilona Sed sub Apostolis Ad Sympronian Epist 1. inquies nemo Catholicus vocabatur Esto sic fuerit Vel illud indulge cum post Apostolos haereses extitissent diuersisque nominibus columbam Dei atque Reginam lacerare per partes scindere niterentur nonne cognomen suum plebs Apostolica postulabat quo incorrupti populi distingueret vnitatem neintemeratam Dei virginem error aliquorum per membra laceraret In the Apostles times you will say no man was called Catholicke Bee it so Yet by your leaue when after the Apostles heresies were risen vp and by diuersity of names they laboured to rent and teare in peeces the done and queene of God was it not requisite that those which were Apostolike should haue a sirname of their owne whereby the vnity of those that are vncorrupt might bee distinguished and the error of none might rent in peeces the immaculate virgin of God Thus hee Against which if it bee obiected that the Epistles of Iames Peter Iohn and Iude are called Catholicke I answer the Inscriptions and Subscriptions of the Epistles are not Apostolicall but added to them by some other and sometime vntruly Neither is there any reason they should bee so stiled aboue the rest For neither is the doctrine contained in them more Catholicke then of all the other Epistles neither were they written to all the