and maintaine it to be lawfull and not onely so but the Picture of God the Father like an old man and many other things which I forbeare because I feare you have done your selfe more hurt then me good in depriving your selfe of the rest to which you are accustomed for whilst our Arguments do multiplie our time lessens to that of Saint James where it is said that faith profiteth nothing without good works I hope the Doctor here can tell you that Saint Paul saith that we are justified by Faith and not by the works of the Law Marq. Sir I believe the Doctor will neither tell Your Majestie nor me that Faith can justifie without works King That question the Doctor can soone decide what say you to it Doctor you must speak now Doctor If it may please Your Majestie it would be as great a disobedience to hold my peace now I am commanded to speak as it would have been a presumption in me to speak before I was commanded I am so far from thinking that either Faith without good works or that good works without Faith can justifie that I cannot believe that there is such a thing as either No more then I can imagine that there may be a tree bearing fruit without a root or that the Sun can be up before it be day or that a fire can have no heat for although it be possible that a man may do some good without Faith yet he cannot do good works without it for though we may naturally incline to some goodnesse as flowers and plants naturally grow to perfection Yet this good cannot be said to be wrought by us but by the hand of Faith and Faith her selfe where she is truly so can no more stand still then can the Sun in the Firmament or refuse to let her light so shine before men that they may see her good works then the same Sun can appeare in the same Firmament and dart no beams And whilst Faith and good works strive for the proprietie of Justification I do believe they both exclude a third which hath more right to our Justification then either For that which we call Justification by Faith is not properly Justification but onely an apprehension of it as that which we call Justification by good works is not properly Justification but onely a Declaration of it to be so exempli gratia I receive a pardon my hand that receiv's it doth not justifie 't is put in execution and read in open Court all this did not procure it me Doubtlesse there is a reward for the righteous doubtlesse there is a God that judgeth the Earth wherefore upon this ground of beliefe I work out my Salvation as well as I can and do all the good that lies in my power I do good works Doubtlesse this man hath some reason for what he doth it is because he hath store of Faith which believes there is a God and that that God will accept of his endeavours wherefore to him alone who hath given us Faith and hath wrought all our good works in us can we properly attribute the tearme of Justification Iustificatio apprehensiva we may conceive and beare in our hearts Iustificatio declarativa we may shew with our hands but Iustificatio Effectiva proper and effectuall Justification none can lay claim unto but Christ alone that as our sins were imputed unto Christ so his righteousnesse might be ours by imputation King Doctor I thank you in this point I believe you have reconciled us both Doctor May it please Your Majestie if the venome were taken out there is no wound in the Churches body but might soon be healed Marq. Hereat the Marquesse somewhat earnestly cryed Hold Sir You have said well in one respect but there are two wayes of Iustification in us and two without us Christ is a cause of Iustification by his grace and merits without us and so we are justified by Baptisme and we are justified by the gifts of God in us viz. Faith Hope and Charity Whereupon the King spake as quickly King But my Lord both Justifications come from Christ according to your owne saying That without us by his grace and merit that within us by his gifts and favour therefore Christ is all in all in the matter of Justification and therefore though there were a thousand wayes and meanes to our Justification yet there is but one effectuall cause and that is Christ Marq. How is it then that we are called by the Apostle Cooperarii Christo Fellow-workers together with Christ King The Doctor hath told you how already If you lie wallowing in sin and Christ helps you out your reaching of him your hand is a working together with Christ Yet for all that it cannot be said that you helped yourselfe out of the ditch for then there had been no need of Christ Your apprehending the succour that came unto you no way attributes the God have mercie to your selfe no more then the declaring your selfe to be alive by action is the cause of setting you upon your leggs so that we may divide this threefold Justification as Peter divided his three Tabernacles here is one for Moses and one for Elias I pray let us have one for Christ and let that be the chiefe Marq. And Reason good King I wish that all Controversies betwixt you and Us were as well decided I am fully satisfied in this point Doctor May it please Your Majestie A great many Controversies between us and the Papists might be soon decided if the Churches revenues which were every where taken away more or lesse where differences in Religion in severall parts of the world did arise in the Church were not an obstacle of the re-union like the stone which the Crab cast into the Oyster which hindred it from ever shutting it selfe againe like the division which happened between the Greek and Latine Church Photinus intrudes himselfe into the Patriarch-ship of Constantinople over the head of Ignatius the lawfull Patriarch thereof whom the Pope preserved in his Communion and then the difference of the Procession of the holy Ghost between those two Churches was fomented by the said Photinus lest the wound should heale too soon and the patient should not be held long enough in cure for the benefit of the Chyrurgion Sacriledge hath brought more divisions then the nature of their causes have required and the Universities play with edged tools whilst hungry stomacks run away with their meat wherefore since Your Majestie was pleased to discharge the watch that I had set before the dore of my lips I shall make bold to put Your Majestie in mind of holding my Lord to the demand which Your Majestie once made unto his Lordship concerning the true Church for if once that Question were throughly determined all Controversies not onely between Your Majestie and his Lordship but also all the Controversies that ever were started would soon be decided at a short race end and without this we
hee takes Aquinas to be resolute in this point and hee cites him saying As predestination doth include a will to conferre grace and glory so Reprobation doth include a will to suffer one to fall into sinne and to inslict the punishment of damnation for sinne Hence Alvarez inferres that according to Aquinas the permission of the first sinne for which a Reprobate is damned is the effect of Reprobation And hee addes that of this permission there is no cause in the Reprobate Because before the permission of the first sinne and before the first sinne there is no other sinne for if there were then it were not simply the first sinne or man should commit some other sinne before which God did not permit whereas no sinne can be committed but by Gods permission He cites also Aquinas againe speaking thus why God doth chuse some to glory and reprobate others there is no reason but onely Gods Will. And having cited that of the Apostle Rom. 9. The children being not yet borne neither having done any good or evill that the purpose of God according to election might stand not of workes but of him that calleth it was said unto her The elder should serve the younger As it is written Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated having cited this I say hee addes that the Apostle here both Austine and Aquinas avouching as much plainly signifies that in the absolute Election and Reprobation of Men God did not looke at Mens merits or demerits but of his own pleasure did chuse and predestinate one to glory and not predestinate another but by an absolute will did determine to suffer him to sinne and to be hardened or to persevere in sinne to the end of his life and to inflict eternall punishment upon him for sin Hee brings in also Austine confuting those who say that Esau and Iacob being not yet borne God did therefore hate the one and love the other because hee did foresee the workes that they would doe Who said Austine can but wonder that the Apostle should not finde out this acute reason for hee did not see it c. No but flies to this hee saith to Moses I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy c. So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy And that none of our Romish adversaries may sleight Austine in this point Alvarez about the beginning of his Worke hath a Disputation to shew what authority this Fathers judgement is of in the point of Grace and Predestination Hee shewes that not onely Prosper but also many Bishops of Rome did approve of Austines Doctrine concerning these points and did determine it to be sound and good And therefore in the testimony of Austine wee have many testimonies and such as are irrefragable with those with whom now wee have to doe But let us heare what some other late Writers of the Church of Rome doe say as to this point concerning Reprobation God from eternity saith Cardinall Cajetan doth truly chuse some and reprobate others doth love some and hate others in that from eternity his will is to vouchsafe some the helpe of his grace whereby to bring them to eternall glory and from eternity also his will is to leave some to themselves and not to afford them that gracious help which he hath decreed to afford the Elect. And this is for God to hate and to reprobate them with which yet it doth well stand that none is damned but by his owne workes because neither the Sentence nor Execution of damnation is before that such Reprobates doe sinne So also †Estius saith that the Apostle Rom. 9. doth teach that neither mens Election nor their Reprobation is from the Merits of workes but that God by the meere pleasure of his wil doth chuse some and Reprobate others And againe upon those words O man who are thou that repliest against God c. hee saith that the Apostles intent was to answer not so much the objection as the cause of objecting And that therefore he answers concerning the Will of God Electing and Reprobating and denies that the reason of it is to be inquired by man who is Gods creature and made by him yea that by the example of a potter the Apostle shewes that God doth this out of the liberty of his Will without any other reason And he addes that Thomas Aquinas did also thus rightly expound the words of the Apostle Bradwardine who intituled the book which hee wrote of the cause of God is not to be omitted Hee saith It 's true God doth not eternally punish any without his fault going before temporally and abiding eternally yet God did not eternally reprobate any because of sinne as a cause antecedently moving Gods will What doe our Divines say even such as are of the more rigid sort as concerning this high and abstruse point of Reprobation what I say doe they lay more then is said by these great and eminent Doctours of the Church of Rome and before them by Austine and before both him and them as both hee and they conceived by the Apostle Paul himselfe The Decree of Reprobation saith Bishop Davenant is not thus to be conceived I will damne Judas whether he believe or not believe repent or not repent for this were contrary to the truth of the Evangelicall promises but thus I am absolutely determined not to give unto Judas that speciall grace which would cause him to believe and repent and I am absolutely purposed to permit him to incurre his own demnation by his voluntary obstinacy and finall impenitency And againe It must here first of all be considered that Reprobatio aeterna nihil ponit in reprobato that is That eternall reprobation doth put nothing in the person that is reprobated It putteth onely in God a firme Decree of permitting such persons to fall into finall sinne and for it a firme decree of condemning them unto eternall punishment So both hee and diverse other of our Eng. lish Divines that were at the Synod of Dort being sent thither by King Iames as they hold that Reprobation which is the denying of election doth put in God an immutable will not to have mercy on such a person as is passed by in respect of giving eternall life And that foreseene unbeliefe is not the cause of non election So withall they lay down this position God doth damne none nor appoint unto Damnation but in respect of sinne So Doctor Ames saith that it is too great a slander to say that according to our opinion God did immediately decree mens damnation whether they be sinners or no. Our opinion saith hee is this that God did not choose some as he did chuse others but did determine to let them abide in their sinnes and for those sinnes to suffer the punishment of just damnation and that of this decree
those that hold this doctrine 2. In what sense we deny the Real presence and the other particulars here mentined I have shewed before as also what little cause they have to boast that either Scripture or Fathers do make for those assertions of theirs wherein we dissent from them That which the Marquesse after addeth of a Womans being head supreme or moderatrix in the Church I have likewise spoken to sufficiently before That a Lay-man should excommunicate and that upon every ordinary occasion as non-payment of Fees and the like for which the Marquesse taxeth this Church I am content that it passe among the Errata's of our Church as he was pleased to speak though without cause concerning some passages in the Fathers as I have noted before It is our Doctrine and not our Discipline that I endeavour to defend After the Church of England the Marquesse commeth to the Church of Saxony and so passeth to the Church of Geneva as he pretendeth but yet indeed he speaketh only of two particular persons relating to those Churches viz. Luther and Calvin as if whatsoever were held by them were to be imputed to those Churches to which they did relate which surely is not fair dealing much lesse that all Protestants should stand charged with all their sayings were they indeed such as the misconstruction of adversaries would make them We honour these and many more as men eminently active in that great work of reforming the Church yet do we not ascribe an infallibility unto them as the Romanists do unto their Popes We do not say of them as Bellarmine doth of the Pope that if they should command vices and forbid vertues we were bound to believe vices to be good and vertues to be evil No we know the Apostle bids us prove all things and hold fast that which is good 1 Thess 5. 21. But let us see what it is that the Marquesse doth say and first of Luther 1. He chargeth Luther as saying of the book of Ecclesiastes That it hath never a perfect sentence in it and that the Author thereof had neither boots nor spurs but rid upon a long stick or in begging shooes as he did when he was a Friar The places which the Marquesse citeth for proof of this I cannot examine they not being in Luthers Works of that Edition at least which I have liberty to peruse But therein I find that Luther doth comment upon the book of Ecclesiastes and doth speak after a far other manner of it saying that it is a Book worthy that all should be much versed in it and that all and especially Magistrates should be well acquainted with it 2. He taxeth Luther for saying of the book of Job That the argument thereof is a meer fiction invented only for the setting down of a true and lively example of patience If Luther did say thus which is more also then I can find though I am far from being of his mind for I suppose that if there had not indeed been such a man as Job in the history of him is described the Prophet Ezekiel and S. James would not have mentioned him as they do Ezek. 14. 14 20. Jam. 5. 11. Yet that most famous Doctor amongst the Jewes Moses Maimonides shewes that some were of this opinion that there never was such a man as Job and that the history of him is but a parable And this opinion himself inclines unto though I confesse his reason is of small force viz. because they that hold otherwise cannot agree about the time in which Job lived 3. Luther as is alleadged against him saith That it is a false opinion and to be abolished that there are four Gospels and that the Gospel of S. John is only true Neither can I find any such thing as this in Luther that the Gospels written by the other three Evangelists Matthew Marke and Luke are not as true as that written by John But I finde that which doth sufficiently evince the contrary viz. that Luther in the fifth volume of his Works hath Annotations upon the first seventeen Chapters of St. Matthews Gospel and that in his Notes upon the first Chapter he divers times calls both Matthew and Luke Evangelists or publishers of the Gospel 4. Luther as the Marquesse alledgeth saith of the Epistle of S. James That it is contentious swelling dry strawy and unworthy an Apostolical spirit Thus also divers other Romanists have charged Luther as Campian Duraeus Breerley and Silvester Petrasancta yet the words which they mention are not to be found in Luthers works But say the Romanists they were in them though afterward they were left out I answer Then it seems if there were any such words they were not approved Duraeus confesseth that those words are not in Luthers works set forth either at Wittemberge or at Strasburge but onely in those set forth at Jena which argues that if there were any such words they found but little approbation Mr. Breerley saith that the later Editions of Luthers works at Wittemberge were corrupted by the Zuinglians and others But surely if Luthers Works were corrupted and that in the Editions of Wittemberge it must be by others and not by the Zuinglians For is it likely that the Zuinglians who were such adversaries unto Luther that Mr. Breerly and after him the Marquesse doth frequently alledge them against Luther is it likely I say that they should corrupt Luthers Works in that kinde so as indeed to purge them from that which was amisse in them And if they would do Luther this favour yet how should they do it at Wittemberge where I suppose not the Zuinglians but the Lutherans did bear sway and would have the chief hand in setting forth Luthers Works in that place And for that first Edition of Luthers Works at Jena though it seems Luther did speak lesse honorably of St. James his Epistle as I confesse I find him to speak elsewhere in his Works yet not so basely as his adversaries of Rome do charge him Gerhard a great Lutheran saith that Luther indeed in his Preface to S. James his Epistle in the first Edition of the German Bible did say that this Epistle is not of like worth with the Epistles of Paul and Peter and that it is strawie if it be compared with those Epistles But that he no where tearms it contentious swelling dry nor yet simply but onely comparatively strawie And that after the year 1526. in no Edition of Luthers Works it is so called but the contrary rather is to be found to wit that Luther did commend this Epistle though some of the Ancients did reject it and account it good and profitable It seems then that Luther himself did retract that which hee had written concerning the Epistle of S. James his censure of it having been too bad though yet not so bad as the Romanists would make it