confirmed in this resolution when I vnderslood how Luther Calvin hauing no Scripture for them but against them haue grosly abused it to maintaine their errour For Luther the first Apostle in this last age of this new doctrine did two notable iniuries to the word of God For Seeing that this prime article of his faith was not expresly contain'd in the Scripture by an vnparallel'd presumption he added the word sola or Alone to the Scripture in his German translation of the Bible And whereas S. Paul saith we account a man iustifyed by faith without the workes of the law he makes him say by faith alone And when this high temerity of adding to the word of God was obiected to him Luth. tom 5. Germ. fol. 141. dâ—m he defended it with most insolent words saying that a Papist and an asse was the same thing and that the word sola should remaine in his Bible although all the Papists in the world shoud go mad and be transformed to in Asses The second iniury that he did to the Scripture was not by Addition but by Diminution wherin he was much more liberal then in the first for he added only one word but he took away many hundreds Because finding that the words above cited of S. Iames epistle were clearly expresly against his doctrin he expunged the whole epistle out of the Canon of the holy Scriptures Luth in praef in novu n Test Luth in cap. 22. Genes calling it an epistle of straw vnworthy the Spirit of an Apostle Yea he arrived to that impudency that he said the Authour of that epistle delirat that is dotes or raves By these two practises I was moved to think that Luther could not be the second Elias the Restorer of purity true religioÌ„ who would not only reform the Church but also the Scriptures yea in such a manner as he hath incurred not one but both the curses threatned by S. Iohn for adding to and pareing from the Scriptures And by this I perceived also what little esteem they make of the Scripture when it makes against their errours Calvin went more subtilly to work for although he followed Luthers doctrin of Iustification yet he neither added the word Sola to the letter of the Scripture neither did he deny S. Iames epistle to be Canonical But what Luther added to the letter Calvin added to the sense and what Luther denyed the other corrupted For Calvin would have Iustification by faith only to be as firmly believed as if the word only were there in Scripture which indeed is all one as if he had added with Luther that word to the Scripture Then the words of S. Iames which are clearly opposite to his errour and for which Luther did reiect the whole epistle he doth so corrupt with new senses which Luthers more grosse head could not invent that they passe many mens senses vnderstandings too and are against the words of Scripture clearly against the sense of the holy Fathers For he saith faith alone doth iustify but not alone Some others of his Schollers explaine it thus fides sola iustificat sed non solitaria Others say faith doth iustify and not works but yet faith not without works or a man is iustifyed with works but not by works and works are the means but not the causes of Iustification But all these inventions are directly contrary to the words of S. Iames. For he saith man is iustifyed by works not by faith only He doth not say man is iustifyed with works but by works he doth not say he is iustifyed by faith only but not by faith only And after the same manner and expression that he ascribeth our iustification to faith he ascribs it also vnto works He neither speaks of causes nor means these are the Ministers words and not the word of God which is not cleared but rendred more obscure by them It was made appear to me that the question at first between the Catholiques Luther was whether good works were in any respect necessary to our iustification and not whether they were required as causes or conditions Luther said they were in no wise necessary or else none could be iustifyed since the best works of the greatest Saints are mortal sins And in this he spake consequentially to his principles But Calvin finding that the Catholiques by innumerable Scriptures and particularly by that place of S. Iames proved the necessity of good works vnto Iustification he invented a distinction not to cleare but to confound the matter that good works were necessary but not as causes and faith was the only cause of Iustification And this he did also very vnreasonably against the principle which he holds common with Luther to witt that all our best actions are deadly sins For if good works be in any manner necessary how can any be iustifyed according to Calvin who maintains there can be no good works but that all are mortal sins For if a condition be necessary to any effect then if the condition be not fulfilled the effect cannot be produced As approximation of wood vnto the fire is ordinarly called the condition without which the wood could not take fire Therefore as the wood if it were not put near the fire would not conceive fire so also if good works be a necessary condition vnto iustification as Calvin pretends no man can be iustifyed since according to him there can be no good works Therefore Calvin speaks very inconsequentially if not also falsly Moreover it was showen me that the Lutherans were so highly offended with these new glosses of Calvin his Schollers that they call them the doctrins of the new Papists more pernicious then these of the old and Illyricus Illyr in praef ep ad Rom. a famous Lutheran doth not stand to call these Calvinists Seducers who by diuerse waye saith he would elude the propositioÌ„ of S. Paul c. For this cause the Lutherans deny all necessity of good works vnto Salvation either as means or causes For this they professed at the conference of Altenberg Coll. Al ten col 4 f. 75. We conclude say they with that worthy saying of Luther If works be necessary vnto Salvation then none can be saved without works and then we would not be saved by faith only So I found at length that this prime article of our religion to witt that man is iustifyed by faith only after so many great brags is not in Scripture but against Scripture as the Lutherans vnderstand it and as Calvin takes it it s not only against Scripture but also against his own principle who makes the whole matter to end in Philosophical termes for the most part neither vnderstood by speakers nor hearers Of which matter I had not long ago a notable experience For being in a Gentlemans house in the countrey where there chanced to be a Minister of esteem'd learning two Roman Catholiques and diverse Protestants as the
else but the privation of some good and that can be of no other good but of Original Iustice And as Original Iustice albeit it comprehended many supernatural perfections both in the soule body consisted principally properly in that Iustifying grace by which the soule was adorned and Vnited vnto God the Soveraign good so original sin is the privation only of that Iustifying grace in the Superiour part of the soule the want of which makes the soule deformed and averted from God And seing this want is taken away by Baptisme and the whole grace as it beautifyed the soule is entirly restored the whole guilt of original sin is taken away and the whole essence of Original Iustice is recovered again by the merits of Christ Then for Concupiscence which is left after Baptisme it is not truly any sin but a weaknesse imperfection of Nature proceeding from the former Original sin as all sicknesses miseries and death it self are All which are left in vs even after the sin it self is taken away to put vs in mind from what happy Estate we had fallen and to stirre vs vp to labour more diligently and to call more earnestly for the help of Gods grace Neither is the grace which we receive from Christ the smaller or weaker that it doth not take away concupiscence and restore vs to the whole rectitude which Adam enieyed but it is rather more strong since many by it do stand even with all that weaknesse of nature which Adam did not with all the grace he had even in the strength rectitude of his nature All which things were confirmed to me by diverse authorities reasons which were too longsome here to insert It shall be sufficient to bring one testimony of S. Augustin against Calvins opinion and the fundament of it Concupiscence August lib. 1. de nuptijs concupis c. 23. saith he is called sin because it was made by sin whereas now in the regenerate it is not sin c. Yea he sheweth that concupiscence is so far from being sin when it is resisted that it becomes rather the matter of Victory and of a Crown vnto vs. Sometimes saith he Aug de Genesi cont Manich c. 4. Cal. lib. 3. Inst c. 3. par 10. reason doth stoutly resist bridle Concupiscence even when it is stirred vp which when it is performed we fall not into sin but after some wrestlings we are crowned Calvin ingenuously confesseth that his opinion in this matter is against S. Augustin all Antiquity which is sufficient to make it to be suspected if not also reiected As then the Catholique doctrine concerning Original sin is the same holy pure doctrine of the Primitive Church so your doctrine ô Covenanters is full of corruptions For besides that it corrupts the Catholique Faith it corrupts both your soules bodies This your selves do confesse for in your new Confession you say that man by Original sin became wholly defilled Conf. westminst ch 6. in all the faculties parts of Soule body and that this corruption of nature dureing this life doth remain in those who are regenerated and that both it self and the motions of it are truly properly sin Moreover it corrupts all your best thoughts words and actions For so you professe that by it you are vtterly indisposed disabled and made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evil This also M. Calvin did teach Cal in Antid Con. Trid. sess 6. c. 16. Shels p. 146. saying The vitiousnesse of original sin which remaines in vs defiles before God what ever works proceed from vs. Of which doctrin M. Shelford a Protestant gives his opinion thus These who say so cannot in my Iudgment be excused from extream blasphemie Thirdly it corrupts Grace for it makes the Grace of Christ so weak and imperfect that it cannot free vs from the corruption of Original sin And lastly it is the source of many corrupt errors as of your Iustification by faith only the impossibility of keeping Gods commandments the denyall of all good works of inherent Iustice many more From which it is evident that your doctrine is very much corrupted which is the cause of so many corruptions Hence also may be easily seen that the Catholique doctrin concerning our natural inhability and rebellion to Gods Law is not corrupted because as it teacheth against the Pelagians that we are vnable by the power of nature to keep Gods Law so it affirmeth also against the Presbyterians what is impossible to be done by nature is possible by Gods grace and what we cannot do of our selves we can performe by the strength of him who comforts vs. Which might be easily shown to be S. Pauls doctrine Rom. 8.3.4 Philip. 4.13 and therefore to be free of corruption But your doctrine is very corrupt which so grants a natural inhability that it denys all supernatural ability even with the assistance of Gods grace to keep his Law You professe yourselves to be so naturally rebels to God that all his grace cannot make you good subiects which shewes that both your doctrin your selves are very much corrupted The same may be shewed of Sanctification For the Catholiques teach that no man is so perfectly holy here in this pilgrinage but he may every day advance in holynesse and be renewed dayly in the inward man and that no person even the holyest is free of venial sins imperfections and then only we shall be perfect when this corruption shall put on immortality In this sense they grant that sanctification in this life is imperfect whereas in an other sense they teach that there may be even in this life a certain perfection of holynesse in some degree svitable to the observation of the divine Commandments as has been shewed above chap. 14. p. 145. But your doctrin is very corrupt which maks your sanctification so imperfect that you cannot by it think so much as a good thought or do any thing but sin mortally And your obedience to the Law is so imperfect that you break it at every minut So that such sanctification may be rather called profanation and such imperfect obedience to Gods Law may be iustly tearmed Disobedience Lastly if the Catholique doctrin which affirmeth that man is not iustifyed by faith only be corrupted then the Scripture is corrupted which teacheth the same not only in substance but in expresse words proving it by diverse arguments examples and comparcing those who beleeve the contrary to Devils as we have seen above chap. 15. pag. 157. But your doctrin in this principal article of your faith is very much corrupted which corrupteth the pure fountain of Gods word By all which may be seen not only how falsly you accuse the Catholique doctrin of corruptions in all the former points but also how truly your own doctrin is full of corruptions SECTION VII Of the Holy Sacraments of Ceremonies Divorces and of Dispensations NEXT follow
Superiours can never be obedient to their heavenly Soveraigne When the lawes of men are against the law of God then it 's better to obey God then man but when there is no such opposition then the law of God obligeth vs to obedience and subiection S. Paul doth earnestly exhort all Christians to this duty when he saith Rom. 13.1 seq Let every soule be subiect to higher Powers for there is no power but of God And those that are of God are ordained Therefore he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God And they that resist purchasse to themselves damnation S. Peter also maketh the like exhortation 1. Pet. 2.13 and 17. How the Presbyterians have caried themselves in the duty of Subiects to the Civil Magistrate and to their other Superiours is so generally knowen and so fresh in all mens memories that it needs not be described nor amplifyed The very naming of a Presbyterian is sufficient now to raise in mens minds the true notiō of one who will obstinatly deny obediēce to those to whom he oweth it and will rigorously exact obedience from those who owes him none Indeed if the Presbyterians owne words be taken they will be esteem'd not only Saints but also most loyall and obedient subiects for so often they have tearm'd themselves But their actions alwayes bewrayes their words Conf. Vvest ch 33. n. 4. They professe in their new Confession of faith that no difference of religion yea infidelity it self cannot take away the Civil Magistrats iust right nor his peoples obedience and duty to him And yet in their practise they would not admit the King till he swore and subscribed their Covenant and solemn League which many thought were very bitter potions that went much against his stomacke Many other instances may be brought of their inordinat cariage to their Superiours and others by which they rais'd both scandal and preiudice against their religion for people seeing them to be evil Subiects and worse Masters could not think them to be good Christians but I forbeare not being willing to rip vp too much their sores wishing rather that all their bypast miscariages may be forgot and buried by their calme cariage and dutifull obedience in time to come But apparantly some in present power have no great hopes of much voluntarie amendment in them vnlesse the rod of disciplin be still kept over their heads for an eminent English Officer in his printed letter above cited speaking of the Presbyterians Christ Mod. p. 74. saith If they be not closely look'd vnto they will set all on fire againe Then for their pretext of piety I observed great shew but no substance some floorishes but small fruits huge pretexts but no performances We had indeed much preaching praying fasting and such like exercises But what were their long preachings Nothing but continual praises of the Covenant the Solemn League and Presbytery which they cryed vp to the heavens and omitted as our Saviour observed of the Pharisees the weighty matters of Gods law Math. 23. v. 23. as Iudgement mercy and faith Yea their sermons were replenished with constant and most bitter railings against their Opposers and all those who did not favour their cause by which means they armed the people with fury to aduance the Covenant and Presbytery What were their fasts But humiliations as the Prophet Esay saith for strife debate Esay 58. v. 6. and to sinne with the fist of wikednesse God faith to the Iewes Is not this the fast that I have chosen to loose the bands of wickednesse to vndo the heavie burden and to let the oppressed go free that ye break every yoke But the fasts which the Presbyterians have choosed were contrary for their fasts were to tie more firmely their Covenant which hath proved a band of wickednesse to lay heavier burdens vpon the peoples Consciences to oppresse these who were free and to augment their yokes by inventing many new oaths to the oppression of many soules It was much observed that shortly after their solemne fasts we were alwayes sure of some great claps The fast was ordinarly a preparation to some violence or evil worke that was intended This made many vnderstand what Queen Marie Stuart mean't by that famous saying That she was as much affrayed of a Fast of the Ministers as of an Armie of Souldiours for experience taught her that these fasts were sure prognostikcs of ensuing tempests Their long prayers also which were often seasoned with Tautologies and somtimes with no good sense did not prove them to be Saints more thē the like did sanctify the Pharisees They bragged much of the Spirit but shew no fruits of the Spirit if these be the fruits which S. Paul reckons out to the Gallatians Gal. 5.22 The fruit of the Spirit saith he is Love ioy peace long-suffering gentlnesse goodnesse faith meeknesse c. They rather shew and perform'd the works of the flesh which the same Apostle doth there recount The works of the flesh are manifest Ibid. v. 19.20 which are fornication c. hatred variance emulation wrath strife seditions heresies Envyings murders c. If they lived in the Spirit then they should have walked in the Spirit as the same Apostle exhort's and so they would have been better beleeved In a word if piety consists in many externall sighes and grones in long prayer and graces in wringing of hands making of strange faces in turning of the eyes and in dolefull houlings and cryes which were commonly called the Sough If piety I say consists in such things we had abondance of it but if it require some greater perfections and better fruits Then we were very scarce of it Indeed if we would heare and believe these Presbyterian Ministers we were the happiest people of the world for they said we only of all Nations had the honour to be Covenanters with God we had the truth of the Gospell in greater purity then Geneva it self We had such a clear and engyring light that the like had not shin'd to any other nation since the time of the Apostles Yea one who is esteem'd a principal Apostle among them did not sticke to affirme in the pulpit amidst the manyfold Confusions troubles and miseries which had fallen vpon this Church Nation That the Angels and Saints of heaven if they could leave the sight of God would be glad to come down and see the admirable order and beautie of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland Neither is this to be much wonder'd at for it 's probable he spoke as he thought and as the proverbe is The Crow thinks ever her owne bird fairest And every foole esteem's much his owne Babel But many indifferent men thought that he was one of those of whom S. Paul speaks to the Philippians Philip. 3.18.19 Enemies of the Crosse of Christ and whose glory is in their Confusion These practises at least a great part of them were the
Tim 3.13 what the first Reformers who could not on a suddaine deny all truths left vntouched your second Presbyterian Reformers haue abolished as they haue done here the hymne of Glory which was said in praise of the holy Trinity and for which you haue got the noble exchange of cōtinual praises of the Covenant Presbytery But as the great Councel of Nice did add vnto the ancient hymne of Glory to the Father c. that clause As it was in the beginning c. For confusion of the Arian heresy So also it hath by the same addition prophetically foretold the continuance of it for ever to the confusion of this new sect called Presbytery which is most consonant to that of S. Paul To God be glory in the Church and in Christ Iesus to all generations world without end Amen Ephes 3.21 That Church which hath triumphed over the Arians who corrupted this glorious hymne will also triumph over the Presbyterians who have abolished it Yea this hymne shall not only continue to the worlds end in the Church Militant but it shall be also the exercise of the Church Triumphant which shall never cease for all eternity to sing praise glory vnto the most holy Trinity Thus ended my Catholique friend whose words I found to be more waighty a good space after then they appear'd to me at the time when he spoke them Moreover I remember he desired me to consider that these innovations against our Lords prayer and the hymne of Glory were such blacke actions that the prime Presbyterians who introduced them were ashamed to make acts to forbid them as they had done for abolishing of Episcopacy and some other points but only brought them in by a desuetude as they speake and so wore them out of vse Which sheweth said he that they would gladly haue some things done covertly which they are asham'd to avow publickly CHAP. X. Of the Apostles Creed denyed to be Apostolical by the Presbyterians THERE was hardly any thing that the Presbyterians did which made me stumble so much as their Innovation concerning the authority of the Apostles Creed They were not content with their Reformation or rather abrogation of the Apostolique governement vnlesse they also did deny the Creed to be made by the Apostles and so weare it out of vse as they had done our Lords prayer At the end of of their new Catechisme they speake thus of the Creed Shore Cat. Vvest in fine Albeit the substance of the doctrine comprised in the Abridgement commonly called the Apostles Creed be fully set forth in each of the Catechismes so as there is no necessity of inserting the Creed it self yet it is here annexed not as though it were composed by the Apostles c. In which words they reach covertly two things 1. That the Creed it self is not necessary if we have the substance of it as it is explain'd in the new Presbyterian Catechisme 2. that it needs not be esteemed to be composed by the Apostles But their practise did shew more evidently their meaning For they did not only declare it not to be Apostolical and therefore to be only a humane collection but also they did no more say it neither did they require it to be said any more of others as the custome was formerly at Baptismes And by these means they put it out both of estimation and vse This innovation gave great scandal to many who thought iustly they could thereafter be sure of nothing since their Creed was called in question This was vniversally esteem'd before the Covenant began the badge or mark of a Christian and the principal foundation of the Christian religion The authority of it was held so sacred that it was an ordinary proverbe in mens mouth 's when they would give great assurance of performing any thing they had promised that before they failed They would as soone deny their Creed As it was called the Apostles Creed so it was taught for such so it was believed and esteemed to be It was publickly said in the Church by parents at the Baptisme of their Children and it was required to be said by the people when they were Catechized But all these things were altered and overturned by the Presbyterians The authority and esteem of the Creed was dash't by their denying it to be Apostolicall and the custome of saying it both publikly privatly was taken away so that it was soone worne out both of vse and request If they did this so easily with our Lords prayer which is contain'd in Scripture how much more easily would they do it with the Creed which is not in Scripture and which they pretend to be a meer humane collection And so in a short time they would get it to be altogether slighted as a humane invention and banished out of the memories of men Wherefore being desirous to penetrat this matter more inwardly I found after some diligence that the same grounds which can be brought for the Apostolique authority of the Scriptures are also brought and that in an eminent degree for the like authority of the Creed And therefore if we receive the one we cannot reiect the other I shall briefly collect what I found or hath been shewed vnto me for the Apostolique authority great excellency frequent laudable vse of this diuine Symbol Baron tom 1. Annal. an 44. n. 15. seq Cardinal Baronius in the 1. tome of his Annals doth shew by the testimony of the holy ancient Fathers that the Creed was composed by the holy Apostles a little before they were to part and goe into several Countries to preach the Gospel vnto the Gentils to the end there might be a certaine short clear rule of faith in which they all agreed wherein they were to instruct all persons and by which as by a certaine badge all Christians might he knowen For this cause it was not committed to writing but was delivered by lively voice and imprinted in the hearts of Christians by the faithfull diligence of the Apostles This S. Hierom Hier. epist 61. and S. Augustin do testify The first saith The Symbol of our faith hope which was delivered by the Apostles is not written in paper or inke but in the fleshly tables of the heart The other affirmeth Aug. ser 119. de temp Idem ser 69. de expos Symb. that the Creed was not written that it might be retain'd in the hearts of the faithfull And againe he saith The holy Apostles did deliver a certaine rule of faith which being comprehended in tuelve articles according to the number of the Apostles they called a Symbol by which the faithfull may hold Catholique vnity and tread vnder feete heretical impiety To these two great Doctours Ambro. ser 38. epist 81. agrees also S. Ambrose who saith The holy faith is contain'd in the Symbol of the tuelve Apostles who as skiful Artificers meeting together haue made a key by common
his meer mercy by his preveening and helping grace doth excite and call a sinner without any of his preceeding merits as it were out of the sleep of sin that he may convert himself vnto God 2. A sinner being thus awakned and assisted by the Divine grace conceiving faith by hearing doth believe all things to be true which are revealed promised by God particularly that a sinner is iustifyed by the free mercy of God through the redemption which is in Christ Iesus 3. This faith representing God to be a severe punisher of sins there ariseth in a sinner thus disposed by faith a fear of Gods iudgments with which the Soule is profitably shaken terrifyed Prou. â— 7 For as Salomon saith the feare of our Lord is the beginning of wisdome 4. The soule of a sinner being thus terrifyed it is raised vp againe to hope by the same faith which represents God to be most bountifull mercyfull in forgiveing sins For which cause he sent his son into the world to deliver vs from sin by his death 5. Vpon this hope confidence in the divine mercy there ariseth the love of God who is so bountifull and mercyfull and likwise a hatred and detestation of sin which God hateth a sorrow and grief for what is past and a firm resolution of a better life in time to come a purpose of observing the divine Commandments of receiving the holy Sacraments Now all these dispositions of fa th fear love hope and the rest being placed in the soule of man by Gods preveening grace Iustification or the infusion of iustifying grace doth follow as we shall see shortly That these preparations difpositions are necessary before iustification the Scripture shewes Our Saviour shew the necessity of preveening grace when he said Iohn 6.44 Heb. 11.6 Eccles 1.28 ibid v. 17. No man can come vnto me vnlesse my Father draw him Of faith S. Paul saith that without faith it is impossible to please God for he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a Rewarder of those who seek him Of fear beside the former testimony of Salomon it is said that who is without fear cannot be iustifyed And again the fear of our Lord chaseth away sin S. Paul saith of hope that we are saved by it Rom. 8.24 Luke 7.47 Of love our Saviour saith Many sins are forgiven her for she loved much And that repentance is also necessary there is nothing more clear in the Scriptures By all which testimonies it remaines evident that although faith be the first disposition of the soule to iustification yet the others above-mentioned are also requisite Neither can there be any difficulty in this matter since it is as clear as the Sun that no man of a sinner can become the friend of God vnlesse he haue not only faith but also the fear love of God with hope in his mercy and repentance for sins To this purpose S. Augustin saith Aug de predest sanct cap. 7 Idem serm 22. de Verb. Dom fides prima datur ex qua caetera impetrantur That is faith is first given by which the rest are obtain'd And again the house of God is founded by Faith raised vp hy hope and perfected by Charity And as in this sense it is truly said that faith doth iustify to wit as a fundamentall radicall disposition to Iustification so it is no lesse true that fear hope love repentance do also iustify to witt as secondary dispositions proceeding from faith because these likwise dispose the soule fitly to receive the forme of iustice and to become the friend of God and the Scripture ascribes forgivenesse of sins Salvation or Iustification to them as it doth vnto faith For as our Saviour told S. Mary Magdalen that her faith had saved her Luke 7. Rom. 8. Iam. 2. so he said that many sins were forgiven her because she loved much and S. Paul saith we are saved by hope and S. Iames expresly that we are iustifyed by works not by faith only By which consideration it may be easily vnderstood what works S. Paul excludes from Iustification when he saith that a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law For he doth not exclude the works of grace but only the works of the law which are done by the strength of nature without the grace of God and do not proceed from faith but go before it Now it is certaine that such works as not proceeding from faith do not properly dispose and prepare the soule vnto Salvation Concil T r d sess 6. câ—p 8. For as the Councel of Trent teacheth faith is the foundation roote and beginning of all Salvation Iustification and is the first effect of Gods free grace in the Soule of man But the Apostle doth not exclude from iustification the works of grace which follow faith for they do iustify that is dispose the Soule vnto Iustification as faith it self doth and they proce d also from grace as faith proceeds from it and therefore are not the works of the law but the works of grace After this manner doth that great Doctour S. Augustin clearly reconcile these two places of S. Paul S. Iames. Aug. lib. 83. quaest 76. The sentences saith he of S. Paul S. Iames be not contrary one to another whâ—n one affirmeth that a man is iustifyed by faith without works the other saith that faith is vaine without works for S. Paul speaketh of works that go before faith and S. Iames of works that do follow faith These preparations disposiâ—ions being placed in the soule Iustification it self doth follow which is not only remission of sins but also sanctification and renovation of the inward man by the voluntary reception of the divine grace gifts But albeit Iustification followeth these dispositions of faith love repentance the rest yet it is altogether free proceeding from the mercy bounty of God without the desert of man For the Catholique Church professeth openly notwitstanding the Ministers strong calumnies to the contrary that no man by any faith or works can merit the grace of Iustification Concil Trid. sess 6. cap. 8. as the Councel of Trent teacheth in these words We are said to be freely iustifyed because none of those things which preceed Iustification whether faith or works doth merit the grace of Iustification Now this grace consisteth in two thing s to witt in Remission of sins and inward sanctification by the first the soule is changed purged from sin which is the filthinesse of the Soule and by the second it is adorned and beautifyed with grace which is the beauty of it and made to die vnto sin live vnto iustice But it must be diligently observed that the Catholiques do teach according to the Scriptures that in Iustification our sins are not so forgiven that they remaine in the Soule but they are
When S. Gregorie was giving the Sacrament to the people he came to a woman who smiled when he said to her the body of our Lord Iesus Christ preserue thy soule wherevpon the Pope did withdraw his hand lay'd the SacrameÌ„t on the altar After the holy solemnities were ended he enquired at the woman why she had laughed in so dreadfull an action She in end confessed that she could not acknowledge that bread which she had made with her own hands to be the body of Christ Then S. Gregorie prayed God earnestly for her and obtain'd that the bread even in external forme should be turned into flesh by which miracle he both reduced the woman vnto the faith and confirmed the people in it The faith of S. Lowis King of France Bosius li 14 de signis Eccles p. 145. ex Villanaeo an 1258. concerning this Sacrament is much celebrated For when he being advertised that a most beavtifull child had appeard in the holy Sacrament was desired to come and see this miracle he refused to goe saying that these miracles were done for these who doubted but for himself he was most certaine that Christ Iesus was truly present in the Eucharist An other such apparition was seen at Doway in the yeare 1254. continueda good time Spond suppl anno 1254. n. 16. so that great numbers of people came from diverse parts to see it and the memory of it is every yeare celebrated in that town with great solemnity By all which considerations I was sufficiently satisfyed of the Catholique belief concerning the reall presence which I found to be containd in the holy Scriptures beleeved by the holy Fathers and by general Councels and to be confirmed by miracles And therefore I could not any longer believe the Presbyterian doctrin which against all these authorities makes the body of Christ to be as far distant from the Sacrament as the heavens are from the earth 1. I perceived that they scarcely pretend to have Scripture for them but are enforced to runne from the clear words of it to their tropes figures Aug. lib. 3. de doct Christ c. 10. which S. Augustin observed long ago to be the custom of erroneous persons So soone saith he as the opinion of any errour hath once prepossessed their minds they esteeme all to be figures which the Scripture saith to the contrarie And therefore albeit the Scripture saith not once but foure times that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Iesus Christ without ever saying in any one place that it is not his body but only a figure of it they beleeve the one which it saith not and not the other which it affirmes Against them S. Iohn Damascen saith efficaciously Damas lib. 4. Orthodo fidei The bread wine is not a figure of the body blood of Christ God forbid it were that but it is the divine body of our Lord he himself saying this is my body 2. They passe from the Scriptures Fathers and found their negative faith vpon their senses and some carnal reasons Chrys homil 60. ad popul Antioch Against which vaine pretences S. Chrysostom saith well Let vs beleeve God every where let vs not oppose him although that which he saith seem absurd to our sense vnderstanding Let his speech overcome our sense and reason which in all things we ought to do cheefly in the mysteries not only looking to that which lieth before vs but also holding fast his words For we cannot be deceived by his words our sense may be easily deceived these cannot be false this is often deceived Because therefore he hath said this is my body let vs not be holden by any doubt but let vs beleeve and comprehend it wiâ—h the ey 's of of our vnderstanding Cyrill Alex. lib. 4. in Ioan c. 13. S. Cyrill speaks no lesse efficaciously against those who pretend this mystery to be against reason and impossible compareing them to incredulous Iewes A malignant minde saith he doth presently reiect as frivolous false what it doth not vnderstand yeelding to none nor thinking any thing to be aboue it self as we shall find the Iewes to have been For when it became them who had seen the divine vertue the miracles of our Saviour to receive his speech willingly and if any thing seemed difficult to have asked the resolution of him they did the quit contrarie and cryed out together against God not without great impietie How can this man give vs his flesh neither did it come into their minde that there is nothing impossible with God for since they were sensual as S. Paul speaks they could not vnderstand spiritual things and so great a mystery seemed to them to be follie But let vs make great profit by other mens sins Let us have a firme faith in these mysteries Let vs neuer speak nor think that word How That 's meerly Iudaical and the cause of great punishment Thus S. Cyrill 3. The Presbyterians do wrest our Saviours words by a figurative interpretation against all reason as hath been shewed Then I found this Presbyterian doctrin Apud Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 1. Gualt Chronolog saecul 1. cap. 1. Elien resp ad Apolog. Bellar. c. 1. Casaub ans to Card. Peron 1. instance fol. 32. English to have been an ancient heresie of Simon Magus and Menander and thereafter of Berengarius who at his death did recant of the Albigenses and of diverse others Yea Gualterus brings some testimonies of the holy Fathers to shew that Iudas the traitor denyed the reall presence and did not believe our Saviours words in the 6. chapter of S. Iohn Lastly diverse famous Protestants have abandoned that doctrin of Calvin As Bishop Andrews who writes thus against Bellarmin We agree faith he with yow of the matter all the contention is about the manner a presence I say we believe not lesse reall then yow Casaubon made the like profession in name of King Iames of the whole Church of England And whereas I heard so much cryed out against Transubstantiation as a thing impossible and a noveltie lately introduced into the Church I found both these allegations to be false For the holy Fathers do shew both the possibility and the verity of it out of the Scriptures Cyrill Hieros Catech. 4. Mystag Ambros l. 4. de Sacram c. 4. lib. de mysterijs initiand cap. 9. S. Cyrill saith Christ changed once water into wine which is near vnto blood and is he not worthy to be believed of vs that he hath changed wine into blood S. Ambrose having shewed the power of Christs speech how by it he gave a being to the world which had no being before saith How much more then operative is it that these things which were might have a being and be converted into another Again the same holy Father calls this change a conversion of nature substance bringing examples out of the old
known to have been in the world before Luther although they have left many ruinous Monuments behind them since Luther seing I say after all this diligence we cannot find out this visible Protestant Church and yet these Protestants affirm that it was visible we most iustly require them to help tell vs where their Church was in what kingdome province or citie and if they cannot do this we may iustly conclude that their allegation is a groundlesse imagination invented to deceive men against their sense vnderstanding in a matter of greatest importance But wc do not as yet make any such conclusion we only require them to shew what we cannot see by our selves to point vnto vs where their Church was that we may fix our ey 's towards that place and for satisfaction we are answered that the demand is vniust and we impertinent if we do not beleeve vpon their bare word that their Church was visible albeit neither we can find nor they can tell where it was But all prudent and indifferent men would think it much more iniustice impertinencie both in them to require and in vs to beleeve that their Church was visible before it can be shewed where it was then in vs to require where it was before we beleeve that it was Who giveth credit quickly Ecclesi 19.4 saith the wise man is light of heart Any heretiques albeit never so grosse may pretend the same vpon as good ground and yet no reasonable man can think it vnreasonable to demand where their Church was before we beleeve them Moreover this is not only a iust and pertinent but also a most necessarie and important question For thereby all false Churches are clearly sensibly discovered even to the meanest capacities Because if the Church of Christ must be perpetual as hath been evidently demonstrated and if it must be also perpetually visible as these Protestants of whom we now speak do grant then it followeth when ever a new Church or Congregation ariseth with a new Confession of faith which was not see nor known before that that Church is not the true Church of Christ which ought to be alwayes both perpetual visibie For this cause the holy Fathers did vrge this question so hardly by which they confounded all heretical new vpstart Churches And whereas some Protestants do alleadge du Mou lin in his Nouueauté cont Card. Peron c. 12. that this question is a curiosity of history an old question which would require tventie yeares studie it is such a curiosiry of hystâ—ry that it can be found in none or else the laborious Centurists had not omitted it It is indeed an old question but was never well answered and will yet require a new answere as shall appear by the insufficiency of all the old answers And if it require twentie yeares study they cannot complain who have got now a hundred yeares to find out an answer to it But to speak no more of these shifts I shall shew how diverse Protestants being vrged by that fata question make many essaies to answer it and yet cannot make appear the visibility of their Church before Luther They run almost all the world over to find their Church They begin their iourney in France striveing to prove it in the Waldenses Albigenses 2. From France they go over to England to prove it in the Wicleffists 3. From England they passe to Boheme to find it among the Hussists 4. From Boheme they travaâ—le to Greece and from that to Aethiopia Armenia pretending that thâ—se Nations were Protestants 5. Having thus wearied themselvs all in vain the most learned are glad to come back again to the Papists saying that their Church before Luther was in the very heart of Popery 6. Finding that their new coin'd distinction of fundamental points involves them in great labyrinths and that the Papists will not acknowledge them for their Associats they passe from the later vnto the purer times before S. Gregory alleadging that the primitive Church holy Fathers were Protestants 7. After they have made this monstruous leap of 900. yeares and there find both Pastors people at the sacrifice of the Masse which the Protestants abhorre as Idolatry they run to their last shift which is to get out of the sight of the world and hide themselves in the hole of invisibiliy These many different answers shew that the Protestant Church hath no great certainty of its pedegree I shall briefly shew you the insufficiency of every one of these answers by which it shall be proved that the Protestant Church was not visible before Luther and hereby their first starting hole shall be either so stop't or lay'd that they cannot escape this way CHAP. XXV That the Protestant Church was not visible before Luther neither in the Waldenses Albigenses VViclifists nor Husits THAT the Protestant Church may be continued in the Waldenses and the same is to be observed of the Albigenses and the rest two things are to be proved by Protestants 1. That the Waldenses have ever continued since the time of the Apostles And this is clear by the first vndeniable principle of the perpetuity of the Church 2. That the Waldenses were intirely of that faith which the Protestants do now or did professe that is beleeved any of their Confessions of faith For without this whole agreement the Waldenses could not be a Protestant Church as is evident by the second principle above setled Now it is impossible for them to shew either of these two For first concerning the continuance of the Waldenses all histories do affirm that they began in the twelfth age and that their Author was one Waldo a marchant of Lions about the yeare 1160. whom the Centurists place in the 12. Century How can it be then proved Cent. 12. c. 8. that the Waldenses had continued since the Apostles time seing their Author who was before a Catholique a Laique lived neer 12. hundred yeares after the Apostles supposeing then that Waldo became a Protestant after he had been before a Catholique the question remaines where was the Protestant Church before Waldo The true Church must be perpetuall Secondly as the Waldenses did not continue since the Apostles so neither did they agree intirly with Protestants Luth. in Colloq c de Sacr. Calvin epist 224. in the principal articles of their religion to witt in Iustification by faith only if we beleeve Luthers testimonie And if we will trust Calvin they held also the reall presence in the Popish sense of Transubstantiation Therefore such men could not be Protestants Protest Apol. Tract 2. c. 2. sect 3. sub 3. Thirdly they agreed with the Catholiques in diverse other points as about the number nature of the Sacraments the vow of chastity the necessity of childrens baptism They began a kind of religious order for which they were called the poore men of Lions and sought confirmation of it from Pope Innocent
all men would be cleansed from sin and so all would be saved which is false If they say It is not death simply but death ioyn'd with faith that hath this power Why shall not also faith and life have the same power How can the Presbyterians without any ground in Scripture assigne that power to faith and death which they deny against Scripture to faith and the holy Sacraments and to the blood of Christ Death indeed may put an end to sin that one sin no more but it cannot take away sins already done or else death would be more powerfull according to that tenet then the blood of Christ the holy Sacraments which is not only a groundlesse fancy but also a great absurdity Out of which it followeth that either the Presbyterians must grant that they do not go to heaven which is very much against the assurance of their election or that they are purged from their sins after this life since they are not purged in it which is against their negative confession And so these who deny a a Purgatory for venial sins must grant a new and most dangerous Purgatory for mortal sins For my part I could never find a solid answer to this reason and therefore I leave it to the Presbyteries consideration But because this Catholique did trouble vs with this difficulty I thought to have entangled him as much with the words of Bellarmin whereof I had heard some Ministera often boast Did not Bellarmin said I after he had much laboured to prove Iustification by works in end conclude That it was most safe to put all our confidence in the only mercy of God What will become then of all your works and merits which such a great Champion of your Church doth renounce To which he answered that Bellarmins words fully related do clear the whole matter Bellar. lib. 5. de Iustif cap. 7. prop. 3. and shew the vanity of the Ministers pretences For thus he speaks By reason of the vncertainty of our proper Iustice and of the danger of our vaine glory it is most safe to put all our confidence in the only mercy favour of God Where he doth not deny neither good works nor merits but only affirmeth that for two reasons which he there toucheth that it is most safe not to rely vpon them but vpon the alone mercy of God Out of which the Ministers would make this false collection therefore we are not iustifyed by works Which is as ridiculous as if you would say The Protestants teach that it is most safe to rely vpon the mercy of God Therefore they are not iustifyed by faith If then the Protestants relying vpon the mercy of God taketh not away Iustification by faith why should not also the Catholiques relying on the same mercy not take away Iustification by works Bellarmin speaks so clearly in this matter that his meaning cannot be wrested without malice For he sheweth in the same place that David and other Saints had some confidence in their iustice and good works according to that in the 17. Psalme The Lord will render to me according to my iustice because I have kept his wayes The like he sheweth of Nehemias Ezechias and Ester And this they did with great humility But because such cōfidēce is dangerous to many by reason of pride vaine glory that may arise beside there are few who haue such merits or are sure to have them Therefore Bellarmin saith it is most safe to rely on the mercy of God whereof he gives this reason Either a man hath good works or he hath none but evil works If he hath no good but evil works then he is perniciously deceived who trusts in evil works for these are deceitfull riches as S. Bernard calls them If he hath good works he looseth nothing by not looking on them by putting his trust in the mercy of God alone for God lookes on them knowes them well and will not suffer them to passe without their due reward Thus Bellarmin Yea Concil Trid. sess 6. cap. 16. the Councel of Trent makes the like profession when it saith Although much be given to good works in the holy Scriptures c. Yet God forbid that a Christian should trust or glory in himself not in our Lord whose goodnesse is so great that he willeth these things to be our merits which are his own gifts The Ministers may collect out of these words by their Logique that the Councel of Trent yea and that all Papists are Protestants But they will not distinguish between the necessity of good works and confiding in them which are very different At least all moderat Protestants may know by this open profession the falshood of that calumny which is often beaten into their eares to witt that all Papists presume in their merits S. Augustin sheweth that there are two gulfs in this matter one vpon either hand and that the truth is a direct way in the middle Presumption of iustice or good works is the gulf vpon the one hand and negligence of good works is the precipice on the other But the earnest care of good works and piety accompanyed with humility is the safe way in the middle Thus ended the Catholique to the good satisfaction of some Protestants who were present To conclude this matter wherein I have stayed longer by reason of the Ministers specious pretences of great advantage in it I can not believe any more Iustification by faith only as the principal article of my religion because it is not in Sctipture because it is expresly against Scripture against the holy Fathers because it is an ancient heresy condemned in Simon Magus Eunomius because the Presbyteriās iustifying faith is not a true Catholique faith having the divin reveal'd truth for its obiect as these he retiques required but is a private fancy a false faith Shelf aboue as it is acknowledged by some Protestāts having for its obiect humane presumption Because it makes Christ a most imperfect Physician and either debarreth man from the kingdome of heaven into which he cannot enter with the filthinesse of his sins or exposeth him after this life to a most dangerous purgation Because it breeds neglect of all piety and good works and opens a wide gate to all sort of vice In a word albeit the Ministers bragged much of this article yet I found they had never lesse reason if we will stand to the iudgment of the Scriptures Fathers which God willing I ever intend to prefer to their fancies and to their Philosophical distinctions or rather confusions to which they are forced to run that they may lurk in their obscurities when they are beaten out of the Scriptures in which at first they pretended to be impregnably setled It is sufficient for me that the Scripture expresly saith that a man is iustifyed by works and not by faith only Which is the contradiction of the Presbyterians faith and
that themselves do acknowledge in end the necessity of good works But to know how they are necessary either as causes or conditions is not a necessary curiosity wherof few are capable and without which many have gone to heaven And so now I proceed to the Trial of our doctrin concerning the Sacraments CHAP. XVIII Of the Excellency of the Christian Sacraments and particularly how they conferre Grace which is denyed by the Presbyterians AS I knew the Christian religion to be the most excellent of all true religions that ever have been whether we consider that which was vnder the law of nature or the other which was vnder the law of Moyses so I iustly conceived that it was most agreeable to Gods goodnesse and wisdome to adorne and enrich it with most excellent Sacraments For since no religion whether true or false can be without some sensible signes Aug. lib. 19. cont Faust cap. 22. as S. Augustin hath observed the Christian religion which is not only the true but also the most perfect religion to which the former two served as preparations must also have the most perfect and efficacious Sacraments And so I found the same S. Augustin extolling the perfection of the Christian Sacraments above these of the ancient law Aug. lib. 3. de doct Christ c. 19. Aug. cont Faust lib. 19. c. 13. Our Lord saith he and the Apostolical disciplin haue delivered some few Sacraments for many and these most easy to be done most magnificent for signification and most pure to be observed And elswhere he saith the Sacramenss are changed they are made easier fewer holsommer happier Now the principal perfection of the Christian Sacraments was generally believed to consist in this that God by them did conferre grace vnto our soules Which truth is so engrafted in the hearts of Christians that I knew diverse Protestants could not be at first perswaded that Luther or Calvin or that their Church taught the contrary and. when that was sufficiently manifested to them they were much scandalized at it In so much that some of them did say If the Sacraments do not confer grace and baptisme doth not take away original sin for what vse serve the Sacraments for what end were they ordain'd Wherefore being thus stirred vp to try this question I found in end that the Catholique doctrine which taught that the Sacraments of the new Law do confer grace is conformable to the divine Scriptures that it was expresly believed by the holy Fathers and doth duly exalt the perfection of the Christian Sacraments Whereas the Presbyterians doctrin which denyeth the Sacraments to confer grace is not only false against the Scriptures but was also condemned as an ancient heresy by the holy Fathers that it vndervalues the vertue of the Christian Sacraments and is so absurd that diverse famous Protestants haue abandoned that opinion albeit it was taught both by Luther Calvin and in this point do agree with the Catholiques All which things for brevities sake I will only touch Of Baptisme S. Iohn said to the Iewes 3.11 Math. I indeed baptize yow in water but he who comes after me shall baptize you in the holy Ghost fire Ananias said to S. Paul be baptized wash away thy sins Acts 22.16 Titus 3.5 Eph s 5.26 S. Paul calleth also Baptisme the Lauer of regeneration by which we are saved The same Apostle saith that Christ hath sanctifyed his Church by the lauer of water in the word of life By which testimonies albeit we speak nothing of many others it appear'd sufficiently clear to me since we are said to have our sins washed away by baptisme to be sanctifyed to be born of new again that by it we receive also grace without which these things could not be verified and performed The like is also affirmed of the Eucharist of which our Saviour saith If any man eate of this bread Iohn 6.51.54 he shall live for ever And again He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life Now this everlasting life is no otherwise had here but by receiving Grace which is the seed of Glory and of eternal life happinesse Therefore these two Sacraments which are all that the Presbyterians admit do confer grace by the vertue institution of Christ What was the belief of the holy Fathers and of the whole Church in this point it is so clear that Calvin himself and other chief Protestants do acknowledge it to be the same which is now believed by the Catholiques against their doctrin Cal. lib. 4. Instit cap. 14. sect 14. 26. For. Calvin confesseth that with great consent it was taught and believed for many ages That the Sacraments of the new Law do confer grace if they were not hindered by mortal sin which albeit he calleth a pernicious and pestilentious opinion and alleadgeth that it drawes men from God to rest in the sight of corporall things and not in God himself yet he confesseth also that it was taught by S. Augustin the holy Fathers whom he striveth to excuse by saying that in their immoderat praises of the Sacraments Cent. 2. c. 4. cent 3. c 4. Muscul in loc com p. 299. they vsed hyperbolical speeches The Lutheran Centurists do ascribe the same doctrin as an errour to the most ancient Fathers as to S. Clement Iustin Cyprian and others Musculus saith plainly that Augustin did rashly affirm that the Sacraments of the new law conferred grace These open confessions shall save our paines of citing the Fathers testimonies And that this doctrin of the Catholiques doth manifest the perfection of the Christian Sacraments it is so clear of it self that it needeth no illustration Vpon this consideratiō S. Augustin Aug. tract 80. in Ioan. admiring the wonderfull effects of the Sacraments cry'd out Vnde tanta virtus aquae vt corpus tangat cor abluat Whence comes saith he so great vertue to the water that it toucheth the body and cleanseth the soule Where he ascribes this wonderful effect to the goodnesse omnipotency of God which sheweth also that his speeches are not hyperbolicall as Calvin falsly pretends Thus much briefly to shew that I found the Catholique doctrin to be conforme to the Scriptures holy Fathers and to manifest the perfection of the Christian Sacraments And therfore Calvins opinion which is iust contrary must needs be against all these He himself confesseth that it is against the holy Fathers and consequently it cannot be conforme to the Scriptures whereon they founded their faith and not vpon humane imaginations That it taketh away a great perfection from the Sacraments denying them to conferre grace is so evident that it needs no proofe Calvin saw this so clearly that he pretended the Farhers vsed immoderate praises of the Sacraments and that this vertue which the Catholiques do ascribe to the Sacraments makes people to trust more in creatures them in God himself But as I found