be saued redeemed But if Christ be not our formal justice thē his iustice was not made our iustice which contradicteth the Apostle 1. Cor. 1. If he did not formally satisfie for vs then he dyed almost in vaine and we are to satisfie for our selues If he be only the meritorious cause of our redemption and saluation then hath not Christ saued or redeemed vs but we are to saue and redeeme our selues as well as we can If by grace together with our cooperation we are saued and redeemed as this K. saith then we are formally saued and redeemed without Christ which only commeth in as a meritorious cause Beside that if grace here be nothing but charity or a habit not distinct from Charity as Schoole-men teach then our owne workes properly saue vs and not Christes Passion Finally if Christes redemption of vs from sinne be nothing else but a deseruing of grace by which we dispose our selues to justification if he hath freed vs from the tyrāny of the Diuill and captiuity of Hell because he hath procured vs grace by which we may resist maugre all the force of Hell and hath satisfied for our sinnes to obtaine vs grace that we may satisfie for all our sinnes as this wicked blasphemer teacheth pag. 262. Then is man the principall cause of his owne iustification and good workes should goe before iustification and Christ should not deserue to be called our redeemer or sauiour but a grace giuer that men might free and redeeme them selues And lastly not Christ should satisfie for vs but wee should satisfie for our selues All which poyntes are not only contrarie to Scriptures and absurd but vtterly ouerthrow the worke of Christes satisfaction and ransome payd for vs. In the third Chapter of his third Booke hee goeth on rayling against vs cryeth out with open mouth that we make Christ no redeemer at all and his reason is for that we teach that euen righteous men are sinners and that our sinnes are couered by the imputation of Christ his satisfaction and righteousnesse But his Collection is so foolish that if there were a whole couent of Fooles in place he might well prooue Abbot For Saint Iohn sayth that if we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs. And the Apostle Rom. 4. out of the Prophet sayth blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered And yet Kellison will not say but that these holy Apostles acknowledged Christ to bee their redeemer Our Sauiour also taught the Apostles to pray for the forgiuenesse of their trespasses Finally to say that a Christian can liue without sin is playne Pelagianisme Hierome dialog 1. aduers Pelagianos setteth downe these two propositiōs for the ground of Pelagianisme that a man may be without sinne if he will and that Gods commaundements are easie Saint Augustine likewise Lib. de haeres c. 88. reckoneth this assertion among the heades of Pelagius his heresie that the life of just-men in this world hath no sinne at all Neither is Kellisons exception of any moment For it followeth not if Christ make not men cleare without sinne that Adam is more potent then Christ because all his posteritie were made sinners For by the same reason it may be sayd that as all men were made sinners by Adam so all should be made righteous by Christ Furthermore the power of Christs grace exceedeth Adams transgression in this that Christ deliuered man of his meere grace But Adams posteritie by his transgression incurred the penalty therof deseruedly The Apostle sheweth that Christes grace exceeded Adams transgression For Christ pardoned many offences but death came by one mans offence He doth also charge vs that we affirme that notwith-standing Christes grace we cānot resist any temptation of the flesh or the Deuill that we cannot fulfill the Law in any sort that we cannot doe any good worke but must needs sinne in all our actions But if hee cannot prooue that we doe so teach then I thinke he cannot deny but that he hath sinned in this action Let him therfore name them that so teach and prooue it out of their wordes if he canne Or else it will appeare that we teach nothing but that which standeth with truth and with the honor of Christ in atcheuing our redemption But our aduersaries will not so easily acquit themselues of teaching lewdly concerning the article of our redemptiō through Christ For first Kellison teacheth pag. 261. as before is noted that Christ is only the meritorious cause of our redemption which is as much as if hee should ascribe the principall and formall cause to our selues Secondly he sayth that Christ gaue vs grace by which together with our cooperation we may bee saued and redeemed Which being graunted it followeth that Christ redeemed vs not but only procured vs grace wherby wee might redeeme our selues Thirdly both hee and his consortes teach that euerye man ought to satisfye for his sinnes cōmitted after Baptisme But if a man do satisfye for his sinnes then is hee his owne redeemer Fourthly the Papistes hope by the merits of Saintes to be saued and redeemed But as he that serueth many Gods serueth no God truelye so hee that hath many redeemers hath no true redeemer Fiftlye they beleeue that the Pope by his indulgences can redeeme soules out of purgatorie Which sheweth that Christes redemption is vnsufficient Finallye in the canon of the Masse they professe that they offer pro redemptione animarum suarum as if the Priest with the sacrifice of the Masse could redeeme soules By the verie same argument also Lib. 3. c. 4. he endeuoureth to prooue that wee make Christ no spirituall Phisition As if Christ did not cure our diseases when he couereth them and imputeth his iustice vnto vs and sanctifieth vs by the holy Ghost But if his argument were concludent then must hee himselfe also affirme that Christ is no spirituall Phisition For he will not denie I trow that Christ dooth couer our sinnes and that no man in this life is so perfectly cured but that hee committeth diuers sinnes To say otherwise is flat pelagianisme Furthermore he is a good Phisition that taketh away the paine of the disease albeit hée cannot for the weakenesse of the patient cure the reliques thereof altogether And Isay c. 53. saith we are healed by the woundes of Christ Yet no man will say that in this frailty wee are so cured that we sinne not Finally there is a great disproportion and dissimilitude betwixt the diseases of the bodye and the soule The paines of the soule diseases follow after this life the paines of bodilye sicknesses come together with the disease For the soule diseases God punisheth for bodilye diseases the Phisition pitieth the patient The soule diseases consist in disobedience and actions which being once done cannot bée vndoone But diseases of the bodie consist in distemper or other euill qualitie which may be remooued Although then the
the aduersaries that wil haue Christ as God to act nothing but ascribe the whole office of Christes Preest-hood to the humane nature doe deuide the person and not onelye the two natures approching neerer to Nestorius then our teachers to error Finally hee alleadgeth the testimony of Egidius Hunnius against Caluin as if in expositiō of scriptures he did Iudaizare or fauour the Iewes But neither is the testimony of a sworne enemie to be much regarded nor hath any man that felicitie in expounding Scriptures that he fayleth in nothing In the second chap. he chargeth vs that we make Christ an absurd redeemer these are the words of this absurd surueyor And why so I pray you forsooth because we hope onelye to be iustified by Christes iustice But this doth not touch vs onely but the holy prophets apostles also God by his prpophet Isay c. 53. saith that his iust seruant shall iustifie many by his knowledge shal beare their sins The Apostle 1. Cor. 1. teacheth vs that he is made vnto vs wisdome righteousnesse sanctification redēption To make his matter good page 257. hee maketh vs to say that there is no justice but Christes justice nor good workes but Christes workes nor merit but his merit nor satisfaction but his satisfaction But these are his owne sottish ideotismes and not our wordes For wee doe not denye that there is a certaine imperfect iustice in man sanctified by Gods holy spirit and that such doe good workes pleasing vnto God We confesse also that man by sinne doth merit death albeit his workes be not so perfect that they can deserue eternall life Finally we know that the Fathers sometime accompt the obedience of the law to bee a satisfaction and so cal the performance of penalties enioyned by the Church But did we attribute all the honor of our iustification and saluation vnto Christ our Sauiour yet this is neither absurditie nor dishonour to him But this absurd and kettle Diuine dooth dishonour and blaspheme Christ ioyning the wordes absurd and redeemer together He doth also contradict the Scriptures where hee saith that Christ with one word or teare or drop of blood might haue redeemed vs. And therein he passeth the impudency of his holy Father Clement the sixt in the chap. vnigenit extr de poenit remiss for he saith one drop of blood would haue sufficed But this dropping dreary dunse addeth a teare or a word How cōtrarie they are to scriptures these testimonies declare Isay 53. therfore shal he deuide the spoiles of the strong because he hath giuen his soule to death Mat. 20. We reade that he came to giue his life a ransome for many and Luc. 24. that so Christ must suffer and 1. cor 15. that Christ dyed for vs according to the Scriptures Gal. 3 We learne that to deliuer vs from the curse of the law he was made accursed and Hebr. 2. that it was fitting that the author of our saluation should by suffering be cōsummated Heb. 9. that his testamēt could not bee fulfilled without the death of the testator Absurdly also he talketh of a storme raysed in heauen for the Sonne of God when Lucifer wold be like the highest For it is ridiculous to thinke of any stirre or storme raysed in Heauen where there is and alwaies was such quiet and content or to suppose that Lucifer contended with the Sonne of God Hee might doe well to tell vs what Deuill tolde him this For in holy Scriptures no such thing is found Finally describing the blessed state of man in Paradice and of his miserie being throwne out of Paradice vnawares he ouerthroweth with his boysterous eloquence two bulwarks of Popery to wit Freewill and Purgatory For if euery sinner bee a slaue to his flesh and a captiue to the Diuell and a slaue to sinne and the Diuell as hee saith then hath hee not freewill For to bee free and bound at one time implyeth contradiction Againe if the deuill hold sinners in hell perpetuallye as page 254. hee confesseth then there is no redemption out of Purgatory which as Papists teach is in hell Pag. 258. he chargeth vs farther that we teach that good workes are not necessary and thence inferre that no Lawes eyther humane or diuine can bind vs in conscience And lastly he sayth that we hold that no sinnes nor euill workes can hurt vs because Christes justice being ours no sinne can make vs sinners And so he runneth on in a course of wild eloquence like a Colte that hath broken his halter But as Hierome sayth in his Booke against Vigilātius stultum est fingere materiam cui rhetorica declamatione respondeatur It is a foolish and dizardly thing to feine matters thē in a rhetorical surueying declamatiō to answer In his fictions certes this man seemeth neither to haue reason nor conscience For first albeit we say that we are not iustified by workes yet we teach that as many as are iustified by faith in Christ are also sanctified by his grace and that workes are necessary effects of our iustification Secondly we directly affirme that Gods Lawes doe bind in conscience and mans Lawes as farre as they commaund for Gods Lawe albeit through Christ Iesus we are deliuered from the curse of the law being iustified by fayth and walking no more after the flesh but after the spirit Thirdly we beleeue that all sinnes and euill workes do hurt those that doe them Although we also beleeue that he who is borne of God and iustified by fayth sinneth not vnto death Finally most falsely he maketh vs to teach first that Christ hath redeemed vs because no sinne can hurt vs and next that we are deliuered from the Law because no Law can binde vs and thirdly that we are deliuered from the Diuel and Hel because howsoeuer we liue they cannot hurt vs. Nay we pronounce him anathema that shall hold that eyther sinne cannot hurt or that the Law bindeth not or that howsoeuer Christians liue they cannot be damned to Hell And thus much may serue to cleare vs from this barking curres slaunders But Popish Doctrine concerning our redemption is not so easily defended For Papistes beleeue that the Pope by his indulgences can redeeme soules from Hell They teach also that euery man is to satisfie for his sinnes committed after Baptisme But then Christ is but halfe a redeemer Neither do they sticke to say that the sonne of God assuming the nature of Thomas Aquinas or some other might haue redeemed the world which is contrary to all the promises made to the Fathers concerning the Messias to come of the seede of Abraham Kellison pag. 261. sayth that Christes Passion was not our formall justification nor satisfaction he should haue said Christes Passion obedience and iustice if he would formally haue crossed our Doctrine but only the meritorious cause of our redemption and saluation which deserueth for vs at Gods hands grace by which together with our cooperatiō we may
probable But this opinion crosseth Gods councell maketh man wiser then God and contradicteth both Scriptures and Fathers Iesus Christ came into the world to saue sinners sayth the Apostle 1. Tim. 1. where-vpon the glosse addeth tolle vulnera tolle morbos et nulla est causa medicinae And Augustine ser 9. super verb. apostoli si homo non peccasset filius dei non venisset If man had not sinned the sonne of God had not come into the world And Leo in serm de natiu si homo in suo honore mansisset creator mundi creatura non fieret Secondly the same Alexander and Vdalricus do affirme that the three persons in the Trinity may assume one mans nature tres personae saith AlexaÌ„der possunt assumere communicare vnuÌ„ eundem hominem indiuiduum But this is contrarie to the worke of the incarnation of Christ and confoundeth the persons and is a thing not imaginable Thirdly Thomas inscripto and Durande in 3. dist 2. q. 1. and others say that God was able to assume an vnreasonable creature But what is more blasphemous then to call God a horse or an vnreasonable creature as the Sonne of God by taking our nature became man and was truly called man 4. Bonauenture in 3. dist 4. sayth that the Virgin Mary hath destroyed all Heresies and did merit the reconciliation of all mankinde Reconciliationem quoque toti humano promeruit generi But if she did merit mans reconciliation what needed Christes merits If she killed all Heresies then was she a more excellent teacher then the Apostles 5. Vdalricus Lib. 5. sum denyeth that Christ hath two relations of a sonne the one to his eternall Father the other to his Mother Veneramur saith he in Christo duas natiuitates non duas filiationes Other Schoolemen also are of his side But the Scriptures call him both the Sonne of God and Sonne of man and if he were not truely the Sonne of man as he is the Sonne of God then could he not haue redeemed man 6. Alexander Hales granteth that this proposition Christ as he is man is the adopted Sonne of God is true which destroyeth by a consequence Christes right as being the Sonne of God by nature 7. Durand in 3. sent dist 11. admitteth this proposition Christ is a creature which commeth nere to Arianisme 8. Bonauenture in 3. dist 12. confesseth that in Christ there was a power to sinne primo modo saith he fuit in Christo peccandi potentia And he collecteth this because hee had freewill Neither dooth Thomas writing vpon the sentences differ much from him But Durand goeth beyond both for hee saith that if the humane nature of Christ had beene assumed in pure naturalls that Christ might haue sinned and beene damned his wordes are these in 3. sent dist 12. q. 2. Constat quod humaena natura sibi derelicta potest peccare Ergo sic assumpta peccare potuit And againe quod addâ—tur si peccare potuit daÌ„nari potuit concedatur quia cum damnari sonet in poenam non est maius inconueniens dicere Christum damnatum quam mortuum vel passum So heere they may see that the blasphemous wordes which they seeke for in Caluin are expressely to be found in their owne Schoolemen 9. Bonauenture in 3. sent d st 12. saith that Christ might haue taken flesh of a man as hee did of a woman Which destroyeth the Article of Christes birth He seemeth also to graunt that the Son of God in the shape of a woman might haue redeemed mankinde albeit it was more decent that hee should bee a man 10. The grace of vnion of the two natures in Christ both Alexander and Thomas and others hold to be vncreated Which being graunted it must needes follow that the vnion of the two natures was from euerlasting which is the totall ouerthrowe of our Christian fayth 11. In Christ they deny commonly that there was fayth or hope But he that wanteth fayth is an infidell and he that waÌ„teth hope is a desperate man which to affirme of Christ is most blasphemous Nay in this point the Scoole-men are contrary to themselues For if fayth be an assent to the word of God hope be an expectation of thinges future then eyther had Christ fayth and hope or else he beleeued not the word of God nor expected or hoped for the resurrection of his body both which cannot be spoken of Christ without blasphemy 12. The Schoole-men commonly hold that the paynes of Christes Passion were exceeding great and yet as touching the superior part of his reason they say that at the same time he was in exceeding pleasure and joy But this implieth contradiction that the same man at the same instant should suffer in his soule extreme paines and yet bee in exceeding ioy and pleasure It is also contrarie to Scriptures attendite saith he si est dolor sicut dolor meus Beholde if there be any dolour comparable to mine But if hee were in exceeding pleasure many mens passions should exceede his 13. By the vnion of the natures they teach that Christ was made omniscient But no reason can bee alleadged why the atribute of knowledge should bee more really transfused into Christes humane nature then the attribute of omnipoteÌ„ce or omnipresence and the rest And therefore Durand graunted that he had omnipotence per assistentiam 14. Henricus de Gandauo taught that there was an other forme in Christes humane nature besides the reasonable soule and that his death was not naturall Richard de media villa saith his death was miraculous and that if the influence of the diuinitie had not been withdrawne hee could not haue dyed But this is nothing else but labour and contention to ouerthrowe Christes true humanitie by shewing him not to be like to vs and a plaine way to dissolue the vnion of his two natures 15. The maister of the sentences lib. 3. dist 16. holdeth the Christ by necessarie course of nature neither suffered nor dyed dici potest saith hee Christum voluntate non necessitate suae naturae hos defectus sicut alios suscepisse silicet necessitatem patiendi in anima et moriendi in carne But this taketh away the similitude betwixt Christes humane nature ours who in this frailty cannot auoid paine nor death 16. Generallye they say it was not necessarie that Christ should suffer death for mankinde Kellison moste impiouslye saith that one drop of Christes blood and one teare was a sufficient ransome for the sinnes of the world But this is a plaine ouerthwart course to Gods eternall councell to Scriptures and to reason For how could man by these meanes bee ransomed from death Gods iustice being not to bee satisfyed but by death 17. Antisiodorensis lib. 3. summae saith that Christ merited nothing as he loued God But that maketh God a lyar that promiseth eternall life to those that performe the lawe and extolleth mans obedience aboue the obedience of Christ For Papistes graunt