A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 39
CHAP. XXXIX.
Detect. 30. ANother of their frauds is, by culling out all the harſh, unhanſome paſſages, or miſtakes that they meet with in any Proteſtant Writers, and charging all theſe upon the Proteſtant Religion, as if they were ſo many Articles of our Faith: or at leaſt were the common doctrines of our Churches.
They will not give us leave to do ſo by them, when yet we have much more reaſon for it. For 1. They teach the People that they are bound to believe as their Teachers bid them: and they reproach us for confeſſing that we are not in all points of Doctrine infallible: And yet we ſtill confeſs this fallibility, and ſay in plain terms, that we know but in part. 2. Divers of their particular Doctors that we uſe to cite, are ſuch as the Pope hath Canonized for Saints: and they tell us that in Canonizing he is infallible: And therefore an Infallibly Canonized Saint muſt not be ſuppoſed to err in a point of faith. 3. They boaſt ſo much of Unity and Concent among themſelves, that we may the better cite particular Doctors. And yet we think our ſelves bound to ſtand to their own Law in this, and to charge nothing on them as the faith of their Church but what their Church doth own: and therefore while they refuſe to ſtand to particular Doctors, we will not urge them to it: for its good reaſon that all men ſhould be the Profeſſors of their own belief.
But what reaſon is there then that we may not have the ſame meaſure from them which they expect? We profeſs to take no man, nor Council of men, for the Lords of our faith, but for the Helpers of our faith. They tell us, that they know not where to find our Religion. We tell them it is entirely in the written word of God, and that we know no other Infallible Rule; becauſe we know no other Divine Revelation (ſuppoſing what in Nature is revealed.) They tell us that, All Hereticks do pretend to Scripture, and therefore this cannot be the Teſt of our Religion? I anſwer, that ſo all cavillers, and defrauders and extortioners, may pretend to the Law of the Land, to undo poor men by quirks of wit, or tire them with vexatious ſuits: And yet it follows not that we muſt ſeek another Rule of Right, and take the Law for inſufficient: And what if Hereticks pretend to Tradition, to General Councils and the Decretals of the Popes (as you know how frequently they do) Will you yield therefore that theſe are an infufficient Rule, or Teſt of your own Religion? Open your eyes, and judge as you would be judged.
But I will come to ſome of the particular Opinions which they charge us with. And becauſe I know not a more weighty renowned Champion of their cauſe then Cardinal Richleiu (then Biſhop of Lucion:) I ſhall take notice of his twelve great errors which he ſo vehemently chargeth on the Reformed Churches, as contrary to the Scripture. And ſure I ſhall do much to make clean our Churches, if I fully wipe off all the pretended blots of errour, that ſo wiſe a man could charge upon them. In his Defenſ. contra ſcript. 4. Miniſtr. Charenton. cap. 2. pag. 12. &c. he begins his enumeration thus.
1. [The Scripture ſaith, Jam. 2. that a man is not Juſtified by Faith only; but you ſay, that he is Juſtified by Faith alone, and by Faith only, which is found in no place of Scripture: and do you not then reſiſt the Scriptures?]
Anſw. 1. We believe both the words of Paul and James. that a man is Juſtified by Faith without the Deeds of the Law, and ſaved through Faith—not of works, leſt any man ſhould boaſt, Rom. 3. 28. Epheſ. 2. 8, 9. and alſo that a man is Juſtified by works, and not by Faith only, Jam. 2 Did not this Learned man know that we believe all the Bible? why then ſhould he charge us with denying that which we retain, and publickly read in our Churches as the word of God? Did he think that we ſet ſo much by Luthers, or any mans writings, as by the Bible? 2. But if he can prove that we underſtand not theſe words aright, he ſhould have evinced it better then by the uſe of the words [Faith alone] For our Churches by [Faith alone] do profeſs openly to mean no more then Paul doth by [Faith without works] And can they find fault with Paul? 3. Indeed we are not all agreed upon the fitteſt Notion of the intereſt of Faith and works in our Juſtification: but our difference is more in words and notions then matter, of which ſee my Diſput. of Juſtification. 4. And. why do you not quarrel with your own Cardinal Contarenus de Juſtif. and others of your own, that joyn with us in the doctrine of Juſtification.
His ſecond Accuſation is, [The Scripture ſaith, that we can Love God with all the heart: you ſay, that no man can Love God with all the heart, which is no where read in Scripture: and yet do you not reſiſt the Scriptures?]
Anſw. 1. Unprofitable Confuſion! we diſtinguiſh between Loving God with all the Heart, as it ſignifieth the ſincerity and predominant degree of Love, and ſo every true Chriſtian hath it: and as it ſignifieth ſome extraordinary degree above this meer ſincerity; and ſo ſome eminent ſtronger Chriſtians have it, and as it ſignifieth the higheſt Degree, which is our duty, and which excludeth all ſinful imperfection: And thus we ſay, that no man actually doth Love God perfectly in this life: nor do we think he ſpeaks like a Chriſtian, that dare ſay, Lord I Love thee ſo much, that I will not be beholden to thee to forgive the imperfection of my Love, or to help me againſt any ſinful imperfection of it. Your own Followers whom you admire as the higheſt Lovers of God, do oft lament the imperfections of their Love (as M. de Renty, for inſtance, in his Life.) But now if the queſtion be only of the poſſe, and not the act, we ſay, that the Potentia naturalis is in all: and the Potentia Moralis, which is the Habit, is in the ſanctified: but this Moral Power is not perfect it ſelf, that is, of the higheſt degree, and without any ſinful imperfection; though yet it hath the perfection of ſincerity, and in ſome, the perfection of an eminent degree. And will not this content you?
His third Accuſation is, [The Scripture ſaith, that the Euchariſt is the Body and Blood of Chriſt, with the adjunction of thoſe words that ſignifie a true Body and Blood: you ſay that it is not Chriſts Body and Blood, but only a figure, ſign, and teſtimony, which the Scripture no where ſaith.]
Anſw. 1. The Scripture ſaith not that it is his Body and Blood ſubſtantially, or by Tranſubſtantiation: And we ſay not, as you feign, that it is not his Body and Blood, but a figure, &c. For we ſay, that it is his Body and Blood Sacramentally and Repreſentatively: as he that perſonateth a King on ſome juſt account, is called a King; and as in actions of Inveſtiture and Delivery; the delivering of a Key is the delivering of the Houſe, and the delivery of a twig and turf, is the delivery of the Land; and the deliverer may ſay, Take, this is my Houſe, this is my Land, which I deliver thee. If you be among many Images in a room, you will not blame him that ſaith, This is Peter, and this is Paul, and this is the Virgin Mary. 2. The Scripture often calls it Bread after the Conſecration; which you condemn us for: therefore we are taught to call it ſo. 3. The Scripture ſaith, 1 Cor. 10. 4. [That Rock was Chriſt] and he ſaith, [I am the door, John 10. 7. I am the true Vine, John 15. 1.] David ſaith, [I am a worm and no man, Pſal. 22. 6.] we believe all this. But muſt we be therefore reproached, if we ſay, that David was a man; that the Rock was Chriſt typically; that he was a Vine and Door Metaphorically only? And yet theſe are as plain as, This is my Body, and This is my Blood.
His fourth Accuſation is, [The Scripture ſaith, that Baptiſm ſaveth us, and that we are cleanſed and regenerate by the waſhing of water: On the contrary you ſay, that Baptiſm doth neither ſave us, nor regenerate us, but is only to us a ſymbol of ſalvation, ablution, and regeneration, which is no where ſaid in Scripture.]
Anſw. A childiſh conteſt about words! we ſay, that two things go to our full poſſeſſion of our ſtate of Regeneration, Juſtification, and Cleanſing: One is our fundamental Right, which the Promiſe of the Goſpel gives us upon our Heart conſent or Covenant with God: the other is our Solemn Inveſtiture: in regard of the former, we are Chriſtians, and Regenerate, and Juſtified before Baptiſm: In regard of the later, we are made Chriſtians, regenerate, juſtified, ſaved by Baptiſm. This we commonly hold, and ſo never denyed what you falſly ſay we deny. As a man is made a King by his Coronation, that yet in a ſort was one before; or as Marriage makes them Husband and Wife by publick ſolemnization, that were fundamentally ſo before by Private Covenant; or as poſſeſſion is given by a Key, a twig and a turf (as I ſaid) of that which a man had right to before; ſo are we ſolemnly inveſted with thoſe benefits by baptiſm, which we had a fundamental Title to before. Do not your own writers confeſs this of a man that is Baptized many years after he had Faith and Charity? Do you think Cornelius and the reſt that had the Holy Ghoſt before Baptiſm, Act. 10. had not Juſtification before? Do you think that Conſtantine the great was unpardoned, unregenerate and no Chriſtian till he was Baptized? Or rather would you make quarrels againſt your own Confeſſions?
His fifth Accuſation is [Scripture ſaith, that Prieſts do forgive ſin: on the contrary you ſay that they do not remit them, but only teſtifie that they are remitted, which the Scriptures no where ſay.]
Anſw. As if Teſtification could not be a Remiſſion. We ſay, that whoſe ſins the Paſtors of the Church remit, they are remitted. Do you not know that theſe very words were uſed to every Presbyter in our Ordination here in England? We ſay 1. That Paſtors do as Gods Embaſſadors, proclaim his General Conditional Pardon unto all. 2. That they are Gods Miniſters to make a particular Application, and delivery of pardon in Baptiſm, on ſuppoſition that the Baptized be qualified for pardon. 3. That they are as his Miniſters, to make the ſame Application by Declaration and Delivery in the Abſolution of the Penitent; on ſuppoſition that their penitence be ſincere. 4. And as Church Governours, they may on good conſiderations ſometimes remit ſome humbling diſgraceful acts that were impoſed on the penitent for the teſtification of his repentance, and the ſatisfaction of the Church. And are not theſe four conceſſions enough? Or are you minded to pick quarrels, that your ſelves and others may have fewel for the rancour and uncharitableneſs of your minds?
But indeed we do not think that any man can primarily as the chief Agent forgive ſins; but God muſt be the firſt pardoner: Nor that any man can pardon the ſins of the dead, and abate or ſhorten the pains of the ſoul in a fire called Purgatory. Here we leave you.
And verily if the Pope have power to remit but the very temporal puniſhment, he is a cruel wretch that will not forgive men, even good men, the torments of the Gout, and the Stone, and an hundred diſeaſes; nay that will not remit them to himſelf, no nor the pains of death, when he is ſo loath to die: (But I forgot that the Pope hath no body to forgive him, becauſe none above him) He that connot remit the puniſhments which we ſee, and feel, how ſhall we believe him (without any Divine Teſtimony) that he can remit a penalty that he never ſaw nor felt, nor no man elſe, that can be proved.
His ſixth Accuſation is [Scripture ſaith, If a Virgin marry ſhe ſinneth not: but you ſay that the juſt ſin in all works: which Scripture mentions not.]
Anſw. 1. Do you believe in your Conſcience that the Scripture meaneth that a Virgin ſinneth not at all in any circumſtance or defect in the manner or Concomitants of her Marriage? Then I pray tell your Nuns ſo, that if they marry they ſin not. Tell Prieſts ſo, that if they marry they ſin not. Your own reaſon can expect no other ſenſe in the words, but that Marriage, as ſuch, is no ſin to the Virgin. And this we grant: But yet if you think that in this or in any other work, you ſee God as apprehenſively, and believe as ſtrongly, and reſtrain every wandring thought as exactly, and Love God as much as you are bound to do by the very Law of Nature it ſelf; ſo that you are perfectly blameleſs, and need not be beholden to the blood of Chriſt, to the Mercy of God, to the Spirit of Grace, either for the forgiveneſs of theſe failings; or the cure of them, you ſhew then a proud Phariſaical ſpirit, unacquainted with it ſelf and with the Goſpel. Do you go on and ſay, Lord I thank thee that I am not as other men: and I will rather ſay, Lord be mercifull to me a ſinner: and which ſhall be rather juſtified, Chriſt hath told us. The ſtreams cannot be perfectly ſinleſs, till the fountain be ſo: and [Who can ſay, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my ſin? Prov. 20. 9.] [For there is not a juſt man upon earth, that doth good, and ſinneth not, Eccl. 7. 20.] Chriſt telleth us that the fruit will be like the Tree, the actions like the heart: and therefore an imperfect Heart will have imperfect duties. If you dare ſay there is no remnant of ſin in your hearts, you have ſo much of it that hindereth you from ſeeing it. Humility and ſelf-knowledge would ſoon end this controverſie. We ſay not that all our works are ſins, that is, either materially forbidden, or done in wickedneſs, and from vicious predominant habits; But that the ſame works which Materially are good, are tainted with our ſinfull imperfections, having not in them that meaſure of knowledge, faith, love, &c. as we ought to have; and therefore that we muſt beg pardon for our imperfections, and fly to the blood and merits of Chriſt, through whom God will accept both our works and us, for all the imperfections, which he pardoneth to us of his grace.
His ſeventh Accuſation is [Scripture ſaith that there are wicked men and reprobates, that believe in Chriſt: But you contend that they believe not, but have only a ſhadow of faith: which no Scripture ſaith.]
Anſw. Again, a quarrel about the name of faith, unworthy ſerious men! We ſay that Reprobates do believe, and we ſay that they believe not, taking belief in different ſenſes. We believe what ever the Scripture ſaith, even that the Devils believe and tremble: and yet as Believers and Chriſtians are all one, we are loath to call the Devils Believers and Chriſtians; but you may do it, if you pleaſe. As Belief ſignifieth a bare uneffectuall conviction or ſuperficial Aſſent which you call fides informis, ſo we ſtill confeſs that the wicked may believe. But as Belief ſignifieth our Receiving of Chriſt, and Coming to him, and being planted into him as his members, and taking him heartily as Chriſt, our Lord and Saviour, and ſo becoming Chriſtians and Diſciples: as it ſignifieth ſuch a faith that hath the promiſe of pardon of ſin, of Adoption, and of Glory, ſo we ſay that the wicked have but a ſhew or ſhadow of it. And this is the ſenſe of the words of Calvin, P. Martyr, Beza, and Danaeus, whom you cite. And do you not think ſo your ſelves? Indeed you know not what to believe in this, as I have ſhewed in Poſtſcript to my Diſput. of Sacraments.
His eighth Accuſation is this [Scripture ſaith, that there are ſome that believe for a time, and after at another time believe not. You deny that there are any that believe for a time, and then fall from faith, and that he that once believeth doth ever loſe that faith, which is not in any Scripture to be found.]
Anſw. It is too light in ſerious matters, to play thus upon words. 1. We ſtill maintain that there are ſome that believe but for a time, and afterward fall away: but we ſay it is but with an uneffectual or common aſſent that they believe, ſuch as you call fides informis. Your accuſation therefore is falſe. The ſemen vitae and faith that Calvin ſpeaks of, in the place which you cite, is meant only of a ſaving faith, ſuch as you call fides charitate formata. If any of you think that faith is called charitate formata, or juſtifying or ſaving faith, only by an extrinſecal denomination, from a concomitant, and that there is no difference in the faith it ſelf between that of the unjuſtified and of the juſtified, you are miſtaken againſt all reaſon. Your own Philoſophers frequently maintain that the will (which is the ſeat of charity) followeth the practical dictates of the Intellect (which is the ſeat of Aſſent.) And therefore according to thoſe Philoſophers, a Practical Belief muſt needs be accompanyed with charity. And thoſe that deny this, do yet maintain that a powerfull clear Aſſent of the Intellect will infallibly procure the determination of the Will, though every aſſent will not, and though it do it not Neceſſarily. So that on that account (and in common reaſon) there muſt needs be an intrinſick difference between that Aſſent which prevaileth with the will to determine it ſelf, and that which cannot ſo prevail: And therefore your unformed and your formed faith, have ſome intrinſick difference.
2. the Lutherans that are half the Proteſtants, do think that juſtifying faith may be loſt. So that (be it right or wrong) you cannot charge this on them all.
3. The reſt which be not of their mind, do hold a brotherly communion with them; and therefore take not that point to be of ſo much moment as to break communion.
4. Are you not at odds among your ſelves about perſeverance? ſome laying it firſt on mans free will, and ſome with Auſtin, aſcertaining perſeverance to the Elect, becauſe Elect, and laying it on Gods free Gift; and ſome Jeſuites and School men affirming that the confirmed in Grace are not only certain to perſevere, but that they neceſſarily believe and are ſaved, and cannot mortally ſin (ſtrange doctrine for a Jeſuite!) Of all this controverſie of perſeverance, I deſire the Reader to ſee a few ſheets called An Account of my Judgement hereabout. When I wrote thoſe I knew not whom Alvarez meant (lib. 10. Diſp. 104. pag. 419. §. 1. de Auxil.) When he diſputed againſt this ſort of men: But ſince I find it in his Reſponſ. ad Object. Lib. 2. cap. 9. pag. 522, &c. Where he tells us that it is the Jeſuite Greg. de Valentia, Tom. 2. diſp. 8. q. 3. punct. 4. §. 2. & Tom. 1. d 1. q. 23. punct. 4. §. 7. Ubi docet non ſolum eſſe praeelectos ut ſalventur, ſed ut neceſſario ſalventur, ac per conſequens non poſſe peccare Mortaliter, & Neceſſario perſever are in gratia, ac eatenus non libere, ſed neceſſario ſalvari.
And alſo that he meant Alexand. Aleſ. 3. p. q. 9. Et Almainin 3. d. 11. q. 2. Qui aſſerunt confirmatos in Gratia non habere libertatem, &c. Quam ſententiam Medina impugnat. 3. p. q. 27. art. 4.
This is more then Proteſtants ſay, And yet will you quarrell?
His ninth Accuſation is this [Scripture ſaith, If thou will enter into life, keep the commandments: You ſay that there is no need of keeping the Commandments, and that he that ſaith, it doth deny Chriſt and aboliſh faith, of which the Scripture ſpeaketh not a word.]
Anſw. Still confuſion playes your game, and you ſtrive about words. We diſtinguiſh between the keeping of that Law of Works, or Nature, which made perfect obedience the only condition of Life: and the keeping of the Law of Moſes as ſuch, and the keeping of the Law of Chriſt. For the two firſt, we ſay that no man can be juſtified by the works of the Law. Is this a doubt among Papiſts, that believe Pauls Epiſtles? But as for the Law of Chriſt, as ſuch, we muſt endeavour to keep it perfectly (thats neceſſary neceſſitate praecepti;) and muſt needs keep it ſincerely (neceſſitate medii) if we will be ſaved. This all Proteſtants that ever I ſpoke with are agreed in: And dare any Papiſt deny it? If we be not all (nor you neither) agreed on the ſenſe of that text of Scripture, yet are we agreed on the doctrine, and yet you quarrel.
His tenth Accuſation is [Scripture ſaith, that ſome that were illuminated and made partakers of the Holy Ghoſt, did fall, and crucifie again to themſelves the Son of God. But you defend, that whoever is once partaker of the Holy Ghoſt, cannot fall from his Grace: which Scripture ſpeaketh not.]
Anſw. The ſame again: and a meer untruth! We ſtill maintain that thoſe words of Scripture are of certain truth. But we diſtinguiſh between the common and the ſpeciall gifts of the Spirit. The common gifts may be loſt: we never denyed it: The ſpecial gifts that accompany ſalvation, ſome of us judge are never loſt: others of us think are left only by thoſe that are not predeſtinate, as Auſtin thought, and your Dominicans think. And what cauſe is here of your quarrell?
His eleventh Accuſation is this [Scripture ſaith that God taketh away, and blotteth out our iniquity as a cloud: and puts our iniquities far from us, as the Eaſt is from the Weſt, and maketh us as white as ſnow; You ſay, that he takes not away, nor blotteth out our ſin, but only doth not impute it, and doth not make us white as ſnow, but leaveth in us the fault and uncleaneſs of ſin: which Scripture no where ſpeaks.]
Anſw. This is half falſhood, and half confuſion, raked up to make a matter of quarrel with. 1. Its falſe that we ſay, He doth not take away, nor blot out our ſin, nor make us white as ſnow: Do not all Proteſtants in the world affirm all this? 2. There are theſe things here conſiderable. 1. The Act of ſin. 2. The Habit. 3. The guilt, or obligation to puniſhment. 4. The culpability, or reatus culpae. 1. As for the Act, how can you for ſhame ſay, that God takes it away, when it is a tranſient act that is gone of it ſelf as ſoon as acted, and hath no exiſtence, as Scotus and all your own take notice. 2. As to the Culpability, you will not ſure for ſhame ſay, that God ſo put away, e. g. Davids Adultery, as to make it reputable as a vertue, or not a vice. 3. As to the Reatus ad paenam, the full Guilt, we maintain that it is done quite away: and if your eyes be in your head, you may ſee that it is in regard of this guilt and puniſhment that the Scriptures mentioned by you ſpeak (or principally ſpeak at leaſt) For I pray you tell us, what elſe can they mean, when they ſpeak of actual ſins that are paſt long ago, and have no exiſtence. Learned wranglers! would you make us believe, that Grace is given to David to put away the Act of his Murder and Adultery, ſo that it may be quid praeteritum, & non jam exiſtens? a thing paſt and gone, which it is without grace? ſo that when you feign us to ſay, that God takes not away ſin, but only not imputeth it, you feign us to make ſynonymal terms to be of different ſences. He takes them away by not imputing them.
4. But if you ſpeak not of the ſence of a particular Text, but of the Matter in difference, it can be nothing but the habit of ſin that you mean, that we ſay, that God takes not away. And here you play partly the Calumniators, and partly the erroneous Phariſees. 1. You Calumniate, in feigning us to deny, that habitual ſin is done away. Becauſe our Divines ſay, that it is not the work of meer pardon (which we call Juſtification) to put it away, therefore you falſly ſay, that we hold it is not put away at all: whereas we hold (without one contradicting vote that ever I read or heard) that all that are Juſtified, are Sanctified, Converted, Regenerate, Renewed, and muſt live an holy life: And that all their ſins are ſo far deſtroyed, that they ſhall not have dominion over them: that Groſs and Wilfull ſin they forſake, and the leaſt infirmities, they groan, and pray, and ſtrive againſt to the laſt, and then obtain a perfect conqueſt. 2. But if you mean, that no degree of habitual or diſpoſitive ſin, or abſence of holy qualities remaineth in the Juſtified ſoul, it is a Pharaſaical error, yea worſe then a Phariſee durſt have owned. And it ſeems this is your meaning, by the words of Calvins which you cite. And dare you ſay that you have no ſin to reſiſt, or purge, or pardon? Are you in Heaven already? The whole have no need of the Phyſitian, but the ſick: and have you no need of Chriſt to heal your ſoul? would you be no better then you are? O proud ſouls! and ſtrange to themſelves and the purity of the Law! Hath not the Holy Ghoſt pronounced him a Lyar and Self-deceiver, that ſaith he hath no ſin, 1 Joh. 1. 8. 10. In many things we offend all, Jam. 3. 2. I ſhall but recite to you two Canons of a Council, which if you uſe the Lords prayer, are fit for you to conſider. Concil. Milevit. cont. Pelagianos Can. 7. [Item placuit, ut quicun que dixerit in Oratione Dominica ideo dicere ſanctos, Dimitte nobis Debita noſtra, ut non pro ſeipſis hoc dicant, quia non eſt e… jam neceſſaria iſta, ſed pro aliis, qui ſunt in ſuo populo peccatores, & ideo non dicere unumquemque ſanctorum, Dimitte mihi debita mea; ſed Dimitte nobis debita noſtra, ut hoc pro aliis potius quam pro ſe Juſtus petere intelligatur, Anathema ſit.
Can. 8. Item placuit, ut quicunque verba ipſa Dominicae Orationis, ubi dicimus, Dimitte nobis debita noſtra, iſta volunt à Sanctis dici, ut humiliter, non veraciter hoc dicatur, Anathema fit. Quis enim ferat Ora…tem, & non hominibus, ſed ipſi Domino mentientem, qui labiis ſibi dicit dimitti velle, & Corde dicit, quae ſibi dimittantur debita non habere?]
You ſee here the Council curſeth all thoſe as intolerable Lyars, that ſay the Lords prayer, deſiring him daily to forgive or remit their ſins, and yet think that they have no ſins to forgive, yea or that every Saint hath not ſuch ſins. What can a Papiſt ſay to this, but by making Councils as void of ſence, as they feign the holy Scriptures to be?
Hus twelfth and laſt Accuſation is this [The Scripture ſaith, that Bleſſedneſs in the Reward, the Prize, the Penny, the wages of Labourers, and the Crown of Righteouſneſs: you contend that its meerly the free gift of God, and not a Reward, which no Scripture doth affirm]
Anſw. A meer Calumny, and perverting of Calvins words, who often ſaith, as we conſtantly do, that Eternal life is given as a Reward and Crown of Righteouſneſs. But we diſtinguiſh between the Act of God in his Goſpel Promiſe, which is a Conditional Deed of Gift of Chriſt and Life to all that will Accept them, and the execution of this by Judgement and Glorification. And we ſay that it was Antecedenter meerly of Gods free Grace that he made ſuch a Deed of Gift (the blood of Chriſt being the purchaſing cauſe,) and nothing of our works had a handin the procurement (Dare you deny this?) But that our Juſtification in Judgement, and our Glorification, which are the Execution of the Law of Grace, do make our works the Reaſon; not as having merited it ex proportione operis, or in Commutative Juſtice, but as having performed the condition of the free Gift, and ſo being the perſons to whom it doth belong. And this is the ſenſe of Scotus and of one half of the Papiſts, (for ſtill you are together by the ears) who ſay that Merit of Condignity is but ex pacto by vertue of Gods Promiſe.
And now I leave it to the Conſcience of any ſober Papiſt, whether we be guilty in any one point that this great Cardinal chargeth us with? And whether Papiſts and Proteſtants were not in a fair way for reconciliation, if we differed not more in other things then in theſe?
And here again I muſt let them know, that Scripture only is the Rule and Teſt of our Faith and Religion. Their Polidor Virgil in this ſpeaks truly of us, ſaying [They are called Evangelical, becauſe they maintain that no Law is to be received in matters of Salvation, but what is delivered by Chriſt or his Apoſtles] (ſo ſapleſs and putid is their ſcorn of the Evangelium quintum.) If therefore Luther, Calvin, or any man ſpeak in any word amiſs, blame the man that ſpoke it for that word; but blame not all, or any others for it, if you are men. Auſtin Retracted his own errors, and which of us dare Juſtifie every word that hath faln from our mouths or pen, before God? How many hundred points do Schoolmen and Commentators charge on one another as Erroneous, among yourſelves? ſhall all the errors of the Fathers be charged on the Catholick Church, or all your writers errors upon yours?
And that we do well to ſtick to the Holy Scriptures as the ſufficient Rule, we are the more encouraged to think, by the conceſſions of our adverſaries of greateſt Note (as well as by the Teſtimony of the Scripture it ſelf, and the concent of the ancient Doctors of the Church, and the unprovedneſs of of their pretended additonals.) Among others even this great Cardinal Richlieu ſaith thus, pag. 38. [Nos autem nullam aliam, &c. i. e. As for us we put (or aſſert) no other Rule but Scripture, neither of another ſort, nor totall: Yea we ſay that it is the Whole Rule of our Salvation: and that on a double account, both becauſe it containeth immediately and formally the ſumm of our ſalvation; that is, all the Articles that are neceſſary to mans ſalvation, by neceſſity of means (N. B.) and becauſe it mediately containeth whatſoever we are bound to believe, as it ſends us to the Church to be inſtructed by her, of whoſe infallibility it certainly confirmeth us.]
Note here that 1. He grants us that all Articles neceſſary to our Salvation, as Means, are immediately and formally in the Scripture: And then ſurely they may be ſaved that believe no more then is in the Scripture: 2. That we are to believe no Church but that which the Scripture ſends us to, and to believe its infallibility no further then the Scripture doth confirm it. And that the Scripture is our whole and only Rule. O that all Papiſts would ſtand to this! But let them not blame us now for ſtanding to it. Had this Cardinall done no more by Policie and Power then by Diſputing againſt the Reformation, he might eaſily have been dealt with.