Gods most Holy most Wise and most Pure Decrees For which respect God telleth vs by the mouth of his Prophet that his wayes are not as ours For My thoughtes sayth Esay are not your thoughtes neither are your wayes my wayes saith the Lord. Gods Will is the Rule by which all mans thoughtes wordes and workes must be measured But Mans Will is no Rule or Law to measure Gods actions or to direct his most Iust most Holy and most Pure Purposes Ordinaunces and Decrees Secondly Man can but punish the body temporally but God can punish both body and soule eternally Man can but punish the outward actions of man but God can punish both the outward actes and the inward thoughtes Man can but punish the temporall iniurie done to man but God can punish both that and the eternall iniurie done to his most sacred Maiestie surpassing Omnipotencie and ineffable Deitie Offence done to Man is finite and limitted but offence done to God is infinite and illimited Thirdly Sinnes which are but small in respect of man are exceeding great in respect of God For example sake a reprochfull word spoken against a Meane priuate person is respectiuely a small offence the same word spoken against a Great personage of high place in Church or Common-weale is a farre greater Offence the same spoken against our Soueraigne Lord the King is the greatest of all three And consequently when we offende God whose person is of infinite Worthinesse of infinite Maiestie of infinite Power our offence obiectiuely must needes be infinite howsoeuer our Iesuites and Jesuited Papistes flatter themselues in their Venials Fourthly the thinges which are trifles in our Iesuites iudgement are great and heynous Sinnes in the tribunall of our Lord Iesus Adams eating of the Apple was one of our Iesuites trifles The looking backe of Lots wife was an other The sinne of Infantes in their natiuitie was an other For which respect sundry of their best learned Doctors haue inuented a third place beside Heauen and Hell for those Infantes which die without Baptisme Superfluous idle Wordes an other All which for all that are heynous and grieuous Sinnes with God And no maruayle seeing the Least sinne that can be named is against the infinite Maiestie of God and consequently of infinite deformitie And our Iesuite S. R. sheweth himselfe to be a very noddie while he publisheth these wordes For who will say that a little superfluous Laughter breaketh the order of Nature Marke well gentle Reader and thou shalt see Poperie stricken dead When our Jesuite S. R. was not able to answere the Authorities of the holy Fathers layd open by T. B. in the Downe-fall of Poperie which did euidently conuince that the Breaking of the order of Nature was against the eternall Law and Will of God hee was enforced to say as there is to be seene in the Page noted in this Margent that the Fathers S. Austen and S. Ambrose defined such Sinne as breaketh the order of Nature which also is Mortall Sinne not Veniall In which wordes he vnawares confoundeth himselfe For he truely sayth against himselfe That the Sinne which is against the Order of Nature is a Mortall sinne indeed But withall hee sayth vntruly That a litle superfluous Laughter breaketh not the order of Nature For if it be true as it is most true which Christ himselfe hath told vs viz. That euery idle and superfluous word breaketh the order of Nature in that it is against the Law eternall it followeth by a necessarie consequence that euery superfluous and idle Laughter breaketh the order of Nature in that it is against the Law eternall to which the Law and Order of Nature is subordinate To which I adde to second my former proofe that the order of Nature as Nature to weete of Nature afore not after Adams fall was pure free and voyde of euery spot bleamish excesse defect or other fault whatsoeuer and consequently of euery vaine idle and superfluous Laughter But perhaps our Fryer will say that idle and superfluous Laughter is besides the order of Nature not against the same as he before affirmed his Venials to be besides the Law but not against the Law of God If he so doe the confutation is at hand First because Christ sayth plainely that Hee is against hâ—m whosoeuer is not with hâ—m Againe because Vega Durandus Almaynus Baius Gersorus and all the Popish Schoole-doctors of best esteeme do auouch plainely and resolutely That euery Sinne euen the least that can be named is against the Law Whereupon Vega that great Learned Papist a man of high esteeme in the late Councell of â—rent concluded egregiously and learnedly That the whole Law is impossible to be kept at once For albeit he graunt that euery part of the Law may be kept yet doth he withall confesse that while we keepe one part thereof we can not but breake an other Ninthly because our Fryer S. R. that Learned man as his brother Jesuite B. C. stileth him confesseth lustily though vnawares against himselfe that involuntarie Concupiscence is naught euill disorderly because it is against the rule of Reason and much more doubtlesse is superfluous voluntarie Laughter against the order of Nature rule of Reason and consequently it breaketh friendshippe with God as being quite opposite to the eternall Law which is his diuine Will and Reason Tenthly because the same Jesuite freely confesseth in an other place That the Least Sinnes want equitie and conformitie to Gods Law and consequently he must volens nolens confesse withall That his falsely supposed Venials are truely Mortals against Gods friendship and his eternall Law Now let vs heare our Jesuite speake for the honour of the Pope B. C. The common opinion most receiued and most sound is that some Sinnes of their owne nature be small or Veniall others great and Mortall Byshoppe Fisher and some foure other alleadged by Bell thinke that all Sinnes of their owne nature be Mortall and that it proceedeth from the Mercie of God that some be Veniall because he would not vpon diuers smaller Sinnes impose so great a punishment But notwithstanding this small difference neither B. Fisher nor any of the others denie Veniall Sinnes as Bell and his consorts doth T. B. I answere first that the Papistes themselues doe not agree in their Popish Fayth and Doctrine as the Jesuite heere confesseth to their confusion For he freely graunteth that the great Learned Papistes whom I named viz. Jacobus Almaynus Durandus Gersonus Michael Baius and Byshoppe Fisher doe all fiue constantly hold and defend that all Sinnes are Mortall of their owne nature And withall he telleth vs that the Pope and Church of Rome hold the contrary opinion Secondly that Small sinnes and Veniall sinnes are all one as our Iesuite heere teacheth vs. And my selfe will not deny that some sinnes respectiuely are small of their owne nature as
Gods meere fauour grace and good pleasure without all desertes of Man Seuenthly that our Vocation our Iustification and our Glorification are the effectes of Predestination I therefore conclude that Good workes are not the cause why Gods children possesse Heauen as their inheritaunce seeing it is the effect of Predestination yet that they are the ordinarie way and meanes by which God decreed in his eternall purpose to bring his Elect to Heauen For as he ordayned the end that is to say the Kingdome of Heauen or Eternall life so also ordayned he the way and meanes to attaine the same that is to say Vocation Iustification Fayth and Good workes Yea euen among Men whosoeuer intendeth the Ende intendeth also the Meanes The 6. Conclusion Good workes in a godly sense very vsuall frequent in the holy Fathers may truly be sayd to be meritorious that is to say they please God and are so acceptable in Gods sight that of mercie he rewardeth them farre aboue their desertes This Conclusion is sufficiently prooued by the reasons alleadged in the first Conclusion I will here onely annexe the testimonie of Bernard that famous and learned Popish Abbot In one place he hath these wordes Sic non est quod iam quaeras quibus meritis speremus bona praesertim cum audias apud Prophetam non propter vos sed propter me ego faciam dicit Dominus sufficit ad meritum scire quod non sufficiant merita So there is no cause that thou shouldest now aske by what merites we hope for Glorie especially since thou hearest the Prophet say I will doe it sayth the Lord not for your sake but for mine owne selfe It is enough to merite to know that our merites are not sufficient Againe in an other place the same Bernard hath these wordes Deest gratiae quicquid meritis deputas Noâ—â— meritum quod gratiam excludat Horreo quicquid de meo est vt sim meus nisi quod illud magis sorsitan meum est quod me meum facit Gratia reddit me mihi iustificatum gratis et sic liberatum a seruitute peccati It degenerateth from Grace whatsoeuer thou ascribest to Merit I will no Merite that excludeth Grace I abhorre whatsoeuer is of mine owne that I may be mine owne vnlesse perhappes that is more mine owne which maketh me mine owne Grace iustifieth me freely to my selfe and so deliuereth me from the bondage of sinne In an other place the same Bernard hath these wordes Iam vero de vita aeterna scimus quia non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam nec si vnus omnes sustineat Neque N. talia sunt hominum merita vt propter ea vita aeterna debeatur ex iure aut Deus iniuriam aliquam faceret nisi cam donaret Nam vt taceam quod merita omnia Dei dona sunt et ita homo magis propter ipsa Deo debitor est quam Deus homini quid sunt merita omnia ad tantam gloriaÌ„ denique quis melior est Propheta cui Dominus ipse tam insigne testimonium perhibet dicens Virum inueni secundum cor meum Veruntamen et ipse necesse habuit dicere Deo non intres in iudicium cum seruo tuo Domine Now touching eternall life we know that the sufferinges of this time are not worthy of the glory to come no not if one endure all For the Merites of men are not such that for them eternall life is due by right or that God should do some iniurie if he gaue it not For to let passe that all Merites are the giftes of God and so man is rather debter to God for them then God to man What are all Merites to so great Glorie In fine who is better then the Prophet to whom our Lord giueth so worthy a testimonie saying J haue found a man according to my heart howbeit hee had need to say to God Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord. Thus writeth the deuote and religious Abbot Bernard who though he liued in the greatest mist of Poperie and so was carried away with some errours of his time yet did he teach most Christian doctrine almost in all his workes And because he was reputed a great Papist and of high esteeme in the Church of Rome his testimonie is euer most forcible against Papistes the Pope and Church of Rome Out of this his most learned and Christian Discourse I obserue many godly memorable Lessons First that our best workes doe merite nothing Secondly that our greatest and best merit is this viz. to know that our supposed merites are not sufficient Thirdly that how much soeuer be it more be it lesse We ascribe to Merites so much doe we derogate from Gods grace And consequently seeing we may not derogate from the Grace of God in any respect it followeth of necessitie that we cannot challenge any thing of Merite Fourthly that Grace doth iustifie vs freely and consequently that our Workes doe not iustifie at all Fiftly that though one man could suffer as much as all men doe yet could not that man condignely Merite heauen Sixtly that eternall life is not due to mans Merites Ex iure that is to say Condignely and of right Seuently that God should doe no man wrong if he gaue it not But doubtlesse if Good workes did merite Heauen God should doe wrong to many a man in not giuing it For to withhold and keepe a mans right from him is a notorious and knowen wrong Eightly that a Man is more indebted to God then God to Man And this reason my L. Abbot Bernard yeeldeth for the same viz. Because Heauen or Eternall life is the free gift of God The 7. Conclusion Good workes euen by Popish doctrine without the mercie and promise of God in his Sonne and our onely sauiour Christ Iesus doe not condignely merite Heauen This is soundly prooued by all the reasons of the third Conclusion But I will prooue it by other euident meanes S. Augustine hath these expresse wordes Vae eâ—iam laudabili vitae homiâ—â—m si remotu misericordia â—iscautias â—am Woe euen to the best liuers on earth if thou extend not thy Mercie to them For this cause doth the holy Prophet desire God Not to enter into iudgement with him And he addeth this reason Because 〈◊〉 mâ—n liuing can 〈◊〉 iustified in his sight Againe the same Prophet confesseth in an other place That if God deale extreamely in punishing what is done amisse none lyuing no not the best of all iâ— abâ—e to endure his iustice Abbot Bernard hath these expresse wordes Peccatum separans inter nos et Deum penitus auferri non poterit donec liberemur a corpore The sinne that separateth vs from God can not wholly be taken away while we remaine in this world He speaketh of Concupiscence euill desires Loe originall
S. Peter Redeemed with corruptible thinges as Siluer and Gold but with the precious Blood of Christ as of a Lambe vndefiled and without spot S. Iohn the Baptist speaking of Christ admonisheth vs to behold the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world S. Paul proclaymeth that Christ hath Redeemed his Church with his owne Blood not with the Blood of Thomes Becket or of any other The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrewes auoucheth constantly that Christ entred in once vnto the Holy place and obtained eternall Redemption for his Elect. And S. Peter boldly affirmeth to Annas Caiaphas Iohn Alexander and the rest that there is Saluation in no other saue onely in Iesus Christ. Secondly that both Becket and other Popish supposed Saintes are not Mediators of Saluation in some lower and inferiour degree but euen in the highest in the selfe-same with our Lord Iesus Of Thomâ—s Becket besides that which we haue heard of his Blood I find in an other Prayer made to him these expresse wordes Mores actus et vitam corrige et in pacis nos viam dirige Sâ—lue gregis tutor egregie saelua tuae gaudentes gloriae Correct our manners deedes and life guide vs into the way of peace Haile noble Patron of the flocke saue them that reioyce in thine honour Of S. Paul I find this Prayer O beate Paule Apostole te deprecor vt ab Angelo sathanae me eripias et a ventura ira liberes et in caelum introducas O blessed Apostle Paul I pray thee that thou wilt deliuer me from the Angel of Sathan and free me from wrath to come and bring me into Heauen Of S. James this O faelix Apostole magna martyr Iacobe to colentes adiuua peregrinos vndique tuos clemens protege ducens ad caelestia O happy Apostle and mighty Martyr Iames helpe them that worship thee defende curteously thy Pilgrimes on euery side and bring them to Heauenly ioyes To S. Martin they pray thus Caecis das viam mutisque loquelam tu nos adiuua mundans immunda qui fugâ—â— daemonia nos hic libera O Martin thou causest the blind to see and the dumbe to speake helpe vs and cleanse the vncleane thou that castest out Deuils deliuer vs heere The Papistes pray in this maner to the blessed Virgin O Maria gloriosa in delitijs delitiosa praepara nobis gloriaÌ„ O Mary glorious in dainties delitious prepare thou glorie for vs. Againe in an other place thus Maria mater gratiae mater misericordiae tu nos ab hoste protege et hora mortis suscipe O Mary the mother of Grace the mother of Mercie defend thou vs from our ghostly enimie and receiue vs at the houre of death Againe in an other place thus Veni Regina Gentium dele flammas reatuum dele quodcunque deuium da vitam innocentium Come ô Queene of the Gentiles extinguish the firie heate of our sinnes blot out whatsoeuer is amisse and make vs lead an innocent life Againe in their old Latine Primers the people are thus taught to pray In extremiâ— diebus meis esto auxiliatrix et saluatrix et animam meaÌ„ et animam patris mei et matris meae fratrum sororum parentum amicorum benefactorum meorum et omnium fidelium defunctorum ac viuorum ab aeterna mortis caligine libera ipso auxiliante quem portasti Domino nostro Iesu Christo filio tuo O glorious Virgin Mary be thou my helper and sauiour in my last dayes and deliuer from the mist of eternall death both mine owne soule and my Fathers soule and the soules of my Mother Brethren Sisters Parentes Friendes Benefactors and of all the Faythfull liuing and dead by his helpe whom thou didest beare our Lord Iesus Christ thy Sonne Againe after two or three leaues in this maner Vt in tuo sancto tremendo ac terribili iudicio in conspectu vnigeniti filij tui cui pater dedit omne iudicium me liberes et protegas a paenis inferni et participem me facias caelestium gaudioruÌ„ I beseech thee most mercifull and chast Virgin Mary that in thine holy fearefull and terrible iudgement in the sight of thine onely Sonne thou wilt deliuer and defend mee from the paines of Hell and make mee partaker of Heauenly ioyes These Prayers if they be well marked will be found to conteine in them euery iote of Power Right Maiestie Glorie Soueraigntie whatsoeuer either is or ought to be yeelded to our Lord Iesus Christ. Yea these two last praiers make the blessed virgin Mary not only equall with Christ but far aboue him For first the Virgin Mary is desired to defend vs from the tortures and paines of Hell Secondly to bring vs to the ioyes of Heauen Thirdly the last Iudgement is called her Iudgement Fourthly she is called Our sauiour Fiftly she is requested to saue father mother brother sister friendes benefactors the quicke and the dead and all this must be done euen by the helpe of Christ her Sonne Now by the former Prayers she is made equall with Iesus Christ and by the last farre aboue him For she is the Sauiour and he the Intercessour which I gather out of these wordes ipso auxiliante c. by the helpe of our Lord Iesus Christ. For by these words and the rest afore-going the Virgin Mary doth saue vs and Christ is but the instrument that helpeth her in the worke of our Saluation Which how intollerable Blasphemie it is let the indifferent and iudicious Reader iudge dixi B. C. The Merites of Christ and his Saintes may auaile vs for the obtaining of spirituall giftes the merites of Christ as the principall cause the Merites of Saintes as dependent of his and the secondarie cause T. B. I answere first that Popish Saintes by Popish doctrine are not the Secondarie but euen the Chiefe and Primarie causes of mans Saluation This is already prooued Secondly that it is intollerable Blasphemie against the Sonne of God to make his Creatures either principall or secondarie causes of mans Saluation This is likewise already prooued Yea the blessed Virgin Mary the most holy pure Creature that euer was on Earth or is in Heauen was so farre from challenging to her selfe to be either the Principall or Secondary cause of Saluation that she in the spirit of true humilitie proclaymed the flat contrarie to the world in these most Christian golden wordes My Soule doth magnifie the Lord and my Spirit reioyceth in God my Sauiour B. C. That God and his Creatures may in this maner without any iniurie to his name be ioyned togeather we learne out of sacred Scripture Iacob desired God his Angel to blesse his Children The Israelites cryed out The Sword of our Lord and Gideon In Exodus wee read thus They beleeued our Lord and Moses his seruant Saint Paul testified before Christ Iesus and the elect Angels
condignitie of their Workes And the Fryers answere is childish and friuolous when he denieth the loane of the Cloake to haue such virtuall and proportionate equalitie to an Hundred poundes as mans Merites haue to Glory For first the Promise is equall and holdeth in both alike Secondly the Promise doth not adde any Worthines to the worke and consequently there is still as great inequalitie after the Promise as was before the same Thirdly there is infinite distance betweene God and Man the Worke and the Reward as their Angelicall Doctor hath well obserued But the distance and inequalitie betweene the Loane of the Cloake and the Hundred poundes is finite and limited in them both Thus much for this Conclusion If any desire a larger Discourse he may peruse my Suruey and the Downe-fall of Poperie where he shall find soundly answered what possibly can be obiected against the same Note well the eleuenth Conclusion following The 8. Conclusion The doctrine of the Popish Schoole-doctors in which they affirme Charitie to be the forme of Fayth is friuolous ridiculous false erroneous and absurd I prooue it first because in thinges distinguished intrinsecally one can not be the forme of another If our Fryer deny this he will prooue him selfe an Asse Si non actu at saltem in potentia For an Asse by this graunt may be his forme and so giue him the denomination of that worthy Beast Now that Fayth and Charitie are distinct Theologicall virtues S. Paul affirmeth it so plainely as no deniall can be made thereof Secondly because of thinges in perfect essence and nature the latter can not possiblely be the forme of the former and consequently seeing Fayth goeth before Charitie Charitie cannot possiblely be the forme thereof The antecedent is euident because whatsoeuer commeth to a thing after the essentiall constitution thereof is meerely extrinsecall accidentall to the same The consequent is likewise euident because we can neither please God nor yet come to God but by Fayth in him It is the flat and constant Doctrine of the chosen vessell of our Lord Iesus Thirdly because Charitie is the effect and worke of Fayth S. Augustine prooueth it in these golden wordes Oâ—us autem fidej iâ—sa dilectinest But Charitie it selfe is the worke of Fayth This testimonie striketh dead it plainely conuinceth it is vnanswerable The 9. Conclusion Fayth though it be a worke as the Papistes truly obiect yet doth it not iustifie as a worke or qualitie neither yet for any worthinesse or condignitie in the same Explico When we teach hold and defend according to the vniforme consent of the holy Fathers and constant doctrine of the Apostle That man is iustified by Fayth onely without Workes wee neither denie Fayth to be a worke nor yet affirme it to iustifie as a worke For Fayth being taken two wayes properly according to the nature of Fayth and respectiuely as it apprehendeth his obiect it is sayd to iustifie the latter way not the former not as it is an habite in vs but as it apprehendeth Christ without vs. Wee neither make Fayth a part nor yet a cause of our iustification either efficient or formall or finall albeit I willingly graunt hold defend and beleeue that it is the materiall cause that is as the Schooles tearme it Causa sine qua non the cause without which iustification shall not haue effect Which our sauiour Christ sheweth euidently when hee telleth vs That God so loued the World that hee gaue his onely Sonne that none beleeuing in him should perish but haue eternall life And in an other place That whosoeuer beleeue not shal be condemned To which the holy Apostle is consonant when he affirmeth it impossible to please God without Fayth I graunt yet further that when there be many graduall effectes of one and the same cause then the former may fitly be teaâ—med the Materiall cause of the latter and consequently although Good workes can not be any cause of Iustification which goeth before them yet may they be the Materiall cause and causa sine qua non of Saluation which followeth them For Good workes are in sort necessarie to Saluation as is already prooued in the fourth Conclusion For as Vocation Iustification Regeneration and Glorification are the effectes of Predestination euen so by Gods holy ordinaunce being Predestinate we are called by the hearing of his Word vnto Fayth which apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ Iesus is the cause of our Iustification After we be Iustified of our Iustification proceedes Regeneration as who hauing remission of our sinnes and being ingraffed in Christ by Fayth are indewed with more aboundant Grace of his holy spirite through which we are dayly more and more Regenerate and made new creatures in Christ. After we be Regenerate out of our Regeneration spring Good workes both internall and externall as who being made Good trees begin to bring foorth Good fruits and so continuing are brought at the length of Gods free Mercie to the perpetuall possession of Eternall life For the proofe of IustificatioÌ„ by Faith without Workes I referre the Reader to my Suruay which Booke if he once peruse and ponder it seriously he can not but be fully satisfied in this behalfe The 10. Conclusion Good workes though they neither be partes nor causes of Iustification nor merite eternall Glorie condignely as is alreadie prooued yet must wee doe them for these three respectes Gods Ours our Neighbours In respect of God for these three endes First because God hath so commaunded vs This is my Commaundement that ye loue one an other as I haue loued you Againe in these words If ye loue me keepe my coÌ„mandementes Againe thus Bring foorth fruites worthy of repentance Euery Tree that bringeth not foorth good fruite shal be cut downe cast into the fire Againe thus Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thine heart with all thy soule and with all thy minde Againe in these words Bee yee therefore perfect as your heauenly Father is perfect Againe thus He chose vs in Christ that we should be holy in his sight Againe thus Wee are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which he hath prepared for vs to walke in Secondly for the Glory of God Let your Light so shine before men that they may see your good workes and glorifie your Father which is in Heauen Thirdly to shew our gratitude and thankfulnesse to God for which respect S Paul exhorteth the Râ—manes To offer vp their bodyes a liuely holy and acceptable Sacrifice vnto God Yea the Scriptures teach vs euery where to shew our thankefulnesse vnto God by our holy and godly liues In respect of our selues for sundry endes First to assure vs of our Election Saluation For thus is the Latine vulgar text extolled preferred before all other by the Popish Councell of Trent Quapropter
God Wherefore he requireth Gods Promise to be added to mans Merite as Aquinas Durandus and Angles had done before him In one place he hath these expresse wordes At vt bono operi debeatur merces ex iustitia conuentio vel promissio necessaria est Non enim tenetur vnus alterius obsequium acceptare nisi conuentio interuenerit Deus autem non promisit mercedem vitae aeternae nisi per Christi gratiam regeneratis et adoptatis But that reward be due of iustice to good Workes a couenant or promise is necessarie For one is not bound to accept the seruice of another vnlesse there be a couenant But God promised not the reward of eternall life saue onely to the regenerate through the grace of God In an other place he hath these words Sed facilis est responsio Nam dicitur Deus reddere debita nulli debens quia nihil vlli debet absolutè sed solum ex promissione dono suo Pari ratione dicimus Deo reade quia promisisti non dicimus redde quia accepisti quoniam fundamentum primum debiti diuini non in opere nostro sed in eius promissione consistit But the answere is easie For God is said to pay debts though he be debtor to none because he oweth nothing to any absolutely but onely in respect of his promise and free gift In like manner wee say to God giue because thou hast promised We say not giue because thou hast receiued Because the chiefe foundation of Gods debt doth not consist in our worke but in his Promise freely made vnto vs. In an other place he hath these wordes Primum igitur opera iustorum remoto pacto vel promissione non esse meritoria vitae aeternae ex condigno siue ex iustitia ita vt non possit Deus sine iniustitia talē negare mercedem satis probatum est scriptura siquidem patres vbicunque dicunt Deum fidelem esse iustum in reddendo praemio semper aut ferè semper mentionem faciunt promissionis First it is prooued sufficiently that the workes of the iust Gods couenant and promise set apart are not meritorious of eternall life condignely and iustly so as God can not deny such reward without iniustice For the Scripture and the fathers whensoeuer they say God is faithfull and iust in rendring reward do euer or almost euer make mention of his promise Thus writeth Cardinal Bellarmine that famous Iesuited Fryer Out of whose doctrine I obserue many worthy Lessons to the confusion of the Pope and all his Popish vassals First that Gods promise is so necessarie to attaine reward that without it no reward can iustly be required Secondly that no reward is due to any but onely to the regenerate Thirdly that the reward is not promised for any merit in mans worke but for Christs sake and merit Fourthly that man can require nothing of God absolutely but onely for his couenant and promise sake Fiftly that God is no mans debtour absolutely but onely by reason of his free gift and promise made to man Sixtly that the chiefe foundation of Gods debt consisteth in Gods free gift and promise made to man Seuenthly that the workes of the best liuers doe not merit eternall life iustly and condignely but onely by reason of Gods couenant and promise Eightly that both the Scripture and the Fathers do either euer or almost euer make mention of gods promise wheresoeuer they tell vs that God is faithfull and iust in rewarding mans workes Much more I could say out of Bellarmine but this is sufficient to euery indifferent Reader The 12. Conclusion Condigne merite of Workes was not an Article of popish faith for more then a thousand fiue hundred and fourtie yeares after Christ. And consequently it must needs bee a rotten ragge of the new Religion as which was hatched so long after the old Roman Catholique Apostolike religion The proofe of this Conclusion is at hand because the late popish Councell of Trent made it an Article of popish Faith accursing condemning to hell all such as deny or not beleeue the condigne merit of mans works The Iesuit S. R. in his pretensed answere to the Downfall of Poperie had no other shift in the world to saue the credite of their Councel and as it were to hide the nakednesse of that vnchristian and plaine diabolical course but to denie the councel to haue decreed cōdigne merite to be an Article of Popish faith For saith hee the Councell hath no word of condigne merit but onely of true merit And after he hath cited the words of the Councell he addeth these of his owne Here are good works defined to be true merite of Glory without determining whether they be condigne merite thereof or no. Thus saith our Iesuite shewing himselfe to be either too too malicious or else a very noddie For to merite truely and condignely is all one Otherwise our Iesuite must tell vs which is vnpossible to be done how one can merite a thing truely and for all that not worthily and condignely deserue the same Well we haue it freely granted because it can not be denied that the Councell of Trent defined true merite but not condigne merite of workes to bee an Article of popish faith And consequently the Iesuite must volens nolens confesse that the Councell defined condigne merit vnder the name of true merite For better confirmation whereof I will adde a testimonie that woundeth the Iesuite at the heart and is indeed incurable It is the Iesuites owne sword which he hath put into my hands to kil him as one wearie of his life because Poperie is prooued the new Religion These are his owne expresse words I neither adde nor take any word syllable or iote away as I desire to be saued Because as I thinke saith our Iesuit onely condigne merite is true merite O sweete Iesus O heauen O earth O all Saints in heauen and all creatures on earth be ye this day iudges betweene the Iesuites and mee The Iesuite denieth the Councell to define condigne merite but graunteth it to define true merite This done O wonderment of the world the same Iesuite within two leaues next following as a madde man bereeued of his wits and senses constantly affirmeth onely condigne merit to be true merit but doubtles if onely condigne merit marke well my words for Christs sake be true merite as the Iesuite truely writeth against himselfe his Pope and Councell and withall if the Councell defined true merit as the Iesuite likewise truely granteth and my selfe affirme it followeth of necessitie that the same Councell defined condigne merit equiualently and Poperie to be the new Religion The truth Gods name be blessed for it must needes in time preuaile now sir Fryer let vs heare your goodly sermon B. C. Bell denieth the Fathers to haue ascribed any Merite to Good workes proceeding from Grace for any dignitie or
worthinesse in the workes them-selues but onely from Gods Promise and Merites of his Sonne This I challenge for a manifest vntrueth when as plentifull testimonies want not to prooue that Workes proceeding of Grace are Meritorious not onely for his Promise or Acceptation but also for the dignitie of the Workes Yea the Scriptures are euident in this poynt T. B. I answere that I haue soundly confuted in the Conclusions afore-going much more then the Fryer doth heere or is euer able to obiect Neuerthelesse I am content to answere in particular to whatsoeuer seemeth to carrie any colour of trueth though none in very deed B. C. Call the Worke-men and pay them their hyre where Reward is giuen to the Workes Whereof it followeth that Workes deserued it T. B. I answere First that the Pope may be ashamed to haue no better defenders of his Poperie For if the trueth were in their side better reasons would be giuen in defence of the same Secondly that all Worke-men do not alwayes deserue their hyre For many as experience teacheth are such idle loyterers and worke so slowly that their Maisters giue them ouer not thinking them worth halfe their hyre Thirdly that they who came but at the eleuenth houre and in the end of the day receiued as much hyre as they that came at the ninth sixt or third houre which plainely argueth that the hyre was not giuen for the worthinesse or condignitie of the Worke. Fourthly that they who doe nothing but which otherwise they are bound to doe do not worthily deserue hyre for doing of the same Fiftly that Johannes Ferus a learned Popish Fryer in his Commentaries vpon this text yeeldeth the same sense and meaning these are his wordes Docet haec Parabola primò gratiam esse non debitum quicquid a Deo nobis datur Omnes N. iustitiae nostrae tanquam pannus menstruatae Imò nè ipsae passiones quidem huius temporis sunt condignae ad futuram gloriam Quodsi aliquando mercedem audis polliceri scias non ob aliud esse debitum quam ex promissione diuina Gratis promisit gratis reddit Si igitur Dei gratiam et fauorem conseruare cupis nullam meritorum tuoruÌ„ mentioneÌ„ fac This Parable teacheth vs that it is Grace not Debt whatsoeuer God giueth vs. For all our righteousnesse is as filthy Cloutes Yea the very afflictions which we endure in this life are vnworthy of eternall life If then thou heare Reward sometime promised know that it is no otherwise debt saue only for the Promise which God hath made Freely he promised and freely he payeth the same If therefore thou wilt keepe Gods fauour grace make no mention of thy Merites Thus discourseth this learned Fryer out of whose wordes I obserue these worthy Lessons First that our workes deserue nothing condignely at Gods handes Secondly that whensoeuer we heare Reward promised we must then know that it freely proceedes of Mercie not of any worthines in our Workes Thirdly that God both without our Desertes promiseth and without our Desertes performeth the same Fourthly that we can not continue in Gods fauour if we doe but make mention of our Merites But doubtlesse if the mention of our Merites barely made be of force to take away Gods fauour from vs much more is the relying vpon our Merites and the challenging of Merite for the same able and of force to produce the same effect Againe in an other place the same Ferus hath these expresse wordes Non attendebant quod per ProphetaÌ„ dicitur Ego deleo peccata tua propter me propter me inquit non propter merita tua Solus Christus remittit peccata et quidem gratis nihil ad hoc faciunt merita nostra Non quod intermittenda sunt opera sed soli Deo gloria danda iuxta illud si seceritis omnia quae praecepta sunt vobis dicite serui inutiles sumus They regarded not what the Prophet sayth I put away thy sinnes for mine owne sake Hee sayth for mine owne sake not for thy Merites One and sole Christ doth forgiue sinnes and that freely our Merites helpe nothing thereunto Yet Good workes may not be omitted but the glory must be giuen to God alone according to that saying If ye shall doe all that is commaunded you yet say Wee are vnprofitable seruantes B. C. Likewise our Sauiour sayth Come yee blessed of my Father possesse you the kingdome prepared for you from the foundation of the world For I was an hungred and you gaue mee to eate Where our Sauiour signifieth that Heauen was giuen to Good workes for in more vsuall significant wordes it can not be spoken that Heauen is giuen as a Reward to the workes of mercie T. B. I answere first that the word For is not heere taken causaliter but consequatiuè to speake as the Schoole-doctors doe that is to say it doth not connotate the cause but the euent so as the sense is not that they did merite Heauen for giuing Meate to Christ but that by doing such charitable Workes which are the effectes of a true iustifying Fayth they shewed them selues to be the Children of God and the heyres of his Kingdome And this sense is clearely deduced out of the very text it selfe For seeing the kingdome of Heauen as Christ heere auoucheth was prepared for them before the foundation of the world and consequently before they were borne and so before they could doe any Good workes it followeth of necessitie that their Workes could not merit Heauen but onely intimate to the world that the inheritaunce of Heauen was due vnto them as to the children of God the heyres of the same For as the Apostle sayth If we be Sonnes then are we also Heyres Heyres of God and ioynt-Heyres with Christ. Yea as the same Apostle saith in an other place As he chose vs in him before the foundation of the World that we should be holy immaculate in his sight through loue Againe in an other place thus teacheth vs our Sauiour himselfe Non vos me elegistis sed ego eâ—egi vos et positi vos vt â—atis et fructum afferatis You haue not chosen me but I haue chosen you I haue put you that yee may goe and bring foorth fruit In another place the Apostle hath these wordes Whom he did predestinate them also he called whom he called them also he iustified whom he iustified them also he glorified Johannes Ferus that learned popish Fryer writeth in this manner Ego inquit elegi vos potest autem verbum hoc intelligi vel de electione ad Apostolatum vel de electione aeterna ad salutem Vtrobique N. gratia est non meritum vtrumque per Christum fit In ipso siquidem et per ipsum elâ—git nos Deus ante munâ—i constitutionem Sequitur Ego inquit qui Deus sum â—c propterea nullius inâ—igens ego qui
can possibly be alleadged or produced out of the holy Fathers concerning this Subiect now in hand To this Booke in the third part and tenth Chapter I referre the Reader for his full satisfaction in this behalfe Secondly that aswell the thing it selfe as the name was first hatched in the Councell of Lateran For no Text in the Law of Moses no Sentence in the Prophets no Word in the Psalmes no Affirmation out of the Ghospell no Testimonie out of the Epistles of the Apostles no Verdict out of the holy Fathers no specialtie out of the auncient Councels can now or euer be found extant which once maketh mention either of Transubstantiation or of accidentes without subiectes Thirdly that this Popish fondly imagined Transubstantiation is farre different from that Reall presence with which the Pope and his Romish Synode most cruelly assayled Berengarius That Reall presence though most absurd as I haue prooued demonstratiuely in the Iesuites Antepast may well stand with Consubstantiation and nothing at all change the substaunce of Bread For it is a Popish foundation though foolish and ridiculous as is prooued in my Suruey that two Bodyes may be in one place at once This Transubstantiation sendeth the substance of Bread neither my selfe nor yet the Papistes can tell whither That Reall presence altereth not Christes Body but this Transubstantiation changeth the substaunce of Bread into Christes Body That Reall presence causeth not accidentes without subiectes but this Transubstantiation inferreth Miracles vpon Miracles aboue ten thousand times a day Popish Reall presence is one thing of which I dispute not in my Tryall Popish Transubstantiation is an other thing which is the subiect now in hand Fourthly that the Papistes them-selues doe not know what to thinke or say of their lately inuented Transubstantiation Durand as I haue prooued in the Downefall of Poperie affirmeth constantly that onely the forme of Bread is changed and that the matter of Bread remaineth still in the Eucharist Rupertus the Popish Abbot holdeth that the Bread is vnited Hypostatically to the Sonne of God Cardinall Caietanus Henricus and Capreolus are of an other different opinion Iohannes Parisionsis held also that the Bread was assumpted but in a different manner from the opinion of Rupertus An other opinion yet remaineth which affirmeth the Annihilation of the Bread Yet Cardinall Bellarmine holdeth with the Councell of Trent for hee that at Rome holdeth otherwise must be burnt that the Bread is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ. What Childe in the fyre would not come foorth to heare this harmonie Will yee heare what the learned Fryer S.R. sayth to this discordant melodie these are his expresse wordes in his pretensed Answere to the Downefall of Poperie The first Contradiction which this contradictions fellow findeth in the Masse is that Durand Caietan and foure Catholiques more before the Councell of Trent did otherwise explicate the manner of Christes Reall presence in the Eucharist then was trueth and since the Church hath defined and explicated in the sayd Councell Thus answereth S.R. that Learned man as B.C. his brother calleth him By whose learned Assertion we are giuen to vnderstand that Transubstantiation was not an Article of Popish sayth vndoubtedly vntill the late Popish Councell of Trent that is 1547. yeares after Christ. The Eleuenth Chapter of Popish Inuocation of Sainctes B. C. TV per Thomae sanguinem c. By the blood of Thomas which hee for thee did spend bring vs thyther ô Christ whyther Thomas did ascend I vtterly deny that any of these wordes or altogeather make Thomas a Mediator of Redemption or doe prooue that wee inuocate him as the Sonne of the liuing God and the onely Sauiour of the World T. B. I answere that this Popish manner of Praying prooueth euidently that Thomas Becket is to the Papistes a Mediator not onely of Intercession but also of Redemption I prooue it by sundry meanes and irrefragable reasons First because there is no Saluation in any but in Iesus Christ neither any other Name vnder Heauen whereby we must be saued Secondly for that the auncient Catholique Church hath euer desired Remission of sinnes of God the Father for and through Iesus Christ his onely Sonne and our onely Sauiour Thirdly because onely the Blood of Iesus Christ not the Blood of any other is able to bring vs to Heauen Fourthly because Iesus Christ with his owne Blood not the Blood of others hath perfectly accomplished the saluation of his Elect and that hath he done once for all Fiftly because an Angell came downe from Heauen and imposed the name Iesus vpon the Sonne of God yeelding this reason thereof for that he should saue Gods people from their sinnes Sixtly because all the workes of God are perfect Which for all that could not be so if Beckets Blood be a cause of our going to Heauen Seuenthly because all Gods Children are rewarded farre aboue their condigne desertes as I haue foundly and plentifully prooued in the Conclusions of the ninth Chapter immediately aforegoing Eightly because S. Austen affirmeth constantly that the best liuer vpon earth shall perish euerlastingly if he find not Mercie farre aboue his Desertes But doubtlesse hee that is rewarded aboue his Desertes and standeth in need of Mercie for his owne Sinnes that mans Blood is not a fit cause or meane to bring others vnto Heauen B. C. The Pope and many thousandes more vse the Romane Breuiarie Missall in neither of which any such Prayer is conteyned and as I suppose it is not found but in those of Sarum vse which be now antiquated and out of date T. B. I answere first that our Jesuite now beginneth to tell vs wonders euen the mutabilitie of Romish Fayth and Religion of which I disputed in the Chapter of Veniall sinnes Secondly that as the Pope hath reformed the Romish Fayth and Religion in this and some other poyntes euen so hath our English Church abolished all Popish errours and superstition whereby wee are the true Reformed Catholiques in very deed For as your Capuchones are the true reformed Franciscanes at Rome so are wee the true reformed Catholiques in England B. C. An vntrueth it is that Saintes merites are ioynt purchasers of saluation with Christes blood if he meane that the Merites of Christ and his Saintes doe alike availe to saluation T. B. I answere first that our Jesuite not able to defend Poperie nor to answere the reasons by mee produced doth highly blaspheame Christ and the sacred Merites of his most precious Blood For as we see hee absurdly and most impiously auoucheth that the Merites of Saintes may be ioynt purchasers of saluation with Christes most sacred Blood so it be not in the same degree Let his wordes be well marked for they import as much as I do say O monstrum horrendum What blasphemie what impietie what crueltie what infidelitie is diabolically implyed in rotten Poperie You were not saith
potestatem excellentiae quam Christus alligatam sacramentis minimè habebat panem in suum corpus conuertisse deinde verò dedisse illud Apostolis dicendo hoc est c. Secunda opinio affirmat consecrasse quibusdam verbis nobis ignotis quando benedixit panem et non quando dixit hoc est c. Tertia opinio tuetur illa forma Christum consecrasse verum occultè scilicet quando benedixit panem deinde publicè illa vsum fuisse vt alios formam consecrandi doceret Quarta opinio tenet quando verba haec hoc est c. protulit simulque factam fuisse benedictionem Pope Innocentius holdeth the first opinion that Christ by the power of excellencie which in him was not tied to the Sacraments conuerted the Bread into his body and then gaue it to his Apostles saying This is my Body c. The second OpinioÌ„ holdeth that Christ Consecrated the Bread with certaine words to vs vnknowen when he blessed the Bread not when he sayd This is my Body The third Opinion affirmeth that Christ did Consecrate with that forme of Wordes but secretly when he blessed the Bread and after vsed the same forme of wordes to instruct others The fourth OpinioÌ„ holdeth that Christ did Consecrate when he spake these wordes This is my Body and that the blessing was done at the same time Behold here the mistery of profound Popish diuinitie I would not pittie his case who being in the middest of a great Fire would not come out to heare it But I pittie the case of silly ignoraunt Papistes who hazard aduenture their saluation in beleeuing such a fond and vncertaine Religion Secondly because by popish Religion when the Priest holdeth the Host ouer his head then the silly Papistes must adore the same as the euerliuing God And for all that euen by popish Fayth and Doctrine the popish so tearmed Host may onely be a peece of meere Bakers bread I prooue it sundry wayes First because Sotus that great learned popish Schoole-man surnamed for his deepe Learning Doctor Subtilis holdeth and constantly defendeth that it is vncertaine whether the Bread be transubstantiated into Christes body or no by these wordes of popish Consecration This is my Body Secondly because by popish Fayth the Bread is not made Christes body vnlesse the Priest haue intention so to make it But doubtlesse sundry cases and causes may fall out to take away the Priestes intention and so the silly people shall commit Idolatrie while they adore a peece of Bread for the lyuing GOD. Thirdly because Caietanus that famous Cardinall and learned popish Schoole-doctor affirmeth resolutely and boldly that no Text in the whole Ghospell prooueth effectually that these wordes This is my Body must be vnderstoode properly But doubtlesse if this be true which the learned Cardinall of Rome auoucheth to be most true the silly Papists must perforce be Idolaters while they adore the popish Host in the popish Masse And therfore doth the popish Byshop Angles giue his Reader this graue aduise Cautâ— legendum esse Caietanum Caietane must be read warily For indeed by Caietanes opinion the adoring of the popish Bread-god is flat Idolatrie Fourthly because in the consecration of the Wine the Priest as Josephus Angles telleth vs may haue Perueâ—sam intentionem a peruerse intention and so not consecrate at all For the Papistes agree about their Reall presence in their popish Masse like Dogges girning and fighting for a Bone albeit it be the most essentiall part of their Masse and consequently of all popish Religion Fiftly because they haue added one word of their owne forge and inuention to the words of Christes sacred Institution to weet the word enim which signifieth for S. Mathew S. Marke S. Luke and S. Paul haue all foure deliuered the expresse wordes of Christes sacred Institution and for all that not one of them doth so much as once name the word enim Fourthly that albeit there be some apparant colour of trueth in that which our Iesuite saith of the Pater noster yet will the same after due examination thereof tende wholly to the confusion of the Pope and all his popish Vassals I therefore answere that though the Pater noster in it selfe and according to Christes Institution be most holy pure and religious yet is the same by superstitious abuse in popish Masse become morally prophane impure and irreligious I prooue it by three seuerall and irrefragable reasons First because in the popish Masse it is mangled maimed and bereaued of a chiefe part of the integritie thereof For as hee that clippeth the Kinges Coyne is thereby a Traytor to an earthly King euen so hee that clippeth or curtalleth Gods sacred Word is thereby a Traytor to God the King of Heauen And consequently seeing the Pope in his idolatrous Masse hath curtalled the Pater noster taking from God his Kingdome his Power and his Glorie which three are plainely comprised in that originall Pater noster which Christ did institute it followeth by an ineuitable illation and necessarie consequence that the Pater noster as it is prophaned in the popish Masse is become a Ragge of the New religion Secondly because in the popish Masse it is vsed in a Tongue to the people vnknowne contrary to Apostolicall doctrine Thirdly because the Pater noster in the popish Masse marke well my wordes is made as it were a slaue to Satan and to serue Idolatrie euen against the euerliuing God to waite and attend vpon the popish Bread-God And so the Pater noster which afore was pure and Euangelicall is now by popish Superstition become impure and Diabolicall But some will here demaund how the Pater noster doth serue Idolatrie To whom I answere that euery thing in popish Masse is meere accidentall as the Jesuite hath freely graunted the popish Reall presence onely excepted to weet the popish so supposed Dagon or Bread-god And consequently al the rest in popish Masse must perforce be designed for the furtheraunce honour and seruice of the said popish Dagon or Bread-god Which seruice I haue elsewhere soundly prooued and plainely conuinced to be very flatte Idolatrie Neither ought this to seeme strange to the Reader for as holy Wordes in Coniurations Theftes Robberies Treasons and the like are by the abuse prophaned and morally become vnholy euen so the holy wordes of the Pater noster are in the popish Masse prophaned and become vnholy They are referred to a wicked and idolatrous end from whence all morall actes receiue their specification as all learned Papistes graunt But the euerliuing God is and ought to be the end of all and consequently whatsoeuer is referred to any other end the same is thereby prophaned ipso facto B. C. The Protestantes obiect how we make the Masse the Sacrifice of the New testament to haue been ordayned by Christ himselfe when as Durandus and others note at what