the Lord Jesus The ancient Fathers also give testimony to this truth Hilarie hath these very words Fides sola iustificat i. e. Faith alone doth iustifie Austine in effect sayes the same when hee saith Our righteousnesse in this life is so great that it consists rather in forgivenesse of sinnes then in perfection of vertues And so when hee saith Woe even to the landable life of men if thou O Lord laying aside mercy shall enter into the examination of it To this purpose also is that which hee saith upon those words of David Enter not into judgement with thy servant O Lord c. How right soever saith hee I thinke my selfe thou bringest forth a rule out of thy treasure and triest me by it and I am found crooked Thus also Bernard Lord saith he I will make mention of thy righteousnesse onely for it also is mine seeing that thou of God art made unto me righteousnesse Must I feare lest this one righteousnesse will not suffice us both No it is not a short cloake that cannot cover two And againe It is sufficient for mee unto all righteousnesse to have him onely propitious against whom onely I have sinned Not to sinne is Gods righteousnesse mans righteousnesse is Gods indulgence Thus then in the point of justification wee have both Scriptures and Fathers yea and divers Papists also concurring with us As for the two places of Scripture alledged by the Marquesse the former viz. that 1 Corin. 13. 2. speaketh not of justifying Faith but of a Faith of working miracles as is cleare by the words themselves being fully cited which run thus Though I have all faith so that I could remove mountaines and have not charity I am nothing Oecumenius upon the place notes that by Faith there is not meant that Faith which is common to all Believers but a Faith peculiar to such as had the gift of working miracles And though Estius a learned Romanist in his Commentary upon the place seeke to draw it another way yet commenting upon 1 Cor. 12. 9. hee saith that the Greeke Expositors doe rightly understand it of that Faith which is spoken of Chap. 13. If I have all Faith c. that is of the Faith of signes and miracles as they call it which Faith hee saith is not properly a sanctifying grace but onely such a grace as is given for the benefit of others The other place viz. Jam. 2. 24. doth seeme to make against us but indeed it doth not For S. Iames saying that a man is justified by Workes and not by Faith onely meanes onely thus as Cajetan himselfe doth expound it that we are not justified by a barren Faith but by a Faith which is fruitfull in good Workes This appeares to be his meaning by his whole discourse from vers 14. to the end of the Chapter wherein hee bends himselfe against those who presume of such a faith as is without workes and more specially it may appeare by the verses immediately preceding wherein hee saith that Abraham was justified by workes when hee offered up Isaac and that Faith wrought with his workes and by workes was Faith made perfect and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousnesse Now this clearly shewes that Abraham was justified by Faith and not by workes onely his workes did shew that his Faith was a true justifying Faith indeed and not as it is in many that pretend and professe Faith a vaine shew of Faith and a meere shadow of it For that which S. Iames citeth Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousnesse was as appeares by the story in the booke of Genesis long before that Abraham offered up Isaac and by those very words Saint Paul proveth Rom. 4. that wee are justified by Faith and not by Workes Therefore when S. Iames saith that by Abrahams offering up of Isaac that Scripture was fulfilled the meaning is that thereby it did appeare that it was truly said of Abraham that hee believed God and it was counted unto him For righteousnesse his readinesse in that worke to obey God did demonstrate that hee believed God indeed and that his faith was of a right stampe Thus also is it said that by workes faith was made perfect viz. even as the Lord said unto Paul My strength is made perfect in weakenesse 2 Cor. 12. 9. that is Gods strength doth exercise it selfe and shew how great it is in mans weaknesse So Abrahams workes did shew how great his faith was in this sense his workes did make his faith perfect not that they did adde any thing unto it no more then mans weaknesse doth adde unto Gods strength This opinion of yours saith the Marquesse S. Aug. de fide oper cap. 14. saith was an old heresie in the Apostles time and in the Preface of his comment upon the 32. Psal he calles it the right way to hell and damnation See Origan 5. to the Rom. S. Hilar. chap. 7. in Mat. S. Ambr. 4. ad Heb. Answ Austine de fid oper c. 14. speakes nothing against our Opinion but something for it That which hee speaketh by way of reproofe is against those who so thinke that Faith alone will suffice as that they heede not to doe good workes nor to order their life and conversation aright But this is nothing to us who are farre from holding such a Faith as that sufficient But in the same place Austine hath this for our purpose that when the Apostle saith that a Man is justified by Faith without the Workes of the Law hee did not intend that the Workes of Righteousnesse should be contemned but that every one should know that hee may be justified by faith though the workes of the Law did not goe before For saith hee they follow a man being justified they doe not goe before a man being to be justified If as this Father affirmeth a man must first be justified before hee can doe good workes then good workes are no cause of justification but an effect of it For the other place of Austine which the Marquesse alledgeth there is none such that I can finde viz. no preface of his comment upon Psal 32. but in the comment it selfe I finde this which makes for us Doest thou not heare the Apostle The just shall live by Faith Thy faith is thy righteousnesse What Origen saith on Rom. 5. having not his workes now at hand I cannot tell but I see what Bellarmine cites out of him on Rom. 4. and perhaps so it should have been in the Marquesse his writing However there is no doubt but Bellarmine would have made use of it if there had been any thing more for his purpose on Rom. 5. Now on Rom. 4. Origen saith that whose believe Christ but doe not put off the old man with his deeds their faith cannot be imputed unto them for righteousnesse This wee doe
a remedy Tertullian makes no mention of secret confession of sins as Rhenanus observes who conceiveth that secret confession did arise from publick confession people of their owne accord confessing secret sinnes secretly as they used to confesse open sins openly For saith he We no where read that this secret confession was injoyned he means by the Ancients One Father more there is whom the Marquesse here citeth namely Chrysostome lib. 3. de Sacerdot So Bellarmine having alledged something out of the former book of Chrysostome bids see also the third book But no doubt if there had been any thing more for Bellarmines purpose in the third book then in the second he would have been so good as to have set it before us Now the very words of Chrysostome as Bellarm cites out of lib. 2. de sacerd do shew that he speaks not of a necessity lying upon all to confesse all their sinnes to a Minister but onely that Christiani qui laborant Christians that are in a perplexed estate have need of this remedy Having thus shewed that the Fathers testifie nothing for Popish confession I shall shew how they testifie against it And to begin with him that was last mentioned Chrysostome is most copious in this kind Why art thou ashamed saith he and doest blush to confesse thy sinnes Doest thou speak to a man that he may upbraid thee Doest thou confesse to thy fellow servant that he may insult over thee To thy Lord to him that hath a care of thee to him that is kind to the Physitian thou doest shew thy wound Here he takes it for granted that there is ordinarily no necessity of confessing to any but to God onely So againe Art thou ashamed saith he to say that thou hast sinned Confesse then daily in thy prayr For doe I say confesse to thy fellow servant who may reproach thee No confesse unto God who doth cure thee Diverse such sayings hath this Father most plain and pregnant for our purpose Bellarmine with all his art and all his industry was not able to give a satisfactory answer to them He saith that Chrysostome spake onely of publick Confession not of private onely of that which is made in the open Congregation not of that which is made to a Priest in secret But it is evident that Chrysostome speaks against the necessity of confessing to any but onely unto God He bids Confesse in thy soul Make confession in thy thought Let God onely see thee confessing Such confession as this man hath nothing to do with either in publick or in private Bellarmine answers that in these places Chrysostome doth speak of confession not as it hath reference to the Priests absolution but as it hath reference to shame and confusion and in this latter respect he saith Chrysostome doth well admonish that it is not necessary to confesse unto man either in publique or in private but that it sufficeth to confesse with sorrow and tears unto God onely But here Bellarmine a thing not unusuall with him doth contradict himself For here he granteth that to confess only unto God is enough to work shame yet in another place he saith That shame useth not to be feared in that confession which is made onely unto God And againe Shamefac'dnesse hath no place in that confession which is made onely unto God These assertitions as they agree not with the truth see Ezr. 9. 6. so neither do they agree with the answer that here Bellarmine giveth unto Chrysost Where as Bellarm saith that Chrysost speaketh not of confession as having reference to the Priests absolution it is easily granted there being ordinarily no necessity of any such absolution Chrysostme willeth a man to confesse though but in his heart unto God assuring him that thereby he shall obtain Gods absolution and what need then of any others absolution Except in some speciall case viz. for the quieting of a troubled conscience and that one may the better enjoy the comfort of Gods absolution Thus for Chrysostme Austine also doth shew the no-necessity of confessing unto men which still must be understood excepting some particular case wherein it may be requisite What have I to doe saith he with men that they should hear my confessions as if they could heal all my diseases Bellarmine takes it in disdaine that these words of Austine should be alledged against their confession This he saith is nothing else but to delude the simple For that whosoever reads Austines Confessions cannot but know that he speakes not of Sacramentall Confession but of the Confession of sinnes past and forgiven by Baptisme which Confession was made to that end that thereby the mercy of God might be seen and praised But Austines words are of more force then thus to be evaded We willingly grant that Austine speaks not of Sacramentall Confession there being indeed no such Confession to be spoken of as they call Sacramentall no such I say truly so called and so much these very words of Austine doe sufficiently testifie For Sacramentall Confession as they call it is a Confession necessarily to be made unto a Priest or else no remission of sin they say committed after Baptisme can be obtained but Austine shewes that ordinarily Confessing unto men is not necessary Neither is it so that Austine in his book of Confessions doth only speak of his sins which he had committed before he was Baptized For in that tenth Book where he hath the words before cited he speaketh of sinnes which he was guilty of long after his Baptisme yea even then when he was writing his Confessions As namely impure Dreames and nocturnall pollutions as also excesse in Eating Diverse other particulars doth he also confesse saying that his life was full of such failings and that all his hope was onely in Gods exceeding great mercy To this purpose also Ambrose who speaking of Peter saith I find not what he spake I find that he wept And hence he infers that tears may procure pardon of sin though no verball Confession be made of it To this testimony of Ambrose Bellarmine answers that as then Sacramentall Confession was not instituted and therefore 't is no marvell if we doe not read of Peters confession And 't is very true that Sacramentall Confession neither then had nor at all hath any divine institution Again Bellarmine sayes that Tears of which Ambrose speaketh containe a kind of Confession in them This indeed is true in respect of God who knowes the heart and affection from whence Tears proceed and therefore David saith that the Lord had heard the voice of his weeping Psal 6. 8. which shewes that as the Tongue by speaking so the Eyes by weeping have a voice which God doth hear But what is this unto men who by tears alone without words can understand little Bellarmine grants that Tears are sufficient in that Confession which is made unto God who
he did declare who he was For if none can forgive sinnes but onely God and the Lord Christ did forgive them then it is manifest that he was the Word of God made the Son of Man c. and that as God he hath mercy on us and doth forgive us our debts which we owe unto God our Maker Accordingly also Ambrose another of those Fathers whom the Marquesse maketh to be of their opinion Whereas saith he Iewes say that onely God can forgive sinnes they doe indeed confesse Christ to be God and by their judgement bewray their perfidiousnesse c. They have a testimony for Christs Divinity they have no Faith for their owne Salvation Therefore great is the madnesse of the unbelieving people that when as they confesse that it belongs onely unto God to forgive sinnes yet they doe not beleeve God when he forgiveth sins So by this Argument the same Father proves the Holy Ghost to be God because he forgiveth Sins For that none can forgive sinnes but onely God as it is written Who can forgive sinnes but only God Thus Ambrose cites that saying of the Scribes as a most undoubted truth How then have Ministers power to forgive Sins In that the word of reconciliation is committed unto them 2 Cor. 5. 19. in that they are to preach remission of sinnes in Christs name Luk. 24. 47. Be it known unto you that through this man viz. Christ is preached unto you forgivenesse of sinnes said Paul Act. 13. 38. Ambrose observes that Christ first said to his Apostles Receive ye the holy Ghost and then Whose sins ye remit they are remitted Whence he gathers that it is the holy Ghost that doth indeed forgive Sins Men saith he doe onely afford their Ministery for the forgivenesse of sinnes they doe not exercise the authority of any power Neither doe they forgive sins in their Name but in the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Lombard called the Master of the Sentences and of School-divinity disputing this Question and shewing diverse Opinions about it determines thus That God only doth remit and retain sins and that yet God hath given power to the Church to bind and loose But that God himself doth bind and loose one way and the Church another way That God by himself alone doth forgive sinne so as to clense the soul from staine and to free it from the guilt of eternall death That he hath not given this power to Priests to whom yet he hath given power to loose and bind that is to declare men to be loosed or bound Whence our Lord first by himselfe made the Leper sound and then sent him to the Priests that they might declare him to be clean And hence he inferres that a Minister of the Gospell hath such power in remitting or retaining sins as the Priest in the Law had in clensing a Leper The Priest was said to make the Leper clean or unclean so the words are in the Originall Levit. 13. when he did pronounce and declare him to be clean or unclean So Ministers remit or retain sinnes when they pronounce and declare that sins are remitted or retained of God And in this Lombard followed Hierome who as his words cited by Lombard doe shew by this very similitude of the Leviticall Priest dealing with a Leper illustrates and sets forth the manner how a Minister doth now remit or retain sins Thus then I hope it may sufficiently appear that in this point both Scriptures and Fathers are for us and not against us as the Marquesse would have it We hold that we ought to confesse our sins unto our ghostly Father this ye deny saying that ye ought not to confesse your sins but unto God alone This we prove by Scripture Mat. 3. 5 6. Then went out Jerusalem and all Judea and were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sinnes This confession was no generall confession but in particular as appeares Acts 19. 18 19. And many that beleeved came and confessed and shewed their deeds The Fathers affirme the same c. For Confession of Sinnes Protestants doe not say that they ought not to confesse to any but God onely though they hold that ordinarily it sufficeth to confesse onely unto God and that there is no necessity of confessing to any other whereas they of the Church of Rome will have it necessary for every one man to confesse unto a Priest all his deadly sinnes and such indeed are all sinnes whatsoever without the mercy of God in Christ Rom. 6. 23. Gal. 3. 10. which by diligent examination he can find out together with all the severall circumstances whereby they are aggravated Thus hath the Councell of Trent decreed it And nothing will suffice to procure one that is Baptized remission of Sins without this Confession either in Re actually performed or in Voto in desire as Bellarmine doth expound it Who also stickes not to say that in all the Scripture there seems not to be any promise of for givenesse of sinnes made to those that confesse their sins unto God Which is a most impudent Assertion For David having said I acknowledged my sinne unto thee and mine iniquity have I not hid I said I will confesse my transgressions unto the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sinne he addes immediately for this shall every one that is godly make his prayer unto thee c. Psal 32. 5 6. Besides Aquinas and Bonaventure two prime Schoolemen hold that under the Law it was not ordinarily required of people to confesse in particular unto a Priest Bonaventure also cites Austine saying Oblatio sacrificiorum fuit confessio peccatorum The offering of sacrifices was the confession of sinnes whence hee inferreth that therefore it seemes there was no other confessing of sinnes but the offering of Sacrifices For those two places of Scripture cited by the Marquesse neither they nor any other doe speake of such a confession as they of the Church of Rome doe contend for Bellarmine holds that their Sacramentall confession as they call it viz. that confession which they make a part of the Sacrament of penance was not instituted till after Christs Resurrection and therefore he sayes it is no marvell if as Ambrose observes we reade of Peters teares but not of his confession That the Jewes therefore when they were baptized of Iohn confessed their sinnes Mat. 3. 5 6. is not enough to prove that confession which we now dispute of although it did appeare that the confession there spoken of was a particular confession which yet appeares not Cardinall Cajetane saith it was but a generall confession Neither indeed in probability could it be any more for how should Iohn have been able to heare such multitudes as came unto him to be baptized Ierusalem and all Iudea and all the region round about Iordan Mat. 3. 5. confesse all their sinnes in
knoweth all things Well and Ambrose saith that Tears may suffice to procure pardon and therefore no necessity of any other Confession then what is made unto God only Thus also Hilary is clear for the sufficiency of Confession made onely unto God saying that David teacheth us to confesse only unto him who hath made the Olive fruitfull It 's true the Confession that David there viz. Psal 52. 9. speaks of is the Confession of Praise and of Thanksgiving but Hilary understands it of the confession of sins saying that David does not say I will confesse unto thee for ever and ever as immediately before he said I trust in the mercy of God for ever and ever but I will confesse unto thee for ever or whiles he lived in seculum because onely in the time of this life here are sinnes to be confessed So that however Hilary did mistake Davids meaning through the Ambiguity of the word Confitebor i. e. I will confesse or I will give thanks yet he clearly expresseth his own opinion that it is sufficient to confesse unto God only And this opinion was maintained by some in the Roman Church above a thousand years after Christ For Peter Lombard who was above 1100 years after Christ disputing this point touching Confession confesseth That some thought it sufficient to confesse onely unto God This Opinion was not accounted a Heresie by the Church of Rome it self untill the time of Pope Innocent the third about 1200 years after Christ when in the Councell of Lateran it was decreed necessary to confesse unto a Priest and not unto God only And therefore Bonaventure who lived a little after that Councell speaking of those who held it sufficient to confesse only unto God saith that if any now were of that opinion he were an Heretick because the contrary was determined in a Generall Councell but before that determination that Opinion was no Heresie Thus then we see by the acknowledgment of the Romish Doctors themselves that the necessity of Sacramentall Confession as they call it is not fetched either from Scriptures or Fathers but from Pope Innocent the Third and the Councell that was in his time To conclude this point touching Confession I will only adde one Argument for Confutation of the Romish Doctrine in this particular Such Confession as they of the Church of Rome require viz. a particular enumeration of all mortall sins with all their severall aggravating circumstances is not possible And therefore neither is it of divine institution Bellarmine answers that by this reason it is impossible to confesse unto God for that we hold that Confession made unto God must be intire not of some sins onely but of all And if we say that it is sufficient to confesse unto God all so farre forth as we can come to the knowledge of them adding that of David Psal 19. 13. Who can understand his errours Lord cleanse me from my secret faults Bellarmine saith that to confesse thus to a Priest doth suffice also But I say this answer will not satisfie for there is not the same reason of confessing unto God and of confessing to a Priest as they require it God knoweth all our sinnes before we confesse farre better then we our selves doe onely we are to confesse unto him to shew our selves humble and penitent But our Adversaries say that particular Confession must be made unto a Priest because otherwise he cannot tell how to judge so as either to remit sinnes or to retain them Now to this end it is not enough to confesse unto a Priest all that one can find out but it is necessary to confesse absolutely all that one is guilty of For otherwise how shall the Priest be able to judge of those sinnes which he knoweth not If he cannot judge of those sins which are confessed except they be confessed then neither can he judge of those sins which are not confessed because they are not confessed there is the same reason for the one as for the other If the Priest can judge of those sins that are not confessed by those that are confessed then may he also by hearing the confession of one or two sins judge of all the rest though no Confession be made of them Thus the Confession which our Adversaries contend for is either not possible or at least not necessary After Confession the Marquesse comes to workes of Supererogation which they say a man may doe viz. good works more excellent then those which the Law of God doth require And that a man may doe such workes the Marquesse proves by Mat. 19. 12. There be eunuches that have made themselves eunuches for the Kingdome of Heaven he that is able to receive it let him receive it This the Marquesse saith is more then a Commandement as S. Aug. observes upon the place Ser. lib. de temp it should be Serm. 61. de temp for of precepts it is not said Keep them who is able but keep them absolutely I answer it is true of generall precepts such as concern all they are to be kept absolutely by all but for speciall precepts which concern only some they are only to be kept by those whom they do concern And so those words He that is able to receive it let him receive it are a precept but limited and restrained viz. unto some certain persons who otherwise can without inconvenience live a single life they are required to doe it not as a thing simply necessary but as necessary for them not as a thing wherein perfection doth consist but as a means whereby the better to draw towards perfection viz. To serve the Lord without distraction 1 Cor. 7. 35. Neither doe the Fathers whom the Marquesse citeth hold any such works of Supererogation as the Romanists plead for viz. works more excellent and perfect then those which the Law of God prescribeth Ambrose seemes to speake more then the rest and therefore it may be hee is put in the first place though some that are cited are more ancient then hee They that have fulfilled the precept hee saith may say Wee are unprofitable servants wee have done what our duty was to doe This the Virgin saith not nor hee that sold his Goods viz. to give to the poore Thus Ambrose but have not these words need of a favourable interpretation For will our adversaries themselves say that there are any absolutely so perfect as that they need not confesse unto God that they are unprofitable servants what they will say I cannot tell but sure I am that Christs Disciples who were as perfect as any others were not so perfect For even to them did Christ speake those words When yee shall have done all these things which are commanded you say Wee are unprofitable servants wee have done but what was our duty to doe Luke 17. 10. It may be our Adversaries will say true when they had done all things commanded them they were to say
the very word were abandoned many being so apt to stumble at it Chamier a famous Protestant Writer shewes that our Divines disputing against Free-will doe not simply deny it but in this sense that the will is equally propense and indifferent to good and evill This is that which they deny and against which they bend their disputations Wee doe not make a question saith hee also whether the will be free this wee have often testified and must still repeate it because of the importunity of our adversaries This then is that which we question what and how much that liberty of the will can availe in respect of that which is good And againe Wee have protested saith hee that wee hold Free-will though not such as the Pelagians held nor as the Papists hold Thus then wee hold that since the fall of Adam mans will is free to that which is evill but to that which is good it is not free untill by the grace of Christ it be made free If the Sonne shall make you free saith our Saviour then yee shall be free indeed Joh. 8. 36. But not till then How should they be free to that which is good who are dead in trespasses and sinnes as by nature all are Eph. 2. 1. who are sold unto sinne as the Apostle confesseth hee was so farre forth as hee was unregenerate Rom. 7. 14. and that in him that is in his flesh his corrupt nature no good dwelled vers 18. who are the servants of sinne as all are before their conversion Romans 6. 17. In this respect Luther might well intitle his booke as hee did of servile will rather then of Free-will to shew that this Free-will is by nature the servant of sinne S. Augustine in many places is as cleare and expresse for this which wee hold as can be imagined For what good saith he can lost man worke but so farre forth as hee is freed from that lost condition can hee by Free-will No such matter For man using Free-will amisse lost both himselfe and it For as hee that killes himselfe doth by living kill himselfe but by killing himselfe hee ceaseth to live So when by Free-will man did sinne sinne getting the victory Free-will was lost For of whom a man is overcome of the same hee is brought in bondage 2 Pet. 2. 19. What I pray can be the freedome of one that is brought into bondage except when it doth delight him to sinne And by this hee is free to sinne who is the servant of sinne Wherefore hee shall not be free to doe righteously unlesse being made free from sinne hee shall become the servant of righteousnesse And presently after But that freedome which is to doe well how shall man being in bondage and sold under sinne have except hee redeeme him who hath said If the Sonne shall make you free then you shall be free indeed Before this begin to be done in man how can any glory of Free-will in a good worke seeing hee is not yet free to doe well Bellarmine brings in the first peece of this saying of Austine and answers that Free-will is lost not in that it is quite abolished but in that it is held captive by the Devill as things are said to be lost which in time of war are in the power of the enemy But what is this but even to yeeld us that which wee contend for For if Free-will bee so lost as to bee held captive by Satan then surely the will untill it be set free by Christ is not free in respect of that which is truly good and accompanying salvation This will saith Austine which is free in things that are evill because it is delighted in things that are evill is therefore not free in things that are good because it is not made free And againe Without the Grace of God the will cannot be free seeing it is subject to lusts that doe overcome it and bring it into bondage And again How dare miserable men be proud of Free-will before they are made free These and many other Sentences of this Father are so full for our purpose that our Divines might well professe as they doe that in this point they fully accord with Austine But I will adde the testimonies of some other Fathers besides him While sin reignes saith Fulgentius a man hath Free-will but free without God not free under God that is free from Righteousnesse not free under Grace and so most ill and slavishly free because not made free by the free gift of God shewing mercy This he proves by Rom. 6. 22. and addes Therefore he cannot serve Righteousnesse who is free from Righteousnesse because so long as he is the servant of sinne he is onely able to serve him To the same effect also speaks Bernard By I know not what evill and wonderfull means saith he the will being changed by sinne and made worse doth bring a necessity upon it selfe so that neither necessity being voluntary can excuse the will nor the will being inticed can exclude necessity For it is after a sort a voluntary necessity For it is the will which when it was free made it self the servant of sinne by consenting unto sinne neverthelesse it is the will which keeps it self under sin by serving it willingly He shewes how the will is free being captivated by sin so free as that it sinneth willingly yet not so free as that it can refrain from sin seeing it hath made it selfe the servant of sinne and hath brought upon it self a necessity of sinning Thus saith he the soul after a wonderfull and evill manner under this voluntary and ill free necessity is both held in bondage and also is free in bondage because of necessity free because of will And which is more wonderfull and more miserable it is therefore guilty because it is free and therefore in bondage because guilty and so consequently therefore in bondage because free He addes a little after Now there is no escape for miserable man by his own free-will or any power in himself whom as I have said both the will doth make inexcusable and also necessity doth make incorrigible Elsewhere indeed Bernard seems to make the wil perpetually and of its own nature free from necessity for that necessary and voluntary seeme to be contrary one to the other But by necessity he means co-action and compulsion For speaking of consent he saith It is not compelled it is not extorted for it is of will not of necessity It neither denies it selfe nor affords it selfe to any but willingly For if it could be compelled against its will it were violent and not voluntary But where there is no will there is no consent For there is no consent but voluntary Therefore where there is consent there is will and where there is will there is freedom and this is that which I think is called Free-will And againe Freedome from necessity
is this which as I conceive the Marquesse aimed at Esau was not willing and did not run but if he had been willing and had run by the help of God he had obtained God would have given him both to will and to run except by contemning Gods Call he would be a Reprobate For God doth otherwise give us that we may will then he doth give us that which we have willed For that we may will God would have both to be his work and ours his by Calling ours by Following when we are called But that which we have willed God alone doth give that is to be able to do well and for ever to live happily Here I confesse Austine doth seeme to shew himself a patron of Free-will and we could not easily judge otherwise of him if we should look meerly upon these words and take them as his positive sentence But if we consider what Austine saith both before and after we shall see that he spake thus rather by way of objection then by way of determination Before these words he saith thus A wheel doth not therefore run well that it may be round but because it is round So no man doth therefore work well that he may receive grace but because he hath received it Austine therefore was not of that minde that Esau of himself by his free-will could have been willing and have run or that any when he is called and incited by Grace can by the power of Free-will follow and obey but it is grace that must work this in him To this purpose againe before the words objected If saith Austine Iacob did therefore believe because he would then God did not bestow faith on him but he by willing did afford it unto himself and so he had something which he received not Which is contrary to the words of the Apostle What hast thou that thou hast not received 1 Cor. 4. 7. But a little after those words that seeme to make for Free-will Austine expresseth himself more fully For having cited that of the Apostle Phil. 2. 12 13. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to doe of his good pleasure he addes The Apostle there sufficiently shewes that a good will it self is wrought in us by God For if therefore only it be said Rom. 9. It is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy because the will of man alone is not sufficient that he may justly and rightly except it be helped by the mercy of God then by this reason it may be said It is not of God that sheweth mercy but of man that willeth because the mercy of God alone is not sufficient unlesse the consent of our will be ad ded But that is manifest that we will in vain except God shew mercy This I know not how it can be said that God doth shew mercy in vain except we be willing For if God shew mercy then we are willing seeing it belongs to that same mercy to make us willing For it is God that worketh in us both to will and to doe of his good pleasure Again a little after having said by way of objection Free-will availeth much he answers Nay it is indeed but in those that are sold under sinne as all are till they be fred by Grace what doth it avail And againe when those things delight us whereby wee profit towards God this is inspired and given unto us by the grace of God it is not gotten by our consent industry or the merits of our workes because the consent of the will the industry of indeavour and workes fervent with charity are all the gift of God Thus then it is most manifest that in the place pointed at by the Marquesse Austine was most farre from maintaining such a Free-will as we oppose There is also a passage in Austines second book to Simplicianus quaest 1. which may seeme to make against us viz. That to will any thing is in the power of every one but to be able to doe any thing is not in the power of any But let Austine explain himself and shew his own meaning and that he doth in his Retractations That saith hee was spoken because we doe not say that any thing is in our power but that which is done when wee will Where first and chiefly is to will it selfe For immediately without any distance of time the will it selfe is present when wee will But this power also to live well wee receive from above when the will is prepared of the Lord. Thus carefull was that good Father to prevent the mistaking of his words lest any should thinke that hee did ascribe any thing to the power of Free-will in that which is good So much for Austine the next Father alledged is Ambrose who in the place cited viz. in Luk. 12. hath nothing above Free-will that I can finde After him followes Chrysostome who indeed in the place that is alledged goes far in his expressions concerning Free-will as if God onely did afford meanes and so leave it in the power of man to use them or not as hee pleaseth If therefore I except against his testimony in this point I have no meane men of the Church of Rome to beare mee out I know Bellarmine seemes to take it as a matter of great advantage that Calvin stands not here so much upon Chrysostome as one that did too much extoll the power of Free-will But was this onely Calvines judgement of Chrysostome Did not some of the Romanists themselves also think thus of him S. Chrysostom saith Alvarez a Romish Archbishop and a great Schoole-man sometimes doth wonderfully extoll the power of our Free-will speaking as it were hyperbolically whiles hee strives to impugne the errors of the Manichees and of the Gentiles who held that Man is still by nature as hee was first created of God or that by the violence of fate he is compelled to sinne So also Iansenius a Romish Bishop to whom also Alvarez doth referre us haveing mentioned something of Euthymius and Theophylact hee saith that those passages were taken from Chrysostome and that except they be warily read and understood they may give occasion of falling into the error of Pelagius who held that the beginning of faith and justification is from our selves and the consummation from God c. Chrysostome he saith meant well concerning the grace of God yet he wrote many things against the Manichees in commendation of Free-will attributing most things unto it without making any mention of Gods Grace which things he would not have written in that manner if hee could have foreseene that Pelagius his heresie would arise which as then was not risen or not known unto men Thus were see how these Authors though they excuse Chrysostomes meaning yet dislike his expression But some amongst those of
the Roman Church have gone further in their censure of Chrysostome as Alvarez relates viz. that he held that election whereby we first accept those things that are good and resolve to doe them is before the grace of God and that then grace doth follow after whereby we are helped and God doth co-operate with us To this pur-pose I finde Tolet a Jesuite first and afterwards a Cardinall cited by Chamier though I have not his Booke now at hand to peruse And this may suffice for answer to Chrysostome yea and to those other two Fathers also that follow viz. Irenaeus and Cyrill the latter of these being by name and both of them implicitly excepted against by some of the Romanists themselves as appeares by what is cited in the margent as also by the reasons alledged by Alvarez and Iansenius why Chrysostome did exceede at least in his expressions viz. because he was so earnest against the Manichees and others and knew nothing of the contrary errour of the Pelagians which reasons might transport the other Fathers also It is true saith Alvarez that S. Chrysostome and other Fathers that wrote before the Heresie of Pelagius was risen up did speake little of the grace of Christ and much for the confirming of the liberty of the will against the heresie of the Manichees He addes that Austine also in his writings against the Pelagians did observe this and hee cites his words to this purpose Yea hee shewes that Austine in his Retractations was faine to answer in like manner for himself when as the Pelagians did make use of his former writings against the Manichees thereby to maintaine their opinion concerning the power of Free-will in opposition to the necessity and efficacy of Gods Grace Thus likewise Iansenius saith that after the Pelagian heresie was risen then Austine spake more exactly and more expresly of the Grace of God The Jesuit Maldonate doth tell us that Ammonius and Cyrill Theophylact and Euthymius so expound that No man commeth unto me except the Father draw him that they come too nigh the error of Pelagius viz. that all are not drawn because all are not worthy as if saith he before a man be drawn by grace unto grace hee could deserve grace which is to be worthy to be drawn But though Irenaeus and Cyrill be liable to these exceptions yet I see nothing in the places cited by the Marquesse wherein they make against us Irenaeus saith thus If it were not in us to doe these things or not to do them why did the Apostle and before him the Lord himself counsell us to doe some things and to abstaine from other things Here Irenaeus indeed sheweth that it is in us to doe or not to doe but hee doth not say that it is in nobis ex nobis in us of our selves by the power of our Free-will to doe things truly good He addes immediately that man from the beginning is free as God after whose likenesse hee was made is free Now this doth rather make against our adversaries then for them for it shewes that the freedome of mans will doth not consist in this that hee is free either to doe good or to doe evill seeing that God is not free in that manner hee being onely free to doe good but altogether uncapable of doing evill So man being determined by grace to that which is good yet is free because not constrained nor forced against his will in the doing of it and so on the other side hee is free in doing evill though of himselfe without grace he can doe nothing but evill As for the other Fathers viz. Cyrill that which hee saith in the place alledged is this wee cannot according to the doctrine of the Church and of the truth by any meanes deny the free power of man wich is called Free-will This is nothing against us who doe not as hath beene shewed before simply deny Free-will but onely so as our adversaries of the Church of Rome doe maintaine it To that which is in controversie betwixt us and our adversaries Cyrill here saith nothing and therefore his testimony is not to the purpose And so much for Free-will In the next place we hold it possible saith the Marquesse to keepe the Commandements you say it is impossible Wee have Scripture for it Luke 1. 6. And they were both righteous before God walking in all the Commandements and Ordinances of the Lord blamelesse And 1 Joh. 5. 3. His Commandements are not grievous For keeping the Commandements we hold not that it is simply impossible but that according to that measure of grace which God doth ordinarily bestow upon men here in this life it is not possible to keep them viz. so as not to be guilty of the breach of them If a man could fully and perfectly keep the Commandements then he should be without sin for sinne is nothing else but a transgression of the Law as Saint Iohn defines it 1 Iohn 3. 4. But the Scripture shewes that no man in this life is so perfect as to be without sinne There is not a just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not saith Solomon Eccles 7. 20. If we say that we have no sinne we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us saith Saint Iohn 1 John 1. 8. In many things we offend all saith Saint Iames Iam. 3. 2. And Christ hath taught all to pray for forgivenesse of sinnes Mat. 6. 12. which supposeth that all even the best that live upon earth have need of it that they are guilty of sinnes and so consequently come short of the full and perfect keeping of Gods Commandements Bellarmine thinks to elude these places by saying That we cannot indeed live without Veniall sinnes but that Veniall sinnes are not sinnes simply but onely imperfectly and in some respect and that they are not against the Law but only besides it But first Veniall sinnes are against the Law as being transgressions of it for else they are no sinnes at all that being the very nature of sinne to be a transgression of the Law 1 Iohn 3. 4. 2. There are no sins so veniall but that without the mercy of God in Christ they are damnable It being written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the Law to doe them Gal. 3. 10. And thirdly no man living upon earth is free from such sinnes as that he is able to stand if God shall enter into judgement with him If thou Lord shouldest mark iniquities O Lord who shall stand Psal 130. 3. Enter not into judgement with thy servant for in thy fight shall no man living be justified Psal 143. 2. The Fathers here are on our side Hierome having cited that of our Saviour Out of the hearts of men proceed evill thoughts adulteries fornications murders thefts covetousnesse c. addes Let him come forth that can testifie that these
things are not in his heart and I will confesse that full and perfect righteousnesse may be in this mortall body Who is there saith Leo so free from fault that there is not in him that which either justice may condemne or mercy may pardon In no thing to sinne is proper unto God saith Ambrose He means that no man in this life can attain unto that perfection for so he addes presently after He that bears about him flesh a mortall body is subject unto sinne Thus also Austine Who is there saith he in this life so clean but that he hath need to be made yet more and more clean And again The Church saith he in this life is so cleansed not that they that are justified have no mainders of sinne in them but that they have not any spot of criminall offence nor any wrinkle of falshood Accordingly speaks Gregory In this life saith hee many are without criminall offences but none can bee without sinne And presently after hee sayes that these sinnes which none can be without doe pollute the soule though they doe not destroy it Bernard interprets that of Saint Iohn He that is born of God sinneth not 1 Iohn 3. 9. thus He sinneth not that is he doth not continue in sinne Or thus He sinneth not that is it is as much as if he did not sinne because sinne is not imputed unto him And elsewhere he expressely yeeldeth that Gods Commandements are more then any can fully and perfectly observe The Commander saith he was not ignorant that the command did exceede mens strength but he iudged it profitable that they should be admonished of their insufficiency and that they should know to what perfection of righteousnesse they ought to endeavour as they are able Therefore by commanding things impossible he did not make men prevaricatours but humble that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may be subject unto God because by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be justified before him For receiving the Commanment and feeling a defect wee shall cry towards Heaven and God will have mercy on us and we shall know in that day that not by the workes of righteousnesse that we have done but according to his mercy he hath saved us Thus also some of the Church of Rome that have written since Luthers time have acknowledged that none in this life are free from sinne nor able to abide the judgement of God by their own righteousnesse which is in effect to acknowledge that none doe perfectly keepe Gods Commandements Thus Ferus speaking of such as are justified saith that they have indeed yet many sinnes but no condemnation because they are reputed clean for their faith in Christ And againe No man saith hee how holy soever is free from sin so long as hee lives in this World Therefore all have need to be purged daily So also Genebrard Seeing saith hee that none is perfectly righteous before God the fear of his just and pure judgement ought to affright all That is his comment upon the words of David Enter not into judgement with thy servant O Lord c. Psal 143. 2. Now for those two places of Scripture which the Marquesse alledgeth they come farre short of proving that possibility of keeping Gods Commandements which wee deny As for that Luk. 1. 6. it shewes indeed that Zacharias and Elizabeth had respect unto all Gods Commandements as all ought to have Psal 119. 6. but it doth not shew that they did perfectly keepe all Gods Commandements Hierome long agoe answered the Pelagians objecting these very persons and others spoken of in Scripture as righteous that they are called righteous not that they were without fault but because they were for most part vertuous And I marvell how any can alledge the example of Zacharias as one that did perfectly keep the Commandements though I know Bellarmine to this purpose doth alledge it when as in that very Chapter viz. Luk. 1. is related how hee sinned in not believing the message which by an Angell God sent unto him and how hee was punished and became dumbe a long time for it The other place viz. 1 Ioh. 5. 3. only shews that the Children of God do willingly and chearfully obey the will of God not that they doe fully and perfectly obey it I have rejoyced in the way of thy testimonies saith David Psal 119. 14. I will delight my selfe in thy statutes v. 1. 6. The Law of thy mouth is better unto me then thousands of gold and silver v. 72. How sweet are thy words unto my taste yea sweeter then hony to my mouth v. 103. More to be desired are they then gold yea then much fine gold sweeter also then Hony and the Hony combe Psal 19. 10. yet presently hee addes who can understand his errours cleanse thou me from secret faults vers 12. And elsewhere hee complaines saying Mine iniquities have taken hold upon me so that I am not able to looke up they are more then the haires of my head Psal 40. 12. And againe Iniquities prevaile against me Psal 65. 3. And as before noted hee cryes out Enter not into judgement with thy servant c. Psal 143. 2. The History of his life recorded in Scriptures evidently shewes that though Gods Commandements were as little grievous unto him as to any yet hee came short of a full and perfect observance of them The Marquesse addes The Fathers are for us Orig. Hom. 9. in Ios S. Cyrill lib. 4. contra Iulian. S. Hil. in Psal 1 18. S. Hieron lib. 3. contra Pelag. S. Basil But I have shewed already what little cause our adversaries have in this point to boast of the Fathers and that both Hierome whom the Marquesse here citeth and also diverse others assert the same that wee doe To those before mentioned I may adde another of these here alledged against us viz. Hilarie who in Psal 118. saith that none living is without sinne onely one viz. Christ did no sinne neither was guile found in his mouth Therefore when as Hilarie saith upon those words Psalme 119. 96. thy Commandement is exceeding broad that it is no hard matter if will be present to obey Gods Commandement hee speakes of such an obedience not which is every way compleat and perfect for then it should be easie to live without sinne but which God will accept as hee will that which is sincere though it be imperfect Otherwise even upon those very words Hilarie sheweth that man cannot perfectly obey Gods Commanments saying that they are so broad that they infinitely exceede the shallownesse of mans knowledge If mans knowledge cannot reach to the full extent of Gods Commandements much lesse can his practice doe it So that which Hierome saith though it may seeme to be against us yet indeed it is not God saith he hath commanded things possible So the Pelagian objected hee answers this none
easily assent unto it being our professed opinion as hath beene shewed before by Bellarmines owne confession that though faith alone doe justifie yet if it be such a faith as is alone and is not accompanied with good workes it is not that faith which doth justifie As little is that of Hilarie against us The safety of the Nations is all in faith and the life of all is in Gods Precepts That faith which alone doth justifie is not so alone but that there is joyned with it a care and indeavour to observe all Gods Precepts Of the same nature is that of Ambrose if Ambrose were the Author of those commentaries Faith alone is not sufficient it is necessary that faith worke by love and that men walke worthy of God Faith is not sufficient but there must also be added a life answerable and much care must be had that faith be not idle All this wee hold that faith must not be idle but operative and working through love and such is the nature of true justifying faith as the Apostle teacheth Gal. 5. 6. But all this is nothing against justification by faith alone without workes viz. as concurring unto justification In the next place the Marquesse pleades for the merit of good workes and that from Mat. 6. 27. so it is printed but it should be Mat. 16. 27. Hee shall reward every man according to his workes And Mat. 5. 12. Great is your reward in Heaven Reward at the end saith he presupposes merit in the worke the distinction of secun dum and propter opera is too nice to make such a division in the Church Answ But that mens good workes doe not merit any reward at the hands of God our Saviour hath sufficiently shewed saying When yee have done all things that are commanded you say Wee are unprofitable servants wee have done but what our duty was to do Luke 17. 10. If as Theophylact notes upon the place when wee have done all things that are commanded us we must take heede of thinking highly of our selves how much more ought wee to be farre from such presumption when as wee are so farre from obeying all Gods Commandements Besides if we doe any thing that is good wee doe it not of our selves by our own strength but it is God that doth inable us and make us to doe it and therefore properly wee cannot merit by it for wee are beholding unto God and not God beholding unto us for it I have laboured more abundantly then they all yet not I but the grace of God that was with mee saith the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. 10. Againe the reward which the godly receive in Heaven doth infinitly exceede their workes and therefore cannot bee merited by them The most that wee can doe is to suffer for the Name of Christ yet the sufferings of this present life are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us Rom. 8. 18. Both these reasons doth Bernard alledge against merits The merits of men saith hee are not such as that because of them life eternall should be due unto them of right or that God should doe them wrong if hee should not give it For to say nothing of this that all merits are Gods gifts and so man is rather indebted unto God for them then God unto man what are all merits unto so great glory Here Bernard useth indeed the word merits but so as that hee plainely denieth the thing which our adversaries understand by it and by a double argument confuteth their opinion Both these arguments also to this purpose before Bernard did Fulgentius use who speaking of eternall life saith It is not unjustly called grace because not only God doth recompence his gifts with his gifts but because the grace of Gods retribution doth so abound that it incomparably and ineffably exceedes all the merit of mans will and works though it be good and such as God hath given To this purpose hee cites Rom. 8. 18. and 2 Cor. 4. 17. And Gregorius Magnus not onely useth these same Arguments against the Merits of good workes but also hath that very distinction of secundum opera and propter opera which the Marqnesse so much disdaineth If saith Gregorie the happinesse of the Saints be mercy and be not acquired by Merits where is that which is written Thou will render to every one according to his workes If it be rendered according to workes how shall it be accounted mercy But it is one thing to render according to workes and another thing to render because of the workes themselves In that there is a rendring according to workes the quality of workes is considered so as that whose workes are found to be good his reward also shall be glorious For unto that blessed life in which wee live with God and of God no labour can be equall no workes comparable especially when as the Apostle saith The sufferings of this present time are not worthy of that glory which shall be revealed in us Besides also in this respect it may be justly called mercy because it is given for those workes which none can attaine unto without the prevention of Gods mercy Thus Gregorie who above a thousand yeeres agoe was Bishop of Rome both argues for us and also by a distinction answers that which is objected against us viz. that God doth render to all according to their workes And for the word reward which the Scripture often useth it doth not presuppose merit for a reward may proceede from the bounty of the giver not from the merit of the receiver They that wrought but one houre in the Vineyard though they received a penny as much as they that laboured all the day though I say they received this as the reward of their labour yet did they not merit it by their labour This very parable doth Prosper or who ever was the Author of the Booke de vocatione gentium apply in this manner without doubt saith hee they that were sent into the Vineyard at the eleventh houre and were made equall with those that wrought the whole day represent the condition of those whom to commend the excellency of grace Gods goodnesse doth reward in the end of the day and in the conclusion of life not paying the price of labour but powring out the riches of his bounty upon them whom hee hath chosen without labour that so they also who have indured much labour and yet have received no more then they that were last may understand that they have received the gift of grace not the reward viz. the deserved reward of their works Thus both Scriptures and Fathers are against the opinion of the Church of Rome as touching Merits I will adde to what hath beene already alledged that of Bernard Thy merit is Gods mercy I am not altogether without merit so long as hee is not without mercy See what merit it is that hee builds upon
no merit of his own but meerly Gods mercy And this was it that Nehemiah did flie unto even when hee recorded the good that hee had done Remember me O Lord said hee concerning this and what reward mee according to the greatnesse of my merit no but spare mee according to the greatnesse of thy mercy Neh. 13. 22. Bernard to this purpose againe It is enough unto merit to know that merits are not sufficient The Romish Doctrine of merits die not please Ferus a late member of that Church If thou wouldest keepe saith hee the grace and favour of God make no mention of thy Merits for God will give all things out of mercy Bellarmine himselfe though hee disputed eagerly for Merits yet it seemes durst not rely on them confessing as was shewed before that it is the safest course to put our whole trust meerely in Gods Mercy But the Marquesse saith that the Fathers were of their opinion citing Ambr. de apol David cap. 6. Hieron lib. 3. contra Pelag. Aug. de Spir. lit cap. ult And first for Ambrose in the place cited it 's true hee speakes merits but here wee must remember what one of their owne writers doth tell us namely Estius that the ancient Divines did often use the word Merit very largely and not properly And thus did Ambrose use the word saying Habet quis bona Merita one hath good Merits that is good workes which hee calles Merits because they doe impetrate or obtaine a reward though not properly merit it the ancients as Estius observes using merit for impetration But that Ambrose there did not make good workes to be truly and properly meritorious appeares by the words immediately following habet vitia atque peccata hee hath also vices and sins Now surely those good workes which have vices and sinnes mixed with them cannot be properly meritorious in that case there is great need to crave mercy but no cause to plead merit For Hierome lib. 3. contra Pelag. I finde nothing at all that doth so much as seeme to assert merits except perhaps those words here in this life is labour and striving there in the life to come is the reward of labour and vertue But reward doth not alwayes presuppose merit as I have shewed before Mercy I am sure and merit are inconsistent and Hierome in that very Book which the Marquesse citeth plainly testifieth that there is no man whose workes are so good and his obedience so perfect but that still hee hath need of Gods mercy And hee taxeth his adversarie Pelagius I thinke as proud and Pharisaicall for saying that he doth worthily lift up his hands to God and doth pray with a good conscience who can say Thou O Lord knowest how holy how innocent how pure from all fraud injury and rapine the hands are that I spread forth unto thee how just immaculate and free from all lying the lips are with which I powre forth prayers unto thee that thou mayest have mercy on mee Hee tells him that David sung another Song saying My wounds stinke and are corrupt because of my foolishnesse Psal 38. 5. Enter not into judgement with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal 143. 2. And that Esay lamented saying Woe is mee for I am undone because I am a man of uncleane lips c. Isal 6. 5. And hee askes him how after all this swelling and boasting of himselfe after all this confidence of his holinesse hee could pretend to desire Gods mercy For if hee were so holy and innocent so pure and perfect then he had no neede to pray in that manner viz. that God should have mercy on him This and more to this purpose hath Hierome in the place alledged but whether this be for Merits or against them is easie to judge Neither hath Austine in the place which the Marquesse citeth any thing that I can see to prove good workes meritorious but something to prove the contrary For having cited many places of Scripture which shew that none is so righteous as to be without sinne hee saith Hence it followeth that it is necessary for every one to forgive that hee may bee forgiven and if hee have any righteousnesse not to presume that he hath it of his own but to ascribe it to Gods grace and still to hunger and thirst for righteousness from God who doth so work in his Saints whiles they are in this life as that hee hath still something to adde to them that aske and to pardon them that confesse For that none living in this mortall body can be found so holy but that still hee hath neede of pardon And elsewhere he saith God doth crowne his own gifts not thy merits The Marquesse goes on saying we hold that Faith once had may be lost if wee have not care to preserve it you say it cannot we have Scripture for it viz. Luke 8. 13. They on the Rock are they which when they heare receive the Word with joy which for a while believe and in time of temptation fall away So 1 Tim. 1. 18 19. which some having put away have made shipwracks of their Faith Answ We doe not hold that Faith cannot be lost though a man have no care to preserve it but that God will worke such a care in those in whom hee hath wrought true justifying Faith that they shall never lose it I will put my feare saith hee in their hearts that they shall not depart from me Jer. 32. 40. Christ prayed for Peter that his faith might not faile Luke 22. 32. And so he prayed both for him and others even for all that belong unto him I pray for them saith he I pray not for the World but for them which thou hast given me for they are thine Joh. 17. 9. And vers 11. Holy Father keepe through thine own name those whom thou hast given mee So the Apostle telleth us that whom God did predestinate them hee also called viz. according to his purpose vers 28. and whom hee called them hee also justified and whom hee justified them hee also glorified Rom. 8. 30. This clearly shewes that all that are once justified shall certainly be glorified and consequently that justifying faith once had cannot be quite lost Againe They that truly believe are the sons of God Gal. 3. 26. Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever but the son abideth ever Joh. 8. 35. Therefore true Faith cannot be lost the children of God cannot fall away And to this doe the Fathers accord Cyprian is much to this purpose The strength of such as are truly faithfull doth remaine unmoveable and the integrity of those that feare God and love him with the whole heart doth continue stable and strong And again The Lord who is the protectour and defender of his people doth not suffer wheat to be taken away out of his floore onely chaffe
hee takes Aquinas to be resolute in this point and hee cites him saying As predestination doth include a will to conferre grace and glory so Reprobation doth include a will to suffer one to fall into sinne and to inslict the punishment of damnation for sinne Hence Alvarez inferres that according to Aquinas the permission of the first sinne for which a Reprobate is damned is the effect of Reprobation And hee addes that of this permission there is no cause in the Reprobate Because before the permission of the first sinne and before the first sinne there is no other sinne for if there were then it were not simply the first sinne or man should commit some other sinne before which God did not permit whereas no sinne can be committed but by Gods permission He cites also Aquinas againe speaking thus why God doth chuse some to glory and reprobate others there is no reason but onely Gods Will. And having cited that of the Apostle Rom. 9. The children being not yet borne neither having done any good or evill that the purpose of God according to election might stand not of workes but of him that calleth it was said unto her The elder should serve the younger As it is written Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated having cited this I say hee addes that the Apostle here both Austine and Aquinas avouching as much plainly signifies that in the absolute Election and Reprobation of Men God did not looke at Mens merits or demerits but of his own pleasure did chuse and predestinate one to glory and not predestinate another but by an absolute will did determine to suffer him to sinne and to be hardened or to persevere in sinne to the end of his life and to inflict eternall punishment upon him for sin Hee brings in also Austine confuting those who say that Esau and Iacob being not yet borne God did therefore hate the one and love the other because hee did foresee the workes that they would doe Who said Austine can but wonder that the Apostle should not finde out this acute reason for hee did not see it c. No but flies to this hee saith to Moses I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy c. So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy And that none of our Romish adversaries may sleight Austine in this point Alvarez about the beginning of his Worke hath a Disputation to shew what authority this Fathers judgement is of in the point of Grace and Predestination Hee shewes that not onely Prosper but also many Bishops of Rome did approve of Austines Doctrine concerning these points and did determine it to be sound and good And therefore in the testimony of Austine wee have many testimonies and such as are irrefragable with those with whom now wee have to doe But let us heare what some other late Writers of the Church of Rome doe say as to this point concerning Reprobation God from eternity saith Cardinall Cajetan doth truly chuse some and reprobate others doth love some and hate others in that from eternity his will is to vouchsafe some the helpe of his grace whereby to bring them to eternall glory and from eternity also his will is to leave some to themselves and not to afford them that gracious help which he hath decreed to afford the Elect. And this is for God to hate and to reprobate them with which yet it doth well stand that none is damned but by his owne workes because neither the Sentence nor Execution of damnation is before that such Reprobates doe sinne So also †Estius saith that the Apostle Rom. 9. doth teach that neither mens Election nor their Reprobation is from the Merits of workes but that God by the meere pleasure of his wil doth chuse some and Reprobate others And againe upon those words O man who are thou that repliest against God c. hee saith that the Apostles intent was to answer not so much the objection as the cause of objecting And that therefore he answers concerning the Will of God Electing and Reprobating and denies that the reason of it is to be inquired by man who is Gods creature and made by him yea that by the example of a potter the Apostle shewes that God doth this out of the liberty of his Will without any other reason And he addes that Thomas Aquinas did also thus rightly expound the words of the Apostle Bradwardine who intituled the book which hee wrote of the cause of God is not to be omitted Hee saith It 's true God doth not eternally punish any without his fault going before temporally and abiding eternally yet God did not eternally reprobate any because of sinne as a cause antecedently moving Gods will What doe our Divines say even such as are of the more rigid sort as concerning this high and abstruse point of Reprobation what I say doe they lay more then is said by these great and eminent Doctours of the Church of Rome and before them by Austine and before both him and them as both hee and they conceived by the Apostle Paul himselfe The Decree of Reprobation saith Bishop Davenant is not thus to be conceived I will damne Judas whether he believe or not believe repent or not repent for this were contrary to the truth of the Evangelicall promises but thus I am absolutely determined not to give unto Judas that speciall grace which would cause him to believe and repent and I am absolutely purposed to permit him to incurre his own demnation by his voluntary obstinacy and finall impenitency And againe It must here first of all be considered that Reprobatio aeterna nihil ponit in reprobato that is That eternall reprobation doth put nothing in the person that is reprobated It putteth onely in God a firme Decree of permitting such persons to fall into finall sinne and for it a firme decree of condemning them unto eternall punishment So both hee and diverse other of our Eng. lish Divines that were at the Synod of Dort being sent thither by King Iames as they hold that Reprobation which is the denying of election doth put in God an immutable will not to have mercy on such a person as is passed by in respect of giving eternall life And that foreseene unbeliefe is not the cause of non election So withall they lay down this position God doth damne none nor appoint unto Damnation but in respect of sinne So Doctor Ames saith that it is too great a slander to say that according to our opinion God did immediately decree mens damnation whether they be sinners or no. Our opinion saith hee is this that God did not choose some as he did chuse others but did determine to let them abide in their sinnes and for those sinnes to suffer the punishment of just damnation and that of this decree
there is no cause to be found in those that are not elected which is not as much to be found in those that are elected Thus also Doctor Twisse We say and say truly saith hee that many are appointed unto damnation before they are borne Yet we doe not say that any is appointed to suffer death but for sinne nor that the decree it selfe in respect of the act of him that decreeth doth any one moment goe before the foresight of sinne I see nothing in these Assertions of our Divines that hath any thing more horrid in it then that is which they of the Church of Rome before cited doe assert and yet some of these goe as high in the point of Predestination I thinke as any others Calvin himselfe as hee saith If wee cannot give a reason why God hath mercy on his own but because so it pleaseth him neither have we any cause why others are Reprobated but his Will So he saith withall If all by their condition be subject to condemnation how can they whom God doth predestinate unto destruction complaine that he doth deale unjustly with them Let all the sonnes of Adam come let them contend and dispute with their Creator because by his eternall providence before they were borne they were appointed to eternall misery What will they be able to object against this plea when God shall on the other side call them to areview of themselves If all be taken out of the corrupt Masse it is no wonder if they be subject to damnation Let them not therefore accuse God of iniquity if by his Eternall judgement they be appointed unto death to which whether they will or no themselves doe see that they are led by their own nature of its own accord And againe Although by Gods eternall Providence man is cast into that calamity which doth befall him yet he takes the matter of it from himselfe and not from God seeing for no other reason is he so undone but because he did degenerate from that purity wherein God created him and made himselfe vitious impure and perverse And againe we affirme that none do perish but by their own desert e And againe The cause of our damnation is in our selves Thus Calvin being heard speake for himselfe it plainly appeares that hee by the decree of Reprobation makes God the author of mans damnation no otherwise then diverse Romanists themselves doe And thus also Beza This saith hee is the sum of Pauls answer although God appoint either to love or to hatred whom he will without any respect of their qualifications yet he is free from all injustice because betwixt Gods eternall decree and the execution of it there are subordinate causes whereby God doth bring the elect unto salvation and doth justly damne the Reprobate For he saves the elect by mercy and damnes the Reprobate by induration so that they doe most foolishly who confouned the decree of Reprobation with damnation seeing that the cause of damnation is manifest to wit sinne but the Will of God is the onely cause of Reprobation Therefore God doth wrong to neither because both deserve destruction For mercy shewes that the Elect were miserable and therefore worthy because of sinne to be destroyed and induration presupposeth perversnesse in which the Reprobate are justly hardened The like he hath also againe a little after And whereas Beza saith that they doe not satisfie him who by the lumpe which the Apostle speakes of Rom. 9. 12. doe understand mankinde being corrupt because 1. That terme he thinkes doth not well agree to man being created much lesse to him being already corrupted And againe if the Apostle had some Vessells were made unto honour and some unto dishonour but seeing all Vessels were fitted for dishonour all mankinde being corrupted the Apostle would rather have said that some were left in that dishonour and some translated from it unto honour Finally except Paul goe up to the highest step the objection hee thinkes is not satisfied For that still it will be demanded whether that corruption came as it happened or according to Gods purpose and so the same difficulty will remaine still Therefore Paul hee saith by that most elegant similitude did allude unto Adams Creation and did ascend up even to Gods eternall purpose who before he did create mankinde did of his meere will and pleasure determine to shew forth his glory in saving some through his mercy and in destroying some by his just judgement This is no more then Estius on Rom. 9. doth subscribe unto In this disputation saith hee the Apostle doth not suppose the lumpe corrupt although that which the Apostle saith is true also of it according to Austines opinion For the Scriptures often using the comparison of a lumpe which the Potter doth fasten as he pleaseth speakes of the lumpe absolutely not supposing any fault in it but only considering the nature of it whereby it is fit to be fastned into any worke of the Potter And therefore the Apostle doth not say that the Potter of the same lumpe doth make one Vessell unto honour and leave another in dishonour but that of the same lumpe he doth make unto dishonour Neither doth he say that the thing formed doth not say to him that formed it Why hast thou left me in the corrupt lumpe but Why hast thou made me so that is a dishonorable and reprobate vessell Here wee see Estius both approves of Bezaes interpretation and also makes use of his reason for the confirming of it And hee addes that the Apostle in that similitude of a lumpe and a Potter doth not allude to Ier. 18. 6 but that rather there is a manifest allusion to Isai 45. 9. Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker Let the potsheard strive with the potsheards of the Earth shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it What makest thou or thy worke he hath no hands Which words hee saith doe verily signifie thus much that God of his meere pleasure doth so determine of mens estate either the one way or the other as a Potter doth make of clay what worke hee pleaseth And hitherto hee saith doth that belong which followeth Isai 45. 10. Woe unto him that saith unto his Father What begettest thou or to the woman What hast thou brought forth For saith hee what hath man deserved why his parents should ingender him such or such And a little before by diverse arguments he confutes those who thinke that the Apostle speaking of Reprobation doth suppose the lumpe of mankinde infected with originall sinne If saith he those things which the Apostle delivers in this Chapter be diligently considered it will fully appeare that as well Reprobation as Election is absolutely not of foreseene merits For 1. When he saith neither having done any good or evill he excludes as well the evill action of Esau as the good action of Jacob and consequently as well the ill merit
saved by his owne inherent righteousnesse because though he be otherwise never so righteous yet still there is some sinne in him which hee knoweth not of according to that of the Apostle which Ambrose there citeth I know nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby justified 1 Cor. 4. 4. The Apostle denieth that hee was justified by that righteousnesse that was in him though hee had the testimony of a good conscience to rejoyce in 2 Cor. 1. 12. yet was hee neverthelesse assured that hee was justified and should be saved through faith in Christ Jesus as hath been proved before from Rom. 8. 33. c. and from other places This was all that Ambrose meant as appeares by his words immediately going before those objected The Apostle hee saith Explaines Davids meaning saying I know nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby justified He knew that he was a man and did take heed to himselfe as he could that he might not sin after his Baptisme therefore he knew nothing by himselfe but because he was a man he confessed himselfe a sinner knowing that Iesus alone is the true light who did no sin neither was guile found in his mouth that he alone is justified i. e. perfectly just in himselfe who was truly without all sin That which Basil whose words I find in Bellarmine though otherwise I have him not to peruse saith is directly to the same purpose and imports no more then that of Ambrose We doe not understand saith he many things wherein we sin Therefore the Apostle saith I know nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby justified that is I sin in many things and am not aware of it For Hierome hee is too loosely cited both by the Marquesse and before him by Bellarmine there being eleven long Chapters in that booke which is mentioned but in which of them he saith any thing against us they doe not tell us However the words objected are these There are righteous men to whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked and there are wicked men to whom it happeneth according to the worke of the righteous This is said viz. Eccles 8. 14. because certaine judgement belongs only unto God These words by search I finde in Hierome but it plainly appeares that his scope onely is to prove against the Pelagians that no man in this life is so righteous as to be without sinne which is not against us in this controversie but for us in another as hath beene shewed before A little after those words Hierome saith thus What mortall man is not taken with some errour And that the righteous shall scarcely be saved 1 Pet. 4. 18. because in some things or rather indeed in all things he stands in needs of Gods mercy In the former Chapter Hierome brings in that of S. Paul I know nothing by my selfe c. and saith that though the Apostle were not conscious to himselfe of sinne yet hee did not justifie himselfe because hee had read Psal 19. 13. who can understand his his faults Thus then his testimony makes indeed against the perfection of a mans own righteousnesse but not against his assurance of salvation which may well stand without the other Chrysostome in the place cited comments upon that Ioh. 21. 17. Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time lovest thou me and hee saith that Peter feared lest now hee thought himselfe to love Christ when hee did not as before he was deceived in thinking himselfe stout and constant when it proved otherwise But 1. Though Chrysostome so take the words of Peter as if he might then be mistaken in that opinion which hee had of himselfe yet it does not follow that therefore hee should hold that a man cannot be assured that hee hath saving grace in him 2. Austine gives another and a better reason why Peter was grieved that Christ did aske him that question the third time viz. because thereby Christ as he thought seemed not to believe him not that hee suspected his owne heart but hee feared that Christ did suspect him because he did aske him the same question thrice over Maldonate the Jesuite cites Theodorus Heracleotes as also thus expounding it and saying that therefore Peter answered Lord thou knowest all things thou knowest that I love Thee as if hee should have said Thou that knowest all things canst not but know that it is true that I say and therefore why doest thou aske mee so often as if thou didst not believe me This Exposition Maldonate doth prefer before the other of Chrysostome which he also mentioneth and saith that Peter saying Lord thou knowest did speak so not so much out of modesty as to confirme that which hee had said viz. that he loved Christ by Christs own testimony Austine in Psal 40. hath nothing that I can see to the purpose I suppose it should be in Psalme 41. from whence Bellarmine doth produce this I know that the righteousnesse of God doth remaine whether my righteousnesse may remaine I know not For the Apostle doth make me to feare saying Let him that thinketh he standeth take heede lest he fall 1 Cor. 10. 12. I acknowledge these words of Austine but that which followes immediately shewes the meaning of them Therefore saith hee because I have no strength or stability in my selfe neither have I hope of my selfe my soule is troubled toward my selfe Wouldest thou not have it troubled Doe not abide in thy selfe but say unto thee O Lord have I lift up my soule Psal 25. 1. Heare this more plainly Doe not hope of thy selfe but of thy God For if thou doest hope of thy selfe thy soule will be troubled towards thee because it hath not yet found whereby it may be secure of thee Therefore because my soule is troubled towards me what remaines but humility that the soule doe not presume of it selfe Thus it clearly appeares that Austine spake not against assurance of salvation but onely against selfe confidence and presumption The last Father alledged is Bernard who saith This doth adde to the heape of care and to the weight of feare that when as it 's necessary to looke both to mine own and my Neighbours conscience neither of them is sufficiently knowne unto me Both are an unsearchable depth both are night unto me But Bernard onely meanes that it 's very hard for a man to know his owne heart because of the deceitfulnesse of it not but that by the Spirit of God a man may know it so farre forth as to be assured of the truth of Grace in him which hath beene proved before by Bernards testimony in diverse places So elsewhere hee saith indeed Who can say I am of the Elect I am of those that are predestinate unto life I am of the number of Gods children who I say can say these things the Scripture saying on the contrary Man knowes not whether
greater benefit by him even of deliverance from the captivity of sinne and Satan Estius in his Exposition of the hard places of Scripture treating of this place saith indeed that many understand it of Christs descending into Hell and delivering thence the soules of the just but withall hee tells us that it is diversly expounded and that one Exposition is that Christ by the Merit of his Passion did free all the Elect who were held captive under the power of the Devill And thus hee saith the pit wherein is no water is the captivity of mankinde in which so long as it is held it is empty of the water of Divine Grace Diverse Romanists doe cite Hierome as interpreting this place of the Prophet Zachary of Limbus Patrum and of Christs descending thither But they that peruse Hieromes owne words will finde that hee neither speakes of Christs descending nor of Limbus Patrum and that indeed hee meant onely that which Estius expresseth Hee giveth the sense of the Prophets words thus By the blood of thy passion thou through thy clemency hast delivered those who were held bound in the prison of Hell in which there is no mercy And hee addes a little after that the rich man spoken of Luke 16. was in that pit which was so void of all water of comfort that hee desired Lazarus might but dip the tip of his finger in water to coole his Tongue Here it is evident that Hierome by the pit without water understands the Hell of the damned which is without all comfort though the Marquesse say that place cannot here be meant Now whereas Hierome saith that Christ by his Passion did deliver those that were bound in that prison I suppose hee did not meane that any being once in Hell as that rich man that he mentioneth were afterwards delivered out of it himself seemes to exclude that sence when hee saith that in that prison there is no mercy viz. to be obtained but his meaning was that such as by reason of sinne were in the state of damnation Christ did deliver by his Passion But thus neither this place of Zachary nor any other place of Scripture doth prove a Limbus Patrum or that Christ descended into Hell in that sense as they of the Church of Rome maintaine For the Fathers whom the Marquesse citeth Austine in Psal 37. 1. hath nothing about Limbus Patrum or Christs descending into Hell and I have shewed before that he gathered by the Scripture that Abrahams bosome was no such Limbus as the Romanists imagine yea that hee held the Saints that died before Christs incarnation to have alwayes enjoyed the beatificall presence of Christs Divinity which is point blanke contrary to their opinion Hierome I grant in Ephes 4. 9. seemeth to speake for them where hee saith By the lower parts of the Earth is understood Hell to which our Lord and Saviour descended that he might victoriously carry with him to Heaven the soules of the Saints which were kept there Whereupon also after his Resurrection many bodies of the just were seene in the holy City But Hieromes meaning might be onely this that Christ by the vertue and efficacy of his death did deliver the Soules of all Saints whether before or after his comming from Hell which otherwise by reason of sinne was the place that did belong unto them Thus a little before upon those words when hee ascended up on high hee led captivity captive Hierome doth expresse himselfe saying Wee who now believe in Christ were taken captive by the Devill and were delivered over to his officers Therefore our Lord Iesus Christ came bringing with him the vessels of captivity and preached remission to those that were taken and deliverance to those that were bound and delivered us from the Chaines and Fetters of our enemies And having deliver'd us and by a new captivity brought us out of our old captivity he carried us with him into Heaven Hee cannot here meane that we were actually in Hell and then from thence delivered and carried up with Christ into Heaven But his meaning must needs be this that whereas sinne had brought us under condemnation so that nothing but Hell did remaine for us Christ by his death delivered us and made a way for us into Heaven into which otherwise wee could finde no entrance After the same manner very well may the other words be understood so as to import no such place as they call Limbus Patrum However hee meant yet it appeares sufficiently by the words of Austine before cited that the opinion of Limbus Patrum was not generally received in that time wherein Hierome lived Austine and hee being contemporaries The other Father yet remaining is Gregory but there is no such place as that mentioned viz. li. 13. Mor. ca. 20. for that booke hath onely 17. Chapters in it yet I finde Bellarmine also to cite Gregory after the very same manner yea and to bid us also see Cap. 21. But the words which Bellarmine citeth as out of Cap. 20. are indeed in Cap. 15. viz. Whiles our Master and Redeemer penetrating the cloysters of Hell did bring out from thence the soules of the Elect hee suffers not us to goe thither from whence by descending hee did deliver others These words of Gregory might admit of the same Exposition with those of Hierome before spoken of but that in the next Chapter he is more plaine saying The former Saints could indure adversity but yet they could not be delivered from Hell when they died because hee was not yet come who should descend thither without sinne that hee might deliver those who were held there by reason of sinne But the reason that Gregory here giveth is too weake for though Christ were not then come in the flesh yet his death was as effectuall to those that believed in him then as after his comming as I have proved before Neither is the gound or occasion of these words of Gregory good for hee buildes or comments upon that of Iob 17. 13. If I waite Sheol Hell as Gregory understands it is mine house But I have shewed before that Sheol doth not properly signifie Hell as either wee or our adversaries usually take the word but the Grave or the state of the dead And so the Chaldie Paraphrast there for Sheol hath that which signifieth the house of the Grave This appeares to be the meaning in that place by that which followes immediately after v. 14. I have said to corruption Thou art my Father to the worme thou art my Mother and Sister If our adversaries wil yet stand upon the authority of Gregory I answer that we are not tied to the authority of any in this kinde further then they concur with the Scripture and if we were yet Austines authority were to be preferred as being 200 years more antient then Gregory but of this point enough From Limbus Patrum wee must now passe to Purgatory
the Masse which for many years he had celebrated was evil and unlawful as being most repugnant to Christs institution This many of the Romish writers upbraid him with as if the Masse must needs therfore be good because the Devil did plead against it Protestants make use of those very arguments which the Devil did urge in his dispute with Luther But though the Devil be a liar and hath alwayes some evil and false end at which he aims yet the thing it self which he saith is not alwayes false For he confessed Christ to be the Son of God Mat. 8. 29. and Paul and his companions to be the servants of the most high God which did shew the way of salvation Act. 16. 17. Neither do I see any reason why Luther might not come to see his error and to correct it by the Devils dispute with him though the Devil intended no such matter as well as Monica Austin's mother came to see her vice and to abandon it by being upbraided with it by one whose intent was nothing lesse then to work such an effect upon her Mr. Breerley will not admit that the Devil in that dispute did seek to drive Luther to despaire But Luther whom any indifferent man will rather believe in this case did judge otherwise of it It is true saith he the Devil is a liar but an artificial liar his lies are more cunning and crafty then man is able to imagine He layes hold on some clear truth that cannot be denied and doth urge it so subtilly and doth so varnish his lie as to deceive even those that are most wary As that thought which he put into Judas was true I have betraied innocent blood this Judas could not deny But this was a lie Therfore I must despair of Gods mercy Yet did the Devil bring him to this Therefore when the Devil doth urge the greatnesse of sinne he doth not lie but herein he lieth that he would make me to despair of Gods grace I confessed being convinced by the law of God before the Devil that I sinned but with Peter I turn me unto Christ c. This plainly shewes what in Luthers judgment the Devill did aime at though he failed in his designe Neither is this answer impertinent as Mr. Breerley also doth pretend as may sufficiently appear by what I have said before It makes nothing he saith to prove that the Devill therefore did not instruct Luther against the Masse But what if Luther were convinced of his errour by those arguments which the Devill urged against him only to drive him to despaire This doth but set forth the wisdom and goodnesse of God in making use of the malice of the Devill for the good of those whom he loveth As Austine observeth in the reformation which God wrought in his Mother when she was a young girle by the means of a maid that falling out with her cast her in the teeth with her wine-bibbing thinking only to reproach and vex her but God by the distemper of the one did work a cure upon the other From Luther the Marquess passeth to Zuinglius saying that Gualterus calls him the author of warre the disturber of peace proud and cruell and instances in his strange attempts against the Tigurines his fellowes whom he forced by want and famine to follow his Doctrine and that he died in armour and in the warre When I only looked upon the place as cited by the Marquess viz. In Apolog. pro Zuing. I could not but admire that Gualterus in his Apologie for Zuinglius should write thus of him But examining the truth of the Quotation I am much more filled with admiration For Gaulterus is made to charge Zuinglius with these things which he doth purposely and professedly clear him of complaining of those that do charge him with them He shews that Zuinglius was not the author of that war which was betwixt the Tigurines and their neighbours It was the fashion he saith among the Tigurines when they went to war in behalf of their country to have their Ministers along with them And so Zuinglius went out to battel and died in it and that armed yet not either as chief Commander or Ensigne-bearer but only as a good Citizen and faithful Pastor who might not leave his people in such an exigence And whereas the Marquess speaks of Gualterus his instancing in Zuinglius his strange attempts against the Tigurines c. it was a great oversight in him For Gualterus only taxeth them who say Zuinglius Tigurinis novi exquisitifacinoris contra socios audendi author fuerit vt videl victus inopiâ famis necessitate eos in suas partes concedere cogeret c. that is That Zuinglius caused the Tigurines to attempt a strange enterprise against their companions other Helvetians that were their confederates so as by want and famine to force them to joyn with them c. Thus all this great charge brought against Zuinglius is built meerly upon mistakes The next that the Marquesse falls upon is Beza upon whom is cast a most foul asperfion That in his Epigrams he hath Verses concerning his Boy Andebert and his Wench Candida and that having debated at large which sinne is to be preferr'd he chooseth the Boy at last Answ If Beza had indeed sometime been guilty of this vile enormity which is fained of him what could any justly inferre from hence but that the grace of God did eminently appeare in that change which afterwards was wrought in him The Apostle having spoken of such as are guilty of grosse sinnes and among the rest of this here charged upon Beza saith to the Corinthians And such were some of you but you are washed but you are sanctified but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God I Cor. 6. II. But it can never be proved that Beza was guilty of such wickednesse though divers both Romanists and Lutherans have charged him with it Beza hath made answer for himself I. He confesseth that in his younger years he had exercised his Poetical faculty by composing amatorious Verses but he saith it is no equal dealing that what he did in sport should be interpreted as done in earnest 2. He professeth that he had by a publike writing rejected and disavowed those Verses and complaineth of his adversaries who would not suffer them to be abolished 3. He sheweth that this Candida spoken of in his Epigrams is but a fained name 4. That Andebert who is also mentioned in those Epigrams was a man of known integrity and of great dignity in France and that therefore an odious thing it was so to pervert that great friendship and familiarity which he had with him as to turn it into that execrable filthinesse not to be named Mr. Breerley who sets down a great many of those Verses which the Marquesse doth but