Of the Church fiue bookes. By Richard Field Doctor of Diuinity and sometimes Deane of Glocester.

CHAP. 44.

Of the Sanctity of Doctrine; and the supposed absurdities of our profession.

THese notes are, Sanctity and efficacie of doctrine, our own confession, miracles, and predictions, the felicity and infelicity of such as defend or impugne the trueth; and lastly, the holy and religious conversation of the Professours of the truth. Let vs take a view of these in such sort and order, as they are proposed by them. They place in the front the Sanctity and efficacie of doctrine.

A lyer (they say) should haue a good memory; but surely our adversaries, of all the lyers that euer were, haue the worst memories: by reason whereof e∣uery second page of their writings, if not euery second line, is a refutation of the first. Bellarmine divideth his tract of the notes of the Church, into two parts. In the first he sheweth, what things are required in the notes of the Church, and there he saith, trueth and Sanctity of doctrine is no note of the Church. In the latter, he doth particularly assigne the notes, whereby he suppo∣seth the Church may be knowne, and reckoneth truth, sanctitie, and efficacie of doctrine, amongst the rest. But let vs pardon him this ouersight, and see how he proueth by this note, that we are not, and that their faction is, the true Church of God.

Our doctrine is false, absurd, and vnreasonable; and theirs, full of truth, rea∣son, and equitie: Therefore our Churches are not the true Churches of God, and theirs are. Both parts of the Antecedent of this argument we deny. For, he shall neuer bee able to proue the absurdities he imputeth vnto vs; but we are able to demonstrate against him, that the whole course of Popish doctrine is most absurd, false and impious.

But least hee should seeme to say nothing, hee produceth foure instances, wherein he supposeth there is apparant and very grosse absurditie. The first he proposeth in this sort: The Protestants teach, that a man is justified by speci∣all faith, whereby he perswadeth himselfe that he is just. Now then he reaso∣neth thus; When men beginne to beleeue, either they are just, and then their faith justifieth not, being in nature after their justification, and finding them already just, when it beginneth; or else they are not just, and then speciall faith making a man beleeue he is just, is false, and so a man is justified by a lye. To this horned argument wee answere, that speciall faith hath sundry actes, but to this purpose specially two: the one, by way of petition humbly intreating for acceptation and fauour; the other, in the nature of comfortable assurance, consisting in a perswasion that that is graunted, which was desired. Faith, by her first act, obtaineth and worketh our justification, and doeth not finde vs just when wee beginne to beleeue: by her second act, shee doeth not actiuely justifie, but finding the thing done, certifieth and assureth vs of it, and so is no lying perswasion, as this lying companion is pleased to pro∣nounce it to bee. So then, speciall faith in her first act, which is a kinde of petition, is before justification, and procureth or obtaineth it, but then shee hath not the perswasion of it; in her second act, shee presupposeth the

thing done, and already obtayned, and so truely perswadeth the beleeuer of it, but procureth not the doing of it.

The second palpable and grosse absurdity of the Protestants doctrine is, that it is not lawfull to say the Lords prayer. This the Cardinall proueth, be∣cause no man of the Protestants Religion can, without dissimulation, aske for∣giuenesse of sinnes, which is one of the principall petitions of that prayer. This petition they cannot make, because they hold, that all right beleeuing and iustified men are without sinne, and know themselues so to be; and therefore cannot be excusable from vile dissimulation, and mocking of God, in asking the remission of their sinnes. The impudencie of this imputation is such, as I thinke all moderate Papists are ashamed of it. For, doth any of vs thinke, that the iustified man is voyd of all sinne? Or is it consequent, if a man know himselfe to be iustified, that then he may not aske remission of his sins? Doe not many right learned and wise amongst themselues teach, that a man may * 1.1 be sure he is in state of grace, and iustification, by the ordinary working of Gods spirit? and doe not all Papists thinke, that by speciall reuelation men may be sure they are in state of grace, as Paul and sundry others were? Doe all these teach, that men thus assured of their iustification, know themselues to haue no sin, & consequently, nothing whereof they should aske forgiuenesse? Surely, herein I thinke both they & we agree, that in the iustified, the domi∣nion of sinne ceaseth, sin hath no longer dominion ouer them, & that propor∣tionably the guilt of condemnation is taken away; but that there are still re∣mainders of sin in them, not perfectly extinguished; & that, though while they remaine in the state of iustification, they •…•…n not with full consent, to the ex∣cluding of grace, and subiecting of themselues to the guilt of condemnation, yet there are many sinfull euils they runne into, which subiect them to Gods displeasure, & for which hee will not faile to iudge them, if they iudge not themselues. For the weakening & abolishing of these sinfull euils, and the a∣verting of that displeasure, wherewith God is displeased with men for them, the iustified doe pray vnto God, which is, to aske forgiuenesse of sins, as in the Lords prayer is meant. b 1.2 For, the petition is vnderstood of the sinnes of the seruants of God, and such as are in state of grace, as Augustine teacheth. Thus then the iustified man knoweth, that the dominion of his sins is taken away, and that the guilt of condemnation, wherevnto they subiect such as are vnder the dominion of them, is already remoued, and therefore he doth not desire, nor aske forgiuenesse of sinnes in this sort: but the inherence of sin he acknow∣ledgeth in himselfe, notwithstanding his iustification, which still subiecteth him to Gods displeasure, & punishments, accompanying the same. These things hee desireth to be remoued, and in this sense asketh forgiuenesse of sins.

If it be replyed, that the remission of the sins of the iustified is full and per∣fect, and that therefore they that know themselues to be iustified, cannot aske remission, which they know they haue perfectly already; Wee answere, that the remission of the sins of the iustified, is full and perfect, not for that they are already freed actually from the inherence of sinne, and the displeasure of God disliking it, but because they haue full title vnto, & right in that mercy of God; which, as it hath already deliuered them from the dominion & con∣demnation of sin, so it will in the end wholly free them, from the inherence of it, and the displeasure of God disliking it.

His next allegation is more friuolous than the former. The Anabaptists, saith he, do most certainly & assuredly perswade themselues, that they are accepted of God, & therefore they haue true faith, according to the doctrine of the Pro∣testants, who define faith to be the assurance of the mercifull goodnes of God; yet do the Protestants deny thē to be iustified, vnlesse they forsake their errors,

and so by consequēt do say, they haue true faith, & yet are not iustified; which is to affirme that they are iust, & not iust. To this we answere, that there is as great difference betweene true confidence and assurance, (which only is to be named faith) and that which is found in heretickes, as betweene the ioy and gladnesse that is fantasticall, and is found in men dreaming, and that which is true and in men waking.

That quietnesse of minde either proceedeth from senselesse stupidity in men hauing cauterized consciences, though there be iust cause of fearefull apprehen∣sions; or frō the not finding or hauing any matter of condemning remorse: euen as some men are touched with no greefe, nor afflicted with any smart or paine, though no part be sound or well in them, because they are in a dead & senseles stupidity: and others feele not paine, because they are perfectly well. It is not therefore every assured confidence that is faith, but true confidence. Neither is it to be doubted, but that heretickes doe oftentimes confidently perswade themselues they please God, and thinke they embrace true piety, as men drea∣ming doe perswade themseles they inioy and possesse all things, though they possesse nothing. But as men waking knowe the things they apprehend, are soe indeede as they apprehend them, and not in fancie only, as men sleeping are deluded: so c 1.3 true Christians know the perswasion they haue of Gods good∣nesse towards them, groweth from due & iust consideration, & not from decei∣vable fancie and imagination only, as in heritickes it doth. This point is excel∣lently cleared by d 1.4 Alexander of Hales, the first, and greatest of all the Schoole-men, whose reasons and proofes, that true Christians may be assured, they are in state of grace and acceptation with God, Bellarmine cannot answere.

Thus wee haue seene the supposed absurd positions, wherewith the Iesuite chargeth all Protestants in generall. In the next place, hee produceth such as are proper to the Lutherans; and in the last place, such as are peculiar to the Caluinistes. For thus it pleaseth him to tearme vs, by these names of faction and diuision; whereas it is Antichrists pride that hath made all the breaches in the Christian world, and would haue layd all wast if God had not preserued a remnant.

The errour wherewith he chargeth the Lutherans, is, that children, when they are baptised, haue faith, hope, and loue. Is this an errour? are they iustified, sanctified, and made the temple of the holy Ghost, when they are baptized; and haue they neither faith, hope, nor loue? doth not iustification imply all these in it? But they haue not the act of faith; noe more they haue of reason: haue they not therefore the faculty of reason? This then is that which these men •…•…each, whom it pleaseth these Antichristian sectaries odiously to name Luthe∣•…•…ans, namely, that children, when they are adopted, and made the sonnes of God, when they are iustified and sanctified, are filled with the habites or po∣•…•…ntiall habilities of these vertues, and that they haue the beginning, roote, and seede of faith, hope, and loue. For the farther clearing of this obiection, reade Kemnisius in his Examen of the Tridentine Councell.

The errour of the Caluinists, touching absolute necessity, and that God is the author of sinne, is but the imagination of the Romanists, as I haue already sufficiently shewed. For Caluin and wee all detest both these absurdities.

Notes

• * 1.1

  a Alex. of Ales, Ioh. Bacon, Ve∣ga, Ambrosius Catharinus, & d•…•…uers other, of whom see cap. 7.
• b 1.2

  Est poeniten∣tia bonorum & humilium fide∣lium pene quo∣tidiana, in quâ pectora tundi∣mus, dicentes, dimitte nobis debita nostra, illa vtique quae humanae fragi∣litati parua, ta∣men crebra, subrepunt. Aug. Seleucianae E∣pist. 109. ora∣tio quotidiana, quam docuit Dominus, delet quidem quoti∣diana peccata, cum quotidie dicitur, dimit∣te nobis debita nostra. De ci∣uitate Dei, l 21 cap. 27.
• c 1.3

  Iohan: Baco∣nus lib. 3. dist. 30. q. 1. art. 2. ait, habentem charitatem pos∣se certitudina∣liter scirese esse in charitate.
• d 1.4

  Part. 3. quaest. 61. membr. 7. art. 3.