justified and in grace were concerned to acknowledge If God would be extreme to mark what is done amiss who could abide it or stand Psal 130. and to pray Enter not into judgment with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal 143.2 that is if thou in strict judgment wilt examine what he does The latter part of the verse is sometimes thus repeated by the Apostle No flesh can be justified Rom. 3.20 Gal. 2. v. 16. which word flesh Mr. Spencer vainly takes hold on as implying one not yet spiritual but carnal under the guilt of sin and corruption of nature So pa. 158. But David speaks it in relation to himself No man can be justified not thy servant by his own doings So that still upon the same reason no man under the Gospel can be justified in the sight of God by what he does because the Law convinces him of sin and to the same purpose it is said We make God a Liar if we say we have not sin 1 Io. 1.10 So that if God enter with him into judgment he cannot be justified if the Lord mark what is done amiss he cannot abide it What he saith to Gal. 2.16 as to the works of the Law is the same he said above to Rom. 3.28 and needs no farther reply But that which is the main exception and will ease us of farther trouble in this controversie is his limiting of the word Justify in those and the other places of S. Paul's Epistles acknowledging they speak every where of the first justification which is not by works So then the Protestant position as he calls it of justification by faith only stands good as they intend it by faith only i. e. not by works and this also shews their exception against the word only is needless and therefore the mistake he fastens on us pa. 148. groundless the word only being but exclusive to works which he and his Council exclude from the first justification Now for his Second Justification to which he retires from the force of all that S. Paul saith of justification Sanctification and increase of grace and righteousness it is not worth our contending about as to proper speech which controversies require for we acknowledge all that he or his Council speaks of this second justification to be done in sanctification and to be properly so called viz. the renovation and increase of that grace and sanctification received and that such increase is made by works or acting Philosophy teaches it is so in ordinary habits much more in these which have also the influence and assistance of Gods spirit for their increase But if he would have said any thing to purpose whereby this Increase of righteousness by works should seem to deserve to bear any sense of justification he should have resolved us as I noted above whether a man in grace may by good works merit the remission of his sin into which he is fall'n as David and as he granted pa. 142. that the first justification could not be merited by works so he should have told us plainly whether remission and restauration of a justified person after his fall which may be called in some sort a second justification can by any works of that person be merited They sometimes pretend to this when they urge Daniels saying to Nebuchadnezzar Redeem break off thy sins by righteousness c. 4.27 Where let the Translation go as they would have it by the word redeem yet must they confess this remission of sins to Nebuchadnezzar would have been the first justification and not to be acquired by works in like manner they must acknowledge their impertinency when by Luc. 7.47 for she loved much they endeavour to prove that her love was the cause of her forgiveness when this was her first justification But thus do they confound their first and second justification in their proofs of justification by works and being pressed by argument they retire for answer to their second Justification That which they cite out of Revel 22. justificetur adhuc let him be justified still is all the pretence they have for this second justification where we accord with them that by the justificetur is meant a progress and increase of righteousness but it s their mistake to make this which is sanctification to be justification which stands in remission of sins That part of the Trent decree which pretends to this justification by the increase of righteousness Exhibendo arma justitiae in Sanclificationem cap. 10 de justific saith by yeilding up our members weapons of righteousness unto sanctification and thereby confesseth it is sanctification rather then justification And therefore it is to little purpose that he saith pa. 154. If Protestants would conclude any thing against us they must produce a Text which saith good works of such as are justified already done by virtue of the grace of Christ do not justify that is augment and increase that righteousness already received and make us more just for we must tell them this is sanctification and no text of Scripture uses the word justify in that sense unless that place of Revel c. 22. be so translated and we need not fear it should be seeing the word there is to signify no more then a continuance in the state of justification or an increase of righteousness which we grant to good works yea we grant them more the increase of the favour of God if they will put that also into their second justification for the more good works a justified person doth the more he is accepted of God But such a person if he fall into sin as David did must come unto remission of sins Justification by Faith by the same way as he did in his first justification viz. by faith and repentance And albeit repentance has its works or workings and charity also in the first justification or remission of sins as Iona 3. ult God saw their works i. e. of repentance in turning from their evil way and our Saviour saw the works of repentance and love in Mary Magdalen Luc. 7. yet it is faith that properly justifies because they are required according to their measure as conditions present but it is faith from whose apprehensions the acts of repentance and charity do arise and take their advance its faith which has a proper efficacy in laying hold upon and bringing in its hand as it were the meritorious cause for justification and so that only and properly on our part said to justifie To conclude that other mistake which he would fasten on us Justifying Faith in regard of the word faith pa. 153. is needless we must understand saith he a faith vivificated informed animated by charity and other Christian virtues joyned with it The impropriety I may say absurdity of his speech in saying faith is informed and vivificated by charity and other vertues we noted * Nu. 6. above where he said it was vivificated
Justification will not continue I say till Faith does so engage the Soul it is not a believing with the whole heart not a Justifying Faith Chrys in Phil. c. 3. v. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As St. Chrysostom who often attributes the whole to Faith alone requires it should be a working Faith as where he saith Faith ought not to be simply by it self or alone and then shews how our willingness to suffer and in like manner our well doing is from faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our fellowship with him in sufferings is from faith for he that believes he shall reign with Christ will be willing to suffer I need not trouble the Reader here with the Particular sentences of the Fathers using that expression of Sola Fides Faith only The Cardinal has recited many Bell. de Justificat l. 1. c. 25. and undertakes to answer them Well he acknowledges the Testimonies and for his Answers they come to this That Faith only is set against the works of Moses Law It is true that it is sometimes so but we must not think that the Apostle or Fathers denying Justification to be sought or had by the works of the Law do therefore admit our works under Grace to serve in the stead of the other for our Justification but do rather imply that no men Iew or Christian can be justified by doing what they are bound to do by the Law or Commandement under which they are as * Chap. IV. p. 102 103. above was shewen more amply Another of the Cardinals Answers is That faith only excludes the outward work only as in the sentences there cited out of Origen and Chrys but not Repentance and Charity How it does not exclude Repentance and Charity we said hard above i. e. it admits them as Conditions of Remission but not to that condition or Causality rather which the Church of Rome advances Charity to in the work of our Justification which is not a little to the prejudice of the imputed Righteousness and of that singular act of Faith for which it s said we are Iustified by faith only But when the Cardinal tels us those Fathers said by faith only because the outward work was wanting not to exclude Repentance and Charity he should have told us whether he meant charity in habit only or as sending forth its elicit Acts and inwardly working I suppose he will think it as great an absurdity to attribute Justification to a bare not working Habit as to a bare and not working faith which they falsly reproach us with and then he should have remembred he made Habitual inherent Righteousness the Formal Causs of Justification excluding the Actual that is charity as it is acting inwardly or outwardly for this it must come to A third sort of Answer the Cardinal and generally they of the Church of Rome have for Testimonies of Fathers which by Faith only exclude all righteousness in our selves and cannot be shuffled off by saying they exclude thereby all righteousness of Works before Grace or done by power of our Free-wil without Grace then to say all righteousness in us is excluded and sometime denied as of our selves because so we have none but of the gift of God This is in it self a great Truth but makes no apposite answer to Faith only which we have not of our selves any more then we have other Graces and which is the gift of God as much as they When Chrysost saith upon that of the Apostle Rom. 5.2 Chrys in Ro. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we have by Faith access into this Grace of Justification reconciliation and peace with God We brought nothing with us but faith only and when Oecumenius upon Rom. 3.24 Oecumen in Rom. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith likewise bringing with us Faith only to our Justification it cannot be answered we brought nothing else of our selves for neither did we bring Faith of our selves to our Justification seeing therefore we do bring besides Faith some things else as above granted they may have their place either as preparatives and dispositions to our Justification or as requisite conditions to the Remission that is in our Justification or as fitting qualifications of the subject or person justified yet Faith we bring as that which has a singular property and efficacy for the receiving this great benefit of Justification for which it may be said Fide Sola by Faith only And this we are taught to say both by Fathers and Scripture that so we may attribute the more to Christs merit and righteousness which Faith apprehends and the more lessen or take off from any righteousness in our selves We may shut up this discourse with that saying of Theophylact which the Cardinal cites as objected by the Protestants Fides sola habet in se Iustificandi virtutem ex Theo. phyl in Ep. ad Gal. cap. 3. Faith only has the power in its self of Iustifying cannot be answered as the Cardinal would have it Faith only is said to have that power because there is nothing can justifie without Faith for so there are other things without which there can be no justification but among all those things or Graces Faith only can be said properly to Justifie And now for Iustification by works Not justification by Works in the prime sense it is in vain to put it to the trial of Antiquity For as we may observe the Cardinal though he concludes his 4. Book of Justification with this Question and pretends several places of Scripture to prove good works do Justifie yet has he nothing from Antiquity for it Indeed the Fathers did not know the Romish second Justification to which the Romanists when they are forced to speak distinctly do restrain their Justifying works acknowledging all good works follow Justification in the first and proper sense and that this second Justification is but increase in righteousness as * Chap. IV. nu 2. above shewed We grant and so will the Fathers Vide ch IV. nu 8.105 106 107. that we are of duty to encrease in righteousness and that our often actings or doing good works do augment the inhaerent Righteousness and that the more we do good works the more Favour we have with God the more acceptable are we to Him but there are two words we have cause to reject Merit Iustification That good Works cause an encrease of the habit and do obtain additional grace we grant but if they will stand upon the word Merit properly taken we shall see in the next Section Our good works cannot properly merit Also we see no reason why this should be call'd Justification to make a confusion in this Doctrine of so great concernment Mans Justification before God and to deceive people when they have the doctrine of Justification by Works barely delivered unto them If the Romanists would allow what they ought to the Application of Christs merit and righteousness and give
of authority as well as excellency of grace and holiness and still there is such Authority in the Bishops and Pastors of the Church and that Authority not Civil properly but Ecclesiastical and upon that Authority a subjection due to them Heb. 13.17 in things pertaining to Religion and Conscience and the honour or worship thereupon due to them as it may in his large sense be called Religious which we every where grant without prejudice to our or advantage to his Cause so may it better be call'd the Civil Ecclesiastical worship because as in the world so in the Church there is a policy or government for the Church below as a City and society within it self and does also with that above make up the whole City of God Therefore are we call'd by the Apostle Concives fellow Citizens Eph. 2. But 2ly Albeit Saints and Angels belong to the higher part of this City the triumphant and as to the state they enjoy are of higher dignity and glory then any in the militant or part below yet being not capable of that conduct of souls as the Governours and Pastors in the lower city are they cannot challenge that subjection from us nor the worship that arises upon it Nor can they by reason of their distance receive from us those tenders of worship and honour which are applied to holy men living * Eo cultu dilectionis societatis qu in hâ—c vita Sancti homines contra Faust l. 20. l. 21. S. Aug. determins it thus We honor the Martyrs with that worship of love and fellowship wherewith Holy men in this life are worshiped Of fellowship with reference to the Apostles fellow-citizens and of holy men living with reference to supernatural gifts and graces and the honour thence arising such as we give to men upon the account of holiness and such graces though they have no authority over us and let the Saints departed have all such honour inward or outward that they are capable of Lastly If this Author will drive those places of Scripture he cited for authority of Saints and Angels so far as to prove the worship due which they give unto them as his Mr. the Cardinal endeavoured by the like places to defend the invoking of them He may take answer from S. Aug. determining what manner of worship is due unto them as above the worship of love and fellowship and * Charitatis non servitutis Aug. de vera Relig. c. 55. elswhere the worship of charity not subjection or service or from S. Paul Eph. 2. saying we are fellow-Citizens or from the Angel Rev. I am thy fellow-servant And if they will still make use of such places as this Author alleaged it will be easie to shew how inconsequent the argument is from such places of Scripture how insufficient to prove such a worship as is allowed by the Church of Rome To conclude This Author will not say we are mistaken Recapitul of the premises when we affirm that all worship properly religious and according to his first and stricter sense is due to God and not to be exhibited to any Creature Nor can he say we are mistaken in proving that truth by this Scripture Thou shalt worship the Lord c. unless he will deny this Scripture speaks of worship properly religious It remains then that our mistake if any must be in concluding by this Scripture their creature-worship to be unlawful That we are not herein mistaken appears by what has been said already First by that which is said above to shew the worship they exhibit by Oblations Incense Invocation Vows adoration of Images belongs and must be reduced to that sort of worship which is proper to Religion in the first and stricter sense Not only the effect of Religion but part of it I mean as performed and misapplyed by them and I would it were not the greater part of their Religion Secondly by the insufficiency of what this Author has said to the contrary in putting off the imputation from themselves and fastning the mistake on us As first his pretence from the immediate signification or bare importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the text which speaks a bowing or prostration of the body and is common to the religious and the civil worship to the worship of God and the Creature and accordingly all the instances and examples he brought speak no more then that outward reverence and worship shewen in bowing the body Whereas this comes not home to our charge laid upon their worship and cautioned against by this Scripture viz. their worship exhibited to creatures by the above said acts and exercises of religion and devotion Secondly his pretence of religious in his larger sense as sufficient which is as short of the purpose as the former for so all the duties of the second Table as we saw above may be called religious i. e. pertaining to and commanded by Religion but here we speak of the acts of worship proper to religion or exhibited in the way and exercises of Religion and Devotion which in their worship are such as are proper to the worship of God the same by which our religion and devotion to God is exercised as Vows Invocation c. or such as are proper to the Heathen worship in the exercise of their religion and devotion to their greater or lesser deities as adoration of their Images whom they pretend to worship All this will farther appear by the next part of this Scripture and him only shalt thou serve Him only shalt thou serve Mat. 4.10 Here he would fasten a mistake upon us Of Latria or service properly due to God by a misunderstanding of the word Serve pa. 28. why so because having examined all the places of Scripture where this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is here translated serve he findes it signifies that religious worship which is exhibited to God never used for a religious service done to a Creature as to a Creature pa. 31. Again that word is never used but for the serving either of the true or of a false God when it is referred to worship belonging to religion And he provokes any Protestant to prove the contrary pa. 32. But how did he conceive we understood the word when we affirm the same thing which to find out he bestowed as he saith some days study by examining all the places of scripture where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used we say it is very true that in all the scripture neither that word nor any other is ever used to express religious service done to a creature as to a creature that is as due to it Again we affirm that this word when it is referred to worship belonging to Religion is never used but for serving either the true or a false God and therefore it is easily seen whether the Romanists be mistaken in their Inference therefore there is another religious service which may be
Angels worship him might receive this answer it is a religious worship of the inferiour rank such as may be given to the most excellent creatures and doubtless the Arrians would have made use of this distinction had the Church of Rome then taught this doctrine so then either the Apostle was mistaken in his argument or the Church of Rome is in her distinction And if we be mistaken in our argument from this Scripture then was their Gregory the great mistaken who against Image-worship urges the same text Gregâ— ep l. 9. ep 9. quia scriptum est dominum Deum odorabis soli servies because saith he it is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve To conclude Peresius a Romish writer moved with what the Scripture and St. Aug. saith against this cultus servitutis this worship of service given to the creature acknowledges as * Bel. de Beat. Sanctorum l. 1. c. 12. the Cardinal relates it and checks him for it that he did not approve the name of Dulia to signifie the worship of Saints for we are not servants of the Saints but fellow-servants Rev. 22.8 9. See thou do it not for I am thy fellow-servant worship God Here as elsewhere he needlesly multiplies mistakes Of worship refused by the Angel and by St. Peter repeating what he had above of Angels receiving worship from Lot and of men receiving worship as Elias and Elisha though Peter refused it from Cornelius Act. 10. and affirms the worship of Elias and Elizaeus to be the very same with the worship which by Roman Catholicks is given to Saints and Angels pa. 35 36. How all this comes short of the purpose both as to the worship which the Church of Rome gives by many moe expressions then prostration or bowing of the body which is all the worship that his places of Scripture and instances concern and also as to the term religious which in his large sense comes not home to the question I say how far all this falls short was abundantly shewen above Now for the Text Revel 22. That which we gather from it against their Angel-worship does not arise from the bare prohibition of worship but rather from the reason of it for I am thy fellow servant and so from St. Peters reason for I am a man which shews some undue worship was given yet not as to a God but too much entrenching upon that which was due to God The Romanists feign two reasons of this prohibiting or refusal of worship first * Bel. Post Christi adventum prohibuisse ob reverentiam humanitatis Christi de Beatit Sanctor cap. 14. that the Angels refused after Christs coming in the flesh to be worshipped of men for the reverence of the humanity of Christ But if they did right in refusing it then must the Romanists think they do ill in giving it to them for we men are bound to have as great a reverence and respect to Christ as the Angels are and note the Cardinal saith not only that they refused the worship but forbad it prohibuisse saith he Secondly because John took the Angel for Christ but we may ask how did the Angel know what St. John thought Besides it was improbable that he took the Angel for our Saviour Christ for this is the second time that he thus worshipped neither do we find that our Saviour in all the visions appeared to him after such a manner But this falling down at the Angels feet shews it was in St. John a transport of joy for the revelation of such things as the Angel brought and thereupon an expression of that more then beseeming reverence to the messenger and it is evident the Angel conceived he gave some undue reverence for which he admonishes him to give none but what befits a fellow servant which ought not to be a religious worship or service entrenching upon any thing due to God the very reason that * Aug. de vera religioone cap. 55. Honoramus Angelos charitate non servitute St. August gives to exclude all such worship by the word service or servitude We honour Angels saith he in charity not service and immediately before insinuated God is communis Dominus our common Lord Lord of Angels and men that is as the Angel said we are fellow-servants So we need not contend so much what the Angel thought as look to what he said whether he thought St. John took him for our Saviour which this Author strives to make probable is uncertain but the reason the Angel gave is clear and enough to exclude their Angel-worship So that which St. Peter refused Acts 10. was not a Divine worship and therefore refused for this Author grants pa. 38. that Cornelius could not suppose him to be a God nor was it a due bounded worship and refused only out of humility as he supposes here for then he would not have given this reason I am a man The Protestants are not bound to say as he thinks they must pa. 37. one of the two either that Cornelius gave him divine worship as to a God or that St. Peter refused it out of humility For though the Protestants acknowledge there was humility in this refusal for humility is seen in refusing not only due but undue honour too yet have they cause to say it is evident that Cornelius gave him some undue worship exceeding his condition and entrenching upon something due to God and therefore St. Peter gives him the reason of his refusing it for I am a man as the Angel for I am thy fellow-servant Col. 2.18 Worshipping of Angels He will have us here mistaken because this text speaks of a worshipping of Angels How far the Romanists agree with those worshippers of Angels whereby they are made equal to Christ or that Christ is depending on them which Roman Catholicks saith he condemn as injurious to Christ pa. 43. His reason is because the Apostle adds not holding the head by which it appears such a worshipping of Angels is forbidden as destroyes the belief of Christs being soveraign head of the Church pa. 44. to which he subjoyns as a proof the Testimonies of several Fathers witnessing that Simon Magus and other ancient Hereticks broached such phansies of the Angels pa. 48. That there were ancient Hereticks that held strange phansies about Angels is very true but that these worshippers of Angels were such as held such a phansie of making them equal or superiour to Christ cannot be proved that they were not such appears rather for the Apostle first tells us this was done in a pretence of voluntary humility now what humility is there in going to God by any equal or superiour to his Son therefore they went to God by Angels as inferiour mediatours and they of the Church of Rome have a pretence not unlike in their applying to God by the mediation of Saints and Angels Secondly the Apostle in this chapter speaks
by his mediation by and in whom we can call him Father and for his other part of reply then one Christian living may not pray for another who sees not the disparity between praying for and praying to or invocating and that at such distance as they do Saints and Angels but of this of the living to pray for one another more conveniently * Nu. 6. below In the other places 1 Tim. 2.5 1 Jo. 2. 1. He will have the protestant mistaken The office of Mediator and Advocate in excluding thereby all Mediators or Advocates of Intercession the Text speaking only of a Mediator of Redemption because it follows in one place who gave himself a ransom and in the other He is the propitiation for our sins Secondly that the Text speaks of such a Mediator or Advocate that deserves to be heard for his own worth and merits pa. 69. That we may better discover this usual but ungrounded evasion Note First others besides Christ may be said to Intercede for us Intercession of Saints as the blessed Saints no question do but that makes them not Mediators or Advocates of Intercession for they do it without our Invocating of or application by prayer to them out of that charity and propension which all the members of Christ have to one another also they do it in general in such desires as make for the accomplishment of that body of which they are members Out of which propensity we pray also for them i.e. for their consummation and glorious resurrection c. yet this renders us not their mediators Secondly Note that to state them in the condition of Mediators and Advocates they must be enabled to receive our particular requests and prayers and so to present them unto God yea as the word Advocate significantly implies they must be admitted in that Court to plead their cause for whom they appear This being made manifest that they are no way enabled thereunto it will easily be seen whether the Protestants are mistaken in excluding them from this office or the Romanists in admitting them to it without or rather against scripture For this Author was wont in his imputed mistakes to shew the word or thing in which he placed the mistake otherwise taken and applied to others in scripture and it s but reason that he who will enlarge to others what the scripture seems to restrain should be bound to make it appear by scripture and not do it by limitations and distinctions of his own invention as it fares with all Romanists in this point and that of Image-worship That which this Author makes the pretence of his distinction or limiting to Christ only such a kind of mediation viz. of redemption from the words following viz. ransom and propitiation overthrows his distinction and shews the whole office belongs to Christ only for it shews that his mediation of Intercession or Advocateship and his fitness thereunto is grounded on his bloodshed or ransom or making God thereby propitious which the Apostle through the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks most evidently shewing our high priest is entred to appear for us Heb. 9.24 i. e. to be our Advocate or Mediator of Intercession and that he entred with blood This also shews the distinction is not good Distinction of Mediator of Redemption and Intercession for one member of it is grounded upon the other in the Intercession of our Mediator and Advocate upon his redemption for that tells us none can come under one member of it to interceed as an Advocate with God to whom the other belongs not too So for his other exception or limitation That Christ is the only Mediator or Advocate that can intercede by his own worth and merits comes to the same purpose for he that can do so must be a Redeemer too It is a great Truth but that it should not exclude as they pretend the Saints and Angels from being Mediators in and by the merits of Christ is only a saying of their own without all proof or warrant of scripture and a bold saying it is For when scripture saith there is one Mediator and tells us of no other points us out our Advocate and tells us of no other directs us by whom and in whose name we must come to God and shews us no other how can we without great presumption take upon us to appoint others though in order to him that is appointed For our coming to or praying to God is a worship of God an immediate serving of him and therefore binds us to go the way he prescribes as the rule * Nu. 1. above directs us and reason also perswades it for else there would be no thing fixed and certain in religion and worship For if in this point we may invent new wayes and new distinctions that have no ground in Gods word then that One God in the same verse would be obnoxious to mans conceit in framing other gods of lower rank as that one Mediator is to this distinction of the Romanists Again Here especially in a point of Gods worship Reasons against their Invocation that of the Apostle takes place What is not of Faith is Sin Rom. 14. ult For how can it be of faith to come unto God by Mediators whom they cannot believe to be appointed of God to stand between himself and us or between our Mediator Christ and us whom they cannot believe to hear or know our requests and desires having no warrant from God to assure their people that he will reveal or make known their desires to the Saints they invocate Furthermore it may be another reason against this presumption because it is God himself that prepares the heart to pray and inspires it what boldnesse then is it for any Creature as Mediator to present our prayers or as the Apostle Rom. 8.26 In our prayers according to Gods will the spirit makes intercession therefore prayers to Saints are not of the spirit not according to Gods will or else the spirit then maketh intercession by the Saints Lastly it is a senseless perverting of the order God has set us for our prayers at least mental must as the Romanists acknowledge Saints how said to know mens prayers be known to the Saints by revelation from God so our prayers must first come to God then by him to the Saints so by them to Christ to be presented to God The best account which the * Bel. l. de Beat. Sanctor c. 20. Cardinal can give us of their knowing prayers made to them is this First he rejects wholly that way which some have conceited that the Saints know prayers of the living by the report of Angels Of the two other wayes that they know by seeing in God as in a glass from the beginning of their beatitude those things that do any way belong to them or that they know by revelation from God when the prayers are made Of the former of these he saith it is
mouth of Heathens I neither worship the very Image Aug. in Ps 113. Nec si mulachrum colo Sed per effigiem Ejus rei signum intueor quam Colere debeo nor a Devil but in the Corporal representation I look upon the sign of that thing which I ought to worship Aug. in Ps 96. Non illum Lapidem aâ—t simulachrum colo quod est sine sensu sed adoro quod video servio ei quem non video And in another place I do not worship that stone or that Image which is without sense but I adore what I see and serve him whom I do not see Thus could the Heathens plead and profefs in excuse of their worshiping Images The Romanists had need study and give out some new pretences I will close this point with the consideration of one chief Cause of image-Image-worship that which made it be so readily intertained and so tenaciously held as among the Heathen so proportionably in the Church of Rome and that is satisfaction of sense or sight So in Arnobius by applying to their Statues Arnob. l. 6. contra Gentes Pâ—asentiam quandam exhiberi they conceited an enjoyment of their Gods as present by praying to their Images they did as it were talk with their Gods And for this they objected to the Christians that * Minutius Felix in Octavio Deum suum nec ostendere possum nec videre they could not shew or see the God they worshiped To this satisfaction of sense in Religion belongs that of Lactantius Lact. l. 2. c. 7. Horum pulchritudo perstringit oculos nec ullam Religionem putant ubicunque haec non fulserint The beauty of these Images dazles the eyes neither do they think there is any Religion where those do not shine and appear Were not these words spoken by so ancient a Father one would think them spoken of the present Church of Rome Our third Evidence is from the Inevidence or weakness of the proof The plea made for Image worship weak and the pleaders unfaithful in their Allegations that can be made by the Adversary for Image-worship For that which they pretend to bring from before the seventh Age or Century is either out of forged writings or if out of true Authors the words are perverted or the argument made from them inconsequent as to the worship of Images This will appear if we examine the Collection which the Cardinal has made or rather some careless Scribe for him but He too blame-worthy that would not better inquire into them or think that others would not First he makes a semblance of proof from St. Bel. l. 2. de Imaginib c. 12. sect primò Hierom in his Epist to Marcella where he invites her to Bethlem saying the Tabernacle was venerable for the Cherubins But no such words in that Epistle Indeed in an Epistle of Paula and Eustochium to invite Marcella to Bethlem there is such a thing but not the words of Bellarmine Venerabantur Judai Sancia Sanctorum quia ibi erant Nonne venerabilius tibi videtur Sepulchrum Domini The Jewes say those Women worshiped or reverenced the Holiest of Holies because there was the Chernbins Ark Aarons rod and doth not the Sepulchre of the Lord seem to thee more venerable So the sentence or words are not Hieroms but the Womens nor are they their words neither as Bellarm. repeats them But let them go as he would have them the argument for Image-worship is altogether inconsequent from that reverence the Jewes gave towards the Temple or the Ark. He subjoyns immediately a Testimony out of St Aug. who in his third Book de Trin. c. 10. Loquens de quibusdam signis quae venerationem tanquâ—m religiosa merentur point pro exemplo serpentem aeneum Bell. ubi supra Speaking of certain signes which deserve veneration as things pertaining to religion puts for example there the brazen Serpent St. Aug. there gives other examples as well as the brazen Serpent as the Stone which Jacobs head lay upon when he had the Vision Gen. 28. but because the brazen Serpent was an Image this must be mentioned as also in the next testimony though falsly there and impertinently here for the brazen Serpent was not an Image of Christ but a Type or Sign as St. Aug. has it haec hâ—â— norem ut Religiosa possunt habere So St. Aug. and upon that score there was an honour due to it as to all other signs of Gods institution but when religious worship was given to it by burning of Incense which is also done in the Romish worship before Images it was broken in pieces To this the Cardi nal there * Bel. nbi suprà Tam de Imaginibus Cherubinorum quà m Serpentis aenei quod honorari debuerint pateâ— ex Regula Augustini signa divinitus instituta esse veneranda quia honor eorum ad prorotypum transit Fuisse autem illas Imagines Cherubin Serpenâ—is adds another place of St. Aug. and thus brings it in As concerning the Images of the Cherub and of the brazen Serpent that they are to be honoured appears by St Aug. in his third Book de doctr Christiana c. 9. where he saith Signs appointed of God are venerable because the honour of them redounds to the Prototype and they were the Images of the Cherubins and of the Serpent having thus repeated St. Aug words as he saw fit he makes his argument from thence If it was lawful to worship the Images of Angels why not of the Saints But first this has a falfe ground viz. that the Jewes worshiped the Cherubins * Chap. III. nu 10. as above shewed that they did not Again from the veneration or reverend respect given to the holy signs instituted of God to infer Romish worship given to Images is inconsequent upon a double account because such veneration is of the weakest sort of honor far short of the worship contended for also because there is great difference twixt holy signs instituted of God and Images of mans invention and so from that looking towards or bowing towards the Temple or Ark used by the Jewes to infer Image-worship is inconsequent and fails upon the former respects and also because a circumstantial determining of worship given to God this way rather then another as towards the Ark or Temple is far different from the objective determining or receiving of the worship as an Image doth But indeed the Cardinal wrongs St. Aug. both in his words and meaning For St. Aug. doth not there deliver a Rule nor saith as the Cardinal sets it down but only by the way saith Aug. de doctr Christiana l. 3. c. 9 Qui veneratur utile signum divinitus Institutum non hoc veneratur sed illud potiâ—s quò talia cuncta referenda He that reverenceth signs appointed of God he means the Jewish Types before Chriâ—â— does not reverence these but that to which
utramque attingimus por fidem and saith we attain to both sorts of Righteousness by faith Then he puts the question Vpon which of these righteousnesses we ought to relye or hold our selves justified before God and accounted righteous He concludes Justitiâ Christi nobis donatâ non autem Sanctitate gratiâ nobis inhaerente ibid. it must be upon the righteousness of Christ given us not upon the Sanctity or Grace inherent in us and adds the Reason Inchoata imperfecta quae tueri nos non potest quin in multis offendamus assidue peccemus because that which is in us is but inchoate and imperfect which cannot keep us from offending often Idcircò in conspectu Dei non possumus ob hanc Est vera perfecia justitia quaeomnino placet oculis Dei in qua nihil est quod Deum offendit and sinning daily and therefore have daily need to say Forgive us our Debts therefore we cannot be accounted just in the sight of God for this our righteousness but the righteousness of Christ given to us is the only true and perfect righteousness which is altogether pleasing in the eyes of God and in which there is nothing that offends him Unto this the same Author applies Phil. 3.9 Not having mine own righteousness but the Righteousness which is through Faith He gives us withall a good lesson It is found by experience saith he that holy men * quantò magis in sanclitate proficiunt tanto minùs sibi placere tanto magìs intelligunt se indigere Christo justitia Christi sibi donata ideóque se relinquunt soli Christo incumbunt Contar. ibid. the more they advance in Sanctity the less are they pleasing to themselves and the more do they understand how they stand in need of Christ and his Righteousness given unto them therefore they forsake themselves and relie upon Christ only He answers also to some places of Scripture objected as that the Psalmist saith often Judge me O Lord according to my righteousness and the Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness for I have kept the waies of the Lord Ps 18.20 21. If David had said and meant this so it à ut putasset se propterea justificatum esse coram Deo as to think himself therefore justified before God he had spoken as arrogantly as the Pharisee Luc. Scd essent mera mendacia 18. Nay he had spoken mere lies All this was spoken in regard of his Enemies especially Saul and Absalom of whom he had deserved well and not in regard of his righteousness before God Also to that place of Deut. 6.25 It shall be our righteousness if we observe all these Commandments he answers * Justitia nostra Legalis est custedire omniâ— sed quia nullus servet omnia praecepta Legis ergò sub maledicto omnes ideoque omnes indigemus Christo Our legal righteousness is to observe all but because there is none that keeps all the precepts of the Law therefore all lye under the curse or condemnation and all stand in need of Christ and his righteousness Thus that Cardinal was convinced of the Truth of the Protestant Doctrine in this point or question between imputed and inhaerent righteousness acknowledging the imperfection of the Inhaerent as to its effect of Justifying and that the imputed was to be relied on We might to these add what the Colen Divines in their Antididagma Antidida gma Tit. Justific or book opposed to the reformation endeavoured by Hermannus the Archbishop do acknowledge speaking of the Causes of Justification Nobis imputatur ad justitiam dum fide apprehenditur That the righteousness of Christ as it is apprehended by Faith is imputed to us for righteousness and more to like purpose Hitherto we have shewen by the foregoing witnesses that this Romish Doctrine of inhaerent Righteousness has not been Catholick within that Church not so generally held among themselves as they pretend It is now time to look higher and briesily examine what they bring from Scripture and Antiquity to make it seem according to Vincentius Rule Catholick Romanists destiture of Scripture in this point And by this trial it will still appear less worthy of that name The Cardinal brings * Bell. l. 2. de Justif c. 3. eight places of Scripture for justification by inhaerent righteousness Which might all be answered with this one exception They may prove that there is an inhaerent righteousness but not that there is Justification by it To instance in the chief of them His first place is Rom. 5.19 Made sinners really inhaerently We grant it true and answerably made righteous by Christ but were we made sinners only so by Adams disobedience were we not also made so by imputation the Cardinal himself acknowledges it Bell. de Aâ— miss gâ—a l. 5. c. 17. sect itaque and then are we not also made righteous by imputation of the second Adams obedience The Cardinal as we saw * Nu. 4. above in three places acknowledges the imputation of Christs satisfaction and merits for freeing us from the offence of sin and and the guilt of eternal death and therefore from that condemnation under which we are by the first Adams disobedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That condemnation the Apostle here vers 18. sets against Justification and so in this Antithesis vers 19. between made sixners and made righteous must first stand good in regard of Condemnation and Justification taken properly then between the inhaerent depravation and the inhaerent Righteousness Take what the Ancient Commentators here say is meant by made sinners Chrys in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost and after him Occumenius and Theophylact to the like purpose expounds it made subject to punishment and condemned to death that 's the first sense of made sinners and unto that is Justification in the first and proper sense opposed The Cardinals second Testimony is Rom. Bel. quo suprá 3.24 Here he would finde all the Causes of Justification and in the word Grace taken for inherent righteousness he fixes the Formal Cause Of Grace and Gratis That it is taken for the gift of Grace inhaerent and not for the favour of God he would prove by the word gratis freely which was enough to set out the favour of God and his love to Mankinde But the Cardinal here also is impertinent and his argument inconsequent For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gratis freely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not put here to set forth the true Cause of our Justification viz. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods gracious favour so much as to exclude the false Causes viz. any cause desert motive on mans part Freely that is without any price paid by us without any Cause given by us or any worth in us Thus gratis is taken in Scripture and though it consequently