amici Dei ac domestici facti euntes de virtute in virtutem renouantur vt Apostolus inquit de die in diem exhibendo ea arma iustitiae in sanctificationem per obseruantiam mandatorum Dei Ecclesiae in ipsâ iustitiâ per Christi gratiam acceptâ cooperante fide bonis operibus crescunt atque magis iustificantur sicut scriptum est Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc Being therefore thus iustified and made the friends and of the houshold of God going on from vertu to vertu they are renewed as the Apostle saith from day to day and vsing those armes of iustice to sanctification by the obseruance of the commandements of God and the Church theyr faith cooperating with theyr good workes they increace through the grace of Christ in the iustice which they haue receiued and are iustified more and more as is it written he who is iust let him be iustified still Conc. Trid. ibidem can 9. Si quis dixerit solâ fide impium iustificari ita vt intelligat nihil aliud requiri quod ad iusticationis gratiam consequendam cooperetur nullâ ex parte necesse esse eum suae voluntatis motu praeparari atque disponi anathema sit If any one shall say that a wicked man is iustified by faith only soe that he meanes that nothing els is required which may cooperate to the obtayning the grace of Iustification and that it is noe way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the motion of his will let him be accâ—rsed From these authorities of the Council it is manifest that in this matter of Iustification the Church of Rome theaches 1. that noe workes done by the mere naturall force of our freewill 2. nor by the sole doctrine or knowledge of the diuine law can iustifie a sinner in the sight of God Can. 1. 3. That noe vniust persone can without the preuenting inspiration of the holy Ghost doe any thing as it should be done to obteyne the grace of iustification can 3. 4. That neyther faith nor workes done by the inspiration of the holy Ghost before Iustification can merit Iustification for it is a free grace of God giuen not of workes but by the sole mercy of God and for the sole merits of Christ. cap. 8. 5. That though the iustification of a sinner cannot be merited yet a soul may be disposed prepared to instification by acts inspired by the holy Ghost c. 6. 6. That we are not thus disposed by faith only but also by other good motions of our will preuented and assisted by the grace of God can 9. 7. That being thus freely iustified become the childeren of God through the assistance of Gods grace in Christ we may doe good workes and by them accepted through Christ's merits become more and more iust in the sight of God cap. 10. where in cheefly consists the Roman doctrine of Iustification by good workes This doctrine supposed we will now take a vew of those texts which Protestants vsually presse out of Scripture mistaken against it hauing first proued the Roman doctrine The Catholicke Position Faith only iustifyeth not YOu see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only which must needs be vnderstood of a true and internall iustification before Allmighty God for it must be that iustification which comes by faith but that is true and internall iustification as appeares by all the texts cited hereafter in the paper for proofe of iustification by faith only that the iustification which S. Iames speakes of here is the very same with that which comes by faith is most cleare out of the words themselues Yee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only For it would be quite contrary to common sense to vnderstand a iustification before men in the first part of this sentence yee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and a true internall iustification in the sight of God in the latter part and not by faith only For the word only clearly demonstrates that the same iustification is to be vnderstood in both parts of the sentence Now that the iustification common to both members of this place must necessarily be meant of a true iustification only in the sight of God is out of all question to such as ponder what is deliuered in it for it would be most false were it vnderstood of a iustification only before menâ— no lesse then this manner of speech yee see that this man is vnderstood by his words and not by his thoughts only would be wholly false were there only mention made of a man's being vnderstood amongst men for amongst them he is not vnderstood at all by his thoughts and so the latter part of this proposition would not be true and therefore to verify this manner of speech it must of necessity be meant of a man's being vnderstood by Allmighty God who only by his own power vnderstands both thoughts and words and so it is truly sayd yee see that a man is vnderstood to wit by Allmighty God by his words and not by his thoughts only And for the very same reason this proposition of S. Iames wee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only cannot be vnderstood of a iustification before men for we are no more iustifyed by saith before men then we are vnderstood amongst them by our thoughts and therefore it must be interpreted of a iustification before Allmighty God who only vnderstands our faith as he does our thoughts by his own power and knowledge and can only see whether our faith be true sincere and iustifying or no faith being nothing else but a thought assent or iudgement of the soul. And as all Protestants in the ensuing texts vrged for iustification by faith only vnderstand an internall iustification in the sight of God so must they will they not be vnreasonably and willsully partiall vnderstand the same by iustification by faith in this place of S. Iames which is cleared v. 2. was not Abraham our father iustifyed by worket when he had offered Isaac his sone vppon the altar for this hauing beene done priuatly in the desert could not when it was done iustifie him before men and yet more clere v. 22. seest thou not how faith wrought with his workes and by workes was faith made perfect what is here spoken of but the operation of faith and workes in the soule iustifying in God's sight For faith cannot be truly made perfect but declared to be perfect by workes soe farre as they iustifie only before men And it is further demonstrated v. 23. And the Scripture was fulfilled which sayth Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse and he was called the friend of God Can any Protestant deny this to be meant of an imputation of righteousnesse as they terme it or a iustification before Allmighty God seeing it is the very
same iustification which is mentioned by S. Paul to the Romanes which they mainly contend to be a true iustification in the sight of God or if they will haue it here a iustification only before men they must acknowledge that the same mentioned to the Romanes is no other then before men and so by endeauoring by such shifts to weaken the force of this text against themselues they take away all force from that of Rom. 4. to conclude any thing against vs. Besides this iustification of Abraham here mentioned by S. Iames can be no other then that which is true and interuall before God for as it followes in the text he was called a friend of God and that truly for he was indeede as he was called a friend of God and hence it follows ineuitably that the iustification which S. Iames deduces from that of Abraham by works and not by faith only as appeares by the word then wee see then c. is a true intrinsecall iustification in the sight of God for no other saue that could be rightly inferred from the former And indeed though we had none of the foresayd euidences to conuince the true meaning of S. Iames yet what man of iudgment can imagine that this holy Apostle would labour so much to proue that Christians are iustifyed by their good works before men when that is a matter too cleare and known to need proofe and too light and friuolous to deserue it or what considerate man can thinke that this Blessed Apostle or the holy Ghost by whose inspiration he writ this would so earnestly exhort Christians to abound in good works to the end that they may be iustifyed before men seeing corrupt human nature is too too prone to doe good workes for such by endes as these and hath more need of a bridle then a spurre in this particular and rather to be deterred from it then put vppon it as our Sauiour did the Stribes and Pharisees who did their works to be seene and consequently to be praysed and iustifyed before men This text therefore hauing been demonstrated to be meant of iustification before Allmighty God by works and not by faith only seeing S. Paul inspired by the same holy Spirit in what is cited out of him in the insuing text cannot possibly contradict S. Iames here as he must needs be thought to haue done if he sayd as Protestants would haue it that we are iustifyed in the sight of God by faith only and not by good works working with faith and perfecting it informing and vinificating it as S. Iames describes them here we will now see in what sense S. Paul's words are to be vnderstood and reconcile them with this text of S. Iames. The Protestant Position Iustification by faith only This is proued by Scripture mistaken Therefore wee conclude that a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law Being iustifyed by faith we haue peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ. For therein is the righteousnesse of God reuealed from faith to faith as it is written the iust shall liue by faith Knowing this that a man is not iustifyed by the works of the law but by the faith of Christ Iesus that we might be iustifyed by Iesus Christ and not by the works of the law for by the works of the law shall no liuing flesh be iustifeyd The first mistake The word only is not found in any of these texts In all these texts is not once the words faith only to be found which is put in this Protestant Position was to be proued by them Neither iâ— iâ— consequent a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law therefore a man is iustifyed by faith only no more then this follows a man is nourished by bread without the grasse of the field therefore a man is nourished by bread only for though the grasse of the feeld do not nourish vs yet many other things besides bread de nourish vs. in like manner though the woreks done by force of the grace of God and not by force of the law do iustify vs and so we are not iustifyed by saith only nor at all by the works of the law but by faith and good works done by the grace of Iesus Christ and not by the kâ—owledge of rhe law The Second mistake The workes of the law misunderstood That S. Paul here vnderstands only by works of the law such works as are done by force and knowledge of the law before the faith of Christ infused into a soul or that it is inlightned and assisted by his grace and by this law is vnderstood the law written in the books of Moyses both morall in the ten Commandements and ceremoniall as circumcision and other rites and ceremonyes of the Iewes That by works of the law I say are vnderstood by S. Paul only such works as are done by force of knowledge of the law befotc the inlightning of the faith and grace of Christ is euident out of this chapter Rom. 3. v. 14. Now we know that what things soeuer the law sayth it sayth to thcm that are vnder the law that euery mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God Here he speakes of the law speaking or teaching what is to be done according to it and then adds presently as a conclusion from that knowledge got by the law v. 10. therefore by tbe deeds of the law no flesh shall be iustifyed in his sight for by the law is the knowledge of sin The reason why the deeds of the law iustify not is because they come from the knowledge of the law by the law is the knowledge of sin wherunto he opposes the tighteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ vnto all in the first texts following verses 21. but now the righteousnetre of God without the law is manifested being witnessed by the law and Prophets v. 22. euen the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ unto all and vppon all them that beleeue for there is no difference This is the known doctrine of all Roman Catholikes against the Pelagians that no worke can iustify which comes only by doctrine and light of the written law but all iustifying works must come from the faith and grace of Christ so that we all confesse and conclude with S. Paul that a man is iustifyed by faith vvithout the vvorkes of the lavv that is wirhout such works as are meerly of and from the law as are opposed here by S. Paul to the grace and faith of Christ. Secondly by the law in this place is vnderstood both the motall law written by Moyses in the ten Commandements and the ceremoniall conteyned in the bookes of Leuiticus Deuteronomij c. for the morall law Protestants themselues doubt not that the Apostle speakes of it and that the ceremonial is here meant is euident in the two next following Verses
speaking of Iewes and Circumcision v. 24. Is he God of the Iewes only and not also of rhe Gentils yea of the Gentils also v. 30. Seeing it is one God vvhich shall iustify circumcision by faith and vncircumcision through fayth and â— 1. VVhat aduantage then hath the Ievv or vvhat profit is there of circumcision and the seauen last verses of the second chapter make it yet clearer seeing that the Apostle's intent is there to proue that iustification did not only belong to the Iewes but to the Gentils also and therefore the Iewes were not to thinke that iustification came by the obseruance of their ceremoniall law which Moyses had giuen them and whereby they were chiefly distinguished from the Gentiles who had knowledge of the morall law and esteemed themselues obliged to obserue it Which is the present doctrine of RomanÌ„e Catholikes The Third mistake The vvord Iustifie missapplied Thirdly by Iustification here is vnderstood only the fitst IustificatioÌ„ from sinne to iustice wherby a beleeuer is made of a child of the deuil the child of God this is cleare v. 23. For all haue sinned and come short of the glory of God v. 23. being iustifyed freely by his grace through the redemption vvhich is in Iesu Christ. v. 25. VVhom God hath set forth to be a propitiation trough faith in his bloud to declare his righteousnesse for the remission of sinnes that are past through the forbearante of God And in this all agree that the first iustification of a sinner is a worke of the mercy and grace of God through the merirs of our dearest Sauiour and cannot be condignly merited by any works precedent But the Apostle makes here no mention at all of the second iustification or increase of that iustice and grace which is giuen vs in the first iustification and wherof S. Ihon speakes Reu. 22. v. 11. Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc he that is righteous let him be righteous still saith your English text which signifyes only a perseuerance in that righteousnesse or iustice which was first receiued when it should be he that is righteous let him be made righteous still as the latin hath it iustificetur adhuc and all the other phrases adioyned shew not only a perseuerance butsalso an increase of that wickednesse or holynesse wherin they were before or let him vvorke righteousnesse or iustice still as the greeke hath it wich comes all to the same purpose Now the question betweene vs and Protestants is only of the second iustification or increace of iustice acquired in the first which we only affirme to be augmented by good works done in and through the grace of Iesus Christ. The fourth mistake The vvord faith misconstuâ—ed Fourthly by faith is not to be vnderstood a bare sole act of Christian faith and much lesse of particular confidence and application of Christ merits to our selues whereof the Apostle speakes not one word in this place where on Pâ—otestants rely soe much but a faith viuificated informed and animated with charity and other Christian vertus ioyned with it This is cleate chap. 4. v. 1.2.3 where the faith of Abraham is brought in by the Apostle in proofe of what he had sayd Now who can deny but this faith was viuificated with charity seeing S. Iames c. 2. v. 22. novv cited affirmcs that his faith vvrought vvith his works and by works his faith was made perfect And Galat. 5. v. 6. where the Apostle treates of the same iustification by faith maketh this matter out of question for in Iesus Christ neither circumcision auayleth any thing nor incircumcision but faith which worketh by loue or charity This truth is imbraced by all Romane Catholikes though it be not as they hold our formall iustification nor a condigne merit of our first iustification but only a congruous and yet sure disposition to it through the mercifull and faithfull promise of God and through the only merits of our Sauiour By all these particulars duly pondered appeares that this text of the Apostle Rom. 3. v. 28. therefore we conclude that a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law sayes nothing but what is taught by Romane Catholikes vniuersally But if Protestants would conclude any thing against vs they must produce a text which sayes good workes of such as are iustifyed already done by vertue of the grace of Christ and not by the bare knovvledge of the lavv do not iustify and this only is in question betwixt vs that is augment and inâ—crease that righteousnesse or iustice already acquired and make vs more iust The former answer is likewise to be applyed to the other texts Rom. 5. v. 1. Rom. 1. v. 17. Galat. 2. v. 17. for the Apostles meaning is the same in them all Yet because I intend to giue full satisfaction to each text obiected against vs I will adde a word or two to these seuerall texts The second text Rom. 5. v. 1. Being iustified by faith vve haue peace vvith God through out Lord Iesus Christ. This text is mistaken Here S. Paul speakes of the fitst iustification wherby a sinner is made a seruant and friend of God agreably to Romane Catholiks now deliuered as appeares v. 8. But God commendeth his loue to vs in that vvhile vve vvere yet sinners Christ dyed for vs and v. 10. for if vvhile vve vvere enemyes vve vvere reconciled to God by the death of Christ much more being reconciled vve shall be saued by his life and the whole sequell of the chapter shewes euidently that his maine discourse is of the first iustification and attonement of sinners and enemyes to God through the death of Christ yea euen the text it selfe v. 1. here obiected declares it selfe sufficiently to be meant of the first iustification Therefote being iustifyed by faith vve haue peace vvith God through our Lord Iesus Christ sayth the text for this hauing peace vvith God by iustification argues that before that iustification we had not peace but â—mnity with God and so were in state of sinne and damnation which is only true of the first iustification for before the second iustification or increace of iustice we haue that peace with God and so receiue not peace by reason of it And though there were no other answer saue this that of whatsoeuer iustification this text speakes Rom. 5. v. 1. yet iustification by faith only for proofe of which it is alleadged will neuer be proued from it for it sayth being iustifyed by feith but no newes here of faith only The third text Rom. 1. v. 17. For therin is the righteousnesse of God reuealed from faith to faith as it is vvritten the iust liueth by faith This text is mistaken These words prooue nothing at all for iustification by faith only no more then this proposition the iust man liues by breath proues that the iust man liues by breath only for as his liuing corporally by breath hinders not his liuing by meat and drinke so his
which is not set down in expresse words in the new Testament I answer that that is manifestly vntrue and must be confessed to be soe euen by Protestants themselues for they can neuer find any expresse mention in the new Testament that nothing is to be beleeued or practized lawfully by Christians saue that which is expressed in the new Testament 2. that any churches were made or to be made amongst Christians distinct from dwelling houses 3. that fonts for baptisme were put in those churches 4. that childeren were euer actually baptised in those fonts 5. that God-fathers and God-mothers were to be vsed in Baptisme of childeren 6. that any spirituall kindred arises by vertu of Baptisme betwixt those God-fathers and God-mothers on the one side and the childeren Baptized theyr Parents respectiuely on the other If therefore none of those can be found mentioned expressely in the new Testament with what shew of reason can Protestants demand that the worship of Images should be mentioned in the new Testament seeing they practice these particulars noe lesse then we the worship of Images But in these and such like religious practices it is sufficient euen according to the Protestant Principle of sole Sctipture that eyther there be expresse mention made of them eyther commanding or allowing them in the old Testament which is neuer reuoked or dissallowed in the new as is that of the worship of Images or at least that the lawfullnesse of them can be deduced from the old or new Testament by a good consequence drawn according to the rules of right reason as the worship of Images is manifestly from the 13. of the Reuel now cited for if the worship of the Image tend to the honour of him who is represented by it as is there euident and that it is lawfull to doe all that which tends to the honour of our Sauiour then it follows ineuitably that the worship of his Image is lawfull and the like is of the Images of Saints Thus haue I indeauored to discouer the different mistakes of Protestants in the texts of Scripture cited by them against the vse of holy Images taught and peactized in the Romane Church and with all the strange mistranslations inuented by them to make holy Scripture speake to the vulgar against the doctrine and practice of the Romane Church in this particular and this may sfuffice for the second Controuersie THE THIRD CONTROVERSIE Concerning Iustification The Doctrine of the Roman Church deliuered in the Council of Trent touching this Point Sess. 6. can 1. SI quis dixerit hominem suis operibus quae vel per humanae naturae vires vel per legis doctrinam fiunt absque diuina per Iesum Christum gratiâ posse iustificari coram Deo Anathema sit It any one shall say that a man can be iustified by his workes which are done by the force of humaine nature or by the doctrine of the law without diuine grace through our Lord Iesus Christ let him be accursed Ibidem can 2. Si quis dixerit ad hoc solùm diuinam gratiam per Iesum Christum dari vt facilius homo iustè viuere ac vitam aeternam promereri possit quasi per liberum arbitrium vtrumque sed aegrè tamen difficulter possit anathema sit If any one shall say that diuine grace through Iesus Christ is giuen only to this end that a man may more easily liue iustly and deserue eternal life as if he could doe both though with labour and difficulty by his freewill let him be accursed Ibidem can 3. Si quis dixerit sine praeuenienâ—e Spiritus sancti inspiratione atque eius adiutorio hominem credere sperare diligere aut poenitere posse sicut oportet vt ei iustificationis gratiâ conferatur anathema sit If any one shall say that without the preuenting inspiration of the holy Ghost and his assistance a man can beleeue hope loue and repent as he should doe to haue the grace of iustification bestowd vppon him let him be accursed Here I demand vppon what ground the 13 of the 39 English Protestant Articles speakes thus of the scoole men of the Roman Church Workes done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his spirit are not pleasant to God for as much as they spring not of faith in Iesu Christ neyther doe they make men meet to recriue grace or as the schoole Authors say deserue grace of Congruity I would gladly haue those schoole Authours named and cited who affirme contrary to the expresse words of the Council of Trent so great a semi-Pelagian Heresie as this is whereof they are here accused And if none attall can be produced how great an vntruth is conteyned in this article where it is said not as some of the schoole Authours but as the schoole Authours say that is eyther vniuersally or commonly affirme whence may clearly be collected that those new Prelates and Doctours who composed those 39 articles which haue been euer since they were composed esteemed the summe and substance of the Protestant Religion and faith in England were eyther grosly ignorant in the doctrine of the schoole Authours and exceeding temerarious in affirming that of them which they neuer vnderstood or insufferably deceiptfull and malitious in accusing them against theyr own knowledge and conscience of holding generally an errour which not soe much as any one of them euer held but the quite contrary Conc. Trid. ibidem cap. 8. Cùm verò Apostolus dicit iustificari hominem per fidem gratis ea verba in eo sensu intelligenda sunt quem perpetuus Ecclesiae Catholicae consensus tenuit expressit vt scilicet per fidem ideo iustificari dicamur quia fides est humanae salutis initium fundamentum radix omnis iustificationis sine quâ impossibile est placere Deo ad filiorum eius consortium peruenire gratis autem iustificari ideo dicamur quia nihil eorum quae iustificationem praecedunt siue fides siue opera ipsam iustificationis gratiam promeretur si enim gratia est iam non ex operibus alioquin vt idem Apostolus inquit gratia iam non est gratia When the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by fayth and gratis or freely those words are to be vnderstood in that sence which the perpetuall consent of the Catholicque Church allwayes held and expressed to wit that we are said to be iustified by faith because faith is the beginÌ„ing of mans saluation the foundation and roote of all iustifieation without which it is impossible to please God and to come into the number of his childeren But we are said to be iustified gratis because none of these things which goe before iustification whether it be faith or workes deserue the grace of iustification for if it be grace it is not of workes otherwise as the same Apostle says grace would not be grace Conc. Trid. ibidem cap. 10. Sic ergo iustificati
liuing spiritually by faith hinders not his liuing by good vvorks for as breath meate and drinke concurre to his temporall so faith an good works concurre to his spirituall life and euen Protestants themselues must confesse that this text the iust man liueth by fatih cannot possibly inferre that he liueth by faith only for S. Paul saith Rom. 3.24 being iustifyed freely by his grace and v. 18. euen so by the righteousnesse of one the free gift came vppon all men to the iustification of life So that according to S. Paul the iust liues by grace and by the righteousnsse of Christ as well as by faith and so not by faith only Neyther can it bee answeared that faith it self is that grace where of the Apostle speakes and consequently this objection of myne is to noe purpose for though faith be a gift and grace of God yet there are many more gifts and graces besides it signified by the word grace and particularly that preuentinge grace or diuine light and inspiration which the holy Ghost infuses into mans hart as the principles and causes of diuine faith in vs which is bestowed vppon vs purely gratis and out of mere mercy The 4. text Gal. 2. v. 11. Knowing that a man is not iustifyed by the vvorks of the law but by the faith of Iesus Christ that vvee might be iustifyed by the faith of Christ and not by the vvorkes of the law for by the vvorks of the law shall no flesh be iustifyed This text is mistaken These words prooue as little as any of the former that is nothing at all for iustification by faith only For as it is most manifest by the whol precedent context in the chapter the whol matter there handled is about Circumcision and obseruation of the ceremoniall law of the Iewes as different from the life and practice of the Gentills see v. 2.3.5.7.8.12.14 and chap. 4. v. 10. Yee obserue dayes and monthes and tymes and yeares saith S. Paul reprehending the Christians for returning to those empty elements of the ceremoniall law v. 6. and the like chap. 5. v. 1.2.3 about circumcision stand and be not held in againe vvith the yoke of seruitude behold I Paul tell you that if yee be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing and I testify again to euery man circumcising himselfe that he is a debtour to the whol law Now neither Romane Catholike nor English Protestant beleeue that they are iustifyed by the ceremoniall law of the Iewes which only is touched in this chapter And it is no lesse cleare that there mention is made of the first iustification wherby a sinner becoms a child of God v. 10. VVe sinners by nature Iewes and not of the Gentiles Nay the text it selfe obiected Gal. 2. v. 16. speakes clearly of the first iustification of a sinner to the state of grace for by the workes of the law shall no flesh be iustified the word flesh signifijng most familiarly in S. Pauls Epistles that which is not yet spirituall but carnall vnder the guilt of sin and corruption of nature For though such as are already iustified retayne the concupiscenses of the flesh in them yet because they resist and subdue them so long as they remaine iustified they are not called flesh by S. Paul but rather spirituall men And that he speakes of the law as known by its own force light and doctrine is euident also v. 16. For if by the law be righteousnesse then Christ is dead in vayne which is most true if we speake of the law as known to vs and working in vs by its owne force wholy independent of the grace and illumination of Christ but can haue no true sense if we speake of the law as iustifying by the grace of Christ for then Christ will not haue dyed in vaine because by his death he merited that grace and light by vertu of which only the law iustifyes And chapter 3. v. 2. Haue yee receaued the Spirit by the vvorks of the law or by the hearing of faith wherby is manifest both that he speakes of the workes of the law as working before the receiuing the holy Ghost and of the first iustification or receiuing of the Spirit by the faith of Christ. and v. 18. For if a lavv vvere giuen vvich could viuificate righteousnesse vvere truly from the lavv which shewes euidently that the Apostle speakes of the law as considered in it selfe and its proper force for if we consider it as illuminated by faith and the grace of Christ it is able to viuificate and consequently to iustify as the Apostle here plainly affirmes And that he speakes of the law as preceding the faith of Christ is out of all question v. 23. Before faith came we were concluded vnder the law into that faith which was to be reuealed Therefore the law was our schoolmaster in Christ that we might be iustifyed from faith THE FOVRTH CONTROVERSIE Of the merit of Good workes The Doctrine of the Roman Church deliuered by the Council of Trent in this Point Sessione 6. THe Couneil of Trent hauing deliuered as appeares in the former Controuersie that noe worke truly pleasing to God which only we vnderstand by good workes esteemed by vs meritorious can possibly be done eyther by the force of nature or of the law without the inspiration of the holy Ghost nor that any good motion of the will assisted by such Inspirations can merit the grace of our first Iustification the Council supposes that none can produce any good worke truly meritorious of heauenly blessings but such as are allready iustified and in state of grace and soe deliuers the insuing doctrine Sessione 6. c. 16. Bene operantibus vsque in finem in Deo sperantibus proponenda est vita aeterna tanquam gratia filiis per Christum Iesum misericorditer promissa tanquam merces ex ipsius Dei promissione bonis ipsorum operibus ac meritis fideliter reddenda Eternall life is to be propounded to those who doe well and hope in God both as a grace mercifully promised through IESVS Christ to childeren and as a reward faithfully to be rendered through the promesse of God to theyr good workes and merits And yet the Council giues an other ground of Christian merits Ibidem c. 26. Si quis dixerit iustos non debere pro bonis operibus quae in Deo fuerint facta expectare sperare aeternam retributionem à Deo per eius misericordiam IESV Christi meritum â—i bene agendo diuina mandata custodiendo vsque in finem perseuerauerint anatheme sit If any one shall say that iust men are not to expect and hope for an eternall recompence for theyr good workes which were done in God through the mercy of God and the merits of Christ if they perseuer to the ende in doing well and keeping Gods commandements let him be accursed And the full reason of this doctrine is giâ—en Sess. 6. c. 16. Cùm enim ille
SCRIPTVRE MISTAKEN THE GROVND OF PROTESTANTS AND COMMON PLEA OF ALL NEW REFORMERS AGAINST THE ANCIENT CATHOLICKE RELIGION OF ENGLAND Many texts quite mistaken by Nouelists are layd open and redressed in this treatis by restoring them to theyr proper sense according to which it is made manifest that none of them are of force against the ancient Catholicke Religion By IOHN SPENSER of the Society of IESVS Videtis id vos agere vt oninis de medio Scripturarum auferatur auctoritas S. Aug. li. 32. contra Faust. c. 19. PRINTED AT ANTWERPE By IAMES MEVRSIVS ANNO M.DC.LV. The points of Controuersie conteyned in this Treatis I. Of vvorship of Saincts and Angles pag. 1. II. Of the making and vvorshipping of holy Images pag. 69. III. Of Iustification by faith only pag. 137. IV. Of the merit of good vvorkes pag. 161. V. Of Purgatory pag. 179. VI. Of the reall Presence pag. 189. VII Of Communion vnder one kinde pag. 317. THE PREFACE THose victories are deseruedly inroled amongst the most noble and memorable in the monumeÌ„ts of Antiquity wherein an Enemy is ouercâ—m me with his own weapen Thus Dauids beating down that Tower of the Philistines seemed to the Israelites to haue been a conquest ouer ten thowsand Enemies Saul percussit mille Dauid decem millia because he cut of Golias head with Golias sword Thus the sone of God our dearest Sauiour purchast the noblest of all victories against the strongest of all Enimies vt qui in ligno vincebat in ligno quoque vinceretur because he who ouercame vs by a tree was through him by a tree ouercome And thus our deare Redeemer hauing been furiously attacked by the Tempter in the desert with the authority of his own word put to flight and vanquished the same Tempter by the authority of the same word which he had pressed against him Hence it is that not the sling of Dauid werewith he begunne but the sword of Golias was reserued and wrapt vp in a holy Ephod in the Tabernacle as an eternall trophe and monument of his victory Hence that anciently most ignominious hatefull of creatures the crosse is now erected in triumphal maner not only vppon the highest towers of Christian temples but vppon the most sacred and soueraigne heads of Christian Emperours And hence it also is that the Catholicque Church hath soe carefully conserued soe religiously honored and gloriously triuÌ„phed in those breathes of diuinity the holy Scriptures because that as her spouse stopt the fontaine soe she by the heat of his spirit hath dried vp the troubled and diuided streames of all errours and heresies trough theyr heauenly light and authority This is the victoty which I represent in triumph in this present treatis as the most heroicke amongst all others of the Romane Church because it conquers heresie by the weapen of heresie vt qui in verbo pugnabant in verbo quoque vincerentur that those vvbo haue hitherto fought vvith the sole vvord might be ouercome vvith the sole vvord The Romane Church euen from the first Challenge of her aduersaries in these last ages hath giuen them the foile nay quite defeated them at the weapens of Antiquity vniuersalâ—â—y vnity succession visibility sanctity miracles Fathers Councils reason authority but these were soe farre and clearly her weapens that they scarce euer dirst lay clayme to any of them and soe the victory glassed in theyr eyes seemes eyther none or small because not gayned with a weapen of theyr chusing now therefore to accomplish what she hath soe prosperously attempted she accepts the combat euen with that weapen which they take by mistaking to be theyr own It is the vvritâ—en vvord of God the sole vvritten vvord to which all appeall here they boast and glory here they exult and triumph not only before the victory but befote the fight this and this alone they take for theyr bucklar of defense for theyr armour of proofe for theyr deepe piercing dart theyr swift flying arrow and theyr sharp edged sword this they brandish before the eyes of innoceÌ„ts with this they florish in theyr bookes and Pulpits in theyr publicque meetings and priuate conuenticles nay in the very streetes and tauernes and that soe seemingly with a glosse as false as it is faire that they dazle the eyes of the vulgar and strike them with admiration in each motion of it Here they fully perswade themselues that those of the Roman Church dare not medle with them and take for granted that whatsoeuer wee haue gained vppon them by other weapens yet wee yeeld our selues clerely conquered by this So confideÌ„t are our Aduersaries in theyr own conceipts where as the Roman Church neuer as yet acknowledged to haue been eyther worsted or soe much as touched by any one text of Scripture which they euer pressed against her witnesse the many large volumes of full and cleere answers to euery senteÌ„ce objected by her Aduersaries Neyther euer refused she to incounter her enemies with this weapen of theyr own chusing True it is she requiers iudges present to see and determine which party hath the better in the incounter but they refuse all other iudges quite contrary to the light of reason saue that very weapen where with rhey fight and though she still keepe the feeld continue on the coÌ„bat maintaine the quarel without soe much as yeelding eyther a step or hairs breadth not withstaÌ„ding she must be worsted only because her aduersaries say she is What will an impartiall ey iudge of such proceedings yet to shew how empty and vaine all these flotishes are and how strong desires she hath of the eternall good of her enimies rather then leaue them wholy destitute of redresse she freely like an indulgent mother condesceÌ„ds to theyr infirmities and conformes her selfe to theyr wayward humours and that soe farre as to expose the equitie of her cause euen to the iudgement of her very Aduersaries and confides with holy Dauid inimici nostri sunt iudices that euen her most forward enimies will not be soe voyd of light reason and equity as not to acknowledge her conquerant and themselue vanquished euen in theyr own iudgements and with theyr own weapen Thus she enters the list and confides in the strength of her God and spouse that the day wil be hers And findes noe surer meanes to incompasse it then by disarming her enimie because to dissarme him him is to dissanimate him for yeeld he must when he can feight noe longer I haue indeauored in this present Treatis to giue my Readers an essay of this kinde of victory of the Roman Church where in I hope he will finde it manifest that the texts which our Aduersaries vsually alleadge against the Romane doctrine in such points as I haue tuched are not arguments but mistakes And that soe grosse and palpable that halfe an ey may discouer them Thus therefore the matter stands and the combat proceeds betwixt vs. Our Aduersaries haue now aboue
that there are two kinds of worship the one interiour the other exteriour the interiour is in the minde and soul only the exteriour is that interiour signifeyd by some humiliation of the body soe that though one may haue the inward of the soule without any outward or exteriour in the body yet one can heuer haue a true act of exteriour or bodily worship without an interiour worship in the soule thus the souldiers in the tyme of our Sauiours passioÌ„ though they bended their knees to him which is one part of exteriour worship taken Separately and absolutely in it selfe yet because it was not accompanied with the inward humiliation of the soule it was noe act of worship but of mockerie I say it followes that as the outward corporall humiliation is constitured an act of true worship by the inward intention of the minde Soe are the different kinds of worships distinguished only by the different intentions and humiliations of the soule For the very same externall comportment and prostration of the body may be vsed both when wee worship God an Angell a Saint an Apostle a Bishop a Priest a King a Magistrate a father a mother c. thus the very same hebrew and greeke word is vsed in these different worships the same bowing and kneeling is practised to them all as I haue allready proued But though the same externall gestures of the body may be vsed to all yet they bâ—ome different kinds of worships according to the different humiliations intentions and acknowledgments which he who worships desires to exptesse by those outward deportments of the body Thus if when I kneele I intend to exhibite worship to the Creatour and maker of all tkings that kneeling will be a diuine worship proper to God only If I kneele with intention to acknowledge only some ciuil dignity or morall exccllency in the person before whom I keele it will bc a meere ciuill worship but if I kneele before or to some other thing or person with intention to acknowledge in them 'a worth or dignity neyther infinite nor diuine but finite and createed neyther yet ciuil morall humane and naturall but christian spirituall and supernaturall such a kneeling will neither be an act of diuine worship proper to God only nor of ciuill worship proper to persons or things indued with meare humane and naturall excellences but will be an act of supernaturall and religious worship taken in a larger sense as I shall presently declare Thus wee see that the different intentions of the mynde make the same externall kneelings of the body to be differeÌ„t kinds of worships by intending there by to acknowledge a worth in that which is worshipped diuine Supernaturall or ciuill soe that all the difficulty in this matter consists in shewing clearly that there are these three different worths or excellencies to be acknowledged and honored by an act of worship Two of these to witt diuine and ciuill excellency the one found in God alone the other in the ciuill Magistrate all Protestans Acknowledge the difficulty therefore at the last comes to make it eleare that there is allso a third worth and excellency which is neyther infinite nor increated nor diuine nor yet humane or naturall but wholy spirituall and supernaturall inspired or communicated aboue all reach of naturall force and light from the holy Ghost and giuen to men through the only merits and by the authority of our Sauiour These heauenly excellencies I find to be of two sorts the one internall and iustifying graces and gifts or at the least giuen freely to men as other supernaturall things the other externall powers and authorities both which I will conuince out of holy Scripture to be such supernaturall gifts of God as I haue affirmed S. Iames speaking of the internall graces saith thus Euery best and perfect gift is from aboue descending from the father of light And S. Paul by the grace of God I am what I am and his grace was not voyd in me and that of our Souiour without me yee can doe nothing And S. Iohn Soe many as receiued him he gaue them the power to become the sones of God who are not born of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God And many like texts which euidently proue that all true grace and Sancttitie is a free gift of God aboue the force of mans nature vnderstanding and will and this Protestans commonly graunt and noe Christian can deny without falling in to Pelagianisme Concerning the externall authority dignity and preheminencie of Ecclesiasticall persones in the true Christian church they are as euidently ascribed to Christ and the holy Ghost as the former Thus S. Paul And some verily God hath set in the church first Apostles secondly Prophetes thirdly Doctours next miracles then graces of doing cures helps gouermens kinds of tongues Which he ascribes with many other heauenly gifts to the holy Ghost towards the begining of this chapter in the words following And there are diuisions of graces but the same spirit And there are diuisions of ministries but the same Lord. And there are diuisions of workes but the same God who workes all in all But to euery one is giuen the manifestation of the spirit to profit To one by the spirit is giuen the word of wisdome but to another the word of knowledge according to the fame spirit to an an other faith in one spirit to an other the worke of power to an other Prophesie to an other discretion of spirits to an other kinds of tongues to an other interpretation of speeches All these workes one an the same spirit diuiding to euery one as he will And to the Galathians And he that is our Sauiour hath giuen some to be Apostles others to be Prophets others to be Euangelists but others to be Pastours and Doctours to the consummation of the Saints into the worke of the ministry to the edifying of the body of Christ till wee all meete in the vnity of faith and the acknowledgment of the sone of God in a perfect man in the fullnesse of the age of Christ whence it is eleare that not only in the Apostles tyme but through all ages till the end of the world the dignities in the church were to be guifts of our Sauiour and not conferred by any authority purely humane and naturall And as those testimonies couince that both inward holinesse and ecclesiasticall dignities are gifts of the holy Ghost and conferred by the power and Authority deriued from Christ soe lickewise the worth and excellency of the Saints in heauen are to be accounted the highest and chiefest supernaturall gifts and graces of God Thus S. Paul The grace of God Protestants reade the gift of God is eternall life which all the Saints of heauen inioy And S. Iohn Be faithfull vntill death and I will giue the a crowne of life And S. Mat. Yee shall sit vppon
our Sauiour witnesses that the holy Apostle S. Paul in this place writes against these heretikes S. Epiphanius alsoe witnesses that Simon Mahus excluded our Sauiour from the office of mediatour and put the Angells in his place as the Apostle seemes here to say The Third mistake This text is made contrary to other texts of Scripture THirdly the Religion or worship of Angells here forbidden cannot be all kinde of worship exhibited to them for then this place of Scripture would be contrary to the other which I cited before Gen. 19. v. 1. Iosua 5. v. 14. where Angells were lawfully worshipped and so this place cannot conclude any thing against vs for if some worship may be lawfully giuen to Angells notwithstanding this place it can neuer be proued from hence that the worship we giue them is forbidden vnlesse it be first proued to be vnlawfull which can neuer be deduced from this generall prohibition And if any one should obiect here that seeing this word threskeia signifyes religion and vvorship thence may be gathered that all vvorship appertayning to Religion or all religius worship is forbidden to be giuen to Angells I answer that if wee take religion and religious worship as it is strictly and presly taken amongst the Doctours in its prime and formall acception for a vertue whereby due honour is giuen immediately to God it is true that all such religion or religious worship is there forbidden to be giuen to Angells and in this sense noe Catholike teaches that religious worship is to be giuen to Angells or any creature but only to the creatour of all things because he only it true God but if by religion or religious worship be vnderstood in a larger sense a vertue or reuerence belonging to religion and exceeding the bounds of nature and ciuill worship then religious worship to Angells is not forbidden in this place Now that religion may be taken in this larger sense is cleare as I haue allready shewed out of S. Iames now cited chap 1. v. 26. and 27. If any man amongst you seeme to be religiouus and bridleth not his tongue but deceiueth his owne hart this mans religion is vaine Pure religion and vndefyled before God and the father is to visit the fatherlesse and widowes in their afflictions and to keepe himselfe vnspotted from the world Where wee see that actions performed to creatures of piety and mercy are called religion and are religious actions and so this worship though it be done to creatures may according to the phrase of Scripture be called religious worship at least in this large sense that workes of piety and mercy are called religion or religious actions here by S. Iames. And thus much for the second place Wee are commanded to pray vnto God therefore no presumption but a bounden duty Proofes out of Scripture mistaken Come vnto me all yee that labour and are heauy loaden and I will giue you rest When you pray say our father which art in heauen And what soeuer yee shall aske the father in my name he will giue it you Aske and yee shall haue seeke and yee shall finde knocke and it shall be opened vnto you If the opponent meane here that wee are to pray to God without all presumption of our selues or our own workes for the words are obscure wee most willingly admit this whole obiection and all the proofes of it as most consonant with the doctrine of the Romain Church and only against Pelagian and Semipelagian Heretikes For shee teacheth that the good workes of Gods children are truly good and pleasing to God and meritorious of the increase of grace and eternall glory yet she teaches also that all good workes are the free gifts of God proceeding from his grace and not to be ascribed to any naturall force of ours left to it self which is not able to doe any thing at all pleasing to Allmighty God and so wee cannot glory in our selues but in God only as S. Paul teacheth vs Againe she teacheth that though the good workes of God's children be meritorious as is declared where they are yet no man can be in this life without a particular reuelation infallibly assured that he is the child of God or that he euer did any one worke truly good and pleasing to God and so liues and dyes wholy relying vppon the mercies of God and merits of our deare Sauiours bitter death and Passion of which he is assured by a firme and stedfast hope not presumptuously relying vppon his owne workes whereof he hath no sufficient assurance whereon to found his saluation and so he is kept in a most humble and low esteeme of himselfe and all he euer did through his whole life for it is not the beleeuing that good workes where thy are are meritorious but the beleeuing that wee haue such meritorious workes which can giue any shew of reason to rely vppon them I say beleuing with an infallible faith which Reformers teach for wee may and ought to haue a stedfast hope that through the grace of Christ wee haue done some good workes and meritorious as it is not the assurance that the abundance of mony and gould where it is is able to purchase great possessions but the assurance that one hath such an abundance of gould which makes one confide that he is able to compasse such a purchase and yet though a iust man should infallibly know that he had done workes truly pleasing to God he would not be presumptuous because he knowes they proceede from the grace of God If therefore this be all that is intended by this obiection that wee are commanded to pray to God without all presumption and vppon bounden duty wee haue nothing against it but if hereby be intended that wee are commaunded to pray to God vppon boundē duty and therefore it is noe presumption to pray to him yet so that wee are to pray to him alone as the insuing obiections and proofes seeme to insinuate then wee giue our reasons for the contrary in the insuing answer which will be alsoe common to this only à word or two vnto these fower places cited for proofe of this difficulty thus vnderstood The text of Mat. 11. v. 28. mistaken Come vnro me all yee that labour and are heauie loaden and I will giue you rest THis text is in the mouth of euery ignorant Protestant to proue that wee are neither to pray to saint nor Angell but to Christ alone Come vnto mee saith our Sauiour he bids vs not come vnto Saints ot Angells say some illiterate Scripturistes therefore wee must neither come to Saints nor Angells according to our Sauiours command But how far this discourse is from common sense euery vnderstanding person will easily discouer for to say that our Sauiour bids vs not here come to Saints or Angells expressly is most true but that shewes only that coming to Saints or Angells is not here commanded which no man makes
that all the good workes of iust and righteous persones shall be rewarded in Christ and soe be truly meritorious in Christ hauing such a supernaturall goodnesse cōformable to that heauenly reward in them which is all that is taught in this point by the Church of Rome The Protestant Position That the good workes of the Regerate are not such as can deserue heauen This is prouued by Scripture mistaken The first Proofe For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not vvorthy to be compared with the glory which shal be reuealed vnto vs. The first mistake Nothing against merits in this text NO more is a graine of mustard seed worthy to be compared to that high and spread stalke those multitudes of increase which it beares and yet it produces them as also do the small sufferings of thi world that fayre tree of life and glory in heauen as witnesseth S. Paul 2. Cor. 4. v. 17. For our light affliction which is but for a moment worketh for vs a farre more exceeding and eternall weight of glory The second Proof So likewise yee when you haue done all those things which are commanded you say we are vnprofitable seruants we haue done that which was but our duty to doe The Second mistake These words missapplied against merits What is there here which denyes the deseruing heauen by the good works of the regenerate is it because we haue only done our duty and why then deserues a seruant his wages by doing his duty and nothing else is it because we are vnprofitable seruants and who can bring any profit to God who is vncapable of profit Hence is only proued that Allmighty God is no way beholden to vs but we to him for all our good works and therefore we are all to humble our selues before him and to acknowledge that all our merits are his gifts and the reward bestowed on them grounded in his free promesse and acceptation of them for the merits of Christ. The third Proof VVe are not saued by workes least any one should boast if righteousnesse come by the law then Christ is dead in vaine The Third mistake The word workes misunderstood The answer to Rom. 3. v. 28. c. is here to be applyed for he speaketh manifestly of the works of sinners before rheir first iustification as appeares v. 11.12.13.14 and of works done by force of the law only which he distinguisheth from the good works of the regenerate v. 10. For we are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes which God hath before ordayned that we should walke in them The fourth Proofe For the wages of sinne is death but the gift of God is eternall life through Iesus Christ our Lord. if a full gift then no merit The fourth mistake The word wages and gift missapplied The true mearing of this text must be drawn from the greeke word here vsed where that which the English hath wages is in greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opsonia which properly signifies the base and ignoble stipend which was wont to be giuen to common souldiers as their ordinary pay and therefore it is fitly Vsed to expresse the wages of sinne which is death That which in English here is called a gift is in greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 charisma which signifyes a donatiue or noble an pretious reward which was vsed anciētly to be bestowed vppon such as had caried themselues famously and valiently where by they deserued it for some seruice of war aboue their ordinary pay and therefore was fit to be applyed to signify that high reward which shal be obtayned in heauen by such as shall haue perseuered in good workes till death Which could not bee signifyed by the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by reason of the basenesse and lownesse of it so that both these words doe properly signify a recompense the one a high and noble one and yet proceeding from the worthy and liberall disposition of the Prince and so happily exceeding the precise worth of the seruice as alsoe Allmighty God doth in rewarding our works qui remunerat vltra condignum who rewards beyond the condignity and worth of the merit as our Diuines teach and the other an ordinary low stipend due to common souldiers who haue noe particular worth in them Soe that the true meaning of this text according to the proper signification of the words in the original is this the base recompence and hirelings wages of sin̄ is death but the high noble and rich reward of God is eternall life and thus the text makes nothing against the merit of good workes but rather makes playnly for them Further if wee take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a pure free gift wee may answer with S. Austin and the Council of Trent now cited that because the good works merits themselues are the free gifts of God so also the glory of heauen which is deserued by them is called truly a gift as if one should giue any one a tree the fruit which it beare also may be called his gift who gaue the tree More ouer seing as we haue learned from the Council of Trent aboue cited that the primary title and right which all Gods childeren haue to eternall life is that of inheritaene which is a free gift of God before all merit of heauen eternal life may be properly called the gift of God as being absolutly decreed to be bestowed vppon them as his childeren before they had any merits to deserue it supposing that they dy in state of grace The Catholicke Position That the works of the regenerate are such as can deserue heauen I haue fought a good fight I haue finished my course I haue kept the faith Hence forth there is layd vp forme a crowne of righterusnesse iustitiae of iustice sayth the Greeke and Latin vvhich the Lord the righteous iustus the iust Iudge shall giue me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reddet shall restore vnto me at the last day the greeke at that day and not to me only but vnto them also vvho loue his coming By a crovvn of iustice he meanes a true reward or prize got by labour as appeares knovv ye not that those vvhich runne in a race runne all but one receiueth the prize so run that yee may obteyne and euery man that striueth for the mastery is temperate in all things novv they doe it to obtaine a corruptible crown but vve an incorruptible for our light affliction vvhich is but for a moment vvorketh for vs a farre more exceeding and eternall vveight of glory If our afflictions worke a crowne of eternall glory then they are a true cause of it which cannot be but by merit Gal. 6. v. 8. For vvhat things a man shall sovv those also shall hee reape for hee that sovveth to his flesh latin in his flesh from his flesh also shall reape corruption but hee that soweth in the spirit shall
reape life euerlasting So that life euerlasting is a proper fruit of a spirituall and godly life and so such a life is the true cause of saluation Reuel 3. v. 4. Speaking of the elect saith They shall vvalke vvâ—ith me in vvhyte garments because they are worthy Therefore the true seruants of God haue something in this world which makes them worthy of eternall life and that is theyr innocent and vnspotted liues as the Euangelist declares in the next precedent words but thou hast some in Sardis who haue not defiled their garment R. 3. v. 8. Behold I haue giuen thee a dore open which noman can shut because thou hast some smal vertue and hast kept my word and hast not denyed my name where the vertuous life and good works of that person are affirmed to be the cause why eternall happinesse was to be bestowed vppon him Hebr. 6.9 for God is not vnrighteous to forget your worke and labour of loue which yee haue shewed towards his name in that yee haue ministred to the Saints and doe minister and v. 12. That yee be not flothfull but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promisses where it is said both that it belongs to the iustice of God to remember our good workes and that not only by faith but by patience allso and the same is of all other vertues wee inherit the promises as Abraham did v. 13.14 Reuel 3. v. 10. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience I will preserue the from the hower of temptation which is to come through the whole world to tempt the inhabitants vppon earth where the desert of good workes is most clearly deliuered The Protestant argument against merit of Good workes The blessed saints were euer ready to acknowledge theyr vnworthynesse with humility Mistake This tutches not the merit of good workes THey are humble and euer will be and must be according to our doctrine both because they are neuer fully certain that they haue any one worke that is truly pleasing to God and if they were fully certain they must attribute all the glory to him seeing it is only his grace which workes all good in them And all theyr merits are his gifts as S. Augustin says and rewarded through the free acceptation of them for the merits of Christ according to the Concill of Trent sess 25. c. 16. But if by this title be vnderstood that noe iust man hath any workes truly good and pleasing to God through the working of Gods grace in them as the mistaken proofes seeme to insinuate it will be a false humility because it stands vppon a false ground and soe no humility of Saints This Protestant argument is proued by Scripture mistaken The first proofe O Lord righteousnesse belongs vnto thee and vnto vs confusion of face saith Daniel The first mistake The Persons here mentioned vvere not Saints These words were spoken by great sinners Therefore Daniel ascribes confusion of face to the Izraelites of his tyme because from the highest to the lowest they and theyr Predecessours had greeuously sinned against the law of God As appeares through the whole prayer of Daniel in that chapter and he puts his own sinnes to the rest v. 20. as hauing transgressed with the rest But how proues this that neyther he nor any other Saint had done any good workes The second proofe And Dauid If thou Lord shouldest be extreame to marke vvhat is done amisse O Lord vvho may abide it The second mistake This text proues that all Saints haue some sinnes but not that they haue no merits How proues this that noe Saint can haue any good wotkes or merits for they doe many things a misse yet through the grace of Christ they may doe some things aright The third proofe Speake not thou in thy hart saing for my righteousnesse the Lord hath brought me in to possesse the Land but for the wickednesse of this nation the Lord doth driue them out from before thee was the counsell of Moyses to the Israelites The third mistake This tutches sinners but not Saints The reason of this counsel was because the Israelites had greeuously offended god in the wildernesse as appeares v. 7.8.9 c. where Moyses reekons vp the haynous Idolatrie and other great sinnes which they committed THE FIFT CONTROVERSIE Of Purgatory The Romane Doctrine declared in the Council of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 30. SI quis post acceptam iustificationis gratiam cuilibet peecatori poenitenti ita culpam remitti reatum aeternae poenae deleri dixerit vt nullus remaneat rearus poenae temporalis exolueudae vel in hoc saeculo vel in futuro in Purgatorio antequam ad Regna caelorum aditus patere possit anathema sit If any one shall say that after the grace of iustification is receiued the falt and guilt of eternall punishment is soe remitted to euery penitent person that there remaines noe guilt or liablenesse to some temporall punishment to be payed eyther in this world or in the world to come in Purgatory before the enterance into the Kingdome of heauen can be opened to them let him be accursed Conc. Trid. sess 25. Decreto de Purgatorio Praecipit sancta Synodus vt sanam de Purgatorio doctrinam à sanctis Patribus sacris Coneiliis traditam à Christi fidelibus credi teneri doceri vbique praedicari diligenter studeant Apud rudem verò plebem difficiliores ac subtiliores quaestiones quaeque ad aedificationem non faciunt ex quibus plerumque nulla fit pietatis accessio à popularibus concionibus secludantur Incerta item vel quae specie falsi laborant euulgari ac tractari non permittant Ea verò quae ad curiositatem quandam aut superstitionem spectant vel turpe lucrum sapiunt tanquam scandala fidelium offendicula prohibeant The holy Synode commands the Bishops that they take diligent care that the sound doctrine of Purgatory deliuered by the holy Fathers and the sacred Councils be beleeued held taught and preached by the faithfull of Christ. But that amongst the common sort of people all difficult and subtile questions which make not for edification by which commonly there is noe accesse to piety be secluded from popular sermons But those things which tend to curiosity or which tast of base lucre as being scandalls and offenses of the faithfull they are to prohibite In these two places we see 1. That none but iust persones suffer in Purgatory 2. That those paines are only the remainder of such temporall paines dew after the remission of sinne and eternall punishment which they deserued in this life 3. That the Church of Rome forbids all temporall gaines to be made of the doctrine of Purgatory where by it appeares how injurious the aspersion of some of our Aduersaries is to the Church of Rome in accusing her to haue inuented Purgatory not to gaine soules but mony 4. All difficult questions