He loueth vs maketh his aboad with vs as in his holy temple In this we know that he abydeth in vs by his spirit which he hath giuen vs. He that abydeth in charity abydeth in God and God in him where he speaketh not of weake or impure but of complete and perfect charity For it followeth in the next verse In this is charity perfected with vs that we may haue confidence in the day of iudgment Besides Thinke you also that you are dead truly to sinne but aliue to God in Christ Iesus our Lord. Therefore S. Augustine often calleth the Holy Ghost dwelling in vs or his charity diffused into our harts the Life of our soule by which we truely liue to God 11. Fiftly it aduanceth vs to the dignity of Gods children You haue receaued the spirit of adoption of sonnes wherin we cry Abba Father Againe See what manner of Charity the Rom. S. v. 15. â— Ioan. c. 3. v. 1. Father hath giuen vs that we should be named and be the sonnes of God To which end S. Iohn Damascen declareth how God infuseth into our soules certaine diuine and supernaturall qualityes wherby we receaue a diuine and supernaturall kind of being are partakers of the diuine nature preferred to be Gods and children of the highest Neither is there any former Ioan. Damas l. 4. de fide c. 4. Rom. 8. v. 9. Ephes 1. v. 14. Rom. 8. v. 17. Tit. 3 v. 5. 6. 7. cause of our vnion with God whereof this spirit of adoption may be tearmed an effect for S. Paul sayth If any man haue not the spirit of Christ the same is not this by any thing whatsoeuer going before Hence we deduce the sixth prerogatiue of this inward renouation that is our clayme to the kingdome of heauen therefore it is tearmed pignus haereditatis the pledge of our inheritance because the sanctity grace which the holy Ghost worketh in vs affoardeth a certaine hope and morall assurance of our future glory as the Apostle by way of gradation excellently argueth in this manner If sonnes heires also heires truely of God and coheirs of Christ. Likewise God according to his mercy hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and renouation of the Holy Ghost whome he hath powred vpon vs abundantly by Iesus Christ our Sauiour that being iustifyed by his grace we may be heyres according to hope of life euerlasting 12. Peruse these wordes O yee Sectaryes ponder the sense and meaning of them and stoop at length to the voice of truth so often sounded forth by this great Apople and trympet of heauen for he sayth 1. That we are Ahundâ— Grecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hieron saued by this benefit of renouation but nothing can be the formall cause of our saluation but true and perfect iustice Therefore we are made by the grace of Baptisme perfectly iust 2. Not outwardly by imputation but inwardly by the holy Ghost powred vpon vs. 3. And that not sparingly by peece-meale but abundantly richely or bountifully as the Greeke largly or copiously as S. Hierome readeth 4. And to no other effect then that iustifyed by his inward grace we may be heires in hope of life euerlasting And S. Iohn concludeth that without this renouation No man can enter the Kingdome of heauen signifying thereby that it is Ioan. 3. â— 5. not the effect or signe without which we might enter but the true cause of our entrance not weake and halting but true and entiere iustice because it is true iustice sayth S. Augustine to which eternall life is due 13. The last priuiledge ariseth from the former that Augu. ep 205. paulo ante medium ui debetur vita aeternaver a iustitia est Rom. 8. v. 20. 11. Aug. l. de spir lit cap. 29. it purchaseth also the resurrection of our bodyes and crowne of our eternall felicity If Christ be in you the body indeed is dead because of sinne but the spirit liueth because of iustification And he that rayseth vp Iesus Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortall bodyes because of his spirit dwelling in you Note this causall addition because of the spirit dwelling in you which S. Augustine aduisedly obserueth and accounteth our Resurrection in flesh to immortality meritum spiritus a deseruing of the spirit which goeth before it in iustification as in a meete conuenient and congruous resurrection So that two wayes it doth properly merit the glory of immortality both for that it is giuen before hand as a pledge earnest Ioan. 4. v. 14. Cyril in â—um loc Theoph. ibid. or right thereunto supposing the benignity and promise of God as also because it doth produce good workes which do condignely deserue and augment the same therefore called by S. Iolm according to S. Cyrils and Theophilacts interpretation a fountaine of water spriging vp to life euerlasting that is a celestiall fountaine of purifying grace copious in it selfe and ouer flowing with the riuers VVhitaker in his answere to 8. â—â—ason of M. Campâ—on and in his â— booke against Iâ—â—raus Abbos in â—is defence â— 4. sect 3. of sundry vertues which wafte vs to the haueÌ„ of eternal rest But if all this be not sufficient to iustify vs before God what is required to atchieue that happines heere vpon earth if the diuine grace and supernaturall quality which worketh in vs all the forenamed effects be not gratefull and pleasing in the eyes of our Soueraigne What I pray you is acceptable vnto him Marry sayth Whitaker and M. Abbot that which is so perfect as satisfyeth the law of God I see your windings first you answered that the grace which inhabiteth in vs is defiled Then that it is not perfect not iustifying grace at least not such as iustifyeth vs in the sight of God Now not such as satisfyeth fullfilleth the law Well you trauerse much ground but to little purpose for S. Paul S. Augustine and diuers others manifestly teach that by this grace of Christ by the sweetnes of hiâ— loue we fullfill the law of God which by feare and terror we neuer could do whose testimonyes I shall alleadge in the Controuersy of keeping the Commandments intreating my Reader to peruse them there whilst I pursue my victory and follow the chased enemy retyring now for succour to the castle of holy Scripture where Whitaker VVhitak in his answere to 8. reason of M. Camp fol. 224. 2. ad Cor. 5. vers â—1 Calu. l. 3. instit c. â—◠§. 230. seeketh to fortify himselfe with that saying of S. Paul Christ was made sinne for vs that we might be made the righteousnes of God in him Heerupon he inferreth that seeing Christ was not truly really made sin for vs but by imputatioÌ„ so we are no otherwise made righteousnes in him which argument Caluin also most eagerly presseth reserueth as his vnconquerable or last refuge in the Rereward of his obiections yet it is preseÌ„tly at
ashes no clowd of sinne can depriue the iustifyed person of his right to heauen which do not dismantle him of the robe of Iustice Answere therfore heereunto what you list escape you cannot vnles you leape into some detestable heresy 6. My fourth argument is when the Protestant perswades himselfe or vndoubtedly beleeues the remission of his sinnes either he hath his sinne by that act of fayth remitted before or after he that sayth it is after alloweth his precedent perswasion to be false and deceitfull beleeuing the forgiuenes of his sinnes which then was not he that will haue it before admitteth a remission of sinnes and consequently a true iustification before his beliefe which cannot be for without Fayth it is impossible to please God he who holdeth that his beliefe causeth the remission which it beleeueth will haue his beliefe Gab. Vas in 1. 2. disp 110. c. 3. and knowledge so omnipotent as to make the obiect which it knoweth the mystery it beleueth as if a man by beleeuing himselfe to be a great Lawyer a great Physitian a great Deuine should endow himselfe with the Aug. l. 4. de Genes ad lit c. 32. perfect knowledge of Law Phisicke and Diuinity wherein they seeme to surpasse the nature of God whose knowledge being most efficacious and practicall yet it followeth as Gabriel Vasquez teacheth the obiect it knoweth according to the posteriority of vnderstanding It followeth I say in affirming or knowing it to be true In which sense S. Augustine teacheth that no knowledge can be vnles things knowne precede and we may auow that no fayth can be vnles it first presuppose the article beleeued for as our knowledge is true or false because the obiect we know is such so our beliefe is certaine and vndoubted because the thing is infallible which we beleeue 7. M. Field beholding the ruines this Cannon-shot makes in the walls of their perfidious and faythles perswasion rayseth the engines of his wit to diuert the battery and annoyance thereof and first proposeth the argument thus When men begin to beleeue either they are iust and then their fayth iustifyeth them not being in nature after their iustification Field in his 3. booke of the Church c. 44. or els they are not iust then speciall fayth making a man beleeue he is iust is false and so man is iustifyed by alye To this horned argument we answere sayth he that speciall fayth hath sundry acts but to this purpose specially two the one by way of petition humbly intreating for acceptation and fauour the other in the nature of comfortable assurance consisting in a perswasion that that is graunted which was desired Fayth by her first act obtayneth and worketh our iustification and doth not find vs iust when we begin to beleeue by her second act she doth not actiuely iustify S. Thom. 1. 2. q. 83. â—â—t 3. but finding the thing done certifyeth assureth vs of it c. So then quoth he fayth in her first act is before the iustification procureth or obtayneth it Hitherto M. Feild and very profoundly without doubt distinguisheth fayth into two acts whereof the first he mentioneth is no act of Fayth but a prayer or petition humbly intreating for acceptatioÌ„ Fulk in c. 2. Iacobi sect 9. circa finem Abbot in his defence cap. 4. fol. 487. and fauour which properly as S. Thomas proueth is an act of Religion as much different from fayth as a man from a Calfe And the second seemeth rather to be an assured confidence of the will then any supernatural assent of the vnderstanding in which Fayth consisteth But these thinges I let passe The opposition heere he maketh against his owne adherents the contradicting of Doctour Fulke the ouertwharting of M. Abbot the impugning of another principall and generall article of Protestancy is more remarkable then a priuate absurdity or ignorance of his For to affirme That fayth by way of petition humbly intreâ—â—eth for fauour obtaineth and worketh our iustification and doth not find vs iust is to graunt a certaine kind of preparation congruency merit or disposition to go before the life of grace and iustification of our soules which how earnestly M. Fulke and Doctour Abbot gainesay I haue declared and refuted in the precedent Controuersy Then it is opposite to that common principle which Protestantes maintaine That the captiued will of man concurreth passiuely only to his iustification vntill he be truely iustifyed in Christ. Howbeit M. Field heer teacheth this petition to obtaine to procure to worke our iustification before it be effected which M. Abbot writing against our preparatiue workes of prayer and petition reproueth thus There can be no true prayer without the spirit of grace without the spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Abbot c. 4. sect 20. fol. 4 â— Father the spirit of adoption and grace is the spirit of sanctification It followeth then that we pray not but by being first sanctifyed and because sanctification is consequent to iustification it must follow also that iustification must go before prayer Hitherto he warring against M. Feild one Sectary against another as Esay prophesyed of them saying I will make the Aegyptians to run togeather against the Aegyptians a man shall fight against his brother euery man against his friend But I will not further exaggerate these horrible breaches betweene him Isa 29. v. his fellowes I will not intreate M. Field to reconcile his assertion with their other fornamed principles I only desire him to tell me whether the petition which worketh our iustification and doth not find vs iust be in his opinion an act of true iustifying fayth or no Let him answere that it is and he yieldeth that fayth alone doth not iustify he yieldeth this first act to be an act of true fayth and yet that it doth only impetrate and procure iustice and not make vs formerly iust but if the first act of true fayth doth not iustify neither can the second or third or any other ensuing act affoard that benefit for they being all and euery one of the same speciall nature they hauing all the same essentiall forme that effect which in no degree is performed by one cannot be effected by any other except they dreame that one the same vertue should consist of diuers essentiall formes and so by diuers actes yield diuers formall effects which very nature it selfe and euery Puny in Philosophy will condemne of implicancy and contradiction 8. Let him deny it to be an act of iustifying fayth and he denyeth his owne diuision of speciall fayth into sundry acts he deludeth our argument proposed not of any other vertue but of their speciall fayth and of the first act thereof which can be but one and of that one it proceeds whether iustification be before it after it or caused by it as is vrged aboue 9. Againe supposing these two actes into which he brancheth his speciall fayth how is
Conference of originall texts the promise which Christ made the institution of a Sacrament the establishment of a Law the enacting of his last Will and Testament conuince as I say a most true and proper kind of speach 11. Yet because some Protestants challenge vs to assigne a disparity why there should not be Transubstantiation Ioan. 15. v. 1. when he said I am a Vine as well as when he said This is my Body I assigne these differences First TransubstaÌ„tiation is a passage froÌ„ one substance into another which supposeth two substances to be and one to loose his being by incompossibility with the other So in my present case there are two substances Bread and the Body of Christ and the one by Consecration is changed into the other but when Christ said I am the Dore I am the true Vine there is one only substance For the Vine the Dore doth not signifie any other Dore then Christ himselfe He is that spirituall Dore that true spirituall Vine to whom some propertie of the corporall Vine and Dore in a most eminent degree belongeth And therefore here it is impossible any Transubstantiation should be 12. Further S. Augustine giueth this rule to discerne a Aug. l. 3. de doct Christ c. 10 Vnum disparatum non potest de alto praedicari figuratiue speach from a proper when that which is spoken in Holy Writ Cannot properly be referred either to honesty of manners or verity of faith it is be expounded figuratiuely But it is repugnant to reason that one substance should be properly affirmed of another much more so many different substances verified of Christ as he is said to be a Vine a Dore a Shepheard and such like Repugnant to faith that the Sonne of God should be changed into the Vine which groweth in the field I am the Lord saith Malachy and am Mala. 3. v. 6. not changed Dishonorable to God to change the noblest creature that euer was the humanity of our Sauiour Christ into so ignoble as a Vine or Dore. Disagreable to the vvordes themselues for in this proposition I am the Vine Christ is auouched to be therfore he cannot by transubstantiation at the same time loose his being And yet at our Lords supper not one of these incoÌ„ueniences follow Heere one different thing is not verifyed of the other but that which the Pronowne this doth in generall inderminatly demonstrate vnder the formes of bread is particulerly specifyed when the complete signification of the wordes is indeed to be the body of Christ Moreouer this change is possible for bread was often changed into the flesh and wine into the bloud of Christ when he was nourished vpon earth This change is honorable to God of worse to better of an ignoble thing into a most noble of common bread in to the bread of life into the immaculate flesh of the Sonne of God In this bread is not sayd to reserue any being but another substance that is to say Christs body and bloud sustayning the accidents of bread and wine by reason whereof they loose their being Such and many other reasons there are of Transubstantiation in the one and not in the other 13. M. Sparks presseth vs with that maine obiection their chiefe Achilles It is the spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing Nothing indeed Then the word to become Sparks p. 109. Io. 6. Aug. tra 27. in Io. Cyr. ad â—uo Cyr. in Io. l. 4. c. 23. Conc. Eph. anath 11. Aug. 27. in Ioan in Psal 98. Chrys in hunc loc Orig. l. 3. ep ad Rom Aug. locis citatis flesh benefiteth nothing Then the flesh of Christ crucifyed buryed reuiued what doth it auaile vs The sense therefore of these words is that the Capharnaites grosse and carnall vnderstanding of them profited nothing For they imagined they should eate dead flesh the flesh of a meere man depriued of the life soule diuinity as Nestorius also weened of which flesh our Sauiour pronounced that it profiteth nothing But it is the Word and Spirit of God in the flesh that quickneth and giueth life as S. Cyril against Nestorius S. Augustine and the Ephesine Councell declare Secondly they thought that Christ would cut in peeces sayth the same S. Augustine and mangle his owne flesh and so giue vs to eate as it is commonly sould in the Butchers shambles Which rude and sauage conceite our Sauiour also reiected as togeather with him S. Chrysostome Origen and others obserue As though he speaking to their thoughts had sayd The flesh after that manner profiteth nothing It is the spirit that quickneth to wit a more diuine spirituall and sacramentall manner of eating his flesh affoardeth vs the fruit of eternall life 14. Our Opponents at length not able to find any footing in Scripture take hold of the Fathers quoting many passages wherin the Sacrament is called A remembrance a signe a figure of Christs body therefore not his true body The like oposition Apollinaris and Marcion made against the humanity Sparks p. 110. seq Bils 4. par p. 716. 717 of Christ That he was made according to the similitude â—hape and likenesse of man The like others framed against his diuinity that S. Paul intitleth him The Image of God the Character or figure of his Fathers substance But as both we Phil. 2. v. 7. Col. 1. v. 15. Haeb. 1. v. 3. Orig. in c. 15. Matt. Aug. câ—t Adaman 12. l. 3. de Trin. c. 4. Basil in his Liturgy Nazi ora in Gorg. Macar hom 27. Theod. in dialog 1. Aug. in Psal 98. Aug. l. 5. de doct Christ c. 13 Facinus est tract 25. in Io. and you reply hereunto that Christ had the likenesse of man and was a true and perfect man was the image of God yet true God the figure of his Fathers substance and the substance it selfe so I say the Eucharist is a commemoration and signe of Christs body and also his true and naturall body It is a signe in respect of the externall and visible elements which do not promise grace absent only as our Sectaryes teach but containe the Authour of grace and body of our Lord inuisibly present as Origen Augustine and all others auouch 15. Againe not only the outward formes but the body of Christ as vnder them is a Sacrament Image or Signe of his body as offered on the Crosse For although it be the same body in substance yet not in shew and appearance not endued with the same qualities of extension passibility circumscription c. In this sense S. Basill S. Gregory Nazianzen Macharius Theodoret call it an Image a Figure In this sense S. Augustine writeth Not that body which you see shall you eat nor drinke that bloud which shall be shed by them that crucifie me That is not that body in such a carnall palpable and bloudy sort For this in his booke of Christian Doctrine he counteth an hainous and barbarous fact
Figura ergo est It is therefore a figure It is a Sacrament because albeit the same body be really eaten the same bloud really drunke yet in a mystery in a figure in a Sacrament after a sweet spirituall and vnbloudy manner 16. Nay S. Augustine as our Sacramentaries contend saith What doest thou prepare thy teeth and belly Beleeue and thou hast eaten True he writeth there of the spirituall eating of Christ the bread of life by faith beleefe onely he had not begun to discourse of the Sacrament or Sacramentall eating At least after say they he speaketh of the Sacrament yet vseth these wordes He that feedeâ—h wiâ—h Aug. tra 2â— in Io. the hart not he that grindeth with the tooth True not he that grindeth only can partake the fruit of this Sacrament he that feedeth with hart without corporall eating may benefit himself but he that corporally eateth without faith can receaue no profit at all They vrge againe that S. Aug. tra 59. 2â— in Ioan. Augustine sayth The Apostles eat the bread our Lord Iudas the bread of our Lord. And in another place he denyeth The wicked to eate the body of Christ. Most true He denyeth theÌ„ to eate the bread our Lord or to feed of his body because they are not incorporated in his mysticall body Or because they do it not fruitfully by grace to the benefit Psalm â—â— Augu. de Bapt cont Donatist l. 9. â— 8. con Pulgent c. 6. cont lit Petil. l. 2. c. 20. c. 55. Biâ—s 4. pâ— pag. 772. 773. 774. 776. of their soules as King Dauid sayth The wicked shall not rise in Iudgment Because they shall not rise to saluation but to damnation Otherwise S. Augustine graunteth that Iudas did and the wicked do truely eaâ—e the body of Christ in his booke of Baptisme against the Donatists against Fulgentius and against the letters of Petilian 17. In summe many Fathers obiected by M. Bilson exhort vs to eate the Sacrament by fayth to cleanse our soules prepare our harts they call it spirituall food the bread of the mind and not of the belly no bodily but ghostly meat the proper nourishment of the spirit All most true for a liuely fayth a cleane soule a pure hart are necessarily required in the worthy receauer and the purer he approacheth the more plenty he receaueth of Gods heauenly graces Then it is stiled spirituall food ghostly meate the bread of the mind the proper nourishment of the spirit because the spirituall repast and refection Cyr. Alex l. 10. in Ioan. c. 13. of our mind the perfect vigour and increase of spirit is the chiefe and most soueraigne effect of this diuine banquet Neuertheles it excludeth not as S. Cyrill noteth but presupposeth the corporall from which as from the fountaine and sea of grace the spirituall is deriued Our Aduersaryes reply The Fathers exclude it by certaine negatiue tearmes which they vse calling it No bodily but Ghostly meate the bread of the mind and not of the belly They call it so indeed and speake in the Scriptures phrase euen as Almighty God spake when he sayd I will mercy and not sacrifice yet thereby he neither excluded Ose 6. v. 6. Matth. 9. v. 13. nor forbad sacrifice which himselfe prescribed exacted and commanded but only preferred mercy as an act of charity more acceptable vnto him So the Fathers by the like words exclude not the bodily but preferre the ghostly as the dayntiest food of our soules Or they deny it to be any bodily sustenance as bodily is commonly taken for that which is opposite to ghostly This is not so this is both bodily and ghostly both spirituall corporall meate this relisheth the mouth and cheereth the hart quickneth the body and refresheth the soule Therefore it is not a meere corporall but a spiritual dainty because it hath a spirituall manner of being is seasoned with spirituall qualityes affoardeth all spirituall comfort and is principally ordained to our spirituall nourishment For the flesh as Tertullian writeth is fed Tertul. l. de resurr carnis with the body and bloud of Christ that the soule may be fattened with God 18. And if Protestants would be as ready to defend as they are to cauill at the former sayinges they might learne by the like speaches which the Apostle vseth how to explaine the Fathers wordes for as they call the body of Christ in the Sacrament spiritual so he the body which 1. Cor. 15. v. 44. shall rise in the later day It is sowen a naturall body it shal ryse a spirituall body as they account it a barbarous and sauage thing to eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of Ibid. v. 50. Christ so he a thing impossible that flesh and bloud can possesse the kingdome of God as S. Augustine sayth Not that Ibid. v. 37. body which you see shall you eate c. so he not the body that shall be dost thou sow Which place togeather with the former Eutichius vrged against the corporall resurrection of our flesh with no lesse colourable pretense then Sectaryes do the precedent sayings against the bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament But as they are constrained vnles they deny that article of our fayth with S. Gregory and other of our Deuines to construe S. Pauls meaning Greg. lib. 4. in lob c. 32. 33. that the body which ryseth shall be both spirituall and corporall spirituall by reason of the glorious dowryes it shall receaue and corporall in respect of the true and tractable substance it shall still retaine That flesh and bloud according to humane misery and corruption cannot possesse the Kingdome of God but according to immortality and corruption that not the body which is sowed shall rise but another another in quality the same in substance another in perfection of glory the same in property and condition of nature another in powerfull vertue the same in corporall verity another in manner and forme the same in realty and essence of being Apply the like constructions to the fornamed sentences written against the reall presence and you shall rightly expound those learned writers and soundly answere your owne obiections 19. To conclude when these new-fangled teachers with no euidence of Scripture or sentence of Father can disproue the truth of our doctrine they fall to their accustomed Pulk in c. 6. Io. sect 13. Bils 4 par pag. 791. Ambr. l. 30 de Spirit sanct c. 12. Aug. in Pâ—al 24. in 1. Cor. Bils 4. par p. 710. c. rayling They tearme vs Capharnaites Vbiquitaries Idolaters c. whereas we detest the inhumane grosse imagination of the Capharnaites condemne the Vbiquity or euery where being of Christ adore not with diuine honor as M. Bilson is pleased to impose vpon vs the elements of bread and wine but we adore to vse S. Ambrose words the flesh of Christ in the mysteries That flesh which â—ce man eateth as S. Augustine
Euch. Saâ— lib. 3. c. 5. tops of mountaines Rabi Achilas There shal be substantiall Bread in the earth in the heads of Mountaines And Rabbi Ionathas The Cake of Bread shal be made a sacrifice on the heades of Priests which are in the Church A plaine description of our sacred Host which vnder the formes of bread our Priests reuerently lift aboue their heades to shew vnto the people 15. Malachy also most plainly prophesyeth of this vnspotted sacrifice saying From the rysing of the sunne euen to the setting my name is great amongst Gentils In euery place there is sacrifyced and offered vnto my name a cleane Oblation This testimony so cleare M. Reynoldes and M. Bilson hide and ouercast with the misty construction of spirituall sacrifices which cloud Cardinall Allen our famous Country-man with many reasons vnanswerable and authorityes of Fathers irrefragable strongly repâ—â—â—â—th and dissolueth wholy First because spirituall sacrifices are many this one Secondly they succeeded not the offerings of the old Law this doth Thirdly they common to the Iewes this proper to the Gentils Fourthly they are named in Scripture with addition or limitation as the Sacrifice of Prayse of Iustice of Contrition c. this without any abridging tearme is sayd to be sacrifyced to be offered in true and proper sense as the Hebrew word in that place manifestly proueth where insteed of Oblatio it is Minchah which alwayes signifyeth a proper Sacrifice or guift of homage and is neuer taken in Scripture for an improper Oblation such as prayers and other spirituall good deeds are Fifthly they euen our best and purest works in the erroneous perswasion of our Aduersaryes are soule and defiled in the sight of God tainted with the corruption of our sinnefull Natures this so faire as the Prophet honoureth it with the Epitheâ—e of A cleane Oblation so pleasing to God as he glorifyeth in it aboue all the Hosts and Holocausts of the Leuiticall Law 16. M. Reynolds albeit he ouerflorish the former reasons Reyn. c. 8. diuis 4. p. 527. with some shew of answer yet heere in this last he sticketh so pittifully grauelled as one while he auoucheth our best deeds not to be vncleane things but vnperfectâ—y cleane defiled with the staynes of vncleanes uillingly yet weakly done lesse perfect not absolutly vnpersect And in the page notwithstanding immediatly before he granteth them so faulty as they transgresse the Commandements of God so muddy as they make vs guilty of the whole breach of the law What Reyn. Ibid. 526. strang Paradoxes What positions be these Who did euer heare of a worke in it selfe vncleane taught to be stayned with the remnant of vncleanes A dy wholy black said to be coloured with the spots of blacknesse For of what vncleanes do we speake but of that spirituall vncleanes which is displeasing vnto God Wherefore if the spots with which our holiest actions are infected be not veniall as your selues say but mortall and deadly crimes if they be such deepe transgressions As they make vs guilty of the whole breach of the law They are not weakly but wickedly done not imperfectly fayre but absolutely soule not partly festered but wholly cankered with the contagion of sinne worthy to be hated vnworthy to be practised farre vnworthy M. Reynolds to betoken that cleane Oblation which cannot receiue the least taint of Chrys in com Ps 95. Eus de demons l. 1. c. 9. prop. fin c. 6. circa medium Calu. l. de ver Eccles refor â—irca medium habetur ille liber inter eius tract theo Iren. Athan Ambros Augu. Arnobius proue out of Scripture the Sacrifice of the Masse as Caluin confesseth See Baron in Annal. an Christi 44 nu 28. Bed l. 4. bist c. 14. Abdias in bist eius Philact ex lit Praesb Acha. S. Athan S. Basil S. Chrysost in their litur Cyp Ep ... extat haec S. Cornel. Ep. com 1. â—ibl Sanct. Conc. Vas 2. cap. 3. Plin. l. 3 c 4. Ptol. lib. 2. cap. 10. In eodem Concil Vasens 2. c. 4. corruption not from it selfe not from the impurity of the vngracious Minister Such is the diuine dreadfull most holy Sacrifice of the Masse to which only the Prophet alludeth as the Fathersteach 17. S. Chrysostome citing these wordes of Malachy saith Behold how excellently how perspicuously he hath set forth describeth the Mysticall Table which is the vnbloudy Host Eusebius alleadging the same place addeth We sacrifice after a new mammer according to the new Testament a pure Host for which he declareth there a new law to be ueedfull Altars to be erected not in Iury only but in euery Country S. Irenaeus I need not produce because Caluin the chiefe Patriarke and piller of Protestancy acknowledgeth him to expound this passage of the Sacrifice of the Masse as S. Athanasius S. Ambrose S. Augustine Arnobius likewise doe according to him the former of Melchisedech by his words you may gesse of his intemperate spirit therefore I heer insert them It is vsuall with these knaues so the foule-mouthed Runnegate miscalleth our Catholike writers to scrape togeather whatsoeuer is vnsound or corrupted in the Fathers c. Wherefore when they obiect the place of Malachie to be expounded of the Sacrifice of the Masse by Irenaeus the oblation of Melchisedech to be so handled by Athanasius Ambrose Augustine Arnobius it is briefly answered those selfe same writers otherwhere also interprete the bread to be the body of Christ but so ridiculously that both reason and truth maketh me dissent If this be to refute not confirme our doctrine let the Reader iudge when such and so many substantial witnesses some within the 3. some within the 4. all within the 5. hundred yeares after Christ are confessed by one of the chiefest Protosectaries of our time to mantain in two fundameÌ„tal points the same which we defend with whom the Apostles themselues and Pastours of the Church in all ages haue agreed 18. For did not S. Peter as the ancient authenticall tradition deliuereth say Masse as Naples Did not he and S. Paul both appeering to an holy man of our Country command Masses to be sayd in the feast of S. Oswald our vertuous King as venerable Bede reporteth Was not S. Mathew barbarously slaine Sacrificing at the Altar Did not S. Andrew say Masse S. Iames did not he write a Liâ—urgy or Masse S. Athanasius S. Basil S. Chrysostome did they not compose the like Did not the Priests in S. Cyprians tyme say Masse in prison Doth not Cornelius Bishop of Rome complaine the presecution was so cruell in his tyme aboue 254. yeares after Chist that they could not say Masses neyther in publike nor in the priuate grottes caues vnder groud Was it not decreed in the second prouinciall Councell of Vase a towne in France wherof Plinie and Ptolemy make mention celebrated the yeare of our Lord 444. that Kyrie eleison should be sayd at Masse in the Churches of France as
he was heard and reuerenced of his Father 9. Heere some learned Protestant may obiect That the person of the Sonne of God was the party offended therfore it could not satisfy but must be satisfyed by the submission of another I answere with Suarez the person of the Sonne of God may be considered two wayes either as it is all one by Identity with the nature of God or as it supporteth the nature of man In the former sense he is the party offended and must be pacifyed in the latter he is our Priest Mediatour and he that pacifyeth because the operations he worketh by his humanity are only capable of merit and apt to satisfy and not these he produceth by his Diuinity Which maketh M. Fields M. Fulkes and their followers assertion the more detestable who faygne Christ to mediate by both his natures As though he could either merit or satisfy in respect of his Deity or without merit satisfaction discharge his office of Mediation the mistery of our redemption Many other such inuincible reasons may be brought against them 10. For he that mediateth to another vseth some submission and intreaty vnto him to obtaine that he cannot himselfe performe which argueth want and impotency in the mediatour and power or authority in him to whome mediation is made So that if Christ as God sueth and supplicateth to his Father he is as the Arians sayd more impotent then his Father according to his God-head he is a Creature and not God Againe he that maketh mediation must be distinguished from him to whom mediation is made but the diuine nature of Christ is the party offended he that ought to be pacifyed he to whome mediation is made Therefore it cannot be he that maketh mediation For this cause Cardinal Bellarmin inferreth that Christ could not be our Mediatour neither Bellar. l. 5. cap. 5. de Chri. Mediatore according to both his natures seuerally nor ioyntly Not seuerally for the reasons alleadged not ioyntly because though in that sort he differ from the Father the Holy Ghost neither of which is both God and man and from the Sonnes of men who are meerly men yet he differeth not from the Sonne of God who was to be pacifyed neither in nature nor in person 11. D. Field taxeth this as a silly kind of reasoning And he like a silly nouice impertinently or impiously replyeth Field in his 5. booke c. 16 fol. 53. That the Sonne of God incarnate differeth not only from the Father and the holy Ghost but from himselfe as God in that he is man and from men and himselfe as man in that he is God And therefore may mediate not only between the Father and vs men but also betweene himselfe as God and vs miserable and sinnefull men How idle how impertinent is this Do not we graunt Doth not Bellarmine in the same place confesse this difference Bellar. l. 5. c. 3. Do not we acknowledg that Christ doth mediate betweene his Father and vs yea betweene himselfe as God and vs wretched sinners But the question is according to what nature he performes it And you who affirme him to execute it according to both natures should shew how the Diuine nature of Christ which maketh mediation differeth from it selfe to whome mediation is made Assigne no difference and you confound the party satisfying with the party offended you make no satisfaction no mediation at all Assigne a difference you diuide the vnity of God-head you impiously deny the Blessed Trinity The Sonne say you assumed the nature of man which the Father did not True But what Did the Incarnation or assumption of man make any distinction any mutation in the essence of God Is not the diuine nature of the Sonne notwithstanding his Hypostaticall vnion the same with the Fathers the same with the Holy Ghosts Is it not as far distant from vs in the Son Aug. li. 2. de pec orig c. 28. Fulke vbi supra Aug. in Psal 109. Theod. in eumdem Psal Iero. in Psal 109. as it is in the Father As farre distant since as before the incarnation Therefore I conclude with S. Augustine Quomodo erit medietas vbi eadem distantia est How can there be a meane where the same distance still remayneth 12. The like forces we bring against M. Fulke who maketh Christ a Priest in respect of his Godhead For besides the Fathers who directly affirme the contrary besides S. Augustine who sayth As he was man he was Priest as God he was not Priest Theodoret As man he did offer Sacrifice but as God he did receaue Sacrifice S. Hierome Our Lord swore c. Thou art a Priest for euer He swore not to him who before Lucifer was begotten but to him who after Lucifer was borne of the Virgin Besides these authorityes if Christ be a Priest and offer Sacrifice as M. Fulke holdeth according to his Diuinity he is both distinct from his Father and inferiour to him according to his diuinity He doth homage to him as his Lord and supreme soueraigne and sitteth not as the Scripture teacheth on his right hand equall with him in dignity equall in glory power maiesty as the * Atha ser 1. con Arian Bâ—sil l. de Spir. sanct cap. 6. Ambr. l. 1. defide c. 4. c. Doctours commonly interprete that place Nay he is as the †August â—om 6. propos 33. Fulk in c. 5. ad Haeb. sect 4. Field 5. ca. 16. Arians affirmed the Priest and Minister of his Father and not his true and consubstantiall Sonne M. Fulke and M. Field with him seeke to auoyd these blasphemyes by distinguishing the workes of mediation and Priesthood into two sortes into workes of ministery workes of authority Of ministery as to pray to pay the price of our Redemption and by dying to satisfy for sinne Of authority as to enter into the helyest place to reconcile vs vnto God which two D. Fulke expresseth Or to quicken giue life impart the spirit of sanctification to passe all good vnto vs from the Father in the holy Ghost which M. Field specifyeth And then they will haue the workes of ministery to be performed by Christ in his manhood the works of authority in his God-head Such maskes they prepare to hide the face of their monstruos assertion notwithstanding the vgly shape appeareth 13. For heere they first intermingle the ministeriall function of man with the powerfull actions of God To enter into the holyest place to penetrate the heauens which M. Fulke vbi supra Fulke recounteth as a work of authority was if we speak of the action not of the power by which it was done a locall motion and worke of ministery proceeding from man and not from God who is vnchangeable immoueable not entring any place but filling all places with his infinite immensity In like manner the reconciliation which Christ as Mediatour made was the action of his humanity in which sense S.
haeres â—ares 1. Act. 15. Ier. c. 3. epi. ad Aug. quae est 11. inter epist August in detaining that they had vowed vnto God To vanquish the first Peere and Patron of falshood appertained to the first Peere and pillar of truth S. Peter conquered and killed Simon Magus the first Progenitour of Heretickes as S. Augustine auerreth To call and assemble Councels is the office and function of the supreme Pastour S. Peter assembled the Councell of the Apostles And notwithstanding this Councell was held in Ierusalem in the presence of S. Iames Bishop of that Citry euen in his owne Cathedral seat yet S. Peter as S. Hierome noteth first deliuered his mind and S. Iames with the rest ratified his sentence So although S. Paul were the Apostle of the Dionys l de Diui nomi c. 3. Epiph. haer â—â— Bern. l. 2. de consider Cyr. Hieros Cateches â— Cyr. Alex. l. 12. in IoaÌ„ cap. 64. Aug ser 124. de temp quaest nou vet test q. 75. Opta l. 2. cont Par. Ier. l. 1. in Iouin Chrys hom 55. in Mat. Euseb in Chronic. Aug. l. 2. ca. 1. de Baptis Reyn. c. 5. diuis 3. Gentiles and Preacher vnto nations yet S. Peter was the first by whose mouth the Gentils were called the first to whom notice was giuen of their admission vnto the Church Two euident tokens of his supremacy 17. For this cause S. Peter is tearmed The stay pillar and chiefe of Deuines by S. Dionyse The Captaine of the Disciples by Ephiphanius The only Vicar of Christ by S. Bernard The most excellent Prince of the Apostles by S. Cyril of Hierusalem The Prince and head of therest by S. Cyril of Alexandria Which title of head of the Apostles is giuen him also by S. Augustine Optatus S. Hierome S. Chrysostome and others Eusebius also maketh a great difference betweene Peter and other Bishops speaking of S. Iames he calleth him The first Bishop of the Church of Hierusalem Writing of Enodius he tearmeth him the first Bishop of the Church of Antioch Speaking of S. Peter he intituleth not him by any particuler Church but calleth him Christianorum Pontifex Primus The first Bishop of Christians Which S. Augustine confirmeth attributing to him The principality of Apostle-ship and a little before The Primacy of the Apostles is conspicuous and preeminent with excellent grace in Peter Both which passages M. Reynolds sticketh not to expound of Primacy in calling or preeminence in grace wheras S. Augustine directly writeth of his principality of power by reason of the dignity of his Sea aboue all others and aboue S. Cyprians the Primate of Affricke whome notwithstanding he equalleth with him in the Crowne of Martyrdome saying of Peter Who knoweth not his principality of Apostle-ship to be preferred before euery Bishopricke But although the grace or preeminence of Chaires be different yet one and the same is their Aug. vbi supra Reyn. loco citato glory of Martyrdome These wordes M. Reynolds who maketh M. Hart neuer speake more then he was prouided in some shew to refute and sometyme such things as he neuer dreamed cunningly cut off and wresteth that to a prerogatiue of grace to a Primacy of calling which S. Augustine auoucheth to be a priuiledge of S. Peters Sea a preeminence of his Chaire and Pontificall dignity aboue all other Bishops and Primates too Aug. in Psal 130. 18. Secondly S. Augustine affirmeth S. Paul the chief to haue excelled Peter in prerogatiues of grace he witnesseth him to haue receaued more aboundant grace in euery Apostolical worke then the rest of the Apostles because he laboured more then they and therfore is called The a Aug. cont duaâ— ep Pela l. 3 Apostles by an De Bap. cont Don. l. 2. c. 1. excellency In so much as where he giueth to S. Peter the preeminence of b excellent grace he giueth to S. Paul the preeminence of c In Psa 130. Ieron l. 1. aduersus Iouinian Reyn. c. 5. diuis 3. fol. 179. Sap. 4. 8. Tract 1. sect 3. subd 1. most excellent grace And S. Hierome reporteth that S. Iohn excelled Peter in many gifts of grace M. Reynolds foresaw these obiections and will you heare what answere he maketh But Peter sayth he on the other side excelled Paul in Primacy for that he was chosen first and Iohn in age because he was elder Surely an excellent grace an extraordinary preheminence a principality worthy of such high and honourable titles to be before in calling and behind in working elder in yeares and yonger in merits Iudge you and your fellowes of this priuiledge as yee list they who are endued with the spirit of God will giue iudgment with the Holy Ghost Old age is venerable not prolonged not lengthened with the number of yeares for the vnderstanding of man are the gray haires the ripenesse of yeares is life vndefiled 19. Other Protestants more sincere although as saucy as Reynoldes rather reprehend the Fathers for their vnfitting speaches then make of their words such impertinent constructions For as we read in the Protestants Apology The Centurists reproue a Cent. 4. col 554. col 1074 Arnobius for calling S. Peter the Bishop of Bishops b Cent. 4. Col. 556 Optatus for intituling him The head of the Apostles They write of c Centu. 3. col 84. Tertullian he did erroneously thinke the keyes to be committed to Peter alone and the Church to be builded on him The like errour they reprehend in S. d Col 84. Cyprian e Centur. 3. Col. 85. Origen f Cent. 4. Col. 1215. Hierome g Cent. 4. Col. 555. Hilary h Cent. 4. Col. 558. Fulke in his Retentiue pag. 248. Nazianzen Fulke chargeth Optatus with absurdity for saying of Peter He deserued to be preferred before all the Apostles and he alone receaued the keyes of the kingdom of heauen to be communicated to the rest And speaking in the same place of Leo and Gregory Bishops of Rome he sayth Gregory liued about the yeare of our Lord 590. Leo 440. Tract 1. sect 3. subdiu 10. Calu. Musâ—ulns alledged by Whitgift in his Defence p. 173. 66. VVhitgift ibid. pag. Couel in his Exa against the Plea of the Innocent â—eroÌ„ â— 1. in Iouin Bils 1. par p. 62. 63. Reyn. cap. 2. diuis 1. pag 27. Rem c. 3. diuis 1. fol. 95. Bils part 1 pag. 63. 66. 67. The mistery of iniquity hauing wrought in that seate neere fiue or six hundred yeares before them and then greatly increased they were so deceaued with long continuance of errour that they thought the dignity of Peter was much more ouer the rest of his fellow Apostles then the holy Scriptures of God doe allow But if this errour of the Roman Papacy and Peters Supremacy began neere fiue or six hundred yeares before Leo and Gregory it began according to M. Fulke in the Primitiue Church it began in the
Aug. l 2. de peccat merit remis c. 27. not with the issue of consecrated children Which a little before he doth thus corroborate with the strength of reason because renouati parentes c. renewed parents do carnally ingender not of the first fruits of newnes but of the reliques of oldenes They communicate vnto their posterity not the personall blessings of new restored life but the common Aug. l. de peccat merit remis c. 12. 1. ad Cor. 7. vers 14. maledictions of old depraued nature so enthrall their of spring in the bondage of Adam cannot indue them with the inheritance of Christ In his next booke handling that obiection the Caluinists now as the Pelagians then vrged out of S. Paul How the vnbelieuing party is sanctifyed by the faythfull and the children of their marriage are cleane and holy He solueth it in this manner that the Christian is often the occasion of gayning the other vnto God procureth also the baptizing of their children And concludeth a little after what other sanctification soeuer is meant by the Apostle neither the incredulous Aug. loc citato can be saued or purged from their sins without the sacrament of the Church Nec paruuli de quibuslibet sanctis iustisque procreati c. Nor children begotten of what soeuer holy iust parents are assoyled of the guilt of Originall sinne vnles they be baptized in Christ for whome we ought to speake so much the more earnestly by how much they are lesse able to speake for themelues In fine what followeth of the contrary doctrine but that all descendents from regenerate parents take from them their right to heauen that to know my election is sufficient to know that any of my carnall progenitours was a belieuing Christian in the dayes of Christ or at any tyme since that no children or childrens children in any succeeding generation can be damned whose parent when they were borne was a faythfull belieuer These heresyes and the like hatefull to repeate necessarily attend on the fornamed absurdity vvhich I leaue as bones for Puritans to gnavv on and vvill aduance my pen to more profitable discourses THE SEAVENTEENTH CONTROVERSY DEMONSTRATETH That our Iustice is inherent in vs and not imputed only against Doctour Whitaker Doctor Fulke and Maister Abbot CHAP. I. MAISTER Whitaker M. Abbot and the rest of their crew who deny the perfect remission of sins in the beautifull flocke of Christs chosen sheep which come vp from the lauatory of sacred Baptisme Cantiâ— 6. v. 5. do much more disauow the inward iustice and splendour of their soules which cannot reside with those abyding spots therfore as they hold their christned children faythfull belieuers only rid of their offences by the meere exemptioÌ„ from paine or not imputation of fault so they affirme theÌ„ no otherwise iustifyed beloued of God then by the sole imputation of Christs extrinsecal fauour or outward righteousnes ascribed vnto them But we that haue proued the true forgiuenes and destruction of sinne do likewise maintaine the internall renouation and iustification of man whereby he is not only outwardly accompted iust but inwardly endowed beautifyed and enriched with a heauenly guift or supernaturall quality pleasing vnto God which we tearme with S. Paul our spirit of adoption Rom. 8. v. 15. idem v. 23. Ioan. 3. v. 5. Coloss c. 1. v. 12. 13. Ephes 5. v. 8. 1. Pet. 2 v. 9. the first fruits of the spirit or our new birth our inherent iustice because it doth inherently dwell and inhabite in our soules We teach moreouer that the purgatioÌ„ and remission of our sinnes is formally nothing els then the infusion of that celestiall guift For as this materiall Sunne with the same beames expelleth darcknes and enlightneth the regions of the aire so the true Sunne of Iustice dissolueth the cloudes of iniquity and garnisheth our soules with the selfe same rayes of grace which the Apostle testifyeth Willing vs to giue thankes to God and the â—ulg l â— de remis peâ— c. 4. Concil Trid. sess 6. c. 3. Luc. 15. v. 24. Ephes 2. v. 5. Gal. â— v. 15. Aug. ep 54. Colos 3. v. 9. Basil de spirit sant Chrys in Psal 118. Aug. ep 1â—0 de spir lit c. 27. Father who hath made vs worthy vnto the part of the lot of Saints in the light who hath deliuered vs from the power of darknesse hath translated vs into the kingdome of the Sonne of his loue Again to the Ephesians You were once darknes but now light in our Lord. S. Peter From darcknes he hath called you into his mâ—rueilous light Where he compareth the state of infidelity or vicious life to darckenes the state of iustification to light because it expelleth the mists of sinne adorneth with inward and inherent brightnes the tabernacles of our soules as S. Fulgentiuâ— and the Councell of Trent expound the former place to the Colossians The same is confirmed by many other Texts where we are sayd to receaue life by the benefite of Iustification My sonne was dead and is reuiued When we were dead by sinne God quickned vs togeather in Christ In respect of which we are called A new oreature we are borne againe by a spirituall generation we spoyle our selues of the old man doe on the new c. Which newnes of ours S. Basil calleth The participation of the holy Ghost S. Chrysostome Infused bountifulnes S. Augustine The grace of the new Testament written in the tables of our harts S. Iohn The seed of God which remaineth in vs. S. Paul The excellent grace of God in you the holy spirit of God in which you Ioan. 1. ep c. 3. v. 9. 2. Cor. 9. v. 14. Ephes 4. v. 30. 2. Cor. 4. v. 7. Rom 15. v. 5. are signed a treasure which we haue in earthly vessels Charity diffused into our hartes by the holy Ghost which is giuen vnto vs. 2. A thing so cleare that our Aduersaryes haue not the face to gaine-say it But confesse an inward sanctification of the Holy Ghost and alteration of man yet togeather with this sanctification there is still quoth M. Abbot a remaynder of originall corruption by the touch and staine whereof the holynes and newnes that is wrought in vs is defiled Likewise inherent righteousnes although it be the worke of God yet it is soyled in the puddles of our corruption What say you Is sanctification stayned Holynes defiled The worke of God soyled in the puddles of sinne All the fornamed sentences of holy Scripture define the contrary they teach That we cast off the old man and put on the new that we are translated from the power of darknes to the kingdome of light that we were once darknes but now light in our Lord once dead but now aliue to God Likewise the Scripture often recordeth That the Abbot in his defence c. 4. fol. 403. 430. puddles of sinne are cleansed destroyed blotted
grace or that God should do any such wrong as in rigour of meere iustice without regard to any fauour or promise of his he should be absolutely bound to recompense our labours This right in exacting this wrong or iniury in not repaying those Fathers deny but neuer that right which is grounded also in mercy For of that S. Bernard flatly pronounceth S. Paul doth confidently exact the promise the promise truly of mercy but not of iustice to be fullfilled And S. Fulgentius God of his benignity vouchsafeth to make himselfe a debtour A debtour sayth S. Augustine he is made vnto vs c. to whome we may say repay that which thou hast promised because we haue done that which thou hast commanded Likewise Thou vouchsafest o Lord because thy mercy shineth for euer by thy promises to become a deâ—tour to them to whome thou forguiest all their debtes 8. Their last obiection or cauill rather is That our merites are preiudiciall and iniurious vnto Christ a decrease of the full tide of his aboundant merits As though it were a lessening to the Sun that the starres shine with his borrowed light A wrong to the fountayne that sundry pipes are filled with his streames An iniury to the tree that all her braunches be loaden with fruite Our Sauiour sayth In Ioan. 1â— 9. v. 8. Brentius in Apol. confâ—ss witem c. de contri this my Father is glorified that you bring very much fruite Is the Father glorified by the plenty of our fruitfull and vertuous deedes and is not Christ honoured by the accrew of our merites I am content to stand to the iudgement of a Protestant of that most graue and learned Father Brentius so he is stiled by M. Iewell who inueigheth against vs not for extenuating but for magnifying hereby too much the vertue of Christ and of his passion To attribute sayth he vnto Christ that not only he by his death had deserued the expiation of our sinnes but also hath imparted that merit to our good workes this is to assigne much more to Christ then eyther he acknowledgeth or the thing it selfe can suffer and it is contumely not only to detract from the glory due to any thing but also to ascribe too M. VVilliam Reynolds in his refutation of M. whi Reprehens fol 94. 95. Andr. â—riâ— de Eccles lib. 4. c. 12. much praise and glory to it c. Notwithstanding M. William Reynolds our famous Champion dexterously conuinceth by the verdicte of Andreas Frisius another zealous ProtestaÌ„t That we neither dishonour nor magnify too much our Redeemers merites but keep the current of golden mediocrity not bending to the right hand nor to the left Thus Frisius writeth Although Christ take not away all infirmity from such as be regenerate and renewing them by his spirit and planting in them vertues of new life and imparting to them merite and his iustice most truly and with singular fruite he is sayd to liue in them And by this meanes the glory of Christ is not obscured but clarified the Crosse of Christ is not euacuated but made more copious the price of the bloud shed for vs is not diminished but increased So he manifestly demonstrating these two remarkeable thinges First that our meritorious workes do not blemish or extenuate but adde greater renowne lustre vnto the merites of Christ Secondly that the worthines of our merites spring not from the old rooâ—es of nature but from the new plantes of vertue grafted in vs by the spirit of adoption we receaue from God which new spirit that it should bring forth seedes of merit is so consonant vnto reason as no iudicious person can speake against it For if the vitall breath or soule of man infused into this lumpe of humane flesh causeth beauty motion speach and other actions of naturall life if the morall habit or roote of vertue worketh and produceth actes of morality correspondent thereunto if the purchased habites of Philosophy Theology and the like beget new Philosophicall and Theologicall discourses new actes new propositions what should hinder the diuine habit and supernaturall fountaine of grace from achieuing diuine and supernaturall works meritorious of new grace meritorious of glory worthy of God worthy of the reward he bestoweth vpon them supposing alwaies his promise by which he obligeth himselfe to be a debtour vnto vs. Hereupon the grace which is giuen is called our regeneration or new birth because it aduanceth vs to a new state of life by which we are enabled to bring forth new and supernaturall actions which could not be Aug. de gra lib. arb c. 6. wrought out of the forge of nature As S. Augustine most cleerly testifieth in these wordes When grace is giuen then beginne also our good merits by the meanes of that grace for if grace be taken away man doth presently fall headlong by his owne free-will therfore when a man beginneth to haue good merits he ought not to attribute them vnto himselfe but to God to whome it is said in the psalme O Lord be my helper and do not forsake me 8. And thus seeing the store of our meritorious deeds is honorable vnto Christ glorious vnto God and profitable to our selues giue me leaue to seale vp this Treatise â— ad Cor. â—5 v. 58. Bernard ser in illaverba Ecce nos reliquimusomnia with that exhortation of the Apostle Therefore my beloued brethren be stable and immoueable abounding in the workes of our Lord alwayes knowing that your labour is not vayne in our Lord but so pretious in his sight as euery houre spent euery worke accomplished in his fauour he remunerateth with the guerdon of incomparable felicity For as no hayre of your head so no moment of tyme shall perish sayth S. Bernard But more elegantly S. Ambrose and venerable Bede by those wordes a haire of your head shall not perish vnderstand Amb. in prolo l. 2. de sp sanc Beda l. 6. in Luc. that not only the noble exploytes of Saintes but that their least thoughtes and cogitations shal be scored vp by our iust Iudge and be copiously rewarded in the day of retribution For what doth it auile me sayth S. Ambrose if God keepe an account of all my haires But this redoundeth to my profit if he a watchfull witnes of my workes bestoweth vpon them the remuneration of eternall glory With what care then and sollicitude with what diligence and alacrity should we endeauour to treasure vp great plenty of vertues now whilest the tide serueth and haruest lasteth â—ow when short labours may purchase perpetuall crownes repentant teares euerlasting ioyes voluntary almes riches of immortality Now when euery good thought meriteth a Kingdome euery moment may gaine Eternity Laus Deo immaculatae semper V. M. The end of the sixt Booke An Aduertisement GENTLE Reader whereas M. D. Bilson hath printed his booke Of Christian Subiection both in quarto in octauo these are to aduertise thee that most commoÌ„ly I do cite that in quarto as also the other of M. Whitaker de Scriptura Ecclesia as they were printed before they were hast compiled togeather in one volume for that the quotations of page leafe do otherwise disagree FINIS Faultes escaped in the printing to be corrected In the second Part. PAG 4. line 31. There reade These pag. 15. l. 19. hindred only reade hindred only pag. 24. l. 4. and vs therein and vs therin pag. 35. l. 2 Some So. pag 36. l. 35 cannot but cannot pag. 49. l. 12. this his pag. 58. l. 36. anuquity iniquity pag. 61. l. 13. It is Is it pag. 63 l. 19. therby wherby pag 65. l. 6. of to Ibid. l. 14. Is it It is Ibid. l. penult a holy one only one pag. 71. l. 8. Or. Of. pag. 95. l. 22. what was Ibid. l 29. of or pag 99. l. 23. enterfeite interfeire Ibid. l. 24. from-forth pag. 11â— l. 7. couer couet pag. 112. l. 23. that passage reade that passage by the works the fayth was consionmate pag 124. l. 31. checke choake pag. 126. l. 19. or stay reade stay of Fayth pag. 144. l. 6. Salamanca of Salamanca pag. â—52 l. 12. manifest manifesteth pag. 162. l. 17. this promise this â—rouiso pag. 167 l. 7. afore aforesaid pag. 176. l. 1. neuer si neuer sinne Ibid l. 12. election elect pag â—97 l. 34. the thinge the â—inge pag. 205. l. â—3 to so so to Ibid. l 34. all in thinges all in all thinges pag 224. l. 1. we all we are all pag 233. l. 3â— of it rebelâ—ing of it rebelling pag. 234 l. â— if it pag 242 l 23. or Iustin of Iustn pag. 250. l. 19. many may pag 262. l â—8 〈◊〉 vniust pag 263. l. 24. as act an act pag. 267. l. 9. conteine contâ—â—ue pag 270 l. 11. antecedent primacy reade antecedent primary c. pag. 28. l. 7. wounds words pag. 284. l. 1 for both forsooth pag. 288. l. 14. raking racking Ibid. l. 25. creation vocation pag. 289. l. 20. in a respect simply reade in a respect simply c. Ibid l. 12 of title or title pag. 290. l. 9. guilty guily pag. 255 l. 3. his life this life pag 296 l. 6. merit mercy pag â—04 l. 5. of themselues of them Ibid. l. 25. exacting this reade exacting this c. pag 305. l. 27. and renewing yâ—t renewing pag. 307. l. 6. auise auaile Other lesse faultes especially in pointing by reason of the obscure Copy absence of the 〈◊〉 the Reader himselfe will easily obserue and courtecusly correct as he readeth