by faith without the deeds of the Law They must therefore be reconciled which they may by saying that faith only doth properly justifie us before God and Works do justifie our faith to be a true faith for as much as true faith is productive of good works for we abhor those mens conceit who imagine that faith may suffice a man though he live ill and have no good works Or 2. By saying that good works do evidence our justification Aquinas confesseth that works in c. 3. ad Gal. are not the cause that any man is just before God but they are rather manifestations of Righteousnesse and Justification Certainly Abraham was justified in the sight of God before he offered up his son Isaac which is the foundation of Saint James's speech Papists are so much convinced of this that to evade Protestant Doctrine at least seemingly they invent a distinction of a first and second justification from that they exclude all works and attribute it only to faith and the other is not properly personal justification 8. Inst Prayer to Saints The Angel that delivered from all evils blessed the Children Gen. 48. Answ 1. Here is no mention of Saints much lesse of prayer to them not so much as an implicite hint of such a thing for I suppose Jacob was not of the mind of the Grecian Daemon worshippers who said it mattered not whether they called the souls of the defunct angells or gods 2. By Angel is meant Jesus Christ the Angell of the Covenant Mal. 3.1 who is true God and he who delivered Jacob out of all his evils Thus both Jewish and Christian Expositors understand it 3. I think you mistooâ— this for the latter part of the verse which Papists urge to prove invocation of Saints But seeing you doe not urge it I shall not at present answer it 9. Inst Prayer for the dead It is an holy and wholsome cogitation to pray for the dead 2 Maccab 12. A. 1. This book is not Apostolicall nor part of the Canon of Scripture the Hebrews keepers of the book of the Old Testament received it not as is generally confest and though some fathers commend this and other books of this nature to be read yet they commended them onely as profitable Treatises not as Canonicall Scriptures and therefore advise men to reade them with discretion and prudence Christ though he gives testimony to the Prophets and Psalms he gives none to these or in speciall to this besides there are divers things in this render it suspected 1. The Author of this book supposed to be Josephus professeth it to be onely an abridgement of Jason of Cyrene c. 2.23 and the Holy Ghost is not used to Epitomize profane Histories 2. He makes an excuse for himself and such a one as the holy Writers never used nor becomes a Divine History c. 15. 38. Answ 2. The Text you urge may be divers wayes oppugned 1. The words are not rightly translated by you the Greek is thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A holy and pious cogitation therefore he made expiation or satisfaction by sacrifice for the dead to free them from sin the words are not to be read without a middle distinction Vatablus who includes these words Piam et sanctam cogitationem in a parenthesis refers them neither to prayer nor sacrifice but to the resurrection of the dead saying it s an holy and pious thought to think that the bodies of them who have deserved well of their Country should rise again and not perish for ever 2. Supposing Sacrificing or Prayer seeing you will have it so for the dead were lawfull yet as to these persons it cannot be allowed For first they were Idolaters slain for their idolatry verse 40. Dying for any thing appears to the contrary in a mortall sin 2. They were not in Purgatory the onely place from whence Prayers bring souls for at this time Purgatory had not so much as an imaginary existence 3. Supposing Prayer for the dead and holy and wholesome cogitation and might be proved so from this place yet how can we be said to maintain a Doctrine clean contrary and opposite to that which the Apostles in plain and formall tearms expressed Though here be expressed the opinion of Judas or Jason of Cyrene yet neither Judas nor Jason were the Apostles of Christ nor yet any of the Prophets of God the last of whom was Malachi It is evident that you want spirituall proofs for your charitable devotion else you would not have urged against us those books you know we account Apocriphal and not bring one syllable of Scripture you must first prove unto us the Divine authority of the books of Maccabees and then prove our contrarietie to Scriptures in dissenting from them till then you beg the question 10. Inst Extream unction Is any body sick amongst you let him bring in the Priests of the Church and pray over him anoynting him with oyl in the name of our Lord. Jam. 5. Answ 1. Here are not the plain and formal tearms of extream unction nor do I think that you read them in any ancient Author the word Extream shews your extram abuse of this ordinance as Lorichius otherwise as much for this supposed Sacrament as any o-any other clearly demonstrates in these words Abusus vocbuli est quod dicitur extrema unctio c. It s an abuse of the word to call it extream unction For it s not a Sacrament of dying men but of those who are sick not relateing to their burial but conducing to their recovery Whence it was that in the primitive Church many when they were anointed did recover health And even at this day many wâ—uld be healed if this Sacrament were rightly used I observe that these Popish Authors who pretend to follow antiquity do avoid this tearm Extream calling this supposed Sacrament either sacramentum unctionis aegrotorum as Lorichius or simply Cass consult Art 22. p. 985. unctio infirmorum as Cassander who also shews that its of use for the sick in order to their recovery of bodily health 2. This text of the Apostle proves not your extream unction It speaks of that miraculous anointing which Saint Mark mentions Mark 6.13 and which Bellarmine saith was a sign used in miraculous healing of the diseased your Rhemists imply that it had a miraculous medicinal vertue to heal diseases which you will hardly say of your extream oyl Cajetan expresly denies that this text of James Cajet in cap. 5. Jac. proves extream unction and proves it by divers reasons 1. Saint James saith not if any man be sick unto death but absolutely if any man be sick 2. The proper effect of Saint James unction is recovery of health If he speaks of remission of sins onely conditionally whereas extream unction is not given but at the point of death and directly tends as its form stands to the remission of sins besides Saint James requires that many Elders be called to one sick person
such as have the guiding and teaching of others deeper knowledg of Gods word and mysteries is given then to the common people as also to Christians generally that which was not given to the obstinate Jewes which makes nothing from a total exemption of them from ignorance if it did much more would that place of St. John 1. Ep. 2. cap. 27. where 't is said The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you and ye need not that any man teach you but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things c. Prove such an exemption for private Christians and so lay a foundation for their infallibilitie which would derogate from the Honour of his Holiness of Rome 2. It is most evident that the Disciples of Christ to whom these words were spoken had ignorance in them and that of such things as were needful to be known See Mark 9.31.32 Luk. 9.45 Joh. 12.16 viz. the Death and Resurrection of Christ c. 2. Aagainst Darkness you urge Matth. 6. but 't is Matth. 5.14 You are the light of the world Ans 1. If you mean that the Apostles and their Successors are so light that they have no darkness in them you are no better then a blasphemer for it 's said of God and cannot be spoken of any other God is light and in him is no darkness at all 1 Jâ—h 1.5 Aug. in Ps 10. 2. S. Augustine alluding to this place compares the Church to the Moon which you know hath her dark spots though the Sun to which Christ is somtimes compared be altogether transparent and bright 3. They are called a light not so much in regard of their inward qualification Lyran. in Mat. 5.14 as of their office which is to instruct and direct others in their way as Gregory Burgensis and Cyranâ—s note 4. Learned Cameron conceives that this is spoken of the Apostles as Apostles which is probable because our Saviour speak to them as related to an Apostolical or Universal charge and thus it proves nothing for your present Church Lastly I fear that whilst your men was writing for inerrability your thoughts were possessed with the Churches visibilitie which your Doctors of Rhemes would prove from hence But then why did you not bring in the next words Ro. 17.3 A City set on a Hill which would more directly with a little variation of number have pointed at your Holy Mother on her seven-headed Beast 3. Against Error and Falshood you urge Joh. 14. I will send unto you the Spirit of truth to remain with you for ever And Isa 62. Thou shalt no more be called forsaken To your former I answer it makes nothing for you for it 's one thing to have the Spirit of Truth to lead into truth and another thing to have it making us infallible I conceive there are few of your Priests or Jesuites but think themselves to have the Spirit of Truth yet are not infallible Nay private Christians may have this Spirit of truth and by it may be kept from damnable or Soul-ruining error yet who would say they are infallible It 's a groundless distinction of the Rhemists to say That the Spirit for many other causes is given to divers private men and to all good men to sanctification but to teach all truth and to preserve in truth and from error he is promised and performed only to the Church and the chief Governour and General Councils thereof The contrary to this is affirmed by themselves in another place Joh. 17.17 saying Christ prayeth that the Apostles their Successors and all that shall be of their belief may be sanctified in truth i. e. may have the Spirit of truth and be freed from error The Spirit then may be had and yet inerrability be wanting to a person To your other Text It seems to be put in to make up a number of Texts not of Proofs I believe you neither considered Text nor Context when you brought it in I profess I cannot see the least shadow of proof in it for the Churches infallibilitie it being spoken to the Jewes in regard of their desolations and therefore contains a promise of Gods returning with mercie and loving kindness which was suitable for their comfort in their low condition 4. Against Weakness you urge 1 Tim. 3. She is the Pillar and ground of truth And Mat. 16. Hell Gates shall not prevail against her To the former I answer 1. If any particular Church be here spoken of it is not the Roman but the Church of Ephesus where Timothy governed which by your own confessions might err 2. The words may be refer'd to what follows It 's not said expresly She is the Pillar c. as you abusively read it Cameron doth refer them to the next verse and gives divers reasons why they should be so refer'd Verba ista Columna c. sunt conjungenda cum sequentibus ratio 1. Alioqui erit Oratio Apostoli hiulca suspensa si legamus Domus Dei columna fundamentum veritatis sine controversia c. est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non coherent ista 2 Non solet Apostolus novi Argumenti tractionem inchoâ—re à conjunctione 3. Haec est usitatissima formula inter Judaeos quum quis profitetur se traditurum praecipua dogmata Religionis ut illud pronunciat columnam esse fundamentum veritatis vel sapientiae quod traditurus est Et solent Apostoli uti phrasibus receptis in ecclesia judaica sed accommodatis ad rem quam agunt Cameto shewing amongst other things that this was a manner of speech which the Jews did frequently use when they delivered some main and principal points of Faith And hereunto the Apostle Paul who was well versed in the customes of the Jewish Rabbies being now to deliver the main points of our Faith concerning Jesus Christ might well allude If we take it thus it 's not the Church but the truth it self especially those principal points of Religion mentioned in the next verses Thus Irenaeus saith That the Gospel which was preached by the Apostles was afterwards by the will of God delivered to us in writing Fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum that it might be a ground and Pillar of our Faith 3. Supposing it be spoken of the Church Iten advers haeres lib. 3. c. 1. init yet this is 1. In regard of the Word of God which is preached and continued in the Church if God remove his Word from a Church as from the Churches of Asia c. that Church ceaseth to be a Pillar and ground of truth 2. In regard of true Believeers who are truly the house of the living God and adhere to the Word of God others are not De compage domus they are not of the House Augustine hath a notable saying to this purpose Aug. praefat in Ps 47. he tells us the Church consists of Saints such whose names are
All Papists If you have are mens judgments and thoughts visible to the eye Or did they all write their judgments and give you them that your eye might see them But I shall confute this hereafter 2. Why do you vary your phrase for first you say this unity is an effect of acknowledgiâ—g the Church for the rule of belief And then as thinking you had missed it you speak of actual squaring mens belief to the Church There is a great difference betwixt these A Papist may acknowledg the Church to be the rule of faith yet through ignorance of what the Church holds or some other cause he may not square his belief to the Church Experience tells me that many Papists in these parts acknowledg the Church to be the rule of belief yet it s hard to find one that doth not in some point or other differ from the Church I have found many that in some points dissent from her Soto and Catharinus who were both present at the Trent Council could not agree what was the Councils meaning in the points of Original sin and justification but wrote one against the other of those subjects So that though both of them might acknowledg the Church to be the rule of faith yet they could not both square their belief to the Church unlesse she be a maintainer of contrary Doctrines 4. May not experience carry it as much for the Scriptures and shew that they are the rule of faith for its most certain that all that square their belief to the Scriptures are one in Religion Thus the primitive Christians did square their belief to the Scriptures and were unanimous It s mens leaving the Scriptures and building upon their own fancies or building their faith upon changable and unstable men that makes dissentions and jarring The Word of God being always the same there cannot be dissention where is conformity to it 2. You give a reason hereof saying Of which no other reason can be given but that the Church is alwaies constant and certain other rules subject to uncertainty and change Answ 1. What mean you when you say that the Church is always constant and certain is it in regard of existence I grant it of the Catholique but deny it of your Roman Church God had a Church before there was a Roman Church and when Babylon the great is fallen there will be the Church still I know no warrant you have that your Church shall always continue there is much in Scripture to perswade the contrary Or 2. Is it in regard of holding and manifestation of the truth but this way it hath not been always constant Time was when it was Arian under Liberius and the Orthodox grievously persecuted in it time was when it administred the Lords supper to Children even for 600 years Time was when the Bible of Clemeâ—t was commanded under the danger of a curse to be received as only Authentical now Sixtus his Bible must be so received upon the same danger Time was when your twelve articles of Pope Pius's creed were not enjoyned as necessary to be believed to salvation as now they are Again Sometimes it hath happened that the Church could not would not or durst not manifest the truth Where was then its certainty The question about the efficâ—cy of grace was twice brought to the Apostolique chair forsooth and after many years disputation in regard of its subtilty it was sent away with the difficulties in determination wherewith it came thither Questions it seems must be easy or else your vertual Church cannot certainly determine them What certainty is here when subtilties can stop the Popes determinations Your decrees concerni g the virgins impeccability in the Council of Trent are dark and of no great certainty 2. It s fâ—lse that other rules are subject to uncertainty and change The Scriptures are more certain and unchangable than your Church they are called a more sure word of prophecy to which we do well that we take heâ—d But that we might think that you reverence Scriptures you say True it is that Scripture in itsel that iâ— as it is the Word of God dictatâ—d bâ— the Holâ—-Ghost is certain and infallible but to us 2 Tim. 3. to wiâ— as it is liable to this and to oth rs privâ—te interpretation it is as uncertain and â—allible as man witnesse the many contrary interprâ—tations c. Answ 1. The Scripture is not only certain in it selfe but even to us and therefore the Apostle speaking to private Christians 2 Pet. 1. saith We have also a more sure word of Prophecy whereunto ye d well that ye take heed as unto a light c. The Scripture oft declares its own plainnesse and certainty as to us Prov. 8.9 All the words of my mouth are plain to him that understandeth they are plain obvious Vatabl. and easie to be understood Psal 19.7 The testimony of the Lord is SVRE making wise the simple Psalm 1â—9 130 The en rance â—f thy Word giveth liâ—ht it giveth undâ—rstanding unâ—o the simple 2. Th u h particular men may makâ— wrâ—ng interpre ations of some placâ—s yâ—t thâ—s is when they use not that diligence and those means that they ought to use as viewing antecedent and subsequent Scriptures comparing like places considering what words are figurative what proper reading and pondering the interpretation of the learned bringing all to the rule of faith i. e. plain places wherein the articles of faith are clearly propounded Tertul. l. de veland virgin or if you will the Apostles Creed which Tertullian calls the immutable and unalterable rule of faith And your selves grant that the virtual Church may erre if she use not diligence 3. May not the same you say of Scripture be said of your Popes Decretals Councils Canons c. may not these have wrong interpretations No doubt but they may witness the difference betwixt Soto and Catharinus Certain it is that the Scriptures in points necessary to salvation are more clear than your Decrees and Canons Lastly I know not what you quote 2 Tim. 3. For I find nothing for you in that Chapter but rather against you Timothy had known the Scriptures from a child and they are said to be able to make him wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus Here is study of the Scriptures note of the Churches Canons Here is faith in Jesus Christ not in the Church The Scriptures as I said or ignorant of such expressions CHAP. VIII Of the Spirit of Spiritists WHen I had read this Title and compared it with the Title of your tenth Chapter I thought Spiritists and Protestants had noted two distinct kinds of persons But the matter of this and the next Chapter shew that in the language of the beast they are the same It s strange you bring not in Scripturists and Christians they are equally strange to you who glory only in the name CATHOLIQUE but why do you use these names Is it
Constantinople did fully decree against them Three points of religion are alwayes good and convenient and cannot become bad and inconvenient by any circumstances as you suggest To say fundamentals cannot become bad but accidentals may were to set up that which you have been endeavouring to throw down pag. 64. viz. the distinction of Fundamentals and Accidentals all points being with you equally fundamental and substantial But granting that matters of religion may be altered so as the contrary to that was formerly taught and believed may now nay must be approved this must necessarily make contrariety division and this will take of the objected slander 6. Objection THe sixt Objection is The Roman Church is injurious to Christs merits approving of humane merits Ans Reason and experience shew a diversity of Agents that as some are necessitated as beasts other-some are free as men and therefore capable of merit and demerit whereby they are differenced from beasts which are uncapable of either the assertion of humane merits is no other wrong to Christ then the affirming of a plaine and clear truth can be wrong to him Reply 1. The Objection doth not speake of merits in general or in order to temporal rewards from men and therefore your answer thus far and the body of it reacheth little or no further is to no purpose But 2. It s questionable whether a creatures capacity of merit or demerit doe absolutely depend upon freedom of will Seneca saith that the service of cruel Elephants is merited by their meat Certainly according to the use of the words with ancient writers it may agree to beasts from them you fetch your prooffs for it Aquinas though he denies them to have freedom of wil affirms that they act quodam judicio by a kind of judgment By this judgment they know what we would have them do do it thereby may for any thing appears to the contrary deserve some thing proportionable to their work And although as you say they are necessitated yet this necessity is not without a kind of judgement whereby a beast doth act somtimes rather willingly then by coaction 3. Though you sometimes ascribe the power of meriting to Grace yet it appears that the main ground is Free-will which is here laid at lest as a foundation of your answer so that the grace of God doth but come in the second place and herein you are not alone but have other Papists joyning with you But I come to examine your answers to the Objections you make for us Obj. 1. It will say you be opposed men are capable of merit and dem rit in order to temporal but not to Eternal rewards Reply As God hath enabled men to deserve temporal so eternal rewards Ans 1. If you speak of rewards as proceeding from God man can never truely deserve eternal nor so much as temporal rewards though one man may deserve these at the hands of another 2. It will not follow that Because men can merit temporal rewards at the hands of men therefore they may merit eternal rewards from God For 1. Humane rewards are finite and may be proportioned by our work and where there is proportion there may be merit But because there is no proportion between our works and an eternal reward there can be no merit Therefore the Apostle doth very well express the immeritoriousness of that which is the top of Christian works viz. Martyrdome Rom. 8.18 Dionys Carthus in Rom. 8.18 and Gloss Ordin The sufferings of this present life are not worthy or meritorious c. Non sunt digni ad vitam Eternam promerendam The reason whereof is rendred by Theodoret. Theod. Haymo apud Lyran. Superant certamina coronae The Crowns surpass the conflicts the rewards are not proportioned to the labours for the labour is little but the gain hoped for is great and therefore the Apostle doth not call those things we expect Wages but Glory So Haymo Si quilibet hominum c. If any man could fulfill all the Commandments of the old and new Testament and could undergoe all kinds of torments he should by no means be worthy of the future glory of the Elect. Why because those are temporal this is eternal Job 35.7 1 Cor. 4.7 2. Man may be profited by us and may have that from us which is none of his but this cannot be said of God He is not profited by our righteousness nor can he receive any thing from us but what is his own But how â—ay it be proved that God hath enabled men to deserve eternal rewards You answer It is apparent in Scripture learning Heaven a Crown of Justice a Reward a Goal 2 Tim. 4. Matth. 5 1 Cor. 9. which necessarily impose merits as their Correlatives bare actions void of desert being looked on only as by way of gifts Reply 1. Your Argument is divers ways peccant For 1. Your consequence is not good Heaven is called a Crown of Justice a Reward a Goal therefore God hath enabled men to merit Eternal rewards Heaven may be so called with relation to Christs merits not ours Primasius calls it a Crowne of Righteousness with relation to the righteousness of justification which is in Christ yea further it may be so called without any necessary supposal of merit A Crown of justice is no more but a crown coming to us in a righteous and just manner and thus it may come without our merits As mercy makes us Kings so it gives us Crowns And what rational man can doubt but that rewards may be free Lyranus brings in Chrysostome thus commenting upon the Text in Timothy Si fides gratia est c. If Faith be Grace and Eternal life the reward of Faith it may seeme that God gives Eternal life to the believer as a due debtowing to him not because he hath merited it by faith but because faith is grace and life eternal is grace he gives it there of grace Heaven as it refers to Christs actions and passions is a truely merited reward an effect flowing from its proper cause but as it refers to ours its onely as an end relating to its means wherein it s attained or as an improper effect of that which hath onely a negative causality or is Causa sine qua non And this is no more then what Cassander observes Cassand Hymn Eccles p. 262 263 The more searching and religious School-men to say conformably to that of Bernard Bernard Durand ap Cass ep 19. p. 110. That those things which we call merits are the way to the Kingdom but not the cause of Raigning Yea further he expresly sayth That mens merits are not such as that life eternal is of justice due unto them or that God should wrong men if he gave it not And Durand affirms that God is not our debtor nor obliged of justice to us because of our good habits or acts which he hath given us and that to thinks or
say the contrary is rashness and blasphemy Yet this is the faith and doctrine of the generality of Papists and vehemently asserted by the Rhemists in these words It is most clear to all not blinded with pride and contention that good works be meritorious and the very cause of Salvation so far that God should be unjust if he rendred not Heaven for the same Rhem. on Heb. 6.10 But they have their sentence from Durand to which I leave them 2. The Confirmation of your Argument is most evidently false viz. that bare Actions void of desert be looked onely as by way of gifts For actions may be looked on without any meritoriousness yet be no free gifts but due debts or duties such are the actions of Gods children filial duties they owe to God their Father as you grant in the next Section Now these they are bound to perform though there were no Heaven to reward them or Hell to punish them 2. You reply to the Objections It were indeed no less then blasphemy to go about to equal in worth other merits with Christ but the Roman Church offereth not any such thing whilest she believeth Christs merits to be of infinite value others onely of finite Christs merits to have their desert and worth from no other others to hold dependance fâ—r b th of them Ans 1. Supposing that inequality you speak of be truely asserted It s blaspemy still to make God a debtor to man and to assert that God is bound to give us Heaven and were unjust if he did not It s the taking upon you that power which belongs solely to Christ in every degree of it that makes you blasphemers you acknowledg that Christ is the only Mediator of reconciliation Now I durst appeal to rational men whether it would not be blasphemy for a man to say he were a Mediatour of reconciliation and a Redeemer of himselfe from the Curse though withall he should say he did not equal in worth his own price with Christs but did believe that Christ's price was of infinite value his but of finite Christ had its desert from no other but his had dependance on Christ It is the undertaking to be a purchaser with money and price when God calls us to buy without money and without price Isai 55.1 If Simon Magus will think to buy the gift of God with money the Apostle may presage the ruine of him and may conclude that he is in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity Acts 8.19 20. The new Covenant is a Covenant of grace the benefits of it depend not on mans merits but Gods free grace which according to the Apostle is exclusive of merits If by grace then it is no more of works otherwise grace is no more grace c. Rom. 8.4.11.6 Ferus Ferus in Cap. 20. Mat. ver 1. therefore gives a good direction Quod si aliquando c. If at any time thou hearest a promise of reward how that it is no otherwise due but by divine promise God hath freely promised he freely gives if therefore thou wouldst preserve the grace and favour of God make no mention of thy merits To deny the glory of our salvation to Gods grace and to give it to our works is indeed to give that to our selves which is due to God and is nothing less than blaspheming against God 2. Popish merits are very little lower than Christs nay in many particulars they are made equall to them see little more can be ascribed to Christs merits than the Rhemists give to mans in their notes on 2 Tim. 4.8 This place say they convinceth for the Catholicks that all good works done by Gods grace after the first justification be truely and properly meritorious and fully worthy of everlasting life and that thereupon heaven is the due and just stipend crown or recompence which God by his Justice oweth to the persons so working by his grace for he rendreth and repayeth Heaven as a just Judge and not onely as a mercifull giver and the Crown which he payeth is not onely of mercy or favour or grace but also of Justice What can be said more for the value of Christs merits than this that they are truely and properly meritorious and fully worthy of everlasting life What is it more to be of an infinite value And whereas you further say that mans merits have dependance on another for their desert and worth It s most evident that in the beginning of your answer you lay the ground-work of merit and demerit upon free-will as doth also Pererius and Aquinas Perer. in Rom. 6. Aquin. 22 ae q. 104 Art 1. ad 3m who saith A work is rendered vertuous laudable and meritorious especially because it proceeds from the will and therefore although obedience be a debt yet proceeding from a ready will t is meritorious Thirdly you reply Rather the Roman Church by asserting other merits and withall acknowledging their desert and worth to flow from Christs merits attributed more to Christs merits than they do who deny other merits for hereby are yielded to Christs actions a capacitie of meriting themselves and a communicability of the same to to other actions which are two perfections and to acknowledge two perfections in a thing is undoubtedly to give more to that thing than to acknowledge onely one Answ 1. It s fals that they attribute more to Christ who acknowledge mans merits though they affirm them to flow from Christs it s a greater glory oftentimes to be a solitary then a joynt agent Gods glory was greater for that he created the world by himself than if Angels had joyned with him in it though in their actings they must have had the Divine influence and concurrence Christs glory was greater in being the onely Redeemer than if men and Angels had concurred to the work therefore Christ glories in these words I have troden the wine-prâ—ss alone and of the people there was none with me Mine own arms brought salvation Isai 63.5 Solus Samson c. Samson alone having lost his hair is exposed to the Philistims neither Angel nor Archangel nor any heavenly Spirit nor any man either Jew or Gentile He alone fights he alone overcomes Jerom apud Lyr. Nor secondly is it any truer that these are two perfections in Christ for those are not a subjects perfections which cannot truely be attributed to that subject It s not an attributing of two perfections to God to say that he and Angels through his assistance made the world or a giving of two perfections to Christ to say that he redeemed not onely men but Devils though the Patrons of the Devils redemption might have urged it as well as you do communicability of merits they may plead that the larger the redemption is the greater is the glory of the Redeemer and that therefore they attribute more to Christ than others who say he onely redeemed mankinde We must not build upon our own imaginations and
fancies First prove that Christ hath communicated meritoriousness to mens actions and that this is one of his reall perfections and then we shall conclude that to acknowledge two perfections to Christ is to give more than to acknowledge one onely In the interim this may disswade us from believing you because Christ hath fully merited whatsoever is obtainable by a Christian either here or hereafter He hath purchased eternall redemption for us what need then of our purchasing that which is already fully paid for I will conclude with the speech of learned Rivet Meritum est personalis actio c. i. e. Merit is the personall action of the Son of God incommunicable to any of his members in regard of meriting which consists in the infinite vertue of the person meriting answerable to the excellent weight of glory Whereas therefore no simple creature is capable of this infinite vertue it will follow that Christ alone is the singular solitary and immediate cause of merit who hath therefore fully satisfied and merited whatsoever is necessary to us for salvation Rivet sum contra tract 4. 9. 17. Sect. 6. Object 2. It will be opposed all Actions besides Christs are duties and duties are inconsistent with merit Reply They are so without Covenant and acceptance so is obedience in a childe a servant a subject due to his Father his Master his Prince Nevertheless as a Father a Master a Prince making a compact to gratifie some particular act of his Childe his Servant his Subject innobles the same and intitles it to what was promised even so by the means of Gods Covenant 1 Tim. 4. Rom. 26. Hebr. 6. That he will reward certain actions of men though otherwise due and accept the same as worthy they become meritorious and their reward due upon this account Answ 1. It s Good sport to see what tuging there is amongst Papists about the ground of our actions meritoriousnes or whence it proceeds whether from Free-will as Aquinas Aquin. supr Dionys in Rom. 8.18 or from the Spirit the Fountain of good Actions as Dionysius Carthusiensis or from the habit of Charity as Azorius and Cajetan or from Divine Covenant as Scotus and some ancient Schoolmen or from the work it self as Soto Or lastly from the work it self together with the Divine compact as Bellarmine Bellarm. de Justif c. 5. lib. 17. This Author though first he mentioned Free-will yet he comes off to Covenant or compact Concil Senon decret 16. de fide apud Bennium and seems to lay all upon this and hereby as Vasquez acknowledgeth overthrows merit and condignitie which he hath been pleading for and indeed upon this account one of their Councels doth deny Condignity in these words Facietque tandem omnis misericordia c. At length mercy shall make way for every one according to the merit of their works not by absolute condignitie for the sufferings of this life are not condign to future glory but rather by the free and liberall promise of God c. Now if the promise of God be the foundation of our receiving Heaven and this promise be free then how can it be that because of this promise our works should be meritorious But leaving these boasters of unity to their hot disputes I answer secondly Gods Covenant doth not make our Actions cease to be duties for then it should nullifie the Law of God which doth injoyn acts of obedience as duties But we must not set Gods Covenant and his Law at variance as if contrary one to the other The truth is Gods free Covenant wherein for the sake of Jesus Christ he promiseth to believers salvation is an exciter of us unto obedience causing us to yield more freely and willingly than otherwise we should this is the Tenor of the Gospel Luke 1 68. c. Tit. 2 11. c. Here is first the purchase of Redemption salvation deliverance from the power of Satan and hereby an Obligation to duty A father promiseth a childe that he will make to him such lands freely this promise doth excite the child to do for his father what he commands him and to study in all things to please him whose love to him he is sensible of by the promise This the Apostle shews when he saith We lovâ— him because he loved us first Exod. 20. And indeed the morall Law runs thus I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt therefore thou shalt have none other gods before me Thus God said to Abraham I am the Almighty God walk before me and be thou perfect But because it may be thought that obedience is meritorious because God promiseth life upon it I further answer this will not follow For first Obedience such as the Law requires is not attainable by us since the fall and therefore the promise may refer to our obedience in the person of Christ whose obedience becomes ours whilest we apply our selves to him by Faith Or secondly if it refer to our personall obedience it doth respect our obedience onely as a disposition wrought by him in the Subject upon whom he will bestow life not as a proper cause of life As if a father should say If his childe please him be hopefull and take good wayes he will give him the inheritance this promise doth not suppose that the childs pleasing of his father or being hopefull and taking good wayes is the proper cause of his receiving the inheritance but it s his fathers good will that gives it him thus disposed and qualified thus it was with the Israelites God promiseth them Canaan onely requires that they should perform their duty to him as their God and Father Now should any one say that this promise made their obedience meritorious of Canaan the Scripture would contradict him which expresly saith Not for thy righteousness or for the uprightness of thine heart dost thou go to possess their land but for the wickedness of these Nations the Lord thy God doth drive them out before thee and that he may perform the word which the Lord sware unto thy Fathers c. Deut. 9.5 Thirdly God doth no where promise to accept of mens works as worthy of heaven or to give them a reward because their works are worthy or condignly meritorious or as your Rhemists speak Fully worthiâ— of everlasting life For if this were so there would be no room for grace for that which is fully worthy of somewhat hath an equality with the thing which is therefore due to it whether there be promise or no. The Texts you urge prove that God will give heaven to men in the way of godliness patient continuance in well doing c. But they cannot prove that godlyness or well doing are the proper cause of our enjoying heaven the reward being hundred fold more than what we do your instances are short of proof for it for if that Act required of a servant or subject be a part of