In the act of iustification wee say that workes haue no roome because both they are imperfect and also are not done by our own strength but being once iustified we must needs repent and become new creatures walking not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit And this is the doctrine of our Church concerning Iustification 16. Now let vs heare what they say and then weigh both doctrines in the ballance of the sanctuary that wee may see which of them bringeth most glory to the merits of CHRIST and to the power of his satisfaction I will plainely and sincerely God willing set downe the summe of their doctrine First therefore they teach that there is a double iustification the first whereby a man ex iniusto fit iustus of an vniust and wicked man is made iust and good and of a sinner is made righteous the second wherby a man being iust is made more iust and doth encrease in iustice and sanctity according to that Reuel 22. 11. He that is iust let him be more iust Concerning the first iustification some of them affirme that it is the free gift of God and deserued by no precedent workes others that it is merited by congruity but not by condignity but of the second they say that it is gotten and merited by our workes But before both these they make certaine preparations and dispositions whereby a man by the power of his owne free-will stirred vp by grace doth make himselfe fit for iustification namely by the acts of faith feare hope loue repentance and the purpose of a new life all which a man must haue before hee receiue the first grace of iustification and for the obtaining whereof he needs not any grace internally infused but onely offered externally Whereupon they are bold to affirme that the act of Iustification doth emane and proceed Simul ab arbitrio à Deo Both from free-will and from God Now the causes of iustification the Councill of Trent maketh to be these the finall cause Gods glory and mans saluation the efficient Gods mercy the meritorious cause Christs merits the instrumentall the Sacrament of Baptisme but the formall cause which is the chiefest and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dat esse rei giueth being to the thing as the Logicians speake they make to be an inherent righteousnes wrought in vs and inspired into vs by the Spirit of God And this in briefe is the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the iustification of a sinner 17. Wherein let vs obserue three maine and fundamentall differences betwixt their doctrine and ours in all which they raze the foundation and dedignifie the merits of Christ and the mercy of God to extoll the dignitie of man The first in their preparations wee hold that a man cannot any wayes dispose himselfe vnto grace but is wholly fitted and prepared by God and that those acts of preparation as they call them are not fore-runners of iustification but rather fruites and effects thereof they teach the contrary as I haue shewed The second difference is that the workes of a man iustified do not merit increase of grace which they terme the second iustification but as the beginning of grace is from gods mercy alone so the increase and augmentation thereof and perseuerance therein is onely to be ascribed to the worke of Gods spirit according to that of Saint Paul Phil. 1. 6. He that hath begunne this good worke in you will performe it vntill the day of Iesus Christ this we hold they the contrary The third difference is in the formall cause of our iustification which they maintaine to be an inherent righteousnes within vs euen the righteousnes of Sanctification We on the other side affirme that the formall cause of our iustification is the righteousnes of Christ Iesus not dwelling in vs nor proceeding from vs but imputed vnto vs by the mercy of God 18. Hauing thus layd open both our doctrines let vs examine and trye which of them giueth most glory vnto God and most exalts the merites of Christ for that must needs be the truth and which lifteth vp highest the proud nature of man for that must needs be falshood and errour especially seeing that Gods dignity and the dignity of man Christs merits and mans are as it were two skales of a ballance whâ—reof the one rising the other falls the one lifted vp the other is pressed downe First therefore touching the workes of preparation whether doe they more magnifie Gods mercie that say a man cannot prepare and dispose himselfe at all to grace but is wholly disposed and prepared by God or they that affirme that a man can prepare himselfe by his owne endeuour assisted outwardly with the grace of God the one makes Gods mercy the sole cause of iustification the other but the adiâ—vant and helping cause And whether doe they aduance most the dignity of man that say that a man can do nothing of himselfe for his owne iustification or they that say that a man can doe something to the preparation of himselfe to that great worke the one attributeth some dignity to man the other none at all we affirme the one part the Romanists the contrary and therefore our doctrine tends more to the debasing of mans worth and consequently to the exalting of Gods glory then theirs doth 19. True it is like Ferrimen that looke East and go West they with their great Grand-father Pelagius talke of grace when they meane nothing but nature and so deny indeede that which they affirme in word if the matter bee examined according to truth For Pelagius confessed a necessity of grace in all spirituall actions and yet was condemned for an enemy to grace by the Church of God because hee vnderstood not by grace the sanctifying worke of Gods spirit but an outward moouing and perswading power assisting mans free-will to the effecting of his owne saluation The very same is the doctrine of the Romanists as hath beene declared and therefore wee may iustly condemne them as enemies to the grace of God whatsoeuer they bragge and vaunt to the contrary 20. Secondly touching the second iustification which standeth as they say in the augmentation and encrease of our iustice let the most partiall Reader iudge whether tends most to the magnifying of Gods glory their doctrine which teacheth that wee merite the encrease of our iustice by our owne workes or ours which teacheth that both the seed and the growth both the roote and the fruite both the beginning and encrease of all righteousnesse is the worke of Gods spirit alone preuenting assisting and vpholding vs to the end and that these seuerall workes of grace are bestowed vpon vs not for any merites of our owne but simply and entirely for the merits of Christ Iesus I but they will say works doe not merit iustification because they are ours but because they are works of grace which grace floweth from the fountaine of
regard to Christs merits as they do and therefore this is a mere cauill and slander hatcht by them to breed disgrace to our Religion Next they contradict themselues for to say that Christ giueth strength to our righteousnesse to purchase heauen is to affiâ—me that without our helpe Christs righteousnesse was not of sufficient valew to make that purchase and yet the same men say that Christs righteousnesse was of infinite valew Now if it were of infinite valew then it made the full and perfect purchase it selfe and if it made the full purchase then he need not giue strength to our righteousnes to doe the same Thus either the one or the other must needes be false except we will haue a double purchase of one and the same thing and a double satisfaction of the same debt which is in no case agreeable to the iustice of God Lastly they shew their arrogancie in that they scorne to receiue the kingdome of heauen as an almes and free gift from God of his mere mercy towards them but they will haue it like sturdy and proud companions as a due vnto their deserts or a recompence to their seruice nay they will not haue it from Christs purchase alone but they will bee ioyned purchasers with him or else they will haue none of it then which what can be greater arrogancie And thus by this vaine vaunt they fall into diuers palpable absurdities and plainely discouer that it cannot any way be auoyded but that by their doctrine of iustification they doe exalt the dignity of man and pull downe the glory of Christ our Sauiour 24. The third doctrine whereby they derogate from Gods glory is their monster of merit which I put in the next place because it issueth from the two former as the Progenitours thereof the doctrine of iustification by inherent righteousnesse being as it were the mother of it and that of free-will the Grand-mother and so it cannot be the fountaine being poysoned but that the waters streaming there-from must needes be infected and because malum crescit eundo an euill groweth worse by propagation and the daughter commonly exceedeth the mother in naughtinesse therefore this doctrine is firre more blasphemous then either of the former and exceedeth them both in derogating from Gods glory and setting vp mans dignity against God And the Proctors of the Romish Court in no subiect doe more throat it out then they doe in this nor take more paines in any as if their liuelyhood lay vpon it And yet if we draw neere vnto them we shall easily perceiue that all is but a vaine blast of words puffing vp the proud heart of man and pulling downe the glory of Christ as I hope I shall plainely and briefly manifest by the discourse following 25. Their doctrine touching the merite of workes is in briefe this that there is such a dignity excellency and perfection in the workes of the Regenerate that by the rule of iustice they doe not onely deserue temporall and spirituall blessings here in this world but also eternall life and euerlasting blisse in the world to come In which doctrine these three poynts are to be considered first that they make the good workes of the faithfull absolutely and perfectly good able to stand out with the iustice of God and answere the full rigour of the Law secondly they make them proportionable to the reward for betwixt meritum and debitum properly taken as they doe there is alwaies a Geometricall proportion and thirdly they place this meritorious dignitie in the worke done as it is a worke and that not passiuely as it is wrought in vs by grace but actiuely as it worketh by free-will as hath beene shewed 26. That all these things are thus as I haue said let vs heare themselues speaking in their owne words The workes of the iust saith Bellarmine are simply and absolutely good And in another place They are so good and so perfect that God were vniust if he should not reward them with eternall life and that not onely in respect of Gods promises but euen in respect of the workes themselues And to prooue this hee produceth seuen strong reasons as he thinketh but indeed weake ones if they be throughly examined Andradius the approoued interpretour and defender of the Councill of Trent goeth further and saith that the heauenly blessednes which the Scripture calleth the reward of the iust is not giuen them of God gratis and freely but is due to their workes yea God hath set forth heauen to sale for our workes Bellarmine also calleth good workes Mercatura regni coelestis the purchasing of Heauen The Rhemists are yet more insolent Good workes say they are truely and properly meritorious and fully worthy of euerlasting life heauen is the due and iust stipend which God by his iustice oweth to the persons working by his grace and that God should be vniust if he rendred not heauen for the same But Ruardus Tapper is yet more impudent for he saith God forbid that the iust should expect eternall life as the poore man doth an almes it is much more glorious that they should haue it as Conquerours and Triumphers as the prize due vnto their labours Gregory de Valentia goeth yet further and saith That the workes of the faithfull beside their strength of meriting haue also a power of satisfying for the punishment 27. Touching the proportion of our workes with the reward Bellarmine saith That in a good worke proceeding from grace there is a certaine proportion and equality to the reward of eternall life and that not only in regard of the promise and acceptation but euen of the worke it selfe And this he proueth in the place quoted by many arguments which are worthy to be read that we may see the very pith and substance of their opinion touching the merite of workes True it is Bellarmine doth not make this proportion an absolute equality betwixt the worke and the reward according to the rule of commutatiue iustice but onely by the rule of distributiue iustice which hath respect not so much to the worke as to the worthinesse of the person working But herein he crosseth other his fellow Iesuites For Suarez saith That a supernaturall worke proceeding from grace within it selfe and of it owne nature hath a proportion and condignity with the reward and a sufficient valew to be worth the same And Câ—ster affirmeth that the reward which God giueth to our workes belongeth after a sort both to commutatiue and distributiue iustice though the distributiue part of iustice which requireth the dignity of the persons doth more shine forth in it then the commutatiue which considereth the equality of workes And the Rhemists That our workes of their very nature deserue eternall life the reward whereof is a thing equally and iustly answering to the lyne and weight of the worke rather then a free gift Yea he crosseth himselfe for
in the seuenteenth chapter he auoucheth that the proportion betwixt the worke and the reward is ratione operis in respect of the worke Now I confesse that some of them affirme indeed the reason of meriting of our workes to arise partly from this that we are adopted the sonnes of God and haue vnion with Christ and so they are made meritorious by the dignity of the person which worketh them and partly because they proceede from grace and also partly by reason of the promise which God hath made vnto them whereby hee bindeth himselfe that he will reward them but let all these be granted though all of them bee denyed by many of their owne Writers who attribute merite to the worke without relation either to the person or to grace or to the promise yet it will not free their doctrine from palpable impiety as the sequent discourse shall I trust make apparant After that I haue in opposition to this doctrine set downe the summe of that which we hold touching the dignity of good workes I omit to name their merit of cōgruity because most of themselues are ashamed of it 28. This is therefore that doctrine which our Church maintaineth concerning good workes First wee beleeue assuredly that good workes are necessary to saluation but so Vt via regni non causae regnandi as the way to the Kingdome not causes of raigning and as signes of our Election and forerunners of our future happinesse as Saint Bernard testifieth This with one consent we all teach and the Romanists that slander vs with the contrary assertion cannot produce so much as one sentence out of any of our Writers which being rightly vnderstood doth import the contrary as shall be hereafter fully proued Secondly wee hold that as they are necessary in respect of vs so they are acceptable and well pleasing to God not for their own sakes but for our faith-sake in Christ in whome onely the Lord is well pleased both towards himselfe and all his members Thirdly we beleeue that they are not onely thus acceptable and well pleasing in Gods sight but also that the Lord will reward them assuredly both in this life with temporall blessings and in the life to come with eternall happinesse according to that of our Sauiour Whosoeuer shall giue vnto one of those little ones to drinke a cup of cold water in the name of a Disciple he shall not lose his reward But lastly we constantly assure our selues that this reward is not giuen of God for the merite or desert of the worke but of the meere grace and mercy of God for the merits of Christ according to that of Saint Bernard The mercy of God is my merite and of Saint Augustine God bringeth vs to eternall life not for our merits but for his owne mercy For a reward is not onely taken for a due debt in Scripture but also for a free gift as may appeare by comparing Mat. 5. 46. with Luk. 6. 32. In the one place wherof the Holy Ghost vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the one and the same thing So that the summe of our doctrine is this in few words wee renounce not good workes but the merit of workes and wee verily beleeue that Christ is the store-house of all merite and that out of him there is no merite to be found in any no not in the iustest that euer liued and yet the merits of Christ as his righteousnesse are made ours by imputation and in that sense onely we may bee said to merit and deserue eternall life As for our best workes though they bee wrought in vs by grace yet passing through the corrupt channell of our defiled nature they get themselues such a tincture and staine as in regard of the corruption which cleaueth close vnto them they can deserue nothing at Gods hand if he should lay them to the rule of his iustice and not weigh them in the ballance of his mercy This is our doctrine and that it is so I appeale to Bellarmine himselfe who confesseth that by faith alone wee doe not exclude other vertues but the merit of them and that we make good workes necessary to saluation Necessitate praesentiae non efficientiae as he termeth it By necessitie of their presence not by necessitie of efficiencie Let vs therefore now come to the examination of both these doctrines and search which of them doth giue most glory to God and honour to Christ our Sauiour in this maine pillar of our Redemption 29. And first doth not that doctrine tend manifestly to the embasing of Gods mercy which teacheth men not to relie wholly vpon that for their saluation but partly vpon their owne merits Especially seeing grace and workes merit and mercy cannot stand together no more then light and darknes as the Apostle teacheth If it be of grace it is no more of workes or else were grace no more grace but if it be of workes it is no more grace or else were worke no more worke So may we truely say If saluation be of mercy then it is not of merit or else were mercy no more mercy but if it be of merit it is no more of mercy or else were merit no more merit and so by kindling the fire of merits they vtterly dry vp the fountaine of mercy And for that cause Saint Bernard maketh the mercy of God his onely merit And Saint Augustine disclayming all merits and laying clayme onely to Gods mercy saith as before God bringeth vs to eternall life not for our merits but for his owne mercie And in another place His promise is sure not according to our merits but according to his mercy And Chrysostome saith That no man sheweth such conuersation of life as that he may bee worthy of the Kingdome of heauen but it is wholly the gift of God In all these places merit is opposed vnto mercy as things of their owne condition incompatible and therefore one must needes exclude the other And sure in reason it must needs be so for mercy is free Grace is not grace in any sort if it be not free in euery sort sayth Augustine but merit requireth the reward of debt Mercies obiect is misery and vnworthinesse but merit is dignity and worthinesse and therefore cannot bee the obiect of mercy Mercy reioyceth against iustice but merit appealeth vnto iustice and challengeth God of vniustice if it bee not recompenced Lastly in mercy God is the Agent and sinfull Man the Patient but in merit righteous Man is the Agent and God the Patient And therefore betwixt these two things Merit and Mercy there is such a disproportion and contrariety that they cannot be reconciled together 30. I but they say our workes are not meritorious of themselues but partly as they proceede from grace and are wrought in vs by Gods Spirit and so it is Gods mercy that we
are enabled to merit and partly by vertue of Gods promise whereby hee hath engaged himselfe to crowne those merits with glory which he hath wrought in vs by grace to which double obiection I returne this double answere First if all good workes issue from the roote of grace as they doe indeede then how can we merit thereby seeing that which doth merit must bee our owne and not anothers especially his of whom we looke to merit So saith Hilary it is for him to merit who himselfe is to himselfe the Author of getting his merit and therfore if it be true which they affirme that Gods grace is the onely fountaine of all good workes as without doubt it is it is so farre from following thence that therefore our workes are meritorious that it followeth by mere necessary consequence that therefore they are not meritorious And this conclusion is made by diuers of the ancient Fathers themselues We haue nothing to reioyce or glory of saith S. Cyprian therefore nothing to merit because we haue nothing of our owne The merits of men are not such saith S. Bernard as that life eternall by right is owing for them and why because all merits are the gifts of God and so man is rather a debter to God for them then God to man And S. Augustine Eternall life should be rendred as due vnto thee if of thy selfe thou hadst the righteousnesse to which it is due but now of his fulnesse wee receiue not onely grace now to liue iustly in our labours to the end but also grace for this grace that afterward wee may liue in rest without rest So then if our good works arise only frō Gods grace this maketh plaine against all merit as they know well enough and therfore behold their fraud and the mysterie of iniquity though they shadow the matter with goodly words of grace and mercy yet vpon free-will they hang the vertue and effect of this grace and from that fountaine doe they deriue vnto man all this merit which they talke so much of and so howsoeuer they ascribe vnto Gods grace the cause of merit yet in very deede with them it is free-will that maketh a worke meritorious 31. Secondly I answere that when God doth promise to reward our workes with eternall life eternall life is due to vs but not for our workes sake but for his promise sake for many things are due by promise which haue no reference to any desert As if the King should promise one of his seruants a thousand pound of his mere liberality for keeping a Hawke he is bound to pay him so much but is it from the seruants desert or from the Kings bounty So God promiseth eternall life to our workes and by reason of his promise wee may challenge it as our due but yet it is not for our worke but for his word sake as Saint Augustine confesseth when he saith God is become a debter not by receiuing any thing from vs but by promising what it pleased him therfore a reward giuen by promise is so far frō importing desert that it rather ouerthroweth the very foundation thereof by being a worke of mercy as the same Augustine saith in another place The promise is sure not according to our merits but according to his mercy The doctrine of merit then vndermineth the mercy of God which way so euer they turne themselues whether to grace as the cause of the worke or to Gods promise as the cause of the reward 32. Againe by this doctrine not onely the mercy of God is darkened but also the merits of Christ quite euacuated and made of no force for if Christs merits were sufficient what neede there then any supply of our owne if our owne merits be necessarily required then Christs merits were not sufficient If Christs merits were perfect then mans merits cannot be added vnto them for that is perfect to which nothing can be added but if mans merits must bee added to them then it followeth that Christs were not perfect and so no merits at all for this property is required in a merit that it bee perfect and so either they must denie the necessity of our meriting or confesse the vnsufficiencie of Christ either they must acknowledge Christs merits to be vnperfect or ours to be vnnecessarie yea none at all I but they will say Christ did not onely merit the pardon of our sinnes but also that our workes should be meritorious of life euerlasting and by this sat they are Christs merits more magnified then by vs because the greater the gift is the greater is the glory of the giuer so that our meriting doth not argue any want in his merits but rather proue a greater efficacie to be in them for to this end will hee haue vs to merit partly that we may shew our selues like vnto him and partly to traine vs vp in good workes by this spurre All these are but shifts and indeede mere cauils for first to say that Christ did not alone merit for vs eternall life but also grace that so we might merit eternall life for our selues what is it but to make vs our owne Sauiours for all our merits come from grace and free-will ioyned together as hath beene shewne and grace is nothing with them except free-will concurre with it for they teach that we may receiue it if we will and when we haue it we may merit if we will eternall life or else goe without it What is this I say but to affirme that a man is not saued by Christs merits but that by the helpe of grace hee doth saue himselfe by his owne merits and so they shoue Christ out of his office and put themselues in his roome 33. Secondly I answere that the efficacie of Christs merits is greater in purchasing eternall life for vs by himselfe alone then in giuing vs ablenesse to merit it for our selues because it is a greater glory and a token of greater power to effect a thing immediatly without meanes then by the mediation or vsurpation of any meanes whatsoeuer In the former all the honour is to the worker in the later there must needes be some glory ascribed to the meanes and some power attributed vnto them and therefore to say that Christ hath onely merited by himselfe without vs eternall life for vs is to giue the entire and perfect glory vnto him and none vnto our selues and to affirme that hee merited to make our workes meritorious is to derogate from his glory and to detract from the efficacie of his death and passion 34. And here we may see the vanity of Bellarmines assertion who to proue that by this doctrine of theirs they ascribe more efficacie to Christs merits then we doe bringeth in this similitude Sicut quòd Deus c. that is As in that God vseth the Sunne to lighten the world fire to heat it ayre and raine to refresh it is not an argument of weakenesse in
shew also how good workes to wit almse-deedes pilgrimages workes of supererogation vowed chastity voluntary pouerty Monkish obedience which they esteeme the chiefest good workes are made Idols in that they repose the confidence of their heart and the hope of saluation in them through the power of meriting which they ascribe vnto them as also how they turne their Sacraments into Idols by teaching that they conferre grace Ex opere operato by the very worke done and that effectiuely actiuely and immediatly they produce in the heart the grace of regeneration and iustification which is the proper and immediate worke of the Godhead but I passe ouer these many other things because they admit in shew some probable exception though no sound confutation and I insist in those things onely in which euery Ideot and almost Infant may discerne most grosse and palpable Idolatry And those are these fiue in number the bread in the Sacrament Images Reliques Angels and Saints departed And lastly the Crosse and Crucifix of which in order 14. The blessed Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ ordayned for a perpetuall remembrance of his death and passion and for the strengthning and nourishing of the soules of the faithfull to eternall life is transhaped by them into a most horrible Idoll For this they teach and practise that that very thing which to all the senses is but bread being but lately moulded and knead by the Baker is to be worshipped and adored with diuine worship because forsooth after consecration it is the true and naturall body of Christ And therefore at the Priests eleuation of the hoast they all fall downe vpon their knees and worship it with great deuotion and expect from it forgiuenesse of their sinnes and all manner of earthly and temporall blessings and whosoeuer refuseth to doe this is an Heretike 15. Their Apologie is that there is a reall and naturall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament and therefore not the bread but the body of Christ into which the bread is transubstantiate is worshipped of them and so they thinke to free themselues To which I answere that if that were certaine then their defence was iust and their practice godly and we in calling them Idolaters for this cause should bee slanderers of the truth but seeing the contrary is rather certaine to wit that Christ is not corporally in the Sacrament but in heauen and that the bread remayneth still true bread both for matter and forme after consecration they cannot be excused from notorious Idolatry in worshipping a piece of Bakers bread in stead of Christ the eternall Sonne of God for to the outward senses it beareth the shape taste figure and colour of bread This is certaine and to the vnderstanding in reason it is bread because accidents cannot be without a substance this is as certaine and to faith it is bread because the Word which is the foundation of saith so calleth it after the words of consecration neither is there any Scripture to auouch the contrary saue that which may well receiue our interpretation as well yea better then theirs as the best learned amongst them confesse for Bellarmine confesseth that it may iustly bee doubted whether the Text this is my body be cleare inough to enforce transubstantiation And Scotus and Cameracensis thinke our opinion more agreeable to the words of institution and thus they haue against them sense and reason and faith and for them onely a doubtfull Exposition of two or three places of Scripture and therefore three to one but they are guilty of Idolatry 16. Besides graunt that there is a reall transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ yet the accidents of bread and wine remaine vnchanged and the forme and shape Now howsoeuer the learned may here distinguish their worship from the outward accidents to the inward substance yet the common people are not able so to doe but worship confusedly the outward accidents together with Christ contayned vnder them and so in that respect are Idolaters also for accidents be creatures as well as substances Yea and Bellarmine also doth allow them so to dâ—e for thus he writeth Diuine worship doth appertaine to the Symboles and signes of bread and wine so farre forth as they are apprehended as being vnited to Christ whom they containe Euen as they that worshipped Christ vpon earth being clothed did not worship him alone but after a sort his garments also Here is a braue straine of Diuinity they worshipped Christ in his clothes therfore they worshipped Christs clothes So Christ is worshipped vnder the formes of bread and wine therefore the formes of bread and wine must be worshipped This is like the Asse which bore vpon his backe the Image of Isis and when men fell downe before the Image he thought they worshipped him but hee was corrected with a cudgell for his sawcinesse and so are they worthy for their folly that cannot distinguish betwixt a man and his garments Christ and the signes of Christ but promiscuously confound the worship of the one with the other Rather therefore may we thus conclude they which worshipped Christ on earth did not worship his garments that he wore therefore they which will worship Christ in the Sacrament must not worship the outward Elements and so it will follow that as it had beene Idolatry in any to worship the garments of Christ so it is in the Romanists to worship the accidents of bread and wine 17. Lastly let it be supposed that there is such a reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament yet according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome no man can be certaine when it is because it depends vpon the intention of the Priest for thus they teach if the Priest should say the words of consecration without intention to consecrate the bread and wine he should effect nothing or if hee intend to consecrate but one hoast and there chance to be two or more then nothing is consecrated at all and so the intention of the Priest being vncertaine to the people there must needes be an vncertaine adoration and the Priest oftentimes intending nothing lesse then the matter it selfe which hee hath in hand there must needes be certaine and vndoubted Idolatry for if the bread and wine be not effectually consecrated as they are not without the Priests intention then Christ is not really present and so nothing is worshipped but the bare bread for remedy hereof they haue deuised two poore shifts one that the people must adore vpon a condition to wit if the due forme in consecrating bee obserued the other that an actuall intention is not necessarily required but onely a vertuall that is when an actuall intention to consecrate is not present at the very time of consecration by reason of some vagation of the minde yet it was present a little before the operation is in vertue
merite of condignitie bringeth foorth a like monster for they build it vpon two foundations whereof one ouerwhelmeth the other to wit the dignity of the worke and the promise of God for what can be more contrary then mercy and iustice Now if it depend vpon the dignity of the worke then it is a due of iustice and so they call it Meritum ex iustitia A merite by iustice but if it rely vpon the free promise of God as they call it then it must needs be Meritum ex misericordia A merite by mercy for Gods promise is a voluntary fruit of his mercy They answer that they may both well stand together for say they God dealeth with vs as we deale with our hyred labourers we agree with them for a certayne price for doing a peece of worke and when they begin we giue them an earnest penny and when the worke is done according to the couenant we giue them their wages So dealeth Almighty God with Christians he first maketh a couenant with them that for labouring in his Vineyard they shall haue a penny that is eternall life then he giueth them the earnest of his Spirit to assure them thereof and lastly at the end when they haue done their worke hee payeth them their wages But by the Iesuites leaue this similitude is lame of all foure for first when a man hyreth a labourer and bargaineth with him for wages for his worke this is a couenant of iustice and no promise of mercy and therefore if he performe this bargaine hee is not therefore called mercifull but iust but Almighty God as they themselues confesse promiseth freely and is bound to none and therefore this must needs be a worke of mercy and not of iustice Secondly there is a proportion betwixt the labourers worke and his hire but betwixt the Kingdome of heauen and our good works there is no proportion no more then betwixt a finite and an iâ— finite thing or a drop of a Bâ—cket and the huge Ocean And third y a man standeth in need of his workman his worke but God hath no need of vs. And hence it must of necessitie follow that the labourers hire iâ— a debt of iustice but a Christians hire is a reward of mercy And so I conclude that being of mercy it cannot be of iustice too or if it be of iustice it cannot be of mercy tâ—o fâ—â— what needâ— iustice if it bee of mercy and what need mercy if â—â— bâ— of iustice And therefore if this meritâ— of condignitie be grounded vpon the worth and valour of he worke done as they teach 〈…〉 cannot bee grounded vpon the promise of God as theâ— teach also because the dignitie of the worke requires â—â— as a dâ—â— by iustice and the gracious promise of God imparts it as a â—eward of mercy 41. Againe in their merite of congruitie there is another contradiction for they teach that the whoâ—e dignitie of the worke dependeth vpon grace and therefore that it is not so much man that meriteth as Gods grace in man And yet the same affirme that this grace doth not inhabitare that is awell in a man but onely outwardly mooue and helpe him and that it is in mans power either to accept or reiect theâ—s me Now how can the power of meriting issue from grace alone and the whole dignitie of the worke depend vpon grace when as that grace is not in vs and when as our owne free will is the chiefe worker being able of it selfe either to vnlocke the dore and let it in or baâ—re the doore and shut it out And besides if the whole dignitie of the worke depend vpon grace why doth he call â—t Meritum inâ—hoatum imperfectuÌ„ A lame and vnperfect meriâ—e I Gods grace â—ame and imperfect eyther therefore that grace dwelleth in vs and is the chiese worker or else it doth not wholly depend vpon grace And againe if it wholly proceede from grace then it is not a lame and imperfect but a complete perfect merice See â— beseech you how falsehood needeth no other Engine but it selfe to ouerthrow it 42. Lastly concerning works their doctrine is that the good works of the regenerate are fully and absolutely iust and perfectly good and yet neuerthelesse that they may grow in goodnesse and are also mixed with many veniall sinnes If they bee perfectly good how can they grow in goodnesse and if they increase in goodnesse how are they perfectly good seeing that onely is perfect to which nothing can be added If they say that this perfection is but begun and not finished why then also they should say that they are imperfectly perfect or else they pull downe with one hand that which they build with the other And againe if they most holy and iust men haue their works intermixed with many veniall sins for which they need to cry daily Forgiue vs our trespasses how can they either perfectly fulfill the law of God or doe such works as may bee able to abide the censure of Gods iustice seeing Saint Iames saith that he that transgresseth one Commandement is guiltie of the whole law because he violateth the body of iustice contained in the law as he which hurteth the little toe doth herein wrong the whole bodie It is a contradiction therefore to say that the works of the regenerate are perfect and yet are intermingled with many sinnes and it is all one as if a man should say that his face is perfectly cleane and yet hath many spots or that the bodie is perfectly in health and yet is pestred with many diseases 43. And thus much of good works Now besides these there are certaine works in their Religion which are more then good and more perfect then perfection these be their works of Supererogation arising from three grounds First when the Saints in this life do more good works then are necessarie for themselues to the attainment of saluation And secondly when they suffer more and greater punishments then are due vnto them for their sinnes And thirdly when they vndertake noâ— onely works commanded by the law of God but also such as are commended by the Euangelicall Councells as voluntary pouertie abstayning from marriage and regular obedience These superabounding actions and passions of Gods Saints are the works of supererogation spoken of and magnified so much in the Church of Rome which both are the Churches Treasure mingled with the superabounding merits of Christs passion and are layd vp in a Treasury the keyes whereof and dispensation is committed to the Pope of Rome that hee either by himselfe or his Factors may dispence them at his pleasure that is to them that will buy the same for money and also as they say are more excellent and perfect and meritorious of a greater reward This blasphemous doctrine might easily be wouÌ„ded to death by the Sword of the Spirit for it is contrary to all
that is falshood to falshood now in this my taske is to demonstrate how it crosseth the word of God that is falshood to truth which being proued I hope no man which is not drunke with the poisonous cuppe of the whoore of Babylons fornication will doubt of the vanity and falshood thereof Now my purpose is not to enter into the lists of disputation and confute their opinions by strength of argument that combate hath beene valiantly performed by many of our Champions onely my intent is first to shew how their doctrines coÌ„tradict the plain text of Gods word and secondly to wipe away their subtle and intricate distinctions whereby they labour to make a reconciliation betwixt the word of God and their opinions which shall be my onely taske in this Chapter for it is to bee noted that there was neuer any generation so happie or rather so miserable in distinctions as the Romanists are they maintain their kingdomes by distinctions by them they blind the eyes of the simple dazle the vnderstanding of the vnaduised set a glose vpon their counterfeit ware couer the deformity of their Apostate Church and lastly extinguish the truth or at leastwise so darken and obscure it that it cannot shine so brightly as it would but in seeking to extinguish the light of truth they distinguish themselues from the trueth and as Iacob by his party-coloured stickes occasioned a brood of party-coloured sheepe and goates so they by their fond distinctions bring foorth a party-coloured and counterfeit Religion as I trust to lay open to the world in this discourse following 2. The maior or first proposition beeing without all controuersie I passe ouer in silence and come to the minor or second proposition which is that the Religion of the Church of Rome in many doctrines is apparently opposite to the word of God 3. The Gospell teacheth that 〈◊〉 one onely God is to bee inuocated and worshipped and that after that manner which he hath appointed in his word and that all the confidence of our saluation is to bee placed in him alone but the Romanists command not onely to inuocate God but also Angels and Saints departed and in time of danger to expect helpe and succour from them and to repose our trust and confidence in them also 4. Bellarmine distinguisheth and saith that God alone indeed is to be worshipped and inuocated with that kinde of adoration which is due onely vnto God but yet the excellent creatures may bee honoured and some of them inuocated not as gods but as such as are Gods friends that is with an inferiour kinde of worship 5. But these distinctions cannot extinguish the truth for first they giue by name the highest worship that can bee to wit Latria to the Image and reliques of Christ and the crosse and to a piece of bread in the Sacrament insomuch that Gregory de Valentia a famous Iesuite and Bellarmines compeere is in this regard driuen to say that some kinde of Idolatrie is lawfull Secondly if they should deny this yet their doctrine and practice doth apparently proclaime asmuch for when they say to their Agnus deis It breaketh and quasheth all sinne as Christs bloud doe they not equall them to Christ when they place their hope and confidence in Saints and reliques doe they not equall them to God when they pray that by the merit of a golden siluer or woodden crosse they may be freed from sinne committed doe they not equall it with our Sauiour that dyed on the crosse when they desire at the Saints hands grace and glory doe they not equall them to the God of grace and glory when they call the blessed Virgine the Queene of Heauen and giue vnto her one halfe of Gods kingdome euen the halfe of mercy doe they not equall her to her maker Lastly when they offer sacrifice to reliques and Images as namely burne frankincense set vp tapers offer the calues of their lippes doe they not equall them to God for all these dueties are proper and peculiar parts of Gods seruice and therefore in attributing them to creatures they giue vnto them plainely that seruice and worship which belongeth to God alone 6. The Gospell teacheth that remission of sinnes and euerlasting life is bestowed vpon vs freely not for any works or merits sake of our owne but for Iesus Christs sake the only begotten Sonne of God who was crucified for our sinnes and rose againe for our iustification But the Romanists teach that wee are iustified and saued not by Christs merits onely but in part for Christs sake and in part for our owne contrition obedience and good works 7. Bellarmine answereth that their doctrine is falsely charged to say that sinners are iustified partly for their owne works sake and partly by Christ for saith hee by a distinction there bee three kinde of works one of those that are performed by the strength of nature onely without faith and the grace of God another of such as proceede from faith and grace but not from a man fully iustified and therefore are called works of Preparation as Prayer Almes Fasting Sorrow for sinne and such like and the third of such which are done by a man iustified and proceede from the Spirit of God dwelling in his heart and sheading abroad charity in the same Now concerning the first hee acknowledgeth that we are not iustified by them by the example of Abraham Rom. 4. and therefore that they most impudently belye their doctrine that fasten this opinion vpon them As touching the second he saith that these works Preparatiue are not meritorious of reconciliation and iustification by condignity and iustice yet in as much as they proceede from faith and grace they merite after a sort that is obtaine remission of sinnes The third sort of works hee boldly and confidently affirmeth to merite not remission of sinnes because that was obtayned before but euerlasting glory and happinesse and that truely and properly 8. This Bellarminian distinction may be distinguished by two essentiall qualities first Folly secondly Falsehood Folly for it maketh nothing to the taking away of the Antithesis before mentioned for when as he confesseth that the second kinde of works doe merite remission of sinnes after a sort and the third eternall life absolutely what doth â—e but acknowledge that which wee charge them withall and which himselfe reiected a little before as a slaunder namely that wee are iustified and saued partly by our owne merits and partly by the merits of Christ for the Gospell saith We are saued by Christs merits alone and he saith We are saued by our owne merits also And thus the folly and vanity of his distinction euidently appeareth 9. The falsehood sheweth it selfe in two things first in that hee affirmeth that they doe not teach that works done before grace doe merite any thing at Gods hand for though it be a Canon of the Councill of Trent charged with an Anathema If any
Christs merits and so they attribute asmuch or more to grace and Christs merites then wee doe To which I answere two things first if they held that these workes were merely from grace they said something to the purpose but affirming as they doe that they are partly from grace and partly from the power of free-will as two ioynt causes this their something is nothing but a vizard to couer the vgly face of their errour Secondly let this be granted that their doctrine is that they proceede onely from grace neuerthelesse being wrought in man and acted by man they must needes bee called and be indeede in part mans workes because man doth cooperate with grace and therefore to make them meritorious absolutely of grace must needes tend in part to the exalting of mans dignitie and consequently in part to the impeachment of Gods For let an answere bee giuen to this question by what meanes doth a man continue in iustice and encrease in holinesse Wee answere with Saint Paul By the grace of God onely who as hee hath begun that good worke in vs so will performe it vntill the day of Iesus Christ but the Romanists will answere that this is done by the merit of our owne workes which workes howsoeuer they may colour the matter by saying they are works of grace and receiue power froÌ„ Christs merits yet being the works of man also by the power of his free-will who seeth not but that Gods glory is greatly blemished hereby and mans worth extolled 21. Thirdly touching the forme of iustification which of vs doth most honour to God they which teach that it is an inherent righteousnesse habituated in vs or wee that say that it is Christs righteousnesse imputed vnto vs wee attribute all vnto Christ and nothing to our selues they share the matter betwixt Christ and our selues for this inherent righteousnesse though it proceede from Gods spirit as they say and is a worke of grace yet in three respects it may bee called our righteousnesse by their doctrine first in respect of the roote and spring of it which is as they affirme partly grace and partly nature Secondly in respect of the subiect which is the soule of man which may bee also called the instrument by which it is effected and that not a dead subiect or liuelesse instrument as we say mans nature is till it be liued and quickned by Gods spirit but of it selfe liuing and quicke and fit for so great a worke Thirdly In respect of the medium or meane by which it is attained which they hold is the merit of our owne workes as I haue sufficiently discouered out of their owne bookes Now then if this inherent righteousnesse bee in part our owne and not wholy Christs but the righteousnesse imputed be wholy and entirely Christs and not in any respect ours saue that it is giuen vnto vs and made ours by imputation who can doubt but that this our doctrine is farre more auaileable for the aduancement of Christs glory and debasing of mans excellencie then theirs is Adde herevnto that it must needes be a dishonour to God to say that an vnperfect a polluted and a stayned righteousnesse such as the best of ours is can satisfie the absolute and most exact iustice of God but it is an extolling glory to Gods iustice to say that it cannot be answered but by the most perfect and absolute righteousnesse that euer was in the world such as the righteousnesse of the Sonne of God is who taking our flesh vpon him performed in the same all righteousnesse that the strictest iustice of God required for our sakes 22. All which things layd together and diligently weighed we may see what caused all the Saints of God when they came to plâ—ad their causes before the tribunal of Gods iudgement to disclaime all their owne righteousnesse and to lay fast hold vpon the righteousnes of Christ the Mediatour and the mercies of God in him who is the fountaine of all mercy euen this because they perceiued that by this deiecting and despoyling of themselues of all worthinesse Gods glory was greatly magnified as also when they examined their best workes by the rule of the law their owne consciences told them that they were not able to abide the trial if they should bee weighed in the ballance of iustice and not of mercy Therefore this is the common voyce of all Gods Saints Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified to which in a sweet harmony accord all the Fathers Who will glory concerning his righteousnesse saith Origen seeing he heareth God saying by his Prophet All your righteousnesse is as a cloth of a menstruous woman our perfection it selfe is not voyd of fault saith Gregory vnlesse the seuere Iudge doe weigh it mercifully in the subtill scales of his iustice Who so liueth here howsoeuer iustly he liue yet woe vnto him saith S. Augustine if God enter into iudgement with him if our iustice be strictly iudged saith S. Bernard it will bee found vniust and scant And this infallible truth wrâ—ng out of Bellarmine himselfe though vnawares this plaine confession Tutissimum est in sola Dei misericordia conquiescere c. that is it is the safest course to repose our confidence what in our owne righteousnesse no in the sole mercy of God Is it the safest course for mans saluation so is it for the aduancement of Gods glory for the one is subordinate to the other who then that hath but common sense will not chuse rather to repose the hope of his saluation on Gods mercy then on his owne righteousnesse at least-wise if hee regard either Gods glory which all should and that aboue all or his owne soules health which should be next to the other in our desires 23. By this it may appeare what a vaine bragge that is of some of them who boast that they doe much more magnifie Christ and his merits then we doe because wee make them say they so meane as that they serue the turne onely to couer and hide sinne whereas they contrariwise do so highly esteeme them that they hold them able both to purchase at Gods hand an inherent righteousâ—esse and to giue it such force and value that it can make a man iust before God and worthy of the kingdome of heauen In which braue vaunt there lye lurking no lâ—sse then three grosse absurdities First they lay a false â—mputaâ—ion vpon our doctrine that wee should hold Christs merits to be so meane as to serue onely to couer and hide sinne whereas wee expresly teach and that with one consent that for the merits of Christ not onely our sinnes are pardoned but also that grace is inspired into our soules and sanctification and new obedience and Christ is made vnto vs of God wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption by which it appeareth that we ascribe euen as much in this
God that hee cannot doe all these things by himselfe without them but rather of his omnipotencie in that hee was not onely able to doe these things himselfe but also to giue power to those creatures to doe them so it is an argument of greater power in Christs merits to giue strength to our workes to merit heauen then if hee did it for vs without our workes I but by Bellarmines leaue that I may speake with all humble reuerence to the diuine Maiestie the power of God had beene more manifest and his omnipotencie more conspicuous I doe not say had beene greater if he should doe these things immediatly by himselfe then it is by the glasse of the creatures As when the Lord came downe in person vpon mount Sinai and gaue the children of Israel the law from his owne mouth his glory was more famous and fearefull then when hee sent it them after by the hand of Moses though written with his owne finger as the other was spoken with his owne mouth And therefore it is said Exod. 20. that the people were so astonished at Gods voyce that they desired that hee would speake no more vnto them in his owne person but by his seruant Moses Adde herevnto that God in his wisedome ordayned those creatures to that end and purpose and therefore we must not dispute as Bellarmine doth whether it should haue beene a greater token of his omnipotencie if hee had or if hee had not created them but humbly submit our selues to his wisedome knowing that his thoughts are not like ours nor his counsels like ours but as the heauens are higher then the earth so are his wayes higher than ours and his thought aboue our thoughts but for the merits of Christ he hath reuealed in his word that in them onely wee are to finde saluation and therefore wee must beleeue that he is most glorified by that doctrine which teacheth vs to rely onely vpon them and as for the power in them to cause vs to merit it is no where to be found in Scripture and therefore not to be thought to be for the aduancement of his glory besides to say that Christs honour is encreased by mans merit is plaine blasphemie for who hath giuen any thing to God Rom. 11. 25. He standeth not in neede of our good decdes Psal 16. 2. Indeede we doe glorifie God by our good workes but that is not by encreasing but by publishing and proclaiming of his glory but the Romanists say that the glory of Christs merits is augmented by our merits which must needes be a most blasphemous speech In a word seeing we doe not finde in Scripture that Christ died to giue merit to our workes but to purchase pardon to our sinnes and obtaine life for vs wee must bee content to thinke that this serueth most for his glorie and that the contrarie is derogatory thereunto 35. Lastly where did we euer read that wee must be like vnto Christ in meriting we read that wee must bee holy as he is holy and humble and meeke as hee was humble and meeke and patient as he was patient to wit in quality not in quantity in imitation not in perfection but to merit as he did is no where to be found nay it is a thing impossible for it is an infinite and omnipotent worke of righteousnesse that can deserue any thing at the infinite iustice of the omnipotent God and it must bee of infinite valew that can purchase that infinite reward And therefore it was necessarie that he which should be our Redeemer should also be God because neither Angell nor Archangell nor any creature else could performe a worke of that price which might be sufficient to merit the kingdome of heauen It is therefore a most grosse blasphemie to say that we must be like vnto Christ in the point of meriting for it maketh euery man a Iesus that is a Sauiour and Redeemer to himselfe Therefore to conclude I say with S. Bernard Let the glory remaine to the Lord vntouched he hath triumphed ouer the enemie alone he hath freed the captiues alone hee hath fought and conquered alone and with S. Augustine To whom we are endebted for that we are to him we are endebted that wee are iustified let none attribute to God his being and to himselfe his iustifying for it is better which thou giuest to thy selfe than that which thou giuest vnto God thou giuest the lower thing vnto God and the higher to thy selfe giue all to him praise him in all This wee doe by our doctrine and they the contrary and therefore it is most manifest that by this doctrine of theirs mans glory is exalted and Christs defaced mans merits lifted vp and Christs pulled downe which cannot stand with the truth and sincerity of Christian Religion 36. The fourth doctrine which tendeth directly to the dishonor of God the abasing of Christs glory in the worke of our redemption is their paradox of humane satisfactions by which they teach that Christ by his death hath made satisfaction for the guilt of our sinnes and the eternall punishment due vnto them but wee our selues must satisfie the iustice of God for the temporall punishment either in earth or in Purgatory whereas we on the contrary teach and beleeue that by Christs death and passion a perfect and all-sufficient satisfaction is made to the iustice of God for all the sinnes of men and for all the punishment thereof both eternall and temporall As for our doings or sufferings we acknowledge the one to be sabordinately required as fruites of our faith and the other necessary to be sustained as meanes of our mortification And touching offences against our brethren we hold it necessary that we make satisfaction to such whom we haue wronged any wayes either by confession restitution or punishment as the case shall require yea wee acknowledge that a Canonicall or Ecclesiasticall satisfaction is to be made to the Church or any part thereof when as we haue giuen iust scandall and offence there vnto But in all these wee denie that there is any vertue or power to expiate our sinnes or to make satisfaction to God for the punishment thereof either temporall or eternall that to do is only proper and peculiar to the Crosse of Christ for as the disobedience of the first Adam brought vpon vs not onely eternall punishments but also temporall so the obedience and merit of the second Adam hath made satisfaction to God for both 37. And herein we agree both with the holy Scripture in many expresse places as 1. Iohn 2. 2. He is the propitiation for our sinnes And Rom. 5. 18. For the eternall punishment of them And Esay 53. 4. For the temporall for there it is said that he tooke vpon him our infirmities and bore our sicknesses And with the holy Fathers for Saint Augustine plainly affirmeth That temporal afflictions before forgiuenes are the punishments of sin but after forgiuenes
merite it and yet to haue it freely giuen if it be any wayes of merite then it is not euery way free Merite in the receiuer and freenesse in the giuer can in no respect stand together 33. Another contradiction in this Article is this that they say a man is iustified by his works and yet for all that he is iustified by grace too Both these propositions they peremptorily defend and take it in great scorne that we charge them to be maintayners of works against grace and call vs loud Lyers in casting that imputation vpon them But by their leaues they maintaine either works against grace or else they breathe hote and cold out of one mouth which the Satyre could not endure and speake contraries let them choose whether for the holy Ghost himselfe placeth these two Works and Grace in diametrall opposition If it be of grace it is no more of works or else were grace no more grace but if it bee of works it is no more grace or else were worke no more worke Here we see a manifest opposition betwixt grace and works so that one doth exclude the other and this in our election and therefore much more in our iustification which is but an effect thereof for election hath nothing to doe with our good works according to our doctrine nor with our euill according to theirs but iustification hath respect vnto our sinnes and euill deeds and therefore much greater must bee the opposition in this then in that greater reason that here works should be excluded by grace then in the other 34 Bellarmines exception is that the Apostle here excludeth onely the works that be of our selues without grace before we be iustified but as for those that come after they are works of grace and therefore be not excluded by grace but may well stand together To which I answere three things First that the Apostle hath no such distinction but speaketh generally of all works and therefore according to the olde rule Vbi lex non distinguit Where the law distinguisheth not there we must not distinguish To say therefore that it is both by grace and works is to confront the Apostle and to fasten vpon him a flat contradiction Yea it is to extinguish grace vtterly for as it hath beene before alledged out of Augustine grace is not grace in any respect except it bee free in euery respect Secondly that the Apostle meaneth works after grace and such as proceed from faith as well as works of nature appeareth by another like place where works are also excluded and opposed to the free gift of God that is to grace and that the Apostle intendeth works of grace appeareth by the reason following in the next verse For we are his workmanship created in Christ to good works Now in this last place works of grace must needs be vnderstood because he saith we are created in Christ Iesus vnto them and therefore the same also must necessarily bee meant in the former vnlesse wee will say that the Apostle or rather the holy Ghost disputes not ad idem Lastly I answere that in Abrahams iustification who was the Father of the faithfull and his iustification a patterne how all his spirituall posteritie should be iustified works of grace are excluded for at that time of which the Apostle there speaketh Abraham was regenerate as Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth and yet his works are excluded therefore works of grace are meant by the Apostle I but replyeth the same Cardinall when the Apostle saith that Abraham was iustified by faith and not by works he excludeth those works which Abraham might doe without faith for they which haue faith yet doe not alwaies worke by faith as when they sinne or performe meere morall duties without relation to God But this is no better then a meere shift without any ground of reason or truth for if it bee true which the Scripture saith that whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne then those morall works which hee mentioneth being not of faith are no better then sinnes and so need not to bee excluded by the Apostle for they exclude themselues Besides it is manifestly false that a iust and faithfull man doth any worke which is not sinne wherein he hath not relation vnto God if not in the particular act yet in the generall purpose of his minde for euery morning he prayeth to God for the direction of all his wayes and that all his works may be sanctified by his Spirit And thus it appeareth that in saying wee are iustified by grace and yet by works too they speake contraries 35. A third contradiction in this Article is about their works of Preparation which they say goe before the first iustification these they call vertuous dispositions good qualities good preparations merits of congruitie and that they haue a dignitie of worke in them and yet they say agayne that no good works goe before the first iustification belike then they are both good and not good by their doctrine and therefore thus I argue If they be not good why do they call them good if they bee good then it is vntrue that no good works go before the first iustification of a sinner either in the one or in the other they must needs erre and in holding both the one part of their doctrine crosseth the other 36. Fourthly they say that faith alone doth not iustify and yet notwithstanding they say Fide Catholica Christiana eaque sola hominem iustificari nulli vnquam negauerunt nec â—egant Pontificij That no Papist euer hath or doth deny that a man is iustified by the Catholike Christian faith and that alone This is the assertion of Miletus against Heshusius and it is not condemned by any of the rest but his booke approued as contayning nothing contrary to their Catholike Religion and so it seemes to be one of their Catholike doctrines And Bellarmine insinuates asmuch though not in playne speech yet by necessary consequence when bee saith that faith is the beginning and first roote of iustification Now if it be so then as soone as a man hath faith iustification is begun and taketh roote in him euen before he hath any other grace and if it hath taken roote then it is eyther whole iustification or a peece thereof but a peece it cannot be for it is indiuisible therefore eyther whole or none For grant there be degrees in iustification as they say which neuerthelesse they are neuer able to prooue yet they bee degrees of persection not of essence as a man is a man as soone as hee is borne though not a perfect man before hee come to complete age stature and strength So their supposed iustification is iustification in the roote though not perfect and absolute vntill it come to ripe age I speake in their language because I deliuer their owne doctrine Now how can these two contraries bee reconciled Faith alone doth
man should say that a man may bee iustified by his owne works wrought by the power of nature without the diuine helpe by Christ Iesus and Bellarmine seemeth to affirme as much in this place Yet Andradius that famous Interpreter of that forenamed Councill one of the most learned men of his age and that knew well the mysteries of that Councill doth tell vs that by diuine helpe the Councill vnderstood not the grace of regeneration and speciall worke of Gods sanctifying Spirit but heroicall motions stirred vp in the vnregenerate and vnbeleeuers and that by this speciall helpe they might doe works void of all fault and meritorious of saluation And Bellarmine confesseth in other places that they are good suogenere that is morally and Salmeron the Iesuite that they dispose and prepare a man for iustification and the same Councill of Trent in the seuenth Canon following doth curse them that shall say they are sinnes or that they deserue the hatred of God Now if these kinde of works be good in their kinde and preparatiues to iustification and not sinnes nor deseruing the hatred of God but such as whereby the Heathen were saued then it is a probable falsehood in Bellarmine when he saith by their doctrine that these works doe not iustifie nor helpe any thing to the iustification of a sinner 10. Secondly it is false also which he affirmeth concerning the second kinde of works to wit of preparation that though they proceede from faith and grace yet they doe not iustifie for Bellarmine in another place doth not stick to say that this faith iustifieth by way of merite and deserueth forgiuenes of sinnes after a certaine manner and here in this place that these works proceeding from faith doe merite after their manner and obtaine remission of sinnes which if it be true then it must needes be false which he sayd before That they make not our works to concurre with the merits of Christ for the remission of sinnes which is the point of opposition and that which also he affirmeth here That these works doe not iustifie seeing remission of sinnes is of the verie essence of iustification for none haue their sinnes forgiuen but they are iustified and none are iustified but they haue their sinnes forgiuen they concurre in one if they bee not one and the same And therefore if these works merite remission of sinnes they must needs also merite iustification And thus Bellarmines distinction doth no waies free their doctrine from opposition to the doctrine of the Gospell 11. The Gospell teacheth that hee which repenteth and heareth the promise ought to beleeue it and bee perswaded that not only other mens sins but euen his owne are pardoned for Christs sake and that he doth please God and is accepted of God and in this faith ought to come vnto God by prayer But the Church of Rome teacheth that a man must alwaies doubt of the remission of his sins and neuer be assured thereof which doubting as Chytraeus truely speaketh is plainely repugnant to the nature of faith and a meere heathenish doctrine 12. Bellarmine answereth here not by a distinction but by a negation denying flatly that the Scripture teacheth any such doctrine that a man may be assured of the remission of his sinnes and his reconciliation with God and this hee seemeth to prooue by two arguments one because it is contrary to other plaine and manifest places of Scripture another because all Gods promises almost haue a condition annexed vnto them which no man can iustly know whether hee hath fulfilled or no. 13. It is good for Bellarmine here to vse a plaine negation for their doctrine is so manifest that it will admit no distinction the Councill of Trent hath put that out of all question and distinction For it teacheth in expresse words that no man ought to perswade and assure himselfe of the remission of his sinnes and of his iustification no though he be truly iustified and his sinnes be truely and really pardoned This doctrine is so euident that Bellarmine could neither distinguish as his custome is nor yet deny it and therefore hee freely confesseth it and yet Gropper condemned it as an impious doctrine and Catharinus at the Councill of Trent defended the contrary that the childe of God by the certainty of faith knoweth himselfe to be in the state of grace And so did also Dominicus a Sotâ— and diuers others of their owne stampe But there is great cause why the Church of Rome should maintaine this doctrine of doubting very peremptorily for as Chemnitius well obserueth all the Market of Romish superstitious wares is built vpon this foundation for when as the conscience being taught to doubt of solution doth seeke for some true and sound comfort and not finding the same in faith through the merits of Christ then it flyeth to it owne works and heapeth vp together a bundle of superstitious obseruations by which it hopeth to obtaine fauour at Gods hands hence arise voluntary vowes Pilgrimages Inuocations of Saints works of Supererogation priuate Masses sale of Pardons and a number such like trash and when as yet they could not finde any sound comfort in any of these at last was Purgatory found out and redemption of the soules of the dead out of that place of torment by the suffrages and prayers of the liuing Now the Romanists fearing lest these profitable and gainefull wares whereby an infinite tribute is brought into their coffers should be bereft them haue barred out of their Church this doctrine of certainty of saluation by faith of which if mens consciences bee once perswaded they will neuer repose any more confidence in those superstitious trumperies 14. But we with Luther may boldly say that so odious and impious is this doctrine that if there were no other error in the Romane Church but this we had iust cause of separation from them and with Chytraeus that it is repugnant to the nature of faith and a meere heathenish doctrine For it doth not onely nourish mens infirmities who are too much proâ—e to doubting but euen encourage them thereunto and teach that we ought to doubt But that we may come to the point is not this indeede the doctrine of the Gospell that wee should not doubt of our saluation why then doth our Sauiour command all to repent and beleeue the Gospell By which he plainely teacheth where true repentance goeth before there beleefe in the Gospell that is assurance of forgiuenesse of sinnes by the bloud of Christ doth follow and that wee ought euery one to be thus assured seeing this is a precept Euangelicall which doth not onely giue charge of doing the thing commanded as the Law doth but also inspireth grace and power to effect it as Saint Augustine well informeth vs when he saith The Law was giuen that grace might bee sought and grace was giuen that the Law might bee fulfilled Why doeth Saint Paul say
as it appeareth Acts 16. but rather is to bee thought to bee the extraordinary gift of the holy Ghost as Saint Paul plainly insinuateth 2. Tim. 1. And secondly though it should bee sauing grace yet it is not promised to all others though it were then giuen to Timotheus neither were all that receiued holy orders partakers thereof for then Nicholas the Deacon should haue beene sanctified being an hypocrite Who seeth no◠then now weakely hee hath prooued this to bee a Sacrament out of holy Scriptures and this may seeme for a taste of the rest of his proofes which are most of them of the like nature 70. Againe the doctrine of Indulgences to wit that the Pope hath power out of the Churches treasury to grant relaxation from temporall punishment either heere or in Purgatory is so new an article that diuers of their own Doctors doe confesse that there is not any one testimony for proofe thereof either in Scriptures or in the writings of ancient Fathers but that the first that put them in practice in that manner as they are now vsed was Pope Boniface the eight anno 1300. neither could they bee any older then Purgatory being extracted from the flames thereof which hath beene already prooued to bee a meere nouell inuention so that the child cannot be old when as the Father is not gray-headed and that the matter may bee without contradiction reade Burchardus who liued about the yeare of our Lord 1020. And Gratian and Peter Lumbard that came after who all speake of satisfaction and penance and commutation and relaxation of penance but yet haue not a word of these Romish Indulgences whereas if they had beene then extant they would neuer haue passed them ouer in silence especially in the discoursing vpon these points whereupon they haue their necessary dependance 71. Last of all their doctrine touching merite of workes may bee branded with the same marke For first though the word merite bee often vsed by the Fathers yet ordinarily it is not taken in that sense which the Romanists vse it in as witnesse both Bellarmine and Viega and Stapleton and if they did not yet manifold examples out of their owne writings would prooue to be true Secondly the full streame of their doctrine doth make against the proud conceit of merite for they ascribe all to Gods mercy and Christs merits esteeming their owne best workings and sufferings vnworthy of the euerlasting and celestiall reward they neuer dreamt of that ambitious doctrine taught in the Church of Rome that our good workes are absolutely good and truely and properly meritorious and fully worthy of eternall life Let their books be viewed and nothing can bee more apparantly cleare then this is Thirdly the termes of congruity and condignity were deuised but of late dayes by the subtill Schoolemen who notwithstanding could not agree among themselues touching the true definition distinctiō of their own books by which it appeareth that it was not then any Catholike or vniuersall truth Lastly their owne Doctours terme the merite of congruity a new inuention and that other of condignity no Catholike nor ancient doctrine and the whole doctrine of meriting to haue beene first made an article of faith by the Councill of Trent all which laide together prooue it most clearely to bee of no great standing nor they of any vnderstanding that were the first forgers and deuisers thereof 72. Thus wee haue sixteene points wherein the new Romish Religion hath degenerated from all pure antiquity to which many more might bee added but these are sufficient to euince our conclusion which is this that seeing the Romish Church hath neither in matter nor forme substance nor accidents any sure ground either from Scripture or the doctrine of the Primitiue Church but is vtterly vnlike to it in many substantiall respects therefore it cannot bee the true Church of God but an harlot in her stead and their Religion not of God but of men and consequently that wee in declining from them and conforming our selues both in doctrine and manners to the Primitiue patterne are not fallen from the Church but to the Church and that theirs is the new Religion and not ours And thus wee see what all their bragges and clamours touching the antiquity of their Religion and the nouelty of ours come vnto seeing there is no one thing more pregnant to prooue the falshood of their Religion and the Apostacy and Antichristianity of their Church then this is And to conclude as wee would thinke him not well in his wits that hauing beene long sicke and after regained health should say that sicknes was more ancient then health whereas he should rather say that hee had recouered his old health that his new Inmate sicknesse was dispossessed of his lodging though it had kept it long so in all reason it is madnesse to thinke the reformation of the Church and reducing of Christian Religion to the ancient health to bee more nouell and new then the horrible sicknesse and apostacy wherewith it was long not onely infected but almost ouer-whelmed And this is iust our case with the Church of Rome but I leaue them to bee healed by the heauenly Phisitian himselfe Iesus Christ our Sauiour whose wholesome Physicke must cure them or nothing will MOTIVE XII ¶ That Church which maintaineth it selfe and the Religion professed by it and seeketh to disaduantage the aduersaries by vnlawfull vniust and vngodly meanes cannot bee the true Church of God nor that Religion the truth of God by the grounds whereof they are warranted to act such deuilish practices but such is the practice of the Romist Church and therfore neither their Church nor their Religion can be of God IT is a wonder to see what deuises sleights impostures and deuilish practices the Romanists haue and now at this day doe more then euer vse to vphold their rotten Religion to ensnare mens minds with the forlorne superstitiō their kingdome being ready to fall they care not with what props they vnder-shore it and the truth preuailing against them they care not with what engines though fetched from hell it selfe they vndermine it so that they may any wayes batter the walles or shake the foundation thereof My purpose is in this Chapter to discouer some of the Sathanicall practices of these subtle Enginers I meane the Iesuites and Priests and other rabble of Romish proctors It is not possible to reckon them vp all being so many and various such therefore God willing shall be heere discouered as are for villany most notorious for impudency most shamelesse and for certainty most perspicuous and by them let the Christian Reader that loueth the truth iudge of their Religion and Church what it is 2. The first proposition of this argument is grounded vpon three principles one of nature another of reason the third of Scripture nature teacheth that contraries are cured that is expelled by contraries as hot diseases by cold
our merits are from Gods mercie and grace and that our good workes are dyed in Christs bloud and thence receiue all their vertue and rigor yet it is but a false pretence false because they acknowledge some merits before grace as those of congruitie and such as issue from grace yet in part to be of nature aswel as of grace as hath beene alreadie discouered and a pretence because if they receiue all their vertue from Gods grace and Christs bloud then they are not to be termed our merits but Gods neither can bee said to deserue any thing at Gods hand of a proper worthinesse as they teach they doe but of Gods grace and mere mercie which they disclaime a false pretence then is this and doth not free them from this danger of diminishing Gods glorie and this also is confessed by S. Augustine who sayth that we liue more sasely if we attribute all wholly to God and d ee not commit our selues partly to God and partly to our selues this the Romanists doe they diuide stakes betwixt God and man grace and nature Christ and Adam 7. Thirdly of making the best vncertaine of their saluation for as they teach no man can bee certaine of his owne righteousnesse nor of the goodnesse of his workes by reason of the manifold defects that cleaue vnto their best deeds and also in respect of the vnscrutable deceit of mans owne heart which is hidden not onely froÌ„ the eies of other men but euen from a mans owne selfe and is knowne onely vnto God as the Prophet Ieremie telleth vs and also in respect of the strict rule of Gods iustice whereby they must bee examined For which cause the holy man Iob sayth of himselfe according as it is in the vulgar Latine translation I was afraid of all my workes And Saint Augustine sayth and affirmeth the same That though Iob was a righteous man yet he himselfe was afraid of himselfe And Gregory speaketh to like effect when hee sayth That the holy man Iob because he saw all the merit of our vertue to be faultie if it be strictly iudged by him which iudgeth within sayth rightly If I will contend with him I shall not bee able to answere one for a thousand Now that which befell righteous Iob how can it but bee incident to all Gods children So that though they talke of meritorious workes in generall yet no man can be sure that his workes in particular are such and therefore no man be he neuer so iust can be sure of his saluation I speake not here of that certaintie which is by faith which they deny but that assurance which is by hope which they confesse for a man cannot possibly hope that he shall by saued by his workes when as he cannot possibly know whether his best workes are such as deserue the fauour or disfauour of God And if it is the propertie of all Gods children by the example of Iob to be afraid of their workes then how can they repose any hope and confidence in them now all this is so euident that Bellarmine himselfe is driuen after his long disputes and much adoe in strengthening their doctrine of inherent righteousnesse and merit of workes to confesse ingeniously like a good honest man being as it were sorrie for all that hee had said that because of the vncertaintie of their owne righteousnesse and the perill of vaine glorie the safest way is to repose our whole trust and confidence in the onely mercie and goodnesse of God But this wee teach men to doe that flying from all vaine confidence in their owne merits they may repose themselues onely on the mercy of GOD in Christ Iesus and therefore ours is the safest way 8. And if ours be the most safe then theirs is most dangerous which also S. Bernard in as plaine termes affirmeth when he sayth Periculosa habitatio illorum qui in meritis sperant perculosa quia ruinosa dangerous is the dwelling of those which trust in their owne merit it is dangerous because it is ruinous Now who that is wise will not chuse to walke in the safest way and refuse the dangerous or to dwell in a strong and safe house which will keepe out the wind and weather and not bee ouerblowne with any tempest rather then in a ruinous cottage which euery blast is able to ouerturne 9. The doctrine of Free will is of like nature for is it not dangerous thinke you to ascribe some power to mans own will for his conuersion as the Church of Rome doth when it teacheth that it is in mans free choice to accept â—rrâ—iect Gods grace offered vnto him and so eyther to be or not to be conuerted And is it not a safer course to ascribe all to grace and nothing at all to will and to say with our Sauiour Christ that without him we can doe nothing and with Saint Paul That wee haue no sufficiencie in our selues to thinke a good thought as of our selues And againe That it is God which worketh in vs both the will and the deed of his good pleasure In the one God hath all the glorie of the worke in the other man is equalled with God will with grace yea preferred before it for they not onely teach that grace and will are like two men carrying one stone neyther of them adding any strength vnto the other and both free when they will to cast off the burthen but also that Gods grace and working dependeth vpon mans will not mans will vpon Gods grace For thus they are not ashamed to say euen the best and most iudicious amongst them Licet in codem prorsus momento temporis naturae Deus volunt as operari incipiant tamen Deus operetur quia voluntas operatur non contra .i. Though the God of nature and freewill beginne to worke together at the same instant yet God worketh because the will worketh not the will because God Now is not this not onely to equall but also to subiect Gods grace to mans will and to make the creature more powerfull then the Creator For by this doctrine if a man himselfe bee willing and giue admittance to grace he may be saued but if God bee neuer so willing to saue vs if we our selues willnot entertaine his sauing grace all his labour is vaine and so mans will must needs be of greater power and efficacie then Gods grace which how dangerous yea impious a thing it is to affirme let all men iudge I am sure Saint Augustine was of another mind who sayth not as the Romanists that it is left to our free choice either to vse or to refuse the grace of Christ that standeth at the doore of our heart to bee let in or thrust out as we list but it is sayth he by grace not onely that we can doe what we will but that we are willing to doe what wee can and againe He worketh in vs
righteousnesse So that wee exclude not from this faith repentance amendment of life new obedience c. Lastly by Ferus Stapulensis Peraldus and diuers others yea almost all of them when at the point of death they come to the point of try all flye to this sacred anchor of Christs righteousnesse alone renouncing all righteousnesse in themselues as the famous example of Stephen Gardiner declareth who lying on his death-bed reposed himselfe on the righteousnesse of Christ only for his saluation and being told that it was contrarie to his former resolution answered that though it was the truth yet that gappe was not to bee opened to the people 48. The Protestants hold that our best workes are stayned with so many imperfections that they cannot merit any thing at Gods hand except it be hell fire and damnation and that though God of his mercie reward good workes with eternall life yet it is not for any condignity that is in them but for Christs sake into whom the partie working is ingrafted and made a member Many learned Romanists are of the same opinion Bellarmine sayth that in regard of the vncertaintie of our owne righteousnesse and danger of vaine glorie the safest way is to put our confidence in the sole mercie and goodnesse of God Waldensis writeth Hee is a sounder Diuine a faithfuller Catholicke and more agreeing to the Scriptures that simply denieth merits and sayth that the Kingdome of Heauen is from the mere grace and will of the giuer not from any desert of the Receiuer Of the same opinion was Albertus Pighius as witnesseth Bellarmine Ferus sayth Whatsoeuer God giueth vs is of grace not of debt If therefore thou desire to hold the grace and fauour of God make no mention of thy merits The same hold Gregorius Ariminensis Durandus Stella with many more renouncing all the new Rhemish doctrine of merits of condignitie taught by the Schoole fourbished ouer by the Councell of Trent and refining Iesuites All these being sworne subiects to the Church of Rome yet being constrained by the conscience of the truth doe as fully and perfectly maintaine our doctrine as if they were the rankest Protestants in the World 49. Protestants denie all free will to grace before it bee quickned and liued by Gods Spirit Many learned Romanists teach the same doctrine Laurentius Valla as Bellarmine reports wished that the name of free-will were vtterly taken away The Master of Sentences auouched that free-will before grace repaire it is pressed ouercome with cōcupiscence hath weaknesse in euill but no grace in good and therefore cannot but sinne damnably Dom. Bannes affirmeth that it is false and worse then false that any man without the speciall and supernaturall helpe of God can be able to doe a supernaturall act Ariminensis calleth the Romish doctrine of free-wil Pelagianisme The Iesuite Suarez sayth that diuers Romanists say that it is a rash and hereticall opinion to affirme that when grace is equally offered to two that one of them could be conuerted and not the other What could any Protestant say more 50. Transubstantiation circumgestation and subtraction of the Cuppe are denyed by many of their owne side as well as by vs. Durand sayth It is great rashnesse to thinke the bodie of Christ by his diuine power cannot bee in the Sacrament vnlesse the bread be conuerted into it and therefore that he holdeth the contrarie onely for the Churches determination So also sayth Scotus There is no Scripture to enforce Transubstantiation except ye bring the Church of Romes exposition Occham sayth that that opinion that the substance of the bread remaineth is subiect to lesse inconueniences and lesse repugnant to reason and holy Scripture The custome of circumgestation of the hoast sayth Cassander may be left with greater profit to the Church if it bee wisely laid downe both because it is but a new inuention as also because it seruethrather for pompous ostentation then for any godly deuotion and so as Albertus Crantzius sayth is contrary to Christs institution Pope Gelasius witnesse Gregorie of Valintia said that the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist doe not lose their nature Touching abstraction of the Cuppe their learned Cassander acknowledgeth that for the space of a thousand yeeres after Christ the people communicated in both kindes and that in Greece and Armenia they doe still and the best Catholickes earnestly desire a reformation of this matter in the Church of Rome And Durand their Schooleman that the receiuing in one kind onely is not a full sacrament all receiuing for though that in the consecrated hoast Christs bloud bee contained yet it is not there sacramentally in that the bread signifieth the bodie and not the bloud and the wine the bloud and not the bodie Of the same mind were Alexander Alensis Albertus magnus Biel with others more this last affirming that in the Apostles times all did receiue the wine aswell as the bread because God is no respecter of persons The second that it is of greater vse and profit to the faithfull and the first that it is a matter of greater merit Thus all these Schoolemen doe protestantize in this point 51. Auricular confession is denied by Protestants to be necessarie for the remission of sinnes and to bee commanded by God The same is auerred by Panormitane Peresius Bonauenture Medina Rhenanus Erasmus Caietane c. all of them concluding with one voyce that it is a doctrine deriued onely from a positiue Law of the Church and not from the Law of God yea and the last that is named to wit Cardinall Caietane is bold to say that it is so farre from being commanded that euery one should be shriuen before hee come to the Communion that the contrarie is insinuated by the Apostle where hee sayth Let a mantry himselfe And Gratian confesseth that Ambrose Augustine Chrysostome Theophilact and other Greeke Fathers thought that secret confession was not necessarie And lastly Acosta a famous Iesuite auoucheth that it would be well for the Indians if the bond of confession might bee taken away lest they should bee constrained to commit so many and so grieuous sacriledges 52. So the Romish doctrine of satisfactions is vtterly condemned by Protestants and not onely by them but by many of their owne learned Doctours for the Diuines of Louaine as Bellarmine witnesseth of them and others did certainly defend that the sufferings of Saints cannot bee true satisfactions but that our punishments are remitted onely by the personall satisfaction of Christ And Panormitane sayth that a man may be inwardly so penitent and contrite that he shall need no satisfaction at all but may bee absolued presently without any penance doing And another that the treasure of Indulgences doth consist onely of the merits of Christ and not of the satisfactions of Saints because the merits of Christ are of infinite valew 53.
cases cannot be cleared from Incest for this is the rule of supputation by the Canon law which is most fauourable to them Quo gradu remotior distat à communi stipite eodem etiam inter se distant In what degree the person furthâ—st remoued is distant from the stockâ— in the same degree they are distant from one another Now put the case after this manner ABRAHAM ISAAC IACOB IVDA PHARES ISCAH ISMAEL Here in this Scheme or figure Iscah is by their own rule in the first degree from ISMAEL and therefore by their doctrine ISMAEL may marry ISCAH which is most notable and apparent Incest for brethren and sisters are but one flesh and so Isaac and Ismael are both one flesh as Iudah said of Ioseph Frater noster est caro nostra est he is our brother and our flesh And therefore Ismael is vnto all Isaacs posterity as it were their Father and they vnto him in stead of Children and so by consequent cannot marrie not onely within the fourth degree but euen vnto the thousand degree if it were possiâ—le For Adam if hee were now aliue could not find a woman in the whole world to marry lawfully withall without committing Incest neither is this a conceit of our own deuising but the expresse rule of the word of God for Leuit. 18. 12. 13. wee are forbidden to vncouer the shame of our Fathers sister or of our Mothers sister but all our predecessours in the right line are our fathers and mothers though they he neuer so sarre remooued and therefore to marry with their brothers or sisters stands guilty of Incest by 〈…〉 law For which cause also Iustinian decreeth that Amitam licet adoptiuam c. It is not lawfull to marrie our Fathers adopted sister nor our Mothers adopted sister because they are held in place of Parents and the law in the Digests is plaine and pertinent Amitam quoque materteram item magnam amitam materter am magnam prohibemur vxorem ducere quamisis amita magna maâ—â—rter a magna quarto gradit sunt We are forbidden to warry our Auxt either by Father or Mothers side yea our great Aunt though she be in the fourth degree Thus by all â—awes the Popish doctrine that it is lawfull for any to marry beyond the fourth degree is a plaine maintenance and allowance of Incest 20. Againe who knoweth not but that theft is condemned by all lawes except it be by the lawes of Platoes imaginaries CoÌ„mon-wealth or the Anabaptistical positions of some later heretikes who would haue propriety of goods taken away and a communitie of all things brought vp but the Papists by their doctrine not onely tolerate some kind of theft but euen maintaine and allowe it as lawfull For thus writeth Maldonate a learned Iesuite and of great authoritie Poore men saith he doe not commit theft when being pressed with extreame necessity they take that which is another mans because marke his Anabaptisticall reason the thing at such a time is not properly another mans but common to the life of man being in danger c. And to prooue this hee abuseth an excellent sentence of Saint Ambrose who speaking of the communitie of charitie and not of propriety saith Esurientis pauis est quem â—â— retines nudorum vestimenâ—uÌ„ est quod â—â— recludis miserorum paecunia est quam tu in terram defodis It is the poores bread which thou retainest his garment which thou lockest vp and his money which thou hy dest in the ground But he speaketh as any man may see not to encourage the poore to lay hands vpon rich mens substance but to stirre vp the rich to the workes of charitie neither to excuse a poore man from theft if he steale from the rich but to accuse the rich of theft if out of his wealth he do not powre forth to the necessitie of the poore Neither is this the opinion of one Iesuite onely but it is backed and barred by the approbation of another of no meane credite For thus writeth Emanuel Sa in his Aphorisines Ego inquit c. I saith he am of the same mind with them which thinke that it is lawfull for a poore man priuily to purloine from a richman which is bound to helpe him and doth not Here be two brethren in euill concurring in the defence of one and the same sinne for if to steale be not an offence for a poore man why doth the law say in generall Thou shalt not steale Let them shew the exception and exemption of the poore from the law or let them confesse to their eternall shame that they are maintainers of those that breake Gods law Besides if as Saint Augustine and all other learned Diuines confesse it bee not lawfull to lye though it bee to the sauing of our liues then it must needs follow that it is not lawfull for a poore man to steale though it be for the sauing of his life for theft is a sinne that bringeth more damage with it then an officious lye can doe which is vttered not for hurt of another but for the preseruation of our selues 21. Besides these Cardinall Tollet another Iesuite a man of high dignity and authority in the Romane Church approueth by his verdict another kind of theft worse then those before specified for he alloweth in some cases the vse of false ballances and falsification of wares his words are these There is saith he a man that either by reason of vniust dealing of the Magistrate or the malice of the buiers conspiring together to pull downe the price or some other reasonable cause cannot sell his wine at a iust price when the case thus falleth out then may this man either lessâ—n his measure or mingle water with his wines and so sell it for pure wine and require the full price as if the measure were compleate prouided that he doe not lye which neuertheles if he doe it is no pernitious lye nor mortall nor binding to restitution In like manner it is lawfull to sell other silke in stead of Granado silke and Italian in stead of Greeke and so after the same proportion all other wares These bee the braue positions of that renowned Cardinall wherein how apparently hee doth contradict the written word of God let any indifferent vmpier iudge by comparing this his doctrine with these sentences of the Scripture here ensuing Diuers weights are an abomination to the Lord and deceitfull ballances are not good A true weight and a ballance are of the Lord and all the weights of the bagge are his worke Diuers weights and diuers measures both these are euen abomination to the Lord yee shall not doe vniustly in iudgement in line in weight or in measure yee shall haue iust ballances true weights a true Ephah and a true Hin I am the Lord your God c. Thou shalt not haue in thy bagge two manner of weights a great and
a true reall sacrifice then which what can be more Iewish especially seeing all such Altars were abolished by the Crosse of Christ and there remaineth but one Altar in the Church Whereof they haue no power to eate which serue the Tabernacle to wit Christ as all the Fathers expound the place who is the onely true Altar and proper sacrifice of the new Testament True Altar I say and proper Sacrifice because the soule of euery iust man is called by them a metaphoricall Altar and their prayers good workes almes-deeds c. spirituall sacrifices And therefore Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen and Lactantius writing against the Pagans who obiected that Christians had no Altars nor sacrifices and therefore no religion answere That a iust and holy soule is a right holy Altar from which doe arise prayers as sweet incense and vpon which are offered vp to God iustice patience faith innocencie chastity and such other vâ—rtues And these are the onely Altars and Sacrifices now vpon earth for our true Altar and sacrifice is in heauen 7. Againe the Iewes had lampes continually burning in the Tabernacle and afterward in the Temple which were types of Christ who is the true light of the world and of the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospell who by their doctrine and preaching conuay this light from Christ the fountaine as it were by Conduits and Pipes to the illuminating of the whole world Quiâ— in candelabro saith Gregory nisi Redemptor humani gener is designatur Who is figured out by the candlesticke but the Redeemer of mankinde Hastile candelabro saith venerable Bede ipse qui est caput Ecclesiae debet intelligi By the shaft of the Candlesticke must be vnderstood hee that is the head of the Church And the sixe branches issuing out of the body of the Candlesticke what are they but the Apostles and Pastours of the Church saith Marbachius which as branches issue from Christ and make but one body with the shaft to signifie that they must conspire in preaching Christ alone and so vnited to each other by the bond of Concord Yet the Church of Rome retaine also this ceremonie for they haue multitude of Lampes and Candles in their Churches burning in the day time as if they would declare to the world that either they beleeue that Christ is not yet come or else that they haue not the cleare Sunne-shine of the Gospell amongst them but the dimme Candle-light of superstition Now that this Iewish ceremonie is vsed amongst them not onely experience sheweth in all places and their great solemne Candlemasle vpon the day of the purification of the blessed Virgin but also the decree of their owne Popes Gregory the first and Sabinian his successour the one of which appointed certaine Lands for the maintenance of Wax-candles and Lamps in Churches and the other ordained Vt accensae Lampades perpetuò in Ecclesys retinerentur That burning Lampes should be alwayes kept in their Churches And that they fetch their patternâ— from the Iewes Durand plainly acknowledgeth when he saith That the Church is enlightned by Gods commandement Whereupon it is read in Exodus Charge the children of Israel that they offer pure oyle of oliue that the Lamps may burne continually in the Tabernacle It is cleare then that this is a Iewish imitation at least if they had not rather bee counted to be followers of the Gentiles then of the Iewes amongst whom also this custome was in vse to haue lights and Lampes continually burning in their Idoll Temples as witnesse both Tertullian Lactantius Gregory Naezianzene with diuers others Lactantius saith plainly That they set vp lights to their God as if he dwelt in darknesse And so they did for their gods whom they worshipped were deuils who are reserued in the chaines of darknesse vnto the Iudgement of the great day But our God dwelleth in light inaccessible and he is all light and in him is no darknesse what neede any light or Lamps be set vp before him then If they say that they haue the example of the primitiue Church for their warrant I answere that it is true indeede as may appeare out of all Ecclesiasticall Histories and the Epistles of Plinie the second to Traiane that they had the vse of Lamps in their assemblies but this was in their night-meetings which they were constrained to vse in the time of persecution not daring to assemble together by day as is testified both by Eusebius Epiphanius Tertullian c. but neuer in the day time till Ieromes age when this superstition began to grow vpon the Church So that this custome is either Heathenish or Iewish let them chuse whether both which are equally disgracefull to the Church of Christ 8. So likewise they fetch the vse of their hallowed water from the Iewes if not from the Pagans for the Iewes had their Holy-water made of the ashes of a red Cow whereby were purged all legall vncleannesses so haue the Romanists their Holy-water sprinkles to purge and clense away all the impurities of the soule This is plaine not onely by their practice but also by the decree falsly fathered vpon Pope Alexander the first but indeede of some later Pope which thus speaketh We blesse water mingled with salt that all being sprinkled therewith may be sanctified and purified which wee enioyne all Priests to doe for if the ashes of a Cow being sprinkled did sanctifie and clense the people of the Iewes then much more doth water mixed with salt and consecrated by diuine prayers sanctifie and clense Christian people Which consequence how vaine and impious it is who seeth not Vaine I say for the Leuiticall Holy-water did onely clense from outward vncleannesses but the Romish by their doctrine doth purge the soule from spirituall pollutions Impious for the Scripture saith that it is the bloud of Christ that purgeth vs from all our sinnes and not water mingled with salt and it maketh the comparison not betwixt the ashes of an Heyser and Holy-water water but betwixt it and the bloud of Christ This imitation then is both vaine and impious if it bee of the Iewes and more if it be of the Gentiles for what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols And yet so it is also for Iustine Martyr telleth vs that the deuils when they heard out of the Prophets of the spirituall washing that should be in the Kingdome of Christ in an apish resemblance caused his worshippers to purge themselues by the sprinkling of hallowed water And Theodoret that Iulian the Apostate commanded their bread flesh fruits and all other kind of victuals to be purged as he supposed by holy-water and that Valentinian his Tribune who succeeded him in the Empire when Fortunes Priest sprinkled him with holy-water strooke the Priest with his fist saying Thou hast not clensed but defiled me Hipocrates also the Physician doth witnesse the same when he saith
conceit 22. Againe they ioyne hands with the Iewes in their doctrines of Free-will inuocation of Angels and Saints and merite of good workes all which the moderne Rabbines hold as articles of their Creed deriuing them from their predecessours the Pharises that went before them Petrus Galatinus that Rabbinish Romanist reckoneth vp a number of them that were all Patrons of Free-will and not as it is set free by grace for so we hold that a man hath free-will to good but euen by nature before grace as the Romanists hold And so also of Inuocation of Saints some of them affirming that the pure soules which heare them that pray vnto them haue a place in heauen Others that the Iewes vsed to interpose in their prayers betwixt them and God Isaac as an intercessour Others that prayers are to be made to Angels to open the gates of Paradise and to appease Gods wrath And lastly the Romanists themselues affirme that when our Sauiour cryed out on the Crosse Eli Eli c. the Iewes would neuer haue supposed that he had called for Elias had it not been an vsuall practice amongst them to call vpon the Saints departed Lastly touching the merite of worke the Iewes teach that God once euery yere to wit in the moneth of September at what time he created the world calleth all mens liues to an account for the yeare past and openeth three Bookes one wherein are written the names of notorious sinners and Atheists called The Booke of Death another in which are enrolled the names of iust and holy men called The Booke of Life and a third for such as are in a meane betwixt both neither exceeding bad nor exceeding good but of a mixt disposition and these haue respite giuen them till the day of reconciliation to repent in which is the tenth day of the same month at which time if their good doth exceed their euill then it goeth well with them but if their euill exceed their good then they are registred presently in the Booke of Death And lest GOD should be deceiued they say that he holdes in his hand a ballance into one skale whereof he puts their good workes and into the other their euill deeds that he may measure out his rewards according to the weight of the one or the other How ridiculous a fable is this Much like vnto the Poeticall fiction of Minâ—s Aeaâ—us and Radamanthus the three Iudges of hell whome the Poets faine to sit there weighing the soules of men and giuing sentence vpon them according to their poyse and weight By this it appeareth that the foolish Rabbines maintained free-will inuocated Saints and Angels and esteemed their workes meritorious All which are the very opinions of the Church of Rome beleeued and practised of all the professours of that Religion which is so much the more absurd because they themselues confesse in speciall concerning the doctrine of Inuocation of Saints that it was not taught vnto the people of the olde Testament for feare of Idolatry nor at the first preaching of the Gospell for feare it should seeme vnto them a hard and harsh doctrine and in generall that it is madnesse to relye our faith vpon the Iewish Thalmud seeing the Thalmudicall Writers are full of impieties and blasphemies and therefore haue not onely been prohibited to be read but also condemned to the fire by diuers of their owne Popes all which notwithstanding our Romish Rabbies fetch a demonstration for the maintenance of these doctrines from the example and practice of the Iewes 23. In like manner the Iewes had those that professed a monasticall and single life which were called Essaeans from the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Saints or holy men as some suppose because â—orsooth they tooke vpon them to be more holy then others and therefore would not offer sacrifice with the people because they thought them not so holy as themselues And these as Iosephus and Philo testifie professed continency from marriage community in goods and abstinence from meats not by any warrant out of Gods word but onely by the authority of their vnwritten traditions And doe not the Romanists imitate them in the same kind What are their Monkish Votaries but Apes of the Iewish Essaeans And what is their Monasticall profession but a pretence of a state of rare holinesse and perfection They vow chastitie in single life and abhorre marriage as a state of pollution they abstaine from meates and professe voluntary pouerty with a community of goods and all this they do that they may seeme more holy then others and merite heauen by their holinesse hauing withall answerable vnto them nothing but tradition for their warrantize without either sound precept or true example out of holy Scripture For grant that their Euangelicall Councils are such as they would haue them to be and that vowes in Christianity are lawfull yet it is certaine that the authority of Councils and the lawfulnesse of vowes doe neither warrant nor allow their superstitious and idle monkery nor the blasphemous opinion of merite which they ascribe vnto such voluntary deuotions nor yet the necessity of irreuocation though by the frailty of mans nature there be an impossibility of performance And so both in substance and circumstance they want the authority of gods word to vphold them Let then the Iewish Essaeans and the Romish Monks walke together as in one path of superstition so vnder one cloake of hypocrisie for that which Sigonius affirmeth of the one that they were by Nation Iewes and by manners hypocrites we may truely confirme of the other that they are Christians by profession but hypocrites by conuersation And as those Essaeans did farre degenerate from the ancient Nazarites and Rechabites whome they pretended for their patterns so these doe as farre and more from those ancient Monkes that liued in former ages of the Church as is vnanswerably demonstrated by many of the learned Champions of our Church especially Doctour Mortâ—n and Doctour White to whome I referre the Reader for fuller resolution in this poynt 24. The Iewish Rabbines also taught that the damned soules in hell and Purgatory had some refreshing and rest vpon euery Sabboth day assoone as a certaine prayer was chanted out by them with sweet melodie and therefore that on euery Friday at night there is a great shout in hell for ioy of the ensuing Sabboth and on their Sabboth day at night a dolefull crye for griefe of their returne to their paines Thus the Rabbines doted And do not our Romish Rabbines dote in like manner They also teach that the damned soules haue some refreshment and ease vpon the Sabboth day as in the legend of S. Brandon it is written how that holy Abbotfound Iudas the Traytour sitting vpon a stone in a certaine Island and demanding of him what he was and why heesate in that place he answered that vpon euery Saturday at noone
dead and therefore lesse glory ascendeth vnto God by their doctrine then by ours But what doe I say lesse when indeed to giue any part of the Creators glory to the creature is vtterly to take all from the Creator for hee will haue all or none as Tertullian notably obserueth when he saith That true faith requireth this in defending the true God that whatsoeuer is his we make it onely his for so shall it bee accounted his if it bee accounted onely his by which rule the faith of the Romane Church cannot bee the true faith 12. And againe according to the second ground if to giue all the glory to God and none to our selues sauour of humility but to deuide stakes betwixt God and our selues hath a taste of pride then it must needs follow that God is more honoured by the one then by the other because by humility God is honoured and by pride dishonoured and therefore the Apostle saith that hee resisteth the proud and giueth grace to the humble for what cause but because the proud man seeketh his owne glory whereas the humble deuesteth himselfe of all and layeth it downe at the foote of God the proud man reioyceth in himselfe but the humble reioyceth in the Lord alone according as it is written Let him that reioyceth reioyce in the Lord. Now the Romanists that magnifie free-will haue iust cause their doctrine being presupposed to be true to reioyce in themselues which is an argument of pride for whereas our Sauiour saith Without me ye can doe nothing they may say Yes something for wee can either admit or reiect thy grace by our owne power and whereas the Apostle saith Who hath separated thee what hast thou which thou hast not receiued they may say I haue separated my selfe in doing that which I was able and so made my selfe fit for grace and this power I haue not receiued from Gods speciall fauour but from my owne free will All which kinde of speeches as they are full of pride and fleshly vanity so they are stuffed with impiety and blasphemie and manifestly tend to the dispoyling of the diuine Maiestie of that glory which is onely due vnto him And therefore I conclude with two notable sayings one of S. Augustines and another of Cassander a learned Reconciliater of late time Tutiores viuimus saith the Father si totum Deo damus c. that is We liue more safely if we attribute all wholy to God and not commit our selues partly to God and partly to our selues And this is the part of a godly minded man saith the Reconciliater to attribute nothing to themselues but all to Gods grace whence it followeth that how much so euer a man giueth to grace yet in so doing hee departeth not from pietie though hee detract something from nature and freewill but when any thing is taken from Gods grace and giuen to nature which belongeth to grace that cannot be without eminent danger So that by the confession both of this learned Romanist and also of that reuerend Father our doctrine in the poynt of free-will is both more agreeable to piety and respectiue to Gods glory then theirs is and therefore in reason to be preferred before it 13. The next doctrine whereby the glorie of God is darkened and the dignitie of Christs merites blemished is their doctrine of IustificatioÌ„ which I ioyne next vnto Free-wil because their sophistry cunning in this great maine pillar of Religion cannot well be discerned they so palliate the matter with faire glosses goodly words except their opinion touching the power of Free-will be first apprehended And here before I enter into the bowels of this poynt it is to be obserued that most of them vaunt and bragge that they doe much more magnifie Christs merites by their doctrine of Iustification then we doe which how true it is the discourse following I hope shall so manifest that euery indifferent man shall be able to say truely of them as Saint Augustine said of the Donatists These are the words of men extolling the glory of man vnder the name of Christ to the abasing of the glory of Christ himselfe 14. The doctrine therfore of our Church touching the iustification of a sinner is in effect thus much That a sinner is iustified that is accepted into the fauour and loue of God not by any thing in himselfe or from himselfe but by the perfect and vnspotted righteousnes of Christ Iesus imputed vnto him by the meere mercy of God through the couenant of grace and apprehended on his behalfe by the hand of faith The reason whereof is because that which must satisfie Gods iustice and reconcile a sinner vnto him must haue these two properties first it must be of infinite weight and value to counterpoyse with the rigour of Gods iustice and secondly it must be of sufficient ability to performefull and perfect obedience to the law of God so that a perfect satisfaction bee made both in respect of the obedience which the law requireth and also of the punishment that it inflicteth Now no righteousnesse of man is thus qualified but is both imperfect and vnsufficient no not the righteousnes of Angels themselues being though excellent yet â—â—finite Creatures sauing the righteousnes of Christ Iesus onely who is both God and Man and therefore his righteousnes onely and none other is that whereby a sinner must be iustified before God 15. From this it appeareth that when we say that a man is iustified by faith our meaning is not that faith is the cause of our iustification but onely the instrument and hand to apprehend that righteousnes of Christ whereby we are iustified when we say faith alone iust fieth we meane that it alone is the instrument of our iustification because it alone layeth hold vpon the righteousnes of Christ and applyeth it to our selues not that it is euer alone but alwaies accompanyed with charity and patience and zeale and temperance and other fruites of the spirit for we hold that the true iustifying faith is euer mâ—â—re grauida bonoruÌ„ operuÌ„ as one of their own fauourites affirmeth that is full of good workes and euer anon ready to bring them forth as occasion serueth Neither doe we deny as some of them falsly slander vs though many of their chiefest Writers gaine-say their fellowes and affoord vs that fauour to speake the truth of vs but that euery one that is iustified must also be truely sanctified and that saluation is not obtained by iustification alone but by sanctification also yet wee make sanctification and good workes not to be the causes but the effects nor the roote but the fruit nor the anticedents but the necessary consequents and attendants of our Iustification And as Bellarmine truely distinguisheth to be necessary Necessitate praesentiae non efficientiae by a necessity of presence not of efficacie as if they wrought our saluation In a word
glory of God and the merits of Christ And therefore the conclusion must needs follow being built vpon an vnmooueable foundation that that Religion which maintaineth such doctrines is not the truth of Christ but the seduction of Antichrist MOTIVE V. That Religion deserueth to be suspected which refuseth to be tryed by the Scriptures as the perfect and alone rule of faith and will bee iudged and tryed by none but it selfe But such is the Religion of the Church of Rome Ergo. THe first proposition in this Argument though it be most true and cannot without any shew of reason be contradicted yet that it may be without all doubt and exception it shall not be amisse to strengthen the same by sound and euident proofes deriued both out of Gods word and consent of ancient Fathers The Proposition consists of two parts first that it cannot be the true Religion which will not abide the alone tryall of the Scriptures Secondly that it will bee iudged and tryed by none but it selfe let vs consider of both these seuerally 2. And concerning the first if the Scripture be the fountaine of all true religion the foundation and basis of our faith the Canon and rule of all the doctrines of faith and the touch-stone to trye truth from falshood then to refuse to be iudged and tryed by the Scriptures alone is plainely to discouer that there is something in it which issued not from that fountain which is not built vpon that foundation which is so oblique and crooked that it dares not to be applyed to that rule and which is counterfeit and dares not abide the touchstone Now that the Scripture is such as I haue said let the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture beare witnesse Search the Scripture saith our Sauiour for in them you thinke to haue eternall life and they be they which testifie of me therefore the Scripture is the fountaine of all true religion for what is the Religion of Christians but the right knowledge of Christ Iesus This caused Saint Paul to say I desire to know nothing but Christ Iesus and him crucified Againe the Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto saluation through faith in Christ Iesus and are profitable to teach to improue to correct and to instruct in righteousnesse that the man of God may be absolute and perfect to euery good worke Therefore the Scripture is the onely fountaine of true Religion for what is true Religion but spirituall wisedome and holy perfection the one in contemplation the other in action the one in knowledge the other in practice for these two ioyned together do make a man truly religious but the Scriptures afford both as it is cleare in that saying of S. Paul and may be confirmed by another like speech of Salomon who affirmeth that the commandements of God will make a man to vnderstand righteousnesse and iudgement and equity and euery good path Righteousnesse and iudgement pertaine to knowledge equity and euery good path belong to practice And for this cause Origen compareth the Scriptures to Iacobs Well from whence not onely Iacob and his sonnes that is the learned and the skilfull but his sheepe and cattell that is the simple and ignorant doe drinke that is deriue vnto themselues the waters of life and saluation and therefore where the knowledge of the Scriptures flourished not as among all the Heathen both Romanes Grecians and Barbarians before their conuersion there no true Religion shewed it selfe but their Religion was all false and deuillish for in stead of the true God they worshipped dumb creatures and mortall men yea deuils themselues as Lactantius sheweth All which proceeded from hence that they had not the word of God for their guide which is the onely fountaine and well-spring of true Religion 3. Againe as it is the fountaine from whence so it is the foundation vpon which our faith relieth whether wee take faith for the act of beleeuing or for the matter and obiect of our beliefe Ye are built saith S. Paul vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Christ Iesus himselfe being the chiefe corner stone By the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles is meant the Propheticall and Apostolicall doctrine as all Expositours that I haue read yea their owne Aquinas and Caietane with one consent auouch and to bee built vpon this foundation is to haue our faith to relye and depend vpon it onely as a house relyeth onely vpon the foundation and without a foundation cannot stand that therefore is no doctrine of faith that is vpholden by any other foundation neither hath that any good foundation which is not built vpon the Propheticall and Apostolicall doctrine they build vpon sand that build vpon humane traditions euery stormy puffe of winde will shake the house of that faith but they which heare the word of Christ and keepe it build vpon a rocke against which neither the raine flouds nor windes no not the gates of hell are able to preuaile because they are grounded vpon the rocke which rocke indeede is Christ to speake properly as not onely S. Peter confesseth 1. Pet. 2. 7. but euen Christ himselfe that is this rocke Math. 16. 18. when hee saith Vpon this rocke will I build my Church that is vpon this truth that Christ is the Sonne of God yet the word of Christ may also be called the rocke because it is as firme and durable as Christ himselfe And that wee may know that Gods word onely is the foundation of faith S. Paul telleth vs plainely that faith is by hearing and hearing by the word of God If any of them say as they doe that the word of God is not onely that which is written in Scripture but that which is vnwritten deliuered by tradition let them shew as good reasons to proue their traditions to be the word of God as we doe to proue the Scripture and we will beleeue them but since they cannot let them beare with vs if we vnderstand the Apostles words as spoken onely touching the written word and the rather because we haue for the warrantize of our interpretation both S. Paul himselfe in the same Chapter verse 8. when he saith This is the word offaith which we preach Where hee sheweth what is that word which is the ground of our faith namely the word preached And S. Peter who hauing magnified the word of God with this commendation that it endureth for euer presently expoundeth himselfe of what word hee spake saying And this is that word which is preached amongst you That is the word of the Gospell which was not in part but wholy and fully as preached by mouth so committed to writing And thus S. Basil also interprets it for he saith Quicquid est vltra scripturas Whatsoeuer is out of the Scriptures diuinely inspired because it is not of faith is sinne for faith is by hearing and hearing by
confesse afterward that it is indeed a rule but not a total and entire rule but a partiall and imperfect one If it bee any waies a rule then it was giuen by God and written by the men of God to that end to be the rule And so Bellarmines goodly reasons hang together like a sicke mans dreame the one part wherof ouerthroweth the other 18. But to answere in particular to them seuerally To the first I say that it is not farre from blasphemy to affirme that there is any thing in holy Scripture that is vnnecessary for though all things are not of equall necessity and profit yet there is nothing in the whole Booke of God from the beginning of Gen. to the end of the Reuel but may haue most profitable and necessary vse in the Church of God if not for the essentiall forme of faith yet for the adorning and beautifying of it and this may truely bee verified euen of those things which he excepteth against to wit the Histories of the Olde and New Testament and the salutations in the Epistles of the Apostles out of all which how many excellent doctrines may be deriued both for the confirmation of faith and edification of manners And therefore as in mans body God by nature hath not disposed all parts to be alike necessary but some haue no other vse but ornament and comelinesse so hath Almighty God mingled the parts of holy Scripture in that manner that some are as it were bones and sinews to our faith some flesh and bloud and some againe but exteriour beautie and fashion yet as in nature nothing is made in vaine so much lesse in Scripture is there any thing to be accounted superfluous and redundant nay in this diuine body there are no excrements that may be cast out and separated as it fareth in our earthly carkases but all is entire sound and perfect as the Prophet Dauid teacheth Psal 19. 7. when hee saith that the Law of God is perfect conuerting the soule and our Sauiour Math. 5. 18. when he auoucheth that till heauen and earth perish one iote or title of the Law shall not c. 19. To his second reason I answere three things first that it is entirely false that the Scripture doth not contayne all things necessarily required to the Essence of faith for if the Scripture be perfect and giueth wisedome to the simple if nothing may bee added to it nor taken from it if to teach any thing besides the Scripture deserueth the fearefull Anathema if it be able to make the man of God perfect to euery good worke if in them onely wee may finde eternall life if the Church of God be built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles and lastly if our faith and hope doe arise from the Scriptures then there is nothing necessary to saluation but is fully and plenarily contained in them but the first is true as appeareth by all those testimonies before alledged and therefore the latter must by necessary consequence be true also 20. Secondly I answere that Bellarmine by that assertion crosseth the whole streame of the Fathers for most of them affirme the flat contrary Tertullian saith that when we once beleeue the Gospell Hoc prius credimus non esse quod vltra credere debemus This we beleeue first that there is nothing besides which we ought to beleeue Iraeneus saith that the Apostles committed to writing the Gospell which they preached Fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum To be the foundation and pillar of our faith Basil saith Quicquid extra diuinam scripturam est cum ex fide non sit peccatum est Whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne Cyrill saith that all those things were written in holy Scripture which the Writers thought sufficient Tam ad mores quà m ad dogmata As well touching conuersation as doctrine Augustine saith that those things were chosen out to be written Quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur Which seemed sufficient for the saluation of them that beleeue And againe he saith in another place Whether concerning Christ or concerning the Church of Christ or concerning any thing that pertaineth to our faith or life we will not say if we but if an Angell from heauen shall preach vnto you but what ye haue receiued in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospell let him be accursed Chrysostome saith Si quis eorum If any of them who are said to haue the holy Ghost doe speake any thing of him selfe and not out of the Gospell beleeue it not Ierome speaking of an opinion touching the death of Zacharias the father of Iohn Baptist saith Hoc quia ex Scripturis non habet authoritatem This because it hath not authority out of the Scriptures is as easily contemned as approued I supersede for breuity sake the residue of the Fathers who with full consent conspire in the same opinion yea not onely the Fathers but many also of their owne most learned Authors as Thomas Aquinas Antoninus Durandus Peresius Clingius and diuers others by all which we may see how little reckoning Bellarmine maketh of the ancient Fathers where they make for him hee magnifieth and exalteth them to the skies but when they are opposite to him he reiecteth them as drosse and the like account he maketh of his owne Doctors 21. Lastly I answere that of those things which he affirmeth not to be contayned in holy Scripture and yet to be of necessity of beliefe some of them are farre from either necessity or profit as that of the meanes whereby women vnder the Law were purged from originall sinne and how the Gentiles were partakers of the couenant hauing not the Sacrament and that Easter is to be celebrated vpon the Lords day If these things be of that necessity of beliefe which hee maketh them how many thousand then haue sinned greatly in being ignorant thereof for at this day not the hundreth part of Christians euer heard these things once named and yet by this ignorance they neither offended God nor hindered their owne saluation And what shall we thinke of Iraeneus and other godly Bishops in the East that held that Easter was not to bee celebrated euer vpon the Lords day Againe the other things nominated by him as that the books of the sacred Bible are the Canonicall Scripture and the word of the liuing God that the children of beleeuing parents are to be baptized that Christ descended into hell may easily be proued out of Scripture either by expresse testimonie or by necessarie consequence and deduction which is all one for Perinde sunt â—a quae ex Scripturis colliguntur atqueâ—a quae scribuntur c. saith Nazianzene 22. Thirdly being driuen by the power of truth to acknowledge the Scripture to be a rule he commeth in with a leaden distinction to wit that is not a totall but
at Saint Mary Maior and a third at Treuers the Cup wherein Iohn the Euangelist drunke the poyson after he was condemned by Domitian is both at Bononia and at Rome to be seene Saint Anne hath three bodies one at Apla another at Prouince and a third at Lyons and so her head is in three places at Treuers at Turen and at Thuring Lazarus the Brother of Marie is like wise a Gyant of three bodies one of them is at Massilia another at Angustodune and the third at Auelona 38. Iâ— would fill a volume if I should reckon vp all their strange relicks Let him that desireth to see more of them reade Caluins Tractate called Admonitio de Reliquijs where he shall finde a whole thraue of them I for this time end with three or foure braue ones for the nonce which are worthy neuer to be forgotten It is written of Dunstane the Abbot of Glastenbury that as he was hallowing a certaine Church he beheld the right thumbe of Editha then Abbesse of Wilton as shee was crossing and blessing her forhead and much delighting therein hee tooke it into his hand and said Neuer might this thumbe perish By vertue of which prayer of his after Edithaes death when all her body was turned into ashes that thumbe and another part of her body which it seemeth he had blessed too were found safe and sound and so became Reliques We read also of a certaine Monke who gaue out that he had brought from the East some of the sound of the Bels which hung in Salomons Temple and that he could shew among other Reliques some of the haires which fell from the Seraphicall Angell when hee came to imprint the fiue wounds of Christ in S. Frauncis body Yea some of them are not ashamed to shew to the Pilgrimes that goe to Ierusalem a three cornerd stone which they beare them in hand is that very stone whereof Dauid spake saying The stone which the builders refused is the head of the corner Lastly at Cour cheuerin neere vnto Blois is kept for a monument the breath of S. Ioseph which he breathed when he claue wood being a Carpenter at Burgos in Spaine is shewne a Crucifix whose nailes and beard are cut euery moneth they grow so fast and in these excrements they say is great vertue At Rome is to bee seene the fore-skinne of our Sauiour which was cut off at his circumcision and in Galicia as Pilgrimes report are preserued some of the feathers of certaine chickens which are of the race of that Cocke which crowed when Peter denied his Master And at S. Denis is to bee seene the Lanthorne which Iudas caried in his hand when he came to betray his Master with a number other such like These bee their goodly Reliques which they would haue men to worship with such great deuotion of all which or at least of most of them we may truly auouch that which Augustine saith of miracles that they are vel figmenta mendacium hominum vel portenta fallacium spirituum That they are nothing but mere impostures and coozening deuices either of diuels or of auaricious Priests Friers and Monkes to nouzle the people in superstition and to line their owne purses with crownes 39. The bare narration of them is sufficient to bewray their falshood but much more the Logicall contrariety and naturall repugnancie that is among them which all the wit of man is not able to reconcile And last of all their nouelty for most of these Reliques was neuer heard of in this world for three hundred yeeres aftâ—r Christ so that it may iustly be wondred where they lay hid all that while and by what meanes they were found out at last or how they could continue so long If they say they were discouered by diuine reuelation as the bodies of Geruasius and Protasius to S. Ambrose of Stephen and Nichodemus to one Luâ—â—anus and the head of Iohn Baptist to two Monkes and the bones of Abacuk and Michaeas to a certaine Bishop and the body of S. Barnabe with the Gospell of S. Mathew vpon his brest I answere that though all these were true yet they were not reuealed to that end that they should be worshipped neither yet did the God of truth euer by his testimony bolster out such notorious lyes as are found in the Romish Reliques We may confidently therefore conclude that most abominable Idolatry is committed in the Church of Rome by the worshipping at least of false Reliques whereof there is such a swarme for the greatest part of their Reliques being counterfait the greatest part of the worship which is done vnto them must needes be Idolatry 40. The Iesuites to this obiection of ours giue two answeres one is Bellarmines who flatly denieth the Reliques in Churches to be counterfait because none are receiued but by the authority of the Bishop of Rome And as for the multiplicity of bodies hee saith that the parts of them are often found in diuers places and by a figure of speech are called by the name of the whole But the Iesuites answere by his leaue is idle and friuolous for first all these fore-named false Reliques are not caried about by priuate men but found in their Churches and therefore if authorized by the Popes holinesse the more shame for him and the more certainty for vs that he can erre like a sinfull man euen sitting in his chaire of doctrine And secondly though it were true which he saith concerning the bodies of Saints yet it cannot hold in other things as in Iohn Baptists finger and his shooe and the nailes of Christs crosse and the Virgin Maries milke and such like Therefore Vasques the Iesuite hath deuised another answere and that is Though the Reliques be vncertaine and false yet if they bee worshipped it is no sinne but a good worke Because as it is not the sinne of Idolatry saith hee to worship a beame of light vnder which the diuell lurketh when a man taketh it for Christ so if a man worship a false Relique supposing it to bee some true part of a Saint Merito suae deuotionis non caret He wanteth not the merit of his deuotion But this answere is not onely friuolous but impious for by the same reason the Iewes should be cleared from sinne when they crucified Christ because S. Paul saith they did it through zeale though not according to knowledge Rom. 19. 2. and the Gentiles when they put Christians to death because our Sauiour saith that in so dâ—ing they thought they did God good seruice Iohn 16. 2. but they both sinned notwithstanding most grieuously And their owne rule is that ignorantia non excusat à toto sed à tanto that is ignorance doth not excuse the whole fault committed but onely lessens the guilt of it I conclude therefore that notwithstanding all that can be said yet in the worshipping of Reliques is committed manifest and detestable Idolatry 41.
euer any man read more pittifull arguments the rest which â—ee vseth are all of the same stampe Ob. I but a Crucifix is like vnto Christ saith hee therefore it iâ—to bee worshipped with latria R. But the Virgin his Mother was more like to him and yet they giue not vnto her so high a worship Ob. I but the Fathers held the Crosse in great reuerence and the Image of the Crosse and worshipped them R. True they reuerenced them and held them in great estimation but yet there was no worship giuen vnto them vntill neere 400. yeeres after Christ About that time began this superstition for in Saint Ambrose time it was not crept in as appeareth by that testimony before alledged not in Arnobius time who plainely affirmeth that they did not worship Crosses Againe those Fathers that did adore them did not worship the Crosse or the Crucifix but him that hung vpon the Crosse as may appeare by Hieroms testimony concerning Paulae who saith that shee falling prostrate before the Crosse worshipped as if shee had seene the Lord there hanging before her by which it is playne that she worshipped not the Crosse but the Lord. And Ambrose also witnesseth the same when he calleth it an heathenish errour and the vanitie of wickedmen to worship the Crosse But the Romanists teach that the Crosse it selfe and the Crucifix are to be worshipped and that with the highest worship Ob. I but many and strange miracles haue beene wrought by the signe of the Crosse therefore it is to bee worshipped R. The argument is naught for if euery worker of miracles should be worshipped with diuine adoration then all the Apostles might challenge this honour vnto them So might Iannes and Iambres that resisted Moses Yea so might Antichrist himselfe for his comming is with lying signes and wonders lying not onely in respect of their substance which is sometimes counterfeit but also in respect of the end which is to seduce when the miracle for substance may bee true and this is both Saint Chrystostomes and Saint Augustines exposition of that place besides the myracles that were done at or before this signe were effected by the power of the faith and inuocation of Christ crucified and not by the bare signe of the Crosse as most of the Fathers confesse and all of them doe secretly insinuate And therefore the signing of themselues with the Crosse was a secret kinde of inuocation of Christ crucified as Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth And thus it followeth that those myracles which they talke of as the driuing away of Diuels and ouercomming mortall enemies and such like are not to be ascribed to the signe of the Crosse but to inuocation and prayer and faith in Christ crucified 80. Ob. I but the Apostle Paul saith God forbid that I should reioyce in any thing but inthe Crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ and He tooke the handwriting that was against vs and nayled it on his Crosse and he set all things at peace through the bloud of his Crosse c. therefore it is to be worshipped R. The consequent of this arguments as good as the former for how can it follow that because the Crosse was the instrument of our redemption therefore it should be adored The weaknes of this sequell is before discouered Besides by the Crosse is vnderstood most commonly in the Scripture eyther the whole worke of Christs passion or afflictions and persecutions for Christs sake neyther of which especially the latter are to be adored with diuine adoration In a word there is nothing they can alledge that doth carry with it any shew of sound reason to hide the shame of their Church in this open Idolatrie and yet they labour tooth and nayle for it but they profite but a little 81. Wee confesse that there was a holy and commendable vse of the transcant signe of the Crosse in the primitiue Church to wit as a badge of Christian profession to signifie that they were not ashamed of their crucified God which the heathen and wicked Iewes vsed to cast in their teeth and so of the permanent Crosse erected in publike places to be as it were a trophee and monument of the exaltation of him that dyed on the Crosse But now Popery hath turned this laudable vse of the Crosse into Paganish abomination and hath giuen to it that honour which belonged to him that dyed vpon the Crosse and therefore wee most iustly accuse them of fouâ—e Idolatrie and finde them guilty without all controuersie and that not onely in thâ—s last enditement touching the Crosse but also in the foure former heads And therefore the conclusion is by necessary consequence most firme and true that seeing the Church of Rome is thus many wayes guiltie of Idolatry therefore it is to bee abandoned and forsaken and that religion which maintayneth this impiety worthily to be abhorred MOTIVE VIII That Religion which implyeth manifold contradiction in it selfe and is contrary to it selfe in many things cannot be the true Religion but such is the Religion of the Church of Rome ergo c. 1. IT is an old saying and true Oportet mendacem esse memorem It behooueth a lyar to haue a good memory lest he crosse himselfe in his tale and so discouer his falshood This saying is verified in our Aduersaries the Romanists whose Religion being nothing else but a bundle of lyes and a hotch-potch of olde heresies crosseth it selfe in many substantiall poynts and thereby reuealeth the manifold errours and falsities that lurke in the bosome thereof That this is true the discourse ensuing thereof I hope shall make so manifest that they themselues shall not be able to gainfay it 2. The Maior proposition in this argument is of such euident verity that by no shew of reason it can possibly be contradicted considering that truth is alwayes and in euery part like to it selfe and agreeing consenting and conspiring with it selfe as a perfect body wherein there is such a sweet harmony of all the members that one is not contrary to another but all tend to one and the same end and vnite their forces together for the good of the whole for which cause the Orator defineth truth to bee that which is simple and syncere And the Poet saith that it seeketh no corners To which Saint Bernard alluding thus writeth Non amat veritas angulos non ei diuersoria placent in medio stat c. i. It loueth no corners by-wayes doe not please it it standeth in the miast And therefore the Ancients in their Hierogliphicks represented truth by the picture of the Sunne not onely in respect of the puritie and clarity of it but also in respect of the simplicitie and vnitie Duplicia enim multiplicia sunt veritati contraria i Duplicity and multiplicity are contrary to verity But falsity errour and lying is full of doubtings windings and contrarieties like a dreame in the night
wine instituted by Christ to put vs in mind of his death and passion bee for such their effectuall representation adored and worshipped with diuine worship as well as Images and pictures for their representation especially seeing they carrie a more exact resemblance and liuely signification of him then any picture can doe Here is a plaine contradiction betwixt the proofe of their Transubstantiation and their doctrine of adoration of Images standing vpon these termes An Image must be worshipped because it representeth the person of Christ but the Sacrament is not to bee worshipped though it represents Christ more fully then any Image except he be corporally and substantially present in it 29. Secondly it is crossed by the Canon of the Masse diuers waies First by the praier that is vsed before the eleuation where the Priest desireth God to behold the same sacrifice with a propitious and fauourable countenance like as the sacrifices of Abel Abraham Melchizedech c. If Christ were really offered by the Priest hee need not pray that God would be propitious to that sacrifice for in him hee is euer well pleased neither can his sacrifice be possibly disrespected of God being of infinite merite and price to satisfie the rigour of his Fathers iustice it were therefore either horrible blasphemy in their Masse to equalize this absolute sacrifice of Christ with the imperfect sacrifices of Abel and Abraham which stood in need of Gods mercifull acceptation or it is false that Christ is really sacrificed in the Masse one of the two must needs be either blasphemy in the Canon of the Masse or falshood in their doctrine of Transubstantiation 30. Againe by another prayer which is vsed in the consecration where the Priest prayeth that God would command those things to be carried by the hands of the holy Angell vp to the high Altar into the sight of the diuine Maiestie Now by these words those things haec cannot bee vnderstood Christ neither in Grammaticall construction nor in any religious sense for in true Grammaticall Latine he should haue said if he had ment Christ either hunc this or hoc viz. sacrificiâ—â— this sacrifice and not haec these things for though the elements be two yet by their own doctrine whole Christ is in each of them and therefore cannot bee spoken of in the plurall number as if he were either diuided in himselfe or multiplied to more then himselfe in the construction of religion it can be no lesse then blasphemy to imagine that an Angell must carry vp Christ into Heauen and present him there vpon the high Altar to the diuine maiestie for it implieth in him either inability or vnwillingnesse to present himselfe to say he is vnable is to deny him to be God and so Almighty and to say he is vnwilling is to deny him to bee our high Priest and Mediatour to whose office it onely pertaineth to offer vp the sacrifices of the faithfull vnder the Gospell as the Priest in the law of Moses might onely offer the sacrifices of the law and enter into the most holy place to make reconciliation for the people so that it remaineth that the composer of the Masse could not vnderstand by haec these things Christ himselfe but the elements Bread and Wine which are a representation and commemoration of that one all-sufficient sacrifice on the Crosse and so either the Masse is erronious or Transubstantiation a false doctrine for if the Masse be true then Transubstantiation is false and if Transubstantiation be true then the Masse is false 31. Thirdly it is crossed by their manifold crossings vsed by the Priest in the Masse for if Christ in person bee really present as a complete sacrifice what neede such signings or crossings by the earthly hands of a sinfull Priest is hee sanctified by them that were blasphemy to thinke He needeth no sanctification being the Holy of holies Is the diuell driuen away by these meanes that is a greater blasphemy to beleeue for hee once conquered the diuell in such sort that he dareth neuer meddle with him any more And yet the blasphemous Iesuites are not afraid to affirme that the diuels may and doe so come neere to their Sacrament that they can both carry it away and abuse it also Surely if this bee true then the diuels know Christ is not there for they durst not come so neere vnto him sacrificed on the Altar by whose true sacrifice on the Crosse they receiued such a deadly wound Lastly is God put in minde of his Sonnes sacrifice on the Crosse by their crossings of him vpon the Altar This is impudency to thinke for Almighty God cannot forget the sacrifice of his owne Sonne neyther can his Crosse bee any whit dignified by their crossings Which way soeuer they turne them here is eyther impietie in their Masse or falsity in their doctrine of Transsubstantiation 32. Thus much touching the contradictions in the Eucharist Now let vs see their concordance in other Articles of their Religion and that with greater breuitie And first in their Article of Iustification therein there lurke foure maine contradictions First they say that the first iustification when a man of vniust and wicked is made iust and good is the free gift of God and deserued by no precedent works and yet they say againe that a man doth prepare and make himselfe fit for this iustification by certayne acts of faith Feare Hope Repentance and the purpose of a new life Yea Bellarmine doth not sticke to say that this faith iustifieth by way of merite and deserueth forgiuenesse of sinnes after a certaine manner And all of them â—each that those dispositions and preparations arise partly from grace and partly from free-will as two seuerall and deuided agents and that it is in the power of mans will eyther to accept that grace of God or to refuse it as hath beene at large discouered in the fourth Reason Now heare the contradictions If it bee meerely Gods free gift then it is no wayes mans free-will and if it bee any waies mans free-will to prepare himselfe then it is not euery way Gods free gift For it is not in this case as in other externall donations the King may giue a pardon freely and yet the prisoner may haue power to receiue or to refuse the pardon because the pardon is one thing and the prisoners will on other but in the iustification of a sinner the gift it selfe is the very change of the minde and the will and the whole man for it is as they say when a sinner is made righteous and an vniust man is made iust and so the will hath no power to reiect it when God effectually giues it nor power to accept it till God alter and change it by his grace And hence it followeth that to say it is Gods free gift and yet that we in part prepare our selues thereunto by our owne free-will implyeth contradiction as also this to
not iustify and yet faith alone doth iustify If they say that they speake of one kinde of faith and we of another they say nothing to the purpose for euen that any faith alone should iustify is contrary to their owne positions who affirme that the former cause of our iustification is the inherent righteousnes of works and not the righteousnes of Christ apprehended by faith And thus I leaue the Article of iustification at farre with it selfe to be atoned by their best wits if it be possible 37. Let vs come to their doctrine of workes and see how that agreeth with it selfe and here first they hold that works done before faith and regeneration are not good workes but sinnes This is proued by them out of Saint Augustine who affirmeth that the workes of vnbeleeuers are sinnes and if the workes of vnbeleeuers then of all other wicked men which bee not regenerate seeing as the same Father else-where speaketh Impij cogitant non credunt the wicked doe not beleeue but thinke they haue but a shadow of faith without substance It may be prooued also by that generall and infallible axiome of the holy Scripture Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne but the workes of wicked men are all voyd of faith and therefore are no better then sinnes in the sight of God be they neuer so glorious and beautifull in the eyes of men Or as Gregorie Nazianzene saith As faith without workes is dead so workes without faith are dead and dead workes are sinnes as appeares Heb. 9. 41. Besides Bellarmine confirmeth the same by reason because they want a good intention to direct their workes to the glory of the true God whome they are ignorant of To which I adde another reason drawne from our Sauiours owne mouth Mat. 7. Because an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruit but euery man til he be ingrafted into Christ is no better then an euill tree and therefore cannot doe a good worke 38. This is their doctrine and it is sound diuinitie but see how they crosse it ouer the face with a contrary falshood for the same men that teach this notwithstanding affirme that the workes of Infidels are good suo genere in their kind so they are good and not good sinnes and yet good works but this is in their kind say they that is Morally and not Theologically I but morall vertues in the vnregenerate are by their owne principles sinnes how then can they be good any waies Can sinne which is a transgression of Gods law and simply in it owne nature euill be in any respect good as it is sinne But to take cleare away this scruple another of them auoucheth that they are not onely morally but euen Theologically good for he saith that such works as are done by the light of nature onely without grace doe dispose and make a man in some sort fit to iustification though it be longè valdèremotè remotely and a farre off for he that yeeldeth obedience to morall lawes is thereby lesse vndisposed and repugnant to diuine grace Now how can sinnes dispose or prepare a man for iustification is God delighted with sinnes Either therefore they are not sinnes or they doe not dispose to iustification neither farre nor neere or which is the present contradiction they are sinnes and not sinnes good and not good at one time and in one and the same respect And to put the contradiction out of all question the Councill of Trent in the seuenth Canon of the sixt Session enacteth as much and denounceth Anathema to all that say the contrarie the words are these If any man shall say that all the works which are done before iustification by what meanes soeuer they are done are truely sinnes or deserue the hatred of God let him be Anathema And Andradius the interpretor of that Councill authorised by the Fathers of the same doth more perspicuously explaine the meaning of that Canon when hee saith that men without faith destitute of the spirit of regeneration may doe workes which are voyde of all filthinesse free from all fault and defiled with no sinne and by which they may obtaine saluation then which what can be more contradictory to that which before was deliuered that all the workes of Infidels and vnbeleeuers are sinnes be they neuer so glistering with morall vertue or more agreeable to the olde condemned errors of Iustine Clemens and Epiphanius who affirmed that Socrates and Her aclitus were Christians because they liued according to the rule of reason and that the Grecians were iustified by Philosophie and that many were saued onely by the law of nature without the lawe of Moses or Gospell of Christ 39. Againe their doctrine of doubel merit the one of Congruity the other of Condignity as they terme them is not onely contrary to the truth but to it selfe For this they teach that the merit of congruity which the Councill of Trent calleth the preparations and dispositions to iustification is grounded vpon the dignity of the worke and not vpon the promise of God but the merit of condignity requireth both a dignity of the worke and the promise of God to bee grounded vpon or else it is no merit This is Bellarmines plaine doctrine and is consonant to the residue of their Doctours both Schoole diuines and others for thus they define the merit of congruity It is that by which the subiect is disposed that it may receiue grace according to the reason of Gods iustice Here is onely iustice required and not any promise to the merit of congruity though I must confesse Gabriel Biel somewhat crosseth this definition when â—e saith that when a man doth what in him lyeth then God accepteth his worke and powreth in grace not by the due of Iustice but of his liberalitie And Aquinas who affirmeth that when a man vseth well the power of free-will God worketh in him according to the excellencie of his mercy But yet they all agree in this that the merit of congruity is not grounded vpon any promise as the merit of condignity is but onely vpon the worthinâ—s of the worke done Now here lurketh a flat contradiction for by this it should follow that the merit of congruity should bee more properly a merit then that of condignity Which Bellarmine denyeth in the same Chapter because this dependeth vpon it owne dignity and hath no neede of a promise as the other hath and so should bee also more meritorious and excellent then the other being neuerthelesse but a preparation and beginning to iustification and the other the matter of iustification it selfe And that a man that hath no grace dwelling in him but onely outwardly mouing him nor is yet iustified should haue more power to deserue and merite then he that is fulfilled with grace and fully iustified Thus error like a Strumpet bringeth foorth a monstrous brood of absurdities but let vs proceede 40. Their
Religion to the experience of euery mans owne conscience But I leaue this to others who haue or shall meddle in this argument my taske is to shew how it contradicteth both it selfe and other doctrines of their Religion 44. It selfe thus They teach that works of supererogation grounded vpon Euangelicall Counsels are as you haue heard more excellent perfect and meritorious then those which are done in obedience to the law of God and that in three respects First comparing seuerall Counsels with seuerall Precepts which concerne the same matter As to sell all and giue to the poore is a more excellent worke then any commanded in that Precept Thou shalt not steale And the Counsell of Single life is more perfect then the Precept Thou shalt not commit Adultery As if men could bee more perfect then God had commanuded or then Christ himselfe was whose righteousnes consisted in this in being obedient to his Fathers will Or then the Angels whose perfection consisteth in executing the Commandements of God Or as if the law of God was not a perfect rule of righteousnes Secondly comparing the state of men obseruing Euangelicall Counsells with the state of them that onely yeeld obedience to Precepts as if a man could be in a higher and happier estate then they are which loue God with all their heart and their Neighbour as themselues which is the summe of the Law And thirdly marke this comparing Counsells with any precept whatsoeuer euen with that great Commaundement of the Law Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy strength As if a man could loue God more then with all his heart and with all his strength Gods children labour for so much let them take the more for their shares Hence they conclude that in respect of matter the Precept is good but the Counsels better and in respect of the end the fulfilling of Precepts hath a reward but the execution of Counsels hath a greater reward This is their plaine doctrine And yet neuerthelesse the same men teach that the perfection of a Christian man consisteth essentially in the obseruation of Precepts and instrumentally in the obseruation of Counsels And secondly that the Precepts of charitie are the ends whereunto Counsels are ordayned and the works of Counsels are but the way and meanes for the better keeping of the Precepts Now to the purpose How can works of supererogation bee more perfect then works of obedience Counsels then Precepts seeing perfection consisteth in the one instrumentally and in the other essentially and Precepts are the end of Counsels and not Counsels of Precepts Is an instrumentall perfection greater then an essentiall or the meanes more perfect then the end This is contrary to naturall reason for Aristotle saith Maius bonum est finis quà m quod finis non est The end is a greater good then that which is not the end and the instrument is neuer so perfect as the essence of a thing 45. Againe it crosseth another of their doctrines thus They teach that though the law of God bee possible to bee kept by the regenerate the works of the faithfull be simply and absolutely iust yet they are mixed with many veniall sinnes and therefore there is none so iust but that sinneth sometimes and hath neede to vse that petition in the Lords Prayer daily Forgiue vs our trespasses According to that generall axiome of Sain Iames In many things wee sinne all Yea Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth that the regenerate may fall into many deadly sinnes and that hee cannot possibly auoyd veniall sinnes Nisi priuilegio singulari But by a singular priuiledge Which priuiledge hee cannot instance to haue beene granted to any man liuing or dead except Christ only who was God man Obserue now the contradiction to omit that this necessitie of sinning doth ouerthrow the possibility of fulfilling the law and doth imply an impossibilitie how can these two extremes be reconciled The regenerate cannot performe all they should do yet do performe more then they should do They cannot auoyd veniall sins and yet can supererogate It is as much as to say that a man is not able to pay his owne debts but must aske pardon for them yet hath ability to pay another mans far greater then his owne Or an Archer cannot by any means shoot home to the marke yet with the same Bow Arrowes sent forth by the same strength of his arme he can shoote farre beyond the marke He that is tainted and stained with many veniall sinnes in that respect is not perfect but hee that doeth supererogate is more then perfect For so they say when they giue a higher degree of perfection to these works then to the perfect obedience of the law If they say that veniall sinnes doe not hinder the perfection of good works I answere that neuerthelesse they hinder the perfection of the worker if they stick fast to the worke it selfe they hinder that also as the least spot of inke blemisheth the whole face and the lightest disease disableth the health of the whole body Eyther therefore they must deny them to be sinnes and so spots defects in the soules of the regenerate or they must confesse that they are not so perfect as they should be And how then can they be more perfect then they should be 46. Further they teach that one degree of superero gating perfection is the vow of Monasticall pouerty renouncing all propriety in worldly goods and holding in Common the vse of temporall things and yet they say that the state of Bishops who possesse lands and goods and enioy the propriety of them is more perfect then the state of Monks who depriue themselues thereof because Bishops haue alreadie atchiued this perfection and Monks are but in the way to it From which ground a man may thus argue If perfection consist in voluntary pouerty which is an alienation of all proprietie of worldly goods then Bshiops possessing Lordships and reuenues are not more perfect then Monks that haue renounced all and if Bishops possessing be more perfect then Monks not possessing then perfection consisteth not in the alienation of all proprietie of worldly goods One or the other must needes bee false except hee will place perfection in two contraries to wit possessing and not possessing And the rather may this absurditie appeare because aske them why Monks are more perfect then other men they will answere because they remooue from them all impediments of their loue to God in which ranke they place worldly wealth and consecrate themselues wholly to Gods seruice By which reason Bishops cannot bee more perfect then either they or other men because they retayne those impediments and so by their doctrine doe not wholly consecrate themselues to Gods seruice 47. From their actions let vs come to their passions to wit their Satisfactions or as Melanchton calleth them Satispassions
to this exposition subscribe most of the Fathers 77. Secondly they distinguish vpon that place of Iohn where our Sauiour confesseth himselfe to be vnder the power of Pilate to be iudged by him and say that eyther it is to bee vnderstood of a permissiue power graunted by God without the which no not sinnes can be committed with Cyrill and Chrysostome or if of the power of iurisdiction with Augustins and Bernard that then Pilate had power ouer Christ not simply but by accident to wit as he was reputed to bee a priuate Iew and so no more then a meere man by which ignorance of the person his power was iustified to be lawfull as if a Ciuill Magistrate should condemne a Clerke in the habite of a Lay man not knowing him to be a Clerke he should be free from blame To which I answere First that the power of the Emperour though a heathen was lawfull and ordayned by God as they themselues confesse and as the Scriptures in many places prooue but Pilates power was from the Emperour therefore it was a lawfull not a lawlesse power and so not only by permission but also by ordination Secondly if it were onely a power by permission then Pilate had sinned in executing that power vpon Christ but because of the mistaking of the person therefore hee saith he was free from fault as a Ciuill Magistrate that should iudge a Clerke taking him for a Lay man And so one part of his answere crosseth the other Lastly I answere that though Pilate might erre in the person of Christ yet Christ could not erre in the power of Pilate who affirmeth of it plainely that it was of God and so it was indeede in respect of the power it selfe though the abuse of it in the condemning of an Innocent was a sinne and so from the Diuell and not from God 78. The Gospell teacheth that before regeneration wee are dead in sinne and haue no more power to mooue in any worke of grace then a dead carkasse hath in the works of nature and therefore can neither will nor doe that which is good But the Church of Rome teacheth that a man vnregenerate is not spiritually dead but wounded like the man that fell among theeues betwixt Ierico and Ierusalem or like a Prisoner with setters on his heeles or like a Bird entangled in a lime-bush and therefore that there is remayning in him so much power both in his will and vnderstanding that being but helped a little by grace hee can begin his conuersion and so deserue a more plentifull grace of iustification All this they affirme then which what can bee more contrary to the Gospell of Iesus Christ which saith that wee are starke dead in sinne and are not able to thinke a good thought of our selues but that all our sufficiency is in God and that he worketh in vs both the will and the deed c 79. Bellarmine heere likewise endeuoureth to escape by a double distinction First he saith that a sinner because he is spiritually dead cannot of himselfe or by his owne power recouer life or prepare himselfe thereunto but yet being preuented and helped by grace he may cooperate with God that quickneth him for that he doth not as being dead but as hauing a vitall vertue inspired into him by God 80. For answere whereunto let me propound vnto him this question namely Whether this spirituall life which is the first degree of a sinners conuersion bee inspired into him altogether by the Spirit of God without the helpe of his owne will or whether it ariseth partly from grace and partly from his will If he saith Altogether from the Spirit without the helpe of his will then how doth the sinner cooperate with God in his first conuersion If he say Partly from grace and partly from free-will then how is the sinner dead when yet he doth worke towards the obtayning of his owne life Can a dead man cooperate at all much more towards his owne life I but hee is preuented and excited to grace and so doth worke but then I would know whether in that first exciting and stirring vp hee doth worke with Gods Spirit whether he be actiue in that first motion or passiue onely If actiue then hee is not dead if passiue then the first degree of his conuersion and spirituall life is only from grace without the coadiution of this free-will for this excitation and stirring vp of his will is the first sparke of spirituall life in a sinner and this is that which S. Augustine affirmeth saying that God without vs worketh in vs to will that is the first sparke of life then worketh with vs and helpeth vs when we doe will this is the second And againe The will is first changed from euill to good and helped when it is good And againe He prepareth the good will that is to be helped and helpeth it when it is prepared In all which passages the first conuersion of a sinner is ascribed to God alone and mans will is a dead thing that mooueth not but the succeeding works are attributed ioyntly to God and vs. And this is the very doctrine of the Gospell which Bellarmine plainely crosseth by his distinction though subtilly hee seemeth to doe nothing lesse for he saith plainely in another place that in the act of our conuersion will is truely free and determineth it selfe though God moue and apply it to the worke And another compareth the will to an eye in a darkeplace which though it see not yet can see as soone as light commeth because in it selfe it hath the faculty of seeing then which what can bee more contrary to the Gospell the one affirming that a sinner is dead before his regeneration the other that he is but halfe dead and wounded and hath some power and therefore life in himselfe to grace and rghteousnes 81. Bellarmine perceiuing the weaknes of this distinction flyeth for succour to another and that is though a sinner be dead to grace yet hee is aliue to nature and so is not altogether dead and that by the power of that naturall life hee being helped by grace can cooperate with God in his conuersion and therefore that the similitude of a dead man doth not in euery respect agree vnto the vnregenerate because a dead man hath no life in him at all but a man vnregenerate hath notwithstanding the life of nature in him But this is more absurd then the former for first it is plaine that the vnregenerate are as dead in respect of grace as a dead carkasse is in respect of nature for they haue no more ability to the workes of grace then a dead man to the workes of nature A dead man hath no appetite or desire to naturall things no more hath the vnregenerate to spirituall things A dead man hath no vnderstanding of the things of this world no more hath the vnregenerate of the things that are
Magdeburge released of his oath to his owne citizens by Pope Iohn the 23. And of Sigismund the Emperour who was constrained by the 〈◊〉 to falsifie his oath giuen to Iohn Husse and Ierome of Prage for their safe conduct to the Councill of Constance and of Pope Zacharie Boniface the sixt and Benedict de la Lune who vnbound the French men from their oath of obedience to their Kings and of Gregory the seuenth with other succeeding Popes who did the like to the Germanes in respect of diuers Emperours and lastly of Pius Quintus that excited the subiects of Queene Elizabeth to the breach of their faith and open rebellion all which doth show that they make no conscience of periury so that they may maintaine thereby their Hierarchie and Religion which to bee so this one testimony will sufficiently beare witnesse out of the French Chronicles when a league was made between Charles the ninth and the Prince of Condy the Iesuites sayth the author cryed out dayly in their sermons that peace was not to bee made with Heretikes and being made was not to bee kept that it was a godly thing to lay violent hands on those vnpure persons c. 6. Lastly their murthering cruelty exercised against all that stand in their way is so notorious that I need not to stand vpon it the examples of Henry the Emperour marked out by Pope Hildebrand to bee murthered by the tumbling down of a great stone vpon his head in Saint Maries Church though with euill successe for the Vâ—rlet himselfe that was suborned to doe this feat tumbled downe headlong together with the stone and so was crushed in pieces before the Emperour came into the place The poysoning of Frederick the second by the secret practice of Innocent the fourth and of Conrade by the meanes of the same Pope and of Lewes of Bauary by the appointment of Clement the sixt and of Henry of Lucemburgh by a Iacobine Fryer of Saint Dominicks order and that O horrible impiety in the bread of the Sacrament mixed with adamantine dust and of Iohn of England by a Monke of Swinestead Abbay of Henry the third of France stabbed by a Iacobine Fryar and of Henry the fourth murthered by Rauillac that Deuill in humane shape who beeing demaunded by the Iudges why he committed that horrible act answered without blushing Because the King went about to aide the Protestant Princes of Germany contrary to the Popes minde whom hee did beleeue to be a God vpon earth and of Parry Lopez Squire with many other which were suborned to murther our late Queene and of Faulx that was prepared with a match kindled at Rome and a the euish Lanthorne to blow vp the Parliament house These exanples I say with many other that might bee produced doe euidently euince them to make no conscience of shedding blood and murther for the maintenance and defence of their Religion 7. Which that it may yet further appeare to be true consider the infinite numbers of Hâ—gonets that is Protestants which haue been slaine in France alone for refusing the marke of the beast In the Low Countreyes 36000. at least are knowne to haue beene put to death by the Duke of Alba for not yeelding in all things to the Romish Religion The like persecution hath beene in other Countreyes and is still at this day where their bloody inquisition taketh place by the which in thirty yeeres as ir is recorded by Authors of sufficient credit a hundred and fifty thousand Christians were miserably murthered and that which is to be noted it rageth against none but Protestants so that euen in Rome a man may bee either Iew. Turke or Infidell or what els and bee neuer questioned but a Protestant hee cannot be but with danger of his life What should I speake of the multitude of poore innocents that were in this land of ours adiudged to the stake in the fiue yeeres raigne of Queene Mary Smithfield Colchester Couentrie and Norwich and almost all the other great townes beare witnesse of this their cruelty and the Innocent blood of these poore soules doth stil cry for vengeance against them 8. And yet all this is nothing to those horrible and outragious Massacres whereby whole multitudes haue beene but hered like sheepe in a slaughter house witnesse that miserable slaughter made of the Albigenses by Fryar Dominick and Simon Monfort which going astray from the truth if all be true which is written of them these butchers did not labor to reclaime by perswasions and gentle meanes but oppressed them by armes at the first and so sent them packing to hell without repentance witnesse also that fearefull Powder treason intended not executed which if it had taken effect such a massacre of men and those of highest place and worth had beene made as neuer yet the Sunne saw the like And lastly witnesse that dreadfull massacre in France vnder Charles the ninth when in one night were murthered at Paris many thousand Protestants with the illustrious Admirall of France and at Lions and other places within one month as some say 40000. as others aboue 30000. The greatest and most grieuous perfecution in the Primitiue Church is not to bee compared to this for it is recorded that vnder Dioclesian 17000. were martyred in one month but behold heere the number doubled that we might certainly know and beleeue that the Pope is that true and great Antichrist vnder whom and by whose meanes the greatest persecution that euer befell the Church of God should happen 9. Neither is there doctrine any whit dissonant from their practice for thus Bellarmine deliuereth it in plaine termes as in a Christian the Spirit is to rule ouer the flesh to chastise it and keepe it vnder yea sometimes to vndergoe death it selfe as in the Martyrs so the spirituall power residing in the Church that is in the Pope is to bridle and restraine the temporall by all meanes what soeuer if it rebell against it yea the Cardinall Como in his letters to Parry the Traitour animateth him to the murther of the good Queene by his damned position that it is meritorious to kill a King excommunicate and some of them goe yet deeper into hell and entitle it an heroicall act that is no ordinary meritorious worke but such an extraordinary exploit as none but men of a more then humane Spirit can performe and for which an higher place in Heauen is reserued then for common merits Can this Religion now bee of God that is thus maintained by treachery periury and blood-shed Is not this Church rather the purple coloured harlot spoken of in the Reuelation embrued and dyed red with the blood of the Saints then the true Catholike Church of Christ These things are so notorious that I need not further enlarge them 10. Leauing therefore these I come to the three last wicked meanes whereby they maintaine their Religion vpon which if I insist
to be true may appeare by this that Fisher the Bishop of Rochester his profest aduersary writing against him doth not in all his booke once tax him of misdemeanour or of any notorious crime which he would surely haue done if any either iust cause or light suspition had beene ministred vnto him 39. Touching the life and death of Caluine Beza who was his familiar friend and dayly associate affirmeth that the one was full of holinesse and good works and voyd of scandall and the other full of peace to himselfe and comfort to his friends and beholders Nicholaus Gelasius writeth of his death that he was at that time so farre from blaspheming and cursing that the day before his death he called all the Ministers of the city together and tooke his leaue of them with most holy and louing speaches and the next day gaue ouer his life dormienti similior quam morienti more like to one that slept then that dyed 40. Zwinglius was slaine indeed in the warre against Romanists but that doth not proue either his life to haue beene vicious or his doctrine erroneous for then good Iosias should be condemned for an vngodly king who was slaine in warre by the Egyptians and they must needs bring their owne Doctor Sanders into the same imputation and that by greater reason who was slaine in the Irish war not onely against Protestants but like a perfidious traitour against his owne countrey and Soueraigne Oecolampadius whom they accuse to haue died suddenly in the night albeit that kind of death hath and might befall Gods deare children as it did that good Emperour Theodosius of whose saluation Saint Ambrose neuerthelesse maketh no doubt yet Simon Gryneus who was present at his death and Wolfangus Capito that liued at that time report that he lay sick sixteene dayes and before his death exhorted all that were present to prayer and constancie and after he had sung the fiftieth Psalme throughout he gaue vp the ghost with much assurance of Gods fauour As for Carolostadius though we haue no witnesses of his life and death extant in print as far as I haue read yet it is most likely that this report of his death commeth out of the same mint seeing it issued out of the mouth of his sworne enemies and those that hated him Beza himselfe confesseth the errours of his youth but they were whilst he was a Romish affected and vnconuerted and yet no such great matters neither as might vtterly blemish his good name for they were not lasciuious acts but wanton poems the froth of youth but let them touch him if they can after he became a Protestant malice it selfe is not able to cast any durt of scandall vpon him 41. Now compare our witnesses with theirs theirs were enemies ours friends theirs led with malice ours with loue theirs absent ours present theirs report that which they had by hearesay if they did not rather deuise then receiue ours tell nothing but that whereof they were eye-witnesses now iudge whether malice be not more prone to slander then friendship to flatter and whether an enemy is not euer more forward to defame then a friend to maintaine credit and whether is more likely to lye a malitious foe in disgracing or a louing friend in commending and lastly whether deserueth better credit those that are absent and fetch their report from other mens mouthes or those that are present and speake vpon their owne knowledge and beholding Surely the doubt may easily bee resolued if we consider either that which the Poet sayth c. One eye witnesse is more worth then tenne eare witnesses or that which their own Bellarmine sayth Stultum est c. It is a foolish thing to beleeue those that are absent rather then those that were present or that which reason it selfe grounded vpon Religion telleth vs that malice is more prone to lye and discredit an enemie then loue and friendship is to defend a friend seeing an euill affection in a wicked man is perfectly euill but a good affection in any man is imperfectly good These testimonies being thus weighed in an euen ballance wee haue greater reason to beleeue Sleydan Erasmus Gelasius Melanchton Capito Gryneus then Cochlaeus Surius Bolsecas or Schusselburgus though not a Romanist yet as great an enemy or any of these rayling Rabsakehs who cared not what they wroght against our persons so that they might springle disgrace vpon our Religion thereby 42. But wee if wee would vrge this argument against them and indeed as oft as wee doe it wee produce not for witnesses their enemies but their close friends and profest fauourers of their Religion as Polonus Platina Onuphrius Luiâ—prâ—ndus 〈…〉 uclerus Sigonius Baronius c. all which doe report of their owne Popes that many of them were such monsters of men as the Sun neuer saw greater neither Sardanapalus nor Nâ—ro nor Heliogabalus nor Scilla nor Catiline doe goe before many of them in cruelty gluttony luxury and all manner of vices insomuch as it grew into a Prouerbe that hee which would represent the most compleat villaine that could be imagined his next way were to make the picture of a Pope now these are not our slanderings of them as theirs are oâ— vs but the constant reports of those that were sworne subjects to the Sea of Rome and therefore would haue rather with Shem cast their cloakes vpon the naked filthinesse of their holy Fathers then with Cham laughed at the same had it not beene so notorious and famous that it could not bee hidden 43. To conclude that not onely by probable coniecture but by euident proofe their slanders may appeare wee haue two notable arguments of the same the first is that strange tale spread abroad in Italy touching Luthers death before he was dead how in his sicknesse hee desired the body of our Lord to bee communicated vnto him and after when he saw his end approach entreated that his body might bee laide on the Altar and worshipped with diuine honours and how at his buriall Almighty God raised a great noyse and tumult and that the holy hoste hung in the aire and in a thunder that his body was taken out of his graue and nothing left but a stinke of brimstone which had well nigh stifled all the standers by This tale was published before Luthers death and a copie thereof came into his owne hands which he read with a glad heart and detested the blasphemy therein contained The like slander was raised vp touching Beza his death long before hee dyed and came also into his hands as may appeare in his Epistle before his annotations vpon the new Testament by which wee may see what manner of reports they bee which are deuised by these Romanists against vs and ex vngue leonem by this iudge of the rest The second is the confession of that perfidious Apostate Bolsek who as it is reported in a publike Synode with
sentences heere and there that see me to make for their purpose contrary to the whole scope and drift of the writer or lastly by blemishing our whole Religion by some sinister or exorbitant opinion maintained by some one or other vnaduised fellow though it bee contrary to the whole current of all other writers on our side as if for one mans errour wee were all flat Heretikes or because one souldier playeth the dastard therefore the whole army were cowards These bee their tricks of Legerdemaine by which they indeuour to disgrace our Religion and to countenance their owne but Veritas magna est preualebit I hope so to dispell and scatter these mists by the light of truth that they shall vanish like smoake and the truth bee more resplendent like the Sunne comming out of a cloud 61. To the purpose first they exclaime that our Religion is an enemy to good workes and that wee esteeme of them as not necessary to saluation which damnable errour some of them ascribe vnto vs as our direct doctrine others as a consequence of our doctrine and our secret meaning but that both are lying slanders I appeal first to our doctrine it selfe which is so cleare in this point that no man can doubt thereof but hee that is musled with malice for this we hold that though faith be alone in the worke of iustification yet that saith euer worketh through loue and is great with good workes as a woman with child which it bringeth forth also when occasion serueth and that if it bee disioyned from good workes it is but a dead carkas of faith yea the faith of Deuils and hypocrites and not of the elect And this as it is the constant doctrine of all our diuines so is it principally of Luther whom our aduersaries accuse as the chiefest enemy to good workes for thus hee writeth in one place touching the efficacy of faith Faith is a liuely and powerfull thing not an idle cogitation swimming vpon the toppe of the heart as a fowle vpon the water but as water heated by fire though it remaine water still yet it is no more cold but hote and altogether changed so faith doth frame and fashion in a man another mind and other senses and altogether maketh him a new man Again in another place he sayth that the vertue of faith is to kill death to damne hell to be sinne to sinne and a deuill to the deuill that is to be sins poison and the Deuils confusion Thus hee speaketh concerning the powerful efficacy of that true iustifying faith which wee rely our saluation vpon and they condemne as a nulli-fidian portion And touching good works their necessity and excellency heare how diuinely he writeth in one place Out of the cause of iustification no man can sufficiently commend good workes in another One good worke proceeding from faith done by a Christian is more pretious then heauen or earth the whole world is not able to giue a sufficient reward for one goodworke and in another place It is as necessary that godly teachers doe as diligently vrge the doctrine of good workes as the doctrine of faith for the Deuill is an enemy to both what can bee spoken more effectually for the extolling of the excellency of good wâ—rkesâ— and yet these fellowes make Luther the greatest aduersarie to them 62. Secondly I appeale to themselues many of the greatest Doctors amongst whom doe cleare vs from that imputation Maldonate The Protestants doe say that iustifying faith cannot bee without good workes Viega The Protestants affirme that iustification sanctification are so ioyned together that they cannot be parted Stapleton All Protestants none excepted teach that faith which iustifieth is liuely working by charity and other good workes Lastly Bellarmine The Protestants say that faith cannot stand with euill workes for hee that hath a purpose to sin can conceiue no faith for the remission of his sin and that faith alone doth iustifie but yet is not alone and that they exclude not the necessity but onely the merite of good workes nor the presence but the efficacy to iustifie Now then with what face can they bolster out this slaunder against our doctrine and accuse vs to be like the Simonian Heretike who taught that a man need not regard good workes and Eunomians who defended that perseuerance in sinne did not hinder saluation so that wee beleeued This is the first blasphemie against our Religion wherein they doe not so much thwart vs as crosse themselues and that one may see yet more clearely this to bee a malicious slaunder hearken what Bellarmine sayth concerning Luthers opinion of Christian liberty Luther seemeth sayth he to teach that Christian liberty consisteth in this that a godly conscience is free not from doing good workes but from being accused or defended by them let Luther himself speake againe By faith sayth he we are freed not from works but from opinion of workes that is from a foolish presumption of iustification to bee obtained by workes by all which we may easily iudge of the meaning of those sentences obiected Faith alone doth saue and infidelity alone doth condemne and where faith is no sinne can hurt nor condemne that they are to be vnderstood partly of sinnes before iustification and partly of such sinnes after as destroy not faith nor raigne in the beleeuer nor are perseuered in but repented of and laboured against and thus our Religion is iustified by the very aduersaries thereof from this great crime imputed vnto it 63. Againe they accuse vs as maintainers of this doctrine that all the workes of iust men are mortall sinnes and of this they make Luther Calume and Melancthon to be Patrones but with what shamelesse impudency let the world iudge To begin with Caluine these be his words Dum sancti ductu Spiritus c. i. Whilst being holy wee walke in the wayes of the Lord yet least being forgetfull of our selues wee should waxe proud there remain reliques of imperfection which may minister vnto vs matter of humiliation againe the best worke that can be wrought by iust men yet is besprinkled and corrupted with the impurity of the flesh and hath as it were some dregs mixed with it let the holy seruant of God chuse out of his whole life that which he shall thinke to haue beene most excellent let him well consider euery part thereof hee shall without doubt finde in one place or other something which sauours of the fleshes corruption seeing our alacrity in well doing is neuer such as it ought to be but our weakenes great in hindering the course although we see that the blots where with the Saints workes are stayned are not obscure yet grant that they are but very small workes shall they not offend the eyes of God before whom the starres themselues are not pure we haue not one worke proceeding from the Saints which if it be censured
in it selfe doth not deserue a iust reproofe 64. In the other place obiected hee writeth thus Qui seriò tanquam sub conspectu Dei c. i. They which shall earnestly as in the sight of God seeke the true rule of iustice shall finde for certainty all the words of men if they be censured by their owne dignity to be nothing but pollution and filthines and that which is commonly called righteousnesse to be before God meere iniquity that which is counted integrity to be impurity and that which is esteemed glory to be ignominie Let the Reader now iudge what notorious lyars these bee to fasten this opinion vpon Caluin whose wordes I haue sincerely and fully set downe that euery one may see their false dealing for in what one place nameth hee mortall sinne or what one word tendeth to that end The worse termes he◠giueth to good workes in the first place are these That they are sprinkled with imperfection mixed with the dregs of the slesh stained with corruption and in the second that they are filthines iniquity pollution and ignominy but how first if they bee examined by the strict rule of Gods iustice secondly if they bee compared to Gods righteousnesse and thirdly if they bee considered in their owne merite and worth without the merite of Christ whereby both their staines and imperfections are couered and an excellent dignity giuen vnto them 65. And indeed what I pray you doth Caluine say herein but that which the Fathers said before I will propound two or three vnto you in stead of al the rest Woe be to our righteousnesse sayth Saint Augustine if God remouing his mercy should search into it and againe All our righteousnes standeth rather in the remission of our sinnes then in any perfection of iustice Our best righteousnes sayth Saint Bernard if it be any is right perhaps but not pure vnlesse happily we thinke our selues better then our Fathers who no lesse truely then humbly said All our righteousnes is as a defiled cloth The holy man Iob sayth Saint Gregory because he saw all the merite of our vertue to be in vice if it be strictly iudged by the eternall Iudge did rightly adde in If I will contend with him I shall not be able to answere him one of a thousand Lastly all beauty sayth Arnobius in Gods presence is but deformity all righteousnes is but vnrighteousness all strength but weakenes all riches but beggery These Fathers with all the rest say no lesse then Caluine nor Caluine no more then they and therefore they must either bee condemned with him or bee iustified with them Now if any man should say that they affirmed that our best works were deadly sinnes all men would condemne him for a liar so may we iustly say of our malicious aduersaries in imputing that opinion to Caluine which hee neuer meant nor yet the words will beare and also which in all his writings hee directly crosseth 66. That which hath beene spoken concerning Caluine may bee applyed to the iustification of Luther and Melancthon who are so farre from esteeming good workes to bee mortall sinnes that they extoll them hyperbolically as hath beene already manifested Luther indeed sayth thus That a good worke done after the best manner that can be yet is a veniall sinne according to the mercy of God and a mortall sinne according to the iustice of God but what of this doth he therefore say that it is a mortall sinne simply as they would haue him no in no case for first hee calleth it a good worke which hee would neuer haue done if hee had iudged it no better then a sinne secondly hee sayth that it is mortall according to the iustice of God and veniall by the mercy of God which is the very same that all the Fathers affirmed before intending by mortall not that which is a high degree of sinne but that which in it owne nature deserueth death Thirdly Luther himselfe sheweth what his intendment is in the article going before where he sayth that not the good worke it selfe but the defect in the worke is truely sinne because it is an omission of that precept Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart By all which it is cleare that Luther doth not condemne a good worke but the euil in the worke and that though God doth in mercy pardon the euill for the goods sake being a fruit of faith so he might iustly condemne the good for the euill sake that cleaueth vnto it being a fruit of originall sinne so that Luther standeth cleare and innocent from this crime layd to his charge in all true iudgement and they stand guilty of a most foule slander imputed vnto him by their malice 67. Thirdly they slaunder vs that we slaunder God by making him the author of sinne This accusation Bellarmine Campion Stapleton Vasques Feuardentius and all the Iesuiticall rabble lay to our charge And they accuse Caluine Luther Peter Martir and all other Protestant-writers as guilty thereof but vpon what ground and with what shew of reason let them declare vnto vs for it passeth the reach of our capacities to finde out any such doctrine either direct in plaine words or indirect by logicall consequence in any of them direct doctrine I am sure Caluine thus writeth The cause of sinne is not to be sought out of mans will out of which the roote of euill ariseth and in the which sinne resideth And in his Comment vpon the Epistle of Saint Iames more plainely he affirmeth that God is not the author of sinne and that euils doe not proceed from any other roote but from the euill concupiscence of euery mans owne heart And this doctrine he iterateth againe and againe many score of times in his bookes Peter Martyr in like maner is most direct against this blasphemous doctrine for thus he saith That opinion of the Libertines which maketh God the author of sinne is a most detestable opinion then which nothing can be imagined more wicked nor a more compendious way to hell And in the same place he concludeth that though nothing in the world no not sinnes themselues come to passe besides Gods will and prouidence yet he is not truly to be called the cause of sinne but all that can be sayd is that he is such a cause which is tearmed by the Logicians the remoouing or hindering cause that is not efficient but deficient rather which in truth is no cause at all Luther is as direct for he auoucheth this proposition in many places God is not the author of sinne And this same is the constant affirmation of all our Diuines What a shamelesse forehead then haue our malicious aduersaries that dare lay vnto our charge this blasphemy which we all detest and abhorre 68. I but say they though in word you say so yet by consequence from your doctrine it may be necessarily gathered that you hold the contrary for you all teach that God concurreth with
but incourage men to deferre their repentance conuersion seeing it is in their power to accept it when they list 94. Secondly how can the doctrine of iustification by faith alone tend to loosenesse seeing we teach that faith is neuer seuered from good workes nor iustification from sanctification nor a right beliefe from an vpright life as hath beene shewed and that they which seuer and part those things which God hath coupled together seuer themselues from the mercie of God and merit of Iesus Christ With what brow of brasse then can they call this a solifidian portion and a doctrine of libertie I but manie take libertie hereby to lead a loose and wicked life building vpon this ground that they are iustified by faith alone and so they neglect all good workes True indeed many such there are but is it from our doctrine is it not rather from their mistaking of it So the Capernaites tooke offence at our Sauiour Christs heauenly doctrine Ioh. 6. touching the spirituall eating of his flesh and drinking his bloud insomuch that many of them departed from him was his doctrine therefore erronious or were not they rather ignorant in misconstruing impious in peruerting the same So is it with this mysterie of iustification which is the verie doctrine of Iesus Christ if any by mistaking it or by taking vp one piece of it and leauing another doe animate themselues vnto sinne is the doctrine to be blamed and not they rather that distort it to their owne shame and confusion In a word if this were a iust exception against this doctrine then no doctrine either of their or ours or the Gospell it selfe might bee freed from this challenge For as there is no herbe so sweet and wholsome but the Spider may sucke poyson out of it aswell as the Bee hony so there is no truth so sacred and holy but an vngodly minde may peruert and make it an occasion of his impietie Thus the grace of God is turned into wantonnesse by many as Saint Iude saith the word of God is the sauour of death vnto death Yea Christ Iesus our blessed Lord and Sauiour is a falling and a stone to stumble at and a rocke of offence so the doctrine of Iustification by faith alone may be an occasion of libertie and no otherwise that is not properly or by any effect issuing from itselfe but accidentally and by the malignitie of the obiect whereupon it worketh 95. Thirdly our doctrine of perseuerance though rayling Wright sayth of it that Epicurus himselfe could not haue found a better ground to plant his Epicurisme nor Heliogabalus haue better patronized his sensualitie nor Bacchus and Venus haue forged better reasons to inlarge their dominion yet to any single eye for his eyes are double-sighted with malice as Witches eyes are said to be it is rather a strong bridle to restraine from sensuality and Epicurisme and a bond to bind to obedience then a provocation vnto sinne for when men are perswaded that sincere faith true charitie and sauing grace cannot be lost it will cause them to take heed how they fall away lest they proue themselues to haue beene hypocrites before and their faith and charitie not to haue beene true but fained for he that falleth from God whom he pretend d to serue to the Deuil by an actual Apostasie into sinne plainly proueth that hee had neuer the seed of the spirit sowne in him nor the habit of charitie in his soule this is then a bridle to withhold men from sinne and not a spurre to pricke them forward vnto it And therefore whereas they say that men will thus reason If I be the child oâ— God I cannot fall away therefore I will doe what I list The contrarie is rather true that euery child of GOD yea euery one that is perswaded that hee is the childe of GOD will reason thus from the grounds of this doctrine I will not doe what I list neither will I giue my selfe ouer vnto sinne lest I proue my selfe by my falling into sinne not to be the child of God but an hypocrite Adde hereunto that as we teach that true faith and charitie cannot bee vtterly extinct in the elect So also we teach that this faith and charitie must bee nourished and preserued by the practice of all holy Christian duties and therefore they which neglect the conseruation of their faith and charitie and seek to extinguish them by the lusts of the flesh it is a signe that they neuer had these graces in grafted in their soules And what perswasion can be more effectual I pray you to stirre vp men vnto godlinesse then this is 96. So we may truly answere concerning the fourth doctrine obiected namely the impossibilitie of keeping Gods Commandements which though it be true in some part albeit not as they slanderously impute vnto vs. For wee hold that the regenerate person is able in some measure to keepe Gods Commandements though not to that perfection which the Law requireth exacting of euery one of vs the loue of God with all our heart soule and strength yet this openeth not but rather stoppeth the gap vnto fleshly libertie For is any man so madde as to say I will giue ouer all care of keeping Gods Law because I am not able fully and exactly to performe it rather euery one that hath but a reasonable soule will thus determine Because I am not able to performe perfect obedience to God therefore I will indeuour to doe what I can that my imperfections and wants may bee made vp by the perfect obedience of my Sauiour All men will account him a wilfull wicked wretch who being greatly indebted because he is not able to discharge the whole summe therfore will take no care to pay any part thereof which he is able to doe but lay all vpon his sureties backe so we condemne him for a desperate and damnable person that because he is not able to satisfie the whole debt of Gods Commandements therefore will not indeuour to pay as much as he can besides we teach withall that though this perfection be not attained vnto in this life yet there must be a continuall growth and increase in grace and goodnesse in all that belong to God that at length after this life ended they may doff off the olde man with the inabilities and corruptions thereof and attaine to the highest degree of perfection in the life to come the fruit of this doctrine then is not sensuall libertie but Christian humilitie not a prouocation to sinne but an incentiue and spurre vnto godlinesse 97. Thus I haue propounded vnto the view of the Christian Reader a short Epitome of the great volume of their slanders darted forth by them both against our persons our gouernment and our Religion it selfe all which indeed is but a taste and say of that which might be spoken in this subiect and which requireth an entire worke for the discouering of ther
foreheads 2. That the Religion of the Church of Rome is not so safe as ours may appeare by comparing our principall doctrines together and first to begin with the Sacrament That the bodie of Christ is truely really and effectually present in the Eucharist both they and we hold grounding vpon that text of Scripture this is my bodie but concerning the maner of this presence the Romanists hold that it is by transub stantiation we by a spirituall presence which notwithstanding is true and reall both in relation to the outward signes and to the faith of the Receiuer Now see the dangers that arise from their doctrine which are not incident to ours 2. First if there be not a corporall presence of Christ and a reall Transubstantiation as they suppose then this doctrine leadeth to horrible and grosse Idolatrie for they must needs worship a piece of bread in stead of Christ And this not onely if their doctrine bee false but being supposed to bee true in case hee that consecrateth be not truly a Priest or haue not an intention to consecrate as oftentimes it falleth out for in both these cases by the grounds of their owne Religion there is no change of substances and therefore as much danger of Idolatrie as eyther of a false Priest or of a true Priests false intention But in our doctrine there is no such danger and yet as true reall and powerfull an existence of Christs bodie in the Sacrament as with them if not more seeing the more spirituall a thing is the more powerfull it is according to the rules of reason for wee are not in danger to worship a creature in stead of the Creatour but wee worship the Creatour himselfe euen Iesus Christ our Redeemer who is there present after a spirituall manner and that as reuerently deuoutly and sincerely as they doe a piece of bread 3. Secondly by this doctrine our aduersaries incline to fauour the Capernaites who had a conceit of a corporall and fleshly eating of Christs bodie and giue iust cause to the Pagans to slander Christian Religion to bee a bloudy and cruell Religion Whereupon the Fathers to crosse the one and stop the mouth of the other taught that Christs speech in the sixt of Iohn was to be vnderstood spiritually and not carnally and that it was a figure and not a proper speech But our doctrine doth giue no such occasion eyther to the Heretikes on the one side or to the Pagans on the other neyther hath it any consanguinitie with the Capernaites and yet wee retaine as certaine and powerfull a participation of our Sauiours bodie and bloud as they doe I know they thinke to escape from this rocke by a distinction of visible and inuisible eating as if the Capernaites dreamed that Christ would haue his bodie to bee eaten visibly but they inuisibly that is say they spiritually which indeed is no cuasion for an inuisible eating is a true eating As when a blind man eateth or a seeing man in the darke and cannot therefore be called a spirituall eating but a corporall neyther doth this free them from approching neere to the Capernaites though they somewhat differ from them nor from giuing iust cause of offence to the Heathen from both which our doctrine giueth full and perfect securitie 4. Thirdly and lastly their doctrine of transubstantiation doth not onely countenance but confirme the ancient heresies of the Marcionites Valentinians and Eutychians that impugned the truth of Christs humane nature for they taught that he had not a true but a phantasticall bodie and what do our aduersaries but approue the same indeede though they seeme to detest it in word when they teach that his bodie is present in the Sacrament not by circumscription nor determination but by a spirituall and diuine presence quomodo Deus est in loco as God is in a place which is asmuch as to say that his bodie is not a true bodie but a spirituall bodie that is indeed a phantasticall bodie Againe the bread which they say is the bodie is not bread in truth but in shew after it is consecrated for there is nothing of bread but the mere accidents without a substance according to their doctrine and so it is in all reasonable construction no better then a phantasticall thing seeming to the outward sense to bee that which in truth it is not Why may not those Heretikes then reason from these doctrines thus If Christs bodie be a spirituall bodie in the Eucharist and the bread be phantasticall bread then why might not his bodie be so also when he was on the earth But the former is true by your doctrine O ye Romanists therefore why may not the latter which is our doctrine be also true But none of these Heretikes can haue any such aduantage from our doctrine which teacheth that Christ in respect of his humane nature is resident in the heauens circumscribed by place and that hee is present in the Sacrament by the efficacie of his inuisible and powerful grace after a spirituall manner as Saint Augustine speaketh and that both the bread remaineth bread after consecration and the bodie of Christ remaineth still a naturall bodie after the resurrection retaining still the former circumscription as Theodoret auoucheth this taketh away all aduantage from Heretikes which their doctrine doth manifestly giue vnto them For these causes Petrus de Alliaco the Cardinall doth confesse that from our doctrine no inconuenience doth seeme to ensue if it could be accorded with the Churches determination And Occham that it is subiect to lesse incommodities and lesse repugnant to holy Scripture Thus wee see that in this first doctrine touching the Eucharist there is more securitie and lesse danger in our doctrine and Religion then in theirs 5. I come to a second point which is touching the merits of works whereby the Romish Religion doth cast men into three eminent dangers which by our doctrine they are free from First of vaine glory for when a man is perswaded that there is a merit of condignitie in the worke which hee hath wrought how can he choose but reioyce therein and conceiue a vaine-glorious opinion of his owne worthinesse as the proud Pharise did when he bragged that he had fasted and prayed and payd his tithes seeing it is impossible but that the nature of man which is inclinable vnto vaine-glory and selfe-loue if it haue a conceit of any selfe-worthinesse should bee puffed vp with a certaine inward ioy and pride and therefore Chrysostome taketh it for wholesome counsel to say that wee bee vnprofitable seruants lest pride destroy our good workes 6. Secondly of obscuring and diminishing Gods glorie and Christs merits For where merit is there mercie is excluded and where something is ascribed to man for the obtaining of saluation there all is not ascribed vnto Christ and although they colour the blacke visage of this doctrine with a faire tincture to wit that all