dead and therefore lesse glory ascendeth vnto God by their doctrine then by ours But what doe I say lesse when indeed to giue any part of the Creators glory to the creature is vtterly to take all from the Creator for hee will haue all or none as Tertullian notably obserueth when he saith That true faith requireth this in defending the true God that whatsoeuer is his we make it onely his for so shall it bee accounted his if it bee accounted onely his by which rule the faith of the Romane Church cannot bee the true faith 12. And againe according to the second ground if to giue all the glory to God and none to our selues sauour of humility but to deuide stakes betwixt God and our selues hath a taste of pride then it must needs follow that God is more honoured by the one then by the other because by humility God is honoured and by pride dishonoured and therefore the Apostle saith that hee resisteth the proud and giueth grace to the humble for what cause but because the proud man seeketh his owne glory whereas the humble deuesteth himselfe of all and layeth it downe at the foote of God the proud man reioyceth in himselfe but the humble reioyceth in the Lord alone according as it is written Let him that reioyceth reioyce in the Lord. Now the Romanists that magnifie free-will haue iust cause their doctrine being presupposed to be true to reioyce in themselues which is an argument of pride for whereas our Sauiour saith Without me ye can doe nothing they may say Yes something for wee can either admit or reiect thy grace by our owne power and whereas the Apostle saith Who hath separated thee what hast thou which thou hast not receiued they may say I haue separated my selfe in doing that which I was able and so made my selfe fit for grace and this power I haue not receiued from Gods speciall fauour but from my owne free will All which kinde of speeches as they are full of pride and fleshly vanity so they are stuffed with impiety and blasphemie and manifestly tend to the dispoyling of the diuine Maiestie of that glory which is onely due vnto him And therefore I conclude with two notable sayings one of S. Augustines and another of Cassander a learned Reconciliater of late time Tutiores viuimus saith the Father si totum Deo damus c. that is We liue more safely if we attribute all wholy to God and not commit our selues partly to God and partly to our selues And this is the part of a godly minded man saith the Reconciliater to attribute nothing to themselues but all to Gods grace whence it followeth that how much so euer a man giueth to grace yet in so doing hee departeth not from pietie though hee detract something from nature and freewill but when any thing is taken from Gods grace and giuen to nature which belongeth to grace that cannot be without eminent danger So that by the confession both of this learned Romanist and also of that reuerend Father our doctrine in the poynt of free-will is both more agreeable to piety and respectiue to Gods glory then theirs is and therefore in reason to be preferred before it 13. The next doctrine whereby the glorie of God is darkened and the dignitie of Christs merites blemished is their doctrine of IustificatioÌ„ which I ioyne next vnto Free-wil because their sophistry cunning in this great maine pillar of Religion cannot well be discerned they so palliate the matter with faire glosses goodly words except their opinion touching the power of Free-will be first apprehended And here before I enter into the bowels of this poynt it is to be obserued that most of them vaunt and bragge that they doe much more magnifie Christs merites by their doctrine of Iustification then we doe which how true it is the discourse following I hope shall so manifest that euery indifferent man shall be able to say truely of them as Saint Augustine said of the Donatists These are the words of men extolling the glory of man vnder the name of Christ to the abasing of the glory of Christ himselfe 14. The doctrine therfore of our Church touching the iustification of a sinner is in effect thus much That a sinner is iustified that is accepted into the fauour and loue of God not by any thing in himselfe or from himselfe but by the perfect and vnspotted righteousnes of Christ Iesus imputed vnto him by the meere mercy of God through the couenant of grace and apprehended on his behalfe by the hand of faith The reason whereof is because that which must satisfie Gods iustice and reconcile a sinner vnto him must haue these two properties first it must be of infinite weight and value to counterpoyse with the rigour of Gods iustice and secondly it must be of sufficient ability to performefull and perfect obedience to the law of God so that a perfect satisfaction bee made both in respect of the obedience which the law requireth and also of the punishment that it inflicteth Now no righteousnesse of man is thus qualified but is both imperfect and vnsufficient no not the righteousnes of Angels themselues being though excellent yet â—â—finite Creatures sauing the righteousnes of Christ Iesus onely who is both God and Man and therefore his righteousnes onely and none other is that whereby a sinner must be iustified before God 15. From this it appeareth that when we say that a man is iustified by faith our meaning is not that faith is the cause of our iustification but onely the instrument and hand to apprehend that righteousnes of Christ whereby we are iustified when we say faith alone iust fieth we meane that it alone is the instrument of our iustification because it alone layeth hold vpon the righteousnes of Christ and applyeth it to our selues not that it is euer alone but alwaies accompanyed with charity and patience and zeale and temperance and other fruites of the spirit for we hold that the true iustifying faith is euer mâ—â—re grauida bonoruÌ„ operuÌ„ as one of their own fauourites affirmeth that is full of good workes and euer anon ready to bring them forth as occasion serueth Neither doe we deny as some of them falsly slander vs though many of their chiefest Writers gaine-say their fellowes and affoord vs that fauour to speake the truth of vs but that euery one that is iustified must also be truely sanctified and that saluation is not obtained by iustification alone but by sanctification also yet wee make sanctification and good workes not to be the causes but the effects nor the roote but the fruit nor the anticedents but the necessary consequents and attendants of our Iustification And as Bellarmine truely distinguisheth to be necessary Necessitate praesentiae non efficientiae by a necessity of presence not of efficacie as if they wrought our saluation In a word
that is falshood to falshood now in this my taske is to demonstrate how it crosseth the word of God that is falshood to truth which being proued I hope no man which is not drunke with the poisonous cuppe of the whoore of Babylons fornication will doubt of the vanity and falshood thereof Now my purpose is not to enter into the lists of disputation and confute their opinions by strength of argument that combate hath beene valiantly performed by many of our Champions onely my intent is first to shew how their doctrines coÌ„tradict the plain text of Gods word and secondly to wipe away their subtle and intricate distinctions whereby they labour to make a reconciliation betwixt the word of God and their opinions which shall be my onely taske in this Chapter for it is to bee noted that there was neuer any generation so happie or rather so miserable in distinctions as the Romanists are they maintain their kingdomes by distinctions by them they blind the eyes of the simple dazle the vnderstanding of the vnaduised set a glose vpon their counterfeit ware couer the deformity of their Apostate Church and lastly extinguish the truth or at leastwise so darken and obscure it that it cannot shine so brightly as it would but in seeking to extinguish the light of truth they distinguish themselues from the trueth and as Iacob by his party-coloured stickes occasioned a brood of party-coloured sheepe and goates so they by their fond distinctions bring foorth a party-coloured and counterfeit Religion as I trust to lay open to the world in this discourse following 2. The maior or first proposition beeing without all controuersie I passe ouer in silence and come to the minor or second proposition which is that the Religion of the Church of Rome in many doctrines is apparently opposite to the word of God 3. The Gospell teacheth that 〈◊〉 one onely God is to bee inuocated and worshipped and that after that manner which he hath appointed in his word and that all the confidence of our saluation is to bee placed in him alone but the Romanists command not onely to inuocate God but also Angels and Saints departed and in time of danger to expect helpe and succour from them and to repose our trust and confidence in them also 4. Bellarmine distinguisheth and saith that God alone indeed is to be worshipped and inuocated with that kinde of adoration which is due onely vnto God but yet the excellent creatures may bee honoured and some of them inuocated not as gods but as such as are Gods friends that is with an inferiour kinde of worship 5. But these distinctions cannot extinguish the truth for first they giue by name the highest worship that can bee to wit Latria to the Image and reliques of Christ and the crosse and to a piece of bread in the Sacrament insomuch that Gregory de Valentia a famous Iesuite and Bellarmines compeere is in this regard driuen to say that some kinde of Idolatrie is lawfull Secondly if they should deny this yet their doctrine and practice doth apparently proclaime asmuch for when they say to their Agnus deis It breaketh and quasheth all sinne as Christs bloud doe they not equall them to Christ when they place their hope and confidence in Saints and reliques doe they not equall them to God when they pray that by the merit of a golden siluer or woodden crosse they may be freed from sinne committed doe they not equall it with our Sauiour that dyed on the crosse when they desire at the Saints hands grace and glory doe they not equall them to the God of grace and glory when they call the blessed Virgine the Queene of Heauen and giue vnto her one halfe of Gods kingdome euen the halfe of mercy doe they not equall her to her maker Lastly when they offer sacrifice to reliques and Images as namely burne frankincense set vp tapers offer the calues of their lippes doe they not equall them to God for all these dueties are proper and peculiar parts of Gods seruice and therefore in attributing them to creatures they giue vnto them plainely that seruice and worship which belongeth to God alone 6. The Gospell teacheth that remission of sinnes and euerlasting life is bestowed vpon vs freely not for any works or merits sake of our owne but for Iesus Christs sake the only begotten Sonne of God who was crucified for our sinnes and rose againe for our iustification But the Romanists teach that wee are iustified and saued not by Christs merits onely but in part for Christs sake and in part for our owne contrition obedience and good works 7. Bellarmine answereth that their doctrine is falsely charged to say that sinners are iustified partly for their owne works sake and partly by Christ for saith hee by a distinction there bee three kinde of works one of those that are performed by the strength of nature onely without faith and the grace of God another of such as proceede from faith and grace but not from a man fully iustified and therefore are called works of Preparation as Prayer Almes Fasting Sorrow for sinne and such like and the third of such which are done by a man iustified and proceede from the Spirit of God dwelling in his heart and sheading abroad charity in the same Now concerning the first hee acknowledgeth that we are not iustified by them by the example of Abraham Rom. 4. and therefore that they most impudently belye their doctrine that fasten this opinion vpon them As touching the second he saith that these works Preparatiue are not meritorious of reconciliation and iustification by condignity and iustice yet in as much as they proceede from faith and grace they merite after a sort that is obtaine remission of sinnes The third sort of works hee boldly and confidently affirmeth to merite not remission of sinnes because that was obtayned before but euerlasting glory and happinesse and that truely and properly 8. This Bellarminian distinction may be distinguished by two essentiall qualities first Folly secondly Falsehood Folly for it maketh nothing to the taking away of the Antithesis before mentioned for when as he confesseth that the second kinde of works doe merite remission of sinnes after a sort and the third eternall life absolutely what doth â—e but acknowledge that which wee charge them withall and which himselfe reiected a little before as a slaunder namely that wee are iustified and saued partly by our owne merits and partly by the merits of Christ for the Gospell saith We are saued by Christs merits alone and he saith We are saued by our owne merits also And thus the folly and vanity of his distinction euidently appeareth 9. The falsehood sheweth it selfe in two things first in that hee affirmeth that they doe not teach that works done before grace doe merite any thing at Gods hand for though it be a Canon of the Councill of Trent charged with an Anathema If any
sentences heere and there that see me to make for their purpose contrary to the whole scope and drift of the writer or lastly by blemishing our whole Religion by some sinister or exorbitant opinion maintained by some one or other vnaduised fellow though it bee contrary to the whole current of all other writers on our side as if for one mans errour wee were all flat Heretikes or because one souldier playeth the dastard therefore the whole army were cowards These bee their tricks of Legerdemaine by which they indeuour to disgrace our Religion and to countenance their owne but Veritas magna est preualebit I hope so to dispell and scatter these mists by the light of truth that they shall vanish like smoake and the truth bee more resplendent like the Sunne comming out of a cloud 61. To the purpose first they exclaime that our Religion is an enemy to good workes and that wee esteeme of them as not necessary to saluation which damnable errour some of them ascribe vnto vs as our direct doctrine others as a consequence of our doctrine and our secret meaning but that both are lying slanders I appeal first to our doctrine it selfe which is so cleare in this point that no man can doubt thereof but hee that is musled with malice for this we hold that though faith be alone in the worke of iustification yet that saith euer worketh through loue and is great with good workes as a woman with child which it bringeth forth also when occasion serueth and that if it bee disioyned from good workes it is but a dead carkas of faith yea the faith of Deuils and hypocrites and not of the elect And this as it is the constant doctrine of all our diuines so is it principally of Luther whom our aduersaries accuse as the chiefest enemy to good workes for thus hee writeth in one place touching the efficacy of faith Faith is a liuely and powerfull thing not an idle cogitation swimming vpon the toppe of the heart as a fowle vpon the water but as water heated by fire though it remaine water still yet it is no more cold but hote and altogether changed so faith doth frame and fashion in a man another mind and other senses and altogether maketh him a new man Again in another place he sayth that the vertue of faith is to kill death to damne hell to be sinne to sinne and a deuill to the deuill that is to be sins poison and the Deuils confusion Thus hee speaketh concerning the powerful efficacy of that true iustifying faith which wee rely our saluation vpon and they condemne as a nulli-fidian portion And touching good works their necessity and excellency heare how diuinely he writeth in one place Out of the cause of iustification no man can sufficiently commend good workes in another One good worke proceeding from faith done by a Christian is more pretious then heauen or earth the whole world is not able to giue a sufficient reward for one goodworke and in another place It is as necessary that godly teachers doe as diligently vrge the doctrine of good workes as the doctrine of faith for the Deuill is an enemy to both what can bee spoken more effectually for the extolling of the excellency of good wâ—rkesâ— and yet these fellowes make Luther the greatest aduersarie to them 62. Secondly I appeale to themselues many of the greatest Doctors amongst whom doe cleare vs from that imputation Maldonate The Protestants doe say that iustifying faith cannot bee without good workes Viega The Protestants affirme that iustification sanctification are so ioyned together that they cannot be parted Stapleton All Protestants none excepted teach that faith which iustifieth is liuely working by charity and other good workes Lastly Bellarmine The Protestants say that faith cannot stand with euill workes for hee that hath a purpose to sin can conceiue no faith for the remission of his sin and that faith alone doth iustifie but yet is not alone and that they exclude not the necessity but onely the merite of good workes nor the presence but the efficacy to iustifie Now then with what face can they bolster out this slaunder against our doctrine and accuse vs to be like the Simonian Heretike who taught that a man need not regard good workes and Eunomians who defended that perseuerance in sinne did not hinder saluation so that wee beleeued This is the first blasphemie against our Religion wherein they doe not so much thwart vs as crosse themselues and that one may see yet more clearely this to bee a malicious slaunder hearken what Bellarmine sayth concerning Luthers opinion of Christian liberty Luther seemeth sayth he to teach that Christian liberty consisteth in this that a godly conscience is free not from doing good workes but from being accused or defended by them let Luther himself speake againe By faith sayth he we are freed not from works but from opinion of workes that is from a foolish presumption of iustification to bee obtained by workes by all which we may easily iudge of the meaning of those sentences obiected Faith alone doth saue and infidelity alone doth condemne and where faith is no sinne can hurt nor condemne that they are to be vnderstood partly of sinnes before iustification and partly of such sinnes after as destroy not faith nor raigne in the beleeuer nor are perseuered in but repented of and laboured against and thus our Religion is iustified by the very aduersaries thereof from this great crime imputed vnto it 63. Againe they accuse vs as maintainers of this doctrine that all the workes of iust men are mortall sinnes and of this they make Luther Calume and Melancthon to be Patrones but with what shamelesse impudency let the world iudge To begin with Caluine these be his words Dum sancti ductu Spiritus c. i. Whilst being holy wee walke in the wayes of the Lord yet least being forgetfull of our selues wee should waxe proud there remain reliques of imperfection which may minister vnto vs matter of humiliation againe the best worke that can be wrought by iust men yet is besprinkled and corrupted with the impurity of the flesh and hath as it were some dregs mixed with it let the holy seruant of God chuse out of his whole life that which he shall thinke to haue beene most excellent let him well consider euery part thereof hee shall without doubt finde in one place or other something which sauours of the fleshes corruption seeing our alacrity in well doing is neuer such as it ought to be but our weakenes great in hindering the course although we see that the blots where with the Saints workes are stayned are not obscure yet grant that they are but very small workes shall they not offend the eyes of God before whom the starres themselues are not pure we haue not one worke proceeding from the Saints which if it be censured
In the act of iustification wee say that workes haue no roome because both they are imperfect and also are not done by our own strength but being once iustified we must needs repent and become new creatures walking not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit And this is the doctrine of our Church concerning Iustification 16. Now let vs heare what they say and then weigh both doctrines in the ballance of the sanctuary that wee may see which of them bringeth most glory to the merits of CHRIST and to the power of his satisfaction I will plainely and sincerely God willing set downe the summe of their doctrine First therefore they teach that there is a double iustification the first whereby a man ex iniusto fit iustus of an vniust and wicked man is made iust and good and of a sinner is made righteous the second wherby a man being iust is made more iust and doth encrease in iustice and sanctity according to that Reuel 22. 11. He that is iust let him be more iust Concerning the first iustification some of them affirme that it is the free gift of God and deserued by no precedent workes others that it is merited by congruity but not by condignity but of the second they say that it is gotten and merited by our workes But before both these they make certaine preparations and dispositions whereby a man by the power of his owne free-will stirred vp by grace doth make himselfe fit for iustification namely by the acts of faith feare hope loue repentance and the purpose of a new life all which a man must haue before hee receiue the first grace of iustification and for the obtaining whereof he needs not any grace internally infused but onely offered externally Whereupon they are bold to affirme that the act of Iustification doth emane and proceed Simul ab arbitrio à Deo Both from free-will and from God Now the causes of iustification the Councill of Trent maketh to be these the finall cause Gods glory and mans saluation the efficient Gods mercy the meritorious cause Christs merits the instrumentall the Sacrament of Baptisme but the formall cause which is the chiefest and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dat esse rei giueth being to the thing as the Logicians speake they make to be an inherent righteousnes wrought in vs and inspired into vs by the Spirit of God And this in briefe is the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the iustification of a sinner 17. Wherein let vs obserue three maine and fundamentall differences betwixt their doctrine and ours in all which they raze the foundation and dedignifie the merits of Christ and the mercy of God to extoll the dignitie of man The first in their preparations wee hold that a man cannot any wayes dispose himselfe vnto grace but is wholly fitted and prepared by God and that those acts of preparation as they call them are not fore-runners of iustification but rather fruites and effects thereof they teach the contrary as I haue shewed The second difference is that the workes of a man iustified do not merit increase of grace which they terme the second iustification but as the beginning of grace is from gods mercy alone so the increase and augmentation thereof and perseuerance therein is onely to be ascribed to the worke of Gods spirit according to that of Saint Paul Phil. 1. 6. He that hath begunne this good worke in you will performe it vntill the day of Iesus Christ this we hold they the contrary The third difference is in the formall cause of our iustification which they maintaine to be an inherent righteousnes within vs euen the righteousnes of Sanctification We on the other side affirme that the formall cause of our iustification is the righteousnes of Christ Iesus not dwelling in vs nor proceeding from vs but imputed vnto vs by the mercy of God 18. Hauing thus layd open both our doctrines let vs examine and trye which of them giueth most glory vnto God and most exalts the merites of Christ for that must needs be the truth and which lifteth vp highest the proud nature of man for that must needs be falshood and errour especially seeing that Gods dignity and the dignity of man Christs merits and mans are as it were two skales of a ballance whâ—reof the one rising the other falls the one lifted vp the other is pressed downe First therefore touching the workes of preparation whether doe they more magnifie Gods mercie that say a man cannot prepare and dispose himselfe at all to grace but is wholly disposed and prepared by God or they that affirme that a man can prepare himselfe by his owne endeuour assisted outwardly with the grace of God the one makes Gods mercy the sole cause of iustification the other but the adiâ—vant and helping cause And whether doe they aduance most the dignity of man that say that a man can do nothing of himselfe for his owne iustification or they that say that a man can doe something to the preparation of himselfe to that great worke the one attributeth some dignity to man the other none at all we affirme the one part the Romanists the contrary and therefore our doctrine tends more to the debasing of mans worth and consequently to the exalting of Gods glory then theirs doth 19. True it is like Ferrimen that looke East and go West they with their great Grand-father Pelagius talke of grace when they meane nothing but nature and so deny indeede that which they affirme in word if the matter bee examined according to truth For Pelagius confessed a necessity of grace in all spirituall actions and yet was condemned for an enemy to grace by the Church of God because hee vnderstood not by grace the sanctifying worke of Gods spirit but an outward moouing and perswading power assisting mans free-will to the effecting of his owne saluation The very same is the doctrine of the Romanists as hath beene declared and therefore wee may iustly condemne them as enemies to the grace of God whatsoeuer they bragge and vaunt to the contrary 20. Secondly touching the second iustification which standeth as they say in the augmentation and encrease of our iustice let the most partiall Reader iudge whether tends most to the magnifying of Gods glory their doctrine which teacheth that wee merite the encrease of our iustice by our owne workes or ours which teacheth that both the seed and the growth both the roote and the fruite both the beginning and encrease of all righteousnesse is the worke of Gods spirit alone preuenting assisting and vpholding vs to the end and that these seuerall workes of grace are bestowed vpon vs not for any merites of our owne but simply and entirely for the merits of Christ Iesus I but they will say works doe not merit iustification because they are ours but because they are works of grace which grace floweth from the fountaine of
wine instituted by Christ to put vs in mind of his death and passion bee for such their effectuall representation adored and worshipped with diuine worship as well as Images and pictures for their representation especially seeing they carrie a more exact resemblance and liuely signification of him then any picture can doe Here is a plaine contradiction betwixt the proofe of their Transubstantiation and their doctrine of adoration of Images standing vpon these termes An Image must be worshipped because it representeth the person of Christ but the Sacrament is not to bee worshipped though it represents Christ more fully then any Image except he be corporally and substantially present in it 29. Secondly it is crossed by the Canon of the Masse diuers waies First by the praier that is vsed before the eleuation where the Priest desireth God to behold the same sacrifice with a propitious and fauourable countenance like as the sacrifices of Abel Abraham Melchizedech c. If Christ were really offered by the Priest hee need not pray that God would be propitious to that sacrifice for in him hee is euer well pleased neither can his sacrifice be possibly disrespected of God being of infinite merite and price to satisfie the rigour of his Fathers iustice it were therefore either horrible blasphemy in their Masse to equalize this absolute sacrifice of Christ with the imperfect sacrifices of Abel and Abraham which stood in need of Gods mercifull acceptation or it is false that Christ is really sacrificed in the Masse one of the two must needs be either blasphemy in the Canon of the Masse or falshood in their doctrine of Transubstantiation 30. Againe by another prayer which is vsed in the consecration where the Priest prayeth that God would command those things to be carried by the hands of the holy Angell vp to the high Altar into the sight of the diuine Maiestie Now by these words those things haec cannot bee vnderstood Christ neither in Grammaticall construction nor in any religious sense for in true Grammaticall Latine he should haue said if he had ment Christ either hunc this or hoc viz. sacrificiâ—â— this sacrifice and not haec these things for though the elements be two yet by their own doctrine whole Christ is in each of them and therefore cannot bee spoken of in the plurall number as if he were either diuided in himselfe or multiplied to more then himselfe in the construction of religion it can be no lesse then blasphemy to imagine that an Angell must carry vp Christ into Heauen and present him there vpon the high Altar to the diuine maiestie for it implieth in him either inability or vnwillingnesse to present himselfe to say he is vnable is to deny him to be God and so Almighty and to say he is vnwilling is to deny him to bee our high Priest and Mediatour to whose office it onely pertaineth to offer vp the sacrifices of the faithfull vnder the Gospell as the Priest in the law of Moses might onely offer the sacrifices of the law and enter into the most holy place to make reconciliation for the people so that it remaineth that the composer of the Masse could not vnderstand by haec these things Christ himselfe but the elements Bread and Wine which are a representation and commemoration of that one all-sufficient sacrifice on the Crosse and so either the Masse is erronious or Transubstantiation a false doctrine for if the Masse be true then Transubstantiation is false and if Transubstantiation be true then the Masse is false 31. Thirdly it is crossed by their manifold crossings vsed by the Priest in the Masse for if Christ in person bee really present as a complete sacrifice what neede such signings or crossings by the earthly hands of a sinfull Priest is hee sanctified by them that were blasphemy to thinke He needeth no sanctification being the Holy of holies Is the diuell driuen away by these meanes that is a greater blasphemy to beleeue for hee once conquered the diuell in such sort that he dareth neuer meddle with him any more And yet the blasphemous Iesuites are not afraid to affirme that the diuels may and doe so come neere to their Sacrament that they can both carry it away and abuse it also Surely if this bee true then the diuels know Christ is not there for they durst not come so neere vnto him sacrificed on the Altar by whose true sacrifice on the Crosse they receiued such a deadly wound Lastly is God put in minde of his Sonnes sacrifice on the Crosse by their crossings of him vpon the Altar This is impudency to thinke for Almighty God cannot forget the sacrifice of his owne Sonne neyther can his Crosse bee any whit dignified by their crossings Which way soeuer they turne them here is eyther impietie in their Masse or falsity in their doctrine of Transsubstantiation 32. Thus much touching the contradictions in the Eucharist Now let vs see their concordance in other Articles of their Religion and that with greater breuitie And first in their Article of Iustification therein there lurke foure maine contradictions First they say that the first iustification when a man of vniust and wicked is made iust and good is the free gift of God and deserued by no precedent works and yet they say againe that a man doth prepare and make himselfe fit for this iustification by certayne acts of faith Feare Hope Repentance and the purpose of a new life Yea Bellarmine doth not sticke to say that this faith iustifieth by way of merite and deserueth forgiuenesse of sinnes after a certaine manner And all of them â—each that those dispositions and preparations arise partly from grace and partly from free-will as two seuerall and deuided agents and that it is in the power of mans will eyther to accept that grace of God or to refuse it as hath beene at large discouered in the fourth Reason Now heare the contradictions If it bee meerely Gods free gift then it is no wayes mans free-will and if it bee any waies mans free-will to prepare himselfe then it is not euery way Gods free gift For it is not in this case as in other externall donations the King may giue a pardon freely and yet the prisoner may haue power to receiue or to refuse the pardon because the pardon is one thing and the prisoners will on other but in the iustification of a sinner the gift it selfe is the very change of the minde and the will and the whole man for it is as they say when a sinner is made righteous and an vniust man is made iust and so the will hath no power to reiect it when God effectually giues it nor power to accept it till God alter and change it by his grace And hence it followeth that to say it is Gods free gift and yet that we in part prepare our selues thereunto by our owne free-will implyeth contradiction as also this to
merite it and yet to haue it freely giuen if it be any wayes of merite then it is not euery way free Merite in the receiuer and freenesse in the giuer can in no respect stand together 33. Another contradiction in this Article is this that they say a man is iustified by his works and yet for all that he is iustified by grace too Both these propositions they peremptorily defend and take it in great scorne that we charge them to be maintayners of works against grace and call vs loud Lyers in casting that imputation vpon them But by their leaues they maintaine either works against grace or else they breathe hote and cold out of one mouth which the Satyre could not endure and speake contraries let them choose whether for the holy Ghost himselfe placeth these two Works and Grace in diametrall opposition If it be of grace it is no more of works or else were grace no more grace but if it bee of works it is no more grace or else were worke no more worke Here we see a manifest opposition betwixt grace and works so that one doth exclude the other and this in our election and therefore much more in our iustification which is but an effect thereof for election hath nothing to doe with our good works according to our doctrine nor with our euill according to theirs but iustification hath respect vnto our sinnes and euill deeds and therefore much greater must bee the opposition in this then in that greater reason that here works should be excluded by grace then in the other 34 Bellarmines exception is that the Apostle here excludeth onely the works that be of our selues without grace before we be iustified but as for those that come after they are works of grace and therefore be not excluded by grace but may well stand together To which I answere three things First that the Apostle hath no such distinction but speaketh generally of all works and therefore according to the olde rule Vbi lex non distinguit Where the law distinguisheth not there we must not distinguish To say therefore that it is both by grace and works is to confront the Apostle and to fasten vpon him a flat contradiction Yea it is to extinguish grace vtterly for as it hath beene before alledged out of Augustine grace is not grace in any respect except it bee free in euery respect Secondly that the Apostle meaneth works after grace and such as proceed from faith as well as works of nature appeareth by another like place where works are also excluded and opposed to the free gift of God that is to grace and that the Apostle intendeth works of grace appeareth by the reason following in the next verse For we are his workmanship created in Christ to good works Now in this last place works of grace must needs be vnderstood because he saith we are created in Christ Iesus vnto them and therefore the same also must necessarily bee meant in the former vnlesse wee will say that the Apostle or rather the holy Ghost disputes not ad idem Lastly I answere that in Abrahams iustification who was the Father of the faithfull and his iustification a patterne how all his spirituall posteritie should be iustified works of grace are excluded for at that time of which the Apostle there speaketh Abraham was regenerate as Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth and yet his works are excluded therefore works of grace are meant by the Apostle I but replyeth the same Cardinall when the Apostle saith that Abraham was iustified by faith and not by works he excludeth those works which Abraham might doe without faith for they which haue faith yet doe not alwaies worke by faith as when they sinne or performe meere morall duties without relation to God But this is no better then a meere shift without any ground of reason or truth for if it bee true which the Scripture saith that whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne then those morall works which hee mentioneth being not of faith are no better then sinnes and so need not to bee excluded by the Apostle for they exclude themselues Besides it is manifestly false that a iust and faithfull man doth any worke which is not sinne wherein he hath not relation vnto God if not in the particular act yet in the generall purpose of his minde for euery morning he prayeth to God for the direction of all his wayes and that all his works may be sanctified by his Spirit And thus it appeareth that in saying wee are iustified by grace and yet by works too they speake contraries 35. A third contradiction in this Article is about their works of Preparation which they say goe before the first iustification these they call vertuous dispositions good qualities good preparations merits of congruitie and that they haue a dignitie of worke in them and yet they say agayne that no good works goe before the first iustification belike then they are both good and not good by their doctrine and therefore thus I argue If they be not good why do they call them good if they bee good then it is vntrue that no good works go before the first iustification of a sinner either in the one or in the other they must needs erre and in holding both the one part of their doctrine crosseth the other 36. Fourthly they say that faith alone doth not iustify and yet notwithstanding they say Fide Catholica Christiana eaque sola hominem iustificari nulli vnquam negauerunt nec â—egant Pontificij That no Papist euer hath or doth deny that a man is iustified by the Catholike Christian faith and that alone This is the assertion of Miletus against Heshusius and it is not condemned by any of the rest but his booke approued as contayning nothing contrary to their Catholike Religion and so it seemes to be one of their Catholike doctrines And Bellarmine insinuates asmuch though not in playne speech yet by necessary consequence when bee saith that faith is the beginning and first roote of iustification Now if it be so then as soone as a man hath faith iustification is begun and taketh roote in him euen before he hath any other grace and if it hath taken roote then it is eyther whole iustification or a peece thereof but a peece it cannot be for it is indiuisible therefore eyther whole or none For grant there be degrees in iustification as they say which neuerthelesse they are neuer able to prooue yet they bee degrees of persection not of essence as a man is a man as soone as hee is borne though not a perfect man before hee come to complete age stature and strength So their supposed iustification is iustification in the roote though not perfect and absolute vntill it come to ripe age I speake in their language because I deliuer their owne doctrine Now how can these two contraries bee reconciled Faith alone doth
not iustify and yet faith alone doth iustify If they say that they speake of one kinde of faith and we of another they say nothing to the purpose for euen that any faith alone should iustify is contrary to their owne positions who affirme that the former cause of our iustification is the inherent righteousnes of works and not the righteousnes of Christ apprehended by faith And thus I leaue the Article of iustification at farre with it selfe to be atoned by their best wits if it be possible 37. Let vs come to their doctrine of workes and see how that agreeth with it selfe and here first they hold that works done before faith and regeneration are not good workes but sinnes This is proued by them out of Saint Augustine who affirmeth that the workes of vnbeleeuers are sinnes and if the workes of vnbeleeuers then of all other wicked men which bee not regenerate seeing as the same Father else-where speaketh Impij cogitant non credunt the wicked doe not beleeue but thinke they haue but a shadow of faith without substance It may be prooued also by that generall and infallible axiome of the holy Scripture Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne but the workes of wicked men are all voyd of faith and therefore are no better then sinnes in the sight of God be they neuer so glorious and beautifull in the eyes of men Or as Gregorie Nazianzene saith As faith without workes is dead so workes without faith are dead and dead workes are sinnes as appeares Heb. 9. 41. Besides Bellarmine confirmeth the same by reason because they want a good intention to direct their workes to the glory of the true God whome they are ignorant of To which I adde another reason drawne from our Sauiours owne mouth Mat. 7. Because an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruit but euery man til he be ingrafted into Christ is no better then an euill tree and therefore cannot doe a good worke 38. This is their doctrine and it is sound diuinitie but see how they crosse it ouer the face with a contrary falshood for the same men that teach this notwithstanding affirme that the workes of Infidels are good suo genere in their kind so they are good and not good sinnes and yet good works but this is in their kind say they that is Morally and not Theologically I but morall vertues in the vnregenerate are by their owne principles sinnes how then can they be good any waies Can sinne which is a transgression of Gods law and simply in it owne nature euill be in any respect good as it is sinne But to take cleare away this scruple another of them auoucheth that they are not onely morally but euen Theologically good for he saith that such works as are done by the light of nature onely without grace doe dispose and make a man in some sort fit to iustification though it be longè valdèremotè remotely and a farre off for he that yeeldeth obedience to morall lawes is thereby lesse vndisposed and repugnant to diuine grace Now how can sinnes dispose or prepare a man for iustification is God delighted with sinnes Either therefore they are not sinnes or they doe not dispose to iustification neither farre nor neere or which is the present contradiction they are sinnes and not sinnes good and not good at one time and in one and the same respect And to put the contradiction out of all question the Councill of Trent in the seuenth Canon of the sixt Session enacteth as much and denounceth Anathema to all that say the contrarie the words are these If any man shall say that all the works which are done before iustification by what meanes soeuer they are done are truely sinnes or deserue the hatred of God let him be Anathema And Andradius the interpretor of that Councill authorised by the Fathers of the same doth more perspicuously explaine the meaning of that Canon when hee saith that men without faith destitute of the spirit of regeneration may doe workes which are voyde of all filthinesse free from all fault and defiled with no sinne and by which they may obtaine saluation then which what can be more contradictory to that which before was deliuered that all the workes of Infidels and vnbeleeuers are sinnes be they neuer so glistering with morall vertue or more agreeable to the olde condemned errors of Iustine Clemens and Epiphanius who affirmed that Socrates and Her aclitus were Christians because they liued according to the rule of reason and that the Grecians were iustified by Philosophie and that many were saued onely by the law of nature without the lawe of Moses or Gospell of Christ 39. Againe their doctrine of doubel merit the one of Congruity the other of Condignity as they terme them is not onely contrary to the truth but to it selfe For this they teach that the merit of congruity which the Councill of Trent calleth the preparations and dispositions to iustification is grounded vpon the dignity of the worke and not vpon the promise of God but the merit of condignity requireth both a dignity of the worke and the promise of God to bee grounded vpon or else it is no merit This is Bellarmines plaine doctrine and is consonant to the residue of their Doctours both Schoole diuines and others for thus they define the merit of congruity It is that by which the subiect is disposed that it may receiue grace according to the reason of Gods iustice Here is onely iustice required and not any promise to the merit of congruity though I must confesse Gabriel Biel somewhat crosseth this definition when â—e saith that when a man doth what in him lyeth then God accepteth his worke and powreth in grace not by the due of Iustice but of his liberalitie And Aquinas who affirmeth that when a man vseth well the power of free-will God worketh in him according to the excellencie of his mercy But yet they all agree in this that the merit of congruity is not grounded vpon any promise as the merit of condignity is but onely vpon the worthinâ—s of the worke done Now here lurketh a flat contradiction for by this it should follow that the merit of congruity should bee more properly a merit then that of condignity Which Bellarmine denyeth in the same Chapter because this dependeth vpon it owne dignity and hath no neede of a promise as the other hath and so should bee also more meritorious and excellent then the other being neuerthelesse but a preparation and beginning to iustification and the other the matter of iustification it selfe And that a man that hath no grace dwelling in him but onely outwardly mouing him nor is yet iustified should haue more power to deserue and merite then he that is fulfilled with grace and fully iustified Thus error like a Strumpet bringeth foorth a monstrous brood of absurdities but let vs proceede 40. Their
man should say that a man may bee iustified by his owne works wrought by the power of nature without the diuine helpe by Christ Iesus and Bellarmine seemeth to affirme as much in this place Yet Andradius that famous Interpreter of that forenamed Councill one of the most learned men of his age and that knew well the mysteries of that Councill doth tell vs that by diuine helpe the Councill vnderstood not the grace of regeneration and speciall worke of Gods sanctifying Spirit but heroicall motions stirred vp in the vnregenerate and vnbeleeuers and that by this speciall helpe they might doe works void of all fault and meritorious of saluation And Bellarmine confesseth in other places that they are good suogenere that is morally and Salmeron the Iesuite that they dispose and prepare a man for iustification and the same Councill of Trent in the seuenth Canon following doth curse them that shall say they are sinnes or that they deserue the hatred of God Now if these kinde of works be good in their kinde and preparatiues to iustification and not sinnes nor deseruing the hatred of God but such as whereby the Heathen were saued then it is a probable falsehood in Bellarmine when he saith by their doctrine that these works doe not iustifie nor helpe any thing to the iustification of a sinner 10. Secondly it is false also which he affirmeth concerning the second kinde of works to wit of preparation that though they proceede from faith and grace yet they doe not iustifie for Bellarmine in another place doth not stick to say that this faith iustifieth by way of merite and deserueth forgiuenes of sinnes after a certaine manner and here in this place that these works proceeding from faith doe merite after their manner and obtaine remission of sinnes which if it be true then it must needes be false which he sayd before That they make not our works to concurre with the merits of Christ for the remission of sinnes which is the point of opposition and that which also he affirmeth here That these works doe not iustifie seeing remission of sinnes is of the verie essence of iustification for none haue their sinnes forgiuen but they are iustified and none are iustified but they haue their sinnes forgiuen they concurre in one if they bee not one and the same And therefore if these works merite remission of sinnes they must needs also merite iustification And thus Bellarmines distinction doth no waies free their doctrine from opposition to the doctrine of the Gospell 11. The Gospell teacheth that hee which repenteth and heareth the promise ought to beleeue it and bee perswaded that not only other mens sins but euen his owne are pardoned for Christs sake and that he doth please God and is accepted of God and in this faith ought to come vnto God by prayer But the Church of Rome teacheth that a man must alwaies doubt of the remission of his sins and neuer be assured thereof which doubting as Chytraeus truely speaketh is plainely repugnant to the nature of faith and a meere heathenish doctrine 12. Bellarmine answereth here not by a distinction but by a negation denying flatly that the Scripture teacheth any such doctrine that a man may be assured of the remission of his sinnes and his reconciliation with God and this hee seemeth to prooue by two arguments one because it is contrary to other plaine and manifest places of Scripture another because all Gods promises almost haue a condition annexed vnto them which no man can iustly know whether hee hath fulfilled or no. 13. It is good for Bellarmine here to vse a plaine negation for their doctrine is so manifest that it will admit no distinction the Councill of Trent hath put that out of all question and distinction For it teacheth in expresse words that no man ought to perswade and assure himselfe of the remission of his sinnes and of his iustification no though he be truly iustified and his sinnes be truely and really pardoned This doctrine is so euident that Bellarmine could neither distinguish as his custome is nor yet deny it and therefore hee freely confesseth it and yet Gropper condemned it as an impious doctrine and Catharinus at the Councill of Trent defended the contrary that the childe of God by the certainty of faith knoweth himselfe to be in the state of grace And so did also Dominicus a Sotâ— and diuers others of their owne stampe But there is great cause why the Church of Rome should maintaine this doctrine of doubting very peremptorily for as Chemnitius well obserueth all the Market of Romish superstitious wares is built vpon this foundation for when as the conscience being taught to doubt of solution doth seeke for some true and sound comfort and not finding the same in faith through the merits of Christ then it flyeth to it owne works and heapeth vp together a bundle of superstitious obseruations by which it hopeth to obtaine fauour at Gods hands hence arise voluntary vowes Pilgrimages Inuocations of Saints works of Supererogation priuate Masses sale of Pardons and a number such like trash and when as yet they could not finde any sound comfort in any of these at last was Purgatory found out and redemption of the soules of the dead out of that place of torment by the suffrages and prayers of the liuing Now the Romanists fearing lest these profitable and gainefull wares whereby an infinite tribute is brought into their coffers should be bereft them haue barred out of their Church this doctrine of certainty of saluation by faith of which if mens consciences bee once perswaded they will neuer repose any more confidence in those superstitious trumperies 14. But we with Luther may boldly say that so odious and impious is this doctrine that if there were no other error in the Romane Church but this we had iust cause of separation from them and with Chytraeus that it is repugnant to the nature of faith and a meere heathenish doctrine For it doth not onely nourish mens infirmities who are too much proâ—e to doubting but euen encourage them thereunto and teach that we ought to doubt But that we may come to the point is not this indeede the doctrine of the Gospell that wee should not doubt of our saluation why then doth our Sauiour command all to repent and beleeue the Gospell By which he plainely teacheth where true repentance goeth before there beleefe in the Gospell that is assurance of forgiuenesse of sinnes by the bloud of Christ doth follow and that wee ought euery one to be thus assured seeing this is a precept Euangelicall which doth not onely giue charge of doing the thing commanded as the Law doth but also inspireth grace and power to effect it as Saint Augustine well informeth vs when he saith The Law was giuen that grace might bee sought and grace was giuen that the Law might bee fulfilled Why doeth Saint Paul say
so that their ignorance be simple and vnaffected may bee saued And hereupon they conclude that it is safer to bee of that Church wherein by our owne confession a man may be saued then of that to which they denie all hope of saluation but it is a conclusion made by confusion For who seeth not that that is more likely to be the true Church which is animated with charitie then that which is void of charitie and that it is safer to harbour vnder her wings that is charitably affected euen towards her enemies then vnder her that is so miscarried with enuie that she committeth all to the pit of Hell that are not of her fellowship and profession especially seeing Saint Paul chargeth the Thessalonians that If any man obey not the Gospell they should note him with a letter and haue no companie with him that hee may bee ashamed yet they should not accout him as an enemie but admonish him as a brother If then it be safer to thinke charitably of those that are without then vtterly to condemne them all then it must be also safer to bee a member of our Church then of theirs And to make the matter more cleare Saint Augustine is flat of our mind to thinke more Christianlike of Heretikes as they repute vs then they doe for writing against the Donatists thus he sayth They that defend their false doctrine without obstinate boldnesse especially if they be not such as haue beene authors of those errours but either receiued them from their Parents or were seduced by others and doe carefully seeke the truth being readie to be reformed assoone as they shall see their errours such men are not to be esteemed as Heretikes Thus writeth Saint Augustine whereby hee condemneth the practice of the Church of Rome and iustifieth ours as more agreeable to the rule of charitie and thus that reason whereby the Iesuites seduce many ignorant persons falleth to the ground and maketh more against them then for them 43. Thirdly if the Churches authoritie bee aboue the authoritie of the Scriptures then are men to bee preferred before God and that which is subiect to errour before that which can neither erre nor deceiue for the Church consists of men but the Scripture is immediately from God and the Church may erre though not in fundamentall points but the Scripture cannot erre no not in the least titte the truth of this allegation is grounded vpon those reasons First because euery particular Church may erre as is confessed and therefore the whole Chuchin generall may erre also for such as is the nature of the parts is the nature also of the whole Secondly Councels which are their Church representatiue haue erred as is notoriously knowne to all and confessed by Saint Augustine who sayth that the decrees of prouinciall Councels are subiect to reprehension Yea former generall Councels may be corrected by them that follow as the Councell of Arimine by the Councell of Constantinople the second of Ephesus by the Councell of Chalcedon the Councell of Carthage by the first of Nice and the second of Nice by the Councell of Franckeford Thirdly the Pope that is the Head of the Church hath erred this is also confessed therefore the bodie can claime no better priuiledge but sayth the same Augustine There is no doubt of the truth of any thing which is contained in the Scripture Therefore who can doubt to place the resolution of their faith as the safest course on the Scripture rather then on the Church especially seeing no particular writer of the holy Scripture can be taxed with the least errour but many particular parts of the Church whether we respect the imagined head which is vertually the whole Church in their estimation or the chiefe members in grosse as the Councels or the deuided ioynts as particular Congregations may iustly be challenged as tainted with diuers errours in doctrines of faith 44. Lastly the Church of Rome may be the whore of Babylon and so the See of Antichrist if not necessarily as wee auouch yet coniecturally as no man can denie because spirituall Babylon is said to bee a Citie situate vpon seuen hils and not onely so but that raigned ouer the Kings of the earth both which notes directly agree to the Citie of Rome but the Church of Protestants cannot by any likelihood bee that whore seeing neither of those markes doe in any respect belong vnto it Is it not safer then to rest our selues in her bosome which by al probabilitie is an honest Matrone then in her armes which is a suspected harlot If Caesar would haue his wife to bee without suspition then euerie Christian had need to looke to his faith whereunto he is as it were married by the Spirit of God wherby he is married vnto Christ that it be not onely sincere but also free from all suspition or likelihood of errour 45. Thus we see in these few maine points of the Romish Religion compared with our contrarie assertions that it is a farre safer course to bee a Protestant then a Papist let all indifferent persons iudge and discerne betwixt vs and I pray God direct them by his Spirit to choose the truth 46. There is one thing yet remaining whereby this may further appeare and so and end of this whole discourse and that is that there is no one point of doctrine wherein they differ from vs but is contradicted by some of their owne learned Writers shaking hands with vs and crossing their owne Pew-fellowes whence from ariseth not onely another strong argument of greater securitie in our Religion then in theirs which hath the suffrages of the greatest enemies to vphold it but also of vnresistable truth which worketh so vpon the consciences of the aduersaries thereof that it forceth them will they nill they to acknowledge it now and then as the Deuill himselfe was constrained to confesse Christ Iesus to be the Sonne of God I might write a whole Volume of this point alone but I will propound here onely some few instances and so shut vp this Treatise 47. Protestants teach that a man is iustified by faith alone whereby the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed vnto him and not by the inherent or adherent righteousnesse of his owne workes the same is confessed by Thomas Aquinas who sayth that no man is iustified with God by his workes but by the habit of faith infused and againe that there is in the workes of the Law no hope of iustification but by faith onely and by Pighius who holdeth that there is in vs no inherent righteousnesse whereby wee may bee iustified but that our iustification is by Christs righteousnesse imputed vnto vs and by the Diuines of Collen who affirme That the righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto vs and apprehended by faith is the principall cause of our iustification and by Cassander who approueth of our doctrine of iustification by faith alone and imputed
vncleannesse and some Angels of the bottomles pit by couetousnes and a little after Not a few of our moderne Priests doe serue the most vild and filthy God Priapus Panormitane a man of great fame in the Councell of Basill after he had shewen the vowe of continencie not to be of the essence of Priest-hood nor by the lawe of God but a constitution of the Church addeth these words I beleeue that it were a wholesome ordinance for the good saluation of soules to leaue it to mâ—ns owne wils to marrie or not because experience doth show that now a daies they doe not liue spiritually and vndefiledly but that they are defiled by vnlawfull copulation whereas they might liue chastly with their owne wiues 37. I could adde vnto these testimonies the report of Iohn Gerson touching his time who complained that some Cloysters of Nunnes were become Stewes of strumpets and whores And of Mantuan a Carmelite Italian Frier whose verses touching this poynt are sufficiently knowne Patrum vita fuit melior cum coniuge quà m nunc Nostra sit exclusis thalamis coniugis vsu The life of the Fathers was better being married then ours to whom marriage is forbidden and of Polidor Virgill who liued in King Henrie the Eights daies whose censure is this that this enforced chastity is so farre from excelling that marriage-chastity that no crime hath brought more shame to the order of Priesthood more euill to Religion nor more griefe to all good men then that blot of the filthinesse of Priests But that I feare I haue too much offeÌ„ded chaste eares already with raking into this dunghill I conclude with the report of Martin Luther he saith that he saw Cardinals at Rome which were accounted holy for no other cause but that they were content onely to commit fornication and adultery with women and did not giue themselues to other vnnaturall lusts Thus as it were in a mappe I haue described the filthy and abominable fruites that proceed from that Romish doctrine of vowed chastitie Is it possible that the spring should be good when the streams are thus corrupt 38. The fift doctrine of Poperie giuing manifest occasion of liberty to the professours thereof is their doctrine of veniall sinnes By which they teach that many acts which are transgressions of the laws of God men yet are not properly sins nor deserue the wrath of God but of their nature are pardonable and therfore he which committeth any such doth neither offer iniury to God nor breake charity in respect of his neighbour and so deserues not hell nor is bound to be sorry for them but that the knocking of the brest going to Church being sprinckled with holy water or the Bishops blessing or crossing ones selfe or doing any worke of charity though we neuer thinke actually of them is a sufficient satisfaction for them This is the doctrine not onely of the Schoolemen but also of the finest and refyning Iesuites euen of Bellarmine himselfe who thus distinguisheth veniall sinnes that some are veniall of their own nature and kind to wit such as haue for their obiect an euill and inordinate matter but which is not repugnant to the law of God and of our neighbour others are veniall by the imperfection of the worke which imperfection ariseth partly ex surreptione that is by vnaduised falling into them without full consent of will and partly ex paruitate materiae by the smalnesse of the matter which is committed as if a man should steale a halfe-peny or some such trifle This is the Cardinals doctrine which as neere as I could I hauâ— word for word set downe And that wee may more fully vnderstand their meaning they affirme in very deede that they are no sinnes but aequiuoce that is so called but not â—o in truth for the word peccatum sinne doth not vniuoce aâ—â—ee 〈…〉 eniall sinnes as it doth to mortall and therefore it is their generall opinion that they are not against but beside the lawe that is in plaine words not sinne for euery sinne is a transgression of the law Now let the Readeriudge whether our doctrine that all sinnes of their owne nature are mortall and deserue condemnation except they be repeÌ„ted of or heirs that some are veniall and binde not the offender to condemnation doe more tend to liberty whether we restraine more the people from sinning that thus say vnto them All your sinnes though neuer so small are of their owne nature damnable except by faith in the bloud of Christ they be purged away and by repentance which is a fruite of faith sorrowed for and laboured against or they that say thus to them A number of your ordinarie sinnes are not damnable you neede not faith in Christs bloud to purge them nor repentance to bewaile them nor care and endeuour to preuent them who seeth not that our doctrine pulleth in and theirs letteth out the reynes of libertie to our corrupt nature for when a man beleeueth that he may do many things which are in deed transgressions of Gods lawe without offence to God or hurt to his neighbour or wounding of his owne conscience and that after he hath committed them he needeth not greatly to repent of them or to be sorry for them but that they are done away by saying a Lords prayer or hearing a Masse or creeping to a Crosse or receiuing a little Holy water what neede he make any conscience of these so sleight trifles nay how can hee choose but neglect and make light account of them This is one of the deuils subtile deuices or iuggling trickes which Saint Paul speaketh of where with hee laboureth to seduce simple soules for either hee will aggrauate our sinnes to driue vs to desperation or extenuate and excuse them to draw to presumption the rocke and gulfe whereat many thousand soules suffer shipwracke And this last the most dangerous wherein the Papists shew themselues the deuils agents and factours by this their doctrine of veniall sinnes for what is this but to excuse sinne and to extenuate it and so to make men presume to commit those things which they esteeme of no greater moment 39. The truth of this will more clearely appeare if wee take a suruay a little of those particular sinnes which they account as veniall To sweare by the bloud of God or wounds or bodie of Christ is no blasphemie saith Cardinall Caietane if it be spoken in a brawle or in some perturbation of mind neither is it to be counted any more than a veniall sinne Againe formall cursing saith Gregorie de Valentia although in it owne kinde it be a mortall sinne yet it may be onely a veniall to wit in respect either of the smalnesse of the matter or the want of deliberation in the speaker and hereby saith he Parents cursing their children with bitter words and deuoting them to the deuill may often be excused from mortall sinne
teaching for doctrines precepts of men 32. The Iewish Pharises would not conuerse with any of a different Religion especially the Samaritanes whose bread they thought it as vnlawfull to eate as to eate Swines flesh and for Christians they account it a sinne to keepe faith and promise with them to afford them any succour yea not to doe them any mischiefe that lyeth in their power and therefore in their prayers one part of their deuotion is most direfully to curse all those that professe Christian Religion The Romish Pharises doe likewise they damme all to hell that are not of their Religion they denie faith to bee kept with Heretikes they hate all that are not subiect to their Pope but aboue all the poore Protestant him they curse with Bell Booke and Candle and abhorre him more then a Iew or a Turke yea once a yeere ordinarily and in publike they curse vs to the pit of hell which I take it to be vpon euery good Friday They say that the Father may not nourish his owne childe if he be an Heretike nor the childe honour his Father nor the Prince defend his Subiect nor the Subiect obey his Prince all bonds of nature policy religion are pulled in pieces by these Romish Pharises 33. The Iewish Pharises vsed not to fast without a disfigured face nor giue an almes without a Trumpet nor seldome pray but in the corners of the streetes and high-wayes that they might bee seene of men all for shew nothing for substance And are not our Romish Pharises their equals in this Is not their religion all in ostentation doe they hide themselues when they fast and pray doe they not blow a trumpet before their deedes of charitie their hypocriticall abstinence from flesh on set dayes when as in the meane while they farse themselues with dainty fish and delicate iunkets their mumbling vp so many Aue Maries and Pater Nosters in the streetes and Market-places their crowâ—hing at euery Crosse and lastly their Almes-deeds extorted by feare either for penance of sinnes committed or in hope of meriting the kingdome of Heauen and imployed for the most part to the feeding of a multitude of idle Drones Monkes and Fryers fatted in a Cloyster like Bores in a stye doe proue this to be true which I haue said 34. The Iewish Pharises vnder colour of long prayers great deuotion deuoured widowes houses the Romish Pharises by the same pretext of holinesse sucke downe into their panches not the Cottage of some poore widdow but the rich and faire Patrimonies of seduced Gentlemen Noblemen and others the Iewish Pharises compassed sea and land to gaine a Proselite to their profession our Romish Pharises trauell all Countries labour by all possible means to winne soules to their religion and to reconcile men to the obedience of the Bishop of Rome and when they haue wrought their purpose as those so these make them two-fold more the children of hell then they were before 35. Lastly the Iewish Pharises like hypocrites made cleane the out-side of the cup and platter but within were full of bribery and excesse and therefore are compared by our Sauiour to whited Tombes which appeare beautifull without but within are full of all filthinesse So our Romish Pharises come to vs in sheepes clothing giuing a bright luster of holinesse and austerity in their externe behauiour but inwardly are rauening Wolues deuouring the flocke and haue their hearts fraught with all manner of villany as lying for aduantage equiuocation couetousnesse ambition vncleane lusts and other inordinate affections as the secular Priests boldly obiect against the Loyolian Sect and are taxed backe againe by them as guilty of the same crimes 36. This subiect might be enlarged by many more particulars but that I forbeare to stirre this sinke any further and weary the Reader and my selfe hauing a long iourney yet to trauaile This that hath beene spoken I suppose to be sufficient to prooue the truth of the proposition that the Romanists imitate the Iewes in those things wherein they are enemies vnto Christ both in respect of the legall Ceremonies which are vanished by the appearance of the Sunne of righteousnes and also in respect of their Thalmudieall traditions which were neuer found in Gods Booke but are the foppish dotages of their superstitious Rabbines And is it not strange that notwithstanding all this they should bragge themselues to be the onely Catholikes of the world and their Church the onely Noahs Arke out of the which there is no saluation Siâ—ia quà m similis turpissima bestia nobis Tam Rabbinorum â—â—bulis Romana cathedra Not liker is to Man the Ape a filthy Creature Then is the Romish Church vnto the Iewish feature MOTIVE IIII. That Religion which derogateth from the glory of God in the worke of our Redemption and giueth part thereof vnto man cannot be the truth of God but such is the Popish Religion Ergo. THe first proposition as it is infallibly true of it selfe so is it without all question and controuersie betwixt vs and the Romanists for both confesse that the end of true Religion is that God might be glorified and therefore whatsoeuer doth rebate from that end cannot possibly be the truth Especially seeing the Lord himselfe protesteth that he will not giue his glory to another Esay 48. 11. And Paul affirmeth that the end of all our actions should bee the glorie of God 1. Car. 10. 31. Therefore passing ouer the Maior with silence it is necessary that the Minor or second proposition bee strengthened and confirmed whereon the hinge of the Controuersie hangeth the whole pith substance of this fourth Argument doth consist which by the assistance of Gods good spirit whose ayde I humbly implore and of my Lord and Sauiour Christ Iesus whose glory I now labour to maintaine I doubt not but to make so cleare as is the Sunne at Noone-day all cloudes mists and fogges being vtterly dispersed 2. That the Romish Religion doth derogate from the glory of God in the worke of our redemption may by foure maine and fundamentall doctrines of their Religion most euidently be demonstrated besides many other poynts of lesser consequence to wit their doctrines of Free-will of Iustification of merite and of satisfaction 3. For the doctrine of Free-will this is the generall determination of the Church of Rome that in the act of regeneration and conuersion mans will doth naturally cooperate with the grace of God and that it is not meerely of supernaturall grace that a sinner is regenerate but partly of naturall free-will and partly of grace whereas we on the contrary defend that the regeneration and conuersion of a sinner is wholly of the grace of God and that mans will in that great worke is meerely passiue and not actiue yea starke dead vntill it be excited and quickned by the grace of God This in briefe is the difference betwixt the Romanists and vs
common receiued doctrine of the Church of Rome 8. Now out of all these their opinions three materiall obseruations doe arise first that that Helena of theirs the merit of congruity though in word it be reiected by some of the finer Iesuites yet in substance and in truth is still retayned for whereas the Schoolemen say grosly that a man by doing what he is able by the power of his nature doth of congruity merit effectuall grace the Councill of Trent and the later Diuines choose rather to say that hee doth dispose and prepare himselfe to grace which indeede is in effect all one for to merit grace and to dispose a mans selfe to grace is in diuersity of words but one and the same sense and this Bellarmine ingenuously confesseth when he saith that a man not yet reconciled may by the workes of penance obtaine and deserue ex congruo of congruity the grace of iustification Thus they say and vnsay what they list and gainesay each other and indeede are in such a labyrinth that they know not what to say Secondly that howsoeuer they magnifie the grace of God in word and affirme nothing more frequently then that without Gods grace preuenting assisting and following vs we can doe nothing yet in very deede they ascribe well-neere as much power to free-will as to the grace of God yea more for they make the efficacie of the first grace to depend vpon the free consent of our will and make it as it were the Porter to let in or shut out grace at it pleasure which is one of the most presumptuous conceits that euer was vttered by the mouth of man and full of blasphemy Thirdly and lastly that this first grace which they say doth work with free-will in the first act of our new birth and help assist it is not intrinsicall and inhabitant but barely outward prouocant In respect whereof Coster compareth grace to a staffe in a mans hand which at his owne will he either vseth for his helpe or throweth away and to a friend who finding a man in a deepe pit perswadeth him by diuers reasons to be willing to be pulled out And in expresse words the same Iesuite saith that this grace is onely the impulsion and motion of the holy Ghost being yet without and standing knocking at the doore of our heart not being as yet let in And Bellarmine auoucheth the same when hee saith that it is but onely a perswading which doth not determine the will but inclineth it in manner of a propounding obiect And thus vnder colour of the name of grace they insinuate into mens soules the poyson of their doctrine attributing in word all to grace when indeede they meane nothing lesse 9. These things being thus discouered let vs now come to see how by this doctrine the glory of God is defaced which that it may more clearely appeare two grounds are to be laid the first whereof is that God is so iealous of his glory that he cannot endure any copartner or sharer with him therein The second is that in cases where grace nature seeme to worke together the godliest course is to magnifie the grace of God and to debase the nature of man yea to ascribe all to grace and nothing to nature because this sauours of humility whereas the contrary hath a manifest taste of pride These grounds being setled in our mindes let vs come to the examination of their doctrine And I pray you touching the first ground doth not this doctrine of theirs make man to part stakes with God In his glory whereas our doctrine doth ascribe all the glory in solid and whole to God onely let any man iudge whether ascribe more glory vnto God wee that affirme that God is all in all to the effecting of our regeneration or they that say that our will doth cooperate with his grace or else it can doe nothing we that say that we are starke dead to Godward till God put life into vs by his spirit or they that say wee are but sicke and halfe dead and are but onely helped and assisted by his spirit wee that teach that a man can no more prepare himselfe to his owne iustification then a dead man to life or they that teach wee may by our naturall powers either merit of congruity or prepare our selues to our iustification Lastly wee that ascribe the whole worke of our saluation to God onely or they that attribute some part thereof to their owne free-will If this bee not to derogate from Gods glory what can be for apparently they share the great and glorious worke of our regeneration betwixt God and man grace and nature 10. Would it not thinke you be a great impeachment to Gods glory if in the worke of our creation any should teach that God alone did not create vs but that we our selues were coadiutors with him so in the worke of regeneration which is a second creation to attribute part to Gods spirit and part to free-will is it not a great blemish to the glory of God for either it must be said that God could not doe it of himselfe alone or that he would not If the first then they blaspheme in derogating from his power if the second then they dote in saying God is not willing to maintaine his owne glory or that he is willing to impart it vnto others contrary to his owne word and will reuealed in the Scripture which way so euer they turne themselues they fall into the pit of impiety and make themselues guilty of high treason against the diuine Maiestie 11. Againe when our Sauiour raised vp Lazarus from the graue where he lay stinking foure dayes if it bee true which some write that Lazarus life was stil remaining in him and that his soule and body was not parted and so our blessed Sauiour did but excite and stirre vp that life which was as it were asleepe and did not inspire into him a new life and couple together his soule and body againe being deuided is not the glory of this miracle mightily darkened and extenuated This is our very case wee say that a man is starke dead and buried in the graue of sinne and till a new life of grace be inspired into his soule he cannot moue the least haires bredth to heauen-ward our aduersaries say that he is not dead but maymed and wounded like the man that betwixt Iericho and Ierusalem fell among theeues and therefore needes not to be reuiued but onely to be healed and helped with the oyle and wine of grace powred into his wounds he himselfe cooperating with his owne free will who seeth not that by this doctrine of ours God is more glorified and by theirs more debased for the lesse and easier the worke is the lesse is also the glory of the worke-man and the greater and harder the worke the greater his glory but it is a lesse worke to heale a man wounded then to raise a man
Christs merits and so they attribute asmuch or more to grace and Christs merites then wee doe To which I answere two things first if they held that these workes were merely from grace they said something to the purpose but affirming as they doe that they are partly from grace and partly from the power of free-will as two ioynt causes this their something is nothing but a vizard to couer the vgly face of their errour Secondly let this be granted that their doctrine is that they proceede onely from grace neuerthelesse being wrought in man and acted by man they must needes bee called and be indeede in part mans workes because man doth cooperate with grace and therefore to make them meritorious absolutely of grace must needes tend in part to the exalting of mans dignitie and consequently in part to the impeachment of Gods For let an answere bee giuen to this question by what meanes doth a man continue in iustice and encrease in holinesse Wee answere with Saint Paul By the grace of God onely who as hee hath begun that good worke in vs so will performe it vntill the day of Iesus Christ but the Romanists will answere that this is done by the merit of our owne workes which workes howsoeuer they may colour the matter by saying they are works of grace and receiue power froÌ„ Christs merits yet being the works of man also by the power of his free-will who seeth not but that Gods glory is greatly blemished hereby and mans worth extolled 21. Thirdly touching the forme of iustification which of vs doth most honour to God they which teach that it is an inherent righteousnesse habituated in vs or wee that say that it is Christs righteousnesse imputed vnto vs wee attribute all vnto Christ and nothing to our selues they share the matter betwixt Christ and our selues for this inherent righteousnesse though it proceede from Gods spirit as they say and is a worke of grace yet in three respects it may bee called our righteousnesse by their doctrine first in respect of the roote and spring of it which is as they affirme partly grace and partly nature Secondly in respect of the subiect which is the soule of man which may bee also called the instrument by which it is effected and that not a dead subiect or liuelesse instrument as we say mans nature is till it be liued and quickned by Gods spirit but of it selfe liuing and quicke and fit for so great a worke Thirdly In respect of the medium or meane by which it is attained which they hold is the merit of our owne workes as I haue sufficiently discouered out of their owne bookes Now then if this inherent righteousnesse bee in part our owne and not wholy Christs but the righteousnesse imputed be wholy and entirely Christs and not in any respect ours saue that it is giuen vnto vs and made ours by imputation who can doubt but that this our doctrine is farre more auaileable for the aduancement of Christs glory and debasing of mans excellencie then theirs is Adde herevnto that it must needes be a dishonour to God to say that an vnperfect a polluted and a stayned righteousnesse such as the best of ours is can satisfie the absolute and most exact iustice of God but it is an extolling glory to Gods iustice to say that it cannot be answered but by the most perfect and absolute righteousnesse that euer was in the world such as the righteousnesse of the Sonne of God is who taking our flesh vpon him performed in the same all righteousnesse that the strictest iustice of God required for our sakes 22. All which things layd together and diligently weighed we may see what caused all the Saints of God when they came to plâ—ad their causes before the tribunal of Gods iudgement to disclaime all their owne righteousnesse and to lay fast hold vpon the righteousnes of Christ the Mediatour and the mercies of God in him who is the fountaine of all mercy euen this because they perceiued that by this deiecting and despoyling of themselues of all worthinesse Gods glory was greatly magnified as also when they examined their best workes by the rule of the law their owne consciences told them that they were not able to abide the trial if they should bee weighed in the ballance of iustice and not of mercy Therefore this is the common voyce of all Gods Saints Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified to which in a sweet harmony accord all the Fathers Who will glory concerning his righteousnesse saith Origen seeing he heareth God saying by his Prophet All your righteousnesse is as a cloth of a menstruous woman our perfection it selfe is not voyd of fault saith Gregory vnlesse the seuere Iudge doe weigh it mercifully in the subtill scales of his iustice Who so liueth here howsoeuer iustly he liue yet woe vnto him saith S. Augustine if God enter into iudgement with him if our iustice be strictly iudged saith S. Bernard it will bee found vniust and scant And this infallible truth wrâ—ng out of Bellarmine himselfe though vnawares this plaine confession Tutissimum est in sola Dei misericordia conquiescere c. that is it is the safest course to repose our confidence what in our owne righteousnesse no in the sole mercy of God Is it the safest course for mans saluation so is it for the aduancement of Gods glory for the one is subordinate to the other who then that hath but common sense will not chuse rather to repose the hope of his saluation on Gods mercy then on his owne righteousnesse at least-wise if hee regard either Gods glory which all should and that aboue all or his owne soules health which should be next to the other in our desires 23. By this it may appeare what a vaine bragge that is of some of them who boast that they doe much more magnifie Christ and his merits then we doe because wee make them say they so meane as that they serue the turne onely to couer and hide sinne whereas they contrariwise do so highly esteeme them that they hold them able both to purchase at Gods hand an inherent righteousâ—esse and to giue it such force and value that it can make a man iust before God and worthy of the kingdome of heauen In which braue vaunt there lye lurking no lâ—sse then three grosse absurdities First they lay a false â—mputaâ—ion vpon our doctrine that wee should hold Christs merits to be so meane as to serue onely to couer and hide sinne whereas wee expresly teach and that with one consent that for the merits of Christ not onely our sinnes are pardoned but also that grace is inspired into our soules and sanctification and new obedience and Christ is made vnto vs of God wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption by which it appeareth that we ascribe euen as much in this
shew also how good workes to wit almse-deedes pilgrimages workes of supererogation vowed chastity voluntary pouerty Monkish obedience which they esteeme the chiefest good workes are made Idols in that they repose the confidence of their heart and the hope of saluation in them through the power of meriting which they ascribe vnto them as also how they turne their Sacraments into Idols by teaching that they conferre grace Ex opere operato by the very worke done and that effectiuely actiuely and immediatly they produce in the heart the grace of regeneration and iustification which is the proper and immediate worke of the Godhead but I passe ouer these many other things because they admit in shew some probable exception though no sound confutation and I insist in those things onely in which euery Ideot and almost Infant may discerne most grosse and palpable Idolatry And those are these fiue in number the bread in the Sacrament Images Reliques Angels and Saints departed And lastly the Crosse and Crucifix of which in order 14. The blessed Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ ordayned for a perpetuall remembrance of his death and passion and for the strengthning and nourishing of the soules of the faithfull to eternall life is transhaped by them into a most horrible Idoll For this they teach and practise that that very thing which to all the senses is but bread being but lately moulded and knead by the Baker is to be worshipped and adored with diuine worship because forsooth after consecration it is the true and naturall body of Christ And therefore at the Priests eleuation of the hoast they all fall downe vpon their knees and worship it with great deuotion and expect from it forgiuenesse of their sinnes and all manner of earthly and temporall blessings and whosoeuer refuseth to doe this is an Heretike 15. Their Apologie is that there is a reall and naturall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament and therefore not the bread but the body of Christ into which the bread is transubstantiate is worshipped of them and so they thinke to free themselues To which I answere that if that were certaine then their defence was iust and their practice godly and we in calling them Idolaters for this cause should bee slanderers of the truth but seeing the contrary is rather certaine to wit that Christ is not corporally in the Sacrament but in heauen and that the bread remayneth still true bread both for matter and forme after consecration they cannot be excused from notorious Idolatry in worshipping a piece of Bakers bread in stead of Christ the eternall Sonne of God for to the outward senses it beareth the shape taste figure and colour of bread This is certaine and to the vnderstanding in reason it is bread because accidents cannot be without a substance this is as certaine and to faith it is bread because the Word which is the foundation of saith so calleth it after the words of consecration neither is there any Scripture to auouch the contrary saue that which may well receiue our interpretation as well yea better then theirs as the best learned amongst them confesse for Bellarmine confesseth that it may iustly bee doubted whether the Text this is my body be cleare inough to enforce transubstantiation And Scotus and Cameracensis thinke our opinion more agreeable to the words of institution and thus they haue against them sense and reason and faith and for them onely a doubtfull Exposition of two or three places of Scripture and therefore three to one but they are guilty of Idolatry 16. Besides graunt that there is a reall transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ yet the accidents of bread and wine remaine vnchanged and the forme and shape Now howsoeuer the learned may here distinguish their worship from the outward accidents to the inward substance yet the common people are not able so to doe but worship confusedly the outward accidents together with Christ contayned vnder them and so in that respect are Idolaters also for accidents be creatures as well as substances Yea and Bellarmine also doth allow them so to dâ—e for thus he writeth Diuine worship doth appertaine to the Symboles and signes of bread and wine so farre forth as they are apprehended as being vnited to Christ whom they containe Euen as they that worshipped Christ vpon earth being clothed did not worship him alone but after a sort his garments also Here is a braue straine of Diuinity they worshipped Christ in his clothes therfore they worshipped Christs clothes So Christ is worshipped vnder the formes of bread and wine therefore the formes of bread and wine must be worshipped This is like the Asse which bore vpon his backe the Image of Isis and when men fell downe before the Image he thought they worshipped him but hee was corrected with a cudgell for his sawcinesse and so are they worthy for their folly that cannot distinguish betwixt a man and his garments Christ and the signes of Christ but promiscuously confound the worship of the one with the other Rather therefore may we thus conclude they which worshipped Christ on earth did not worship his garments that he wore therefore they which will worship Christ in the Sacrament must not worship the outward Elements and so it will follow that as it had beene Idolatry in any to worship the garments of Christ so it is in the Romanists to worship the accidents of bread and wine 17. Lastly let it be supposed that there is such a reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament yet according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome no man can be certaine when it is because it depends vpon the intention of the Priest for thus they teach if the Priest should say the words of consecration without intention to consecrate the bread and wine he should effect nothing or if hee intend to consecrate but one hoast and there chance to be two or more then nothing is consecrated at all and so the intention of the Priest being vncertaine to the people there must needes be an vncertaine adoration and the Priest oftentimes intending nothing lesse then the matter it selfe which hee hath in hand there must needes be certaine and vndoubted Idolatry for if the bread and wine be not effectually consecrated as they are not without the Priests intention then Christ is not really present and so nothing is worshipped but the bare bread for remedy hereof they haue deuised two poore shifts one that the people must adore vpon a condition to wit if the due forme in consecrating bee obserued the other that an actuall intention is not necessarily required but onely a vertuall that is when an actuall intention to consecrate is not present at the very time of consecration by reason of some vagation of the minde yet it was present a little before the operation is in vertue
Religion to the experience of euery mans owne conscience But I leaue this to others who haue or shall meddle in this argument my taske is to shew how it contradicteth both it selfe and other doctrines of their Religion 44. It selfe thus They teach that works of supererogation grounded vpon Euangelicall Counsels are as you haue heard more excellent perfect and meritorious then those which are done in obedience to the law of God and that in three respects First comparing seuerall Counsels with seuerall Precepts which concerne the same matter As to sell all and giue to the poore is a more excellent worke then any commanded in that Precept Thou shalt not steale And the Counsell of Single life is more perfect then the Precept Thou shalt not commit Adultery As if men could bee more perfect then God had commanuded or then Christ himselfe was whose righteousnes consisted in this in being obedient to his Fathers will Or then the Angels whose perfection consisteth in executing the Commandements of God Or as if the law of God was not a perfect rule of righteousnes Secondly comparing the state of men obseruing Euangelicall Counsells with the state of them that onely yeeld obedience to Precepts as if a man could be in a higher and happier estate then they are which loue God with all their heart and their Neighbour as themselues which is the summe of the Law And thirdly marke this comparing Counsells with any precept whatsoeuer euen with that great Commaundement of the Law Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy strength As if a man could loue God more then with all his heart and with all his strength Gods children labour for so much let them take the more for their shares Hence they conclude that in respect of matter the Precept is good but the Counsels better and in respect of the end the fulfilling of Precepts hath a reward but the execution of Counsels hath a greater reward This is their plaine doctrine And yet neuerthelesse the same men teach that the perfection of a Christian man consisteth essentially in the obseruation of Precepts and instrumentally in the obseruation of Counsels And secondly that the Precepts of charitie are the ends whereunto Counsels are ordayned and the works of Counsels are but the way and meanes for the better keeping of the Precepts Now to the purpose How can works of supererogation bee more perfect then works of obedience Counsels then Precepts seeing perfection consisteth in the one instrumentally and in the other essentially and Precepts are the end of Counsels and not Counsels of Precepts Is an instrumentall perfection greater then an essentiall or the meanes more perfect then the end This is contrary to naturall reason for Aristotle saith Maius bonum est finis quà m quod finis non est The end is a greater good then that which is not the end and the instrument is neuer so perfect as the essence of a thing 45. Againe it crosseth another of their doctrines thus They teach that though the law of God bee possible to bee kept by the regenerate the works of the faithfull be simply and absolutely iust yet they are mixed with many veniall sinnes and therefore there is none so iust but that sinneth sometimes and hath neede to vse that petition in the Lords Prayer daily Forgiue vs our trespasses According to that generall axiome of Sain Iames In many things wee sinne all Yea Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth that the regenerate may fall into many deadly sinnes and that hee cannot possibly auoyd veniall sinnes Nisi priuilegio singulari But by a singular priuiledge Which priuiledge hee cannot instance to haue beene granted to any man liuing or dead except Christ only who was God man Obserue now the contradiction to omit that this necessitie of sinning doth ouerthrow the possibility of fulfilling the law and doth imply an impossibilitie how can these two extremes be reconciled The regenerate cannot performe all they should do yet do performe more then they should do They cannot auoyd veniall sins and yet can supererogate It is as much as to say that a man is not able to pay his owne debts but must aske pardon for them yet hath ability to pay another mans far greater then his owne Or an Archer cannot by any means shoot home to the marke yet with the same Bow Arrowes sent forth by the same strength of his arme he can shoote farre beyond the marke He that is tainted and stained with many veniall sinnes in that respect is not perfect but hee that doeth supererogate is more then perfect For so they say when they giue a higher degree of perfection to these works then to the perfect obedience of the law If they say that veniall sinnes doe not hinder the perfection of good works I answere that neuerthelesse they hinder the perfection of the worker if they stick fast to the worke it selfe they hinder that also as the least spot of inke blemisheth the whole face and the lightest disease disableth the health of the whole body Eyther therefore they must deny them to be sinnes and so spots defects in the soules of the regenerate or they must confesse that they are not so perfect as they should be And how then can they be more perfect then they should be 46. Further they teach that one degree of superero gating perfection is the vow of Monasticall pouerty renouncing all propriety in worldly goods and holding in Common the vse of temporall things and yet they say that the state of Bishops who possesse lands and goods and enioy the propriety of them is more perfect then the state of Monks who depriue themselues thereof because Bishops haue alreadie atchiued this perfection and Monks are but in the way to it From which ground a man may thus argue If perfection consist in voluntary pouerty which is an alienation of all proprietie of worldly goods then Bshiops possessing Lordships and reuenues are not more perfect then Monks that haue renounced all and if Bishops possessing be more perfect then Monks not possessing then perfection consisteth not in the alienation of all proprietie of worldly goods One or the other must needes bee false except hee will place perfection in two contraries to wit possessing and not possessing And the rather may this absurditie appeare because aske them why Monks are more perfect then other men they will answere because they remooue from them all impediments of their loue to God in which ranke they place worldly wealth and consecrate themselues wholly to Gods seruice By which reason Bishops cannot bee more perfect then either they or other men because they retayne those impediments and so by their doctrine doe not wholly consecrate themselues to Gods seruice 47. From their actions let vs come to their passions to wit their Satisfactions or as Melanchton calleth them Satispassions
but incourage men to deferre their repentance conuersion seeing it is in their power to accept it when they list 94. Secondly how can the doctrine of iustification by faith alone tend to loosenesse seeing we teach that faith is neuer seuered from good workes nor iustification from sanctification nor a right beliefe from an vpright life as hath beene shewed and that they which seuer and part those things which God hath coupled together seuer themselues from the mercie of God and merit of Iesus Christ With what brow of brasse then can they call this a solifidian portion and a doctrine of libertie I but manie take libertie hereby to lead a loose and wicked life building vpon this ground that they are iustified by faith alone and so they neglect all good workes True indeed many such there are but is it from our doctrine is it not rather from their mistaking of it So the Capernaites tooke offence at our Sauiour Christs heauenly doctrine Ioh. 6. touching the spirituall eating of his flesh and drinking his bloud insomuch that many of them departed from him was his doctrine therefore erronious or were not they rather ignorant in misconstruing impious in peruerting the same So is it with this mysterie of iustification which is the verie doctrine of Iesus Christ if any by mistaking it or by taking vp one piece of it and leauing another doe animate themselues vnto sinne is the doctrine to be blamed and not they rather that distort it to their owne shame and confusion In a word if this were a iust exception against this doctrine then no doctrine either of their or ours or the Gospell it selfe might bee freed from this challenge For as there is no herbe so sweet and wholsome but the Spider may sucke poyson out of it aswell as the Bee hony so there is no truth so sacred and holy but an vngodly minde may peruert and make it an occasion of his impietie Thus the grace of God is turned into wantonnesse by many as Saint Iude saith the word of God is the sauour of death vnto death Yea Christ Iesus our blessed Lord and Sauiour is a falling and a stone to stumble at and a rocke of offence so the doctrine of Iustification by faith alone may be an occasion of libertie and no otherwise that is not properly or by any effect issuing from itselfe but accidentally and by the malignitie of the obiect whereupon it worketh 95. Thirdly our doctrine of perseuerance though rayling Wright sayth of it that Epicurus himselfe could not haue found a better ground to plant his Epicurisme nor Heliogabalus haue better patronized his sensualitie nor Bacchus and Venus haue forged better reasons to inlarge their dominion yet to any single eye for his eyes are double-sighted with malice as Witches eyes are said to be it is rather a strong bridle to restraine from sensuality and Epicurisme and a bond to bind to obedience then a provocation vnto sinne for when men are perswaded that sincere faith true charitie and sauing grace cannot be lost it will cause them to take heed how they fall away lest they proue themselues to haue beene hypocrites before and their faith and charitie not to haue beene true but fained for he that falleth from God whom he pretend d to serue to the Deuil by an actual Apostasie into sinne plainly proueth that hee had neuer the seed of the spirit sowne in him nor the habit of charitie in his soule this is then a bridle to withhold men from sinne and not a spurre to pricke them forward vnto it And therefore whereas they say that men will thus reason If I be the child oâ— God I cannot fall away therefore I will doe what I list The contrarie is rather true that euery child of GOD yea euery one that is perswaded that hee is the childe of GOD will reason thus from the grounds of this doctrine I will not doe what I list neither will I giue my selfe ouer vnto sinne lest I proue my selfe by my falling into sinne not to be the child of God but an hypocrite Adde hereunto that as we teach that true faith and charitie cannot bee vtterly extinct in the elect So also we teach that this faith and charitie must bee nourished and preserued by the practice of all holy Christian duties and therefore they which neglect the conseruation of their faith and charitie and seek to extinguish them by the lusts of the flesh it is a signe that they neuer had these graces in grafted in their soules And what perswasion can be more effectual I pray you to stirre vp men vnto godlinesse then this is 96. So we may truly answere concerning the fourth doctrine obiected namely the impossibilitie of keeping Gods Commandements which though it be true in some part albeit not as they slanderously impute vnto vs. For wee hold that the regenerate person is able in some measure to keepe Gods Commandements though not to that perfection which the Law requireth exacting of euery one of vs the loue of God with all our heart soule and strength yet this openeth not but rather stoppeth the gap vnto fleshly libertie For is any man so madde as to say I will giue ouer all care of keeping Gods Law because I am not able fully and exactly to performe it rather euery one that hath but a reasonable soule will thus determine Because I am not able to performe perfect obedience to God therefore I will indeuour to doe what I can that my imperfections and wants may bee made vp by the perfect obedience of my Sauiour All men will account him a wilfull wicked wretch who being greatly indebted because he is not able to discharge the whole summe therfore will take no care to pay any part thereof which he is able to doe but lay all vpon his sureties backe so we condemne him for a desperate and damnable person that because he is not able to satisfie the whole debt of Gods Commandements therefore will not indeuour to pay as much as he can besides we teach withall that though this perfection be not attained vnto in this life yet there must be a continuall growth and increase in grace and goodnesse in all that belong to God that at length after this life ended they may doff off the olde man with the inabilities and corruptions thereof and attaine to the highest degree of perfection in the life to come the fruit of this doctrine then is not sensuall libertie but Christian humilitie not a prouocation to sinne but an incentiue and spurre vnto godlinesse 97. Thus I haue propounded vnto the view of the Christian Reader a short Epitome of the great volume of their slanders darted forth by them both against our persons our gouernment and our Religion it selfe all which indeed is but a taste and say of that which might be spoken in this subiect and which requireth an entire worke for the discouering of ther