faith only doth not iustifie that good works are meritorious he endeauoureth to proue because I confesse that men iustified freely by grace are crowned in the world to come for that new obediēce that is foūd in thē after iustificatiō But this cōsequence I suppose wil not be thought good seeing as Cassander rightly notethout of Bucer God in respect of good works or hauing an eye to thē or for good works giueth not onely temporall but eternall rewardes not for the worthinesse of the workes in themselues but out of his owne grace for the merit of Christ first working such good workes in them that are his and then crowning his owne workes in them as Augustine long since aptly obserued Let vs see therefore if he can proue any better that fayth onely doth not justifie this hee vndertaketh to doe out of that which I haue written that justification implieth in it faith hope and charity But for the clearing of this poynt let him be pleased to obserue that by the name of justification sometimes nothing is meant but an adiudging of eternall life vnto vs sometimes the whole translation of a man out of the state of sinne and wrath into a state of righteousnesse and acceptation with God which implyeth in it sundry things concurring in very different sort without any preiudice to the singular prerogatiue of fayth For first it implyeth in it a worke of almighty God as the supreame and highest cause Secondly the merits of Christ as the meanes whereby God is reconciled and induced to take vs into his fauour Thirdly in him that is to be justified a certaine perswasion of the trueth of such thinges as are contayned in the holy word of God Fourthly motions of feare contrition hope of mercy and the like workes of preparing grace as causes disposing and fitting him that is to be justified that hee may be capable of Gods fauour Fifthly as the susceptiue cause an act of faith by which a man truely repenting of former euils and seeking deliuerance without all doubting firmely beleeueth that all his sinnes are remitted him for Christs sake Lastly an infusion of the habite of diuine and heauenly vertues as a beginning of that life of God to which he doth adiudge them whom he receiueth to fauour So that my saying that justification thus taken implyeth in it Faith Hope and Charitie contrarieth not our position that fayth onely justifieth in sort before expressed which the Treatiser knowing right well insisteth no longer vpon this cauill but passeth to an vntruth charging Mee that I say of S. Augustine whom yet I pronounce to haue been the greatest of all the Fathers and the worthiest Diuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times that his manner of deliuering the Article of Iustification is not full perfect exact as if I imputed some fault to him in not deliuering the poynt of justification as it became him whereas I haue no such thing but say onely that his manner of deliuering that Article was not so full perfect and exact as we are forced to require in these times against the errours of the Romanists in which saying I no way blame that worthy Father but shew that new errours require a more exact manner of handling of thinges then was necessary before such errours sprung vppe which I thinke no wise man will deny and am well assured this Treatiser cannot deny vnlesse hee will bee contrary to himselfe For hee sayth expressely that Saint Augustine before some articles of Christian Religion were so throughly discussed and defined in the Church as afterwards vpon the rising of new heresies spake not so aptly and properly as was needfull in succeeding times and therefore retracted some things which hee had formerly vttered So that the Reader will easily finde that in this passage hee hath sayd lesse then nothing neither will his next discourse be found any better wherein he laboreth to shew a contrariety between Me Luther Caluine others in that I make that acte of fayth which obtayneth and procureth our justification to bee an acte by way of petition humbly intreating for acceptation and fauour and not of comfortable assurance consisting in a full perswasion that through Christs merits wee are the children of God Whereas Luther Caluine and the rest make iustifying faith to be an assured perswasion that through Christs merits wee are the sonnes of God But the Treatiser might easily know if hee were disposed that according to our opinion iustifying faith hath some actes as a cause disposing preparing and fitting vs to the receipt of that gracious fauour whereby God doth iustifie vs and other as a susceptiue cause receiuing embracing and enioying the same in the former respect neyther they nor I make faith to consist in a perswasion that wee are the sonnes of God in the latter wee both do and so agree well enough though the Treatiser it seemeth could wish it were otherwise §. 4. WHerefore let vs goe forward and take a view of that which followeth The next thing which hee hath that concerneth Mee is that it may bee gathered out of my assertions in my Third Booke of the Church that I thinke as hee saith some other also do that it is no fundamentall point of doctrine but a thing indifferent to beleeue or not to beleeue the reall that is the locall presence of CHRISTS Body in the Sacrament But I am well assured there can no such thing be gathered out of any of the places cited by him vnlesse it be lawfull for him to reason à baculo ad angulum as often as he doth For in the pages 120 and 121 of his second part because I confesse that in the Primitiue Church the manner of some was to receiue the Sacrament in the publique assembly and not bee partakers of it presently but to carry it home that the Sacrament was carried by the Deacons to the sicke that in places where they communicated euery day there was a reseruation of some parts of the sanctified Elements and that the sanctified Elements thus reserued in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them were the bodie of Christ to wit in mysterie and exhibitiue signification hee goeth about to conclude that I must needes confesse the reall that is the locall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament which consequence is no better then if a man should goe about to conclude that this Treatiser hath written a good and profitable booke because hee hath troubled the world with one such as it is full of vaine idle and emptie discourses whereof if any man make doubt let him consider but the very next words For whereas I confessed Calvines dislike of the reseruation aunciently vsed and yet saide it cannot bee proued that hee denied the Sacramentall elements consecrated and reserued for a time in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them to bee Sacramentally the body of Christ hee saith I labour in vaine because
that in the one men are sure and know they neither are nor can be deceiued in the other they knowe and are certaine that they are not not that they cannot bee deceiued But this difference cannot staud for if a man know and bee certaine that hee is not deceiued he must certainly know that no such thing doth now fall out as doth fall out when men are deceiued in apprehensions of this kind and consequently that now and things so standing he cannot be deceiued For example a man dreaming thinketh he is waking and vndoubtedly perswadeth himselfe hee seeth or doth something wherein he is deceiued because it is but representation in a dreame but he that is waking knoweth that he waketh that hee seeth that which he thinketh he seeth that in this perswasion hee is not nor cannot be deceiued things so standing Amongst the Articles agreed vpon in the conference at Ratisbon 1541 this is one Docendum est ut qui vere poenitent semper fide certissimâ statuant se propter Mediatorem Christum Deo placere quia Christus est propitiator Pontifex interpellator pro nobis quem pater donavit nobis omnia bona cum illo Quoniam autem perfecta rectitudo in hac imbecillitate non est suntque multae infirmae pavidae conscientiae quae cum gravi saepe dubitatione luctantur nemo est à gratiâ Christi propter ejusmodi infirmitatem excludendus sed convenit tales diligenter adhortari ut ijs dubitationibus promissiones Christi fortiter opponant augeri sibi fidem sedulis precibus orent juxta illud Adauge nobis Domine fidem So that touching this point it is evident that the Church of God euer taught that which we now teach Neither haue wee departed from the doctrine of the Church in that wee teach that faith onely justifieth For many of the ancient haue vsed this forme of words as Origen ad Rom. 3. Dicit Apostolus sufficere solius fidei justificationem ita ut credens quis tantummodo justificetur etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum Hilar. can 8. in Math. Fides sola justificat Basil. homil de humilitate Haec est perfecta integra gloriatio in Deo quando neque ob justitiam suam quis se iactat sed novit quidem seipsum verae justitiae indigum solâ autem fide in Christum justificatum Ambros. ad Rom. 3. Iustificati sunt gratis quia nihil operantes neque vicem reddentes solâ fide justificati sunt dono Dei Chrysost. Homil. de fide lege naturae Eum qui operatur opera iustitiae sine fide non potes probare vivum esse fidem absque operibus possum monstrare vixisse regnum coelorum assecutam nullus sine fide vitam habuit latro autem credidit tantum iustificatus est Aug. l. 1. contra 2 Epistolas Pelag. c. 21. Quantaelibet fuisse virtutis antiquòs praedices justos non eos salvos fecit nisi fides mediatoris 83. q. q. 76. Si quis cùm crediderit mox de hâc vita decesserit iustificatio fidei manet cum illo nec praecedentibus bonis operibus quia non merito ad illam sed gratiâ pervenit nec consequentibus quia in hac vita esse non sinitur Theophylact. ad Galat. 3. Nunc planè ostendit Apostolus fidem vel solam iustificandi habere in se virtutem Bern. ser. 22 in Cantic Quisquis pro peccatis compunctus esurit sitit iustitiam credat in te qui iustificas impium solam iustificatus per fidem pacem habebitad te Et ep 77. citans illud Qui crediderit baptizatus fuerit salvus erit Cautè inquit non repetiit qui vero baptizatus non fuerit condēnabitur sed tantū qui vero non crediderit innuens nimirum solam fidem interdum sufficere ad salutem sine illâ sufficere nihil Sometimes by these phrases of speech they exclude all that may bee be without supernaturall knowledge all that may be without a true profession Sometimes the necessity of good workes in act or externall good workes 3. The power of nature without illumination and grace 4. The power of the Law 5. The sufficiency of any thing found in vs to make vs stand in judgement to abide the tryall and not to feare condemnation And in this sense faith onely is said to justifie that is the onely mercy of God and merite of Christ apprehended by faith and then the meaning of their speech is that onely the perswasion and assured trust that they haue to bee accepted of God for Christs sake is that that maketh them stand in judgement without feare of condemnation And in this sense all the Diuines formerly alleadged for proofe of the insufficiency of all our inherent righteousnesse and the trust which wee should haue in the onely mercy of God and merite of Christ doe teach as wee doe that faith onely iustifieth For neither they nor we exclude from the worke of Iustification the action of God as the supreme and highest cause of our iustification for it is he that remitteth sinne and receiueth vs to grace nor the merit of Christ as that for which God inclineth to shew mercy to vs and to respect vs nor the remission of sinnes gratious acceptation and grant of the gift of righteousnes as that by which we are formally justified nor those works of prenenting grace whereby out of the generall apprehension of faith God worketh in vs dislike of our former condition desire to be reconciled to God to haue remission of that is past grace hereafter to decline the like euils to do contrary good things For by these wee are prepared disposed and fitted for iustification without these none are iustified And in this sense to imply a necessity of these to be found in us sometimes the fathers others say that we are not justified by faith only And we all agree that it is not our conuersion to God nor the change we find in our selues that can any way make us stād in judgment without feare and looke for any good from God otherwise then in that we find our selues so disposed and fitted as is necessary for justification whence we assure our selues God will in mercy accept us for Christs sake CHAP. 12. Of Merit MErit as Cardinall Contarenus rightly noteth if we speake properly importeth an action or actions quibus actionibus aut earum autori ab altero iusticia postulante debeatur praemiū No man can merit any thing of God First because we are his seruants owe much more seruice vnto him thē bond-slaues that are bought for money owe vnto their masters though no reward were promised we were bound to obey his commands Yet if we looke on the bounty of God he deales with us being bond-men as with hired seruants recōpencing that with a reward which we stood bound in duty to
heart that they may discerne see the light of heauenly truth it is evident that in Augustines judgment the authority of the Church serueth but as an introduction that the thing which right beleeuers rest vpon is of a higher nature to wit the discerning of heauenly truth Wherefore finding himselfe too weak to giue any substantiall answer he betaketh himselfe to a most silly exception pretending that I haue not truly translated these words of Augustin praesto est authoritas quā partim miraculis partim multitudine valere nemo ambigit authoritie is ready at handwhich standeth vpō 2 things the one the greatnes of miracles done the other multitude Is this a false translatiō hath the authority of the church that force which it hath to moue mē to beleeue partly by reasō of miracles partly by reasō of multitude may it not be truly said that it standeth partly vpon the greatnes of miracles wrought partly vpō multitudes but valere doth not signifie to stād vpō it is true it doth not yet what boy in the Grāmer School will not laugh at him for thus childishly demeaning himself for what man of vnderstāding would cal men to cōster euery word precisely as it importeth by it selfe without consideration of the coherence it hath with other in the same sentence Besides this place of Aug. there is another cited by Me out of Hugo where he maketh 3 sorts of beleeuers whereof the first are such as are moued out of piety to beleeue which yet discerne not by reason whether the things they beleeue are to bee beleeued or not The second such who by reason approue that which by faith they beleeue The third sort are such as by reason of the purity of their heart conscience begin inwardly to taste what by faith they beleeue This place maketh strongly for the confirmation of that I say that the evidence of sundry things in the light of faith and grace is that formall reason which assureth vs of the truth of them For heere Hugo affirmeth that the best sort of beleeuers doe approue by reason or by taste invvardly discerne the things they beleeue to be true So that such approbation or spiritual taste is the reason of their perswasion of the truth of these things To this authoritie the Treatiser hath nothing to say but that it maketh nothing to the purpose and that if I meant to translate the vvords of Hugo I haue not exactly translated thē Whether the saying of Hugo be to the purpose or not I vvill leaue it to the iudgment of the Reader but as for his other exception I vvould haue him knovv and any sensible Reader vvill very easilie discerne that I meant not exactlie to translate his vvordes but at large to set downe the intent driftes of them which I haue most truely performed and therefore hee doth Me wrong when hee saith I deale corruptly vntruly In the third place hee endeauoureth to make his Reader beleeue there is a contrariety betweene Me and Luther Brentius in that Luther with whom Brentius seemeth to agree maketh the Scripture to be of it self a most certaine most easie and most manifest interpreter of it selfe prouing judging and enlightning all things I acknowledge many difficulties in it But if the Treatiser had beene pleased to haue taken thinges aright he could not but haue seene that Luther also acknowledgeth manifold difficulties in the Scripture yea hee doth see it and acknowledge it and yet will not see it and therefore that he bee not contrary to himselfe when he affirmeth that the Scriptures are easie interpret themselues and judge and enlighten all thinges he must bee vnderstood to meane that notwithstanding some difficulties they are not so obscure and hard as that Heretiques may wrest and abuse them at their pleasure and noe man bee able to conuince them out of the euidence of those sacred writings as the Romanistes imagine but that wee may bee so assured out of the Scripture it selfe and the nature of the thinges therein contained that wee haue the true meaning of it that wee neede not altogether to rest in the authority of Church which explication of Luthers words the Treatiser might haue found in the place cited by him if hee had beene pleased and so haue omitted the vrging of this imagined contradiction §. 3. The 4. thing that he proposeth which cōcerneth me is that I mentiō a rule of faith according to which the Scriptures are to be interpreted which if we neglect al other considerations are insufficient the like he alleageth out of the Harmony of confessions whence he inferreth that we admit another guide in interpreting the Scripture besides the letter of the Scripture But hee should knowe that the rule of faith mentioned by me deliuered to vs from hand to hand by the guides of Gods Church containeth nothing in it but that which is found in Scripture either expressely or by necessary implication so that though wee admitte another guide in the interpretation of of Scripture besides the bare letter yet wee admitte noe other but that forme of Christian doctrine which all right beleeuing Christians taught by the Apostles and Apostolique men haue euer receiued as contained in the Scripture and thence collected To this hee addeth an excellent obseruation which is that I seeme to confesse that Saint Paul sometimes by the workes of the Law vnderstandeth the workes of the Law of Moses in that I say that that Apostle pronounceth that the Galathians were bewitched and that if they still persisted to joyne circumcision and the workes of the Law with Christ they were fallen from grace and Christ could profit them nothing But hee needed not thus to mince the matter for I willingly confesse that Paul not sometimes onely but euer vnderstandeth by the workes of the Lawe the workes of Moses Law Neither can there any thing be inferred thence for the Papists or against vs. For whereas by the workes of the Lawe some vnderstand those workes which the ceremoniall Lawe prescribed other such as the morall Lawe requireth and and a third sort such as by terror it worketh in men or causeth them to worke without any chaunge of the heart which cannot be wrought but only by grace the Papists think that whē the Apostle sayth we are iustified by faith without workes he excludeth not such works as the Morall Law requireth but such as the ceremoniall Law prescribeth and the morall Law worketh in men we teach that he excludeth all these So that a man repenting and beleeuing may bee saued though hauing neuer done any good worke he be taken out of this world before he can do any It is true indeede that good workes do necessarily follow iustification if time do serue and opportunity bee offered yet are they no meritorious causes of saluation But the Treatiser will proue out of that which I haue written that they are meritorious that
his merite and not for the dignity and perfection of the righteousnesse which is communicated vnto vs in Christ And farther they say that the faithfull soule doth not rely vpon that righteousnesse that is inherent in it but vpon the onely righteousnesse of Christ giuen vnto vs without which there neither is nor can be any righteousnesse And they adde hereunto that they that truly repent of their sinnes should most firmely and with great assurance of faith resolue that they please God for Christs sake who is a Mediatour betweene God and them because he is a worker of propitiation a High Priest and an Intercessour for vs whom the Father hath giuen vnto vs and all good things together with him And therefore though they say not as the Canons of Colen that Christs righteousnesse is the formall cause of our justification yet Vega thinketh they followed the same opinion because besides inherent righteousnesse they affirme that another righteousnes namely that of Christ is communicated to vs by which especially wee are made righteous and vppon which only we must rely The Interim published by Charles the 5 with the assent of the imperiall states deliuereth the same touching iustification that the former authors haue done And the diuines of both sides in the conference at Ratisbon agreed in the same explication of the article of iustification that wee haue hetherto deliuered A great contention there is and hath beene whether the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to vs bee the formall cause of our justification and whether we be formally justified by his imputed righteousnesse or not But Andraeas Vega supposeth that it is a meere logomachie and verball contention which his conjecture I thinke will be found more then probable For as I haue already shewed in the justification of a sinner three things are implyed 1 To be free from dislike disfauour and punishment as if he had neuer offended Secondly to be respected fauoured and indeared vnto God in such sort as righteous men are wont to be as if he had done all righteousnes And thirdly To haue the grant of the gift of righteousnesse to keepe from euill and incline him to good in the time to come All these denominations are respectiue and a man may be so denominated from something without For one man is reconciled to another in that hee no longer intendeth euill vnto him and one man is deare vnto another and we are deare vnto God formally by that loue whereby we are beloued of him And because that which giueth satisfaction to God and that which maketh him well pleased towards vs is that for which formally or in respect whereof God willeth our good not euill by both these we may be sayd though in a different sort to be formally iustified Wherefore hauing sufficiently cleared the point of controuersie touching the first justifying and reconciling of a sinner to God and made it appeare that the Church euer beleeued as we now do it remaineth that we speake of the second justification The second justification consisteth in the remission of such sinnes as the justified man dayly through infirmity falleth into and the progresse and going on in well doing and the dayly preuailing against sinne whereby the kingdome of sinne is weakened and the kingdome of grace and righteousnesse is confirmed and more strongly established in us Touching the second justification there is no difference between vs them that so deliuered the doctrine of the first justification as I haue before expressed but between the Romanists vs there are sūdry things cōtrouerted For 1 t many of thē deny the veniall sins into which the regenerate do fal to be properly sins therefore think not aright of the remissiō of thē 2◠They imagine that sūdry externall obseruatiōs ex opere oper◅to giue grace remit those sins whereas in truth in the opiniō of others they auaile no otherwise then they stirre vp deuotion and raise in vs good motions and desires to purge out the remaines of sinne and to seeke the remission of it Thirdly they make the good workes of men justified to deserue increase of grace the reward of eternall life of condignity But I will shew in that which followeth that the doctrine of merit was neuer admitted in the Church neither before nor after Luthers time In this justification men are justified meerely by faith as in the first so farre forth as it importeth remission of sins but in that it importeth an increase confirmation and growth in that good that is begun in us our working of vertue and good indeauours causing the same may be sayd to justify that is to make vs more iust inherētly then before more strōgly inclined to good in which sense S. Iohn saith Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc The third kind of justification which is sayd to bee the restoring of men once justified and afterwards fallen from grace to the state of grace againe is meerely imaginary For they that are called according to purpose and soe justified do neuer totally nor finally fall from God The sins which men run into I haue elsewhere shewed to be of 2 sorts Inhabiting only or Raigning the former in the judgment of our aduersaries themselues do stand with grace the state of iustification Sins regnant are as Theodoret writing vpon the sixt to the Romans after him others do rightly note of 2 sorts for either they raigne as a tyrant or as a king a king reigneth with the loue liking of his subjects who wish nothing more then to liue vnder him think there is no happines but in his slauery a tyrant with dislike They that are justified called acording to purpose neuer haue sin raigning in them as a king but somtimes as a tyrant they haue For though Dauid Peter were strangely transported with the violēt passions of feare lust yet who will euer think that these lost all their former good affections towards God thought it their happines to be subject to his enemies Nay it is cleerly deliuered concerning Peter by Theophylact and sundry others that though the leaues were shaken off yet the roote remained vnmarred Iustification likewise as I haue shewed in the same place importeth 2 things An interest right title to the kingdome of heauen a claime to it by vertue force of the same right title the one of these may cease be suspended when the other remaineth If a man that hath much due vnto him vpon good assurances do some act for which he is excommunicated or outlawed he looseth not the title right he had to the things due vnto him vpō those assurāces but if the same things be detained all prosecution of his right is suspēded all actuall claime ceaseth during the time he continueth in that estate So in like manner if a man called according to purpose justified who can neuer finally fall from God fall
reward is euer some good to be gained by our well doing or patient suffering counteruailing the difficultie in doing and bitternesse in suffering It is therefore most absurd that any thing which is a mans owne in as ample sort before he begin his worke as after he hath done it should be the reward of his worke But some man perhaps will say that a thing that was due in respect of the habit resting in the mind may become due in respect of the Act done and consequently that that which was due one way may become more waies due Surely wee make no question but it may because it was due to the Habit as to the Roote of such action when occasion should be offered opportunity serue not otherwise But seeing in Christ the glorification impassibility of his body was due vnto him as a consequent of personall vnion and not of any habituall quality or habit inclining fitting vnto action therefore that could not become due to any action of Christ that was due vnto him in respect of some former thing as that may bee due to the action of a Man that was formerly due to the habit that is the roote of such action The places of Scripture that are brought to proue that Christ merited for himself are specially two for though there be a third as pregnant as any of the other in the first to the Hebrewes where it is said of Christ Thou hast loued righteousnesse and hated iniquity therefore God euen thy God hath annointed thee with the oyle of gladnesse aboue thy fâ—…llowes yet doe they not much stand vpon it because if it proue any thing it proueth that Christ merited the grace of vnction which they deny who teach that Christ merited for himselfe The first of the two places alleaged to proue that Christ merited for himselfe is in the second to the Hebrewes where the Apostle saith Wee see Iesus for the passion of death crowned with glory and honour But the words as some thinke are not so to be read but to be placed in this sort Wee see Iesus who was for a litle while made lower then the Angels for the passion of death that is that he might suffer death crowned with glory and honour so expressing the finall cause of his humiliation and not the meritorious cause of his exaltation This coniecture is made exceeding probable by those words added by the Apostle that hee might taste of death which otherwise haue no coherence with any part of his speech The second place that they bring is that of the second to the Philippians The words are these Christ humbled himselfe and became obedient vnto the death euen the death of the crosse Wherefore God hath also highly exalted him and giuen him a name aboue every name c. This place as Hugo de Sancto Victore hath fitly noted importeth that the humiliation of the Son of God becomming Man was the cause of the exaltation of the nature of Man for when he personally assumed the nature of Man became Man Man became God almighty hauing all power a name aboue all names according to that of Leo Diuinae maiestat is exinanitio seruilis formae in summa prouectio est that is The abasing of the Diuine Maiestie and Person of the Sonne of God is the high aduancing exaltation of the forme of a Seruant and therefore he addeth that Ex quo Deus coepit esse homo homo coepit esse Deus Deus coepit esse homo subiectus homo coepit esse Deus perfectus Si Deus humiliatus est quantum potuit in homine homo sublimatus non est quantum potuit in Deo that is When God began to be Man and Man began to be God God began to be a Man in subiection and humilitie and Man to be God in the heighth of perfection For if God were humbled as much as hee might be in that he became man was not Man exalted as much as he might be in that hee became God God was humbled when first he became Man In quantum homo dignitate in quantum bonus voluntate that is in that a Man in condition and state in that a good man in will minde but manifested the same more specially in his passion Likewise the Man Christ was exalted when he was borne the Sonne of God but manifested the same more specially after his resurrection then before For wee must not thinke that the Man Christ did then first receiue the full and perfect power of Deitie when he sayd All power is giuen me in heauen and in earth seeing before the vttering of those words he commaunded the Diuels had the Angels to do him seruice and made the very elements of the world to bow and bend at his pleasure Wherefore this place is vnaduisedly brought by our Aduersaries to proue that Christ merited for himselfe it being most cleare and evident that the name aboue all names mentioned in this place which is the name of God Almighty was giuen to the Sonne of God donatione naturali that is by naturall communication when he was begotten of his Father before all eternity and to the Man Christ donatione gratuità that is by free gift when God was made man and Man became God as the ordinarie Glosse vpon these words fitly obserueth and so could no more bee merited by the passion of Christ then it was possible for him to doe any thing whereby to merite to be God And hereupon Caluine rightly asketh which all the Papists in the world are not able to answere Quibus meritis assequi potuit homo ut iudex esset mundi caput Angelorum atque ut potiretur summo Dei imperio that is by what merits could man attaine to bee Iudge of the world Head of Angels to haue the highest authority and power of God But some man will say that Christ pronounceth it was necessary that he should suffer and so enter into his glory and that therefore it seemeth he could not haue entred into it vnlesse hee had suffered Quomodò ergo suam saith Hugo si oportuit quomodò oportuit si suam Si gloria eius fuit quomodò vt ad illam intraret pati oportuit Sed suam propter se oportuit propter nos that is How then was it his glory if he could not enter into it vnlesse he suffered and how was it necessary that hee should suffer to enter into it if it were his Surely it was his in respect of himselfe and it was necessary he should enter into it by suffering onely in respect of vs. For Christ truly if he had pleased might haue entred into his glory some other way haue receiued it in what sort he would euen as hee needed neuer to haue wanted it vnlesse he had pleased but he would for our sakes by punishment enter into his glory that dying he might take away the
I may be as good as my word iustifie it against the proudest Papist liuing that none of the differences between Melancthon Illyricus except about certaine ceremonies were reall Wherefore the Treatiser leaueth Illyricus commeth to Hosiander whom hee will proue to haue holden a priuate opinion touching iustification because Calvine in his Institutions spendeth almost one whole Chapter in the confutation of his conceipt touching the same Article which in the very entrance hee calleth hee wores not what monster of essentiall righteousnesse Conradus Schlusselburge placeth him and his followers in the Catalogue of heretickes But this obiection will easily be answered For it is not to be doubted but Caluine the rest iustly disliked that which they apprehended to bee his opinion and condemned it as a monster For they conceiued that heâ—… made Iustification to bee nothing else but a transfusion of the essentiall righteousnesse of Christ into vs and a mixture and confusion of it with vs. But Smidelinus sheweth at large that he neuer had any such conceipt but that distinguishing three kinds of righteousnesse in Christ whereof we are made partakers to wit actiue passiue and essentiall in that hee was the Sonne of God he taught that justification is not onely an acceptation and receiuing of vs to fauour vpon the imputation of the actiue and passiue righteousnesse of Christ but an admission of vs also to the right of the participation of the diuine nature as Peter speaketh and of that essentiall righteousnesse that was in him in that he was the sonne of God that so receiuing of his fulnesse we may be filled with all diuine qualities and graces The reason why hee thus vrged the implying of the communication of the essentiall righteousnesse of Christ in our iustification was not as the same Smidelinus telleth vs for that he thought iustification to consist wholy therein or for that hee meant to exclude the imputation of the merit and satisfaction of Christ from being causes of our iustification or receiuing fauour with God but because he saw many mistooke and abused the doctrine of free justification by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to the carelesse neglecting of al righteousnesse in themselues therefore he taught there is no remission of sin no receiuing of any man to fauour by vertue of the imputation of the actiue and passiue righteousnes of Christ vnlesse out of dislike of sin desire of grace to auoid it he be admitted to the right of the participation of that essentiall righteousnes that dwelt in him in all fulnesse that so it may dwell in him that is to be iustified also in some degree sort Neither is this construction of Hosianders words made by Smidelinus onely but by sundry other For Stapleton sayth the followers of Brentius defended the opinion of Hosiander whereas yet neither Brentius nor any of his followers euer dreamed of any transfusion of the essentiall righteousnesse of Christ into vs any mixture or confusion of it with vs or any other communication of it to vs or in any other sort then is before expressed So that the Treatiser had no reason to write as he doth that my proceedings are rare and singular and that I feare not to affirme things apparantly false and confessed vntrue by all my brethren much lesse to say that euery man may easily perceiue by these my proceedinges that I had a good opinion of mine owne wit and learning For what haue I done that sauoureth of pride or wherein haue I bewrayed such vanitie as he speaketh of Is it a matter of pride not to condemne hastily other opinions to make the fairest and best construction of other mens words especially such as are of the same profession with vs Wherefore if the Treatiser be able to say any thing against this my defence of Illyricus and Hosiander I will heare him otherwise let him not tell me of my schoole distinctions for I am not ashamed of them Neither doe I vse them as the Romane sophisters do to auoid the euidence of that truth that is too mighty for them to encounter but to cleare that which the Romanistes desire to haue wrapped vp in perplexed and intricate disputes But it seemeth the Treatiser will not accept of this condition and therefore hee passeth from the supposed diuisions of our Churches and differences of our Diuines proceedeth to shew their inconstancie instancing particularly in Luther And wheras in my former books I haue answered the obiections of Papistes touching this supposed inconstancie he goeth about to refute that my answer which consisteth of two parts Whereof the first is that in sundry points of greatest moment as of the power of nature of free-will iustification the difference of the Law and the Gospell faith and workes Christian liberty and the like Luther was euer constant The second that it is not so strange as our Aduersaries would make it that Luther proceeded by degrees in discerning sundry Popish errours seeing Augustine and their Angelicall Doctour altered their iudgment in diuerse things and vpon better consideration disliked what they had formerly approued The former part of this my answere he pronounceth to containe a manifest vntruth for that amongst other things mentioned by me Luther was not euer constant of one iudgment touching freewil hee endeauoureth to proue because in the defence of his Articles condemned by the Pope he saith Freewil is a forged or fained thing a title without a substance it being in no mans power to think any thing good or euill but all things falling out of absolute necessity and else-where hee saith men of their owne proper strength haue free-will to doe or not to doe externall workes so that they may attaine to secular and ciuill honesty But M. Treatiser should know that between these sayings of Luther there is no contradiction in truth and in deed but in his fancy onely for in the former place two things are deliuered by Luther The first that no man by nature hath power to turne himselfe to God without grace or so much as to prepare himself to the receipt of grace which in the latter place speaking onely of externall workes and ciuill or secular honesty hee doth not contradict The second that though men in outward things and things that are below haue a kinde of freedome of will and choyce and power to doe or not to doe them yet not so free but that they are subject to the providence disposition of Almighty God bowing bending turning them whither he pleaseth and hauing them in such sort in his hand as that they can will nothing vnlesse he permit them which no way preiudiceth that liberty which else-where he attributeth to the will For the will of man is sayd to be free because it doth nothing but on liking and choice and because God permitting it hath power to doe what pleaseth it best and not because it is free and not subiect to diuine disposition and
laici et omnes templi choro excludebantur Hugo erudit theol de Sacram. fid lib. 2. part 3. c. 4. ut intrinsecus quietius vivant ordines ministerii divini per indulgentiam Monachis conceduntur non ad exercendam praelationem in populo Dei sed ad celebrandam intrinsecus communionem Sacramenti Dei quod tamen in principio non ita fuisse dicunt Monachi quippe et Eremum habitantes olim Presbyteros habuisse dicuntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbytâ—…s â—…y by â—…y aâ—…d 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 alloâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…stus vt Damasâ—… air titulos in vibâ—… Rotâ—… Presbytâ—…s dâ—…it 〈◊〉 in â—…ta 〈◊〉 g 〈◊〉 contra â—…anos h As Christ doth nothing witâ—…ut 〈◊〉 Father so do 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 wheâ—… be Presâ—… Deacon or 〈◊〉 man 〈◊〉 ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haâ—… ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presâ—…rs Dâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…he Châ—…ch Cenâ—… 〈◊〉 1. canâ—… Presbyteri sine conscientiâ—… Episcopi nihil faciunt i Epiphanius haeresi 75. Concilium Anciranum can 13. â—…ero â—…pist 〈◊〉 â—…um quid facit Episcopus exceptâ—… ordinatione quod non facit Presbyter k Concil Carth. 〈◊〉 can 4. â—…arth 3. â—…an 31. 32. 158. l Hiero. contra Luciferianos ob honorem sacerdotij fit vt soli Episcopi manus imâ—…nt 〈◊〉 Thomâ—… 〈◊〉 â—…addit quaest 40. art 5. Bonauen l 4. dist 24. ar 2 q. 3. Dominicus á Soto l. 10. de iustitia 〈◊〉 q. 〈◊〉 aâ—… 2. in 4. dist 24. q. 2. art 3. Armacanus l. 〈◊〉 ostendit nullum praelatum plus habere de potestate sacramenâ—… siuâ—…or â—…nis quà m simâ—…ces sacerdotes Cameracensis in 4. quaest 4. Contarenus de Sacramentis lib. 4. n Contra Luciferianos o Peruenit ad nos quosdam scandalizatos fuisse quod Presbyteros Chrismate tangere in fronte eos qui baptizati sunt prohibuimus c. Greg Ianuario episcopo l. 3. in dict 12. Epist. 26. p Carth. 3. can 32. q Videtur quod si omnes Episcopi essent defuncti sacerdotes minores possent episcopos ordinare Armachanus l. 11. in q. Armenorum cap. 7. Alex de Hales part 4. q. 9. memb 5. art 1. dicunt quidam quod ex demandatione Papae ordinatus potest conferre ordinem quem habet 〈◊〉 Synodus Chalced. can 6 s Episcopus praeter iudicium metropolitani finitimorum episcoporum non ordinandus Concil Laodicen can 12. si episcopus ab omnibus episcopis qui sunt in prouinciâ aliquâ vrgente necessitate non ordinatur certè tres episcopi debent in vnum esse congregati ita vt etiam caeterorum qui absenteâ—… sunt consensum literis teneant Concil Nic. can 4. â— t Concil Antiochenum can 13. u Concil Ancitanum can 13. decrerum Iohannis 3. cp ad Germaniae episcopos Antiochenum can 10. 1 Li. 1. Ep. 4 y Lib. 1 Ep. 4. a 1 Part. l. 5. 28 a Denotis Ecclesiae cap. 8. c Irenaeus l. 4. c. 43. illis Presbyteris obediendum esse dicit qui cum Episcopatus successione Charisma acceperunt veritatis Tertul. de praescrip praeter ter ordinem Episcoporum ab initio decurrentem requirit consanguinitatem doctrinae Aug. Epist. 165. enumeratis episcopis Romanis in hoc inquit ordine nullus inuenitur Donatista b Staplet contro de ecclesia in se quaestione 4. art 2. expositione articuli notabili 5. d Irenaeus l. 3. cap 3. e Lib. 3. cap. 2. a Bellar. de notis Ecclesiae li. 4 cap. 10. nota 7. b Dicunt quidam articulum esse fidei quod Benedictus exâ—…ph grâ—…tia sit Papa quod absque co non stet salus cum tamen salus Ecclesiae in solum Deum ordinetur absolutè essentialiter in hominem Christum de ordinatalege sed accidentaliter in papam mortalem alio quin cum vacat sedes per mortem naturalem vel ciuilem Papae vtpote si sit haereticus depositus quis hominum saluus esse possit Gers. part 1. consid 1. de pace idem pâ—…tte 4. ser. de Angelis papam agnoscere de necessitate salutis esse ambigunt nonnulli sufficere dicentes vt verum Ecclesiae caput Christus agnoscatur c Gers. de modo habendi se tempore schismatis d See cap. 7. e Lib. 1. Ep. 3. f But be will say Cyprian calleth the Rom Church the principall Church whence saceâ—…dotall vnity hath her spring herevnto we answere that the Râ—…m Church not in power of ouerrusing all but in order is the first and principall that therefore while she continueth to hold the trueth and incrocheth not vpon the right of other Churches shee is to haue the priority but that in either of these cases she may be forsaken without breach of that vnity which is essentially required in the parts of the Church g Cyprian l. 4. Epist. 8. h Lib. 2. Ep. 1. i Fiâ—…milianus Cypriano Ep. 75. k In Catalogo scriptorum Ecclesiast l Hiero. Euagrio m Epist. ad Damasum de nomine Hypostasis n Lib. 1. contra Iouinianum o Hiero Euagrio p Epist. 89. ad Episcopos Viennensis prouinciae a 〈◊〉 Tim c. 17. b Revel 2. 6. c Actes â—… 18. d Neâ—… mouere quenquam debet quod conâ—…dem professionem patrum praeposus decreto generalo Consilii quam fide de toto 〈◊〉 existentes conuenitent eâ—…copi quin â—…mo in tractatibuâ—… 〈◊〉 â—…uic â—…ost â—…ptaras 〈◊〉 Conciliorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 art 〈◊〉 1â—… e 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 14 32 33. g P. 3. dialog apolog iudicium de Concilio Constanciensi h See Chap. 35. i That which Illyricus said touching originall sinne which hee affirmed to be an essential corruption was not soe meant as if sinne were a positiue thing or an essence and substance as many did conceiue for he acknowledged that sinne is formally nothing but a want of râ—…ctitude and an aberration but as wee call that action sinne wherein defect and want of rectitude is found so likewise hee feared not to call the essentiall powers of the soule auerse from God and disordered in their motions and inclinations by the name of originall sinne because they are originally sinnefull Smidelinus cleareth Hosiander shewing that his opinion was that by the actiue and passiue righteousnesse of Christ performed in his humane nature as by causes meritorious wee finde fauour with God and haue communion with him and are made partakers of his essentiall righteousnesse not transfusing it into us or confounding it withus as many mistocke him but by such a kind of participation as that is wherein all creatures partake of Gods diuine perfections and that so partaking of his righteousnesse we may do â—…hat is right in his sight k De tâ—…ibuna lib. atque administrationis insulis ad sacerdotium raptus doâ—…ere vos copi quod ipse non didâ—…ci itaque factum est vt prius docere inciperem quà m discerem â—…endum