that themselves do acknowledge in end the necessity of good works But to know how they are necessary either as causes or conditions is not a necessary curiosity wherof few are capable and without which many have gone to heaven And so now I proceed to the Trial of our doctrin concerning the Sacraments CHAP. XVIII Of the Excellency of the Christian Sacraments and particularly how they conferre Grace which is denyed by the Presbyterians AS I knew the Christian religion to be the most excellent of all true religions that ever have been whether we consider that which was vnder the law of nature or the other which was vnder the law of Moyses so I iustly conceived that it was most agreeable to Gods goodnesse and wisdome to adorne and enrich it with most excellent Sacraments For since no religion whether true or false can be without some sensible signes Aug. lib. 19. cont Faust cap. 22. as S. Augustin hath observed the Christian religion which is not only the true but also the most perfect religion to which the former two served as preparations must also have the most perfect and efficacious Sacraments And so I found the same S. Augustin extolling the perfection of the Christian Sacraments above these of the ancient law Aug. lib. 3. de doct Christ c. 19. Aug. cont Faust lib. 19. c. 13. Our Lord saith he and the Apostolical disciplin haue delivered some few Sacraments for many and these most easy to be done most magnificent for signification and most pure to be observed And elswhere he saith the Sacramenss are changed they are made easier fewer holsommer happier Now the principal perfection of the Christian Sacraments was generally believed to consist in this that God by them did conferre grace vnto our soules Which truth is so engrafted in the hearts of Christians that I knew diverse Protestants could not be at first perswaded that Luther or Calvin or that their Church taught the contrary and. when that was sufficiently manifested to them they were much scandalized at it In so much that some of them did say If the Sacraments do not confer grace and baptisme doth not take away original sin for what vse serve the Sacraments for what end were they ordain'd Wherefore being thus stirred vp to try this question I found in end that the Catholique doctrine which taught that the Sacraments of the new Law do confer grace is conformable to the divine Scriptures that it was expresly believed by the holy Fathers and doth duly exalt the perfection of the Christian Sacraments Whereas the Presbyterians doctrin which denyeth the Sacraments to confer grace is not only false against the Scriptures but was also condemned as an ancient heresy by the holy Fathers that it vndervalues the vertue of the Christian Sacraments and is so absurd that diverse famous Protestants haue abandoned that opinion albeit it was taught both by Luther Calvin and in this point do agree with the Catholiques All which things for brevities sake I will only touch Of Baptisme S. Iohn said to the Iewes 3.11 Math. I indeed baptize yow in water but he who comes after me shall baptize you in the holy Ghost fire Ananias said to S. Paul be baptized wash away thy sins Acts 22.16 Titus 3.5 Eph s 5.26 S. Paul calleth also Baptisme the Lauer of regeneration by which we are saved The same Apostle saith that Christ hath sanctifyed his Church by the lauer of water in the word of life By which testimonies albeit we speak nothing of many others it appear'd sufficiently clear to me since we are said to have our sins washed away by baptisme to be sanctifyed to be born of new again that by it we receive also grace without which these things could not be verified and performed The like is also affirmed of the Eucharist of which our Saviour saith If any man eate of this bread Iohn 6.51.54 he shall live for ever And again He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life Now this everlasting life is no otherwise had here but by receiving Grace which is the seed of Glory and of eternal life happinesse Therefore these two Sacraments which are all that the Presbyterians admit do confer grace by the vertue institution of Christ What was the belief of the holy Fathers and of the whole Church in this point it is so clear that Calvin himself and other chief Protestants do acknowledge it to be the same which is now believed by the Catholiques against their doctrin Cal. lib. 4. Instit cap. 14. sect 14. 26. For. Calvin confesseth that with great consent it was taught and believed for many ages That the Sacraments of the new Law do confer grace if they were not hindered by mortal sin which albeit he calleth a pernicious and pestilentious opinion and alleadgeth that it drawes men from God to rest in the sight of corporall things and not in God himself yet he confesseth also that it was taught by S. Augustin the holy Fathers whom he striveth to excuse by saying that in their immoderat praises of the Sacraments Cent. 2. c. 4. cent 3. c 4. Muscul in loc com p. 299. they vsed hyperbolical speeches The Lutheran Centurists do ascribe the same doctrin as an errour to the most ancient Fathers as to S. Clement Iustin Cyprian and others Musculus saith plainly that Augustin did rashly affirm that the Sacraments of the new law conferred grace These open confessions shall save our paines of citing the Fathers testimonies And that this doctrin of the Catholiques doth manifest the perfection of the Christian Sacraments it is so clear of it self that it needeth no illustration Vpon this consideratiō S. Augustin Aug. tract 80. in Ioan. admiring the wonderfull effects of the Sacraments cry'd out Vnde tanta virtus aquae vt corpus tangat cor abluat Whence comes saith he so great vertue to the water that it toucheth the body and cleanseth the soule Where he ascribes this wonderful effect to the goodnesse omnipotency of God which sheweth also that his speeches are not hyperbolicall as Calvin falsly pretends Thus much briefly to shew that I found the Catholique doctrin to be conforme to the Scriptures holy Fathers and to manifest the perfection of the Christian Sacraments And therfore Calvins opinion which is iust contrary must needs be against all these He himself confesseth that it is against the holy Fathers and consequently it cannot be conforme to the Scriptures whereon they founded their faith and not vpon humane imaginations That it taketh away a great perfection from the Sacraments denying them to conferre grace is so evident that it needs no proofe Calvin saw this so clearly that he pretended the Farhers vsed immoderate praises of the Sacraments and that this vertue which the Catholiques do ascribe to the Sacraments makes people to trust more in creatures them in God himself But as I found
as their frequent changes and manifest experience do shew Therefore I iudged they did very inconsequentially in exacting so rigorously an vndeniable obedience with oaths to a fallible and perhaps an actually erring Church with which yow must wheele about againe when it wheels and turn with it as a Weather-Cocke with the wind Yow must swear this yeare that to be true which peradventure the next yeare the same Exactours vpon pretence of new lights will have yow swear to be false 7. They inveigh often against implicit faith as Popish and Anti-Christian and yet themselues practise it in a most grosse manner and very inconsequentially That they practise it is manifest For who among the people hath expresse knowledge of all points of the Covenant and of their new Confession And yet they are made to abiure all the points of the one and to believe all the articles of the other Yea it 's knowen by experience that few of the Ministers themselves know all the points abiured in the Covenant as opus operatum Stations and the like and yet all are abiured Therefore they practise in deeds what they renounce in words and they do the same thing which they iudge and condemn in others Yea it is considerable that they do not only goe against their principle but also they abuse implicit faith in such a grosse and irrational manner as cannot be imputed vnto the Roman Catholiques For these beleeving explicity their Church to be infallible and to be continually assisted by the holy Ghost conforme to this principle do most rationally to believe implicitly all points which the same Church teaches and believes iust as a Protestant believing explicity the Scripture to be Gods word although he doth not know expresly all the sentences and verses in it yet with great reason he believeth implicity all to be true and reveal'd by God which is contayn'd in it But the Presbyterian Church being fallible and professing it self to be so requires very irrationally an implicit faith to all her doctrine whereof a man can prudently believe no more then he sees and knowes Moreover the Presbyterians haue fallen into a third more grosse and inconsequentiall errour concerning this implicit faith Fore they haue forced many not only to swear and subscrive such things whereof they were ignorant but also such things which the Presbyterians themselves knew to be against the expresse knowledge and Consciences of the Swearers and Subscrybers which is to force men to sin as is evident out of the 14. to the Romans This is a rare kinde of implicit faith which can consist with explicit beleef of the contrary I heard from a person worthy of Credit that when this inconvenience was proposed to a prime Apostle of the Covenant how many were driwen to periury by swearing against their Consciences he answered That it was all one to him let them looke to it And vpon an other occasion he said to a Roman Catholique who after great trouble offered at lenth to take the Covenant If thou be not sincere I shall make thee damn thy owne soule 8. They appeared also vnto me to goe clearly against an other Principle of theirs to witt That the Scripture is the only Iudge of Controversy And yet the Presbytery did make it self only Iudge And after it pronounced sentence all were obliged yea and forced to give obedience albeit many could not find their Doctrinal Decisions in the Scriptures But I found that the simple truth was they gave the Scripture the only name of a Iudge and keep 't all power of Iudging to themselves iust as they did with the King to whom they gave a bare empty title but keep 't to themselves the reall possession and exercise of all Royall power and authority Lastly they seem'd to overshoote themselves very much when not long before the battel of Dumbar they made their solemn Appeale to God for decyding the iustnesse of either cause by the victory that was to ensue whereof they thought themselves very certaine as indeed they had great probability The English Army notwithstanding many disavantages wherewith they were prest accepts the Appeale and makes also their recourse to God after the same manner And at lenth the question being decyded in favour of the English when the most Eminent person of that Army put the Ministers in mind of their Solemn Appeale and how God had pronounced sentence against them he received this answer You must not Iudge the goodnesse of a cause by the event Which words vere very inconsequentiall to their Appeale and in which absurdity they had not fallen if the victory had be fallen to them Many Ministers since that time have blam'd the rashnesse of that Appeale as being grounded more vpon humane confidence then any Divin assurance By these considerations I discovered clearly the vanity of the Presbyterians many faire pretences and how their deeds contradicted their words how themselves did the same things which they condemned in others and how their Principles were so false that themselves behooved to controull them They pretended great tendernesse of Consciences when they were Servants but shew strong Consciences when they were Masters They cry'd much for compassion in their subiection but would shew none in their Exaltation They condemn'd the Bishops for medling in Civil affaires and yet their Ministers did rule the affaires of State They accused others of pride and Tyranny and yet their owne little fingers have been more heavy then the others loines and they have shewed more pride and contempt of others in one yeare then these whom they accuse had done in forty They professe themselves to be fallible in faith and yet they will be infallibly believed and vndeniably obeyed They renounce implicit faith and yet they practise it and in a most grosse and vnreasonable sense exacts it They pretend the Scripture to be the only Iudge of Controversies and yet they will take all power of Iudging to themselves They will be esteem'd true Prophets when they guesse right and they will not have themselves thought false Prophets when they divin wrong They would have their cause esteem'd good for it's prosperity and they will not have it thought evil when it fall's into adversity In a word their doctrin's and practises were so full of contradictions that I found many of them not only to be humane but also false inventions which may be showen in diverse other particulars but these for our intention are sufficient to shew that I could not prudently believe them much lesse could I hazard my Salvation vpon them CHAP. VI. Of the Presbyterians Disobedience to the Civil Magistrate and of their pretext of Piety GOOD Christians are alway's good Subiects and these who are true to God are ever true to men As they render vnto God what is Gods so they give vnto Caesar what is Caesars Vpon the other part these who are false to men can never be true to God and they who are disobedient to their earthly
confirmed in this resolution when I vnderslood how Luther Calvin hauing no Scripture for them but against them haue grosly abused it to maintaine their errour For Luther the first Apostle in this last age of this new doctrine did two notable iniuries to the word of God For Seeing that this prime article of his faith was not expresly contain'd in the Scripture by an vnparallel'd presumption he added the word sola or Alone to the Scripture in his German translation of the Bible And whereas S. Paul saith we account a man iustifyed by faith without the workes of the law he makes him say by faith alone And when this high temerity of adding to the word of God was obiected to him Luth. tom 5. Germ. fol. 141. dâ—m he defended it with most insolent words saying that a Papist and an asse was the same thing and that the word sola should remaine in his Bible although all the Papists in the world shoud go mad and be transformed to in Asses The second iniury that he did to the Scripture was not by Addition but by Diminution wherin he was much more liberal then in the first for he added only one word but he took away many hundreds Because finding that the words above cited of S. Iames epistle were clearly expresly against his doctrin he expunged the whole epistle out of the Canon of the holy Scriptures Luth in praef in novu n Test Luth in cap. 22. Genes calling it an epistle of straw vnworthy the Spirit of an Apostle Yea he arrived to that impudency that he said the Authour of that epistle delirat that is dotes or raves By these two practises I was moved to think that Luther could not be the second Elias the Restorer of purity true religioÌ„ who would not only reform the Church but also the Scriptures yea in such a manner as he hath incurred not one but both the curses threatned by S. Iohn for adding to and pareing from the Scriptures And by this I perceived also what little esteem they make of the Scripture when it makes against their errours Calvin went more subtilly to work for although he followed Luthers doctrin of Iustification yet he neither added the word Sola to the letter of the Scripture neither did he deny S. Iames epistle to be Canonical But what Luther added to the letter Calvin added to the sense and what Luther denyed the other corrupted For Calvin would have Iustification by faith only to be as firmly believed as if the word only were there in Scripture which indeed is all one as if he had added with Luther that word to the Scripture Then the words of S. Iames which are clearly opposite to his errour and for which Luther did reiect the whole epistle he doth so corrupt with new senses which Luthers more grosse head could not invent that they passe many mens senses vnderstandings too and are against the words of Scripture clearly against the sense of the holy Fathers For he saith faith alone doth iustify but not alone Some others of his Schollers explaine it thus fides sola iustificat sed non solitaria Others say faith doth iustify and not works but yet faith not without works or a man is iustifyed with works but not by works and works are the means but not the causes of Iustification But all these inventions are directly contrary to the words of S. Iames. For he saith man is iustifyed by works not by faith only He doth not say man is iustifyed with works but by works he doth not say he is iustifyed by faith only but not by faith only And after the same manner and expression that he ascribeth our iustification to faith he ascribs it also vnto works He neither speaks of causes nor means these are the Ministers words and not the word of God which is not cleared but rendred more obscure by them It was made appear to me that the question at first between the Catholiques Luther was whether good works were in any respect necessary to our iustification and not whether they were required as causes or conditions Luther said they were in no wise necessary or else none could be iustifyed since the best works of the greatest Saints are mortal sins And in this he spake consequentially to his principles But Calvin finding that the Catholiques by innumerable Scriptures and particularly by that place of S. Iames proved the necessity of good works vnto Iustification he invented a distinction not to cleare but to confound the matter that good works were necessary but not as causes and faith was the only cause of Iustification And this he did also very vnreasonably against the principle which he holds common with Luther to witt that all our best actions are deadly sins For if good works be in any manner necessary how can any be iustifyed according to Calvin who maintains there can be no good works but that all are mortal sins For if a condition be necessary to any effect then if the condition be not fulfilled the effect cannot be produced As approximation of wood vnto the fire is ordinarly called the condition without which the wood could not take fire Therefore as the wood if it were not put near the fire would not conceive fire so also if good works be a necessary condition vnto iustification as Calvin pretends no man can be iustifyed since according to him there can be no good works Therefore Calvin speaks very inconsequentially if not also falsly Moreover it was showen me that the Lutherans were so highly offended with these new glosses of Calvin his Schollers that they call them the doctrins of the new Papists more pernicious then these of the old and Illyricus Illyr in praef ep ad Rom. a famous Lutheran doth not stand to call these Calvinists Seducers who by diuerse waye saith he would elude the propositioÌ„ of S. Paul c. For this cause the Lutherans deny all necessity of good works vnto Salvation either as means or causes For this they professed at the conference of Altenberg Coll. Al ten col 4 f. 75. We conclude say they with that worthy saying of Luther If works be necessary vnto Salvation then none can be saved without works and then we would not be saved by faith only So I found at length that this prime article of our religion to witt that man is iustifyed by faith only after so many great brags is not in Scripture but against Scripture as the Lutherans vnderstand it and as Calvin takes it it s not only against Scripture but also against his own principle who makes the whole matter to end in Philosophical termes for the most part neither vnderstood by speakers nor hearers Of which matter I had not long ago a notable experience For being in a Gentlemans house in the countrey where there chanced to be a Minister of esteem'd learning two Roman Catholiques and diverse Protestants as the
how can he be goodnesse itself and the Author of goodnesse if he be the Author of wickednesse A holy Father saith Basil quod Deus noe sit auctor malor It 's the same madnesse to deny God and to say he is the Author of sin For if he be the Author of sin he is not good if he be not good he is not God The Manicheans taught the same impiety but with this difference that they made not the good but the evil God the Author of evil Moreover it 's evident that God cannot be the Author of that whereof he is the punisher But he is the punisher of sin Therefore he cannot be the Author of it I know some Protestants strive to make a faire face vpon this doctrin of Calvin but all in vain for it is so black and vgly of it self in the tearmes which he vseth that as it is in the proverb these who would blanch it vndertake to wash a black-Moore The text is so bad that it can admit no good Commentarie Feuardentius lib. 2. Theomachiae Calvinisticae cap. 12. So that the Lutherans in Germanie have condemned it as contumelious against God pernicious to mankind and the Zuinglians of Berne caused Calvins books wherein these black errors were contain'd to be burnt publickly by the common Executioner He teacheth also some doctrin no lesse pernicious in the iudgment of many concerning predestination as that God by his only will has ordaind many without any consideration of their merits to damnation Cal. lib. 3. Inst c. 22. par 2. His words are these By his only will and without any consideration of their merits they are predestinated to eternal death Such doctrin which transformes God into the Devil and represents him as the greatest Tyrant imaginable cannot be holy no more then he who taught it can be heavenly albeit he be much esteem'd by the Presbyterians who keep still this doctrin lying at their hearts though vpon some occasions they are ashamd to profess it Secondly As he robs God of his goodnesse so doth he also spoile man of his free-will which is not only false against common experience and the confession of mankind for as S. Augustin saith no fewnesse of the learned Aug. lib. de vera relig c. 14. no company of the vnlearned do deny it but also in the iudgment of many Protestants it makes all exhortations admonitions and threats which are so frequent in the Scriptures both vselesse and ridiculous it hinders all exercise yea and attempt of vertue holynesse and with the opinion of Gods absolute decree of reprobation it brings men to despaire Thirdly their doctrin of the impossibility to keep the divine commandments even with the assistance of Gods grace we have seen above to be iniurious to the goodnesse wisdom and iustice of God to be a great hindrance of the growth of piety and of the care of a good life from which wicked doctrin flowed the impious sect of the Anti-Nomians To which if we shall add that doctrin which they call the life of their religion to witt their iustification by a special faith only whereby they beleeve that all their sins are forgiven them what a wid gate is opened to all licentious liberty to the neglect of piety and of all good works Their doctrin also concerning the Sacraments is not holy which robs them of all grace and vertue of sanctification In a word if the proper doctrines of the Presbyterians be impartially considered there is almost nothing amongst them which hath appearance of holynesse or any invitation to it For they do not esteem their Churches holy they have no holy ornaments no holy Vessels no holy rites or Ceremonies no holy dayes or festivities no holy forme of publique worship or service of God and nothing that setteth forth the Maiesty magnificence of God or that can breed respect or reverēce in man Yea their principles if they be followed lead to prophanesse or Atheism whereof I will bring some few instances The first is of one named Godefridus a Valle who wrote a book Becan opusc disp An Deus sit Auctor peccati cap. 17. which he entitled Of the art of beleeving nothing In which he said all other things false and one only thing true as Becan relates to witt that he who would become an Atheist should first be a Calvinist as himself had been For from that doctrin of Calvin that God is the Author of sin and that by his absolute decree of Reprobation he had preordain'd the most part of men vnto damnation without any regard of their works but only for his own pleasure he collected that such a God was a most cruel Tyrant Therefore he would rather deny there was a God then acknowledge such a God And therevpon he became a profest Atheist and was burnt publickly in Paris in the yeare 1572. Another instance fell out not long ago in our own Countrey on another subiect For as the Presbyterian Ministers generally teach that the Church is no more holy then any other place nor no more reverence due vnto it except only when the Minister is preaching so a great Apostle of the Covenant taught that doctrin very eagerly in Aberdeen the fruite whereof did shortly thereafter appear For a covenanting souldier of the Saints army was found within few dayes in the Colledge Church of that town in vncivil conversation with a woman and being brought before the same Minister as I was credibly informed who did exaggerate the grievousnesse of the crime from the holynesse of the place he answered that there was neither preaching nor praying in the Church at that time By which he confounded the Minister Now of a long time they keep their Churches shut both night and day except only at such times as the Minister is to preach I knew also a young Lady who took great scandal at a Ministers sermon wherein he vndertook to prove against the Papists the impossibility of living chastly which doctrin she truly said was very dangerous to young people and loosed the reines to all lasciviousnesse So that in many points both concerning God and man the Sacraments the Commandments we see the Presbyterian Church is not holy in doctrin But on the other part the Church in Communion with the Sea of Rome teacheth most holy doctrin in all these points For first concerning God she teacheth that in him there are all perfections in an infinit degree that he is not only good in himself but the fountain of all goodnesse and that no evil can proceed from him That he is neither the cause Author or approver of sin That he is so good that he would not permit sin to be vnlesse he could draw good from it That he has predestinate no man to damnation but only for sins which they willingly freely commit This is the doctrin of the Catholique Church and of the holy Fathers Aug. in Enchir. c. 100. S.
else but the privation of some good and that can be of no other good but of Original Iustice And as Original Iustice albeit it comprehended many supernatural perfections both in the soule body consisted principally properly in that Iustifying grace by which the soule was adorned and Vnited vnto God the Soveraign good so original sin is the privation only of that Iustifying grace in the Superiour part of the soule the want of which makes the soule deformed and averted from God And seing this want is taken away by Baptisme and the whole grace as it beautifyed the soule is entirly restored the whole guilt of original sin is taken away and the whole essence of Original Iustice is recovered again by the merits of Christ Then for Concupiscence which is left after Baptisme it is not truly any sin but a weaknesse imperfection of Nature proceeding from the former Original sin as all sicknesses miseries and death it self are All which are left in vs even after the sin it self is taken away to put vs in mind from what happy Estate we had fallen and to stirre vs vp to labour more diligently and to call more earnestly for the help of Gods grace Neither is the grace which we receive from Christ the smaller or weaker that it doth not take away concupiscence and restore vs to the whole rectitude which Adam enieyed but it is rather more strong since many by it do stand even with all that weaknesse of nature which Adam did not with all the grace he had even in the strength rectitude of his nature All which things were confirmed to me by diverse authorities reasons which were too longsome here to insert It shall be sufficient to bring one testimony of S. Augustin against Calvins opinion and the fundament of it Concupiscence August lib. 1. de nuptijs concupis c. 23. saith he is called sin because it was made by sin whereas now in the regenerate it is not sin c. Yea he sheweth that concupiscence is so far from being sin when it is resisted that it becomes rather the matter of Victory and of a Crown vnto vs. Sometimes saith he Aug de Genesi cont Manich c. 4. Cal. lib. 3. Inst c. 3. par 10. reason doth stoutly resist bridle Concupiscence even when it is stirred vp which when it is performed we fall not into sin but after some wrestlings we are crowned Calvin ingenuously confesseth that his opinion in this matter is against S. Augustin all Antiquity which is sufficient to make it to be suspected if not also reiected As then the Catholique doctrine concerning Original sin is the same holy pure doctrine of the Primitive Church so your doctrine ô Covenanters is full of corruptions For besides that it corrupts the Catholique Faith it corrupts both your soules bodies This your selves do confesse for in your new Confession you say that man by Original sin became wholly defilled Conf. westminst ch 6. in all the faculties parts of Soule body and that this corruption of nature dureing this life doth remain in those who are regenerated and that both it self and the motions of it are truly properly sin Moreover it corrupts all your best thoughts words and actions For so you professe that by it you are vtterly indisposed disabled and made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evil This also M. Calvin did teach Cal in Antid Con. Trid. sess 6. c. 16. Shels p. 146. saying The vitiousnesse of original sin which remaines in vs defiles before God what ever works proceed from vs. Of which doctrin M. Shelford a Protestant gives his opinion thus These who say so cannot in my Iudgment be excused from extream blasphemie Thirdly it corrupts Grace for it makes the Grace of Christ so weak and imperfect that it cannot free vs from the corruption of Original sin And lastly it is the source of many corrupt errors as of your Iustification by faith only the impossibility of keeping Gods commandments the denyall of all good works of inherent Iustice many more From which it is evident that your doctrine is very much corrupted which is the cause of so many corruptions Hence also may be easily seen that the Catholique doctrin concerning our natural inhability and rebellion to Gods Law is not corrupted because as it teacheth against the Pelagians that we are vnable by the power of nature to keep Gods Law so it affirmeth also against the Presbyterians what is impossible to be done by nature is possible by Gods grace and what we cannot do of our selves we can performe by the strength of him who comforts vs. Which might be easily shown to be S. Pauls doctrine Rom. 8.3.4 Philip. 4.13 and therefore to be free of corruption But your doctrine is very corrupt which so grants a natural inhability that it denys all supernatural ability even with the assistance of Gods grace to keep his Law You professe yourselves to be so naturally rebels to God that all his grace cannot make you good subiects which shewes that both your doctrin your selves are very much corrupted The same may be shewed of Sanctification For the Catholiques teach that no man is so perfectly holy here in this pilgrinage but he may every day advance in holynesse and be renewed dayly in the inward man and that no person even the holyest is free of venial sins imperfections and then only we shall be perfect when this corruption shall put on immortality In this sense they grant that sanctification in this life is imperfect whereas in an other sense they teach that there may be even in this life a certain perfection of holynesse in some degree svitable to the observation of the divine Commandments as has been shewed above chap. 14. p. 145. But your doctrin is very corrupt which maks your sanctification so imperfect that you cannot by it think so much as a good thought or do any thing but sin mortally And your obedience to the Law is so imperfect that you break it at every minut So that such sanctification may be rather called profanation and such imperfect obedience to Gods Law may be iustly tearmed Disobedience Lastly if the Catholique doctrin which affirmeth that man is not iustifyed by faith only be corrupted then the Scripture is corrupted which teacheth the same not only in substance but in expresse words proving it by diverse arguments examples and comparcing those who beleeve the contrary to Devils as we have seen above chap. 15. pag. 157. But your doctrin in this principal article of your faith is very much corrupted which corrupteth the pure fountain of Gods word By all which may be seen not only how falsly you accuse the Catholique doctrin of corruptions in all the former points but also how truly your own doctrin is full of corruptions SECTION VII Of the Holy Sacraments of Ceremonies Divorces and of Dispensations NEXT follow