expressed in other letters but in the common character as it standeth in the first edition pag. 566. lin 2. 2. The text onely then is not here vrged but an argument therefrom concluded and therein included that because a man is iustified without the workes of the law it followeth that he is iustified by faith alone So Origen inferreth vpon this place Dicit sufficere solius fidei iustificationem ita vt credens quis tantummodo iustificetur etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum He saith that the iustification of faith onely sufficeth that one beleeuing onely may bee iustified though hee haue fulfilled no worke lib. 3. ad Roman Say now that Origen also corrupteth S. Paul So likewise Ambrose in 3. ad Rom. Iustificati sunt gratis quia nihil operantes neque fidem reddentes sola fide iustificati sunt dono Dei They are iustified freely because working nothing nor rendring nothing they are iustified by faith onely by the gift of God Againe in 4. ad Roman Cum videant Abramum non ex operibus legis sed sola fide iustificatum When they see Abraham iustified not of the workes of the law but by faith only Ambrose thus concludeth only faith out of S. Paul without any corruption at all out of which Father I haue twentie like pregnant testimonies at the lest at hand for iustification sola fide by faith onely 3. Where you say there is no Scripture for onely faith though this place of the Apostle be equiualent to that speech yet somewhat to satisfie your contentious spirit I will name you such a Scripture as Luk. 8. 50. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beleeue onely c. and she shall be saued 4. Your euasion of workes that goe before grace that the Apostle onely speaketh of such will not serue your turne for euen such workes are excluded which God hath prepared for vs to walke in Ephes. 2. 8. 10. This was the old shift of the Pelagians as it should seeme which Hierome remoueth thus writing vpon these words By the works of the law shall no flesh be iustified Quod ne de lege Mosi tantum dictum putes non de omnibus mandatis quae vno legis nomine continentur idem Apostolus scribit dicens consentio legi Dei secundum interiorem hominem Which least you should thinke spoken only of the law of Moses and not of all the commaundements which are contained vnder this one name of the law the same Apostle writeth saying I consent to the law of God in the inward man c. ad Ctesiphont 5. Whereas S. Iames saith that a man is iustified of workes and not of faith onely 2. 24. hee speaketh not of that iustification wherby we are made iust before God but of the outward probation and testification thereof as it may appeare out of the 22. verse Was not Abraham our father iustified through workes when he offered Isaac his sonne vpon the altar But Abraham was iustified before God by faith at the least thirtie yeeres before Genes 15. 6. Abraham beleeued God and it was counted to him for righteousnes therefore by this worke his faith was proued and made knowne as the Angell saith Now I know that thou fearest God Gen. 22. 12. he was not thereby iustified before God This distinction of iustification Thomas Aquinas alloweth Iacobus hîc loquitur de operibus sequentibus fidem quae dicuntur iustificare non secundum quod iustificare dicitur iustitiae infusio sed secundum quod dicitur iustitiae exercitatio vel ostensio vel consummatio res enim fieri dicitur quando perficitur vel innotescit Iames speaketh here of workes following faith which are said to iustifie not as the infusion of iustice is said to iustifie but as it is said to be the exercise shewing or perfecting of righteousnes for a thing is said to be done when it is perfected and made knowne in epist. Iacob 5. 5. And no otherwise Origen saith that Abraham was iustified by workes Quia certum est eum qui verè credit opus fide◠iustitiae operari Because it is certaine that hee which truly beleeueth doth worke the worke of faith and righteousnes lib. 4. ad Rom. Thus S. Paul and S. Iames are reconciled the one speaketh of our iustification that is the infusion of iustice before God which is by faith the other of the testification thereof by workes The 12. Corruption SYnops. pag. 532. I am the bread Ioh. 6. 35. the text is corrupted by leauing out two words of life which if he had put to his argument against transubstantiation had bin destitute of all force The Correction 1. IF it bee corruption of Scripture sometime for breuitie sake to leaue out a word you had best charge our Sauiour with that corruption who saith out of Esay The spirit of the Lord is vpon me Luk. 4. 18. whereas the Prophet saith of the Lord Iehouah 2. He might haue considered that the argument taken out of this scripture is set downe from Bellarmines report together with his answere lib. 3. de Euchar. cap. 24. argum 1. So that herein is no deceite nor corruption in rehearsing that which is by others propounded although it were graunted that some ouersight might passe in the first propounders which is not yet proued otherwise when this text is alleaged by himselfe all the words are expressed I am the bread of life pag. 509. lin 1. 3. It was not necessarie nor pertinent to adde the rest of the words neither haue they any aduauntage in putting of them to for where Christ saith I am the liuing bread or bread of life so he likewise saith this is my bodie pointing to the bread which is giuen for you but he gaue his liuing not his dead bodie for them As then Christ is not chaunged into bread when hee saith I am the bread of life but it is a figuratiue speech so the bread is not chaunged into his liuing bodie where he saith this is my bodie giuen for you But here of necessitie also a figure must be admitted as Augustine saith Corporis sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendauit tradidit Hee gaue and commended a figure of his bodie and bloud to his Disciples Enarrat in Psal. 3. So Tertullian before interpreted this is my body that is a figure of my body lib. 4. cont Marcion So then as Christ is not materiall bread but spiritually so the bread is not his materiall body but likewise spiritually This comparison then standeth still betweene these two speeches though the word of life be supplied that in both a figuratiue kind of locution must be admitted The 13. Corruption THe Scripture saith that Christ was giuen onely for those that are giuen to him to whom he giueth eternall life Iohn 17. 2. the word onely is maliciously added Libell p. 278. The Correction 1. HEre not so much the sentence as the sense of the Scripture is applied doth the
it were to bee wished that this cauiller had consecrated his pen to Gods seruice that he might haue written with more grace his bitter raylings and blasphemies toward the defender are answered before But as Hierome saith Iniuriam martyrum nequeo surda aure transire The wrong done to the Martyrs I cannot passe ouer with silence The Libeller shall one day know if he repent not what it is to reuile Gods Saints when hee shall see them one day enter into heauen and himself with all such blasphemous mates to be thrust out at the doores Luk. 13. 28. I doe not wonder if his pen be whet against the liuing wheÌ„ it spareth not the dead I say to him with Augustine to Iulian the Donatist Cernis quam tibi perniciosum sit tam horribile crimen obijcere talibus quà m mihi gloriosum sit quodlibet crimen audire non talibus You see how pernicious it is for you to obiect so horrible a crime to such and how glorious to me to be obiected against with such libr. 1. Secondly the Libeller produceth certaine reasons to shew that their religion hindreth not good life but tendeth to vertue 1. They teach that a man by grace may keepe the Commaundements whereas we say it is impossible which is a discouragement to vertue the other saith he is an encouragement Contrà Nay rather theirs is a desperate doctrine because wee see by experience that there is not the perfitest man but offendeth against the law as Saint Iames saith In many things we sinne all Iam. 3. 2. and therefore they perswade men in so teaching to build vpon a false ground and to deceiue their owne soules whereas wee teach them that they must seeke their righteousnes not in the obedience of the law but in the obedience of faith yet doe exhort them that they walke worthie of their calling S. Paul thus saying Not hauing mine owne righteousnes which is by the law but that which is through the faith of Christ Philip. 3. 9. was not therefore discouraged from vertue but encouraged saying vers 13. I forget that which is behind and endeuour my selfe to that which is before 2. Whereas we teach that the motions of the flesh be sinfull though a man consent not vnto them because the law saith Thou shalt not lust Rom. 7. 7. they say they may be occasion of much merit Which of these will sooner perswade to suppresse euill lusts they that commend them or they which condemne them let any reasonable man iudge I am sure the Apostle biddeth vs mortifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very lust and rising motions of the heart not to retaine them as a matter of greater merit 3. They say their confession and satisfaction for the temporall paines of purgatorie the shame of the one and feare of the other prouoke to the encrease of vertue Is not this like to be a goodly vertue that is begotten in feare and for shame of men to whom they are bound to confesse The Apostle saith perfect loue casteth away feare 1. Ioh. 4. 18. We rather exhort men to confesse vnto God that seeth the heart and from whom nothing can bee hid rather then in the cares of the Priest And as for your purgatorie satisfactions which may be bought out with money and redeemed with Masses they doe but make men more secure 4. They hold that no man without speciall reuelation can know whether he be predestinate and that one in Gods grace may fall away We teach men to be sure of their saluation this doctrine saith hee breedeth desperate securitie the other maketh vs with feare and trembling to worke our saluation Contrà Nay rather he that is sure of his election by faith thereby is the more encouraged to good workes knowing that he shall not lose his reward as the Apostle exhorteth 1. Cor. 15. Wherefore beloued brethren be ye stedfast c. alwaies abundant in the worke of the Lord for as much as ye know that your workâ— is not in vaine in the Lord. And the Apostle saith of himselfe The Lord will deliuer me from euery euill worke and preserue me to his heauenly kingdome 2. Timoth. 4. 18. They then which are sure to be preserued vnto life God will guide them with his spirit and deliuer them from euill workes and they also shall notwithstanding in a godly feare and carefull endeuour worke their saluation for the certaintie of the end doth not take away the necessitie of the meanes But contrariwise as S. Iames saith The wauering minded man is vnstable in all his waies So that he which is wauering in the hope of saluation cannot bee throughly resolued or setled to any good worke Thirdly the Libeller bringeth in Luther and Iacobus Andrea complaining of greater corruptions where the Gospell is professed then in Papatu in time of Poperie whence he inferreth that it is not their doctrine but Caluins and Luthers that corrupteth good manners pag. 138. Cont. 1. Though of some particular sins and of particular places and persons euen where the Gospell is professed iust complaint may be made yet it followeth not that generally Protestants manners are worse then Papists vnlesse you wil say that because S. Paulâ—aith â—aith that there was such fornication among the Corinthians as was not once named among the Gentiles that therefore the Gentiles were to be preferred before them 2. The cause of corruption of manners among Protestants is not the doctrine but their vnthankfull receiuing of it As where S. Paul complaineth thus of the Corinthians I feare when I come again least my God abase me among you and I shall bewaile many of them which haue sinned alreadie and haue not repented of the vncleannes fornication wantonnes which they haue committed 2. Cor. 12. 21. Was Saint Pauls doctrine thinke you the cause hereof 3 Against two of our writers that thus complaine of Protestants manners I can produce more then twenty of theirs that crie out against popish corruptions and some of them euen now wee will heare speake in this cause that it may be euident to all men that howsoeuer iniquitie in these euill daies encreaseth both among Protestants Papists yet thankes bee to God the Gospell hath brought foorth more true godlines with the comfortable fruites thereof then euer was to be seene in Poperie Fourthly this is alleaged as an argument to cleere their profession from being an hindrance to godly life because to perfect remission of sinnes they require three parts of penance contrition confession satisfaction pag. 139. Cont. These three we acknowledge being vnderstood according to the Scriptures are necessarie in euery true penitent person inward sorrow and contrition with a full purpose to amend the life confession to God and to the congregation publikely offended satisfaction not to God but to our neighbours for iniuries committed but as these three are taught and required in Poperie they doe but make hypocrites they work not true conuersion 1. If contrition
him learne that it is not fit for men curiously to search out those things which God doth Hom. 21. in Genes Augustine Quid de Helia factum sit nescimus hoc de illo tamen credimus quod verax scriptura testatur What is become of Elias we know not that we beleeue of him which the Scripture testifieth cont Faust. lib. 26. cap. 4. Theodoret qu. 45. in Genes dare not determine into what place Henoch was translated Rupertus that Henoch was not translated into the terrestriall paradise lib. 3. de trinitat cap. 33. Thomas affirmeth not that Henoch and Elias are in paradise but with this addition vt dicitur vel creditur as it is said or beleeued 1. par qu. 103. ar 2. Iansenius a popish Bishop is of opinion that Henoch and Elias are not in the terrestriall paradise in Comment super cap. 143. concord Euangelic Of the same iudgement is Pererius a lesuite lib. 3. in Genes qu. 5. Now for the second point it is as vncertaine out of the Fathers that Henoch and Elias shall come in person in the time of Antichrist 1. Cyprian saith Nobis in spiritu virtute Eliae non alium quam Ioannem solum c. The Angell and our Lord Christ doe insinuate none other to come in the power and spirit of Elias but Iohn onely de singular Clericor Likewise Origen Vide fortassis si Ioannem baptistam possumus ponere in loco Eliae See if happily wee may not place Iohn Baptist in the place of Elias in 11. ad Roman 2. Concerning the two Prophets mentioned in the Apocalypse chap. 11. Augustine vnderstandeth the two Testaments and confuteth them quiputant hos duos testes duos viros esse which take these two witnesses for two men c. Beda also vnderstandeth the doctrine of the old and new Testament Ambrosius Ausbertus the holie Church in generall in her preachers 3. Victorinus vpon that place sheweth that some vnderstand Helias and Moses but he would haue it to be Ieremie Hilarius contendeth they must be Moses and Helias Iustinus thinketh not onely Henoch and Elias to be aliue but also those whose bodies arose at the resurrection of Christ qu. 85. ad Orthodox Hippolytus will haue not onely Henoch and Elias but Iohn the Diuine also to come with them before the comming of Christ. Now I referre it to the iudgement of the discreete Reader whether this conceit of Henoch and Elias be not more like to be a fable then to haue any likelihood of truth wherein there is such diuersitie of opinion and vncertaintie amongst the ancient writers The Libeller bringeth foorth nothing but painted papers and emptie Poticaries boxes he hath painted his lines with the names of Fathers but produceth not their testimonies he setteth foorth no new stuffe but the scrapings of other mens platters And as Flaminius host at Chalcis when he wondred at the multitude of the dishes said vnto him omnes carnes suillas they were all but swines flesh diuersly dressed so this homely host entertaineth his reader but with their wonted grosse meates though he would shew in the new kind of dressing it a piece of slouenly cookerie of his own I say then vnto him with Hierome Aut profer meliores epulas me conuiua vtere aut qualicunque hac caenula nostra contentus esto Either bring foorth better meate and let me be one of your ghests or els pull downe your stomacke and taste of my prouision And I would that he that first bid vs to eate of his swines dish too grosse meate for a sound stomack had grace to receiue the holesome meate that is presented to him for his health The 11. Contradiction SYnops. pag. 908. A true liuely faith c. can neuer finally fall away c. a iustifying faith is alwaies actuall working by loue pag. 881. no loue no faith Hereof it followeth that either Dauid and Peter had no faith when hee committed adulterie and the other denied his master or els that Peter loued his master when he denied him and Dauid loued God and his neighbour when he committed adulterie with the wife and slew the husband c. pag. 197. The Reconciliation FIrst there is a difference betweene a true faith and a perfect faith a true faith alwaies remaineth in the elect though it be not alwaies a perfect and glorious faith likewise a true faith is not alwaies a like effectuall or working but yet alwaies accompanied with loue though not in the same degree 2. As then Dauid and Peters faith failed in these their sinnes so also their charitie but it therefore followeth not that because in one act their faith and charitie failed and in part was empaired therefore it was wholie extinguished 3. And that neither of them was giuen ouer to a reprobate sense it may appeare because Dauid vpon Nathans admonition repented and Peter presently vpon his deniall went foorth and wept bitterly 4. Wherefore your Logicke sir Sophister here faileth you and you conclude weakely from a part to the whole that because their loue failed in part it was wholy lost was there no sparke of loue in Dauid neither toward God nor man nor no goodnes left in Peter during their seuerall tentations When the Moone is in decreasing hath she lost all her light the seede that lieth all the winter buried in the earth hath it no life in it So the seede of faith and charitie alwaies remaineth in the faithfull though not alike greene and flourishing Because you sir Cauiller haue shewed your selfe at this time in slaundring and railing an vnhonest man shall I therefore inferre that there is no goodnes or honestie left in you 4. For Salomon the same answer wil serue that though in that hainous sinne of Idolatrie both his faith and loue failed yet it was not generally or totally extinguished as the Lord saith 2. Sam. 7. 15. My mercie shall not depart away from him but where no faith nor loue is there is no mercie As mercie on Gods behalfe therfore did not vtterly depart from him so neither in Salomon was faith quite rooted out the seede of faith and loue lay buried in him in that his heauie sleepe and was afterward by Gods grace awaked and reuiued But how is it inferred that vnlesse the fire of charitie were cleane put out in Salomon idolatrie must be a good worke and the louing of God for this wicked act sheweth a partiall and temporall failing of faith and charitie not a totall or finall was there thinke you no goodnes vertue iustice wisedome the fruits of faith and charitie in Gods children remaining in Salomon in the time of his fall The contrarie is extant in Scripture Eccles. 2. 9. My wisedome remained with me euen in the middest of his pleasure the light of wisedome and knowledge was not extinguished in him 5. Concerning Paul we affirme that hee was alwaies a member of the Catholike Church as it comprehendeth the number of
the predestinate not onely when hee was a persecutor but euen before he was borne in respect of the foreknowledge and decree of God yet was hee not then an actuall and present member of the Church to the which faith is required wherefore to dispute that Paul had no faith when he was a persecutor is a needlesse labour for as yet he was not in act a member of the Church neither had faith before hee was called and therefore could not lose that which he had not 6. You blaspheme the Church of Geneua and the Protestants as though they should say or thinke that adulterie murther and idolatrie in the children of God be no sinnes but good workes and fruites of faith pag. 202. We are further off from iustifying vngodly workes then Papists are for they hold that some sins are veniall and pardonable in their owne nature we affirme that all sins in themselues without Gods mercie are mortall that is worthie of damnation they say that a iust man doth not sinne in his good workes so much as venially Synops. pag. 922. we hold that euen the best workes of the righteous are blemished with some infirmitie they teach that the motions of the flesh though neuer so wicked are not sinfull if a man giue not any consent Libel pag. 134. we professe that the very euill concupiscence though the will concurre not with it is sinfull Now let the world iudge which of vs the Protestants or Papists are furthest off from allowing or commending wicked workes 7. But where you charge vs to say that in Infidels to honour their parents to fight for their countrie be damnable sinnes pag. 202. wee say with the Apostle Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sin Rom. 14. 23. which place Augustine vrged against the Pelagians that iustified the glorious acts of the Pagans and he further saith Non officijs sed finibus virtutes à vitijs discernendae sunt That vertues are to be discerned from vices not by the act but the end contr Iulian. libr. 4. cap. 3. And againe Virtutes nisi quis ad Deum retulerit vitia potius sunt quam virtutes Virtues if they be not referred to God are vices rather then vertues de ciuitat Dei lib. 19. cap. 25. Wee condemne not then the good things which are in Infidels but their euill affections whereby they corrupt that which is good and so this point shall be concluded with that saying of Augustine Colligitur ipsa bona opera quae faciunt insideles non ipsorum esse sed illius qui bene vtitur malis ipsorum autem esse peccata quibus bona male faciunt It is gathered then that the good workes which the Infidels do are not theirs but his that vseth the euill well but theirs are the sinnes whereby they doe good things euill con◠Iulian. 4. 3. Now hauing refuted this Cauillers friuolous obiections my leisure doth a little serue me to answere his iniurious speeches and as for his particular taunts of crowes birds and apes foule puppies pag. 201. such scoffers wee vouchsafe not an answere but as Magas sent to Philemon threatning warre dice and tenice balles so wee doe rebound vpon this warlike challengers head his popish bullet shot But seeing he goeth further from mens persons to gall religion it selfe with his prophane iests of Puritanical principles and the regenerate generation of Geneua this iniurie done to the Church of Christ I cannot passe ouer with silence Wherein as Hierome compareth Heluidius hee is like to him that set Dianaes Temple on fire Vt qui bene non poterat male omnibus innotesceret That he by euill doing might be famous to al that by wel doing could not so he in kindling a fire against the church of Christ nobilis factus est in scelere maketh himselfe famous in his euill doing And like as Philoxenus and Gnato two gluttons did vse to blow their noses in the platters that no man should eate with them so plaieth this trencher man in vomiting his gall vppon the table as it were of Christs Church that all men might lothe it Therfore seeing he spareth not to reuile the mother the children must not thinke straunge to be euill spoken of but wee say with Hierome Illud dico maledicta tua mihi gloriae fore cum eodem quo Ecclesiae detraxisti ore me laceres canina facundiam filius pariter experiatur mater This I say that your ray lings are a credit to mee when with the same mouth wherewith you derogate from the Church you wound mee and the sonne and mother together do tast of your doggish eloquence aduer Heluid The 12. Contradiction TEtrastyl p. 118. It is an absurd thing to say a man may lose the confession of his faith and yet keepe his faith sound Synops. p. 165. Peter lost the confession of his faith he denied Christ in word Againe Peter lost not his iustification but it is a perfect faith which doth iustifie vs before God If Peter were iust still then was his faith perfect and so his faith was perfect because it was a iustifying faith and not perfect because hee denied Christ to this purpose the Libeller p. 205. The Reconciliation 1. IT is true that faith cannot be sound and whole where a man faileth in confession and therefore Peter who lost his confession as Bellarmine saith was not sound and perfect in faith 2. Where it is said That Peter lost the confession of his faith he might haue considered that those words are vttered ex confessione aduersarij from the confession of the aduersarie because Bellarmine saith that Peter lost the confession of his faith and not faith it selfe but we say though Peter failed in confession yet he vtterly lost it not 3. We confesse that it must be a perfect faith that is working by loue and effectuall that iustifieth vs before God Galath 5. 6. though no faith is simply and absolutely perfect before God but in a certaine measure Then the obiection inferring a contradiction if it conclude any thing standeth thus A perfect faith iustifieth before God Peter was iustified by that faith which hee had when he denied Christ Ergo it was a perfect faith The second part of this reason is vntrue for Peter was iustified by his former faith working by loue and not by this imperfect and defectiue faith his iustification in deed was not lost which he formerly had obtayned by faith but yet as his faith was weakened so his present feeling of his iustification for the time was suspended It followeth not then Peters iustification was not lost when his faith was weake Ergo he was iustified by that weake faith like as a mans life is not lost in his sicknes yet he cannot be said to liue by his sicknes But it will be said that his iustification begun before was vpheld and continued still by the same faith I graunt that a perfect that is a working faith doth
first alleaged which was celebrate almost 800. yeeres agoe There is also cited the decree of Pelagius caus 16. qu. 1. cap. 18. who liued aboue a thousand yeere since and a Canon of the Chalcedon Councell almost a thousand yeere before and in regarde of these the Canons are called ancient against the antiquitie whereof I hope he can take no exception What cause now had this Calumniator to crie out of false dealing and that he doth concontrarie to his conscience if any be left hee sheweth what small cause hee hath vniustly and vntruly thus to slaunder his brethren But we haue met with another Diogenes that called himselfe the trumpet of railing speech and I had rather he should be a Diogenes to be lowd rather in sound then such as Antisthenes that compared himselfe to the wasps whose wings made but a small noise but they had a sharpe sting But this Zoilus carrieth all away with a lowd sound of words he woundeth neither vs nor our cause And as Ambrose saith Lutum cito colligit amnis exundans de offic lib. 1. cap. 3. So hee with a raging streame of words doth nothing but gather filth to himselfe The 5. Falsification BEcause these words being cited out of the Councell of Colen part 9. c. 9. Ad audiendum sacrum communicandum are translated to heare and receiue the sacraments and not to heare the Masse Libel pag. 227. The Iustification 1. HEre is no one word of the Masse but only Sacrum which is in the neuter gender but Missa is in the Latin and cannot be the substantiue to it Now iudge good Reader which of vs doth translate more truly he in construing Sacrum Masse or the other in Englishing of it Sacrament 2. What this Councell elsewhere determineth of the Masse it is not to the purpose we know it is popish enough in other points and places the question is whether this place be falsified where he hath rather plaied the falsarie in thrusting in Missa the Masse in steed of sacrum sacred or holie which by the word following communicandum to communicate doth shew that it may well be referred to the Sacrament Wherefore the crime obiected here offalsification is vniust and as Plato saith wee count his reuiling as smoake that vanisheth he doth but belch out his owne shame as Hierome saith Vt ructus è stomacho erumpit vel boni vel mali odoris flatus indicium est ita ex abundantia cordis os loquitur As belching breaketh from the stomacke and the breath is a bewrayer of good or bad smell so the mouth speaketh of the abundance of the heart As a stinking breath bewrayeth a bad stomacke so foule words shew a corrupt heart The 6. Falsification SYnops. pag. 623. the Councell of Colen is alleaged to prooue the name of penance rather to betoken the chaunge of the minde and inward contrition and sorrow then any outward satisfactorie worke hee crieth out the Councell is falsified because it maketh three parts of penance contrition confession satisfaction pag. 227. The Iustification 1. WHether this Councell maketh 3. parts of penance is not the question neither is it denied and therefore hee might well haue for borne that large citation of the Canons of this Councell being altogether impertinent 2. The question being then about the vse and signification of this word penance not about the parts thereof this Councell is alleaged to shew that penance signifieth inward sorrow and contrition the words are these Penance is then truly preached when sins are reproued by the word of God incutitur populo timor irae c. and there is smitten into the people a feare of the wrath and iudgement of God And afterward ex animo vereque contritis ac conuersis promittatur gratia To them being truly and in the soule contrite and conuerted let grace be promised In this place no mention is made of satisfaction and yet this inward sorrow contrition is called penance whether this place now doe proue without any falsification at all such vse of this word poenitentia repeÌ„tance or as they say penance a simple and meane iudgement may easily discerne and this hard Censor might haue acknowledged it if he had not been disposed to cauil Whom I may compare with Plutarke to hard harted nurses Dum sordes detergunt carnes sauciant While they take away the filth they teare the flesh So Chrysostome saith that hee which raiseth a crime against his brother doth as it were eate his brothers flesh No better is this slaunderer which feedeth himselfe by gnawing vpon others good name as their flesh with his biting teeth The 7. Falsification SYnops. pag. 957. S. Augustine is alleaged to shew that there was no such strict necessitie of fasting in his time serm 62. Augustine is said to be falsified because he thought it necessarie to obserue the prescript fasts of the Church when as he noteth Aerius of heresie for denying the same here 's 53. he also saith it was a sinne not to fast in Lent in the same Sermon 62. The Iustification 1. IT is not true that Aerius was counted no heretike for holding statuta solemniter ieiunia non esse celebranda that fasts solemnely appointed ought not to be kept but Augustine saith Aerius in Arrianam haeresin lapsus propria dogmata addidisse nonnulla fertur Aerius being fallen into the Arrian heresie did adde some opinions of his owne he was an heretike because an Arrian for the rest he was held but a Schismatike and dogmatizer And Augustine speaketh onely of the set fasts and fasting daies of the Church not insinuating any merite or religion to be therein And such prescript fasts for order sake and ciuill vses whosoeuer contemneth is but a dogmatizer with Aerius 2. That in Augustines time there was no such strict necessitie of fasting as in the Popish Church for all kind of 〈◊〉 is not simply denied to haue been then but comparatiuely such strict and superstitious necessitie as they vse it may be easily shewed first because the Lords daies are exempted from the fast but in Poperie all daies are alike tied to the Lenton fast Secondly they were dispensed withall which by reason of their infirmitie could not fast but in Poperie there was no such libertie as may appeare by the storie of Frebarnes hard handling for rosting a pigge in Lent for his wife that longed for it which pigge was buried by the Sumâ—er in Finsburie field Fox 1184. Thirdly Augustine saith that where a man could not fast almes might suffice without fasting but in Poperie they would not â—â—ffer a man to be released of fasting in Lent for alâ—â—es deedes Fourthly Augustine saith Nullus prandere praesumat Let no man presume to dine in Lent Their abstinence was the whole day to giue themselues to prayer and hearing the word not from some kinde of meates but wholy from all meates but this is not obserued in Poperie and
that to priuate mens reuenge which was lawfull onely for the Magistrate Now then to applie these rules in the places obiected there is no corruption for Ierem 17. 5. it is forbidden to trust in man then consequently ver 7. where the Prophet saith Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord the sense must be that God onely is to be trusted in therefore not in man is added out of the 5. verse not foisted in as he ignorantly and maliciously saith In the other place Psalm 50. 15. Call vpon me in the day of trouble and I will deliuer thee and thou shalt glorifie me an argument is from thence gathered that wee must onely call vpon God for who els but God doth deliuer vs who els but God is to be glorified for our deliuerance So that this is the order as Augustine well sheweth Cum tribularis inuocas me cum inuocas me eximam te cum eximam te iam glorificabis me vt iam non discedas à me When thou art in trouble thou doest call vpon me when thou doest call vpon me I will deliuer thee when I deliuer thee thou shalt glorifie me that now thou doe not depart from me in Psal. 49. Therefore to these places to adde onely to shew the sense of the place that God onely is to be trusted in only called vpon is no more corruption then where Moses is alleaged to say him onely shalt thou serue Matth. 4. 10. whereas Moses only saith him shalt thou serue The 4. Corruption BEcause 1. Corinth 9. 5. we reade a sister a wife not a sister a woman he crieth out manifest corruption a false translation The Correction 1. TO translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sister a wife is more proper then to say a sister a woman for that were superfluous the word sister implieth a woman and therefore the Latine interpreter seeing the inconuenience doth inuert the order and putteth woman in the first place saying a woman a sister contrarie to the originall 2. Though some of the Fathers translate a sister a woman all doe not so Clemens Alexandrin strom lib. 3. by this place proueth that the Apostles had wiues 3. Who were fitter to minister to the Apostles then their owne wiues which might be done with lesse offence and it is absurd to thinke that whereas some of them had wiues as Peter they would sequester themselues from them and take other women into their companie And where the Apostle saith haue we not power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to leade a sister a wife ouer what women were the Apostles more likely to haue power then as husbands ouer their wiues The 5. Corruption WHereas reference is made to that place Hebr. 13. 15. and thereupon it is inferred that there is no sacrifice left but spiritual of praise and thankesgiuing these words but spirituall is a dramme of his owne addition Libel 266. The Correction 1. THe Apostles words are not here alleaged which are these Let vs by him offer the sacrifice of praise alwaies to God wherof but two words onely are rehearsed sacrifice and praise therefore this cauiller might haue seene but that he is wilfully blind that the words of the text are not cited but the sense of the place giuen 2. Whereas the Apostle biddeth vs alwaies offer vp such sacrifice and that God is pleased with such sacrifice doth it not follow that the Apostle speaketh of spirituall for such he speaketh of and if God be with them pleased they alone are sufficient other sacrifice beside are superfluous for if God bee pleased with such what neede wee seeke for any other 3. Where hee obiecteth that there is beside the spirituall sacrifice of prayer and contrition he sheweth himselfe herein very childish as though al these tend not to the praise of God and the Apostle vnder the sacrifice of praise comprehendeth the fruites of the lips where prayer also must be vnderstood which is called the calues of our lips Hosh. 14. 3. 4. And if this be a wrong collection from the Apostle blame also Augustine who vpon these words of the Psalme I haue offered in thy tabernacle the host of praise or iubilation thus after many other words inferreth In creatore quid agit nisi solarestat sermone deficiente oratio What shall he doe to the Creator where speech faileth nothing remaineth but onely iubilation He out of these words bringeth in a conclusion of onely praise The 6. Corruption BEcause it is f gathered out of S. Paul that a iustifying aith is alwaies actuall working by loue these wâ—rds is alwaies actuall are foisted in pag. 267. The Correction 1. BEside our generall answere that the Apostles sense is here followed not his words precisely numbred the Apostles meaning is cuident where hee saith neither circumcision auaileth any thing nor vncircumcision but faith working by loue that no faith is auailable before God but a working faith then if it cease to work it is no longer auailable if it bee not auaileable it iustifieth not therefore a faith that iustifieth must bee alwaies working which is all one as to say liuely actuall but that this cauiller is disposed to trifle 2. Neither is S. Paul alleaged to proue euery faith to be working for who knoweth not but that there is a dead faith which worketh not but mention is made directly of iustifying faith which is alwaies working therefore he sheweth himselfe a notable falsifier so to misreport the words 3. Augustine out of this place concludeth that it is faith working by loue which iustifieth Fides quae operatur per dilectionem si in vobis est iam pertinetis ad praedestinatos ad iustificatos c. Faith working by loue if it bee in you you doe belong to the predestinate to those which are iustified serm 16. de verb. Apostol From hence then it is forcibly inferred faith onely iustifieth which is actuall working by loue the faith which they imagine to be in infants doth not worke by loue ergo it is not an auaileable and iustifying faith and so consequently a vaine faith or no faith To this argument this doubtie Confuter answereth nothing but certaine it is that children are iustified by an habituall faith and so like a skilfull Logician denieth the conclusion Thus I trust it sufficiently appeareth how friuolous and childish his obiections are as for his scoffes and ridiculous termes of being familiar with scripture such luck such gamesters we passe them ouer as the words of children not to be regarded or as of a phrantike person to be pitied we are taught not to giue taunt for taunt nor to recompence euill for euill Rom. 12. 17. And as Chrysostome saith No man healeth euill with euill but euill with good And I say to this Cauiller as Augustine to Petilian the Donatist Te arbitrari possunt homines nihil inuenisse quod diceres nisi tibi proponeres cui malediceres Men may well think that you could not haue found out
generall is death Rom. 6. 23. Fulk Rom. 1. 1. sect 11. whom I name not here as though the aduersarie honoured the memorie of that excellent man but to shew that he neither is one alone or the first that hath thus cited this Scripture 5. This Scripture is not falsified at all because it is the Apostles meaning that al sinne of it selfe deserueth death Galat. 3. 10. Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the law to doe them euery transgression then of the law is vnder the curse and so subiect to death then consequently euery sinne for sin is the transgression of the law 1. Ioh. 1. 3. 4. Hierome to this purpose saith Contemptus cuiuscunque praecepti praecipientis iniuria est The contempt of euery commandement is an iniurie to the commaunder And what is hee worthie of that doth wrong to the euerlasting Creator and lawgiuer but of death without Gods mercy 7. In this sense do the Fathers vnderstand S. Paul to haue spoken generally of all sinne as Origen hom 5. in Leuitic Inuenimus de peccato quod sit ad mortem We finde concerning sinne that it is vnto death de delicto non legimus of offences we do not reade c. though he make a difference betweene peccatum delictum sinne and offence the first in committing the second in omission which distinction hee saith is not alwaies found in Scripture yet it appeareth by this comparison that hee taketh the Apostle to speake of all sinne Augustine also saith A Deo est quicquid pertinet ad naturam ab illo non est quicquid sit contra naturam peccatum autem contra naturam est de quo mors c. Whatsoeuer belongeth to nature is of God whatsoeuer is against nature is not of God but sinne is against nature whereof death and all things which are of death doe spring ad articul fals imposit art 5. Here his meaning must be that from all sinne death springeth because all sinne is against nature because no sinne is of God c. 7. That place Matth. 5. 22. 23. sheweth that there are diuers degrees of euerlasting punishment not that any of those sins there named are exempted from thence but more or lesse punished there as Origen doth gather vpon the like place Matth. 23. 15. You make him twofold more the child of hell Wee learne by this that there is eorum qui in gehenna futuri sunt differentia tormentorum a difference of torment of those which shall bee in hell because one is simply another twofold the child of hell The 10. Corruption SYnops. p. 907. Iudas when he was in his holiest course was but a theefe and an hypocrite as the Scripture testifieth of him S. Peter saith of Simon Magus that his heart was not right in the sight of God there is no Scripture for the first and in the second place was is thrust in for is Libel 175. The Correction FIrst how Iudas is proued by the Scripture and exposition of some of the Fathers in his holiest course to haue been but an hypocrite I haue shewed before in the defence against Slaunder 11. whither I desire the reader curteously to looke backe I will not vse needlesse repetitions of the same things to auoide prolixitie as the Libeller doth often as it should seeme for lacke of matter shewing his simplicitie 2. The Cauiller doth here egregiouslie shew his follie for the words of Peter are reported in the third person what he said of Simon Magus and therefore could not bee rehearsed otherwise then by a verbe of the third person that his heart was not right c. Neither is this vnusual in the new Testament in the alleaging of Scripture to chaunge the person the tence or time as Matth. 13. 15. that I might heale them saith the Euangelist and he heale them saith the Prophet Esay 6. 10. And againe Saint Peter saith out of the 16. Psalme Thou hast shewed me the waies of life Act. 2. 28. hauing relation to the accomplishment of the prophesie But the Psalmist saith Thou wilt shew me the waies of life Psal. 16. 9. 3. We ground not an argument vpon the chaunge of the tence but vpon the true meaning of S. Peters words whether wee say his hart was not or is not right it sheweth he was but an hypocrite for he saith thou art in the bond 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of iniquitie which words shew that hee was knotted and rooted in his hypocrisie not then begun but then shewed Ambrose saith Petrus Simoni qui magicae artis consuetudine deprauatus putasset Peter to Simon that being corrupted with the custome of Magicall art thought that hee might get the grace of the spirit with money said non est tibi pars neque pars in hac fide thou hast no part nor fellowship in this faith lib. 2. de poeniten cap. 4. From hence I note two things that Simon did not leaue his witchcraft though baptized and therfore was not an hypocrite now only but before and that seeing he had no part in the faith as Ambrose readeth and Gratiane reporteth his words Caus. 1. quaest 1. c. 19. hee was neuer in heart baptized for then he must haue had part in the fellowship of the faith whereof hee had receiued the signe Wherefore by this that hath been said I trust it appeareth that he had little cause to say Doth not silence in this case crie corruption I may say of him as Hippomachus of one that had long armes being commended for a good wrestler Yea saith he if the crowne were hanged aloft and to be gotten by reaching and catching so if the masterie were to be had by lying and ouerreaching and catching at words and syllables not by sound wrestling and grapling this aduersarie would soone go away with it But his silence would haue shewed his wisedome whereas his brabling vttereth his follie and he shall do well to make amends afterward by holding his peace as Gennadius reporteth of one Seuerus seduced to be a Pelagian Agnoscens loquacitatis culpam vsque ad mortem silentium tenuit vt quod loquendo contraxerat tacendo emendaret Acknowledging his loquacitie he kept silence vnto his death that hee might recompence by his silence what he had offended in speaking Gennad catalog The 11. Corruption SYnops. pag. 473. S. Paul concludeth that a man is iustified by faith onely without the workes of the law Manifest corruption saith he by thrusting the word onely into the text Libel pag. 277. The Correction 1. SAint Pauls words are not here repeated first for then the sentence should haue been vttered in the first person we conclude as it is in the text not S. Paul concludeth Secondly elsewhere when the text is alleaged the words as they stand are rehearsed as Synops. pag. 598. lin 43. p. 885. lin 13. p. 887. lin 9. Thirdly neither should the sentence alleaged haue been