dead and therefore lesse glory ascendeth vnto God by their doctrine then by ours But what doe I say lesse when indeed to giue any part of the Creators glory to the creature is vtterly to take all from the Creator for hee will haue all or none as Tertullian notably obserueth when he saith That true faith requireth this in defending the true God that whatsoeuer is his we make it onely his for so shall it bee accounted his if it bee accounted onely his by which rule the faith of the Romane Church cannot bee the true faith 12. And againe according to the second ground if to giue all the glory to God and none to our selues sauour of humility but to deuide stakes betwixt God and our selues hath a taste of pride then it must needs follow that God is more honoured by the one then by the other because by humility God is honoured and by pride dishonoured and therefore the Apostle saith that hee resisteth the proud and giueth grace to the humble for what cause but because the proud man seeketh his owne glory whereas the humble deuesteth himselfe of all and layeth it downe at the foote of God the proud man reioyceth in himselfe but the humble reioyceth in the Lord alone according as it is written Let him that reioyceth reioyce in the Lord. Now the Romanists that magnifie free-will haue iust cause their doctrine being presupposed to be true to reioyce in themselues which is an argument of pride for whereas our Sauiour saith Without me ye can doe nothing they may say Yes something for wee can either admit or reiect thy grace by our owne power and whereas the Apostle saith Who hath separated thee what hast thou which thou hast not receiued they may say I haue separated my selfe in doing that which I was able and so made my selfe fit for grace and this power I haue not receiued from Gods speciall fauour but from my owne free will All which kinde of speeches as they are full of pride and fleshly vanity so they are stuffed with impiety and blasphemie and manifestly tend to the dispoyling of the diuine Maiestie of that glory which is onely due vnto him And therefore I conclude with two notable sayings one of S. Augustines and another of Cassander a learned Reconciliater of late time Tutiores viuimus saith the Father si totum Deo damus c. that is We liue more safely if we attribute all wholy to God and not commit our selues partly to God and partly to our selues And this is the part of a godly minded man saith the Reconciliater to attribute nothing to themselues but all to Gods grace whence it followeth that how much so euer a man giueth to grace yet in so doing hee departeth not from pietie though hee detract something from nature and freewill but when any thing is taken from Gods grace and giuen to nature which belongeth to grace that cannot be without eminent danger So that by the confession both of this learned Romanist and also of that reuerend Father our doctrine in the poynt of free-will is both more agreeable to piety and respectiue to Gods glory then theirs is and therefore in reason to be preferred before it 13. The next doctrine whereby the glorie of God is darkened and the dignitie of Christs merites blemished is their doctrine of IustificatioÌ„ which I ioyne next vnto Free-wil because their sophistry cunning in this great maine pillar of Religion cannot well be discerned they so palliate the matter with faire glosses goodly words except their opinion touching the power of Free-will be first apprehended And here before I enter into the bowels of this poynt it is to be obserued that most of them vaunt and bragge that they doe much more magnifie Christs merites by their doctrine of Iustification then we doe which how true it is the discourse following I hope shall so manifest that euery indifferent man shall be able to say truely of them as Saint Augustine said of the Donatists These are the words of men extolling the glory of man vnder the name of Christ to the abasing of the glory of Christ himselfe 14. The doctrine therfore of our Church touching the iustification of a sinner is in effect thus much That a sinner is iustified that is accepted into the fauour and loue of God not by any thing in himselfe or from himselfe but by the perfect and vnspotted righteousnes of Christ Iesus imputed vnto him by the meere mercy of God through the couenant of grace and apprehended on his behalfe by the hand of faith The reason whereof is because that which must satisfie Gods iustice and reconcile a sinner vnto him must haue these two properties first it must be of infinite weight and value to counterpoyse with the rigour of Gods iustice and secondly it must be of sufficient ability to performefull and perfect obedience to the law of God so that a perfect satisfaction bee made both in respect of the obedience which the law requireth and also of the punishment that it inflicteth Now no righteousnesse of man is thus qualified but is both imperfect and vnsufficient no not the righteousnes of Angels themselues being though excellent yet â—â—finite Creatures sauing the righteousnes of Christ Iesus onely who is both God and Man and therefore his righteousnes onely and none other is that whereby a sinner must be iustified before God 15. From this it appeareth that when we say that a man is iustified by faith our meaning is not that faith is the cause of our iustification but onely the instrument and hand to apprehend that righteousnes of Christ whereby we are iustified when we say faith alone iust fieth we meane that it alone is the instrument of our iustification because it alone layeth hold vpon the righteousnes of Christ and applyeth it to our selues not that it is euer alone but alwaies accompanyed with charity and patience and zeale and temperance and other fruites of the spirit for we hold that the true iustifying faith is euer mâ—â—re grauida bonoruÌ„ operuÌ„ as one of their own fauourites affirmeth that is full of good workes and euer anon ready to bring them forth as occasion serueth Neither doe we deny as some of them falsly slander vs though many of their chiefest Writers gaine-say their fellowes and affoord vs that fauour to speake the truth of vs but that euery one that is iustified must also be truely sanctified and that saluation is not obtained by iustification alone but by sanctification also yet wee make sanctification and good workes not to be the causes but the effects nor the roote but the fruit nor the anticedents but the necessary consequents and attendants of our Iustification And as Bellarmine truely distinguisheth to be necessary Necessitate praesentiae non efficientiae by a necessity of presence not of efficacie as if they wrought our saluation In a word
not iustify and yet faith alone doth iustify If they say that they speake of one kinde of faith and we of another they say nothing to the purpose for euen that any faith alone should iustify is contrary to their owne positions who affirme that the former cause of our iustification is the inherent righteousnes of works and not the righteousnes of Christ apprehended by faith And thus I leaue the Article of iustification at farre with it selfe to be atoned by their best wits if it be possible 37. Let vs come to their doctrine of workes and see how that agreeth with it selfe and here first they hold that works done before faith and regeneration are not good workes but sinnes This is proued by them out of Saint Augustine who affirmeth that the workes of vnbeleeuers are sinnes and if the workes of vnbeleeuers then of all other wicked men which bee not regenerate seeing as the same Father else-where speaketh Impij cogitant non credunt the wicked doe not beleeue but thinke they haue but a shadow of faith without substance It may be prooued also by that generall and infallible axiome of the holy Scripture Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne but the workes of wicked men are all voyd of faith and therefore are no better then sinnes in the sight of God be they neuer so glorious and beautifull in the eyes of men Or as Gregorie Nazianzene saith As faith without workes is dead so workes without faith are dead and dead workes are sinnes as appeares Heb. 9. 41. Besides Bellarmine confirmeth the same by reason because they want a good intention to direct their workes to the glory of the true God whome they are ignorant of To which I adde another reason drawne from our Sauiours owne mouth Mat. 7. Because an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruit but euery man til he be ingrafted into Christ is no better then an euill tree and therefore cannot doe a good worke 38. This is their doctrine and it is sound diuinitie but see how they crosse it ouer the face with a contrary falshood for the same men that teach this notwithstanding affirme that the workes of Infidels are good suo genere in their kind so they are good and not good sinnes and yet good works but this is in their kind say they that is Morally and not Theologically I but morall vertues in the vnregenerate are by their owne principles sinnes how then can they be good any waies Can sinne which is a transgression of Gods law and simply in it owne nature euill be in any respect good as it is sinne But to take cleare away this scruple another of them auoucheth that they are not onely morally but euen Theologically good for he saith that such works as are done by the light of nature onely without grace doe dispose and make a man in some sort fit to iustification though it be longè valdèremotè remotely and a farre off for he that yeeldeth obedience to morall lawes is thereby lesse vndisposed and repugnant to diuine grace Now how can sinnes dispose or prepare a man for iustification is God delighted with sinnes Either therefore they are not sinnes or they doe not dispose to iustification neither farre nor neere or which is the present contradiction they are sinnes and not sinnes good and not good at one time and in one and the same respect And to put the contradiction out of all question the Councill of Trent in the seuenth Canon of the sixt Session enacteth as much and denounceth Anathema to all that say the contrarie the words are these If any man shall say that all the works which are done before iustification by what meanes soeuer they are done are truely sinnes or deserue the hatred of God let him be Anathema And Andradius the interpretor of that Councill authorised by the Fathers of the same doth more perspicuously explaine the meaning of that Canon when hee saith that men without faith destitute of the spirit of regeneration may doe workes which are voyde of all filthinesse free from all fault and defiled with no sinne and by which they may obtaine saluation then which what can be more contradictory to that which before was deliuered that all the workes of Infidels and vnbeleeuers are sinnes be they neuer so glistering with morall vertue or more agreeable to the olde condemned errors of Iustine Clemens and Epiphanius who affirmed that Socrates and Her aclitus were Christians because they liued according to the rule of reason and that the Grecians were iustified by Philosophie and that many were saued onely by the law of nature without the lawe of Moses or Gospell of Christ 39. Againe their doctrine of doubel merit the one of Congruity the other of Condignity as they terme them is not onely contrary to the truth but to it selfe For this they teach that the merit of congruity which the Councill of Trent calleth the preparations and dispositions to iustification is grounded vpon the dignity of the worke and not vpon the promise of God but the merit of condignity requireth both a dignity of the worke and the promise of God to bee grounded vpon or else it is no merit This is Bellarmines plaine doctrine and is consonant to the residue of their Doctours both Schoole diuines and others for thus they define the merit of congruity It is that by which the subiect is disposed that it may receiue grace according to the reason of Gods iustice Here is onely iustice required and not any promise to the merit of congruity though I must confesse Gabriel Biel somewhat crosseth this definition when â—e saith that when a man doth what in him lyeth then God accepteth his worke and powreth in grace not by the due of Iustice but of his liberalitie And Aquinas who affirmeth that when a man vseth well the power of free-will God worketh in him according to the excellencie of his mercy But yet they all agree in this that the merit of congruity is not grounded vpon any promise as the merit of condignity is but onely vpon the worthinâ—s of the worke done Now here lurketh a flat contradiction for by this it should follow that the merit of congruity should bee more properly a merit then that of condignity Which Bellarmine denyeth in the same Chapter because this dependeth vpon it owne dignity and hath no neede of a promise as the other hath and so should bee also more meritorious and excellent then the other being neuerthelesse but a preparation and beginning to iustification and the other the matter of iustification it selfe And that a man that hath no grace dwelling in him but onely outwardly mouing him nor is yet iustified should haue more power to deserue and merite then he that is fulfilled with grace and fully iustified Thus error like a Strumpet bringeth foorth a monstrous brood of absurdities but let vs proceede 40. Their
but incourage men to deferre their repentance conuersion seeing it is in their power to accept it when they list 94. Secondly how can the doctrine of iustification by faith alone tend to loosenesse seeing we teach that faith is neuer seuered from good workes nor iustification from sanctification nor a right beliefe from an vpright life as hath beene shewed and that they which seuer and part those things which God hath coupled together seuer themselues from the mercie of God and merit of Iesus Christ With what brow of brasse then can they call this a solifidian portion and a doctrine of libertie I but manie take libertie hereby to lead a loose and wicked life building vpon this ground that they are iustified by faith alone and so they neglect all good workes True indeed many such there are but is it from our doctrine is it not rather from their mistaking of it So the Capernaites tooke offence at our Sauiour Christs heauenly doctrine Ioh. 6. touching the spirituall eating of his flesh and drinking his bloud insomuch that many of them departed from him was his doctrine therefore erronious or were not they rather ignorant in misconstruing impious in peruerting the same So is it with this mysterie of iustification which is the verie doctrine of Iesus Christ if any by mistaking it or by taking vp one piece of it and leauing another doe animate themselues vnto sinne is the doctrine to be blamed and not they rather that distort it to their owne shame and confusion In a word if this were a iust exception against this doctrine then no doctrine either of their or ours or the Gospell it selfe might bee freed from this challenge For as there is no herbe so sweet and wholsome but the Spider may sucke poyson out of it aswell as the Bee hony so there is no truth so sacred and holy but an vngodly minde may peruert and make it an occasion of his impietie Thus the grace of God is turned into wantonnesse by many as Saint Iude saith the word of God is the sauour of death vnto death Yea Christ Iesus our blessed Lord and Sauiour is a falling and a stone to stumble at and a rocke of offence so the doctrine of Iustification by faith alone may be an occasion of libertie and no otherwise that is not properly or by any effect issuing from itselfe but accidentally and by the malignitie of the obiect whereupon it worketh 95. Thirdly our doctrine of perseuerance though rayling Wright sayth of it that Epicurus himselfe could not haue found a better ground to plant his Epicurisme nor Heliogabalus haue better patronized his sensualitie nor Bacchus and Venus haue forged better reasons to inlarge their dominion yet to any single eye for his eyes are double-sighted with malice as Witches eyes are said to be it is rather a strong bridle to restraine from sensuality and Epicurisme and a bond to bind to obedience then a provocation vnto sinne for when men are perswaded that sincere faith true charitie and sauing grace cannot be lost it will cause them to take heed how they fall away lest they proue themselues to haue beene hypocrites before and their faith and charitie not to haue beene true but fained for he that falleth from God whom he pretend d to serue to the Deuil by an actual Apostasie into sinne plainly proueth that hee had neuer the seed of the spirit sowne in him nor the habit of charitie in his soule this is then a bridle to withhold men from sinne and not a spurre to pricke them forward vnto it And therefore whereas they say that men will thus reason If I be the child oâ— God I cannot fall away therefore I will doe what I list The contrarie is rather true that euery child of GOD yea euery one that is perswaded that hee is the childe of GOD will reason thus from the grounds of this doctrine I will not doe what I list neither will I giue my selfe ouer vnto sinne lest I proue my selfe by my falling into sinne not to be the child of God but an hypocrite Adde hereunto that as we teach that true faith and charitie cannot bee vtterly extinct in the elect So also we teach that this faith and charitie must bee nourished and preserued by the practice of all holy Christian duties and therefore they which neglect the conseruation of their faith and charitie and seek to extinguish them by the lusts of the flesh it is a signe that they neuer had these graces in grafted in their soules And what perswasion can be more effectual I pray you to stirre vp men vnto godlinesse then this is 96. So we may truly answere concerning the fourth doctrine obiected namely the impossibilitie of keeping Gods Commandements which though it be true in some part albeit not as they slanderously impute vnto vs. For wee hold that the regenerate person is able in some measure to keepe Gods Commandements though not to that perfection which the Law requireth exacting of euery one of vs the loue of God with all our heart soule and strength yet this openeth not but rather stoppeth the gap vnto fleshly libertie For is any man so madde as to say I will giue ouer all care of keeping Gods Law because I am not able fully and exactly to performe it rather euery one that hath but a reasonable soule will thus determine Because I am not able to performe perfect obedience to God therefore I will indeuour to doe what I can that my imperfections and wants may bee made vp by the perfect obedience of my Sauiour All men will account him a wilfull wicked wretch who being greatly indebted because he is not able to discharge the whole summe therfore will take no care to pay any part thereof which he is able to doe but lay all vpon his sureties backe so we condemne him for a desperate and damnable person that because he is not able to satisfie the whole debt of Gods Commandements therefore will not indeuour to pay as much as he can besides we teach withall that though this perfection be not attained vnto in this life yet there must be a continuall growth and increase in grace and goodnesse in all that belong to God that at length after this life ended they may doff off the olde man with the inabilities and corruptions thereof and attaine to the highest degree of perfection in the life to come the fruit of this doctrine then is not sensuall libertie but Christian humilitie not a prouocation to sinne but an incentiue and spurre vnto godlinesse 97. Thus I haue propounded vnto the view of the Christian Reader a short Epitome of the great volume of their slanders darted forth by them both against our persons our gouernment and our Religion it selfe all which indeed is but a taste and say of that which might be spoken in this subiect and which requireth an entire worke for the discouering of ther
common receiued doctrine of the Church of Rome 8. Now out of all these their opinions three materiall obseruations doe arise first that that Helena of theirs the merit of congruity though in word it be reiected by some of the finer Iesuites yet in substance and in truth is still retayned for whereas the Schoolemen say grosly that a man by doing what he is able by the power of his nature doth of congruity merit effectuall grace the Councill of Trent and the later Diuines choose rather to say that hee doth dispose and prepare himselfe to grace which indeede is in effect all one for to merit grace and to dispose a mans selfe to grace is in diuersity of words but one and the same sense and this Bellarmine ingenuously confesseth when he saith that a man not yet reconciled may by the workes of penance obtaine and deserue ex congruo of congruity the grace of iustification Thus they say and vnsay what they list and gainesay each other and indeede are in such a labyrinth that they know not what to say Secondly that howsoeuer they magnifie the grace of God in word and affirme nothing more frequently then that without Gods grace preuenting assisting and following vs we can doe nothing yet in very deede they ascribe well-neere as much power to free-will as to the grace of God yea more for they make the efficacie of the first grace to depend vpon the free consent of our will and make it as it were the Porter to let in or shut out grace at it pleasure which is one of the most presumptuous conceits that euer was vttered by the mouth of man and full of blasphemy Thirdly and lastly that this first grace which they say doth work with free-will in the first act of our new birth and help assist it is not intrinsicall and inhabitant but barely outward prouocant In respect whereof Coster compareth grace to a staffe in a mans hand which at his owne will he either vseth for his helpe or throweth away and to a friend who finding a man in a deepe pit perswadeth him by diuers reasons to be willing to be pulled out And in expresse words the same Iesuite saith that this grace is onely the impulsion and motion of the holy Ghost being yet without and standing knocking at the doore of our heart not being as yet let in And Bellarmine auoucheth the same when hee saith that it is but onely a perswading which doth not determine the will but inclineth it in manner of a propounding obiect And thus vnder colour of the name of grace they insinuate into mens soules the poyson of their doctrine attributing in word all to grace when indeede they meane nothing lesse 9. These things being thus discouered let vs now come to see how by this doctrine the glory of God is defaced which that it may more clearely appeare two grounds are to be laid the first whereof is that God is so iealous of his glory that he cannot endure any copartner or sharer with him therein The second is that in cases where grace nature seeme to worke together the godliest course is to magnifie the grace of God and to debase the nature of man yea to ascribe all to grace and nothing to nature because this sauours of humility whereas the contrary hath a manifest taste of pride These grounds being setled in our mindes let vs come to the examination of their doctrine And I pray you touching the first ground doth not this doctrine of theirs make man to part stakes with God In his glory whereas our doctrine doth ascribe all the glory in solid and whole to God onely let any man iudge whether ascribe more glory vnto God wee that affirme that God is all in all to the effecting of our regeneration or they that say that our will doth cooperate with his grace or else it can doe nothing we that say that we are starke dead to Godward till God put life into vs by his spirit or they that say wee are but sicke and halfe dead and are but onely helped and assisted by his spirit wee that teach that a man can no more prepare himselfe to his owne iustification then a dead man to life or they that teach wee may by our naturall powers either merit of congruity or prepare our selues to our iustification Lastly wee that ascribe the whole worke of our saluation to God onely or they that attribute some part thereof to their owne free-will If this bee not to derogate from Gods glory what can be for apparently they share the great and glorious worke of our regeneration betwixt God and man grace and nature 10. Would it not thinke you be a great impeachment to Gods glory if in the worke of our creation any should teach that God alone did not create vs but that we our selues were coadiutors with him so in the worke of regeneration which is a second creation to attribute part to Gods spirit and part to free-will is it not a great blemish to the glory of God for either it must be said that God could not doe it of himselfe alone or that he would not If the first then they blaspheme in derogating from his power if the second then they dote in saying God is not willing to maintaine his owne glory or that he is willing to impart it vnto others contrary to his owne word and will reuealed in the Scripture which way so euer they turne themselues they fall into the pit of impiety and make themselues guilty of high treason against the diuine Maiestie 11. Againe when our Sauiour raised vp Lazarus from the graue where he lay stinking foure dayes if it bee true which some write that Lazarus life was stil remaining in him and that his soule and body was not parted and so our blessed Sauiour did but excite and stirre vp that life which was as it were asleepe and did not inspire into him a new life and couple together his soule and body againe being deuided is not the glory of this miracle mightily darkened and extenuated This is our very case wee say that a man is starke dead and buried in the graue of sinne and till a new life of grace be inspired into his soule he cannot moue the least haires bredth to heauen-ward our aduersaries say that he is not dead but maymed and wounded like the man that betwixt Iericho and Ierusalem fell among theeues and therefore needes not to be reuiued but onely to be healed and helped with the oyle and wine of grace powred into his wounds he himselfe cooperating with his owne free will who seeth not that by this doctrine of ours God is more glorified and by theirs more debased for the lesse and easier the worke is the lesse is also the glory of the worke-man and the greater and harder the worke the greater his glory but it is a lesse worke to heale a man wounded then to raise a man
In the act of iustification wee say that workes haue no roome because both they are imperfect and also are not done by our own strength but being once iustified we must needs repent and become new creatures walking not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit And this is the doctrine of our Church concerning Iustification 16. Now let vs heare what they say and then weigh both doctrines in the ballance of the sanctuary that wee may see which of them bringeth most glory to the merits of CHRIST and to the power of his satisfaction I will plainely and sincerely God willing set downe the summe of their doctrine First therefore they teach that there is a double iustification the first whereby a man ex iniusto fit iustus of an vniust and wicked man is made iust and good and of a sinner is made righteous the second wherby a man being iust is made more iust and doth encrease in iustice and sanctity according to that Reuel 22. 11. He that is iust let him be more iust Concerning the first iustification some of them affirme that it is the free gift of God and deserued by no precedent workes others that it is merited by congruity but not by condignity but of the second they say that it is gotten and merited by our workes But before both these they make certaine preparations and dispositions whereby a man by the power of his owne free-will stirred vp by grace doth make himselfe fit for iustification namely by the acts of faith feare hope loue repentance and the purpose of a new life all which a man must haue before hee receiue the first grace of iustification and for the obtaining whereof he needs not any grace internally infused but onely offered externally Whereupon they are bold to affirme that the act of Iustification doth emane and proceed Simul ab arbitrio à Deo Both from free-will and from God Now the causes of iustification the Councill of Trent maketh to be these the finall cause Gods glory and mans saluation the efficient Gods mercy the meritorious cause Christs merits the instrumentall the Sacrament of Baptisme but the formall cause which is the chiefest and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dat esse rei giueth being to the thing as the Logicians speake they make to be an inherent righteousnes wrought in vs and inspired into vs by the Spirit of God And this in briefe is the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the iustification of a sinner 17. Wherein let vs obserue three maine and fundamentall differences betwixt their doctrine and ours in all which they raze the foundation and dedignifie the merits of Christ and the mercy of God to extoll the dignitie of man The first in their preparations wee hold that a man cannot any wayes dispose himselfe vnto grace but is wholly fitted and prepared by God and that those acts of preparation as they call them are not fore-runners of iustification but rather fruites and effects thereof they teach the contrary as I haue shewed The second difference is that the workes of a man iustified do not merit increase of grace which they terme the second iustification but as the beginning of grace is from gods mercy alone so the increase and augmentation thereof and perseuerance therein is onely to be ascribed to the worke of Gods spirit according to that of Saint Paul Phil. 1. 6. He that hath begunne this good worke in you will performe it vntill the day of Iesus Christ this we hold they the contrary The third difference is in the formall cause of our iustification which they maintaine to be an inherent righteousnes within vs euen the righteousnes of Sanctification We on the other side affirme that the formall cause of our iustification is the righteousnes of Christ Iesus not dwelling in vs nor proceeding from vs but imputed vnto vs by the mercy of God 18. Hauing thus layd open both our doctrines let vs examine and trye which of them giueth most glory vnto God and most exalts the merites of Christ for that must needs be the truth and which lifteth vp highest the proud nature of man for that must needs be falshood and errour especially seeing that Gods dignity and the dignity of man Christs merits and mans are as it were two skales of a ballance whâ—reof the one rising the other falls the one lifted vp the other is pressed downe First therefore touching the workes of preparation whether doe they more magnifie Gods mercie that say a man cannot prepare and dispose himselfe at all to grace but is wholly disposed and prepared by God or they that affirme that a man can prepare himselfe by his owne endeuour assisted outwardly with the grace of God the one makes Gods mercy the sole cause of iustification the other but the adiâ—vant and helping cause And whether doe they aduance most the dignity of man that say that a man can do nothing of himselfe for his owne iustification or they that say that a man can doe something to the preparation of himselfe to that great worke the one attributeth some dignity to man the other none at all we affirme the one part the Romanists the contrary and therefore our doctrine tends more to the debasing of mans worth and consequently to the exalting of Gods glory then theirs doth 19. True it is like Ferrimen that looke East and go West they with their great Grand-father Pelagius talke of grace when they meane nothing but nature and so deny indeede that which they affirme in word if the matter bee examined according to truth For Pelagius confessed a necessity of grace in all spirituall actions and yet was condemned for an enemy to grace by the Church of God because hee vnderstood not by grace the sanctifying worke of Gods spirit but an outward moouing and perswading power assisting mans free-will to the effecting of his owne saluation The very same is the doctrine of the Romanists as hath beene declared and therefore wee may iustly condemne them as enemies to the grace of God whatsoeuer they bragge and vaunt to the contrary 20. Secondly touching the second iustification which standeth as they say in the augmentation and encrease of our iustice let the most partiall Reader iudge whether tends most to the magnifying of Gods glory their doctrine which teacheth that wee merite the encrease of our iustice by our owne workes or ours which teacheth that both the seed and the growth both the roote and the fruite both the beginning and encrease of all righteousnesse is the worke of Gods spirit alone preuenting assisting and vpholding vs to the end and that these seuerall workes of grace are bestowed vpon vs not for any merites of our owne but simply and entirely for the merits of Christ Iesus I but they will say works doe not merit iustification because they are ours but because they are works of grace which grace floweth from the fountaine of
Christs merits and so they attribute asmuch or more to grace and Christs merites then wee doe To which I answere two things first if they held that these workes were merely from grace they said something to the purpose but affirming as they doe that they are partly from grace and partly from the power of free-will as two ioynt causes this their something is nothing but a vizard to couer the vgly face of their errour Secondly let this be granted that their doctrine is that they proceede onely from grace neuerthelesse being wrought in man and acted by man they must needes bee called and be indeede in part mans workes because man doth cooperate with grace and therefore to make them meritorious absolutely of grace must needes tend in part to the exalting of mans dignitie and consequently in part to the impeachment of Gods For let an answere bee giuen to this question by what meanes doth a man continue in iustice and encrease in holinesse Wee answere with Saint Paul By the grace of God onely who as hee hath begun that good worke in vs so will performe it vntill the day of Iesus Christ but the Romanists will answere that this is done by the merit of our owne workes which workes howsoeuer they may colour the matter by saying they are works of grace and receiue power froÌ„ Christs merits yet being the works of man also by the power of his free-will who seeth not but that Gods glory is greatly blemished hereby and mans worth extolled 21. Thirdly touching the forme of iustification which of vs doth most honour to God they which teach that it is an inherent righteousnesse habituated in vs or wee that say that it is Christs righteousnesse imputed vnto vs wee attribute all vnto Christ and nothing to our selues they share the matter betwixt Christ and our selues for this inherent righteousnesse though it proceede from Gods spirit as they say and is a worke of grace yet in three respects it may bee called our righteousnesse by their doctrine first in respect of the roote and spring of it which is as they affirme partly grace and partly nature Secondly in respect of the subiect which is the soule of man which may bee also called the instrument by which it is effected and that not a dead subiect or liuelesse instrument as we say mans nature is till it be liued and quickned by Gods spirit but of it selfe liuing and quicke and fit for so great a worke Thirdly In respect of the medium or meane by which it is attained which they hold is the merit of our owne workes as I haue sufficiently discouered out of their owne bookes Now then if this inherent righteousnesse bee in part our owne and not wholy Christs but the righteousnesse imputed be wholy and entirely Christs and not in any respect ours saue that it is giuen vnto vs and made ours by imputation who can doubt but that this our doctrine is farre more auaileable for the aduancement of Christs glory and debasing of mans excellencie then theirs is Adde herevnto that it must needes be a dishonour to God to say that an vnperfect a polluted and a stayned righteousnesse such as the best of ours is can satisfie the absolute and most exact iustice of God but it is an extolling glory to Gods iustice to say that it cannot be answered but by the most perfect and absolute righteousnesse that euer was in the world such as the righteousnesse of the Sonne of God is who taking our flesh vpon him performed in the same all righteousnesse that the strictest iustice of God required for our sakes 22. All which things layd together and diligently weighed we may see what caused all the Saints of God when they came to plâ—ad their causes before the tribunal of Gods iudgement to disclaime all their owne righteousnesse and to lay fast hold vpon the righteousnes of Christ the Mediatour and the mercies of God in him who is the fountaine of all mercy euen this because they perceiued that by this deiecting and despoyling of themselues of all worthinesse Gods glory was greatly magnified as also when they examined their best workes by the rule of the law their owne consciences told them that they were not able to abide the trial if they should bee weighed in the ballance of iustice and not of mercy Therefore this is the common voyce of all Gods Saints Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified to which in a sweet harmony accord all the Fathers Who will glory concerning his righteousnesse saith Origen seeing he heareth God saying by his Prophet All your righteousnesse is as a cloth of a menstruous woman our perfection it selfe is not voyd of fault saith Gregory vnlesse the seuere Iudge doe weigh it mercifully in the subtill scales of his iustice Who so liueth here howsoeuer iustly he liue yet woe vnto him saith S. Augustine if God enter into iudgement with him if our iustice be strictly iudged saith S. Bernard it will bee found vniust and scant And this infallible truth wrâ—ng out of Bellarmine himselfe though vnawares this plaine confession Tutissimum est in sola Dei misericordia conquiescere c. that is it is the safest course to repose our confidence what in our owne righteousnesse no in the sole mercy of God Is it the safest course for mans saluation so is it for the aduancement of Gods glory for the one is subordinate to the other who then that hath but common sense will not chuse rather to repose the hope of his saluation on Gods mercy then on his owne righteousnesse at least-wise if hee regard either Gods glory which all should and that aboue all or his owne soules health which should be next to the other in our desires 23. By this it may appeare what a vaine bragge that is of some of them who boast that they doe much more magnifie Christ and his merits then we doe because wee make them say they so meane as that they serue the turne onely to couer and hide sinne whereas they contrariwise do so highly esteeme them that they hold them able both to purchase at Gods hand an inherent righteousâ—esse and to giue it such force and value that it can make a man iust before God and worthy of the kingdome of heauen In which braue vaunt there lye lurking no lâ—sse then three grosse absurdities First they lay a false â—mputaâ—ion vpon our doctrine that wee should hold Christs merits to be so meane as to serue onely to couer and hide sinne whereas wee expresly teach and that with one consent that for the merits of Christ not onely our sinnes are pardoned but also that grace is inspired into our soules and sanctification and new obedience and Christ is made vnto vs of God wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption by which it appeareth that we ascribe euen as much in this
New Testament many things are wanting What can be more plaine Yet Lindanus is more plaine for he calleth Traditionem non scriptam c. The vnwritten tradition that Homericall moly which preserueth the Christian faith against the inchantments of Heretikes and the true touch-stone of true false doctrine and the Aâ—acian buckler to be opposed to all Heretikes and in conclusion the very foundation of faith To this fellow adioyne Melchior Canus as a coÌ„panion in blasphemy who saith That many things belong to Christian faith which are contained in the Scripture neither openly nor obscurely To conclude all in one summe without any further repetition of priuate mens opinions wherein much time might be spent the voyce of their whole Church represented in the Councill of Trent is this That traditions are to bee receaued pari pietate with the same reuerence and affection wherwith wee receiue the Scripture it selfe Thus wee haue a view of the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the insufficiency of the holy Scripture both in part and whole Out of all which these two impious conclusions doe necessarily arise First that traditions vnwritten are equall if not superiour in dignity and authority to the written word of God and secondly that without the helpe of them it is not able to bring vs either to a sauing faith in this life or to the end of our faith in the life to come then both which what could be spoken more iniurious either to the Word it self or to the Maiestie of that Spirit from whom it proceeded And that their blasphemy might be known â—o all men Bellarmine more like a Iulian then a Christian doth not onely affirme the Scripture to be vnsufficient and imperfect but also not simply necessary and to that end he maketh a good round discourse and bringeth in long Leaden arguments which indeed are not worth the answering for they are meere sophisticall collusions as any one of meane iudgement may easily discerne Neuerthelesse by this we may see what an honourable opinion and affection these fellowes beare towards the Scripture when as they dare to affirme that they are not simply necessary but may bee wanting and remoued without any great hurt to the Church of God 12. The third iniurious doctrine whereby open disgrace is offered to the holy Scripture is concerning the authority thereof compared with the Church for this they teach and hold That the authority of the Scripture doth depend vpon the Church and not the Church vpon the Scripture And so by consequent that the Scripture is inferiour to the Church and not the Church to the Scripture whereas we on the contrary affirme and defend that the Church wholly dependeth both for authoritie and existency vpon the Scripture and so is euery way inferiour to the Scripture and not the Scripture vpon the Church 13. This blasphemie of theirs may more euidently be discerned if we obserue what they vnderstand by the Church to wit not the Primitiue Church which was in the time and immediately after the Apostles but the succeeding and present Church and that not the whole Catholicke Church which is dispersed ouer the world but the Church of Rome which holdeth vpon the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and in this Church not the whole body but the Pastours and Prelates assembled in a Councill yea and lastly not the Councill neither but the Pope who is totus in toto all in all and in whome all the members meete and resolue themselues as lines in the center as is before declared This is their Church and to this Church of theirs they subiect the Scriptures euen the word of God to the Pope of Rome that is God himselfe to a mortall sinnefull man For as Nilâ—â— the Archbishop of Thessalonica saith To accuse the Scripture is to accuse God so to debase the Scripture is to debase God 14. That wee may see this to be true and that wee lay no false imputation to their charge heare them speake in their owne words and let Bellarmine leade the Ring If we take away saith he the authoritie of the present Church and of the Councill of Trent then the whole Christian faith may bee called in question for the truth of all ancient Councils and of all poynts of faith depend vpon the authority of the present Church of Rome Marke he saith not vpon the authority of the Scripture but of the present church of Rome where he doth manifestly preferre the authority of the Church before the Scripture not onely of the Church but of the Church of Rome as if there were no Church but that and not the Church of Rome as it was in the purer and primer times but the present Church corrupted and depraued with infinite errours Againe in another place he concludeth That the Scriptures doe depend vpon the Church and not the Church on the Scriptures which position he confesseth in the same place to haue beene in other places maintained by him And yet elsewhere he disclaimeth this opinion as none of theirs and calleth it a blasphemy that it is his I haue shewed already though he be ashamed of it as he may well be and therefore exore suo by his owne iudgement he and all the rest are guilty of most grosse and intolerable blasphemie But that you may see that it is the generall receiued doctrine of them all for the most part heare others as well as him vttering their spleene against the Scriptures Siluester Prierias saith that Indulgences are warranted vnto vs not by the authority of the Scripture but by the authority of the Church and Pope of Rome which is greater And againe That the Scripture draweth it strength and authority from the Church and Bishop of Rome Eckius saith that the Scripture was not authentical but by the authority of the Church and putteth this proposition among hereticall assertions The authority of the Scripture is greater then the Church Pighius also affirmeth the same that all the authoritie of Scriptures doth necessarily depend vpon the authority of the Church and calleth all that hold the contrary in scorne Scriptuarij that is Scripture-men or such as maintaine the Scripture Cardinall Hosius goeth further and commendeth a blasphemous speech of one Hermannus as a godly saying That the Scriptures are of no more force then Aesops Fables without the testimonie of the Church and addeth presently of his owne that vnlesse the Churches authority did commend vnto vs the Canonicall Scripture it should bee of little account with vs. The like is deliuered by Coclaeus by Canus Stapleton Andradius Canisius and generally all other of that side that handle that question 15. Onely to palliate the matter they bring in a distinction to wit that this dependance of the Scriptures authority vpon the Church is quoad nos in respect of vs not quâ—adse in respect of it selfe and declaratiuè for declaration sake
merite it and yet to haue it freely giuen if it be any wayes of merite then it is not euery way free Merite in the receiuer and freenesse in the giuer can in no respect stand together 33. Another contradiction in this Article is this that they say a man is iustified by his works and yet for all that he is iustified by grace too Both these propositions they peremptorily defend and take it in great scorne that we charge them to be maintayners of works against grace and call vs loud Lyers in casting that imputation vpon them But by their leaues they maintaine either works against grace or else they breathe hote and cold out of one mouth which the Satyre could not endure and speake contraries let them choose whether for the holy Ghost himselfe placeth these two Works and Grace in diametrall opposition If it be of grace it is no more of works or else were grace no more grace but if it bee of works it is no more grace or else were worke no more worke Here we see a manifest opposition betwixt grace and works so that one doth exclude the other and this in our election and therefore much more in our iustification which is but an effect thereof for election hath nothing to doe with our good works according to our doctrine nor with our euill according to theirs but iustification hath respect vnto our sinnes and euill deeds and therefore much greater must bee the opposition in this then in that greater reason that here works should be excluded by grace then in the other 34 Bellarmines exception is that the Apostle here excludeth onely the works that be of our selues without grace before we be iustified but as for those that come after they are works of grace and therefore be not excluded by grace but may well stand together To which I answere three things First that the Apostle hath no such distinction but speaketh generally of all works and therefore according to the olde rule Vbi lex non distinguit Where the law distinguisheth not there we must not distinguish To say therefore that it is both by grace and works is to confront the Apostle and to fasten vpon him a flat contradiction Yea it is to extinguish grace vtterly for as it hath beene before alledged out of Augustine grace is not grace in any respect except it bee free in euery respect Secondly that the Apostle meaneth works after grace and such as proceed from faith as well as works of nature appeareth by another like place where works are also excluded and opposed to the free gift of God that is to grace and that the Apostle intendeth works of grace appeareth by the reason following in the next verse For we are his workmanship created in Christ to good works Now in this last place works of grace must needs be vnderstood because he saith we are created in Christ Iesus vnto them and therefore the same also must necessarily bee meant in the former vnlesse wee will say that the Apostle or rather the holy Ghost disputes not ad idem Lastly I answere that in Abrahams iustification who was the Father of the faithfull and his iustification a patterne how all his spirituall posteritie should be iustified works of grace are excluded for at that time of which the Apostle there speaketh Abraham was regenerate as Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth and yet his works are excluded therefore works of grace are meant by the Apostle I but replyeth the same Cardinall when the Apostle saith that Abraham was iustified by faith and not by works he excludeth those works which Abraham might doe without faith for they which haue faith yet doe not alwaies worke by faith as when they sinne or performe meere morall duties without relation to God But this is no better then a meere shift without any ground of reason or truth for if it bee true which the Scripture saith that whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne then those morall works which hee mentioneth being not of faith are no better then sinnes and so need not to bee excluded by the Apostle for they exclude themselues Besides it is manifestly false that a iust and faithfull man doth any worke which is not sinne wherein he hath not relation vnto God if not in the particular act yet in the generall purpose of his minde for euery morning he prayeth to God for the direction of all his wayes and that all his works may be sanctified by his Spirit And thus it appeareth that in saying wee are iustified by grace and yet by works too they speake contraries 35. A third contradiction in this Article is about their works of Preparation which they say goe before the first iustification these they call vertuous dispositions good qualities good preparations merits of congruitie and that they haue a dignitie of worke in them and yet they say agayne that no good works goe before the first iustification belike then they are both good and not good by their doctrine and therefore thus I argue If they be not good why do they call them good if they bee good then it is vntrue that no good works go before the first iustification of a sinner either in the one or in the other they must needs erre and in holding both the one part of their doctrine crosseth the other 36. Fourthly they say that faith alone doth not iustify and yet notwithstanding they say Fide Catholica Christiana eaque sola hominem iustificari nulli vnquam negauerunt nec â—egant Pontificij That no Papist euer hath or doth deny that a man is iustified by the Catholike Christian faith and that alone This is the assertion of Miletus against Heshusius and it is not condemned by any of the rest but his booke approued as contayning nothing contrary to their Catholike Religion and so it seemes to be one of their Catholike doctrines And Bellarmine insinuates asmuch though not in playne speech yet by necessary consequence when bee saith that faith is the beginning and first roote of iustification Now if it be so then as soone as a man hath faith iustification is begun and taketh roote in him euen before he hath any other grace and if it hath taken roote then it is eyther whole iustification or a peece thereof but a peece it cannot be for it is indiuisible therefore eyther whole or none For grant there be degrees in iustification as they say which neuerthelesse they are neuer able to prooue yet they bee degrees of persection not of essence as a man is a man as soone as hee is borne though not a perfect man before hee come to complete age stature and strength So their supposed iustification is iustification in the roote though not perfect and absolute vntill it come to ripe age I speake in their language because I deliuer their owne doctrine Now how can these two contraries bee reconciled Faith alone doth
merite of condignitie bringeth foorth a like monster for they build it vpon two foundations whereof one ouerwhelmeth the other to wit the dignity of the worke and the promise of God for what can be more contrary then mercy and iustice Now if it depend vpon the dignity of the worke then it is a due of iustice and so they call it Meritum ex iustitia A merite by iustice but if it rely vpon the free promise of God as they call it then it must needs be Meritum ex misericordia A merite by mercy for Gods promise is a voluntary fruit of his mercy They answer that they may both well stand together for say they God dealeth with vs as we deale with our hyred labourers we agree with them for a certayne price for doing a peece of worke and when they begin we giue them an earnest penny and when the worke is done according to the couenant we giue them their wages So dealeth Almighty God with Christians he first maketh a couenant with them that for labouring in his Vineyard they shall haue a penny that is eternall life then he giueth them the earnest of his Spirit to assure them thereof and lastly at the end when they haue done their worke hee payeth them their wages But by the Iesuites leaue this similitude is lame of all foure for first when a man hyreth a labourer and bargaineth with him for wages for his worke this is a couenant of iustice and no promise of mercy and therefore if he performe this bargaine hee is not therefore called mercifull but iust but Almighty God as they themselues confesse promiseth freely and is bound to none and therefore this must needs be a worke of mercy and not of iustice Secondly there is a proportion betwixt the labourers worke and his hire but betwixt the Kingdome of heauen and our good works there is no proportion no more then betwixt a finite and an iâ— finite thing or a drop of a Bâ—cket and the huge Ocean And third y a man standeth in need of his workman his worke but God hath no need of vs. And hence it must of necessitie follow that the labourers hire iâ— a debt of iustice but a Christians hire is a reward of mercy And so I conclude that being of mercy it cannot be of iustice too or if it be of iustice it cannot be of mercy tâ—o fâ—â— what needâ— iustice if it bee of mercy and what need mercy if â—â— bâ— of iustice And therefore if this meritâ— of condignitie be grounded vpon the worth and valour of he worke done as they teach 〈…〉 cannot bee grounded vpon the promise of God as theâ— teach also because the dignitie of the worke requires â—â— as a dâ—â— by iustice and the gracious promise of God imparts it as a â—eward of mercy 41. Againe in their merite of congruitie there is another contradiction for they teach that the whoâ—e dignitie of the worke dependeth vpon grace and therefore that it is not so much man that meriteth as Gods grace in man And yet the same affirme that this grace doth not inhabitare that is awell in a man but onely outwardly mooue and helpe him and that it is in mans power either to accept or reiect theâ—s me Now how can the power of meriting issue from grace alone and the whole dignitie of the worke depend vpon grace when as that grace is not in vs and when as our owne free will is the chiefe worker being able of it selfe either to vnlocke the dore and let it in or baâ—re the doore and shut it out And besides if the whole dignitie of the worke depend vpon grace why doth he call â—t Meritum inâ—hoatum imperfectuÌ„ A lame and vnperfect meriâ—e I Gods grace â—ame and imperfect eyther therefore that grace dwelleth in vs and is the chiese worker or else it doth not wholly depend vpon grace And againe if it wholly proceede from grace then it is not a lame and imperfect but a complete perfect merice See â— beseech you how falsehood needeth no other Engine but it selfe to ouerthrow it 42. Lastly concerning works their doctrine is that the good works of the regenerate are fully and absolutely iust and perfectly good and yet neuerthelesse that they may grow in goodnesse and are also mixed with many veniall sinnes If they bee perfectly good how can they grow in goodnesse and if they increase in goodnesse how are they perfectly good seeing that onely is perfect to which nothing can be added If they say that this perfection is but begun and not finished why then also they should say that they are imperfectly perfect or else they pull downe with one hand that which they build with the other And againe if they most holy and iust men haue their works intermixed with many veniall sins for which they need to cry daily Forgiue vs our trespasses how can they either perfectly fulfill the law of God or doe such works as may bee able to abide the censure of Gods iustice seeing Saint Iames saith that he that transgresseth one Commandement is guiltie of the whole law because he violateth the body of iustice contained in the law as he which hurteth the little toe doth herein wrong the whole bodie It is a contradiction therefore to say that the works of the regenerate are perfect and yet are intermingled with many sinnes and it is all one as if a man should say that his face is perfectly cleane and yet hath many spots or that the bodie is perfectly in health and yet is pestred with many diseases 43. And thus much of good works Now besides these there are certaine works in their Religion which are more then good and more perfect then perfection these be their works of Supererogation arising from three grounds First when the Saints in this life do more good works then are necessarie for themselues to the attainment of saluation And secondly when they suffer more and greater punishments then are due vnto them for their sinnes And thirdly when they vndertake noâ— onely works commanded by the law of God but also such as are commended by the Euangelicall Councells as voluntary pouertie abstayning from marriage and regular obedience These superabounding actions and passions of Gods Saints are the works of supererogation spoken of and magnified so much in the Church of Rome which both are the Churches Treasure mingled with the superabounding merits of Christs passion and are layd vp in a Treasury the keyes whereof and dispensation is committed to the Pope of Rome that hee either by himselfe or his Factors may dispence them at his pleasure that is to them that will buy the same for money and also as they say are more excellent and perfect and meritorious of a greater reward This blasphemous doctrine might easily be wouÌ„ded to death by the Sword of the Spirit for it is contrary to all
that is falshood to falshood now in this my taske is to demonstrate how it crosseth the word of God that is falshood to truth which being proued I hope no man which is not drunke with the poisonous cuppe of the whoore of Babylons fornication will doubt of the vanity and falshood thereof Now my purpose is not to enter into the lists of disputation and confute their opinions by strength of argument that combate hath beene valiantly performed by many of our Champions onely my intent is first to shew how their doctrines coÌ„tradict the plain text of Gods word and secondly to wipe away their subtle and intricate distinctions whereby they labour to make a reconciliation betwixt the word of God and their opinions which shall be my onely taske in this Chapter for it is to bee noted that there was neuer any generation so happie or rather so miserable in distinctions as the Romanists are they maintain their kingdomes by distinctions by them they blind the eyes of the simple dazle the vnderstanding of the vnaduised set a glose vpon their counterfeit ware couer the deformity of their Apostate Church and lastly extinguish the truth or at leastwise so darken and obscure it that it cannot shine so brightly as it would but in seeking to extinguish the light of truth they distinguish themselues from the trueth and as Iacob by his party-coloured stickes occasioned a brood of party-coloured sheepe and goates so they by their fond distinctions bring foorth a party-coloured and counterfeit Religion as I trust to lay open to the world in this discourse following 2. The maior or first proposition beeing without all controuersie I passe ouer in silence and come to the minor or second proposition which is that the Religion of the Church of Rome in many doctrines is apparently opposite to the word of God 3. The Gospell teacheth that 〈◊〉 one onely God is to bee inuocated and worshipped and that after that manner which he hath appointed in his word and that all the confidence of our saluation is to bee placed in him alone but the Romanists command not onely to inuocate God but also Angels and Saints departed and in time of danger to expect helpe and succour from them and to repose our trust and confidence in them also 4. Bellarmine distinguisheth and saith that God alone indeed is to be worshipped and inuocated with that kinde of adoration which is due onely vnto God but yet the excellent creatures may bee honoured and some of them inuocated not as gods but as such as are Gods friends that is with an inferiour kinde of worship 5. But these distinctions cannot extinguish the truth for first they giue by name the highest worship that can bee to wit Latria to the Image and reliques of Christ and the crosse and to a piece of bread in the Sacrament insomuch that Gregory de Valentia a famous Iesuite and Bellarmines compeere is in this regard driuen to say that some kinde of Idolatrie is lawfull Secondly if they should deny this yet their doctrine and practice doth apparently proclaime asmuch for when they say to their Agnus deis It breaketh and quasheth all sinne as Christs bloud doe they not equall them to Christ when they place their hope and confidence in Saints and reliques doe they not equall them to God when they pray that by the merit of a golden siluer or woodden crosse they may be freed from sinne committed doe they not equall it with our Sauiour that dyed on the crosse when they desire at the Saints hands grace and glory doe they not equall them to the God of grace and glory when they call the blessed Virgine the Queene of Heauen and giue vnto her one halfe of Gods kingdome euen the halfe of mercy doe they not equall her to her maker Lastly when they offer sacrifice to reliques and Images as namely burne frankincense set vp tapers offer the calues of their lippes doe they not equall them to God for all these dueties are proper and peculiar parts of Gods seruice and therefore in attributing them to creatures they giue vnto them plainely that seruice and worship which belongeth to God alone 6. The Gospell teacheth that remission of sinnes and euerlasting life is bestowed vpon vs freely not for any works or merits sake of our owne but for Iesus Christs sake the only begotten Sonne of God who was crucified for our sinnes and rose againe for our iustification But the Romanists teach that wee are iustified and saued not by Christs merits onely but in part for Christs sake and in part for our owne contrition obedience and good works 7. Bellarmine answereth that their doctrine is falsely charged to say that sinners are iustified partly for their owne works sake and partly by Christ for saith hee by a distinction there bee three kinde of works one of those that are performed by the strength of nature onely without faith and the grace of God another of such as proceede from faith and grace but not from a man fully iustified and therefore are called works of Preparation as Prayer Almes Fasting Sorrow for sinne and such like and the third of such which are done by a man iustified and proceede from the Spirit of God dwelling in his heart and sheading abroad charity in the same Now concerning the first hee acknowledgeth that we are not iustified by them by the example of Abraham Rom. 4. and therefore that they most impudently belye their doctrine that fasten this opinion vpon them As touching the second he saith that these works Preparatiue are not meritorious of reconciliation and iustification by condignity and iustice yet in as much as they proceede from faith and grace they merite after a sort that is obtaine remission of sinnes The third sort of works hee boldly and confidently affirmeth to merite not remission of sinnes because that was obtayned before but euerlasting glory and happinesse and that truely and properly 8. This Bellarminian distinction may be distinguished by two essentiall qualities first Folly secondly Falsehood Folly for it maketh nothing to the taking away of the Antithesis before mentioned for when as he confesseth that the second kinde of works doe merite remission of sinnes after a sort and the third eternall life absolutely what doth â—e but acknowledge that which wee charge them withall and which himselfe reiected a little before as a slaunder namely that wee are iustified and saued partly by our owne merits and partly by the merits of Christ for the Gospell saith We are saued by Christs merits alone and he saith We are saued by our owne merits also And thus the folly and vanity of his distinction euidently appeareth 9. The falsehood sheweth it selfe in two things first in that hee affirmeth that they doe not teach that works done before grace doe merite any thing at Gods hand for though it be a Canon of the Councill of Trent charged with an Anathema If any
man should say that a man may bee iustified by his owne works wrought by the power of nature without the diuine helpe by Christ Iesus and Bellarmine seemeth to affirme as much in this place Yet Andradius that famous Interpreter of that forenamed Councill one of the most learned men of his age and that knew well the mysteries of that Councill doth tell vs that by diuine helpe the Councill vnderstood not the grace of regeneration and speciall worke of Gods sanctifying Spirit but heroicall motions stirred vp in the vnregenerate and vnbeleeuers and that by this speciall helpe they might doe works void of all fault and meritorious of saluation And Bellarmine confesseth in other places that they are good suogenere that is morally and Salmeron the Iesuite that they dispose and prepare a man for iustification and the same Councill of Trent in the seuenth Canon following doth curse them that shall say they are sinnes or that they deserue the hatred of God Now if these kinde of works be good in their kinde and preparatiues to iustification and not sinnes nor deseruing the hatred of God but such as whereby the Heathen were saued then it is a probable falsehood in Bellarmine when he saith by their doctrine that these works doe not iustifie nor helpe any thing to the iustification of a sinner 10. Secondly it is false also which he affirmeth concerning the second kinde of works to wit of preparation that though they proceede from faith and grace yet they doe not iustifie for Bellarmine in another place doth not stick to say that this faith iustifieth by way of merite and deserueth forgiuenes of sinnes after a certaine manner and here in this place that these works proceeding from faith doe merite after their manner and obtaine remission of sinnes which if it be true then it must needes be false which he sayd before That they make not our works to concurre with the merits of Christ for the remission of sinnes which is the point of opposition and that which also he affirmeth here That these works doe not iustifie seeing remission of sinnes is of the verie essence of iustification for none haue their sinnes forgiuen but they are iustified and none are iustified but they haue their sinnes forgiuen they concurre in one if they bee not one and the same And therefore if these works merite remission of sinnes they must needs also merite iustification And thus Bellarmines distinction doth no waies free their doctrine from opposition to the doctrine of the Gospell 11. The Gospell teacheth that hee which repenteth and heareth the promise ought to beleeue it and bee perswaded that not only other mens sins but euen his owne are pardoned for Christs sake and that he doth please God and is accepted of God and in this faith ought to come vnto God by prayer But the Church of Rome teacheth that a man must alwaies doubt of the remission of his sins and neuer be assured thereof which doubting as Chytraeus truely speaketh is plainely repugnant to the nature of faith and a meere heathenish doctrine 12. Bellarmine answereth here not by a distinction but by a negation denying flatly that the Scripture teacheth any such doctrine that a man may be assured of the remission of his sinnes and his reconciliation with God and this hee seemeth to prooue by two arguments one because it is contrary to other plaine and manifest places of Scripture another because all Gods promises almost haue a condition annexed vnto them which no man can iustly know whether hee hath fulfilled or no. 13. It is good for Bellarmine here to vse a plaine negation for their doctrine is so manifest that it will admit no distinction the Councill of Trent hath put that out of all question and distinction For it teacheth in expresse words that no man ought to perswade and assure himselfe of the remission of his sinnes and of his iustification no though he be truly iustified and his sinnes be truely and really pardoned This doctrine is so euident that Bellarmine could neither distinguish as his custome is nor yet deny it and therefore hee freely confesseth it and yet Gropper condemned it as an impious doctrine and Catharinus at the Councill of Trent defended the contrary that the childe of God by the certainty of faith knoweth himselfe to be in the state of grace And so did also Dominicus a Sotâ— and diuers others of their owne stampe But there is great cause why the Church of Rome should maintaine this doctrine of doubting very peremptorily for as Chemnitius well obserueth all the Market of Romish superstitious wares is built vpon this foundation for when as the conscience being taught to doubt of solution doth seeke for some true and sound comfort and not finding the same in faith through the merits of Christ then it flyeth to it owne works and heapeth vp together a bundle of superstitious obseruations by which it hopeth to obtaine fauour at Gods hands hence arise voluntary vowes Pilgrimages Inuocations of Saints works of Supererogation priuate Masses sale of Pardons and a number such like trash and when as yet they could not finde any sound comfort in any of these at last was Purgatory found out and redemption of the soules of the dead out of that place of torment by the suffrages and prayers of the liuing Now the Romanists fearing lest these profitable and gainefull wares whereby an infinite tribute is brought into their coffers should be bereft them haue barred out of their Church this doctrine of certainty of saluation by faith of which if mens consciences bee once perswaded they will neuer repose any more confidence in those superstitious trumperies 14. But we with Luther may boldly say that so odious and impious is this doctrine that if there were no other error in the Romane Church but this we had iust cause of separation from them and with Chytraeus that it is repugnant to the nature of faith and a meere heathenish doctrine For it doth not onely nourish mens infirmities who are too much proâ—e to doubting but euen encourage them thereunto and teach that we ought to doubt But that we may come to the point is not this indeede the doctrine of the Gospell that wee should not doubt of our saluation why then doth our Sauiour command all to repent and beleeue the Gospell By which he plainely teacheth where true repentance goeth before there beleefe in the Gospell that is assurance of forgiuenesse of sinnes by the bloud of Christ doth follow and that wee ought euery one to be thus assured seeing this is a precept Euangelicall which doth not onely giue charge of doing the thing commanded as the Law doth but also inspireth grace and power to effect it as Saint Augustine well informeth vs when he saith The Law was giuen that grace might bee sought and grace was giuen that the Law might bee fulfilled Why doeth Saint Paul say
of nature then the Saints are no wayes our Mediatours for if they bee they must bee one of these two wayes vnlesse wee will say that they doe that which belongs not vnto them but like busy-bodies are pragmaticall in anothers charge which farre bee it from vs to thinke of those blessed creatures but both these wayes he sayth Christ is the onely Mediatour therefore the Saints by his owne conclusion are no Mediatours at all 58. His third distinction is that therefore Christ is called the onely Mediatour because hee prayeth for all and none for him but the Saints are such Mediatours that they themselues stand in need of a Mediatour I answere that therefore they are no Mediatours at all for if the Saints in Heauen stand in need of a Mediatour themselues then it must necessarily follow that they are not Mediatours at all for they that are parties cannot bee vmpiers And this is that which Saint Augustine plainely affirmeth though Bellarmine laboureth to distort his words to another sense when he sayth He for whom none intreateth but hee intreateth for all is the onely true Mediatour And thus it is cleare that the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the mediation of Saints is directly contrary to the doctrine of the Gospell 59. The Gospell teacheth that Christ Iesus hath made a full and perfect satisfaction for all our debts and so is our full and perfect Redeemer But the Church of Rome teacheth that Christ hath satisfied but in part for our debts to wit neither for all our sinne nor for all the punishment due vnto all our sinne and so that he is not our full and perfect Redeemer 60. This doctrine of the Gospell is so euidently propounded in holy Scripture that our aduersaries themselues acknowledge it in generall to bee true for Aquinas where the Apostle sayth I suffer all things for the Elects sake that they may also obtaine the saluation which is in Christ Iesus asketh this question What was not the passion of Christ sufficient and answereth to the same Yes as touching the working of saluation And Bayus sayth that there is but one satisfaction onely vnto God and that of Christ yea Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth asmuch in generall for hee affirmeth that the merit of Christ is sufficient to take away all sinne and punishment neither dare any of the rest for shame in plaine words deny the same because if they did many manifest texts of Scripture would conuince them of impiety and heresie 61. And that the other is the doctrine of the Church of Rome the Councill of Trent will witnesse which thus defineth When God forgiueth a sinner hee forgiueth not all the punishment but leaneth the party by his owne workes to satisfie till it bee washed away Yea they affirme not onely that wee our selues must satisfie for the temporall punishment but also for the relikes of sinne and for the fault it selfe yea for that punishment that should bee suffered in hell excepting the eternity yea so impious and shamelesse are some of them whose bookes are notwithstanding authorized by the Church of Rome that they affirme that Christ dyed onely for originall sinne and that the satisfaction of Christ deserueth not the name of a satisfaction for our sinnes Let the world iudge now whether these positions of the Church of Rome bee not flat contrary of the Gospell of Iesus Christ for the Gospell attributeth to Christ all sufficiencie of meriting and satisfaction but these fellowes make him a Satisfier party parpale for the sinne but not the punishment yet not for all our sinnes neither but for a part of them as for originall not actuall or iffor actuall yet for mortall onely and not for veniall And this is the Romish Religion though palliated with the name of Catholicke and hidden from the sight of the common people vnder the vaile of an implicite faith which if they should but see they could not chuse but abhorre 62. For the healing of this wound Bellarmine applyeth his wonted playster of a distinction Christs satisfaction saith he is in vertue sufficient but not in act efficient except it bee applyed by our satisfaction and therefore that there is but one onely actuall satisfaction which is ours which by the grace and efficacy of Christs satisfaction taketh away the punishment of our sinne and maketh a iust recompence to God for the same 63. But this distinction first vndermineth it selfe for if Christs bee a satisfaction then it is an actuall satisfaction if it bee not an actuall one then it is none at all Did not he actually dye and rise againe Did not hee actually by that death of his satisfy Gods iustice for all the Elect Doth not the strength and efficacy ofhis death stretch it selfe backward to Adam and forward to the last beleeuing child of Adam vpon earth If all this bee true then it must needs bee intolerable blasphemy to say that actually there is no satisfaction but our owne and that Christs satisfaction which hee made for our sinnes is indeed no satisfaction except it bee by the meanes of ours which must apply it and as it were giue efficacy vnto it 64. Againe the ground of his distinction is absurd for where doth the Scripture make our satisfaction a meanes to apply Christs satisfaction vnto vs It telleth vs of other meanes of application to wit outward the Word and Sacraments inward faith in respect of vs and the Spirit in respect of God but no where of this new-deuised meanes which they talke of and besides how can our satisfactions apply Christs vnto vs whereas they are both satisfaction and that to God and that for our sinnes Nay when as hee sayth that our satisfaction doth include the satisfaction of Christ in it and so both together make but one compound satisfaction if they be of one naturâ—â— how can one apply the other If they bee one in mixture and composition how is the one seuered from the other These bee absurd inconsequences and irreconciliable 65. Lastly if the strength power of satisfying which is in our sufferings is wholly from the grace of God the vertue of Christs satisfaction why doe some of them hold that a man by power of nature without grace may bee able to satify for Veniall sinnes and expell them nay why doth Bellarmine say that a righteous man hath right to Heauen by a twofold title one of the merits of Christ by grace communicated vnto him and another of his owne merits By which he plainely diuideth our merits from Christ and ascribeth a satisfactory power to them equall to the death of Christ it selfe and that without the helpe of grace Nay why do they not say plainly that Christ hath satisfied for vs without any intermixing of our owne but that their wisedome perceiued that then Purgatory Masses Penance Romish pardons yea and the Popes Kitchin it selfe and the very marrow of all their Pompe shall fall
to this exposition subscribe most of the Fathers 77. Secondly they distinguish vpon that place of Iohn where our Sauiour confesseth himselfe to be vnder the power of Pilate to be iudged by him and say that eyther it is to bee vnderstood of a permissiue power graunted by God without the which no not sinnes can be committed with Cyrill and Chrysostome or if of the power of iurisdiction with Augustins and Bernard that then Pilate had power ouer Christ not simply but by accident to wit as he was reputed to bee a priuate Iew and so no more then a meere man by which ignorance of the person his power was iustified to be lawfull as if a Ciuill Magistrate should condemne a Clerke in the habite of a Lay man not knowing him to be a Clerke he should be free from blame To which I answere First that the power of the Emperour though a heathen was lawfull and ordayned by God as they themselues confesse and as the Scriptures in many places prooue but Pilates power was from the Emperour therefore it was a lawfull not a lawlesse power and so not only by permission but also by ordination Secondly if it were onely a power by permission then Pilate had sinned in executing that power vpon Christ but because of the mistaking of the person therefore hee saith he was free from fault as a Ciuill Magistrate that should iudge a Clerke taking him for a Lay man And so one part of his answere crosseth the other Lastly I answere that though Pilate might erre in the person of Christ yet Christ could not erre in the power of Pilate who affirmeth of it plainely that it was of God and so it was indeede in respect of the power it selfe though the abuse of it in the condemning of an Innocent was a sinne and so from the Diuell and not from God 78. The Gospell teacheth that before regeneration wee are dead in sinne and haue no more power to mooue in any worke of grace then a dead carkasse hath in the works of nature and therefore can neither will nor doe that which is good But the Church of Rome teacheth that a man vnregenerate is not spiritually dead but wounded like the man that fell among theeues betwixt Ierico and Ierusalem or like a Prisoner with setters on his heeles or like a Bird entangled in a lime-bush and therefore that there is remayning in him so much power both in his will and vnderstanding that being but helped a little by grace hee can begin his conuersion and so deserue a more plentifull grace of iustification All this they affirme then which what can bee more contrary to the Gospell of Iesus Christ which saith that wee are starke dead in sinne and are not able to thinke a good thought of our selues but that all our sufficiency is in God and that he worketh in vs both the will and the deed c 79. Bellarmine heere likewise endeuoureth to escape by a double distinction First he saith that a sinner because he is spiritually dead cannot of himselfe or by his owne power recouer life or prepare himselfe thereunto but yet being preuented and helped by grace he may cooperate with God that quickneth him for that he doth not as being dead but as hauing a vitall vertue inspired into him by God 80. For answere whereunto let me propound vnto him this question namely Whether this spirituall life which is the first degree of a sinners conuersion bee inspired into him altogether by the Spirit of God without the helpe of his owne will or whether it ariseth partly from grace and partly from his will If he saith Altogether from the Spirit without the helpe of his will then how doth the sinner cooperate with God in his first conuersion If he say Partly from grace and partly from free-will then how is the sinner dead when yet he doth worke towards the obtayning of his owne life Can a dead man cooperate at all much more towards his owne life I but hee is preuented and excited to grace and so doth worke but then I would know whether in that first exciting and stirring vp hee doth worke with Gods Spirit whether he be actiue in that first motion or passiue onely If actiue then hee is not dead if passiue then the first degree of his conuersion and spirituall life is only from grace without the coadiution of this free-will for this excitation and stirring vp of his will is the first sparke of spirituall life in a sinner and this is that which S. Augustine affirmeth saying that God without vs worketh in vs to will that is the first sparke of life then worketh with vs and helpeth vs when we doe will this is the second And againe The will is first changed from euill to good and helped when it is good And againe He prepareth the good will that is to be helped and helpeth it when it is prepared In all which passages the first conuersion of a sinner is ascribed to God alone and mans will is a dead thing that mooueth not but the succeeding works are attributed ioyntly to God and vs. And this is the very doctrine of the Gospell which Bellarmine plainely crosseth by his distinction though subtilly hee seemeth to doe nothing lesse for he saith plainely in another place that in the act of our conuersion will is truely free and determineth it selfe though God moue and apply it to the worke And another compareth the will to an eye in a darkeplace which though it see not yet can see as soone as light commeth because in it selfe it hath the faculty of seeing then which what can bee more contrary to the Gospell the one affirming that a sinner is dead before his regeneration the other that he is but halfe dead and wounded and hath some power and therefore life in himselfe to grace and rghteousnes 81. Bellarmine perceiuing the weaknes of this distinction flyeth for succour to another and that is though a sinner be dead to grace yet hee is aliue to nature and so is not altogether dead and that by the power of that naturall life hee being helped by grace can cooperate with God in his conuersion and therefore that the similitude of a dead man doth not in euery respect agree vnto the vnregenerate because a dead man hath no life in him at all but a man vnregenerate hath notwithstanding the life of nature in him But this is more absurd then the former for first it is plaine that the vnregenerate are as dead in respect of grace as a dead carkasse is in respect of nature for they haue no more ability to the workes of grace then a dead man to the workes of nature A dead man hath no appetite or desire to naturall things no more hath the vnregenerate to spirituall things A dead man hath no vnderstanding of the things of this world no more hath the vnregenerate of the things that are
brought into the world sayth Saint Augustine by originall sinne ignorance and difficulty from which two other fountaines of euils doe arise to wit error griefe For ignorance bringeth forth error and difficulty griefe And our Countrey-man Stapleton telleth vs plainely that Zelus sine scientia est vehemens cursus in deui◠in quo quantò curris velociùs tantò a via aberras longiùs peccas absurdiùs Zeale without knowledge is a violent course in a wrong way wherein the swifter wee runne the further woe wander and sinne the groslier Thus they themselues write and therefore I wonder how the same men should dare to allow that which in their own consciences they condemne or nourish that in the people which they confesse to bee a sinne a wound and disease of the soule and the way to perdition I know not how they will distinguish and shift off that saying of Saint Paul Blessed is he that condemneth not himselfe in that which hee alloweth vnlesse it bee either by saying that they condemne not ignorance in all but onely in the Lay people as if Lay people had not souls to saue aswel as Priests Or that they allow of it not simply in regard of it selfe but in respect to a further good to wit the increase of deuotion as if euill were to be done that good might come thereof which Saint Paul giueth a God forbid vnto and sayth that their damnation is iust that are of that minde I leaue therefore this first proposition confirmed by Scripture reason Fathers and their owne Doctours and come to the second wherein out of their owne grounds they shall bee conuinced of this grosse impiety 6. That the Romish Religion doth nourish and maintaine most grosse and barbarous ignorance amongst the people and take from them the key of knowledge First their owne confessions Secondly their doctrines And thirdly the fruits and effects of both in the whole rabble of their multitude Priests and people shall euince For their confession The Rhemists doe plainely confesse that knowledge in things wee pray for is not required of Christians but that ignorance is to bee preferred before it and that ability to professe the particulars of our faith is not necessary no when possibly we are to dye in the defence of the same faith How contrary is this to that which Saint Peter teacheth that eueryman be ready to giue an answere of the hope that is in him Hosius saith that to know nothing is to know all things and ignorance of most things is best of all How contrary to that which our Sauiour teacheth This is eternall life to know thee and whom thou hast sent Iesus Christ The same Hosius with Stephylus and others commends the Colliers faith to be the onely faith whereby euery vnlearned man may trye the spirits resist the Deuill iudge of the right sense of Scriptures and discerne true doctrine from false c. And what was the Colliers faith Mary being at the point of death and tempted of the Deuill answered I beleeue and dye in the faith of Christs Church Being againe demanded what the faith of Christs Church was answered that faith that I hold And thus hee beleeued as the Church beleeued and the Church as he and yet he neither knew what the Church nor himselfe beleeued This is a braue faith and worthy to bee canonized to all posterity for conquering the Deuill But what if the Deuill departed from the Collier not because hee was scarred with his bugbare faith but because he perceiued him safe enough intangled in his snare and so needed not to tempt him any more being already sure enough his owne Where was his faith then Sure I am it is farre vnlike to that faith which the Scripture speaketh of which is often called by the name of knowledge and not of ignorance as Esay 53. 11. Iohn 17. 3. 7. Againe another affirmeth plainely to wit Linwood their Lawyer that for simpler people it is sufficient to beleeue the articles of the faith implicuè that is confusedly and infoldedly and not distinctly and plainely as a bottome of yarne folded together which lieth in a small compasse and not raueled out at the length that it may bee seene and discerned in euery part And their Angelicall Doctour Aquinas compareth Gods children to asses and their teachers to oxen because it is said in the first Chapter of Iob that the oxen did plow and the asses fed by them that it is sufficient for them in matters of faith to adhere vnto their superiours And in the same place hee concludeth that a man is bound to know no more explicitely but the Aritcles of the faith As for all other doctrines of Religion conteined in Scripture it is enough to beleeue them implicitely And againe in another place hee sayth that knowledge doth occasionally hinder deuotion and therfore that simple men and women that are voyd of knowledge are for the most part most inclined to deuotion But I confesse he speaketh this of such knowledge as is not sanct fied but puffeth vp how be it hee should then haue ascribed the impediment of deuotion vnto the pride that accompanieth knowledge and not to knowledge Hence grew that notorious celebrated prouerbe of the Romish Synagogue that Ignorance is the mother of deuotion And it goeth for currant amongst them all as yet vncontrolled But how opposite is the very sound thereof to that which holy Scripture teacheth that ignorance is the mother of errour and of folly Prou. 7. 7. and of destruction Hos 2. 6. Thus wee haue their open confession and what should follow but their open condemnation 8. But peraduenture the Iury requireth fuller euidence let them list therefore to their doctrines diuers whereof either directly maintaine ignorance or at least by necessary consequence driue thereunto and they are such as are not the particular opinions of priuate men but the approoued doctrines of their Church so that a man cannot bee an entyre Romanist but he must needes subscribe vnto them and subscribing vnto them must also needs confesse that that monstrous ignorance which is in the Church of Rome doth issue out of their corrupt fountaine To come therefore vnto them 9. The first doctrine that breedeth and nourisheth ignorance amongst them is their locking vp the Scripture in an vnknowne tongue that the common people being ignorant of the learned tongues may not be able to read them much lesse to vnderstand them to their comfort which that is so hath beene partly declared already and may further bee demonstrated for Bellarmine affirmeth that it is not necessary for the Scripture to be translated into our Mother tongue And Azorius another Iesuite going a step further saith that it is not expedient for the sacred volumes to be translated into Mother tongues because thereby the vnitie of the faithfull should be detrimented and diuers causes of errors and heresies would spring vp
teach his proceeding in age is his proceeding in wisdome And therefore Saint Luke sets his growth in age First that thou mightest know that it is spoken of him as he is man And Chrysostome thus The wisemen gaue honour not to his childhood vnderstanding nothing but to his diuinitie knowing all things and Maldonate doth confesse that Athanasius Gregory Nazianzene Theodoret Cyril and the authour of the imperfect worke on Mathew did al teach that Christ as man was ignorant of the day of Iudgement Neyther do these fathers alleadged by Bellar. for the contrarie opinion in truth deliuer any thing else if they bee rightly vnderstood for most of them when they say that our Sauiour was full of grace knowledge and wisedome from his verie conception and that hee did not increase and grow therein as other men they speake eyther of his person in the concret or of his diuine nature apart as their owne words alleadged by him doe clearely shew And to this opinion Thomas Aquinas their grand Schooleman and angellical Doctor setteth his hand and seale For thus hee writeth Though I haue elsewhere written otherwise yet it is to be said sayth bee that in Christ there was scientia acquisita knowledge acquired or gotten which is properly knowledge according to the measure of man and that not onely in respect of the subiect receiuing but also of the cause agent c. 90. Secondly al ignorance is not sin by the doctrine of their own schoole For that ignoraÌ„ce which is called purae negationis of pure negation doth not oppugne the state of innocencie seeing that it was in AdaÌ„ before his fal and is now in the Angels in their perfection may be in any without the spot of sin as witnesse Lumbard Aquinas Pererius al their learned Doctors for the most part yea their Iesuite Suarez telleth vs it is not to be called ignorance at al. Because ignorance sayth he doth not signifie euery want of knowledge but the priuatioÌ„ of that knowledge which ought to be in a subiect according to the state of the nature thereof as man is not to bee called ignorant because he wanteth angellicall knowledge so Christ was ignorant of none of these things which was behoofefull for him to know in respect of the dignitie of his person so that of two kindes of ignorance one of pure negation that is when a man knoweth not some thing which hee is not bound to know and the other of wicked disposition when a man is 〈…〉 of something which he ought to know This last is a sinne but not the first and therefore to say that Christ was ignorant of some things in his humane nature and that hee increased in knowledge as in age is not to impute vnto him any blot either of originall or actuall sinne 91. For the other part of the obiection wherewith Caluine is touched concerning our Sauiours correcting of his owne speech it is no other then that which Ierome before him many hundred yeeres vttered and Origen also two famous fathers of the Primitiue Church the one affirming that Christ returning to himselfe auouched that as he was the Sonne of God which hee had staggeringly spoken as hee was a man the other that he recalled his desire and as it were thinking better vpon it said Not as I will yea they themselues acknowledge asmuch for Bellarmine sayth that when our Sauiour prayed Let this cup passe from me but not as I will but as thou wilt it was asmuch as if he should haue said Volo vt non fiat voluntate naturali quod voluntate deliberata volo vt fiat I will that it may not come to passe to wit by my naturall will which by my deliberate will I desire may come to passe Here is a plaine correction as Caluine calleth it or a returning to himselfe as Hierome or a reuocation of his natural desire by a more aduised desire as Origen the like interpretation is giuen by Iansenius Pererius and Maldonate all agreeing in tâ—is that they admit of a correction and reuocation of his naturall inferiour humane wil by his spirituall superior diuine will and yet without all blemish and suspition of sin this correction presuposing no corruption So that either Caluine must be excused or themselues must bee inwrapped within the folds of the same fault But this is their rancour against that good man and all other of our side that which is orthodox in the Fathers and themselues is notwithstanding heresie in vs because they looke vpon vs thorow the spectacle of malice but vpon themselues with the eyes of selfe-loue 92. And to cleere him altogether and ridde him out of their hands the most receiued doctrine both by Caluine and all our whole Church concerning this point is that this was not in our Sauiour Christ either a rebellion of the sensuall part of the soule against the rationall as Perâ—rius maketh it which is in the vnregenerate nor of the flesh against the spirit as Iansenius would haue it which is in the regenerate nor a repugnance of Christs will as he was a man to his will as he was God which Maldonate sâ—emeth to affirme but onely the strife of two contrarie desires in the humane soule of Christ for dominion both which notwithstanding were good and holy though the one not so good as the other and in that respect this desire to auoid death which was the lesse might without any great offence bee said to bee corrected when it yeelded vnto that other which was more excellent 92. Lastly to omit a number more of their sslanders in this kind they charge our Religion it selfe to lead to loosenesse and sensualitie by diuers doctrines thereof especially these foure to wit freewill iustification by faith alone perseuerance in grace and impossibilitie to keepe the Commandements but with what spirit of malice let the indifferent Reader consult and iudge 93. First for our doctrine touching the inabilitie of free-will doth it lead a man to loosenesse nay rather doth it not teach him to deny himselfe and to seeke for all grace and goodnesse from God humilitie and prayer are the fruits of this doctrine and not loosnesse and libertie and to make it cleare to any single eye We teach that a man is onely voyde of freewill to grace before his regeneration and that hee is passiue onely in the very act of regeneration but after his will being quickned and stirred vp by Gods spirit he willeth and worketh forth together with the spirit of God his owne saluation Now few or none there are that are Christians but presume though falsely that they are regenerate and therefore this doctrine cannot giue libertie to any to sinne but rather bindeth them fast to obedience nay doth not their doctrine rather open a gappe to libertie For when they teach that it is in a mans power either to accept or reiect the grace of God offered vnto him What doth this
so that their ignorance be simple and vnaffected may bee saued And hereupon they conclude that it is safer to bee of that Church wherein by our owne confession a man may be saued then of that to which they denie all hope of saluation but it is a conclusion made by confusion For who seeth not that that is more likely to be the true Church which is animated with charitie then that which is void of charitie and that it is safer to harbour vnder her wings that is charitably affected euen towards her enemies then vnder her that is so miscarried with enuie that she committeth all to the pit of Hell that are not of her fellowship and profession especially seeing Saint Paul chargeth the Thessalonians that If any man obey not the Gospell they should note him with a letter and haue no companie with him that hee may bee ashamed yet they should not accout him as an enemie but admonish him as a brother If then it be safer to thinke charitably of those that are without then vtterly to condemne them all then it must be also safer to bee a member of our Church then of theirs And to make the matter more cleare Saint Augustine is flat of our mind to thinke more Christianlike of Heretikes as they repute vs then they doe for writing against the Donatists thus he sayth They that defend their false doctrine without obstinate boldnesse especially if they be not such as haue beene authors of those errours but either receiued them from their Parents or were seduced by others and doe carefully seeke the truth being readie to be reformed assoone as they shall see their errours such men are not to be esteemed as Heretikes Thus writeth Saint Augustine whereby hee condemneth the practice of the Church of Rome and iustifieth ours as more agreeable to the rule of charitie and thus that reason whereby the Iesuites seduce many ignorant persons falleth to the ground and maketh more against them then for them 43. Thirdly if the Churches authoritie bee aboue the authoritie of the Scriptures then are men to bee preferred before God and that which is subiect to errour before that which can neither erre nor deceiue for the Church consists of men but the Scripture is immediately from God and the Church may erre though not in fundamentall points but the Scripture cannot erre no not in the least titte the truth of this allegation is grounded vpon those reasons First because euery particular Church may erre as is confessed and therefore the whole Chuchin generall may erre also for such as is the nature of the parts is the nature also of the whole Secondly Councels which are their Church representatiue haue erred as is notoriously knowne to all and confessed by Saint Augustine who sayth that the decrees of prouinciall Councels are subiect to reprehension Yea former generall Councels may be corrected by them that follow as the Councell of Arimine by the Councell of Constantinople the second of Ephesus by the Councell of Chalcedon the Councell of Carthage by the first of Nice and the second of Nice by the Councell of Franckeford Thirdly the Pope that is the Head of the Church hath erred this is also confessed therefore the bodie can claime no better priuiledge but sayth the same Augustine There is no doubt of the truth of any thing which is contained in the Scripture Therefore who can doubt to place the resolution of their faith as the safest course on the Scripture rather then on the Church especially seeing no particular writer of the holy Scripture can be taxed with the least errour but many particular parts of the Church whether we respect the imagined head which is vertually the whole Church in their estimation or the chiefe members in grosse as the Councels or the deuided ioynts as particular Congregations may iustly be challenged as tainted with diuers errours in doctrines of faith 44. Lastly the Church of Rome may be the whore of Babylon and so the See of Antichrist if not necessarily as wee auouch yet coniecturally as no man can denie because spirituall Babylon is said to bee a Citie situate vpon seuen hils and not onely so but that raigned ouer the Kings of the earth both which notes directly agree to the Citie of Rome but the Church of Protestants cannot by any likelihood bee that whore seeing neither of those markes doe in any respect belong vnto it Is it not safer then to rest our selues in her bosome which by al probabilitie is an honest Matrone then in her armes which is a suspected harlot If Caesar would haue his wife to bee without suspition then euerie Christian had need to looke to his faith whereunto he is as it were married by the Spirit of God wherby he is married vnto Christ that it be not onely sincere but also free from all suspition or likelihood of errour 45. Thus we see in these few maine points of the Romish Religion compared with our contrarie assertions that it is a farre safer course to bee a Protestant then a Papist let all indifferent persons iudge and discerne betwixt vs and I pray God direct them by his Spirit to choose the truth 46. There is one thing yet remaining whereby this may further appeare and so and end of this whole discourse and that is that there is no one point of doctrine wherein they differ from vs but is contradicted by some of their owne learned Writers shaking hands with vs and crossing their owne Pew-fellowes whence from ariseth not onely another strong argument of greater securitie in our Religion then in theirs which hath the suffrages of the greatest enemies to vphold it but also of vnresistable truth which worketh so vpon the consciences of the aduersaries thereof that it forceth them will they nill they to acknowledge it now and then as the Deuill himselfe was constrained to confesse Christ Iesus to be the Sonne of God I might write a whole Volume of this point alone but I will propound here onely some few instances and so shut vp this Treatise 47. Protestants teach that a man is iustified by faith alone whereby the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed vnto him and not by the inherent or adherent righteousnesse of his owne workes the same is confessed by Thomas Aquinas who sayth that no man is iustified with God by his workes but by the habit of faith infused and againe that there is in the workes of the Law no hope of iustification but by faith onely and by Pighius who holdeth that there is in vs no inherent righteousnesse whereby wee may bee iustified but that our iustification is by Christs righteousnesse imputed vnto vs and by the Diuines of Collen who affirme That the righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto vs and apprehended by faith is the principall cause of our iustification and by Cassander who approueth of our doctrine of iustification by faith alone and imputed
in the seuenteenth chapter he auoucheth that the proportion betwixt the worke and the reward is ratione operis in respect of the worke Now I confesse that some of them affirme indeed the reason of meriting of our workes to arise partly from this that we are adopted the sonnes of God and haue vnion with Christ and so they are made meritorious by the dignity of the person which worketh them and partly because they proceede from grace and also partly by reason of the promise which God hath made vnto them whereby hee bindeth himselfe that he will reward them but let all these be granted though all of them bee denyed by many of their owne Writers who attribute merite to the worke without relation either to the person or to grace or to the promise yet it will not free their doctrine from palpable impiety as the sequent discourse shall I trust make apparant After that I haue in opposition to this doctrine set downe the summe of that which we hold touching the dignity of good workes I omit to name their merit of cōgruity because most of themselues are ashamed of it 28. This is therefore that doctrine which our Church maintaineth concerning good workes First wee beleeue assuredly that good workes are necessary to saluation but so Vt via regni non causae regnandi as the way to the Kingdome not causes of raigning and as signes of our Election and forerunners of our future happinesse as Saint Bernard testifieth This with one consent we all teach and the Romanists that slander vs with the contrary assertion cannot produce so much as one sentence out of any of our Writers which being rightly vnderstood doth import the contrary as shall be hereafter fully proued Secondly wee hold that as they are necessary in respect of vs so they are acceptable and well pleasing to God not for their own sakes but for our faith-sake in Christ in whome onely the Lord is well pleased both towards himselfe and all his members Thirdly we beleeue that they are not onely thus acceptable and well pleasing in Gods sight but also that the Lord will reward them assuredly both in this life with temporall blessings and in the life to come with eternall happinesse according to that of our Sauiour Whosoeuer shall giue vnto one of those little ones to drinke a cup of cold water in the name of a Disciple he shall not lose his reward But lastly we constantly assure our selues that this reward is not giuen of God for the merite or desert of the worke but of the meere grace and mercy of God for the merits of Christ according to that of Saint Bernard The mercy of God is my merite and of Saint Augustine God bringeth vs to eternall life not for our merits but for his owne mercy For a reward is not onely taken for a due debt in Scripture but also for a free gift as may appeare by comparing Mat. 5. 46. with Luk. 6. 32. In the one place wherof the Holy Ghost vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the one and the same thing So that the summe of our doctrine is this in few words wee renounce not good workes but the merit of workes and wee verily beleeue that Christ is the store-house of all merite and that out of him there is no merite to be found in any no not in the iustest that euer liued and yet the merits of Christ as his righteousnesse are made ours by imputation and in that sense onely we may bee said to merit and deserue eternall life As for our best workes though they bee wrought in vs by grace yet passing through the corrupt channell of our defiled nature they get themselues such a tincture and staine as in regard of the corruption which cleaueth close vnto them they can deserue nothing at Gods hand if he should lay them to the rule of his iustice and not weigh them in the ballance of his mercy This is our doctrine and that it is so I appeale to Bellarmine himselfe who confesseth that by faith alone wee doe not exclude other vertues but the merit of them and that we make good workes necessary to saluation Necessitate praesentiae non efficientiae as he termeth it By necessitie of their presence not by necessitie of efficiencie Let vs therefore now come to the examination of both these doctrines and search which of them doth giue most glory to God and honour to Christ our Sauiour in this maine pillar of our Redemption 29. And first doth not that doctrine tend manifestly to the embasing of Gods mercy which teacheth men not to relie wholly vpon that for their saluation but partly vpon their owne merits Especially seeing grace and workes merit and mercy cannot stand together no more then light and darknes as the Apostle teacheth If it be of grace it is no more of workes or else were grace no more grace but if it be of workes it is no more grace or else were worke no more worke So may we truely say If saluation be of mercy then it is not of merit or else were mercy no more mercy but if it be of merit it is no more of mercy or else were merit no more merit and so by kindling the fire of merits they vtterly dry vp the fountaine of mercy And for that cause Saint Bernard maketh the mercy of God his onely merit And Saint Augustine disclayming all merits and laying clayme onely to Gods mercy saith as before God bringeth vs to eternall life not for our merits but for his owne mercie And in another place His promise is sure not according to our merits but according to his mercy And Chrysostome saith That no man sheweth such conuersation of life as that he may bee worthy of the Kingdome of heauen but it is wholly the gift of God In all these places merit is opposed vnto mercy as things of their owne condition incompatible and therefore one must needes exclude the other And sure in reason it must needs be so for mercy is free Grace is not grace in any sort if it be not free in euery sort sayth Augustine but merit requireth the reward of debt Mercies obiect is misery and vnworthinesse but merit is dignity and worthinesse and therefore cannot bee the obiect of mercy Mercy reioyceth against iustice but merit appealeth vnto iustice and challengeth God of vniustice if it bee not recompenced Lastly in mercy God is the Agent and sinfull Man the Patient but in merit righteous Man is the Agent and God the Patient And therefore betwixt these two things Merit and Mercy there is such a disproportion and contrariety that they cannot be reconciled together 30. I but they say our workes are not meritorious of themselues but partly as they proceede from grace and are wrought in vs by Gods Spirit and so it is Gods mercy that we
are enabled to merit and partly by vertue of Gods promise whereby hee hath engaged himselfe to crowne those merits with glory which he hath wrought in vs by grace to which double obiection I returne this double answere First if all good workes issue from the roote of grace as they doe indeede then how can we merit thereby seeing that which doth merit must bee our owne and not anothers especially his of whom we looke to merit So saith Hilary it is for him to merit who himselfe is to himselfe the Author of getting his merit and therfore if it be true which they affirme that Gods grace is the onely fountaine of all good workes as without doubt it is it is so farre from following thence that therefore our workes are meritorious that it followeth by mere necessary consequence that therefore they are not meritorious And this conclusion is made by diuers of the ancient Fathers themselues We haue nothing to reioyce or glory of saith S. Cyprian therefore nothing to merit because we haue nothing of our owne The merits of men are not such saith S. Bernard as that life eternall by right is owing for them and why because all merits are the gifts of God and so man is rather a debter to God for them then God to man And S. Augustine Eternall life should be rendred as due vnto thee if of thy selfe thou hadst the righteousnesse to which it is due but now of his fulnesse wee receiue not onely grace now to liue iustly in our labours to the end but also grace for this grace that afterward wee may liue in rest without rest So then if our good works arise only frō Gods grace this maketh plaine against all merit as they know well enough and therfore behold their fraud and the mysterie of iniquity though they shadow the matter with goodly words of grace and mercy yet vpon free-will they hang the vertue and effect of this grace and from that fountaine doe they deriue vnto man all this merit which they talke so much of and so howsoeuer they ascribe vnto Gods grace the cause of merit yet in very deede with them it is free-will that maketh a worke meritorious 31. Secondly I answere that when God doth promise to reward our workes with eternall life eternall life is due to vs but not for our workes sake but for his promise sake for many things are due by promise which haue no reference to any desert As if the King should promise one of his seruants a thousand pound of his mere liberality for keeping a Hawke he is bound to pay him so much but is it from the seruants desert or from the Kings bounty So God promiseth eternall life to our workes and by reason of his promise wee may challenge it as our due but yet it is not for our worke but for his word sake as Saint Augustine confesseth when he saith God is become a debter not by receiuing any thing from vs but by promising what it pleased him therfore a reward giuen by promise is so far frō importing desert that it rather ouerthroweth the very foundation thereof by being a worke of mercy as the same Augustine saith in another place The promise is sure not according to our merits but according to his mercy The doctrine of merit then vndermineth the mercy of God which way so euer they turne themselues whether to grace as the cause of the worke or to Gods promise as the cause of the reward 32. Againe by this doctrine not onely the mercy of God is darkened but also the merits of Christ quite euacuated and made of no force for if Christs merits were sufficient what neede there then any supply of our owne if our owne merits be necessarily required then Christs merits were not sufficient If Christs merits were perfect then mans merits cannot be added vnto them for that is perfect to which nothing can be added but if mans merits must bee added to them then it followeth that Christs were not perfect and so no merits at all for this property is required in a merit that it bee perfect and so either they must denie the necessity of our meriting or confesse the vnsufficiencie of Christ either they must acknowledge Christs merits to be vnperfect or ours to be vnnecessarie yea none at all I but they will say Christ did not onely merit the pardon of our sinnes but also that our workes should be meritorious of life euerlasting and by this sat they are Christs merits more magnified then by vs because the greater the gift is the greater is the glory of the giuer so that our meriting doth not argue any want in his merits but rather proue a greater efficacie to be in them for to this end will hee haue vs to merit partly that we may shew our selues like vnto him and partly to traine vs vp in good workes by this spurre All these are but shifts and indeede mere cauils for first to say that Christ did not alone merit for vs eternall life but also grace that so we might merit eternall life for our selues what is it but to make vs our owne Sauiours for all our merits come from grace and free-will ioyned together as hath beene shewne and grace is nothing with them except free-will concurre with it for they teach that we may receiue it if we will and when we haue it we may merit if we will eternall life or else goe without it What is this I say but to affirme that a man is not saued by Christs merits but that by the helpe of grace hee doth saue himselfe by his owne merits and so they shoue Christ out of his office and put themselues in his roome 33. Secondly I answere that the efficacie of Christs merits is greater in purchasing eternall life for vs by himselfe alone then in giuing vs ablenesse to merit it for our selues because it is a greater glory and a token of greater power to effect a thing immediatly without meanes then by the mediation or vsurpation of any meanes whatsoeuer In the former all the honour is to the worker in the later there must needes be some glory ascribed to the meanes and some power attributed vnto them and therefore to say that Christ hath onely merited by himselfe without vs eternall life for vs is to giue the entire and perfect glory vnto him and none vnto our selues and to affirme that hee merited to make our workes meritorious is to derogate from his glory and to detract from the efficacie of his death and passion 34. And here we may see the vanity of Bellarmines assertion who to proue that by this doctrine of theirs they ascribe more efficacie to Christs merits then we doe bringeth in this similitude Sicut quòd Deus c. that is As in that God vseth the Sunne to lighten the world fire to heat it ayre and raine to refresh it is not an argument of weakenesse in