not already accomplished by that first righteousnesse Moreouer if this righteousnesse bee that which the Gospell teacheth and not the Gospell only but as the same Apostle writeth afterward which is testified by the law and the Prophets wheÌ„ce haue you brought vs a second righteousnesse that neither the Lawe nor the Prophets nor the Gospell haue reueiled vnto vs The vanitie of this your deuise may further appeare if we coÌ„sider the iustice of God which can not allowe for righteous any thing but y t which is absolutely perfect and holy in all respects as the Lawe is most perfect most holy Wherfore both the satisfaction for â—ur sinne committed must be such as mâ—y fully endure whatsoeuer the Lawe hath threatened for sin and the obedience so exact and precise as it faile not in any poynt But this righteousnesse is but one and is in none but in our sauiour Christ none other being able to make that ful satisfactioÌ„ for sinne nor perfectly to keepe the Lawe but he alone therefore there can â—ee but one righteousnesse which is in Christ Iesus accompted vnto those which beleeue in him according to the Gospell The holy Apostles teach that after men be conuerted from infidelitie to faith they stande righteous and liue in the sight of God not by meanes of their woorkes but by this faith whereby they beleeued Abrahams example maketh this good who after he was called from idolatrie to the seruice of God is said to haue beleeued and that his faith was reckoned to him for righteousnesse not his workes first or last least hee might haue wherein to reioyce and not in God The Apostle to the Galathians maketh this euident We knowing saith he that a man is not iustified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Iesus Christ we also haue beleeued in Iesus Christ that we may bee iustified by the faith of Christ and not by workes of the Law because by the works of the Lawe no flesh shalbe iustified In which words the Apostle plainely maketh saluation an effect of faith and not of any workes which we do after wee haue beleeued Our sauiour Christ confirmeth this in diuers places as in Ioh He that beleeueth in him that hath sent me hath euerlasting life shal not come into condeÌ„natioÌ„ but is already passed from death to life He that beleeueth in the sonne hath life euerlasting An other place to the Galathians maketh all this yet more manifest where the Apostle speaking of himselfe long after his conuersion saith That I nowe liue I liue by the faith of him that loued me and gaue him selfe for me By these proofes it is euident that there is but one onely righteousnesse for which men are accompted righteous before him which is the righteousnes of faith To this may be added that the only righteousnes of God is that which giueth all the glorie of our saluation to God only in Christ Iesus and shutteth out all vaunting and boasting of man but the second righteousnes which you imagine doth not so but Ieaueth somewhat for man to glory of therefore it is no righteousnes taught by the Apostle Lastly this also is against your second righteousnes that our workes done by faith yet are not perfect and therefore cannot make vs righteous before God These reasons may suffice in this great question of our saluation briefly to conuince the blasphemie of your deuise inuented of Satan to deceiue those that seeking saluation more or lesse by their owne workes faile of that righteousnesse which is by faith onely in GOD through Christ Iesus our Lorde Nowe seeing the folly of this absurd distinction of a first and of a second righteousnesse is euidently coÌ„uicted it is also worthy of consideration how this Censurer that taketh vpon him so iustly to deuide and giue euery thing his owne doeth here notwithstanding huddle and confound righteousnesse with regeneration and iustification with sanctification For that which hee calleth the second righteousnesse is that which the Scripture calleth the New man the fruits of the Spirit or regeneratioÌ„ Furder also where he saith The first righteousnesse is of Gods mercie only and no way of our workes or by any merit of the same it is to be noted that hee is constrayned to acknowledge a righteâ—usnesse by faith onely without any deâ—â—â—â— of workes whereupon it â—hould be obserued that the Censureâ— him selfe seemeth tâ— be ashamed of y e merit of coÌ„gruence as the Schoolemen terme it while he so â—â—atly fully affirmeth our calling to bee onely of Gods grace without any merit of ours Now to returne to his Censure againe he addeth in the end a Censure vpon the allegation of the text vouched out of the Romanes for the disproofe of the former blasphemous opinion This he blameth as impertinent and vntrue impertinent because in his construction it is against the righteousnesse of good workes before our calling and not generally against the righteousnesse of all good workes wherein hee seemeth not to haue regarded the reason of the Apostle which is taken from the nature of grace and workes so contrarie that the one can neuer nor in any wise stande with the other Therefore the argument is strong to proue that our saluation cannot â—e both deserued and also freely giueÌ„ Nâ—â—ther doth this argument holde in election onely but whatsoeuer is of grace as â—â—â—â—tion iustification sanctification glory all these are in no 〈◊〉 or part of works Thus the place is so forcible to the purpose it was alledged for that the Censurer is not able â—o escape the sentence therof He complaineth lastly of wordes added which are but to cleare the sense and taken out of the second to the Galathians where to like effect the Apostle faith If righteousnesse be by the lawe Christ dyed without cause Thus hauing satisfied all the Censurers pretensed doubtes and conuicted him of errour in the blasphemous doctrine of a second righteousnesse I may worthely leaue the Iesuice to his voluntary Whip for reformation of his iudgement otherwise if he wil not learne to giue al the honour and causes of saluation to God in Christ but will in establishing his owne righteousnesse abandon the righteousnesse of God by fayth which must stand altogether of it selfe then in so teaching he wil drawe vpon him selfe other Whippes euen Scorpiâ—ns whose sting abide for euer For auoyding hereof I pray God if it may make for his glory that you Iesuites may receiue the loue of the trueth that you maye seeke finde saluation in the merites of Christ alone to life euerlasting The ninth report of â—esuiâ—eâ— doctrine is Men doe surely hope that euerlasting life shalbe giuen them but they doe not beleeue it now hope often faileth â—â—herwise it were no hope This 〈…〉 cle 〈◊〉 coâ—fessed without any coâ—â—radiction that the wicked seruant may be iudged by his owne mouth But
separate him from the loue of God that is in Christ Iesus But in mayntenance of these errours you are wont to say this was a speciall pâ—etogatiue of the Apostle which is easely taken away by that S. Peter writeth to this purpose that the Saints had obtayned lyke precious fayth with him which was true not in the degree but in the kind and substance of faith which shoulde wholly differ if the Apostles had a faith of their particular saluation and we not Agayne the certaintie of fayth appeareth by these reasons which the Apostle alleadgeth Who shall 〈◊〉 the chosen of God It is God that iustifieth who shall condemne It is Christ that hath died nay rather who is raysed vp againe who is also at the ryght hande of God who maketh into cession for vs. These reasons of a most sure faith and hope that wauereth not are of no particular reuelation but of the generall doctrine of the Gospel and of the common saluation as Iude calleth it which of right apper 〈…〉 to euery beleeuer aswel as to Peter or to Paul The Consurers set onne reason is that the faithfull may fallaway from the fayth and from saluation where as the things beleeued remaine most certayne The grouÌ„d of this reason is to be denieâ— for it is most vntrue that any man who hath had fayth can euer afterward finally fallaway This may bee prooued by euident testimonies of the scripture beside those alleadged aboue as that which Christ teacheth of the beleeuer in the eyght chapter of Iohn He shall neuer see death in the fourth But the water that I shall giue him shall be in him a spring of waters flowing vp to euerlasting life in the tenth The father is greater then all and none is able to take them out of the fathers hand Againe of the faithfull it is true which the Apostle vniteth that God hath iustified and glorified them So certayne it is as if it were already euery way perfourmed But it were long to repeate any inoâ—e Notwithstanding there are places that mention a fayth which seemed for a time to be faythfull but 〈◊〉 as the fig tree was full of leaues but without fruite As for the examples of Iudan who hath falne and of your selfe who 〈◊〉 saye may likewise cast your selfe away if you list I can saye of Iudas hee neuer beleeued because he was y e childe of distruction For your selfe if you haue bene alwaies of that minde you were of when you wrote this you neuer had any true faith and therfore coulde neuer yet fall awaye from it What God may vouchsafe you hereafter I knowe not but leaue it to his wisedome to dispose of his owne as it shal please him but if euer he vouchsafe you this gift I am sure the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile against you Your seconde poynt is of hope which in your doctrine hath two respectes one of Gods mercie and in that regard it is full of confidence the other in respect of Gods iustice which hath feare and doubt annexed with it The places alledged before of hope you expaunde for the confidence thereof which is true if you stayed there not adding other respects to roote out that which you woulde seeme to plant for you shoulde haue made hopesâ— firme and sure that it can not be deceiued But as being of an other iudgement you say that hope respecteth also the iustice of God and the feareful effectes of his feueritie which you quote out of the Scriptures concernyng which effectes I will not dispute with you Onely in alleadging the last I note your wantes that without all regarde or any warrant of the text dare say that those reprobates shall come confidently in the last day hoping to be saued For besides that it is vnpossible that their conscience can haue any sparke of confidence or hope of saluation there is not any mention of such confident hope in the text eyther expresly or by implication If they had some hope then also they must haue some faith for they goe together hande in hande Although I thus linke them together yet I do not confound them but acknowledge this differeÌ„ce that as faith is a full persuasion of the promise so hope is a patient expectation and looking for of the things which are beleeued It is you therfore that in deede huddle and confounde hope and a vaine perswasion as one thing where as hope is no lesse sure then fayth being grounded vpon the same foundation of the worde and hath the same fulnes of persuasion But this is ignorance and confusion which who so discrieth may well marueyle what cause you or your friendes finde to hoast of your learning or order for disputation Such coÌ„fusion must be in Babell which leauing with you I saye further that hope neuer respecteth Gods iustice nor any thing else but the things that are beleeued which are y â— most sweete and pretious promises of his life kingdome and glorie Therfore what causes shoulde hope haue to feare True it is that neither fayth nor hope is so perfect in vs but that in these respects you name we often feare but this feare is no woorke of hope no more then doubt is a woorke of fayth For to say that hope feareth in some respects is as much as to say faith in some respectes doubteth and is no faith We doe both doubt and feare such are our infirmities but that we doubt it is not of fayth but of vnbeliefe neyther doe we feare as you speake of feare by any effect of hope but by the contrary worke of desperation But after so many and sufficient reasons out of the worde to prooue this question of importance the woordes of the Censurer offer one not to be neglected He affirmeth that hope in respect of the goodnesse of God is full of confidence and assurance Therefore although he will needes against reason make confidence fearefull yet shall he neuer cast any shadowe of feare vpon assurance especially vpon a full assurance such as he confesseth Nowe for the places you alleadge they concerne not this feare nowe in question but expresse a godly care to liue woorthie our calling which is not against the confidence of hope but a remedie agaynst presumption and securitie The place which you alleadge out of the preacher sheweth you to be a great clarke able to reade and cite a place though you come not neere the matter by many degrees The wise man there disputeth of that a man may gather by prosperitie and aduersitie and not what he knoweth by the worde of God For neyther can aduersitie nor prosperitie shewe the loue or hatred of God toward vs it was the deceitfull counsell of Iobs frendes to drawe him into these argumentes of Gods purpose But Iob by fayth coulde confesse agaynst all calamities and extremities saying though he kill mee yet will I beleeue in him still
is doubtfull for the tongue is the instrument of speache and not such a cause The naturall knowledge of the latin speach or the knowledge thereof by arte is the cause If the tongue were the proper cause whosoeuer had a tongue should speake latin because where the cause is the effect followeth By which reason your owne woordes againe make concupiscense to bee sinne saying it is the affect of originall s 〈…〉 because such as the proper cause is 〈…〉 is also the proper effect the â—ause sinne and sinneful the effect also sinne and sinful But you that make many demaundes to me let me aske you what you meant to bring in the example of Christ who is called sinne in thâ—â— chapter and â—epâ—stle to the Corâ—th forwhich you falsely quote the 8. â—o the Râ—man 〈◊〉 you make the example like Shall 〈◊〉 expâ—â—â—de the former speach of Saint Paul calling concupiscense sinne Surely hereby you proue that Paul calling concupiscense sinne meant notwithstanding that it was altogether no sinne for Christ is altogether no sinne Againe howe vnlike are these examples Christ is called sinne because hee was a sacrifice for sinne that is to take away sinne concupiscense is called sinne because it is the effect fruite of originall sinne not taking it away but increasing it continually If you made conscience of your speach you would neuer misconâ—â—er the plaine woâ—rdes of the Apostles bring nothing for your defeÌ„ce but such impertinent similitudes For I appeale to your conscience may you not as fitly by these similitudes proue that the Apostle calleth fornication sinne by a figure or any other sinne neuer so great Saint Austeâ—â— place making it no sinne in y e 〈…〉 rate without conâ—â—t is expounded by himselfe afterwarde saying Concupiscence is not so forgiuen in Baptisme that it is not sinne but that it is not imputed as sinne For a clearer proofe hereof in another booke hee saith plainely it is 〈◊〉 For when Iulian obiected that conâ—â—piscence is wortâ—y praise because it is a punishment of sinne Austen tooke that away by an example of the wicked deuils whâ— though they in respect of Gods hande doâ— iustly punish yet themselues are vniust and sinfull whereupon this similitude fol 〈…〉 eth to proue concupiscence sinne euen when there is no consent As the blyndnesse of the heart which God remoueth who alone doth illuminate is both sinne whereby we beleeue not in God and the punishment of sinne whereby a proude heart is punished with worthie punishment the cause of sinne when any euill is committed by the error of a blind heart so the concupiscense of the flesh agaynst which the good spirit â—usteth is both sinne because there is in it a disobedieÌ„ce against the regiment of the minde and a punishment of sin because it is rendred to y e merites of the disobedient the cause of sin through the defect of that y t consenteth or the conâ—agion of that that springeth You were deceiued in citing Austen twise as hauing written but one booke De Nup. et Concup Clement hath no such place but against you hee hath these woordes in the booke of his exhortation to the GeÌ„tiâ—â—s speaking of the seuenth commandement among others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt not lust for by concupiscense alone thou hast committed adulterie Which sentence sheweth what a sinne bare concupiscense is that alone without consent commeth so neere a degree of actuall adulterie You were also deceiued in quoting Ambrose for he hath no such place where you cite him Nazianzen I thinke hath no such oration as you dreame of such is your cause and such are your testimonies Wherefore it is false that all those good fathers are partakers with the Iesuites of that doctrine which blasphemously maketh the breach of the tenth commandement no sinne And because you so often presse the worde blasphemie so seldome vsed by me you must vnderstande that such doctrines especially now after so great reuelation of the trueth are the doctrines of deuils blasphemoâ—s against God and his holy woorde which teacheth the contrary as hath and shall bee further declared But nowe followeth the place of Gotuisus brought to proue the contrary doctrine Whosoeuer shall see a woman to lust after her hee hath already committed adulterie with her in his heart The Censurer in this place to note my ignoraunce bewrayeth his owne confounding hudling the first last part of the proposition which in Scholes are called subiectu and praedicatum For the question sta 〈…〉 th in y â— former place where Christ vsetâ— a word of concupiscence affirming that 〈◊〉 a man see a woman to lust or in concupisâ—enâ—e to desyre her where the force of sinne worketh in the first degree it is with content of heart brought to a further degree and becommeth actuall adulterie before God though it bee not actuall before men Therefore if I had as you miâ—conâ—â—er alleaged this place of Matthewe altogether in respect of the effect and as it is a breach of the seuenth commandement it had not made against the doctrine of concupiscense without consent But I cite it for the former part of the propositioÌ„ which sufficiently proueth bare concupiscense to bee sinne For if the consent of the heart make concupisceÌ„se to be adulterie theÌ„ must concupiscense it selfe be also sinne because otherwise the consent of the heart cannot make any lawful desire to be adulterie but the fruite and the tree must be of the same nature Saint Iames doeth moreouer proue this who wil not that a man should say God tempteth him and so charge the Lord with sinne but he turneth vpon man the whole worke and al the blame of sinne froÌ„ the first sinne of tempting to the ripe ful birth thereof The Apostles wordes in this place are full to make this proofe calling it a mans owne lust or lusting adding moreouer that a man is tempted therwith drawen away and as with a baite intited which thinges can not bee in bare concupisâ—ense except it were sinne and a sinful cause of sinne from the which Iames doth carefully quite the Lorde Also this concupifcense because it hath â—entation violence and a baite to sinne before câ—nsent of heart be giuen and before the secret adulterie of the heart be coÌ„mitted it cannot be of faith and therefore the Apostle giueth sentence that it is sin for whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne be it before or after the consent of heart Therefore out of these woordes of Christ it is truely proued by the nature and effect of concupiscense that it is sinne of it selfe seeing presently with consent it is made a sinne in so high a degree as is adulterie Also herein my alleadging of Scripture is founde to be according to the matter and argument without any error of doctrine alteration of sense or appiying it otherwise then it may be truely and profitably applied wherefore you gaue to much
Lent If this be not hudling and confounding of things together of vnlike sort I knowe not what may be called confusion For what order is it to repeate vpoÌ„ the Censurers occasion y â— which was noted in the fourth article to match the baptisme of children with the fast of Lent The one being by plaine argument gathered out of the worde as namely out of the wordes of the conenant I will bee thy God and the God of thy seede and thy children after thee for euer This couenaunt dyd appertayne to both a like to Abraham and his seede whereunto the seale and practise was adioyned in circumcising infantes of eyght dayes as well as Abraham of great age and that by expresse commaundement of God Thus the doctrine is so prooued out of the written worde as that no doubt remayneth Nowe circumcision was the sacrament or seale of that righteousnesse which is by fayth as Saint Paul teacheth wherein it is equall our baptisme But this is your great learning when you are not able for your ignorance to prooue a doctrine out of the written worde to say we haue it by tradition and by worde of mouth from the Apostles Now your Lent fast as you vse it hath not onely no grounde out of the worde but is agaynst the worde as I prooued before If this bee your methode and discretion I maruell not if good order be huddling and confounding in your accompt For the number of the bookes and for the Lordes day I myght likewise make proofe out of the worde so that if you can bring vs nothing by worde of mouth from the Apostles but your Lent fast your letters of credence will not serue you to be deleeued The seconde Censure is that the place alleadged by me to confuce the aucthoritie of traditions should be impertinent This the Censurer woulde shewe by three differences betweene it and this purpose First of the diuers cause of those traditions which our Sauiour Christ inueyeth against whereof they had beene authors to them selues and of these which he affirmeth to descende from Christ and his Apostles But as in deede the difference woulde be great if this were true so being false and vntrue as it is it can make no difference at all Theirs were in deede such as they affirme and though you deny it so are yours also For which of all your traditions came eyther froÌ„ Christ or from his Apostles wheÌ„ you proue them froÌ„ either of them your difference shall be allowed Secondly you say Christ reprehendeth not al obseruation of meÌ„s traditioÌ„s but the naughtie obseruing of theÌ„ which was as you affirme in that y â— Pharises esteemed them more then Gods word brake it for the keeping of them which you condemne This also if it were true were a sufficient difference but it is vntrue that our Sauiour Christ reproued onely the esteeming of them more then Gods commaundementes It can not bee denied but he reprooued this in them in the same chapter before but in the woordes alleadged You worshippe mee in vaine teaching doctrines that are but traditions of men which are no wordes of comparison our Sauiour simplie rebuketh them for esteeming the keeping of mens traditions to be any seruice of GOD to which â—ude the sentence had bene first vttered by the Prophet The thirde note is double first that these traditions were idle foolish of which sort are yours and whatsoeuer the idle brayne of man deuiseth to serue â—od withall the second that some of them were impious direct contrary to the word of God such as were certayne corrupt expositions of the lawe where you are as like to them as the sonne may be to the father For neuer were there more false gloses vpon the word of God violently thrust and by litle and litle secretly conueyed into the Church peruerting the true meaning of the Scriptures and corrupting the simple worshippe of GOD then haue beene brought in by your Rabbines that haue obtayned the highest seates and the most honourable names more then euer did any among the Iewes You speake of the Talmud as dyd bastarde Denis of the orders in heauen but this florish of your skill in those bookes because it hurteth not the cause let it serue you and your frendes for as much credit as it may Lastly the Iesuites are reported to teach that we must worship y e image of Christ with like honour that wee doe the holy bookes of the Gospell In this article the doctrine is graunted without any word of contradiction your Censure onely toucheth the second to the Corinthes the sixt chapter as not alledged to the purpose In deede if you list not to vnderstand to what end it is vouched you may well complaine against the alledging thereof as from the matter You take it as brought to proue that we may worship the image of Christ with greater honour then the bookes of the Gospell but you mistake the matter and wilfully as it shoulde seeme to haue some what against the cause for how could you think that he which detesteth al idols would alledge a place to prooue that the image of Christ is worthy honour more then Gospels Or howe may not any maâ— note you of open contradiction against the word of God that being deuoutly madde vpon idols would for their loue prophane the temple of God and therefore dare to say there is more agreemeÌ„t betweene them which yet the Apostle maketh most contrarie then there is betweene the place of Saint Paul the matter which the same place doth fitly disprooue But if you liâ—â— to vnderstand the place serueth to prooue that no image at all is to be worshipped for which the wordes are so pertinent and is strong as all the wisedome of your Censureship and of the rest will neuer bee able to answere them Therefore you lost your labour in framing arguments to prooue why the material booke of Gospels should be no lesse worshipped then the image of Christ for neither of bath are to bee worshipped nor any other creatures whatsoeuer according to that which was before alledged to this purpose Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serue You can not escape for saying you giue no diuine honour vnto them for this bowing downe before them which is one of the least deuotions you vse is chalenged as diuine honour and expressely forbidden in any respect of religion or deuotion to images or any other creature as hath beene often declared But here saying the honour done to the image of Christ and to the letter of the Bible is not done to them selues you dissemble your owne idolatrous doctrine which alloweth the same honour to the image that is due to the paterne and namely the same most honourable and diuine worship of Latria to the Crucifix which is due to the Lord Iesus Christ himself Your bookes that teach this are many and not vnknowen So