over-rule all is in so dangerous a condition This will appear if they consider First that through the pretended infallibility of their Head they can have no certain ground-work or Reason of their belief but are in a way to lose all true Faith For let the Cardinal make the Proposition If the Pope could Erre or turn Heretick then would the Church be bound to this Absurdity or inconveniency of taking Vice for Vertue Error for Truth This he plainly laies down in his 4. Book de Pontifice and its good Doctrine in Italy and Spain Then let the Gallican Church and more Moderate Papists make the Assumption But the Pope may turn Heretick what can the Conclusion speak but the hazard of that Church which will be under such a pretended infallible Head Secondly That by being of that Communion they are taught to appropriate to themselves the Name of Catholick and thereby bound to an uncharitable condemning of all other Christians and to a necessity of proving many Novel Errors to be ancient Catholick Doctrine We do not envie them the Title of Catholicks that they should enjoy it together withall other Chrictians who are baptized into the Catholick Faith and do profess it without any destructive Heresie but the appropriating of that Title to themselves and that in regard of those special superadded Articles of Faith proper to that Church implies all other Christians to be no better then Hereticks and excludes all conditions of Peace unless they will come in as the Israelites to Naash with their right eyes put out 1 Sam. 10. Whereas upon due trial we may confidently affirm it will appear that no Church of known and ancient denomination as Greek Asian African British doth less deserve to be called Catholick or has more forfeited that Name because none so much falsified her trust whether we consider the Errors entertained or the Imposing them as Catholick and Christian Faith The three great concernments of Religion and so of the Church are the Faith professed the Worship practised the Sacraments administred all which are dangerously violated in that Church For first How have they kept the Faith undefiled which the Athanasian Creed so severely enjoyns that have mixed it with such New superadded Articles and lay the foundation of their belief upon the uncertain perswasion of a pretended Infallibility Secondly The Worship of God is there violated by the performing it in an unknown tongue for without understanding the people cannot say Amen The prayer on their parts is but a sacrifice of fools not a reasonable service Again Violated in yielding to the Creature an undue religious service as may appear by what is said in the three first Chapters of this Book Lastly Sacraments violated by addition of New ones and those properly so called A great invasion it is upon Gods property if any man or Church hold out that for the Sacramental Sign and Instrument of Grace which God who is the only Author of Grace has not appointed to be so Again upon that which our Saviour did undoubtedly institute a great invasion is made by first taking away the substance from the outward Elements and then taking away from the people half of that which remains Our Saviour said Drink ye all of it Mat. 26.27 The Church of Rome saith Ye shall not all Drink of it Nay None of you shall but the Priest only Add to this the Impossibility they put themselves upon as I said to prove all their New Articles of belief for which they will be the only Caâ—holicks to be the Ancient Faith and Catholick Doctrine of the Church They will hardly be brought to say The Church may make New Articles of Faith but rather The Church may declare what was before but implicitly believed This is true if duly explained yet will it not excuse the boldness of that Church For when the Church declares any thing as of Faith which was not expresly taught before it is such a Truth as was necessarily conteined and couched in the confessed Articles of the Creed and by immediate consequence clearly thence deduceable as the Consubstantiality of the Son declared against the Arrians the two Wills in Christ against the Monothelites the continuance of the Humanity in its own nature and substance against the Eutychians This is that which Vincentius saith in his 32. chap. What else did the Church endeavour in the Decrees of Councils but that what before was simply believed might afterward be more diligently and explicitly believed And to shew that the Articles of faith do not increase in Number but in the dilatation of more ample knowledge He aptly uses the similitude of the several parts of the Natural body which are as many in a childe as in a grown man no addition made of new parts for that would render the body monstrous but each part is dilated and augmented by degrees To this purpose he in his 29. chap. When therefore the Romanists can shew their Novel Articles by immediate and necessary consequence deduceable from the confessed Truthes of that Creed into which we are baptized then and not till then can we excuse this boldness in adding to the Christian Faith this uncharitable Pride in boasting themselves the only Catholicks III. May they consider how their Masters being engaged in such necessity of making good the pretended Catholick Doctrine of that Church are often forced to wink at the light and go on blindfold Their Masters acknowledg and so does their Trent Council that the worship of Saints and Angels Invocation of them Adoration of Images is not commanded but commended as profitable Why then should Scripture be so oft alledged to deceive the unwary why are they retained as profitable when Experience shews what a scandal is thereby given to Jews and Turks what offence to so many Christians as protest against them what a stumbling block to their own people exposed thereby to the danger of Idolatry They acknowlege that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament and administred it in both kindes and that it was so from the beginning received and practised in the whole Church yet will not the Court of Rome suffer the people so to receive it And in their defence of this half Communion they acknowledge if the Church alter any thing in or about the Sacraments yet it must be Salvâ illorum substantia saving their substance Concil Trid. ses 21. c. 2. which notwithstanding they can take away the whole substance of the Elements and defraud the people of the half of what is left and notwithstanding our Saviours Institution and the Custom of the whole Church for so many ages This custom must be held for a Law which none may contrary as that Council decrees in the same chap. They acknowledge it is fit the people communicate with the Priest in every Mass i.e. they acknowledge it is fit there should be no private Masses and they wish it were so and yet decree the contrary cap. 6. de Missa So
also drinks his blood shed so it did till the Sacrament was instituted and so it still doth extra Sacramentum out of the Sacrament but if we apply this to the receiving of Christ in the Sacrament then drinking is as necessary both to answer the whole act of Faith and the whole purpose of the Sacrament in participating his blood shed and receiving a full Refection And therefore though eating only be expressed in that v. 57. yet he could not but see that our Saviour when he spoke in the singular number mentions and enjoyns them both v. 34 36. His instancing in the command about the Passover enjoyning to kill rost sprinkle and eat but not binding every one to perform all but some one thing some another p. 361. proves as all his former impertinent for the concernment here is in the reception or partaking of the Sacrament of the Passover by eating of the Eucharist by eating and drinking and I hope he will not deny but all and every one of the Israelites were bound to eat the Passover and to eat it as the Lord enjoyned it under pain of being cut off Exod. 12. Indeed if we take in all the actions to be done in and about the Sacrament of the Eucharist those that concern the consecration and administration as well as the reception of it every one is not bound to perform all but that which concerns the Reception belongs to all not to do all that our Saviour did but all that the Disciples then did belongs to all to do because they then represented the whole company of the faithful He closes up this point and his whole discourse with some passion against Protestants charging them with an unworthy and base esteem of the most sacred body and blood of our Saviour not thinking that either of them as they are in this Sacrament is fit to confer saving grace to such as devoutly receive them p. 363. Thus where Argument and Reason is wanting there Passion must make it out But as to the worth and power of our Saviours body and blood we acknowledge it * See N◠3. 5. above and the fitness of either to confer sufficient grace and how it does when in case of necessity the one is devoutly received but we question how they that wilfully refuse one of them the blood shed can be said devoutly to receive or can expect that sufficient grace which is given in the Sacrament to them that receive it according to our Saviours Institution It is not any derogating from the worth of our Saviours body and blood but a due regard to his Will and Command that causes us to stand upon receiving both What he adds runs still upon that Assertion that there is not any express command given in Scripture to all particular Christians to receive both pag. 365. which we shewed above to be false by our Saviours commands in his Institution of this Sacrament Drink ye all and Do this by what he severely denounced Joh. 6.53 by what S. Paul delivers as received from our Saviour 1 Cor. 11. That which this Author immediately subjoyns and the custome of the Primitive Ancient and Modern Church is evidently to the contrary will appear to be far from Truth as to the Primitive and Ancient Church when we come to the survey of Antiquity in this point To conclude I could wish that Mr. Spencer who pretends he undertook this work for no other end then to inform the misled spirits of this age as he tels us in the close of his book would have a conscionable regard to an open and apparent Truth which he contends against as in this so other points of Romish doctrine and that he would think of reducing those misled spirits which he has drawn out of the way by such deceiving assertions as he has delivered in this Treatise and bent all his wits to render them plausible to the Vulgar A Brief Survey of Antiquity for the trial of the former points Whether they can as held by the Church of Rome pass for Catholick Doctrine SECT I. Introduction VIncentius Lirinensis gives us a safe Rule for trial of Points of faith and Catholick doctrine Duplici modo munire fidem suam debet Primo divina legis authoritate deinde Ecclesiae Cath. Traditione cap. 1. If any saith he would continue safe and sound in a sound faith he ought two wayes to fortify his belief First by the Authority of Gods word or Scripture then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church bringing down from age to age the known sense of that word Then for the Tradition of the Church it must be universal to prove it Catholick Doctrine That is properly Catholick which was received or believed Quod semper ubique creditum c. 3. every where through all the Churches and alwayes through every Age. According to this Rule we ought to direct the Tryal and may justly expect that the Church of Rome imposing these and many other points upon the World for Catholick faith should give us them clearly proved by this Rule whereas we finde them in these points pittifully destitute of Scripture which is the first and main ground-work of faith Yet because Scripture is Scripture and by all Christians received for the word of God and challenges the first place in the Rule of Faith therefore they think themselves concerned to bring Scripture for every point such as their best wits have found out any way capable of being wrested to their purpose far from that clearness and force of proof which those places of Scripture have that hold out unto us matters of Faith SECT I. Of worshiping Angels and Saints HOw forsaken the Romanists are of Scripture here may appear Romanists here destitute of Scripture proof by what could be alledged by Mr. Spencer in defence of it as we saw above Cap. 1. from the reverence given to the Angels by Lot and others or to men living as to Elias and Elisha which proved impertinent and fell short of that worship which the Church of Rome allows and practises It is also confessed by some of them * Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disp 8. Sect. postremò that this business of worshiping and Invocating Saints or Angels is not expressed in the New Testament and reason given for it because it would seem hard to the Jews and give occasion to the Gentiles to think new Gods put upon them As little help have they from the Tradition of the Catholick Church or witness of Antiquity which here runs with a full stream against them And now for the Trial we will first speak to the General Religious worship as incompetent to a Creature though most excellent such as are Saints and Angels the particulars of this worship by Invocation and Image-worship we shall examine below Our first evidence of Antiquity shall be from the force of the word Religion The force of the word Religion whereby the Fathers did prove and
the first beast or Heathen Rome and I know not wherein one can be like the other more then in erecting a new kind of Idolatry or image-worship and in persecuting the gainsayers that will not receive the mark or worship the beast So that this Author and those of his communion may be concerned in this prophesie more then they are aware of I am sure they can have no advantage from hence for their image-worship I will but adde this one thing had this image-worship been used in Irenaeus his dayes and thought tending to Christs honour then would those Hereticks he speaks of who held our Saviour not to be the Son of the God of the Old Testament that made the world and gave the Law have had a fair plea for how should they think him his Son if allowing and taking it for honour what was so cautioned against and abominated by God in the old Testament and for which the Jews still do abominate Christian Religion viz. the use of images in religious worship It is a great piece of cunning in the Dragon or Devil to induce men to believe that this service of images and creatures so strictly forbidden by Moses Law is authorized by the Gospel allowed by Christ CHAP. IV. Of Justification by Works HAving set down the Trent decree against Justification by works before grace Merit of congruity and against the merit of them he challenges the 13. Article of our Church for charging the School-Authors with the merit of congruity in such works which he denies any of them to have held and is something passionate against the composers of the Articles pa. 138. and 139. But what need such anger here Seeing the Article determines the same truth as to this doctrine that the Trent decree doth it might have so far pacified him as to allow that parenthesis in the Article as the School-Authors say such a candid interpretation as it is capable of for it may refer to their expressing of the doctrine by that phrase of their invention deserve grace of congruity not to their holding of that doctrine for thus the words stand in the Article neither do they works done before grace make men meet to receive grace or as the School-Authors say deserve grace of congruity do but for say put in express or phrase it and you have that sense plainly But suppose the Article had directly said the School-Authors held that doctrine will Mr. Spencer hazard his credit and call it a great untruth and say none can be produced that held it It seems He is acquainted only with Thomists for though their Angelical Doctor did not approve it yet their Seraphical Bonaventure does not account it such an honour no more does Scotus and they were not without their followers Yea since the Council of Trent the two * Trigosius and Fr. Longus à Coriolano Commentators or Epitomizers of Bonaventure acknowledge it may be defended and do answer the objections from the Trent Decrees And as they say it may be defended and do defend it so I think to defend it is as little or less to Gods dishonour then their merit of condignity in works after grace which besides its own untruth is attended in that Church by more corruptions both of Error and Practice then the other is possibly capable of Of the seven Particulars which he draws out of the Trent Definitions pa. State of the question 142 143. he should have told us which he opposes to Protestant doctrine for not any one of them can be framed into a just Controversie Only he tells us that in the last chiefly consists the Roman doctrine of Justification by works pa. 143. See then what that last particular is and mark what this great noise they make of Justification by works comes to His last particular or collection out of the Trent decrees stands thus Being freely justified we may do good works and by them accepted through Christs merits become more and more just in the sight of God To fix it upon the second Justification is to yeild the Gause Wherein chiefly consists the Roman doctrine of Justification by works He might have added wherein we yeild up the cause to the Protestants for this is the second Justification as they call it and he knows unless he will grosly mistake that when we say justified by faith and not by works we mean their first Justification which indeed and properly is Justification and from which they themselves exclude works as the words above also do imply Being Justified we may do good works they follow Justification As for that which they make the second justification and is thus described by the Council of Trent Being therefore thus justified and made the friends of God there 's the first or true and proper justification going on from virtue to virtue they are renewed from day to day and using those armes of justice to sanctification you have Mr. Spencers words by the observance of the Commandments of God and the Church their faith co-operating with their good works they increase in the justice they have received and are justified more and more as it is written he who is just let him be justified still Revel 22. Now if this be their second Justification and they intend no more by it then is here expressed in the Trent decree viz. renovation day by day and yeilding up our members as weapons of righteousness to sanctification and increase in righteousness We have no cause to quarrel at the thing but only that they will call that Justification which indeed is Sanctification But if under this their Justification they intend also a meriting of remission by good works or a redeeming of sins done after grace by the merit of good works which neither the Council nor Mr. Spencer mentions but their earnest contending for Justification by works and some arguments their writers use for it too plainly shews they are concerned in it I say if they intend so and would speak it we would think our selves more concerned in the cause Now as Mr. Spencer thought good to premise seven collections he made out of their Council the better as he conceived to shew wherein the Roman doctrine of Justification by works did consist so I shall take leave before I come to examine his confused labour and impertinencies in the defence of that pretended doctrine to set down some particulars the better to shew wherein the true Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith doth consist I. Albeit good works do not justify but follow Justification Preparatory works to justification yet are there many works or workings of the soul required in and to justification what the Council of Trent saith Can. 9. pronouncing Anathema to him that shall say a wicked man to be justified by faith alone so that he mean there is nothing else required which may co-operate to the obtaining of the grace of Justification nor that it is necessary he be prepared
the speech will bear another more agreeable to the purpose of the place and to impose upon omnipotencie a necessitie of making it good what is it but to tempt God And here we may mind him again of the other proposition this cup is the new Testament in my blood which we found him above loath to speak to but desire him here to examine whether this Scripture can be taken in a literal proper sense He can not say it many things compel to the contrary then is it a figurative speech and that in the words of institution as well as this is my body The last objection is from Jo. 6. the Capernaites conceit of eating our Saviours flesh and his saying the flesh profiteth nothing some indeed will apply this against the Romish doctrine but I will not quarrel with him about the force of it The Protestant doctrine rests not upon this place of Scipture we say the true flesh of Christ profiteth where ever it is really given and received or eaten and let the Romanists consider whether they must not say the flesh of Christ profiteth nothing when they say the wicked really eat the true flesh of Christ It is plain by what our Saviour saith in that Chapter of eating his flesh that albeit the Sacramental eating of his flesh may profit nothing as in them that receive unworthily yet is there no real eating of our Saviours flesh but what profiteth St. Paul might say He that eateth that bread unworthily but could not say he that eateth Christs flesh unworthily taking it not for the bare Sacramental eating but for real participation of his very flesh which the Romanists allow unto the wicked The cause of this and many more and greater incongruities is that gross kind of Real Presence which puts our Saviours body in stead of the substantial bread fixing it under those species or qualities of bread making it unum quid as we noted above one thing with them and so carryed whither soever they are given to whom soever and received by whomsoever they are Having done with these objections which he calls the chief arguments of protestants from Scripture Considerations of Transubstantiation as to natural reason he tells us there are other drawn from Natural Reason fitter for Heathens then Christians p. 306. If we do but speak the horrid inconveniences and indignities that the blessed and glorious body of our Saviour is or may be exposed to by this gross way of presence or binding his body under to the species they presently cry this is fitter to be spoken by Infidels then Christians we may not so much as utter the ill consequences of their belief without note of infidelity So if inquiring a Reason of this their belief and not finding in Scripture any express witness of Gods will nor any example of the like conversion but finding many things that compel to the contrary from the reason of a body and of a Sacrament we profess that we cannot see how it should be and that we have no reason to make it an Article of our belief then are such arguments or questionings of it fitter for Heathens then Christians so unwilling is that Church to have any thing questioned or searched into that it propounds as Article of Faith St. Chrysostome speaking of that questioning of the Resurrection 1 Cor. 15.35 how are the dead raised and with what body do they come saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be asking still how shall this be is the part of one that believes not and it was well said supposing the Article or thing to be believed clearly expressed in Scripture as the Resurrection of the dead Incarnation Birth of our Saviour and the like when God Almighty has expresly declared these then to ask how this shall be sounds unbelief it s more fit for a Heathen then Christian therefore we believing the Sacrament is his body and blood or as S. Paul the communication of his body blood and consequently his body and blood really present in the Sacrament we do not question nor define the Modus how this is done but challenge the boldness of the Church of Rome that has determined the Modus by transubstantiation that is by destroying one essential part of the Sacrament the outward Element Bread and Wine and would impose this upon the world as an Article of Faith These arguments from Reason as he calls them he will undertake to answer and because he deals with such as profess themselves to be Christians he will endeavour it by giving clear instances in some Article of Christian faith which they believe wherein they must solve the like difficulties to those they urge from natural Reason against this mystery p. 306. This is fair and will be satisfactory if he can make it good But still we must remember if he could make it good it evinces but the possibility of the thing which is needless in this point to contend much about and does acknowledge a needless multiplying of miracles and engaging of Gods omnipotency where he has made no express declaration of his will or evidence of the thing The Arguments as he calls them are propounded here by way of question and he answers by other questions which binds him to see to it that there be no disparity between the reason of the one and of the other or that the like difficulty as he undertook above must be solved in that Instance he gives But this is not likely to be done if we observe the doubts proceed upon our Saviours body considered not onely simply in it self or nature of a body but also as concerned in this business in the nature of a Sacrament also if we observe his way of proceeding for he is fain still to serve himself of the capacity of a spirit as Soul Angel God himself to shew the possible conditions a Body may be put under or of the mystery of the hypostatical union to shew the like supply of defects in nature here now this at first sight presents a great disparity between the things The first question enquires how can Accidents the species of bread and wine exist without a subject This question Accidents without a subject although we will not dispute it to the denying of Gods omnipotency in sustaining Accidents without a Subject yet may it be put to the prejudice of Romish Transubstantiation many wayes First because it implies a needless multiplying of miracles in the Sacrament Secondly because it binds the body and blood of Christ to and under those Accidents or Species upon which many inconveniences follow Mr. Spencers answering this question by the humane nature in Christ which subsists without its proper personality and receives it from the divine nature must suppose that Christs body and blood in the Eucharist does supply the defect of the proper subject of those species * Bell. l. 4. de Euchar. c. 29. Sect. sed haec Bellarm. makes them and Christs body
incumbent on us in order to our salvation Again he replies The obligation of that precept upon particular persons That command may be answered by saying It is a precept given to the Church in general that what our Saviour here commands be done p. 346. We have heard of an implicit faith but here is an implicit receiving so it be done in the Church the command is performed as if every Christian in particular were not concerned in the purpose of this Sacrament or could live by another mans eating and drinking At length perswaded by S. Thomas his authority he would not by S Pauls alone to apply the do this both to the Host and the Cup and to admit a precept in it for the Laity to receive this Sacrament he betakes himself to the usual refuge They satisfy the precept of eating and drinking if they receive it in either p. 148 149. that is they drink the Cup if they eat the Bread His S. Thomas his Invention of concomitancy will not salve this nor can the Reader be satisfied with the fast and loose this Author so often playes in answering to the precept Do this The order he speaks of prescribed by holy Church now ordaining both to be received now but one and to some the Host to others the Calice only doth no where appear but in the late orders of the Romish Church In the ancient Church though sometimes in cases of necessity one part might be administred privately never were such Orders made nor such practice used publickly solemnly or when both could be administred To Joh. 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood he answers It is a general command given to the generality of Christians to receive his body by way of eating and his blood by way of drinking and to every particular Christian to concurr to the execution of this command not that every one in particular is obliged to do both but that some eating some drinking others doing both each particular confers to the performance of the Command p. 351. Thus the body and blood shed are with them received in either kind by virtue of their concomitance and the command of eating and drinking is satisfied and performed by vertue of Concurrence every person conferring to the performance of it This is Implicit receiving so both be done among you it is sufficient when as our Saviour layes both upon every particular person and so repeats it in the singular He that eateth and drinketh v. 54 58. and that in order to his having life in him His instancing in the precept to teach and baptize all Nations Mat. 28. not binding each of the Apostles in particular to teach and baptize the whole world 352. has the fate of all his instances to be impertinent for it runs upon the extent of the object only the whole world which implyed an impossibility not upon the exercise of the whole duty or office which did not admit a liberty of forbearing either act of preaching or baptizing For as the obligation in the Sacrament is to eating and drinking so there to a double act of their office Teaching and Baptizing That Apostle that would set down with doing one of them only should not do his duty It is objected p. 356. If it be given so to the Church in general then may the command be satisfied and performed so be it the Church provides certain persons to receive and exempt all the rest In his answers to this we may see the giddiness of mans brain when set against the apparent Truth of Gods word If we take the sense saith he according to the common strein of Doctors every particular will be obliged by the words except ye eat and especially secing that S. 1 Cor 11. Paul extends this matter of Communion to each particular This is one Truth he so much streined against above notwithstanding those Doctors and S. Paul that every particular man is obliged but how and to what to eat and drink that 's express both in 6. of Joh. and 1 Cor. 11. but disjunctively as he saith elswhere p. 350. that is to eat or drink Heer 's the giddiness and vanity of wilfull error to make alimitation or gloss clean contrary to the text for our Saviours words oblige to these acts conjunctively eat and drink thrice in Joh. 6. and the Apostle Saint Paul thrice conjunctively eat and drink 1 Cor. 11. Secondly in answer to the former objection he grants it was not in the power of the Apostles to exempt any of the Twelve from concurring to the conversion of the Nations p. 356. If he will have this pertinent he should adde but it was in their power to exempt some of the Twelve from doing the whole duty or several acts enjoyned by our Saviour that if one of them taught only another baptized onely and so all partially concurred to the performing our Saviours command it had been sufficient He will not surely say this yet dare defend it in their Churches exempting the people from the one part of duty enjoyned them by our Saviour He subjoyns It is not in the Churches power to exempt any one from this precept by having it performed of other Christians appointed by her Anthority 357. Yet their Church takes power to exempt from one part drinking his blood-shed which lyes under the command and obligation as well as the other of eating Thirdly he grants here another Truth to the acknowledgment of his Impertinency above where he instanced in the freedom of receiving Priesthood and Marriage to imply a liberty of receiving or not receiving the Cup but here he grants this Sacrament is not left free as Marriage and Priesthood are without a divine Precept that every Christian sometimes receive it p. 357. This is fair but see the obstinacy still and giddiness of wilfull error That eating only is sufficient because our Saviour when he expresses himself in the singular number attributes eternal life to it He that cateth me shall live by me Joh. 6.57 Nay that the words ye eat and drink v. 53. cannot include a necessity of both kinds to every particular person without contradiction to this Text so he p. 358 359. As if one should reason If it be true that he who is born of the spirit shall enter into the kingdome of heaven then cannot the Text Joh. 3.5 unless a man be born of water and spirit include a necessity of both nor when the Scripture requires Repent and believe Mar. 1. that cannot include a necessity of both for the kingdome of heaven without contradiction to the Text Joh. 3. ult where one only is mentioned and life attributed to it He that believeth in me hath everlasting life Again it may be said that eating is sometimes mentioned alone in that chapter as answerable to the occasion of the discourse Manna and bread from heaven and as fit to set out the reception of faith which at the same time
Justification will not continue I say till Faith does so engage the Soul it is not a believing with the whole heart not a Justifying Faith Chrys in Phil. c. 3. v. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As St. Chrysostom who often attributes the whole to Faith alone requires it should be a working Faith as where he saith Faith ought not to be simply by it self or alone and then shews how our willingness to suffer and in like manner our well doing is from faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our fellowship with him in sufferings is from faith for he that believes he shall reign with Christ will be willing to suffer I need not trouble the Reader here with the Particular sentences of the Fathers using that expression of Sola Fides Faith only The Cardinal has recited many Bell. de Justificat l. 1. c. 25. and undertakes to answer them Well he acknowledges the Testimonies and for his Answers they come to this That Faith only is set against the works of Moses Law It is true that it is sometimes so but we must not think that the Apostle or Fathers denying Justification to be sought or had by the works of the Law do therefore admit our works under Grace to serve in the stead of the other for our Justification but do rather imply that no men Iew or Christian can be justified by doing what they are bound to do by the Law or Commandement under which they are as * Chap. IV. p. 102 103. above was shewen more amply Another of the Cardinals Answers is That faith only excludes the outward work only as in the sentences there cited out of Origen and Chrys but not Repentance and Charity How it does not exclude Repentance and Charity we said hard above i. e. it admits them as Conditions of Remission but not to that condition or Causality rather which the Church of Rome advances Charity to in the work of our Justification which is not a little to the prejudice of the imputed Righteousness and of that singular act of Faith for which it s said we are Iustified by faith only But when the Cardinal tels us those Fathers said by faith only because the outward work was wanting not to exclude Repentance and Charity he should have told us whether he meant charity in habit only or as sending forth its elicit Acts and inwardly working I suppose he will think it as great an absurdity to attribute Justification to a bare not working Habit as to a bare and not working faith which they falsly reproach us with and then he should have remembred he made Habitual inherent Righteousness the Formal Causs of Justification excluding the Actual that is charity as it is acting inwardly or outwardly for this it must come to A third sort of Answer the Cardinal and generally they of the Church of Rome have for Testimonies of Fathers which by Faith only exclude all righteousness in our selves and cannot be shuffled off by saying they exclude thereby all righteousness of Works before Grace or done by power of our Free-wil without Grace then to say all righteousness in us is excluded and sometime denied as of our selves because so we have none but of the gift of God This is in it self a great Truth but makes no apposite answer to Faith only which we have not of our selves any more then we have other Graces and which is the gift of God as much as they When Chrysost saith upon that of the Apostle Rom. 5.2 Chrys in Ro. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we have by Faith access into this Grace of Justification reconciliation and peace with God We brought nothing with us but faith only and when Oecumenius upon Rom. 3.24 Oecumen in Rom. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith likewise bringing with us Faith only to our Justification it cannot be answered we brought nothing else of our selves for neither did we bring Faith of our selves to our Justification seeing therefore we do bring besides Faith some things else as above granted they may have their place either as preparatives and dispositions to our Justification or as requisite conditions to the Remission that is in our Justification or as fitting qualifications of the subject or person justified yet Faith we bring as that which has a singular property and efficacy for the receiving this great benefit of Justification for which it may be said Fide Sola by Faith only And this we are taught to say both by Fathers and Scripture that so we may attribute the more to Christs merit and righteousness which Faith apprehends and the more lessen or take off from any righteousness in our selves We may shut up this discourse with that saying of Theophylact which the Cardinal cites as objected by the Protestants Fides sola habet in se Iustificandi virtutem ex Theo. phyl in Ep. ad Gal. cap. 3. Faith only has the power in its self of Iustifying cannot be answered as the Cardinal would have it Faith only is said to have that power because there is nothing can justifie without Faith for so there are other things without which there can be no justification but among all those things or Graces Faith only can be said properly to Justifie And now for Iustification by works Not justification by Works in the prime sense it is in vain to put it to the trial of Antiquity For as we may observe the Cardinal though he concludes his 4. Book of Justification with this Question and pretends several places of Scripture to prove good works do Justifie yet has he nothing from Antiquity for it Indeed the Fathers did not know the Romish second Justification to which the Romanists when they are forced to speak distinctly do restrain their Justifying works acknowledging all good works follow Justification in the first and proper sense and that this second Justification is but increase in righteousness as * Chap. IV. nu 2. above shewed We grant and so will the Fathers Vide ch IV. nu 8.105 106 107. that we are of duty to encrease in righteousness and that our often actings or doing good works do augment the inhaerent Righteousness and that the more we do good works the more Favour we have with God the more acceptable are we to Him but there are two words we have cause to reject Merit Iustification That good Works cause an encrease of the habit and do obtain additional grace we grant but if they will stand upon the word Merit properly taken we shall see in the next Section Our good works cannot properly merit Also we see no reason why this should be call'd Justification to make a confusion in this Doctrine of so great concernment Mans Justification before God and to deceive people when they have the doctrine of Justification by Works barely delivered unto them If the Romanists would allow what they ought to the Application of Christs merit and righteousness and give
wishes intercessions Thus they prayed at the Burial or carrying out of the Dead and did it as we saw above for the reasons there mentioned viz. the instruction of the living and confirming of their hope and demonstration of their affection and the like And upon the like respects they yearly repeated the like prayers as we hinted above out of the Cardinal acknowledging as much Lastly it was a private opinion but notorious and held by many That the Damned had benefit or ease by the Prayers of the Church a private opinion or misapplication That they which died in their sins without true faith and repentance might at length be recovered out of their Pains or at least have them mitigated And to these the Prayers for the Dead which begged forgiveness ease or release were I do not say referred by the Church but applied or rather misapplied by many Origen gave occasion first to this Error for he held that All should at length come out of their Torments and his Error was as Vincentius notes a great temptation to the Church by reason of the wit and parts of the Author Aug. Enchirid cap. III. Frustra quamplurimi aeternam damnatorum poenam miserantur affectu and St. Aug. tels us in several places that many were of this merciful opinion Very many saith he do commiserate through humane affection the eternal sufferings of the damned and do not believe it will be so c. Of these also in other places especially in his work Of the City of God l. 21. c. 17 18 19 20. where he reckons five latitudes in the extent of that Opinion refuting them all Greg. Nyssen seems to be deeply tainted with that merciful opinion and is noted for it by the Greeks in their Apology against the Romish Purgatory made and given out in the time of the Council of Florence for that * Nyssen in orat Deus omnia in ommbus Idem in orat le Mor. tuâ—s pag 1067. Mixtam clementi sententiam Father seems plainly to assert the restoring of all men to salvation and in another place speaks of the purging of some and their turning to God after death who were impure in their lives And that place of St. Hierom upon Isa 66. ult which the Cardinal misapplies to Purgatory for it plainly speaks of wicked Christians does shew some tincture of that merciful opinion Now it is plain that Chrysostoâ—e applies the Prayers and oblations made for the Dead to such sinners And I should choose rather to silence those errors and mistakes of some ancient Fathers did not the importunity of the Romanists force us to shew the misapplication of them to Purgatory I shall insist therefore in some passages of St. Chrysostome Hom. 61. in Jo. Hom. 21. in Act. Serm. 3. in Philip. The sinners he speaks of to be prayed for are in several Homilies towards the End of them thus set forth by him One saith he that daily offended God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One that lived every day to his own pleasure One that died in his riches and never used them to the benesit of his soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupted and lost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of whom he saith Hom. 32. in Mat. If God had seen he would have changed he would not have cut him off before his Repentance Such as these the Romanists will not say that they go to Purgatory but to Hell yet of these he saith Let us mourn for such a one but that avails not Let us help him as we can How is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by prayers and alms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those things must be done which may bring some comfort and ease to him To this tenour he speaks in all the places above cited but especially in Hom. 21. upon the Acts Shall we not try saith he of one that lived to himself and the Devil to rescue him from the dangers and evils he is encompassed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for there is a way if we will to make his punishment lighter and this by making prayer for him and almsdeeds and these saith he so much the more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he was guilty of the more sins And this he takes to be doctrine sutable to the loving kindness of God towards man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And then a little after he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though we be not vertuous our selves yet let us get friends that will do this for us when we are gone Then presently follows * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oblations are not in vain nor Supplications nor Almsdeeds All these things the Spirit has ordained willing or commanding that we should help one another Then he mentions the Offering of the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and saith It is not the Minister simply or only that praies so for those that are faln asleep in Christ It is not he only that sends forth that voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Spirit He indeed holds the Offering or Sacrifice in his hands c. And so goes on expressing the honour to be then remembred and the power and efficacy of Christs death then represented Where we may observe that this saying of his The Spirit has ordained all these things which the Romanists do much urge as if their prayers and offerings for souls in Purgatory were by an Ordinance of the Spirit relates to the help of one another by Prayers Oblations and Almsdeeds which in general is true so far as we are capable to be helped by them But if it be particularly applied to the helping of such sinners as before he had spoken of it makes nothing for the Romanists for they will not allow that the Prayers and Oblations of the Living do avail or help such as died in their sins but if it be applied to the Prayers and Offerings in the Eucharist as he seems here to intend it it makes nothing still for them or against us for we allow that Ancient practice of remembring there and praying as they did for those that sleep in Christ The intent and purpose of those prayers he expresses in the close of his speech that they and we saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may obtain the good things promised through the Grace and merciful loving kindness of our Saviour Christ A place parallel to the former he hath in his third Hom. on the Epist to the Philip. where speaking of Prayers and Oblations with respect to the Dead These things Chrys in Phil. hom 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he were not in vain ordained by the Apostles that a remembrance be made of those that are dead in the most reverend and holy Mysteries For when all the people stand and the company of Priests with their hands stretch'd out toward heaven and the great sacrifice lies
of the pain or torment Bel. l. Dubitat de poenae qualitate an idem sit ignis an animae urentur igne illo doloris de amissâ—one temporalium whether it were the same fire in substance with that of Hell also that he doubted whether souls shall be scorched with that fire of grief for the loss of things temporal But these exceptions or answers are also impertinent for his Tale aliquid some such thing and his Talia quaedam judicia some such punishments do not refer to any material fire or fire properly taken or to such a fire as Hell fire but to the fire of tribulation in this life which he every where speaks of when he fals upon that place of 1 Cor. 3.13 and that some such thing that is afflictive may be after this life he thinks not incredible and that perhaps it is so For let the Romanists conceive the pain or Torment of purgatory to be of what condition or sort soever they please it will be answered by that tale aliquid and talia quaedam judicia and so will imply that Fathers uncertainty in that his opinion of Purgatory pains after death So for that fire of grief upon loss of Temporals which the Cardinal will have St. Aug. doubt of it is plain he could not mean that very kinde of grief when he said tale aliquid some such thing but any kinde of grief or vexation that should torment the soul as with a kinde of fire Whether there were any such thing any such grief or pain that 's it he put to the question and declared his opinion of it that it was not incredible but rather that he held it probable and that place in his Book de Civit. Dei where he delivered it positively that there were such purging pains can amount to no more then an opinion he had entertained which he delivers there the more peremptorily in opposition to that other opinion of the Ceasing of the pains of the damned To conclude the Cardinal declares it as a thing Certain Bel. de purg l. 2. c. 10. Certum esse in Purgatoriâ— poenam ignis sive propriè accipiatur sive Metaâ—horiâ—é that there is in Purgatory the punishment of fire whether taken properly or Metaphorically whether a real fire such as of Hell or such a pain that as fire torments the souls of men Now St. August his tale aliquid of which he doubted was such a thing such a fire or tormenting pain and therefore St. Aug. was uncertain of that which the Church of Rome delivers as certain and as an Article of Faith SECT VII Of the Real Presence TOuching the state of this Controversie The question there was enough said above Chap. VII Nu. 1. That we deny not a Real presence but such a presence as they contend for such as by a transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine sixes the body and bloud of Christ under the remaining species the inconveniencies of which are hinted above chap. VII Nu. 13 16 17. I will only add to the farther clearing of this state of the Question what the Cardinal notes upon the word substantialiter in the Trent Council can 1. sess 13. It means that Christ is in the Eucharist after the same manner * Bel. l. 1. de Euchar. c. 2. Christum esse in Eucharistia ad eum modum quo erat substantia panis subsuis accidentibus that the substance of bread was under its accidents this only excepted that those accidents were inhaerent in the substance of the Bread So then such a manner of Presence is that which we deny The Scripture which they pretend This is my body was examined * Chap. 7. above and found to be best explained by that of the Apostle * 1 Cor. 10.16 The bread which we break is the communion or communication of the body of Christ which supposes the bread continuing in substance and tels us how it is notwithstanding the body of Christ And now for a brief Survey of Antiquity upon this enquiry Testimonies of Antiquity whether such a presence by way of Transubstantiation or fixing the body of Christ under the species in stead of the substance of the bread was taught as Catholick Doctrine The Truth will quickly appear by the different condition and force of those Testimonies which they and we bring from Antiquity within the compass of 600. years Many sayings of the Fathers they alledge and want not for number but weight For if those sayings or sentences be examined they will be found not to speak properly and strictly to the point but either fall short of the change here intended or shoot beyond all measure by some hyperbolical expressions whereas we bring Testimonies of Fathers speaking punctually of the nature and substance of the Elements according to the proper and strict sense of those words Also we bring real Arguments necessarily concluding by that which the Fathers disputed against Hereticks that Transubstantiation or such a Presence by putting the body of Christ in the place of the substance of Bread could not be the Doctrine of the Church We will reduce all to this Head The remaining of the substance of Bread and Wine First To omit all those bare sentences which affirm it to be the body or flesh of Christ Sayings of Fathers alledged by the Romanists after Consecration as speaking nothing but what we say and what we conceive ought to be answered in the affirmative if the question be put Whether is this the body of Christ And it speaks no more then the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.16 This bread is the communication of the body of Christ And it is to be noted that some of the sentences alledged by the Romanists expresly make Bread the subject of that affirmative proposition saying Panem esse corpus Christi that bread is the body of Christ or the like which kinde of speech the Romanists themselves acknowledge improper and figurative Also to omit all those sentences which barely say the bread is changed or transelemented or the like For there are many kindes of change and that only which is concerned in the Question is the change of substance Secondly therefore Those Testimonies only may seem to speak something to the purpose which say the Elements are changed in Nature for this Cyprian Ambrose and Nyssen are alledged by * Bel. de Euch. l. 3. c. 20. the Cardinal But the word Nature is of a large acception here not expressing the substance or essence of the thing but the condition and special quality of it as we say Things are of different Nature some are common and profane some holy and divine so the elements after consecration are changed in their Nature beginning then to be of holy use and divine vertue On the contrary we alledge Theodoret denying they are changed in Nature taking the word strictly for the substantial nature as the dispute he there makes required he should do * Theod.