liberality of God is not to haue place in his last Iudgement as it should haue if Caluins doctrine were true but also his Iusticeâ— And therefore vpon this it followeth directly as the Cardinall argueth very well that whosoeuer belieueth Caluins doctrine in this behalfe doth not belieue the Article of the Creed concerning Gods Iudgement and retribution of workes 48. But now let vs se how M. Andrews vnderstandeth and glosseth the Cardinalls text and to the end thou mayst good Reader heare him in his right vaine how he bâ—stirreth himselfe and flourisheth when he hath once chaunged the state of the question and brought it to his purpose I will imparte vnto thee a good part of his discourse and set downe also as much of the Cardinalls text in the margent as M. Andrewes doth to the end thou mayst the better iudge of the whole matter Thus then he sayth Symbolum quoque tertium ab Athanasio conscriptum recipimus integrè c. We receiue also wholy the third Creed written by Athanasius There was no need to make mention of the last iudgement out of that seeing it is expressed both by the Apostolicall and also in the Nycen Creed It is said there that we are to yield account of our deedes but not such an account as it seemeth heere the Cardinall will make who I think will not appeare in the last Iudggement with this his Theology nor say there behould the merits of my workes behould the qualitie of my deedes for the which I require that lyfe euerlasting be giuen me I doe not desire here a mercifull Father but I will haue a iust iudge away with the grace of Faith or of the righteousnes of Christ mercifully imputed vnto me I will haue my deedes examined for works haue proceeded from me which doe not deserue reproach as being such as are without fault and haue nothing that needes to be couered with mercy for if it were so I should haue no need of the Iustice of a Iudge but of the mercie of a Father or of the liberality of a Prince whereof I haue no need It is meruaile that the Cardinal did not add for I am not as all other men as also these innouatours are who haue need of thy mercy to the end that their euill deedes be not ymputed vnto theÌ„ reputed as good deedes for the righteousnes of Christ. But if this were so theÌ„ would CoÌ„stantine say to the Cardinall set vp a ladder clime vp to heaueÌ„ alon as he sayd once to Acetius the NouatiaÌ„ heretick 49. Neuerthelesse a man may well maruaille and demaund whether the Cardinall in good earnest be so affected and so think of himselfe as heere he seemes to doe to wit that he shall haue no need of the mercy of a Father nor of the liberality of a Prince that he feareth not the Iustice of the Iudge that he challengeth to himselfe lyfe euerlasting for the quality of his deedes and merits of his workes that he renounceth the Grace Fayth and Righteousnes of Christ that he will appeare in IudgemeÌ„t without these and there make ostentation of his workes as being full pure and perfect without all kind of filth or vice Thus farre M. Andrewes 50. And dost thou not good Reader see how he descanteth heere vpon a false burthen of his owne amplifying exaggerating his owne malicious conceit and misconstruction of the Cardinalls wordes as though the same were his true sense and meaning dost thou not see I say how he pleaseth himselfe in dilating and amplifying his slanderous fiction glorying and triumphing in his owne malice In so much that I may well say vnto him with the psalmist Quid gloriaris in malitia qui potens es in iniquitate For I appeale to any indifferent man whether any such thing as heere maliciously he inferreth can be iustly gathered on the Cardinalls wordes who as I haue said before meaning to confute Caluins pernicious doctrine which draweth men to a most dangerous presumption of Gods mercy and neglect of his iustice yea and to a careles contempt of all good workes teaching all to be sinfull and damnable and no other meanes of saluation but by only faith and the imputation of Christs Iustice the Cardinall I say impugning this as well by expresse Scripture as by the Article of the Creed doth vrge the Iustice of our iust Iudge as well in the reward of vertue and good workes as in the punishment of vice sinne not excluding his mercy from his Iustice which can neuer be separated but inculcating the consideration of his exact Iudgment in the examination punishment and reward of mens deedes good and bad according to their merits which directly ouerthroweth Caluins doctrine of iustification by only fayth and of the impurity of good workes 51. And therefore for as much as M. Andrews knew very well that he could not so easily delude his Reader with the flourish of his false glosse if he should lay downe the doctrine and words of Caluin which the Cardinall alledgeth and confuteth he resolued to leaue them quite out with a great parte also of the Cardinalls text concerning the same Perhaps he would haue his Reader to imagine that he lackt place and paper but if you consider the length of his discourse which he continueth for almost three whole pages you will easily see that he wanteth neyther paper nor roome in his margent to set downe all the Cardinalls text if he had thought it would haue bene for his purpose 52. But truely that which seemeth to me most strange in his extrauagant discourse is how he could imagine that the Cardinall taketh vpon him to be iudge of his owne actions whose arguments tend to proue that God only is to examine and iudg all mens workes and not that euery man or yet any man shall be able to iudg and determine of the quality of his owne deedes for so should man be his owne Iudg the iugdement of God be no lesse superfluous needles then it should be if Caluins doctrin which the Cardinall impugneth were true Besides that the Cardinall neyther saith nor so much as insinuateth that we shall haue no need in iudgement of the mercy of a Father or the liberalitie of a Prince and much lesse that he renounceth the mercy grace faith and the Righteousnes of Christ as M. Andrews doth calumniate and belie him For the Cardinall knoweth and acknowledgeth as all Catholikes do that without the mercy grace faith and Righteousnes of Christ there can be noe iustificatioÌ„ I meane not the Righteousâ—es of Christ imputed to vs but that which he of his infinit mercy and bounty giueth vs maketh ours non qua iustus est Deus saith S. Augustine sed quam dat homini Deus c. not that Iustice by the which God is iust but that which he giues to man that man may be iust by God and therefore that which the Cardinall saith is only this that
deuotion of the people by the ministry of Angels through the merites of the Martyrs or els whether it be done both waies this he saith he dare not define confessing and teaching euidently as much as we require in this matter to wit that deuout people are certainly helped by the Martyrs Neyther is it to be wondred that S. Augustine would not take vpon him to determine how the same was wrought saying that euen in ordinarie and naturall thinges the effects are euident and certayne and yet the causes are many tymes eyther vncertayn or els wholy vnknowne which is to be graunted much more in supernaturall and miraculous euents as I haue shewed euidently in the last Chapter where I haue confuted such another ridiculous argument of his against Prayer to Saints 44. And albeit he had resolued that the Saints themselues do not appeare or assist at their tombes but Angels in their shape and lykenes yet it could not be sayd but that apparition is theirs being made by Gods expresse ordinance for their merites in their name and lykenes and for the benefit of those that expect and craue their help especially seeing it is vsually said in the holy Scriptures that God spake and appeared to Abraham and Moyses when neuerthelesse it was done by the ministry of Angels and not in any shape that could represent him and therfore S. Augustin◠had great reason to say that S. Felix appeared and that the Martyrs per diuinam potentiam viuorum rebus intersunt are by the diuine power present at the doings or affaires of men although afterwards he moueth a question concerning the manner of it and doth not deny but that it may be done by the ministery of Angels Hereby then it appeareth that this place of S. Augustine so clearely proueth the Apparition of Saints and that men are helped by theirs prayers and merits that M. Andrews had no other way to shift it off handsomly but to omit the wordes of S. Augustine as of small moment and testifying only a sleight matter of heare-say I might add diuers others of this kind but I omit them for breuities sake and the rather for that they are commonly mixed with other kind of fraudes wherof I shall haue occasiō to speake herafter and therefore I will now proceed to others of more importance namely his egregious abuse of authors partly in wresting peruerting their sense partly in the corrupt fraudulent citation of thē in which kind you haue already seene M. Barlows talent whereby you shall be able to iudge whether of them excelleth therin 45. First then I will begyn with his abuse of the Cardinall who to shew that the Protestants in England do not entirely hold the Creed of Athanasius proposeth the Article concerning the day of Iudgemēt when euery one saith Athanasius is to render account de factis proprijs of his owne acts and those which haue done well shall go to life euerlasting and those which haue done euill shall go to eternall fire Whereupon the Cardinnll saith thus In quibus verbis confitemur c. In which wordes of Athanasius we confesse that there shall be a last Iudgement wherein the iust Iudge will render to euery one according to the quality of his deedes to some the crowne of Iustice and to others eternall punishment and shame For if lyfe euerlasting should be giuen to the faithfull not for the merits of workes but in respect of faith and of Christs righteousnes mercifully imputed vnto them there should be no need of Iudgement nor of examination of deedes neither were it needfull that there should come a iust Iudge but a mercyfull Father neyther that we should render any reason of our deedes but shew Christs Iustice imputed vnto vs and apprehended by fayth therefore the King cannot belieue this Article if he belieue with Caluin and the Protestants that all the workes of iust men are sinnes for these are Caluins wordes no worke can passe from holy men which doth not deserue the iust reward of shame 46. And what account shall iust men be able to make of their owne deedes vnto Christ the Iudge if all their workes are vicious and deserue the iust reward of reproach and if iust men shall not be able to giue account of their deedes truly the vniust shall be much lesse able to doe it to what purpose then shall we all stand before the Tribunall of Christ to render account of our owne actions But perhapps they will say that all the workes of the Iust are vncleane and filthie but their filth shall be couered by the mercie of God and the workes reputed as cleane to the faithfull for Christ. But if this were true then should there be no neede as I haue sayd before of the iustice of a Iudge but of the mercie of a Father and liberalitie of a Prince therefore to what purpose doth the Article of the Creed say that Christ shall come to iudge the quick and the dead and that all men shall render account of their owne deedes and why doth the Apostle say reposita est mihi corona iustitiae c. The Crowne of Iustice is layd vp for me which the iust Iudge will giue me in that daie And why doth his fellow Apostle Peter say in lyke sort si patrem inuocatis c. And if you inuocate or call vpon the Father him which iudgeth without acception of persons according to the worke of euery man conuerse yee with fear in the time of your soiourning or dwelling heere And finally why doth our Lord who will come to iudge fortell that he will come with his Angells to render to euery one according to his workes 47. All this saith the Cardinal concerning this matter which I haue laid downe thus largely to the end you may see as well his sound discourse grounded vpon expresse scripture as the malice of M. Andrewes peruerting and wresting the same to another sense then euer the Cardinall meant and there fore craftily leaueth out of the Cardinalls text all that which toucheth Caluins doctrine concerning the impuritie and vncleanes of the best workes which poynt the Cardinall especially impugneth vrging that if Caluins doctrine were true in that behalfe then were the Iustice of God in the iugement and examinatiō of workes needles and only his mercy and liberality requisite whereby the Cardinall excludeth not Gods mercie from his Iudgements as you shall hear euen now M. Andrews charge him but inferreth 3. thinges vpon the Article of the Creed against Caluins doctrine The First that iust mens workes which are to be iustly examined iudged and rewarded with eternall life are not damnable sinnes as Caluin teacheth them to be The Second that men shall not be saued only by their faith and the imputation of Christes Iustice but also by the merits of good workes And the third followeth directly of the former to wit that the only mercie and
si ita esset if it were so as Caluin teacheth that is to say if the iust mans best workes were sinfull and impure and yet couered and reputed as cleane by the mercy of God and for the Righteousnes of Christ imputed vnto vs then the iustice of a Iudg to examin and iudg our workes were needles and to no purpose seeing in that case the only mercy of God couering our sinnes and imputing Christs Righteousenes vnto vs would suffice to saue vs without the examination and iust iudgment of workes which consequence is indeed so cleare that M. Andrews had noe other shift to auoid it but to peruert the Cardinalls whole sense and meaning and so to argue against his owne fiction and make a plaine Schiâ—maâ—hia as you haue seene him often do before 53. Furthermore it may be wondred greatly how he could so farre forget himselfe as to make the Cardinall so coÌ„fident presumptuous of his owne merit as to brag and boast euen to God himselfe of the quality of his deedes seeing that he I meane M. Andrews knoweth full well and accounteth it for no small error in the Cardinall and all Catholykes that they impugne Luther and Caluins doctrine concerning the certainety and assurance of Saluation and hould that no man without a speciall reuelation from almighty God can know and much lesse determine vtrum odio vel amore dignus sit Whether he be worthy of loue or hatred that is to say whether he be in the state of grace or haue true merits and be truly iustified And therfore the good Catholike though his merits be neuer so great in the sight of God yea and his conscience neuer so cleare whereby his hope also of reward may be greate yet assuring himselfe that he hath no goodnes of himselfe but that all his good merits are Gods guifts are speciall fruits of Gods grace neyther is vainly proud thereof but rather more humble and thankfull for the same neyther yet presumeth to be his owne iudg whether he haue any good merits or no but leaueth the iudgment therof to God with due reuerence and feare knowing that he searcheth the harts and reynes yea and that as the Prophet saith scrutabitur Hierusalem cum lucernis he will search Hierusalem that is to say euen the Consciences of the iust with Candles And that therefore it is necessary for euery man according to the aduise of the Apostle operari salutem cum metu tremore to worke his saluation with feare and trembling In which respect the Cardinall treating in his controuersies of the merits of workes and hauing proued that a man may haue some confidence in good works and merits modo superbia cauetur saith he so that pride be auoided concludeth that propter incertitudinem propriae iustitiae c. For the vncertainty of a mans owne Iustice and the danger of vaine glory it is most safe and secure for euery man to repose his whole confidence and trust in the only mercie and benignity of almighty God Whereof he yealdeth also this reason out of S. Chrysostome that God who seeth and knoweth his good merits will vndoubtedly reward him the rather for his humility 54. Thus then you see that M. Andrewes hath imployd all his Rhetorick no lesse maliciously then vainly in framing such a formal prosopopaeia as he hath done of the Cardinalls Iustification of himselfe and ostentation of his merits which is so farre not only from the Cardinalls humilitie and sanctitie but also from his doctrine euery where and his sense and meaning in this place that I may well conclude that M. Andrews hath notoriously abused wronged and belyed him charging him with false and absurd doctrine which he neuer thought and much lesse taught wresting his words and sense to other purpose then euer he meant or could ymagine which is the point that I haue vndertaken to shew at this tyme and therefore I omit to prosecute the Confutation of the rest of his idle discourse wherein after some further gybes at the Cardinall yea at all Cardinalls and Iesuits for their presumption in their owne Innocencie he laboureth to proue that there shall be place for mercie in Gods Iudgement which I thinke no man will be so absurd to deny and then he alleadgeth certaine places of S. Gregory and S. Bernard to proue that our best workes are impure which places as also all the rest that his fellowes are wont to cite for that purpose are fully answered in Cardinall Bellarmins Controuersies whereto I remit him for that point But in the end after all his rauing it seemeth he is somewhat come to himselfe acknowledging as it were in lucidâ— interuallo that account is to be giuen for deedes as well at the howre of death as in the last iudgement and that good workes shall be rewarded by the force of Gods promise yea and that a man may claime that as due say to almightie God with due humility redde quod promisiâ—ti Giue me that which thou hast promised touching which graunts of his I shall haue very iust occasion heerafter to say somewhat more vnto him as also about merits and the eternall retribution of workes And therefore this shall suffice for the present concerning this point 55. But what meruaile is it if he maketh no scruple to abuse the Cardinall and to peruert his sense and meaning seeing that he vseth the same stile with the holy and auncient Fathers to which purpose I doubt not but you may remember that in the first Chapter of this Adioynder I shewed euidently how he abused belyed and falsified S. Ambrose S. Augustine and S. Cyrill as that he corrupted S. Ambrose his text adding certaine words thereto and belyed S. Augustine and S. Cyril affirming them to teach that S. Peter lost his Apostleship by his fall Whereas S. Augustine hath nothing at all to that purpose in the place cyted by M. Andrews and teacheth the quite contrary els where And though S. Cyril hath somewhat concerning that matter yet it is farre otherwyse then M. Andrews suggesteth as is euident by the place it selfe which I haue laid downe at large in the first Chapter and therfore I forbear to treat further therof in this place 56. Also you may remember his notable fraud in the corrupt allegation of a Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon concerning the equality of dignity power and authority which he saith was giuen thereby to the Bishop of Constantinople with the Bishop of Romeâ— whereas the contrary appeareth by the expresse wordes of the same Canon by the which it is cleare that only the precedeÌ„ce was not graÌ„ted to the Bishop of CoÌ„stantinople before the Bishops of Alexandria Antioch and therefore he craftely concealed and left vncited such wordes of the Canon as would haue discouered his fraud besids other tricks shifts which he vsed in other points coÌ„cerning the same matter
opertet magis obedire Deo quà m hominibus and to giue our liues rather then to offend God and our consciences in the deniall of such an important article of our faith to the euerlasting damnation of our soules But M. Andrews holding the Kings Supremacy to be no article of faith or beliefe but only a matter of perswasion which passeth not the boundes of probability hath no such cause and obligation to deny it as we haue and yet neuerthelesse vnder the colour and pretence to defend it he doth so extenuate and abase it that he maketh it nothing but an externall humaine and meere temporall authority and consequently as any Pagan Prince may exercise as well as a Christan 60. And therefore he dealeth therin no otherwise then one who being chosen by his friend to maintaine his quarrell draweth his sword with pretence to defend him and giueth him a deadly wound behind his backe or like to some preuaricating Aduocate who being hyred to defend a cause pleadeth for the aduerse party for so doth he who being specially chosen by his Maiesty to defend and maintaine his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy doth couertly and vnderhand betray him depriuing him of all the spirituall power that the Parliament hath giuen him and leauing him only the bare title without the effect which kind of dealing if it were but amongst frendes and equals were no lesse then treacherous and perfidious and therefore what it is in a subiect towardes his Prince especially in a man so much honored aduanced by his Maiesty as M. Andrewes hath bin I leaue it to the iudgement of any indifferent man but sure I am it caÌ„not be counted the part of a good subiect 61. Neither can he be thought to be a good Enlish Protestant for who knoweth not that the English Protestant differeth from all other Protestants of other Nations especially in holding and maintayning the Ecclesiasticall and spirituall Supremacy that our Parliament first gaue to King Henry the 8. which you see M. Andrews doth not who as I haue said hath so pared shaued and abridged it that he hath made it nothing in effect at least much lesse and of farre other conditioÌ„ then the Parliament ordayned it Wherby he is not only subiect to the penalties of the Parliamentall statutes as a Traytor but also incurreth the censure of excommunication imposed by a late Synodicall constitution of the Byshops and Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury vpon such as impeach in any part saith the Canon his Maiesties Regall supremacy in Ecclesiasticall causes restored to the Crowne by the Lawes of this Realme therin established and so strickt is the Canon against such persoÌ„s that it ordayneth further that they being excommunicated ipso facto shall not be restored but only by the Archbyshop after their repentance and publike reuocation of their wicked errour So as this Canon and all the rest made in that Conuocation being authorized by his Maiesty and published by his Regall authority vnder the great Seale of England I remit to the iudgment of all true English Protestantes whether M. Andrews hauing incurred the censure of this Canon and being consequently cut off from the vnion of their Congregation can be a member of their body or any other to them then an Ethnick or a Publican vntill he haue publikly reuoked his errour and be absolued and restored by the Archbishop 62. And no maruell seeing that he is as it seemeth so farre from being an English ProtestaÌ„t whatsoeuer he hath ben hertofore that he is now turned flat Puritan in this point allowing the King no more power ouer the Church then to mayntayne and defend it which is the very doctrine of the Puritans who therfore do willingly sweare obedience to their Princes for the defence and conseruation of the Church as it appeareth by the Oath of the Puritans in ScotlaÌ„d who sweare thus Quoniam percepimus Ecclesiae religionis nostrae tranquillitatem c. Forasmuch as we perceiue that the tranquillity stability of our Church and religion doth depend on the health and good gouernment of his Maiesty as of the comfortable instrument of gods mercy granted the Realm for the conseruation of the Church and the administration of iustice amongst vs we do couenant and promise with our hart vnder the same Oath subscription and penalties to defend his person authority and dignity with our goods bodies and liues for the defence of the Ghospell of Christ and the liberty of our Countrey 63. Thus sweare they and no more teacheth M. Andrewes in substance granting no other power to Kings ouer the Church then they do to wit that Kings are but as Foster-fathers defeÌ„ders of it Wherin neuerthelesse this difference may be noted betwixt the Puritans and him that they do belieue it as a matter of faith no lesse then we wheras M. Andrewes is only perswaded that it is true seing that he placeth therin the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy which he holdeth to be no matter of fayth and therfore if the said Supremacy consist only in the defence of the Church as it doth according to his doctrine then both we and the Puritans are better subiects then he because we belieue the same to be a matter of faith and consequently do think our selues bound in conscience to maintaine it though it be with losâ—e of our liues wheras he taking it to be but only a matter of perswasion will not by all liklyhood loose six pence to defend it 64. Furthermore to shew that he doth truly Puritanize in the point of the Supremacy it is to be vnderstood that whereas the Cardinall obiecteth out of the Basilicon Doron of his Maiesty that the Puritans do not admit the Kings Ecclesiasticall primacy because they introduce a certaine parity into the Church he answereth that albeit they maintayne a parity a mongst themselues reiecting the distinction of degrees of Byshops aboue Ministers or of one Minister aboue another yet they doe not hold that there is any parity betwixt the King and them but do admit and acknowledg his Supremacy ouer them thus teacheth M. Andrews and addeth presently after in the next paragraph that wheresoeuer the Religion is reformed the supreme temporall Magistrats haue this Power euen this selfe same which the King hath So he whereupon two things may be euidently gathered The one that the Puritans haue the same doctrine concerning the Ecclesiasticall primacy of temporall Princes that is taught in all the reformed Churches which indeed they also affirme of themselues The other is that the King hath no other Ecclesiasticall power but the self same that the Puritans and all the reformed Churches doe graunt to their temporall Magistrate 65. But what the Puritans teach concerning this point you heard in the last Chapter by the testimony of M. Rogers approued and warranted by all the Cleargy of England to wit that Princes must be seruants to the