no purpose And indeed to no purpose for Mat. 17. 3. we read There appeared vnto them Moses and Elias talking with them which apply to your Thesis No Saint deceased hath appeared vnto any and aduise how handsomely it agreeth thereto For doo you not knowe or haue you heard of it that Moses by some Authors is reputed not dead as by Hillary Can. 20. vpon Mathew by Saint Ambrose in his second Book of Cain Abel but translated by God into Paradise as Helias was afterward asserted of late by no Babies of your owne Ioh. Arboreus lib. 11. Theosophias and Ambrose Catharine vpon Gen. 3 If that bee so you may go seek a new Text to prooue apparitions of dead men by It will be answered These were not dead For if Moses be liuing Elias is sure you hold him yet aliue and why not both aliue seeing both must come and oppose against Antichrist and bee slaine by him before Dooms-day Mend your conclusion and make it thus Therefore Saints haue appeared to some on earth and I will warrant no man will quarrell your assertion But your second Text of Mat. 27. 52. cometh home to your minde They were Saints indeed deceased but restored to life and peraduenture vnto eternall life in bodies as well as soules They appeared vnto many the Text is plain and I beleeue you neuer met with any such that when you shewed this Text would deny their appearing which is expresse And yet it is not well applied by you for your apparitions as I conceiue it inform me if I doo mis-take you are not in bodyes restored to life or raised vp out of the dust but in bodies assumed or some other way These men appeared in their owne bodies which were laid into and rose vp out of the graues and so not very fitting your purpose As for Onias the high Priest who beeing dead appeared vnto Iudas Macchabeus let him iustifie it that hath written it If he report the story as it was very good it may be done I see nothing to the contrary if not true no great hurt at all your puling-whining soules in Purgatory get nothing by the bargaine That some Saints deceased haue appeared For these were in Heauen of which there is constat for their appearing at least prooue you they were in Purgatory to which your apparitions tend But the truth is there are many Schoens Parasangs betwixt those wōdrous works of God and those iuggling tricks in the Romane Church deuised onely to make the Priests pot to seethe and fill the Popes purse by collusion XXVIII That the Saints deceased know not what passeth in the Earth SPeake out and speak plaine What mean you by what passeth All things that are done on earth in al places at al times by all persons ordinarily of themselues or som saints som things in som places at some times by some persons extraordinarily by reuelation or some such like meanes No Protestant will deny the one no Papist hath hitherto dared affirme the other Dare you abide by it if you doe take vp the bucklers and see what will follow Your generall position will beare eyther interpretation Wee affirme that all Saints departed knowe something on Earth as namely The beeing of a Church That some Saints departed knowe something heere done extraordinarily by reuelation intimation or otherwise As your position is captiously put downe so is your first proofe from the Text of Luke 16. 29. Sophistically affixed There Abraham knew that there were Moses and the Prophets bookes in earth which hee himselfe had neuer seene Indeed Abraham was dead long before Moses wrote And after Moses wrote till the time that Abraham answered thus if it were an History and not a Parable were many mo hundred yeeres In all which time no Protestant will deny but Abraham might know when he was in Paradise that God had left such bookes vnto Israel Now this is not ad idem nor prooueth the question For your position is what passeth not what hath passed your proofe is for what hath passed and not for what passeth A maine difference betwixt these two I cannot tell what you intend to write next but I can tell you haue plaid the Goose in your Gag and hereafter when your worthy work putteth forth head to view I shall bee able to say what Animal it is Abrahā knew som 2000 yeers after his death Put the case so that Moses the Prophets were in the hands of the Iewes and directors of them in their course vnto God therefore Abraham knew what Rabbi Gamaliel taught Saint Paul such a day in his Auditory Is this a good consequence now in your Logick A coozener a cobler might reason so Yet this is your reason cap apee I answer directly First Abraham's case is not euery mans Secondly Abraham's knowledge might bee extraordinary our Quaere is of ordinary knowledge Thirdly Abraham might know in long tract of time which he could not so at an instant and wee make question of present knowledge for that is required vnto your purpose onely That which S. Augustine witnesseth we deny not that which we deny hee witnesseth not Hee witnesseth there that Abraham knew of Moses He telleth not how he came to know of Moses nor what Abraham or Moses can know touching vs. In the next as much ridiculous Iohn 5. 45 our Sauiour there telleth the Iewes thus Do not think that I will accuse you to my Father There is one that accuseth you euen Moses in whom you trust Vpon citing this Text it may seem the man was som what conscious that it was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it should bee expresse that the Thesis was of knowing what is done vpon earth the proofe of accusing vnto God in heauen Therefore to help it we haue an argument a consequence inferred vpon that Antecedent thus How could Moses dead 2000 yeeres before accuse those that were liuing if the Saints deceased knowe not what passeth in the earth If so then take heed that Moses accuse not you for a fool as very an one as euer went without the priuiledge of a bable who so childishly imagine that God set in iudgement the Iewes were arraigned euery mothers sonne And Moses did as the diuell with Iob came and accused them euery one in particular of euery crime committed for so it must be Doubtlesse Moses had worke enough to doe especially in those last worst tumultuous times You should haue let vs knowne who was of their Councell who their Aduocate against Moses and whether it came to a demurrer or not But good man Wiseacres learne of your Masters to take things aright By Moses is not vnderstood his person then in Paradise dead or aliue but Moses writings the Law of Moses that in which the Iewes did so much trust So it is not personall it is instrumentall his writings accuse you and will condemne you So Caietan Maldonate and who not or if personall Moses himselfe
of these Holy Saints of God For shame speake truth and shame the Deuill the Father of lyes and such lying Libellers as our Gagger But belike it is for nothing which is not for your purpose And therefore whatsoeuer Protestants doe thinke and teach and esteeme of the life and actions the death and Passions of those holy Saints of Christ it is nothing because that they build not vp thence a Magazin nor store-house for the Church nor supply other mens defects by their superfluities that the Holy Father may thereby mugle men and fill his 〈◊〉 coffers by lifting law A thing so improbable for that fained treasury that as Bellarmine confesseth some of the Schoolemen as Maironis and Durand haue not approued it Which they durst not haue done had Saint Paul beene of that minde and tendred that Doctrine Colos 1. 24. I reioyce in my sufferings for you and fill vp that which is behinde you reade wanting and reade so if you list of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his bodies sake which is the Church Whence if you say true the ground of Indulgences hath euer beene And you meane since there were Indulgences heard off For the time was in the Protestants opinion at least that no such thing was in being which yet I maruaile much it so should be and that many writing of that argument haue not so much as dreamed thereof and many no Protestants expound it otherwise Osorius a Iesuite in his Sermons saith Quid deest passioni Christi nisi vt nos similia patiamur What can be wanting to the suffering of Christ but onely this that wee in like sort suffer with him Paul suffered much indured much yet was hee not perfect if himselfe say true and for the Church of Christ to giue them example to strengthen and confirme them in what they had receiued from him filled vp the measure appointed for him in conformitie to the sufferings of Christ Iesus Barradas another of that same Society Tom. 3. vpon the Gospels Quod ad sufficientiam attinet nihil deerat passioni Cruci Christi The Crosse and sufferings of Christ were all sufficiency and that way naught wanted vnto his passion Vt tamen efficax esâ—et Crux app 〈…〉 tio praedicatio laboribus plena deerat Ideo Paulus â—it se adimplere quae desunt passionum Christi quia per multos labores Euangelium gentibus praedicabat And yet to make the Crosse and sufferings of Christ effectuall there wanted application of it by Preaching A thing laborious and exceding painefull For which cause Paul saith that hee filleth vp or supplyeth if you will that which was wanting vnto the sufferings of Christ for as much as with great paynes hee preached the Gospell vnto the Gentiles Differences there may be amongst Interpreters but none not partialists take it so as to make vp a Store-house for the Church out of Christs sufferings supplied by Saint Paul For so it must be admit this Magazin and we must admit a supply a supply is not but vpon insufficiency Can a man without blasphemie babble thus Christs imperfect a d insufficient sufferings were made vp and supplyed by Saint Paul In the merits of Christ there are no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comming short remaines or as you will call them wants For if so I say no more but how can your selfe call them superabundant as you doe and as they are The Text should speake expressely if you kept your wo 〈…〉 for making vp a store for the Church in time of need which is so farre from expressely doing that as that not obscurely it insinuateth what you pretend no not in the interpretations of no Babes vpon your owne partie Iesuites of note and learning Philip. 2. 30. Because for the worke of Christ he was nigh vnto death not regarding his owne life to supply your lacke Epaphroditus is the man there spoken of a faithfull seruant of Christ in the worke of the ministery who with the hazard of his owne life puts himselfe to doe seruice vnto the Church of God This is the commendation Saint Paul giueth of him Your inference is Hee did more than hee needed to haue done for who required any such seruice at his hand as this Hee might haue kept himselfe close and warme at home and haue slept if hee would in an whole skinne This is your good wholesome Catholique Doctrine For the benefit accruing out of the actions and Passions of Saints is to make vp the treasure of the Church out of workes supererogated by them when they doe more than God requireth As for instance when the Virgin Mary without not onely actuall sinnes mortall veniall in your opinion but also originall as not conceiued in them suffered yet much which was not due to her because all sufferings are the wages of Sinne as when martyrs suffer more or greater torments than can in iustice be exacted of them though God should enter into iudgment with them and deale with them in the rigour of his iustice So Epaphroditus sicke vnto death indu 〈◊〉 that which in no case was his deseruing or due vnto him hee indured it therefore for the Philippians sake that through his sufferings they might be saued and haue supply of that which was wanting in the reckoning to the sufferings of Christ as good blasphemy as euer was vttered by any enemy of the Grace of Christ I will abide by it Secondly admit it good Catholique truth yet is it not to purpose true for Epaphroditus was then aliue and vpon recouery aliues-like They are and must be dead that bring in their shot to make vp that masse of treasure for the Church and good cause why For though then at present hee had enough at home and also spare to serue others turnes yet wisdome would hee should not be too lauish or profuse for happely hee might haue neede thereof himselfe For your Doctrine also is Hee that standeth may fall No man is sure of his Saluation therefore well is it prouided though you regard it not or know it not that your store is not to be augmented till men are dead Thirdly in your owne construction and learning this Text of Saint Paul will doe you no good For in poynt of supply for Pardons and Indulgences from the Actions and Passions of Saints you admit not of merits but onely satisfactions Now this text serueth if at all for any thing to any purpose for merit and not for satisfaction Lastly you play the Catholique knaue in plaine termes a man may call a spade a spade and him a knaue that so deserueth it For you will conuict vs by our owne Bibles Now in our Bibles wee reade thus Because for the worke of Christ hee was nigh vnto death not regarding his life to supply your lacke of seruice towards mee You cut off these words of seruice towards mee and set vp your rest vpon to supply your lacke as if the defects of the Philippians
can please God or be accepted of him Hee is not iust that is in this state In that of Grace a man is iust when hee is changed which must haue concurrence of two things Priuation of being to that which was the Body of sinne A new constitution vnto God in another state In which hee that is altered in state changed in condition transformed in minde renewed in soule regenerate and borne a new to God by Grace is iust in the state of iustification ceasing to be what hee was becomming what he was not before Thus to be changed is to be a new Creature The act is saide by Dauid Psalm 51. To create Which being a worke of Omnipotent power exceedeth the indowment of any Creature It is not therefore of our selues from or by our selues But this change is the worke of the right hand of the most high operating powerfully as hee can and actiuely as hee will Wrought it is by God by God alone Man or Mans free-will is not author hereof Therefore no merit interveneth therefore not to be ascribed to our selues None here but Christ preuenting vs the Author of our integritie crowne of our felicitie and consummator of our glorie Secondly to iustifie is to giue increase and augmentation vnto that first Article as to be more iust in processe and profectu by increase of Grace and the fruit of that Spirit by which they are renewed in the inner man In naturall action and passion it plainely appeareth Cold water is made warme vpon the fire heere is an alteration of the propertie Warme water is made hotter by continuing on the fire with an augmentation and accesse of that heate So I vnderstand it Apoc. 22. Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc Hee that is iust let him become more iust by accesse of Gods Grace euer day by day Thirdly to iustifie is to declare and pronounce one iust as Prou. 8. He that iustifieth the wicked and condemneth the righteous is alike abominable before the Lord. So againe in the 50. Psalme That thou mayest be iustified in thy sayings and cleare when thou art iudged God is not otherwise iustified but by being knowne acknowledged and confessed iust in all his wayes As he is said to be magnified when his noble acts are made knowne and men doe praise him for his mercy goodnesse and saluation Iustification properly is in the first acceptance A Sinner is then iustified when hee is made iust that is translated from state of Nature to state of Grace as Colos 1. 13. Who hath deliuered vs from the power of darkenesse and hath translated vs into the Kingdome of his deere Sonne Which is motion as they say betwixt two termes and consisteth in forgiuenesse of sinnes primarily and Grace infused secondarily Both the act of Gods Spirit in man but applyed or rather obtained through Faith which representeth first God willing and ready to forgiue and renew Draweth neere vnto him closeth in fast with him Adhereth vnto him inseparabâ—y with I will not let thee goe except thou blesse And God doth returne I will blesse thee pardon thy sinnes for my names sake and accept thee as mineowne in Christ my sonne whose Bloud hath made attonement for Man So that properly to speake God onely iustifieth who alone imputeth not but pardoneth sinne Who onely can and doth translate vs from death vnto life renueth a right Spirit and createth a new heart within vs. Causally and actiuely God doth it But because God was drawne thereto by our Faith which laying hands vpon his mercy in Christ obtayneth this Freedome and newnesse and renewing from him Faith is saide to iustifie instrumentally And Faith alone to doe it without copartners in the act which is in instanti as Gods immediate workes are all done and not long adoing as wee know The Soule of man is the subiect of this act In which vnto which are necessarily required certaine preparations and preuious dâ—spositions to the purpose As knowledge of God our selues his Law his iustice iealousie iudgement c. Feare Hope Contrition Loue desire of purpose for a new life and such like But these are all with and from Faith which in the very act of iustification are not actiue though habitually there then before and after at least some of them perhaps not all Iustification is not but in the Church Faith is the life and originall of the Church as appeareth by the Scriptures by the Subiect and performance of Faith So that worthily may the principall indowment of Grace be ascribed vnto the roote and originall of Christian Piety Faith Fides prima datur saith Saint Augustine ex qua caetera impetrantur In the first signification then of iustification the which properly is iustification wee acknowledge instrumentally Faith alone and Causally God alone In the second and third beside God and Faith wee yeeld to Hope and Holinesse and Sanctification and the fruits of the Spirit in good workes But both these are not Iustification rather Fruits and Consequents and effects appendants of Iustification then Iustification which is a solitary act So that well and truly and according to the tenet of Antiquity is it resolued by our Church Artic. 11. We are accounted righteous before God onely for the merit of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ by faith and not for our owne workes or deseruing Our Iustification in the act thereof is onely the worke of God for Christs sake whose death and Passion apprehended by Faith which is the sole peculiar worke of Faith to doe as it hath made an attonement betwixt God and vs so hath it procured remission of our Sinnes at his hands and thereupon a new state of Grace not for any merit or deseruing of our own which is vtterly excluded in this Act. Thus Thomas 1. 2. q. 114. ar 7. Nullo modo aliquis potest sibi mereri reparationem post lapsum Restauration after fall that is Iustification of a sinner no man can procure or deserue vnto himselfe To whom agreeth the Councell of Trent Sess vi can viij and your owne men confesse it is gratuita And therefore as our Article saith not for our owne workes or deseruings Further our Church proceedeth not to the augmentation or declaration of iustification there But inferreth Wherefore that we are iustified by faith alone is a most wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort as it is indeede and your long disputes may intangle the simple but not infringe the truth nor indeede discent from it Fides non absoluit iustificationem saith Casalius and wee admit it but sola iustificat and hee admitteth that For so haue antiquitie auouched generally as himselfe and Cassander doe confesse Origen Hilary and many others to haue resolued so But this is contrary vnto our Bible 1 Corinth 13. 2. Though I haue all faith so that I could remoue mountaines and haue no charitie I am nothing Therefore only faith doth not iustifie Why because Faith without Charity doth not iustifie for
in the mercies of Christ but this being speciall and therefore extraordinary may admit an exception for common vse Therefore in Rom. 3. he speaketh plaine in generall not with that limitation of some Iustification of Faith alone sufficeth albeit a man hath not done any workes As direct a Protestant as euer wrote Caluin or Chemnitius could say no more But in Rom. 5. he is otherwise minded If so what why vrge you the witnesse of him that saith and vnsaith the same thing But it is not so Origen is wronged by you His words are Faith cannot be reputed vnto Iustice to such as beleeue Christ and yet put not off the old man with his Acts. Doe Protestants say it can be We distinguish Historicall and Iustifying Faith You doe difference Faith in Degree if in nothing else Beliefe may be before without Iustification a generall assent without application or adhesion Origen is in this also a perfect Protestant It is their Doctrine That there is a Faith which iustifieth not It is Origens Doctrine absolutely Origen saith Which beleeueth Christ He doth not say Which beleeueth in Christ Thus per omnia in all points he sideth with the Protestants in their Faith concerning Faith as you propose it Secondly see Hilary vpon Math. 7. And doe See him Protestant to thy confirmation See him Papist to thy confusion The saluation of Nations are his words is through faith and in the Precepts of the Lord the life of all men Doth this man speake against the Iustification of a man by Faith that ascribeth saluation vnto Faith And Can. 8. in Math. vnto onely Faith And else-where as he is cited by Cassander A Christo per fidem remissio est quod lex laxare non poterat Fides enim sola Iustificat Remission of sinnes is from Christ which could not be released by the Law For onely Faith iustifieth Saint Ambrose runneth the same way with Origen and Hilary in Comment vpon the Epistle to the Romans Hoc etiam constitutum est à Deo vt qui credit in Christum saluus sit sine opere solâ fide gratis accipiens remissionem peccatorum It is so ordained by God that whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ is made partaker of saluation by faith alone without workes receiuing forgiuenesse of sinnes In conclusion it is confessed vpon all hands by the most lerned in the Church of Rome that many of the ancient Fathers ascribe Iustification vnto Faith alone Casalius in his second Booke and 16. Chapter allayeth their saying and we approue it but implyedly he giueth to vnderstand that Doctores Sancti doe affirme that sola fides iustificat Faith alone is that which iustifieth No new Gospell therefore as this Goose gagleth XIX That no good workes are meritorious IN the former Proposition the Protestants were belyed in the Case of good workes as excluding their necessity vnto Saluation For though Faith alone acted in the act of Iustification yet there necessarily followed in ordinary course an haruest of good workes Now the valew of those workes is next to be questioned in the point concerning merit and desert wherein this Gagger as else-where lyeth out aloofe in ambiguities for he distinguisheth not of workes nor merit nor the termes how farre they are meritorious nor how they deserue what they haue Workes are considered before or after Iustification In the state of Nature or of Grace workes are not all of one kinde There are some good and so farre good as that they cannot be done to any euill end Such as are directed vnto God immediately to honour him to loue him and to feare him Others so euill that no intent or purpose can make them good to commit Adultery doe murther blaspheme God Others good in themselues and in a generality which may yet be done to an ill intent and purpose to giue Almes to be seene of men euill in a generall notion as to goe to the Stewes yet good in the designment to conuert a sinner Others indifferent euery way Now in the Proposition not any of these are meritorious according to the Doctrine of the Protestants saith the Gagger generally Not meritorious what is that Your Schooles assigne vs a two-fold merit of Congruity of Condignity that where Retribution or reward is not due yet conueniency requireth recompensation this where reward is rightly due and the denying thereof is iniustice and wrong vnto the party Here is no distinction of merit at all We are not giuen to vnderstand whether is intended Merit of Condignity or Congruity We know that in the Doctrine of the Romane Schooles and vnlesse wee did know it otherwise this fellow would not tell vs. Merit of Congruity is not commonly meant as scarce vouchsafed the name of Merit Good workes therefore said to be meritorious are so vnderstood to be ex condigno which that a worke may so be these Conditions are required That it bee morally good Freely wrought by man in this life In the state of Grace and friendship with God which hath annexed Gods Promise of Reward All which Conditions I cannot conceiue that any Protestant doth deny vnto good workes the fruits of Faith liuely and liuing For first euill workes are rewardable but with due desert that is Gods wrath and second death Worke s secondly of compulsion are not worth Gramercy 1 Cor. 9. 17. and thirdly after death working doth cease In the state of Grace to be wrought is the Protestants Tenent that precisely hold first Faith is necessary before good workes can be acceptable to God For God had first respect to Abel say they and afterward vnto his Sacrifice Deus non habet gratum offerentem propter munera sed munera propter offerentem saith Gregor hom 9. in Ezech. and then they maintaine that as God doth Crowne his owne workes in vs so he doth it hauing promised so to doe This is your owne Doctrine in the Romane Schooles And so farre the Protestants for these Conditions goe along with you Now if your Texts doe contrary this expresly or obliquely looke you to it it concerneth you as much as vs. First Math. 5. 12. Reioyce and be exceeding glad for great is your reward in Heauen Reward you say is due debt and debt is vpon desert But this desert whence came it and what is it Ex gratia ipsius saith Tertullian non proprietate nostrâ In the state of Grace men onely merit your selues teach then all their merit is of Grace As of Grace so ex compacto God hath promised therefore due to be required This is your fift and last Condition vnto merit Reward in Heauen no man denyeth Reward appointed for our good workes all confesse If this be your merit we contradict it not And this is your merit that you plead for All your Texts of Scripture Math. 10. 42. 2 Cor. 5. 10. 1 Cor. 9. 17. 18. 25. Heb. 11. 26. Psal 18. 20. and many moe in the same course and kinde speake directly this way and no other