Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
act_n assurance_n faith_n justify_v 2,314 5 9.2915 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A00728 Of the Church fiue bookes. By Richard Field Doctor of Diuinity and sometimes Deane of Glocester. Field, Richard, 1561-1616.; Field, Nathaniel, 1598 or 9-1666. 1628 (1628) STC 10858; ESTC S121344 1,446,859 942

There are 6 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

liue at one time and may be limited also in respect of place for it is not necessary that the Church be in all places at one time but it sufficeth if it bee successiuely Fiftly vniuersality may be a note of the true Church in respect of particular societies of Christians limited in time and place though not by hauing it yet by demonstrating themselues to pertaine to the vnity of that Church that hath it This no particular Church can do but by prouing that it holdeth the common faith once deliuered to the Saints without hereticall innouation or schismaticall violation of the vnity and peace of the Christian world This being the way for particular Churches to demonstrate themselues to be Catholike by prouing they hold the Catholike faith it is easie from hence to conclude that the reformed Churches are the Catholike Churches of God First for that that being Catholike as Vincentius Lirinensis defineth it which is and hath beene holden at all times and in all places by all Christians that haue not beene noted for noueltie singularity and diuision whatsoeuer hath beene so receiued wee receiue as the vndoubted truth of God neither is there any of the things which wee impugne and the Papists defend that is Catholike but they all carry the markes of nouelty and vncertainty Secondly touching the communion the people of God should haue among themselues our aduersaries shall neuer proue that wee haue at any time giuen occasion of those breaches that now appeare But wee will proue against them that they haue and so the note of Vniuersality maketh nothing for them or against vs. Touching the name of Catholike devised to expresse those both men and societies of men which hold the common faith without faction or division I haue spoken sufficiently in the former part touching the notes of the Church and so need not here to insist vpon it Thus haue we runne through the examination of the principall notes of the Church assigned by our adversaries but because they adde vnto these certaine other I will briefly examine their proofs taken from thence for themselues or against vs. CHAP. 44. Of the Sanctity of Doctrine and the supposed absurdities of our profession THese notes are Sanctity and efficacie of doctrine our own confession miracles and predictions the felicity and infelicity of such as defend or impugne the trueth and lastly the holy and religious conversation of the Professours of the truth Let vs take a view of these in such sort and order as they are proposed by them They place in the front the Sanctity and efficacie of doctrine A lyer they say should haue a good memory but surely our adversaries of all the lyers that euer were haue the worst memories by reason whereof euery second page of their writings if not euery second line is a refutation of the first Bellarmine divideth his tract of the notes of the Church into two parts In the first he sheweth what things are required in the notes of the Church and there he saith trueth and Sanctity of doctrine is no note of the Church In the latter he doth particularly assigne the notes whereby he supposeth the Church may be knowne and reckoneth truth sanctitie and efficacie of doctrine amongst the rest But let vs pardon him this ouersight and see how he proueth by this note that we are not and that their faction is the true Church of God Our doctrine is false absurd and vnreasonable and theirs full of truth reason and equitie Therefore our Churches are not the true Churches of God and theirs are Both parts of the Antecedent of this argument we deny For he shall neuer bee able to proue the absurdities he imputeth vnto vs but we are able to demonstrate against him that the whole course of Popish doctrine is most absurd false and impious But least hee should seeme to say nothing hee produceth foure instances wherein he supposeth there is apparant and very grosse absurditie The first he proposeth in this sort The Protestants teach that a man is justified by speciall faith whereby he perswadeth himselfe that he is just Now then he reasoneth thus When men beginne to beleeue either they are just and then their faith justifieth not being in nature after their justification and finding them already just when it beginneth or else they are not just and then speciall faith making a man beleeue he is just is false and so a man is justified by a lye To this horned argument wee answere that speciall faith hath sundry actes but to this purpose specially two the one by way of petition humbly intreating for acceptation and fauour the other in the nature of comfortable assurance consisting in a perswasion that that is graunted which was desired Faith by her first act obtaineth and worketh our justification and doeth not finde vs just when wee beginne to beleeue by her second act shee doeth not actiuely justifie but finding the thing done certifieth and assureth vs of it and so is no lying perswasion as this lying companion is pleased to pronounce it to bee So then speciall faith in her first act which is a kinde of petition is before justification and procureth or obtaineth it but then shee hath not the perswasion of it in her second act shee presupposeth the thing done and already obtayned and so truely perswadeth the beleeuer of it but procureth not the doing of it The second palpable and grosse absurdity of the Protestants doctrine is that it is not lawfull to say the Lords prayer This the Cardinall proueth because no man of the Protestants Religion can without dissimulation aske forgiuenesse of sinnes which is one of the principall petitions of that prayer This petition they cannot make because they hold that all right beleeuing and iustified men are without sinne and know themselues so to be and therefore cannot be excusable from vile dissimulation and mocking of God in asking the remission of their sinnes The impudencie of this imputation is such as I thinke all moderate Papists are ashamed of it For doth any of vs thinke that the iustified man is voyd of all sinne Or is it consequent if a man know himselfe to be iustified that then he may not aske remission of his sins Doe not many right learned and wise amongst themselues teach that a man may be sure he is in state of grace and iustification by the ordinary working of Gods spirit and doe not all Papists thinke that by speciall reuelation men may be sure they are in state of grace as Paul and sundry others were Doe all these teach that men thus assured of their iustification know themselues to haue no sin consequently nothing whereof they should aske forgiuenesse Surely herein I thinke both they we agree that in the iustified the dominion of sinne ceaseth sin hath no longer dominion ouer them that proportionably the guilt of condemnation is taken away but that there are still remainders of sin in them
faith only doth not iustifie that good works are meritorious he endeauoureth to proue because I confesse that men iustified freely by grace are crowned in the world to come for that new obediēce that is foūd in thē after iustificatiō But this cōsequence I suppose wil not be thought good seeing as Cassander rightly notethout of Bucer God in respect of good works or hauing an eye to thē or for good works giueth not onely temporall but eternall rewardes not for the worthinesse of the workes in themselues but out of his owne grace for the merit of Christ first working such good workes in them that are his and then crowning his owne workes in them as Augustine long since aptly obserued Let vs see therefore if he can proue any better that fayth onely doth not justifie this hee vndertaketh to doe out of that which I haue written that justification implieth in it faith hope and charity But for the clearing of this poynt let him be pleased to obserue that by the name of justification sometimes nothing is meant but an adiudging of eternall life vnto vs sometimes the whole translation of a man out of the state of sinne and wrath into a state of righteousnesse and acceptation with God which implyeth in it sundry things concurring in very different sort without any preiudice to the singular prerogatiue of fayth For first it implyeth in it a worke of almighty God as the supreame and highest cause Secondly the merits of Christ as the meanes whereby God is reconciled and induced to take vs into his fauour Thirdly in him that is to be justified a certaine perswasion of the trueth of such thinges as are contayned in the holy word of God Fourthly motions of feare contrition hope of mercy and the like workes of preparing grace as causes disposing and fitting him that is to be justified that hee may be capable of Gods fauour Fifthly as the susceptiue cause an act of faith by which a man truely repenting of former euils and seeking deliuerance without all doubting firmely beleeueth that all his sinnes are remitted him for Christs sake Lastly an infusion of the habite of diuine and heauenly vertues as a beginning of that life of God to which he doth adiudge them whom he receiueth to fauour So that my saying that justification thus taken implyeth in it Faith Hope and Charitie contrarieth not our position that fayth onely justifieth in sort before expressed which the Treatiser knowing right well insisteth no longer vpon this cauill but passeth to an vntruth charging Mee that I say of S. Augustine whom yet I pronounce to haue been the greatest of all the Fathers and the worthiest Diuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times that his manner of deliuering the Article of Iustification is not full perfect exact as if I imputed some fault to him in not deliuering the poynt of justification as it became him whereas I haue no such thing but say onely that his manner of deliuering that Article was not so full perfect and exact as we are forced to require in these times against the errours of the Romanists in which saying I no way blame that worthy Father but shew that new errours require a more exact manner of handling of thinges then was necessary before such errours sprung vppe which I thinke no wise man will deny and am well assured this Treatiser cannot deny vnlesse hee will bee contrary to himselfe For hee sayth expressely that Saint Augustine before some articles of Christian Religion were so throughly discussed and defined in the Church as afterwards vpon the rising of new heresies spake not so aptly and properly as was needfull in succeeding times and therefore retracted some things which hee had formerly vttered So that the Reader will easily finde that in this passage hee hath sayd lesse then nothing neither will his next discourse be found any better wherein he laboreth to shew a contrariety between Me Luther Caluine others in that I make that acte of fayth which obtayneth and procureth our justification to bee an acte by way of petition humbly intreating for acceptation and fauour and not of comfortable assurance consisting in a full perswasion that through Christs merits wee are the children of God Whereas Luther Caluine and the rest make iustifying faith to be an assured perswasion that through Christs merits wee are the sonnes of God But the Treatiser might easily know if hee were disposed that according to our opinion iustifying faith hath some actes as a cause disposing preparing and fitting vs to the receipt of that gracious fauour whereby God doth iustifie vs and other as a susceptiue cause receiuing embracing and enioying the same in the former respect neyther they nor I make faith to consist in a perswasion that wee are the sonnes of God in the latter wee both do and so agree well enough though the Treatiser it seemeth could wish it were otherwise §. 4. WHerefore let vs goe forward and take a view of that which followeth The next thing which hee hath that concerneth Mee is that it may bee gathered out of my assertions in my Third Booke of the Church that I thinke as hee saith some other also do that it is no fundamentall point of doctrine but a thing indifferent to beleeue or not to beleeue the reall that is the locall presence of CHRISTS Body in the Sacrament But I am well assured there can no such thing be gathered out of any of the places cited by him vnlesse it be lawfull for him to reason à baculo ad angulum as often as he doth For in the pages 120 and 121 of his second part because I confesse that in the Primitiue Church the manner of some was to receiue the Sacrament in the publique assembly and not bee partakers of it presently but to carry it home that the Sacrament was carried by the Deacons to the sicke that in places where they communicated euery day there was a reseruation of some parts of the sanctified Elements and that the sanctified Elements thus reserued in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them were the bodie of Christ to wit in mysterie and exhibitiue signification hee goeth about to conclude that I must needes confesse the reall that is the locall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament which consequence is no better then if a man should goe about to conclude that this Treatiser hath written a good and profitable booke because hee hath troubled the world with one such as it is full of vaine idle and emptie discourses whereof if any man make doubt let him consider but the very next words For whereas I confessed Calvines dislike of the reseruation aunciently vsed and yet saide it cannot bee proued that hee denied the Sacramentall elements consecrated and reserued for a time in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them to bee Sacramentally the body of Christ hee saith I labour in vaine because
not perfectly extinguished that though while they remaine in the state of iustification they ●…n not with full consent to the excluding of grace and subiecting of themselues to the guilt of condemnation yet there are many sinfull euils they runne into which subiect them to Gods displeasure for which hee will not faile to iudge them if they iudge not themselues For the weakening abolishing of these sinfull euils and the averting of that displeasure wherewith God is displeased with men for them the iustified doe pray vnto God which is to aske forgiuenesse of sins as in the Lords prayer is meant For the petition is vnderstood of the sinnes of the seruants of God and such as are in state of grace as Augustine teacheth Thus then the iustified man knoweth that the dominion of his sins is taken away and that the guilt of condemnation wherevnto they subiect such as are vnder the dominion of them is already remoued and therefore he doth not desire nor aske forgiuenesse of sinnes in this sort but the inherence of sin he acknowledgeth in himselfe notwithstanding his iustification which still subiecteth him to Gods displeasure punishments accompanying the same These things hee desireth to be remoued and in this sense asketh forgiuenesse of sins If it be replyed that the remission of the sins of the iustified is full and perfect and that therefore they that know themselues to be iustified cannot aske remission which they know they haue perfectly already Wee answere that the remission of the sins of the iustified is full and perfect not for that they are already freed actually from the inherence of sinne and the displeasure of God disliking it but because they haue full title vnto right in that mercy of God which as it hath already deliuered them from the dominion condemnation of sin so it will in the end wholly free them from the inherence of it and the displeasure of God disliking it His next allegation is more friuolous than the former The Anabaptists saith he do most certainly assuredly perswade themselues that they are accepted of God therefore they haue true faith according to the doctrine of the Protestants who define faith to be the assurance of the mercifull goodnes of God yet do the Protestants deny thē to be iustified vnlesse they forsake their errors and so by consequēt do say they haue true faith yet are not iustified which is to affirme that they are iust not iust To this we answere that there is as great difference betweene true confidence and assurance which only is to be named faith and that which is found in heretickes as betweene the ioy and gladnesse that is fantasticall and is found in men dreaming and that which is true and in men waking That quietnesse of minde either proceedeth from senselesse stupidity in men hauing cauterized consciences though there be iust cause of fearefull apprehensions or frō the not finding or hauing any matter of condemning remorse euen as some men are touched with no greefe nor afflicted with any smart or paine though no part be sound or well in them because they are in a dead senseles stupidity and others feele not paine because they are perfectly well It is not therefore every assured confidence that is faith but true confidence Neither is it to be doubted but that heretickes doe oftentimes confidently perswade themselues they please God and thinke they embrace true piety as men dreaming doe perswade themseles they inioy and possesse all things though they possesse nothing But as men waking knowe the things they apprehend are soe indeede as they apprehend them and not in fancie only as men sleeping are deluded so true Christians know the perswasion they haue of Gods goodnesse towards them groweth from due iust consideration not from deceivable fancie and imagination only as in heritickes it doth This point is excellently cleared by Alexander of Hales the first and greatest of all the Schoole-men whose reasons and proofes that true Christians may be assured they are in state of grace and acceptation with God Bellarmine cannot answere Thus wee haue seene the supposed absurd positions wherewith the Iesuite chargeth all Protestants in generall In the next place hee produceth such as are proper to the Lutherans and in the last place such as are peculiar to the Caluinistes For thus it pleaseth him to tearme vs by these names of faction and diuision whereas it is Antichrists pride that hath made all the breaches in the Christian world and would haue layd all wast if God had not preserued a remnant The errour wherewith he chargeth the Lutherans is that children when they are baptised haue faith hope and loue Is this an errour are they iustified sanctified and made the temple of the holy Ghost when they are baptized and haue they neither faith hope nor loue doth not iustification imply all these in it But they haue not the act of faith noe more they haue of reason haue they not therefore the faculty of reason This then is that which these men ●…each whom it pleaseth these Antichristian sectaries odiously to name Luthe●…ans namely that children when they are adopted and made the sonnes of God when they are iustified and sanctified are filled with the habites or po●…ntiall habilities of these vertues and that they haue the beginning roote and seede of faith hope and loue For the farther clearing of this obiection reade Kemnisius in his Examen of the Tridentine Councell The errour of the Caluinists touching absolute necessity and that God is the author of sinne is but the imagination of the Romanists as I haue already sufficiently shewed For Caluin and wee all detest both these absurdities CHAP. 45. Of the Paradoxes and grosse absurdities of Romish Religion THus then the Paradoxes and grosse absurdities which this Cardinall aduersarie of Gods true religion imputeth vnto vs are but the fancies of his owne idle braine But if wee should enter into the examination of the seuerall parts of their profession it were not harde really to convince them of the most senselesse follies that euer the world was acquainted with But because it would be tedious and vnseasonable in this generall controversie of the Church to enter into the particular handling of things more fitly reserved to their owne proper places I will onely touch some few things that may seeme to concerne the whole frame and fabricke of their Religion They all hold at this day that the infallibility of the Popes judgement is the rocke on which the Church is builded and that this is the difference betweene a Catholicke and an heretique that though both beleeue many divine and supernaturall truths yet they build not themselues vpon the same grounds of perswasion For the Catholicke builds himselfe vpon the sure ground of the infallibility of the Churches chiefe Pastours judgement but the Hereticke vpon other things yeelding him satisfaction concerning the trueth of that
his merite and not for the dignity and perfection of the righteousnesse which is communicated vnto vs in Christ And farther they say that the faithfull soule doth not rely vpon that righteousnesse that is inherent in it but vpon the onely righteousnesse of Christ giuen vnto vs without which there neither is nor can be any righteousnesse And they adde hereunto that they that truly repent of their sinnes should most firmely and with great assurance of faith resolue that they please God for Christs sake who is a Mediatour betweene God and them because he is a worker of propitiation a High Priest and an Intercessour for vs whom the Father hath giuen vnto vs and all good things together with him And therefore though they say not as the Canons of Colen that Christs righteousnesse is the formall cause of our justification yet Vega thinketh they followed the same opinion because besides inherent righteousnesse they affirme that another righteousnes namely that of Christ is communicated to vs by which especially wee are made righteous and vppon which only we must rely The Interim published by Charles the 5 with the assent of the imperiall states deliuereth the same touching iustification that the former authors haue done And the diuines of both sides in the conference at Ratisbon agreed in the same explication of the article of iustification that wee haue hetherto deliuered A great contention there is and hath beene whether the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to vs bee the formall cause of our justification and whether we be formally justified by his imputed righteousnesse or not But Andraeas Vega supposeth that it is a meere logomachie and verball contention which his conjecture I thinke will be found more then probable For as I haue already shewed in the justification of a sinner three things are implyed 1 To be free from dislike disfauour and punishment as if he had neuer offended Secondly to be respected fauoured and indeared vnto God in such sort as righteous men are wont to be as if he had done all righteousnes And thirdly To haue the grant of the gift of righteousnesse to keepe from euill and incline him to good in the time to come All these denominations are respectiue and a man may be so denominated from something without For one man is reconciled to another in that hee no longer intendeth euill vnto him and one man is deare vnto another and we are deare vnto God formally by that loue whereby we are beloued of him And because that which giueth satisfaction to God and that which maketh him well pleased towards vs is that for which formally or in respect whereof God willeth our good not euill by both these we may be sayd though in a different sort to be formally iustified Wherefore hauing sufficiently cleared the point of controuersie touching the first justifying and reconciling of a sinner to God and made it appeare that the Church euer beleeued as we now do it remaineth that we speake of the second justification The second justification consisteth in the remission of such sinnes as the justified man dayly through infirmity falleth into and the progresse and going on in well doing and the dayly preuailing against sinne whereby the kingdome of sinne is weakened and the kingdome of grace and righteousnesse is confirmed and more strongly established in us Touching the second justification there is no difference between vs them that so deliuered the doctrine of the first justification as I haue before expressed but between the Romanists vs there are sūdry things cōtrouerted For 1 t many of thē deny the veniall sins into which the regenerate do fal to be properly sins therefore think not aright of the remissiō of thē 2● They imagine that sūdry externall obseruatiōs ex opere oper●…to giue grace remit those sins whereas in truth in the opiniō of others they auaile no otherwise then they stirre vp deuotion and raise in vs good motions and desires to purge out the remaines of sinne and to seeke the remission of it Thirdly they make the good workes of men justified to deserue increase of grace the reward of eternall life of condignity But I will shew in that which followeth that the doctrine of merit was neuer admitted in the Church neither before nor after Luthers time In this justification men are justified meerely by faith as in the first so farre forth as it importeth remission of sins but in that it importeth an increase confirmation and growth in that good that is begun in us our working of vertue and good indeauours causing the same may be sayd to justify that is to make vs more iust inherētly then before more strōgly inclined to good in which sense S. Iohn saith Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc The third kind of justification which is sayd to bee the restoring of men once justified and afterwards fallen from grace to the state of grace againe is meerely imaginary For they that are called according to purpose and soe justified do neuer totally nor finally fall from God The sins which men run into I haue elsewhere shewed to be of 2 sorts Inhabiting only or Raigning the former in the judgment of our aduersaries themselues do stand with grace the state of iustification Sins regnant are as Theodoret writing vpon the sixt to the Romans after him others do rightly note of 2 sorts for either they raigne as a tyrant or as a king a king reigneth with the loue liking of his subjects who wish nothing more then to liue vnder him think there is no happines but in his slauery a tyrant with dislike They that are justified called acording to purpose neuer haue sin raigning in them as a king but somtimes as a tyrant they haue For though Dauid Peter were strangely transported with the violēt passions of feare lust yet who will euer think that these lost all their former good affections towards God thought it their happines to be subject to his enemies Nay it is cleerly deliuered concerning Peter by Theophylact and sundry others that though the leaues were shaken off yet the roote remained vnmarred Iustification likewise as I haue shewed in the same place importeth 2 things An interest right title to the kingdome of heauen a claime to it by vertue force of the same right title the one of these may cease be suspended when the other remaineth If a man that hath much due vnto him vpon good assurances do some act for which he is excommunicated or outlawed he looseth not the title right he had to the things due vnto him vpō those assurāces but if the same things be detained all prosecution of his right is suspēded all actuall claime ceaseth during the time he continueth in that estate So in like manner if a man called according to purpose justified who can neuer finally fall from God fall
booke in explication and defence of this one decree of the councell and telleth vs the councell neuer meant simply to condemne the certainety of grace but onely that kinde of certainety that heretickes imagine which is without all examination of themselues their estate the trueth of their profession their dislike of sinnefull evills and desire of reconciliation and grace to decline euill and to doe good to perswade themselues they are justified And whereas most men conceiue the meaning of the councell to bee that hee is accursed that thinketh it necessary for the attayning of remission of sinnes that every man should perswade himselfe without any doubting in respect of his owne indisposition that his sinnes are remitted that thus to perswade himselfe procureth remission hee maketh the meaning of it to be that whosoeuer without consideration of his estate whether hee be rightly disposed or otherwise presumeth of Gods grace fauour is worthily anathematized but if a man hauing examined himselfe finde a disposition in dislike of former euills to returne vnto God to seeke remission grace not to offend in like sort any more he may notwithstanding the decree of the councell nay he ought to assure himselfe of remission and grace And there vpon bringeth forth a cloude of witnesses for confirmation of the certainety of grace But whatsoeuer wee thinke of the construction he maketh of the wordes of the decree he resolueth that a man may bee as certaine that his sinnes are remitted and he receiued to grace as that twise two are foure twise foure eight and that euery whole is greater then his part or as a man is resolued touching the things hee seeth with his eyes and handleth with his hands Gaspar Casalius a Bishoppe of Portugall that was present in the councell of Trent writeth largely against that kinde of imagined certainety which Eisingreinius sayth the councell meant to condemne And then goeth forward An non licet homini unquam credere firmiter se esse iustum á peccatis saltem á mortalibus Quidem in eâ formâ nunquam licet vt ex dictis patet quia est illa fides siue confidentia superba imprudentissima An licet in aliâ formâ Vtique licet In quâ formâ licet habendo respectum ad divinas promissiones conditionales ad conditiones quas requirunt Etenim omnes tenemur firmiter credere fide diviná cui non potest subesse falsum tam de nobis ipsis quam de aliis omnes Adae filios de facto iustos esse aut iustificari quotquot habent eas conditiones quas diuina promissio sive diuina lex conditionalis ad id requirit in nobis Hoc constat quia omnes tenemur tali fide credere Deum veracem in omnibus dictis suis pertinentibus ad doctrinam promissiones cunctis aliis adhibito autem diligenti in nobis de nobis examine dum quis seipsum probat ad iudicium rationis ac legis trahit licet vnicuique iudicare de se prudenter tamen procedendo cum examine discretione quòd eas conditiones requisit as habet vel non habet Si enim hoc non liceret nobis non diceret Paulus 1 Cor. 11. Probet autem seipsum homo sic de pane illo edat de calice bibat Nec diceret Apostolus Ioannes 1 Ioh. 4. Nolite omni spiritui credere sed probate spiritus si ex Deo sint quoniam multi Pseudoprophetae exierunt in mundum Ecce committitur nobis probatio adhibitis his quae ad rem ipsam adhiberi debent tum nostritum spirituum Licet ergo nobis iudicare de nobis benè vel malè prout in nobis invenerimus dummodo prudenter agamus cum prudentiâ intuentes discurrentes concludentes Mox vero prout quis cum prudentiâ de se iudicaverit quod conditiones á Deo requisitas habeat potest etiam iudicare de seipso quod iustus sit si certò certò si cum formidine cum formidine firmae enim praestant divinae promissiones iuxta suas conditiones ex parte illarum nullus est defectus nec esse potest So that according to this opinion a man certainely finding in him the performance of the condition required may assure himselfe of his justification acceptation with God and this assurance is an act of faith No man liuing sayth Vega should euer draw mee to doubt neither indeede could I doubt if I would of my being in the state of grace if I might inferre it out of two propositions the one beleeued and the other some other way evident vnto mee For there are many propositions de fide which can no otherwise bee proved to be de fide but because they cleerely follow vpon things beleeued some proposition evident in the light of nature As Scotus sheweth that this proposition the father differeth really from the sonne is a proposition of faith because it is inferred out of these two The father begat and the sonne was begotten and this other evident in the light of nature Omnis generans realiter differt à genito Qui pertinaciter dubitaret de propositione illatâ evidenter ex vn●… credit●… alia evidenti esset haereticus hic enim cum non posset dubitare de consequentiâ nec de euidenti dubitaret de credita It will bee sayd that graunting such a proposition to bee de fide as followeth out of two propositions whereof one is beleeued and the other some other way evident vnto vs yet it will not follow that wee may bee certaine that wee are in the state of grace Because that cannot bee inferred out of two such propositions seing one of them must depend on experience and the knowledge of our inward actions which as some thinke cannot be certainely knowen by vs. Let vs see therefore whether a man may certainely discerne the quality and condition of his soule and the motions actions and desires of the same There are that thinke that our inward actions are vnknowen vnto vs and that the nature of the heart is such as is knowen onely to God But Saint Paul sayth 1 Cor. 2. that the spirit of a man knoweth the things that are in him And besides if wee could not knowe our inward actions wee should not bee commaunded or forbidden to doe such actions neither should wee bee required to confesse our inward sinnes if wee could not know them All which things are absurde and hereticall It is cleere therefore that wee may know and discerne our inward actions that wee may know what we do what wee will and in what sort and to what end wee will it Wee may know therefore whether we sorrow for sinnes because wee haue thereby displeased God or for some other reason whether wee esteeme the losse of Gods favour the greatest euill whether wee would rather regaine it then haue all things without it whether wee would not bee willing to
loosing the Church was equally builded on them all These things I will particularly confirme and proue and first that all the Apostles had the same commission of feeding the flocke of Christ that Peter had it is euident For whereas there are but foure kindes of feeding Vitâ exemplari subsidio corporali doctrinâ salutari disciplinâ regulari that is By exemplary conversation by ministring things necessary for the entertainment of this present life by wholesome doctrine and by regular discipline and gouernement all these waies the rest of the Apostles stood bound to feede the flocke of Christ as well as Peter For they were all the Lights of the world and their Light was so to shine before men that they seeing their good workes might glorifie their Father in Heauen they were all to take care of the poore and needie they had all power to preach and minister Sacraments by Christs owne warrant saying vnto them all Goe teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost and to gouerne and guide the Church and people of God as well as Peter Christ sending them as his Father sent him and assuring them that whose sinnes they remit they are remitted and whose sinnes they retaine they are retained Neither can this bee doubted of seeing Bellarmine himselfe confesseth in the place before alleadged that in the Apostolique power all power and Jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall as well inward as outward was contained so that that which Bellarmine and other Papistes insist vpon that Christ commended all his Sheepe vnto Peters care and charge in that hee saide vnto him Feed my sheepe without any limitation or distinction as if in this respect they would shew vs some singular thing in Peters feeding of the flocke of Christ not found in others is too silly For who knoweth not that euery Apostle had generall commission and that howsoeuer for the better dispatch of the worke they had in hand they diuided amongst them the seuerall prouinces of the world yet this was as Bellar●… himselfe confesseth Prouinciarum non iurisdictionis diuisio that is a diuision of prouinces not of Iurisdiction for there was not any of them but had power to preach minister Sacraments and exercise discipline wheresoeuer they would one of them no way hindering the employment of another but all with joynt care seeking to set forward the worke they had in hand Yea this is so cleare that the Cardinall ingenuously confesseth it to be so saying in expresse words that the rest of the Apostles were heads Rulers and Pastours of the vniuersall Church Touching the power of the Keyes promised to Peter and the power of binding and loosing it will easily appeare that no singular thing was either promised or giuen vnto him but that which was common to him with the rest Thomas Aquinis fitly obserueth that in corporall things the Key is an instrument that openeth the doore and giueth entrance to him that formerly was excluded Now the doore of the kingdome of heauen is shut against vs by sinne both in respect of the staine of it and the guilt of punishment whence it commeth as hee aptly noteth that the power by which this stoppe impediment is taken away is named the Key This power is in the diuine Trinity principally and by way of authority in that God onely taketh away sinne dimittendo quae facta sunt adiuvando ne fiant perducendo ad vitam vbi omnino fieri non possunt that is By forgiuing the sinne that is past by helping the sinner that he doth not the like againe and by bringing him to that life where hee can sinne no more And therefore the blessed Trinity is said to haue the Key of Authority Christ had power to remoue this stoppe and hinderance by the merite of his passion by instituting Sacraments and making them effectuall instruments of the communication of his grace for the taking away of sinne and therefore he is said to haue the Key of Excellency In men there is a ministeriall Power to remoue the impediment of sinne that hindereth from entring into Heauen and therefore they are rightly said to haue a key of Ministery which is two-fold of Science and of Iurisdiction Of Science remouendo ignorantiam inducendo ad conuersionem that is by remouing the blindnesse of heart that is found in men and inducing them to conuert and turne to God Of Iurisdiction in receiuing men into the society of holy ones and in admitting those that they thinke meete worthy to the participation of the holy Sacraments in which the efficacy of Christs passion communicateth it selfe as also in reiect●…ng the vnholy and vncleane The Iurisdiction of the Church is rightly signified Metaphorically by the name of a Key because the chiefe command in a house or Citty is in him to whom the keyes of that house or Citty are committed hee that hath the keyes hath thereby power to admit and receiue into the house or Citty whom he will to exclude and shut out whō he pleaseth And therefore when Princes enter into their Cities Towns the Citizens are wont to offer vnto thē the keyes thereof thereby acknowledging that the chiefe power command of those places doth rest in them Wherevpon when the Lord promised to Eliacim sonne of Hilkiah servant of King Hezekiah chiefe authority in the Kings Court and in the Citty of Ierusalem he said by his Prophet I will giue the keye of the house of Dauid vpon his shoulders Hee shall open and no man shall shut hee shall shut and no man shall open In which sense also it is said in the Reuelation of Christ that He hath the key of Dauid that he openeth and no man shutteth that hee shutteth and no man openeth that is hath all fulnesse of power in his Fathers house and kingdome Thus then the key of Ministery being onely the power of teaching instructing admonishing comforting gouerning and yeelding sacramentall assurances of Gods mercy grace by dispensing the Sacraments Christ hath instituted and this power being the same in Peter the rest it is cleare that the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen were equally committed vnto them all The force of these keyes is not onely expressed by the acts of opening shutting but of binding loosing also thereby to shew that they are no materiall keyes but Metaphorically vnderstood and spirituall and that heauen is then opened vnto men that they may enter into it when they are loosed from their sins that hindered them from entring in thither and hereupon it is that Christ hauing promised the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to blessed Peter telleth him likewise that what hee shall binde on earth shall be bound in heauen and what he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen The bonds wherewith men are bound on earth are of foure sorts First of Lawes obliging