The cause without which the latter shall not haue effect For as vocation iustification regeneration and glorification are the effectes of predestination euen so by Gods holy ordinance being predestinate wee are called by the hearing of his word vnto â—aith which faith is the cause of our iustification by apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ Iesus after wee be iustified of our iustification proceedes regeneration as who hauing remission of our sinnes and being ingraffed in Christ by faith are indued with more aboundant grace of his holy spirite thorough which we are dayly more and more regenerate and made new creatures after we be regenerate out of our regeneration spring good workes aswel internall as externall as who being made good trees begin to bring forth good fruits and so continuing are brought at the length of Gods free mercie to the possession of eternall life For as y e apostle saith we are created vnto good workes which God hath ordained that wee shoulde walke in them and continuing in them we shall at the dreadful day of doome heare this ioyfull sentence pronounced to our vnspeakable comfort Come yee blessed of my father take the inheritance of the kingdome prepared for you from the foundation of the world For I was an hungred and ye gaue me meate I was thirsty and ye gaue me drink I was a stranger and ye took me in vnto you I was naked and ye clothed me I I was sicke and ye visited me I was in prison and ye came to me And with this it is true yet y t the apostle saith Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we had done but according to his mercie he saued vs by the washing of the new birth and by renuing of the holy Ghost which hee shed on vs aboundantly through Iesus Christ our sauiour that wee being iustified by his grace should be made heires according to the hope of eternall life This is a true saying and these thinges I will thou shouldest affirme that they which haue beleeued God might be carefull to shew forth good workes These things are good and profitable vnto men Thus saith S. Paule and therefore I thinke this a profitable conclusion By it rightly vnderstood many places of holy Scripture may easily be answered which seeme to ascribe iustification or glorification to good workes The 10. conclusion This popish assertion that workes doe iustifie and merite eternall life de condigno was for the space of a thousand and eightie yeares vnknowne to the church of God About which time Petrus Lombardus and his fellowes began their scholasticall theologie and disputed such matters doubtfully About the yeare of our Lord 1545. the late councell of Trent defined the same for an article of christian beliefe solemnely accursing al such as hold the contrary opinion This is the originall and antiquitie of this impudently defended heresie It is sufficiently confuted throughout the whole chapter CHAP. X. Of the popish idololatricall masse The 1. conclusion TO withhold from the vulgar and laycall sort of people the one part of the holy communion is a diabolical hereticall and sacrilegious fact I prooue it sundry waies First because it is flatly against the expresse scripture and Christes holy institution For Christ himselfe instituted and ministred the Sacrament in both kindes saying drinke yee all of it as Saint Mathew recordeth and they all dranke of it as witnesseth Saint Marke Saint Paule also taught all the Corinthians to communicate in both kindes protesting that hee deliuered the forme and maner of the holy communion euen as he had in spirite receiued it from the Lord. Secondly because the auncient fathers shew euidently that in their time it was the generall practise of the church to deliuer the holy communion to the lay people vnder both kindes Neither was the cup taken from the vulgar sort by any setled law vntill the late councell of Constance which was in the yere of our Lord God 1414. Origen hath these words Quis est iste populus qui in vsu habet sanguinem bibere haec erant quae in euangelio audientes ij qui ex Iudaeis dominum sequebantur scandalizati sunt dixerunt Quis potest manducare carnem sanguinem bibere sed populus Christianus populus fidelis audit haec amplectitur sequitur eum qui dicit nisi manducaueritis carnem meam biberitis sanguinem meum non habebitis vitam in vobis ipsis quia caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè potus est Who is that people that hath in custome to drinke bloud these were the thinges which the Iewes that followed Christ heard in the gospel and were scandalized and said Who can eate flesh and drinke bloud but the christian people the faithfull people heare these thinges and embrace them and follow him that sayth vnlesse ye shall eate my flesh drink my bloud ye shall haue no life in your selues because my fleshe is meate indeed and my bloud drinke indeed S. Hierome hath these words Sacerdotes quoque qui eucharistiae seruiunt sanguinem domini populis eius diuidunt impiè agunt in legem Christi The Priestes also that administer the eucharist and diuide the Lordes bloud to his people transgresse the law of Christ heynously Saint Cyprian with fourtie learned bishops in their ioynt Epistle to Cornelius write in this expresse maner Quo modo docemus aut prouocamus eos in confessione nominis sanguinem suum fundere si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus aut quo modo ad martyrij poculum idoâ—â—os facimus si non eis priùs ad bibendum in ecclesia poculum domini iure communicationis admittimus Howe doe we teache 〈◊〉 them to shed their bloud for the name of Christ if wee denie them the bloud of Christ when they go to warre or how doe we make them fit for the cuppe of martyrdome if wee doe not first admit them to drinke the Lordes cuppe in the Churche and that by the right of communion where I wishe the reader to note well that the lay people haue right to both kindes and consequently that the Romish church is become the whore of Babylon in that shee robbeth vs of our christian right which wee haue de iure diuino Saint Chrysostome hath these wordes Est vbi nihil differt sacerdos à subdito vt quando fruendum est honorandis mysteriis Similiter enim omnes vt illa percipiamus digni habemur Non sicut in veteri lege partem quidem sacerdos comedebat partem autem populus non licebat populo participem esse eorum quorum particeps erat sacerdos Sed nunc non sic verum omnibus vnum corpus proponitur poculum vnum There is a place where there is no difference betweene the priest the lay person as when we are to communicate in the holy mysteries for we are all in
iustos facit To conclude the onely formal cause is the iustice of God not that with which himself is iust but with which he maketh vs iust This decree is quite contrarie to my conclusion they learned it of Aquinas their angelicall doctour whose direction they followe in all theologicall questions Thus doth Aquinas write Gratia non dicitur facere gratum effectiuè sed formaliter quia per hanc homo iustificatur dignus efficitur vocari Deo gratus secundum illud Colos. 1. vers 12. dignos nos fecit in partem sortis fanctorum in lumine Grace doth not make one acceptable effectiuely but formally because man is iustified by grace and is made worthie to be accepted of god according to that which the apâ—stle saith He hath made vs worthie of the fellowship of saints in light Thus writeth Aquinas whose opinion being once confuted al other papists shalbe confuted in him I therfore say first that Aquinas was deceiued with the popish vulgar latin translation called vulgata editio which for al that the late disholy synode of Trent hath wonderfully magnified extolled aboue the starrie skies For where their vulgata editio hath worthie there the greeke and original hath meete or fit these are the very words of the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Giuing thanks to god euen the father who hath made vs meete to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light I say secondly that since his foundation was a false translation his conclusion inferred thereupon must of necessitie bee false also And therefore wee may not reade as Aquinas did who hath made vs worthie but who hath made vs meete or fitte for the fellowshippe of Saintes and so their owne linquist Arias Montanus doth interpret it to their confusion And because the verie life of this question standeth wholly in this if there be any forme or qualitie inherent in man by which hee is worthy of glory and eternall life I will prooue pithily and succinctly that man neither hath in him nor can haue any such qualitie at all but that the formall cause of mans iustification is in Christ Iesus not in himselfe The first argument No infinite accident can be in any finite subiect but the grace of iustification is infinite Ergo it cannot be in man a finite subiect The argument is in forme the proposition is graunted of all as well Philosophers as Diuines and the assumtion is manifest because the transgression was infinite as is prooued in the third conclusion The second argument Being iustified freely by his grace saith the Apostle thorough redemption which is in Christ Iesus Where we must obserue first y t when the apostle saith freely hee doth exclude all workes and all qualities in man We must obserue secondly that when he saith by his grace he giueth vs to vnderstand that the grace of iustification is in Christ and not in our selues For otherwise he would haue termed it our grace and not his grace because that which is inherent in our selues is properly ours We must obserue thirdly that when hee concludeth the period thus which is in Christ Iesus the word which hath no lesse relation to grace then to redemption and so thone must be in Christ aswel as the other The 3. argument Being therfore iustified by faith we haue peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ through whom we haue accesse by faith into this grace in which wee stand In which wordes of the Apostle wee are taught three thinges First that our iustification is by faith Secondly that our iustification giueth vs peace with God Thirdly that by faith we haue accesse to the grace of iustification and consequently that this grace of iustification is not in our selues For vnproperly are wee saide to haue accesse to a thing inherent in our selues The 4. argument Not hauing mine owne righteousnesse which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ euen the righteousnesse which is of God through faith In which wordes the Apostle teacheth vs two thinges First that the formal cause of our iustification is not our owne in these wordes not hauing mine owne righteousnesse for if our iustice or righteousnesse were inherent in our selues it should be our owne Secondly that our iustice is through faith and in faith and consequently that the formall iustice of the papists is not that true christian iustice whereof Saint Paul speaketh for they say that charitie which is the chiefest part of their formall inherent iustice is neither through faith nor in faith but aboue faith and the forme of faith The fift argument He that knewe no sinne suffered the paine due for sinne for our sakes that wee might be made the iustice of God in him In which wordes the apostle teacheth vs two thinges First that Christ died for our iustification Secondly that this iustification is the application of the iustice of God in Christ. But doubtlesse the iustice of God cannot be our inherent iustice For first Gods iustice is infinite but ours is finite Secondly Gods iustice is perfite but ours is vnperfit Thirdly Gods iustice is absolute but ours is relatiue The 6. argument For they being ignorant of the righteousnesse of God and going about to stablishe their owne righteousnesse haue not submitted themselues to the righteousnesse of God For Christ is the end of the law for righteousnesse vnto euery one that beleeueth In these wordes of the apostle wee are taught two thinges First that to ascribe anie righteousnesse to our selues is flatly to fall from the iustice of God Which certes could not be so if y t iustice by which we are iustified were inherent in our selues Againe that Christes righteousnesse is applied to euery one by faith Which thing shalbe yet more plaine by the next conclusion The 5. conclusion Man is iustified by sole and only faith that is to say faith onely is the instrument by which man applieth to himselfe the righteousnesse of God in Christ Iesus This conclusion containeth three thinges First that Gods righteousnesse is that iustice which we present for our iustification Secondly that it is ours for the merites of Christ Iesus Thirdly that we apprehend and take hold vpon it by faith only and so we haue the explication howe sole faith doth iustifie Which because the papistes so bitterly impugne I will prooue it both by y e scriptures and the fathers If Abraham saith S. Paule were iustified by works he hath wherin to reioyce but not with God For what saith the Scripture Abraham beleeued God and it was counted to him for righteousnesse Thus saith the Apostle Out of which wordes I note first that workes did not iustifie Abraham before God I note secondly that that iustice by which man standeth cleere before God is only imputatiue and not really inherent in himselfe Which imputatiue iustice the Apostle doth often inculcate
Againe in an other place Without me can ye doe nothing By which testimonies it is clear y t man before he be regenerate hath not power force efficacy or faculty to do good or once to coÌ„sent to any spiritual act The third conclusion The meritorious cause as wel of saluation as of iustification is Christ Iesus and none els This conclusion wilbe manifest if we seriously reuolue in our minds the wonderful mystery of mans redemption In which kind of holy meditation whosoeuer shal deuoutly exercise himselfe that man doubtlesse wil espie with facilitie these foure most excellent attributes of our most sweete redeemer to wit his iustice his mercie his wisedome his loue For first as the worthines of the person increaseth so doth also the offence against the saide person committed Wherupon it commeth that a reprochful word spoken against a meane priuate person is in respect a small offence when it is spoken against a magistrate it is greatâ—r when against our soueraigne the greatest of all and consequently when we offend God whose person is of infinite worthienes our offence must needes be infinite howsoeuer our late papists flatter themselues in their venials and so man vncapable of euerie infinite action cannot possibly yeeld any condigne compensation and yet god of his iustice cannot pardon sin without condigne compensatioÌ„ for the same Behold here Gods iustice Secondly in rigor of iustice the partie that offendeth is bound to make satisfaction for the fault neither is the partie offended bound to accept the satisfaction of any other and conseqently God was not bound to accept his sonnes satisfaction for our sinnes though it were most sufficient and of infinite dignitie In this Gods mercie shewed it selfe Thirdly on the one side pure God could not satisfie though he were of infinit dignitie because pure God is impassible on the other side pure man was not able because euerie his action was insufficient as of which no one amongst al could be infinite God therefore appointed his onely sonne to be incarnate to ioyne humanitie with diuinity in hypostatical vnion and so to make attonement for our sinnes For as man hee was passible and as God he was able to giue infinite dignitie to his passion Wherein we may beholde Gods diuine wisedome Fourthly God seeing man in the chaines and bondage and thraldome of the deuill through sin and hauing tender compassion of him in such his distresse sent his owne deare sonne to set him at libertie again and this he did of meere loue without all merits and deserts of man For as Christ himselfe saith God so loued the world that he gaue his onely begotten sonne that whosoeuer beleeueth in him should not perish but haue life euerlasting All saith the apostle haue sinned and are depriued of the glorie of God and are iustified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus Againe in another place As by the offence of one the fault came on al men to condemnation so by the iustifying of one the benefit abounded towarde all men to the iustification of life For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous This is the stone saith Saint Peter which the builders refused which is become the head of the corner neither is there saluation in any other for among men there is giuen none other name vnder heauen whereby wee must be saued Wee haue an aduocate with the father saith Saint Iohn euen Iesus Christ the iust and he is the reconciliation for our sinnes Christ redeemed vs saith Saint Paul from the curse of the lawe while hee was made a curse for vs. Againe in another place In whome wee haue redemption through his bloud that is the forgiuenesse of our sinnes Againe Who did by himselfe purge our sinnes and sitteth on the right hand of maiestie on high Againe For he hath made him to be sinne for vs that knew no sinne that we should be made the righteousnes of God in him These saith S. Iohn are they which came from great tribulatioÌ„ washed their stoales and made them white in the bloud of the Lambe Again in another place The bloud of Iesus Christ doth purge vs from all sin I euen I am hee saith God by his Prophet that blotteth out thine infirmities not for thy deserts but for mine owne sake Againe in another place He was wounded for our iniquities hee was torne in peeces for our offences S. Austen shal conclude this point who writeth in this maner Dominus noster Iesus Christus mori venit peccare non venit communicando nobiscum sine culpa poenam culpam soluit poenam Our Lord came to die he came not to sin communicating paine with vs without sinne he loosed both sinne and the paine of sinne The fourth conclusion The mercie of God is the efficient cause of mans iustification and Gods glorie the finall cause of the same Of the former speaketh S. Paul when he saith Not by the works of righteousnesse which we haue done but according to his mercie hath he saued vs by the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the holy ghost Againe in another place the same Apostle saith that al haue sinned are freely iustified by his grace Againe he saith Which beleeue in him that raised vp Iesus our Lord from the dead And S. Iohn saith that God of his meere mercy and loue gaue his only son for the redemption of the world Of the latter speaketh the apostle when he saith that God hath made vs accepted in his beloued to the praise of his glory Again in another place whether therfore ye eate or drink or whatsoeuer ye do do all to the glory of God As if he had said ye must referre al your thoughts words and workes to Gods glorie because ye were created to that end The prophet also saith I euen I am he that putteth away thine iniquities for mine own sake wil not remember thy sins Againe in an other place Surely I wil not giue my glory to any other But doubtlesse if God shoulde iustifie man for any other end then for his owne glory it would follow thereupon that his glorie were giuen to another Yet as Salomon saith God hath made al things for his own sake yea euen y e wicked for y e day of euil The formall cause of mans iustification is not mans owne inherent iustice but the iustice righteousnes of Christ Iesus This conclusion containeth the maine point of a mighty controuersie betweene the papists vs for which respect I wish the reader to marke attentiuely my discourse The late councel holden at Trent setteth downe the opinion of the papists in these words DemuÌ„ vnica formalis causa est iustitiâ— dei noÌ„ qua ipse iustus est sed qua nos