The suruey of popery vvherein the reader may cleerely behold, not onely the originall and daily incrementes of papistrie, with an euident confutation of the same; but also a succinct and profitable enarration of the state of Gods Church from Adam vntill Christs ascension, contained in the first and second part thereof: and throughout the third part poperie is turned vp-side downe.

CHAP. IX. Of Christian righteousnesse or iustification.

THe Papistes doe not onely dishonour God, while they seek to establish their owne righteousnesse; but withall they slan∣der good and true christians, auouching them to be contemners of good workes: but how blasphemous they be on the one side, and howe malitious on the other, shall sufficiently appeare, by these briefe conclusions.

The first conclusion.

Man albeit hee was so created as hee might sinne and die, (which thing the euent it selfe declared;) yet was he so adorned and beautified, with supernaturall giftes and graces, aswel ex∣ternal as internal, that he might haue liued eternally, and haue eschewed all sinne world without end. This conclusion I thus proue. That man might haue liued euer if he had not sinned, is euident by Gods owne wordes, when he saith; Thou shalt eate freely of euery tree of the garden, but of the tree of knowledge of good and euill, thou shalt not eate of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof,* 1.1 thou shalt die the death. And againe in ano∣ther place, after that he had pronounced the earth cursed for A∣dams sinne, he vttered these words; For out of it wast thou ta∣ken, because thou art dust, and to dust shalt thou returne. By which wordes it appeareth,* 1.2 that if hee had not transgressed, he should not haue died.* 1.3 S. Austen confirmeth the same in these wordes; Quapropter fatendum est primos homines ita fuisse in∣stitutos,

vt si non peccassent, nullum mortis experirentur genus. Wherefore wee must confesse that our first parentes were so created, that vnlesse they had sinned,* 1.4 they shoulde haue felt no kinde of death, (neither of soule nor of body.) Death (saith S. Bernard) shoulde neuer haue followed, if sinne had not gone be∣fore. S. Chrysostome gathereth this conclusion, out of the ex∣presse text of Genesis. These are his wordes; Factus enim est mortalis propter praeuaricationem, vt ex hoc mandato & his quae sequuta sunt, claret. Sequitur, ita{que} ante praeuaricationem immortales erant, alioqui post cibum non hoc sup••licij loco im∣posuisset. For he became mortall, by reason of transgression, as is euident by this commandement, and that which followeth after. Therefore they were immortal before the transgression; otherwise after the eating thereof, this punishment should not haue been imposed vpon them. He confirmeth the same in ano∣ther place, where he writeth thus; Cum Adam peccasset, corpus illius confestim mortale ac passibile factum est, plurimos{que} re∣cepit naturales defectus. So soone as Adam had sinned,* 1.5 his bo∣die forthwith became mortall and passible, and receiued many natural defects. That Adam might haue liued without al kind of sin, is likewise manifest by y^e scripture,* 1.6 which saith that God made man righteous, or right. His rectitude consisted in this, that his reason was subiect to God, his inferiour powers to his superiour, his body to his soule. There was no rebellion to be found, in any part of the whole man. For otherwise it would follow hereupon, y^t God were vniust; which yet to auouch, were y^e greatest blasphemie in the world. The reason is euident,* 1.7 be∣cause if it had not been in Adams power to haue auoided al sin▪ God should haue charged him with an impossibilitie, and with∣all haue condemned him for not performing the same.* 1.8 But our Lord is a iust iudge, as witnesseth his apostle.

This whole processe▪* 1.9 S. Austen sheweth both pithily & brief∣ly, in these right golden wordes; Posteaquam praecepti facta est transgressio, confestim gratia deserente diuina, de corporum suorum nuditate confusi sunt. Senserunt enim nouum mot••m ino∣bedientis carnis suae, tanquam reciprocam poenam inobedientiae suae; & quia superiorem Dominum suo arbitrio deserue∣rat, inferiorem famulum ad suum arbitrium non tenebat:

non omnino habebat subditam carnem sicut semper habere potu∣isset▪ si Deo subdita ipsa mansisset. After that Gods lawe was transgressed, Gods grace did incontinently forsake them, and they beholding their owne nakednesse were confounded. For they felt a new motion in their disobedient flesh, a punishment correspondent to their disobedient heartes. And because he vo∣luntarily disobeied his superiour Lord, hee coulde not haue his inferiour seruaunt, subiect to his word. Neither was his flesh in subiection, as he might haue had it for euer, if it had re∣mained obedient to Gods lawes.

The condition of mans free will, from the creation of the protoplaste Adam, vntil our regeneration; Christ himselfe see∣meth to set down most liuely,* 1.10 in that parable which he propoun∣ded to the lawyer. A certaine man (saith Christ) went downe from Hierusalem to Iericho, and fell among theeues, who rob∣bed him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, lea∣uing him halfe dead. Which is to say allegorically (as y^e fathers write,) that mankinde went out from the paradise of peace, to the mutabilitie of misery, & fell among the powers of darknes, who robbed him of his supernatural gifts of innocency and im∣mortalitie, wounded him in his naturall giftes, of will and reason, and departed leauing him halfe dead; that is, dead in respect of Gods fauour, though liuing to the eyes of the world. Semiuiuus (inquit Augustinus) habet vitalem motum, id est, li∣berum arbitrium vulneratū,* 1.11 quod ad aeternam quam perdiderat vitam non sufficiebat. Et ideo iacebat, quia vires ei propriae ad surgendum non sufficiebant, vt ad sanandum medicum .i. deum requireret. In that he was halfe aliue, (saith S. Austen) he had vitall motion; that is, free will so wounded, as it could not re∣turne to eternall life, which it had lost. And therefore did he lie; because he wanted proper strength to seeke God, the phisition that could cure his maladie. Ludolphus alluding to mans crea∣tion,* 1.12 setteth downe this matter verie finely in these wordes; Fecerat Deus hominem ad imaginem suam secundum rationem, ad similitudinem secundum dilectionē, vt per vtrum{que} Deo adhae∣reret, & in haerendo beatus esset. Sed diabolus humanae beatitu∣dini inuidens, contra duo bona praedicta duo homini in originali intulit praecipua mala. In eo namque quod factus erat ad ima∣ginem

Dei secundum rationem, vulnerauit eum per ignoran∣tiam boni; in eo verò quod factus est ad similitudinem Dei se∣cundum dilectionem, vulnerauit eum per concupiscentiam mali. God made man after his own image according to reason, after his owne similitude according to loue; that by them both hee might adhere to God, and by adhering to him attaine eternall beatitude. But the deuill enuying mans felicitie,* 1.13 bestowed on him in steede of these two blessings, the double mischiefe of ori∣ginall sinne. For in that man was made after Gods image in reason, he wounded him with the ignorance of good▪ and in that he was made after his similitude in loue, he wounded him with the concupiscence of euill.

Al this is liuely comprehended in the essence, nature and de∣finition of free will, which after Saint Austen is this,* 1.14 Liberum arbitrium est facultas rationis & voluntatis, qua bonum eligi∣tur gratia assistente; malum eâ desistente: Free will is the fa∣cultie of reason and will, by which good is chosen, when grace is present; and euill, when grace is wanting.* 1.15 For this cause saith the apostle, that we are not able to think any good thought of our selues, as of our selues;* 1.16 neither yet to say that Iesus is the Lord, but in the holy ghost.* 1.17 For it is God (saith he) that worketh in vs, both to do wel, and to wil wel. This verity was defined aboue a thousand and one hundred yeers ago, by the an∣cient, holy, and learned councel of Aransica, in these words, Haeretico fallitur spiritu non intelligens vocem Dei,* 1.18 dicentis in Euangelio; Sine me nihil potestis facere; whosoeuer (saieth the holy synode) thinketh he can do any act which pleaseth god, or perteineth to eternal life▪ by force of his free will, that man is deceiued with an heretical spirit, not vnderstanding the voice of god whē he saith in his gospel,* 1.19 Without me ye can do nothing (that is good.) Out of this discourse, two things are cleare & euidēt; the one, that our first parent Adam before his fal, might by force of his free-wil holpen with supernaturall grace, make free election aswel of good as of euil, & withal put that his free choise in execution: thother, that y^e posterity of Adam hath free wil to nothing saue to sin only, vntill the time of regeneration.

The first obiection.

There is no consultation, as saith the Philosopher,* 1.20 but of

things which are in our owne power; and yet doth euery one vse consultations, in those things which he goeth about. A∣gaine, there must be some immediate cause of euery act, and that can not be God, because God is not the cause of any euill. Neither can the cause thereof be ascribed either to nature, or to destinie, or to fortune, because humane actions are variable, and with the intention of the doer. Therefore the best course that can be taken with him that denieth mans freewill after the fall of Adam, is this; to wit, to beate him like a stockfish, vntill he confesse those that beate him to haue free will, either still to beate him, or to cease from beating. For if one should deny the fire to be hote, the best reason against him, were to cast him into an hot ouen or burning furnace.* 1.21 Thus reasoneth Veguerius.

The answere.

I say first, that I willingly graunt, both Papists and other [ 1] reasonable creatures to haue free will, in morall or ciuill acts; neither do I thinke him vnworthy of strokes, that will obsti∣nately deny the same. I say secondly, that mans will is so brought into bondage and thraldome of sinne by the fall of A∣dam, [ 2] as man before his regeneration, can neither do nor once will any one act, which is acceptable in Gods fight. Note well the second obiection, with the answere to the same.

The second obiection.

If free will after the fall of Adam, can not make election as well of good as of euill, then doeth free will vtterly lose it owne nature: for where sinne must needes be chosen of neces∣sitie, there can be no true libertie.

The answere.

I answere, that there be three kinds of libertie, as S. Bernard proueth learnedly, in a peculiar treatise of free will; the first is called,* 1.22 Libertas à coactione, vi, vel necessitate; Libertie from coaction, violence, or necessitie; for all these three are one & the same with him, as euery one that readeth him seriously will perceiue. The second is called, Libertas à peccato; liberty from sinne. The third is called, Libertas à miseria; libertie from mi∣serie. The two latter liberties, from sin & miserie, can not be had in this life: the first was frō the creation, is at this present, and shalbe in al Adams posteritie world without end. For such

is the essence, nature, & formall reason of will, that it cannot be coacted, or inforced. The reason is euident,* 1.23 because it implieth contradictiō, that Wil do any thing, which it is coacted, or en∣forced to do. For when we do any thing violently, we doe it a∣gainst our wil, & not with our wil. If this were not so, the an∣gels in heauen should haue no free wil, contrary to the vniform consent of all learned men. For they haue no more freedome in heauen to sin, then the vnregenerate haue freedome on earth to do wel. Further then this, it would follow hereupon, that the angels in heauen should not be happy. For what happines can it be to wil & do by coaction, that which they wil & do? and yet it is certain, y^t they haue freedom only to do wel: if any wil hold the contrarie, he must likewise hold that angels in heauen may sinne; and consequently, that they may be damned into hel fire.

The third obiection.

If there be no free-wil to do good before regeneration, then must all the morall good deedes of infidels be sin; which to hold is most absurd. For, to serue our soueraigne, to die in the de∣fence of our countrey, to honour our parents, to feede the hun∣grie, to cloathe the naked, and such like, which the infidels do, cannot but be good acts.

The answer.

I answer, that albeit these & like moral deeds be indifferent in their owne nature, glorious in the eyes of the world, and right profitable to others; yet are they meere sins in the doers, & dis∣pleasant in Gods sight. And I prooue it,* 1.24 because that without faith God cannot be pleased, as the apostle witnesseth. Again, the same apostle saith, that whatsoeuer is not of faith is sin, and so euery act of the infidel must needs be sin, because it is not of faith. Neither wil it help to say, that if the said acts of infidels be not good, yet are they not euil. For as their great popish ca∣nonist Nauarre, & their Romish cardinal Caietan auouch;* 1.25 eue∣ry act in indiuiduo, must perforce be good or euil: & the reason therof is euident. For euery act must either be referred to some end, or to no end at al: if to no end, then it is an idle act, and wee must render an account for the same: if it be referred to any o∣ther end then to God, it is flat sin; bicause as the apostle saith,* 1.26 whatsoeuer we do, we ought to do it for Gods glory.

S. Austen in his f••urth booke against Iulianus the Pelagi∣an handleth this question so learnedly, and in so ample and per∣spicuous maner, as none that shal reade the booke with iudge∣ment, can stand any longer in doubt thereof. I wil cite one one∣ly periode, for breuitie sake. Thus doth he write; Si gentilis, in∣quis,* 1.27 nudum operuerit, numquid, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est? prorsus in quantum non est ex fide, peccatum est; non quòd per se ipsum factum quod est nudum operire, peccatum est, sed de ta∣li opere non in domino gloriari, solus impius negat esse peccatū. If an infidell, saist thou, shall clothe the naked, is such an act sinne, because it is not of faith? it is doubtlesse sinne, in that it is not of faith; not for that the worke it selfe is sinne of it owne nature, (for to clothe the naked of it owne selfe is not sin,) but to clothe the naked for any other end then for Gods glorie, is sinne indeede. And it is so manifest a sinne, as none but the wicked can denie it to be sin. Thus did Saint Austen answere the Pelagians then, and thus do I answere the papists now, telling them that they are become Semipelagians herein.

The replie.

If this be so indeed, then may an infidel aswel rebel against his prince, as truly serue his prince, aswel betray his country, as die in defence thereof, as wel rob his neighbour, as relieue him, and so in the rest.

The answere.

I answer, that it is farre otherwise, because although they sin in so doing for want of faith in Christ Iesus, yet shal their punishment bee so much more tolerable, by how much their sinnes are the lesse. Neither is this answere inuented of mine owne braine, but long sithence framed by S. Augustine, whose words are these;* 1.28 Sed ad hoc eos in die iudicij cogitationes suae, defendent, vt tolerabilius puniantur; quia naturaliter qua legis sunt vtcunque fecerunt, scriptum habentes in cordibus opus legis hactenus, vt alijs non facerent quod perpeti nol∣lent. Hoc tamen peccantes, quòd homines sine fide non ad eum finem ista opera retulerunt, ad quem referre debuerunt. Mi∣nus enim Fabritius quam Catilina punietur; non quia iste bo∣nus, sed quia ille magis malus; & minus impius quam Cati∣lina

Fabritius, non veras virtutes habendo, sed à veris vir∣tutibus non plurimùm deuiando. But in this their cogitations shall defend them in the day of iudgement, that their punish∣ment may be more tolerable, because they haue done naturally in some sort, those things that pertained to the law;* 1.29 hauing the worke of the lawe so deepely written in their hearts, that they did so to others, as they wished to be doone vnto themselues. Yet they committed this sinne, that they beeing men without faith, did not referre these workes to that end, to which they should haue done. For Fabritius shal be more gently punish∣ed then Catiline; not because he is good, but for that hee is not so bad as Catiline; neither because he hath true vertues, but for that he is not so farre from true vertues as Catiline.

The fourth obiection.

It is cleare by the testimonie of Moses, that Cain had free will aswell to good as to euill;* 1.30 and that both after the fall of A∣dam, and before his regeneration: for there is it expresly saide, that he shal rule ouer his sinne. Therefore though freewil were wounded by y^e fal of Adam, yet did it abide stil in his posterity.

The answer.

I say first, that the text in the originall speaketh of that rule, [ 1] which Cain had ouer his brother, not ouer sinne. For these are the words in the Hebrew text, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and thou shalt beare rule ouer him, (not ouer sin:) for in the Hebrew the word sin (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) is the feminine gender, and the pronounes which should be answerable therunto, are the masculine, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I say secondly, that their famous linguist A∣rias [ 2] Montpunc; translateth it, (in eum, not in illud; ouer him, not o∣uer it) because the varietie of the gender in the Hebrew would not beare it. I say thirdly, that S. Chrysostome interpreteth this portion of scripture, not of freewil, but of that dominion which [ 3] Cain being the elder brother and first begotten, had ouer his yonger brother Abel in respect of his birthright: these are his wordes; Nam hoc de fratris subiectione accipiendum est. In∣fra; Mihi enim videtur de fratre esse dictum.* 1.31 For this must be vnderstoode of the subiection of his brother: for I iudge it to be spoken of his brother. I say fourthly, that howsoeuer this [ 4]

place of scripture be vnderstoode, it will no way make for the papists. For first, the wicked haue free-will from coaction. Secondly, they haue free-wil in morall and ciuill acts. Third∣ly, among many sinnes, they may make free choise of one; on∣ly this freedome wanteth, that they can neuer make election of good, vntill they be regenerate by Gods holy spirit.

The fift obiection.

If we haue not free-will to do well, then do we sinne of ne∣cessitie; and consequently God is vniust, who punisheth vs for that which we cannot auoide.

The answer.

I say first, that God is not vniust, though he punish vs for [ 1] that which we cannot auoide: for infants cannot auoide origi∣nal sinne; and yet may they iustly be damned for the same. No [ 2] Papist can or will this denie. I say secondly with saint Au∣sten, that euerie sinne (which is not poena peccati) is so volun∣tarie, [ 3] as if it be not voluntarie, it is no sinne at all. I say third∣ly, that it is our owne fault and not Gods, that we can doe no good, but sinne. And because the necessitie of sinning c••me by our selues, who all sinned voluntarily in our first parent A∣dam, we are iustly punished in him, and for his disobedience: for he receiued grace vpon this condition, that if he kept it and sinned not, we should all be partakers thereof; but if he lost it by disobedience, al his posteritie should loose it with him, and be iustly punished for the same.

The reply.

If this be so, our will may rather be called bond-will then free-wil; because al the freedome we haue, is to go to the deuil.

The answer.

[ 1] I say first, that our will before our regeneration, may right∣ly be termed the wil of bondage, and not the wil of freedom. I [ 2] say secondly, that it is stil free in sundry respects, & that I wil not contend for the name, so the trueth be granted in the thing.

The second conclusion.

There is nothing in man by which hee may bee iustified, or which can any way further his iustificatiō. The ancient council of Aransica proueth this conclusion effectually. These are the wordes;* 1.32 Natura humana, etiamsi in illa integritate in qua est

condita permaneret, nullo modo seipsam creatore suo non adiu∣uante seruaret. Ʋnde, cùm sine gratia Dei salutem non possit cu∣stod••re quam accepit, quomodo sine Dei gratia poterit reparare quod perdidit? Man, although he had continued in that integri∣ty in which he was created, yet could he not haue attained sal∣uation, without the help of his creator. Wherefore since man without grace, could not retaine that felicity which he had once receiued; how can he without grace, repaire that which hee hath lost? In these words we see cleerely, that this holy council con∣demnes morall preparatiues, & merites de congruo, to which y^e papists trust so much. The whole scope of the councill is no∣thing else, but onely and soly to perswade man, that he cannot so much as to thinke one good thought, much lesse do any good act, which may any way further his iustification.* 1.33 And in the 7. canon, it doeth precisely condemne that actiue concurrence of freewil, which our papists in the late council of Trent, require of necessitie to mans iustification.

S. Austen as in al other things, so in this matter vseth a large & lerned discourse in his epistle against Vitalis:* 1.34 in which among many other excellent sentences, I finde these finely contriued words; Quapropter vt in Deū credamus, & piè viuam{us}, nō volē∣tis ne{que} currentis▪ sed miserentis est Dei; non quia velle non debe∣mus & currere, sed quia ipse in nobis & velle operatur & cur∣rere Ʋnde & ipse D. Iesus credentes à non credentibus .i. ab irae vasis vasa misericordiae discernēs, nemo inquit, venit ad me, nisi ei datum fuerit à patre meo. Wherfore that we beleeue in him and liue godly, it is neither in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but in god that sheweth mercie; not because we are not bound to will & run, but because he worketh in vs both to wil & to run. Whereupon our Lord Iesus seuering beleeuers from infidels, that is, the vessels of mercy frō y^e vessels of wrath, saith that none can come to him,* 1.35 but he to whom it is giuen of his fa∣ther. Christ himself telles vs, that we are vnprofitable seruāts, euen when we haue done the best we can. And yet doubtles wee should be right profitable, if we could yeeld anie helpe at all to our iustification. And holy Moses saith,* 1.36 that the imaginations of our hearts are euill continually: But sinne and corruption can be no meane to worke mans iustification. Wisely therefore

saith the Apostle, that it is God which worketh in vs, both the will and the deede,* 1.37 euen of his good pleasure (not for any me∣rite or dispositiō which he findeth in our selues.) Again in ano∣ther place;* 1.38 not that we are sufficient of our selues, to think any thing as of our selues, but our sufficiency is of God. Again; the natural man perceiueth not y^e things of y^e spirit of God,* 1.39 for they are foolishnes vnto him; neither can he know them, bicause they are spiritually discerned.* 1.40 Again; the wisdome of the flesh is en∣mitie against God, for it is not subiect to the law of God, nei∣ther indeed can be. And Christ himself saith; No man can come to me, except my father draw him. Againe in an other place; Without me can ye doe nothing.* 1.41 By which testimonies it is clear,* 1.42 y^t man before he be regenerate, hath not power, force, effi∣cacy, or faculty to do good, or once to cōsent to any spiritual act.

The third conclusion.

The meritorious cause as wel of saluation as of iustification, is Christ Iesus and none els. This conclusion wilbe manifest, if we seriously reuolue in our minds the wonderful mystery of mans redemption. In which kind of holy meditation, whosoe∣uer shal deuoutly exercise himselfe; that man doubtlesse wil e∣spie with facilitie, these foure most excellent attributes of our most sweete redeemer; to wit, his iustice, his mercie, his wise∣dome, his loue. For first, as the worthines of the person increa∣seth, so doth also the offence against the saide person commit∣ted. [ 1] Wherupon it commeth, that a reprochful word spoken a∣gainst a meane priuate person, is in respect a small offence; when it is spoken against a magistrate,* 1.43 it is great••r; when a∣gainst our soueraigne, the greatest of all: and consequently, when we offend God, whose person is of infinite worthienes, our offence must needes be infinite, howsoeuer our late papists flatter themselues in their venials; and so man vncapable of e∣uerie infinite action, cannot possibly yeeld any condigne com∣pensation: and yet god of his iustice cannot pardon sin, without condigne compensatiō for the same. Behold here Gods iustice. [ 2] Secondly, in rigor of iustice the partie that offendeth, is bound to make satisfaction for the fault,* 1.44 neither is the partie offended bound to accept the satisfaction of any other: and conseqently God was not bound to accept his sonnes satisfaction for our

sinnes, though it were most sufficient, and of infinite dignitie. In this Gods mercie shewed it selfe. Thirdly, on the one [ 3] side pure God could not satisfie,* 1.45 though he were of infinit dig∣nitie, because pure God is impassible; on the other side, pure man was not able, because euerie his action was insufficient, as of which no one amongst al could be infinite; God therefore appointed his onely sonne to be incarnate, to ioyne humanitie with diuinity in hypostatical vnion, and so to make attonement for our sinnes. For as man hee was passible, and as God he was able to giue infinite dignitie to his passion. Wherein we may beholde Gods diuine wisedome. Fourthly, God seeing [ 4] man in the chaines, and bondage,* 1.46 and thraldome of the deuill through sin, and hauing tender compassion of him in such his distresse, sent his owne deare sonne to set him at libertie again; and this he did of meere loue, without all merits and deserts of man.* 1.47 For (as Christ himselfe saith) God so loued the world that he gaue his onely begotten sonne, that whosoeuer belee∣ueth in him should not perish, but haue life euerlasting.

All (saith the apostle) haue sinned,* 1.48 and are depriued of the glorie of God, and are iustified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus. Againe in another place,* 1.49 As by the offence of one, the fault came on al men to condem∣nation, so by the iustifying of one, the benefit abounded to∣warde all men to the iustification of life. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, many shall be made righteous. This is the stone (saith Saint Peter) which the builders refused,* 1.50 which is become the head of the corner; neither is there saluation in any other: for among men there is giuen none other name vnder heauen, whereby wee must be saued. Wee haue an aduocate with the father (saith Saint Iohn) euen Iesus Christ the iust,* 1.51 and he is the reconciliation for our sinnes. Christ redeemed vs (saith Saint Paul,) from the curse of the lawe,* 1.52 while hee was made a curse for vs. Againe in another place, In whome wee haue redemption through his bloud, that is,* 1.53 the forgiuenesse of our sinnes. Againe, Who did by himselfe purge our sinnes,* 1.54 and sitteth on the right hand of maiestie on high. Againe, For he hath made him to be sinne for vs, that knew no sinne,* 1.55 that we

should be made the righteousnes of God in him.* 1.56 These (saith S. Iohn) are they which came from great tribulatiō, & washed their stoales, and made them white in the bloud of the Lambe. Again in another place; The bloud of Iesus Christ doth purge vs from all sin.* 1.57 I, euen I am hee (saith God by his Prophet) that blotteth out thine infirmities (not for thy deserts,* 1.58 but) for mine owne sake. Againe in another place; He was wounded for our iniquities, hee was torne in peeces for our offences. S. Austen shal conclude this point, who writeth in this maner. Dominus noster Iesus Christus mori venit,* 1.59 peccare non venit, communicando nobiscum sine culpa poenam, & culpam soluit & poenam. Our Lord came to die, he came not to sin; communica∣ting paine with vs without sinne, he loosed both sinne, and the paine of sinne.

The fourth conclusion.

The mercie of God is the efficient cause of mans iustificati∣on, and Gods glorie the finall cause of the same. Of the former speaketh S. Paul when he saith;* 1.60 Not by the works of righte∣ousnesse which we haue done, but according to his mercie hath he saued vs, by the washing of the new birth, and the renewing of the holy ghost. Againe in another place, the same Apostle saith;* 1.61 that al haue sinned, & are freely iustified by his grace. A∣gaine he saith; Which beleeue in him that raised vp Iesus our Lord from the dead.* 1.62 And S. Iohn saith, that God of his meere mercy and loue gaue his only son for the redemption of the world.* 1.63 Of the latter speaketh the apostle when he saith, that God hath made vs accepted in his beloued, to the praise of his glory. Again in another place; whether therfore ye eate or drink, or whatsoeuer ye do, do all to the glory of God; As if he had said, ye must referre al your thoughts, words, and workes, to Gods glorie, because ye were created to that end. The prophet also saith;* 1.64 I, euen I am he that putteth away thine iniquities for mine own sake, & wil not remember thy sins. Againe in an other place; Surely I wil not giue my glory to any other. But doubtlesse if God shoulde iustifie man for any other end then for his owne glory, it would follow thereupon that his glorie were giuen to another.* 1.65 Yet as Salomon saith, God hath made

al things for his own sake, yea euen y^e wicked for y^e day of euil.

The formall cause of mans iustification, is not mans owne inherent iustice, but the iustice & righteousnes of Christ Iesus. This conclusion containeth the maine point of a mighty con∣trouersie betweene the papists & vs: for which respect, I wish the reader to marke attentiuely my discourse. The late councel holden at Trent, setteth downe the opinion of the papists, in these words; Demū vnica formalis causa est iustiti•• dei, nō qua ipse iustus est, sed qua nos iustos facit. To conclude,* 1.66 the onely formal cause is the iustice of God, not that with which himself is iust, but with which he maketh vs iust. This decree is quite contrarie to my conclusion, & they learned it of Aquinas their angelicall doctour, whose direction they followe in all theolo∣gicall questions. Thus doth Aquinas write;* 1.67 Gratia non dici∣tur facere gratum effectiuè, sed formaliter; quia per hanc homo iustificatur, & dignus efficitur vocari Deo gratus secundum il∣lud Colos. 1. vers. 12. dignos nos fecit in partem sortis fancto∣rum in lumine. Grace doth not make one acceptable effectiuely, but formally, because man is iustified by grace, and is made worthie to be accepted of god, according to that which the ap••∣stle saith, He hath made vs worthie of the fellowship of saints in light. Thus writeth Aquinas; whose opinion being once confuted, al other papists shalbe confuted in him. I therfore say first, that Aquinas was deceiued with the popish vulgar latin translation called vulgata editio, which for al that,* 1.68 the late dis∣holy [ 1] synode of Trent hath wonderfully magnified, & extolled aboue the starrie skies. For where their vulgata editio hath (worthie) there the greeke and original hath (meete or fit) these are the very words of the original;* 1.69 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Giuing thanks to god euen the father, who hath made vs meete to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light.

I say secondly, that since his foundation was a false transla∣tion, [ 2] his conclusion inferred thereupon, must of necessitie bee false also. And therefore wee may not reade as Aquinas did, (who hath made vs worthie,* 1.70 but) who hath made vs meete or fitte for the fellowshippe of Saintes;) and so their owne lin∣quist Arias Montanus doth interpret it, to their confusion.

And because the verie life of this question standeth wholly in this, if there be any forme or qualitie inherent in man, by which hee is worthy of glory and eternall life; I will prooue pithily and succinctly, that man neither hath in him, nor can haue any such qualitie at all; but that the formall cause of mans iustifica∣tion is in Christ Iesus, not in himselfe.

The first argument.

* 1.71No infinite accident can be in any finite subiect; but the grace of iustification is infinite, Ergo it cannot be in man a finite sub∣iect. The argument is in forme, the proposition is graunted of all, as well Philosophers as Diuines; and the assumtion is manifest, because the transgression was infinite, as is prooued in the third conclusion.

The second argument.

* 1.72Being iustified freely by his grace (saith the Apostle;) tho∣rough redemption which is in Christ Iesus. Where we must [ 1] obserue first,* 1.73 y^t when the apostle saith (freely,) hee doth exclude [ 2] all workes, and all qualities in man. We must obserue second∣ly, that when he saith (by his grace,) he giueth vs to vnderstand, that the grace of iustification is in Christ, and not in our selues. For otherwise he would haue termed it our grace, and not his grace; because that which is inherent in our selues, is properly [ 3] ours. We must obserue thirdly, that when hee concludeth the period thus; (which is in Christ Iesus,) the word (which) hath no lesse relation to grace then to redemption, and so thone must be in Christ aswel as the other.

The 3. argument.

* 1.74Being therfore iustified by faith, we haue peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ,* 1.75 through whom we haue ac∣cesse by faith into this grace in which wee stand. In which [ 1] wordes of the Apostle, wee are taught three thinges. First, [ 2] that our iustification is by faith. Secondly, that our iustifica∣tion [ 3] giueth vs peace with God. Thirdly, that by faith we haue accesse to the grace of iustification; and consequently, that this grace of iustification is not in our selues. For vnproperly are wee saide to haue accesse, to a thing inherent in our selues.

The 4. argument.

Not hauing mine owne righteousnesse, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ,* 1.76 euen the righte∣ousnesse which is of God through faith. In which wordes the Apostle teacheth vs two thinges; First, that the formal cause [ 1] of our iustification is not our owne, in these wordes, (not ha∣uing mine owne righteousnesse;) for if our iustice or righteous∣nesse were inherent in our selues, it should be our owne. Se∣condly, that our iustice is through faith, and in faith; and con∣sequently, [ 2] that the formall iustice of the papists, is not that true christian iustice whereof Saint Paul speaketh: for they say, that charitie which is the chiefest part of their formall inherent iu∣stice, is neither through faith, nor in faith, but aboue faith, and the forme of faith.

The fift argument.

He that knewe no sinne, suffered the paine due for sinne for our sakes, that wee might be made the iustice of God in him.* 1.77 In which wordes the apostle teacheth vs two thinges; First,* 1.78 that Christ died for our iustification. Secondly, that this iustifi∣cation is the application of the iustice of God in Christ. But doubtlesse the iustice of God, cannot be our inherent iustice. [ 1] For first, Gods iustice is infinite, but ours is finite. Secondly, [ 2] Gods iustice is perfite, but ours is vnperfit. Thirdly, Gods [ 3] iustice is absolute, but ours is relatiue.

The 6. argument.

For they being ignorant of the righteousnesse of God,* 1.79 and going about to stablishe their owne righteousnesse, haue not submitted themselues to the righteousnesse of God.* 1.80 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousnesse, vnto euery one that be∣leeueth. In these wordes of the apostle, wee are taught two thinges; First, that to ascribe anie righteousnesse to our selues, [ 1] is flatly to fall from the iustice of God. Which certes could not be so, if y^t iustice by which we are iustified, were inherent in our selues. Againe, that Christes righteousnesse is applied to euery [ 2] one by faith. Which thing shalbe yet more plaine, by the next conclusion.

The 5. conclusion.

Man is iustified by sole and only faith; that is to say, faith

onely is the instrument, by which man applieth to himselfe, the righteousnesse of God in Christ Iesus.* 1.81 This conclusion con∣taineth three thinges; First, that Gods righteousnesse is that [ 1] iustice which we present for our iustification. Secondly, that it is ours for the merites of Christ Iesus. Thirdly, that we ap∣prehend [ 2] and take hold vpon it, by faith only; and so we haue the [ 3] explication, howe sole faith doth iustifie. Which because the papistes so bitterly impugne, I will prooue it both by y^e scrip∣tures and the fathers. If Abraham (saith S. Paule) were iu∣stified by works,* 1.82 he hath wherin to reioyce, but not with God. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham beleeued God, and it was counted to him for righteousnesse. Thus saith the Apo∣stle. [ 1] Out of which wordes I note first, that workes did not iu∣stifie [ 2] Abraham before God. I note secondly, that that iustice by which man standeth cleere before God, is only imputatiue, and not really inherent in himselfe. Which imputatiue iustice, the Apostle doth often inculcate in this chapter, the fourth to the Romaines. I note thirdly, that faith is counted our righ∣teousnesse. [ 3] Which the apostle expresseth more liuely in the fift verse; But to him that worketh not (saith hee) but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly,* 1.83 his faith is counted for righte∣ousnesse. Loe, not the worker, but the beleeuer is iustified, and that by imputation.

The same apostle after a long discourse, to prooue that a man is iustified by faith onely,* 1.84 in another place addeth these words; We therfore think y^t a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the law. Loe, the holy apostle, after a long dispu∣tation, which is implied in the worde (therefore,) concludeth, that we are iustified by faith without works. As if he had said; sole faith, only faith, or faith without works doth iustifie, albeit the papistes cannot, or will not it see. This whole processe is confirmed, by the vniforme testimonies of the auncient fathers, who all ascribe our iustification to sole faith.

S. Ambrose hath these wordes, Iustificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operantes, ne{que} vicena reddentes, sola fide iustificati sunt dono Dei.* 1.85 They are iustified freely, because they neither doing any worke, nor making any compensation, are iustified by sole faith through the grace of God. The like sayinges hee hath in

sundry other places. S. Chrysostome hath these wordes; Ʋnum hoc tantummodo donum Deo obtulimus,* 1.86 quod futura nobis pro∣mittenti credimus, atque hac solum via seruati sumus. This one only gift do we present to God, that we beleeue him when he promiseth vs future giftes, and by this only way are we sa∣ued. Againe in another place he writeth thus; Aut fidem dicit, decretum illam vocans. Ex sola quippe fide nos saluauit.* 1.87 Or hee meaneth faith, calling it the decree. For by only faith hath he sa∣ued vs.

S. Hilarie hath these wordes; Mouet scribas remissum ab homine peccatum;* 1.88 hominem enim tantum in Iesu Christo contue∣bantur, & remissum ab eo quod lex laxare non poterat. Fides enim sola iustificat. It vexeth the Scribes, that man forgiueth sinnes, for they onely considered Christ Iesus to be man, and that he forgaue that which the law could not doe. For sole faith doth iustifie.

S. Basill hath these words;* 1.89 Nam ea demum perfecta & om∣nimodae gloriatio est in Deo, quando ne{que} propter suam ipsius quis extollitur iustitiam, sed agnoscit se quidem verae destitui iu∣stitia, verùm sola in Christum fide iustificatum esse.

For that is the perfite ioy & al maner of comfort we haue in God, when no man is puffed vp by reason of his owne righte∣ousnesse, but acknowledgeth himselfe to be destitute of true iu∣stice in deed, and seeketh to be iustified by sole faith in Christ.

Origen writeth in this maner; Dicit sufficere solius fidei iu∣stificationem, ita vt credens quis tantummodo iustificetur,* 1.90 etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum.

He saith, that the iustification of sole faith is sufficient, so as a man may be iustified, if he only beleeue, although hee doe no workes at all. And the same Origen prooueth in the same place, by a long and learned discourse; that wee are iustified by sole faith, and not by workes.

S. Austen is plaine in this point, who writeth in this maner, Opus autem fidei ipsa dilectio est: And charitie it selfe is the worke of faith. What plainer testimonie can be had? what pa∣pist can inuent any solution for the same? who but mad men will not yeeld thereunto? August. in Epist. Ioann. tract. 10. in initio.

The 6. conclusion.

The good works of y^e regenerate, do neither merite grace in this life, nor glory in the world to come. This conclusion is a∣gainst a graund and mightie article in popishe doctrine, but I will prooue it by strong and irrefragable reasons.

S. Paul writeth to the Romaines, in these wordes; the af∣flictions of this present time are not worthy of the glory,* 1.91 which shalbe shewed vnto vs. The workes of the regenerate (saith S. Paul, as ye see) are not worthy of heauen. They cannot therefore (say I) merite heauen, because (as the papists them∣selues doe graunt) to merite heauen, and to be worthy of hea∣uen, is all one; the difference is onely in wordes, not in sense.

The papists perceiuing the force of this argument, vse this seely euasion:* 1.92 although (say they) the actions of man be not worthie of heauen, neither merite grace, as they proceed from mans free-will; yet are they worthie of heauen and meritori∣ous, as they proceede from the holy ghost. But this is a friuo∣lous, childish, and miserable shift, onely inuented by the sugge∣stion [ 1] of Satan, to seduce simple soules. For first, our workes [ 2] are only ours, as they proceed of, and from our selues. Second∣ly, when the holy ghost and man worke both one and the same work, that which the holy Ghost doth, can no more be deemed mans act, then that which man doth, can be deemed Gods act; & yet so it is, that y^t which man doth cannot be deemed Gods; Ergo, neither that which God doth, can be deemed mans. The assumption, wherein resteth the difficultie if there be any at all, is manifest by mans sinfull actions. For the most cruell act that can be imagined, is not done without the concourse of the holy ghost, as all learned papistes doe, and must confesse. Ne∣uerthelesse mans sinfull actes are so farre from being Gods actes, as the deformities and irregularities thereof be onely mans, and neuer Gods; and yet doth God concurre more effec∣tually to those wicked acts, in that he is the principall agent of the real and positiue entities thereof, then man doth or can con∣curre to any act of Gods, that is, to any good act himselfe doth. Note well, for God is the creator of the diuell, as he is an an∣gel, but not as hee is such an aungell: and euen so is God the

authour of mans acts, as they be acts, but not as such acts. This place of the Apostle is handled more at large, in my book of Motiues.

I my self (saith the Apostle) in my mind serue the law of god,* 1.93 but in my flesh the law of sin. Out of which words I note first, that Saint Paul speaketh of the regenerate throughout this whole chapter, because hee nameth himselfe, who was Gods chosen and elect vessel. For which respect and the like expressed in this seauenth chapter to the Romaines, S. Austen changed his opinion,* 1.94 and granted the apostle to speake here of the rege∣nerate. I note secondly, that the elect & regenerate do serue the law of sinne. I note thirdly, that the best liuers are so far from meriting grace of glorie; that they deserue (in rigour of iustice) eternal death, because death is the rewarde of sinne. Which for that Saint Augustine coulde not well digest at the first,* 1.95 he thoght that S. Pauls words in this chapter, were to be vn∣derstoode of the reprobate, and not of the elect and godly sort; but after he had pondered the text deeply, he altered his opini∣on. This is confirmed in these words of the selfe same chapter,* 1.96 but I see another law in my mēbers, rebelling against the law of my mind, leading me captiue vnto the law of sin, which is in my members. By these words of Paul it is euident, that albe∣it he were the childe of God, yet could he not merite any thing in Gods sight, but rather in rigor of iustice prouoke his heauy displeasure against him. For where or what could be his me∣rite, who was prisoner to the law of sinne?

Againe it is confirmed in these words;* 1.97 For I doe not the good thing which I would, but the euill which I would not, that doe I. Thus sai••h saint Paul, and doubtlesse since hee did the euill which he would not, he sinned though he were regene∣rate; and because he sinned he was worthie of condemnation, for that death is the stipend of sinne.

Againe it is confirmed in these words; For the law is spiri∣tuall, but I am carnal sould vnder sinne.* 1.98 Thus saith S. Paul of himselfe, and yet is it true, that one vnder sin can merit no∣thing, saue hel fire and eternal paine.

Againe it is confirmed in these words; Nowe if I do that I would not, it is no more I that doe it, but the sinne that dwel∣leth

in mee.* 1.99 Thus saith Saint Paul of himselfe, and yet be∣cause sin abode in him, and did that that was offensiue in gods sight, he could neither merite grace nor eternal life, as is alrea∣dy proued.* 1.100 Further then this, no man liueth without sinne, (as the papists grant) and yet is euerie sinne mortall, as I haue prooued elsewhere.

The first obiection.

Saint Paul speaketh of originall concupiscence, which re∣maineth euen in the regenerate after baptisme, but is no sinne at all. For he onely calleth it sinne, because it prouoketh a man to sin, as a mans writing is called his hand, for that it is writ∣ten with his hand: which exposition S. Austen approueth in sundrie places of his works.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that to say against the flat text of scripture with∣out [ 2] scripture, is no reason at all. I say secondly, that S. Paul doth not onely call concupiscence sin, but he proueth it by ma∣ny reasons. For first, it striueth against the law of the minde. Againe, it leadeth one captiue into the law of sinne: thirdly, it doth that which is not good, but euil. I say thirdly, that Saint [ 3] Austen doth vndoubtedly iudge it to be sin; neither shal any pa∣pist in the world, euer be able to proue the contrarie, howsoeuer they bare the world in hand. I wil onely alleage a few places out of S. Austen, & make effectuall application of the same; to which when anie either Rhemist or Romist shall answere suf∣ficiently, I promise to become his bondman.

The first place of Austen.

Concupiscentia carnis aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiri∣tus,* 1.101 & peccatum est▪ quia inest illi inobedientia contra domina∣tum mentis; & poena peccati est, quia reddita est meritis ino∣bedientis; & causa peccata est, defectione consentientis, vel contagione nascentis. The concupiscence of the flesh, against which the good spirit striueth, is sinne, because it is disobedient against the dominion of the mind; and it is the punishmēt of sin, bicause it is inflicted for the deserts of disobedient (Adam;) and it is the cause of sinne either by the default of him that consen∣teth, or by the contagion of the child that is borne. Thus saith S. Austen. In which words he expresseth three things precisely;

first, that concupiscence in the regenerate is the paine or pu∣nishment [ 1] of sinne; secondly, that it is the cause of sinne; thirdly, [ 2] that it is sin it selfe: which three he doth not only distinguish, [ 3] but withall hee yeeldeth seueral reasons for the same. And ther∣fore most impudent are the papists, who auouch with open mouthes that saint Austen onely calleth it sin, because it is the cause of sinne.

The second place of Saint Austen

Neque enim nulla est iniquitas,* 1.102 cum in vno homine vel supe∣riora inferioribus tur piter seruiunt; vel inferiora superioribus contumaciter reluctantur, etiamsi vincere non sinantur. For it is some iniquitie, when in one man either the superiour parts shamefully serue the inferiour; or the inferiour parts stubborn∣ly striue against the superiour, although they be not suffered to preuaile. Thus saith S. Austen: whose words are so plaine, as the papists can not possibly inuent any euasion at all. For hee saith in expresse tearmes, that the rebellion, which is betweene the flesh and the spirit is sinne, euen when it is resisted and can∣not preuaile: at which time and in which respect, the papists wil haue it to be merite and no sinne at all.

The third place of Saint Austen.

Ʋirtus est charitas, qua id quod diligendum est diligitur;* 1.103 haec in alijs maior, in alijs minor, in alijs nulla est, plenissima vero quae iam non possit augeri, quamdiu hic homo viuit, est in nemi∣ne; quamdiu autem augeri potest, profecto illud quod minus est quam debet, ex vitio est. Ex quo vitio non est iustus in terra qui faciat bonum, & non peccet.* 1.104 Ex quo vitio non iustificabitur in conspectu Dei omnis viuens. Propter quod vitium▪ si dixeri∣mus quia peccatum non habemus, nosmetipsos seducimus, & ve∣retas in nobis non est. Propter quodetiam quantumlibet profece∣rimus, necessarium est nobis dicere; dimitte nobis debita nostra, cum iam omnia in baptismo dicta, facta, cogitata, dimissa sint. Charitie is a vertue, with which we loue that that ought to be loued. This in some is more, in other lesse, in others none at all; but the perfect charitie which can not bee increased while a man here liueth, is found in none; so long as it can be increased, that doubtlesse which is lesse then it shoulde bee,

proceedeth of sinne, by reason of which sin, there is not one iust vpon earth, that doth good and sinneth not; by reason of which vice, none liuing can be iustified in Gods sight; by reason of which vice, if we say we haue no sin we deceiue our selues, and the truth is not in vs;* 1.105 by reason of which sin, how much soeuer we profit, yet must we say of necessitie, Forgiue vs our tres∣passes, euen after that al our thoughts, words and works, are forgiuen in baptisme. Thus saith saint Austen. Out of whose most golden words, I note sundrie things, to the euerlasting [ 1] confusion of all impenitent papists. For first, Saint Austen saith, that no man can haue charity in that perfite degree, which the law requireth. Secondly, that the want thereof proceedeth [ 2] of this concupiscence. Thirdly, that by reason of this concupi∣scence, [ 3] euerie man is a sinner. Fourthly, that by reason therof, [ 4] none liuing can be iustified in Gods sight. Fiftly that by reason [ 5] thereof, whosoeuer saith he hath no sinne, is a flat lyer. Sixtly, [ 6] that how vertuously soeuer we liue, yet must we desire God to forgiue vs our sinnes, by reason of this concupiscence. Sea∣uenthly, [ 7] that wee must thus pray, euen after all sinnes be for∣giuen vs in our baptisme.

The fourth place of Saint Austen.

* 1.106Si in parente baptizato potest & esse, & peccatum non esse, cur eadem ipsa in prole peccatum est? Adhaec respondetur, dimitti concupiscētiam carnis in baptismo non vt non sit, sed vt in pec∣catum non imputetur. If it be demanded, how concupiscence can be without sinne in the parent that is baptised, and yet be sinne in the childe; I answere that concupiscence is forgiuen in baptisme, yet not so that it remaineth not still, but that it be not imputed for sinne. Thus saith Saint Austen, in which words he sheweth plainely, that concupiscence remaineth as well in the baptised parent, as in the vnbaptised childe; yet with this difference, that it is sinne in the parent, though not for sinne im∣puted; but in the child it is both sinne, and so reputed.

The fift place of Saint Austen.

* 1.107Ideo apostolus non ait facere bonū sibi non adiacere sed perfice∣re. Multum••n, boni facit, qui facit quod scriptū est, postconcu∣piscentias

tuas non eas; sed non perficit, quia non implet quod scriptum est, non concupisces. The Apostle therefore saith not, that he hath not power to do good, but that he can not perfect that which is good. For he doth great good,* 1.108 who doth that which is written, follow not thy lustes; but he doth not per∣fect his well doing, because he fulfilleth not that which is writ∣ten, Thou shalt not lust. Thus saith S. Austen. Out of whose words I note first, that S. Austen speaketh these words of the [ 1] regenerate, for they onely can do good, as is already prooued. I note secondly, that though the regenerate can do good, and [ 2] striue against lust; yet can they not do that good so perfectly, but it is alwayes annexed to sinne, and chayned with it, as with an heauie yokefellow. I note thirdly, (and I wish the [ 3] reader to marke well my words) that the tenth commaunde∣ment (which is,* 1.109 thou shalt not lust) prohibiteth not onely ac∣tuall lust done with consent, but also originall lust without consent; and consequently, that concupiscence remayning in the regenerate, is sinne properly and formally. I prooue it, because S. Paule could not performe this precept, as S. Au∣sten truely and learnedly obserued: and yet concerning actuall consent, S. Paule was free and innocent, as who fought mightely against his concupiscence, and would in no wise yeeld vnto the same. He was therefore guiltie by reason of originall concupiscence, which abode in him against his will.* 1.110 To will is present with me (sayth S. Paule) but I finde no meanes to perfourme that which is good, for I do not the good thing which I would, but the euill which I would not, that do I. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but the sinne that dwelleth in me. Loe, the holy Apostle confesseth plainely, that he sinneth against his will, and that by reason of originall concupiscence, which remayned in him after Bap∣tisme. S. Austen singeth the same song, and yet our Papists will not haue it sinne: and why? because forsooth, it ouerthro∣weth their holy iustifications, their inherent purities, their condigne merites, their mutuall satisfactions, and their phari∣saicall supererogations. And yet Petrus Lombardus their wor∣thie maister of Sentences (whose booke to this day is publike∣ly read in their schooles of Diuinity) vtterly condemneth their

hereticall doctrine in this point:* 1.111 these are his expresse words.

Secundum animas vero iam redempti sumus ex parte, non ex toto, àculpa, non à poena; nec omninò à culpa: non enim ab ea sic redempti sumus vt non sit, sed vt nō dominetur. But touching our soules we are redeemed in part, not wholy, from the fault, not from the paine,* 1.112 neither wholy from the (sinne or) fault. For we are not so redeemed from it, that it be not (in vs,) but that it rule not (ouer vs.) Thus writeth the venerable popish ma∣ster, our reuerend father Lombarde: out of whose words wee may gather with facility, so much as wil serue our turn against al papists. For first, he saith y^t we are redemed in part, but not in al.* 1.113 Secōdly, that we are not wholy redeemed frō sin. Third∣ly, he telleth vs how and in what maner we be redeemed from sin; to wit, that albeit sin stil remaine in vs, yet hath it not such dominion ouer vs, as it can enforce vs to consent thereunto.

The second obiection.

* 1.114If concupiscence were sinne in the regenerate, it would make them guiltie of eternall death, and yet are they free from all condemnation, as witnesseth the Apostle.

The answer.

I answere that concupiscence as wel as other sinnes, is apt of it owne nature to condemne vs, but God of his mercie doth neither impute it nor other sinnes of humane frailtie vnto the faithfull, for the merits of Christ Iesus.

The first replie.

* 1.115Euery thing (as the Philosophers truely say) hath the deno∣mination of the formalitie thereof; but doubtlesse the formalitie of original sinne is taken away in baptisme; other else in vaine were infants baptised, and so there onely remaineth the mate∣rialitie, as the schooles tearme it, that is, a certaine rebellion and inclination to sinne-ward.

The answere.

I answere, that the formalitie of original sin is of two sorts, or double;* 1.116 to wit, the guilte and the deordination. The former by which the partie that sinneth is bound to paine temporal & eternall, is remitted by grace and baptisme in this life. The latter, which is a certaine disorder and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the mind, wil, and actions of man▪ continueth stil, euen to the last houre.

The second replie.

Naturall things neither make vs worthie of praise nor of dispraise, as the Philosophers all grant; but certes concupi∣scence in man is natural, and so can it not be sinne.

The answere.

I answere that concupiscence as it is naturall indeede, and giuen to man as man in the state of innocencie, is ordinate, a∣greeable to reason, and altogether without sinne: but concupi∣scence as it is connatural to corrupt man, is inordinate, rebel∣lious, against the spirit, and altogether sinful in Gods sight.

The third replie.

S. Austen in one place saith plainely,* 1.117 that originall concupi∣scence is no sinne, vnlesse wee consent vnto it. These are the words, Quanto magis absque culpa est in corpore non consen∣tientis, si absque culpa est in corpore dormientis? Howe much more is it without sin, in the bodie of him that consenteth not; if it be without sinne, in his body that is a sleepe?

The answere.

I answer, that S. Austen meaneth nothing lesse, then to denie concupiscence to be sin, for otherwise he should be contrarie to himselfe, who affirmeth it to bee sinne in many places of his works, as is alreadie prooued; but hee onely laboureth to per∣swade the reader, that it is neuer imputed to the faithfull, that stoutly striue against it. And that this is the true meaning of S. Austen, I proue it by the iudgement of S. Ambrose,* 1.118 concerning the selfe same matter. Thus doth hee write.

Caro contra spiritum, & contra carnem spiritus concupiscit: ••ec inuenitur in vllo hominum tanta concordia,* 1.119 vt legi mentis lex quae membris est insita non repugnet. Propter quod ex omni∣um sanctorum persona accipitur quod Ioannes apostolus ait; si dixerimus quoniam peccatum non habemus, nosipsos seducimus, & veritas in nobis non est: cum tamen idem ipse dicat; qui na∣tus est ex Deo, peccatum non facit, qoniam semen ipsius in eo ma∣net, & non potest peccare, quoniā ex Deo natus est. Vtrumque er∣go verum est, quia & nemo sine peccato est, in eo quod nemo est fine lege peccati; & qui natus est ex Deo, peccatum non facit, quia per legem mentis, id est, per charitatem quae Dei semen est, peccatum non facit. Charitas enim operit multitudinē peccatorū.

the flesh lusteth against the spirit, & the spirit against the flesh; neither is there found in any man such concord, but that the lawe (of concupiscence) which is ingrafted in the members, fighteth against the law of the mind. And for that cause Saint Iohns words are taken,* 1.120 as spoken in the person of all saints, If we say we haue no sin we deceiue our selues, and the truth is not in vs, when for al that; the same apostle saith, He that is borne of God, sinneth not, because his seed abideth in him, and he cannot sinne because he is of God. Therfore both are true, because no man is without sinne, for that no man is without the law of sinne, (that is, concupiscence) and he that is borne of God sinneth not, bicause he sinneth not by the law of his mind, that is, by charitie, which is Gods seede; for charitie couereth [ 1] the multitude of sinnes. Out of these words I note first, that concupiscence moueth rebellion against the spirit, in the holyest [ 2] man vpon earth. I note secondly, that this rebellion of concu∣piscence, is sinne in euerie one, because S. Iohn speaketh of sinne indeede, whose words saint Ambrose applieth heere to concupiscence. I note thirdly, that hee speaketh of originall [ 3] concupiscence, because he speaketh of that concupiscence, which is in the saints, that is, in those that are borne of God. I note fourthly, that the faithfull sinne not, because charitie couereth [ 4] their sins. So then S. Austen meaneth as S. Ambrose doth, that they are without sin, to whom sinne is not imputed. Yea, Aquinas himselfe granteth, (which is to be admired) that the inordinate motion of sensualitie, euen which goeth before the deliberation of reason, is sinne though in a lowe degree. These are his expresse wordes:

Dicendum, quòd illud quod homo facit sine deliberatione ra∣tionis,* 1.121 non perfectè ipse facit, quia nihil operatur ibi id quod est principale in homine; vnde non est perfectè actus humanus, & per consequens non potestesse perfectè actus virtutis vel pec∣cati, sed aliquid imperfectum in genere horum. Vnde talis motus sensualitatis rationem praeueniens est peccatum veniale, quod est quiddam imperfectum in genere peccati.

I answere, that that which man doth without the deliberati∣on of reason, he doth it not perfectly, because that which is the chiefe in man worketh nothing there; wherefore it is not per∣fectly

mans act, and consequently it cannot be perfectly the act of vertue or of sinne, but some imperfect thing in this kinde. Whereupon such a motion of sensuality preuenting reason is a venial sinne, which is a certaine imperfect thing in the nature of sinne.

The fourth replie.

Concupiscence at the most is but a little venial sinne, as S. Thomas Aquinas truely saith; therefore it cannot bring a man to hell, neither debarre him of heauen.

The answere.

I answere, that euerie sin is mortall vndoubtedly, as which is flatly against Gods holy commaundements. For that the transgression of Gods commandements, is a grieuous mortal sinne, no man euer did or will denie;* 1.122 Cursed is euery one (saith the apostle) that continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the law to doe them. Againe in another place,* 1.123 The reward or wage of sinne is death. And S. Iames saith, Whosoeuer shall keepe the whole lawe,* 1.124 and yet faileth in one point, he is guiltie of all. Nowe that euerie sinne aswel great as small is against Gods holy lawe, I prooue sundrie waies. First because the Apostle saith, that al our thoughts, words, [ 1] and works, ought to be referred to the glorie of God;* 1.125 for most certaine it is, that no sinne at al is referred to Gods glorie. For no sin, no, not the least of al is referrible to god;* 1.126 but is of it own nature, repugnant to his glorie. Secondly, because wee must [ 2] yeelde an account to God, for euerie idle word,* 1.127 as Christ him∣selfe telleth vs; and yet (as euerie child can perceiue) God most merciful and most iust, wil neuer lay that to our charge, which is not against his holy law. Thirdly, because the apostle saith [ 3] of sin generally that the punishment thereof is death.* 1.128 Fourth∣ly, because sinne in generall is defined by the fathers, to bee [ 4] the transgression of Gods law;* 1.129 which definition could not bee true, if anie little sinne could stand with his commaundement. Fiftly, because famous popish writers, as Ioannes Gerson, Michael Baius, Almayn, and our owne Bishop of Rochester,* 1.130 [ 5] doe all freely graunt, that euerie sinne is mortall of it owne na∣ture, and deserueth eternall death: their words I haue alleaged

in my booke of Motiues. Sixtly, because Durandus and Iose∣phus Angles,* 1.131 (to whom the Schooles of the papistes this day accord,) doe sharpely impugne Aquinas his doctrine; in that he teacheth Venials, not to be against Gods law.

The 7. conclusion.

Although good works do not iustifie, yet are they pretious in Gods sight,* 1.132 and neuer want their reward. Christ himselfe proo∣ueth this conclusion, when he promiseth that not so much as a cup of colde water giuen in his name, shall passe without re∣ward.* 1.133 And in another place hee saith, That whosoeuer shall leaue house, parents, brethren, wife, or children for his sake, shal receiue much more in this world, and in the world to come, life euerlasting. And in another place Christ telleth vs, that when the sonne of man commeth in his glory, and al his holy angels with him,* 1.134 then will he pronounce them blessed, that haue done the works of charitie to their poore neighbours. God (saith S. Paul,) will reward euery man according to his workes. The Lord rewarded me (saith holy Dauid) according to my righte∣ousnesse;* 1.135 and according to the purenesse of mine handes, he re∣compensed me. Yea, it is a thing so certaine with God, to re∣ward y^e good deeds of his faithful seruants, that the best liuers giue great respect thereunto.* 1.136 Moses (saith S. Paul) esteemed the rebuke of Christ, greater riches then y^e treasures of Egypt; for he had respect to the recompence of the reward. Which re∣ward neuerthelesse proceedeth of Gods meere mercie & boun∣tifull benignitie, without all desertes of man. Which the great papist frier Iohn de Combis wel obserued,* 1.137 whē in his theological Sūme, he wrote in this maner; Deus nos punit citra condignū, remunerat vltra condignum. God punisheth vs lesse then we be worthy, and rewardeth vs farre aboue our deserts.

The first obiection.

* 1.138S. Iohn saith, Qui facit iustitiam iustus est. He that doth iu∣stice, he is iust. Therefore a man becommeth iust, euen by doing of good workes.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that the contrary illation, is more fitly gathered out of Saint Iohns assertion; albeit the papistes thinke this

a bulwarke, for their iustification by good works. For when he saith, he that doth iustice, is iust, it is all one as if he had said, when one doth good works, it is a signe that he is iust, because none can do good works, vnlesse hee be iust. For as a tree can∣not bring forth good fruit, vnlesse it first be good; euen so cannot any man do good works vnles he first be the child of god. The reason is euident, bicause the effect must folow, & not go before the cause. For as saint Austen grauely saith;* 1.139 Opera sequuntur iustificatum, non praecedunt iustificandum. Works follow him that is alreadie iustified, but they goe not before him that is to be iustified. I say secondly, that hee that doth iustice, is iust by [ 2] inherent iustice, but imperfectly, as is alreadie prooued.

The second obiection.

Saint Iames saith, that a man is iustified by good works,* 1.140 and not by faith onely; and he proueth it because Abraham was iustified by offering vp his sonne Isaac.

The answere.

I say first, that Abraham was iustified indeede, before he did a∣ny good worke; and I prooue it by Saint Paul,* 1.141 whose words [ 1] are these; For if Abraham were iustified by works, he hath wherein to reioyce, but not with God; for what saith the scrip∣ture? Abraham beleeued God, and it was counted to him for righteousnesse. Nowe to him that worketh, the wages is not counted by fauour, but by debt; but to him that worketh not, but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly, his faith is counted for righteousnes: euen as Dauid declareth the blessednes of the man, vnto whome God imputeth righteousnesse without works. Out of these words of the apostle I note first, that who∣soeuer [ 1] ascribeth his iustification to works, can haue no ioy with God. I note secondly, that righteousnesse was imputed to A∣braham [ 2] by reason of his faith, not by reason of his works. I note thirdly, that if Abrahams works could haue iustified him, [ 3] his iustification shoulde haue beene of duetie, and not by fa∣uour or grace. I note fourthly, that the vngodly is freely iusti∣fied [ 4] by faith in Iesus Christ without works.

I say secondly, that Abraham offered his son Isaac, not to [ 2] worke his iustification by that fact, but to giue a testimonie

of his faith, and that he was already the childe of God. For as S. Paule saith, that ob••ation was for the triall of Abrahams faith. These are the words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 By faith Abraham offered vp Isaac when hee was tried,* 1.142 or prooued (for so the Greek word doth significantly expresse.* 1.143) And Moses maketh the matter more plaine, in these wordes; And after these things, God did proue or try Abraham: (where the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth to make triall.) And y^e proofe followeth in these wordes;* 1.144 Take nowe thine only sonne Isaac, whom thou louest, and get thee to the land of Moriah, and of∣fer him there for a burnt offering, vpon one of the mountaines, which I will shew thee. Out of which words, with the circum∣stances before and after recorded in the scripture; I gather that Abraham was perfitly iustified, before hee offered his sonne I∣saac. [ 1] For first, God had promised to blesse all nations in his son Isaac,* 1.145 as it is written; Sara thy wife shall beare thee a son in deede, and thou shalt call his name Isaac, and I will esta∣blishe my couenaunt with him for an euerlasting couenaunt, [ 2] and with his seede after him. Again, God appointed that sonne [ 3] to be slaine, in whom the promise was made. Thirdly, the sa∣crifice was the only sonne of Abraham, euen the sonne which he [ 4] loued most tenderly. Fourthly, Abraham himselfe was desig∣ned to be the butcher to his owne sweet childe. Fiftly, it passed [ 5] mans reason, how all nations could be blessed in the child, that was presently to be slaine. All this notwithstanding, Abraham neuer once doubted of Gods promise, but promptly pre∣pared himselfe to execute Gods will. Whereupon I con∣clude, that Abraham was holy and iust in Gods sight, before the oblation of his sonne;* 1.146 otherwise he could neuer haue yeelded thereunto, in such maner and with such alacritie of minde as he did.

I say thirdly, that S. Iames speaketh of iustification before [ 3] men, which was nothing els but the testification of Abrahams righteousnesse to the world. Which exposition came from hea∣uen to Abraham, in these wordes; Lay not thine hand vpon the childe, neither doe any thing vnto him; for now I knowe that thou fearest God, seeing for my sake thou hast not spared thine onely sonne. Out of these wordes I note first, that this

offering vp of Abrahams sonne, was to try Abrahams faith, and obedience, as I said before; which I gather out of these wordes, (for now I knowe that thou fearest God.) I note se∣condly, y^t it was also to make known vnto the world, that great faith, feare, and loue, which Abraham had towardes God. As if God had said; I knew before, thy faith and loue towards me; but now I haue made the same knowne vnto the world.

The third obiection.

S. Iames saith plainly,* 1.147 that a man may keepe the law per∣fitly, and be iustified for so doing. These are the words; Whos•• looketh in the perfite law of libertie, and continueth therein, hee not being a forgetfull hearer but a doer of the work, shalbe bles∣sed in his deed.

The answere.

I say first, that no man can keep the law perfitly in this life, as I haue alreadie prooued copiously. I say secondly, y^t though [ 1] the regenerate doe not fulfil the law exactly, yet doe they con∣tinue [ 2] therein, so long as they striue against sinne, and suffer not sinne to raigne in them. For (as S. Paule saith,) When wee doe that which we would not, it is no more we that doe it,* 1.148 but the sinne that dwelleth in vs. Whereupon S. Austen saith ve∣ry finely; Ecce quemadmodum qui ambulant in vijs, domini,* 1.149 non operantur peccatum▪ & tamen non sunt sine peccato quia iam non ipsi operantur iniquitatem, sed quod habitat in eis peccatum. Behold howe they that walke in the waies of the Lord doe not sinne, and yet are they not without sinne; because now not they work iniquitie, but the sinne that dwelleth in them. I say third∣ly, [ 3] that it is one thing to be blessed in the worke; another thing to be blessed for the worke. And so when the regenerate become not vaine hearers of Gods worde, but bring forth the worthie fruites thereof in holy life; they shall doubtlesse be blessed in so doing, yet not for the worthinesse of their workes, but of Gods meere mercie for his promise sake. Thus doth S. Iames ex∣pound himselfe in the same chapter, when hee saith;* 1.150 Blessed is the man, that endureth temptation; for when he is tried, he shall receiue the crowne of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that loue him.

The 4. obiection.

S. Luke saith, that Zacharias and Elizabeth were iust be∣fore God,* 1.151 not only before men; and that they walked in all the commandements of the Lord, without reproofe.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that if Zacharias and Elizabeth had kept y^e law exactly in all pointes,* 1.152 then Christ needed not to haue died for them, or to haue risen again for their iustification. For the per∣fite fulling of the law, giueth life to the doer thereof. I say se∣condly, [ 2] that they were of that number, of whom S. Iohn saith; if we say we haue no sinne,* 1.153 we deceiue our selues, and there is no trueth in vs. And of whom S. Paule saith; There is none righteous,* 1.154 no not one, they haue all gone out of the way, there is none that doth good, no not one. And of whom the Psalm••∣graphe saith; for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified. And of whom S. Austen saith;* 1.155 Vae etiam laudabili vitae homi∣num, si remota misericordia discutias eam. Woe euen to the best liuers on earth, if thou extend not thy mercie towards them.

I say thirdly, that they were iust before God, as were Da∣uid, [ 3] Peter, Paul, and others; not for that they were perfitly iust and without sinne,* 1.156 but because God reputed them so perfit∣ly iust, as if they had neuer sinned; and of his great mercie tho∣rough the merites of Christ Iesus, did not impute the breach of his law vnto them; according to this saying of the scripture. Blessed are they,* 1.157 whose iniquities are forgiuen, and whose sins are couered. Blessed is the man, to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne.

The fift obiection.

* 1.158The regenerate liue without sinne, and so may they iustly merite heauen. For we reade that Noah was iust, and perfite, and vpright, and walked with God. Remember (saith Dauid) howe I haue walked before thee in trueth,* 1.159 and with a perfite heart,* 1.160 and haue done that which is good in thy sight. Wee speake wisedome (saith the apostle,) among them that are per∣fite: and it is written of king Asa, y^t his heart was perfite all his daies. In another place y^e prophet saith, that he hath not swar∣ued

from Gods lawe. In another place, hee requireth God to iudge him according to his righteousnesse.* 1.161

The answere.

I say first, that as the Prophet Dauid in one place, required [ 1] God to iudge him according to his righteousnesse;* 1.162 so did he de∣sire God in another place not to enter into iudgment with him, because none liuing coulde be iustified in his ••••ght. So then his meaning is not, to oppose his owne righteousnesse to the iust iugement of God, (at which hee euer trembled and neuer durst abide it, as he saith in another place,* 1.163) but only to shew his own innocent dealing, in respect of the malicious and wicked practi∣ses of his enemies: although the papistes to establish their pha∣risaical iustice, would haue it to be vnderstood of Dauids own merites. I say secondly, that the perfitnesse which the scripture [ 2] ascribeth to Gods children, is not absolute but relatiue; that is to say, it is not perfite in respect of Gods law, but by reason of imputation of Christes iustice vnto them, (who hath simply and perfitly answered the law,) or in respect of the weaker sort, who want many degrees of their though imperfect iustice. For S. Paule denied himselfe to be perfite. Not as though I had alreadie attained to it (saith he,) either were already perfit.* 1.164 To which purpose holy Bernard writeth excellētly, in these words;* 1.165 Nostra enim (si qua est) humilis iustitia, recta for••itan▪ sed non pura. Nisi forte meliores nos esse credimus quam patres nostros, qui non minus veraciter quam humiliter aiebant; omnes iustitiae nostrae tanquam pannus menstruatae mulieris. For our base iu∣stice (if we haue any) is perchance right,* 1.166 but not pure or perfit•• vnlesse perhaps we beleeue, that we are better then our fathers were, who spake as truly as humbly; All our righteousnesse is as filthy clouts. But Christ (as the apostle saith) is our iustice, in him we are perfect and consummate.

I say thirdly, that the regenerate are said to liue perfectly and without sin, in that they striue against sin, and do not suffer [ 3] sin to raigne in them, thogh they cannot be without it. And this hath the same Bernard wel obserued and vttered in this maner; Quomodo enim pura iustitia, vbi adhuc non potest culpa d••esse? recta proinde interim videri potest iustitiae hominum,* 1.167 si tamen peccato non consentiant, vt non regnet in eorum mortali

corpore: For how can their iustice be pure, who cannot be with∣out sinne? yet may the iustice of men be right, if they consent not to sinne, nor suffer it to reigne in their mortall bodies. In which respect S. Iohn saith,* 1.168 that the faithfull sin not, because they suffer not sinne to raigne in them.

The replie.

If the regenerate cannot fulfill and keepe the lawe exactly, then is it giuen in vain, and without cause are we charged with the obedience thereof.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that Adam might haue kept the law perfitly, and in him al his posteritie might haue done the same. I say second∣ly, [ 2] that wee may yet keep the law in a certaine measure, and therefore must we striue against sinne, and studie to increase [ 3] our sanctification from day to day. I say thirdly, that by the law we know our owne nakednesse,* 1.169 sinnes, and miserie, and are thereby excited to seeke for remission of our sinnes, and to be clad with the righteousnesse of Christ Iesus.

The replie.

The apostle saith in one place, that the iust are not vnder the law,* 1.170 but vnder grace. And in another place hee saith, y^t there is no law for the iust man: but where there is no law, there can be no transgression, and consequently no sinne at all.

The answere.

* 1.171I answere, that the iust are free from the coaction, curse, and condemnation of the law, as the apostle witnesseth in another place; but yet are they vnder the obedience of the law, & bound to frame their liues according to the prescript rule thereof, as other scripture maketh mention.

The replie.

How can any man frame his life after the prescription of the law, if none liuing can keepe the law as you defend?

The answere.

I answere, that if yee were well studied in your owne doc∣tors, and should marke well what they write, yee coulde not be ignorant of this point. Harken therefore what your owne Ber∣nard saith, and after you haue heard him, remember well his

words and neuer forget his holy instruction. Thus writeth he in one place; Cupiebat dissolui,* 1.172 & cum Christo esse sciens quòd peccatum separans inter nos & deum penitùs auferri non pote∣rit, donec liberemur à corpore. Sequitur; itaque dico vobis genus illud peccati quod toties conturbat nos (concupiscentias loquor & desideria mala) reprimi quidem debet & potest per gratiam dei, vt non regnet in nobis, nec demus membra nostra arma ini∣quitatis peccato, & sic nulla damnatio esthis qui sunt in Christo Iesu; sed non eiicitur nisi in morte, quando sic discerpimur, vt anima sepaietur à corpore. The Apostle did couet to be dissol∣ued and to be with Christ, knowing that sinne which maketh a diuision betweene God and vs,* 1.173 cannot wholy bee taken away while we remaine in this bodie. I therefore say vnto you, this kind of sin, which so often troubleth vs, (I speake of concupi∣scence and euill desires) ought & may be repressed by the grace of God, so as it raigne n••t in vs, nor we giue our members to be weapons of iniquitie vnto sinne, and so there is no damnati∣on to those that are in Christ Iesus; but it is not cast out saue only in death, when wee are so torne, that the soule is diuided from the body. Thus he saith in another place, Sit ergo in corde iustitia, & iustitia quae ex fide est.* 1.174 Haec enim sola habet gloriam apud deum. Sit etiam in ore confessio ad salutem, & securus iam suscipe eum qui in Bethlehem Iudae nascitur, Iesum Christum fili∣um Dei. Let righteousnes therefore be in thine heart, euen that iustice which is of faith; for onely that righteousnesse or iustice hath glorie with God, (howsoeuer righteousnes be esteemed among men.) Haue also confession in thy mouth vnto saluation and then receiue him with security, that is borne in Bethlehem of Iuda, Iesus Christ the sonne of God. Thus he saith in the third place; Omne quod natum est ex Deo, non peccat;* 1.175 sed hoc dic∣tum est de praedestinatis ad vitam: non quòd omnino non peccent, sed quòd peccatum ipsis non imputetur. All that is borne of god sinneth not, but this is spoken of the predestinate to life, not be∣cause they sin not at al, but for that sin is not imputed to them.

Thus doth he say in the fourth place, Ʋtique quod factum est,* 1.176 non potest non fieri; ipso tamen non imputante, erit quasi non fu∣erit. Quod propheta quoque considerans ait; Beatus vir cui non imputabit Dominus peccatum. The sinne doubtlesse that is

done, can not be vndone; yet for that God doth not impute sin vnto vs, we shal be as if we had not sinned: which the prophet considering saith; Blessed is the man to whome God shall not impute sinne.

Out of these foure places conteining most comfortable and [ 1] christian doctrine: I note first, that concupiscence remaineth [ 2] in the regenerate, euen vnto death. I note secondly, that it is properly sinne, euen in the regenerate; which being vttered by their owne deere Bernard, giueth a deadly wound to the pa∣pists. For he saith, that that concupiscence which remaineth to death, doth separate vs from God. Which effect, nothing but that which is properly sinne, can possibly worke in man. I note [ 3] thirdly, that although this concupiscence, can not be taken awaie from the regenerate vntil death; yet may it be so repres∣sed by Gods spirite, as it shall not raigne in them, or haue do∣minion ouer them. I note fourthly, that it bringeth not [ 4] damnation to the regenerate, who striue against it; and that, because God doth not impute it to sinne. I note fiftly, that the regenerate are saide not to sinne, not because they sinne not, or haue no sinne indeede; but because God of his meere mercie▪ accepting their faith through the merits of Christ Iesus doth [ 5] not impute sinne vnto them. I note sixtly, that no iustice but that which is of faith, is or can be acceptable in Gods sight. Ioyne these sayings of saint Bernard to the testimonie of saint Austen,* 1.177 cited in the answer to the first obiection, in the seuenth conclusion: and that done, a mightie article of popish doctrine, will be vtterlie ouerthrowne.

The sixt obiection.

* 1.178Wherefore (saith S. Peter,) labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your vocation and election? There∣fore good workes are a meane for vs to attaine to the effect of Gods predestination; that is, to life euerlasting: as whose cer∣tainetie (if the apostle say truelie) is procured by mans freewil and good workes.

The answer.

[ 1] I say first, that God did elect and predestinate vs, without

regard of our works. For (as the apostle saith,) he chose vs in Christ, before y^e foundatiō of the world: (not bicause we were holy, but) that we should be holy. I say secōdly, that the words [ 2] (by good works) are not in the originall & Greek text, but on∣ly in the popish latin vulgata editio. For which & like respects your late Tridentine council hath so magnified the same. I say thirdly, that good works are the proper effects of predestinatiō [ 3] & electiō, and therfore are a sure testificaton therof in y^e sight & iudgement of man. And if your translation be admitted (wher∣in I wil not contend, because y^e sense is not much different) yet can there no more be inferred vpon y^e words, vnlesse some wil say that the effect can go before the cause, & that which folow∣eth, be the cause of that that went before. But both their owne doctour Aquinas and their double glossa interlinialis and or∣dinaria doe giue the same exposition with mee; to wit,* 1.179 that the apostle willeth vs, to make knowne our eleccion by doing of good works, as which yeeld to man a morall certitude thereof.

The seauenth obiection.

Saint Paul willeth the Philippians to worke their saluati∣on, with feare and trembling: but doubtlesse,* 1.180 he that can worke his saluation, may by his works merite heauen.

The answere.

I say first, with the selfesame apostle in the next verse follow∣ing, [ 1] that we are so far from meriting heauen by our works, that it is God which worketh in vs both the will and the deede,* 1.181 e∣uen of his good pleasure. Yea, as he saith in another place; we are saued by grace through faith, & that neither of our selues, nor yet of works, lest any man should boast himselfe. And ther∣fore the apostle meaneth nothing lesse, then that we shoulde purchase and merite heauen by our good workes. I say se∣condly with deuout Bernard, that the ready way to attaine sal∣uation, [ 2] is to beleeue the contrarie doctrine. These are his ex∣presse wordes; Necesse est primò omnium credere,* 1.182 quòd remissi∣onem peccatorum habere non possis, nisi per indulgentiam Dei: deinde, quòd nihil prorsus habere queas operis boni, nisi & hoc dederit ipse; postremò, quòd aeternam vitam nullis potes ope∣ribus promereri, nisi gratis detur & illa. First of all, thou

must beleeue of necessitie, that thou canst not haue remission of thy sinnes vnlesse God will giue thee a pardon for the same. Againe thou must beleeue, that thou canst not haue any good works at all, vnlesse thou receiue it at Gods hand; Last of all, thou must beleeue that thou canst not merite eternall life by a∣ny [ 3] works, vnlesse it be freely giuen (of mercie.) I say thirdly, that the apostle meaneth nothing else, but that as god hath cal∣led vs, and offered saluation to vs, and withal giuen vs power to will and to do well; so we ought by faith to embrace his gra∣tious gifts, and to shew our selues thankfull by the obedience of his holy lawes. For to this ende hath God chosen vs, called vs, and iustified vs, not that we should liue idly and dissolutely, but that we should exercise our selues in faith and good works, and in obedience be answerable to his holy vocation. For this respect doth the same apostle say in another place;* 1.183 For we are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works, which God hath ordained, that we should walke in them.

The eight obiection.

Redeeme thy sinnes with righteousnes (saith the prophet,) and thine iniquities with mercie towards the poore.* 1.184 Therefore with good workes we may satisfie for our sinnes, and procure Gods fauour towards vs.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first with the apostle, that no man is able to make sa∣tisfaction for his sinnes. And I adde Bernards glosse vnto the same,* 1.185 who writeth thus; Iam verò de aeterna vita scimus, quia non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam, nec si vnus omnes sustineat. Neque enim talia sunt ho∣minum merita, vt propter ea vita aeterna debeatur ex iure, aut Deus iniuriam aliquam faceret nisi eam donaret. Nam vt taceā quòd merita omnia Dei dona sunt▪ & ita homo magis propter ip∣sa Deo debitor est, quàm Deus homini; quid sunt merita omnia ad tantam gloriam? deni{que} quis melior est prophetâ▪ cui dominus ipse tam insigne testimonium perhibet, dicens, virum inueni se∣cundum cor meum? veruntamen & ipse necesse habuit dicere deo, non intres in iudicium cum seruo tuo Domine. Nowe touching eternall life, wee knowe that the sufferings of this time are

not worthy of y^e glorie to come, no not if one man abide al. For the merits of men are not such, that for them eternal life is due by right, or that god shuld do som iniury, if he gaue it not. For to let passe that all merits are the gifts of God,* 1.186 and so man is rather debter to God for them, then God to man; what are al merits to so great glorie? In fine, who is better then the pro∣phet, to whom our Lorde giueth so worthie testimonie, saying; I haue found a man according to my heart? for al that, he had need to say to god; Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant, O Lord. In which words the papists are vtterly condemned, by their owne approued doctour. For first, S. Bernard saith, [ 1] that nothing which man can doe or suffer in this life, is worthy of the ioyes of heauen. Secondly, he saith, that heauen is not [ 2] due to anie man for his own deserts. Thirdly, he saith, that god [ 3] should doe no man wrong, if hee should debarre him of hea∣uen. Fourthly, he saith that man is more in debt to God, then [ 4] God to man; and he yeeldeth this reason, because it is the free gift of God, what good soeuer be in man. Fifitly, hee alleageth [ 5] holy scripture, for the grounde of his assertion.

I say secondly, that the Hebrew word (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) doth properly [ 2] signifie to breake or dissolue; in which signification the prophet seemeth to vse it here, although it also signifie to saue or deli∣uer: as if the prophet had said; O king, thou hast liued wicked∣ly, and dealt cruelly with Gods people: nowe therefore make an end of sinne, and begin a new course of life; change thy cruel∣ty into clemencie,* 1.187 and thy tyrannie into mercie and conpassion toward the poore. Thus doth Theodoretus expound this text.

I say thirdly, that albeit we cannot redeeme our sins in Gods [ 3] sight, or make satisfaction for the same in the court of his iu∣stice, as is proued exactly out of holy Bernard; yet may wee re∣deeme them before men, while we reconcile our selues to those whome we haue offended, and make restitution where we haue done wrong. And of this kind of redemption, may the Prophet not vnfitly be vnderstoode.

The replie.

Not only S. Bernard in the words by you alleaged, but the other fathers vsually and▪ generally do acknowledge the merit

of good works, which you and your solifidians cannot abide.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that though the fathers doe often vse the worde Merit, when they speake of good works, yet do they neuer take it in your popish maner, nor expect heauen for the worthinesse of their works. Which I wish the reader to obserue diligētly, because the papists euer wrest the word (Merite) to the wrong sense. This is cleare by the words of Bernard alreadie cited, to which for better confirmatiō, I adde these his words in another place;* 1.188 Deest gratiae quicquid meritis deputas. Nolo meritū quod gratiā excludat: horre•• quicquid de me•• est vt ••im meus, nisi quòd illud magis forsitan meum est, quod me meum facit. Gratia red∣dit me mihi iustificatū gratis, & sic liberatum à seruitute pecca∣ti. It derogateth from grace whatsoeuer thou ascribest to me∣rite. I will no merite, that excludeth grace. I abhorre whatso∣euer is of mine owne, that I may be mine owne, vnlesse per∣chance that is more mine owne, which maketh me mine owne. Grace iustifieth me to my self freely, and so deliuereth me from the bondage of sinne.

[ 2] I say secondly, that the fathers tearme workes meritorious, not for the worthinèsse thereof,* 1.189 but for Gods acceptation and promise sake. That is to say, they tearme good works merito∣rious, because God hath promised to accept the works of the faithfull as worthie, for the worthines of his sonne; and for his merits to reward them with heauen, as if they had merited the same. For which respect either euer or almost euer, they ioyne merite and grace together. This veritie wil be manifest, if wee ponder deepely, what famous popish doctours haue written herein. Bernard hath these expresse wordes; Sic non est quod iam quaeras quibus meritis speremus bona,* 1.190 praesertim cum audias apud prophetam; non propter vos, sed propter me ego fa∣ciam, dicit dominus: sufficit ad meritum, scire quod non suffici∣ant merita. So there is no cause, that thou shouldest nowe aske by what merites we hope for glorie, especially since thou hea∣rest the prophet say; I will doe it saieth the Lorde, not for your sake, but for mine owne. It is sufficient to merite, to know that our merites are not sufficient. Thus saith deuout

Bernard, who though hee liued in the greatest mist of poperie, and so was carried away with some errours of his time; yet did hee teach most christian doctrine, almost in all his workes: and because hee was reputed a great papist with the papists, his testimonie is euer most forcible against them and their proceedings.

Aquinas hath these expresse words: Manifestum est autem,* 1.191 quòd inter Deum & hominem est maxima inaequalitas, (in infi∣nitum enim distant) totum quod est hominis bonum, est à Deo: Ʋnde non potest hominis à Deo esse iustitia secundum absolutam aequalitatem▪ sed secundum proportionem quandam, in quantum scilicet vterque operatur secundum modum suum. Modus autem & mensura humanae virtutis homini est à Deo, & ideo meritum hominis apud Deum esse non potest, nisi secundum praesuppositio∣nem diuinae ordinationis; ita scilicet, vt id homo consequatur à Deo per suam operationem, quasi mercedem, ad quod Deus ei vir∣tutem operandi destinauit. And it is manifest, that betweene God & man there is exceeding great inequalitie (for they differ in infinit;) all the good that man hath, is of God. Wherefore mans iustice receiued of God, cannot be according to absolute equalitie, but after a certain proportion, to wit, in as much as either worketh according to his condition. Now man hath the measure and condition of his vertue from God, and therefore mans merite cannot be with God, saue onely according to the supposal of Gods holy ordinance: so to wit, that man may at∣taine that at Gods hand by his working, as reward, to which God hath appointed his power of working. Thus writeth the master papist Aquinas; who vtterly ouerthroweth all popish merite, as it is this day defended in the church of Rome.* 1.192 For first, (marke well gentle Reader, for this is a weightie point,) [ 1] Aquinas telleth vs, that where there is not perfert equali∣tie, there can be no merite properlie. Secondly, hee graunteth [ 2] that there is infinite inequalitie betweene God and man. Thirdly, hee confesseth that mans iustice is not absolute, but imperfect. Fourthly, he granteth, that mā doth merite nothing [ 3] in Gods sight, saue only by way of his free acceptation. Fift∣ly, [ 4] he confesseth that eternall life is not properly hyre, but as it [ 5] were hyre, by reason of the same acceptation.

Durandus their owne schooleman denieth euery mans works how iust or holie soeuer he be,* 1.193 to be simply and properly meri∣torious; but onely to merite in an vnproper and large kinde of speech; Meritum (inquit) propriè de condigno est, cui simplici∣ter debetur aequale virtute operis:* 1.194 nullum autem opus nostrum aequale potest esse vitae aeternae, neque illam largitur nobis Deus ex iustitia, sed ex quadam liberalitate sane quia gratìs acceptat nostra opera. Merite (saith Durand) is properly of the worthy, to which that is simply due which is equall by the vertue of the worke: but no worke of ours can be equall to eternall life, nei∣ther doth God giue it vs of iustice, but of meere liberalitie, in that he freely accepteth our workes.

Gregorius Ariminensis, Marsilius, Thomas Waldensis, Paulus Burgensis,* 1.195 and Io. Eckius, all being zealous papists, doe for al that denie mans workes to be meritorious of eternal life, how holy soeuer the man be.

And (gentle Reader) that thou mayest fully knowe, howe the papists haue of late yeeres bewitched the world, and vnder pretence of holy zeale seduced simple soules; call to minde that they vse to wrest the scriptures (as I haue already proued out of their owne doctors) and to come new no distinctions to make their false doctrine good. Which for thy better satisfaction, I will prooue concerning this present controuersie of the merite of works, out of Iosephus Angles a grey frier and learned po∣pish bishop, who euen in that booke which he dedicated to the pope himselfe (so mightie is the truth) writeth in these expresse words:

* 1.196Diuus Chrysostomus ait; Etsi millies moriamur, etsi omnes virtutes animae expleamus, nihil dignum ger••mus ad ea, quae ipsi à Deo percipimus. Eodem etiam modo cōsiderantes omnes alij doctores sancti naturalem solummodo bonorum operum valorem, & illum à valore & iusta vitae aeternae aestimatione longissime distare perpendentes, prudenter dixerunt, opera nostra non esse meritoria aut digna vita aterna. Ex lege tamen siue conuenti∣one, siue promissione facta nobiscum, opera bona hominis cum adiutorio gratiae Dei fiunt aeternae vitae digna, & illi aequalia; quae seclusa illa dei promissione quae passim in sacris literis re∣petitur,

fuissent tanto praemio prorsus indigna.

Saint Chrysostome sayeth,* 1.197 though wee dye a thousand times, and accomplish all vertue of the minde, yet doe wee nothing worthie of those things which wee receiue of God. And all other holy doctors, considering after the same manner the naturall valure only of good words, and perceiuing that it is exceeding farre distant from the valure and iust estimation of eternall life, sayd wisely, that our works are not meritorious nor worthie of eternall life. Yet for the couenant and promise made with vs, the good works of man with the help of Gods grace, are worthy of eternall life, and equall with it; which for all that, that promise of God which is frequent in the scrip∣tures set aside, were altogether vnworthie of so great re∣ward.

Thus sayth our Popish Bishoppe and holy Frier, who though he bestirre himselfe more then a little, to establish the condigne merite of works, yet doth he in his owne kind of rea∣soning, vtterly confute and confound himselfe. For first, he [ 1] graunteth that not onely S. Chrysostome, but all the rest of the holy Fathers with him, affyrme good workes neyther to be meritorious, nor worthy of eternall life. Agayne, he graunteth [ 2] that workes considered in their naturall kinde, are vnworthie of eternall life. Thirdly, he graunteth that good works euen [ 3] as they proceede of grace and assistance of the holy Ghost, are for all that vnworthy of eternall life, if Gods promise and free acceptation be set apart. Which three poynts doubtlesse are all that we desire to be graunted, concerning the doctrine of good works. And so, (though the Papists neuer cease to impeach, accuse, slaunder, and condemne vs in this behalfe) yet do we defend nothing heerein, but that which their owne best Doc∣tors and printed bookes doe teach vs; yea, euen such bookes as are dedicate to the Popes holinesse himselfe. The conceites which this Bishop alledgeth to make good his intended pur∣pose, are childish and too too friuolous. For first, where hee sayth that the Fathers speake of good workes onely in re∣spect of their naturall valure (as hee tearmeth it;) I a••n∣swere,* 1.198 that that glosse and exposition is onely inuented by him and his fellowes, to salue their beggerly doctrine if it

wold be. For besides y^t no father saith so; they repute al works before grace meere sin, as I haue prooued out of Austen. And our Bishop vnwittingly confuteth himselfe (of such force is the trueth,) when he graunteth that good works done in grace are vnworthy of heauen, if Gods promise be set apart. For if they merite ex condigno, as he auoucheth; then doubtlesse pro∣mise, couenant, and mercie, is altogither needlesse. Secondly, where the bishop fleeth to distributiue iustice, so to establishe the merite of workes; I answere, that both the fathers and his fel∣lowes are against him,* 1.199 yea euen Aquinas himselfe. For they vnderstand iustice commutatiue, and require arithmetical equa∣litie. And if Geometricall proportion were to be admitted; yet should greater equalitie be required, then can be found between our workes and eternall life.

The 9 obiection.

Ye brag that the merite of good workes, cannot be found in all the Scripture:* 1.200 But therein you belie both vs and the holy scripture. For in the booke of Ecclesiasticus, I finde these ex∣presse wordes; Omnis misericordia faciet locum vnicui{que} secun∣dum meritum operum suorum. All mercie shall make place to euerie one, according to the merite of his workes. Loe, here is made expresse mention, of the merite of his good workes.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that the booke of Ecclesiasticus is not canonicall Scripture, as which was not found written in the holy tongue. [ 2] I say secondly, that it is not for nothing, that your late councel of Trent hath so magnified your Latine vulgata editio. For such stuffe as this, it doth affoord you in time of neede. I say thirdly, that in the originall and Greeke text, your worde (me∣rite) may long seeke for lodging, before it finde any. For these are the expresse wordes; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Make place to all almes, for euerie one shall find ac∣cording to his workes.

The 10. obiection.

One Scripture saith, that if we giue almes, all things are pure vnto vs. Another scripture saith, that charitie couereth the multitude of sinnes.* 1.201 And it is frequent with the holy fathers, that good workes deliuer vs from hell.

The answere.

I say first, that S. Luke reprooueth y^e extortions of the Pha∣risies, & exhorteth them to works of charitie. As if he had said; [ 1] not vnwashed handes make you eate vncleanly, but your wic∣ked extortions. Vse therefore charitie, and giue almes to the poore, and then your soules shalbe cleane, though the platter be vnwashed. This sense is gathered out of the verses aforegoing.

I say secondly, that almesdeedes▪ and other good works pro∣ceeding [ 2] of faith, do neither merite nor iustifie as is prooued; but yet they are testimonies before men, that wee be iustified by faith through the merites of Christ Iesus. For which respect, iustification is often ascribed vnto them; as to the effects therof. I say thirdly, that the fathers in many places doe speake of [ 3] temporal remission, which often is graunted for almes deeds and the like.

The replie.

If good workes can neither iustifie nor merite, then is it but a vaine thing to exercise our selues therein.

The answere.

I say first, that thus to say and thinke is a probable signe of [ 1] the reprobate, who hath no feeling of Gods holy spirite, but is become senselesse in all spirituall contemplation. I say second∣ly, that albeit good workes doe neither iustifie nor merite, in [ 2] proper kinde of speech; yet be there many good and necessary causes, why we should doe good workes. First, because God is glorified therein. Therefore saith Christ; let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good workes, and glorifie your father which is in heauen. Secondly, because by good workes we shew our gratitude & loue towards God. Therfore saith Christ; If ye loue me, keep my cōmandements. Thirdly,* 1.202 because it is the end for which we were created. Therfore saith the apostle; For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Ie∣sus vnto good works, which God hath ordained that we should walke in them. Fourthly,* 1.203 because they are necessary effectes of our predestination, and consequently yeeld and euident morall certitude both to our selues & to our neighbours, that we are y^e childrē of God. Therfore saith the apostle; There is no cōdem∣nation to thē, y^t are in Christ Iesus, which walk not after y^e flesh

but after the spirite: as if hee had said, Who soeuer are the chil∣drē of God, cannot but liue after Gods holy lawes. Which is the selfe same doctrine, that Christ himselfe taught vs, saying; If ye shall keepe my commaundementes,* 1.204 yee shall abide in my loue; as I haue kept my fathers commandement, and abide in his loue.* 1.205 And S. Iohn confirmeth the same in these wordes: In this wee know that we loue the children of God, when we loue God and keepe his commandementes. For this is the loue of God, that we keep his commandementes. So then if we keep Gods commandementes, it is an euident signe, that we loue God, and that by faith wee are of his free mercie made his chil∣dren, for the merites and righteousnesse of Christ Iesus. See more hereof in the eleuenth preamble, in my first booke of Mo∣tiues.

The 8 conclusion.

Although good workes doe neither merite grace in this life, nor glorie in the life to come, as which are imperfect, polluted with sinne, and in rigour of iustice worthy of condemnation, as is alreadie prooued; yet because God hath decreed in his eternal counsel to bring vs to heauen by them, as by ordinary meanes and right fruites of a sound christian faith; they may in a godly sense be termed, The secundary instrumentall cause of eternall life; but in no sense the cause of mans iustification. Explico: I say (of mans iustification,) because the latter can neuer be the cause of the former; and consequently good workes following our iustification as the immediate fruites thereof, can by no meanes possible be the cause of the same. In regard whereof S. Austen as in many other thinges,* 1.206 so in this point saide very learnedly; Quòd opera non praecedunt iustificandum, sed sequū∣tur iustificatum. That workes doe not go before iustification, but followe him that is iustified; I say (of eternall life) because when there be many gradual effectes of one and the same cause, then the former may fitly be termed the materiall cause of the latter; that is, as the schooles terme it, Causa sine qua non, The cause without which the latter shall not haue effect. For as vocation,* 1.207 iustification, regeneration, and glorification are the effectes of predestination; euen so by Gods holy ordinance, be∣ing predestinate, wee are called by the hearing of his word vnto

••aith,* 1.208 which faith is the cause of our iustification by apprehen∣ding the righteousnesse of Christ Iesus; after wee be iustified of our iustification proceedes regeneration, as who hauing re∣mission of our sinnes, and being ingraffed in Christ by faith, are indued with more aboundant grace of his holy spirite, tho∣rough which we are dayly more and more regenerate, and made new creatures; after we be regenerate, out of our regeneration spring good workes aswel internall, as externall; as who being made good trees, begin to bring forth good fruits; and so con∣tinuing are brought at the length of Gods free mercie, to the possession of eternall life. For as y^e apostle saith,* 1.209 we are created vnto good workes, which God hath ordained that wee shoulde walke in them: and continuing in them, we shall at the dreadful day of doome heare this ioyfull sentence, pronounced to our vnspeakable comfort; Come yee blessed of my father, take the inheritance of the kingdome, prepared for you from the foun∣dation of the world. For I was an hungred,* 1.210 and ye gaue me meate; I was thirsty, and ye gaue me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in vnto you; I was naked and ye clothed me, I I was sicke, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came to me. And with this, it is true yet y^t the apostle saith;* 1.211 Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we had done, but according to his mercie he saued vs, by the washing of the new birth, and by renuing of the holy Ghost, which hee shed on vs aboundantly through Iesus Christ our sauiour, that wee being iustified by his grace, should be made heires according to the hope of eter∣nall life. This is a true saying, and these thinges I will thou shouldest affirme, that they which haue beleeued God, might be carefull to shew forth good workes. These things are good and profitable vnto men. Thus saith S. Paule, and therefore I thinke this a profitable conclusion. By it rightly vnderstood, many places of holy Scripture may easily be answered, which seeme to ascribe iustification or glorification to good workes.

The 10. conclusion.

This popish assertion,* 1.212 that workes doe iustifie and merite e∣ternall life de condigno, was for the space of a thousand and eightie yeares vnknowne to the church of God. About which

time Petrus Lombardus and his fellowes began their scholasti∣call theologie,* 1.213 and disputed such matters doubtfully. About the yeare of our Lord 1545. the late councell of Trent defi∣ned the same for an article of christian beliefe, solemnely accur∣sing al such as hold the contrary opinion. This is the originall and antiquitie of this impudently defended heresie. It is suf∣ficiently confuted throughout the whole chapter.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Gen. 2. v. 17.
• * 1.2

  Gen. 3. v. 19.
• * 1.3

  August. de ciuit. dei, lib. 13. cap. 3.
• * 1.4

  Bernard serm. ad milit. cap. 11. de caena domini ser. 10. Chrysos. hom. 16. in Gen.
• * 1.5

  Chryso. hom. 12. ad Rom.
• * 1.6

  Ecclesiast. 7. v. 31
• * 1.7

  Aug. de lib. arbit. lib. 2. cap. 1.
• * 1.8

  2. Tim. 4. v. ••.
• * 1.9

  August. de ciuit. libr▪ 13. cap. 13.
• * 1.10

  Luc. 10. v. 30.
• * 1.11

  Aug. ap. Ludolp.
• * 1.12

  Ludolph. de vita Christi.
• * 1.13

  The double euill of ignorance an•• concupiscence.
• * 1.14

  Aug. apud Lu••••••
• * 1.15

  2. Cor. 3.5.
• * 1.16

  1. Cor. 12.••.
• * 1.17

  Philip. 2.13.
• * 1.18

  Con•• Ara••. can. 7.
• * 1.19

  Ioan. 155.
• * 1.20

  Ethi••. 3. cap. 5.
• * 1.21

  ••eg••e••. de vo•• ••••••tate human••, cap. 3. ••. 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••.
• * 1.22

  Bernard. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.23

  The formaliti•• of free-will.
• * 1.24

  Heb. 11.•• Rom. 1••.2.
• * 1.25

  Na••arr. i•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Caietan ib••••
• * 1.26

  1. Cor. 10.••••. Colo••. 3.
• * 1.27

  August. contr. Iu∣••ian. lib. 4. cap. 3. ••om. 7. p. 705.
• * 1.28

  August. contr. 〈…〉〈…〉. 4. cap. 〈…〉〈…〉 p••ope 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.29

  All in hell haue not the same to ments.
• * 1.30

  Genes. 4.7.
• * 1.31

  Chrysost. in 4. cap. Ge. hom. 1
• * 1.32

  Conc. 〈…〉〈…〉 19.
• * 1.33

  Can. 7. vbi sup.
• * 1.34

  Aug. epist. 1••••.
• * 1.35

  Luc. 17.10.
• * 1.36

  Gen. 6.••.
• * 1.37

  ••••ilip. 2.13.
• * 1.38

  Cor. 3.5.
• * 1.39

  Cor. 2.14.
• * 1.40

  ••om. 8.7.
• * 1.41

  ••an. 6.44.
• * 1.42

  ••an. 15.5.
• * 1.43

  The attribute of Gods iustice.
• * 1.44

  The attribute of Gods mercie.
• * 1.45

  The attribute of Gods wisedome.
• * 1.46

  The attribute of Gods loue.
• * 1.47

  Ioan. 3.16.
• * 1.48

  Rom 3.23, 24.
• * 1.49

  Rom. 5.18, 19.
• * 1.50

  Act. 4.11.
• * 1.51

  1. Io. 2.1, 2.
• * 1.52

  Gal. 3.13.
• * 1.53

  Col. 1.14.
• * 1.54

  Heb. 1.2, 3.
• * 1.55

  2. Cor. 5.21
• * 1.56

  Apoc. 7.14.
• * 1.57

  ••. Io. 1.8.
• * 1.58

  ••sa. 43.55. ••sa. 53.5.
• * 1.59

  August. serm. 141 de temp. tom. 10.
• * 1.60

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 3.5.
• * 1.61

  Rom. 2.23, 24.
• * 1.62

  Rom. 4.24. Ioan. 3.16.
• * 1.63

  Eph. 1.••, ••. Cor. 10.31.
• * 1.64

  Esa. 43.25. Esa. 48.11.
• * 1.65

  Prou. 16.••.
• * 1.66

  Conc. Trid. se••••. 6. can. 7.
• * 1.67

  Aquinas 12. q. 111. ar. 1. ad pri∣mum.
• * 1.68

  Vulgata editio.
• * 1.69

  Coloss. 1.12.
• * 1.70

  Their owne lin∣guist is again•••• them.
• * 1.71

  The 1. argument.
• * 1.72

  The 2. argument.
• * 1.73

  Rom. 3. v. 24.
• * 1.74

  The 3. argument.
• * 1.75

  Rom. 5. v. 1.
• * 1.76

  The 4. argument Phil. 3. v. 9.
• * 1.77

  The 5 argument.
• * 1.78

  2. Cor. 5. v. 21.
• * 1.79

  The 6. argument.
• * 1.80

  Rom. 10. v. 3.4.
• * 1.81

  The true mea∣ning of this sen∣tence, sole faith doth iustifie.
• * 1.82

  ••om. 4. v. ••.••.
• * 1.83

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 4. v. 3.
• * 1.84

  Rom. 3. v. 28.
• * 1.85

  Ambros. in 3. cap. ad Rom. paulo ante finem. cap. 4. cap. 9. ad Rom, ••
• * 1.86

  Chrysost. hom. 1•• ad Rom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 med.
• * 1.87

  Chrysost. hom. 5. ad Ephes,
• * 1.88

  Hilarius in Ma••••▪ Can. 8.
• * 1.89

  Basiliu•• de hu•••• tom. 1.
• * 1.90

  Orig. ad Rom. cap. 3. non proc. a fine.
• * 1.91

  The first reason. Rom. 8.18.
• * 1.92

  A friuolous di∣stinction of the Papists.
• * 1.93

  The second reso•• Rom. 7.25.
• * 1.94

  Aug. li. 1. retract. cap. 22. p. 23.
• * 1.95

  Rom. 6. v. 23.
• * 1.96

  Rom. 7.23. The first conf••••••mation.
• * 1.97

  Rom. 7.19. The second con∣firmation. Rom. 6.23.
• * 1.98

  Rom. 7.14. The third confir∣mation.
• * 1.99

  Rom. 7.••0.
• * 1.100

  The fourth con∣firmation.
• * 1.101

  Aug. contr. Iuli∣••n. lib. 5. cap. 3. tom. 7.
• * 1.102

  Aug. con••. Iulian. lib. 6. ca. 8. tom. 7
• * 1.103

  August. epist. 29. ad Hier. tom. 2.
• * 1.104

  3. Reg. 8. Psalm. 142. 1. Ioan. 1. Matth. 6,
• * 1.105

  Concupiscence is sinne in the regenerate.
• * 1.106

  August. de nupt. & concupisc. lib. 1 cap. 25. tom. 7.
• * 1.107

  August. de nupt. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 concupisc. lib. 1 cap. 29. tom 7.
• * 1.108

  Ecclesiast. cap. 18 30. Exod. 20.17.
• * 1.109

  Marke well this illation: for it striketh the pa∣pists dead.
• * 1.110

  Rom. 7.18, ••••, 20.
• * 1.111

  Lombard. lib. 3. ••nt. dist. 19.
• * 1.112

  Now ye papists, either recant your doctrine, or else crie fire and ••agot for your maister.
• * 1.113

  Peruse the 8. conclusion in the answere to the last replie of the fift obiection.
• * 1.114

  Rom. 8.1.
• * 1.115

  Forma dat esse ••••i.
• * 1.116

  Ratio formalis originalis peccati
• * 1.117

  August. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lib. 1. cap. 25.
• * 1.118

  Amb. libr. 10. epist. 84. tom. 3.
• * 1.119

  1. Ioan. 1.
• * 1.120

  Note here a∣••ainst the papists, ••hat the faithfull ••oth are sinners ••nd iust at once.
• * 1.121

  ••q. 12. q. 74. ar. ••. contr. & ad 3.
• * 1.122

  Galat. 3.10.
• * 1.123

  Rom. 6.23.
• * 1.124

  Iac. 2.10.
• * 1.125

  1. Cor. 10.31.
• * 1.126

  Rom. 3.8. 2. Cor. 5.21.
• * 1.127

  Mat. 1••.36.
• * 1.128

  Rom. 6.23.
• * 1.129

  Amb. de Par. ca. •• Aug. contr. ••aust. 22. cap. 27.
• * 1.130

  In the seuenth chapter▪ and fif•• conclusion of purgatorie.
• * 1.131

  Vide Ioseph. An∣gles in 2. s. d. 37. diffic. 6.
• * 1.132

  Mat. 10. v▪ 42.
• * 1.133

  Mat. 19. v. 29. Luc. 18. v. 29.
• * 1.134

  Mat. 25. v. 34.35 Rom. 2.6.
• * 1.135

  Psal. 17. v. 20.
• * 1.136

  Hebr. 11. v. 26.
• * 1.137

  Ioan. de Combis in comp. theol. veritatis.
• * 1.138

  2. Ioan. 3. v. 7.
• * 1.139

  August. de fid. & ope. ca. 14. tom. 4
• * 1.140

  Iac. 2.21, 24.
• * 1.141

  Rom. 4.3, 4, 5, 6.
• * 1.142

  Heb. 1••▪ ••. 17.
• * 1.143

  Gen. 22. v. 1.
• * 1.144

  Gen. 22. v. 2.
• * 1.145

  Gen. 17. v. 19.
• * 1.146

  Gen. 22. v. 2.3, 4, 5, 6, 7▪ 8, 9, 10.
• * 1.147

  Iac. 1. v. 25.
• * 1.148

  Rom. 7. v. 20.
• * 1.149

  August. in Psal. 118. conc▪ 2. in fine.
• * 1.150

  Iac. 1. v. 12.
• * 1.151

  Luc. 1. v. 5.
• * 1.152

  Rom. 4. v. 25. Math. 19. v. 17. Luc. 10. v. ••9.
• * 1.153

  Ioan. 1. verse 8. Rom. 3. v. 10.12.
• * 1.154

  Psal. 143. v. 2.
• * 1.155

  August. lib. 9. confess. cap. 13.
• * 1.156

  2. Reg. 12. v. 7. Mat. 26. v. 74. Act. 9. v. 1.2.
• * 1.157

  Rom. 4 v. 7••.
• * 1.158

  Gen. 6. v. 9. 4. Reg. 20. v. 3.
• * 1.159

  1. Cor. 2. v. 6.
• * 1.160

  2. Par. 15. v. 17. Psal. 118.
• * 1.161

  Psal. 7.8▪
• * 1.162

  Psal. 7. v. 8. Psal. 142. v. 2. Psal. 118. v. 120.
• * 1.163

  Dionysius, Car∣thus. in Psal. 7.
• * 1.164

  Philip. 3. v. 12.
• * 1.165

  Bernard. de ve••b•• Esaiae, serm. 5.
• * 1.166

  1. Cor. 1.30. Coloss. 2.10.
• * 1.167

  Bern. vbi sup••. ••.
• * 1.168

  1. Ioan. 3. v. 9.
• * 1.169

  1. Cor. 1. v. 30. Colos. 2. v. 10.
• * 1.170

  Rom. 6. v. 14. 1. Tim. 1. v. 9.
• * 1.171

  Rom. 1.8.1. Rom. 8.13. Ioan. 14.15. 1. Ioan. 2. v. 3, 4.5 Rom. 6.12.
• * 1.172

  Bernard. de ad∣uent. Dom. serm▪ 6. tom. 1.
• * 1.173

  Loe, concupis∣cence in the re∣generate is pro∣perly sinne▪
• * 1.174

  Bernard. in vig••. nat▪ dom. serm. 1.
• * 1.175

  Bernard. de grat. & lib. arbi. pag. 1189.
• * 1.176

  Bernard. serm. 1. in annu••••ia••.
• * 1.177

  Poperie is stric∣ken dead.
• * 1.178

  ••. Pet. 1. ver••▪ 10.
• * 1.179

  Good worke•• yeelde morall certitude of our iustification.
• * 1.180

  Phil. 2. vers. 12.
• * 1.181

  Philip. 2.13. Ephes. 2▪ 8.
• * 1.182

  Bernard. serm. 1. in annuntiat▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Mariae▪
• * 1.183

  ••phes. 4.24.
• * 1.184

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 4.24.
• * 1.185

  Rom. 8.18. Bernard. serm. 1. in annu••. B.M.V.
• * 1.186

  The papists are c••••••ounded in their L. Abbot.
• * 1.187

  Theodor. orat. •• in Danielem.
• * 1.188

  ••••••nard. in Cant. ••.67.
• * 1.189

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 well, howe 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Fathers 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be merite to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 workes.
• * 1.190

  ••••rnard. super 〈◊〉〈◊〉. serm. 68.
• * 1.191

  Aquin. 1••. q. ar. 1. in co••p.
• * 1.192

  Note well 〈◊〉〈◊〉 doctrine.
• * 1.193

  ••eritum largo ••••do.
• * 1.194

  ••urand. in 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. d. 28. apud 〈◊〉〈◊〉. de iust. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.195

  ••pud Ios. Angl. •• 2. s. d. 27. ar. 2. ••••ffic. 5.
• * 1.196

  ••osephus Angles •• 2. s. dist. 27. ••. 2. diffic 4.
• * 1.197

  Chrysost. in lib. 2. de compunct. cord••••, tom. 5▪
• * 1.198

  The Bishops reasons confuted▪
• * 1.199

  Aquinas 12. q. 114. ar. 1.
• * 1.200

  Ecclesiast. cap. 1•• v▪ 15.
• * 1.201

  Luc. 1••▪ v 41. 1. Pet. 4. v. 8.
• * 1.202

  Mat. 5. v 1••. Luke 1.75. Ioan. 14. v. 15.
• * 1.203

  Ephes. 2. v. 10. 1. Thess. 4. v. 7. 1. Pet. ••. v. 24. Rom. 8. v. 1. Rom 6. v. 4. 1. Ioan. 2. v. 6▪
• * 1.204

  Ioan. 15. v. 10.
• * 1.205

  1. Ioan. 5. v. 2.3.
• * 1.206

  August. de fide & operib. cap. 14. tom. 4.
• * 1.207

  Rom. 8. v. 30. Rom. 10. v. 17.
• * 1.208

  Rom. 5. v. 1. 1. Cor. 1. v. 30. 2. Cor. 4.16. Gal. 6. v. 15. Mat. 7. v. 17.
• * 1.209

  Ephes. 2. v. 10.
• * 1.210

  Math. 25. v. 34.
• * 1.211

  Tit. 3. v. 5.6, 7, 8.
• * 1.212

  Anno Dom. 1080.
• * 1.213

  Anno Dom. 1545.