In the act of iustification wee say that workes haue no roome because both they are imperfect and also are not done by our own strength but being once iustified we must needs repent and become new creatures walking not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit And this is the doctrine of our Church concerning Iustification 16. Now let vs heare what they say and then weigh both doctrines in the ballance of the sanctuary that wee may see which of them bringeth most glory to the merits of CHRIST and to the power of his satisfaction I will plainely and sincerely God willing set downe the summe of their doctrine First therefore they teach that there is a double iustification the first whereby a man ex iniusto fit iustus of an vniust and wicked man is made iust and good and of a sinner is made righteous the second wherby a man being iust is made more iust and doth encrease in iustice and sanctity according to that Reuel 22. 11. He that is iust let him be more iust Concerning the first iustification some of them affirme that it is the free gift of God and deserued by no precedent workes others that it is merited by congruity but not by condignity but of the second they say that it is gotten and merited by our workes But before both these they make certaine preparations and dispositions whereby a man by the power of his owne free-will stirred vp by grace doth make himselfe fit for iustification namely by the acts of faith feare hope loue repentance and the purpose of a new life all which a man must haue before hee receiue the first grace of iustification and for the obtaining whereof he needs not any grace internally infused but onely offered externally Whereupon they are bold to affirme that the act of Iustification doth emane and proceed Simul ab arbitrio à Deo Both from free-will and from God Now the causes of iustification the Councill of Trent maketh to be these the finall cause Gods glory and mans saluation the efficient Gods mercy the meritorious cause Christs merits the instrumentall the Sacrament of Baptisme but the formall cause which is the chiefest and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dat esse rei giueth being to the thing as the Logicians speake they make to be an inherent righteousnes wrought in vs and inspired into vs by the Spirit of God And this in briefe is the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the iustification of a sinner 17. Wherein let vs obserue three maine and fundamentall differences betwixt their doctrine and ours in all which they raze the foundation and dedignifie the merits of Christ and the mercy of God to extoll the dignitie of man The first in their preparations wee hold that a man cannot any wayes dispose himselfe vnto grace but is wholly fitted and prepared by God and that those acts of preparation as they call them are not fore-runners of iustification but rather fruites and effects thereof they teach the contrary as I haue shewed The second difference is that the workes of a man iustified do not merit increase of grace which they terme the second iustification but as the beginning of grace is from gods mercy alone so the increase and augmentation thereof and perseuerance therein is onely to be ascribed to the worke of Gods spirit according to that of Saint Paul Phil. 1. 6. He that hath begunne this good worke in you will performe it vntill the day of Iesus Christ this we hold they the contrary The third difference is in the formall cause of our iustification which they maintaine to be an inherent righteousnes within vs euen the righteousnes of Sanctification We on the other side affirme that the formall cause of our iustification is the righteousnes of Christ Iesus not dwelling in vs nor proceeding from vs but imputed vnto vs by the mercy of God 18. Hauing thus layd open both our doctrines let vs examine and trye which of them giueth most glory vnto God and most exalts the merites of Christ for that must needs be the truth and which lifteth vp highest the proud nature of man for that must needs be falshood and errour especially seeing that Gods dignity and the dignity of man Christs merits and mans are as it were two skales of a ballance whâ—reof the one rising the other falls the one lifted vp the other is pressed downe First therefore touching the workes of preparation whether doe they more magnifie Gods mercie that say a man cannot prepare and dispose himselfe at all to grace but is wholly disposed and prepared by God or they that affirme that a man can prepare himselfe by his owne endeuour assisted outwardly with the grace of God the one makes Gods mercy the sole cause of iustification the other but the adiâ—vant and helping cause And whether doe they aduance most the dignity of man that say that a man can do nothing of himselfe for his owne iustification or they that say that a man can doe something to the preparation of himselfe to that great worke the one attributeth some dignity to man the other none at all we affirme the one part the Romanists the contrary and therefore our doctrine tends more to the debasing of mans worth and consequently to the exalting of Gods glory then theirs doth 19. True it is like Ferrimen that looke East and go West they with their great Grand-father Pelagius talke of grace when they meane nothing but nature and so deny indeede that which they affirme in word if the matter bee examined according to truth For Pelagius confessed a necessity of grace in all spirituall actions and yet was condemned for an enemy to grace by the Church of God because hee vnderstood not by grace the sanctifying worke of Gods spirit but an outward moouing and perswading power assisting mans free-will to the effecting of his owne saluation The very same is the doctrine of the Romanists as hath beene declared and therefore wee may iustly condemne them as enemies to the grace of God whatsoeuer they bragge and vaunt to the contrary 20. Secondly touching the second iustification which standeth as they say in the augmentation and encrease of our iustice let the most partiall Reader iudge whether tends most to the magnifying of Gods glory their doctrine which teacheth that wee merite the encrease of our iustice by our owne workes or ours which teacheth that both the seed and the growth both the roote and the fruite both the beginning and encrease of all righteousnesse is the worke of Gods spirit alone preuenting assisting and vpholding vs to the end and that these seuerall workes of grace are bestowed vpon vs not for any merites of our owne but simply and entirely for the merits of Christ Iesus I but they will say works doe not merit iustification because they are ours but because they are works of grace which grace floweth from the fountaine of
merite it and yet to haue it freely giuen if it be any wayes of merite then it is not euery way free Merite in the receiuer and freenesse in the giuer can in no respect stand together 33. Another contradiction in this Article is this that they say a man is iustified by his works and yet for all that he is iustified by grace too Both these propositions they peremptorily defend and take it in great scorne that we charge them to be maintayners of works against grace and call vs loud Lyers in casting that imputation vpon them But by their leaues they maintaine either works against grace or else they breathe hote and cold out of one mouth which the Satyre could not endure and speake contraries let them choose whether for the holy Ghost himselfe placeth these two Works and Grace in diametrall opposition If it be of grace it is no more of works or else were grace no more grace but if it bee of works it is no more grace or else were worke no more worke Here we see a manifest opposition betwixt grace and works so that one doth exclude the other and this in our election and therefore much more in our iustification which is but an effect thereof for election hath nothing to doe with our good works according to our doctrine nor with our euill according to theirs but iustification hath respect vnto our sinnes and euill deeds and therefore much greater must bee the opposition in this then in that greater reason that here works should be excluded by grace then in the other 34 Bellarmines exception is that the Apostle here excludeth onely the works that be of our selues without grace before we be iustified but as for those that come after they are works of grace and therefore be not excluded by grace but may well stand together To which I answere three things First that the Apostle hath no such distinction but speaketh generally of all works and therefore according to the olde rule Vbi lex non distinguit Where the law distinguisheth not there we must not distinguish To say therefore that it is both by grace and works is to confront the Apostle and to fasten vpon him a flat contradiction Yea it is to extinguish grace vtterly for as it hath beene before alledged out of Augustine grace is not grace in any respect except it bee free in euery respect Secondly that the Apostle meaneth works after grace and such as proceed from faith as well as works of nature appeareth by another like place where works are also excluded and opposed to the free gift of God that is to grace and that the Apostle intendeth works of grace appeareth by the reason following in the next verse For we are his workmanship created in Christ to good works Now in this last place works of grace must needs be vnderstood because he saith we are created in Christ Iesus vnto them and therefore the same also must necessarily bee meant in the former vnlesse wee will say that the Apostle or rather the holy Ghost disputes not ad idem Lastly I answere that in Abrahams iustification who was the Father of the faithfull and his iustification a patterne how all his spirituall posteritie should be iustified works of grace are excluded for at that time of which the Apostle there speaketh Abraham was regenerate as Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth and yet his works are excluded therefore works of grace are meant by the Apostle I but replyeth the same Cardinall when the Apostle saith that Abraham was iustified by faith and not by works he excludeth those works which Abraham might doe without faith for they which haue faith yet doe not alwaies worke by faith as when they sinne or performe meere morall duties without relation to God But this is no better then a meere shift without any ground of reason or truth for if it bee true which the Scripture saith that whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne then those morall works which hee mentioneth being not of faith are no better then sinnes and so need not to bee excluded by the Apostle for they exclude themselues Besides it is manifestly false that a iust and faithfull man doth any worke which is not sinne wherein he hath not relation vnto God if not in the particular act yet in the generall purpose of his minde for euery morning he prayeth to God for the direction of all his wayes and that all his works may be sanctified by his Spirit And thus it appeareth that in saying wee are iustified by grace and yet by works too they speake contraries 35. A third contradiction in this Article is about their works of Preparation which they say goe before the first iustification these they call vertuous dispositions good qualities good preparations merits of congruitie and that they haue a dignitie of worke in them and yet they say agayne that no good works goe before the first iustification belike then they are both good and not good by their doctrine and therefore thus I argue If they be not good why do they call them good if they bee good then it is vntrue that no good works go before the first iustification of a sinner either in the one or in the other they must needs erre and in holding both the one part of their doctrine crosseth the other 36. Fourthly they say that faith alone doth not iustify and yet notwithstanding they say Fide Catholica Christiana eaque sola hominem iustificari nulli vnquam negauerunt nec â—egant Pontificij That no Papist euer hath or doth deny that a man is iustified by the Catholike Christian faith and that alone This is the assertion of Miletus against Heshusius and it is not condemned by any of the rest but his booke approued as contayning nothing contrary to their Catholike Religion and so it seemes to be one of their Catholike doctrines And Bellarmine insinuates asmuch though not in playne speech yet by necessary consequence when bee saith that faith is the beginning and first roote of iustification Now if it be so then as soone as a man hath faith iustification is begun and taketh roote in him euen before he hath any other grace and if it hath taken roote then it is eyther whole iustification or a peece thereof but a peece it cannot be for it is indiuisible therefore eyther whole or none For grant there be degrees in iustification as they say which neuerthelesse they are neuer able to prooue yet they bee degrees of persection not of essence as a man is a man as soone as hee is borne though not a perfect man before hee come to complete age stature and strength So their supposed iustification is iustification in the roote though not perfect and absolute vntill it come to ripe age I speake in their language because I deliuer their owne doctrine Now how can these two contraries bee reconciled Faith alone doth
glory of God and the merits of Christ And therefore the conclusion must needs follow being built vpon an vnmooueable foundation that that Religion which maintaineth such doctrines is not the truth of Christ but the seduction of Antichrist MOTIVE V. That Religion deserueth to be suspected which refuseth to be tryed by the Scriptures as the perfect and alone rule of faith and will bee iudged and tryed by none but it selfe But such is the Religion of the Church of Rome Ergo. THe first proposition in this Argument though it be most true and cannot without any shew of reason be contradicted yet that it may be without all doubt and exception it shall not be amisse to strengthen the same by sound and euident proofes deriued both out of Gods word and consent of ancient Fathers The Proposition consists of two parts first that it cannot be the true Religion which will not abide the alone tryall of the Scriptures Secondly that it will bee iudged and tryed by none but it selfe let vs consider of both these seuerally 2. And concerning the first if the Scripture be the fountaine of all true religion the foundation and basis of our faith the Canon and rule of all the doctrines of faith and the touch-stone to trye truth from falshood then to refuse to be iudged and tryed by the Scriptures alone is plainely to discouer that there is something in it which issued not from that fountain which is not built vpon that foundation which is so oblique and crooked that it dares not to be applyed to that rule and which is counterfeit and dares not abide the touchstone Now that the Scripture is such as I haue said let the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture beare witnesse Search the Scripture saith our Sauiour for in them you thinke to haue eternall life and they be they which testifie of me therefore the Scripture is the fountaine of all true religion for what is the Religion of Christians but the right knowledge of Christ Iesus This caused Saint Paul to say I desire to know nothing but Christ Iesus and him crucified Againe the Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto saluation through faith in Christ Iesus and are profitable to teach to improue to correct and to instruct in righteousnesse that the man of God may be absolute and perfect to euery good worke Therefore the Scripture is the onely fountaine of true Religion for what is true Religion but spirituall wisedome and holy perfection the one in contemplation the other in action the one in knowledge the other in practice for these two ioyned together do make a man truly religious but the Scriptures afford both as it is cleare in that saying of S. Paul and may be confirmed by another like speech of Salomon who affirmeth that the commandements of God will make a man to vnderstand righteousnesse and iudgement and equity and euery good path Righteousnesse and iudgement pertaine to knowledge equity and euery good path belong to practice And for this cause Origen compareth the Scriptures to Iacobs Well from whence not onely Iacob and his sonnes that is the learned and the skilfull but his sheepe and cattell that is the simple and ignorant doe drinke that is deriue vnto themselues the waters of life and saluation and therefore where the knowledge of the Scriptures flourished not as among all the Heathen both Romanes Grecians and Barbarians before their conuersion there no true Religion shewed it selfe but their Religion was all false and deuillish for in stead of the true God they worshipped dumb creatures and mortall men yea deuils themselues as Lactantius sheweth All which proceeded from hence that they had not the word of God for their guide which is the onely fountaine and well-spring of true Religion 3. Againe as it is the fountaine from whence so it is the foundation vpon which our faith relieth whether wee take faith for the act of beleeuing or for the matter and obiect of our beliefe Ye are built saith S. Paul vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Christ Iesus himselfe being the chiefe corner stone By the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles is meant the Propheticall and Apostolicall doctrine as all Expositours that I haue read yea their owne Aquinas and Caietane with one consent auouch and to bee built vpon this foundation is to haue our faith to relye and depend vpon it onely as a house relyeth onely vpon the foundation and without a foundation cannot stand that therefore is no doctrine of faith that is vpholden by any other foundation neither hath that any good foundation which is not built vpon the Propheticall and Apostolicall doctrine they build vpon sand that build vpon humane traditions euery stormy puffe of winde will shake the house of that faith but they which heare the word of Christ and keepe it build vpon a rocke against which neither the raine flouds nor windes no not the gates of hell are able to preuaile because they are grounded vpon the rocke which rocke indeede is Christ to speake properly as not onely S. Peter confesseth 1. Pet. 2. 7. but euen Christ himselfe that is this rocke Math. 16. 18. when hee saith Vpon this rocke will I build my Church that is vpon this truth that Christ is the Sonne of God yet the word of Christ may also be called the rocke because it is as firme and durable as Christ himselfe And that wee may know that Gods word onely is the foundation of faith S. Paul telleth vs plainely that faith is by hearing and hearing by the word of God If any of them say as they doe that the word of God is not onely that which is written in Scripture but that which is vnwritten deliuered by tradition let them shew as good reasons to proue their traditions to be the word of God as we doe to proue the Scripture and we will beleeue them but since they cannot let them beare with vs if we vnderstand the Apostles words as spoken onely touching the written word and the rather because we haue for the warrantize of our interpretation both S. Paul himselfe in the same Chapter verse 8. when he saith This is the word offaith which we preach Where hee sheweth what is that word which is the ground of our faith namely the word preached And S. Peter who hauing magnified the word of God with this commendation that it endureth for euer presently expoundeth himselfe of what word hee spake saying And this is that word which is preached amongst you That is the word of the Gospell which was not in part but wholy and fully as preached by mouth so committed to writing And thus S. Basil also interprets it for he saith Quicquid est vltra scripturas Whatsoeuer is out of the Scriptures diuinely inspired because it is not of faith is sinne for faith is by hearing and hearing by
wine instituted by Christ to put vs in mind of his death and passion bee for such their effectuall representation adored and worshipped with diuine worship as well as Images and pictures for their representation especially seeing they carrie a more exact resemblance and liuely signification of him then any picture can doe Here is a plaine contradiction betwixt the proofe of their Transubstantiation and their doctrine of adoration of Images standing vpon these termes An Image must be worshipped because it representeth the person of Christ but the Sacrament is not to bee worshipped though it represents Christ more fully then any Image except he be corporally and substantially present in it 29. Secondly it is crossed by the Canon of the Masse diuers waies First by the praier that is vsed before the eleuation where the Priest desireth God to behold the same sacrifice with a propitious and fauourable countenance like as the sacrifices of Abel Abraham Melchizedech c. If Christ were really offered by the Priest hee need not pray that God would be propitious to that sacrifice for in him hee is euer well pleased neither can his sacrifice be possibly disrespected of God being of infinite merite and price to satisfie the rigour of his Fathers iustice it were therefore either horrible blasphemy in their Masse to equalize this absolute sacrifice of Christ with the imperfect sacrifices of Abel and Abraham which stood in need of Gods mercifull acceptation or it is false that Christ is really sacrificed in the Masse one of the two must needs be either blasphemy in the Canon of the Masse or falshood in their doctrine of Transubstantiation 30. Againe by another prayer which is vsed in the consecration where the Priest prayeth that God would command those things to be carried by the hands of the holy Angell vp to the high Altar into the sight of the diuine Maiestie Now by these words those things haec cannot bee vnderstood Christ neither in Grammaticall construction nor in any religious sense for in true Grammaticall Latine he should haue said if he had ment Christ either hunc this or hoc viz. sacrificiâ—â— this sacrifice and not haec these things for though the elements be two yet by their own doctrine whole Christ is in each of them and therefore cannot bee spoken of in the plurall number as if he were either diuided in himselfe or multiplied to more then himselfe in the construction of religion it can be no lesse then blasphemy to imagine that an Angell must carry vp Christ into Heauen and present him there vpon the high Altar to the diuine maiestie for it implieth in him either inability or vnwillingnesse to present himselfe to say he is vnable is to deny him to be God and so Almighty and to say he is vnwilling is to deny him to bee our high Priest and Mediatour to whose office it onely pertaineth to offer vp the sacrifices of the faithfull vnder the Gospell as the Priest in the law of Moses might onely offer the sacrifices of the law and enter into the most holy place to make reconciliation for the people so that it remaineth that the composer of the Masse could not vnderstand by haec these things Christ himselfe but the elements Bread and Wine which are a representation and commemoration of that one all-sufficient sacrifice on the Crosse and so either the Masse is erronious or Transubstantiation a false doctrine for if the Masse be true then Transubstantiation is false and if Transubstantiation be true then the Masse is false 31. Thirdly it is crossed by their manifold crossings vsed by the Priest in the Masse for if Christ in person bee really present as a complete sacrifice what neede such signings or crossings by the earthly hands of a sinfull Priest is hee sanctified by them that were blasphemy to thinke He needeth no sanctification being the Holy of holies Is the diuell driuen away by these meanes that is a greater blasphemy to beleeue for hee once conquered the diuell in such sort that he dareth neuer meddle with him any more And yet the blasphemous Iesuites are not afraid to affirme that the diuels may and doe so come neere to their Sacrament that they can both carry it away and abuse it also Surely if this bee true then the diuels know Christ is not there for they durst not come so neere vnto him sacrificed on the Altar by whose true sacrifice on the Crosse they receiued such a deadly wound Lastly is God put in minde of his Sonnes sacrifice on the Crosse by their crossings of him vpon the Altar This is impudency to thinke for Almighty God cannot forget the sacrifice of his owne Sonne neyther can his Crosse bee any whit dignified by their crossings Which way soeuer they turne them here is eyther impietie in their Masse or falsity in their doctrine of Transsubstantiation 32. Thus much touching the contradictions in the Eucharist Now let vs see their concordance in other Articles of their Religion and that with greater breuitie And first in their Article of Iustification therein there lurke foure maine contradictions First they say that the first iustification when a man of vniust and wicked is made iust and good is the free gift of God and deserued by no precedent works and yet they say againe that a man doth prepare and make himselfe fit for this iustification by certayne acts of faith Feare Hope Repentance and the purpose of a new life Yea Bellarmine doth not sticke to say that this faith iustifieth by way of merite and deserueth forgiuenesse of sinnes after a certaine manner And all of them â—each that those dispositions and preparations arise partly from grace and partly from free-will as two seuerall and deuided agents and that it is in the power of mans will eyther to accept that grace of God or to refuse it as hath beene at large discouered in the fourth Reason Now heare the contradictions If it bee meerely Gods free gift then it is no wayes mans free-will and if it bee any waies mans free-will to prepare himselfe then it is not euery way Gods free gift For it is not in this case as in other externall donations the King may giue a pardon freely and yet the prisoner may haue power to receiue or to refuse the pardon because the pardon is one thing and the prisoners will on other but in the iustification of a sinner the gift it selfe is the very change of the minde and the will and the whole man for it is as they say when a sinner is made righteous and an vniust man is made iust and so the will hath no power to reiect it when God effectually giues it nor power to accept it till God alter and change it by his grace And hence it followeth that to say it is Gods free gift and yet that we in part prepare our selues thereunto by our owne free-will implyeth contradiction as also this to
of nature then the Saints are no wayes our Mediatours for if they bee they must bee one of these two wayes vnlesse wee will say that they doe that which belongs not vnto them but like busy-bodies are pragmaticall in anothers charge which farre bee it from vs to thinke of those blessed creatures but both these wayes he sayth Christ is the onely Mediatour therefore the Saints by his owne conclusion are no Mediatours at all 58. His third distinction is that therefore Christ is called the onely Mediatour because hee prayeth for all and none for him but the Saints are such Mediatours that they themselues stand in need of a Mediatour I answere that therefore they are no Mediatours at all for if the Saints in Heauen stand in need of a Mediatour themselues then it must necessarily follow that they are not Mediatours at all for they that are parties cannot bee vmpiers And this is that which Saint Augustine plainely affirmeth though Bellarmine laboureth to distort his words to another sense when he sayth He for whom none intreateth but hee intreateth for all is the onely true Mediatour And thus it is cleare that the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the mediation of Saints is directly contrary to the doctrine of the Gospell 59. The Gospell teacheth that Christ Iesus hath made a full and perfect satisfaction for all our debts and so is our full and perfect Redeemer But the Church of Rome teacheth that Christ hath satisfied but in part for our debts to wit neither for all our sinne nor for all the punishment due vnto all our sinne and so that he is not our full and perfect Redeemer 60. This doctrine of the Gospell is so euidently propounded in holy Scripture that our aduersaries themselues acknowledge it in generall to bee true for Aquinas where the Apostle sayth I suffer all things for the Elects sake that they may also obtaine the saluation which is in Christ Iesus asketh this question What was not the passion of Christ sufficient and answereth to the same Yes as touching the working of saluation And Bayus sayth that there is but one satisfaction onely vnto God and that of Christ yea Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth asmuch in generall for hee affirmeth that the merit of Christ is sufficient to take away all sinne and punishment neither dare any of the rest for shame in plaine words deny the same because if they did many manifest texts of Scripture would conuince them of impiety and heresie 61. And that the other is the doctrine of the Church of Rome the Councill of Trent will witnesse which thus defineth When God forgiueth a sinner hee forgiueth not all the punishment but leaneth the party by his owne workes to satisfie till it bee washed away Yea they affirme not onely that wee our selues must satisfie for the temporall punishment but also for the relikes of sinne and for the fault it selfe yea for that punishment that should bee suffered in hell excepting the eternity yea so impious and shamelesse are some of them whose bookes are notwithstanding authorized by the Church of Rome that they affirme that Christ dyed onely for originall sinne and that the satisfaction of Christ deserueth not the name of a satisfaction for our sinnes Let the world iudge now whether these positions of the Church of Rome bee not flat contrary of the Gospell of Iesus Christ for the Gospell attributeth to Christ all sufficiencie of meriting and satisfaction but these fellowes make him a Satisfier party parpale for the sinne but not the punishment yet not for all our sinnes neither but for a part of them as for originall not actuall or iffor actuall yet for mortall onely and not for veniall And this is the Romish Religion though palliated with the name of Catholicke and hidden from the sight of the common people vnder the vaile of an implicite faith which if they should but see they could not chuse but abhorre 62. For the healing of this wound Bellarmine applyeth his wonted playster of a distinction Christs satisfaction saith he is in vertue sufficient but not in act efficient except it bee applyed by our satisfaction and therefore that there is but one onely actuall satisfaction which is ours which by the grace and efficacy of Christs satisfaction taketh away the punishment of our sinne and maketh a iust recompence to God for the same 63. But this distinction first vndermineth it selfe for if Christs bee a satisfaction then it is an actuall satisfaction if it bee not an actuall one then it is none at all Did not he actually dye and rise againe Did not hee actually by that death of his satisfy Gods iustice for all the Elect Doth not the strength and efficacy ofhis death stretch it selfe backward to Adam and forward to the last beleeuing child of Adam vpon earth If all this bee true then it must needs bee intolerable blasphemy to say that actually there is no satisfaction but our owne and that Christs satisfaction which hee made for our sinnes is indeed no satisfaction except it bee by the meanes of ours which must apply it and as it were giue efficacy vnto it 64. Againe the ground of his distinction is absurd for where doth the Scripture make our satisfaction a meanes to apply Christs satisfaction vnto vs It telleth vs of other meanes of application to wit outward the Word and Sacraments inward faith in respect of vs and the Spirit in respect of God but no where of this new-deuised meanes which they talke of and besides how can our satisfactions apply Christs vnto vs whereas they are both satisfaction and that to God and that for our sinnes Nay when as hee sayth that our satisfaction doth include the satisfaction of Christ in it and so both together make but one compound satisfaction if they be of one naturâ—â— how can one apply the other If they bee one in mixture and composition how is the one seuered from the other These bee absurd inconsequences and irreconciliable 65. Lastly if the strength power of satisfying which is in our sufferings is wholly from the grace of God the vertue of Christs satisfaction why doe some of them hold that a man by power of nature without grace may bee able to satify for Veniall sinnes and expell them nay why doth Bellarmine say that a righteous man hath right to Heauen by a twofold title one of the merits of Christ by grace communicated vnto him and another of his owne merits By which he plainely diuideth our merits from Christ and ascribeth a satisfactory power to them equall to the death of Christ it selfe and that without the helpe of grace Nay why do they not say plainly that Christ hath satisfied for vs without any intermixing of our owne but that their wisedome perceiued that then Purgatory Masses Penance Romish pardons yea and the Popes Kitchin it selfe and the very marrow of all their Pompe shall fall
the child before it bee baptized is in some sort partaker of the Sacrament of Baptisme euen by the faith of the Church which hath vowed him thereunto And Bonauenture as hee is reported by Cassander sayth that infants are disposed vnto Baptisme not according to any act of their owne but according to the act of other because the mercie of God imputeth to them as their owne will the will of another Insants therefore stand still in as good case in euery respect as men of yeares if not in better both being vnbaptized and the one dedicated to God by their owne desire the other by the purpose desire of the Church and therefore either these may bee saued aswell as they or else God is not so mercifull to them as to these which is no lesse then impietie to thinke and blasphemie to pronounce 38. Another wicked consequence that followeth vpon this doctrine is that it maketh God the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost euen that blessed Trinitie that is the fountaine of all truth and goodnesse to be lyars and teachers of vntruth For God the Father sayth to Abraham I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed And that this is not to bee vnderstood of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh onely to wit the Iewes but much more of his seed according to the Spirit which are faithfull Christians may appeare both by that which is in the verie same place where it is called an euerlasting couenant and by Saint Pauls testimonie who affirmeth that the blessing of Abraham was to come on the Gentiles through Christ Iesus aswell as on the Iewes God the Sonne sayth Suffer little children to come vnto me for of such is the Kingdome of Heauen plainly affirming that the Kingdome of Heauen is pertaining to little children and not barred vp against any as our Romanists teach it is against such little ones as dye without baptisme Our Sauiour saith without exception that the Kingdome of Heauen belongeth vnto them they as it were to make him a lyar bring in an exception and say that except they bee baptized not Heauen but Lymbus belongeth vnto them And the holy Ghost by the mouth of Saint Paul sayth That the children of beleeuing Parents are holy the reason is because the root is holy and therefore the branch must needs be holy and if children may be holy before they be baptized then by the same rule they may goe to Heauen before they be baptized for as no man without holinesse can see God so with holinesse none can be banished out of the sight of God And thus this doctrine giueth the lye to euery person of the blessed Trinitie 39. If they say that it is our Sauiours doctrine that except a man be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost hee cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heauen and therefore all those generall promises are to bee restrained by this exception if they bee baptized I answere out of Bellarmine that God is not tyed to his Sacraments but can saue them by his especiall grace as also witnesse diuers others of their learned Doctours And therefore whereas our Sauiour saith Except a man be borne againe c. it must needs be vnderstood by another exception to wit of cases of necessitie where Baptisme cannot be obtained and is not contemned for not the want but the contempt of Baptisme is damnable 40. The third and last inconuenience that ariseth from this doctrine is that it is the mother of diuers strange paradoxes and grosse absurdities as not onely of Lay mens Baptisme yea of Pagans and that in scorne but also of changing the true element into lee or broth or puddle water and that which is most strange of baptizing the childe in the mothers wombe before it bee borne or ripping vp the mothers belly in case the child be in danger of death c. some of all which absurdities are held by them all and all by some Is it not then more safe to hold that opinion which is more respectiue to Gods glorie agreeable to Christian charitie and free from all these dangerous consequences 41. To conclude omitting many other of their doctrines which might easily bee shewne to stand in the same case of dangerous tenure and hath in part alreadie beene manifested as their doctrine of set fasts implicite faith veniall sins dispensations with others more I propound for the last instance that doctrine of doctrines the verie groundcell of their ruinous Religion touching the veritie authoritie and singularitie of their Church which they vaunt and bragge to be the onely true Catholike Church of Christ and to haue a preeminence ouer the Scriptures and without the which to be no possibilitie of saluation that there is no safetie in these positions many reasons will euince as first if it should bee true that out of the bounds of that Church none could bee saued then those famous Churches of Asia which were in Pope Victors time that opposed themselues against the predominance of the Church of Rome were all damned wherein flourished many holy Martyrs that gaue vp their liues for the testimonie of Iesus Then Saint Cyprian and all the Bishops of Carthage to the number of fourescore that in a Councell at Carthage set themselues against Pope Stephen and his Councell were damned and Saint Cyprian must bee no longer a Martyr but a Schismaticke and then S. Augustine with the whole Church of Africa and troupes of Martyrs and Confessors should not bee crowned with blisse but tormented in hell for they reiected the yoke of the Bishop of Romes authoritie and would not admit that any should make appeales from them to Rome This horrible and vncharitable inconuenience doth arise from that dismall doctrine The Church of Rome is the onely Catholike Church and out of it there is no hope of saluation now that these holy and heauenly Martyrs and Confessors of Iesus Christ were out of it appeareth by their most receiued definitions of a Catholike and a Schismaticke A Catholike faith Bellarmine is he that is subiect to the one Pastor the Pope whereby hee makâ—th the essentiall forme of a Catholike to be his vnion and coniunction with his head the Pope and a Schismatike sayth Tollet is hee that doth separate himselfe from the head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ I assume but Cyprian Augustine and those other famous Bishops did not acknowledge any subiection to the Pope but separated themselues from his dominion therefore they were by their doctrine no Catholickes but Schismatickes and consequently out of the Church and so out of saluation a damnable conclusion 42. Secondly they peremptorily auouch that none of vs being not members of their Church can bee saued we on the contrarie charitably beleeue that many of them that are ignorantly members of their Church if they hold the foundation of Iesus Christ and depend vpon his merits not their owne