is pag. 141. transformed in mind renewed in soule regenerate by grace Discord Church of England HOmil of Saluation page 13. Because all men be sinners and breakers of Gods law therefore can no man by his owne acts words and deeds seeme they neuer so good bee iustified But of necessity euery man is constrained to seeke for another righteousnesse or iustification to bee receiued at Gods owne hands that is to say forgiuenesse of sins And this iustificatiō or righteousnes which wee so receiue of Gods mercy and Christs merits is accepted and allowed of God for our full and perfect iustification The faith in Christ which is within vs doth not iustifie vs for that were to account our selues to bee iustified by some act or virtue which is within our selues Art 11. Of the iustification of man We are accounted righteous before God onely by the merit of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ by faith not our owne workes Note in this maine point of Iustification That the Appealer differeth from the Church of England and consenteth to the Church of Rome in three remarkable particulars 1 In the signification of the word To iustifie which the Appealer and the Church of Rome take for making a man righteous The Church of England and the Protestants generally for accounting declaring or pronouncing a man righteous 2 The Church of England maketh Iustification to consist onely in forgiuenesse of sinnes The Appealer and Church of Rome not onely in forgiuenesse of sins but partly in it and partly in sanctifying graces infused 3 The Church of England teacheth That wee are not iustified by inherent righteousnesse or by any vertue within vs. The church of Rome and the Appealer hold That we are iustified by sanctifying and regenerating graces within vs whereby wee are transformed in minde and renewed in soule By renewing grace inherent in vs wee are sanctified but not iustified the confounding of Sanctification with Iustification as the Appealer and Papists doe is an errour of dangerous consequence as the learned well know Of Merit of Workes Harmony Church of Rome COunc. of Trent Sess. 6. can 32. If any man say That the good workes of a man iustified doe not truly merit increase of grace and eternall life let him be accursed Bellar. de iustifi lib. 5. c. 16. The workes of iust men proceeding frō charity are meritorious of eternall life ex condigno this is the common opinion of Diuines and it is most true Vasques in 1a. 2ae q. 114. disput 214. The good workes of iust men without any couenāt or acceptation are worthy of the reward of eternall life and haue an equall value of worth to the obtaining of eternall life Vasques disput 222. The workes of a righteous man doe merit eternall life as an equall reward or wages they make A man iust and worthy eternall life that hee may of desert obtaine the same Appealer APpeal pag. 233. The wicked goe to enduring of torments euerlasting the good goe to enioying of happinesse without end thus is their estate diuersified to their deseruing Answer to Gagg pag. 153. Merit of congruity is not commonly meant as scarce vouchsafed the name of merit Good workes are therefore said to bee 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 to good workes Discord Church of Engl. HOmily of Saluation 2. part page 17. Though I haue faith hope and charity repentance and doe neuer so many good workes yet wee must renounce the merit of all our said virtues and good deeds which wee either haue done shall doe or can doe as things that bee farre too weake and insufficient to deserue the remission of our sinnes Artic. 11. Wee are accoūted righteous before God onely for the merit of our Lord Sauior Iesus Christ by faith and not for our own works or deseruings Homil. of good workes To haue affiance in our workes as by merit of them to purchase to our selues remission of sinnes and eternall life is blasphemy Obserue reader that the Appealer ignorantly or fraudulently omitteth the proper conditions requisite to a meritorious act which are especially these 1 That the worke be properly our and not his of whom we pretend to merit 2 That it be opus indebitum a worke to which otherwise we are not bound 3 That it be some way profitable and beneficiall to him from whom wee expect our reward 4 That it haue some proportion and correspondence of congruity at least if not of condignitie to the reward expected All which conditions Protestants deny to bee found in our good works And therupon disclaime all merit These conditions the Appealer pretermitteth and from foure common conditions requisite to a good worke in generall he concludeth loosely and weakly That the Papists and wee agree in the doctrine of merit ex condigno of condignitie In his Appeale Chap. 11. by the advice as it seemes of the Approuer of his booke hee disclaimeth merit of condignity which in his former booke he seemed to approue But he saith little or nothing which may not well stand with merit of congruity Indeed hee lasheth Vasques for that wherein he differeth from other Papists but he retracteth not any where that his owne sentence namely The eternall state of men is diuersified to their deseruings Wherein hee crosseth the 11 Article and the words of S. Paul Rom. 6. The wages of sinne is death but the gift of God is eternall life Of Euangelicall Counsels or Workes of supererogation Harmony Church of Rome BEl de Monach. lib. 2. cap 7. An Euangelicall Counsell of Perfection is called a good worke not inioyned vs by Christ but shewed vnto vs not commanded but commended onely Ibid. cap. 8. It is the opinion of all Catholiques that there are many Euangelicall Counsels viz. of things aduised or counselled vnto but not prescribed nor commanded Appealer ANswer to the Gagg p. 103. What is meant by workes of Supererogation we may collect out of the texts of Scripture cited viz. That man in the state of grace and assisted by Gods grace may doe somethings counselled and not commanded I know no doctrine of our English Church against Euangelical counsels Appeale page 214. I doe beleeue there are and euer were Euangelicall counsels Discord Church of Engl. ARticle 14. Voluntary works besides ouer and aboue Gods Commandements w th they call workes of supererogation cānot be taught with our arrogancy and impiety for by them men doe declare that they doe not onely render vnto God as much as they are bound to doe but that they doe more for his sake then of bounden duty is required whereas Christ saith plainly When yee haue done all that are commanded vnto you say wee are vnprofitable
seruants Though this point touching Euangelical Coūsels may seeme to bee of no great consequence yet to the Romanists it is a point fundamentall for vpon it they build their treasury of superaboundant satisfactions And Leech after hee had first suckt this thinner and purer blood afterwards greedily swallowed the most corrupt and ranke blood of Popery but I hope the Appealers manifold preferments and better hopes will be better councellors to him then to merit by a totall or supererogate to a finall Apostacie from vs to the Pope of Rome Of Reall presence Harmony Church of Rome Counc of Trent Sess. 13. cap. 1. Of the reall presence of our Lord in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist This holy Synode openly and simply professeth That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist after the consecration of Bread Wine That our L. Iesus Christ true God and man is truly really and substantially contained vnder the species or forme of those sensible things Gratian. de consecrat distinct 2. cap. Ego Berengarius is inioyned by Pope Nicholas to recāt in this form I Berengarius doe accurse that heresy wherewith I haue beene heretofore defamed in maintaining that the bread and wine after the consecration are onely a Sacrament and not the true body and blood of Christ. And that the true body and blood of Christ cannot be sensibly handled by the Priests or broken or chewed with the teeth of the faithfull but onely in the signe or sacrament thereof And I giue my consent to the holy Church of Rome and Aposto like See and I professe with my tongue and heart that I hold the same faith concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Table which our Lord and holy Father Nicholas and this holy Synod by Euangelicall and Apostolicall authority hath inioyned to be held and hath confirmed vnto me to wit that the bread and wine vpon the Altar after consecration are not onely the sacrament but also the true body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ and that not onely the Sacrament but the body and blood of Christ is in truth sensibly handled and broken by the Priests and eaten with the teeth of the faithfull Bellarmine de Sacramento Eucharist lib. 1. c. 2. The Councell of Trent Sess. 13. teacheth That Christ is in the Sacrament truly and really against the fiction of the Calvinists who will haue Christ to be there so present that he may be apprehended by faith that hee is present to the contemplation of faith though corporally in heauen Bellarm. ibid. The Councell addeth substantially against the Calvinists who say that the body of Christ according to his substance is onely in heauen but according to I know not what virtue and power he floweth from thence to vs. Appealer ANsw. to Gag pag. 253. But that the Diuell bred you vp in a faction and sent you abroad to doe him seruice in maintaining a faction Otherwise acknowledge there is there need be no difference in the point of reall presence Appeal p. 289. Cōcerning this point there need be no difference the disagreement is onely de modo praesentiae Answer to Gagg pag. 253. There is there need bee no difference in the point of reall presence Ibid. pag. 252. We ingenuously confesse That by this Sacrament Christ giueth vs his very body and blood and really and truly performes in vs his promise as for the maner how this inexplicable that vnutterable trans or con wee skill not of Vide supra Appeal pag. 289. In these passages the Appealer differeth from the Church of England in these three things first that he saith There is no difference betweene vs about the reall presence wheras indeed there is a maine difference and most of our Martyrs dyed rather then they would acknowledge the Popish reall presence See the Acts and Monuments Secondly he saith that the manner is vnutterable whereas the Church of England defineth the manner Thirdly in that he saith we skill not of or make matter of transubstantiation or consubstantiatiō wheras the Church of England expresly condemneth transubstantiation as a grosse and dangerous error Discord Church of Engl. ARticle 28. The body of Christ is giuen taken and eaten in the Supper onely after a heauenly and spirituall manner And the meane wherby the body of Christ is eaten and receiued in the Supper is Faith Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proued by holy Writ but is repugnant to the plaine word of Scripture ouerthroweth the nature of a Sacramēt and hath giuen occasion to many superstitions Iuel Artic. 5. of the reall presence pag. 238. We seeke Christ aboue in heauen and imagine not him to be bodily present vpon the earth The body of Christ is to be eaten by faith onely and no otherwise And in this last point appeareth a notable difference between vs and M. Harding for we place Christ in the heart according to the doctrine of Saint Paul Mr. Harding placeth him in the mouth We say Christ is eaten onely by faith Master Harding saith hee is eatē with the mouth and teeth Article 28. The body of Christ is giuen taken and eaten in the Supper onely after an heauenly and spirituall manner the meane wherby the body of Christ is receiued and eaten in the supper is faith Transubstantiation is repugnant to Scripture ouerthroweth the nature of a Sacrament The Appealer seemes to bee one of the Bonhommes who in a jejune Lent-discourse durst openly bid defiance to the Article of our Church saying I abhorre them that teach Christ to be in the Sacrament onely by faith for hee is not there because wee beleeue but wee beleeue because he is there present If this be a good beleefe and doctrine That Christ is otherwise present in the Sacrament then to the hearts of beleeuers and that by faith onely let the Appealers poore Woodcocke or Catholike Cockscombe pag. 251. tell vs what he taketh to be the meaning of S. Austin in those words qui credit edit or if he cannot do that yeeld a reason why Rats and Mice may not eate the very body of Christ. Of Images Harmony Church of Rome COunc. of Trent Sess. 25. p. 290 The Images of Christ the Virgin mother of God of other Saints are to be had retained in Tēples especially and due honour and veneration is to bee giuen vnto them Because the honour which is to be exhibited to them is referred to the prototype or sampler so that by the images which we kisse and before which we put off our hats and lye downe wee adore Christ and the Saints whose Images they beare Bellarmine of the Images of Saints lib. 2. c. 21. Images by themselues properly are to be worshipped Ibid. cap. 22. We must not say That the supreme worship called Latria is due to Images but on the contrary wee ought to say that they ought not so to be adored Bellarmin ibid. cap. 9. lib. 2.
vtterly forsaken the catholike faith Therefore the present church of Rome is vndoubtedly diuerse from the ancient true church of Christ. The first proposition is most euident the second proposition is verbatim in the Apology of the Church of England part 5. ch 16. Diu. 1. and part 6. ch 22. Diuis 2. This Apology of the Church of England as it beareth the name so it hath euer beene accounted the Doctrine of the Church of England When it was first printed in the daies of Queene Elizabeth it was commanded to bee had in all Churches and since was reprinted with the like command to be had in euery Parish Church in this Kingdome in the yeare of our Lord 1611. by our late Soueraigne King Iames who gaue a most singular testimony and approbation of Bishop Iewels workes for the most rare and admirable that haue beene written in this last age of the world and also gaue speciall direction to the late Archbishop of Canterbury Bishop Bancroft to appoint some one to write his the said Bishops life in English and prefixe it to his workes which accordingly is done in the last edition Secondly I proue it thus Whatsoeuer Church is fallen away from Christ his Kingdome and Doctrine is not the same with but diuerse from the ancient vndoubted church of Christ. The present church of Rome is fallen away from Christ his Kingdome and Doctrine Therefore the present church of Rome is not the same with but diuerse from the ancient vndoubted church of Christ. The first proposition cannot bee denied the assumption is the Appealers Appeale pag. 149. In Apostasie the Turke and Pope are both interessed both are departed away whether wee take that apostacie to bee a departing away from Christ and his Kingdome and his Doctrine or whether wee vnderstand apostacie and defection from the Romane Empire c. page 150. Thirdly I proue it thus No Church maintaining practising Idolatry can be the same with the ancient Church that worshipped God in spirit and truth The present Church of Rome maintaineth and practiseth idolatry Therefore the present Church of Rome cannot be the same with the ancient Church that worshipped God in spirit and truth The first proposition is the Apostles 2 Cor. 6. 16. what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols The assumption is proued at large in the Homily against the perill of Idolatry confirmed to bee the Doctrine of the Church of England Artic. 35. The Homilies and by name the Homily the second against perill of idolatry containeth godly and wholesome doctrine If godly and wholesome Doctrine then certainely true Fourthly it is a dangerous error to affirme as the Appealer doth Answer to Gagge page 50. That the present Church of Rome remaineth Christi Ecclesia et Sponsa Christs Church and Spouse That God hath his Church euen in Rome we doe not deny but that the present Romane Church specially since the Councell of Trent holding the cursing and accursed Canons of that Conuenticle or that the Papacy that is the Pope with his Clergy and their adherents are Christs Church and Spouse the Appealer is the first Protestant that euer for ought I know affirmed it Iunius whom he alleadgeth Appeale pag. 113. to this purpose in his booke De Ecclesiâ is so farre from supporting his assertion that in the same booke hee quite ouerthroweth it his words are pag. 60. 61. Ecclesiamultis seculis fuit cùm Papatus non esset accessit ei Papatus contingenter sic ab ea separabilis ut hoc etiam tempore Ecclesiae sint ubi Papatus non est sine Papatu deinceps futurae sint Papatus igitur non est Ecclesia sed in Ecclesiâ est adnatum malu◠pestis hydrops gangraena in corpore vitae atque saluti ejus insidians ideoque succum vitalem salutarémque Ecclesiae depascens quà m infestissimè The Church of God was many ages when there was no Papacy at all as at this day also there are Churches where there is no Papacy and will be hereafter without the Papacy The Papacy therefore is not the Church but a disease or botch growne to or in the Church a plague a dropsy a gangreene in the body indangering the health feeding vpon and infesting the healthfull moisture and vitall blood of the Church And within a few lines after in the same page follow the words on which the Appealer wholly relyeth Appeale page 113. The Papall Church saith Franciscus Iunius neither Papist nor Arminian quâ id habet in se quod ad Ecclesiae definitionem pertinet est Ecclesia As it hath that in it which belongs to the definition of a Church is a Church Why doth the Appealer stop in the middle of a sentence why doth he not goe on to the full period the sentence is yet but lame he hath put out but the left legge I will put out the right legge for him wherewith Iunius giues Popery a kicke and trips vp the Appealers heeles Qud vero habet in se adnatum malum quod Papalitatem dicimus eo respectu Ecclesia non est sed vitiata atque corrupta Ecclesia ad interitum tendens But the Church of Rome as it hath a disease or euill growne to it which we call the Papacy in that respect it is not the Church but a vitiate and corrupt church and tending to ruine Note here Reader in the Appealers defence of Popery a tricke of Popery to cite sentences by halfes alleadging onely that which in shew makes for them and concealing that which in truth makes against them The meaning of the whole sentence of Iunius is cleare enough for vs and against the Appealer to wit that the Church of Rome so farre as it is Protestant and holdeth some fundamentall truths agreeable to the Scriptures is a Church but as it is Popish and addeth many errors to those truths consequently subuerting those very truths it holdeth it is no Church Which I thus proue No Spouse or true church of Christ is in part or in whole that Antichrist or whore of Babylon The present church of Rome as it is taken for the Papacy or Popish state thereof is in part as the Appealer confesseth Appeale pag. 149. or in whole as many Pillars of our Church haue taught that Antichrist or whore of Babylon Therefore the present church of Rome as it is taken for the Papacy or popish state thereof is no Spouse nor true church of christ I haue heard that the Appealer in a late conference wherein this passage on which I haue so long insisted was obiected against him should stand at this ward answering for himselfe that these words praesens Ecclesia Romana eodem fundamento doctrinae Sacramentorum firma semper constitit c. manet enim Christi Ecclesia Sponsa Answ. to Gag page 50. were not his owne words but the words of Cassander This his ward will not keepe off the blow For first