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
abominable unrighteousness For even immediately after the first clear preaching of Justification by Faith we find a strange generation of licentious and ungodly men who did boast of Faith in Christ without good works committing all manner of sin with greediness and without remorse This gave occasion to St. Peter St. John St. James and St. Jude who all writ after St. Paul to direct their stiles chiefly against such vain boasters of this empty Faith and their Epistles were afterwatds peculiarly called Catholick for this reason amongst others That they were all written in Vindication of the true Catholick Faith which did teach a man so to believe in Christ as to have his life answerable to his belief This account doth St. Peter give for himself saying I have written briefly exhorting and testifying That this is the true Grace of God wherein ye stand 1 Pet. 5. 12. As if he had said These two things I have chiefly proposed to my self in my writing 1. To testifie the doctrine of the Gospel concerning the Grace of God in Christ to be the onely doctrine to bring you to eternal Salvation 2. To Perswade you to stand fast and persevere in that doctrine by leading your lives answerable to your profession And this account may we give concerning the rest of the Authors of the Catholick Epistles for thus the whole Argument of St. Johns first Epistle consists of those two principal parts of the Christian Religion The Promises and the Precepts of the Gospel For to the Promises we must refer all that he speaks of Communion with God of the expiation of our sins by the blood of Christ and of the hope of eternal life To the Precepts we must refer all that he speaks of true Faith in Christ of living godly and righteously according to that Faith and of loving God sincerely or not loving the world that we may live godly and of loving our Bretheren sincerely not hypocritically That we may live righteously The like may we say for St. James and St. Jude that their Epistles are chiefly against the Solifidean Hereticks and are therefore filled with divers exhortations to several Christian Virtues which they had deserted and with Dehortations from the the contrary vices which they had committed And we may be Catholicks in this doctrine of Justification according to these Catholick Epistles and yet still deny Justification by works For it is only the Faith in Christ that is justified by its works but the man is still justified only by his Faith 7. You are as zealous for Justification by works as St. Paul is against it with what good Conscience I cannot say but sure upon no good ground yet you have appealed to St. Paul himself as the Judge of this controversie to decide on your side and accordingly to St. Paul you shall go who sure will very little befriend you by his decision For I pray what works can any man do which are not comprised under The works of the Law But it is St. Paul's most absolute Determination Therefore by the deeds or works of the Law there shall no flesh be justified Rom. 3. 20. He that looks upon the foregoing words setting forth the abominable sins that were in the best of men then living the Jews and in those times wherein they lived best even the times of David and Hezekiah for all the proofs here concerning their wickedness are taken out of the Psalms and the Prophesie of Isaiah will easily acknowledge that the words though particular in their occasion yet are universal in their Instruction and do set forth the general corruption of all men whatsoever whereby they are most grievous transgressours of the Law and most odious in the sight most obnoxious to the Justice of God for their transgressions This considered He must be led by the spirit of errour who will not see the evidence and by the spirit of contradiction who will gainsay the power of St. Paul's conclusion Therefore by the works of the Law there shal no flesh be justified for it followeth upon these Premises No Transgressour of the Law can be justified by the works of the Law But all men whatsoever are transgressours of the Law Therefore no man whatsoever can be justified by the works of the Law which is as much as to say That no man whatsoever can be justified by works for all works whatsoever are reducible to the works of the Law as being done through obedience to its authority and not rightly done but through compliance with and conformity to its righteousness And to this Argument he adds another v. 27. which may be put into this Syllogism The Law of works doth not wholly exclude mans boasting in his Justification But God will have mans boasting wholly excluded in his Justification Therefore The Law of works doth not justifie The Major is further proved by Rom. 4. 2. For if Abraham were justified by works he hath wherof to glory The Minor by Eph. 2. 8 9. For by Grace ye are saved through Faith not of works lest any man should boast what remains then for the conclusion but that the Law of works doth not justify For if it justified not Abraham who had so good works as to be called the friend of God much less will it justify me who by my wicked deeds am become Gods enemy We have yet a third argument in this very place v. 29 30. which concludes thus If Justification were by the works of the Law then onely the Jews who alone had the Law written in tables could be justified and God should regard the salvation of no other people save of the Jews But these consequents are directly against the goodness of God and the whole scope or Tenor of his Word Therefore so is that Antecedent that Justification is by works of â—…e Law These are St. Paul's three arguments in this place for his Negative conclusion which is against Justification by works And he is not contented with this but he gives us also an affirmative conclusion which is for Justification by Faith v. 24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ which he fully explaineth and confirmeth from all the causes of our Justification The principal efficient cause is God of whom it is said v. 30. It is one God that shall justify by Faith and through Faith and this needs no other proof because no other could give us our blessed Jesus for a Saviour nor can give us Faith to be made partakers of his salvation The meritorious cause is Christ the Mediator betwixt God and man v. 25. Whom God hâ—…th set forth to be a propitiation The instrumental cause is Faith v. 22. The 〈◊〉 of God which is by Faith of Jesus Christ upon all that beâ—…eve for there is no apprehending of Christ without 〈◊〉 as there is no righteousness and salvation without Christ and again v. 25. through Faith in his blood not excluding any other act of his Mediatorship
though instancing onely in the shedding of his blood which was the chiefest act of his passive obedience whereby he merited for us the remission of sins The formal cause for Justification being an action and therefore an accident cannot properly have a material cause though you by your inherent righteousness do a little intrench upon this Rule of Logick I say the formal cause of Justification is expressed v. 25. to wit The remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God not excluding sins present and to come as if they were not also remitted but onely nameing sins past that we might not think Justification doth give us a liberty of future sininng The formal cause then of Justification is the remission of sins For God doth so far justify us or accept and account us for just and righteous as far as he doth pardon our sins and absolve and acquit us from condemnation for Christs righteousness Thus it was God be merciful to me a sinner which made the Publican go away justified St. Luke 18. 13 14. not his own merit but Gods mercy And this is that doctrine which St. Paul preacheth with a Notum sit omnibus et singulis Bâ—… it known unto you therefore men and brethren that through this man is preached unâ—…o you the forgiveness of sins And by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses Acts 13. 38 39. If forgiveness of sins and justification be not one and the same how is this a good consequence Through Christ is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins and by him all that beleeve are justified For this cannot follow if to be forgiven and to be justified be not one and the same for then one thing is preached another performed one thing promised and another granted But if they be the same then we are sure this is good Divinity that the formal justice or righteousness for which God absolves us sinners in the judgement is not in and from our selves but in and from our Saviour as it is said By him all that beleeve are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses whereas if our Justification were for any inherent righteousness whether Habitual or Actual it were not by him but by our selves nor to be gotten by believing but by doing nor could we be justified from all things at once and together but from one thing after another not in an instant but successively for so we get our inherent righteousness not by the grace and mercy of God casting all our sins upon our Saviour that he may forgive them all at once and together for active Justification which respects God absolving the sinners is a forgiveing of all sins at once and together for Christs sake though passive Justification which respects the sinner to be absolved is a forgiveing of sins so often as the sinner earnestly repenting doth by a lively Faith flee unto God the Son for his merit and to God the Father for his mercy In a word if our Justification were for any inherent righteousness whether habitual or actual we could not be justified by the grace and mercy of God casting all our sins upon our Saviour that he may forgive them all but by the Law of Moses casting us into a mould of righteousness that we may not commit any sin norstand in need of forgiveness And if this be so we may bid farewel iâ—… not 〈◊〉 to the whole Gospel of Christ which is thus briefly but fully summed up by St. Paul That God was in Christ reâ—…nciling the world unto himself so by a Potential though only true believers by an actual reconciliation not imputing their trespasses unto them 2 Cor. 5 19. No man can be reconciled to God who is not justified before God for all sinners are odious to God as his enâ—…mies not reconciled unto him as his frienâ—…s therefore God looks upon a maâ—… as no 〈◊〉 wâ—…ch canâ—…ot be as he is iâ—… himself but as he is in his Saviour when he is reconciled unto him and accordingly to be reconciled is to be justified that is to be accounted righteous for as the formal cause of our reconciliation consisteth in the remssion or not imputation of our sins not imputing their trespasseâ—… unto them so doth also the formal cause of our Justification for that is no other but an absolution from the guilt of sin For Justification is not a Physiâ—…al but a Moral action of God absolving the sinner for the merit of Christ even as Sanctification is not a Moral but a Physical Action of God cleansing and purging the sinner by the Spirit of Christ The one makes the sinner righteous but the other only accounts him righteous And therefore Justification and Sanctification are as improperly confounded as Moral and Physical or real Actions For Moral actions work a change only in regard of the mans relation as He that is adopted or acquitted is changed only in his relation that instead of being guilty he is made not guilty instead of beâ—…g a stranger he is made a Son But real or Physical actions do work a change also in regard of a mans person as He that is instructed or converted hath a real change wrought upon his understanding and his will and consequently is really changed in his person So that if to justifie be not meerly a moral action that is To account as just by acquitting from the condemnation of the Law as we say but be also a real action that is to make just by a conformity to the Law as you affirm then it must needs work a real change in the Patient making him righteous from unrighteous and from righteous more righteous and by consequent Justification will be one and the same thing with Sanctification and so it will follow that the whole Tenor of the Text hath hitherto misinformed us and doth still misguide us for therein these two are reckoned up as two several and distinct mercies of Almighty God towards our sinful souls and these wrought by several means God justifying us by the righteousness of his Son and sanctifying us by the power of his Holy Spirit And from this ill consequence will yet follow a much worse That Sanctification will be supposed to be nothing for it will have nothing left to do Justification having done its work before and if it have nothing to do it cannot be an Action and if it be not an action it must be nothing These Logical absurdities besides others that are Theological cannot well be avoided by those who make inherent righteousness the formal cause of our Justification And therefore though we separate not inherent and imputative righteousness which your insolent Dogmatist blasphemously calls Putative as if it were meerly fictâ—…tious when as in truth all our righteousness is so in respect of it I say though we separate not inherent and imputative righteousness
from one another in the man that is justified for true Faith alwaies worketh obedience and God will not cannot justifie the disobedient yet we must separate them from one another in the doctrine of Justification For 't is only the Imputative righteousness which we have from our Saviour not the Inherent righteousness which we have in our selves which can acquit us at God's Judgement seat or absolve us as righteous and consequently which may be accounted the formal cause of our Justification Lastly the final cause of our Justification is set down first explicitly that it is the declaration of Gods Righteousness vers 25 26. To declare his righteousness not onely that this way of justifying a sinner is according to Gods Promise both in words and Types in all the Old Testament but also that this promise was according to the rule of righteousness because it acquitteth not a sinner without a due satisfaction for his sin nor without a true and serious aversion from himself and conversion to his Saviour Secondly the final cause of our justification is set down implicitly That it is our glorying or boasting in God alone For whereas v. 27. he excludeth all other boasting t is necessary he must include this as himself saith more largely 1 Cor. 1. 30 31. Christ Jesus is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption There is our Justification set forth in it self in its antecedents and in its consequents In it self for Châ—…st Jesus is our righteousness to deliver us from the guilt of sin by acquitting and discharging us In its antecedents for he is our wisdom to free us from the blindness and darkness of sin by enlighting and instructing us In its consequents for he is our Sanctification in this life to free us from the pollution of sin by renewing and cleansing us and our Redemption in the life everlasting to free us from the miseries of sin by receiving and by glorifying us That according as it is written he that glorieth let him glory in the Lord There is the final cause of our Justification Christ Jesus doth therefore instruct us by his most holy Word justifie us by his allsufficient merit sanctifie us by his most holy Spirit glorifie us by his all saving Mercy that we may not glory in our selves but onely in our Saviour from whom we have both the Knowledg and the Purchase and the Procurement and the Enjoyment of our salvation The Apostle having thus severally proved first his negative conclusion which is against justification by works and after that his affirmative conclusion which is for justification by Faith he at length joyns them both together in one Dogmatical determination Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith wâ—…thout the deeds of the Law v. 28. And this conclusion he again repeateth Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Jesus Christ which he immediately confirms with no less then Ten several arguments in the next Chapter all alledged to confute their foolishness in falling from Christ to the Law from Faith to works in the doctrine of Justification And being alledged by the Apostle to confute their foolishness they will either the more easily prevent or the more acceptably reform and redress Ours The first Argument is this You have received the gift of the Holy Spirit not by the works of the Law but by the hearing of Faith v. 2. but the gift of the Holy Spirit is the best pledge of your Justification or Reconciliation with God for he giveth not his Spirit to his enemies Therefore you are justified not by the Law but by the Gospel or by the Hearing of Faith The second Argument is this The same way that Abraham was justified who is the â—…ather of the faithful and to whom the Promise was made The same way must you be justified But He was justified onely by Faith v. 6 7 8 9. The Third this As many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse ver 10. but none that are under the curse are justified The fourth this The just shall live by Faith but the Law is not of Faith ver 11. 12. that is The just obtaineth life and salvation by the free grace of God apprehended by Faith in Christ but the Law alloweth no such free grace for that promiseth life only upon the now impossible condition of perfect obedience The man that doth them shall live in them The fifth this Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us ver 13. Therefore the Law could not justifie us for it did curse us and if it could in vaine was Christ made a curse for us in vaine did he do and suffer so much for our Redemption The sixth this To whom the Promises were made to him they were performed but the Promises of spiritual blessings and consequently of justification were made to Abrahams seed not seeds that is to Christ and his members not to them that should be under the Law but only to them that should be in Christ. The seventh is this The Promise of spiritual blessednesse was made to Abraham long before the giving of the Law therefore neither to be accomplished from the observation nor to be abolished by the obligation of the Law ver 17. which is further argued ver 18. If the inheritance be of the Law 't is no more of Promise but God gave it to Abraham by Promise therefore 't is not of the Law The eighth this That which was a sign of enmitie cannot be a means of reconciliation but the Law was a sign of enmitie betwixt God and man as appears in that it was ordained by Angels not immediately by God himself who being offended had withdrawn his presence which shews that men were at a distance from and at enmitie with God ver 19 20. Therefore the Law cannot be the means of our accesse to or of our reconciliation with God The ninth is this The Law cannot give life to any man by exempting him from the punishment of sin nor give righteousnesse by exempting him from the guilt of sin ver 21. 22. Therefore both righteousnesse and life are given only by Faith in Christ. The tenth and last argument is this The office of the Law was to be our School-master to bring us unto Christ to shew us the imperfection of our own and to make us desire the imputation of his righteousnesse that we might be justified by Faith ver 24. but the Law cannot go beyond its own office therefore no man can be justified either in whole or in part by the works of the Law 8. Thus have I mustred up S. Pauls Artillery to batter down our own but to keep up our Saviours righteousness in the doctrine of Justification which being a doctrine that came down from Heaven is best maintained by arguments from Heaven For as humane reason could not
the authority of a particular Church to defend his Decrees notwithstanding that some others of your profession would fain perswade the world That the Popes Decrees ought to be received and embraced as the infallible rules of the whole Catholick Church 9. Having done my weak endeavour to vindicate the Church I now come to vindicate my self and to make good my decarded instances As for that of Abraham if it reach not Siricius it must content me For if my salvation shall go no further then to be in Abrahams bosom my Religion may seek no further then for Abrahams righteousness And he must be to me a bold Dogmatist who would make me more righteous then my Father who am not righteous but for being his Son And if Saint Paul hath thought fit to argue from Abrahams faith to our faith sure I am not mistaken in my Topicks for arguing from Abrahams righteousness to our righteousness And yet I will give you a better precedent then Saint Paul for I find our blessed Saviour himself so arguing This did not Abraham John 8. 40. 10. As for my instance out of Saint Paul It is better to marry then to burn I think it doth prove Siricius a false Dogmatist for he saith It is not better to marry then to burn and I am sure that both parts of the contradiction cannot be true and dare not imagine That Siricius hath taken the true Saint Paul the false part For if for Priests to marry is to be in the flesh Then clearly it is better for Priests to burn then to marry notwithstanding Saint Paul hath said generally concerning all men It is better to marry then to burn And neither good Reason nor good Religion nor good Manners will allow any man to give an exception upon Gods general Rule or to distinguish where his Law doth not distinguish or to set up an Hypothesis against his Thesis by saying That is unlawfull for some particular men which he hath declared to be lawful for All men or to say That puts a man in the state of sin which God hath said is consistent with the state of righteousness For this is to give earth a Dominion over heaven to allow men a legislative power over God for he that in this manner judgeth the Law doth indeed condemn the Law-giver according to that assertion of the irrefragable Doctor Si enim aliquis effecit aliquid quod non sit determinatum in sacra Scriptura mortaliter peccat quia se constituit supra Deum Halensis Par. 1. qu. 68. num 1. art 2. Therefore I dare not say The Church hath determined that to be unlawful in Any which God hath determined to be lawfull in All For I am in love with that Rule in the Angelical Doctor which he hath improved out of Aristotle as he hath indeed all other Ethicks In his quae arbitrio Judicis relinquuntur viri boni est ut sit Diminitivus Poenarum 22. qu. 67. art 4. ad 1. In those things which the Law hath left to the Judges arbitrement it is the part of a good man to Diminish Punishments and if so Then much more to diminish not to encrease sins What an Heathen hath allowed to be the part of a good man pray let a Christian allow to be the part of his best Mother and not suppose the Church 10 cruel as to be willing to encrease sins when he may not suppose a good man so cruel as to be willing to encrease Punishment 11. This makes me follow the Trullane Fathers who thought it fitter Can. 13. to tax the Roman Church for making a Canon to keep married Priests from cohabiting with their wives then by consenting to such a Canon to bring themselves under the suspition of disparaging or disgracing marriage which God had instituted by his Law and both honoured and blessed by his presence For the whole Gospel say they cryeth aloud What God hath joyned let not man put asunder but if Priests that are married be in the state of damnation let us say not God but the Devil hath joyned them and their wives together and therefore man ought to put them asunder and so call marriage in them not Gods but the Devils institution The same Fathers urge further that of Saint Paul Heb. 13. 3. Marriage is honourable in all to prove it honourable in Priests for that was the whole matter then in debate And I desire you to shew me How in this enuntiation marriage is honourable in All the universal particle All doth signifie All but Priests And yet in another enuntiation Drink ye All of this the same particle All doth signifie none but Priests me thinks by this extraordinary kind of subtilty All is come to signifie None For All is none of the Clergy in one place and none of the Laity in another and in my dull sense the whole company of Christians are either Clergy or Laity I will yet further add the testimony of Adrian that I may oppose a Pope against a Pope both for the credit of this Council and for the truth of this cause For I find him in Gratian speaking these words Sextam Sanctam Synodum recipio cum omnibus Canonibus suis I receive the sixt holy Synod with all her Canons Gr. de consec dist 3. c. 29. He saith I receive the sixt holy Synod so the Council is good as to you who are so zealous for the Pope whatever it be to others He saith with all her Canons so the cause is good against you for this Canon is received among the rest And he that said all this lived above 800. years after Christ so your assertion is not good That the Apostles themselves were the first that taught and decreed that Priests ought to abstain from wives For if Pope Adrian could have alledged the least particle of an Apostolical decree against Priests marriage no doubt he would not have said He received all the Canons meerly for this one Canons sake which had been made of purpose to confute his own Church and Chair of both which he was not a little zealous meerly for following Siricius in being addicted to the contrary opinion chuse you which of the two Popes to follow Siricius or Adrian for both you cannot 12. But you say To burn doth not here signifie to be tempted but to fornicate I cannot think Saint Paul was so zealous to determine that which no man was yet so impudent as to doubt viz. It is better to marry then to fornicate for that is no more in effect then this It is better to be a man then to be a beast which surely was not the doubt concerning which the Corinthians had desired to be resolved Therefore I think this cannot be Saint Pauls meaning It is better to marry then to fornicate and I suppose you will think so too when you shall consider that from this interpretation I can justly make this inference That if Priests do fornicate first they may marry afterwards
in doing or in suffering because there is no proportion betwixt an infinite Justice and a finite satisfaction This considered may I not be as gross an Ebionite or Cherinthian by saying there is a necessity of penal satisfaction as if I say there is a necessity of legal observations for the expiation of sin do not both alike diminish and disparage the efficacy of Christs death Or may I think that the Church of Christ by using the power of the Keyes in retaining sins intends to retain where Christ remits to wiâ—… in the true Penitent to the undervaluing of Christs merit in purchasing remission of sins and Gods free grace and mercy in granting it and Gods holy Spirit in testifying it Therefore I must let the satisfaction enjoyned by the Church die with the Penitent and not be required of him after death unless I will suppose the Church both able and willing to bind where Christ hath loosed For if Christ loose not the sinner here I do not find upon what grounds to believe That he will loose him hereafter So that we see if satisfaction is to be made by the sinner All must go to Purgatory and for ought we can prove tarry there eternally And so Purgatory will in truth be Hell If satisfaction hath been made by Christ then none at all can justly go thither And so Purgatory will in truth be Nothing certain it is no other satisfaction was given for all the offences of the good Thief though he were not a Penitent till the hour of his death and with what colour of Truth can any Divine teach that God will not take this satisfaction and this alone for all other Penitents And yet this in Bellarmines acount is one of the two supporters of Purgatory the other is Venial sins which may also be shaken in good time In a word The Place the Time the Quality of Torment the manner of tormenting the Tormentor and the cause or end for which souls are said to be tormented in Purgatory are all uncertain and how can the torment it self be taken for a certainty For it is not any mans confidence can make that certain which is invested with so many intrinsecal doubts and ambiguities nor any mans arguments can make that credible which is not certain But besides the uncertainty wâ—… meet with in this temporary Tormentâ—… which will not suffer us to believe it wâ—… find it casts an uncertainty upon that eternal Torment which we confess our selveâ—… bound to believe For as you rightly sayâ—… Nothing is more certain amongst Christiaâ—… then what is de fide of Divine Faith So crave leave to inferr from that sayinâ—… Nothing is to be affirmed de fide of diviâ—… faith among Christians which is not ceâ—…tain unless we will labour to overthroâ—… the Certainty of the Christian faith Fâ—… to require men to believe an uncertaiâ—… equally with a certainty is to invite theâ—… to disbelieve a certainty since it is not possible they should have one and the same Divine Faith for uncertainties and for certainties And therefore to teach men to believe Purgatory which is uncertain is the ready way to make them not believe Hell which is most certain Nor is it to be wondered That Bellarmines certainties concerning this doctrine should be so much enfeebled by his own uncertainties concerning the same no more then it is to be wondered that the certainty of our Christian saith should depend not upon the wit of man but upon the word of God 7. For this doctrine of Purgatory is so far from being taught in the Word of God that if you should ask those Disciples who have been most and best instructed in the Word Have ye received the doctrine of Purgatory since ye believed They must answer you We have not so much as heard whether there be any Purgatory and yet the same men will plainly tell you They have heard there is an holy Ghost and have received him though your over-bold Peltanus would perswade the world That Purgatory is as expresly taught in the holy Scriptures as the Unity of God and yet that is a little more expresly taught then the Deity of the Holy Ghost though blessed be God the Scripture is very express in both these Doctrines But in the whole Book of God there is neither in words nor in sense neither explicitly nor implicitly any such thing as your Purgatory which we cannot say concerning any Article of the Christian Faith That the thing we are bound to believe is not so much as really or virtually named in all the Holy Bible For an sit is as truly a precognition in the object of faith as in the subject of any question by that Rule of the Apostle if reason will not serve How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard and how shall they hear without a Preacher Rom. 10. 14. We cannot believe what we have heard we cannot hear any supernatural truth unless God preach it and if he hath been the Preacher we may find the doctrine in his written Word which the most zealous defenders of this your doctrine durst not assert in former times For a very eminent Schoolman of our own Couâ—…rey Iohannis Bachâ—…nus lib. 4. dist 45. quâ—…unica answers all the Texts that were in his daies commonly alledged out of the Bible to prove Purgatory which were then but three though since they have swelled into a far greater number The first Text was that of 2 Mac. 12. To which his answer is Libri Macchabaeorum non sunt de Canone Bibliae ut dicit Hieronymus The Books of the Macchabees are not of the Canon of the Bible as saith Saint Hierom Nor doth your Cardinals new subtilty invalidate this answer Dico librum Maccha non esse Canonicum apud Judaeos sed apud Christianos esse I say the Books of the Macchabees were not Canonical among the Jews but they are among the Christians For the Christian Church had the Canon of the Old Testament from the Church of the Jews who not daring to make themselves a Canon took that which God gave them and therefore left out the Macchabees because they were not in the Ark that is to say not in that Canon which God had given them Nor hath God given the Christian Church power and authority to make that or any other Book Canonical which himself hath not made so for the Text is plain which saith To them were committed the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 2. Which words only shew a Trust of keeping not a power of making the Oracles of God either in Jew or Christian. The second Text then alledged to prove Purgatory was that of 1 Cor. 3. To which his answer is That the Apostle there speaketh of that fire which shall burn the world at the day of Judgement therefore that place will not prove such a a purging by fire as the Doctors suppose before the day of Judgement Benè probatur Purgatio ista conflagrationis in
in c. Sicut praecepta Legis humanae ordinant hominem ad quandam communitatem humanam Ita praecepta legis divinae ordinant hominem ad quandam communitatem seu rempublicam hominum sub Deo Ad hoc autem quod aliquis in aliquâ communitate beâ—…è commoratur duo requiruntur Quorum primum est ut benè se habeat ad eum qui praeest communitati aliud autem est ut benè se habeat ad alios communitatis consocios comparticipes oportet igitur quòd in lege divinâ primò ferantur quaedam praecepta ordinantia hominem ad Deum inde alia quaedam praecepta ordinantia hominem ad alios proximos simul convenientes sub Deo As the praecepts of humane Laws do order men to a Communion or Common wealth amongst themselves so the Precepts of divine laws do order men to a Communion or Common-wealth under God Now that a man may be fit to live in any Communion two things are required The first is that he behave himself well towards the Head of that Communion the next that he behave himself well towards his fellow-members and co-partners in it Accordingly in the Divine Law first we meet with precepts teaching a man his duty towards his God after these we meet with other precepts teaching him his duty towards his neighbours who together with himself do live under the government of that same God Nothing can be spoken either more plainly or more punctually to shew that the Decalogue as the Rule of Justice is the gâ—…ound of Christian Communion That whosoever desires to be of that Communion must first learn his Duty towards his God the Head of it then his duty towards his neighbours his fellow-members in it That these Duties are as distinct as their objects taught in two several distinct orders of precepts some concerning God others concerning his neighbours And that all save God alone are to be accounted as his neighbours in this Communion as all living with himself under one and the same Head which is God From which premises we may well inferr this conclusion That what Duty belongs to the Head only may not be practised towards any of the members without a confusion of Gods Order a violation of Gods Law and an invasion of Gods Right which must needs be highly displeasing to all the true members of this Communion whether in heaven or in earth who all agree in nothing more then in honouring their Head and therefore cannot but detest whatsoever shall tend to his dishonour for since himself hath said I am the Lord that is my name and my glory will I not give to another Isa. 42. 8. we may be ashamed must be afraid of giving that Glory to Saints and Angels which God will not part withall for if he deny the gift how dare we give that 's to give in sin there 's reason for our fear If he will not give it they will not take it that 's to give in vain there 's reason for our shame For as in mens natural so in Christs mystical Body all the members alike are made to serve the Head and in order to the Head it is that they serve one another So that there is not one member which will not neglect to serve it self and much more its fellow-member when it should serve its Head Let God but have the same priviledge among Christians as without doubt he hath the same right for they are that body whereof he is the Head and no man will hereafter so misplace his devotion so mispend his time so mistake himself as to be worshipping of an Angel or a Saint whiles he should be worshipping of God I will not ask With what faith I can say I believe in an Angel instead of I believe in God or to which Article of the Creed this Religious worship as you call it is reducible that it may be done in faith though what is not of faith is sin more then exceeding sinful in our Prayers for in that I have proved this worship cannot be without fâ—…lly I have sufficiently proved it cannot bâ—… with faith Nor will I ask how it is agreeable with our Lords most holy Prayer the pattern of all sound prayers for me to say Our Brother instead of Our Father which art in heaven though if I pray out of Christs Communion who will not cannot joyn with me in saying Our Brother but will and doth joyn with me in saying Our Father I cannot pray in hope because I must also pray without Christs Intercession through which alone God heareth my prayers for having proved that this worship cannot be with faith I need not prove it must be without hope I only ask How this worship can be with Charity I mean that Charity which hath God only for its immediate object since Faith Hope and Charity are three Theological vertues no less inseparable from themselves then they ought to be inseparable from our souls And if this worship may not be with Gods Charity why should my Charity be with this worship If it love not God why should I love it and if it love another instead of God how doth it love God Sure I am God himself hath determined in a case very like this That They who embrace a false worship do hate the true God Exod. 20. 5. Visiting the iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me And how can good Christians with any conscience do that which may come under the least temptation or suspition of hateing God Wherefore this false worship must needs so trouble and startle true Believers as to be the cause of division and dis-union for ever in the Church of Christ dividing man from man to the worlds end because it divides man from God for whose sake and in whose name and love we ought to follow and embrace the Christian Communion For the same Voice which calls us to Communion in worshipping first calls us to Religion in the worship nor is it possible for any man to shew a Text which saith O come let us worship there 's the Communion which doth not likewise say worship God there 's the Religion Thus saith the man after Gods own heart and therefore nearest his mind O come let us worship and fall down and kneel before the Lord our maker Psal. 95. 6. So establishing publick as also establishing true and forbidding false worship For Rectum index sui obliqui he which saith O come let us worship and fall aown and kneel before the Lord our maker doth by the rule of contraries likewise say Let us not worship nor fall down nor kneel before any that is not our maker Wherefore since you have most shamefully violated this command you were best to let your repentance follow yout shame that your shame may not fore-run your confusion Put then your own translation into your practice come with your Venite adoremus
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
overthrows the analogie of Faith in the Apostles Creed concerning Christs natural body for that was conceived by the holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucified dead and buried ascended into heaven and now sitteth on the right hand of God which cannot be truly said of Christs Sacramental Body in the blessed Eucharist So this Proposition The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the lads must be taken Theologically that is in the sense of the speaker because taken Grammatically that is in the bare sense of the words it overthrows the analogy of righteousness in Mâ—…ses his Decalogue ascribing that to an Angel which is proper and peculiar to God alone by vertue of the first Commandement as to be the God before whom Abraham and Isaac did walk the God which had fed Jacob all his life and had redeemed him from all evil and could bless the lads by his own authority both with temporal and with spiritual blessings â—…or he that saith Thou shalt have no other Gods but me saith Thou shalt not have an Angel instead of me as if thy Fathers had walked before him thou wert to be fed from him to be redeemed by him to 〈◊〉 blessed through him The analogie o Righteousness or of Religion in the first Commandement admits not this interpretation therefore though it be Grammatically true in the sense of the words yet 't is Theologically false in the sense of the speaker for Gods Spirit speaketh not contradictorily to himself And being proved to be Theologically false because it is against the analogy of righteousness or of Religion it is easie to prove it Logically false because it is against the analogy of reason And truly so it is in three respects 1. In respect of the Proposition The Predicate not agreeing with the Subject and therefore though an Angel be named yet he is not intended because he is named with such a property or attribute as belongs only to God viz Redeeeming from all evil and Blessing with all good 2. This interpretation is Logically false in respect of the connexion the Proposition not agreeing with the Antecedents and Consequents For an Angel cannot be the God before whom Iacobs Fathers walked by whom Iacob himself was fed and redeemed from whom Iacobs children could be blessed 3. This interpretation is Logically false in respect of the deduction because if an Angel be here meant as he is named it will follow that an Angel hath the Kingdome and Power may have the Glory and worship of God And now pray Sir consider how distant are your proceedings from that love of truth that candor of Ingenuity that care of conscience which should be among Christian Divines both in rejecting those interpretations of the holy Scriptures against praying to Saints whether Angels or Men which are undoubtedly true not only Grammatically but also Theologically and Logically and in embracing those interpretations for praying to Saints which are undoubtily false if not Grammatically yet at least both Thelogically and Logically in all these respects And such will be found all the interpretations of the Text alledged by your late Divines in this argument if they be diligently examined either according to the analogy of Religion or according to the analogy of Reason But I return to this which cannot be made true in the judgement of the most eminent Divines both of Greek and Latine Church I will name you two St. Chrysostome for the Greek and St. Thomas of Aquine for the Latine Church 1. St. Chryst. for the Greek Church who upon these words The Angel which redeemed me from all evils bless the lads gives us this gloss 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 66. in Genesin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O thankful resolution O Soul loving of God how doth the remembrance of his benefit dwell and lodge in his heart That God saith he whom my Fathers pleased who sed me from my youth until now who from the beginning delivered me from all evil He who hath shewed such signal providence towards me He bless these Children See here in St. Chrysostomes gloss Jacob prayed to God not to the Angel to bless his grand Children And He was the mouth of the Greek Church 2. St. Thomas of Aquine saith the same but much more perspicuously as to the Confutation of Bellarmines errour though not as to the confirmation of Gods truth For whereas Bellarmine saith Jacob invocated an Angel The Angelical Dr. saith he did not but that he called the God of his Fathers His Angel for these are his words upon the place Videtur quod Deum Patrum suorum suum vocat Angelum sui protectorem salvatorem unde postea in singulari dicit Benedicat pueris istis It seems that he calleth the God of his Fathers his Angel and his Protector and saviour whence it is that afterward he saith in the singular number though he had named two sc. God and the Angel He bless the lads nisi forte Angelicam benedictionem divinae benedictioni tanquam comministram sive subministraÌ„ adjungat sed modus loquendi quem tenet si benè advertatur magis sapit primum modum Unless you will say that He annexeth the Angelical benediction as ministerial to the Divine But the manner of his speech if it be well observed rather calleth for the first interpretation This was Aquinas his judgement after his most serious deliberation upon the words and we may well look upon it as the judgement of the Latine Church the rather because He was the chief Captain of the Schoolemen and though he laboured to prove the same conclusion with Bellarmine yet not by the same praemisses but he leaves out this as not thinking it a fit proof and is contented only with that of Job 5. 1. Voca si est qui tibi respondeat ad aliquem sanctorum convertere which is another of your Cardinals allegations out of the Text to prove the Invocation of Saints 9. And He is so over zealous for this proof lib. 2. de Verbo Dei cap. 12. That when Chemnitius had said the Text was corruptly interpreted in the Vulgar translation His answer is Fortè fuisse ebrium quum hoc scripsit Chemnitium Perchance Chemnitius was drunk when he writ this Bad words are seldom signs of a good cause but often more then signs they are proofs of a bad temper And we know that there is a sort of men which are drunken but not with wine that stagger but not with strong drink Isa. 29. 9. Those upon whom the Lord hath poured out the spirit of deep sleep and hath closed their eyes v. 10. and that this judgement is chiefly denounced against them who teach the fear of God by the precept of men v. 13. or who teach for Doctrines the Commandements of men as our blessed Saviour hath explained those words Mat. 15. 9. for concerning those it is said The wisedome of their wise men shall perish and the understanding of
to differ from the whole scope of the Law and of the Gospel since it is undeniable that Christ with his righteousnesse is the end of the Law and the subject of the Gospel This is St. Peters Divinitie Act. 10. 43. To Him give all the Prophets witnesse that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins i. e. in one word shall be justified And indeed what were all the propitiatory and expiatory sacrifices of the Law but so many types of Christs sacrifice upon the Crosse who is the Propitiation for our sins 1 John 2. 2. so that in truth this part of the Ceremonial Law was little other than a dark representation of the Gospel foreshewing in shadows what the Gospel was to declare in substance that the Lamb of God should tâ—…ke away the sinnes of the world whence St. Paul ascribeth the Justification of the Jew and of the Gentile to one and the same sacrifice Aâ—… Christ hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour Eph. 5. 2. Their sacrifices did expiate sin only by vertue of this sacrifice And this is that which the same Apostle proves to the Jews in his Epistle which he peculiarly sent to them the sum whereof is briefly this That Jesus Christ whom he did preach to them in that Epistle being the eternal Sonne of God coessential and coequal with his Father perfect God and perfect man in one and the same person was that Messiah which God from the beginning of time had promised and in the fulnesse of time had sent into the world as the only King to Govern as the only Priest to reconcile as the only Prophet to instruct his Church according to the Covenant made before the Law to the types and figures given under the Law and all the predictions explications additions and confirmations by the Prophets so that unlesse they would reject all the documents given to them in their own Law and by their own Prophets throughout all the Old Testament they must thankfully acknowledge heartily embrace and dutifully obey Jesus Christ as the sole Author of their redemption and salvation or to speak yet neerer to our debate though not to Gods Truth as the sole author of Justification to redeem them from the guilt and of sanctification to redeem them from the bondage of their sins This is the Doctrine of the whole Epistle to the Hebrews which is briefly delivered in the first words and confirmed and enlarged in the sequele of that Epistle God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the Fathers by the Prophets hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son There 's our blessed Saviour as Prophet to instruct the Church Whom he appointed heir of all things by whom also he made the worlds There he is as King to govern the Church which is his inheritance as man his workmanship as God When he had by himself purged our sins There he is as Priest to offer himself for a Sacrifice to reconcile the Church And all the Epistle after this in the doctrinal part of it is nothing else but an enlargement upon these Three Heads shewing the necessity of Christs three Offices and the excellency of his Person according to each Office viz. according to his Kingly Office in the first and second according to his Prophetical Office in the third and fourth Chapters and according to his Priestly Office in the rest till the nineteenth Verse of the tenth Chapter After which He treateth of those Offices and Duties which belong to Christians and that in the same method or manner as he had before of the Offices belonging unto Christ first briefly summing them up together and then fully and largely explaining them For so cap. 10. v. 22. He exhorts us to Faith and a good Conscience v. 23. To a firm hope and undaunted profession v. 24. To charity and to good works v. 25. To the publike exercise of all those duties of Piety which God had appointed for the nourishment and the increase of Faith Hope and Charity and the rest of the Epistle afterwards is but an enlargement upon these Will you say because he speaks so much for good works in the latter part of his Epistle He therefore requires them to Justification as well as Faith Look on the tenth Chapter you will soon recall that saying For there it is proved That the Law Sacrifices could not take away sin that is could not justifie those who offered them by two irresistible Topicks ab absurdo ab impossibili First From the command of the Law enjoyning those Sacrifices to be repeated every year which had been needless and therefore absurd if the worshippers could have been purged by them so as to have had no more Conscience of sin vers 23. Secondly From the nature of the Sacrifices that were offered which were not of so great an efficacy as to purge sin much less of so great an excellency as to expiate it For it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and of Goats should take away sins v. 4. And surely he that makes it his work to shew the weakness of the Law-Sacrifices to take away sin could not make it his intent to set up the Gospel-Sacrifices whether of the Heart by Meditation or the Lips by Prayer or of the Hand by Alms-deeds as expiations for our sins For the same Objections still hold against the one which were made against the other The necessity of their repetion is as great the proof of their imperfection is far greater I ask the soul of the most religious Votary that now lives whether he dare say that he ever prayed so devoutly but that either for want of firmness in his attention or of zeal in his affection he needed to ask forgiveness for his Prayers There was nothing of sin in the worst of Legal there is something of sin in the best of Evangelical Sacrifices and how then can it make an atonement for another sin 14. Therefore what ever be the excellency of good works as to Gods acceptance or the efficacy of them as to mans salvation yet they cannot be so excellent as to deserve nor so efficacious as to procure the Justification of a sinner no it cost more to redeem a soul so that He even the most righteous man that is must let that alone for ever Non dabit Deo placationem suam pretium redemptionis animae suae He can give to God what may please his goodness not what may appease his anger or satisfie his Justice He can offer up the homage he cannot offer up the price of his soul Accordingly we are bound to interpret all these and the like Texts concerning good works as declaring their indispensable necessity not as declaring their meritorious efficacy to our salvation as shewing them ot be consequents of the Faith that justifieth not Causes of Justification That honour must
Church as appeares in that these words which are the 6 7 8. Canons of the second Milevitane Council in Binnius for the Western are the 115 116 117. Canons of the Council of Carthage in Balsamon for the Eastern Churches 17. Wherefore this being an undoubted Principle among all Christians for who can doubt that which comes to us Originally from the Scriptures and derivatively from the Catholick Church That all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God Rom. 3. 23. we cannot reasonably but only perversely deny this conclusion That no man can be justified by his own righteousnesse For having sinned he must needs be under the condemnation of sin and coming short of the glory of God in his duty or obligation he must also come short of his own glory in his merit of justification for his sin which makes him come short of righteousness must needs also make him come short of being reputed righteous For shall not the Judge of all the earth do right how then shall he acquit that man for righteous whom he knows to be a sinner we find he hath in effect given a contrary judgment already Hag. 2. 12 13. where this is the summe of his determination concerning two questions which neerly concerne this case 1. Whether a man that is unclean may contract purity from the touch of hâ—…ly things which he denies 2. Whether Holy things do not contract impurity from the touch of a man that is unclean which he affirmes and then makes this inference ver 14. So is this People and so is this Nation before me saith the Lord and so is every work of their hands and that which they offer there is unclean The same reason holds in us as in them The Jew was unclean by the touch of a dead body and so is the Christian. O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from this body of death Rom. 7. 24. The Jew by his uncleanness did pollute the holy things so doth the Christian even those holy works that proceed from Gods Holy Spirit and Grace The holy things by their Purity did not make him pure among the Jews who was unclean in himself so is it also among the Christians The best inherent righteousness we have from Gods Grace doth not purge away the impurity of that sin which we have from our selves therefore we must confesse that because of our Original and actual uncleanness every work of our hands and that which we offer to our God is unclean and consequently our works cannot justifie themselves much less can they justifie us And we find the same judgment of God confirmed likewise in the New Testament Luk. 17. where the Lepers pray heartily Jesus Master have mercy on us there 's one good work of piety and devotion they obey readily in going to shew themselves to the Priests as they had been commanded there 's another good work better than the former for obedience is better than sacrifice And one of them when he saw that he was cleansed turned back and with a loud voyce glorified God and fell down on his face at our Saviours feet and gave him thanks there 's many good works together one of devotion he glorified God another of zeal with a loud voyce a third of reverence he fell down on his face a fourth of humility at our Saviours feet a fifth of praise and thanksgiving he gave him thanks here is soul and body and all the powers and faculties of both wholly set upon good works yet our Saviour saith Arise go thy way thy Faith hath made thee whole v. 19. So is it also in the leprosie of our souls we are bound to pray heartily Jesus Master have mercy on us and to shew our selves to the Priests that is to use all the means of salvation which God hath appointed in the communion and by the Ministers of his Church yet when all is done if we will speak with our Saviour we must say to the Leper thy Faith hath made thee whole The good works may be acknowledged as adjunctâ—… but not as causes of the cure that must be attributed only to Faith in him who is the Physician of our souls For without doubt that holy ejaculation The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God though he be not clean according to the purification of the sanctuary is a prayer as needful now as it was in the dayes of Hezekiah or it would not have been left upon record for us 2 Câ—…ron 30. 19 It is the Lords Pardon not the mans preparation that makes him clean according to the purification of the Sanctuary and so Kimchi confesseth in his gloss upon those words ver 20. And the Lord healed the people that is saith he The Lord forgave their sin according to that of the Psalmist heal my soul for I have sinned against thee The Lord pardoned their sins that he might accept them and why should not we say that pardon and forgivenesse of our sins is the best ground and means of our acceptance with God For this is the only way to be clean according to the purification of the Sanctuary that is to be clean from all sin even to be made clean of which it is said The blood of Jesus Christ his Son 〈◊〉 us from all sin 1 Joh. 1. 7. If I haâ—… but one sin left upon my soul not washed away by Faith in his blood and the tears of my own repentance I shall not be clean enough to appear before the Throne of his Grace much lesse to appear at the bar of his justice I shall not be innocent enough to serve him much lesse to be judged by him I shall not be able to stand comfortably before his mercy and much less to stand confidently against his Judgement Therefore can I not hope to be saved by the first innocency that of obedience or of righteousness but only by the second innocency that of Faith and repentance And if any other man hath a better hope I pray God he may not find a worse salvation But surely God himself in his consultation how to save the Israelites concludes to do it not by their obedience but by their Faith and repentance Jer. 3. 19. But I said How shall I put thee among the children and give thee a pleasant land a goodly heritage There 's his consultation how to save them And I said thou shalt call me My Father and shalt not turn away from me there 's his conclusion to save them by their Faith and by their repentance By their Faith Thou shalt call me My Father and by their repeâ—…tance Thou shalt noâ—… tuâ—…n away from me that is not so turn away but thou shalt return again and therefore this promise is not to be interpreted of their obedience but of their repentance he that is most obedient in some cases cannot say he doth not turn away from God in other but he that is truly penitent can