judged of him Bellarmine saith It is not intelligible how a man should be judged for an idle word and therefore it must be taken for such a picro such a little sin as cannot come into Judgement An excellent Doctor sure to correct his master as if he had wanted Truth and to corrupt his Scholars as if they did not want Repentance 14. For this Text if rightly urged will rather ptove no sin venial in its own nature but only by Gods mercy For if not an idle word is venial then much less a greater sin but not an idle word is venial for that shall be accounted for at the last day if not repented of before at least virtually in the contrition if not actually in the confession Thus he first makes bold with Gods Justice proving some sins to be venial that he may find or make matter for Purgatory and afterwards he teacheth others to make as bold with Gods Mercy that he may the better follow his proof for he telleth us that a man may die a true penitent for no other hath hopes of Purgatory and yet die with a resolution of abiding in sin Potest quis dùm moritur habere voluntatem per gendi in peccato veniali igitur tale peccatum deleri in morte non potest A man when he dies may have the purpose of continuing in a venial sin therefore such a sin is not to be abolished by death He means a man in the state of grace for no other is capable of the benefit of his purging flames So he cares not to pull down repentance that he may set up Purgatory whereas sure it more suits with conscientious and sound Divinity to pull down venial sins to set up repentance For it is not possible that man should die in the state of true repentance who dyeth with a purpose of retaining any sin in his soul that displeaseth God for by that very purpose he prefers his own will and pleasure above Gods and therefore loves not God with all his heart and consequently is not a true believer because not a true lover and not a true penitent because not a true believer Surely this cannot be a doctrine of Piety which teacheth Impenitency since no man now hath hopes of being righteous by his innocency but only by his repentance Nor had Saint Augustine such a light esteem of venial sins if we may believe Gratian Par. 1. dist 25. cap. 3. For this was his doctrine Nullum peccatum est adeò veniale quod non fiat criminale dum placet No sin is so venial but it may be made mortal if it please the sinner and this it must do if he hath a will and purpose to continue in it And Consequently if he die having such a will and purpose his venial sin is become mortal and by that means is made fewel for Hell not for Purgatory And so venial sin is also in danger of falling which is the other supporter of this your new building Isto enim fundamento posito quod tollitur satisfactio descrimen peccati mortalis à veniali necessario sequitur nullum esse Purgatorium Bell. lib. 1. c. 2. This foundation being laid that there is not satisfaction for sin sc. of our own and that there is no venial sin sc. in it self it must follow there can be no Purgatory And this foundation may very safely be laid by us because it is without if not against the Text that you have laid the other foundation 15. I know your Cardinal alledgeth many more places of the Bible besides those three formerly mentioned to prove this new Article of Faith But there is so much straining of the Scripture in his allegations I will not say wresting because I hope it was not to his destruction that he comes under that condemnation of the wise man There is an exquisite subtiltâ—… and the same is unjust Eccles. 19. 25. Men may by their wit and exquisite subtilty make Gods Word seem to say any thing but it is unjust for them so to do and they must be unrighteous in so doing and had need be very penitent for that unrighteousness For if we shall give an accounâ—… for every idle word of our own much more for endeavouring to make Gods Word partake of our idleness And indeed Gods Word being to be interpreted according to the analogie of Faith Rom. 12. 6. it is fitter for Infidels then for Christians to seek after such interpretations thereof as are not agreeable with that analogie But herein your writers are partly excusable for being over-ruled by the determination of your Church to set up a new Article of Faith which is not reducible to any of those in the Apostles Creed they have been after a sort constrained to interpret the Scriptures according to that new Article lately made by your Church and not according to the Analogie of that Faith which was at first left by the Apostles For sure it will pose an ordinary understanding to shew how your Purgatory is consistent with the Communion of Saints and with the forgiveness of sins which are both in that Creed since they cannot be of the Communion of Saints who are in a separation from God and perchance under the power of the Devil nor have they obtained remission of sins who are still under torments for them Nor can I see how this doctrine doth agree with that which is the very marrow and substance of the whole Gospel to wit That we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son Rom. 5. 10. and That God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them 2 Cor. 5. 19. For if there be a punishment reserved the trespass is imputed But 〈◊〉 there be an actual reconciliation aâ—… doubtless there is for true Penitents anâ—… true Believers then surely no punishment is reserved and no future satisfaction is necessary and so we may fully believe the remission of sins according to ouâ—… Creed And no present separation is possible and so we may as fully believe thâ—… Communion of Saints The woman thaâ—… came behinde our blessed Saviour anâ—… touched but the border of his garment was healed immediately Luke 8. 43. Dâ—… not you say A soul shall come not behiâ—… but before him look him in the face naâ—… go into his bosom to dwell in him and he again dwell in that soul and yet it shaâ—… not be healed unless you will recall thâ—… of the Psalmist Bless the Lord O my soul who forgiveth all thine iniquities who heaâ—…eth all thy diseases Psalm 103. 3. For whâ—… is the disease of the soul but sin or hoâ—… is that healed but by forgiveness Hoâ—… is sin forgiven if it must be satisfied oâ—… how is the soul healed if it must be tormented for sure not healing but wounding cometh from torment He that took upon him our flesh that he might save us did thereby shew He more willed our salvation then our flesh and how
learned and picus men from the Ministry So that for the most part no other young men entred into holy orders but such as looked after a fat living and a licentious life unless it were some few who through unadvisedness and inconsideration were brought into the snare Praeter nonnulios qui imprudenter nondum sibi satis noti in laqueum inducuntur And therefore saith plainly and positively unless marriage be tolerated they should scarce be able to find out fitting Ministers to supply the Church Nisi conjugium toleretur vix idonei Ecclesiae ministri in posterum quidem inveniri poterunt Cassander in Consult Art 23. And now considering that Truth is good in it self and Virginity is good only in order to another thing sc. to righteousness let any conscientious man judge which of the two Priests is more in the state of sin and damnation whether he that is lawfully and righteously wedded to a wife or he that is unlawfully and unrighteously wedded to such a false opinion although as self-interest now steers Saint Peters ship there is little hope that the one will part or be divorced from his opinion as there is little honesty that the other should part or be divorced from his wife CAP. III. Of Purgatory 1. PUrgatory a stumbling block not to be cast in the way of men that are departing hence 2. Saint Paul desired to be dissolved that he might be with Christ. 3. All that die in the faith of Christ at their death go immediately to Christ as did Saint Paul and the good thief and to assert otherwise is to be injurious to Religious souls and to Christ their Saviour 4. Bellarmine professeth it is uncertain that Christs humane soul was in Purgatory and by his proofs makes it impossible for they all speak of the Hell of the damned 5. To say Christ went into Purgatory as into a part of his Kingdom to take possession thereof savours of blasphemy and of infidelity 6. Bellarmines uncertainties are so many and great concerning the Place the Time the Torment the Tormentors and the causes for which souls are said to be tormented in Purgatory as to enfeeble any unprejudicate mans belief though he is so confident as to say That all shall be damned who do not believe Purgatory 7. This doctrine is neither in word nor sense taught in the holy Scriptures The Texts alledged for it in Bachonus his daies answered by him The Books of the Macchabees no more Canonical to the Christians then to the Jews The fire mentioned 1 Cor. 3. no proof of Purgatory It shall not be forgiven him in the world to come spoken by way of aggravation Mat. 12. Hell taught in the Creed not so Purgatory 8. Peter Martyr vindicated Bellarmines rules of prudence against the rules of Logick meer nullities Doctrines inferred from prudential consequences are humane imaginations but from Logical consequences are Divine Truths The one by being believed the other by not being believed make a man an Heretick 9. No remission of sins in the next world proved by Aquinas out of Saint Chrysostom and Saint Augustine 10. Gods Remitting of sin is not Punishing it for Christs sake 11. Saint Augustine defines against Purgatory 12. No ground for it in the Text nor in any true general Council 13. Beilarmines reasons for it are not from but against Gods Word though seemingly deduced out of the holy Scriptures 14. His arguments for Venial sins untheological 15. His wresling of Scripture against the analogie of faith to maintain this new doctrine of his Church which agreeth not with the belief of the remission of sins or the Communion of Saints 16. The Prayers of the Church may be abused by this doctrine as well as the Word of God 17. Christ not praying for souls in Purgatory they can if any there have no benefit of others Prayers The third Exception Part. 2. Chap. 2. pag. 174. Against Purgatory you object first Desiderium habens dissolvi esse cum Christo Phil. 1. 23. But all the strength of this argument stands upon a Desiderium habens having a desire And what good Catholick man doth not desire to die so holily as he may escape Purgatory and go immediately to Christ Secondly Hodiè meâ—…um eris in paradiso Luc. 23. 43. Where you say it is evident The Convert thief upon the Cross cannot be looked upon as a priviledged person Were this evident it is evident to me that most eminently learned men would have perceived this evidence yet our Rhemes Doctors confidently call it A rare example of mercy and prerogative Maldonate handling this place Mat. 27. 44. calls it a stupidity Ex uno exemplo generalem legem colligere Bellarm. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 8. concludes his answer to this very objection Privilegia pauco rum legem non faciunt Becanus compend men contr lib. 1. c. 11. n. 7. calls it expresly Singulare privilegium so that this your evidence is to me inevident Thirdly Bellarmine himself confesseth De Purgatorio incertum est you quote neither Chapter nor Book which is very uncouth amongst learned Antagonists These words may be understood in a double sense absolutely as to Purgatoty it self or relatively as to the good thief If the first then Bellarmine confesseth it is uncertain whether there be any such thing as Purgatory or no if the second whether the good thief went to Purgatory or no As to the first there can be nothing more certain amongst Christians then what is de fide of divine faith But Bellarm. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 2. 3. affirms it is de fide And again cap. 11. Constanter asserimus dogma esse fidei Purgatorium adeò ut qui non credit Purgatorium esse ad illud nunquam sit perventurus sed in gehennâ sempiterno incendio cruciandus What can a man speak more resolutely then this As to the second He hath not any such word but all the contrary as I have shewed to your second objection Where then Bellarmine should make this Confession is beyond my skill to find Fourthly none ever durst say That the humane soul of Christ was at all in Purgatory If you mean To suffer there it were an horrible blasphemy to say so But if to go down thither in majesty as a most victorious Conquerer and triumphant King to take possession of his whole Kingdom which according to Saint Paul is tripartite Philip. 2. 10. Coelestium terrestrium infernorum So Bellarmine besides what he saith thereof lib. 4. de Christo cap. 12. in fine durst c. 16. with a probabile say that Christs humane soul went down thither not only quoad effectum but secundum substantiam realem praesentiam For having made this querie Ad quae loca inferni descenderit He answers Probabile est profectò Christi animum ad omnia loca inferni descendisse But whether so or no it neither makes nor marrs but the good thief enjoyed Christs promise to be with him that
the whole But take heed whiles you say so that they who are against you and deny Purgatory tax you not of blasphemy for saying that which is not in being is a part of Christs Kingdom for to make Christ a King in Utopia in a place which is not is to make him no King And that they who are with you and affect purgatory tax you not of infidelity for believing that Christ hath taken possession of his whole Kingdom upon no better grounds then upon a meer uncertainty 6. For even your own Bellarmine though in his first Book de Purgatorio he writ so confidently as if all men were bound to believe Purgatory that will be saved yet in his second Book de circumstantiis Purgatorii He writes so ambiguously as to enfeeble any unprejudicate mans belief I will give you some few instances and then leave you to judge what small reason he had for his so great confidence Cap. 6. de loco Purgatorii He saith The Church hath not defined in what place Purgatory is for that the purgation of souls may be in many places and some are purged where they sinned but after several other opinions he seems to like that best which placeth Purgatory in the bowels of the earth because of several eruptions of fire out of the earth in several parts of the world Be it so if we must needs have a Purgatory that they may have the greatest share in it and terrour from it who were once the first inventers and now are the chiefest maintainers of it even the Italian Monks and Fryers for the most notorious eruptions of fire in these parts of the world are either in Italy as at Mount Vesuvius or not far from it as at Mount Aetna in Sicily Cap. 9. De tempore quo durat Purgatorium Of the time that Purgatory lasteth which is as uncertain as the place Quando ab hoc loco in coelum avolant res est incertissima How long the souls must stay in Purgatory before they can get to heaven is a matter of the greatest uncertainty Cap. 10. 11. Qualis sit purgatorii poena The quality of the Torment in Purgatory is as uncertain as either the time or place De poenâ Purgatorii quaedam sunt certa quaedam dubia As concerning the punishment of Purgatory some things are certain some are doubtfull Certa sunt Carentia visionis poena sensus poena ignis T is certain saith he the souls in Purgatory are under the punishment of loss for want of the beatifical vision and are under the punishment of sense by torment of fire Do they want the beatificall vision say then God hath thus sentenced them at their particular Judgement Depart from me ye cursed and let them hereafter be accounted not blessed but cursed souls not in a Communion with God but in a separation from him yet in saying so remember you bid your best Champion recall even the very subject of this whole Controversie which indeed is the best if not the only way to end it De Ecclesiâ quae est in Purgatorio of the Church which is in Purgatory for that cannot be a part of Gods Church which is in a separation from God And sure I am your Cardinal is beholding to the latter part of this same sentence to prove that souls in Purgatory are under the punishment of sense by fire for he proveth it by these words Ite in ignem aeternum Go into everlasting fire Mat. 25. And why not also prove their punishment of loss in the want of the beatifical vision from the first part of the same sentence Depart from me ye cursed For the same sentence denounceth the judgement of loss and of sense of loss in Depart from me ye cursed and of sense in Go into everlasting fire And we may fancy the one to be Temporarie as well as the other and to belong to righteous souls as much as the other but surely the Text saith both are eternal and belong only to the cursed And indeed t is a strange proof which brings Hell to prove Purgatory yet this is the best he can find in all the Scripture For here he proves that material fire can punish immaterial souls because it was provided to punish the Devil and his Angels which are immaterial spirits But still the proof concerneth only Hell fire so that in plain truth He alledgeth hell to prove Purgatory All the doubt is how he can make it so This proof is yet further enlarged in the next Chapter where he answers some chief doubts concerning Purgatory as whether it be a true real fire and how it can act upon separated souls and both are answered from these words Go ye cursed into everlasting fire Ignem Purgatorii esse corporeum quia in Scripturis passim poena impiorum vocatur Ignis Et regula Theologorum est ut verba Scripturarum accipiantur propriè quando nihil absurdi sequitur The fire of Purgatory is corporeal for commonly in the Scripture the punishment of the wicked is called fire what is the punishment of the wicked to the righteous or must men turn wicked that they may go to Purgatory and it is a rule of Divines That the words of Scripture are to be taken properly if there follow no absurdity and a little after Corpora damnatorum puniuntur igne Mat. 25. Ite in ignem aeternum est autem idem ignis corporum damnatorum spirituum corpore vacantium nam ibidem dicitur qui paratus est diabolo Angelis ejus The bodies of the damned are punished with fire Go into everlasting fire Mat. 25. but it is the same fire which punisheth their bodies and other souls or spirits without bodies as it is said Which is prepared for the Devil and his Angels Pray Sir why should any Christian be taught to desire to go to that fire which was prepared for the Devil and his Angels and if he do once go thither how shall he ever return from thence And yet your Cardinal would have us believe Purgatory that we may have the happiness to go thither and saith if we do not we shall burn for ever in Hell-fire A new Apostle sure he speaks not only so resolutely but likewise so authentically yet not dropt down as the rest from Mount Sion bùt from Mount Sina as we may guess by his Thunder and Lightning Seriously it is a sad thought for all good Christians that any Divine should after Nadab and Abihu dare offer strange fire for God is not well pleased with such an offering But it is a joyful thought for us poor Protestants that this fire of Purgatory is not only a strange but also a false fire for so we are sure it cannot burn us Else it seems after it hath been your Purgatory it should be our Hell However it is palpable That your Cardinals talk only is of Purgatory but his proof is of Hell Thus himself hath brought his certainties concerning
their Apostle I will instance in St. Paul who was not a whit behind the chiefest Apostles 2 Cor. 11. 5. though you now attribute all to Saint Peter we read that certain of the Jews banded together and bound themselves under a curse saying That they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul Act. 23. 12. This banding against an Apostle was fighting against God in the judgement of a Jew Act. 15. 39. how much more should it be in the judgement of Christians For we cannot but look upon St. Paul in this case as upon Godâ—… Trustee both for the Christian Religion and for the Christian Communion anâ—… accordingly invested with authority froâ—… God for the discharge of that Trust an doubt not but He looked upon himself aâ—… one that ought to be more zealous foâ—… Christs Religion and for Christs Communion than for his own Authority And so doubtless ought the Priest-hoodâ—… all Churches after him and why not all in your Church For the Churches fouâ—…dation or being is much more excelleâ—… and glorious in regard of her Religioâ—… and of her Communion then in regardâ—… her Authority 15. This I fear comes neerer your 〈◊〉 then I am willing to urge it sure I am comes very neer my position That formaliâ—… vocation of Saints such as is now coâ—…monly used in your Devotions being pâ—…vately used is against the three first Coâ—…mandements which concern the Religioâ—… and being publickly used is against 〈◊〉 fourth Commandement which conceâ—… the Communion of Gods Church aâ—… therefore in vain do you pretend in sin do you imploy the Authority of your Church to uphold either the private or the publicke use of it And this difference I cannot but observe betwixt your Trent Catechist and your Rome dogmatist The one goes to prove that Invocation of Saints is not against the Commandement because it is according to the use of the Church The other goes to prove that t is not according to the use of the Church because it is against the Commandement For so Bellarmine proves that the Saints are not to be invocated as the Authors of any blessing appertaining either to grace or glory but only as the impetrators or procurers of it and his two proofs are one from the Command of the Holy Scriptures probatur primo ex Scriptura The other from the Custome of the Church Secundo probatur ex usu Ecclesiae Bell. l. 1. de Sanct. beat cap. 17. though to make good his second proof He maintains this Unlogical and Untheological position That t is no matter for the words so as it be the sense of our Prayers which is Unlogical because it is against the very nature and institution of speech and Untheological because it is against that very Commandement which ordereth our Speech in our Prayers and therefore ordereth our Prayers only as they are Vocal and may be spoken not as they are Mental and may be thought and that is the third Commandement whereby God hath set a watch only before the doores of our Lips not of our Hearts He had ordered our Hearts in the first Commandement and ordereth our mouths only in the third when he saith Thou shalt not take the Name of thy Lord thy God in vain And in this respect the Psalmist prayeth Accept I beseech thee the free-wil offering 〈◊〉 my mouth O Lord Psal. 119. 10. Here is then very much in the Judgement of your own Cardinal though you say Here is nothing against Praying to Saintâ—… and Angels confirmed in grace and glory For to let pass that their bless in Heaven doth not make them God for Neighbour we may not pray to them for any blessing that tends either to Grace or Glory and all good Prayers are for blessings that do tend to one of these And t is a poor shift to talk of sense not oâ—… words when the question is only oâ—… words and to say you mean the Saintâ—… but as Procurers when you speak to then as Authors of the blessings you pray for For He that hath bid his Church daily to pray And lead us not into temptation hath above all forbid his Church daily to lead his people committed to her charge into Temptation by their very Prayers Therefore in vain did some of your Zelots seek to corrupt the Hebrew Text in Montanus his interlineary Bible of 1572. putting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though by Gods special providence the Press strangly miscarried for it is printed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all that edition which word is a meer Tragelaphus in the Hebrew That since you were not contented with Gods Text you should be ashamed of your own And this discovery we owe to your own L. Bâ—…ogensis in his notations upon Genesis where he saith Gu. Fabritius Pici Mirandulani Principis autoritate nixus in Hebraicis illis Bibliis Regio operi adjunctis quibus Latina interpretatio inter contextus lineas inserta est excudi curavit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quanquam errore positum sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say in vain did some of your Zelots seek to corrupt the Hebrew Text putting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 3. 15. Ipsa for Ipse to make good your Vulgar Translation Ipsa conteret caput Tuum For if it had been said See shall bruise thy head yet you had not found a sufficient warrant to Invocate the blessed Virgin because you cannot possibly bring Her into the first Table of the Decalogue to make Her a God or the Object of Religion Let my Prayer be set forth in thy sight as the Incense saith the Prophet Psal. 141. 2. Prayer is the Incense of the Soul and must be set forth only in his sight who seeth the secret recesses and sighs of the heart When the Jews went to burn incense and to serve other Gods whom they knew not where Note Burning incense is put for serving of God the Lord said to them O do not this abominable thing which I hate Jer. 44. 3 4. And doth he not still say the same to Christians is it less hateful now then it was then for any man to perform vâ—…ws or to burn incense to the Queen of Heaven may not God as justly swear against us if we do so as he did against them That his Name shall be no more named in our mouths v. 26. Are not all but himself as well to us as to them Gods whom we know not Is not this intruding into those things which we have not seen Col. 2. 18. Surely none but God alone is to be known or seen throughout the whole Bible in all the precepts and precedents of Religious worship Therefore Invocation being an elicite and proper act of Religion cannot be applied to any that is not the proper object of Religion The Jews might as well have offered their corporal Sacrifice to Abraham as the Christians can offer this spiritual Sacrifice to
the hearers of the law there is Faith for what can any sacrilegious Enthusiast say more who robs God of mens hearts in regular and sound prayers to place all Religion in the ear sure there were many hearers of St. Pauls Sermon for it was preached on the Sabbath and in a place where prayer was wont to be made Act. 16. 13. who heard more than the law for they also heard the Gospel yet only one Lydia for ought we know was judged faithful unto the Lord and the text gives this reason of her Faith whose heart the Lord opened that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul Therefore the hearers of the law have not Faith but the doers of it at least in vote and desire i. e. those who labour to do it yet they when they have done all are taught to say we are unprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty to do Luk. 17. 10. Their doings cannot fully reach the obligation of their duty and how can they be a satisfaction for their undutifulnesse All their works of righteousnesse when they have laboured to do all those things which are commanded and as they are commanded them will leave them unprofitable and much more must their works of unrighteousnesse make them unacceptable so that you have only supposed a false Faith in the hearers of the Law not disprov'd Justification by Faith in the doers of it for he that saith not the hearers of the Law are just before God but the doers of the Law shall be justified doth not thereby suppose much less averre any men to be so compleat doers of the Law as to rely upon their good deeds for their justification 12. You might happily better have appealed to St. James than to St. Paul for justification by works and yet neither would he have befriended this your appeal much lesse have justified that your position for St. James doth not contradict the doctrine of St. Paul but doth only correct those who had misunderstood or at least misapplied it bidding them add to their Faith Vertue as St. Peter had done before 2 Pet. 3. 5. or not expect to be justified by it wherefore those two Apostles may very well be said to have delivered but one and the same doctrine concerning justification if we take their words not as we please but as they intended them for St. Paul writing against proud Justitiaries among the Jews who sought for righteousness from their own works according to the Law of Moses and rejected the righteousnesse of God by Faith in Christ strongly denyed Justification by works meaning works properly so called that is to say a perfect and perpetual observation of the whole Law because all men whatsoever Christ only excepted had many wayes transgressed the Law But St. James writing against licentious and profane Hypocrites among the Christians who pretending to Faith in Christ lived not according to the Rule of the Christian Faith but altogether neglected the study and practice of good works affirmed Justification by works meaning by works the very obedience of Faith or a working by love and obedience The one writ against the proud opposers the other against the fond Pretenders of Faith in Christ therefore the one tells the proud Jews that their works were not answerable to the Law in which they trusted that he might teach them the necessity of Faith in Christ The other tell the hypocritical Christians that their works were not answerable to the Gospel of which they boasted that he might teach them the obedience of that Faith accordingly as often as St. Paul affirmeth in sense at least if not in words That we are justified only by Faith so often he understandeth a Faith working by love Gal. 5. 6. or an unfained unhypocritical Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such a Faith as belongs not to hypocrites 1 Tim. 1. 5. And as often as St. James denieth that we are justified only by Faith so often he understandeth a Faith not working by love a Faith only in profession or in perswasion not in obedience or in affection a Faith belonging to hypocrities not to good Christians a Faith in noise and in word but not in truth and in deed as appeares from the manner of his expression ver 14. If a man say he hath Faith for the Apostle would not say it for him because he had only a dead Faith A Faith without works and therefore without life operari sequitur esse the Faith of devils from the evidence or power of truth convincing the understanding not the Faith of Abraham or Rahab from the acceptance and love of truth converting the will therefore these two positions are not contrary A man is justified before God not by the works of the Law which he cannot have but only by Faith in Christ which alwaies worketh by love and A man is justified before God not only by Faith that is an historical knowledge of the Gospel and an emptie profession of Faith but also by works that is an affectionate love of the Gospel and a sincere obedience of Faith The former position is maintained by St. Paul against those Jews who rejected the Gospel of Christ the latter position is maintained by St. James against those Christians who profaned the same Gospel Both Apostles teach one and the same Justification by Faith in Christ only St. Paul speaks of Faith more in relation to its proper object even to Christ because he went to convince gainsaying Jews and to make them Christians St. James speaks of Faith more in relation to its proper effect even good works because he went to convert revolting Christians and to make them good Christians For so himself saith concerning Abraham Seest then how Faith wrought with his works and by work was Faith made perfect ver 23. He saith not By works was his justification made perfect but only his Faith whereby he was justified requiring works only to the Faith that justifieth but not to the act of justification And after the same manner are we to understand his conclusion ver 24. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by Faith only as if he had said From this example of Abraham you may gather that 't is not the wording but the working not the professing but the performing Faith that justifies a man before God requiring works in that man which is justified but not denying to Faith the power and prerogative of justifying 13. You have well reconciled St. Paul with St. James in your question But what Faith which intimaâ—…eth that a justâ—…fying Faith is such a 〈◊〉 as workeâ—…h by love but you have ill reconciled your selfe with St. Paul in your position That works are required to Justification as well as Faith which plainly asserteth the contradictory of St. Pauls doctrine And surely 't is not safe for any Divine to differ in this Doctrine of Justification from St. Paul no more than it is safe for him
say it for he is cordially turning to him in all Thus was it with St. Peter look upon the course of his obedience you find him after his greatest undertakings grievously turning away from our blessed Saviour but look upon his repentance you find him earnestly turning to him Christ assured him his Faith should not fail and yet he should deny him thrice But we are sure his works failed and may be as sure our own works will fail so we must trust to our faith not to our works if we desire not to fail of our Justification 18. And I would gladly know how your doctrine of justification by works can agree with these three Scripture expressions justified by his free grace Rom. 3. 24. justified by Faith Rom. 5. 1. and justified by his blood Rom. 5. 9. For grace and works are set down as contraries mutually expelling one the other in the matter of Justification Rom. 11. 6. If by Grace then is it no more of works otherwise Grace is no more Grace But if it be of Works then is it no more Grace otherwise Work is no more Work So also Christ and Works Gal. 2. 21. If righteousnessâ—… come by the Law then Christ is dead in vaine So also Faith and Works Rom. 3. 28. A man is justified by Faith without the deeds of the Law so that to be justified by Works is to be justified without Grace without Christ without Faith unless we will make contraries not only abide but also agree one with another whereas in the doctrine of Justification by Faith all these expressions are as admirably reconciled among themselves as they are powerfully and plainly used to set forth our reconciliation with God For to be justified by Grace and by Christ and by Faith are so far from being contraries that they all speak one and the same truth namely this That we are justified through the free grace of Goâ—… for the mâ—…rit and bâ—…ood of Christ by a lively Faith applying that blood unto our souls and our souls unâ—… our God 〈◊〉 a lively Faith is not wiâ—…out works in the man 〈◊〉 justâ—…fieth though it be in the act of jusâ—…ification And therein it must be without â—…ks that it may be with Christ for if righteousnesse come by works it cannot come by Christ. 19. And what a madnesse is it for frail and weak flesh what a wickednesse is it for corrupt and sinful flesh to set up its own instead of its Saviours righteousnesse For though this doctrine may pretend to be most zealous for obedience yet is it in truth most averse from it nay most opposite against it so saith the Apostle Rom. 103. For they being ignorant of Gods righteousnesse and going about to establish their own righteousnesse have not submitted themselves to the righteousnesse of God This was a great disobedience in the Jews but a greater in the Christians for they might be ignorant of the righteousnesse of God who knew not Christ not so we who know him Therefore if they in going about to establish their own righteousness did not submit unto the righteousness of God then we by going about to establish our righteousness must needs moreover wilfully resist and disobey Gods righteousness And in vaine do we talk of any other obedience whiles we are guilty of this resistance Yet I fear he came very near this guilt who said that justification by Faith alone was a most pestilent doctrine pestilentissimum dogma Stapâ—…eton qu. quodl 3. c. 9. cum itaque forgetting sure that St. Paul had fi st taught it And they who denounced Anathema against those who maintain this doctrine si quis dixerit solâ fide impium justificari Anathema sit Concil Trid. ses 6. can 9. forgetting sure that St. Paul still maintained it for their expurgatory Criticks durst not expunge this Position out of his Epistles though they durst out of the Index made upon them And this guilt must needs be very dangerous if not fully damnable because it labours to establish our own instead of our Saviours righteousness for so the same Council can 11. si quis dixerit justificari homines solâ imputatione justitiae Christi Anathema â—…it If any say that men are justified only by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse let him be accursed Jesu God didst thou give us thy righteousness to be imputed to us to bless us by taking away the guilt of our sins that in thee all the Nations of the earth might be blessed Gen. 22. 18. and shall any Ministers of thy Gospel dare to curse us for relying upon the imputation of thy righteousness was not our sin made thine that thy righteousness might be made ours and how can it be made ours but by imputation or why is it made ours by imputation but only for our Justification so saith the Text expressely 2 Cor. 5. 21. For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him As Christ was made sin for us so we are made righteousnesse in Christ neither the one nor the other by inherence therefore both alike by imputation for a third way is unimaginable Therefore St. Augustine thus glosses the forecited text Ipse peccatum nos justitia nec nostra sed Dei nec in nobis sed in ipso sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis He was made sin and we were made righteousnesse not our own but Gods righteousnesse nor in our selves but in our Saviour as he was made sin not his own but our sin nor in himself but in us That is in one word we are so made the righteousnesse of God in him as he was made sin for us to wit by imputation Therefore neither St. Paul nor St. Augustine neither Scripture nor Church were much regarded by him who made a meer scoffe of this imputation as if it were a phansied Chimera of mans invention and not a real mercy of Gods Donation And what else doth that argumentation import urged by your great Doctor si concupiscentia est verum peccatum tum Christus non verè sed imputativè redemit nos a peccatis Bellar. de am gr lib. 5. c. 9. If concupiscence be a sin then Christ hath not tâ—…uely buâ—… imputatively redeemed us from our sins why did he say imputativè for putativè imputatively for putatively but only to perswade the world that imputation is but a meer imagination This seems to be the drift of his argument to make good mans righteousnesse as that which is not at all infected by original and therefore may not be at all impaired by actual sin and this is little lesse in the business of Justification than to make void the righteousnesse of Christ. It was a wretchednesse to say Concupiscence is no sin in the regenerate which St. Paul called a sin in himself above ten times together Rom. 7. But it was moreover a wickednesse to say