are enabled to merit and partly by vertue of Gods promise whereby hee hath engaged himselfe to crowne those merits with glory which he hath wrought in vs by grace to which double obiection I returne this double answere First if all good workes issue from the roote of grace as they doe indeede then how can we merit thereby seeing that which doth merit must bee our owne and not anothers especially his of whom we looke to merit So saith Hilary it is for him to merit who himselfe is to himselfe the Author of getting his merit and therfore if it be true which they affirme that Gods grace is the onely fountaine of all good workes as without doubt it is it is so farre from following thence that therefore our workes are meritorious that it followeth by mere necessary consequence that therefore they are not meritorious And this conclusion is made by diuers of the ancient Fathers themselues We haue nothing to reioyce or glory of saith S. Cyprian therefore nothing to merit because we haue nothing of our owne The merits of men are not such saith S. Bernard as that life eternall by right is owing for them and why because all merits are the gifts of God and so man is rather a debter to God for them then God to man And S. Augustine Eternall life should be rendred as due vnto thee if of thy selfe thou hadst the righteousnesse to which it is due but now of his fulnesse wee receiue not onely grace now to liue iustly in our labours to the end but also grace for this grace that afterward wee may liue in rest without rest So then if our good works arise only frō Gods grace this maketh plaine against all merit as they know well enough and therfore behold their fraud and the mysterie of iniquity though they shadow the matter with goodly words of grace and mercy yet vpon free-will they hang the vertue and effect of this grace and from that fountaine doe they deriue vnto man all this merit which they talke so much of and so howsoeuer they ascribe vnto Gods grace the cause of merit yet in very deede with them it is free-will that maketh a worke meritorious 31. Secondly I answere that when God doth promise to reward our workes with eternall life eternall life is due to vs but not for our workes sake but for his promise sake for many things are due by promise which haue no reference to any desert As if the King should promise one of his seruants a thousand pound of his mere liberality for keeping a Hawke he is bound to pay him so much but is it from the seruants desert or from the Kings bounty So God promiseth eternall life to our workes and by reason of his promise wee may challenge it as our due but yet it is not for our worke but for his word sake as Saint Augustine confesseth when he saith God is become a debter not by receiuing any thing from vs but by promising what it pleased him therfore a reward giuen by promise is so far frō importing desert that it rather ouerthroweth the very foundation thereof by being a worke of mercy as the same Augustine saith in another place The promise is sure not according to our merits but according to his mercy The doctrine of merit then vndermineth the mercy of God which way so euer they turne themselues whether to grace as the cause of the worke or to Gods promise as the cause of the reward 32. Againe by this doctrine not onely the mercy of God is darkened but also the merits of Christ quite euacuated and made of no force for if Christs merits were sufficient what neede there then any supply of our owne if our owne merits be necessarily required then Christs merits were not sufficient If Christs merits were perfect then mans merits cannot be added vnto them for that is perfect to which nothing can be added but if mans merits must bee added to them then it followeth that Christs were not perfect and so no merits at all for this property is required in a merit that it bee perfect and so either they must denie the necessity of our meriting or confesse the vnsufficiencie of Christ either they must acknowledge Christs merits to be vnperfect or ours to be vnnecessarie yea none at all I but they will say Christ did not onely merit the pardon of our sinnes but also that our workes should be meritorious of life euerlasting and by this sat they are Christs merits more magnified then by vs because the greater the gift is the greater is the glory of the giuer so that our meriting doth not argue any want in his merits but rather proue a greater efficacie to be in them for to this end will hee haue vs to merit partly that we may shew our selues like vnto him and partly to traine vs vp in good workes by this spurre All these are but shifts and indeede mere cauils for first to say that Christ did not alone merit for vs eternall life but also grace that so we might merit eternall life for our selues what is it but to make vs our owne Sauiours for all our merits come from grace and free-will ioyned together as hath beene shewne and grace is nothing with them except free-will concurre with it for they teach that we may receiue it if we will and when we haue it we may merit if we will eternall life or else goe without it What is this I say but to affirme that a man is not saued by Christs merits but that by the helpe of grace hee doth saue himselfe by his owne merits and so they shoue Christ out of his office and put themselues in his roome 33. Secondly I answere that the efficacie of Christs merits is greater in purchasing eternall life for vs by himselfe alone then in giuing vs ablenesse to merit it for our selues because it is a greater glory and a token of greater power to effect a thing immediatly without meanes then by the mediation or vsurpation of any meanes whatsoeuer In the former all the honour is to the worker in the later there must needes be some glory ascribed to the meanes and some power attributed vnto them and therefore to say that Christ hath onely merited by himselfe without vs eternall life for vs is to giue the entire and perfect glory vnto him and none vnto our selues and to affirme that hee merited to make our workes meritorious is to derogate from his glory and to detract from the efficacie of his death and passion 34. And here we may see the vanity of Bellarmines assertion who to proue that by this doctrine of theirs they ascribe more efficacie to Christs merits then we doe bringeth in this similitude Sicut quòd Deus c. that is As in that God vseth the Sunne to lighten the world fire to heat it ayre and raine to refresh it is not an argument of weakenesse in
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
Christs merits and so they attribute asmuch or more to grace and Christs merites then wee doe To which I answere two things first if they held that these workes were merely from grace they said something to the purpose but affirming as they doe that they are partly from grace and partly from the power of free-will as two ioynt causes this their something is nothing but a vizard to couer the vgly face of their errour Secondly let this be granted that their doctrine is that they proceede onely from grace neuerthelesse being wrought in man and acted by man they must needes bee called and be indeede in part mans workes because man doth cooperate with grace and therefore to make them meritorious absolutely of grace must needes tend in part to the exalting of mans dignitie and consequently in part to the impeachment of Gods For let an answere bee giuen to this question by what meanes doth a man continue in iustice and encrease in holinesse Wee answere with Saint Paul By the grace of God onely who as hee hath begun that good worke in vs so will performe it vntill the day of Iesus Christ but the Romanists will answere that this is done by the merit of our owne workes which workes howsoeuer they may colour the matter by saying they are works of grace and receiue power froÌ„ Christs merits yet being the works of man also by the power of his free-will who seeth not but that Gods glory is greatly blemished hereby and mans worth extolled 21. Thirdly touching the forme of iustification which of vs doth most honour to God they which teach that it is an inherent righteousnesse habituated in vs or wee that say that it is Christs righteousnesse imputed vnto vs wee attribute all vnto Christ and nothing to our selues they share the matter betwixt Christ and our selues for this inherent righteousnesse though it proceede from Gods spirit as they say and is a worke of grace yet in three respects it may bee called our righteousnesse by their doctrine first in respect of the roote and spring of it which is as they affirme partly grace and partly nature Secondly in respect of the subiect which is the soule of man which may bee also called the instrument by which it is effected and that not a dead subiect or liuelesse instrument as we say mans nature is till it be liued and quickned by Gods spirit but of it selfe liuing and quicke and fit for so great a worke Thirdly In respect of the medium or meane by which it is attained which they hold is the merit of our owne workes as I haue sufficiently discouered out of their owne bookes Now then if this inherent righteousnesse bee in part our owne and not wholy Christs but the righteousnesse imputed be wholy and entirely Christs and not in any respect ours saue that it is giuen vnto vs and made ours by imputation who can doubt but that this our doctrine is farre more auaileable for the aduancement of Christs glory and debasing of mans excellencie then theirs is Adde herevnto that it must needes be a dishonour to God to say that an vnperfect a polluted and a stayned righteousnesse such as the best of ours is can satisfie the absolute and most exact iustice of God but it is an extolling glory to Gods iustice to say that it cannot be answered but by the most perfect and absolute righteousnesse that euer was in the world such as the righteousnesse of the Sonne of God is who taking our flesh vpon him performed in the same all righteousnesse that the strictest iustice of God required for our sakes 22. All which things layd together and diligently weighed we may see what caused all the Saints of God when they came to plâ—ad their causes before the tribunal of Gods iudgement to disclaime all their owne righteousnesse and to lay fast hold vpon the righteousnes of Christ the Mediatour and the mercies of God in him who is the fountaine of all mercy euen this because they perceiued that by this deiecting and despoyling of themselues of all worthinesse Gods glory was greatly magnified as also when they examined their best workes by the rule of the law their owne consciences told them that they were not able to abide the trial if they should bee weighed in the ballance of iustice and not of mercy Therefore this is the common voyce of all Gods Saints Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified to which in a sweet harmony accord all the Fathers Who will glory concerning his righteousnesse saith Origen seeing he heareth God saying by his Prophet All your righteousnesse is as a cloth of a menstruous woman our perfection it selfe is not voyd of fault saith Gregory vnlesse the seuere Iudge doe weigh it mercifully in the subtill scales of his iustice Who so liueth here howsoeuer iustly he liue yet woe vnto him saith S. Augustine if God enter into iudgement with him if our iustice be strictly iudged saith S. Bernard it will bee found vniust and scant And this infallible truth wrâ—ng out of Bellarmine himselfe though vnawares this plaine confession Tutissimum est in sola Dei misericordia conquiescere c. that is it is the safest course to repose our confidence what in our owne righteousnesse no in the sole mercy of God Is it the safest course for mans saluation so is it for the aduancement of Gods glory for the one is subordinate to the other who then that hath but common sense will not chuse rather to repose the hope of his saluation on Gods mercy then on his owne righteousnesse at least-wise if hee regard either Gods glory which all should and that aboue all or his owne soules health which should be next to the other in our desires 23. By this it may appeare what a vaine bragge that is of some of them who boast that they doe much more magnifie Christ and his merits then we doe because wee make them say they so meane as that they serue the turne onely to couer and hide sinne whereas they contrariwise do so highly esteeme them that they hold them able both to purchase at Gods hand an inherent righteousâ—esse and to giue it such force and value that it can make a man iust before God and worthy of the kingdome of heauen In which braue vaunt there lye lurking no lâ—sse then three grosse absurdities First they lay a false â—mputaâ—ion vpon our doctrine that wee should hold Christs merits to be so meane as to serue onely to couer and hide sinne whereas wee expresly teach and that with one consent that for the merits of Christ not onely our sinnes are pardoned but also that grace is inspired into our soules and sanctification and new obedience and Christ is made vnto vs of God wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption by which it appeareth that we ascribe euen as much in this
are the fights exercises of the iust And Origen That which is to the iust the exercise of vertue is to the vniust the punishment of sin And Tertullian The plagues of the world are to one for punishment to the other for admonition aduertisement and this is the very substance of our doctrine 38. As for our aduersaries they blush not to affirme euen the Councill of Trent it selfe that when God forgiueth a sinner yet he forgiueth not all the punishment but leaueth the party by his owne workes to satisfie till it bee washed away and that the bloud of Christ doth not serue to acquite vs from the temporall punishment but that we must acquite our selues either by our owne works as prayer almes fasting c. or by our suffrings either in this life or in Purgatory Yes some of the chiefest of them are bold to auouch that the recōpence made by satisfaction respecteth not only the temporall punishment but some part of the offence also and the wrath of God And others say That a sinner by the grace of God may satisfie for his sinne condignely and equally and by that satisfaction obtaine pardon And that which is more then all the rest some of them affirme without blushing that Christ by his sacrifice on the Crosse satisfied onely for originall sinne and not for actuall after Baptisme Bellarmine indeed is ashamed of this doctrine as he might well bee but yet it is plainely maintained by Gregorie de Valentia And this in briefe is the dunghill of Popish satisfactions from whence steame forth like vapours their Purgatorie and Pardons and Penance and much more such like trumpery 39. But let vs leaue them to their manifold errours and come to the examination of this one poynt whether they or we bring more dishonour to the Crosse of Christ And to the purpose first the very nature of satisfaction which as they affirme is the yeelding of a sufficient recompence to God for a trespasse committed is inough to prooue that their doctrine tends to the singular impeachment of the Crosse of Christ for if Christ hath made a full and perfect satisfaction vpon the Crosse as without all doubt he did he himselfe contesting in that his last speech It is finished then what neede any addition of humane satisfactions If there be such a necessity of humane satisfactions as they make then Christs satisfaction must needs be imperfect and so no satisfaction at all for an imperfect satisfaction is no satisfaction as the very word it selfe implyeth importing a sufficient recompence to be made to the party offended And if it be perfect it must be full and absolute that is such as needeth nothing else to be added vnto it But they require something to be added to Christs satisfaction and therefore must needs hold that it is not a full perfect and absolute satisfaction for it implyeth a manifest contradiction to affirme any thing to be a full and perfect cause of it selfe alone and yet to adde another to it as a ioynt cause to produce the same effect 40. But they will answere that mans satisfaction is not to supply the want of Christs but to apply it vnto vs and to fulfill his will and ordinance for Christs satisfaction say they is of infinite value and might aswell haue taken away the temporall punishment as the eternall but that God will haue it otherwise for the mortifying of sinne in vs and making vs conformable to Christ our head This answere of theirs may seeme to carry a shew of sound reason but in very deed it is but a shift and a golden couer to blanch the vglinesse of their doctrine for it were odious for them to say plainely that Christs satisfaction stood in need of a supply or was any wayes imperfect and therefore they would not haue men to thinke so of them though in truth they both thinke and speake so of Christ when they a little forget what they are a doing and by infallible consequence their doctrine concludeth no lesse for plaine speech thus writeth Gabriel Biel Though the passion of Christ be the principall merit for which the grace of God and the opening of heauen and the glory thereof be giuen yet it is neither the sole nor totall meritorious cause but alwaies there concurreth some worke of him that receiueth the grace And Miletus Christ indeed is the generall cause of our saluation but yet particular causes are to be added to this and so he is not the totall and whole cause And Bellarmine himselfe by consequence confesseth as much when he saith that a righteous man hath right to the Kingdome of heauen by a two-fold title one of the merits of Christ another of his owne merits These bee plaine speeches and shew what their meaning is so that howsoeuer they gloze ouer the matter with goodly words yet it is nothing but poyson in a painted boxe wherewith the ignorant may be infected but the skilfull are able to discerne their fraud And here obserue the contrariety of Bellarmines speech to another saying of S. Bernard to the same purpose Christ saith Saint Bernard hath a double right vnto the kingdome of heauen one by inheritance as he is the Sonne of God another by purchase as he bought it by his death the first he keepeth to himselfe this latter he imparts to his members This by S. Bernards Diuinitie is all the right that a faithfull man hath to the kingdome of heauen by Christs purchase and vpon this onely doth that good man and all other of Gods children relie but Bellarmine giueth him another title to wit by purchase of his owne merits which as it is a straine of his owne wit so let him keepe it to himselfe and make merry with it for wee will haue nothing to doe with it 41. As for that which they say that our satisfactions serue not to supply the want but to apply the efficacie of Christs vnto vs is a more ridiculous and shifting deuice then the other for first how can that be when as sinne is first pardoned which is by the satisfaction of Christ and then long after commeth our satisfaction if not in this life yet sure in Purgatorie The applying of a thing is a present act arising betwixt the agent and the patient therefore if our satisfaction doe apply Christs vnto our soules then it followeth that Christ hath not satisfied for our sinnes till wee haue satisfied for the temporall punishment of them which is flat contrarie to their owne principles Secondly that which applieth hath relation to that which is applied as to the obiect but our satisfaction hath no relation to Christs satisfaction as the obiect but is onely referred to the temporall punishment and to the iustice of God as they affirme therefore it cannot apply it vnto vs. And lastly how dissonant is it vnto reason that a satisfaction should apply a satisfaction as if one medicine
it is Romish is not the true Catholique Religion of CHRIST but the seduction of Antichrist THE PREAMBLE THat which Ireneus an ancient and godly Father of the Church speaketh of all Heretickes that all the Helleborus in the world is not sufficient to purge them that they may vomit out their follie may truely be spoken of the Church of Rome and her adherents that it is a difficult matter if not almost impossible to reclaime her from her errors and to heale her wounds All the balme of Gilead will not do it nor all the spirituall phisicke that can be ministred for there are two sinnes which of all other are most hard to bee relinquished Whoredome and Drunkennesse the one because it is so familiar and naturall to the flesh the other because it breedeth by custome such an vnquenchable thirst in the stomacke as must euer anon be watered with both which spirituall diseases the Church of ROME is infected She is the Whore of Babylon with whome the Kings of the Earth haue committed fornication and who hath made drunke with the Wine of her fornications all the Inhabitants of the Earth In regard of the first Ieremie prophecied of her that though paines be taken to heale her yet shee could not be healed And in regard of the second Saint Paul prophecied that GOD would send them strong delusion that they should beleeue lies that all they might bee damned that receiued not the loue of the truth Notwithstanding though the hope bee as little of the reclaiming of most of them as of turning an Eunuch into a man or making a blacke Moore white yet I haue propounded in this discourse a strong potion compounded of ingredients which if they bee not past cure may purge and cleanse them of their disease and reduce them to the sanity of Christian Religion Which if their queasie stomackes shall eyther refuse to take or hauing taken shall vomit vp againe and not suffer them to worke vpon their consciences yet this benefit will arise that God shall be glorified the truth manifested and all that loue the truth confirmed and they also themselues that are so drowned in error that they will rather pull in others ouer head and eares vnto them and so drowne together then be drawne out of the myre by any helpe shall be conuinced in their consciences of their most grosse apostacie With this confidence towards Gods glorie and the good of his Church though with little hope of recouering them from their obdurate blindnesse I enter into my intended taske desiring the Lord to giue a blessing to these poore labours which I consecrate to my Lord and Master Iesus Christ whom I serue and the Church his Spouse of which I professe my selfe to bee one of the meanest members MOTIVE I. That Religion which in many points giueth libertie to sinne is not the truth but such is the Religion of the Church of ROME ergo c. THe first proposition is an vndoubted truth and needs no confirmation especially seeing S. Iames describeth true Religion by these attributes pure and vndefiled And S. Paul calleth it the mysterie of godlinesse and the doctrine according to godlinesse And herein consisteth an essentiall difference betwixt the true Religion and all false ones so that it must needs follow that that Religion which is essentially the cause and occasion of sinne and openeth a wide window to vngodlinesse cannot be the truth of God but must needs fetch it beginning from the deuill who is the author of all euill The Gospell indeede may by accident be the occasion of euill as S. Paul saith The law is the occasion of sinne for it stirs vp contention and strife and discouers the corruptions of Mans heart and by opposing against them as a damme against a streame makes them to swell and boyle and burst forth beyond the bounds howbeit here the cause is not in the Gospell or Lawe but in the corruption of mans heart which the more it is stirred the more it rageth and striueth to shew it selfe But neuer yet was the doctrine of godlinesse the cause of wickednesse nor the pure and vndefiled Religion of Christ Iesus an essentiall procurer and prouoker vnto sinne 3. This therefore being thus manifest all the question and difficultie remaineth in the second proposition to wit that the Religion of the Romish Church is such as openeth a gappe vnto sinne and giueth notorious libertie and scope to vngodlinesse and that not by way of accident or occasion but necessarily as the cause to the effect Qua data necessariò soquitur effectus as the Logicians speake and therefore being an â—npure and defiled Religion and the mysterie of iniquitie not the mysterie of godlinesse it cannot be that true Religion which Christ our Sauiour brought with him from heauen and left here vpon earth blamelesse and vnspotted like himselfe to be the way to lead vs vnto heauen where hee is 4. That the Romish Religion is a polluted and defiled Religion tending to libertie and loosenesse Let the indifferent Reader iudge by these few instances deriued out of the verie bowels of their Church and being articles of their faith and grounds of their Religion And first to beginne with their doctrine of dispensations whereby they teach that the Pope hath power to dispense with the word of God and with euery commandement of the Law and not onely with the Law but with the Gospell and Epistles of Paul to what horrible loosenesse and lewdnesse of life doth it tend for to omit that it containeth in it open blasphemie by their owne rule which is that In praecepto superioris non debet dispensare inferior the inferiour may not dispense with the precept of the superiour by which the Pope dispensing with Gods lawe is not oneâ—y equalled but exalted aboue God what sinne is there bee it neuer so hainous which there is not libertie giuen to commit by this licencious doctrine 5. Incest But Pope Martin the first gaue a dispensation to one to marrie his owne sister and not his wiues sister only as some of the Romish crue would dawbe ouer this filthie wall because it is in Antoninus Cum quadam eius germana for Siluester Prieriâ— Bartholomeus Fumus and Angelus de Clauafio speake more plainely Cumsua germana that is with his owne naturall sister Another Pope dispensed with Henry the eight to marrie his sister in law and with Philip of Spaine to marrie his owne Niece and Clement the 7. licenced Petrus Aluaradus the Spaniard to marrie two sisters at once and no maruaile seeing it is the very doctrine of the Romish Church that the Pope can dispense in all the degrees of Consanguinitie and Affinitie saue onely with the Father and his daughter and with the Mother and her Son Sodometrie But Pope Sixtus the fourth licensed the Cardinall of Saint Lucie and his familie to vse freely that sinne not to bee named in the
200. some 300. Benefices most of which they neuer saw nor knew nor regarded how they were serued or starued what doth hee but shew himselfe rather a Wolfe than a Shepheard This kind of dispensation Saint Bernard in his time calleth a dissipation And Iohn Picas the famous Earle of Mâ—randula in an Oration to Pope Leo the 10. complaineth of as a notorious corruption in the Church in his dayes Now then to conclude the poynt if to maintaine Incest Sodometry adultery fornication periury disobedience to Parents rebellion against Princes and murther be not to giue licence to most horrible and foule sinnes lâ—t all men iudge and then consider what that Religion is to be iudged of which giueth either open or secret dispensation to all these 10. This is the first Romish doctrine directly tending to liberty A second nothing inferiour to the former is their doctrine of popish pardons and Indulgences a doctrine indeed full of all licentiousnes stuft with impiety and letting the reynes loose to all manner of villany For thus they teach that the Pope being Christs Vicar heere on earth hath the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen in custody to admit in by Indulgence or to shut out by excommunication as hee shall see cause and that the merits of Martyrs to wit their workes of supererogation which they haue more then they need for their owne saluation which mixt with the merites of Christ they call the treasure of the Church are to bee dispensed and disposed at his pleasure 11. The limits and largenes of these pardons they stretch so farre that they make them of more force then the death and passion of Christ for as they teach Christs death freeth onely a culpa aterna poena that is from the guilt of the fault and the eternall punishment due vnto it but not a poena temporali from the temporall punishment but these popish pardons acquit and discharge both from the guilt and from the punishment temporall and eternall as some of them affirme and they that mince it finest from the guilt and temporall punishment so that Christs passion commeth short of his Vicars pardon and the seruant can doe more then the Master by their Religion for though the efficacie of these pardons dependeth vpon the merits of Christ yet that is but in part for the Saints merits must be mixed with them or else they alone make no good medicine and the Pope must dispence them or else they are of no value Neither doe they firetch onely to those that are aliue but to the dead also And that not onely in Purgatory but in Hell Out of both which places say they both the suburbs and the Citie the Pope is able to deliuer whom he pleaseth and place them in heauen the seate of the blessed this is the opinion of diuers of them Antoninus the Archbishop of Florence auoucheth almost as much leauing out hell for he saith that the Pope in respect of his absolute iurisdiction may absolue all that are in Purgatory and empty the prison at once marke his reasons for sayth he seeing Gregory by his prayer discharged Traiane from the paine of hell which is infinite Therfore much more may the Pope by communication of indulgences absolue all that are in Purgatory from that punishment which is but finite And for asmuch as Christ may take away all paine therefore the Pope also who is his Vicar may These be the Archbishops goodly reasons the one whereof is meere foolish and friuolous the other blasphemous but howsoeuer it be yet thousands of ignorant persons haue receiued these as their Creed and by them beene seduced to the vtter ruine and destruction of their soules 12. And to that height of impudency are these pardon-mongers growne that they stocke not to promise plenary remission of all sinnes to all that either come on pilgrimage to Rome or miscarry in their iourney or that visite the holy places there especially the 7. priuiledged Churches promising to some 50. to some a 100. to some 3000. yeares of pardon Yea Boniface the eight granted of his bountifull liberality 82000. yeares pardon for euery time saying a prayer of S. Augustine printed in a Table at Venice and that toties quoties Iohn the 22. granted twentie yeres pardon to euery one that doth but bow his head at the naming of Iesus Here is a notable pardon indeed a man may in one day prouide for millions of ages and not onely for himselfe but to helpe his friends out of Purgatory Besides all this their holy Father the Pope vseth to consecrate and hallow an infinite number of Crucifixes and Medailes and Agnus Dei's Holy graines or Beads and such like trash and send them abroad into the world that whosoeuer weareth one of them about him if he bee at the poynt of death and say but in his heart the name Iesus shall haue a plenary and full forgiuenesse of all his sins 13. But what should I rake any deeper into this filthy puddle I might spend much time and trauaile in deciphering the infinite and grosse absurdities of this monstrous doctrine the very naming whereof is a sufficient confutation I referre the Reader to others that haue amply discouered these secrets of the whore of Babylon But to returne to the poynt Is not this a doctrine I pray you of licentiousnesse who would feare to sinne when pardon may be obtayned at so low a rate for bowing the head saying ouer a short prayer visiting a Church creeping to a Crosse wearing a Crucifixe pardon may be purchased for sinnes without number and that for yeares without number What is the height of liberty if this be not But yet they ascend higher for there is a great Mart of all these Indulgences at Rome there you may haue them at a very lowe price rather then goe without yea cheaper than any other ware and lest Rome should seeme too farre to fetch them thence there are petty markets and faires of them in euery Country and the Pedlers that carry about this trash are the Priests and Iesuites Leo the tenth sent Tâ—â—elius about with his Pardons offering to euery one for the payment of tenne shillings and not a penny vnder to set at liberty the soule of any one which they should name in Purgatory And of late it is sayd that the Iesuites brought into England Agnus Dei's by thousands which they sold at what rate they list to poore seduced Papists Peroun the French Cardinall brought with him from Rome many such hallowed and holy things as some say by the sale thereof to helpe to defray his charges which he was at in that costly iourney 14. What should I name vnto you their odious marchandize and setting to sale of all manner of sinne called taxa poenitentiaria Apostolica whereby impunity is graunted to euery sinne be it neuer so grieuous so the party payeth according to the rate for his
those marke you Romanists that say Let vs doe euill that good may come thereof whose damnation is iust 15. Their other reasons are vaine and idle for what greater liberty can they desire then to be authorized by the head of the Church who cannot erre as they teach and to follow their filthy lusts by letters Patents froÌ„ his vnholynesse for so here it iustly deserueth to be tituled And is this the way to reclaime conuert them froÌ„ their filthines to dwell in gorgious houses to ride opeÌ„ly in goodly chariots to be apparelled like Princes to haue atteÌ„ding on them men clad in braue attire with chaines of gold and costly ornaments yea to be maintained by the Pope and often visited by his Holynesse and his great Cardinals if this be the way to reclaime them let all men of sound sense and reason iudge indifferently 16. Lastly whether it be a meanes to stoppe the course of lust and to refraine whoredomes from spreading farre and wide let vs against Augustine oppose Saint Basill who expounding these words of the Psalme And hath not sit in the chaire of pestilence saith That whoredome stayeth not it selfe in one man but inuadeth a whole Citie for some one comming to an harlot taketh to himselfe a fellow and the same also seekth another fellow and so as a fire being kindled in a Citie stayeth not in the burning one house or two but spreadeth farre and wide and draweth a great destruction with it so this mischiefe being once kindled rangeth ouer all the Citie Oppose also to him Saint Ambrose who writing vpon the 119. Psalme thus sayth Who can nourish burning â—â—ales in his bosome and not bee burnt with them So how can harlots be nourished in a Citie and young men not bee corrupted with wheredome Yea oppose Tertullian also who affirmeth plainely That all Brothel-houses are detestable before God And lastly Iustinian the Emperour who in his Authentikes in the Title De Lenonibus willeth that harlots should bee vtterly banished out of the Citie and sorroweth because hee saw Brothel-houses so nigh vnto the Churches of God And indeed if it were true that it is a meane to restraine whoredome why is it not then restrained at Rome by that meanes I am sure they haue their Stewes And yet Mantuan doubteth not to affirme that for all their Stewes confined into one place Vrbs estiam tota lupanar The whole Citie was become a Stewes To conclude all in one briefe Sylogisme That Religion which is contrary to the Religion of God cannot bee of God but of the Deuill but the Romish Religion in this one poynt is contrary to the Religion of God for the Scripture saith There shall be no whore in Israel the Romanists say There must be whores in Israel that is in the Church for the auoyding of a further mischiefe then which what can be more contradictorie therefore the Romish religion cannot be of God but of the diuell I meane in those poynts wherein it thus crosseth the truth of God 17. But doe they stay at adultery and simple fornication No their religion maintaineth open and notorious incest and such as the better sort of the heathen abominated and this they doe by three doctrines first by that which giueth allowance at least wise toleration to common Stewes and brothel-houses for the auoyding of a further mischiefe as I haue declared in the former Section for Stewes cannot be tolerated but incest also needs must not onely be occasioned but euen after a sort approued the reason is because often it commeth to passe that the Father and the Sonne or two brethren and neere kindred are defiled with one and the same woman and so vnnaturall and horrible incest prohibited by the lawes of God and man is commited And albeit oftentimes this is a thing secret and vnknowne vnto them yet it doth not wash their consciences from the guilt of this foule crime because they are bound to know in what degree she is vnto them of whome they dare presume to haue carnall knowledge And besides the act it selfe being meerely vnlawfull doth take away all excuse together with a secret suspition they should haue if they be not wilfully ignorant that such a thing might be For if that rule of Saint Augustine bee good Vitandum est licitum propter vicinitatem illiciti that which is lawfull is often to be auoyded for the contiguity and neerenesse it hath with that which is vnlawfull how much more is this true that a thing vnlawfull in it owne nature is to be prohibited and auoyded not onely because it is vnlawfull but much more if it bring with it apparaÌ„t feare of a greater mischiefe Now that affinitie is contracted and therefore incest committed not onely by lawfull marriage but also by vnlawfull copulation I thinke no man doubteth seeing that Saint Paul plainely affirmeth That hee which cleaueth to an harlot is made one flesh with her And their owne law sayth that it skils not whether the kindred descendeth from the lawfull marriages or otherwise 18. Their second doctrine maintaining Incest is their opinion touching the Popes power in dispensations for they hold that hee being Christs Vicar on earth may dispense in degrees expresly prohibited by Gods law and so hath and doth if occasion be offered by vertue of this dissipation so it may better be termed with Saint Bernard then dispensation the King of Spaine and Charles the Arch. Duke of Austria married each of them their sisters daughters And Petrus Aluaradus married two sisters at once and such like as you may see more at large in the former demonstration What is this I pray you but to allowe and authorize incest when as they ascribe vnto their holy Father the Pope authority to dispense with it for according to the old rule in Logike Causa causae est causa causati which is the cause of the cause must needes bee also the cause of the effect when as their doctrine therfore vpholds the Popes power to dispense and this power to dispense brings forth Incest a bastardly brat by consequeÌ„t their doctrine must necessarily stand guilty â—f being the first moouer thereof 19. The third doctrine by which this soule sinne is authorized is the generall opinion of the Church touching the extent of degrees of Consanguinity prohibited in marriage for albeit in former ages it was forbidden to marrie within the seuenth degree yet in the Councill of Laterane that Pontificall constitution was abrogated and the prohibition of marriage restrained to the fourth degree inclusiuely so that beyond the fourth degree it might be lawfull for any to marry without exception Which constitution is at this day held for Authenticall and is of force in the Romane Church now this doth giue manifest allowance vnto Incest for whether the supputation be made after the rule of the Ciuill law by generations or of the Canon law by persons yet so â—e
dead and therefore lesse glory ascendeth vnto God by their doctrine then by ours But what doe I say lesse when indeed to giue any part of the Creators glory to the creature is vtterly to take all from the Creator for hee will haue all or none as Tertullian notably obserueth when he saith That true faith requireth this in defending the true God that whatsoeuer is his we make it onely his for so shall it bee accounted his if it bee accounted onely his by which rule the faith of the Romane Church cannot bee the true faith 12. And againe according to the second ground if to giue all the glory to God and none to our selues sauour of humility but to deuide stakes betwixt God and our selues hath a taste of pride then it must needs follow that God is more honoured by the one then by the other because by humility God is honoured and by pride dishonoured and therefore the Apostle saith that hee resisteth the proud and giueth grace to the humble for what cause but because the proud man seeketh his owne glory whereas the humble deuesteth himselfe of all and layeth it downe at the foote of God the proud man reioyceth in himselfe but the humble reioyceth in the Lord alone according as it is written Let him that reioyceth reioyce in the Lord. Now the Romanists that magnifie free-will haue iust cause their doctrine being presupposed to be true to reioyce in themselues which is an argument of pride for whereas our Sauiour saith Without me ye can doe nothing they may say Yes something for wee can either admit or reiect thy grace by our owne power and whereas the Apostle saith Who hath separated thee what hast thou which thou hast not receiued they may say I haue separated my selfe in doing that which I was able and so made my selfe fit for grace and this power I haue not receiued from Gods speciall fauour but from my owne free will All which kinde of speeches as they are full of pride and fleshly vanity so they are stuffed with impiety and blasphemie and manifestly tend to the dispoyling of the diuine Maiestie of that glory which is onely due vnto him And therefore I conclude with two notable sayings one of S. Augustines and another of Cassander a learned Reconciliater of late time Tutiores viuimus saith the Father si totum Deo damus c. that is We liue more safely if we attribute all wholy to God and not commit our selues partly to God and partly to our selues And this is the part of a godly minded man saith the Reconciliater to attribute nothing to themselues but all to Gods grace whence it followeth that how much so euer a man giueth to grace yet in so doing hee departeth not from pietie though hee detract something from nature and freewill but when any thing is taken from Gods grace and giuen to nature which belongeth to grace that cannot be without eminent danger So that by the confession both of this learned Romanist and also of that reuerend Father our doctrine in the poynt of free-will is both more agreeable to piety and respectiue to Gods glory then theirs is and therefore in reason to be preferred before it 13. The next doctrine whereby the glorie of God is darkened and the dignitie of Christs merites blemished is their doctrine of IustificatioÌ„ which I ioyne next vnto Free-wil because their sophistry cunning in this great maine pillar of Religion cannot well be discerned they so palliate the matter with faire glosses goodly words except their opinion touching the power of Free-will be first apprehended And here before I enter into the bowels of this poynt it is to be obserued that most of them vaunt and bragge that they doe much more magnifie Christs merites by their doctrine of Iustification then we doe which how true it is the discourse following I hope shall so manifest that euery indifferent man shall be able to say truely of them as Saint Augustine said of the Donatists These are the words of men extolling the glory of man vnder the name of Christ to the abasing of the glory of Christ himselfe 14. The doctrine therfore of our Church touching the iustification of a sinner is in effect thus much That a sinner is iustified that is accepted into the fauour and loue of God not by any thing in himselfe or from himselfe but by the perfect and vnspotted righteousnes of Christ Iesus imputed vnto him by the meere mercy of God through the couenant of grace and apprehended on his behalfe by the hand of faith The reason whereof is because that which must satisfie Gods iustice and reconcile a sinner vnto him must haue these two properties first it must be of infinite weight and value to counterpoyse with the rigour of Gods iustice and secondly it must be of sufficient ability to performefull and perfect obedience to the law of God so that a perfect satisfaction bee made both in respect of the obedience which the law requireth and also of the punishment that it inflicteth Now no righteousnesse of man is thus qualified but is both imperfect and vnsufficient no not the righteousnes of Angels themselues being though excellent yet â—â—finite Creatures sauing the righteousnes of Christ Iesus onely who is both God and Man and therefore his righteousnes onely and none other is that whereby a sinner must be iustified before God 15. From this it appeareth that when we say that a man is iustified by faith our meaning is not that faith is the cause of our iustification but onely the instrument and hand to apprehend that righteousnes of Christ whereby we are iustified when we say faith alone iust fieth we meane that it alone is the instrument of our iustification because it alone layeth hold vpon the righteousnes of Christ and applyeth it to our selues not that it is euer alone but alwaies accompanyed with charity and patience and zeale and temperance and other fruites of the spirit for we hold that the true iustifying faith is euer mâ—â—re grauida bonoruÌ„ operuÌ„ as one of their own fauourites affirmeth that is full of good workes and euer anon ready to bring them forth as occasion serueth Neither doe we deny as some of them falsly slander vs though many of their chiefest Writers gaine-say their fellowes and affoord vs that fauour to speake the truth of vs but that euery one that is iustified must also be truely sanctified and that saluation is not obtained by iustification alone but by sanctification also yet wee make sanctification and good workes not to be the causes but the effects nor the roote but the fruit nor the anticedents but the necessary consequents and attendants of our Iustification And as Bellarmine truely distinguisheth to be necessary Necessitate praesentiae non efficientiae by a necessity of presence not of efficacie as if they wrought our saluation In a word
the word of God Now from hence thus I reason If the word of God written be the onely ground of faith then that Religion which will not acknowledge it dependance onely vpon the word written is not to be beleeued but to be suspected as erronious but the word written is the onely ground of faith as hath beene proued therefore that Religion which disclaymeth it dependance only vpon the word deserues iustly not to be beleeued but to be suspected as erronious And in this regard the Romish Religion though it be in our Pater noster to wit vnder the last petition Deliuer vs from euill yet it should neuer come into our Creed to repose our faith and our saluation vpon it 4. Thirdly the Scripture as it is the fountaine and foundation of true Religion So it is the rule of faith and the touchstone of doctrines and the ballance of the Sanctuarie to weigh truth and falshood in that the one may be discerned from the other This the Prophet Esay teacheth when hee calleth vs to the Law and to the Testimonie saying that if any speake not according to that word there is no light in them From which place thus I reason that whereunto we must resort in all controuersies and doubts for resolution that is the rule of faith but such is the Scripture by the testimonie of the Prophet therefore the Scripture is the rule of faith In like manner we may conclude out of S. Peter who saith that We haue a more sure word of the Prophets whereunto wee must take heede as vnto a light that shineth in a darke place till the Day-starre arise in our hearts If the word of the Prophets was a sure direction to the Church of God before the Gospell was written then much more is the whole Scripture contayning the word of the Prophets and of the Apostles together but S. Peter affirmeth the first therefore the second must needs follow For this cause when one asked our Sauiour what hee might doe to bee saued hee referred him to the Scripture for his direction What is written how readest thou And so Abraham referreth the rich gluttons brethren to Moses and the Prophets and Christ telleth the Saduces that this was the cause of their errour because they knew not the Scriptures Out of all which Texts thus I argue If there were any other rule of faith besides the sacred Scripture our Sauiour and Saint Peter would neuer haue sent vs ouer to the Scripture alone but would haue poynted out vnto vs some other meanes but they send vs to the Scripture alone and therefore that alone is the rule and ballance of our faith 5. And this the very title and inscription of the Scripture doth intimate for why is it called Canonicall but because it containes the Canon that is the rule of faith and life The Fathers with one consent agree in this truth Saint Basil calls the Scripture Canonem recti normam veritatis The Canon of right and the rule of truth Chrysostome sayth that Assertio diuinarum legum c. The assertion of the law of God is a most exact Ballance Squire and Rule Saint Augustine calleth it Statera diuina Gods ballance or a diuine ballance these bee his words Non afferamus stateras dolosas Let vs not bring deceitfull ballances to weigh what we will and how we will saying This is heauie that is light but let vs bring that diuine ballance out of the holy Scriptures as it were out of the Lords treasurie and by it weigh all things or rather acknowledge them being weighed by the Lord. Tertullian giueth to the Scripture the same name so doth Gregory Nyssen and our Countriman venerable Bede to passe ouer all the rest as he is reported by Gratian in his decrees telleth vs in most plaine termes that In sacris literis vnica est credendi pariter viuendi regula praescripta The onely rule both of Faith and Life is prescribed vnto vs in the holy Scriptures Now if this be so as it is meere madnesse to affirme the contrary then that religion which doth refuse to be tryed by this rule and to be weighed in this ballance doth giue iust cause of suspition that it is but light stuffe and crooked ware 6. If a man should offer to his creditor a piece of gold for payment and should refuse to haue it either tryed by the touch-stone or weighed in the ballance he might iustly suspect that it was but either light or counterfeit so may any of good sense rightly suspect that religion to bee both light and counterfet which refuseth to be examined by the rule of Gods word especially which is the second branch of the first proposition if it not onely refuse to be tryed by the Scripture but also will admit no tryall nor Iudge but it selfe for as by reason wee conclude that such a man hath an euill cause in hand who in Westminster Hall refuseth to haue his matter tryed by the law and will admit no Iudge but his own opinion that man to be guilty which standing at the bar of iustice accused of some great crime denyeth to be tryed by the verdict of his Country according to the law so likewise the cause of Religion being called in question that must needs in any equall iudgement bee deemed vnsound and guilty which will not stand to the verdict and sentence of the Prophets and Apostles who are the Iury to trye all cases of conscience and of the Spirit of God speaking in the Scripture who is the onely Iudge to heare and determine all questions of doubt which may arise in matters of faith and will be censured and iudged by none but it selfe 7. Against this truth all the Romanists and especially the Iesuites and of the Iesuites chiefly Bellarmine conflict and fight with foote and horse sailes and oares tooth and naile and all they can doe for herein lyeth the very bloud and life of their Religion And if this bee wrung from them that the Scripture is the onely iudge and rule of faith Actum est de regno Pontificio The Romish kingdome goeth to wracke vtterly and therefore they mainely contend to proue first that the Scripture is not the Iudge of controuersies secondly that it is not properly the rule of faith and if it bee a Iudge it is a dumbe one that cannot speake and if it be a Rule it is a partiall and imperfect one not totall and absolute 8. These two positions Bellarmine laboureth to prooue by many sorts of Arguments first from testimonies of the Olde Testament secondly from testimonies of the New thirdly by the authority of Bishops and Emperours fourthly by the witnesse of the Fathers lastly by reason I passe ouer the foure first sorts of Arguments as being sufficiently answered by others and come to the last which are deriued from reason the slightnesse whereof doth plainely discouer the vanity of this their opinion
a partiall rule and that the word of God written and not written by this last meaning traditions is the totall and perfect rule To this I answere in a word that by this distinction he plainely ouerturneth that which before hee had confessed for if it bee the rule of faith then it must needes be totall and perfect if it be not totall and perfect then is it not the rule for a rule must be proportioned to the thing whereunto it is applied If then our faith be either longer and larger then the Scripture then cannot the Scripture bee any wayes called the rule thereof Besides as Theophilact saith Regula et amussis neque appositionem habet neque ablationem A rule doth neither admit addition nor diminution and that is the definition of a rule according to Varinus Regula est mensura quae non fallit quaeque nullam vel additionem vel detractionem admittit A rule is saith hee a measure which deceiueth not and which admitteth no addition nor detraction Therefore if it be the rule of faith either it is perfect and absolute or none at all if it standeth in neede of traditions to supply it want then why doth hee call it the rule and why doe all the Fathers giue it the same name and why hath it that inscription in the forehead the Canonicall Scripture Lastly if God would giue vs a rule for our faith and life in the Scripture then by the same reason hee would make that a perfect rule for shall any imperfect thing proceede from the authour of all perfection When an imperfect creature is borne wanting either limmes or forme we ascribe it to a defect and errour in the particular nature from whence the creature is deriued or to the indisposition of the instrumentall causes not to the generall nature which tendeth alwaies vnto perfection How much more then ought this Iesuite be afraid to ascribe an imperfect creature to the all-perfect Creatour especially seeing it is the worke of his owne hands without the intermingling of all second causes and proceedeth immediately from his owne spirit the Prophets and Apostles being but as Baruch to Ieremie writers and engrossers of that which the spirit did dictate vnto them And therefore I may boldly and firmely conclude that as the vncreated word of God begotten of the Father before all time is perfect God and can neither receiue augmentation nor diminution so the word of God pronounced first by the mouth of the Prophets and Apostles and after by them committed to writing which is called the Scripture is absolute and perfect and can neither be encreased nor diminished to make it more or lesse perfect and so is the onely true sound and sacred Rule whereby both our Faith and life is to be directed towards the Kingdome of Heauen 23. And thus I hope the first proposition remaineth sound and firme notwithstanding all that can be sayd to the contrary Now I come to the confirmation of the assumption or second proposition which is that the Religion of the Church of Rome refuseth to be tryed and iudged by the Scriptures alone and will be tried and iudged by none but it selfe which if it be euicted then the conclusion must necessarily follow that therefore it is not onely to be suspected but vtterly reiected and abhorred 24. That this is so though it hath already in the precedent discourse beene sufficiently demonstrated yet that the matter may appeare more plaine and their impudency may be more notorious let vs search deeper into this wound and discouer the filthinesse thereof from the very bottome and first that they renounce the Scripture from being their Iudge and then in the second place that they admit of no other Iudge but themselues 25. Concerning the first let vs heare Bellarmine the Achilles of Rome speake foremost hee affirmeth in expresse words that the Scripture is not the rule of faith or if it be that it is a partiall and imperfect rule and vtterly insufficient of it selfe without the helpe of Ecclesiasticall traditions This assertion is well-neere the whole matter subiect of his third and fourth Bookes De verbo Dei which he laboureth to strengthen by all meanes possible Yea in the third Chapter of his third Booke he saith peremptorily that the Pope with a Councill is the Iudge of the true sense of the Scripture all controuersies Now in setting vp the Pope or a Councill into the supreme throne of Iudgement he must needes pull downe the Scripture the Spirit of God speaking therein from that throne and despoyle it of that authority But what need I draw this consequence from his words seeing throughout that whole Chapter he doth almost nothing else but striue to proue that the Scripture is not the Iudge doth reproue the Protestāts for saying that all the iudgements of the Fathers and all the decrees of Councils ought to be examined ad amussim Scripturarum according to the rule of the Scriptures Next vnto Bellarmine commeth in Gregory de Valentia and hee most boldly auoucheth that the Scripture is not a sufficient Iudge or rule of all controuersies of faith and that the Scripture alone defineth nothing at all no not obscurely of the chiefe questions of faith and where it doth speake it speaketh so obscurely that it doth not resolue but rather increase the doubt Cardinall Hosius is no whit lesse audacious when he affirmeth that the Scripture in it selfe is not the true and expresse word of God which we ought to obey vnlesse it bee expounded according to the sense and consent of the Catholike that is in his opinion the Romane Church The Iesuites Salmeron Turrian and Coster doe not onely barely affirme as much but also confirme it by reason The Scripture is dumbe saith Salmeron but the deciding voyce of a Iudge must be quicke The Scripture is a dead letter saith Turrian and a thing without life saith Coster but a Iudge must be liuing who may correct such as erre therfore that Scripture cannot be the Iudge It is as it were a Nose of wax saith Melchior Canus flexible into euery sense and as it were a Delphian Sword fit for all purposes saith Turrian therefore cannot be the Iudge And therefore two other Iesuites to wit Tanner and Gretzer impudently conclude that no heresie can be sufficiently refuted by Scripture alone and that by no meanes it may be graunted that either the holy Scripture or the Holy Ghost speaking by the Scripture should be the supreme and generall Iudge of Controuersies and hee addes his reason because the Scripture cannot dicere sententiam giue sentence on one side as a Iudge should doe Nay one Vitus Miletus as Pelargus reporteth is not ashamed to say that wee read that an Asse spoke in the Scripture but that the Scripture it selfe euer spoke we neuer read And thus this fellow makes the Scripture it selfe to be more mute then Balaams
vnderstanding by the Aspe and Cockatrice Lyon and Dragon the Emperour Frederick vpon whose necke hee set his foote vsing those words and all other Kings and Emperours and to proue that he so vnderstood the place when as the Emperor disdayning this pride made answere Not to thee but to Peter the holy Father treading on his necke replied Et mihi Petro Both to mee and to Peter Which storie though it bee branded by Baronius with the marke of a fable yet it is auouched by a full Iurie of witnesses and especially two Gennadius the Patriarke of Constantinople and a Venetian Historian that liued about that time which last onely differeth in the Popes alledging of the Text for he makes the Pope to say not in the second person thou but ambulabo I will walke vpon the Lion and the Adder Againe they interpret that place of Esay 49. 23. They shall worship towards the face of the earth and licke the dust of thy feete as a Prophecie of the Popes sublimitie For saith Turrian the Iesuite Where is this verified but in the kissing of the feete of the Bishop of Rome and yet who knoweth not that this is nothing else but a manifest prediction of the glory of the Church and the conuersion and subiection of Kings and Princes to the Religion of Christ What a wresting of Scripture call you this Are not these strange interpretations 25. But yet heare them which are more strange and ridiculous In the 28. of Esay 16. verse wee read Behold I will lay in Sion a stone a tried stone a precious corner stone a sure foundation This all know being taught by the interpretation of S. Peter 1. Pet. 2. 6. is to be vnderstood of Christ only and none other yet Bellarmine vnderstands by this tried precious corner stone not Christ but Peter that is as he saith Sedes Romana The Roman Sea Againe we read Iere. 26. 14. Behold I am in your hands doe with mee as you thinke good and right This Text Bonauenture alledgeth to proue that Christ is in the Priests hands at the Masse as a Prisoner not to bee let goe till he haue payd his ransome that is till he haue giuen remission of sinnes contrary to the manifest sense of the place Hosea 1. 11. We read that the children of Iudah and Israel shall be gathered together and appoint themselues one head answerable to that Ioh. 10. 16. There shall be one fold and one shepheard which places properly appertayning to Christ and his Church are ordinarily and blasphemously alledged to proue that the Pope is the head of the Church Againe Cant. 5. 11. His head is as fine gold And Cant. 7. 5. Thy head is like the mount Carmel One of which is the speech of the Church to Christ and the other of Christ to the Church but Bellarmine interprets the first to be spoken Christ and the second of the Pope These be his words The Bridegrome compareth the head of his Spouse to mount Carmel because though the Pope be a great mountaine yet he is nothing but earth that is a man and the Bride compareth the Bridegromes head to the best gold because the head of Christ is God 26. But let vs come a little to the new Testament are they any thing more shie and cautelous in this then in the olde Heare and then iudge Matth. 28. 18. our Sauiour saith to his Disciples All power is giuen vnto me in heauen and earth This in the booke of Ceremonies is expounded of the Pope and also by Stephen the Archbishop of Patauy in the Councill of Laterane Luc. 22. 38. the Apostles say vnto Christ Behold two swords and he answered It is sufficient By this place of Scripture Boniface the eighth challenged to himselfe both temporall and ecclesiasticall authority because Christ said two swords were sufficient and bade Peter not cast away one of them but put it vp into the sheath This exposition flat contrary to the meaning of the Text was not only deuised by a Pope but also approued by Bellarmine and Molina the Iesuite and Balbus with diuers others though I confesse reiected by Stella Maldonate and Arias Montanus But what are these to a Pope that cannot erre and to such an Emminent Cardinall as Bellarmine is So likewise they expound that Text Matth. 17. 24. Solue pro te me Pay for thee and me To signifie that Christs family hath two heads to wit Christ and Peter because they two onely payd and that Peter was chiefe ouer the rest of the Apostles because none of the rest payd as if paying of tribute was a signe of preeminence and not rather of subiection as Iansenius expounds it So Baronius alledgeth that of Act. 10. 13. Arise Peter kill and eate to proue the Popes power to excommunicate the Venetians Kill that is excommunicate and eate that is bring them to the obedience of the Church of Rome This is goodly stuffe indeede sure they stand in neede of arguments to proue their cause that are driuen to these silly shifts So our Country-man Fisher to proue iustification by workes alledgeth that Text of S. Peter 1. Pet. 4. 8. Loue couereth the multitude of sinnes which he expounds thus that loue expiateth and purgeth away the guilt of our sinnes in the sight of God contrary to the direct sense of the holy Ghost Pro. 10. 12. 27. It is a wonder to see how both Bellarmine and all the Patrones of Purgatory wring and wrest the Scripture to vnderprop the Popes Kitchin The Scripture cannot name fire and purging but presently there is Purgatory as Esay 4. 4. and 9. 18. Mal. 3. 3. nor a lake where there is no water but there is Purgatory as Zachar. 9. 11. nor things vnder the earth Phil. 2. 10. Apoc. 5. 3. but there is Purgatory and yet they themselues confesse that they know not whether it be vnder the earth or no because the Church hath not yet defined where it is And Bellarmine bringeth in eight diuers opinions touching the place of Purgatory but two of their expositions touching Purgatory I cannot ouerpasse left I should depriue the Reader of matter of laughter in the midst of this serious discourse and them of commendation of wit for they are witty aboue measure the one is Mar. 13. 34. where it is said in a Parable that a certaine man going into a strange Country leaueth his house and giueth authority to his seruants and commandeth the Porter to watch This man going into a strange Country signifieth the soule say they which by death departeth out of this world his leauing authority with his seruants signifieth that he commandeth his executors to procure with his goods the prayers suffrages of the Church whereby he may be freed from Purgatory hee commandeth the Porter to watch that is he giueth part of his goods to his Pastor that he may diligently
not iustify and yet faith alone doth iustify If they say that they speake of one kinde of faith and we of another they say nothing to the purpose for euen that any faith alone should iustify is contrary to their owne positions who affirme that the former cause of our iustification is the inherent righteousnes of works and not the righteousnes of Christ apprehended by faith And thus I leaue the Article of iustification at farre with it selfe to be atoned by their best wits if it be possible 37. Let vs come to their doctrine of workes and see how that agreeth with it selfe and here first they hold that works done before faith and regeneration are not good workes but sinnes This is proued by them out of Saint Augustine who affirmeth that the workes of vnbeleeuers are sinnes and if the workes of vnbeleeuers then of all other wicked men which bee not regenerate seeing as the same Father else-where speaketh Impij cogitant non credunt the wicked doe not beleeue but thinke they haue but a shadow of faith without substance It may be prooued also by that generall and infallible axiome of the holy Scripture Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne but the workes of wicked men are all voyd of faith and therefore are no better then sinnes in the sight of God be they neuer so glorious and beautifull in the eyes of men Or as Gregorie Nazianzene saith As faith without workes is dead so workes without faith are dead and dead workes are sinnes as appeares Heb. 9. 41. Besides Bellarmine confirmeth the same by reason because they want a good intention to direct their workes to the glory of the true God whome they are ignorant of To which I adde another reason drawne from our Sauiours owne mouth Mat. 7. Because an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruit but euery man til he be ingrafted into Christ is no better then an euill tree and therefore cannot doe a good worke 38. This is their doctrine and it is sound diuinitie but see how they crosse it ouer the face with a contrary falshood for the same men that teach this notwithstanding affirme that the workes of Infidels are good suo genere in their kind so they are good and not good sinnes and yet good works but this is in their kind say they that is Morally and not Theologically I but morall vertues in the vnregenerate are by their owne principles sinnes how then can they be good any waies Can sinne which is a transgression of Gods law and simply in it owne nature euill be in any respect good as it is sinne But to take cleare away this scruple another of them auoucheth that they are not onely morally but euen Theologically good for he saith that such works as are done by the light of nature onely without grace doe dispose and make a man in some sort fit to iustification though it be longè valdèremotè remotely and a farre off for he that yeeldeth obedience to morall lawes is thereby lesse vndisposed and repugnant to diuine grace Now how can sinnes dispose or prepare a man for iustification is God delighted with sinnes Either therefore they are not sinnes or they doe not dispose to iustification neither farre nor neere or which is the present contradiction they are sinnes and not sinnes good and not good at one time and in one and the same respect And to put the contradiction out of all question the Councill of Trent in the seuenth Canon of the sixt Session enacteth as much and denounceth Anathema to all that say the contrarie the words are these If any man shall say that all the works which are done before iustification by what meanes soeuer they are done are truely sinnes or deserue the hatred of God let him be Anathema And Andradius the interpretor of that Councill authorised by the Fathers of the same doth more perspicuously explaine the meaning of that Canon when hee saith that men without faith destitute of the spirit of regeneration may doe workes which are voyde of all filthinesse free from all fault and defiled with no sinne and by which they may obtaine saluation then which what can be more contradictory to that which before was deliuered that all the workes of Infidels and vnbeleeuers are sinnes be they neuer so glistering with morall vertue or more agreeable to the olde condemned errors of Iustine Clemens and Epiphanius who affirmed that Socrates and Her aclitus were Christians because they liued according to the rule of reason and that the Grecians were iustified by Philosophie and that many were saued onely by the law of nature without the lawe of Moses or Gospell of Christ 39. Againe their doctrine of doubel merit the one of Congruity the other of Condignity as they terme them is not onely contrary to the truth but to it selfe For this they teach that the merit of congruity which the Councill of Trent calleth the preparations and dispositions to iustification is grounded vpon the dignity of the worke and not vpon the promise of God but the merit of condignity requireth both a dignity of the worke and the promise of God to bee grounded vpon or else it is no merit This is Bellarmines plaine doctrine and is consonant to the residue of their Doctours both Schoole diuines and others for thus they define the merit of congruity It is that by which the subiect is disposed that it may receiue grace according to the reason of Gods iustice Here is onely iustice required and not any promise to the merit of congruity though I must confesse Gabriel Biel somewhat crosseth this definition when â—e saith that when a man doth what in him lyeth then God accepteth his worke and powreth in grace not by the due of Iustice but of his liberalitie And Aquinas who affirmeth that when a man vseth well the power of free-will God worketh in him according to the excellencie of his mercy But yet they all agree in this that the merit of congruity is not grounded vpon any promise as the merit of condignity is but onely vpon the worthinâ—s of the worke done Now here lurketh a flat contradiction for by this it should follow that the merit of congruity should bee more properly a merit then that of condignity Which Bellarmine denyeth in the same Chapter because this dependeth vpon it owne dignity and hath no neede of a promise as the other hath and so should bee also more meritorious and excellent then the other being neuerthelesse but a preparation and beginning to iustification and the other the matter of iustification it selfe And that a man that hath no grace dwelling in him but onely outwardly mouing him nor is yet iustified should haue more power to deserue and merite then he that is fulfilled with grace and fully iustified Thus error like a Strumpet bringeth foorth a monstrous brood of absurdities but let vs proceede 40. Their
to be true may appeare by this that Fisher the Bishop of Rochester his profest aduersary writing against him doth not in all his booke once tax him of misdemeanour or of any notorious crime which he would surely haue done if any either iust cause or light suspition had beene ministred vnto him 39. Touching the life and death of Caluine Beza who was his familiar friend and dayly associate affirmeth that the one was full of holinesse and good works and voyd of scandall and the other full of peace to himselfe and comfort to his friends and beholders Nicholaus Gelasius writeth of his death that he was at that time so farre from blaspheming and cursing that the day before his death he called all the Ministers of the city together and tooke his leaue of them with most holy and louing speaches and the next day gaue ouer his life dormienti similior quam morienti more like to one that slept then that dyed 40. Zwinglius was slaine indeed in the warre against Romanists but that doth not proue either his life to haue beene vicious or his doctrine erroneous for then good Iosias should be condemned for an vngodly king who was slaine in warre by the Egyptians and they must needs bring their owne Doctor Sanders into the same imputation and that by greater reason who was slaine in the Irish war not onely against Protestants but like a perfidious traitour against his owne countrey and Soueraigne Oecolampadius whom they accuse to haue died suddenly in the night albeit that kind of death hath and might befall Gods deare children as it did that good Emperour Theodosius of whose saluation Saint Ambrose neuerthelesse maketh no doubt yet Simon Gryneus who was present at his death and Wolfangus Capito that liued at that time report that he lay sick sixteene dayes and before his death exhorted all that were present to prayer and constancie and after he had sung the fiftieth Psalme throughout he gaue vp the ghost with much assurance of Gods fauour As for Carolostadius though we haue no witnesses of his life and death extant in print as far as I haue read yet it is most likely that this report of his death commeth out of the same mint seeing it issued out of the mouth of his sworne enemies and those that hated him Beza himselfe confesseth the errours of his youth but they were whilst he was a Romish affected and vnconuerted and yet no such great matters neither as might vtterly blemish his good name for they were not lasciuious acts but wanton poems the froth of youth but let them touch him if they can after he became a Protestant malice it selfe is not able to cast any durt of scandall vpon him 41. Now compare our witnesses with theirs theirs were enemies ours friends theirs led with malice ours with loue theirs absent ours present theirs report that which they had by hearesay if they did not rather deuise then receiue ours tell nothing but that whereof they were eye-witnesses now iudge whether malice be not more prone to slander then friendship to flatter and whether an enemy is not euer more forward to defame then a friend to maintaine credit and whether is more likely to lye a malitious foe in disgracing or a louing friend in commending and lastly whether deserueth better credit those that are absent and fetch their report from other mens mouthes or those that are present and speake vpon their owne knowledge and beholding Surely the doubt may easily bee resolued if we consider either that which the Poet sayth c. One eye witnesse is more worth then tenne eare witnesses or that which their own Bellarmine sayth Stultum est c. It is a foolish thing to beleeue those that are absent rather then those that were present or that which reason it selfe grounded vpon Religion telleth vs that malice is more prone to lye and discredit an enemie then loue and friendship is to defend a friend seeing an euill affection in a wicked man is perfectly euill but a good affection in any man is imperfectly good These testimonies being thus weighed in an euen ballance wee haue greater reason to beleeue Sleydan Erasmus Gelasius Melanchton Capito Gryneus then Cochlaeus Surius Bolsecas or Schusselburgus though not a Romanist yet as great an enemy or any of these rayling Rabsakehs who cared not what they wroght against our persons so that they might springle disgrace vpon our Religion thereby 42. But wee if wee would vrge this argument against them and indeed as oft as wee doe it wee produce not for witnesses their enemies but their close friends and profest fauourers of their Religion as Polonus Platina Onuphrius Luiâ—prâ—ndus 〈…〉 uclerus Sigonius Baronius c. all which doe report of their owne Popes that many of them were such monsters of men as the Sun neuer saw greater neither Sardanapalus nor Nâ—ro nor Heliogabalus nor Scilla nor Catiline doe goe before many of them in cruelty gluttony luxury and all manner of vices insomuch as it grew into a Prouerbe that hee which would represent the most compleat villaine that could be imagined his next way were to make the picture of a Pope now these are not our slanderings of them as theirs are oâ— vs but the constant reports of those that were sworne subjects to the Sea of Rome and therefore would haue rather with Shem cast their cloakes vpon the naked filthinesse of their holy Fathers then with Cham laughed at the same had it not beene so notorious and famous that it could not bee hidden 43. To conclude that not onely by probable coniecture but by euident proofe their slanders may appeare wee haue two notable arguments of the same the first is that strange tale spread abroad in Italy touching Luthers death before he was dead how in his sicknesse hee desired the body of our Lord to bee communicated vnto him and after when he saw his end approach entreated that his body might bee laide on the Altar and worshipped with diuine honours and how at his buriall Almighty God raised a great noyse and tumult and that the holy hoste hung in the aire and in a thunder that his body was taken out of his graue and nothing left but a stinke of brimstone which had well nigh stifled all the standers by This tale was published before Luthers death and a copie thereof came into his owne hands which he read with a glad heart and detested the blasphemy therein contained The like slander was raised vp touching Beza his death long before hee dyed and came also into his hands as may appeare in his Epistle before his annotations vpon the new Testament by which wee may see what manner of reports they bee which are deuised by these Romanists against vs and ex vngue leonem by this iudge of the rest The second is the confession of that perfidious Apostate Bolsek who as it is reported in a publike Synode with
sentences heere and there that see me to make for their purpose contrary to the whole scope and drift of the writer or lastly by blemishing our whole Religion by some sinister or exorbitant opinion maintained by some one or other vnaduised fellow though it bee contrary to the whole current of all other writers on our side as if for one mans errour wee were all flat Heretikes or because one souldier playeth the dastard therefore the whole army were cowards These bee their tricks of Legerdemaine by which they indeuour to disgrace our Religion and to countenance their owne but Veritas magna est preualebit I hope so to dispell and scatter these mists by the light of truth that they shall vanish like smoake and the truth bee more resplendent like the Sunne comming out of a cloud 61. To the purpose first they exclaime that our Religion is an enemy to good workes and that wee esteeme of them as not necessary to saluation which damnable errour some of them ascribe vnto vs as our direct doctrine others as a consequence of our doctrine and our secret meaning but that both are lying slanders I appeal first to our doctrine it selfe which is so cleare in this point that no man can doubt thereof but hee that is musled with malice for this we hold that though faith be alone in the worke of iustification yet that saith euer worketh through loue and is great with good workes as a woman with child which it bringeth forth also when occasion serueth and that if it bee disioyned from good workes it is but a dead carkas of faith yea the faith of Deuils and hypocrites and not of the elect And this as it is the constant doctrine of all our diuines so is it principally of Luther whom our aduersaries accuse as the chiefest enemy to good workes for thus hee writeth in one place touching the efficacy of faith Faith is a liuely and powerfull thing not an idle cogitation swimming vpon the toppe of the heart as a fowle vpon the water but as water heated by fire though it remaine water still yet it is no more cold but hote and altogether changed so faith doth frame and fashion in a man another mind and other senses and altogether maketh him a new man Again in another place he sayth that the vertue of faith is to kill death to damne hell to be sinne to sinne and a deuill to the deuill that is to be sins poison and the Deuils confusion Thus hee speaketh concerning the powerful efficacy of that true iustifying faith which wee rely our saluation vpon and they condemne as a nulli-fidian portion And touching good works their necessity and excellency heare how diuinely he writeth in one place Out of the cause of iustification no man can sufficiently commend good workes in another One good worke proceeding from faith done by a Christian is more pretious then heauen or earth the whole world is not able to giue a sufficient reward for one goodworke and in another place It is as necessary that godly teachers doe as diligently vrge the doctrine of good workes as the doctrine of faith for the Deuill is an enemy to both what can bee spoken more effectually for the extolling of the excellency of good wâ—rkesâ— and yet these fellowes make Luther the greatest aduersarie to them 62. Secondly I appeale to themselues many of the greatest Doctors amongst whom doe cleare vs from that imputation Maldonate The Protestants doe say that iustifying faith cannot bee without good workes Viega The Protestants affirme that iustification sanctification are so ioyned together that they cannot be parted Stapleton All Protestants none excepted teach that faith which iustifieth is liuely working by charity and other good workes Lastly Bellarmine The Protestants say that faith cannot stand with euill workes for hee that hath a purpose to sin can conceiue no faith for the remission of his sin and that faith alone doth iustifie but yet is not alone and that they exclude not the necessity but onely the merite of good workes nor the presence but the efficacy to iustifie Now then with what face can they bolster out this slaunder against our doctrine and accuse vs to be like the Simonian Heretike who taught that a man need not regard good workes and Eunomians who defended that perseuerance in sinne did not hinder saluation so that wee beleeued This is the first blasphemie against our Religion wherein they doe not so much thwart vs as crosse themselues and that one may see yet more clearely this to bee a malicious slaunder hearken what Bellarmine sayth concerning Luthers opinion of Christian liberty Luther seemeth sayth he to teach that Christian liberty consisteth in this that a godly conscience is free not from doing good workes but from being accused or defended by them let Luther himself speake againe By faith sayth he we are freed not from works but from opinion of workes that is from a foolish presumption of iustification to bee obtained by workes by all which we may easily iudge of the meaning of those sentences obiected Faith alone doth saue and infidelity alone doth condemne and where faith is no sinne can hurt nor condemne that they are to be vnderstood partly of sinnes before iustification and partly of such sinnes after as destroy not faith nor raigne in the beleeuer nor are perseuered in but repented of and laboured against and thus our Religion is iustified by the very aduersaries thereof from this great crime imputed vnto it 63. Againe they accuse vs as maintainers of this doctrine that all the workes of iust men are mortall sinnes and of this they make Luther Calume and Melancthon to be Patrones but with what shamelesse impudency let the world iudge To begin with Caluine these be his words Dum sancti ductu Spiritus c. i. Whilst being holy wee walke in the wayes of the Lord yet least being forgetfull of our selues wee should waxe proud there remain reliques of imperfection which may minister vnto vs matter of humiliation againe the best worke that can be wrought by iust men yet is besprinkled and corrupted with the impurity of the flesh and hath as it were some dregs mixed with it let the holy seruant of God chuse out of his whole life that which he shall thinke to haue beene most excellent let him well consider euery part thereof hee shall without doubt finde in one place or other something which sauours of the fleshes corruption seeing our alacrity in well doing is neuer such as it ought to be but our weakenes great in hindering the course although we see that the blots where with the Saints workes are stayned are not obscure yet grant that they are but very small workes shall they not offend the eyes of God before whom the starres themselues are not pure we haue not one worke proceeding from the Saints which if it be censured
teach his proceeding in age is his proceeding in wisdome And therefore Saint Luke sets his growth in age First that thou mightest know that it is spoken of him as he is man And Chrysostome thus The wisemen gaue honour not to his childhood vnderstanding nothing but to his diuinitie knowing all things and Maldonate doth confesse that Athanasius Gregory Nazianzene Theodoret Cyril and the authour of the imperfect worke on Mathew did al teach that Christ as man was ignorant of the day of Iudgement Neyther do these fathers alleadged by Bellar. for the contrarie opinion in truth deliuer any thing else if they bee rightly vnderstood for most of them when they say that our Sauiour was full of grace knowledge and wisedome from his verie conception and that hee did not increase and grow therein as other men they speake eyther of his person in the concret or of his diuine nature apart as their owne words alleadged by him doe clearely shew And to this opinion Thomas Aquinas their grand Schooleman and angellical Doctor setteth his hand and seale For thus hee writeth Though I haue elsewhere written otherwise yet it is to be said sayth bee that in Christ there was scientia acquisita knowledge acquired or gotten which is properly knowledge according to the measure of man and that not onely in respect of the subiect receiuing but also of the cause agent c. 90. Secondly al ignorance is not sin by the doctrine of their own schoole For that ignoraÌ„ce which is called purae negationis of pure negation doth not oppugne the state of innocencie seeing that it was in AdaÌ„ before his fal and is now in the Angels in their perfection may be in any without the spot of sin as witnesse Lumbard Aquinas Pererius al their learned Doctors for the most part yea their Iesuite Suarez telleth vs it is not to be called ignorance at al. Because ignorance sayth he doth not signifie euery want of knowledge but the priuatioÌ„ of that knowledge which ought to be in a subiect according to the state of the nature thereof as man is not to bee called ignorant because he wanteth angellicall knowledge so Christ was ignorant of none of these things which was behoofefull for him to know in respect of the dignitie of his person so that of two kindes of ignorance one of pure negation that is when a man knoweth not some thing which hee is not bound to know and the other of wicked disposition when a man is 〈…〉 of something which he ought to know This last is a sinne but not the first and therefore to say that Christ was ignorant of some things in his humane nature and that hee increased in knowledge as in age is not to impute vnto him any blot either of originall or actuall sinne 91. For the other part of the obiection wherewith Caluine is touched concerning our Sauiours correcting of his owne speech it is no other then that which Ierome before him many hundred yeeres vttered and Origen also two famous fathers of the Primitiue Church the one affirming that Christ returning to himselfe auouched that as he was the Sonne of God which hee had staggeringly spoken as hee was a man the other that he recalled his desire and as it were thinking better vpon it said Not as I will yea they themselues acknowledge asmuch for Bellarmine sayth that when our Sauiour prayed Let this cup passe from me but not as I will but as thou wilt it was asmuch as if he should haue said Volo vt non fiat voluntate naturali quod voluntate deliberata volo vt fiat I will that it may not come to passe to wit by my naturall will which by my deliberate will I desire may come to passe Here is a plaine correction as Caluine calleth it or a returning to himselfe as Hierome or a reuocation of his natural desire by a more aduised desire as Origen the like interpretation is giuen by Iansenius Pererius and Maldonate all agreeing in tâ—is that they admit of a correction and reuocation of his naturall inferiour humane wil by his spirituall superior diuine will and yet without all blemish and suspition of sin this correction presuposing no corruption So that either Caluine must be excused or themselues must bee inwrapped within the folds of the same fault But this is their rancour against that good man and all other of our side that which is orthodox in the Fathers and themselues is notwithstanding heresie in vs because they looke vpon vs thorow the spectacle of malice but vpon themselues with the eyes of selfe-loue 92. And to cleere him altogether and ridde him out of their hands the most receiued doctrine both by Caluine and all our whole Church concerning this point is that this was not in our Sauiour Christ either a rebellion of the sensuall part of the soule against the rationall as Perâ—rius maketh it which is in the vnregenerate nor of the flesh against the spirit as Iansenius would haue it which is in the regenerate nor a repugnance of Christs will as he was a man to his will as he was God which Maldonate sâ—emeth to affirme but onely the strife of two contrarie desires in the humane soule of Christ for dominion both which notwithstanding were good and holy though the one not so good as the other and in that respect this desire to auoid death which was the lesse might without any great offence bee said to bee corrected when it yeelded vnto that other which was more excellent 92. Lastly to omit a number more of their sslanders in this kind they charge our Religion it selfe to lead to loosenesse and sensualitie by diuers doctrines thereof especially these foure to wit freewill iustification by faith alone perseuerance in grace and impossibilitie to keepe the Commandements but with what spirit of malice let the indifferent Reader consult and iudge 93. First for our doctrine touching the inabilitie of free-will doth it lead a man to loosenesse nay rather doth it not teach him to deny himselfe and to seeke for all grace and goodnesse from God humilitie and prayer are the fruits of this doctrine and not loosnesse and libertie and to make it cleare to any single eye We teach that a man is onely voyde of freewill to grace before his regeneration and that hee is passiue onely in the very act of regeneration but after his will being quickned and stirred vp by Gods spirit he willeth and worketh forth together with the spirit of God his owne saluation Now few or none there are that are Christians but presume though falsely that they are regenerate and therefore this doctrine cannot giue libertie to any to sinne but rather bindeth them fast to obedience nay doth not their doctrine rather open a gappe to libertie For when they teach that it is in a mans power either to accept or reiect the grace of God offered vnto him What doth this
our merits are from Gods mercie and grace and that our good workes are dyed in Christs bloud and thence receiue all their vertue and rigor yet it is but a false pretence false because they acknowledge some merits before grace as those of congruitie and such as issue from grace yet in part to be of nature aswel as of grace as hath beene alreadie discouered and a pretence because if they receiue all their vertue from Gods grace and Christs bloud then they are not to be termed our merits but Gods neither can bee said to deserue any thing at Gods hand of a proper worthinesse as they teach they doe but of Gods grace and mere mercie which they disclaime a false pretence then is this and doth not free them from this danger of diminishing Gods glorie and this also is confessed by S. Augustine who sayth that we liue more sasely if we attribute all wholly to God and d ee not commit our selues partly to God and partly to our selues this the Romanists doe they diuide stakes betwixt God and man grace and nature Christ and Adam 7. Thirdly of making the best vncertaine of their saluation for as they teach no man can bee certaine of his owne righteousnesse nor of the goodnesse of his workes by reason of the manifold defects that cleaue vnto their best deeds and also in respect of the vnscrutable deceit of mans owne heart which is hidden not onely froÌ„ the eies of other men but euen from a mans owne selfe and is knowne onely vnto God as the Prophet Ieremie telleth vs and also in respect of the strict rule of Gods iustice whereby they must bee examined For which cause the holy man Iob sayth of himselfe according as it is in the vulgar Latine translation I was afraid of all my workes And Saint Augustine sayth and affirmeth the same That though Iob was a righteous man yet he himselfe was afraid of himselfe And Gregory speaketh to like effect when hee sayth That the holy man Iob because he saw all the merit of our vertue to be faultie if it be strictly iudged by him which iudgeth within sayth rightly If I will contend with him I shall not bee able to answere one for a thousand Now that which befell righteous Iob how can it but bee incident to all Gods children So that though they talke of meritorious workes in generall yet no man can be sure that his workes in particular are such and therefore no man be he neuer so iust can be sure of his saluation I speake not here of that certaintie which is by faith which they deny but that assurance which is by hope which they confesse for a man cannot possibly hope that he shall by saued by his workes when as he cannot possibly know whether his best workes are such as deserue the fauour or disfauour of God And if it is the propertie of all Gods children by the example of Iob to be afraid of their workes then how can they repose any hope and confidence in them now all this is so euident that Bellarmine himselfe is driuen after his long disputes and much adoe in strengthening their doctrine of inherent righteousnesse and merit of workes to confesse ingeniously like a good honest man being as it were sorrie for all that hee had said that because of the vncertaintie of their owne righteousnesse and the perill of vaine glorie the safest way is to repose our whole trust and confidence in the onely mercie and goodnesse of God But this wee teach men to doe that flying from all vaine confidence in their owne merits they may repose themselues onely on the mercy of GOD in Christ Iesus and therefore ours is the safest way 8. And if ours be the most safe then theirs is most dangerous which also S. Bernard in as plaine termes affirmeth when he sayth Periculosa habitatio illorum qui in meritis sperant perculosa quia ruinosa dangerous is the dwelling of those which trust in their owne merit it is dangerous because it is ruinous Now who that is wise will not chuse to walke in the safest way and refuse the dangerous or to dwell in a strong and safe house which will keepe out the wind and weather and not bee ouerblowne with any tempest rather then in a ruinous cottage which euery blast is able to ouerturne 9. The doctrine of Free will is of like nature for is it not dangerous thinke you to ascribe some power to mans own will for his conuersion as the Church of Rome doth when it teacheth that it is in mans free choice to accept â—rrâ—iect Gods grace offered vnto him and so eyther to be or not to be conuerted And is it not a safer course to ascribe all to grace and nothing at all to will and to say with our Sauiour Christ that without him we can doe nothing and with Saint Paul That wee haue no sufficiencie in our selues to thinke a good thought as of our selues And againe That it is God which worketh in vs both the will and the deed of his good pleasure In the one God hath all the glorie of the worke in the other man is equalled with God will with grace yea preferred before it for they not onely teach that grace and will are like two men carrying one stone neyther of them adding any strength vnto the other and both free when they will to cast off the burthen but also that Gods grace and working dependeth vpon mans will not mans will vpon Gods grace For thus they are not ashamed to say euen the best and most iudicious amongst them Licet in codem prorsus momento temporis naturae Deus volunt as operari incipiant tamen Deus operetur quia voluntas operatur non contra .i. Though the God of nature and freewill beginne to worke together at the same instant yet God worketh because the will worketh not the will because God Now is not this not onely to equall but also to subiect Gods grace to mans will and to make the creature more powerfull then the Creator For by this doctrine if a man himselfe bee willing and giue admittance to grace he may be saued but if God bee neuer so willing to saue vs if we our selues willnot entertaine his sauing grace all his labour is vaine and so mans will must needs be of greater power and efficacie then Gods grace which how dangerous yea impious a thing it is to affirme let all men iudge I am sure Saint Augustine was of another mind who sayth not as the Romanists that it is left to our free choice either to vse or to refuse the grace of Christ that standeth at the doore of our heart to bee let in or thrust out as we list but it is sayth he by grace not onely that we can doe what we will but that we are willing to doe what wee can and againe He worketh in vs