utterly denying the picturing of God the Father and yet they of Rome approve and practise it This Doctrine of Anti-transubstantiatioâ— is no new Doctrine crept into the World since Luther's time but the Antient Faith of the English and indeed of all Christendom long before the Conquest in the time of our Saxon Progenitors And so we find it in an Antient Homily writ originally in Latine but among many others translated into Saxon by Aelfricus Abbot of St. Albans in King Edgar's time Vid. Saxon. Homil die Sancto Paschae p. 35. That Homily was no private thing but commanded by Authority to be read in Churches on Easter-day where speaking of the Sacred Symbols in the Eucharist we are told that it is naturally corruptible Bread and Wine and is by might of God's Word truly Christ's Body and Blood yet not so bodily but ghostly And then there are divers differences put between Christ's Body in which he suffered and his Body in the Sacrament As first That was born of the Virgin Mary had flesh and blood But his ghostly or spiritual Body is gathered of many Corns without Bones Blood or Limb and without Soul therefore nothing to be understood therein bodily but all ghostly And a little after This Mystery speaking of the sacred Host is a pledge and figure Christ's Body is Truth it self This was the Antient Faith of the Church of England seven hundred years ago and 't is ours still If at or after the Lateran Council Transubstantiation and another new Doctrine was broach'd by the Tyranny of Rome and the slavish Credulity of some of our Predecessors let Roman Catholicks ingenuously tell us who are the Innovators But suppose a few persons believed so suppose any Fathers quoted for it were uncorrupt yet it doth not follow that because they believed so therefore the Christian World believed so And again suppose that the Major part of Fathers and Doctors of the Church were for such an Opinion I ask if this doth bind Posterity to be of their Faith I shall here shew you that tho' none pretend more to Antiquity than the Papists or make a greater noise with Fathers and Councils yet they slight them as much as any when they speak any thing against the sense of the present Church As for instance what I partly before hinted Cardinal Cajetan a very Learned Man in the beginning of his Commentaries on Genesis hath this passage Si quando occurrit novus sensus textui consonus quamvis à torrente Doctorum alienus â—quum se praebeat lector Censorem And a little after he adds Nullus detestetur novum Sacrae Scripturae sensum ex hoc quod dissonat à priscis Doctoribus Maldonat in cap. 6. Johannis that he might oppose Calvin confesseth which no Witness but my own Eyes could make me believe that he chose a new Interpretation on the place against all the Antients But in the next place to prove that Papists have sometimes gone against General Councils since you give me occasion further to dilate on what I before referr'd to by way of hint I shall tell you that the Canon of the great Council of (b) Concil Chalced. Can. 2. in Collect. Can. Graec. Lat. per Eliam Elingerum 29. In Cod. Can. Ecclesiae Vnivers per Christoph Justellum Chalcedon one of the four which Pope Gregory would have receiv'd tanquam quatuor Evangelia made by 630 Bishops confirm'd by the 6th General Council held at Constantinople And by that of (c) Conc. Constant in Tâ—ullo Can. 36. for so it is acknowledged tho' Binius and some o herâ— would fain deny it in the bâ—dy of the Canon Law C. râ—novaâ—â—es Dist 22. in the last and best Editions of it See Greg. 13. his Bull given at Rome July 1. 1580. Gratiano praefixum Constance too Sess 39. fol. 39. Edit Antiquae Mediolani 1511. is yet every where slighted by Popish Authors For Canon the 28th or as in some Editions the 29th Canon of Chalcedon is quite left out in that Edition of the Councils by P. Crab and in that of Dionysius Exiguus in the Vetus Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Romanae in Caranza c. And tho' Franciscus Longus (d) Summa Concillor per Francisc Longum à Coriolano p. 402. apud illum Can. 27. a Coriolano hath that Canon yet in his Annotations he flatly denies it and goes about to prove it false in divers particulars So that the Canonical determinations of 360 Fathers met in a General Council whose Constitutions their own (e) Extra De Renuntiationâ— cap. post Translationem Pope Gregory would have receiv'd as Evangelical Truths when they make against them signifie nothing but are flatly denied And if it be said that this was no Canon of the Council the contrary is manifestly true for it is in all the Original Greek Copies Printed and Manuscript (f) Videsis Cod. Canonum per Christoph Justellum Ecclesiae Vniversae Can. 206. p 25. Zonaram in Canon Concil p. 118. Theodorum Balsamon in Can. 28. Concil Chalcedon Can. Concilior Graec. Lat. Quarto An. 1560. per Andr. Gesnerum p. 48. Vid. Caranzam in Notis ad Marginem c. 36. Concil Constantinop p. 635. where he tells us that Canon is in the Greek Copies sed deest in Latinis exemplaribus and expresly confirm'd by the 36th Canon of the Sixth General Council at Constantinople Registred by Gratian Can. Renovantes Dist 22. tho' with insufferable falshood and corruption of the Canon as will manifestly appear to any who will compare Gratians reading with the Oriâ—inal (g) Vid. Vetus â—â—sc Syâ—â—â—icum in Biâ—l B â—leâ—â— iâ—â—er Mâ—c Gâ—â—â—ca è Mâ—s o Barociano I know they of Rome sliâ—ht this of â—onstantinople as much as that â—f Chaâ—cedon For first Binius tells us it smells more of ambition than truth and (h) Caranza in Aâ—not ad Can. 36. Conc â—ii 6. Gen. p. 635. Caranza â—rroneus a quibusdam existi â—â—ur hic Canon And Indeed iâ— is â—ecessâ—ry for them to deny that Canon for it positively asserts and determines such truths as utterly overthrow their Popes pretended Supremacy which they so much and so irrationally contend â—â—r For First that great General Council gives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not sâ—â— lia only as Gratian falsely reads it (a) Gratian Can. Renovantes dist 22. even in the last and best Edition of their Canon-â—aw equal Priviledges to New and Old Rome that is declared and pronounced Constantinople or the Patriarch of that Imperial City to have equal Priviledges with the Pope or Patriarch of old Rome Secondly That the Roman Bishop had not those Priviledges among other Bishops by any Divine right or succession from St. Peter as now they would pretend but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were given by ecclesiastical and positive constitution of the Fathers Thirdly And they to make this manifest tell us that Rome had those antient prerogatives not as its Bishop was St. Peter's Successor or with
it before the Year 1564. as might be manifestly proved were that my buisiness by Buckden March 24. 1685. Your Affectionate Friend and Servant T. L. A Letter of a New Popish Book then Publish'd c. Sir I Have received that new Popish Book you so kindly sent me The Book is much magnified by the Popish Emissaries and put into the hands of many to seduce them from our Religion particularly it was given to a Gentlewoman in Glocestershire Two Ministers who were by her Friends imploy'd to undeceive that Gentlewoman desired me to give them some Motives to disswade her from Popery I did in two Sheets of Paper give them such Motives to which as yet no answer is return'd But the Gentlewoman gave them a Paper Penn'd by her Priest containing Motives for which she turn'd a Papist The Gentlemen brought them to me I answer'd them at large in eight Sheets of Paper and they procur'd of her a Copy of the Book you sent me and last week allow'd me time to Read and return it to them privately So that I have Read the Book which is Popularly Penn'd with great confidence affirming but proving nothing with any good consequence the Author has some Rhetorick but no good Logick He makes Universal Tradition of the Church the prime and grand Foundation of all our Christian Faith and Religion and I have desired the Gentlemen who procured me the sight and reading of the Book to make this offer to the Gentlewoman and her Priest That if they can prove any one point of Popery by the Vniversal Tradition of the Church we will be their Proselytes Nay secondly If they can prove any one point of Popery by the constant and successively continued Tradition of their own Roman Church from the Apostles time to this day I will be their Proselyte That which troubles me is this our Adversaries are with diligence and cunning Sowing Tares and I fear we sleep Math. 13.25 while they are sowing them I am Sir Your Affectionate Friend and Servant T. L. Jan. 3. 1684. A Letter to Sir P. P. wherein he apologizeth for his not going to Lincolne and wherein he proves that Henry the Eighth's Marrying his Brothers Wife was only against the Judicial Law and animadverts on Calvin's making the Penal Laws about Religion given to the Jews to bind under the Gospel Sir I Received yours and this comes with my humble service to tell you that I know not what to say non ingratus beneficiis sed oppressus Your care and kindness for me in this my business has been so great and extraordinary that if I be freed from the trouble and disgrace of the threatned Visitation I must impute it next to the gracious and powerful Providence of my good God to the undeserved charity and kindness of the excellent Marquess of Hallifax and your prudence and diligence in managing that affair The truth is I am exceeding sensible amongst many more of the great Obligation you have laid upon me in this business which I can never requite beneficia tua indignè aestimat qui de reddendo cogitat nor ever shall ingratefully forget For going to Lincoln the good Counsel of that * The Marquess of Hallifax Excellent person so soon as God shall be graciously pleased to give me ability I will not fail to do it But at present my Age and Infirmities are such as disable me for such a Journey I have not been out of my house this 13 or 14 months nor able to take any Journey I have writ to my Lord Privy Seal the Reasons of my not going to Lincoln 1. I have no House there 2. Buckden as you told him is in the Center of my Diocess and stands far more conveniently for all business 3. Bishop Sanderson lived and dy'd at Buckden and Bishop Lany lived there too till he was translated to Ely nor were they ever accused or complained on for it 4. That Lincoln might not think I was unkind and neglected them I sent them 100 l. of which 50 l. to the Church and the other 50 l. to the City and since that I gave the City 20 l. towards their Expence in renewing their Charter which none of my Predecessors have done and yet I only must be accus'd and uncharitably condemn'd by my Enemies Causa indictâ inauditâ Ah! my dear Friend it is not my absence from Lincoln or any of those little things they I mean the Popish Party object against me which troubles them but that which indeed sets them on to calumniate me is they know I am an Enemy to Rome and their miscalled Catholick Religion and God willing while I live shall be so hinc illae Lachrymae I have been Loyal to my good King and dutiful to my holy Mother the Church of England and pardon my confidence I have done them more faithful and better service than any of mine Enemies have or can And notwithstanding any discouragements I shall God inabling me continue to do so I am not afraid to anger my Popish Enemies or of any mischief they can do me I serve a most gracious and omnipotent God who can and I hope will deliver me from their Cruelties and if not they shall know that I will never worship the abominable Idols they have set up I have something which in convenient time I shall publish which will anger them more than any thing I have yet done For what you mention of Henry 8. that his Marrying his Brothers Wife was only against the Judicial Law of the Jews is evidently true such a Marriage is not against the Law of Nature For 1. Cain and Abel could not possibly marry any save their Sisters yet God who never commands any thing against the Law of Nature commanded them to increase and multiply who could not lawfully multiply but by lawful Marriage 2. Sarah was Abraham's Sister Gen. 20. v. 12. and God himself saith that she was his Wife Gen. 20.3 but had it been against the Law of Nature to marry a Sister she might have been his Concubine but not his Legal Wife For 't is both Law and Reason Contractus contra Naturam initus est nullus 3. In the Levitical Law God who never does command any thing against the Law of Nature commands a Brother to take his Brothers Wife to marry her to raise up seed to his Brother But the thing is evident and needs no further proof For what you desire concerning Calvin's Opinion on Deut. 13.6 9. and Zech. 13.3 His Opinion is on Zech. 13.3 That these penal severe Laws do bind us under the Gospel his words there are these Sequitur ergo non modo legem illam fuisse Judaeis positam quemadmodum nugantur fanatici homines so I am a Fanatique in honest Calvin's Opinion sed extenditur ad nos etiam eadem Lex c. yet 't is evident those Laws were never given to th Gentiles Rom. 9.4 Eph. 2.12 and therefore neither did nor could bind
and therefore not in the Year 1579. as Marca saith For that Excellent and most Faithful Historian tells us That at (a) Thuanus Hist Tom. 4. lib. 94. pag. 361. Magno caloris aestu contentio de Tridentina Synodo promulganda toties agitata denuorenovata est that time Anno 1588 The business of promulging and receiving of the Trent Council in France was earnestly press'd and tho it had been long desired yet the receiving of it had been always (b) Novis difficultatibus subortis promulgatio Synodi tam diu expetita retardaretur Ibidem hinder'd And how stoutly the promulgation of it was then opposed the same Thuanus there tels you But that the French do not now receive the Trent Council not in rebus fidei may farther appear 6. The whole Clergy of France declare 1. That (c) In their Assembly March 19. 1682. a Council is above the Pope 2. That he has no power in Temporals in any Princes Dominions 3. That he has no power to depose Princes 4. Nor to absolve Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance 5. That he is not Infallible And tho the Pope declare by his Bull that all those are (d) Bulla data Romae 11 April 1682. Improbamus rescindimus cassamus c. null yet the French King ratifies (e) In an Edict registred in Parliament 23 Marcb 1682. and confirms them all Now these Five Propositions contradict many things in the Trent Council which are de fide at Rome 7. There is a (f) The Acts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy in the Year 1685 c. That 's the Title of the Book Book lately made by the General Assembly of the French Clergy and presented to the King July 14 1685. In which Book they cite in the Margent their new Trent (g) This Trent Creed in most of the Editions of the Trent Council is at the end of the Council but in the Edition at Antuerp 1633. which is the best it is in the Body of the Council Sess 24. pag. 450 451. Creed that is some part of it For the last of it they cite is pag. 38. of that Book and leave out the last part of that Creed which is contained in these Words Caetera item omnia à sacris Canonibus oecumenicis Conciliis ac praecipue à sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo tradita definita declarata indubitanter recipio ac profiteor simulque contraria omnia Haereses quascunque ab Ecclesia damnatas rejectas anathematizatas ego pariter damno reiicio anathematizo Hanc veram CATAOLICAM FIDEM extra quam nemo salvus esse potest quam in presenti sponte profiteor veraciter teneo eandem integram usque ad extremum vitae spiritum constantissime retinere confiteri atque abillis quorum cura ad me in munere meo spectabit teneri doceri praedicari quantum in me est curaturum Ego idem N. spondeo voveo juro c. These be the Words which the French Clergy leave out in their Book above mention'd And great reason they had so to do for if they admitted this part of the Trent Creed then goodnight to all the Liberties of their Gallican Church For 1. By this part of the Trent Creed they are bound to believe and profess OMNIA à concilio Tridentino traditâ definita declarata c. 'T is not only matters of Doctrine and definitions of Faith but OMNIA definita tradita And 't is most certain that the Council intended both matters of Discipline and Doctrine 2. In the foresaid words of their Trent Creed a firm belief is required to be given OMNIBUS in Conciliis Oecumenicis traditis And then all their Liberties of the Gallican Church are gone For their Sanctio pragmatica which is the authentick comprehension of them is damn'd and abrogated by Leo (a) In Bulla data Romae 14 Cal. Jan. Anno 1526. X. approbante Concilio In their General Lateran Council 3. By the words of this Creed they are to receive OMNIA in sacris canonibus tradita and then fare-well to all their Gallican Churches Liberties For their Sanctio pragmatica is expresly (b) Extravagant communes lib. 1. Titulo 9. De Trig. pace cap. 1. damn'd and abrogated in their Canon-law by a Bull of Pope Sixtus quartus 4. Again the Words above mention'd which the French Clergy left out of their Book are a part Fidei Catholicae extra quam non est salus And therefore if the French do not receive as questionless they do not this part of the Trent Creed then 't is evident they do not receive what P. de Marca would have us believe Definitiones fidei Concilii Tridentini Obj. But Sir P. Pett mentions Cabassatius in his Letter that the Trent Council was received in France Anno 16â—5 Sol. I confess he says that it was receiv'd that year in Generali conventâ—s Gallicani Cleri (c) Notitia Conciliorum per Joh. Cabassutium Lugduni Anno 1672. pag. 720. sub Ludovico 13. But 1. Father Paul of Venice a far more credible Author says it was not received Anno 1616. and so it could not be received Anno 1615. 2. He says it was received that year a Clero Gallicano sub Ludovico 13. But he does not say that the King received it only the Clergy received it And Pet. de Marca in the places above quoted expresly says That the Clergy very frequently petition'd their Kings to receive that Council but their Kings as Marca grants would never give their consent without which consent it could (d) Decreta conciliorum legis Vim in Gallia non habent nisi recepta a clero regia authoritate munita Marca de concord Sacerd. Imperii lib. 2. cap. 17. §. 7. pag. 133. not be received in France That God Almighty would be graciously pleased to bless your Lordship your Noble Family and Friends is and shall be the Prayer of My Lord Your Lordships most Obliged Thankful and Faithful Servant Thomas Lincoln Another Letter to the same Person of the same Subject Right Honourable and my very good Lord SInce my last Letter I have remembr'd and found a passage in an excellent French Historian which will be of signal use to make it appear that the Trent Council was never received in France The Historians Name is Barthol Gramondus The Title of his Book this Historiarum Galliae ab Excessu Hen. 4. libri 18. Authore G.B. Gramondo in sacro Regis Consistorio Senatore in Parliamento Tolosano Praeside Tolosae 1643. In this Book Gramondus tells us that in the (a) pag. 57. Year 1615. the year in which Cressie out of Cabassutius says the Clergy received the Trent Council There was a Convention of the three Estates In which the receiving and Promulgation of the Trent Council was (b) Proposita a clero Concilii Tridentini promulgatio molliendae invidiae adjecta est haec
Concilio non intererant primò Episcopi â—â—â—vinciarum 94. Imperio Romano subjectarum Ita ex Provinciis Imperii 118. solum Provinciae 24. suos ibi habuere Episcopos Provinciae 94 non habuerunt 2. Nuâ—â—rovinâ—tarum Christianarum extra In perâ—â—â—â—â—â—num posâ—tarum Episcopi hic aderant Vâ—â—nti ex Aethiopia India Persia Scotia Hybernia c. 3. Concilium Ephesinum Aderant solum Episcopi 156. ut constat ex Graeca hujus Concilii Editione per (a) Vide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 99. Edita Heidelb Anno 1591. Hieronym Commolinum Heidelbergae Anno 1591. Quamvis (b) Caranza in Summa Conciliorum p. 297. Caranza Patres 200. Synodo hâc convenisse asserit Eundem Episcoporum numerum habet Codex Canonum Vetus Ecclesiae Romanae p. 101. De hoc Concilio ex Actorum ejus subscriptionum diligenti collatione constat 1. Nullum ex Provinciis extra Imperium Romanum Positis Episcopum ibidem adfuisse 2. Ex Provinciis sub Imperio Ditione Romana comprehensis sunt autem 118. ad minimum ut ex notitia Imperii Patet pauciores Provinciae ad hoc quam ad Nicenum Concilium Episcopos delegarunt 4. Concilium Chalcedonense In hoc convenerunt Episcopi 620. (a) Pet. Crab. Tom. 1. p. 736. Ekingerus in sua Conciliorum editiine p. 150. de quo notandum 1. Episcopi è Provinciis extra Imperium Romanum Positis nulli hic aderant 2. E Provinciis Imperii 118. Episcopi Provinciarum 46. (b) Codex Canonum Vetus Ecclesiae Rom. p. 137. solùm hic convenerunt ita ut è Provinciis Imperii 72. Episcopus ne unus quidem huic Synodo interfuit Synodo huic Episcopi nulli aderant Ex 1. Vniversa Italia exceptis Episcopi Romani legatis 2. Hispania 3. Gallia 4. Britannia 5. Hibernia 6. Germania 7. Hungaria 8. Polonia 9. Dania vel Suecia 10. Aethiopia 11. Indiis Vtrisque 12. Parthia 13. Persia 14. Scythia Dub. At inquies Concilium Nicenum Chalcedonense c. ab omnibus dicuntur Oecumenica Ergo c. Resp Dici poterant Oecumenica 1. Respectu Orbis Romani Imperii utpote à Caesare Convocata 2. Sed non respectu Orbis Christiani de quo hic quaeritur utpote nullius Imperio subditi à quo legitimè Convocari poterant Memorand To use all previous care and caution in the stating of the Question after this manner viz. 1. That by Councils we do not understand a Civil Senate or Politick Meeting sed Conventum Cleri 2. That whereas Councils are usually divided by Writers into Provincial National and General he should take notice that it is the last only that the Fathers do call Oecumenical that is a Council wherein the Bishops of the whole World do meet And that tho' it is to be granted that in some Councils most of the Bishops of the Romish Jurisdiction may have met yet that such Councils deserve to be call'd Conciliabula rather than Concilia And as for example in the Council of Trent only those who were call'd by the Bull of Paul the third met who were sworn Abettors of the Romish Doctrine And that certainly at the times of all those pretended General Councils meeting there were always Christians without the bounds of the Roman Empire which might have been and ought to have been call'd to the Councils Isa 46.6 I have appointed thee to be a Light to the Gentiles and a Saviour to the ends of the Earth And Christ gave his Apostles Authority to go over the whole World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature Theodoret gives Testimony to this in his Book De Curandis Graecorum affectibus Nostri illi Piscatores ac Publicani sutorque ille noster cunctis Gentibus Legem Evangelicam detulerunt Neque solum Romanos quique sub Romano vivunt imperio sed Scythas quoque ac Sauromatas Indos Aethiopos Persas Hircanos Britannos Cimmerios Germanos utque semel dicatur omne hominum genus Nationesque omnes induxerunt Crucifixi Leges accipere But since you are pleased to desire my thoughts about the sense in which Protestants allow that the Body and Blood of Christ is really present in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and are likewise desirous to know whether Papists do not on occasion sometimes slight and disobey their General Councils You may in the first place take notice that all sober Protestants admit and believe that the Body and Blood of Christ is in a sense really present in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper The Lutherans who hold Consubstantiation do yet believe that and so do the Calvinists too That there is a Substitution of Body and Blood in the place of the Bread and Wine nothing of the Symbols remaining they deny Some foolish Papists bring a place out of the 6th of St. John for Transubstantiation that makes nothing for it where Christ saith Except ye eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of God ye can have no life in you c. But this place indeed makes much against the Romanists For as to the eating of the Flesh of Christ being spoken of 't is confess'd by Bellarmine lib. 1. De Eucharistia cap. 1. that those words of St. John do not properly belong to the Sacrament but the Mystery of the Incarnation So Gabriel Cusanus Cajetan Tapper judge likewise For Christ speaking of the necessity of eating his Body and drinking his Blood must needs speak of something which was possible for certainly he laid no necessity on Men to do impossibilities but the Sacramental eating of his Body was not then possible when he spoke this For then there was no such Sacrament in the World Christ having then not instituted his last Supper And all Popish Writers do grant that Christ did not institute the Sacrament of his last Supper or Eucharist till a good while after So saith P. Joh. Martinex de Ripalda in Brevi Exposit Lit. Magistri Sent. L. 4. distinct 8. Assert 2. p. 601. Hoc Sacramentum inquit fuit institutum Nocte Passionis And then again secondly our Saviour in this 6th of St. John speaks of the Eating without which there was no spiritual life But without Sacramental eating there may be spiritual life as many of them who believed had that life wrought in them then And certainly all those holy Men who dy'd before our Saviour's Passion had spiritual life in them Therefore these expressions are not meant of a Sacramental eating but of a figurative a fiducial and spiritual eating by Faith Thirdly If Sacramental eating and drinking be here meant no Lay-Roman Catholick can then possibly be saved for Lay Roman Catholicks are sacrilegiously denied the Blood of Christ being denied the Cup. Lastly 'T will appear further from the Text it self that this eating was not opus Oris but Cordis So verse 35. I am the Bread of Life he that comes to me shall not hunger and he that believes on me shall not
thirst Where to come to him and believe on him are manifestly said to be the same things which afterward he calls eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood v. 53 54. Now the generality of the Papists interpret this place of St. John not to be meant literally And therefore the other of Hoc est Corpus meum may not be meant literally These expressions of This is my Body and this is my Blood that is Symbolical and Sacramental Signs Seals and Representations of his Body and Blood and Passion are most agreeable to the Common Dialect and Idiotisms of the Jews to the Genius and Language of their Countrey and the Place where and Persons with whom our Saviour lived as is manifest by several phrases and parallel expressions of the Holy Ghost in Scripture So the seven fat Kine are call'd seven years of Plenty And Ezekiel speaking of dry Bones saith These Bones are the House of Israel So in Daniel Thou O King art that golden head So in the Gospel The Rock was Christ And Hagar and Sara are the two Covenants the seven Heads are seven Hills The Woman is that great City c. And our Saviour saith of himself I am the true Vine Why should we not infer as well from hence that Christ was turned into a Vine as what the Papists infer from other words since he saith only This is my Blood not my true Blood and here saith I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Christ saith he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the Papists Tenet is a thing gratis dictum a bare assertion without proof a begging of what should be proved This Popish Opinion would never have been receiv'd if the Tyranny of some and Ends and Interests of others did not unhappily cause it There is no more connection between the things contained in it than between Tenterton Steeple and Goodwin Sands no shadow of consequence Nor hath the antecedent any more Logical relation to the consequent than Chalk to Cheese And now I shall give you a clear account of what we Protestants at least what I believe in this particular Now that I may do this with as much clearness and sincerity as I can I shall say 1. That the Body and Blood of Christ may be said to be present in the Eucharist first respectu sui by a Corporeal Physical and Local presence as if Christ's Body it self were substantially in the place where the Bread and Wine is Secondly respectu causati effectus producti when Christ's Body tho' comprehended in Heaven that is the gracious effect of his Death and Passion goeth along with the Sacred Symbols and is really present to the Believing Receiver That we call a Local this a Virtual yet real presence Secondly As to the Local presence of our Saviour's Body we may say it is in Heaven only not here in the Eucharist and the Scripture saith so too in express terms It is in Heaven therefore not here it being impossible as involving a manifest contradiction that the same Numerical Body should at the same time be here and there too Thirdly As to the Virtual presence which is real too we say and believe that the gracious Effects of our Saviour's Body and Blood are really present and go along with the Sacred Signs in the Sacrament to those who are true Believers But for wicked Men who are Enemies to Christ and dead in their sins and trespasses Christ's Body and Blood are neither locally nor virtually present to them In that sense we now speak of they neither receive his Body nor Blood nor any benefit by them Fourthly We believe and say that the Cause of this presence is twofold first Moral secondly Physical First Faith being an Evangelical Condition on which all the Evangelical Promises and Blessings of God in Christ depend it is manifest that as the want of it is a Moral Cause why we want those Blessings so the having of it is morally a Cause why we have them For when once our gracious God doth promise us any thing upon condition of Faith and he doth promise Heaven it self on that condition the Condition being performed on our part there lies an Obligation on God who will not nay cannot break his promise to give us those Blessings which he promised on that Condition So that Faith being a conditio praestita ex parte nostri I call it a Moral cause and their own School-men call it so too of Christ's real presence to Believers in the Eucharist For as Faith was Conditio praerequisita a Condition required in those Adulti in the Acts who were to be baptized and the want of it was a Moral Cause why Baptism was not effectual and the presence of it a cause of all those gracious Consequents seal'd to Believers by Baptism So in the Eucharist Faith is a Moral Cause of the spiritual nourishment and growth of Grace seal'd to us in that Sacrament Secondly But there is another power which I call a Physical Cause of that real presence and that is our blessed Saviour himself as Mediator and Head of the Church For to him as such all Power is given of redeeming justifying sanctifying saving his Servants And he is both the Efficient and Meritorious Cause of all spiritual blessings bestowed on us So that the real presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament is from Faith as a Moral Cause and from another Power that of Jesus Christ as our Mediator as from the Efficient Cause You will find some of our Romish Adversaries so confident as to tell us that the first Christian World believed otherwise than the Protestants do in these and other Points But there they must of necessity if they will speak congruously by the first Christian World mean the first hundred years after Christ or that and some of the next Centuries following And to make this good surely they will bring some Authors of that time to prove it Some of them have cited St. Ignatius who lived in the time of of the first Century But why he is no Competent Witness will anon appear And as for D. Areopagite we know that he is a Bastard and no Father that the Works ascribed to him are adulterate and spurious Brats and confess'd so to us by the Papists and proved to be so many hundred years before Luther was born If Ignatius his Epistle to the Smyrnenses be not altogether forged yet it is so mangled and interpolated by the injury of time and the subtilty and knavery of persons enslaved to Interest that it is impossible to know which is genuine and which not and so the whole is of no competent Authority How strangely Ignatius is mangled and interpolated you may see by the vast difference of all Copies and Editions Greek and Latine as that of Videlius Vsserius J. Vossius You may likewise observe that the Papists do in some things go contrary to Councils For they go contrary to the Concilium Nicenum secundum that Council
natural Law binds all men to believe in Jesus Christ so no positive Law doth and therefore all Men are not bound to believe on him That this may appear I say that to bring a positive obligation on all Mankind two things are necessarily required First Latio legis Secondly Publicatio First 'T is necessary such a Law should be made For every legal obligation presupposeth a Law made which may oblige all those to and for whom it is made And to the making of such a Law there are two things required First Potestas that the Lawgiver be Persona publicâ authoritate praedita and have a just power and authority to command see Fran. Suarez De Legibus l. 1. c. 8. Secondly Voluntas obligandi that he be willing to give such a command as may induce a legal obligation to obedience Suarez ibidem c. 5. Occham in 3. Quest 22. A Castro lib. 2. De lege paenali cap. 1. For if either of these be wanting it is impossible to make a Law to bind any much less all Secondly Nor is latio legis sufficient to induce an obligation but there must be a sufficient promulgation of it too L. Leges Sacratissimae C. De Leg. Suarez ubi supra l. 1. c. 11. § 3. p. 35. For suppose a Monarch who hath a supream Nomothetical power to make a law and when it is made and written should lay it up in archivis imperii so that it be not known nor publish'd to his Subjects it is manifest that such a Law neither is nor can be obliging till he takes care for the publishing of it so that a legal and sufficient publication must of necessity precede the obligation of any Law Cum lex per modum regulae constituatur saith Aquinas 1. 2. quaest 90. art 4. in Corp. Vasquez ibidem eam ut obligandi vim habeat promulgari ad eorum qui legi subjiciuntur notitiam deduci oportet Thus much in Thesi I conceive evident and now in hypothesi that I may apply it to our present purpose Admit that there were such a Law made in the Gospel as did intend to oblige all Mankind to believe in Jesus Christ for Salvation yet I deny that de facto it doth oblige all Men to that belief for want of sufficient promulgation and publication since 't is clear that many Millions of men never heard of it During the legal Oeconomy and dispensations of the Old Testament God did discover somewhat of Christ to the Jews yet not so to the Gentiles which were infinitely the Major part of the World And of the Gentiles none knew of it but such as were proselytes and brought to an union with the Jews who were few in comparison of the rest who save in Darkness and in the Shadow of Death Hence it is that when the Gospel was publish'd among the Gentiles and the Apostles preach'd every where that men should believe on Christ for Salvation Act. 17 18. They call'd our Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a strange Deity or Daemon not heard of before The times of ignorance God winked at that is the men of those times as Grotius on the place See Deut. 22.1 2 3 4. You cannot say that God did promulgate such a Law to the Gentiles before Christ as obliged them to believe on Christ for Salvation By the later discoveries of the World it is apparent that many Nations never heard of Christ And some say there are whole Nations that worship no God Episcopius the Arminian was of this opinion of mine and quotes that place How shall they believe on him that they have not heard of And how shall they hear without a Preacher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a Promulgator or publisher for so in Suidas the word is taken and praedicare is to publish in the Civil Law A Third reason why I deny this assertion is because Infants are not bound to believe in Jesus Christ and they are a considerable part of the World And therefore all Men are not bound to believe on Christ The great and good Law-giver binds none to impossibilities And if you can make it appear upon just and carrying grounds that Infants Naturals to whom God hath not given the use of Reason and those many Millions in all ages who never heard the Gospel are bound to believe in Christ for Salvation then I shall grant your Minor and admit your Argument to be good namely that Christ died for all without exception because all without exception are bound to believe in him I shall now weigh your reasons which make you think your notion to be as clear as the noon-day The first Objection of yours is Now Gods commanding all men to Repent as it is in the Acts. But Quid hoc ad Iphicli Boves It doth not follow because to Repent therefore to Believe For the Light of Nature commands all men who have sinn'd to repent of that Sin and would have done so if Jesus Christ had never been reveal'd to the World If Sempronius hath sinn'd he is bound by the Law of Nature to Repent For the Law of Nature obligeth men to love God with all their Hearts and therefore to repent and turn to him and be sorry for their sins And so the Law of Nature bound Adam to Repent because he had sinn'd and that before the New Covenant was made Adam had a command to repent from the Law of Nature but not to believe Your other Objection is He that believes not shall be damned I answer Infidelity is twofold First Privative When we do not believe the things which we are bound to believe And this is a Vice and Moral obliquity opposed to the Vertue of Faith That Principle in the Schools is a clear Truth Omne malum Morale est Carentia boni debiti inesse pro eo tempore pro quo est debitum Secondly Infidelity is Negative and this is taken to be Carentia fidei in iis qui non tenentur Credere Those Reprobates to whom Christ was never reveal'd shall not be try'd by the Law of the Gospel nor the positive Law given to the Jews nor any part of it Moral Ceremonial and Judicial as far as it was positive For in this sense the Gentiles are said to have no Law Rom. 2.14 and therefore not to be Judged by it Rom. 2.12 But they shall be try'd by the Law of Nature For so St. Augustine hath long since stated the Question Aug. in Johannem eos speaking of the Gentiles ad quos Evangelii praedicatio non pervenerit excusari a peccato infidelitatis damnari propter alia peccata quorum excusationem non habent utpote in legem Naturae Commissa Thus Sir have I in the way of a libera theologia communicated my Thoughts to you If you can convince me that I have therein erred we shall both of us be gainers by your so doing You will gain the Victory and I the Truth And this is all at present from Sir
Your very humble Servant Septemb. 1651. An Account by way of Abstract of Mr. John Goodwin's Book call'd The Pagans Debt and Dowry c. Printed at London in the year 1651. returned by way of answer to the foregoing Letter of Dr. Barlow MR. Goodwin there in p. 4. acknowledgeth that Dr. Barlow hath pleaded the cause of what he asserted with as much ingenuity and strength as any man whatsoever could have done But in pag 6. he mentions that he will answer some of the more material parts of Dr. Barlow 's Discourse tho' not in the same order to which he might be directed by his Papers but only as they came to his remembrance he not having leisure for a second Review But 't is pitty that he had not endeavour'd for the Worlds satisfaction to have answered Paragraph by Paragraph as is usually done by the answerers of Discourses writ with such accurateness of method as Dr. Barlow's is However some of the more material replies of Mr. John Goodwin shall be here set down and left to the Worlds consideration He saith in pag. 10. and seque 4. That the Scriptures in several plâ—ces plainly insinuate a capacity in the Heathen yea in all men by the light of Nature to attain or make out this Evangelical conclusion that some mediation some attonement or other hath been made and accepted by God for the sins of Men. But I demand saith the Aposâ—le Paul Rom. 10.18 Have they not heard Yes verily their sound went forth into all the Earth and their words unto the end of the World He had said in the verse immediately foregoing that Faith comes by hearing in this verse he shews in an answer which he gives to a demand or question put by him what hearing it is by which Faith comes or at least what hearing is sufficient to believe upon or produce Faith This hearing he saith is the hearing of that sound and of those words which the Heavens and the day and the night speak and that are gone forth into the end of the World as appears by the Place in Psal 19. from whence these words are added If you ask me but what is the sound or what are the words which the Heavens and the Day and the Night i. e. The constant course of the Providence of God in the Government of the World speak in the Ears of all Nations and of all People that Faith shall come by the hearing of them I answer They are the words of Eternal Life too as well as those which as â—eter acknowledgeth our Saviour himself had to speak yea and did speak upon all occasions only they are not so plainly spoken as he was wont to speak their Parable is somewhat more dark and harder to be understood but the sense and import of what the Heavens moving still in their Natural courses and the gracious Providence of God jointly speak in the Ears of all Flesh is that God is taken off from the fierceness of hâ—â— displeasure against sin and that he holds forth his White Flag and offers terms and conditions of Peace unto the World and that upon their coming in to him by Repentance they shall be received into Grace and Favour And what is this but the very tenour sum and substance of the Gospel which yet is more plain from that of the same Apostle Acts 14. to the Men of Lystra who saith he speaking of God in times past suffered all the Gentiles to walk in their own ways nevertheless he left not himself without witness in that he did good and gave us Rain from Heaven and fruitful seasons filling our hearts with food and gladness In respect of what was it that God left not himself without witness amongst the Gentiles even then when he suffered them to walk in their own ways viz. without admonishing and directing them how to walk and what to do after any such manner as now he doth by the Letter of the Gospel sent amongst them what did the witnesses the Apostle here speaks of witness concerning God or on his behalf doubtless he doth not speak here of his Godhead nor of his Power nor of his Wisdom as if his meaning were that God left not himself without witness of these tho' it be true that he did not leave himself without witness i. e. means of convincing men of these also but the works of Creation as distinguished from the works of Providence whereof he here speaks are sufficient witnesses of these according to the Tenour of Rom. 1.20 and besides there are natural impressions of these in the Spirits and Consciences of Men which are witness on Gods behalf thus far but doubtless that in God or concerning God which as the Apostle here saith God intended should be testified or witnessed on his behalf unto men was somewhat more secret more out of the way as it were of mens common thoughts or apprehensions and particularly it was that gracious and good affection which he bears unto the World through Jesus Christ his inclination unto peace with men upon their Repentance which is the substance of the Gospel This appears first By the nature or quality of the Witnesses here spoken of which were God's giving men Rain from Heaven and fruitful seasons his filling their hearts with food and gladness such witnesses as these are only proper to testifie Grace and Love and desire of the good of those to whom they are given in him that givâ—th them They plainly shew that he that shews them is not extreme with hath not extremity against those that do amiss and consequently that he is by one means or other taken off from the rigour of his Justice and severity of his wrath against sinners And 2. It appears from hence because Paul who was not only a diligent and faithful Preacher of the Gospel where ever he came but was in special manner design'd to be an Apostle to the Gentiles Preached no other Doctrine than this at Lystra a City of the Gentiles Upon that great opportunity that was now offered him we cannot think that he should Preach a Philosophical or Metaphysical Sermon concerning the Essence or Natural proporties of God only but which was Evangelical and savouring of the Gospel now the Holy Ghost recording either the whole or at least the sum and substance of what he Preached in this place reporteth nothing Evangelical as spoken by him except this be acknowledged for such so that clear it is from the Scriptures that all the World even those that are most straitned and scanted in this kind those that have not the Letter of the Gospel have yet sufficient means of believing granted unto them of believing I mean 1. That God is 2. That he is a Rewarder of those that diligently seek him which is all the Faith or Belief the Apostle makes simply and absolutely necessary to bring a man unto God i. e. into grace and favour with him Heb. 11. There are several other Scriptures that speak home
Jesuit or no I cannot resolve you as to that Question Yet this is evident that his whole Book is a Defence of the Jesuits against the Jansenists and others who have writ against the Jesuits Morals and shews that the Jesuits are not to be tax'd for those Opinions as tho they were the first Authors of them when many Catholick Authors as he calls them Schoolmen and Casuists of great note held the same Opinions long before the Jesuits had a Being 2. When you ask of what Authority he is or a Quotation out of him you must know 1. That his Book was condemn'd at Paris by the Sorbon and the Form of their condemnation you have at the end of the Pragmaetique (a) Sanctio Pragmatica Caroli 7. Edita Paris 1666. pag. 1048. 1049. Sanction of Charles the VI. King of France 2. This Censure of the Sorbon is damn'd by no less man than Pope Alexander the VII in his (b) Vide Indicem Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri 7. jussu Editum Romae 1667. pag. 294. where you have that Bull. Bull dated at Rome 7 Cal. Julii Anno 1665. So that it seems Gyumenius was of no small esteem at Rome when the Pope does è Cathedra damn that Censure of the Sorbon which damn'd Guymenius his Book For the Words of the Bull are Nos motu proprio ex certa scientia nostra deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine prefatam Censuram damnamus c. So that it has no little Authority as it seems to Buckden Feb. 21. 1684. Your Affectionate Friend and Servant Tho. Lincoln A Letter about the Papists founding Doninion in Grace Sir I Received yours which was very welcome to me because yours I have this week been in a hurry of business it being Ordination week so till now I had no time with my Love and Service to return my thanks for your kind Letter and the Intelligence communicated in it My humble Service to the Earl of Anglesey who was pleas'd to send me a Copy of the Popes Letter to the French King to incourage and commend him for his impious and Barbarous Persecution of his poor Protestant Subjects I do believe it is true what was by the Earl Subscribed to the Popes Letter Testor hunc Papam esse praedecessoribus similem though some cry him up for his moderation For your Query whether the Papists affirm any where Quod Dominium fundatur in gratia I have here inclosed what I think is evidently true They do believe and in their Authentick Writings profess that Hereticks for denying some Articles of the Popish Faith forfeit all (a) This does evidently appear to omit all other proofs by the Lateran Council under Innocent III. Can. 3. and especially Cap. Ad abolendum 9. Cap. Excommunicamus 13. Extra de Hereticis Dominion and Right to any thing they possess and their life too And if this were not sufficient poor Hereticks in their sense of which number I am one and by God's assistance ever shall be do forfeit not only right to Temporal things here but to Heaven hereafter for they pronounce them eternally damn'd This is evident not only in the Writings of private persons but in their publick and most Authentick Records you know that erroneous and most impious Constitution of Pope Boniface the VIII received into the (b. Cap. Vnum Sanctum 1. De Majorit obedientia Extrab Commun Body of their Law Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae esse omninò de necessitate salutis And this is expresly confirmed by Pope Martin and the Council of Constance where they damn the contrary Opinion as an Error in Wickliff who said (c) Articulus 41. Inter Articulos Wicklefi in Concil Constant damnatos Non est de necessitate salutis credere Romanam Ecclesiam esse omnium supremam And to say no more Leo X. and his Lateran (d) Sess 11. Apud Binnium Tom. 9.155 Council approve and innovate that Constitution of Pope Boniface the III. I am Sir Buckden Dec. 24. 1685. Your Affectionate Friend and Servant T. L. The Substance of a Preface made by the Right Reverend Dr. Barlow Late Bishop of Lincoln to a Discourse concerning the Gunpowder-Treason and the Manner of its Discovery together with the Speech of King James the I. upon that occasion and a Relation of the Proceedings against those Conspirators containing their Examinations Tryals and Condemnations Reprinted 1679. To which are added by way of Appendix several Papers or Letters of Sir Everard Digby one of the Chief Criminals relating to the said Plot. OUR Reverend Author begins by telling us that the said Book was no new but an old approved Book Reprinted by the Counsel and Authority of some Pious and Learned men that 't is no lying Legend or Romance nor any unlicenc'd seditious Pamphlet but an Authentick History of an Impious and Monstrous Roman Catholick Conspiracy or of a Popish containing the Examination Tryal Evident Conviction and just Condemnation of those Popish-powder-Traytors Then proceeding to open the hainousness of the Attempt he tells us that it was a Villany so black and horrid and not only unchristian but so inhuman and barbarous as never had any Parallel in any Age or Nation Jewish Pagan or Turkish nor indeed adds he could have before the Invention of Gunpowder and the cursed Institution of the Order of Jesuits by the Fanatical maim'd Suoldier Ignatius Loyola the World being before both without such pernicious Instruments so set for such a mischief as Gunpowder and without any Order of men so impious as the Jesuits to approve or design and much less to attempt to execute a Villany so manifestly contrary to the Light of Reason and all Humanity as well as to Scripture and Revelation For tho he confesses it true that the Pope and his Party in these last 600 Years have murthered many thousand better Christians than themselves under the mistaken notion of Hereticks by Armies raised purposely and encouraged to such bloody and unchristian Executions as also by their more barbarous and inhumane Inquisitions and premeditated Assassinations as sufficiently appears by their own Authors For that an eminent Writer among which viz Math. Paris in Hen. III. ad annum 1234. pag. 395. tells us of an infinite number of Hereticks viz. Waldenses murthered that our own Arch-bishop Vsher proves out of their Authors that in the space of 36 Years in France only 104747 of the same Waldenses were cruelly slain upon the same account that Dr. Crackanthorp in his Book against the Arch-bishop of Spalata cap. 18. § 19. c. proves no less evidently by their own Historians that about 142990 of the same poor harmless people were in 60 years time murthered by the same bloody Party and in the same Countrey And tho to pass by a Cloud of other Witnesses a prudent and sober Roman Catholick viz. Father Paul of Venice Hist Council Trent 119 120 tells us first of 4000 Waldenses and then
Book So he boasts and so adds our Prefacer 't is possible he may believe though he can have but little Reason for it because it is impossible he should have any at all and much less any clear Reason to prove positions so evidently untrue as those he advances upon which occasion our R. Prefacer begs leave by way of Reflection to say 1. That he wonders not that all Popish Writers in general should Rail so Blasphemously against the Bible and so bitterly against Protestants because 't is manifest there are no Christians in the World whose Doctrine is so agreeable to that Holy Book as theirs nor any Book when seriously Read and believed so contrary to and destructive of Popish Principles as that of the Sacred Scriptures for which Reason those Politick Adversaries forbid them to be Read in any Vulgar Tongue by any Unlearned or Unlicensed Person of their Communion the (a) See the Rules drawn up by a Select Committe of Fathers of that Council about prohibited Books and approv'd by Pope Pius IV. at Rule 4. at the end of the Edition of that Council set forth by Phil. L. Abb. at 1667. pag. 233. Trent Fathers with shameless Blasphemy not sticking to Declare that if those Holy Writings tho' inspired by the Holy Ghost as says the Apostle John 20. v. 30 31. should be suffered to be Read Promiscuously by the People in a known Tongue (b) Being the true sense of the words of the said IV. Rule they would do them more mischief than good nay adds he 't is plain they think the Reading of the Gospel in any Vulgar Tongue would be more pernicious to their Religion than the Reading of the Alcoran in the like Tongue because they allow the Reading of the Alcoran but have lately and publickly damn'd not only the Gospels but even their own Missal in French as very well knowing that Divine Truth such as is contianed in the Gospel and sparkles here and there even up and down among the Rubbish of their own Missal as corrupt as 't is is more destructive of Errour than any one Errour is of another 2. When he scurrilously Reviles the King and Parliament by the abuseful Names of Hereticks and Schismaticks our R. Prefacer would fain know what warrant he has from any Law or from Reason or Scripture to Revile any Supream or subordinate Power Ruling over the People such a practice being Condemn'd by the Laws of England which make it High Treason to call our Sovereign (a) 13. Eliz. cap. 1. Heretick or else makes it such a Crime as (b) Stat. 13. Car. 2. cap. 1. and Crooks Reports part 2. pag. 38. incapacitates the offenders from holding any Place Office or Promotion Ecclesiastical Civil or Military besides rendering them liable to other Punishments by the said Laws provided And contrary to the Divine Laws as appears Exod. 22 28. Where God by Moses forbids us to Curse the Ruler of the People no not in our heart adds Solomon Eccles 10.20 Which Mosaical Law St. Paul cites as a Natural and Moral Law still in force under the Gospel Acts 23.5 Which he renders there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shale not speak Evil of the Ruler of thy People to shew us that Moses's Expression of Cursing extends of all manner of Blaspheming or Evil speaking which is further confirm'd by St. Peter though his pretended Vicar has learnt to speak loftier Language who reckons them that speak Evil of Dignities among Capital Sinners 2. pet 2.10 as does also St. Jude v. 8 9. telling us that even Michael the Arch-Angel durst not bring a railing Accusation against the Devil himself Whereas now not only the Pope but every Paultry Popish Pamphleter dares treat Christian Kings and the greatest Protestant Divines worse than St. Michael durst the Arch-Devil he had to deal with As appears by the Excommunication of Hen. 8. by Pope Paul 3. and of Q. Elizabeth by Pius V. Where Luther is called the Foster Son of Perdition the English Clergy Wicked Ministers of Impiety and Henry VIII A Heretick who by the Instigation of the Devil committed Sacriledge for Alienating Abby Lands upon which occasion our Prefacer asks if Hen. VIII were Sacrilegious in Alienating those Lands what was the perpetual Alienation of them confirm'd by Pope Julius III. and Q. Mary and her Popish Parliament and Convocation Vid. Stat. 1. 2. Mariae cap. 8. And for one other Instance of their skill in Rayling Rhetorick he cites the Bull of the Canonization of Ignatius Loyola Dated at Rome 8th of the Ides of August i. e. the 6th of August 1623. Sect. 1. Where Luther is called a most pernicious and detestable plaguy Monster Monstrum Teterrimum Detestabilis pestis being the very words of that Bull. Upon which our Prefacer proceeds to tell us That though he thinks that none but such who are hardened by strong delusion to believe a Lye can possibly believe That the Protestant Religion is Heresie or Heathenism or that 't is Ridiculous or Idolatrous or again that the Protestant Clergy are Antichristian Ministers of Satan Enemies of God and Ministers of Baal as the Popish Rabshakers pretend yet he thinks that those who can against all the brightest Evidence of sense and reason believe Transubstantiation and swallow Contradictions may also by a strong Roman-Catholick Faith believe all the abovesaid Falsities and by that belief be animated with a blind fury to murder all those whom they are taught so to miscall and esteem as is abovesaid and to believe that action to be good and just and to be warranted by the Authority of Elijah and the Example of the Jews who in obedience to his orders slew all the Priests and Worshippers of Baal to whom the Papists compare the Protestant Clergy and People And therefore that as the Authority of Elijah in quality of a Prophet Divinely inspired was both Encouragement and Warrant enough to those Jews to do what they did so the Authority of the Pope and Council being believed by the Papists to be Infallible and assisted by the Holy Ghost and being never wanting to incite them to the like bloody Execution of those they shall please to brand for Hereticks as often as a proper opportunity hpapens What can restrain them from such attempts against us For what surer or greater warrants can Men of their Principles have of the Justice of their Actings than the Synodical Decree of their Pope and Council which they believe Supream and Infallible and to which they are taught to give such an absolute Obedience that they durst not do otherwise but readily execute them without the least disputing though never so repugnant to their own sense and reason Which that our Prefacer may not seem to advance precariously he manifestly proves by the Rules and Directions given them how they are taught exactly to fulfil that grand Precept of their Church viz. To believe as she believes of which he inserts two cited out of
to the whole Gospel as far as 't is sufficiently Revealed whereby Men believe Christ's Power his Precepts and his Promises too and acknowledge them to be good both in themselves and in respect to our selves the best and only means to conduct us to Heaven so that their Understanding inlightned by Faith discerns such an Excellency in Christ and in his Promises and Precepts and believes it so intirely and without reserve that it contemns all other things as the Apostle says Phil. 3.9 from whence follows the Obedience of Faith which is always accompanied with sincerity tho' not with perfect integrity which is desired and endeavoured for in this Life but attained only in Heaven See Mr. Baxter's Aphorisms of Justification Aphorism 69. pag. 261 and 262 c. But to the Faith of Miracles he asserts it with Calvin upon 1 Cor. 13.2 That it does not comprehend whole Christ but only his power in working Miracles so that it includes says our Author an assent to these three Propositions viz. 1. That God is of power to work Miracles 2. That he will be ready to assist those who believe and relie upon him with such a Miraculous Faith 3. That he will particularly assist me if supposed to have such a Miraculous Faith in working such or such a Miracle The first of these all Christians nay and all Men even by the Light of Nature know that know and believe God to be Almighty And as for the second Christians know it by the general promises to that purpose in the Gospel Matt. 17.20 Luke 17.6 John 14.13 c. But as for the third viz. That he will particularly assist John or Thomas or you or me says our Author in working such and such Miracles this depends on particular Revelation or Inspiration See Jac. ad Port. Bernatem in def Fid Orthod cont Christ Ostorrod cap. 30. pag. 377. Now therefore as all Faith must depend upon Authority and Divine Faith such as Miraculous Faith is upon Divine Authority and because this Miraculous Faith was not a Gift common to all Believers but a particular Gift and a particular sort of Faith as Gennadius apud Oecumen in 1 Cor. 13.2 pag. 465. Edit Graec. Veron 1532. Fred. Baldwin in 1 Cor. 13. pag. 687. Philip Melanchton Toleman Heshus Calvin and other Protestant Divines tell us as do likewise St. Chrysostome and the Greek Scholia and a Faith particularly relying on the Revelation of God's power and willingness to work such and such Miracles by such and such Persons and at such and such times only therefore this Faith must needs have a far different object from a true Justifying Faith And therefore being different from it in so many several respects as is proved and almost all the ways 't is possible for two habits to differ in it cannot but be plain that they differ more than in degree But to proceed to other proofs if saving faith and that of other miracles differ only in degree or as a Disposition and Habit our Author would demand which his Antagonist would have to be the habit or higher degree If it be answer'd That the faith of Miracles is the lower and saving faith the Habit or higher degree then it must follow that all that have saving faith have the faith of Miracles too because all Philosophers and Divines agree That when two Qualities differ only in degree the higher degree always includes the lower and consequently all the whole Vertue and natural or moral Activity of it and therefore that every Habit necessarily includes the Disposition leading to it from which it would follow that all that believe with saving faith must needs have the faith of miracles which being de facto false the premisses must needs be so too 2. That saving faith includes not the faith of miracles he further proves by our Saviour's giving his Apostles the power of working miracles a good while after their calling to the Apostolical Function and consequently after they had already received saving Grace as appears Matt. 10.1 Luke 9.1 3. But if it be said that faith of miracles is the higher degree and includes saving faith then says he it would follow that all that hare the faith of miracles must needs have saving faith too But that is contradicted by our Saviour as he has above proved as likewise by Aquinas and all other Sober Men both Papists and Protestants excepting only Becamus and a few other Servile Writers sworn Slaves to the Pope See Becan in Summ. Theol. Schol. and in Compend Man lib. 1. cap. 17. Pag. 336. Reas 4. Is drawn from the comparison of the Gift of Tongues and Prophesies which are acknowledged by the Schools and other Divines to be common Graces given for the common advantage of the whole Church and which yet differ so widely from saving faith that they have scarce any common Attribute in which they agree Reas 5. Here our Author being sensible that the main difficulty in this Question seems to consist in clearing of this doubt viz. Whether Temporary or Common Faith in Hypocrites differ Specifically or Gradually only from Saving Faith in the Elect Before he comes to the proof of his assertion which is That they differ specifically desires us to consider 1. That by common Faith in Hypocrites he does not understand only a faith that is wholly false or dissembled but a real faith that includes both a true knowledge of and true assent to several Divine and Gospel Truths such as many Hypocrites have tho' it be not such as it should be 2. That this common faith though by some Divines commenting on those parables in Matt. 13.5 6 20 21. Luke 8 6. Mar. 4.5 16 17. it is called Temporary and by others Historical Faith as Zach. Vrsin in Explic. par 2. Quest 21. par 2. Cat. palat c. and Grot. in Matt. 13.21 yet it is but one and the same sort of faith and means only a faith that wants a just and durable foundation to preserve it against the assaults of strong Temptations and Persecutions 3. That he conceives this faith is not called Temporary as supposing it never endures till Death because he believes it often accompanies such Believers to the Grave that live and die in times of the Churches Prosperity but only because it is of a temper which would not have been of proof against Persecution had it hapned nor ever is when it does come From these Considerations he passes first to his Position which is That this Common Temporary or Historical faith be they different or but one and the same do differ more than gradually from saving faith called in Scripture the faith of the Elect unfeigned and an Effect of Christ's Regenerating Spirit in his true members See Bishop Vsher's Summ. Christian Relig. pag 179. Zach. Ursin par 2. Cat. in Explicat parag 2. Quaest 21. pag. 107. c Tit. 1.1 Primas Uticens in Tit. 1.1 Dion Carthus in loc 2 Tim. 1.5 Calvin Instit lib.
3. cap. 2. parag 12. pag. 188. Gal. 5.22 But before becomes to the proof of this he confesses he has the Jesuits and some Remonstrants against him such as Maldonat in Joh. 9. c. and Mart. Becan in Compend Man lib. 1. cap. 16. Quest 3. pag. 335. and in Summ. Theol. part 2. Quest 8. pag. 802. and Pet. Bertius de Apostas Sanct. pag. 42 43. Act. Synod Remonstr in Defens Artic. 5. de persever Sanct. pag. 230 231. who in order to establish a worse Errour viz. The final Apostacy of the Saints assert That this common or temporary faith is not only specifically but even gradually the same with saving faith and would justifie if persevered in whose Arguments he passes by as undeserving a confutation being so pitifully weak and because his Learned and Ingenious Adversary Mr. Baxter proceeds not so far as to assert That such a faith can justifie However by the by he tells us that he conceives that it may be manifestly evinced against those Adversaries by many Circumstances of the Text in Matt. 13.5 6 21 22. where common faith is described by four Conditions that cannot possibly agree to a saving faith that it must needs be more than gradually different from it Now proceeds he though this were sufficient to prove his abovesaid position yet he will still add some more distinct Confirmations of it which he does by the following additional Reasons viz. Reason 1. Drawn from the vast difference between the nature of the Causes and first Principles of these two sorts of Faith because the one is Heaven-born immediately from the Spirit of Christ which sows in us an Immortal seed of faith which can never die but must overcome sin in the Elect and work Regeneration And the Other is only a Humane faith wrought by Humane Means and assents to Divine Truths out of meer Humane Motives and by meer Humane Causes as false Reasonings or more forcible Temptations and Persecutions may be overthrown and extinguisht Reason 2. From the different Nature and proper acts of both Qualities saving belief being the first Spiritual Life by which a Christian lives and is justified Heb. 10.38 whereas common belief is often in them who are dead in Trespasses and Sins and neither justifies sanctifies nor saves Reason 3. Because 't is evident common faith may be in a very high degree in some Impious and Vnregenerate Persons who have acute parts and are Learned and Industrious and thrive into a Radicated Habit and a great measure of knowledge of both speculative and practical Divine Truths which by their Learning they may be able to demonstrate and may really believe and assent to and yet never proceed to pay true obedience to c. And because though there are many degrees of saving faith too from the Child to the Strong Man in Christ which include far less knowledge than some degrees of common faith yet the weakest of them is saving whereas the highest degree of common faith can neither justifie nor save a plain Evidence these two faiths are of kinds as different as Heaven and Earth Reason 4. Is because common Grace as the knowledge of several Tongues and of many Divine Truths as it is generally a Habit or Disposition acquired by our Natural Faculties improved by Industry Education c. and so depending upon mutable principles as our Will and Vnderstanding so they may be lost again by negligence or malice whereas saving faith being produced by the Eternal and Immutable Spirit of Christ is incorruptible and can never die nor be lost John 17.3 1 Pet. 1.23 Heb. 10.38 John 6.47 51 54. See Aquin. 1. 2. Quaest 51. Art 4. in Corp. Artic. which he proves further by conferring 1 John 3.9 5.1.4 8. with 1 John 5.18 Reason 5. Is because though common and saving faith may have the same material object viz. Divine Truths revealed by God in the Gospel as that Jesus is the Son of God c. yet these truths are embraced by these two faiths upon different Motives and by far different means the one being built only upon Humane Mediums and Arguments such as Vnregenerate Persons by their natural parts helpt with Learning c. may attain to which is an assent like its Principles that begot it humane and fallible whereas saving faith proceeding from Christ's Spirit and built upon his immediate Illumination and Testimony which is Divine and Infallible must of necessity be an assent differing from the former more than in degree and be like its cause Divine and Infallible likewise which proof he further illustrates by comparing the difference between Opinion and Science with that between common and saving faith and by several Scriptural Arguments besides Reason 6. Is because if common and saving faith were essentially the same then Irregenerate and Impious Persons who have common Graces may be as gracious and as true Believers as the best Saints though not in so high a degree as the smallest grain of Gold is as truly Gold as the whole Wedge but that this consequence is de facto false Ergo c. And that it is really false appears by this says he that 't is as impossible for a Christian to have any other Theological Vertues or Graces without true faith as 't is for a Man according to the Moralists to have any other Moral Vertues without Prudence which is the Root of them all And further adds he if it be true as Mr. Baxter says in Exercit. de fid c. Art 30. pag. 279. Rat. 7. and Aphoris in Explicat Thes 69. pag. 266 and 267. That the Essence of saving faith consists in accepting Christ and loving him as our Lord and Saviour then it follows that those who do not so accept and love him have not the essence of saving faith and therefore that since 't is evident that no Irregenerate Persons though somtimes full fraught with common faith yet do ever so accept and love Christ therefore it follows their faith must needs be of a very different kind from saving faith Q.E.D. Reason 7. And last is Because if common and saving grace be essentialiy the same then it would follow that a Man who has an historical Faith whilst Unregenerate by the help of Natural parts Learning c. and afterwards should become Regenerate would by the Spirit of Christ receive only a greater degree of the same faith he had before and consequently that saving Grace would not be a Gift of God's as to its essence but only as to its degree because we should owe the essence of it only to our natural parts c. and the degree only to Christ's Spirit But this Doctrine says he is contrary to express Scripture and resolved to be so by the Ancient Church and by her expresly condemned in her Councils as Pelagian and Heretical and therefore it follows that the difference between common and saving faith must needs be specifical as appears in Concil Arausicann 2 Can. 4 5 6 7 8.
same as independent and 〈◊〉 dependent being depended upon another dependent being there would be 〈◊〉 Prâ—â—ressus in Infinitum since no independent being can be to stop at where 〈…〉 are dependent or else a circular making 〈…〉 to depend mutually upon one another 〈◊〉 by this means one being which is dependent upon another is posterior to that other upon which it depends and in the mean time prior to that same other being which has likewise a mutual dependence upon it For whatever depends upon another is either an Accident or a Substance but 〈◊〉 Acâ—ident is naturally posterior to the â—â—â—stance upon which alone it can depend and one substance cannot depend upon another substance except by way of causality which plainly imports a natural priority in the one and posteriority in the other So that these consequences which are both equally absurd of a progress in Infinitum and making one and the same thing both prior and posterior in the same respect since all the dependence is either by the w y of accident or substance ut supra do necessarily follow upon this supposition that all things are dependent Wherefore an independent being must be acknowledged and that is what We call God Arg. III. There must be a supream Cause of all things which is caused by none otherwise there would be a Progressus in Infinitum in the causes of things as is evident but this progressus is absurd and impossible Therefore there is an independent Cause above all the rest which is God Obj. 1. These arguments may perhaps prove that there is an increated independendent first cause of all things yet they cannot prove that there is but one only and consequently cannot demonstrate the existence of the true God who is unus solus Ergo c. Answ I. Dato non concesso that they are not sufficient to prove the unity of God yet they are sufficient to infer the negatum viz. That there is some increated independent being cognoscible by the light of Nature which is called God But I Answ II. By the same very force that they prove the existence of a Deity they likewise infer the unity of the same for if there be a being omnimode perfectum it is impossible that there should be any more than one because there can be nothing to distinguish them one from another and distinct they must be else they could not be a plural but all one and the same entity Now what ground of distinction can there be betwixt two beings all perfect It cannot be any thing equally lodged in them both for in that they both agree it cannot be any thing lodg'd in one and not in another for that would destroy the Hypothesis viz. That they are two all-perfect beings by making one to enjoy a perfection an imperfection it is not a subject capable of which the other is deprived of and consequently cannot be omnimode perfectum Obj. 2. God is a simple and uncompounded being Therefore he cannot be known by natural light The Reason of the consequence is Because God cannot be fully comprehended and adequately known by natural light and since he is a simple being indivisible and without parts he cannot be known in part for he has no parts so he must either be known adequately or not all As it is in a point or punctum indivisibile if it be touched it cannot be touched in part because it has no parts but must be touched all over if touched at all so in our natural knowledge of God since it is confess'd that we cannot know him adequately neither can we know him at all for God is a simple indivisible being tota indivisibilis entitas and so cannot be known eâ— parte or in ordine ad unum non in oâ— ine ad aliud because there is nâ—t unum aliud in God Answ I. It does not follow that because God is an Invisible being therefore he must be known adquately and totally yea rather the contrary seems to follow because what is simple and invisible cannot be known totally or adequately since God who wants parts cannot be considered as a totum for this has always a respect to parts which God has not Answ II. God may be known totally and adequately as to his existence that is we may by the light Nature discover that there is a Being simple indivisible c. tho' we cannot know all the immense properties of that being what they are and fully comprehend the nature of the same as I may know that there is such a Man as Plato tho' in the mean time I cannot tell what he is nor what are all the truths that may be enuntiated concerning him so I may naturally know quod sit Deus tho' not quid sit secundum se totum for the Creature which is the mean by which we arise to the knowledge of God is not an effect adequate to him an omnipotent Cause who might have created many more if he wou'd and therefore it cannot give us the adequate knowledge of him yea our finite intellect can never by pure natural means comprehend an infinite Being either in Patriâ or in Viâ— as Moses testifies who tho' he was familiar with God yet could not see his fore-parts and St. Paul who tho' ravished to the third Heavens yet could not fathom the unsearchable depths of the incomprehensible God Answ III. Our knowledge of God is not sensitive like that of touching a point but intellective and by this intellective knowledge we do not know him as he is in himself but after the manner of Men and by a conception suitable to our Natures so we must conceive the Mercy Justice Omnipotence c. of God as distinct attributes while in the mean time there is no diversity of perfections in God but all are one and the same indivisible Entity And so God if considered in se and as he is in himself he is indivisible but as the object of our understanding he must be conceived in a divisible manner by forming inadequate apprehensions of him prescinding from one thing and considering another for tho' there be not unum aliud in God à parte rei and as he is in himself yet there is after the manner of our conceptions of him Objection III. God is neither cognoscible by the light of Nature nor can the bein of a God be believ'd by Faith not cognoscible by the light of Nature because his existence is an Article of Faith and so depends on Revelation as being a supernatural truth above the power of nature And it cannot be believed by Faith because the Testimony of God is the only Motive and ratio formalis why I give the assent of my Faith unto any proposition or truth so that all Faith presupposes both that there is a God and that he speaks true for upon the truth of his testimony I believe and there cannot be any faith till the existence of God be acknowledged which it
necessarily presupposes and to believe that there is a God because God said so whose existence is in the mean time call'd in question were ridiculous Answ I. Tho' the Existence of God be an Article of Faith yet it may likewise be known by Natural light since there are many things in the Scriptures which we believe by Faith that can be demonstrated by natural light such as these known Principles that God is to be honoured Parents obeyed c. And the Reason is because Faith and Natural Scientifick Knowledge do not formally differ in their material Object for both may have one and the same Object viz. one and the same proposition both proved by natural demonstration and believed in by Faith because of the testimony of God but the main and principle difference lies in that which they call Objectum formale and the formality of the Object is taken from the principal Motive or mean by vertue whereof the proposition comes to gain an assent as in Natural things the motive of my assent is evident demonstration and in supernatural things the testimony of God so that I may assent unto a proposition that is demonstrable by natural light because of the clear probation of the same and this is call'd assensus scientificus and if God confirm it by Revelation I assent unto the same proposition because of the testimony of God and this is called assensus fidei or supernaturalis not as if the proposition it self were supernatural incomprehensible by natural light but because the medium or motive upon which I ground my assent unto it is supernatural So that one and the same proposition may be in ordine ad diversa motiva both the object of Faith and of a demonstrative Natural knowledge Instatur The Object of Faith is inevident for Faith is an inevident assent But if the Existence of God can be demonstratively proved by Natural Light then it cannot be inevident Ergo c. Answ There be three things to be considered in giving an assent to a truth 1. Firmitas or the stedfastness of the person in his belief not doubting of any thing 2. Certitudo or the certainty of the truth it self for some Men may be firmly perswaded of a thing which is not in it self a certain truth as the Hereticks are of their Errours 3. Evidentia or a demonstrative perspicuous manifestation of the truth For many things such as matters of Faith are certainly true and Men are firmly persuaded of their truth who yet cannot evidently shew and demonstrate that it is a truth because they believe upon the Testimony of another And of these truths that are evident some are more evident than others as the prima principia or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are more evident than the other conclusions that are deduced tho' with evidence too by a longer series of consequences Now whatever is an Object of Faith is indeed ineâ—â—â—ent yet there are some things more inevident than others such as the principal and cardinal truths of thâ— Christian Relâ—gion viz. The Trinity of Persons in the Godhead the divinity and incâ—â—â—nation of Christ and the whole Mystery of his Redeâ—ption of the World by his blooâ— and these are evâ—ry way inevident whereas there are some other truths which tho' in so far as they are believed in by Faith are justly denominated inevident because of the motive and medium of the Belief yet may be upon another occasional respect and per accidens called evident of which Nature is this of the Existence of a God which is truly an object of Faith and in that respect inevident viz. as assented unto upon the testimony of God But it is also upon another respect evident becâ—use it per accidens so falls out that it is likewise demonstrable by natural knowledge Answ 2. It does not follâ—w that the Existence of God cannot be believed by Faith because Faith depends on the Testimony of God which presupposes that there is a God for the contrary seems rather to be deducible from thence viz. That because all Faith is founded upon the Divine Testimony and because no Believer can give assent unto any truth unless he know the Testimony given unto the same to be divine therefore by that same very act of Faith whereby he believes this Testimony to come from God he likewise believes there is a God who sends it For by the same individual act of seeing I must of necessity see the colour and sensible species of a Wall as they call it that I see the Wall it self by No more can I know the testimony to the truth to be divine unless by the same very act of Faith whereby I believe the testimony to be God's I likewise believe the existence of God who gives this Testimony And this Divine Testimony is the ground of all my belief and the ratio a priori wherefore I give mine assent unto any thing yet there can be no ratio a priori given wherefore I believe the Testimony of God as when I see a Wall the ratio is because of the species but the species it self wants any ratio and is only â—â—en propter se so in all the objects of my â—aith I believe them because of the Testimony of God but I believe the Testimony of God propter se So that the Existence of God though it be sufficiently demonstrable by the light of Nature and in that sense the Object of a scientifick asâ—â—â— yet since God has confirmed it by his revealed Testimony it may well be stated as an Article of our Creed which we believe because God has testified and revealed the same and that in a more clear manner than bare Reason is capable to perform the demonstration of it Objection 4. There is no other way of knowing God naturally than by way of causality from the Creatures arising from the effect unto the cause but that we cannot do unless we can evidently know and demonstrate that the Creature is really the effect and work of God and this we cannot since the greatest Philosophers were ignorant of it and thâ—ught the World to be eternal which is also confirmed by the Apostle Heb. 11. By faith we know that the World was created intimating that the Creation of the World is a truth not comprehended by Natural Light Answer All the Philosophers have generally acknowledged that God was the Creator of the World Hence Aristotle frequently calls God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Plato in Timaeo Tom. 2. pag. 31. asserts that God made but one World not many Plutarch commends Alexander for saying that God was the Father of all things Plutarch in Alex. Magn. pag 681. What more ordinary amongst the Poets than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I lle opisex rerum c Anaxagoras Hermotinus Pythagoras c. were all asserters of the same Doctrine so that they knew and acknowledged the Creation of the World in general though they could not condescend to the particular Circumstances
which attended the same And therefore is it that Galen scoffs and stouts at Moses for saying many things about the manner of the Creation of the World and proving nothing And as to that saying of the Apostle we have sufficiently shewn already that one and the same material truth may both be believed by faith and assented unto by Natural Reason and so may be invested with different Denominations arising from the different motiva upon which they are received So that the Existence of God is an object of Natural Knowledge as it is demonstrated by reason and is likewise an object of Faith as being witnessed by a Testimony clearer than Reason even the Supernatural Testimony of God Upon which account it is said to be Supernatural not as if the Proposition it self did so far surpass the power of Nature that it could not be compass'd and apprehended by the same but because the mean or motive by which it gains an assent is Supernatural and the knowledge acquired by the same is more distinct and particularly circumstantiate than what the more general and confused Natural Reason can possibly furnish us withal Objection 5. If the Existence of a God and the Knowledge thereof were so naturally imprinted on the Spirits of all Men then it could not be wholly obliterated nay nor in the least diminished either by long inveterate custom or any other violent force for whatever is Natural as descent is unto a Stone let it be never so oft or so customarily cast up and put out of its road yet it still returns unto the same and can never forget its Natural Byas whereas we see the Knowledge of a God in many Mens Breasts if not quite abolished yet very much defaced what by evil Company-keeping and what by a long contracted habit and custom of sinning But if the Knowledge of God were Natural no such thing could fall out Ergo c. Answer It is true indeed that Custom cannot change Nature that is the natural inclination and propension of any thing such as the descent of a stone is But it may change and alter the Natural Acts or the particular Exertions of the propensive Faculties as though custom cannot bereave a stone of its natural inclination and propensity to bend downwards yet it may hinder the execution of what it is naturally inclined unto since a customary and oft casting it up hinders it to come down And in this sense the Knowledge of God by the Light of Nature which is an act of the Natural Understanding Faculty whereby it evidently sees and is ascertain'd that there is a God is oft times hindered likewise But the hinderances that may occur unto these Acts executive of and flowing from the Natural Inclination are twofold 1. External and by these the Natural Acts are many times impeded As that Physical Act of the Natural Descent of a Stone is oft times hindered by a Supervenient physical Impediment and the Moral Intellectual Act of knowing the Existence of God is oft times hindered by a Moral Impediment viz. sin which will some times so over-cloud and blind the Understanding that it cannot see or discern the clearest truth even of the Existence of that God who is truth it self 2. Internal or when the Propensive Faculty and Inclination does of its own accord pursue the contrary of what it inclin'd unto before And in this sense the Natural or Physical Inclinations cannot be controul'd in following their Natural Pondus because they being naturally determin'd ad Vnum can never be obliged from any Intrinsick Principle to run in the contrary Channel But as for Moral Faculties which are only sway'd by Moral not Physical Agents they are not endow'd with any such freedom from Internal Alteratives of which we have too too palpable a Testimony in our sad experience for though Adam in the state of Innocence was naturally bended towards Honestum Verum yet as soon as sin got hold of him he was not only hurried away by the violence of the external stream but did willingly and by an internal consent go along with the Current And these Executive Acts may indeed for the Reasons and in the Cases above assign'd be changed by Custom for Custom cannot alter Natural Propensions or Inclinations especially where they are purely Natural that is without any cognition as the descent of a stone though the stone be hindered by external violence from the act of descending yet still it remains as the Natural Pondus of it But as for those Inclinations and Propensive Faculties which are not so purely natural as being endow'd with Knowledge and yet they are called Natural too because it is as natural for the Will of Man to incline unto that which is good as for a stone to incline to its center in these I say this Axiome does not hold so extensively true as in the Physical and more Natural Inclinations For we see that the casting up a stone tho' never so frequently does not oblige it to forsake its Natural Propensity to come downwards But in the Moral and Ethical Inclinations of Men we find a Habit and Custom of sinning hath so far prevail'd upon us that we do not steer that course which naturally we were addicted unto The Reason of the disparity of Physical and Moral Inclinations is because the former are semper ad unum determinatae and so can never be alter'd in their Inclination but the latter viz. Moral Inclinations are more easily overcome because they are indulg'd a greater Liberty and are not by any necessitas naturae like the other bound up to any particular Object Indeed their general Object is as invariable as that of a Natural Necessity for the Will cannot by any Custom whatsoever incline unto that which is not in general Good nor can the Intellect be perswaded to assent unto that which is not in general true But in the more particular circumstances of their Object they are oft times prevail'd upon by Custom as the Will may by a long and inveterate Habit follow after that which is indebitum bonum and the Intellect by prejudice or the imperium of the Will c. may be obliged to give its assent unto that which is not in it self true But in the general the Will must still follow what is apparently good and the Intellect assent unto what is seemingly true for voluntas non potest appetere malum quà malum nor Intellectus assentire falso quà falso And if it should here be question'd Why the Understanding should be so oft deceived in these practical primary Principles That there is a God and that he is to be Worshipped whereas it is never deceived in in its Speculative Principles for no Man ever doubted that Totum est majus suâ parte and Impossibile est idem esse non esse how comes it therefore that they should be so readily and frequently imposed upon by false practical Principles I say if any such thing
is of a Person which likewise is twofold 1. Of Christ as Man For so he was in the Number of the Elect. Math. 12.18 2. Of those United with Christ namely of the Angels who persevered in their Obedience and of Men God ordain'd and Elected some Men to Offices and Honour in this World as Saul to the Government Others he Elected to Salvation and Glory in Heaven and of these our Question is Now here we say that this Divine Election by which God chooseth Certain Men from Eternity to Salvation is not an Act of the Divine Intellect or Knowledge by which he knows but of his Will by which according to his good pleasure he determines of us The Reason is because the Divine Knowledge is Natural and necessary so that it is impossible that God should not know every object that could be known but Election is a free Act since it is a thing confessed pâ—tuisse Deum vel nullos Condidisse vel Conditos non elegisse vel plures vel pauciores vel alios pâ—oâ—suo benâ—placito jure absoluto quo in Creaturas utitur The Divine Knowledge doth equally look at all objects possible or future but not so his Election which is a Discretive Act and passeth by some to perish for ever while it prepares Grace and Glory for others Now when it is ask'd if Election be from Faith foreseen First We do not deny that Faith was foreseen from Eternity since 't is manifest that the Knowledge of God is equally Eternal with his Will For sicut quicquid est futurum erat ab aeterno futurum ita etiam ab aeâ—erno Cognitum But Secondly We enquire of the habitude that the fâ—reseeing of Faith hath to Election This habitude for foreseen Faith in order to Election is threefold and may have the Notion First Antecedentis so that God chooseth none to Heaven in whom he had not seen Faith to come or did see that Faith would come before they were actually Elected Secondly It may have the Notion Conditionis and so Faith may be consider'd as a Condition necessarily required in Election Thirdly Foreseen Faith may further have the Notion of a Cause and so not to be only an Antecedent and a Condition of Election but to have the Notion of a Cause from whence Election follows as the Effect Now when 't is enquired if Election be of Faith foreseen Historical Faith is not meant nor a Faith of Miracles the which Unregenerate Men may have but the meaning is of justifying Faith which is proper only to the Regenerate These matters being thus setled Our Principal Conclusion is this viz. In illis qui Eliguntur Praedestinantur ad gloriam non datur aliquis Actus aut qualitas a Deo praevisa aut aliud quodcunque quod sit meritum causa ratio aut Conditio vel antecedens quolibet modo ita Praesuppositum Decreto Electionis ut ex positione talis Praecedanei in Praevisione divinâ ponatur Electio ex negatione negetur Or you may take the Conclusion thus viz. Nulla datur ex parte nostrâ Causa ratio vel Conditio sine quâ non Praedestinatioâ—is seu Electionis Divinae The first Reason of this Conclusion is If Election be from Faith foreseen then Faith foreseen is some way a Cause of Election the which Consequence though the Remonstrants will sometimes deny and seem not to allow foreseen Faith as the Cause of Gods Electing as may be seen in the Collatio Hagiensis p. 103. Yet elsewhere they speak it out plainly in Writings held by them most Authentical namely in Actis Synodalibus Part. 2. p. 6. where they tell us Fidem Perseverationem in Electione Consâ—derari ut Conditionem ab bomine praestitam ac proinde tanquam Causam They add this Reason Because the Condition prescribed and perform'd doth necessario alicujus Causae rationem induere And indeed they must needs be forc'd to Confess this For if we ask them why God chose Peter and not Judas they say because God foresaw that Peter would believe So that from their Hypothesis it must needs be that foreseen Faith was the Cause that Peter was chosen before Judas Now I do subsume that foreseen Faith is not the Cause nor Reason nor Motive any way of Election First Because the Scripture allows of no Cause of Election extra Deum ipsum but refers it altogether to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beneplacitum For this Consult Ephes 1.11 and Rom. 9.11 On the other hand If you will believe you shall be Elected is no where to be found in Holy Writ either expresly or by equi valence There is I confess this proposition in Scripture He that believes shall be saved but not he that believes shall be predestinated because God never required Faith as antecedaneous to his decree Secondly If Faith be an effect and Consequent of Election then is it not the Cause of it or antecedaneous motive because 't is altogether impossible and implies a manifest Contradiction ut idem respectu ejusdem sit antecedens consequens causa effectus But Faith is an effect or Consequent of Election therefore 't is not a Cause or antecedent motive of it The minor I prove out of Eph. 1.4 According as he hath chosen us before the Foundation of the World that we should be Holy c. And v. 5th sheweth that God did predestinate those whom he would adopt for Sons not such as were Sons But if he had chosen such as believed then he would have chosen Holy Men and Sons But Sanctity and our Sonship are not the Cause nor Antecedent Motive of Election For Rom. 8.29 For whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate to be Conformed to the Image of his Son not as if they were then so Again if Election were of Works then the Apostle might have had an Answer to his Objection in a readiness as to what he mentions in the 9th of the Romans about the Children neither having done any good or evil and in vain had the instance there been brought of the Potters power over the Clay of the same lump to make one Vessel unto Honour and another to dishonour Whereas if Election had been from foreseen Faith he had spoke more aptly thus Hath not the Potter the art to know the difference in several parts of Clay and to separate the good from the bad But the Apostles similitude is exactly pertinent if we suppose Election to be absolute and all Creatures to be in an equal State The Bishop ends his determination with another Reason for his Conclusion Namely that Infants are Eleoted but not from Faith and perseverance for they are not capable thereof Partes sub antiquo saedere per Christi Mortem salutem sunt Consecuti TO begin with the sâ—â—tinâ— of the Question 1. By Fathers here we do not understand the Patriarchs and Prophets but all the Faithful under the Old Testament All the Children of Abraham I mean not of
the begâ—tting but believing Abraham For to all and only these were the promises made Gal. 3.16 29. And all these are call'd the Fathers Rom. 15.8 to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers Acts. 26.6 There is mention of the Gospel or promise made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to Abraham and his Seed 2. The Question speaks of these Fathers under the Old Covenant As to the Nature of a Covenant the word in the Hebrew is Benith coming from a word that signifies not as properly to create but to order and institute It s Nature is Artificially explain'd by Schielder and others and especially Buxtorfe in that Learned Work of his of Thirty Years And so what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is among the Hellenists and Faedus or Pactum among the Latinists Calvin the Lawyer and Schardius and Nebrissensis may be Consulted in their juridical Glossarys on the words Pactum and Faedus and Mynsinger and Sckneidwin on Instit lib. 3. Tit. 14. De Obligationibus may be usefully apply'd to for the Nature of Pactions and especially Grotius to name no more on the 1 of Mat. p. 1 2. This then is the thing we say that the Fathers or the Faithful who lived under the Oeconomy of the Law obtained the Salvation of their Souls by means of our Saviours Death Now here we shall demonstrate it distinctly in thesi ex parte Rei that the Fathers had Salvation by Christ's means and likewise in Hypothesi ex parte modi how they had it Now when we say the Fathers had Salvation by means of Christ it is confessed by all that they went to Heaven after their Deaths but whether by the Mercy of God or his absolute benignity their Sins were forgiven or for the merits of Christ is not so clear to all neither among all those Christians who have given up their names to Christ is it look'd on as a piece of Catholick truth for it appears out of the Racovian Catechism that the Socinians deny it and the Socinians argue from Isaiah 43.25 I even I am he that blotteth out thy Transgressions for mine own sake c. that therefore they had forgiveness only on the account of the Divine benignity without any respect to the Death of Christ But to shew that they obtained forgiveness by Christs means we may refer to Acts 4.12 Neither is there Salvation in any other for there is none other Name under Heaven given among Men whereby we must be saved But they will tell us That was true from the time the Apostle said so But I shall mind them of the foregoing Verse this is the Stone which was set at nought of you Builders which is become the Head of the Corner and that the Church in Scripture is compared to a Building and of which Christ being the Corner Stone both Jews and Gentiles meet in him and that according to Eph. 2.20 21. they come under the notion of Fellow Citizens with the Saints and of the Household of God and are built on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the Corner Stone in whom all the Building fittly framed together groweth unto an Holy Temple in the Lord. But yet to make it more clear if it be possible If the Death of Christ did give Redemption and Remission of Sins in the Old Testament then the People of God had Salvation by this means But they had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Redemption as saith the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 9.15 And for this Cause he is the Mediatour of the New Testament that by means of Death for the Redemption of the Transgressions that were under the First Testament they which are called might receive the promise of Eternal Inheritance Two things are very clear from this place of Scripture First That Christ did procure for the Fathers that lived under the Old Testament Redemption from their Sins Secondly That he did procure an Eternal Inheritance for them which was the thing to be proved Now as to the place out of Isaiah of Gods blotting out Transgressions for his own names sake and therefore not for Christ's I deny the Consequence For that doth not exclude Christs merits but the persons whose Sins are there forgiven And thus God may be still said in the New Testament to pardon our Sins for his names sake And so 't is said Rom. 8.32 He that spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all how shall he not with him also freely give us all things God now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Omnia nobis gratificatur i. e. gratis dat scilicet ex parte nostri non Christi qui pretio numerato captos nos è captivitate liberaverat For this you may see Lud. Lucium contra Michael Gittichium de Satisfact Christi in solutione arg 3. p. 27. Having shewn that the Fathers were saved by Christ ex parte Rei we shall now shew it in Hypothesis and by the special means by which the Fathers did gain Salvation by Christ And here we say 1. That they might gain Salvation by Christ First By being purely passive in receiving it without exerting any Act of Faith as Infants are saved by Christ But Secondly We say the Fathers under the Law were active in obtaining Salvation by Christ and that they did believe on Christ and did apply to themselves what Christ should merit The Socinians say they were justified by Faith but by Faith in God and not in his Son But that the truth may more plainly appear I shall lay down this Conclusion and prove it That the Saints under the Law did obtain Salvation by Faith in Christ Here we may Consider the Saints as such who were notae eminentioris as Abraham David and the Prophets or notae inferioris ut è plebe indocti literarum rudes and we may likewise Consider Faith as twofold I mean Faith in Christ First Explicit by which Christ is directly known in himself and is expresly believed Second Implicit by which Christ is not expresly known and believed but only implicitly and by Consequence Cum ex uno in thesi directè cognito creditoque sequitur Christum in hyyothesi implicitè esse creditum So he who believes that God will by means disposed by his Providence procure his Salvation though he knows not what those means are may be said implicitly to believe on Christ as the primary of those means Now here we say that the Saints of more eminent note did explicitly believe on Christ as their Redeemer This is asserted both by Papists and Protestants As we may see out of Canus Relect. part 2. p. 753. Becanus Tractat. de Analog V. N. Testamenti cap. 2. Q. 7. Lombard L. Sent. 3. Dist 25. Hooperus Glocestrensis in Symbolum Art 69. Rivet in Isag ad Sacram Script cap. 27. Cunaeus de Repub. Judaeor lib. 3. c. 9. I shall now shew that those Holy Men of Eminent note
under the Old Testament did know Christ and believe on him and were by Faith Justified and Saved This is manifest out of Scripture either by express Words or Consequences clearly deduced from it For this you may consult Acts 10.43 To him give all the Prophets witness that through his Name whosoever believes in him shall obtain Remission of Sins Now it must necessarily follow That the Prophets did know him of whom they gave that Testimony For this you may see what St. Paul saith Acts 26 22. Having therefore obtain'd help of God I continue unto this day witnessing both to small and great saying none other things than those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come And if you ask whence they knew this the first of St. Peter 1.10 11. abundantly shews Of which Salvation the Prophets have enquired and searched diligently who Prophecyed of the Grace that should come unto you searching what or what manner of time the Spirit which was in them did signifie when it testified beforehand the Sufferings of Christ and the Glory that should follow For this likewise you may consult St. Luke 24.25 26 27. Then he said to them O Fools and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken ought not Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into his Glory And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself It being thus clear that they did know Christ it remains to be proved that they did believe on him and I shall urge this Argument for it viz. Those who by Christ did gain the Life that is opposed to Spiritual Death they were justify'd by Faith in Christ for Faith in Christ is our Spiritual Life and Righteousness but the Fathers and Prophets under the Old Testament did through Christ gain the Life that is opposed to Spiritual Death Ergo c. For this see 1 Cor. 15.22 As in Adam all die even so in Christ shall all be made alive And Rom. 5. from the 12th Verse to the end of the Chapter the Apostle doth by an accurate and long kind of Argumentation shew that Spiritual Death came from Adam to all his Posterity and Spiritual Life by Christ to all his Seed and Servants v. 18. Therefore as by the offence of one Judgment came upon all Men to Condemnation even so by the Righteousness of one the free gift came upon all Men unto Justification of Life So that as Death came from Adam to all who were obnoxious to Death under any Covenant whatsoever so Life came by Christ to all who were Born again under what Covenant soever The which appears from the 3d. Chapter of the Romans v. 21 22 23. But now the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifested being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets Even the Righteousness of God which is by Faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe for there is no difference For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God Here he applys the Righteousness of Christ to all that are Justified whether they lived under the Law or under the Gospel He speaks there expresly of Abraham and the Jews as well as of the Holy Men then in being This might be more largely shewed from innumerable places of Scripture But it remains now that we should speak of those of inferiour note or the plebs And here first the Mster of the Sentences l. 3. dist 25. as likewise all his followers of whom a Catalogue is to be found in Johannes Martinez de Repalda ad dict dist Qu. 4. doth thus conclude the thing Simplices indocti e plebe homines sub antiquo foedere in Christum credebant fide solum implicitâ Nam quia ex se minus capaces erant ideo majoribus credendo inhaerebant quibus fidem suam quasi committebant But for this he brings a ridiculous Argument out of the 1st of Job The Oxen were ploughing and the Asses feeding besides them By the Asses he tells us are meant the simplices indocti and so with him the Clergy-men are taken for Oxes and the Layety for Asses But Secondly we say that the Common People of old in the Days of the Old Testament did live Religiously and did believe on Christ fide explicitâ I here call it fidem explicitam but not distinctam For they knew that Christ or the Messias would come to redeem the House of Israel some time or other but in what Age or how or by what means they did not guess And of many other Circumstances that did concern Christ's Person and Office they were ignorant All such things the Prophets themselves did not know distinctly and much less the Layety That the generality of the People had an expectation of Christ we see out of St. John the 4th where the Woman of Samaria saith I know that the Messias will come and when he is come he will tell us all things She was an ordinary kind of Woman a Samaritan and an Adulteress and yet she saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and knew the Messias would come And v. 29. she saith Come see a Man which told me all things that ever I did Is not this the Christ Speaking of Christ as a thing known among them And not only the Jews who lived in Christ's Age did entertain general Notions of a Christ but they did so in antienter Ages whence Malachy the 3d and the 1st about 100 Years before Christ was born mention is made of the Angel of the Covenant which Angel the Jews did Interpret to be Christ So Rabbi David Kimchi cited by Grotius on this place where Grotius doth subjoyn this That the Messias would come all the Jews before Christ's time did firmly believe The which Grotius doth shew out of the 2d of Haggai and in his Annotations on St. Matthew more at large And Holy Men before Christ's time were Christians though not called so Consult Genebrard's Chronologia Hebraeorum Paris 1600. where p. 59. there is a Tract de Christo cui titulus Scripturae in quibus Chaldaeus Paraphrastes interjecit Nomen Messiae c. There is there in p. 75. Explicatio Symboli Judaici per doctissimum R. Mosem Maimonidem where in the 12th Article 't is said Jubemur credere tempus dierum Messiae illumque amare extollere juxta id quod nuntiatum est per Prophetas omnes Quicunque autem de eo dubitat insimulat universam legem quae Messiam sperare jubet See more concerning this in Euseb Demonsir Evangelic l. 1. c. 5. Ecclesia Authoritatem habet in Controversiis fidei I shall here first explain the terms and then deduce and prove some Theses First for the word Ecclesia it doth signifie 1st Congregationem Concionem seu Conventum eumque duplicem 1. Civilem 2. Sacrum In the former signification we do not only find it used by Thucydides Halicarnasceus and other such Writers
is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nec vola nec vestigium But say they if the Church be not infallible we need not obey it I answer that doth not follow Parents are not infallibe in their Commands yet Children are to obey them And under the Law the High Priest was to be obey'd tho' but fallible An fides sola justificat FAith is vocabulum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First 'T is taken objectively pro fide quae creditur namely for the Doctrine of the Gospel reveal'd to us to which we assent Acts 6.7 Some are said there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctrinae evangelicae obedire Thus we say symbolum fidei by which we understand the Doctrinal Articles of Faith Secondly Faith is taken subjectively pro fide quâ creditur namely for that Quality or Action inherent in us And it is threefold a Faith Historical a Faith of Miracles and Saving Faith A Faith Temporary is falsely put in and impertinently added in Catechisms For it is not distinguish'd from the other kinds of Faith And an Historical and Faith of Miracles if they end are temporary Wicked men may believe the History of the Scripture to be true and may be able to do Wonders as many shall say at that day Lord in thy name we have cast out Devils Thirdly as to Saving Faith most of our Divines since Luther's Days have made it to be certa fiducia quâ certò apud se statuit quis Christum pro se esse mortuum peccata sibi esse remissa Deumque placatum Thus the Palatine Catechism part 2. Question 21. Where true Faith is defined to be non solùm certa notitia quà verbo divino assentior sed Certa siducia quâ statuo non solum aliis sed mihi remissionem peccatorum aeternam justitiam vitam donatam esse Thus Vrsin in notis Catecheticis ibidem Thus Hier. Zanch. tom 1. Cap. 1. l. 13. Thus Calvin Beza and others generally and the Church of England in the Homily of Faith Part 1. pag. 22. And thus John Lord Bishop of Worcester in his late Controversiarum fasciculus De Redemptione Question 6. p. 269. But if this Certitude of a present Righteousness be essential to faith then faith cannot be without it And again this fiducia and Plerophory of assurance is an effect and Consequent of Faith And moreover this Opinion is against manifest Reason for a man must be first justified and his sins done away before he can certainly know it For every finite Act presupposes an Object to which it must tend So 't is necessary there should be a visible colour before Eye can see and that there should be objectum cognoscibile before the understanding can know any thing and that sins should be remitted before any man can know they are so And Justifying Faith must be precedent to this certa fiducia Nor is this fiducia intrinsical to Justifying Faith nor a necessary adjunct of it For there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is by many reslex Acts of Faith that this siducia or assurance is at last acquired We say then that illud in desinitione fidei malè ponitur quod non omni coâ—â—eâ—iâ— But this certa siducia doth not omni fidei Competere Matt. 14.31 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 curâ—â—dubitaveras Now Justifying Faith doth therefore not consist in believing that Christ hath pardoned my Sins For that which supposeth a man just already cannot make him just For every intellectual assent doth necessarily presuppose that the Proposition is true that is assented to and so it is necessary that the Sins of Sempronius should be forgiven before Sempronius can believe any such thing But now to speak more distinctly there are three things in fide Salvificâ First The Knowledge of the Gospel that Christ was promised by the Father and sent to be vas sponsor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nostrum Secondly The Assent to the Promises of this kind Thirdly That fiducia quâ anima multis peccati debitis Deo obnoxia Christum tanquam Vadem suum sponsorem patri loco nostro obligatum apprehendit in eoque pro solutione debiti a se contracto requiescit recumbit innititur The two former things namely notitia and assensus are as it were the materiale respectu fidei justificantis But the 3d. viz. that fiducia is quasi formale fidei and most proper to it For tho Saving Faith hath diverse Actings about divers Objects yet as it justifies it looks at Christ alone and him crucified As the Eye of a Jew under the Old Testament who was stung by Fiery Serpents did look at many things beside the Brazâ—n Serpent yet he grew well only by looking on that Serpent So the Eye of Saving Faith looks at many things besides Christ namely all Gospel Truths but doth heal us only as it applies Christ as a Medicine to the sick Soul In the next place we say though this faith be subjectivè only in the Vnderstanding yet it is effectivè in the Will and Affections and doth in a moral yet efficacious way determine them to love God and to obey him whence 't is called Faith that works by love And therefore this Faiih is no speculative Vertue in the head only but it is also practical in the heart Non tamen ratione inhaerentiae sed influentiae Now this Faith is said alone to justifie not in respect of its being without the company of good works but only in regard of its efficiency For though good works be in the same subject with this Faith yet they do not effectively concur with Faith in the business of Justification for Faith doth that alone that only applying Christ Moreover that doth justifie us not formaliter for so the Righteousness of Christ doth justifie us For he is made unto us of God righteousness 1 Cor. 1.30 but effectivè Non tamen quod justitiam illam efficiat vel effectivè nobis imputet For it is God who thus justifies Rom. 8.33 but only because justitiam a Christo oblatam animae peccatrici applicat And this is that which the Divines of the Reform'd Religion do so often inculcate in their Writings that this Faith doth justifie not as it is absolutely consider'd in it self and ratione actus sed objectivè relativè in ordine ad objectum suum Christum Scilicet whom it accepts of So the hand of a man which receives a Plaister from the hand of a Chyrurgion is said to heal Not that it doth that formaliter and effectively but because it applies it to the Wound which it heals So a Window enlightens the House yet neither effectively if we speak properly nor formally but because it transmits light which doth properly enlighten Some Popish Writers tell us that the Apostle when he speaks against Justification by Works means Ceremonial Works But that is impertinently urged by them For Works are in the same manner excluded in our justification as they were in the