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
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
ordinary discours now a dayes is concerning religion so I heard one at that time For the Minister taking occasion by hearing Cardinal Bellarmin named spake at first much in his praise saying that none of all the Popish Authors did relate so faithfully the Protestant Tenets nor argumented more clearly then he did Yet at length said the Minister after the Cardinal hath shewed the strength of his wit at the issue of the matter being convinced by the force of truth he concludes for the most part with the Protestants Wherevpon one of the Catholiques present said that he admired very much how Bellarmin who had written so much for Popry should be esteem'd a Protestāt merrily subioyn'd that himself was iust a Protestant as Bellarmin was After there had pass'd a little laughter occasioned by these words the other Catholique did gravely desire the Minister to shew wherein Bellarmin was a Protestant Wherevpon the Minister instanced in this same matter of Iustification and said that after Bellarmin had wearied himself by produceing many testimonies of Scriptures and Fathers to prove that we are iustifyed by works and not by faith only he in end yeelds the victory to tthe Proestants for he concludes That it is most safe to rely vpon the merits of Christ And so in one sentence he destroyeth what he had been building a long time To which the Catholique replyed that if Bellarmin was a Protestant for that then all Catholiques were Protestants for they all professed the same Neither was the Catholiques relying on Christ merits any way against iustification by good works more then the Protestants relying on the same merits was against their supposed Iustification by faith only But said he I admire very much how you ordinarly pretend so great advantage in your doctrin of Iustification by faith only which you esteem the principal article of your religion and yet it cannot be found in all the Scripture the only pretended ground of all your faith And how you can crye so much against the Catholiques for believing that we are iustifyed by works not by faith only which is expresly and word by word in the Scripture For doth not S. Iames clearly say Ye see that man is iustifyed by works and not by faith only The Minister finding himself thus engaged pass'd presently from the Scripture enquired of the Catholique whom he knew well enough not to be a profess'd Scholler If he had any Logique Who answered he had not much but he had sufficient for this purpose That there was not much Logique required to see what was contained in Scripture He would trust his owne eyes in that matter It was sufficient for him that he had on his side the expresse Scripture which is better then Logique But the Minister told him that although these words are in Scripture yet they must be vnderstood in a sound sense For works said he although they be necessary to iustification yet they are not the causes of it but in a very improper sense For you must vnderstand that there are diverse kinds of causes there is causa efficiens causa formalis and causa sine qua non which is not a cause properly Now works are not the efficient nor formal cause but only causa sine qua non They are via regni and not causa regnandi And so after this manner he made a long discours involving the matter in great obscurities passing the reach of the hearers if not also overpassing his own vnderstanding But the Catholique holding him still by his grounds told the Minister that his Logique was no Scripture and that the Protestants are brought to a low ebb when they are enforced to acknowlege that this prime article of their faith is not expresly in Scripture as they at first pretended And now when the quite opposite doctrine maintaind by the Catholiques against which the Ministers did so much raile is showē to be expresly in Scripture they are enforced to run from Scripture to their Logique which indeed is to yeeld the cause to the Catholiques and to quite ground For at first they pretended nothing but Scripture and now they flie to Aristotles Logique and that against the expresse words of Scripture making the whole matter end in a Logomachy which is so much the worse on the Protestants side seing they will not vse the very phrase of Scripture which the Catholiques keep And vpon this followes also another evil that the people being made to believe that they are iustifyed by faith only and not by works makes by natural Logique this inference which all the Ministers in the world with all their artificial Logique will not put out of their heads that good works are not necessary and so they altogether neglect them Thus ended that conference the Minister replying something but little to purpose with small satisfaction of some Protestants present who imagined that this prime article of their faith had been better grounded and that this Minister whom they much esteemed could haue said more then to acknowledge that his faith was against the words of Scripture and in end to run to his Philosophical distinctions which were not by them intelligible But albeit I was sufficiently satisfyed by what hath been said of the truth of the Catholique doctrin concerning Iustification yet being desirous that I might be able to discern more fully the deceits and obscurities which the Ministers invent to elude the clear Scriptures a Catholique whose assistance I required shew me that for this end it was necessary I should first know the nature of Iustification according to the doctrin of the Catholique Church For as a Rule said he is a measure to discern both what is right and what is crooked so truth is a manifestation both of it self and of falshood Wherevpon he had several discourses with me on this matter the summe of which I will briefly collect CHAP. XVI Of the Nature of Iustification according to the Catholique doctrine ALBEIT you haue seen evidently said the Catholique vnto me that according to the expresse Scriptures man is iustifyed by works not by faith only yet that you may know how this is done and what works are excluded from iustification according to S. Paul and what these works are by which we are iustifyed according to S. Iames yow must know the nature of Iustification of a sinner which according to the Catholique Church is thus described Iustification of a sinner is the translation of one from the state of sin into the state of grace a changing of one from being an enemy to make him become the friend of God There is the misery from which a sinner is delivered the happinesse to which he is brought Now that he may come from such a miserable condition to such a happy estate there are some preparations and dispositions required to go before in the soule of a sinner that is come to age of which kind only we here speak First God of
how can he be goodnesse itself and the Author of goodnesse if he be the Author of wickednesse A holy Father saith Basil quod Deus noe sit auctor malor It 's the same madnesse to deny God and to say he is the Author of sin For if he be the Author of sin he is not good if he be not good he is not God The Manicheans taught the same impiety but with this difference that they made not the good but the evil God the Author of evil Moreover it 's evident that God cannot be the Author of that whereof he is the punisher But he is the punisher of sin Therefore he cannot be the Author of it I know some Protestants strive to make a faire face vpon this doctrin of Calvin but all in vain for it is so black and vgly of it self in the tearmes which he vseth that as it is in the proverb these who would blanch it vndertake to wash a black-Moore The text is so bad that it can admit no good Commentarie Feuardentius lib. 2. Theomachiae Calvinisticae cap. 12. So that the Lutherans in Germanie have condemned it as contumelious against God pernicious to mankind and the Zuinglians of Berne caused Calvins books wherein these black errors were contain'd to be burnt publickly by the common Executioner He teacheth also some doctrin no lesse pernicious in the iudgment of many concerning predestination as that God by his only will has ordaind many without any consideration of their merits to damnation Cal. lib. 3. Inst c. 22. par 2. His words are these By his only will and without any consideration of their merits they are predestinated to eternal death Such doctrin which transformes God into the Devil and represents him as the greatest Tyrant imaginable cannot be holy no more then he who taught it can be heavenly albeit he be much esteem'd by the Presbyterians who keep still this doctrin lying at their hearts though vpon some occasions they are ashamd to profess it Secondly As he robs God of his goodnesse so doth he also spoile man of his free-will which is not only false against common experience and the confession of mankind for as S. Augustin saith no fewnesse of the learned Aug. lib. de vera relig c. 14. no company of the vnlearned do deny it but also in the iudgment of many Protestants it makes all exhortations admonitions and threats which are so frequent in the Scriptures both vselesse and ridiculous it hinders all exercise yea and attempt of vertue holynesse and with the opinion of Gods absolute decree of reprobation it brings men to despaire Thirdly their doctrin of the impossibility to keep the divine commandments even with the assistance of Gods grace we have seen above to be iniurious to the goodnesse wisdom and iustice of God to be a great hindrance of the growth of piety and of the care of a good life from which wicked doctrin flowed the impious sect of the Anti-Nomians To which if we shall add that doctrin which they call the life of their religion to witt their iustification by a special faith only whereby they beleeve that all their sins are forgiven them what a wid gate is opened to all licentious liberty to the neglect of piety and of all good works Their doctrin also concerning the Sacraments is not holy which robs them of all grace and vertue of sanctification In a word if the proper doctrines of the Presbyterians be impartially considered there is almost nothing amongst them which hath appearance of holynesse or any invitation to it For they do not esteem their Churches holy they have no holy ornaments no holy Vessels no holy rites or Ceremonies no holy dayes or festivities no holy forme of publique worship or service of God and nothing that setteth forth the Maiesty magnificence of God or that can breed respect or reverēce in man Yea their principles if they be followed lead to prophanesse or Atheism whereof I will bring some few instances The first is of one named Godefridus a Valle who wrote a book Becan opusc disp An Deus sit Auctor peccati cap. 17. which he entitled Of the art of beleeving nothing In which he said all other things false and one only thing true as Becan relates to witt that he who would become an Atheist should first be a Calvinist as himself had been For from that doctrin of Calvin that God is the Author of sin and that by his absolute decree of Reprobation he had preordain'd the most part of men vnto damnation without any regard of their works but only for his own pleasure he collected that such a God was a most cruel Tyrant Therefore he would rather deny there was a God then acknowledge such a God And therevpon he became a profest Atheist and was burnt publickly in Paris in the yeare 1572. Another instance fell out not long ago in our own Countrey on another subiect For as the Presbyterian Ministers generally teach that the Church is no more holy then any other place nor no more reverence due vnto it except only when the Minister is preaching so a great Apostle of the Covenant taught that doctrin very eagerly in Aberdeen the fruite whereof did shortly thereafter appear For a covenanting souldier of the Saints army was found within few dayes in the Colledge Church of that town in vncivil conversation with a woman and being brought before the same Minister as I was credibly informed who did exaggerate the grievousnesse of the crime from the holynesse of the place he answered that there was neither preaching nor praying in the Church at that time By which he confounded the Minister Now of a long time they keep their Churches shut both night and day except only at such times as the Minister is to preach I knew also a young Lady who took great scandal at a Ministers sermon wherein he vndertook to prove against the Papists the impossibility of living chastly which doctrin she truly said was very dangerous to young people and loosed the reines to all lasciviousnesse So that in many points both concerning God and man the Sacraments the Commandments we see the Presbyterian Church is not holy in doctrin But on the other part the Church in Communion with the Sea of Rome teacheth most holy doctrin in all these points For first concerning God she teacheth that in him there are all perfections in an infinit degree that he is not only good in himself but the fountain of all goodnesse and that no evil can proceed from him That he is neither the cause Author or approver of sin That he is so good that he would not permit sin to be vnlesse he could draw good from it That he has predestinate no man to damnation but only for sins which they willingly freely commit This is the doctrin of the Catholique Church and of the holy Fathers Aug. in Enchir. c. 100. S.
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
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