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
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
so that their ignorance be simple and vnaffected may bee saued And hereupon they conclude that it is safer to bee of that Church wherein by our owne confession a man may be saued then of that to which they denie all hope of saluation but it is a conclusion made by confusion For who seeth not that that is more likely to be the true Church which is animated with charitie then that which is void of charitie and that it is safer to harbour vnder her wings that is charitably affected euen towards her enemies then vnder her that is so miscarried with enuie that she committeth all to the pit of Hell that are not of her fellowship and profession especially seeing Saint Paul chargeth the Thessalonians that If any man obey not the Gospell they should note him with a letter and haue no companie with him that hee may bee ashamed yet they should not accout him as an enemie but admonish him as a brother If then it be safer to thinke charitably of those that are without then vtterly to condemne them all then it must be also safer to bee a member of our Church then of theirs And to make the matter more cleare Saint Augustine is flat of our mind to thinke more Christianlike of Heretikes as they repute vs then they doe for writing against the Donatists thus he sayth They that defend their false doctrine without obstinate boldnesse especially if they be not such as haue beene authors of those errours but either receiued them from their Parents or were seduced by others and doe carefully seeke the truth being readie to be reformed assoone as they shall see their errours such men are not to be esteemed as Heretikes Thus writeth Saint Augustine whereby hee condemneth the practice of the Church of Rome and iustifieth ours as more agreeable to the rule of charitie and thus that reason whereby the Iesuites seduce many ignorant persons falleth to the ground and maketh more against them then for them 43. Thirdly if the Churches authoritie bee aboue the authoritie of the Scriptures then are men to bee preferred before God and that which is subiect to errour before that which can neither erre nor deceiue for the Church consists of men but the Scripture is immediately from God and the Church may erre though not in fundamentall points but the Scripture cannot erre no not in the least titte the truth of this allegation is grounded vpon those reasons First because euery particular Church may erre as is confessed and therefore the whole Chuchin generall may erre also for such as is the nature of the parts is the nature also of the whole Secondly Councels which are their Church representatiue haue erred as is notoriously knowne to all and confessed by Saint Augustine who sayth that the decrees of prouinciall Councels are subiect to reprehension Yea former generall Councels may be corrected by them that follow as the Councell of Arimine by the Councell of Constantinople the second of Ephesus by the Councell of Chalcedon the Councell of Carthage by the first of Nice and the second of Nice by the Councell of Franckeford Thirdly the Pope that is the Head of the Church hath erred this is also confessed therefore the bodie can claime no better priuiledge but sayth the same Augustine There is no doubt of the truth of any thing which is contained in the Scripture Therefore who can doubt to place the resolution of their faith as the safest course on the Scripture rather then on the Church especially seeing no particular writer of the holy Scripture can be taxed with the least errour but many particular parts of the Church whether we respect the imagined head which is vertually the whole Church in their estimation or the chiefe members in grosse as the Councels or the deuided ioynts as particular Congregations may iustly be challenged as tainted with diuers errours in doctrines of faith 44. Lastly the Church of Rome may be the whore of Babylon and so the See of Antichrist if not necessarily as wee auouch yet coniecturally as no man can denie because spirituall Babylon is said to bee a Citie situate vpon seuen hils and not onely so but that raigned ouer the Kings of the earth both which notes directly agree to the Citie of Rome but the Church of Protestants cannot by any likelihood bee that whore seeing neither of those markes doe in any respect belong vnto it Is it not safer then to rest our selues in her bosome which by al probabilitie is an honest Matrone then in her armes which is a suspected harlot If Caesar would haue his wife to bee without suspition then euerie Christian had need to looke to his faith whereunto he is as it were married by the Spirit of God wherby he is married vnto Christ that it be not onely sincere but also free from all suspition or likelihood of errour 45. Thus we see in these few maine points of the Romish Religion compared with our contrarie assertions that it is a farre safer course to bee a Protestant then a Papist let all indifferent persons iudge and discerne betwixt vs and I pray God direct them by his Spirit to choose the truth 46. There is one thing yet remaining whereby this may further appeare and so and end of this whole discourse and that is that there is no one point of doctrine wherein they differ from vs but is contradicted by some of their owne learned Writers shaking hands with vs and crossing their owne Pew-fellowes whence from ariseth not onely another strong argument of greater securitie in our Religion then in theirs which hath the suffrages of the greatest enemies to vphold it but also of vnresistable truth which worketh so vpon the consciences of the aduersaries thereof that it forceth them will they nill they to acknowledge it now and then as the Deuill himselfe was constrained to confesse Christ Iesus to be the Sonne of God I might write a whole Volume of this point alone but I will propound here onely some few instances and so shut vp this Treatise 47. Protestants teach that a man is iustified by faith alone whereby the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed vnto him and not by the inherent or adherent righteousnesse of his owne workes the same is confessed by Thomas Aquinas who sayth that no man is iustified with God by his workes but by the habit of faith infused and againe that there is in the workes of the Law no hope of iustification but by faith onely and by Pighius who holdeth that there is in vs no inherent righteousnesse whereby wee may bee iustified but that our iustification is by Christs righteousnesse imputed vnto vs and by the Diuines of Collen who affirme That the righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto vs and apprehended by faith is the principall cause of our iustification and by Cassander who approueth of our doctrine of iustification by faith alone and imputed
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
righteousnesse So that wee exclude not from this faith repentance amendment of life new obedience c. Lastly by Ferus Stapulensis Peraldus and diuers others yea almost all of them when at the point of death they come to the point of try all flye to this sacred anchor of Christs righteousnesse alone renouncing all righteousnesse in themselues as the famous example of Stephen Gardiner declareth who lying on his death-bed reposed himselfe on the righteousnesse of Christ only for his saluation and being told that it was contrarie to his former resolution answered that though it was the truth yet that gappe was not to bee opened to the people 48. The Protestants hold that our best workes are stayned with so many imperfections that they cannot merit any thing at Gods hand except it be hell fire and damnation and that though God of his mercie reward good workes with eternall life yet it is not for any condignity that is in them but for Christs sake into whom the partie working is ingrafted and made a member Many learned Romanists are of the same opinion Bellarmine sayth that in regard of the vncertaintie of our owne righteousnesse and danger of vaine glorie the safest way is to put our confidence in the sole mercie and goodnesse of God Waldensis writeth Hee is a sounder Diuine a faithfuller Catholicke and more agreeing to the Scriptures that simply denieth merits and sayth that the Kingdome of Heauen is from the mere grace and will of the giuer not from any desert of the Receiuer Of the same opinion was Albertus Pighius as witnesseth Bellarmine Ferus sayth Whatsoeuer God giueth vs is of grace not of debt If therefore thou desire to hold the grace and fauour of God make no mention of thy merits The same hold Gregorius Ariminensis Durandus Stella with many more renouncing all the new Rhemish doctrine of merits of condignitie taught by the Schoole fourbished ouer by the Councell of Trent and refining Iesuites All these being sworne subiects to the Church of Rome yet being constrained by the conscience of the truth doe as fully and perfectly maintaine our doctrine as if they were the rankest Protestants in the World 49. Protestants denie all free will to grace before it bee quickned and liued by Gods Spirit Many learned Romanists teach the same doctrine Laurentius Valla as Bellarmine reports wished that the name of free-will were vtterly taken away The Master of Sentences auouched that free-will before grace repaire it is pressed ouercome with cōcupiscence hath weaknesse in euill but no grace in good and therefore cannot but sinne damnably Dom. Bannes affirmeth that it is false and worse then false that any man without the speciall and supernaturall helpe of God can be able to doe a supernaturall act Ariminensis calleth the Romish doctrine of free-wil Pelagianisme The Iesuite Suarez sayth that diuers Romanists say that it is a rash and hereticall opinion to affirme that when grace is equally offered to two that one of them could be conuerted and not the other What could any Protestant say more 50. Transubstantiation circumgestation and subtraction of the Cuppe are denyed by many of their owne side as well as by vs. Durand sayth It is great rashnesse to thinke the bodie of Christ by his diuine power cannot bee in the Sacrament vnlesse the bread be conuerted into it and therefore that he holdeth the contrarie onely for the Churches determination So also sayth Scotus There is no Scripture to enforce Transubstantiation except ye bring the Church of Romes exposition Occham sayth that that opinion that the substance of the bread remaineth is subiect to lesse inconueniences and lesse repugnant to reason and holy Scripture The custome of circumgestation of the hoast sayth Cassander may be left with greater profit to the Church if it bee wisely laid downe both because it is but a new inuention as also because it seruethrather for pompous ostentation then for any godly deuotion and so as Albertus Crantzius sayth is contrary to Christs institution Pope Gelasius witnesse Gregorie of Valintia said that the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist doe not lose their nature Touching abstraction of the Cuppe their learned Cassander acknowledgeth that for the space of a thousand yeeres after Christ the people communicated in both kindes and that in Greece and Armenia they doe still and the best Catholickes earnestly desire a reformation of this matter in the Church of Rome And Durand their Schooleman that the receiuing in one kind onely is not a full sacrament all receiuing for though that in the consecrated hoast Christs bloud bee contained yet it is not there sacramentally in that the bread signifieth the bodie and not the bloud and the wine the bloud and not the bodie Of the same mind were Alexander Alensis Albertus magnus Biel with others more this last affirming that in the Apostles times all did receiue the wine aswell as the bread because God is no respecter of persons The second that it is of greater vse and profit to the faithfull and the first that it is a matter of greater merit Thus all these Schoolemen doe protestantize in this point 51. Auricular confession is denied by Protestants to be necessarie for the remission of sinnes and to bee commanded by God The same is auerred by Panormitane Peresius Bonauenture Medina Rhenanus Erasmus Caietane c. all of them concluding with one voyce that it is a doctrine deriued onely from a positiue Law of the Church and not from the Law of God yea and the last that is named to wit Cardinall Caietane is bold to say that it is so farre from being commanded that euery one should be shriuen before hee come to the Communion that the contrarie is insinuated by the Apostle where hee sayth Let a mantry himselfe And Gratian confesseth that Ambrose Augustine Chrysostome Theophilact and other Greeke Fathers thought that secret confession was not necessarie And lastly Acosta a famous Iesuite auoucheth that it would be well for the Indians if the bond of confession might bee taken away lest they should bee constrained to commit so many and so grieuous sacriledges 52. So the Romish doctrine of satisfactions is vtterly condemned by Protestants and not onely by them but by many of their owne learned Doctours for the Diuines of Louaine as Bellarmine witnesseth of them and others did certainly defend that the sufferings of Saints cannot bee true satisfactions but that our punishments are remitted onely by the personall satisfaction of Christ And Panormitane sayth that a man may be inwardly so penitent and contrite that he shall need no satisfaction at all but may bee absolued presently without any penance doing And another that the treasure of Indulgences doth consist onely of the merits of Christ and not of the satisfactions of Saints because the merits of Christ are of infinite valew 53.