in the seuenteenth chapter he auoucheth that the proportion betwixt the worke and the reward is ratione operis in respect of the worke Now I confesse that some of them affirme indeed the reason of meriting of our workes to arise partly from this that we are adopted the sonnes of God and haue vnion with Christ and so they are made meritorious by the dignity of the person which worketh them and partly because they proceede from grace and also partly by reason of the promise which God hath made vnto them whereby hee bindeth himselfe that he will reward them but let all these be granted though all of them bee denyed by many of their owne Writers who attribute merite to the worke without relation either to the person or to grace or to the promise yet it will not free their doctrine from palpable impiety as the sequent discourse shall I trust make apparant After that I haue in opposition to this doctrine set downe the summe of that which we hold touching the dignity of good workes I omit to name their merit of cōgruity because most of themselues are ashamed of it 28. This is therefore that doctrine which our Church maintaineth concerning good workes First wee beleeue assuredly that good workes are necessary to saluation but so Vt via regni non causae regnandi as the way to the Kingdome not causes of raigning and as signes of our Election and forerunners of our future happinesse as Saint Bernard testifieth This with one consent we all teach and the Romanists that slander vs with the contrary assertion cannot produce so much as one sentence out of any of our Writers which being rightly vnderstood doth import the contrary as shall be hereafter fully proued Secondly wee hold that as they are necessary in respect of vs so they are acceptable and well pleasing to God not for their own sakes but for our faith-sake in Christ in whome onely the Lord is well pleased both towards himselfe and all his members Thirdly we beleeue that they are not onely thus acceptable and well pleasing in Gods sight but also that the Lord will reward them assuredly both in this life with temporall blessings and in the life to come with eternall happinesse according to that of our Sauiour Whosoeuer shall giue vnto one of those little ones to drinke a cup of cold water in the name of a Disciple he shall not lose his reward But lastly we constantly assure our selues that this reward is not giuen of God for the merite or desert of the worke but of the meere grace and mercy of God for the merits of Christ according to that of Saint Bernard The mercy of God is my merite and of Saint Augustine God bringeth vs to eternall life not for our merits but for his owne mercy For a reward is not onely taken for a due debt in Scripture but also for a free gift as may appeare by comparing Mat. 5. 46. with Luk. 6. 32. In the one place wherof the Holy Ghost vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the one and the same thing So that the summe of our doctrine is this in few words wee renounce not good workes but the merit of workes and wee verily beleeue that Christ is the store-house of all merite and that out of him there is no merite to be found in any no not in the iustest that euer liued and yet the merits of Christ as his righteousnesse are made ours by imputation and in that sense onely we may bee said to merit and deserue eternall life As for our best workes though they bee wrought in vs by grace yet passing through the corrupt channell of our defiled nature they get themselues such a tincture and staine as in regard of the corruption which cleaueth close vnto them they can deserue nothing at Gods hand if he should lay them to the rule of his iustice and not weigh them in the ballance of his mercy This is our doctrine and that it is so I appeale to Bellarmine himselfe who confesseth that by faith alone wee doe not exclude other vertues but the merit of them and that we make good workes necessary to saluation Necessitate praesentiae non efficientiae as he termeth it By necessitie of their presence not by necessitie of efficiencie Let vs therefore now come to the examination of both these doctrines and search which of them doth giue most glory to God and honour to Christ our Sauiour in this maine pillar of our Redemption 29. And first doth not that doctrine tend manifestly to the embasing of Gods mercy which teacheth men not to relie wholly vpon that for their saluation but partly vpon their owne merits Especially seeing grace and workes merit and mercy cannot stand together no more then light and darknes as the Apostle teacheth If it be of grace it is no more of workes or else were grace no more grace but if it be of workes it is no more grace or else were worke no more worke So may we truely say If saluation be of mercy then it is not of merit or else were mercy no more mercy but if it be of merit it is no more of mercy or else were merit no more merit and so by kindling the fire of merits they vtterly dry vp the fountaine of mercy And for that cause Saint Bernard maketh the mercy of God his onely merit And Saint Augustine disclayming all merits and laying clayme onely to Gods mercy saith as before God bringeth vs to eternall life not for our merits but for his owne mercie And in another place His promise is sure not according to our merits but according to his mercy And Chrysostome saith That no man sheweth such conuersation of life as that he may bee worthy of the Kingdome of heauen but it is wholly the gift of God In all these places merit is opposed vnto mercy as things of their owne condition incompatible and therefore one must needes exclude the other And sure in reason it must needs be so for mercy is free Grace is not grace in any sort if it be not free in euery sort sayth Augustine but merit requireth the reward of debt Mercies obiect is misery and vnworthinesse but merit is dignity and worthinesse and therefore cannot bee the obiect of mercy Mercy reioyceth against iustice but merit appealeth vnto iustice and challengeth God of vniustice if it bee not recompenced Lastly in mercy God is the Agent and sinfull Man the Patient but in merit righteous Man is the Agent and God the Patient And therefore betwixt these two things Merit and Mercy there is such a disproportion and contrariety that they cannot be reconciled together 30. I but they say our workes are not meritorious of themselues but partly as they proceede from grace and are wrought in vs by Gods Spirit and so it is Gods mercy that we
are enabled to merit and partly by vertue of Gods promise whereby hee hath engaged himselfe to crowne those merits with glory which he hath wrought in vs by grace to which double obiection I returne this double answere First if all good workes issue from the roote of grace as they doe indeede then how can we merit thereby seeing that which doth merit must bee our owne and not anothers especially his of whom we looke to merit So saith Hilary it is for him to merit who himselfe is to himselfe the Author of getting his merit and therfore if it be true which they affirme that Gods grace is the onely fountaine of all good workes as without doubt it is it is so farre from following thence that therefore our workes are meritorious that it followeth by mere necessary consequence that therefore they are not meritorious And this conclusion is made by diuers of the ancient Fathers themselues We haue nothing to reioyce or glory of saith S. Cyprian therefore nothing to merit because we haue nothing of our owne The merits of men are not such saith S. Bernard as that life eternall by right is owing for them and why because all merits are the gifts of God and so man is rather a debter to God for them then God to man And S. Augustine Eternall life should be rendred as due vnto thee if of thy selfe thou hadst the righteousnesse to which it is due but now of his fulnesse wee receiue not onely grace now to liue iustly in our labours to the end but also grace for this grace that afterward wee may liue in rest without rest So then if our good works arise only frō Gods grace this maketh plaine against all merit as they know well enough and therfore behold their fraud and the mysterie of iniquity though they shadow the matter with goodly words of grace and mercy yet vpon free-will they hang the vertue and effect of this grace and from that fountaine doe they deriue vnto man all this merit which they talke so much of and so howsoeuer they ascribe vnto Gods grace the cause of merit yet in very deede with them it is free-will that maketh a worke meritorious 31. Secondly I answere that when God doth promise to reward our workes with eternall life eternall life is due to vs but not for our workes sake but for his promise sake for many things are due by promise which haue no reference to any desert As if the King should promise one of his seruants a thousand pound of his mere liberality for keeping a Hawke he is bound to pay him so much but is it from the seruants desert or from the Kings bounty So God promiseth eternall life to our workes and by reason of his promise wee may challenge it as our due but yet it is not for our worke but for his word sake as Saint Augustine confesseth when he saith God is become a debter not by receiuing any thing from vs but by promising what it pleased him therfore a reward giuen by promise is so far frō importing desert that it rather ouerthroweth the very foundation thereof by being a worke of mercy as the same Augustine saith in another place The promise is sure not according to our merits but according to his mercy The doctrine of merit then vndermineth the mercy of God which way so euer they turne themselues whether to grace as the cause of the worke or to Gods promise as the cause of the reward 32. Againe by this doctrine not onely the mercy of God is darkened but also the merits of Christ quite euacuated and made of no force for if Christs merits were sufficient what neede there then any supply of our owne if our owne merits be necessarily required then Christs merits were not sufficient If Christs merits were perfect then mans merits cannot be added vnto them for that is perfect to which nothing can be added but if mans merits must bee added to them then it followeth that Christs were not perfect and so no merits at all for this property is required in a merit that it bee perfect and so either they must denie the necessity of our meriting or confesse the vnsufficiencie of Christ either they must acknowledge Christs merits to be vnperfect or ours to be vnnecessarie yea none at all I but they will say Christ did not onely merit the pardon of our sinnes but also that our workes should be meritorious of life euerlasting and by this sat they are Christs merits more magnified then by vs because the greater the gift is the greater is the glory of the giuer so that our meriting doth not argue any want in his merits but rather proue a greater efficacie to be in them for to this end will hee haue vs to merit partly that we may shew our selues like vnto him and partly to traine vs vp in good workes by this spurre All these are but shifts and indeede mere cauils for first to say that Christ did not alone merit for vs eternall life but also grace that so we might merit eternall life for our selues what is it but to make vs our owne Sauiours for all our merits come from grace and free-will ioyned together as hath beene shewne and grace is nothing with them except free-will concurre with it for they teach that we may receiue it if we will and when we haue it we may merit if we will eternall life or else goe without it What is this I say but to affirme that a man is not saued by Christs merits but that by the helpe of grace hee doth saue himselfe by his owne merits and so they shoue Christ out of his office and put themselues in his roome 33. Secondly I answere that the efficacie of Christs merits is greater in purchasing eternall life for vs by himselfe alone then in giuing vs ablenesse to merit it for our selues because it is a greater glory and a token of greater power to effect a thing immediatly without meanes then by the mediation or vsurpation of any meanes whatsoeuer In the former all the honour is to the worker in the later there must needes be some glory ascribed to the meanes and some power attributed vnto them and therefore to say that Christ hath onely merited by himselfe without vs eternall life for vs is to giue the entire and perfect glory vnto him and none vnto our selues and to affirme that hee merited to make our workes meritorious is to derogate from his glory and to detract from the efficacie of his death and passion 34. And here we may see the vanity of Bellarmines assertion who to proue that by this doctrine of theirs they ascribe more efficacie to Christs merits then we doe bringeth in this similitude Sicut quòd Deus c. that is As in that God vseth the Sunne to lighten the world fire to heat it ayre and raine to refresh it is not an argument of weakenesse in
foreheads 2. That the Religion of the Church of Rome is not so safe as ours may appeare by comparing our principall doctrines together and first to begin with the Sacrament That the bodie of Christ is truely really and effectually present in the Eucharist both they and we hold grounding vpon that text of Scripture this is my bodie but concerning the maner of this presence the Romanists hold that it is by transub stantiation we by a spirituall presence which notwithstanding is true and reall both in relation to the outward signes and to the faith of the Receiuer Now see the dangers that arise from their doctrine which are not incident to ours 2. First if there be not a corporall presence of Christ and a reall Transubstantiation as they suppose then this doctrine leadeth to horrible and grosse Idolatrie for they must needs worship a piece of bread in stead of Christ And this not onely if their doctrine bee false but being supposed to bee true in case hee that consecrateth be not truly a Priest or haue not an intention to consecrate as oftentimes it falleth out for in both these cases by the grounds of their owne Religion there is no change of substances and therefore as much danger of Idolatrie as eyther of a false Priest or of a true Priests false intention But in our doctrine there is no such danger and yet as true reall and powerfull an existence of Christs bodie in the Sacrament as with them if not more seeing the more spirituall a thing is the more powerfull it is according to the rules of reason for wee are not in danger to worship a creature in stead of the Creatour but wee worship the Creatour himselfe euen Iesus Christ our Redeemer who is there present after a spirituall manner and that as reuerently deuoutly and sincerely as they doe a piece of bread 3. Secondly by this doctrine our aduersaries incline to fauour the Capernaites who had a conceit of a corporall and fleshly eating of Christs bodie and giue iust cause to the Pagans to slander Christian Religion to bee a bloudy and cruell Religion Whereupon the Fathers to crosse the one and stop the mouth of the other taught that Christs speech in the sixt of Iohn was to be vnderstood spiritually and not carnally and that it was a figure and not a proper speech But our doctrine doth giue no such occasion eyther to the Heretikes on the one side or to the Pagans on the other neyther hath it any consanguinitie with the Capernaites and yet wee retaine as certaine and powerfull a participation of our Sauiours bodie and bloud as they doe I know they thinke to escape from this rocke by a distinction of visible and inuisible eating as if the Capernaites dreamed that Christ would haue his bodie to bee eaten visibly but they inuisibly that is say they spiritually which indeed is no cuasion for an inuisible eating is a true eating As when a blind man eateth or a seeing man in the darke and cannot therefore be called a spirituall eating but a corporall neyther doth this free them from approching neere to the Capernaites though they somewhat differ from them nor from giuing iust cause of offence to the Heathen from both which our doctrine giueth full and perfect securitie 4. Thirdly and lastly their doctrine of transubstantiation doth not onely countenance but confirme the ancient heresies of the Marcionites Valentinians and Eutychians that impugned the truth of Christs humane nature for they taught that he had not a true but a phantasticall bodie and what do our aduersaries but approue the same indeede though they seeme to detest it in word when they teach that his bodie is present in the Sacrament not by circumscription nor determination but by a spirituall and diuine presence quomodo Deus est in loco as God is in a place which is asmuch as to say that his bodie is not a true bodie but a spirituall bodie that is indeed a phantasticall bodie Againe the bread which they say is the bodie is not bread in truth but in shew after it is consecrated for there is nothing of bread but the mere accidents without a substance according to their doctrine and so it is in all reasonable construction no better then a phantasticall thing seeming to the outward sense to bee that which in truth it is not Why may not those Heretikes then reason from these doctrines thus If Christs bodie be a spirituall bodie in the Eucharist and the bread be phantasticall bread then why might not his bodie be so also when he was on the earth But the former is true by your doctrine O ye Romanists therefore why may not the latter which is our doctrine be also true But none of these Heretikes can haue any such aduantage from our doctrine which teacheth that Christ in respect of his humane nature is resident in the heauens circumscribed by place and that hee is present in the Sacrament by the efficacie of his inuisible and powerful grace after a spirituall manner as Saint Augustine speaketh and that both the bread remaineth bread after consecration and the bodie of Christ remaineth still a naturall bodie after the resurrection retaining still the former circumscription as Theodoret auoucheth this taketh away all aduantage from Heretikes which their doctrine doth manifestly giue vnto them For these causes Petrus de Alliaco the Cardinall doth confesse that from our doctrine no inconuenience doth seeme to ensue if it could be accorded with the Churches determination And Occham that it is subiect to lesse incommodities and lesse repugnant to holy Scripture Thus wee see that in this first doctrine touching the Eucharist there is more securitie and lesse danger in our doctrine and Religion then in theirs 5. I come to a second point which is touching the merits of works whereby the Romish Religion doth cast men into three eminent dangers which by our doctrine they are free from First of vaine glory for when a man is perswaded that there is a merit of condignitie in the worke which hee hath wrought how can he choose but reioyce therein and conceiue a vaine-glorious opinion of his owne worthinesse as the proud Pharise did when he bragged that he had fasted and prayed and payd his tithes seeing it is impossible but that the nature of man which is inclinable vnto vaine-glory and selfe-loue if it haue a conceit of any selfe-worthinesse should bee puffed vp with a certaine inward ioy and pride and therefore Chrysostome taketh it for wholesome counsel to say that wee bee vnprofitable seruants lest pride destroy our good workes 6. Secondly of obscuring and diminishing Gods glorie and Christs merits For where merit is there mercie is excluded and where something is ascribed to man for the obtaining of saluation there all is not ascribed vnto Christ and although they colour the blacke visage of this doctrine with a faire tincture to wit that all our merits are from Gods mercie and grace and that our good workes are
merite of condignitie bringeth foorth a like monster for they build it vpon two foundations whereof one ouerwhelmeth the other to wit the dignity of the worke and the promise of God for what can be more contrary then mercy and iustice Now if it depend vpon the dignity of the worke then it is a due of iustice and so they call it Meritum ex iustitia A merite by iustice but if it rely vpon the free promise of God as they call it then it must needs be Meritum ex misericordia A merite by mercy for Gods promise is a voluntary fruit of his mercy They answer that they may both well stand together for say they God dealeth with vs as we deale with our hyred labourers we agree with them for a certayne price for doing a peece of worke and when they begin we giue them an earnest penny and when the worke is done according to the couenant we giue them their wages So dealeth Almighty God with Christians he first maketh a couenant with them that for labouring in his Vineyard they shall haue a penny that is eternall life then he giueth them the earnest of his Spirit to assure them thereof and lastly at the end when they haue done their worke hee payeth them their wages But by the Iesuites leaue this similitude is lame of all foure for first when a man hyreth a labourer and bargaineth with him for wages for his worke this is a couenant of iustice and no promise of mercy and therefore if he performe this bargaine hee is not therefore called mercifull but iust but Almighty God as they themselues confesse promiseth freely and is bound to none and therefore this must needs be a worke of mercy and not of iustice Secondly there is a proportion betwixt the labourers worke and his hire but betwixt the Kingdome of heauen and our good works there is no proportion no more then betwixt a finite and an iâ— finite thing or a drop of a Bâ—cket and the huge Ocean And third y a man standeth in need of his workman his worke but God hath no need of vs. And hence it must of necessitie follow that the labourers hire iâ— a debt of iustice but a Christians hire is a reward of mercy And so I conclude that being of mercy it cannot be of iustice too or if it be of iustice it cannot be of mercy tâ—o fâ—â— what needâ— iustice if it bee of mercy and what need mercy if â—â— bâ— of iustice And therefore if this meritâ— of condignitie be grounded vpon the worth and valour of he worke done as they teach 〈…〉 cannot bee grounded vpon the promise of God as theâ— teach also because the dignitie of the worke requires â—â— as a dâ—â— by iustice and the gracious promise of God imparts it as a â—eward of mercy 41. Againe in their merite of congruitie there is another contradiction for they teach that the whoâ—e dignitie of the worke dependeth vpon grace and therefore that it is not so much man that meriteth as Gods grace in man And yet the same affirme that this grace doth not inhabitare that is awell in a man but onely outwardly mooue and helpe him and that it is in mans power either to accept or reiect theâ—s me Now how can the power of meriting issue from grace alone and the whole dignitie of the worke depend vpon grace when as that grace is not in vs and when as our owne free will is the chiefe worker being able of it selfe either to vnlocke the dore and let it in or baâ—re the doore and shut it out And besides if the whole dignitie of the worke depend vpon grace why doth he call â—t Meritum inâ—hoatum imperfectuÌ„ A lame and vnperfect meriâ—e I Gods grace â—ame and imperfect eyther therefore that grace dwelleth in vs and is the chiese worker or else it doth not wholly depend vpon grace And againe if it wholly proceede from grace then it is not a lame and imperfect but a complete perfect merice See â— beseech you how falsehood needeth no other Engine but it selfe to ouerthrow it 42. Lastly concerning works their doctrine is that the good works of the regenerate are fully and absolutely iust and perfectly good and yet neuerthelesse that they may grow in goodnesse and are also mixed with many veniall sinnes If they bee perfectly good how can they grow in goodnesse and if they increase in goodnesse how are they perfectly good seeing that onely is perfect to which nothing can be added If they say that this perfection is but begun and not finished why then also they should say that they are imperfectly perfect or else they pull downe with one hand that which they build with the other And againe if they most holy and iust men haue their works intermixed with many veniall sins for which they need to cry daily Forgiue vs our trespasses how can they either perfectly fulfill the law of God or doe such works as may bee able to abide the censure of Gods iustice seeing Saint Iames saith that he that transgresseth one Commandement is guiltie of the whole law because he violateth the body of iustice contained in the law as he which hurteth the little toe doth herein wrong the whole bodie It is a contradiction therefore to say that the works of the regenerate are perfect and yet are intermingled with many sinnes and it is all one as if a man should say that his face is perfectly cleane and yet hath many spots or that the bodie is perfectly in health and yet is pestred with many diseases 43. And thus much of good works Now besides these there are certaine works in their Religion which are more then good and more perfect then perfection these be their works of Supererogation arising from three grounds First when the Saints in this life do more good works then are necessarie for themselues to the attainment of saluation And secondly when they suffer more and greater punishments then are due vnto them for their sinnes And thirdly when they vndertake noâ— onely works commanded by the law of God but also such as are commended by the Euangelicall Councells as voluntary pouertie abstayning from marriage and regular obedience These superabounding actions and passions of Gods Saints are the works of supererogation spoken of and magnified so much in the Church of Rome which both are the Churches Treasure mingled with the superabounding merits of Christs passion and are layd vp in a Treasury the keyes whereof and dispensation is committed to the Pope of Rome that hee either by himselfe or his Factors may dispence them at his pleasure that is to them that will buy the same for money and also as they say are more excellent and perfect and meritorious of a greater reward This blasphemous doctrine might easily be wouÌ„ded to death by the Sword of the Spirit for it is contrary to all
in it selfe doth not deserue a iust reproofe 64. In the other place obiected hee writeth thus Qui seriò tanquam sub conspectu Dei c. i. They which shall earnestly as in the sight of God seeke the true rule of iustice shall finde for certainty all the words of men if they be censured by their owne dignity to be nothing but pollution and filthines and that which is commonly called righteousnesse to be before God meere iniquity that which is counted integrity to be impurity and that which is esteemed glory to be ignominie Let the Reader now iudge what notorious lyars these bee to fasten this opinion vpon Caluin whose wordes I haue sincerely and fully set downe that euery one may see their false dealing for in what one place nameth hee mortall sinne or what one word tendeth to that end The worse termes he◠giueth to good workes in the first place are these That they are sprinkled with imperfection mixed with the dregs of the slesh stained with corruption and in the second that they are filthines iniquity pollution and ignominy but how first if they bee examined by the strict rule of Gods iustice secondly if they bee compared to Gods righteousnesse and thirdly if they bee considered in their owne merite and worth without the merite of Christ whereby both their staines and imperfections are couered and an excellent dignity giuen vnto them 65. And indeed what I pray you doth Caluine say herein but that which the Fathers said before I will propound two or three vnto you in stead of al the rest Woe be to our righteousnesse sayth Saint Augustine if God remouing his mercy should search into it and againe All our righteousnes standeth rather in the remission of our sinnes then in any perfection of iustice Our best righteousnes sayth Saint Bernard if it be any is right perhaps but not pure vnlesse happily we thinke our selues better then our Fathers who no lesse truely then humbly said All our righteousnes is as a defiled cloth The holy man Iob sayth Saint Gregory because he saw all the merite of our vertue to be in vice if it be strictly iudged by the eternall Iudge did rightly adde in If I will contend with him I shall not be able to answere him one of a thousand Lastly all beauty sayth Arnobius in Gods presence is but deformity all righteousnes is but vnrighteousness all strength but weakenes all riches but beggery These Fathers with all the rest say no lesse then Caluine nor Caluine no more then they and therefore they must either bee condemned with him or bee iustified with them Now if any man should say that they affirmed that our best works were deadly sinnes all men would condemne him for a liar so may we iustly say of our malicious aduersaries in imputing that opinion to Caluine which hee neuer meant nor yet the words will beare and also which in all his writings hee directly crosseth 66. That which hath beene spoken concerning Caluine may bee applyed to the iustification of Luther and Melancthon who are so farre from esteeming good workes to bee mortall sinnes that they extoll them hyperbolically as hath beene already manifested Luther indeed sayth thus That a good worke done after the best manner that can be yet is a veniall sinne according to the mercy of God and a mortall sinne according to the iustice of God but what of this doth he therefore say that it is a mortall sinne simply as they would haue him no in no case for first hee calleth it a good worke which hee would neuer haue done if hee had iudged it no better then a sinne secondly hee sayth that it is mortall according to the iustice of God and veniall by the mercy of God which is the very same that all the Fathers affirmed before intending by mortall not that which is a high degree of sinne but that which in it owne nature deserueth death Thirdly Luther himselfe sheweth what his intendment is in the article going before where he sayth that not the good worke it selfe but the defect in the worke is truely sinne because it is an omission of that precept Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart By all which it is cleare that Luther doth not condemne a good worke but the euil in the worke and that though God doth in mercy pardon the euill for the goods sake being a fruit of faith so he might iustly condemne the good for the euill sake that cleaueth vnto it being a fruit of originall sinne so that Luther standeth cleare and innocent from this crime layd to his charge in all true iudgement and they stand guilty of a most foule slander imputed vnto him by their malice 67. Thirdly they slaunder vs that we slaunder God by making him the author of sinne This accusation Bellarmine Campion Stapleton Vasques Feuardentius and all the Iesuiticall rabble lay to our charge And they accuse Caluine Luther Peter Martir and all other Protestant-writers as guilty thereof but vpon what ground and with what shew of reason let them declare vnto vs for it passeth the reach of our capacities to finde out any such doctrine either direct in plaine words or indirect by logicall consequence in any of them direct doctrine I am sure Caluine thus writeth The cause of sinne is not to be sought out of mans will out of which the roote of euill ariseth and in the which sinne resideth And in his Comment vpon the Epistle of Saint Iames more plainely he affirmeth that God is not the author of sinne and that euils doe not proceed from any other roote but from the euill concupiscence of euery mans owne heart And this doctrine he iterateth againe and againe many score of times in his bookes Peter Martyr in like maner is most direct against this blasphemous doctrine for thus he saith That opinion of the Libertines which maketh God the author of sinne is a most detestable opinion then which nothing can be imagined more wicked nor a more compendious way to hell And in the same place he concludeth that though nothing in the world no not sinnes themselues come to passe besides Gods will and prouidence yet he is not truly to be called the cause of sinne but all that can be sayd is that he is such a cause which is tearmed by the Logicians the remoouing or hindering cause that is not efficient but deficient rather which in truth is no cause at all Luther is as direct for he auoucheth this proposition in many places God is not the author of sinne And this same is the constant affirmation of all our Diuines What a shamelesse forehead then haue our malicious aduersaries that dare lay vnto our charge this blasphemy which we all detest and abhorre 68. I but say they though in word you say so yet by consequence from your doctrine it may be necessarily gathered that you hold the contrary for you all teach that God concurreth with
dyed in Christs bloud and thence receiue all their vertue and rigor yet it is but a false pretence false because they acknowledge some merits before grace as those of congruitie and such as issue from grace yet in part to be of nature aswel as of grace as hath beene alreadie discouered and a pretence because if they receiue all their vertue from Gods grace and Christs bloud then they are not to be termed our merits but Gods neither can bee said to deserue any thing at Gods hand of a proper worthinesse as they teach they doe but of Gods grace and mere mercie which they disclaime a false pretence then is this and doth not free them from this danger of diminishing Gods glorie and this also is confessed by S. Augustine who sayth that we liue more sasely if we attribute all wholly to God and d ee not commit our selues partly to God and partly to our selues this the Romanists doe they diuide stakes betwixt God and man grace and nature Christ and Adam 7. Thirdly of making the best vncertaine of their saluation for as they teach no man can bee certaine of his owne righteousnesse nor of the goodnesse of his workes by reason of the manifold defects that cleaue vnto their best deeds and also in respect of the vnscrutable deceit of mans owne heart which is hidden not onely froÌ„ the eies of other men but euen from a mans owne selfe and is knowne onely vnto God as the Prophet Ieremie telleth vs and also in respect of the strict rule of Gods iustice whereby they must bee examined For which cause the holy man Iob sayth of himselfe according as it is in the vulgar Latine translation I was afraid of all my workes And Saint Augustine sayth and affirmeth the same That though Iob was a righteous man yet he himselfe was afraid of himselfe And Gregory speaketh to like effect when hee sayth That the holy man Iob because he saw all the merit of our vertue to be faultie if it be strictly iudged by him which iudgeth within sayth rightly If I will contend with him I shall not bee able to answere one for a thousand Now that which befell righteous Iob how can it but bee incident to all Gods children So that though they talke of meritorious workes in generall yet no man can be sure that his workes in particular are such and therefore no man be he neuer so iust can be sure of his saluation I speake not here of that certaintie which is by faith which they deny but that assurance which is by hope which they confesse for a man cannot possibly hope that he shall by saued by his workes when as he cannot possibly know whether his best workes are such as deserue the fauour or disfauour of God And if it is the propertie of all Gods children by the example of Iob to be afraid of their workes then how can they repose any hope and confidence in them now all this is so euident that Bellarmine himselfe is driuen after his long disputes and much adoe in strengthening their doctrine of inherent righteousnesse and merit of workes to confesse ingeniously like a good honest man being as it were sorrie for all that hee had said that because of the vncertaintie of their owne righteousnesse and the perill of vaine glorie the safest way is to repose our whole trust and confidence in the onely mercie and goodnesse of God But this wee teach men to doe that flying from all vaine confidence in their owne merits they may repose themselues onely on the mercy of GOD in Christ Iesus and therefore ours is the safest way 8. And if ours be the most safe then theirs is most dangerous which also S. Bernard in as plaine termes affirmeth when he sayth Periculosa habitatio illorum qui in meritis sperant perculosa quia ruinosa dangerous is the dwelling of those which trust in their owne merit it is dangerous because it is ruinous Now who that is wise will not chuse to walke in the safest way and refuse the dangerous or to dwell in a strong and safe house which will keepe out the wind and weather and not bee ouerblowne with any tempest rather then in a ruinous cottage which euery blast is able to ouerturne 9. The doctrine of Free will is of like nature for is it not dangerous thinke you to ascribe some power to mans own will for his conuersion as the Church of Rome doth when it teacheth that it is in mans free choice to accept â—rrâ—iect Gods grace offered vnto him and so eyther to be or not to be conuerted And is it not a safer course to ascribe all to grace and nothing at all to will and to say with our Sauiour Christ that without him we can doe nothing and with Saint Paul That wee haue no sufficiencie in our selues to thinke a good thought as of our selues And againe That it is God which worketh in vs both the will and the deed of his good pleasure In the one God hath all the glorie of the worke in the other man is equalled with God will with grace yea preferred before it for they not onely teach that grace and will are like two men carrying one stone neyther of them adding any strength vnto the other and both free when they will to cast off the burthen but also that Gods grace and working dependeth vpon mans will not mans will vpon Gods grace For thus they are not ashamed to say euen the best and most iudicious amongst them Licet in codem prorsus momento temporis naturae Deus volunt as operari incipiant tamen Deus operetur quia voluntas operatur non contra .i. Though the God of nature and freewill beginne to worke together at the same instant yet God worketh because the will worketh not the will because God Now is not this not onely to equall but also to subiect Gods grace to mans will and to make the creature more powerfull then the Creator For by this doctrine if a man himselfe bee willing and giue admittance to grace he may be saued but if God bee neuer so willing to saue vs if we our selues willnot entertaine his sauing grace all his labour is vaine and so mans will must needs be of greater power and efficacie then Gods grace which how dangerous yea impious a thing it is to affirme let all men iudge I am sure Saint Augustine was of another mind who sayth not as the Romanists that it is left to our free choice either to vse or to refuse the grace of Christ that standeth at the doore of our heart to bee let in or thrust out as we list but it is sayth he by grace not onely that we can doe what we will but that we are willing to doe what wee can and againe He worketh in vs
In the act of iustification wee say that workes haue no roome because both they are imperfect and also are not done by our own strength but being once iustified we must needs repent and become new creatures walking not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit And this is the doctrine of our Church concerning Iustification 16. Now let vs heare what they say and then weigh both doctrines in the ballance of the sanctuary that wee may see which of them bringeth most glory to the merits of CHRIST and to the power of his satisfaction I will plainely and sincerely God willing set downe the summe of their doctrine First therefore they teach that there is a double iustification the first whereby a man ex iniusto fit iustus of an vniust and wicked man is made iust and good and of a sinner is made righteous the second wherby a man being iust is made more iust and doth encrease in iustice and sanctity according to that Reuel 22. 11. He that is iust let him be more iust Concerning the first iustification some of them affirme that it is the free gift of God and deserued by no precedent workes others that it is merited by congruity but not by condignity but of the second they say that it is gotten and merited by our workes But before both these they make certaine preparations and dispositions whereby a man by the power of his owne free-will stirred vp by grace doth make himselfe fit for iustification namely by the acts of faith feare hope loue repentance and the purpose of a new life all which a man must haue before hee receiue the first grace of iustification and for the obtaining whereof he needs not any grace internally infused but onely offered externally Whereupon they are bold to affirme that the act of Iustification doth emane and proceed Simul ab arbitrio à Deo Both from free-will and from God Now the causes of iustification the Councill of Trent maketh to be these the finall cause Gods glory and mans saluation the efficient Gods mercy the meritorious cause Christs merits the instrumentall the Sacrament of Baptisme but the formall cause which is the chiefest and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dat esse rei giueth being to the thing as the Logicians speake they make to be an inherent righteousnes wrought in vs and inspired into vs by the Spirit of God And this in briefe is the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the iustification of a sinner 17. Wherein let vs obserue three maine and fundamentall differences betwixt their doctrine and ours in all which they raze the foundation and dedignifie the merits of Christ and the mercy of God to extoll the dignitie of man The first in their preparations wee hold that a man cannot any wayes dispose himselfe vnto grace but is wholly fitted and prepared by God and that those acts of preparation as they call them are not fore-runners of iustification but rather fruites and effects thereof they teach the contrary as I haue shewed The second difference is that the workes of a man iustified do not merit increase of grace which they terme the second iustification but as the beginning of grace is from gods mercy alone so the increase and augmentation thereof and perseuerance therein is onely to be ascribed to the worke of Gods spirit according to that of Saint Paul Phil. 1. 6. He that hath begunne this good worke in you will performe it vntill the day of Iesus Christ this we hold they the contrary The third difference is in the formall cause of our iustification which they maintaine to be an inherent righteousnes within vs euen the righteousnes of Sanctification We on the other side affirme that the formall cause of our iustification is the righteousnes of Christ Iesus not dwelling in vs nor proceeding from vs but imputed vnto vs by the mercy of God 18. Hauing thus layd open both our doctrines let vs examine and trye which of them giueth most glory vnto God and most exalts the merites of Christ for that must needs be the truth and which lifteth vp highest the proud nature of man for that must needs be falshood and errour especially seeing that Gods dignity and the dignity of man Christs merits and mans are as it were two skales of a ballance whâ—reof the one rising the other falls the one lifted vp the other is pressed downe First therefore touching the workes of preparation whether doe they more magnifie Gods mercie that say a man cannot prepare and dispose himselfe at all to grace but is wholly disposed and prepared by God or they that affirme that a man can prepare himselfe by his owne endeuour assisted outwardly with the grace of God the one makes Gods mercy the sole cause of iustification the other but the adiâ—vant and helping cause And whether doe they aduance most the dignity of man that say that a man can do nothing of himselfe for his owne iustification or they that say that a man can doe something to the preparation of himselfe to that great worke the one attributeth some dignity to man the other none at all we affirme the one part the Romanists the contrary and therefore our doctrine tends more to the debasing of mans worth and consequently to the exalting of Gods glory then theirs doth 19. True it is like Ferrimen that looke East and go West they with their great Grand-father Pelagius talke of grace when they meane nothing but nature and so deny indeede that which they affirme in word if the matter bee examined according to truth For Pelagius confessed a necessity of grace in all spirituall actions and yet was condemned for an enemy to grace by the Church of God because hee vnderstood not by grace the sanctifying worke of Gods spirit but an outward moouing and perswading power assisting mans free-will to the effecting of his owne saluation The very same is the doctrine of the Romanists as hath beene declared and therefore wee may iustly condemne them as enemies to the grace of God whatsoeuer they bragge and vaunt to the contrary 20. Secondly touching the second iustification which standeth as they say in the augmentation and encrease of our iustice let the most partiall Reader iudge whether tends most to the magnifying of Gods glory their doctrine which teacheth that wee merite the encrease of our iustice by our owne workes or ours which teacheth that both the seed and the growth both the roote and the fruite both the beginning and encrease of all righteousnesse is the worke of Gods spirit alone preuenting assisting and vpholding vs to the end and that these seuerall workes of grace are bestowed vpon vs not for any merites of our owne but simply and entirely for the merits of Christ Iesus I but they will say works doe not merit iustification because they are ours but because they are works of grace which grace floweth from the fountaine of
Christs merits and so they attribute asmuch or more to grace and Christs merites then wee doe To which I answere two things first if they held that these workes were merely from grace they said something to the purpose but affirming as they doe that they are partly from grace and partly from the power of free-will as two ioynt causes this their something is nothing but a vizard to couer the vgly face of their errour Secondly let this be granted that their doctrine is that they proceede onely from grace neuerthelesse being wrought in man and acted by man they must needes bee called and be indeede in part mans workes because man doth cooperate with grace and therefore to make them meritorious absolutely of grace must needes tend in part to the exalting of mans dignitie and consequently in part to the impeachment of Gods For let an answere bee giuen to this question by what meanes doth a man continue in iustice and encrease in holinesse Wee answere with Saint Paul By the grace of God onely who as hee hath begun that good worke in vs so will performe it vntill the day of Iesus Christ but the Romanists will answere that this is done by the merit of our owne workes which workes howsoeuer they may colour the matter by saying they are works of grace and receiue power froÌ„ Christs merits yet being the works of man also by the power of his free-will who seeth not but that Gods glory is greatly blemished hereby and mans worth extolled 21. Thirdly touching the forme of iustification which of vs doth most honour to God they which teach that it is an inherent righteousnesse habituated in vs or wee that say that it is Christs righteousnesse imputed vnto vs wee attribute all vnto Christ and nothing to our selues they share the matter betwixt Christ and our selues for this inherent righteousnesse though it proceede from Gods spirit as they say and is a worke of grace yet in three respects it may bee called our righteousnesse by their doctrine first in respect of the roote and spring of it which is as they affirme partly grace and partly nature Secondly in respect of the subiect which is the soule of man which may bee also called the instrument by which it is effected and that not a dead subiect or liuelesse instrument as we say mans nature is till it be liued and quickned by Gods spirit but of it selfe liuing and quicke and fit for so great a worke Thirdly In respect of the medium or meane by which it is attained which they hold is the merit of our owne workes as I haue sufficiently discouered out of their owne bookes Now then if this inherent righteousnesse bee in part our owne and not wholy Christs but the righteousnesse imputed be wholy and entirely Christs and not in any respect ours saue that it is giuen vnto vs and made ours by imputation who can doubt but that this our doctrine is farre more auaileable for the aduancement of Christs glory and debasing of mans excellencie then theirs is Adde herevnto that it must needes be a dishonour to God to say that an vnperfect a polluted and a stayned righteousnesse such as the best of ours is can satisfie the absolute and most exact iustice of God but it is an extolling glory to Gods iustice to say that it cannot be answered but by the most perfect and absolute righteousnesse that euer was in the world such as the righteousnesse of the Sonne of God is who taking our flesh vpon him performed in the same all righteousnesse that the strictest iustice of God required for our sakes 22. All which things layd together and diligently weighed we may see what caused all the Saints of God when they came to plâ—ad their causes before the tribunal of Gods iudgement to disclaime all their owne righteousnesse and to lay fast hold vpon the righteousnes of Christ the Mediatour and the mercies of God in him who is the fountaine of all mercy euen this because they perceiued that by this deiecting and despoyling of themselues of all worthinesse Gods glory was greatly magnified as also when they examined their best workes by the rule of the law their owne consciences told them that they were not able to abide the trial if they should bee weighed in the ballance of iustice and not of mercy Therefore this is the common voyce of all Gods Saints Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified to which in a sweet harmony accord all the Fathers Who will glory concerning his righteousnesse saith Origen seeing he heareth God saying by his Prophet All your righteousnesse is as a cloth of a menstruous woman our perfection it selfe is not voyd of fault saith Gregory vnlesse the seuere Iudge doe weigh it mercifully in the subtill scales of his iustice Who so liueth here howsoeuer iustly he liue yet woe vnto him saith S. Augustine if God enter into iudgement with him if our iustice be strictly iudged saith S. Bernard it will bee found vniust and scant And this infallible truth wrâ—ng out of Bellarmine himselfe though vnawares this plaine confession Tutissimum est in sola Dei misericordia conquiescere c. that is it is the safest course to repose our confidence what in our owne righteousnesse no in the sole mercy of God Is it the safest course for mans saluation so is it for the aduancement of Gods glory for the one is subordinate to the other who then that hath but common sense will not chuse rather to repose the hope of his saluation on Gods mercy then on his owne righteousnesse at least-wise if hee regard either Gods glory which all should and that aboue all or his owne soules health which should be next to the other in our desires 23. By this it may appeare what a vaine bragge that is of some of them who boast that they doe much more magnifie Christ and his merits then we doe because wee make them say they so meane as that they serue the turne onely to couer and hide sinne whereas they contrariwise do so highly esteeme them that they hold them able both to purchase at Gods hand an inherent righteousâ—esse and to giue it such force and value that it can make a man iust before God and worthy of the kingdome of heauen In which braue vaunt there lye lurking no lâ—sse then three grosse absurdities First they lay a false â—mputaâ—ion vpon our doctrine that wee should hold Christs merits to be so meane as to serue onely to couer and hide sinne whereas wee expresly teach and that with one consent that for the merits of Christ not onely our sinnes are pardoned but also that grace is inspired into our soules and sanctification and new obedience and Christ is made vnto vs of God wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption by which it appeareth that we ascribe euen as much in this
not iustify and yet faith alone doth iustify If they say that they speake of one kinde of faith and we of another they say nothing to the purpose for euen that any faith alone should iustify is contrary to their owne positions who affirme that the former cause of our iustification is the inherent righteousnes of works and not the righteousnes of Christ apprehended by faith And thus I leaue the Article of iustification at farre with it selfe to be atoned by their best wits if it be possible 37. Let vs come to their doctrine of workes and see how that agreeth with it selfe and here first they hold that works done before faith and regeneration are not good workes but sinnes This is proued by them out of Saint Augustine who affirmeth that the workes of vnbeleeuers are sinnes and if the workes of vnbeleeuers then of all other wicked men which bee not regenerate seeing as the same Father else-where speaketh Impij cogitant non credunt the wicked doe not beleeue but thinke they haue but a shadow of faith without substance It may be prooued also by that generall and infallible axiome of the holy Scripture Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne but the workes of wicked men are all voyd of faith and therefore are no better then sinnes in the sight of God be they neuer so glorious and beautifull in the eyes of men Or as Gregorie Nazianzene saith As faith without workes is dead so workes without faith are dead and dead workes are sinnes as appeares Heb. 9. 41. Besides Bellarmine confirmeth the same by reason because they want a good intention to direct their workes to the glory of the true God whome they are ignorant of To which I adde another reason drawne from our Sauiours owne mouth Mat. 7. Because an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruit but euery man til he be ingrafted into Christ is no better then an euill tree and therefore cannot doe a good worke 38. This is their doctrine and it is sound diuinitie but see how they crosse it ouer the face with a contrary falshood for the same men that teach this notwithstanding affirme that the workes of Infidels are good suo genere in their kind so they are good and not good sinnes and yet good works but this is in their kind say they that is Morally and not Theologically I but morall vertues in the vnregenerate are by their owne principles sinnes how then can they be good any waies Can sinne which is a transgression of Gods law and simply in it owne nature euill be in any respect good as it is sinne But to take cleare away this scruple another of them auoucheth that they are not onely morally but euen Theologically good for he saith that such works as are done by the light of nature onely without grace doe dispose and make a man in some sort fit to iustification though it be longè valdèremotè remotely and a farre off for he that yeeldeth obedience to morall lawes is thereby lesse vndisposed and repugnant to diuine grace Now how can sinnes dispose or prepare a man for iustification is God delighted with sinnes Either therefore they are not sinnes or they doe not dispose to iustification neither farre nor neere or which is the present contradiction they are sinnes and not sinnes good and not good at one time and in one and the same respect And to put the contradiction out of all question the Councill of Trent in the seuenth Canon of the sixt Session enacteth as much and denounceth Anathema to all that say the contrarie the words are these If any man shall say that all the works which are done before iustification by what meanes soeuer they are done are truely sinnes or deserue the hatred of God let him be Anathema And Andradius the interpretor of that Councill authorised by the Fathers of the same doth more perspicuously explaine the meaning of that Canon when hee saith that men without faith destitute of the spirit of regeneration may doe workes which are voyde of all filthinesse free from all fault and defiled with no sinne and by which they may obtaine saluation then which what can be more contradictory to that which before was deliuered that all the workes of Infidels and vnbeleeuers are sinnes be they neuer so glistering with morall vertue or more agreeable to the olde condemned errors of Iustine Clemens and Epiphanius who affirmed that Socrates and Her aclitus were Christians because they liued according to the rule of reason and that the Grecians were iustified by Philosophie and that many were saued onely by the law of nature without the lawe of Moses or Gospell of Christ 39. Againe their doctrine of doubel merit the one of Congruity the other of Condignity as they terme them is not onely contrary to the truth but to it selfe For this they teach that the merit of congruity which the Councill of Trent calleth the preparations and dispositions to iustification is grounded vpon the dignity of the worke and not vpon the promise of God but the merit of condignity requireth both a dignity of the worke and the promise of God to bee grounded vpon or else it is no merit This is Bellarmines plaine doctrine and is consonant to the residue of their Doctours both Schoole diuines and others for thus they define the merit of congruity It is that by which the subiect is disposed that it may receiue grace according to the reason of Gods iustice Here is onely iustice required and not any promise to the merit of congruity though I must confesse Gabriel Biel somewhat crosseth this definition when â—e saith that when a man doth what in him lyeth then God accepteth his worke and powreth in grace not by the due of Iustice but of his liberalitie And Aquinas who affirmeth that when a man vseth well the power of free-will God worketh in him according to the excellencie of his mercy But yet they all agree in this that the merit of congruity is not grounded vpon any promise as the merit of condignity is but onely vpon the worthinâ—s of the worke done Now here lurketh a flat contradiction for by this it should follow that the merit of congruity should bee more properly a merit then that of condignity Which Bellarmine denyeth in the same Chapter because this dependeth vpon it owne dignity and hath no neede of a promise as the other hath and so should bee also more meritorious and excellent then the other being neuerthelesse but a preparation and beginning to iustification and the other the matter of iustification it selfe And that a man that hath no grace dwelling in him but onely outwardly mouing him nor is yet iustified should haue more power to deserue and merite then he that is fulfilled with grace and fully iustified Thus error like a Strumpet bringeth foorth a monstrous brood of absurdities but let vs proceede 40. Their
to the ground And this indeed is the very ground of this blasphemous doctrine 66. Doctour Bishop misliking this distinction as it seemeth flyeth to another In sinne sayth hee there are two things the one is the turning away from God whom wee offend The other is the turning to the thing for the loue of which wee offend Now the turning away from GOD both the sinne and the eternall paine due vnto it are freely through Christ pardoned but for the pleasure we tooke in sinne wee our selues are to satisfie and according to the greatnesse thereof to doe penance Thus dreameth Doctor Bishop but let his owne fellow Doctor waken him and he of greater credit then himselfe Aquinas it is who reiecteth this distinction as nothing worth and giueth this reason of his reiecting because satisfaction answereth not to sinne but according as it is an offence to God which it hath not of conuerting to other things but of auerting and turning from God And surely his reason is passing good for to vâ—â— the Creatures and to loue the Creatures is not sinne but to vse them disorderly and to loue them immoderately which disordered vse immoderate loue is the very turning and auersion from God and therefore to say that wee satisfy not for our auersion from God but for our conuersion to the creatures is to say either that wee satisfy for that which is no sinne or els that some part of sinne is not an auersion from God both which are equally absurd and Doctor Bishop cannot giue a third and therefore his distinction is a meere foppish dreame without head or foote 67. The Gospell teacheth that there is giuen no other name vnder Heauen whereby wee must bee saued but the name Iesus But the Church of Rome propoundeth vnto vs other names to bee saued by as the Virgin Mary the Saints and Martyrs yea Francis and Dominick c. For they make them Mediatours of intercession to God for vs which office belongeth only vnto Christ as hath been shewed and they teach that we are saued by their merits aswell as by the merits of Christ and that as there are diuers mansions in Heauen so among the Saints there are diuers offices some haue power ouer one thing some ouer another as Saint Peter against infidelity Saint Agnes for Chastity Saint Leonard for Horses Saint Nicholas against ship-wracke Saint Iames for Spaine Saint Denis for France Saint Marke for Venice c. Yea they would make men beleeue if a man being otherwise a vyler sinner dye in the habit of Saint Francis or Saint Dominick c. must needes goe straight to heauen without any more adoe and that as it may seeme though he hath neyther faith nor repentance 68. Lastly they are not ashamed to say that the death and passion of Christ and of the holy Virgine together was for the redemption of mankinde and as Adam and Eue sold the world for one Apple so Mary and her Sonne redeemed the world with one heart and therefore as they called him Sauiour so her Sauiouresse as him Mediator so her Mediatresse as him the King of the Church so her the Queene If this be not to repose the confidence of our saluation vpon other names besides the Name of Iesus let the world be iudge 69. Yet for all this they thinke to couer this their filthinesse by a distinction for they say that they doe not flye to the Saints as authors and giuers of good things but as Impetrators and Intercessors To which I answere that to omit their doctrine which hath at large beene discouered before the very forme of their prayers doth extinguish this distinction for when they cry and say O Saint Peter haue mercy on me Saue mee Open mee the gate of heauen Giue mee patience Giue mee fortitude c. And to the blessed Virgine O Mediatrix of God and men ô Fountaine of mercy Mother of grace Hope of the desolate Comforter of the desperate c. receiue this my humble petition and giue me life euerlasting And to Saint Paul Vouchsafe to bring vs whom thou hast caused to know the light of truth after the end of this mortality thither where thou thy selfe art Doe they not make them authors and giuers of these things Yes in word saith Bellarmine but not in sense for the meaning of these petitions is that by their prayers and merites they would obtaine of God these good things But alas how should the common people vnderstand their meaning seeing the sound of their words are so playne to the contrary Againe why doe they not propound their sense in playner termes but leaue it thus inuolued vnder darke riddles to the great offence of thousands And lastly how harsh an interpretation must this needs be in the eares of all men Giue me euerlasting life that is Pray to God that he would giue mee it If a man should speake so in his common talke no man would vnderstand him otherwise then his words sound how much lesse can these spirituall matters be otherwise vnderstood then they are spoken Surely this shift is so filly that if it might stand good what might not a man speake and yet excuse it sufficiently after this manner And though the Councill of Trent seeme to graunt to the Saints the power onely of intercession as Bellarmine also doth yet the Romane Catechisme set foorth by the commandement of the Pope and decree of the same Councill doth cleerely and expressely attribute vnto the Saints the power of Mercy Grace and Donation of benefits Whereby it appeareth that this is not the opinion of some priuate men but the receiued and approoued doctrine of the Church And thus this distinction vanisheth before the truth as snow against the Sunne 70. The Gospell teacheth that euery soule bee subiect to the higher powers and that we submit our selues vnto all maner of ordinance for the Lords sake whether vnto King or vnto Gouernours c. And our Sauiour himselfe confesseth that Pilate had power euer him from God when he faith Thou couldest haue no power at all against me except it were giuen thee from aboue But the Church of Rome teacheth that neyther the Pope himselfe nor any of his Clergie are subiect to the temporall power of Princes eyther to be iudged of them or punished by them no not in cases of fact when they are guilty of haynous crimes as of Treason Murther Theft c. 71. This doctrine though it bee contradicted by many learned Doctors of their owne side as Occham Marsilius Pataninus Barclay a late French Lawyer and others yet is maintayned by their Popes and Cardinalls Iesuites and Canon Lawes which are the very synewes of Popery as not onely true but necessary to saluation and therefore we may well call it The doctrine of their Church For Popes Iohn the two and twentieth commaunded Augustinus Triumphus of Ancona to write a Booke wherein he maintaineth this position
as it appeareth Acts 16. but rather is to bee thought to bee the extraordinary gift of the holy Ghost as Saint Paul plainly insinuateth 2. Tim. 1. And secondly though it should bee sauing grace yet it is not promised to all others though it were then giuen to Timotheus neither were all that receiued holy orders partakers thereof for then Nicholas the Deacon should haue beene sanctified being an hypocrite Who seeth no◠then now weakely hee hath prooued this to bee a Sacrament out of holy Scriptures and this may seeme for a taste of the rest of his proofes which are most of them of the like nature 70. Againe the doctrine of Indulgences to wit that the Pope hath power out of the Churches treasury to grant relaxation from temporall punishment either heere or in Purgatory is so new an article that diuers of their own Doctors doe confesse that there is not any one testimony for proofe thereof either in Scriptures or in the writings of ancient Fathers but that the first that put them in practice in that manner as they are now vsed was Pope Boniface the eight anno 1300. neither could they bee any older then Purgatory being extracted from the flames thereof which hath beene already prooued to bee a meere nouell inuention so that the child cannot be old when as the Father is not gray-headed and that the matter may bee without contradiction reade Burchardus who liued about the yeare of our Lord 1020. And Gratian and Peter Lumbard that came after who all speake of satisfaction and penance and commutation and relaxation of penance but yet haue not a word of these Romish Indulgences whereas if they had beene then extant they would neuer haue passed them ouer in silence especially in the discoursing vpon these points whereupon they haue their necessary dependance 71. Last of all their doctrine touching merite of workes may bee branded with the same marke For first though the word merite bee often vsed by the Fathers yet ordinarily it is not taken in that sense which the Romanists vse it in as witnesse both Bellarmine and Viega and Stapleton and if they did not yet manifold examples out of their owne writings would prooue to be true Secondly the full streame of their doctrine doth make against the proud conceit of merite for they ascribe all to Gods mercy and Christs merits esteeming their owne best workings and sufferings vnworthy of the euerlasting and celestiall reward they neuer dreamt of that ambitious doctrine taught in the Church of Rome that our good workes are absolutely good and truely and properly meritorious and fully worthy of eternall life Let their books be viewed and nothing can bee more apparantly cleare then this is Thirdly the termes of congruity and condignity were deuised but of late dayes by the subtill Schoolemen who notwithstanding could not agree among themselues touching the true definition distinctiō of their own books by which it appeareth that it was not then any Catholike or vniuersall truth Lastly their owne Doctours terme the merite of congruity a new inuention and that other of condignity no Catholike nor ancient doctrine and the whole doctrine of meriting to haue beene first made an article of faith by the Councill of Trent all which laide together prooue it most clearely to bee of no great standing nor they of any vnderstanding that were the first forgers and deuisers thereof 72. Thus wee haue sixteene points wherein the new Romish Religion hath degenerated from all pure antiquity to which many more might bee added but these are sufficient to euince our conclusion which is this that seeing the Romish Church hath neither in matter nor forme substance nor accidents any sure ground either from Scripture or the doctrine of the Primitiue Church but is vtterly vnlike to it in many substantiall respects therefore it cannot bee the true Church of God but an harlot in her stead and their Religion not of God but of men and consequently that wee in declining from them and conforming our selues both in doctrine and manners to the Primitiue patterne are not fallen from the Church but to the Church and that theirs is the new Religion and not ours And thus wee see what all their bragges and clamours touching the antiquity of their Religion and the nouelty of ours come vnto seeing there is no one thing more pregnant to prooue the falshood of their Religion and the Apostacy and Antichristianity of their Church then this is And to conclude as wee would thinke him not well in his wits that hauing beene long sicke and after regained health should say that sicknes was more ancient then health whereas he should rather say that hee had recouered his old health that his new Inmate sicknesse was dispossessed of his lodging though it had kept it long so in all reason it is madnesse to thinke the reformation of the Church and reducing of Christian Religion to the ancient health to bee more nouell and new then the horrible sicknesse and apostacy wherewith it was long not onely infected but almost ouer-whelmed And this is iust our case with the Church of Rome but I leaue them to bee healed by the heauenly Phisitian himselfe Iesus Christ our Sauiour whose wholesome Physicke must cure them or nothing will MOTIVE XII ¶ That Church which maintaineth it selfe and the Religion professed by it and seeketh to disaduantage the aduersaries by vnlawfull vniust and vngodly meanes cannot bee the true Church of God nor that Religion the truth of God by the grounds whereof they are warranted to act such deuilish practices but such is the practice of the Romist Church and therfore neither their Church nor their Religion can be of God IT is a wonder to see what deuises sleights impostures and deuilish practices the Romanists haue and now at this day doe more then euer vse to vphold their rotten Religion to ensnare mens minds with the forlorne superstitiō their kingdome being ready to fall they care not with what props they vnder-shore it and the truth preuailing against them they care not with what engines though fetched from hell it selfe they vndermine it so that they may any wayes batter the walles or shake the foundation thereof My purpose is in this Chapter to discouer some of the Sathanicall practices of these subtle Enginers I meane the Iesuites and Priests and other rabble of Romish proctors It is not possible to reckon them vp all being so many and various such therefore God willing shall be heere discouered as are for villany most notorious for impudency most shamelesse and for certainty most perspicuous and by them let the Christian Reader that loueth the truth iudge of their Religion and Church what it is 2. The first proposition of this argument is grounded vpon three principles one of nature another of reason the third of Scripture nature teacheth that contraries are cured that is expelled by contraries as hot diseases by cold
but incourage men to deferre their repentance conuersion seeing it is in their power to accept it when they list 94. Secondly how can the doctrine of iustification by faith alone tend to loosenesse seeing we teach that faith is neuer seuered from good workes nor iustification from sanctification nor a right beliefe from an vpright life as hath beene shewed and that they which seuer and part those things which God hath coupled together seuer themselues from the mercie of God and merit of Iesus Christ With what brow of brasse then can they call this a solifidian portion and a doctrine of libertie I but manie take libertie hereby to lead a loose and wicked life building vpon this ground that they are iustified by faith alone and so they neglect all good workes True indeed many such there are but is it from our doctrine is it not rather from their mistaking of it So the Capernaites tooke offence at our Sauiour Christs heauenly doctrine Ioh. 6. touching the spirituall eating of his flesh and drinking his bloud insomuch that many of them departed from him was his doctrine therefore erronious or were not they rather ignorant in misconstruing impious in peruerting the same So is it with this mysterie of iustification which is the verie doctrine of Iesus Christ if any by mistaking it or by taking vp one piece of it and leauing another doe animate themselues vnto sinne is the doctrine to be blamed and not they rather that distort it to their owne shame and confusion In a word if this were a iust exception against this doctrine then no doctrine either of their or ours or the Gospell it selfe might bee freed from this challenge For as there is no herbe so sweet and wholsome but the Spider may sucke poyson out of it aswell as the Bee hony so there is no truth so sacred and holy but an vngodly minde may peruert and make it an occasion of his impietie Thus the grace of God is turned into wantonnesse by many as Saint Iude saith the word of God is the sauour of death vnto death Yea Christ Iesus our blessed Lord and Sauiour is a falling and a stone to stumble at and a rocke of offence so the doctrine of Iustification by faith alone may be an occasion of libertie and no otherwise that is not properly or by any effect issuing from itselfe but accidentally and by the malignitie of the obiect whereupon it worketh 95. Thirdly our doctrine of perseuerance though rayling Wright sayth of it that Epicurus himselfe could not haue found a better ground to plant his Epicurisme nor Heliogabalus haue better patronized his sensualitie nor Bacchus and Venus haue forged better reasons to inlarge their dominion yet to any single eye for his eyes are double-sighted with malice as Witches eyes are said to be it is rather a strong bridle to restraine from sensuality and Epicurisme and a bond to bind to obedience then a provocation vnto sinne for when men are perswaded that sincere faith true charitie and sauing grace cannot be lost it will cause them to take heed how they fall away lest they proue themselues to haue beene hypocrites before and their faith and charitie not to haue beene true but fained for he that falleth from God whom he pretend d to serue to the Deuil by an actual Apostasie into sinne plainly proueth that hee had neuer the seed of the spirit sowne in him nor the habit of charitie in his soule this is then a bridle to withhold men from sinne and not a spurre to pricke them forward vnto it And therefore whereas they say that men will thus reason If I be the child oâ— God I cannot fall away therefore I will doe what I list The contrarie is rather true that euery child of GOD yea euery one that is perswaded that hee is the childe of GOD will reason thus from the grounds of this doctrine I will not doe what I list neither will I giue my selfe ouer vnto sinne lest I proue my selfe by my falling into sinne not to be the child of God but an hypocrite Adde hereunto that as we teach that true faith and charitie cannot bee vtterly extinct in the elect So also we teach that this faith and charitie must bee nourished and preserued by the practice of all holy Christian duties and therefore they which neglect the conseruation of their faith and charitie and seek to extinguish them by the lusts of the flesh it is a signe that they neuer had these graces in grafted in their soules And what perswasion can be more effectual I pray you to stirre vp men vnto godlinesse then this is 96. So we may truly answere concerning the fourth doctrine obiected namely the impossibilitie of keeping Gods Commandements which though it be true in some part albeit not as they slanderously impute vnto vs. For wee hold that the regenerate person is able in some measure to keepe Gods Commandements though not to that perfection which the Law requireth exacting of euery one of vs the loue of God with all our heart soule and strength yet this openeth not but rather stoppeth the gap vnto fleshly libertie For is any man so madde as to say I will giue ouer all care of keeping Gods Law because I am not able fully and exactly to performe it rather euery one that hath but a reasonable soule will thus determine Because I am not able to performe perfect obedience to God therefore I will indeuour to doe what I can that my imperfections and wants may bee made vp by the perfect obedience of my Sauiour All men will account him a wilfull wicked wretch who being greatly indebted because he is not able to discharge the whole summe therfore will take no care to pay any part thereof which he is able to doe but lay all vpon his sureties backe so we condemne him for a desperate and damnable person that because he is not able to satisfie the whole debt of Gods Commandements therefore will not indeuour to pay as much as he can besides we teach withall that though this perfection be not attained vnto in this life yet there must be a continuall growth and increase in grace and goodnesse in all that belong to God that at length after this life ended they may doff off the olde man with the inabilities and corruptions thereof and attaine to the highest degree of perfection in the life to come the fruit of this doctrine then is not sensuall libertie but Christian humilitie not a prouocation to sinne but an incentiue and spurre vnto godlinesse 97. Thus I haue propounded vnto the view of the Christian Reader a short Epitome of the great volume of their slanders darted forth by them both against our persons our gouernment and our Religion it selfe all which indeed is but a taste and say of that which might be spoken in this subiect and which requireth an entire worke for the discouering of ther
righteousnesse So that wee exclude not from this faith repentance amendment of life new obedience c. Lastly by Ferus Stapulensis Peraldus and diuers others yea almost all of them when at the point of death they come to the point of try all flye to this sacred anchor of Christs righteousnesse alone renouncing all righteousnesse in themselues as the famous example of Stephen Gardiner declareth who lying on his death-bed reposed himselfe on the righteousnesse of Christ only for his saluation and being told that it was contrarie to his former resolution answered that though it was the truth yet that gappe was not to bee opened to the people 48. The Protestants hold that our best workes are stayned with so many imperfections that they cannot merit any thing at Gods hand except it be hell fire and damnation and that though God of his mercie reward good workes with eternall life yet it is not for any condignity that is in them but for Christs sake into whom the partie working is ingrafted and made a member Many learned Romanists are of the same opinion Bellarmine sayth that in regard of the vncertaintie of our owne righteousnesse and danger of vaine glorie the safest way is to put our confidence in the sole mercie and goodnesse of God Waldensis writeth Hee is a sounder Diuine a faithfuller Catholicke and more agreeing to the Scriptures that simply denieth merits and sayth that the Kingdome of Heauen is from the mere grace and will of the giuer not from any desert of the Receiuer Of the same opinion was Albertus Pighius as witnesseth Bellarmine Ferus sayth Whatsoeuer God giueth vs is of grace not of debt If therefore thou desire to hold the grace and fauour of God make no mention of thy merits The same hold Gregorius Ariminensis Durandus Stella with many more renouncing all the new Rhemish doctrine of merits of condignitie taught by the Schoole fourbished ouer by the Councell of Trent and refining Iesuites All these being sworne subiects to the Church of Rome yet being constrained by the conscience of the truth doe as fully and perfectly maintaine our doctrine as if they were the rankest Protestants in the World 49. Protestants denie all free will to grace before it bee quickned and liued by Gods Spirit Many learned Romanists teach the same doctrine Laurentius Valla as Bellarmine reports wished that the name of free-will were vtterly taken away The Master of Sentences auouched that free-will before grace repaire it is pressed ouercome with cōcupiscence hath weaknesse in euill but no grace in good and therefore cannot but sinne damnably Dom. Bannes affirmeth that it is false and worse then false that any man without the speciall and supernaturall helpe of God can be able to doe a supernaturall act Ariminensis calleth the Romish doctrine of free-wil Pelagianisme The Iesuite Suarez sayth that diuers Romanists say that it is a rash and hereticall opinion to affirme that when grace is equally offered to two that one of them could be conuerted and not the other What could any Protestant say more 50. Transubstantiation circumgestation and subtraction of the Cuppe are denyed by many of their owne side as well as by vs. Durand sayth It is great rashnesse to thinke the bodie of Christ by his diuine power cannot bee in the Sacrament vnlesse the bread be conuerted into it and therefore that he holdeth the contrarie onely for the Churches determination So also sayth Scotus There is no Scripture to enforce Transubstantiation except ye bring the Church of Romes exposition Occham sayth that that opinion that the substance of the bread remaineth is subiect to lesse inconueniences and lesse repugnant to reason and holy Scripture The custome of circumgestation of the hoast sayth Cassander may be left with greater profit to the Church if it bee wisely laid downe both because it is but a new inuention as also because it seruethrather for pompous ostentation then for any godly deuotion and so as Albertus Crantzius sayth is contrary to Christs institution Pope Gelasius witnesse Gregorie of Valintia said that the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist doe not lose their nature Touching abstraction of the Cuppe their learned Cassander acknowledgeth that for the space of a thousand yeeres after Christ the people communicated in both kindes and that in Greece and Armenia they doe still and the best Catholickes earnestly desire a reformation of this matter in the Church of Rome And Durand their Schooleman that the receiuing in one kind onely is not a full sacrament all receiuing for though that in the consecrated hoast Christs bloud bee contained yet it is not there sacramentally in that the bread signifieth the bodie and not the bloud and the wine the bloud and not the bodie Of the same mind were Alexander Alensis Albertus magnus Biel with others more this last affirming that in the Apostles times all did receiue the wine aswell as the bread because God is no respecter of persons The second that it is of greater vse and profit to the faithfull and the first that it is a matter of greater merit Thus all these Schoolemen doe protestantize in this point 51. Auricular confession is denied by Protestants to be necessarie for the remission of sinnes and to bee commanded by God The same is auerred by Panormitane Peresius Bonauenture Medina Rhenanus Erasmus Caietane c. all of them concluding with one voyce that it is a doctrine deriued onely from a positiue Law of the Church and not from the Law of God yea and the last that is named to wit Cardinall Caietane is bold to say that it is so farre from being commanded that euery one should be shriuen before hee come to the Communion that the contrarie is insinuated by the Apostle where hee sayth Let a mantry himselfe And Gratian confesseth that Ambrose Augustine Chrysostome Theophilact and other Greeke Fathers thought that secret confession was not necessarie And lastly Acosta a famous Iesuite auoucheth that it would be well for the Indians if the bond of confession might bee taken away lest they should bee constrained to commit so many and so grieuous sacriledges 52. So the Romish doctrine of satisfactions is vtterly condemned by Protestants and not onely by them but by many of their owne learned Doctours for the Diuines of Louaine as Bellarmine witnesseth of them and others did certainly defend that the sufferings of Saints cannot bee true satisfactions but that our punishments are remitted onely by the personall satisfaction of Christ And Panormitane sayth that a man may be inwardly so penitent and contrite that he shall need no satisfaction at all but may bee absolued presently without any penance doing And another that the treasure of Indulgences doth consist onely of the merits of Christ and not of the satisfactions of Saints because the merits of Christ are of infinite valew 53.
against their Emperours and that this was not for want of strength as Bellarmine would haue it he sayth that euen then they did not attempt any such thing when in number and strength they might make their party good but in this extolled their Religion aboue all other by defending this most holy doctrine That all men ought to obey the Magistrates The notable and learned Treatises of Barclay a French man Blackwell Warberton c. our Countrey-men all profest Romanists doe peremptorily and plainely by many reasons confute the same Touching his spirituall iurisdiction though there bee fewe of them that gain-say that yet Gregory the great one of their owne Popes may stand in stead of many who by many letters both to the Emperour and Bishop of Constantinople sheweth that no man ought to be an vniuersall Bishop ouer therest calling that name in detestation vaine proud prophane blasphemous mischieuous Antichristian against the commandements of God and decrees of Councils and peremptorily sayth that he is a follower of Sathan and a fore-runner of Antichrist that assumeth it to himselfe 59. And that the Pope is not the supreme Iudge in the Church nor of infallible iudgement but the Scripture only many of them are of opinion aswell as we Aquinas saith that the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles is the rule of our vnderstanding Antoninus saith that God hath spoken but once and that in the holy Scripture and that so plentifully to meet with all temptations and all cases that may fall out Gerson saith that the Scripture is the rule of our faith which being well vnderstood no authority of men is to be admitted against it Gonradus Clingius saith that the Scripture is the infallible rule of truth yea the measure and Iudge of the truth Peresius saith that the authority of no Saint is of infallible truth for that honour is due only to the Scripture Yea Bellarmine their Ring-leader confesseth the Scripture to be the most certaine and most safe rule of faith Franciscus Victoria saith that the Pope in dispensing against the Decrees Councels and former Popes may erre and grieuously sinne Alphonsus de Castro diueth deeper and saith that euery man yea the Pope and that as he is Pope and Pastor of the Church may be deceiued Bozius pierceth yet deeper and saith that the Pope may be an Heretike yea write teach and preach heresie And lastly Almayne saith that the power of not erring in the faith is not alway in the Pope Are not all these now Protestants in this point But for fuller satisfaction in this point I referre the Reader to the reuerent and iudicious Deane of Winchester Doctor Morton with others who haue largely and learnedly discouered this matter in their writings 60. The like might bee shewne in all other points these few instances therefore shall suffice for this time to perswade that it is farre more safe to subscribe to the Religion of Protestants then of Romanists seeing we hold nothing which many of their owne ranke and order doe not maintayne aswell as we and what I pray you could mooue them thus to doe being sworne subiects to the Church of Rome but the euidence of truth which shined so cleerely to their consciences that they neither could nor durst gaine-say the same Conclusion NOw then gentle Reader these things being thus cleerly proued viz First that the Religion of the Church of Rome giueth open libertie to sinne Secondly that it maintayneth by the grounds therof things forbidden by all lawes Diuine Naturall and Humane Thirdly that it imitateth the Iewes in those things wherein they are enemies to Christ Fourthly that it derogateth from the glorie of Gods mercy and efficacy of the merits of Christ in the worke of our redemption Fiftly that it refuseth to bee tryed by the Scriptures and will be iudged and tryed by none but it selfe Sixtly that it is at defiance and profest enmitie with the sacred Scriptures Seuenthly that it maintayneth grosse and palpable Idolatrie Eightly that it is contrary to it selfe by manifest contradictions Ninthly that it is apparently opposite to the Gospell of Iesus Christ Tenthly that it nourisheth grosse and barbarous ignorance amongst the people Eleuenthly that it was neuer knowne nor heard of in the Apostles time nor in the primitiue Church Twelfthly that it vpholdeth it selfe by vnlawfull vniust and vngodly meanes and lastly that it is dangerous and vnsafe both in respect of Gods glorie mans conscience and Christian charitie I say all these things being thus cleerely demonstrated what remayneth but that wee abhorre the same as the Religion of the great Whore and her Paramour Antichrist who with their cup of fornications and vaine pretext of Peters authoritie haue besotted heretofore all Nations of the earth and cleaue to the sinceritie of the Gospell taught and professed in the Church of Protestants which is free from all these imputations for it neither giueth libertie to sinne nor maintayneth any thing that is vnlawfull nor imitateth the Iewes ascribeth all the worke of our redemption to Gods mercy and Christs merits onely desireth to bee tryed and examined by the Scriptures reuerenceth the fulnesse and perfection thereof abhorreth all shew of Idolatrie is not at enmity and opposition but keepeth a sweet harmony with it selfe doth not crosse the Gospell not so much as in shew condemneth and laboureth against ignorance is agreeable to the doctrine of the Apostles and primitiue Church maintayneth it selfe by no vnlawfull meanes and lastly hath great safetie and securitie in the profession thereof Good Christians must bee like good Gold-smiths who will not take a piece of gold of any mans word but will trie it by the touch-stone and weigh it in the ballance The Truth is like gold it behoueth all therefore to trie it and weigh it before they entertayne it into their soules lest they receiue in stead of pure mettall that which is counterfeit and light trie therefore these two Religions which of them hath the truth and without partialitie or affection retayne the good and reiect the counterfeit remember that the truth of Christians as Saint Augustine saith is more beautifull incomparably then Helene of the Grecians and that it alone as Saint Ambrose saith freeth alone saueth alone washeth and therefore though it be hid in a deepe pit as the Philosopher said yet it is diligently to be digged for of all them that desire the saluation of their soules In a word let not the darke mists of error and superstition blinde thine eyes but open them wide to the beholding of the bright light of truth that shineth round about thee and know that if the Gospell be hid it is hid to them that perish in whom the god of this world hath dazeled their mindes that they should not see the light of the glorious Gospell of Iesus Christ I desire no more credit at thy hands then the euidence of these reasons produced do require and therefore if they be true then