dead and therefore lesse glory ascendeth vnto God by their doctrine then by ours But what doe I say lesse when indeed to giue any part of the Creators glory to the creature is vtterly to take all from the Creator for hee will haue all or none as Tertullian notably obserueth when he saith That true faith requireth this in defending the true God that whatsoeuer is his we make it onely his for so shall it bee accounted his if it bee accounted onely his by which rule the faith of the Romane Church cannot bee the true faith 12. And againe according to the second ground if to giue all the glory to God and none to our selues sauour of humility but to deuide stakes betwixt God and our selues hath a taste of pride then it must needs follow that God is more honoured by the one then by the other because by humility God is honoured and by pride dishonoured and therefore the Apostle saith that hee resisteth the proud and giueth grace to the humble for what cause but because the proud man seeketh his owne glory whereas the humble deuesteth himselfe of all and layeth it downe at the foote of God the proud man reioyceth in himselfe but the humble reioyceth in the Lord alone according as it is written Let him that reioyceth reioyce in the Lord. Now the Romanists that magnifie free-will haue iust cause their doctrine being presupposed to be true to reioyce in themselues which is an argument of pride for whereas our Sauiour saith Without me ye can doe nothing they may say Yes something for wee can either admit or reiect thy grace by our owne power and whereas the Apostle saith Who hath separated thee what hast thou which thou hast not receiued they may say I haue separated my selfe in doing that which I was able and so made my selfe fit for grace and this power I haue not receiued from Gods speciall fauour but from my owne free will All which kinde of speeches as they are full of pride and fleshly vanity so they are stuffed with impiety and blasphemie and manifestly tend to the dispoyling of the diuine Maiestie of that glory which is onely due vnto him And therefore I conclude with two notable sayings one of S. Augustines and another of Cassander a learned Reconciliater of late time Tutiores viuimus saith the Father si totum Deo damus c. that is We liue more safely if we attribute all wholy to God and not commit our selues partly to God and partly to our selues And this is the part of a godly minded man saith the Reconciliater to attribute nothing to themselues but all to Gods grace whence it followeth that how much so euer a man giueth to grace yet in so doing hee departeth not from pietie though hee detract something from nature and freewill but when any thing is taken from Gods grace and giuen to nature which belongeth to grace that cannot be without eminent danger So that by the confession both of this learned Romanist and also of that reuerend Father our doctrine in the poynt of free-will is both more agreeable to piety and respectiue to Gods glory then theirs is and therefore in reason to be preferred before it 13. The next doctrine whereby the glorie of God is darkened and the dignitie of Christs merites blemished is their doctrine of IustificatioÌ„ which I ioyne next vnto Free-wil because their sophistry cunning in this great maine pillar of Religion cannot well be discerned they so palliate the matter with faire glosses goodly words except their opinion touching the power of Free-will be first apprehended And here before I enter into the bowels of this poynt it is to be obserued that most of them vaunt and bragge that they doe much more magnifie Christs merites by their doctrine of Iustification then we doe which how true it is the discourse following I hope shall so manifest that euery indifferent man shall be able to say truely of them as Saint Augustine said of the Donatists These are the words of men extolling the glory of man vnder the name of Christ to the abasing of the glory of Christ himselfe 14. The doctrine therfore of our Church touching the iustification of a sinner is in effect thus much That a sinner is iustified that is accepted into the fauour and loue of God not by any thing in himselfe or from himselfe but by the perfect and vnspotted righteousnes of Christ Iesus imputed vnto him by the meere mercy of God through the couenant of grace and apprehended on his behalfe by the hand of faith The reason whereof is because that which must satisfie Gods iustice and reconcile a sinner vnto him must haue these two properties first it must be of infinite weight and value to counterpoyse with the rigour of Gods iustice and secondly it must be of sufficient ability to performefull and perfect obedience to the law of God so that a perfect satisfaction bee made both in respect of the obedience which the law requireth and also of the punishment that it inflicteth Now no righteousnesse of man is thus qualified but is both imperfect and vnsufficient no not the righteousnes of Angels themselues being though excellent yet â—â—finite Creatures sauing the righteousnes of Christ Iesus onely who is both God and Man and therefore his righteousnes onely and none other is that whereby a sinner must be iustified before God 15. From this it appeareth that when we say that a man is iustified by faith our meaning is not that faith is the cause of our iustification but onely the instrument and hand to apprehend that righteousnes of Christ whereby we are iustified when we say faith alone iust fieth we meane that it alone is the instrument of our iustification because it alone layeth hold vpon the righteousnes of Christ and applyeth it to our selues not that it is euer alone but alwaies accompanyed with charity and patience and zeale and temperance and other fruites of the spirit for we hold that the true iustifying faith is euer mâ—â—re grauida bonoruÌ„ operuÌ„ as one of their own fauourites affirmeth that is full of good workes and euer anon ready to bring them forth as occasion serueth Neither doe we deny as some of them falsly slander vs though many of their chiefest Writers gaine-say their fellowes and affoord vs that fauour to speake the truth of vs but that euery one that is iustified must also be truely sanctified and that saluation is not obtained by iustification alone but by sanctification also yet wee make sanctification and good workes not to be the causes but the effects nor the roote but the fruit nor the anticedents but the necessary consequents and attendants of our Iustification And as Bellarmine truely distinguisheth to be necessary Necessitate praesentiae non efficientiae by a necessity of presence not of efficacie as if they wrought our saluation In a word
In the act of iustification wee say that workes haue no roome because both they are imperfect and also are not done by our own strength but being once iustified we must needs repent and become new creatures walking not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit And this is the doctrine of our Church concerning Iustification 16. Now let vs heare what they say and then weigh both doctrines in the ballance of the sanctuary that wee may see which of them bringeth most glory to the merits of CHRIST and to the power of his satisfaction I will plainely and sincerely God willing set downe the summe of their doctrine First therefore they teach that there is a double iustification the first whereby a man ex iniusto fit iustus of an vniust and wicked man is made iust and good and of a sinner is made righteous the second wherby a man being iust is made more iust and doth encrease in iustice and sanctity according to that Reuel 22. 11. He that is iust let him be more iust Concerning the first iustification some of them affirme that it is the free gift of God and deserued by no precedent workes others that it is merited by congruity but not by condignity but of the second they say that it is gotten and merited by our workes But before both these they make certaine preparations and dispositions whereby a man by the power of his owne free-will stirred vp by grace doth make himselfe fit for iustification namely by the acts of faith feare hope loue repentance and the purpose of a new life all which a man must haue before hee receiue the first grace of iustification and for the obtaining whereof he needs not any grace internally infused but onely offered externally Whereupon they are bold to affirme that the act of Iustification doth emane and proceed Simul ab arbitrio à Deo Both from free-will and from God Now the causes of iustification the Councill of Trent maketh to be these the finall cause Gods glory and mans saluation the efficient Gods mercy the meritorious cause Christs merits the instrumentall the Sacrament of Baptisme but the formall cause which is the chiefest and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dat esse rei giueth being to the thing as the Logicians speake they make to be an inherent righteousnes wrought in vs and inspired into vs by the Spirit of God And this in briefe is the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the iustification of a sinner 17. Wherein let vs obserue three maine and fundamentall differences betwixt their doctrine and ours in all which they raze the foundation and dedignifie the merits of Christ and the mercy of God to extoll the dignitie of man The first in their preparations wee hold that a man cannot any wayes dispose himselfe vnto grace but is wholly fitted and prepared by God and that those acts of preparation as they call them are not fore-runners of iustification but rather fruites and effects thereof they teach the contrary as I haue shewed The second difference is that the workes of a man iustified do not merit increase of grace which they terme the second iustification but as the beginning of grace is from gods mercy alone so the increase and augmentation thereof and perseuerance therein is onely to be ascribed to the worke of Gods spirit according to that of Saint Paul Phil. 1. 6. He that hath begunne this good worke in you will performe it vntill the day of Iesus Christ this we hold they the contrary The third difference is in the formall cause of our iustification which they maintaine to be an inherent righteousnes within vs euen the righteousnes of Sanctification We on the other side affirme that the formall cause of our iustification is the righteousnes of Christ Iesus not dwelling in vs nor proceeding from vs but imputed vnto vs by the mercy of God 18. Hauing thus layd open both our doctrines let vs examine and trye which of them giueth most glory vnto God and most exalts the merites of Christ for that must needs be the truth and which lifteth vp highest the proud nature of man for that must needs be falshood and errour especially seeing that Gods dignity and the dignity of man Christs merits and mans are as it were two skales of a ballance whâ—reof the one rising the other falls the one lifted vp the other is pressed downe First therefore touching the workes of preparation whether doe they more magnifie Gods mercie that say a man cannot prepare and dispose himselfe at all to grace but is wholly disposed and prepared by God or they that affirme that a man can prepare himselfe by his owne endeuour assisted outwardly with the grace of God the one makes Gods mercy the sole cause of iustification the other but the adiâ—vant and helping cause And whether doe they aduance most the dignity of man that say that a man can do nothing of himselfe for his owne iustification or they that say that a man can doe something to the preparation of himselfe to that great worke the one attributeth some dignity to man the other none at all we affirme the one part the Romanists the contrary and therefore our doctrine tends more to the debasing of mans worth and consequently to the exalting of Gods glory then theirs doth 19. True it is like Ferrimen that looke East and go West they with their great Grand-father Pelagius talke of grace when they meane nothing but nature and so deny indeede that which they affirme in word if the matter bee examined according to truth For Pelagius confessed a necessity of grace in all spirituall actions and yet was condemned for an enemy to grace by the Church of God because hee vnderstood not by grace the sanctifying worke of Gods spirit but an outward moouing and perswading power assisting mans free-will to the effecting of his owne saluation The very same is the doctrine of the Romanists as hath beene declared and therefore wee may iustly condemne them as enemies to the grace of God whatsoeuer they bragge and vaunt to the contrary 20. Secondly touching the second iustification which standeth as they say in the augmentation and encrease of our iustice let the most partiall Reader iudge whether tends most to the magnifying of Gods glory their doctrine which teacheth that wee merite the encrease of our iustice by our owne workes or ours which teacheth that both the seed and the growth both the roote and the fruite both the beginning and encrease of all righteousnesse is the worke of Gods spirit alone preuenting assisting and vpholding vs to the end and that these seuerall workes of grace are bestowed vpon vs not for any merites of our owne but simply and entirely for the merits of Christ Iesus I but they will say works doe not merit iustification because they are ours but because they are works of grace which grace floweth from the fountaine of
him my grace is sufficient for thee And besides what is it but a teÌ„pting of God to refuse the ordinary remedy which God hath ordained which is marriage and to flye to extraordinary meanes as if a man should refuse all bodily sustenance on earth in hope that God will feed him extraordinarily from heauen at his deuout request because he hath promised that those which feare him shall want nothing and whatsoeuer we aske in the name of Christ shall be graunted Let Saint Augustine determine this doubt whose resolution is this concerning all things which men pray for which are not necessary to saluation Aliquando Deus iratus dat quod petis Deus propitius negat quod petis Sometimes God granteth in anger and sometimes denyeth in mercie that which thou desirest And let Origens practice put it out of all doubt who to auoid incontinencie and to quench the fiery lusts of the flesh offered violence to his own flesh by cutting off those parts wherin concupiscence raigneth If he had beene persâ—aded that by fasting and prayer he could haue obtained that gift from heauen surely he would haue macerated his body with the one and brawned his knees with the other rather then to haue fallen to that desperate and vnnaturall remedy 28. But to leaue this their vaine obiection and to come a little neerer to the poynt how can that doctrine choose but lead to loosenes which crosseth not onely the ordinance of God who was the first ordainer of Marriage but also the instinct of nature for this was naturally instilled into all liuing Creatures especially Man at the first creation that he should encrease and multiply by vertue of which institution of nature a desire is engrafted in all the posterity of Adam of the propagation of their kind that they may as it were liue in their succession And whereas Bellarmine obiecteth that these words Encrease and multiply containe not a precept but an institution of nature and a promise of fecundity because the same words are vttered to other Creatures which are not capable of precepts and also because if it were a precept it should bind all to encrease and multiply and so imurie should be offered to Christ to Marie and other holie virgines I answere that aâ—beit one member of his reason is vnsound to wit that beasts are vncapable of precepts for God spake to the Fish and it cast vp Ionah on the dry land which sheweth that beasts in their kind vnderstand Gods precepts and obey yet we do not say that this is an absolute precept binding all without exception to marriage but onely a liberty granted to all that will to marrie that thereby mankind may be still propagated and therefore they which take away this liberty from all ecclesiasticall persons and monasticall Votaries offer iniury to nature and tyrannize ouer the bodies and soules of men For whence ariseth this necessary conclusion that the vow of single life is repugnant to nature and therefore none may take it vpon them but those either in whome nature is defectiue which our Sauiour saith were borne chaste from their mothers belly or that are endowed with a supernaturall gift as our blessed Sauiour the blessed Virgin his mother and other holy men and women and so by consequent it followeth because this gift is rare and extraordinary that most of them which by a rash vowe binde themselues from marriage should fall into fornication and promiscuous lust The course of nature in man-kind is like the source of a running streame which by no dammes nor artificiall barres can bee stopped but it will runne either the naturall course in the channell or some other by-passage and that the more it is stopped the more violently it rageth except the fountaine and spring be dryed vp So except the fountaine of concupiscence in incontinent persons be dryed vp by a supernaturall and extraordinary worke the more it is interrupted the more outragiously it fometh Therefore if the ordinary channell of marriage be dammed vp it must needs burst ouer the bankes of lawfulnes and spread it selfe ouer the pastures and medowes of adioyning neighbours This is the very case of our Romish shauelings being barred from marriage they burst sorth like wilde Bulls into other mens grounds and defile their beds by adultery and fill their houses with bastardy 29. If they challenge to themselues the supernaturall gift of continency experience sheweth that their challenge is vaine for not one of an hundred of them liueth chastly and besides as God hath giuen that gift often to the heathen and reprobate as Histories report so very often yea most ordinarily doth he deny it to his own children for ordinary grace doth not abolish but sanctifie nature so that this iâ— no gift of ordinary sauing grace but a superordinary worke aboue grace and that also many times without grace If then it be not in the power of any to quench the instincts of nature if â—t be not a worke of ordinary grace to abolish nature but it requireth extraordinary grace for the effecting thereof if the course of nature be stopped one way it will burst forth another then we may by sound reason conclude that the vowe of chastity and single life and the prohibition of marriage in the Church of Rome doth open a wide gappe to all loose and licencious liuing 30. Lastly that all this is true let the lamentable effects and fruits of this their doctrine stand vp for witnesse and vmpâ—ers in this matter for how shall a man better iudge of the goodnesse of the cause then by the effects a good â—ree cannot bring forth euill fruite nor an euill tree good fruit euery tree is knowne by his fruit and albeit often that which is not the cause is put for the cause and by the accidentall failing of the medium or instrument the cause may misse of his proper effect Yet when the effects are not rare but frequent yea infinite and such as are so like that they seeme as it were of one stampe and as it were all egges of one bird then it must needs follow that parentem sequitur sua proles like childe like parent such as the effect such must the cause needs be To beginne with Nicholas one of the seuen Deacons the prime Authour of the sect of the Nicholaitans condemned by Saint Iohn Apoc. 2. Let Epiphanius tell vs what his opinion was and what fruites issued there-from This Nicholas hauing a beautifull wife when hee sawe others in admiration for their single life that he might not seeme inferiour to them vtterly renounced the company of his wife and determined neuer to haue fellowship with her againe But when hee was not able to represse any longer the flame of concupiscence and being ashamed to returne to his wife lest he should be condemned of inconstancy he chose rather to giue ouer himselfe to all manner of vnlawfull lust yea to that which
vncleannesse and some Angels of the bottomles pit by couetousnes and a little after Not a few of our moderne Priests doe serue the most vild and filthy God Priapus Panormitane a man of great fame in the Councell of Basill after he had shewen the vowe of continencie not to be of the essence of Priest-hood nor by the lawe of God but a constitution of the Church addeth these words I beleeue that it were a wholesome ordinance for the good saluation of soules to leaue it to mâ—ns owne wils to marrie or not because experience doth show that now a daies they doe not liue spiritually and vndefiledly but that they are defiled by vnlawfull copulation whereas they might liue chastly with their owne wiues 37. I could adde vnto these testimonies the report of Iohn Gerson touching his time who complained that some Cloysters of Nunnes were become Stewes of strumpets and whores And of Mantuan a Carmelite Italian Frier whose verses touching this poynt are sufficiently knowne Patrum vita fuit melior cum coniuge quà m nunc Nostra sit exclusis thalamis coniugis vsu The life of the Fathers was better being married then ours to whom marriage is forbidden and of Polidor Virgill who liued in King Henrie the Eights daies whose censure is this that this enforced chastity is so farre from excelling that marriage-chastity that no crime hath brought more shame to the order of Priesthood more euill to Religion nor more griefe to all good men then that blot of the filthinesse of Priests But that I feare I haue too much offeÌ„ded chaste eares already with raking into this dunghill I conclude with the report of Martin Luther he saith that he saw Cardinals at Rome which were accounted holy for no other cause but that they were content onely to commit fornication and adultery with women and did not giue themselues to other vnnaturall lusts Thus as it were in a mappe I haue described the filthy and abominable fruites that proceed from that Romish doctrine of vowed chastitie Is it possible that the spring should be good when the streams are thus corrupt 38. The fift doctrine of Poperie giuing manifest occasion of liberty to the professours thereof is their doctrine of veniall sinnes By which they teach that many acts which are transgressions of the laws of God men yet are not properly sins nor deserue the wrath of God but of their nature are pardonable and therfore he which committeth any such doth neither offer iniury to God nor breake charity in respect of his neighbour and so deserues not hell nor is bound to be sorry for them but that the knocking of the brest going to Church being sprinckled with holy water or the Bishops blessing or crossing ones selfe or doing any worke of charity though we neuer thinke actually of them is a sufficient satisfaction for them This is the doctrine not onely of the Schoolemen but also of the finest and refyning Iesuites euen of Bellarmine himselfe who thus distinguisheth veniall sinnes that some are veniall of their own nature and kind to wit such as haue for their obiect an euill and inordinate matter but which is not repugnant to the law of God and of our neighbour others are veniall by the imperfection of the worke which imperfection ariseth partly ex surreptione that is by vnaduised falling into them without full consent of will and partly ex paruitate materiae by the smalnesse of the matter which is committed as if a man should steale a halfe-peny or some such trifle This is the Cardinals doctrine which as neere as I could I hauâ— word for word set downe And that wee may more fully vnderstand their meaning they affirme in very deede that they are no sinnes but aequiuoce that is so called but not â—o in truth for the word peccatum sinne doth not vniuoce aâ—â—ee 〈…〉 eniall sinnes as it doth to mortall and therefore it is their generall opinion that they are not against but beside the lawe that is in plaine words not sinne for euery sinne is a transgression of the law Now let the Readeriudge whether our doctrine that all sinnes of their owne nature are mortall and deserue condemnation except they be repeÌ„ted of or heirs that some are veniall and binde not the offender to condemnation doe more tend to liberty whether we restraine more the people from sinning that thus say vnto them All your sinnes though neuer so small are of their owne nature damnable except by faith in the bloud of Christ they be purged away and by repentance which is a fruite of faith sorrowed for and laboured against or they that say thus to them A number of your ordinarie sinnes are not damnable you neede not faith in Christs bloud to purge them nor repentance to bewaile them nor care and endeuour to preuent them who seeth not that our doctrine pulleth in and theirs letteth out the reynes of libertie to our corrupt nature for when a man beleeueth that he may do many things which are in deed transgressions of Gods lawe without offence to God or hurt to his neighbour or wounding of his owne conscience and that after he hath committed them he needeth not greatly to repent of them or to be sorry for them but that they are done away by saying a Lords prayer or hearing a Masse or creeping to a Crosse or receiuing a little Holy water what neede he make any conscience of these so sleight trifles nay how can hee choose but neglect and make light account of them This is one of the deuils subtile deuices or iuggling trickes which Saint Paul speaketh of where with hee laboureth to seduce simple soules for either hee will aggrauate our sinnes to driue vs to desperation or extenuate and excuse them to draw to presumption the rocke and gulfe whereat many thousand soules suffer shipwracke And this last the most dangerous wherein the Papists shew themselues the deuils agents and factours by this their doctrine of veniall sinnes for what is this but to excuse sinne and to extenuate it and so to make men presume to commit those things which they esteeme of no greater moment 39. The truth of this will more clearely appeare if wee take a suruay a little of those particular sinnes which they account as veniall To sweare by the bloud of God or wounds or bodie of Christ is no blasphemie saith Cardinall Caietane if it be spoken in a brawle or in some perturbation of mind neither is it to be counted any more than a veniall sinne Againe formall cursing saith Gregorie de Valentia although in it owne kinde it be a mortall sinne yet it may be onely a veniall to wit in respect either of the smalnesse of the matter or the want of deliberation in the speaker and hereby saith he Parents cursing their children with bitter words and deuoting them to the deuill may often be excused from mortall sinne
in the seuenteenth chapter he auoucheth that the proportion betwixt the worke and the reward is ratione operis in respect of the worke Now I confesse that some of them affirme indeed the reason of meriting of our workes to arise partly from this that we are adopted the sonnes of God and haue vnion with Christ and so they are made meritorious by the dignity of the person which worketh them and partly because they proceede from grace and also partly by reason of the promise which God hath made vnto them whereby hee bindeth himselfe that he will reward them but let all these be granted though all of them bee denyed by many of their owne Writers who attribute merite to the worke without relation either to the person or to grace or to the promise yet it will not free their doctrine from palpable impiety as the sequent discourse shall I trust make apparant After that I haue in opposition to this doctrine set downe the summe of that which we hold touching the dignity of good workes I omit to name their merit of cōgruity because most of themselues are ashamed of it 28. This is therefore that doctrine which our Church maintaineth concerning good workes First wee beleeue assuredly that good workes are necessary to saluation but so Vt via regni non causae regnandi as the way to the Kingdome not causes of raigning and as signes of our Election and forerunners of our future happinesse as Saint Bernard testifieth This with one consent we all teach and the Romanists that slander vs with the contrary assertion cannot produce so much as one sentence out of any of our Writers which being rightly vnderstood doth import the contrary as shall be hereafter fully proued Secondly wee hold that as they are necessary in respect of vs so they are acceptable and well pleasing to God not for their own sakes but for our faith-sake in Christ in whome onely the Lord is well pleased both towards himselfe and all his members Thirdly we beleeue that they are not onely thus acceptable and well pleasing in Gods sight but also that the Lord will reward them assuredly both in this life with temporall blessings and in the life to come with eternall happinesse according to that of our Sauiour Whosoeuer shall giue vnto one of those little ones to drinke a cup of cold water in the name of a Disciple he shall not lose his reward But lastly we constantly assure our selues that this reward is not giuen of God for the merite or desert of the worke but of the meere grace and mercy of God for the merits of Christ according to that of Saint Bernard The mercy of God is my merite and of Saint Augustine God bringeth vs to eternall life not for our merits but for his owne mercy For a reward is not onely taken for a due debt in Scripture but also for a free gift as may appeare by comparing Mat. 5. 46. with Luk. 6. 32. In the one place wherof the Holy Ghost vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the one and the same thing So that the summe of our doctrine is this in few words wee renounce not good workes but the merit of workes and wee verily beleeue that Christ is the store-house of all merite and that out of him there is no merite to be found in any no not in the iustest that euer liued and yet the merits of Christ as his righteousnesse are made ours by imputation and in that sense onely we may bee said to merit and deserue eternall life As for our best workes though they bee wrought in vs by grace yet passing through the corrupt channell of our defiled nature they get themselues such a tincture and staine as in regard of the corruption which cleaueth close vnto them they can deserue nothing at Gods hand if he should lay them to the rule of his iustice and not weigh them in the ballance of his mercy This is our doctrine and that it is so I appeale to Bellarmine himselfe who confesseth that by faith alone wee doe not exclude other vertues but the merit of them and that we make good workes necessary to saluation Necessitate praesentiae non efficientiae as he termeth it By necessitie of their presence not by necessitie of efficiencie Let vs therefore now come to the examination of both these doctrines and search which of them doth giue most glory to God and honour to Christ our Sauiour in this maine pillar of our Redemption 29. And first doth not that doctrine tend manifestly to the embasing of Gods mercy which teacheth men not to relie wholly vpon that for their saluation but partly vpon their owne merits Especially seeing grace and workes merit and mercy cannot stand together no more then light and darknes as the Apostle teacheth If it be of grace it is no more of workes or else were grace no more grace but if it be of workes it is no more grace or else were worke no more worke So may we truely say If saluation be of mercy then it is not of merit or else were mercy no more mercy but if it be of merit it is no more of mercy or else were merit no more merit and so by kindling the fire of merits they vtterly dry vp the fountaine of mercy And for that cause Saint Bernard maketh the mercy of God his onely merit And Saint Augustine disclayming all merits and laying clayme onely to Gods mercy saith as before God bringeth vs to eternall life not for our merits but for his owne mercie And in another place His promise is sure not according to our merits but according to his mercy And Chrysostome saith That no man sheweth such conuersation of life as that he may bee worthy of the Kingdome of heauen but it is wholly the gift of God In all these places merit is opposed vnto mercy as things of their owne condition incompatible and therefore one must needes exclude the other And sure in reason it must needs be so for mercy is free Grace is not grace in any sort if it be not free in euery sort sayth Augustine but merit requireth the reward of debt Mercies obiect is misery and vnworthinesse but merit is dignity and worthinesse and therefore cannot bee the obiect of mercy Mercy reioyceth against iustice but merit appealeth vnto iustice and challengeth God of vniustice if it bee not recompenced Lastly in mercy God is the Agent and sinfull Man the Patient but in merit righteous Man is the Agent and God the Patient And therefore betwixt these two things Merit and Mercy there is such a disproportion and contrariety that they cannot be reconciled together 30. I but they say our workes are not meritorious of themselues but partly as they proceede from grace and are wrought in vs by Gods Spirit and so it is Gods mercy that we
glory of God and the merits of Christ And therefore the conclusion must needs follow being built vpon an vnmooueable foundation that that Religion which maintaineth such doctrines is not the truth of Christ but the seduction of Antichrist MOTIVE V. That Religion deserueth to be suspected which refuseth to be tryed by the Scriptures as the perfect and alone rule of faith and will bee iudged and tryed by none but it selfe But such is the Religion of the Church of Rome Ergo. THe first proposition in this Argument though it be most true and cannot without any shew of reason be contradicted yet that it may be without all doubt and exception it shall not be amisse to strengthen the same by sound and euident proofes deriued both out of Gods word and consent of ancient Fathers The Proposition consists of two parts first that it cannot be the true Religion which will not abide the alone tryall of the Scriptures Secondly that it will bee iudged and tryed by none but it selfe let vs consider of both these seuerally 2. And concerning the first if the Scripture be the fountaine of all true religion the foundation and basis of our faith the Canon and rule of all the doctrines of faith and the touch-stone to trye truth from falshood then to refuse to be iudged and tryed by the Scriptures alone is plainely to discouer that there is something in it which issued not from that fountain which is not built vpon that foundation which is so oblique and crooked that it dares not to be applyed to that rule and which is counterfeit and dares not abide the touchstone Now that the Scripture is such as I haue said let the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture beare witnesse Search the Scripture saith our Sauiour for in them you thinke to haue eternall life and they be they which testifie of me therefore the Scripture is the fountaine of all true religion for what is the Religion of Christians but the right knowledge of Christ Iesus This caused Saint Paul to say I desire to know nothing but Christ Iesus and him crucified Againe the Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto saluation through faith in Christ Iesus and are profitable to teach to improue to correct and to instruct in righteousnesse that the man of God may be absolute and perfect to euery good worke Therefore the Scripture is the onely fountaine of true Religion for what is true Religion but spirituall wisedome and holy perfection the one in contemplation the other in action the one in knowledge the other in practice for these two ioyned together do make a man truly religious but the Scriptures afford both as it is cleare in that saying of S. Paul and may be confirmed by another like speech of Salomon who affirmeth that the commandements of God will make a man to vnderstand righteousnesse and iudgement and equity and euery good path Righteousnesse and iudgement pertaine to knowledge equity and euery good path belong to practice And for this cause Origen compareth the Scriptures to Iacobs Well from whence not onely Iacob and his sonnes that is the learned and the skilfull but his sheepe and cattell that is the simple and ignorant doe drinke that is deriue vnto themselues the waters of life and saluation and therefore where the knowledge of the Scriptures flourished not as among all the Heathen both Romanes Grecians and Barbarians before their conuersion there no true Religion shewed it selfe but their Religion was all false and deuillish for in stead of the true God they worshipped dumb creatures and mortall men yea deuils themselues as Lactantius sheweth All which proceeded from hence that they had not the word of God for their guide which is the onely fountaine and well-spring of true Religion 3. Againe as it is the fountaine from whence so it is the foundation vpon which our faith relieth whether wee take faith for the act of beleeuing or for the matter and obiect of our beliefe Ye are built saith S. Paul vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Christ Iesus himselfe being the chiefe corner stone By the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles is meant the Propheticall and Apostolicall doctrine as all Expositours that I haue read yea their owne Aquinas and Caietane with one consent auouch and to bee built vpon this foundation is to haue our faith to relye and depend vpon it onely as a house relyeth onely vpon the foundation and without a foundation cannot stand that therefore is no doctrine of faith that is vpholden by any other foundation neither hath that any good foundation which is not built vpon the Propheticall and Apostolicall doctrine they build vpon sand that build vpon humane traditions euery stormy puffe of winde will shake the house of that faith but they which heare the word of Christ and keepe it build vpon a rocke against which neither the raine flouds nor windes no not the gates of hell are able to preuaile because they are grounded vpon the rocke which rocke indeede is Christ to speake properly as not onely S. Peter confesseth 1. Pet. 2. 7. but euen Christ himselfe that is this rocke Math. 16. 18. when hee saith Vpon this rocke will I build my Church that is vpon this truth that Christ is the Sonne of God yet the word of Christ may also be called the rocke because it is as firme and durable as Christ himselfe And that wee may know that Gods word onely is the foundation of faith S. Paul telleth vs plainely that faith is by hearing and hearing by the word of God If any of them say as they doe that the word of God is not onely that which is written in Scripture but that which is vnwritten deliuered by tradition let them shew as good reasons to proue their traditions to be the word of God as we doe to proue the Scripture and we will beleeue them but since they cannot let them beare with vs if we vnderstand the Apostles words as spoken onely touching the written word and the rather because we haue for the warrantize of our interpretation both S. Paul himselfe in the same Chapter verse 8. when he saith This is the word offaith which we preach Where hee sheweth what is that word which is the ground of our faith namely the word preached And S. Peter who hauing magnified the word of God with this commendation that it endureth for euer presently expoundeth himselfe of what word hee spake saying And this is that word which is preached amongst you That is the word of the Gospell which was not in part but wholy and fully as preached by mouth so committed to writing And thus S. Basil also interprets it for he saith Quicquid est vltra scripturas Whatsoeuer is out of the Scriptures diuinely inspired because it is not of faith is sinne for faith is by hearing and hearing by
euer any man read more pittifull arguments the rest which â—ee vseth are all of the same stampe Ob. I but a Crucifix is like vnto Christ saith hee therefore it iâ—to bee worshipped with latria R. But the Virgin his Mother was more like to him and yet they giue not vnto her so high a worship Ob. I but the Fathers held the Crosse in great reuerence and the Image of the Crosse and worshipped them R. True they reuerenced them and held them in great estimation but yet there was no worship giuen vnto them vntill neere 400. yeeres after Christ About that time began this superstition for in Saint Ambrose time it was not crept in as appeareth by that testimony before alledged not in Arnobius time who plainely affirmeth that they did not worship Crosses Againe those Fathers that did adore them did not worship the Crosse or the Crucifix but him that hung vpon the Crosse as may appeare by Hieroms testimony concerning Paulae who saith that shee falling prostrate before the Crosse worshipped as if shee had seene the Lord there hanging before her by which it is playne that she worshipped not the Crosse but the Lord. And Ambrose also witnesseth the same when he calleth it an heathenish errour and the vanitie of wickedmen to worship the Crosse But the Romanists teach that the Crosse it selfe and the Crucifix are to be worshipped and that with the highest worship Ob. I but many and strange miracles haue beene wrought by the signe of the Crosse therefore it is to bee worshipped R. The argument is naught for if euery worker of miracles should be worshipped with diuine adoration then all the Apostles might challenge this honour vnto them So might Iannes and Iambres that resisted Moses Yea so might Antichrist himselfe for his comming is with lying signes and wonders lying not onely in respect of their substance which is sometimes counterfeit but also in respect of the end which is to seduce when the miracle for substance may bee true and this is both Saint Chrystostomes and Saint Augustines exposition of that place besides the myracles that were done at or before this signe were effected by the power of the faith and inuocation of Christ crucified and not by the bare signe of the Crosse as most of the Fathers confesse and all of them doe secretly insinuate And therefore the signing of themselues with the Crosse was a secret kinde of inuocation of Christ crucified as Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth And thus it followeth that those myracles which they talke of as the driuing away of Diuels and ouercomming mortall enemies and such like are not to be ascribed to the signe of the Crosse but to inuocation and prayer and faith in Christ crucified 80. Ob. I but the Apostle Paul saith God forbid that I should reioyce in any thing but inthe Crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ and He tooke the handwriting that was against vs and nayled it on his Crosse and he set all things at peace through the bloud of his Crosse c. therefore it is to be worshipped R. The consequent of this arguments as good as the former for how can it follow that because the Crosse was the instrument of our redemption therefore it should be adored The weaknes of this sequell is before discouered Besides by the Crosse is vnderstood most commonly in the Scripture eyther the whole worke of Christs passion or afflictions and persecutions for Christs sake neyther of which especially the latter are to be adored with diuine adoration In a word there is nothing they can alledge that doth carry with it any shew of sound reason to hide the shame of their Church in this open Idolatrie and yet they labour tooth and nayle for it but they profite but a little 81. Wee confesse that there was a holy and commendable vse of the transcant signe of the Crosse in the primitiue Church to wit as a badge of Christian profession to signifie that they were not ashamed of their crucified God which the heathen and wicked Iewes vsed to cast in their teeth and so of the permanent Crosse erected in publike places to be as it were a trophee and monument of the exaltation of him that dyed on the Crosse But now Popery hath turned this laudable vse of the Crosse into Paganish abomination and hath giuen to it that honour which belonged to him that dyed vpon the Crosse and therefore wee most iustly accuse them of fouâ—e Idolatrie and finde them guilty without all controuersie and that not onely in thâ—s last enditement touching the Crosse but also in the foure former heads And therefore the conclusion is by necessary consequence most firme and true that seeing the Church of Rome is thus many wayes guiltie of Idolatry therefore it is to bee abandoned and forsaken and that religion which maintayneth this impiety worthily to be abhorred MOTIVE VIII That Religion which implyeth manifold contradiction in it selfe and is contrary to it selfe in many things cannot be the true Religion but such is the Religion of the Church of Rome ergo c. 1. IT is an old saying and true Oportet mendacem esse memorem It behooueth a lyar to haue a good memory lest he crosse himselfe in his tale and so discouer his falshood This saying is verified in our Aduersaries the Romanists whose Religion being nothing else but a bundle of lyes and a hotch-potch of olde heresies crosseth it selfe in many substantiall poynts and thereby reuealeth the manifold errours and falsities that lurke in the bosome thereof That this is true the discourse ensuing thereof I hope shall make so manifest that they themselues shall not be able to gainfay it 2. The Maior proposition in this argument is of such euident verity that by no shew of reason it can possibly be contradicted considering that truth is alwayes and in euery part like to it selfe and agreeing consenting and conspiring with it selfe as a perfect body wherein there is such a sweet harmony of all the members that one is not contrary to another but all tend to one and the same end and vnite their forces together for the good of the whole for which cause the Orator defineth truth to bee that which is simple and syncere And the Poet saith that it seeketh no corners To which Saint Bernard alluding thus writeth Non amat veritas angulos non ei diuersoria placent in medio stat c. i. It loueth no corners by-wayes doe not please it it standeth in the miast And therefore the Ancients in their Hierogliphicks represented truth by the picture of the Sunne not onely in respect of the puritie and clarity of it but also in respect of the simplicitie and vnitie Duplicia enim multiplicia sunt veritati contraria i Duplicity and multiplicity are contrary to verity But falsity errour and lying is full of doubtings windings and contrarieties like a dreame in the night
out of the way and yet the state of the Romane Empire vnder the Emperours is made by them the whore of Babylon and the seat of Antichrist and so the Romane Empire by their doctrine is both vtterly abolished before the raigne of Antichrist and yet is not abolished at all 63. Againe they teach that Enoch and Eliâ—â— must come and preach against Antichrist and at length conuert the Iewes and yet they also affirme that the Iewes shall receiue Antichrist for their Messias If the Iewes shall receiue him for their Messias how shall they bee conuerted by Enoch and Elias to the true Messias And if they shall be conuerted how doe they receiue him for their Messias If they shall be conuerted before Antichrists comming and then fall away from Christ then this could not be done by Enoch and Elias who by their doctrine must come in Antichrists time and yet it seemeth by them they must be called before because Bellarmine confesseth that Antichrist must be an Apostate and the head of the Apostacy but the Iewes cannot make an Apostacie before they be called Againe if they shall bee conuerted in Antichrists time how shall Antichrist raigne three yeeres and an halfe when all his Subiects shall be taken from him And lastly if they shall bee called after the destruction of Antichrist as indeed they suppose theÌ„ how can that be seeing the destruction of Antichrist shal not be but immediately before the end of the world euen fiue and fortie daies and no more Shall a whole Nation bee conuerted in so short a time and being conuerted continue no longer to make profession and practice of their conuersion Thus one absurditie being granted a thousand follow 64. Besides they say that Antichrist shall bee borne of the Tribe of Daâ— and yet the Iewes shall receiue him for their Messias Whereas notwithstanding it is a manifest and confessed thing that the Iewes looke for their Messias out of the Tribe of Iuda and not out of the Tribe of Dan. To stoppe which gâ—p they are driuen to say that indeed he shall truly rise out of the Tribe of Dan but shal faine himselfe to be of the Tribe of Iudah and of the familie of Dauid As if the Iewes were so credulous to beleeue his report without proofe or that they kept so sleight an account of their Genealogies in which neuer any people were more scrupulous or as if a distinctioÌ„ of their Tribes remained to this day their Genealogies being defaced so long since by Herod and themselues scattered through all Countries of the world Either therefore he must be of the Tribe of Iuda in truth more then by a counterfeit simulation or else the Iewes will neuer receiue him 65. Lastly they teach that Ierusalem is to bee the seat of Antichrist and the Iewes his peculiar Subiects and yet they also confesse that hee shall bee the last Emperour of Rome though not called by that name and therefore that the Romanes shall bee his Subiects From whence I thus conclude that if the Romane Empire bee the Dominion of Antichrist then it is not likely that hee should bee the expected Messias of the Iewes nor that Ierusalem should be his seat for neuer any Romane Emperour kept his Imperiall residence in that Citie and if the Iewes bee his Subiects and Ierusalem the seat of his Kingdome then it cannot bee that hee should be the last Emperour of Rome 66. And thus much of Antichrist in generall Now of the Bishop of Rome in particular who if he be not as we constantly beleeue this very Antichrist yet as Gregory their owne Pope confesseth is his fore-runner because hee claimeth to himselfe the title of Vniuersall Bishop Concerning the Pope their presumption is that hee cannot erre in any case in those things which pertaine to faith nor yet which concerne manners when he teacheth iudicially and speaketh out of his Chaire and yet they doe not deny but that hee may bee an Heretike This is confessed by most Popish Doctors as Bozius who saith that he may be an Heretike yea write teach and preach heresie And Victoria that in dispensing against the Decrees of Councils and former Popes he may erre and grieuously sinne And Occham that many things are contained in the decretals which sauour of heresie And it is so faintly denyed by Bellarmine that his denyall is almost as good as a confession for he saith that it is probable and may godlily be beleeued that the Pope cannot be an Heretike Hee doth not resolutely auouch it but only coniecturally expend his opinion but yet denieth not but that hee may erre in some causes as a priuate man And it is a Decree of their owne that the Pope may bee found negligent of his owne and his brethrens saluation and draw innumerable people with him into hell This grosse and manifest contradiction they labour to couer by a silly and ridiculous distinction for thus they creepe betwixt the barke and the tree The Pope may erre as hee is Man but not as he is a Pope Orthus He may erre in his priuate opinions but not è Cathedra by way of definition Or thus Hee may erre when hee instructeth a particular Church but he cannot when he purposeth to direct the Vniuersail Church Or thus Hee may erre in the premises but not in the conclusion But this is a senselesse and ridiculous shift For first if hee may write teach and preach and decree heresie as out of Occham and Bozius and erre in his Dispensations as out of Victoria then he may erre iudicially and è Cathedra for these are iudiciall exercises of the Chaire Secondly if the Pope may be an Heretike as he is a Man and haue a sound saith as he is a Pope then as hee is a Man hee may goe to hell and as he is a Pope to heauen but both muâ—â— goe to heauen or to hell together therefore both of them either erre or not erre together and if he erre in his owne priuate iudgement how can hee but erre in his publike determinations which are but fruits of his iudgement especially seeing the maine promise whereupon this infallibilâ—â—ie of the Popes Chaire is grounded was made not onely to the Office but also to the person of Peter Luk. 22. 32. I haue prayed for thee that thy faith may not faile as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth and Augustine Chrysostome Theophilact and others of the Fathers expound it as a personall priuiledge without any mention of his Office neuerthelesse let it belong to his Office if that will doe them any good then I say What reason is there that the priuiledge of Peters person should not be deriued to the Pope as well as his Office seeing they clâ—ime the latter by the same title by which Peter had the former and if Peters faith could not faile neither in himselfe nor in his Office by vertue of that promise then the Pope if he be
thinke it fit for vs to say so for humility sake but also that wee were so in truth and indeede Let Saint Bernard for an vpshot wipe away this distinction Wilt thou saith he say that Christ hath taught thee to say so for humility sake true indeed it was for humility but what against truth And thus none of these shifts and distinctions can deliuer this doctrine from opposition to the Gospell for it followeth ineuitably if the best be no better then vnprofitable seruants then none can worke such works whereby hee may not onely merite for himselfe eternall life but hauing a surplusage of redundant merits bestow some of them for the supplying of others wants 100. And thus wee haue a short view of the cleere and manifest oppositions that are betwixt the doctrines of the Gospell and the doctrines of the Church of Rome And we see with what subtill and intricate distinctions they labour to reconcile them together but truth is naked and needeth no such shiftings Both the one and the other therefore namely their direct opposition to the Gospell on the one side and their elaborate diflinctions to make good their cause on the other doth euidently euince the conclusion of this ninth demonstration that that Religion which is built vpon such desperate and dangerous principles cannot be the truth of Christ but the doctrine and Religion of Antichrist The X. MOTIVE That Religion which nourisheth most barbarous and grosse ignorance amongst the people and forbiddeth the knowledge and vnderstanding of the grounds of the Christian faith cannot be the truth but this doth the Romish Religion ergo c. 1. IN the first proposition of this Argument the Romanists hold the Wolfe by the eares not knowing whether it be better to graunt or to deny it for if they graunt it to bee true it will flye in their faces because they are guilty of the contents thereof and if they deny it it will bite them by the fingers for all men will condemne them of shamelesse impudency for denying so apparant a truth Therefore as the beast which Pliny calleth Amphisbaena so it stingeth both wayes But of two euils the lesser they must of necessitie deny it or else they must condemne their owne practice of impietie which sure they will not doe though for their labour they gaine to themselues that name which so frequently and imperiously they impute vnto vs Shamelesse Heretikes they speake it of vs in the spirit of malice but it shall be prooued of them by sound reason and that in this demonstration ensuing by Gods assistance 2. For the confirmation therefore of the first proposition a word or two though whatsoeuer can be spoken thereof is but to adde light vnto the Sunne First therefore the Scripture standeth foorth and condemneth ignorance so plainely that nothing can be more euident Salomon telleth vs That they which hate knowledge loue death And the Prophet Esay That the people were carryed into captiuitie because they had no knowledge And the Prophet Hosca That they were destroyed for lacke of knowledge Our Sauiour affirmeth that the cause of erring in the Sadduces was the ignorance of the Scripture And Saint Paul coupleth these two together in the Gentiles Darkned cogitations through ignorance and strangers from the life of God where he plainely sheweth that ignorance and destruction are inseparable companions as sanctified knowledge and saluation are And to omit infinite other passages of holy writ our Sauiour directly concludeth that he which knoweth his Masters will and doth it not shall bee beaten with many stripes and he which knoweth it not and therefore doth it not shall be beaten too but with fewer stripes By which he giueth vs to know that though some kinde of ignorance may extenuate and lessen the fault yet none especially if it bee of matters which we are bound to know and may be attayned vnto doth excuse from all fault but is blame-worthy and punishable by Gods iustice 3. Thus speakes the holy Ghost in the Scripture and doubtles in reason it must needs be so for wherin doth a man differ from a beast but in reason and vnderstanding and wherein doth one man differ from another but in the enlightning of reason by diuine knowledge which is the matter subiect of true Religion Religion being nothing else but the knowledge and profession of the diuine truth the want whereof must needs be a subuerter and destroyer thereof A Physicion that is ignorant of the grounds of his Arte we account a Mountebanke and Imposter And what I pray you can they be lesse that professe ignorance and that in the most difficult Art of all other the Art of Christianitie Besides all confesse that ignorance is a defect and blemish of the soule and that the more knowledge a man hath the neerer he is vnto perfection because hee is the more like vnto God but the chiefe end of Religion is to purge away the blemishes to make vp the breaches of the soule to renue Gods Image defaced therin that so we may be made like vnto him euen perfect as he is perfect How can then true Religion teach ignorance which is such an enemy vnto perfectiō or how can that be true religion which nourisheth ignorance inioyneth it vnto most of her professors followers 4. Let the fathers bee Iudges of this cause Saint Augustine sayth in one place that Ignorance as a naughty mother bringeth forth two wicked daughters falshood and doubting And in another that the knowledge of God is the engine by which the structure of charity is built vp Saint Bernard sayth that both the knowledge of God and of a mans selfe is necessary to saluation For as out of the knowledge of a mans selfe commeth the feare of God and out of the knowledge of God the loue of him so on the contrary from the ignorance of a mans selfe commeth pride and from the ignorance of God desperation Saint Chrysostome sayth that knowledge goeth before the imbracing of Vertue because no man can faithfully desire that which hee knoweth not and euill vnknowne is not feared The like song sing all the rest of the Fathers whose testimonies I thinke needlesse to accumulate being so wel knowne to all men 5. And that they may bee vtterly without excuse heare what their owne Doctours affirme Aquinas confesseth that omnis ignorantia vincibilis est peccatum si sit eorum quae aliquis seire tenetur All vincible ignorance that is which may bee auoided is sinne if it bee of those things which a man is bound to know But such is the ignorance maintained in the Church of Rome not onely vincible but affected wilfull and voluntary Bellarmine also acknowledgeth that ignorance is a disease and wound of the soule brought in as a punishment of originall sinne And confesseth out of Saint Augustine that it is the cause of errour For Two euils are
somewhat longer let the Reader beare with mee for so the nature and nouelty of the matter requireth Their next practice then to defend their Church and Religion is by grosse and palpable lying and falshood yea so grosse and palpable that any ciuill honest man would blush to be reputed the author of such fables which they obtrude vpon silly people as verities necessary to bee beleeued and which they like simple creatures giue faith vnto asmuch as vnto the Gospell it selfe and neither is the one or the other any maruaile seeing Saint Paul prophesied long agoe that on the one side Antichrist his comming should be according to the efficacy of Sathan in all power in lying signes and wonders and on the other that God would send vpon them that receiued not the loue of the truth strong delusion that they should beleeue lyes so that by this prophecy one of the chiefest props of Antichrists kingdome must bee lyes and therefore the Church of Rome making no conscience thereof sheweth it selfe to be no better then the Synagogue of Antichrist If they say that they doe it to a good end namely to maintaine the truth I answere with Iob Nunquid Deus indiget mendacio vestro vt pro illo loquamini dolos Doth GOD stand in need of your lye that you should speake deceitfully for his cause no he will surely reprooue you for it and with Saint Augustine Cum humilitatis causa mentiris si non eras peccator antequam mentireris mentiendo efficieris quod euitaras that is If thou tellest a lye for humility sake or for the truths sake if thou were not a sinner before by lying thou art made that which thou didst auoid what can bee more pithily spoken for the reproofe of these men who by falshood pretend to establish the truth and by lying to vphold their Religion and if neither the Scripture nor this holy Father are regarded by them then let them heare the censure of the Heathen Cicero who concludeth that in virum bonum non cadit mentiri emolumenti sui causa It falleth not to a good man to lye no not for his owne profite sake what are they then in his account who make a common practice to lye for their aduantage But lest I should bee thought to accuse them falsely and in reproouing their lying to fall into the same vice my selfe let vs take a short view of some of their notorious vntâ—uths which are sparsed in their bookes And heere to omit their lying Reuelations lying priuiledges false Canons forged donations counterfeit de lying martyrologies all which are stuffed with notorious falsities and that by the confession of their owne Doctours I will insist onely vpon their lying miracles wherein they vaunt themselues as a marke of their Church and wherewith they labour to vphold most of their erronious opinions 11. And first touching their miraculous transubstantiatioÌ„ and adoration of the Sacrament not finding in Scripture sufficient proofe for it it is strange to see how many monstrous miracles they haue deuised for to win credit thereunto Bozius a man of great fame amongst them telleth vs these three tales first that Anthony of Padua caused his horse to kneele downe and worship the holy hoast by which strange sight a stout Heretike was conuerted to the true faith And secondly Saint Francis had a Cade Lambe which vsed to goe to Masse and would duely kneele downe at the eleuation and adore And thirdly that a certaine deuout woman to cure her Bees of the murren and to make them fruitfull put a consecrated hoast into the Hiue which when after a time shee tooke vp shee not onely found a miraculous increase but saw also a strange wonder the Bees had built a Chappell in the Hiue with an Altar and windowes and doores and a steeple with Bells and had laid the hoast vpon the Altar and with a heauenly noyse flew about it and sung at their Canonicall houres and kept watch by night as Monkes vse to doe in their Cloisters Who would not beleeue now but that the hoast is to be adored if hee be not more senslesse then a horse or a Bee or a Cade Lambe But if this be true why are Mice so prophane that they dare rend it with their teeth And why doth not the Popes Hackney kneele downe and doe reuerence vnto it when hee carrieth it on his backe accompanied with muletters and horse-keepers and Courtisans and Cookes with sumpter-horses and all the baggage of the Court as oft as his Holinesse is to trauell abroad when hee himselfe followeth mouÌ„ted vpon a goodly white palfrey accoÌ„panied with Cardinals Primates Bishops Potentats Is more honor to be giuen to Christs Vicar then to Christ himselfe Or was Anthonies horse more religious then all the Popes horses yea then the Pope himselfe and all his traine And if the hoast bee so soueraigne a preseruatiue for Bees why doe any good housewiues suffer their Bees to perish seeing they may haue the hoast for God amercy or at least wise for a very small price In the booke of the conformities of Saint Francis wee finde this miracle On a time Fryer Francis saying Masse found a Spider in the Chalice which hee would not for reuerence to the Sacrament cast out but drunke it vp with the blood afterward rubbing his thigh and scratching where it itched the Spider came whole out of his thigh without any harme to either O strange miracle and yet not so strange as this that Christs bloud in the Chalice should poyson Pope Victor except Francis a Fryer were more holy then Victor a Pope or the blood in one Chalice were of greater force then in the other but peraduenture the Priest in the one had no intention to turne the wine into blood as the Priest in the other had and then wee know there can be no conuersion but no maruaile if this be true seeing in the festiual of Corpus Christi day we read as great a wonder as this to wit of a Priest that hauing lost the hoast in a wood as hee came to housell a woman that was sicke and hauing whipt himselfe for his negligence went backe to seeke his Lord God and at last spying a pillar of fire that reached from the earth to heauen ran thereunto and found Gods body at the foot of that pillar and all the beasts of the forrest about it kneeling on their foure knees and adoring it with great deuotion ex ept one blacke horse which kneeled but on one knee and that blacke horse sayth the story was a fiend of hell who had turned himselfe into that shape that men might steale him and bee hanged as many had beene This as it was reported to bee done not far from Exbridge in Deuon-shire so it was as solemnely read in the Church and as verily beleeued as any miracle that euer Christ wrought who can doubt now but that the bread in the
sentences heere and there that see me to make for their purpose contrary to the whole scope and drift of the writer or lastly by blemishing our whole Religion by some sinister or exorbitant opinion maintained by some one or other vnaduised fellow though it bee contrary to the whole current of all other writers on our side as if for one mans errour wee were all flat Heretikes or because one souldier playeth the dastard therefore the whole army were cowards These bee their tricks of Legerdemaine by which they indeuour to disgrace our Religion and to countenance their owne but Veritas magna est preualebit I hope so to dispell and scatter these mists by the light of truth that they shall vanish like smoake and the truth bee more resplendent like the Sunne comming out of a cloud 61. To the purpose first they exclaime that our Religion is an enemy to good workes and that wee esteeme of them as not necessary to saluation which damnable errour some of them ascribe vnto vs as our direct doctrine others as a consequence of our doctrine and our secret meaning but that both are lying slanders I appeal first to our doctrine it selfe which is so cleare in this point that no man can doubt thereof but hee that is musled with malice for this we hold that though faith be alone in the worke of iustification yet that saith euer worketh through loue and is great with good workes as a woman with child which it bringeth forth also when occasion serueth and that if it bee disioyned from good workes it is but a dead carkas of faith yea the faith of Deuils and hypocrites and not of the elect And this as it is the constant doctrine of all our diuines so is it principally of Luther whom our aduersaries accuse as the chiefest enemy to good workes for thus hee writeth in one place touching the efficacy of faith Faith is a liuely and powerfull thing not an idle cogitation swimming vpon the toppe of the heart as a fowle vpon the water but as water heated by fire though it remaine water still yet it is no more cold but hote and altogether changed so faith doth frame and fashion in a man another mind and other senses and altogether maketh him a new man Again in another place he sayth that the vertue of faith is to kill death to damne hell to be sinne to sinne and a deuill to the deuill that is to be sins poison and the Deuils confusion Thus hee speaketh concerning the powerful efficacy of that true iustifying faith which wee rely our saluation vpon and they condemne as a nulli-fidian portion And touching good works their necessity and excellency heare how diuinely he writeth in one place Out of the cause of iustification no man can sufficiently commend good workes in another One good worke proceeding from faith done by a Christian is more pretious then heauen or earth the whole world is not able to giue a sufficient reward for one goodworke and in another place It is as necessary that godly teachers doe as diligently vrge the doctrine of good workes as the doctrine of faith for the Deuill is an enemy to both what can bee spoken more effectually for the extolling of the excellency of good wâ—rkesâ— and yet these fellowes make Luther the greatest aduersarie to them 62. Secondly I appeale to themselues many of the greatest Doctors amongst whom doe cleare vs from that imputation Maldonate The Protestants doe say that iustifying faith cannot bee without good workes Viega The Protestants affirme that iustification sanctification are so ioyned together that they cannot be parted Stapleton All Protestants none excepted teach that faith which iustifieth is liuely working by charity and other good workes Lastly Bellarmine The Protestants say that faith cannot stand with euill workes for hee that hath a purpose to sin can conceiue no faith for the remission of his sin and that faith alone doth iustifie but yet is not alone and that they exclude not the necessity but onely the merite of good workes nor the presence but the efficacy to iustifie Now then with what face can they bolster out this slaunder against our doctrine and accuse vs to be like the Simonian Heretike who taught that a man need not regard good workes and Eunomians who defended that perseuerance in sinne did not hinder saluation so that wee beleeued This is the first blasphemie against our Religion wherein they doe not so much thwart vs as crosse themselues and that one may see yet more clearely this to bee a malicious slaunder hearken what Bellarmine sayth concerning Luthers opinion of Christian liberty Luther seemeth sayth he to teach that Christian liberty consisteth in this that a godly conscience is free not from doing good workes but from being accused or defended by them let Luther himself speake againe By faith sayth he we are freed not from works but from opinion of workes that is from a foolish presumption of iustification to bee obtained by workes by all which we may easily iudge of the meaning of those sentences obiected Faith alone doth saue and infidelity alone doth condemne and where faith is no sinne can hurt nor condemne that they are to be vnderstood partly of sinnes before iustification and partly of such sinnes after as destroy not faith nor raigne in the beleeuer nor are perseuered in but repented of and laboured against and thus our Religion is iustified by the very aduersaries thereof from this great crime imputed vnto it 63. Againe they accuse vs as maintainers of this doctrine that all the workes of iust men are mortall sinnes and of this they make Luther Calume and Melancthon to be Patrones but with what shamelesse impudency let the world iudge To begin with Caluine these be his words Dum sancti ductu Spiritus c. i. Whilst being holy wee walke in the wayes of the Lord yet least being forgetfull of our selues wee should waxe proud there remain reliques of imperfection which may minister vnto vs matter of humiliation againe the best worke that can be wrought by iust men yet is besprinkled and corrupted with the impurity of the flesh and hath as it were some dregs mixed with it let the holy seruant of God chuse out of his whole life that which he shall thinke to haue beene most excellent let him well consider euery part thereof hee shall without doubt finde in one place or other something which sauours of the fleshes corruption seeing our alacrity in well doing is neuer such as it ought to be but our weakenes great in hindering the course although we see that the blots where with the Saints workes are stayned are not obscure yet grant that they are but very small workes shall they not offend the eyes of God before whom the starres themselues are not pure we haue not one worke proceeding from the Saints which if it be censured
a sinner in the acting of his sin by his powerfull prouidence and not onely foreseeth but decreeth disposeth and determineth in his wisedome all the sinnes of men according to his will and by his secret working blindeth their minds and hardneth their hearts that they cannot repent This we confesse is our doctrine if it be rightly vnderstood for we teach that God doth not barely permit sinne to be done but decreeth before to permit it and in the act worketh by it and ordereth and disposeth it to his owne ends yet so that he neither approueth of it nor is in any respect the cause of the malignity thereof and herein we consent both with the ancient Fathers and with most of their owne Doctors 69. Touching the Fathers Saint Augustine shall be the mouâ—h of all the rest thus writeth he Sinne could not be done if God doth not suffer it and he doth not suffer it against but with his will and being good as he is he would neuer suffer any thing to be ill done but that being also Almightie he can do well of that which is euill And in the next Chapter God doth fulfill the good purposes of his owne by the euill purposes of euill men And in another place God doth worke in the hardening of the wicked not onely by his permission and patience but also by his power and action through his mightie prouidence but yet most wise and iust And in another place Who may not tremble at these iudgements where God doth worke in the hearts of wicked men whatsoeuer he will rendring to them notwithstanding according to their deserts And againe in another place As God is a most holy Creator of good natures so hee is a most righteous disposer of euill wills that whereas those euill wills doe ill vse good natures he on the other side may well vse the euill wills themselues Thus Augustine is our Patrone in this Doctrine and if we be Heretikes he is one too 70. But let vs heare their owne Doctours speake When God doth good and permitteth euill sayth Hugo his will appeareth seeing he willeth that which should be both which he doth and which he permitteth both his operation and his permission are his will God worketh many things sayth Pererius within him that is hardened by which he is made worse through his owne fault he stirreth vp diuers motions either of hope or feare lust or anger and sendeth in diuers doubtfull and perplexed imaginations by which he is pusht forth vnto euill A sinner saith Medina when he sinneth doth against the will and law of God in one case and in another not he doth indeed against his signified will but against the will of his good pleasure he doth not nor against his effectuall ordination No sinne falleth out besides the will and intention of God say Mayer Durand Aquinas and other God sayth Canus is the naturall cause of all motions yea euen in euill men but not the morall cause for he neither counselleth nor commandeth euill Lastly to conclude with two famous Iesuits Vega and Suarez the first sayth that though God doth not command counsell approue or reward sinne yet he doth will and worke it together with vs and the second that God worketh the act of sinne but not the malice thereof This is the very doctrine of Caluine and Martir and all Protestants so that if wee be guilty of this blasphemous consequence to make God the author of sinne they also must needs be in the same case but Saint Augustines distinction will cleere vs both When God deliuered his Sonne and Iudas his Master to be crucified why is God iust and man guilty sayth he but because though the thing was the same which they did yet the cause was not the same for which they did it or if this distinction will not suffice their owne Iesuites will helpe vs out In sinne there are two things to be considered sayth Vasques the act and defect the act is to be referred to God but not the defect in any case which ariseth from the corrupt will of man or the act and the malignity thereof as sayth another Iesuite or the materiall part of sinne which is called by the Schoolemen subiectum substratum the vnder-laide subiect and the formall which is the prauity and anomy of the action the one of these from God the other from man or lastly if none of these will serue the turne yet our owne distinction will acquire vs to wit that Almighty God doth so will decree mans sin not as it is sin but as it is his owne iust iudgement vpon sinners for their punishment and the demonstration of his iustice And thus our doctrine is free from the conception of this vile Monster their calumniation is as vnrighteous against vs as the dealing of God about the sins of men is most righteous and iust And thus those some what too harsh sayings I contesse of Luther Swinglius and Melancthon are to bee vnderstood and no otherwise that the treason of Iudas came from God aswell as the conuersion of Paul charity will construe the wordes according to the speakers intendement and not stretch their intendement to the strict tenter of euery word and syllable 71. Fourthly they accuse vs of blasphemy against the Sonne of God for denying as they say that hee is Deus ex Deo God of God against the doctrine of the Nicene Creed and this they call the Atheisme of Caluine and Beza a palpable slander for neither Caluine nor Beza did euer imagine much lesse vtter the same in that sense which they lay to their charges for let Bellarmine their sworne aduersarie speake for them Caluine and Beza teach sayth he that the Sonne is of himselfe in respect of his essence but not in respect of his person and they seeme to say that the essence of the Deity in Christ is not begotten but is of it selfe which opinion sayth he I see not why it may not be called Catholike Heere Bellarmine telleth vs truely what their opinion was and doth acknowledge it to be a true Catholike doctrine and yet in the same Chapter hee contemneth Caluine for his manner of speaking of it and of intolerable saucinesse for finding fault with the harshnes of the phrase vsed by the Nicene Councill God of God Light of light Marke I pray you his absurdity it is Catholike and yet it may not bee spoken it is true and yet it is to be blamed May not a Catholike doctrine bee spoken then or must the truth bee smothered This is such an inconsequence as neither reason nor Religion can any wayes beare withall and for his saucy dealing with the Nicene Councill all that euer he sayth is that it is durum dictum a hard phrase yet so that hee confesseth it may receiue a good and commodious interpretation if it be vnderstood in the concrete that Christ who is God is of the
Father that is God the word being taken personally and not in the abstract as if the essence of the Deity of the Sonne should bee from the Father which is entirely subsisting in of and by it owne eternall incomprehensible and most glorious nature and this without question was the true intendement of the Councill for els it had not confuted but fauoured the blasphemous heresie of Arrius against whom it was assembled which Caluine and Beza doe not any wayes crosse but onely bring vnto it a fit and fauourable exposition Thus we haue Bellarmine Caluines and Bezaes patrone in this doctrine though full ill against his will and not onely him but Ribera and Gregory de Valentia two other no meane Rabbies both which doe conclude that the Sonne as he is a person is of another but as he is a simple Ens is not of another and that the Essence doth not beget the Essence but the Father the Son so that either they are slanderers of the truth or their Catholike doctrines may bee Atheisme and blasphemy 72. Againe they accuse Caluine of another blasphemy against our Lord and Sauior Iesus Christ to wit that he should make him inferiour to his Father in respect of his Deity This is Arrlanisme indeed as Bellarmine calleth it or Atheisme as Posseuine if it were to bee found in Caluines diuinity or any other but it is as farre from him thus to thinke as it is from their malice to speake the truth This is all that Caluine affirmeth that the Father is God per excellentiam that is after a more excellent manner And what errour I pray you is in this doth hee not speake of the personall relation that is betwixt the Father and the Sonne and not of the nature and essence of the God-head that is in both of equall dignity and excellency This is cleare both by the former article wherein he sloutly auoucheth him to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himselfe and not to receiue the essence of his Deity from his Father and so not to be inferiour to his Father in that respect and also by infinite places in his books where he directly maketh the Son Iehouah equall to the Father in dignity excellency eternity and all other properties of the Deity therefore he speaketh this in respect of the person of Christ in which consideration the Father that begetteth respected with the Sonne that is begotten may truely bee said to haue a certaine priority of order ānd to be God after a more excellent manner Here is now neither Arrianisme nor Atheisme nor indeed any error in Caluines doctrine but malicious lying and slaundering in in these Iesuites accusation 73. Nay that Caluine may bee cleared from all suspition of errour and those fellowes condemned as notorious slaunderers Tollet one of their owne fraternity affirmeth that Athanasius Basil Nazianzene Hilary and Origen all strong maintainers of Christs diuinity and profest enemies to Arrius heresie interpret that place Iohn 14. My Father is greater then I in Caluines sense Maldonate another Iesuite in his commentary vpon Iohn addeth to these Epiphanius Cyrillus Leontius Chrysostome Theophilact and Euthemius as patrones of the same opinion yea and this last Iesuite himselfe subscribeth to their exposition for he sayth that the Father is greater then the Sonne in that respect that hee is the Sonne for the Name of the Father is more honorable then the Name of the Son and the Schoolmen say asmuch as Caluine when they ascribe to the Father authority and to the Sonne subauthority What is this but to say that the Father is God after a more excellent manner Now then if this were neither Atheisme nor Arrianisme nor heresie in the Fathers nor in their owne Doctors why should it bee branded with those infamous titles in Caluine I see no reason but that malice is blinde and that the hatred they bare to that good man made them to say and do they cared not what so they might wound his credite thereby 74. Luther is likewise traduced by them as a denyer of the blessed Trinity and that because the word Trinity is said to dislike him for which cause he dispunged out of the Germane Lyturgies this sorme of prayer Sancta Trinitas vnus Deus miserere nostri a notorious calumniation for Luther indeed blotteth out of the Germane prayers a certain forme like vnto that obiected but not so as he setteth it downe for the word vsed in the Germane tongue signifieth rather a triplicity then a Trinity which mooued Luther in a desire to maintaine the pure doctrine of the Trinity as Iunius obserueth to blot out that word thinking it a dangerous matter to vse such a word in so holy and high a mystery By which practice he is so farre from impugning or denying that blessed principle that he sheweth himselfe rather a zealous defender and maintainer thereof and in a word to discouer their falsity and his innocency List how diuinely and soundly and orthodoxally he writeth else-where of that mystery Vnitas Trinitatis est magis vna c. The vnity of the Trinity is more one then the vnity of any creature euen mathematically neuertheles this vnity is a Trinity or the diuinity of three distinct persons that euery person is the whole diuinity as if there were no other and yet it is true that no person is the fole diuinity as if there were no other Againe vpon the transfiguration of Christ Mat. 17. hee thus commenteth Heere the whole Trinity doth appeare to the confirmation of all the faithfull Christ the Son in a glorious forme God the Father by his voyce declaring his Son to be God and the holy Ghost in the bright cloud ouer-shadowing them Againe we beleeue sayth he that there is one God the Father begetting the Sonne begotten and the holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and Son we determine such a plurality in God which is of an vndiuided substāce an indiuisible vnity again the mystery of the Trinity was discouered in the beginning of the world after vnderstood by the Prophets and lastly plainly reuealed by the Gospell when our Saviour commandeth to baptize in the name of the Father of the Son and of the holy Ghost A number of such like places might bee alledged out of his workes wherein most constantly hee auoucheth that doctrine which our and his vnequall aduersaries accuse him to bee an enemy vnto Let enuy it selfe now bee iudge whether this bee not a slander when as they both falsisy those sayings out of which they would deriue their accusation and conceale those which they knew to bee a iust defence and apologie for his innocency 75. Againe they condemne Beza and Martyr and other Protestants for denying the omnipotency of God and why because forsooth they say Quod facta vt infecta sint facere nequeat Hee cannot make those things that bee done to bee vndone An absurd inference for that