and disposed by the motion of his will It implies that which I said and that such preparatory works are not excluded by every meaning of Justification by faith alone for it condemns him that saith a wicked man to be justified by faith alone so that he means there is none of these required II. These works or workings of the soul are preparatory and dispositive to Justification for there are many acts and motions of the will that go before desire fear love sorrow purposes which may be call'd Initials upon the ministry of the word the threatnings and the promises as before child-bearing many throws so in the travail of the soul for the second birth Faith it self rises by degrees of persuasions for there are divers acts and persuasions of faith till it come to that last act that believing with the whole heart immediately requisite to Justification Now faith in all those preparatory motions has the preeminence for it gives beginning to them for by the persuasions that faith has of those threats and promises in the Gospel Preeminence of faith in them and of all the truths of Christs performances and merits arise desires and fears sorrow love the motions of the heart or will and these Initials advance and gather strength according to the advance that faith has in its apprehensions and perswasions for this the Trent Council acknowledges Faith to be the beginning of mans salvation the foundation and root of Justification Chap. 8. this is well said in regard of faith's preeminence and efficacy in the preparatory works had they but given to it its due in the act of Justification that singular efficacy and property it has above all other graces in the apprehending and receiving of the meritorious cause of our Justification Christ and his righteousness Now let not any think these preparatory acts or workings to be without grace preventing as if a man did of himself and by the proper motion of his own will dispose himself to justification the Trent Council condemns such doctrine Can. 3. III. There are other acts and works also besides faith Conditions and qualifications in Justification which according to their measure are required in Justification as conditions of receiving remission of sins so repentance and the act of charity in forgiving others But Faith here also has the preeminence no other act or work of the soul having the capacity or efficacy to apprehend the meritorious cause and so notwithstanding that other workings of the soul as those of Repentance and Charity according to their measure be required as conditions of receiving the benefit Preeminence of faith which is remission of sins or as qualifications of the subject that receives it yet not as Instrument of receiving and apprehending the meritorious cause of justification and remission as faith is for which justification is specially ascribed to Faith IIII. As for that infused inherent Righteousness Inherent Righteousness which the Church of Rome laies so much upon in the point of our Justification seeing it is the Work of God as they acknowledge it is no proof of their doctrine of justification by works and they might forbear to make it the formal cause of our justification when we acknowledge the presence of it in and with justification as a necessary qualification of the person Justified A needless dispute it is what should be the formal cause of our Justification seeing the meritorious cause is acknowledged on both sides But if they will talk of a Formal cause it can be no other then Christs righteousness as imputed Formal Cause and by faith apprehended and made ours for that phrase of the Apostle he is made unto us righteousness 1 Cor. 1.30 and we made the righteousness of God in him sounds something to a formal cause not inherent but by way of imputation and account not that God imputes his righteousness as if we had done it but that for his righteousness performed for us he not only forgives sin to them that apprehend it duly by faith but accounts of them receives them as righteous Therefore instead of asking after the formal cause in us more proper it is to enquire according to the Apostles expression Ro. 4.13 it was counted to him for righteousnes v. 23. it shall be imputed to us what is that which is imputed to us for righteousness i. e. upon which being performed on our part God receives accounts of us as righteous We finde by the Apostle it is our believing for it was so with Abraham He believed and it was imputed to him for righteousness not the Tò Credere the very act of believing but more concretely considered with that which it apprehends the receiving of what is offered in the promise Christ and his righteousness V. Lastly as for those that are commonly call'd good works which being done in the state of grace are more perfect then the former such as were preparatory and dispositive to justification or according to their measure required in Justification as Conditional to the remission of sins given in it Those good works I say are the only works concerned in their doctrine of Justification by works yet is not the first justification by these works for they follow it Our Adversaries when put to it do grant it and draw the whole dispute as we see by this Author to that which they call the second Justification of which if they will make no more then as I hinted above their Council makes of it we might here sit down having the cause yeilded up to us but that they think themselves concerned to propound the doctrine in gross to the people Justified by works and in their disputes for it to confound the first and second Justification using places of Scripture which treat of the first or true and proper Justification as we shall see in examining of them This Author begins with S. James 2.24 which he brings as a confirmation of the Romish Position that Faith only does not Justify where it is our turn now to observe his mistakes Should we therefore demand what justification is this that S. James treats of first or second he must confess his impertinency for the Apostle here treats of the first the true and proper Justification and that both he and his Trent Council acknowledge most free and not by works now this Author acknowledges it is the same Justification which S. James and S. Paul treats of and its evident by S. James citing the same Scripture for his Justification v. 23. whic S. Paul does Rom. 4.3 Abraham believed and it was imputed to him for righteousness But it is plain that S. Paul every where treats of the first and proper Justification The other example also that S. James makes use of viz. of Rahab plainly speaks the first Justification And therefore this Author spending his whole discourse against that distinction of being Justified before God and before men to prove that S. James speaks
by good works which was somewhat more absurd for charity receives life from faith arising and advancing according to the apprehensions that faith has of the goodness and mercy of God and his several manifestations of it and therefore S. Paul saith it worketh by charity Gal. and note that all his proof for this informing or vivificating of saith by charity is S. Iames his saying that Abrahams faith was made perfect by works wherein as I noted * Ibid. above appear both the falshood of his interpretation and the impertinency of his argument for works belong to his second justification but that informing of faith by charity is supposed to be done in the first A working faith it is that S. Iames requires and so do we to justification a believing with the whole heart as Philip required of the Eunuch Acts 8.37 a faith that engages the whole heart in receiving Christ not only for the benefits of his merits and participation of his righteousness but also for obedience to his command and performance of every Christian duty Such was Abrahams faith or believing to which his justification is ascribed the acts of it were pure acts of faith though virtually including works because a readiness to do works of every kinde or obey any of Gods commands Lastly Albeit such a faith justifies as gaining at present remission of sins past and giving a right to the heavenly inheritance yet no man shall gain finall justification and absolution if he continue not in doing good works i. e. if his faith continue not to work as Abrahams did And this is that S. Iames intended by propounding Abrahams example for works not denying his justification by faith but urging it was such a faith or believing that continued working by fuitable obedience to every command of God CHAP. V. Of the Merit of good works THe Council of Trent has defined The notion and reason of merit that good works do verè mereri truly merit increase of grace and eternal life but neither the Council nor Mr. Spencer tells us wherein the reason of merit stands that we might know what it is they contend for when they speak of a work truly meritorious Many fair acknowledgements their Council makes as of the free grace mercy promise of God merits of Christ Sess 6. c. 16. which Mr. Spencer calls the grounds of merits pa. 162. But if they stand to this we have the cause yeilded to us and nothing left but a verbal controversy for those former particulars are so far from being grounds of our meriting truly and properly that they directly overthrow it One would have thought that the verè mereri our truly meriting should imply all the conditions requisite to merit truly and properly taken and that the doctrine of condignity or merit upon worth of the work which the men of Mr. Spencers society generally contend for should be the sense of the Councils definition but that Council was wiser then to speak too plain in this point in which there is so great difference amongst them and therefore may seem to content both parties the one with this verè mereri◠truly merit and the other dissenting party with the former acknowledgments of free grace mercy promise Christs merits as grounds of merit And Mr. Spencer may remember of what society he is and how most of his Fellows speak out and say The righteous merit eternal life by their good works even as the wicked do eternal death by their evil works this is plain and home to a verè mereri truly meriting however he minces it at the beginning with professions of free grace divine acceptation and promise as pa. 164 165. Well notwithstanding all the fair proressions they make when put to it such indeed as overthrow merit truly taken yet will they hold the name and thing of mans meriting eternal life and so propound it grosly to the people They know best how it concerns them By reason of such general concessions of their Council Goodworks acceptable to God he will have some words in our 22. Article to favour merit of good works because it saith they are pleasing and acceptable unto God in Christ From whence he infers 1. Then are they no way sinfull but truly and absolutely good and just for no sin can be pleasing to God in Christ pa. 167. But this is too carlessly spoken for if absolutely good say we then had there been no need to have added in Christ such works would been pleasing and acceptable of themselves We say also good works are truly good and just but not absolutely so they are not sins but something sinfull may stick to them in the performance some imperfections and defects some mixture of by-respects and glances at self-interest yet because they are good both for substance and for manner of performance as to the chief respects and motives upon which they are done they are truly good though not absolutely for which the Article saith they cannot endure the severity of Gods judgment Not that God accepts those sinfull imperfections or accrescencies as he would infer upon us but pardoning and over-looking them in Christ he accepts the good works And what else is the cause that they acknowledge it so hard for a man to know he has merits upon which * Tutissimum est fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia reponere De justific l. 5. c. 7. Bellar. concludes it most safe to put our whole confidence in Gods mercy only what but defects and imperfections which are less perceptible when the works themselves are notorious enough 2. He infers seeing such good works have the promises annexed to them and shall be rewarded in Christ they are truly meritorious in Christ having such a supernatural goodness in them The conformity of good works to the Reward conformable to that heavenly reward and this is all which is taught by the Church of Rome in this point So he pa. 168. This is the most he speaks to the reason of merit or why works are meritorious viz. Reward and Conformity but the first Reward upon the free promise as he affirms it to be takes away more from the reason of merit then the latter which is Conformity can adde unto it for that conformity if our works or sufferings be weighed or examined with the weight of glory falls short by infinite degrees 2 Cor. 4.17 Rom. 8.17 A conformity we grant between good works and the reward as between grace and glory the way or means and the end but it must be equality in worth and value that makes merit And that Conformity or Equality were it to be had is but one of the things requisite to make truly meritorious there are other conditions as that the service be of our own not his enabling us of whom we are said to merit also that the service be not of antecedent duty to the Compact also that the reward be though by compact yet not out of
justified and in grace were concerned to acknowledge If God would be extreme to mark what is done amiss who could abide it or stand Psal 130. and to pray Enter not into judgment with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal 143.2 that is if thou in strict judgment wilt examine what he does The latter part of the verse is sometimes thus repeated by the Apostle No flesh can be justified Rom. 3.20 Gal. 2. v. 16. which word flesh Mr. Spencer vainly takes hold on as implying one not yet spiritual but carnal under the guilt of sin and corruption of nature So pa. 158. But David speaks it in relation to himself No man can be justified not thy servant by his own doings So that still upon the same reason no man under the Gospel can be justified in the sight of God by what he does because the Law convinces him of sin and to the same purpose it is said We make God a Liar if we say we have not sin 1 Io. 1.10 So that if God enter with him into judgment he cannot be justified if the Lord mark what is done amiss he cannot abide it What he saith to Gal. 2.16 as to the works of the Law is the same he said above to Rom. 3.28 and needs no farther reply But that which is the main exception and will ease us of farther trouble in this controversie is his limiting of the word Justify in those and the other places of S. Paul's Epistles acknowledging they speak every where of the first justification which is not by works So then the Protestant position as he calls it of justification by faith only stands good as they intend it by faith only i. e. not by works and this also shews their exception against the word only is needless and therefore the mistake he fastens on us pa. 148. groundless the word only being but exclusive to works which he and his Council exclude from the first justification Now for his Second Justification to which he retires from the force of all that S. Paul saith of justification Sanctification and increase of grace and righteousness it is not worth our contending about as to proper speech which controversies require for we acknowledge all that he or his Council speaks of this second justification to be done in sanctification and to be properly so called viz. the renovation and increase of that grace and sanctification received and that such increase is made by works or acting Philosophy teaches it is so in ordinary habits much more in these which have also the influence and assistance of Gods spirit for their increase But if he would have said any thing to purpose whereby this Increase of righteousness by works should seem to deserve to bear any sense of justification he should have resolved us as I noted above whether a man in grace may by good works merit the remission of his sin into which he is fall'n as David and as he granted pa. 142. that the first justification could not be merited by works so he should have told us plainly whether remission and restauration of a justified person after his fall which may be called in some sort a second justification can by any works of that person be merited They sometimes pretend to this when they urge Daniels saying to Nebuchadnezzar Redeem break off thy sins by righteousness c. 4.27 Where let the Translation go as they would have it by the word redeem yet must they confess this remission of sins to Nebuchadnezzar would have been the first justification and not to be acquired by works in like manner they must acknowledge their impertinency when by Luc. 7.47 for she loved much they endeavour to prove that her love was the cause of her forgiveness when this was her first justification But thus do they confound their first and second justification in their proofs of justification by works and being pressed by argument they retire for answer to their second Justification That which they cite out of Revel 22. justificetur adhuc let him be justified still is all the pretence they have for this second justification where we accord with them that by the justificetur is meant a progress and increase of righteousness but it s their mistake to make this which is sanctification to be justification which stands in remission of sins That part of the Trent decree which pretends to this justification by the increase of righteousness Exhibendo arma justitiae in Sanclificationem cap. 10 de justific saith by yeilding up our members weapons of righteousness unto sanctification and thereby confesseth it is sanctification rather then justification And therefore it is to little purpose that he saith pa. 154. If Protestants would conclude any thing against us they must produce a Text which saith good works of such as are justified already done by virtue of the grace of Christ do not justify that is augment and increase that righteousness already received and make us more just for we must tell them this is sanctification and no text of Scripture uses the word justify in that sense unless that place of Revel c. 22. be so translated and we need not fear it should be seeing the word there is to signify no more then a continuance in the state of justification or an increase of righteousness which we grant to good works yea we grant them more the increase of the favour of God if they will put that also into their second justification for the more good works a justified person doth the more he is accepted of God But such a person if he fall into sin as David did must come unto remission of sins Justification by Faith by the same way as he did in his first justification viz. by faith and repentance And albeit repentance has its works or workings and charity also in the first justification or remission of sins as Iona 3. ult God saw their works i. e. of repentance in turning from their evil way and our Saviour saw the works of repentance and love in Mary Magdalen Luc. 7. yet it is faith that properly justifies because they are required according to their measure as conditions present but it is faith from whose apprehensions the acts of repentance and charity do arise and take their advance its faith which has a proper efficacy in laying hold upon and bringing in its hand as it were the meritorious cause for justification and so that only and properly on our part said to justifie To conclude that other mistake which he would fasten on us Justifying Faith in regard of the word faith pa. 153. is needless we must understand saith he a faith vivificated informed animated by charity and other Christian virtues joyned with it The impropriety I may say absurdity of his speech in saying faith is informed and vivificated by charity and other vertues we noted * Nu. 6. above where he said it was vivificated
representation of the two particulars The Romish Sacrifice wrong to Christ Sa. crament the spiritual meat and spiritual drink which he granted to be a different grace then under one kinde there is not a compleat signe of both But it must be proved saith he that the substance of this sacrisice requires they should be alwayes so fully represented in each particular communion of the people why needs it such proof if we look into the institution of this Sacrament his reason is because the full representation under both kinds is exhibited unto Lay Christians by the consecration and communion of the Priest in the dreadful sacrifice of the Mass p. 327. But what have we to do here with their sacrifice of Mass or to enquire what is required to such a Sacrifice We are treating of the Communion or Sacrament which our Saviour instituted for all Christians and to such purposes and that cannot be compleat except administred in both no more then their sacrifice can be compleat unless consecrated in both For it is senseless to think the sacrifice must be mutilate unless the Priest consecrate and receive it in both and yet the Sacrament not mutilate though the people receive it but in one kinde and senseless to hold or call it as he doth a Communion when the Priest receives it alone But having turned the Sacrament into such a Sacrifice they take off the people from seeking the benefit of Christs blood shed in the Sacrament to seek it and be content to have it applied to them in their pretended sacrifice where they are only spectators This however more profitable to the Priests I am sure it is little to the Peoples advantage But when this sacrifice which they pretend to be real and properly propitiatory comes to be driven home it interfeirs so injuriously and unhandsomely with that true and onely propitiatory sacrifice on the Cross that they are fain to take up with making it the application of that sacrifice on the Cross which we say is the work and purpose of a Sacrament viz. to apply a sacrifice and make men from time to time partakers of that which was made or offered but once And such is the intent purpose of this Sacrament to apply that sacrifice of the Cross unto us and for this respect also it is alwayes requisite that in this Sacrament or Communion there should be a full representation and exhibition made in both kinds not only of his body broken but of his blood shed also His Instance of thrice dipping in baptism for a full expression of the Trinity His impertinent instance in Baptisme whereas Protestants acknowledge once dipping sufficient is far from concluding one kinde in this Sacrament to be a full expression of what is signified or a sufficient exhibition of what is to be received there That Ceremony of thrice dipping or that purpose of representing thereby the mystery of the Trinity was not of our Saviours institution but a practice taken up in the Church and not universal But he goes on or rather urges again what he had said If our Saviour instituted each species or kinde apart to confer saving grace then he which receives either kinde devoutly receives that grace for which he instituted it p. 329. But this is cunning through ambiguous expressions For our Saviour instituted each apart that is several or one after the other but not that one therefore should be received without the other Or if this apart belongs to confer it is true that our Saviour did institute each to confer and he that receives devoutly does in each receive the grace for which he instituted that kind or part but does not receive the whole grace for which he instituted the Sacrament Also he that receives the one kind or part devoutly in order and with respect to the other he receives the grace for which it was instituted but he cannot assure himself of receiving that grace who receives the one exclusively to the other for how shall he be partaker of Christs bloodshed in the Sacrament or as it is represented held out and exhibited in the Sacrament that will only receive that kinde or part which gives him the body to eat not that bloodshed to drink it I have been the longer upon his first Assay because what is already said will meet with most of his sophistical Replyes As when to the next objection p. 330. that the Priest is obliged to receive the Cup notwithstanding that according to the Romish Tenet he had received a true Sacrament in the Host He answers by their being Priests and by the reason of a sacrifice upon which double account he will have the Priest obliged to both not Lay people This appears vain by what was said above Num. II. IIII. So to the following objection A compleat refection intended in the Sacrament taken from the compleat Refection by meat and drink He answers as he said above that both the graces of spiritual meat and spiritual drink or grace sufficient to salvation is conferred in each kinde and All that can be gathered from this objection is only that our Saviour in the first Institution gave a most plentifull and abundant banquet whereof each part was sufficient to confer life p. 332 333. Now albeit in a plentifull feast many dishes might be taken away yet none can say it is either a plentiful or sufficient feast and Refection if drink be wholly denied And considering what our Saviour purposed by this Sacrament which he made sanguinis effusi of his blood shed and that of his New Testament it must needs be his intention that both should alwayes be received nor finally does one confer that saving grace as was said above if the other be wilfully neglected His pretence from Joh. 6.57 He that eateth me shall live by me to prove the sufficiency of receiving in one kinde is inconsequent for the verses before 53 54 56. shew one as needful as the other As when it is said He that repents and believes shall be saved both are set down as necessary and we may not conclude because we meet sometimes with one only mentioned as Jo. 6. v. 47. He that believeth hath everlasting life therefore this without the other is sufficient Faith as above said by the same act of believing eats his flesh and drinks his blood extra Sacramentum out of the Sacrament but if we come to do this in the Sacrament that is by faith there to partake of his body and blood the eating and drinking must be distinct acts according to the Sacramental way of participation for so his blood shed is not drunk in the eating of his flesh And therefore the people are deceived while they are borne in hand that by receiving in one kinde they are not deprived of any grace necessary to salvation as he p. 334. For that Church as much as in it lies does deprive them of the benefit of Christs blood shed in this Sacrament
Justification will not continue I say till Faith does so engage the Soul it is not a believing with the whole heart not a Justifying Faith Chrys in Phil. c. 3. v. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As St. Chrysostom who often attributes the whole to Faith alone requires it should be a working Faith as where he saith Faith ought not to be simply by it self or alone and then shews how our willingness to suffer and in like manner our well doing is from faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our fellowship with him in sufferings is from faith for he that believes he shall reign with Christ will be willing to suffer I need not trouble the Reader here with the Particular sentences of the Fathers using that expression of Sola Fides Faith only The Cardinal has recited many Bell. de Justificat l. 1. c. 25. and undertakes to answer them Well he acknowledges the Testimonies and for his Answers they come to this That Faith only is set against the works of Moses Law It is true that it is sometimes so but we must not think that the Apostle or Fathers denying Justification to be sought or had by the works of the Law do therefore admit our works under Grace to serve in the stead of the other for our Justification but do rather imply that no men Iew or Christian can be justified by doing what they are bound to do by the Law or Commandement under which they are as * Chap. IV. p. 102 103. above was shewen more amply Another of the Cardinals Answers is That faith only excludes the outward work only as in the sentences there cited out of Origen and Chrys but not Repentance and Charity How it does not exclude Repentance and Charity we said hard above i. e. it admits them as Conditions of Remission but not to that condition or Causality rather which the Church of Rome advances Charity to in the work of our Justification which is not a little to the prejudice of the imputed Righteousness and of that singular act of Faith for which it s said we are Iustified by faith only But when the Cardinal tels us those Fathers said by faith only because the outward work was wanting not to exclude Repentance and Charity he should have told us whether he meant charity in habit only or as sending forth its elicit Acts and inwardly working I suppose he will think it as great an absurdity to attribute Justification to a bare not working Habit as to a bare and not working faith which they falsly reproach us with and then he should have remembred he made Habitual inherent Righteousness the Formal Causs of Justification excluding the Actual that is charity as it is acting inwardly or outwardly for this it must come to A third sort of Answer the Cardinal and generally they of the Church of Rome have for Testimonies of Fathers which by Faith only exclude all righteousness in our selves and cannot be shuffled off by saying they exclude thereby all righteousness of Works before Grace or done by power of our Free-wil without Grace then to say all righteousness in us is excluded and sometime denied as of our selves because so we have none but of the gift of God This is in it self a great Truth but makes no apposite answer to Faith only which we have not of our selves any more then we have other Graces and which is the gift of God as much as they When Chrysost saith upon that of the Apostle Rom. 5.2 Chrys in Ro. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we have by Faith access into this Grace of Justification reconciliation and peace with God We brought nothing with us but faith only and when Oecumenius upon Rom. 3.24 Oecumen in Rom. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith likewise bringing with us Faith only to our Justification it cannot be answered we brought nothing else of our selves for neither did we bring Faith of our selves to our Justification seeing therefore we do bring besides Faith some things else as above granted they may have their place either as preparatives and dispositions to our Justification or as requisite conditions to the Remission that is in our Justification or as fitting qualifications of the subject or person justified yet Faith we bring as that which has a singular property and efficacy for the receiving this great benefit of Justification for which it may be said Fide Sola by Faith only And this we are taught to say both by Fathers and Scripture that so we may attribute the more to Christs merit and righteousness which Faith apprehends and the more lessen or take off from any righteousness in our selves We may shut up this discourse with that saying of Theophylact which the Cardinal cites as objected by the Protestants Fides sola habet in se Iustificandi virtutem ex Theo. phyl in Ep. ad Gal. cap. 3. Faith only has the power in its self of Iustifying cannot be answered as the Cardinal would have it Faith only is said to have that power because there is nothing can justifie without Faith for so there are other things without which there can be no justification but among all those things or Graces Faith only can be said properly to Justifie And now for Iustification by works Not justification by Works in the prime sense it is in vain to put it to the trial of Antiquity For as we may observe the Cardinal though he concludes his 4. Book of Justification with this Question and pretends several places of Scripture to prove good works do Justifie yet has he nothing from Antiquity for it Indeed the Fathers did not know the Romish second Justification to which the Romanists when they are forced to speak distinctly do restrain their Justifying works acknowledging all good works follow Justification in the first and proper sense and that this second Justification is but increase in righteousness as * Chap. IV. nu 2. above shewed We grant and so will the Fathers Vide ch IV. nu 8.105 106 107. that we are of duty to encrease in righteousness and that our often actings or doing good works do augment the inhaerent Righteousness and that the more we do good works the more Favour we have with God the more acceptable are we to Him but there are two words we have cause to reject Merit Iustification That good Works cause an encrease of the habit and do obtain additional grace we grant but if they will stand upon the word Merit properly taken we shall see in the next Section Our good works cannot properly merit Also we see no reason why this should be call'd Justification to make a confusion in this Doctrine of so great concernment Mans Justification before God and to deceive people when they have the doctrine of Justification by Works barely delivered unto them If the Romanists would allow what they ought to the Application of Christs merit and righteousness and give
to others besides God The quest is about Religious worship and therefore notes it as a double mistake of the Protestants to infer from this place that worship and service are only due to God pa. 5. c. It seems he was bound to make up his tale or number of mistakes he does so causelesly fasten them upon the Protestants for he knows they do not argue from this place that all kinds of worship or service are to be given to God only but that kind of worship which according to his own expression pag. 8. is performed by an act of Religion i. e. religious worship or as S. Aug. gives us the limitation of that Word Worship and indeed the determination of the question that if we add Religion to that word Aug. de Civ l. 10. c. 1. then it speaks that worship which is due to God only This Author knew well enough that Protestants confine their dispute here to a Religious worship and he speaks it pa. 11. that this place Mat. 4.10 must according to Protestants be understood to forbid only religious worship to any save God and therefore applies himself under his second pretended mistake to the consideration of it endeavouring to finde out such a worship given to Creatures as may be call'd Religious All that he brings we shall see very far short of the purpose altogether insufficient to excuse their practice or answer what we charge them with for their encroachments upon the Worship and Service due to God in the way of Religion The first thing we need take notice of is his premising the distinction of Worship The Acts of Worship inward and outward into Interior Exterior as subservient to his purpose pa. 1.2 telling us pa. 13. The External deportment as prostration may be the very same when we worship God or Saint or Angel Bishop Apostle King Magistrate Father Mother yet they become different kinds of Worship according to the different humiliations intentions and acknowledgments which he who worships desires to express by those outward deportments of the body It is true that the inward intent makes a difference in the worship given when the outward act is the same though not alwaies so different a kinde of worship as he would have the worship of Saints and Angels to be in regard of the Civil worship and honour as we shall see below But here note for there will be use of it hereafter that in all this discourse of worship he only insists in such outward expressions Some Acts of worship proper to God as properly fall under the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as bowing kneeling prostration which are indeed common to the worship of God and Creatures but there are other which both in Scripture and in the nature of the thing appear proper to God and the worship due to him Altars burning incense oblations nuncupation of Vows upon which score we may finde the Church of Rome faulty as in doctrine so much more in practice The * Bel. de Beat. sanctorum l. 1. c 12. Cardinal having said the external acts are common to all worship makes his exception of sacrifices and those †Greg. de Val. in Tho. 2.2 Disp 6. qu. 5. de virt Riligionis puncto 2. things which have relation to them And Greg. de Val. acknowledges it of Prayer Oblations Sacrifices c. that they immediately belong to Religion and do peculiarly contain a certain subjection of the creature to God The second thing we are to take notice of Excellency Dignity how the Reason of Honour and Worship is that to lay some ground-work for raising such a worship on as they give to Saints and Angels he sets himself to shew that besides the Civil and Divine dignities or excellencies there is a third sort neither infinite as the Divine nor humane as the Civil but Spiritual and Supernatural and would make his Readers believe that all the difficulty in this matter consists in shewing there are three worths or excellencies to be acknowledged and honoured by an act of worship pag. 14. Whereas we grant such supernatural excellencies in Angels and Men and that there ought to be an acknowledgment and honour in the mind commensurate to such a worth or excellency and that to be expressed by such acts as are fitting and we believe that the Romanists have not such an acknowledgment in their minds when they worship Saint or Angel as they have when they worship God Almighty but whether that acknowledgment they have be commensurate to created Excellencies and no more they know best We cannot but say the expressions they make of it in the several particulars of their Religious Worship do too plainly shew they yield them more devotion of soul then is due to meer Creatures entrenching far upon the religious worship and service due to God The third thing we take notice of is that albeit he said Of the words Religion and Reliigous worship All the difficulty consisted in clearing the third sort of worth or excellency to be acknowledged and honoured yet he knew well enough the difficulty stood not in that but in the acknowledging and honouring them with acts of Religious worship And therefore pa. 20 21. he sets himself to distinguish of the words Religion and Religious that among all the acceptions of those words mentioned in Scripture he might finde some according to which the worship of Saints and Angels may be called Religious Religion saith he pa. 20. may be taken either in a strict sense for the vertue of Religion So when the School Doctors dispute about the nature of infused graces or largely for the whole belief or profession of those that esteem themselves to have the true way of serving God so when we say the Religion of the Christians or of the Jews having thus distinguished he determins pa. 22. It will be sufficient for the defense of the Cathol Roman faith in this point to affirm that when the Doctors say that any thing created may be or is worshipped with religious worship it is religious in the larger sense i. e. vertuous pious Christian as belonging and proper to our Religion and tending finally to the acknowledgment of God and our Saviours honour as Author of our faith and religion and pa. 23. instances in Levit. 7.6 where the giving of the brest and shoulder of the sacrifice to the Priest is call'd a perpetual religion in their generations and then in Ia. 1. ult where a work of mercy done to the poor to a Creature is called Religion i. e. proceeding from and belonging to Religion But this together with all the instances be can give of Religion or Religious in such a sense comes not home either to the thing in question Religious worship or to defence of his Catholick Roman Church attributing more to Saints and Angels then he can bring out of Scripture or Fathers either either to parallel or excuse it For upon
incumbent on us in order to our salvation Again he replies The obligation of that precept upon particular persons That command may be answered by saying It is a precept given to the Church in general that what our Saviour here commands be done p. 346. We have heard of an implicit faith but here is an implicit receiving so it be done in the Church the command is performed as if every Christian in particular were not concerned in the purpose of this Sacrament or could live by another mans eating and drinking At length perswaded by S. Thomas his authority he would not by S Pauls alone to apply the do this both to the Host and the Cup and to admit a precept in it for the Laity to receive this Sacrament he betakes himself to the usual refuge They satisfy the precept of eating and drinking if they receive it in either p. 148 149. that is they drink the Cup if they eat the Bread His S. Thomas his Invention of concomitancy will not salve this nor can the Reader be satisfied with the fast and loose this Author so often playes in answering to the precept Do this The order he speaks of prescribed by holy Church now ordaining both to be received now but one and to some the Host to others the Calice only doth no where appear but in the late orders of the Romish Church In the ancient Church though sometimes in cases of necessity one part might be administred privately never were such Orders made nor such practice used publickly solemnly or when both could be administred To Joh. 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood he answers It is a general command given to the generality of Christians to receive his body by way of eating and his blood by way of drinking and to every particular Christian to concurr to the execution of this command not that every one in particular is obliged to do both but that some eating some drinking others doing both each particular confers to the performance of the Command p. 351. Thus the body and blood shed are with them received in either kind by virtue of their concomitance and the command of eating and drinking is satisfied and performed by vertue of Concurrence every person conferring to the performance of it This is Implicit receiving so both be done among you it is sufficient when as our Saviour layes both upon every particular person and so repeats it in the singular He that eateth and drinketh v. 54 58. and that in order to his having life in him His instancing in the precept to teach and baptize all Nations Mat. 28. not binding each of the Apostles in particular to teach and baptize the whole world 352. has the fate of all his instances to be impertinent for it runs upon the extent of the object only the whole world which implyed an impossibility not upon the exercise of the whole duty or office which did not admit a liberty of forbearing either act of preaching or baptizing For as the obligation in the Sacrament is to eating and drinking so there to a double act of their office Teaching and Baptizing That Apostle that would set down with doing one of them only should not do his duty It is objected p. 356. If it be given so to the Church in general then may the command be satisfied and performed so be it the Church provides certain persons to receive and exempt all the rest In his answers to this we may see the giddiness of mans brain when set against the apparent Truth of Gods word If we take the sense saith he according to the common strein of Doctors every particular will be obliged by the words except ye eat and especially secing that S. 1 Cor 11. Paul extends this matter of Communion to each particular This is one Truth he so much streined against above notwithstanding those Doctors and S. Paul that every particular man is obliged but how and to what to eat and drink that 's express both in 6. of Joh. and 1 Cor. 11. but disjunctively as he saith elswhere p. 350. that is to eat or drink Heer 's the giddiness and vanity of wilfull error to make alimitation or gloss clean contrary to the text for our Saviours words oblige to these acts conjunctively eat and drink thrice in Joh. 6. and the Apostle Saint Paul thrice conjunctively eat and drink 1 Cor. 11. Secondly in answer to the former objection he grants it was not in the power of the Apostles to exempt any of the Twelve from concurring to the conversion of the Nations p. 356. If he will have this pertinent he should adde but it was in their power to exempt some of the Twelve from doing the whole duty or several acts enjoyned by our Saviour that if one of them taught only another baptized onely and so all partially concurred to the performing our Saviours command it had been sufficient He will not surely say this yet dare defend it in their Churches exempting the people from the one part of duty enjoyned them by our Saviour He subjoyns It is not in the Churches power to exempt any one from this precept by having it performed of other Christians appointed by her Anthority 357. Yet their Church takes power to exempt from one part drinking his blood-shed which lyes under the command and obligation as well as the other of eating Thirdly he grants here another Truth to the acknowledgment of his Impertinency above where he instanced in the freedom of receiving Priesthood and Marriage to imply a liberty of receiving or not receiving the Cup but here he grants this Sacrament is not left free as Marriage and Priesthood are without a divine Precept that every Christian sometimes receive it p. 357. This is fair but see the obstinacy still and giddiness of wilfull error That eating only is sufficient because our Saviour when he expresses himself in the singular number attributes eternal life to it He that cateth me shall live by me Joh. 6.57 Nay that the words ye eat and drink v. 53. cannot include a necessity of both kinds to every particular person without contradiction to this Text so he p. 358 359. As if one should reason If it be true that he who is born of the spirit shall enter into the kingdome of heaven then cannot the Text Joh. 3.5 unless a man be born of water and spirit include a necessity of both nor when the Scripture requires Repent and believe Mar. 1. that cannot include a necessity of both for the kingdome of heaven without contradiction to the Text Joh. 3. ult where one only is mentioned and life attributed to it He that believeth in me hath everlasting life Again it may be said that eating is sometimes mentioned alone in that chapter as answerable to the occasion of the discourse Manna and bread from heaven and as fit to set out the reception of faith which at the same time
also drinks his blood shed so it did till the Sacrament was instituted and so it still doth extra Sacramentum out of the Sacrament but if we apply this to the receiving of Christ in the Sacrament then drinking is as necessary both to answer the whole act of Faith and the whole purpose of the Sacrament in participating his blood shed and receiving a full Refection And therefore though eating only be expressed in that v. 57. yet he could not but see that our Saviour when he spoke in the singular number mentions and enjoyns them both v. 34 36. His instancing in the command about the Passover enjoyning to kill rost sprinkle and eat but not binding every one to perform all but some one thing some another p. 361. proves as all his former impertinent for the concernment here is in the reception or partaking of the Sacrament of the Passover by eating of the Eucharist by eating and drinking and I hope he will not deny but all and every one of the Israelites were bound to eat the Passover and to eat it as the Lord enjoyned it under pain of being cut off Exod. 12. Indeed if we take in all the actions to be done in and about the Sacrament of the Eucharist those that concern the consecration and administration as well as the reception of it every one is not bound to perform all but that which concerns the Reception belongs to all not to do all that our Saviour did but all that the Disciples then did belongs to all to do because they then represented the whole company of the faithful He closes up this point and his whole discourse with some passion against Protestants charging them with an unworthy and base esteem of the most sacred body and blood of our Saviour not thinking that either of them as they are in this Sacrament is fit to confer saving grace to such as devoutly receive them p. 363. Thus where Argument and Reason is wanting there Passion must make it out But as to the worth and power of our Saviours body and blood we acknowledge it * See N◠3. 5. above and the fitness of either to confer sufficient grace and how it does when in case of necessity the one is devoutly received but we question how they that wilfully refuse one of them the blood shed can be said devoutly to receive or can expect that sufficient grace which is given in the Sacrament to them that receive it according to our Saviours Institution It is not any derogating from the worth of our Saviours body and blood but a due regard to his Will and Command that causes us to stand upon receiving both What he adds runs still upon that Assertion that there is not any express command given in Scripture to all particular Christians to receive both pag. 365. which we shewed above to be false by our Saviours commands in his Institution of this Sacrament Drink ye all and Do this by what he severely denounced Joh. 6.53 by what S. Paul delivers as received from our Saviour 1 Cor. 11. That which this Author immediately subjoyns and the custome of the Primitive Ancient and Modern Church is evidently to the contrary will appear to be far from Truth as to the Primitive and Ancient Church when we come to the survey of Antiquity in this point To conclude I could wish that Mr. Spencer who pretends he undertook this work for no other end then to inform the misled spirits of this age as he tels us in the close of his book would have a conscionable regard to an open and apparent Truth which he contends against as in this so other points of Romish doctrine and that he would think of reducing those misled spirits which he has drawn out of the way by such deceiving assertions as he has delivered in this Treatise and bent all his wits to render them plausible to the Vulgar A Brief Survey of Antiquity for the trial of the former points Whether they can as held by the Church of Rome pass for Catholick Doctrine SECT I. Introduction VIncentius Lirinensis gives us a safe Rule for trial of Points of faith and Catholick doctrine Duplici modo munire fidem suam debet Primo divina legis authoritate deinde Ecclesiae Cath. Traditione cap. 1. If any saith he would continue safe and sound in a sound faith he ought two wayes to fortify his belief First by the Authority of Gods word or Scripture then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church bringing down from age to age the known sense of that word Then for the Tradition of the Church it must be universal to prove it Catholick Doctrine That is properly Catholick which was received or believed Quod semper ubique creditum c. 3. every where through all the Churches and alwayes through every Age. According to this Rule we ought to direct the Tryal and may justly expect that the Church of Rome imposing these and many other points upon the World for Catholick faith should give us them clearly proved by this Rule whereas we finde them in these points pittifully destitute of Scripture which is the first and main ground-work of faith Yet because Scripture is Scripture and by all Christians received for the word of God and challenges the first place in the Rule of Faith therefore they think themselves concerned to bring Scripture for every point such as their best wits have found out any way capable of being wrested to their purpose far from that clearness and force of proof which those places of Scripture have that hold out unto us matters of Faith SECT I. Of worshiping Angels and Saints HOw forsaken the Romanists are of Scripture here may appear Romanists here destitute of Scripture proof by what could be alledged by Mr. Spencer in defence of it as we saw above Cap. 1. from the reverence given to the Angels by Lot and others or to men living as to Elias and Elisha which proved impertinent and fell short of that worship which the Church of Rome allows and practises It is also confessed by some of them * Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disp 8. Sect. postremò that this business of worshiping and Invocating Saints or Angels is not expressed in the New Testament and reason given for it because it would seem hard to the Jews and give occasion to the Gentiles to think new Gods put upon them As little help have they from the Tradition of the Catholick Church or witness of Antiquity which here runs with a full stream against them And now for the Trial we will first speak to the General Religious worship as incompetent to a Creature though most excellent such as are Saints and Angels the particulars of this worship by Invocation and Image-worship we shall examine below Our first evidence of Antiquity shall be from the force of the word Religion The force of the word Religion whereby the Fathers did prove and
honours him whose Image it is he that contemns the Emperours Statue seems to do him injury c. Thus the Cardinal and no more thinking every one would imagine the application of this concerned the Images of Christ and the Saints that the honour or contempt done to the Image would redound to the Prototype but the words before and after plainly shew that the Fathers intent there is to apply it not to material but living Images poor men especially to whom if any do wrong God takes it as done to himself as if do good to them Christ takes it as done to himself as Mat. 25.40 and to stir them up to charity Quot inter Imagines Christi ambulamus Ambr. ibid. how many Images of Christ saith he do we daily walk among and so have opportunity of doing good But it is usual with the Romanists where ever they meet with this Instance of honour redounding to Emperors or Kings when done to their Statues or with that General saying the honour done to the Image redounds to the Prototype they lay hold on it as an argument for Image-worship This they learn from their Nicone Council which after the Seventh Age laid the foundation of this Image-worship There besides many misapplications of Scripture and Fathers this is one And Athanasius Basil and Chrysost ancient and learned Fathers pretended who did indeed in proving the Son to be worshiped with the Father because he was his express Image use that Instance of honour done to the Emperors Image and that General saying of honour done to the Image redounding to the Prototype as most plainly appears in St. Basil Bas de Spiritu Sanct. cap. 18. Now what boldness is this to transfer to the worship of material Images that which the Fathers spake of Christ the Image of the Father because to the illustrating of it they took instance from the Civil worship One place more I must take notice of which the Cardinal alledges and truly out of St. Bel. l. 2. de Imag. c. 12. Prostrata ante Crucem quasi pendentem Dominum cerneret adorabat Hierom concerning Paula That lying prostrate before the Cross as if she had seen the Lord hanging there she adored We must consider Paula is here visiting those very places at Jerusalem where our Saviour suffered and was buried and if she was more then ordinarily affected and made such outward expressions of it as St. Hierom relates of her it is not much to be marvelled at Ingressa sepulchrum osculabatur ore Lambebat Hieronym in vita Paulae Going into the Sepulchre she kissed the stone which the Angel had removed and licked the place where our Saviours body laid So before the Cross she lay prostrate adoring the Lord that hung upon it This may be done without giving the Cross it self any Worship as above noted in the like place out of St. Gregory If Paula transported in affection did exceed she is not therein an example to us St. Hierom doth not say she gave worship to the Cross or that it was her practise thus in her devotions to lie prostrate before the sign but only tels us how she was affected in those very places I will conclude with the dangerous inconveniences of this Image-worship Complaints of the inconveniences of this Romish practise which even their own Authors complain of Images at first brought in for better remembrance of the History and to teach ignorant people what they could not read after once they began to be worshiped became ill Teachers of those rude Scholars who could not well distinguish what and how they worshiped Polydore speaking of it complains thus To such a madness is it come Many of the Ruder and ignorant sort Polyd de Invent. Rerum l. 6. c. 13. Eò insaniae de ventum est Permulti rudiores stultitiâ stultitiam cumulantes Illi qui talem proventum metunt so worship that they trust in them more then in Christ or the Saints represented by them And adding folly to folly they offer gold and silver unto the Images And that they may be the better enticed to do it They that reap the profit by it the cunning Priests hang up some of those Gifts and offerings to be seen * Cassand in Artic. 21. Cassander gives us many other complaints made by Gerson and Gabriel Biel of the poor simple people led on hereby to superstitious if not Idololatrical misconceits and practises But enough of this SECT IV. Of Justification BY that which was said above Chap. IV. Romanists make a confused work of this doctrine It may in some measure appear what a confused work the Romanists make of this doctrine of Justification and with what difference from St. Pauls meaning and from his way of handling it For first to settle the Justification of a Sinner upon inhaerent righteousness they confound Justification and Sanctification Decret c. 7. Non est sola remissio peccaâ—orum sed etiam Sanctificatio The Trent Decree saith It is not only Remission of Sins but also Sanctification Justification indeed and Sanctification go together yet are they to be distinguished as very different Acts and communications of divine grace the Apostle distinguished them expresly saying * 1 Cor. 6.11 1 Cor. 1.30 but ye are sanctified but ye are justified and who is made unto us Righteousness and Sanctification Secondly Remission delotion of sin They deny not that Remission of Sin is Justification but confound that Remission which according to Scripture and Fathers stands in the forgiveness of the offence and punishment with the actual deletion or expunging of the stain and corruption of sin that is in us which is another thing from Remission and forgiveness And when Scripture expresseth Remission by blotting out or deletion as Isa 43.25 Psal 51.9 it is the blotting our sins out of Gods Book of remembrance not out of the tables of our heart It is as much as God will remember them no more no more impute or lay them to our charge As for the blotting or purging the stain and corruption of Sin out of the Soul though it be not done by Remission but by another act of grace yet we grant it is done with Remission in the justifying of a sinner and inhaerent Righteousness by which that stain of sin is done out and the dominion of sin broken is wrought in the Soul together with the righteousness of Justification Thirdly The first and second Justification Having made a distinction of their Justification into First and Second That by inhaerent habitual Righteousness This by actual or continuance in well-doing they usually confound their first second Justification in the proving or commending their doctrine of Justification by Works And when they are put to it in plain terms to speak what they mean by Justification by works they restrain it to that which they call the second Justification in the explaining whereof the Council of
inhaerent Righteousness but as for the imputed a Non absurdum will serve that It is no absurdity to grant it There is one place more where the Cardinal admits the Imputation of Christs Righteousness and that the similitude of a garment used by the Protestants may agree to it in as much as Christs satisfaction for our sins is applied to us Bel. de Justif lib. 2. c. 11. Nobis donatùr applicatur nostra reputatur and reputed ours This is fair but then he adds in behalf of the formality of his inhaerent Righteousness That one man should satisfie for another is reasonable not that one should be formally just because another is so True a man cannot be therefore formally just that is inhaerently just or as by an inhaerent qualification but why may he not be therefore that is for Christs satisfaction and righteousness imputed accepted of God as just and righteous in the notion of Justification that is one to whose charge nothing can be laid one reconciled restored to favour accepted to life eternal And as Bel. said Christs satisfaction is reputed ours he means really so why may not we thereupon be also reputed really just and righteous as to the notion or importance of Justification and if by that satisfaction and righteousness of our Saviour imputed we are acquitted in our Justification from our sins and eternal death as the Cardinal granted and so doth their Trent Council why should not a sinner so acquitted be also accepted to eternal life purchased for us by that satisfaction and righteousness imputed accepted I say to eternal life as to the first Right This may be inferred also from the words of that Council when it tels us as we had it * Num. 2. above what Justification is A translation from the state of the Sons of Adam into the Adoption of the Sons of God through Jesus Christ Which though no good definition yet implies there is in Justification a remission of sins and the condemnation due to them under which all men lye while they are in the state of the Sons of Adam Again it implies such persons acquitted of their sins are received into favour as sons by Adoption and that gives Right in the same moment to the heavenly inheritance Lastly that all this through Jesus Christ which implies the satisfaction and merits of Christ applyed imputed Now albeit Inherent Righteousness be given Other purposes of inhaerent Righteousness then that we should be justified by it in Justifying of a sinner as often said before yet it is not given for the formalizing of Justification it self properly taken but as consequential to it for qualifying the subject answerably to that which is received in Justification For there is Remission of sin as to the offence and condemnation therefore grace also put into the Soul for doing away by degrees the stain and corruption and for breaking the dominion of Sin There is also Adoption and receiving the person as a son of God therefore Grace infused for the New-birth and as a Principle of New life and obedience There is acceptation and Right to eternal life or heavenly inheritance therefore grace and inherent Righteousness given for the fitting and preparing of the Person to the pursuit obtaining and enjoying of it We see other purposes of Inhaerent Righteousness given us then that we should be Justified by it Furthermore that the accepting of us as righteous in our Justification follows immediately and is intrinsecally joyned with Remission of sins is plain by the Apostle Ro. 4.6 7 8. telling us who are those blessed ones to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness even Those to whom he will not impute sin And the similitude of a Garment or of Jacobs wearing his elder brothers cloathes to get the blessing and the birth-right which the Cardinal granted appliable to the imputation of Christs righteousness to us does imply more then remission of sins Even the accepting of their Persons and receiving of them as Sons unto the blessing Also that the Imputation of Christs righteousness should not be confined as the Romanists would have it or delight to express it to the bare importance of satisfaction they might think it reasonable by that which they yield to the satisfactions of Saints appliable and imputable to others For when we urge against that Treasure of their Church and the applying of it that common judgment of the School Meritum non excedit Personam Merit exceeds not the Person Christ only excepted They distinguish and consider the good works and sufferings of the Saints as Satisfactory and as Meritorious and say as they are Meritorious they exceed not the Person but as Satisfactory they are imputable appliable to others Which albeit said without ground or warrant might keep them from restraining thus the imputation of Christs righteousness to the point of satisfaction and allow it to be not only as satisfactory in the Justification of a Sinner but as Meritorious also to all effects and purposes for compleating the act of Justification in the accepting of the Person as Righteous to whom it is imputed or applied We have seen what concessions are made of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness by those that are most for the inhaerent I mean the Jesuites and how they lay too much upon the inhaerent righteousness in the point of Justification when the Imputed would bear it better Now see what Vasquez who has handled this doctrine of Inhaerent Righteousness most copiously and diligently acknowledgeth touching their dissenting Authors Romish writers dissenting in the point of Justification by Inhaerent Righteousness to the great prejudice of this their supposed Catholick Doctrine First * Vasq in Thom. 1.2 disput 205. c. 1. he acknowledges of Durand and other Schoolmen that they held We are pleasing and accepted of God before he infuseth Grace or inhaerent Righteousness And that this gift of inhaerent Grace or habitual righteousness does not necessarily arise from that acceptation of God but from the will of God appointing that every one who is to be brought to eternal life should have it This is that which we say that albeit inherent grace or habitual righteousness doth accompany and follow immediately upon Divine Acceptation yet it does not necessarily accompany or arise from it as to justification but for other purposes as noted above one whereof and the main one is here mentioned viz. the bringing preparing fitting us to eternal life and is there approved by Vasquez himself But for the former part of their Sentence that pronounces us pleasing unto God and accepted of him unto Justification by the imputation of Christs righteousness antecedently to infusion of habitual righteousness * Non parum favere Haereticis nostri tempori Vasquez disp 205. c. 2. He saith it doth not a little favour the Hereticks of our daies And in another place speaking of the Imputation of Christs righteousness and merits which the Protestants assert in Justification he