give am acquitted by your own Doctor from asking in vain But you asking from them that help which God alone doth give are not so easily acquitted by our blessed Saviour from asking in sin 3. If then there be no stedfastness in the Saints to stand before God how can they make me so stedfast as to stand before him Or If God put no trust in his servants to save themselves why should I put my trust in them to save me Both interpretations agree in sense though they differ in words He found no stedfastness in his servants or He put no trust in his servants The Hebrew word will bear both as Saint Hierom hath rendered it Ecce qui serviunt eâ—… non sunt stabiles so Pagnin hath rendered it Servis suis non credet The one saith He found no stedfastness in his servants The other saith He put no trust in his servants Nay more He will put no trust in his servants He hath he doth he will put no trust in his servants The Proposition is of eternal Truth not to be made 〈◊〉 in any Tence because not subject to Time Take it then of the Angels his first and best servants you must take this for the meaning of it He did put no truâ—…t in them whâ—…n he first made them he doth put no trust in them since he hath confirmed them he will put no trust in them when he shall glorifie them that of themselves or through their own stedfastness they should be able to stand either in nature or in grace or in glory For these words He put no trust in his servants are not to be understood in regard of other things as you strangely imagine but in regard of themselves God doth trust one creature with another the inferiour creature with the superiour Non propter defectum virtutis sed propter abundantiam bonitatis as Aquinas speaks not for the defect of his vertue but for the abundance of his goodness Ut dignitatem causalitatis creaturae communicet that he may communicate to the creature the honour of causality making one creature the instrumental or subordinate cause of good unto another whiles himself alone is the efficient and supreme cause of good to All But this partial or respective Trust is not here meant which is only in regard of some particular effects or operations but that absolute and universal Trust which no less concerns the very Being of the creature then its working In this sense God puts no trust in his servants that is he trusts them not with themselves he leaves them not to themselves for it he did they would soon lose themselves according to that of Saint Augustine Solus Deus immutabilis est quae autem fecit quia ex nihilo sunt mutabilia sunt God only is unchangeable but all things that he hath made are changeable because he hath made them out of nothing q. d. There was a change in their very making a change from nothing to what they are and therefore they must needs still be subject to change now they are made For whatsoever is made out of nothing would soon return to its first nothing did not the same hand which first made it still preserve and uphold it But because you have lately made your selves new Fathers from whom you had rather take your Divinity then from the Old I will alledge unto you one of those new Fathers and that is your Father Pineda who gives us this Paraphrase upon the Place Ecce qui serviunt ei non sunt stabiles Certè supremi ipsi spiritus Dei ministri quorum praestans atque praeclara natura constitutio est nihil ex se boni habent nullam vivendi nullam consistendi stabilitatem neque firmitatem nisi à Deo creatore bonorum omnium authore fulciantur confirmentur Surely those very supream spirits and Ministers of God who have a most excellent nature and constitution have no good of themselves no stedfastness of living or of subsisting from themselves but as they are upheld and confiâ—…med from God their maker the fountain of all goodness So in that other parallel place to this Job 15. 15. Iterum videtur repetere illam propositionem capitis quarti ecce qui serviunt ei non sunt stabiles argumento à majori probat hominem carneum luteum non posse merito Sanctitatis constantiam firmitatem sibi arrogare He again repeats the Proposition saith Pineda â—…rged in the fourth Chapter v. 18. and by an argument from the greater to the less proveth that man cannot arrogate to himself any stedfâ—…stness or constancy in righteousness You here divert me from Divinity and make me turn Grammarian for you say here our old repeaâ—…s He found no stedfastness in his Saints though our new He putteth no trust in his Saints If you are angry with our old translation for being constant to it self you are angry with it for a vertue for constancy is so If with our new for dissenting from our old you are angry with your own Pagnine for our new follows him as our old followed your old in its sense though not in its inconstancy For that saith Ecce qui serviunt ei non sunt stabiles cap. 4. v. 18. But Ecce inter Sanctos ejus nemo immutabilis cap. 15. v. 15. And yet the Hebrew Text is exactly the same in every point and Tittle in both places save that in the fourth Chapter t is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his servants in the 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Saints but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same in both places Though your old or Vulgar say Non sunt stabiles He found not stedfastness in the fourth Chapter and Nemo immutabilis none is unchangeable in the fifteenth But your new that is Pagnines translation saith in both places alike Non credet He put no trust whom our new had reason to follow not only because he more agreed with the Hebrew but also because he disagreed not from himself So that for your own translations sake you should have spared this fond cavil more then for ours 4. But I return to your Pineda who like a judicious Divine looks upon words as they are in their sense not in their sound and takes that for their sense which is not only positively true by Grammatical construction but also comparatively true by real connexion and illatively true by rational deduction which is the only way not to be mistaken in a Text that like this is liable to so many divers and different interpretations as himself asserteth Admodum varie hoc ab aliis vertitur Pagninus In Angelis suis ponet lumen Tygurina Angelis suis in did it vesaniam Vatablus nec in Angelis suis posuit lucem exactissimam Regia In Angelis suis ponet gloriationem Symmachus In Angelis suis reperit Vanitatem Sept. cum nostra Adversus Angelos suos pravum quid advertit quae
avoid this danger and not to fear mens enmity for preaching Gods Truth 4. Pleasure in unrighteousness makes this Doctrine not rightly preached and not rightly believed 5. The Articles of faith not given to devour the Commandements therefore no sacrilegious or unjust person can be justified by faith in Christ 6. This Gospel-Truth to be embraced by Papists and not forsaken by Protestants though it hath been most abused of all others and was so from the first entrance of the Gospel whence the Catholick Epistles were written chiefly against the Solifidian Haereticks 7. The Doctrine of Justification delivered by St. Paul Rom 3. in two Propositions the one Negative That 't is not by works proved by 3. Arguments The other affirmative That 't is by â—…aith proved from all the causes of Justification viz. God the efficient Christ the meritorious Faith the instrumental remission of sins through the imputation of Christs obedience the formal cause And the declaration of Gods righteousness and mans glorying in God alone the two final causes thereof These 2. Propositions afterwards joyned together in one Dogmatical conclusion That a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law which is again repeated Gal. 3. and confirmed by Ten arguments 8. The best way of arguing in this heavenly Doctrine is by arguments that come from Heaven agreeing not only with the analogie of faith in the Doctrine they prove but also with the analogie of the Text in the manâ—…er of their proof 9. That Faith which is without works justifieth not gives not works a share in justifying 10. That Charity is greater then Faith gives it not a greater influence in Justification 11. This Text Not the hearers of the Law are just before God but the doers of the Law shall be justified for faith is not in hearing but in doing not in the ear but in the heart 12. St. James and St. Paul deliver one and the same doctrine concerning Justification That t is by Faith in Chtist not by works but St. Paul speaks of Faith more in relation to Christ its proper Object to teach the Jews the necessity of Faith St. James speaks of Faith more in relation to works its proper effect to teach unsanctified Christians the obedience of Faith 13. The doctrine of Justification by Faith without works is the whole scope both of the Law and of the Gospel as is particularly proved in the Epistle to the Hebrews 14. Good worke are necessary consequents of the Faith that justifieth not Causes of the Justification and are no further required of us by any of the Apostles or Prophets in the judgement of St. Austin St. Ambrose and St. Chrysostom Therefore Justification by Faith without works was then the judgement of the Catholick Church and indeed is now of the present Roman Church if we look upon her Devotions not her Disputes 15. To maintain Justification by mans righteousness is not only to forsake Christs Church but also to destroy it 16. Christs imputed righteousness blasphemously called a Fiction by Bellarmin piously acknowledged a Reality by Pererius hîs brother Jesuit But the Saints imputed righteousness is a meer fiction both in regard of the Imputation which hath no promise of Gods acceptance and in regard of the righteousness which cannot challenge it as being incompleat because of Original and Actual sin therfore not superfluous in the best of Gods Saints as 〈◊〉 proved by several Texts of Holy Scripture according to the exposition of the Catholick Church 17. All men being sinners no man can be justified by his own righteousness 18. To be justified by works is to be justified without if not against Grace Christ and Faith 19. T is madness and wickedness for man to set up his own against his Saviours righteousness yet self-Justiciaries are guilty of this madness and wickedness undervaluing both Christs death and the Redemption thereby purchased for true blievers The sixt Exception IBidem sect 3. pag. 196. Against Justification by works you alledge Being justified by Faith we have peace with God Rom. 5. 1. But what faith The same St. Paul Gal. 5. 5 6. saith thus ex fide spem Justitiae expectamus sed fides quae per Charitatem operatur Here are works required to Justification as well as faith which must proceed from charity which according to St. Paul 1 Cor. 13. 13. is greater then faith and must needs therefore have the greater influence in our justification For as he saith Rom. 2. 13. Not the hearers of the Law there is faith are just before God but the doers of the Law there are good works shall be justified The Answer 1. HE that walks on battlements had need take a special care of his footing because if he slip he must fall and if he fall he must be dashed to pieces And such is now the walk of all Orthodox Divines in the way of Gods Truth especially this of justification the main Gospel-Truth 't is as if they walked upon battlements every step is slippery and every slip threatens ruin not that God hath left his way either dangerous or slippery but that some men have made it so their debates have made it dangerous their devices have made it slippery For some men have turneth Devotion it self into Debate to make Gods way dangerous and Doctrine it self into Devices to make Gods way slippery And concerning such men it is the Apostle hath said Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses so do these also resist the Truth men of corrupt minds reprobate concerning the faith 2 Tim. 3. 8. They that use tricks and devices to elude the sense when they cannot evade the sentence of the Law Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are wâ—…itten in the book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. do like Jannes and Jambres withstand Moses by enchantments making themselves Aegyptians when God made them Israelites or making themselves Magicians when God made them Divines only they seldome cry out Digitus Dei This is the finger of God though they be shewed never so plainly his own very hand writing to convence them oÌ„f their resistance against the Truth For the same corrupt minds that make them resist the Truth do also make them reprobate or of no Judgement concerning the faith For who can be judicious in the Faith but from the Truth and therefore he that resists the Truth must needs be of no Judgement concerning the faith And since we find among all the multitudes of factious men so little Judgement concerning the Faith we cannot but feat that they have all more or less resisted the Truth I am the way and the Truth saith Christ So that if the Christian look directly and constantly on Him he shall not walk out of the right way nor erre from the saving Truth Surely then t is because we have not looked on our Saviour but on our selves on our own Interests that our strayings have been so many from this right
die judicii non ista purgatio quam Doctores ponunt ante diem judicii Mark his words He saith the Doctors not the Apostles had been the Teachers of Purgatory Yet this is the Text your Cardinal most magnifies lib. 1. cap. 5. as fittest to prove both this fire and its fewel both Purgatory and Venial sins though a very learned interpreter of his own Church Erasmus had avowed before that it was not sufficient to prove it either and in truth in that himself hath confessed it to be one of the hardest Texts of all the Scripture unum ex difficillimis he hath in effect discredited his own proof For no Divine may laudably take that Text to prove an Article of Faith whose obscurity is fitter to shew men their ignorance then to remedy it For God doth not oblige any man to an impossibility to believe that which he cannot know or to know that which he cannot understand and therefore to say the place is very obscure and yet to ground an Article of Faith upon it is in effect to say There ought to be a belief where there is not an understanding or there ought to be an understanding where the thing is not to be understood For sure God is not defective in necessaries and therefore if this doctrine had been necessary to salvation he would not have delivered it so obscurely as to leave the unlearned under a most irremediable ignorance which is inconsistent with the knowledge of Faith nor the learned under most inextricable doubts and perplexities which are incompetible with the assent of Faith So that this text makes no more for the belief of Purgatory then the former The third and last Text then alledged to prove Purgatory was that of Mat. 12. to which the forenamed Author answers Non sequitur non remittitur hic neque in futuro ergo utrobique est remissio Quia ex negativis nihil sequitur sed tantum dicitur ad majorem gravitatem peccati blasphemiae It followâ—… not because it is said It shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come that forgiveness may be had both here and there for nothing can follow from meer negatives But this is only spoken by way of aggravation against the sin of blasphemy Thus that judicious man answers this Text and I think you can scarce shew any of your writers that have exceqted against his answers But the very same answers in Peter Martyrs mouth much displease your Cardinal lib. 1. cap. 4. For first he excepts against that part of it That the words were spoken by way of aggravation and tells us That by the same reason we may deny Hell it self and say those other words Go ye cursed into everlasting fire were spoken only by way of aggravation Pray let another add after him that we may as well deny heaven too and say that those words in the Creed I believe the life everlasting were spoken only by way of aggravation that so if we will not have a Purgatory we may not have an Heaven as well as not have an Hell in our Creed But if you think this in forme too irreligious pray think the other so too which caused it and you will not approve your Cardinal as the only Master of Gods Israel who is so ready to teach men to turn Atheists if they will not turn Papists For all the Christian Churches many years before us and most Christian Churches at this day with us have no belief of your Purgatory and yet firmly believe both Heaven and Hell For both are alike contained in the same Article to wit the life everlasting which teacheth us to believe this Truth They that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil shall go into everlasting fire But we have no third state of those who have neither done good nor evil but partly good and partly evil Good by avoiding mortal sins or repenting of them but evil by committing venial sins and not repenting of them Or good by repenting but evil by not satisfying And we have no third place for this third state of men to go into a place in which is neither everlasting life by it self nor everlasting fire by it self but a strange kind of medly which is made up partly of life and partly of fire only the life of it is everlasting but the fire of it is temporary not everlasting so yon see we may very well deny Purgatory and yet not so much as doubt of Hell because that very Article which teacheth us to believe everlasting fire teacheth us not to believe temporary fire But your Cardinal hath another exception against this exposition Exaggeratio non debet esse inepta qualis est quum fit partitio uni membro nihil respondet An exaggeration ought not to be improper and unfit as that is which makes a Partition and leaves nothing to answer one member of it Pray Sir who can imagine That Negatives are capable of a Partition any more then meer non entities and therefore an exaggeration grounded upon negatives may not be supposed to make a partition because a non entity cannot be supposed to have any parts or members As if I should say of a confirmed Christian He is not to be made a Papist or a Turk what partition is here of Christians into Papists and Turks 8. Secondly he excepts against that answer Nothing can follow from meer Negatives As Philip King of Spain is not King of Venice therefore some other man is King of Venice it follows not saith Peter Martyr by good Logick because it is grounded upon a negative So here It shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come it follows not There shall be forgiveness in the world to come The Cardinal excepts saying It follows not according to the rules of Logick but it follows according to the Rules of Prudence because otherwise we should suppose our Saviour had spoken most unfitly or improperly nay in plain terms most foelishly Respondeo non sequi secundum regulas Dialecticorum id quod inferimus ex verbis Domini sed tamen sequi secundum regulam Prudentiae quia alioqui faceremus Dominum ineptissimè loquutum An horrid blasphemy to say the eternal Word spake impertinently or Wisdom it self spake foolishly unless we may set up a false consequence to make his words good Is not this contrary to the wise mans advice Ne dixeris quia ipse me implanavit Say not thou He hath caused me err for he hath no need of the sinfull man Eccl. 15. 12. Let an insolent Dogmatist say what he pleaseth but a conscientious Divine must say God needs not my Lye to maintain his Truth no more then he needs mâ—… sin to maintain his righteousness For a consequence without the Rules of Logick is a Lye since it is a conclusion without premises an effect without a cause or a Consequent without
and must be the cause of eternal Dissention and Division in Christs Church 14. Religion orders a man only to God and that superstition which takes in Saints and Angels is for Babel not for Hierusalem because it confounds both the work and the Rule of Religion and is accordingly threatned and punished with confusion 15. Religious worshipping the Pictures of Saints and Angels is so gross Idolatry that you dare not let the people know the Commandement which forbids it 16. Images long kept out of the Churches of Christians Epiphanius his pulling down a veil with an Image at Anablatha unjustly if not unadvisedly rejected by Bellarmine as a false story 17. Images kept out of the Religion of Christians after they were admitted into their Churches The second Council of Nice opposed and confuted by the Latines not acknowledged for a General Council by the Greeks but most of all opposed and confuted by its own egregious falsities and falsifications discovered from its own Acts and affirmed by the testimony of Baronius 18. Interrogatories concerning Image-worship to be put into the Confessionals of the Romish Priests rather then of the people for that of the two they are the greater idolators The fourth Exception PAr 2. chap. 3. sect 2. pag. 193. speaking of us Catholicks you say The second Commandement is not of so great repute with them as to have any Interrogatory concerning it By the second Commandement nothing possible can be forbidden but only external Idolatry as internal is forbidden in the first Which moved Saint Augustine quest 71. in Exodum and all Catholick Divines after to reckon these two but as one Now in those negative words of the first Thou shalt not have strange gods before me is necessarily and positively included this affirmative Thou shalt have me only for thy true God Hence it follows that it is impossible for Christians whatever the Jews did well instructed in the first to offend through ignorance against the second What Interrogatories then are needful concerning it But I know you hint at our Pictures and Images of our blessed Saviour and his holy Saints But it must first be proved that Jesus Christ is a false God before the application of our Divine Worship through his Pictures unto him can be convinced of Idolatry And the same I say proportionably though in an infinitely inferiour degree of our Religious worship through the Pictures of his glorious Servants Saints and Angels The Answer 1. I Spake not of you Catholicks but if I spake of you it was of you Papists who by your own Cassander are not to be called Catholicks but false Catholicks Sunt quidam qui Pontificem Romanum tantum non Deum faciunt ejusque autoritatem non modò supra totam Ecclesiam sed supra ipsam Scripturam divinam efferunt Hos non video quò minus Pseudocatholicos Papistas appellare possis Cassander de officio pii viri There are some who make the Pope almost a God and extoll his authority not only above the whole Church but also above the holy Scripture These are to be called Papists and Pseudocatholicks that is to say false Catholicks Wherefore in the judgement of your own Cassander if you will needs be Papists you cannot be Catholicks 2. But in truth my intent was not so much to speak in condemnation of you Papists as in justification of us Protestants not so much in condemnation of your Church as in justification of our own But since you have taken it for a condemnation of your Church pray consider whether you may not take these particulars for the parts of that condemnation First that in your General confession Confitior Deo omnipotenti B. Mariae semper Virgini c. You suppose the blessed Virgin and the holy Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul and all the Saints departed equally present at your Confession with God to hear you if not equally powerful or merciful with him to forgive you whereas we who are taught only to say Omnipotens clementissime Pater Almighty and most merciful Father in our general Confession cannot be under the suspition much less under the danger of communicating to the creature either the presence or power or mercy of the Creator Secondly That in your particular and private confession you clog mens consciences with an absolute necessity of confessing every mortal sin though it be but only in thought For so saith your Laterane Council under Innocent the third cap. 21. Omnia sua peccata fideliter confiteatur Let him faithfully confess all his sins And though that of Trent afterwards seem to mitigate the matter sess 14. c. 5. saying Nihil aliud exigit Ecclesia à Poenitentibus quà m ut confiteantur omnia peccata mortalia quae post diligentem sui excussionem memoriae occurrent Yet Cardinal Bellarmine whom his fellow Jesuites will certainly follow and they are now your chiefest confessors saith plainly after a full debate of the cause Colligimus hinc necessarium esse confiteri omnia peccata mortalia etiamsi solâ cogitatione commissa sint lib. 3. de Poenit. cap. 7. § ex his so that t is to little purpose for your Council to say that t is necessary for the Penitent to confess all the mortal sins he can remember whiles your Champion and after him your Confessors say t is necessary for him to confess all the mortal sins he hath committed and spare him not so much as a thought which may easily be a mortal sin and yet is as easily forgotten as committed whence it was that your own Cassander called your auricular confession Carnifieinam conscientiarum in consult Art 11. the wrack of consciences to torment not to ease them For who can tell how oft he offendeth O cleanse thou me from my secret faults said the maâ—… after Gods own heart Psalm 19. If none can tell how oft he offendeth in word or deed much less in thought who is able to confess all his offences yet you say He must confess all or he can receive pardon of none And therefore as you leave the horrour of that question upon the conscience Who can tell how oft he offendeth So you take away the comfort of that prayer from it O cleanse thou me from my secret faults Thirdly That in your absolutions you remit the punishments of Purgatory for all the sins committed against God and man Remitto tibi omnes poenas Purgatorii propter culpas offensiones quas contra Deum proximum tuum commisisti This was the form of that Absolution which Dr. Harding brought over from Rome to bestow amongst those of his party in this Nation who would joyn with him in his dis-allegiance against Queen Elizabeth I meddle not with its vanity in absolving from Punishments which are not in being or if they were cannot come under the Churches absolution I meddle only with its Impiety that it turneth the gift of God into the instrument of Ungodliness For no credulous Papist
are there joyned in one but also to the third Commandement and we think it very unjust that a few Italian Bishops and Priests should endeavour to lay those sins upon the Catholick Church which they ought to lay to and upon their own consciences because they have not only suffered but also maintained them in their own Churches For it is not crying out Templum Domini Templum Domini the Temple of the Lord the Temple of the Lord that can acquit us from any act of sin against the Lord 'T is not the noise of Gods Church in our ears can expell the knowledge or fear of Gods Commandements out of our hearts God hath entrusted his Church with the Keeping not with the Making of Religion she is the Guide to it and in it not the Author of it That Power and Trust he communicated only to his Son and to his Holy Spirit because indeed it was incommunicable to any other For who can know the mind of God but God who can declare the council of his heart â—…ut only he that came out of his bâ—…m Shall not God have that privileâ—…e over his servants which men have ovâ—…r theirs to prescribe the way and 〈◊〉 of his own service or â—…all we alâ—…ow that disorder in Gods Family which we will not admit into our own There was no King in Israel when every man did that which was right in his own eyes Jud. 17. 6. If the Church may do what she pleaseth in matters of Religion 't is either because there is no King in Gods Israel or because Truth and Righteousness are not the establishment of his Kingdom For Truth and Righteousness come not from man but from God and therefore none can be the author of Religion but only God since that is nothing else but Truth and Righteousness Truth in Articles of Faith Righteousness in duties of life Truth in what we are bound to believe Righteousness in what we are bound to practise Therefore 't is vain to set up the Church which is only the Judge against the Law which is the Rule of Righteousness For we can go to the Church only for the Practice but we 〈◊〉 go to the Law for the Purity of Religion The question is here concerning the Purity of Religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Saints be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Law of God but the 〈◊〉 is made only concerning the Practice 〈◊〉 Religion for they tell us it was alwayes used in the Catholick Church We look upon this answer as faulty for its impertinency because the question is matter of Right but the answer is matter of Fact and much more faulty for its Calumny because the Romanists thereby so labour to excuse their own as to accuse the Catholick Church For 't is plain that Christ and his Apostles never used it and we must look upon him as the Head upon them as the chief members of the Catholick Church since we can have no Catholick Church without them that is which doth not persist in their doctrine nor continue in their Communion And 't is as plain that no particular Church since them can justify the using it and consequently t is unjust as well as untrue to ascribe the use of it to the Catholick Church although it hath of late years been used in some particular Churches For even Nicephorus himself saith expresly Hest. Eccl. lib. 15. cap. 28. ad finem That Petrus Crapheus who lived neer 500 years after Christ was the first that brought the Invocation of the blessed Virgin into the prayers of the Church and doubtless she was invocated before the other Saints who is now and hath been for some ages so much invocated above them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ut in precatione omni Dei genitrix nominaretur divinum ejus nomen invocaretur That this Invocation was not till then in any Church is a clear proof it was not of the Apostolick and therefore though it hath been since in some Churches cannot be a proof that it is of the Catholick Church For the Apostolick the Catholick are not two Churches But let us suppose which we may not grant that the Catholick Church as far as 't is visible hath of late years used it yet that is not a sufficient ground for us still to continue the use of it For we are to serve God not out of Custome but out of Conscience and therefore in vain do any pretend Custome in Gods service against Conscience in vain do any alledge the Churches usage which calls for Custome against Gods Law which calls for Conscience If an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel then what ye have received let him be accursed saith St. Paul Gal. 1. 8. The same reason is for the Law received in the Old as for the Gospel received in the New Testament Gods truth and righteousness are above the Church Triumphant in heaven much more above the Church militant on Earth not that either Church hath opposed or will oppose them for the Church of the living God is the pillar and ground of the Truth 1 Tim. 3. 15. but that they are above the Churches opposition For no creature can be to it â—…eli the rule of working no more then the cause of being and therefore its work of righteousness cannot depend upon its own but upon its makers will And Religion being the principal work of Righteousness cannot depend upon the will of the Church but upon the will of God This sublime truth is admirably delivered by the master of subtilties and sublimites Scotus in 1. lib. sent dist 44. in these words In omni liberè agente quod potest agere secundum praeter vel contra dictamen legis rectae est distinguere potentiam ordinatam absolutam Ordinata quidem conformiter agendo legi rectae absoluta verò agendo praeter illam legem vel contra eam sic dicunt Juristae aliquis potest facere de facto hoc est de poten tiâ suà tabsolutâ vel de jure hoc est de potenia ordinatâ secundum jura Quando autem lex ista secundum quam recte agendum est non est in potestate agentis tunc agendo secundum potentiam absolutam inordinaâ—…è agit non rectè Qâ—…ùm enim subsit tali legi tenetur agere 〈◊〉 legem sed quando in poteâ—…ate ageâ—…s est lex rectitudo legis poâ—…est tale agens ordinatè rectè agere aliter quà m lex illa dictat quia non subest illi legi sic ejus poâ—…entia absoluta non est inordinata In every free agent which can act according besides or against the dictate of law and righteousness we must distinguish betwixt his orderly and his absolute power his orderly power is shewed in acting conformably to the Law his absolute power inacting either besides it or against it so the Civilians tell us a man may do a thing as a matter of fact that is by his absolute power according to his will or as