of true internal Justification before God does but prove what we allow and what makes against himself who must acknowledge a man is truly justified before God before he does such works Seeing then this is the first Justification which S. James intends and that as both they and we say is not by works this cannot without gross mistake and impertinency be objected as it is by them against us but they and we are both of us concerned to reconcile the seeming contrariety between the two Apostles As for the distinction of Justification before God and before men albeit there may be a several consideration of Justification to that purpose and good works do declare a man Justified and as I may say do justify his faith yet we need not here make use of it but the purpose of S. Iames in writing this Epistle does direct us rather to a several consideration of Faith or believing for when he denies a man to be justified by faith alone he speaks not of a lively working faith to which S. Paul attributes justification but of a bare and seeming faith in profession only and as to good works dead and barren such as they rested in against whom he writes This is plain by S. James his subjoyning v. 23. and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed c. how could the Apostle bring this Scripture the same that S. Paul does for justifying faith Rom. 4.3 in confirmation of what he saith of works but to shew that Abrahams faith which justified him was a working faith Now if the Romanists conceive themselves less concerned for fear of the former truth to labour in the clearing of the contrariety which seems to be between the Apostles Romanists confound their First and Second Justification and think it more popular and for their advantage to cry up S. James his bare words of justification by works we cannot help it but must only note their wilfull mistake and impertinency in so eagerly urging S. Iames who speaks of the first justification Mr. Spencer indeed promises pa. 148. to reconcile the two Apostles but does it so as neither of them will be reconciled to his second justification as we shall see by examining the places of S. Paul which he insists on to shew the Protestants mistaken but first take notice of what he saith here upon occasion of the former Text of S. Iames. Iustified by good works working with faith and perfecting it informing and vivificating it as S. James describes them here p. 148. This is not only impertinent but guilty of falshood belying the Apostle for first he said not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ja. 2.22 that works wrought with faith but that his faith wrought with his works Secondly Albeit the Apostle saith by works was faith made perfect yet does he not therefore describe works as informing and vivificating it for here is no other perfection meant then what the effect brings to the Agent fruit to the tree operation to the power or virtue from which it is as every thing that is made for use ordained to practice and operation is then said to be made perfect and consummate when it comes to working but this is far from informing or vivificating it he may as well say the breath which proceeds from the life of the body its S. Iames his similitude v. 26. does inform and vivisicate it In like manner good works do not inform or give life to faith but receive from it proceeding from it as effects and fruits the whole chapter Heb. 11. shews it speaking the effects of faith even of Abrahams here mentioned And that which this Author pa. 143. gathers from his Trent Council speaks plainly as we noted above that men are freely justified and then do good works And this shews his impertinency for they require fidem formatam faith informed for the first justification how then by works that follow and his inadvertency in again crossing their own doctrine for they say Faith is informed by charity infused in the first justification how then by works that come after Now for the Places out of S. Paul which he insists on to shew the Protestants mistaken The first is Rom. 3.28 Without the works of the Law Here and in all such places which exclude the works of the Law he will have Protestants mistaken in the undestanding of the works of the Law Because by the Law is understood that which is written in the books of Moses both Moral and Ceremonial and by works of the Law Saint Paul understands such works as are done by force and knowledge of the Law before the faith of Christ is infused into the soul or that it is enlightned and assisted by his grace pa. 149 c. It is true that the Law is often so taken but when the Apostle excluds works of the Law in relation to Abrahams justification it cannot refer to Moses Law after given and written But the speech by faith and not by works comes to this issue no man can be justified by doing or working according to the Law he is under Not Abraham by the works of the Law then Not Jews by the works of the Law then the Law of Moses Not Christians by works or by doing what they are bound to do by the Law and Commandements which they are under But by reason of their many failings in those works and doings they must stand by faith apprehending Christs obedience and satisfaction to bear them out against the sentence of the Law or Gods judgment And it is true also that the Apostle sometimes takes the works of the Law for such as are done by force and knowledge of the Law before the faith of Christ c. as when he speaks of such as sought righteousness by the works of the Law without Christ but we cannot think the Apostle excludes works of the Law i. e. such as are done before grace as this Author saith from justifying to admit works done in grace into their stead for justification nor think that as Pharisees sought it by the former works and mist of it Rom. 9.31 so the Romanists may seek it by the latter sort of works and finde it for Rom. 10.3 4 5 6 9. he sets the righteousness of the Law and of faith simply one against the other neither can the righteousness of faith be imagined to be any righteousness of our working Observe farther what this Author saith pa. 150. that Rom. 3. v. 20. is added By the law is the knowledge of sin which is a reason wherefore such works as are done by the knowledge of the Law only cannot justify from whence we likewise infer If by the Law is the knowledge of sin and the Law still convinces those that are under grace of sin they cannot be justified by their works before God David and holy men in his time had the same way of justification as we notwithstanding they were under Moses Law who when they were
AN APPEAL TO Scripture Antiquity In the Questions of 1. The Worship and Invocation of Saints and Angels 2. The Worship of Images 3. Justification by and Merit of good Works 4. Purgatory 5. Real presence and Half-Communion Against the ROMANISTS By H. FERNE D.D. late Bishop of CHESTER LONDON Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to His most Sacred MAJESTY 1665. THE PREFACE BEing both provoked and invited to make some Answer to Mr. Spencer's Book of Scriptures Mistaken I assayed to do it as briefly as I could and it was needful I should confine my self to the Order he observed and to the places of Scripture he examined as urged by Protestants against the Romish Doctrine and Practise and to those he alledges as witnessing for it But seeing he boasts in his Preface that he will deal with the Protestants and beat them at their own Weapon Scripture and so comes not to the trial of Antiquity which he pretends and with too much confidence presumes to be their own therefore I shall add A Brief Survey of the Ancient Doctrine and Practise of the Catholick Church as to the points here Controverted that it may appear how they are worsted there what brags soever they make of Antiquity But it may be said There are Bocks enough and too many which do but continue the Controversie and keep the breach open More need there is to endeavour some closing and to make offers of Agreement True if we could conceive any hope of condescention on their parts or perceive any intent of Peace in them whom we still finde lying at the catch and laying hold upon all advantages which may promote their cause with all sorts of people into whose hands they thrust such Books as may render it more plausible and into whose ears they are continually whispering what may represent the Protestant as guilty of Schism and Heresie thereby enforcing us to break silence and to inform our People if we will not have them seduced of the cunning of our Adversaries to discover their Dawbings and vain Pretences such as Mr. Spencer and others sent over to the same purpose do use for deceiving of the Unwary Peace among Christians surely is the most beseeming the most desirable Thing in the world and would be considering how it now stands with the too much divided Catholick Church the greatest blessing and we have been sufficiently taught how to value it by the past and present distractions and differences amongst us But when we talk of Peace to them of Rome they are ready to reproach us with Physician heal thy self make up your own breaches and Divisions before you speak of being received into the Unity of the Catholick Church Let them alone a while with their so much pretended unity our first care certainly is to make peace at home and in the mean time as we see it the care and prudence of all States to guard the Borders against the Forrein and Common Enemy to fortifie those Doctrines wherein the Parties dissenting do agree and are as within common bounds enclosed And blessed be God we have a great expedient for the restoring of our Peace by the return of our gracious Soveraign unto us who is the true Defender of the Faith the great Example of Constancy in Religion and of Clemency in fogiving and forgetting injuries And when we his Subjects being assured of the Truth and Religion which he defends have also learned to obey by His Example and with mutual condescentions and endeavours of peace to entertain and embrace one another then shall our hearts be better prepared with a charitable compliance for the Adversary abroad when soever he shall think it convenient to admit thoughts of Peace and shall seriously consider how we are all bound to profess and believe One not Roman but Christian Catholick Church We cannot but be sensible what hand they that stile themselves Catholicks have had in kindling this fire among us and bringing fuel to it and we would have them being so oft convinced and told of it sensible how unchristian uncatholick a part it is how contrary to the Peace of the Church But could they that are sent over amongst us to blow the coals forget their Instructions and Vow of Obedience and they that send them learn to value the Peace of Christendome yet what hope may some ask could there be of an Accord in Doctrine If we consider what passed in the Germain Colloquies during the Time of the Trent Council and observe what condescention and moderation appeared then notwithstanding the intervention of so many Nuncio's from Rome and the so much boasted pretence of Infallibility in that Church If also we carefully look into their Controversie-Writers and note what concessions they sometimes make in the point what mincings of the Romish doctrine when they are put to it there may appear a possibility in the thing it self if peaceable men had the handling of it But when we consider on the other hand how all those endeavours for Peace became Fruitless and all the offers made at Truth by moderate Men in that Council were silenced and rejected and notwithstanding all their mincings and concessions in those points the Doctrine and Practise of that Church goes as high as ever We may imagine there are some over-ruling points of State-doctrine of the Court rather then Church of Rome which command the Rest and forbid all condescention and moderation such at least as may give us any hope of a tolerable agreement And thus it will be what ever we endeavour till order be taken with him that pretends to the Infallibility and exorbitant Power of whom we may say in this particular as the Apostle doth of that lawless person 2 Thess 2.7 He who now letteth will let until he be taken out of the way that is until he be reduced within the bounds of the Canons of the Catholick Church A glorious work for Christian Princes a work of greatest concernment to the Peace of Christendome But till that be done I would commend those considerations following to All that delight or are inclined to be in the Communion of that Church and in subjection to that pretended infallible and all-powerful Head I. Why should they desire to be under a lawless boundless Power under a Head so notoriously perjured If this seem harsh let them seriously consider what they in reason and conscience finde to excuse him from that charge who bindes himself by Oath in the Conclave and then in the Papal Chair holds himself loose from what he sware to observe who also swears to observe the Canons of the Ancient General Councils yet will not keep within the bounds they have set Him but challenges and exercises an Universal Jurisdiction to the overthrow of that Government which those Canons have fixed in the Way of the Church II. Why they should so much desire to be of the Communion of that Church which while the Court of Rome is suffered to desine all to
holding the doctrin of Works truly meritorious and accordingly trusting in them The next place is Rom. 6.23 The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life Here he will have us mistaken in the word Wages Life eternal the gift of God excluding merit and gift misapplied by us Why so because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rendred Wages signifies the base stipend of common Souldiers but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rendred gift signifies a donative a more noble reward anciently given to them that had carried themselves more valiantly thus pa. 171. thence he will have the true meaning of the Text to be the base recompense of sin is death but the high and noble reward of God is life eternal pa. 172. But first who taught him to render the true meaning of Scripture by such significations of the word as the Scripture does not own for where can he finde in Scripture the word Charisma to signify such a Donative Charisma free gift but alwayes the free gift of God his own Latine edition renders it gratia Dei the grace i. e. free favour or gift of God Again be it so that the Apostle whose purpose is to shew the different reward of sins service and Gods had some reflexion that way of stipend and Donative among Souldiers it s but verbal an using of like words not affording any plea or answer in this point when we speak of Gods gift or donative For first If Souldiers could pretend any merit for a donative it was for some special service above duty or of custom upon the succession of a new Prince and then it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a gift rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a free gift such as that word in Scripture-use signifies and such as Gods gifts and rewards to us are Secondly Souldiers have not from the Emperour that so rewards or gratifies them the strength courage and valour which he so rewards in them but this Donative of Gods gift implies such notions of grace free grace for the performance of the service free grace for the acceptation of the service free grace in the promise of the reward as exclud all merit At length he begins to yeild to the true signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we take the word saith he for a pure free gift we may answer with S. Augustine and the Council of Trent that because the good works and merits themselves are the free gifts of God so also the glory of heaven which is deserved by them is called truly a gift also because the primary title and right which all Gods children have to eternal life is that of inheritance which is the free gift of eternal life may be properly called the gift of God 172. Thus does his answers and concessions which truth forces from him overthrow the doctrine of merit properly taken For if eternal life is called properly the gift of God and our good works be the free gifts of God then cannot they in any proper sense be truly meritorious of eternal life And because he mentioned Saint August take his sense of this Text. * Cum possit dicerectrecle dicere stipendium justitiae vita aeterna maluit dicere gratia Dei vita aeterna ut intelligeremus non pro meritis nostris Deum nos ad vitam aeternam sed pro sua miseratione perducere Aug. de gratia lib. Arbitrio cap. 9. Whereas the Apostle might say and say it truly the wages of righteousness is life eternal he chose rather to say the gift of God is life eternal that we might understand how God brings us to eternal life not for our merits but for his mercies sake Another place is Eph. 2.8 9. Saved by Grace not by works least any should boast He gives here the Answer we had above in the point of justification The Grace of God excludeth merit properly taken That these works are such as are done before Justification of Grace distinguished from the good works of the Regenerate of whom it is said v. 10. Created to good works so he p. 170. True they are to be distinguished but here the opposition stands between Works and Grace not only in regard of Justification but even to the last Salvation and with a denial of merit which is here boasting so Rom. 4.4 to him that worketh c. he directly shews that meriting by works which challenges the reward as of debt is excluded by grace in the way of salvation so that if any man will merit by works he must do them of himself according to the condition of the Legal Covenant but if he must come into the way of grace to stand in need of a Redeemer for forgiveness of sins past for a supply of free grace for performance of good works for divine acceptation of his performances through the merits of that Redeemer he is clean out of the road of meriting or challenging the reward as debt in any proper sense And therefore how vain are their pretty sayings for evasions That our merits are his gifts That they merit through the merits of Christ or that Christ has merited that we should merit and that good works are meritorious through divine acceptation All which speaks contradiction or folly For to say Christ has merited that we should merit is to acknowledge we are indebted to God for giving his Son to die for our sins and for his purchasing or meriting the first grace for us but then that we enabled thereby should begin to make God and our Saviour endebted to us in the reward of eternal life Christ indeed has merited that we should not be bound to merit that is to obtain salvation by our merits or performance of exact obedience by our selves according to the Legal Covenant Again he has merited that we might be under grace and so perform good works created unto good works To say that Christ has merited that we should merit or that God accepts our works as truly meritorious is to alledge that for the merit of works which excludes it To obtain the reward by works because they are done in Grace or of grace is sense but to merit by works because done in or by grace is folly and contradiction He proceeds to prove the Catholick Position as he calls it That the works of the Regenerate are such as can deserve Heaven where it is our turn again to observe his mistakes in the places of Scripture which he brings to prove his Catholick Position The argument from them is altogether inconsequent to prove a deserving of heaven in any proper sense of merit His places are 2 Tim. 4.7 8. God is righteous in rewarding yet works are not meritorious wherein he will have the words righteous or just judge and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give or render and a Crown of righteousness to favour his plea for merit as if by these expressions were implied that God
in justice rewards that he renders or restores so he will have the importance of it p. 173. as if due before that the reward is a Crown of justice so he will have it that is saith he a true reward or price gotten by labour Which appears saith he by 1 Cor. 9.24 our running for it and by 2 Cor. 4.17 by afflictions working for us an eternal glory whence he gathers if they work a Crown of glory then are they a true cause of it which cannot be but by merit pa. 173. then to shew they are worthy of eternal life he cites Revel 3.4 for they are worthy adding Heb. 6.9 for God is not unrighteous to forget your work which must imply the same as the righteous judge will render 2 Tim. 4.8 If he will stand strictly on these words according to the reason of true merit he overthrows his former true concessions of free grace promise acceptation which also gives us the true meaning of these words or expressions not such as he would draw out of them For the free grace which he and his Council yeilds is given us for performance of the work that is of that fighting and running and then cannot merit truly what follows on it in the way of reward also that free and liberal promise of the reward in performing of which God is just and righteous to render the reward the Crown of righteousness will not suffer good works either to challenge the reward of Gods justice as due to the worth of the work or to be true causes of eternal life by way of merit they have their work and causality in their way or measure Non causa regnandi sed via Regni They are not the cause of reigning but the way of or to the kingdome saith a Father Conditions of obtaining the promise not true Causes in the way of meriting it we may adde 1 Jo. 1.9 where God is said to be just in forgiving our sins in regard of his promise of it to them that perform the condition of it confessing their sins Lastly that divine acceptation which Mr. Spencer and his Council do yeild is that by which they are accounted worthy Rev. 3.4 And we may note that when the Scripture saith not worthy as Rom. 8. How said to be worthy v. 18. and in other places saith are worthy the Negative must be taken properly as to true value and worth the affirmative must be understood in some respect are worthy as to Gods account and gracious acceptation Also note that the Scripture saith not worthy of our doings or sufferings to shew they are so if examined compared with the reward but saith Worthy of the Persons which argues its divine acceptation that makes them so and then accepts their works also to the rewarding of them though imperfect and unanswerable to it See what this Author acknowledges pa. 175. All their merits are his gifts as S. August saith and rewarded through the free acceptation of them through the merits of Christ To the Protestant argument of the Saints ever ready to acknowledge their unworthiness The best acknowledg unworthiness he answers that by this cannot be understood that no just man hath any works truly good and pleasing to God pa. 175. Neither do we understand or prove by unworthiness that they have no good works but no merit in proper sense So to Ps 130.3 If thou Lord wilt be extreme to mark what is done amiss who may abide it This proves not saith he that no Saint has any good works or merits for they do many things amiss yet through the grace of Christ may do somethings aright pa. 177. Good works and merits go for the same with this Author which is his perpetual mistake and that which he grants they do some things amiss some things aright shews good works may be where no merit is i. e. where many things are done amiss Merit cannot be where there is still need of pardon where there is still need to beg Lord enter not into judgment with thy servant Psal 143.2 that is that God would not deal with him in extremity of judgment or as he deserves How then can any just person that needs divine acceptation for mercy and pardon of many things amiss in him and again needs divine acceptation for his good works that they may be rewarded notwithstanding they are accompanied with many things done amiss and are in themselves imperfect how can such a person by his works be said truly or in any proper sense to merit the reward of eternal life There is a saying of S. Augustine Multum nobis in hac carne tribueremus si non usque ad ejus depofitionem sub venia viveremus We should attribute too much to our selves in this flesh or time of this life if we did not live under Pardon to the very deposition of it or to the end of our life So then to conclude as S. Augustine said our merits are Gods gifts which excludes merit à parte ante in the original of our works because done by Gods free grace or gift so was it a saying of an ancient Father my merit is the mercy of God which excluds merit à parte post in the end when our works are admitted to the reward because that is done through Gods mercifull acceptation CHAP. VI. Purgatory OF the fower particulars which Mr. Spencer notes out of the Trent Council The unreasonableness of Romish Purgatory three of them speak their own unreasonableness and carry their condemnation in their forehead 1. That just persons after they have as they hold merited heaven at Gods hand by their justice and died acceptable to him should go to a Purgatory to be tormented 2. That the mercifull God after the Remission of their sin after he had forgiven them for the all-sufficient satisfaction of his Son should exact of them such extreme satisfaction or punishment and that only for some remainder of temporal pains not satisfied or born in this life when as that punishment exceedingly goes beyond all that can be suffered in this life though never so long 3. That the Church of Rome forbidding all temporal gain to be made of this doctrine of Purgatory should notwithstanding suffer it daily to be done where the poor must be content with the general suffrages of the Church but the Rich that dy and can pay for it have many particular Masses Indulgences in order to their ease or delivery The places of Scripture here brought in the sense of which he will have us mistaken are such as are intended for comfort against sufferings in this life and against dissolution or death by the bettering of their estate but this doctrine makes all these miserable comforts and his answers miserable not only mistakes but wrestings of Scripture The first place is Revel 14. Blessed are the Dead who dy in the Lord that they may rest from their labours and their works follow them or
follow with them The text saith not they rest presently after death that 's his first exception The present blessedness of them that dy in the Lord. and he pretends for it Mat. 5.3 where the poor in spirit are called Blessed and and yet in their misery but blessed because the kingdome of heaven belonged to them pa 181. It is true that hope in this life makes blessed but the blessedness of the next life stands in fruition according to the measures God has appointed But the force of the Argument stands not on the Term Blessed but the reason their dying in the Lord and resting from their Labours for dying in the Lord and sleeping in Christ are all one and that sleeping does necessarily infer that the Rest begins at death as the sleep doth and little comfort would it be if they went not presently to Rest for what joy is it to be taken from the Labours of this life to go to worse again that which enforces this presently is their works following them that they follow them for reward he grants pa. 182. that they follow them not at a distance but presently if the reason of giving the reward after Labours cease do not evince it the expression here may for it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow them which might be at some distance but more then the translation expresses it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow with them that is immediately As Rev. 6.8 Death is described sitting on a horse going out to destroy and Hades followed with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is immediately as Hades or the invisible state to which the soul goes follows immediately upon death More to confirm this presently going to rest or some blessed condition after death in the next place of Scripture His second exception is like the talking of a man in his dream that we mistake the word Labours which here is not taken saith he for all labours but the labours and persecutions of this life or that they cease from their good works pa. 182. But if the endeavours of good works were here meant by labours then reason and the comfort intended by this Text would infer that those labours being at an end the service performed the reward should immediately follow the warfare and combate being ended some Prize or Crown should be received and so indeed their works following them or with them does imply but here instead of receiving reward or rest the Combatant that has laboured and conquered is carried to the house of Correction delivered up to certain torments And take the labours here for sufferings of this life as they must and to the excluding of sufferings and torments after then is the Romish Purgatory excluded which wholly perverts the intent and scope of the Scripture spoken for their comfort and allows them no more in this Rest then the wicked have when they dy a freedome from the labours of this life leaving them only hope of coming out after some time The next place is 2 Cor. 5.1 For we know that if the earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God a house not made with hands eternal in heaven Here again he tels us we are mistaken for the words say not they go presenly after death into that heavenly house The same again proved pa. 183. But surely the Apostles argument here for comfort against the dissolution of this house must imply a present entring into the other or into some part of it also the word uncloathing which is in death must imply a cloathing with that house v. 2. The Apostle desired to be cloathed upon without uncloathing which shall be the condition of all just persons of the last age that are taken alive at the last day no Romish Purgatory can be for them but if that cloathing upon were denied to them of the Apostles age as it was so that it came to an uncloathing the Apostle had said little to their comfort in telling them of their house from heaven if he had not implied that upon their uncloathing they should be received into it but that contrarily they should first go to a house below and there suffer in the next region to hell exquisit torments for many years Also the opposition he makes between at home in the body absent from the Lord v. 6. and absent from the body and present with the Lord v. 8. plainly shews the denial of the one inferrs the other if absent from the body then present with the Lord and so the application which our Saviour makes of the wisdome of the unjust Steward Luc. 16.8 that when ye fail there is this dissolving or going out of the body they may receive you into everlasting habitations ther 's the heavenly house a present reception is necessarily implied even as the Steward meant to be provided of a place to receive him as soon as he should be turned out of his Lords house The next place is Wisd 3.1 The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them The word Torment here is misunderstood saith he Why so Righteoâ—â— souls aâ—â—â—â— Death 〈◊〉 from Tâ—â—ment because it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a torment that malefactors or suspected to be so are put to to make them confess the truth Now no such torment shall touch the righteous for God has sufficiently tried them and proved them and found them worthy of God v. 5. which is a plain place for merits pa. 184. If he loose one thing by this Text he will catch at another If it make against Purgatory he will have it make for merits Well if it be so plain for merits he must wring them out of the word worthy which being * cap. 5. num 8. objected above in the point of merits was answered too But as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which concerns Purgatory let the original use or strict importance of the word be it what it will the Text excludes all pains by saying no torment and what matters it if they that go to Purgatory suffer not the pain upon the like account of question and examination as suspected persons so that indeed they suffer the like as Malefactors do It would be mockery and not comfort to tell them they shall suffer not under that name but as much And to suffer this now that they are come from under the hands and volence of their enemies against which this is their comfort into the hands of God which the Text puts as the reason why no torment can touch them and thus to be handled there and that after God had proved and found them worthy of himself as this chapter v. 5. hath it how can this stand with the goodness of God or the intent of this Text which is spoken for their comfort But he will demonstrate Purgatory to be expressed in Scripture as much as Trinity 〈◊〉
what St. Aug. Aug. de Morib Ecclesiae c. 34. Sâ—pulâ—hrorum picturarum Adoratores Iurbas Imperitorum saith in several places in his Book of the manners or Customs of the Church he notes some to be Worshipers of pictures and sepulchres and puts them among the companies of ignorant and indiscreet men and saith the Church owns not allows not such custome or practise The Cardinal replies Peradventure St. Aug. Bell. de Imag l. 2. cap. 16. Forte speaks of the Idols of the Gentiles Peradventure of those that did superstitiously without all peradventure St. Aug. speaks not of Heathen Idols but of the irregular honour given by some to the Martyrs and without any peradventure they did superstitiously worship and honour them for that necessarily follows upon Religious worship given to a Creature and cannot be declined in the Church of Rome But after two peradventures the Cardinal is resolved to say St. Aug. was then newly converted when he wrote that Book and so * Offensum quibusdam ritibus Ecclesiae offended with some customs of the Church it seems the Cardinal took that practise which St. Aug. blames to have been a Custom or usage of the Church but after being better instructed he could excuse them But where did St August ever excuse such practise or shew himself reconciled to Image-worship We do not finde he recall'd it in his Retractations but we finde * Aug. contra Adimant c. 13. Velle videri se favere simulachris ut vesanae sectae Paganorum concilient benevol him blaming the Manichees in that they would seem to favour Images for gaining the good will of the Pagans to their mad sect Aug. contra Acad. l. 1. c. 1. Nihil omnino colendum esse totâ—â—que abjiciendum quicquid oculis cernitur quiâ—quid ullus sensus attingit Again we finde him in his first book against the Academicks pronouncing in general Nothing is at all to be worshiped but to be cast away what ever is seen with mortal eyes and what ever any sense can reach This Book indeed he wrote when he was newly converted but when he wrote his Retractations Retract l. 1. c. 1. Est enâ—m sensus Mentis he was an aged Christian there he repeats this sentence not retracting it but only explaining the word Sense by saying he meant the senses of the body not of the minde Also we finde the very same Father in his Book of true Religion Aug. de vera Relig. c. 55. Non est nobis Religio humanorum operum cultus meliores enim sunt iâ—si Artifices denying it and saying as we saw above Sect 1. Worship of Dead Men or of Angels is no part of our Religion So likewise denies he there that the worship of the works of mens hands is any part of Christian Religion and adds Reason for it because the workmen themselves are better then their works We finde him also upon occasion of the Heathen-worship asking this question Aug. in Ps 113. Quir adorat vel orat intuâ—â— simulaâ—h um qui non sic afficitur â—t ab eo se coeâ—â—â—rt puteâ— Who is he that adores or prayes beholding an Image and is not so affected as to think he is heard by it Where he not only condemns the practice but shews the danger of it in withdrawing the minde from that which is to be adored and prayed to Nor is this so easily to be turn'd off as the Cardinal would do it by saying St. Aug. speaks of Images with supposal of the Heathen error as if he should say Bell l. 2. de Imag. c. 9. Loqui de simulachris supposito errore Gentilium quando quis putet simulachrum esse Deum accedit ut adoret when any thinking the Image to be God as the Heathens did comes to adore and pray As if there were no danger of withdrawing the minde so but in them that think the Image to be God But all Heathens did not think so as we shall see below and St. Aug. puts his question generally of all and subjoyns the example of those that could not think the Image to be the thing it represented but might see them different and distant one from the other at the same time as the Sun it self and the Image of it Aug. ibid. Homines talibus superstitionibus obligati ad ipsum solem plerumque dorsum ponentes preces fundunt statuae They saith he that are engaged to such superstitions do often turn their backs to the Sun it self and pour out their prayers to the statue or Image of it and then St. August tels us the danger of it which is common to Heathen or Christians Contra hunc affectum quo humana infirmitas facile capi potest cantat Scriptura Aug. ibid. that will binde themselves to such superstition Against this affection arising from the use of the Image wherewith humane infirmity may be easily taken the Scripture cryes out telling them often They are the works of mens hands And a little after upon the same Psalm shews the danger that arises Valet in affectibus miserorum similis vivenâ—â— forma Aug. ibid. by reason of the similitude The likeness saith he which the Image hath to One living much prevails upon the affections of silly miserable men And thus much out of St. Aug. against the worship of Images and to shew the danger of using them in holy worship Let us hear what St. Gregory Bishop of Rome saith In his time which was about 600 years after Christ they were gotten into Churches for the historical use that might be made of them but not yet obtained any worship Serenus Bishop of Marscilles had caused some Images to be broken because he saw the people inclined to give them worship Greg. Epist l. 9. Ep 9. Gregory Bishop of Rome writes to him commending him in that he forbad them to be worshiped but not praising him for breaking them Bel. de Imag l. 2. c. 16. Vsum superstitiosum quo Imagines coluntur ut Dii The Cardinal answers with their usual limitation of worship That their Bishop forbad only the superstitious use of worshiping Images as Gods when as its plain to him that reads the Epistle he simply forbids the worship by such sayings Adorare omnibus modis devita by all waies possble avoid the adoring of them and all the use he allows of them is historical as appears by many passages in that Epistle that speak that use the only reason of having and retaining them as for example Aliud est adorare aliud per Picturae historiam quid sit adorandum addiscere Greg ibid. It is one thing saith he to adore another thing to learn by the history of the Picture what is to be adored Again They were not placed in the Church ad adorandum for worship but ad instruendas solummodo only for Instructing of the minds of the simple After this he
Trent saith nothing which contraries the Protestant Doctrine saving that it cals that Justification which is not so according either to Scripture or Fathers Of this second and improper Justification we spoke * Chap. IV. nu 2 5. above and shewed how it brings the Controversie of Justification by Works to nothing if indeed they would pretend to no more by their second Justification then their Council seems to make of it So that we might spare farther labour in calling them to shew what proof they have for this doctrine of Justification by works in Scripture and Antiquity And as for their first Justification by inhaerent habitual Righteousness it is not concerned in this question of Justification by Works that Righteousness being Gods work not ours at all as they do acknowledge yet because we were in the former Treatise chap. 4. bound up by Mr. Spencers Replies to say only what he gave occasion for it will not be amiss for a fuller clearing of that wherein they and we do differ to enter a farther consideration of Inhaerent Righteousness of Faith and of Works as to this point of Justification By which it will appear They lay too much upon the Inherent and are too much afraid of an imputed Righteousness also that they give Faith too little in this business and are needlesly affraid of the Sola Fides Faith only Lastly that they speak too confusedly when they say and give out Men are justified by VVorks 1. For inhaerent Righteousness The question being Of Iohaerent Righteousness as to Justification by what Righteousness we are Justified before God We must in the first place draw from them the acknowledgement of some Truths Such as they indeed are loath readily to profess and plainly to speak out but such as are necessary for understanding this Question as to the two Terms in it Justification and Righteousness The first Truth is this Justification sounds opposition to Condemnation That Justification speaks opposition to Condemnation as Rom. 8.33 34. and stands primarily in the acquitting of a sinner from the guilt of his sin offence and punishment the remission or not imputing of his sin the reconciling of him to the favour of God and according to this importance or sense the Apostle St. Paul continually speaks of it The definition or description which the * Decret c. 4. Justificationem Impii non esse aliud quam translationem a statu filiorum Adâ— Trent Council gives of Justification is this It is nothing else but a Translation from the state of the Sons of Adam into the Adoption of the sons of God through Jesus Christ Here is no mention of Remission of sins but elsewhere it is implied they grant it when they say Decret c. 7. Non est sola peccatorum remissio sed etiam sanctificatio In ipsa Justificatione una cum Remissione peccatorum fidem spem charitatem accipientes Justification is not only Remission of Sins but also Sanctification and a little after In Justification we receive faith hope and charity together with Remission of sins Here it is implyed that in Justification there is remission of sins but since the Jesuites prevailed it is made subsequent to the infused Righteousness which purges out the sin and that with them is Remission of sin or Deletion of it for these they confound as above noted and are loath to express Remission of sin as the Scripture doth by not imputing of sin A Second Truth Of the Grace of God taken for his Favour and Love which they are not so willing to profess is That by the Grace of God to which we finde Justification and Salvation often ascribed is meant the Favour Love or good Will of God towards Man I do not say they deny such an acception of Grace for the Trent Council condemning those that say Concil Trid. can 11. the Grace by which we are justified is only the Favour of God doth imply it to be of the Grace and favour of God that we are Justified and their Writers when put to it will acknowledge Grace so taken but decline so to interpret the word Grace where ever they can holding out for it the gift of grace inhaerent in us A third Truth Of Impuaed Righteousness they unwillingly profess and decline to speak of is that there is an imputed righteousness or that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for justification Their Council acknowledges * Decret c. 7. Christ the meritorious cause of Justification which doth closly imply this Truth viz. the application or imputation of his satisfaction or Merits to us for Justification and this imputation is mentioned when in that * Câ—non 11. Council they are Anathematiz'd that say Men are justified by the only imputation of Christs righteousness And we shall have occasion below to shew how the Cardinal admits of this Imputation in one place with a Non est absurdum It is not absurd to say Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 10. Christs righteousness and merits are imputed to us as if we our selves had satisfied It seems we are but lightly concerned in this great Truth of the Imputation of Christs righteousness for justification but deny it they cannot A fourth Truth is Inhaerent Righteousness imperfect That inhaerent Righteousness is imperfect and weak both in the habit or first infusion and also in the working This they would fain decline as prejudicial to Justification by it but they must and do acknowledge this Truth as we shall see below Indeed these Truths have not been so readily professed since the Jesuites prevailed whose study seems not to be for Truth and Peace but to set every point of doctrine farther off from agreement Yet notwithstanding aâ—l the devices and endeavours of such dissemblers of Truth and enemies of Peace we gain by the former Truths this Evidence for clearing the Doctrine of Justification of a Sinner What Justifications is and wherein properly is stands That it is a not-imputing of his sin an absolving or acquitting him from his sins and the condemnation due to them a reconciling of him or receiving him into Gods favour an accepting of him in the beloved through the imputation of Christs satisfaction and merits apprehended by Faith Also that albeit Inhaerent Righteousness be at the same time given by which the sinner is made righteous also and truly righteous according to that measure of righteousness yet is all the righteousness inhaerently in him too weak and imperfect for his justification his appearing and standing in judgment he needs the righteousness of Christ to make a supply of what is wantting and to cover what is amiss Contaremus a Cardinal of Rome and a writer against Luther was in this point clearly Protestant convinced of the former Truth and expressing it as we shall see by his words below rehearsed But now let us see what work they make in that Church Of Inherent Right Habitual and Actual
with the doctrine of Inherent Righteousness and what they bring from Scripture or Fathers to make it seem Catholick Inherent Righteousness they distinguish into Habitual which is by infusion of Grace and Actual which is acquired by Works and here they are not agreed * Bel. l. 2. de Justif c. 15. An sit Habitualis an Actualis an utraque De hac re disputant Catholici Doctores Sed conveniunt in eo omnes ut sit in nobis ver a justitia inhaerens non autem Christi justitia imputata whether a sinner be made formally righteous by the Habitual or by the Actual righteousness or by both together for the Cardinal acknowledges their Doctors dispute it but saith he all agree that it is a true inhaerent righteousness by which we are made righteous formally not the imputed righteousness of Christ How their Catholick Doctors agree in this we shall examine presently But first see how the Cardinal declares He professeth in the same place that his judgement is for the * Solam habitualem esse per quam justi formaliter sâ—mus ibid. Habitual as infused and answers the places of Scripture which are alledged by those that plead for the Actual also where we may note that the places of Scripture here alledged for the Actual righteousness against the solam habitualem the habitual only are the very same which they usually bring for works against solam fidem Faith only and the Answers which the Cardinal returns to them may serve us to exclude works from the true Justification The places and answers briefly are these Rom. Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 16. 2.13 The doers of the Law shall be Justified The Cardinal answers out of S. Aug. They shal be adjudged or declared just in the Divine Judgment St. James c. 2.24 By works a man is justified The Cardinal answers out of the Council of Trent which interprets that place of the second justification in as much as by good and just works the increase of habitual justice is merited Lastly 1 Jo. 3.7 He that doth righteousness is righteous The Card. answers the Apostle doth not speak what makes a man formally just but that whereby a man may be known to be just By this it appears how the Cardinal removes the Actual righteousness of Works from that which they hold to be the first and true and proper Justification much more are they removable from the formality of that which we hold the true and proper Justification according to the doctrine of St. Paul Now let us examine whether they all agree Concessions of Romanists about Imputation as the Cardinal boasted upon the inhaerent righteousness against the imputed First see what Vasquez and Bellarmine two great Defenders of inhaerent Righteousness and the perfection of it are forced to grant about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness Vega had said as Vasquez notes and corrects him for it Divine providence ordered it so Vasq in 1.2 Disput 222. cap. 1. that the Fathers used not the word of Imputation lest they should seem to give occasion to the Hereticks of these daies for their Error of false Imputation He was not afraid it seems of the Apostles giving them occasion and warrant for the Doctrine of Imputation But Vasquez acknowledges the Fathers did use that word and other words aequivalent as Communication and Application And he grants Concedimus imputari nobis Merita obedientiam Christi acsi revera essent nostra ibid. that the merits and obedience of Christ are imputed to us as if indeed they were ours and he giveth a good Reason Because the merits of Christ are the Merits of our Head This is fair and enough for our purpose if he did not pull back what he had given out and restrain what he had freely and truly granted Therefore he subjoyns Dissentimus ab Haereticis in eo ad quod merita Christi existimamus nobis imputari Dicimus imputari ratione Effectus quo pacto loquitur Concil Trid. etiam ad aliquem effectum imputari ibid. VVe differ from the Hereticks in that to which or for which the Merits of Christ are imputed How is that VVe say they are imputed saith he by reason of the Effect as the Council of Trent speaks also that they are imputed as to some effect Now if we ask to what effect He tels us in the two next chapters They are imputed unto Justification and unto life eternal This is very true But how unto Justification In regard of the dispositions and in regard of the Form of Justification in as much as by or through the Merits of Christ grace pravenient and adjuvant is given to dispose us to Justification and Inhaerent Righteousness given formally to justifie us Thus he explains himself in the second chapter and as for remission of sins by the satisfaction of Christ imputed no mention of that We must look for it in that purgation of sin which he supposes to be made by Infused Righteousness for they usually consound Remission and Deletion or purgation of sin as above noted nu 1. The Cardinal in his Concessions speaks a little clearer for Remission of our sins by the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ imputed reserving himself still for his inhaerent Righteousness and having nothing to keep him off from the protestant Doctrine which allows the being and necessity of Inhaerent righteousness but only the nicety of a Term Formaliter For * Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 7. Si solâ—m vellent imputari nobis Christi merita quia nobis donata sunt possumus ea Deo patri offerre pro peccaâ—is nostris quoniâ—m Christus suscrpit onus satisfaciendi pro nobis recta esset corum sententia speaking of Protestants If they would saith he have only Christs merits imputed to us because they are given to us and we may offer them to God the Father for our sins because he undertook the burden of satissying for us their doctrine were right and sound But so to have Christs righteousness imputed to us as if by it we were formally just is repugnant to right reason Well we say the first which he cannot but approve we do not say the other for that formally just or justified is their expression not ours Again Although by inhaerent Righteousness saith he Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 10. Etiamsi per justitiam inhaer tamen per eam non saâ—isfacimus Deo pro peccatis poena aeterna Non absurdum c. we are truly denominated and made righteous yet do we not by that satisfie God for our sins and eternal punishment therefore it is not absurd to say Christs merits and righteousness is imputed to us as if we our selves had satisfied so that it be not denied there is besides an inhaerent righteousness in us we do not deny there is but affirm they ascribe too much unto it and may observe how careful the Cardinal is for this
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
Faith its due which apprehends that righteousness and be content that inhaerent Righteousness should hold its due place there would be little cause of Controversie in this great point of Christian Doctrine I will conclude with the Cardinals answer to a saying of holy Bernard upon the Canticles * Bern. in Cantic Christus nobis justitia in dulgentia Dei nostra justitia Christ is our righteousness because he justifies us from our sins and the Indulgence of God is our righteousness By Indulgence and Remission saith the * Cardinal he understands full and compleat Justification Bel. de Iustif l. 2. c. 13. Nomine Indulgentiae Remissionis intelligit plenam Iustificationem quoniam ut saepè diximus nunquam remittitur culâ—a quin simul because as we have often said the sin is never remitted but righteousness is together with it insused And so say we But the righteousnes which Bernard cals Indulgence is not the Infused but the righteousness of Justification for where sin is not imputed there righteousness is imputed as * Nu. 4. above shewen out of Rom. 4.6 7. and this is indeed Divine Indulgence But still we acknowledge that continuance in the state of Justification is by good Works or continuance in wel-doing SECT V. Of Merit of good works IT was observed above Chap. V. nu 1. that the Council of Trent had desined Explication of the Question and the Reason of Merit properly taken Good works do truly merit eternal life but did not tell us plainly wherein the Reason of Merit truly so called doth stand only it gives us certain acknowledgements of Gods bounty promise and grace which are so far from being the grounds of Merit as Mr. Spencer there cals them that they do by necessary consequence overthrow it The Question therefore being about Merit truly so called it will be first necessary to see into that for the clearing of it will plainly shew the impertinency of what they alledge out of Scripture or Fathers for their works truly Meritorious We spoke something to this purpose in the V. Chap. as Mr. Spencer gave occasion We may further observe that They who hold up the Controversie for the moderate sort in the Church of Rome do let it fall use three Adverbials which speak the meaning of that Vere merentur or truly meritorious and they are simplicitèr propriè ex condigno simply properly and condignly meritorious as we see in their * Bel. 5. de Iustif c. 16. Vasq in 1.2 Tho. disp 213. c. 4. two great Champions for Merit The word Simply is alwaies exclusive of that which is so or so according to some respect only Now the respect here considerable and to be inquired into has regard to Gods promise bounty and acceptation whereby good works say we obtain so great a reward The Asserters of Merit will not say that their simply meritorious does exclude the Promise or all respect unto it but lay the Promise as a ground-work of their merit The word Merit sounds two things The better to understand this mystery we must consider that the word to merit sounds two things obtaining and deserving the first stands by the promise but the second which carries the reason of merit stands by the worth of the work The Cardinal and his fellowes must say that if God had not made the promise and of his gracious bounty appointed such a reward the best service of man could not have obtained it or brought him to eternal life but they will also say that such service would by the worth of the work and labour have deserved the reward See to this purpose what the Cardinal putting the queston of works condignly meritorious delivereth Bell. l. 5. de Justif c 17. Meritoria ex condigno ratione Pacti tantùm vel operis tantùm vel ratione utrâ—usque This may saith he be three waies varied or considered that works be called condignly meritorious In regard of the Covenant or promise only or in regard of the work only or in regard of both Opus multò inferius mercede promissâ In the first he supposeth the work or service far inferiour to the reward promised as if a hundred Crowns should be promised for one daies labour in the Vineyard Opus revera aequale mercedi Opus verè par mercedi In the second he supposeth the work equal to the reward but no covenant or promise intervening In the third he supposeth the work truly equal to the reward set out in the Covenant or promise and the example of this he makes the penny given to the Labourers in the vineyard Mat. 20. And this third way he declares for that Good Works are condignly meritorious in regard of both the promise and the work it self Whereas it is plain that the promise makes but way for the Consecution or obtaining of the reward and is requisite to make works meritorious only according to the first and less proper importance of the word meriting for obtaining but as for deserving of the reward wherein the reason of Merit properly stands that is laid upon the worth of the work which is supposed as we see to be truly equal to the Reward promised Vasquez usually more free and open then the Cardinal plainly professeth and mamtains †Vasquez in Tho. 1.2 disp 214. c. 5. that good works without any promise or divine acceptation are condignly meritorious of eternal life and have of themselves a value or worth equal to it For he saw that the pretence of the Covenant or promise or divine acceptation was no ground but a prejudice to the reason of Merit truly so called and therefore a little after sets himself to prove Vesq c. 8. nullo msdâ— pertinere ad rationem meriti that the Covenant or promise does not at all belong to the reason of Merit and makes this his argument for the condign meriting of Good Works Sin saith he deserves a punishment equal to it without all Covenant or Commination therefore also the works of the Just do condignly merit the eternal Crown of glory Vasq ibid. cap. 10. absque ullo pacto vel comminatione without all Covenant or promise * siqui dem hoâ— praetrâ—â— aequale est for this reward is equal to the worth of the work without the promise But this is thwarted by the Bull of Pius V. and Greg. XIII two Popes condemning certain Propositions of which this is one Vasq ibid. cap. 13. â— Even as the evil of sin in its own nature deserves eternal death so a good work of its own nature deserves or merits eternal life What else did Vasquez say but he strives to clear himself by pretending this difference between his Assertion and the condemned Proposition that the Author of those Propositions held good works without Grace were so meritorious which Vasquez does not Now whether Jesuites little regard what their Popes define in their Bulls being
never destitute of an Evasion or whether indeed it be the doctrine of the Church of Rome and the meaning of the Councils Vere merentur that good works done in grace do as truly deserve and are as condignly meritorious of eternal life as sins and evil deeds are of eternal death I will not further inquire into but out of that which has been said we may draw up the Question to this Issue That the first way set down by the Cardinal and rejected by him Good Works are condignly meritorious in regard of the Covenant and Promise only was indeed The Issue of the Question if rightly interpreted the true and ancient Doctrine of the Church asserted by the Fathers and the former Writers of the Church of Rome as may in part be seen by those Authors whom the Cardinal and Vasquez have noted and rejected We need not here be afraid of the words condignly meritorious for being joyned with those words in regard of the Covenant and promise only they must have such a sense as their consistence will allow which is by interpreting the word meritorious according to the first importance of consecution or obtaining and the word condignly according to such a deserving or worthiness as stands by divine acceptation when we do the condition which the promise requires in such a sort as God will accept unto a rewarding Even as in Scripture holy Men are said to be just and perfect through divine acceptation So it comes to this plain Truth The good Works and Life of holy Men will be accepted of God as good and faithful service and certainly obtain eternal life See Mat. 25.21 Well done thou good c. In this sense the Augustan and Wittenburg Confessions did not abhor to use the word meritorious nor Brentius and Melanchthon as Vasquez notes of them and in this sense we need not be affraid to admit it and to say that good works do merit that is do obtain or are rewarded with eternal life through the gracious acceptation bounty and promise of God and one would think this were enough for us both to encourage us to do good and to comfort and stay us in the doing of it and persevering in it without standing upon any farther title or contesting with God that we have made him our Debter or that eternal life is due to our works for the worth of them This is therefore that which we deny That good works do truly and properly merit eternal life Truly and properly I say as deserving it upon the worth of the work and good reason have we to deny it Finding all they can bring from Scripture or Fathers as I hinted above impertinent and inconsequent to the proving of Merit truly so called yea it will appear that the more ancient writers of the Church of Rome are against it yea they that asserted it are forced sometimes by Truth it self to yield so much as may overthrow it First out of Scripture they give us two places bearing the Name of Merit Scripture alledged for the Name Merit but it is only according to their Latin translation not according to the Original Greek The one place is Eccles 16.15 according to the merit of their works so their Edition but the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is according to their works as we finde it often said in the Scriptures But Bellarm. reddere ficut opera merentur and Vasquez reply what is it to render according to their works but to render to them as their works deserve or merit to which we may say Albeit such expression as their works deserve may be very well admitted yet is there much difference between Secundum opera according to works and as their works deserve or merit taking the word Merit in the Cardinals sense for to say according to their works is but to speak the quality of them that it shall be well with those that do well and on the contrary evil to those that do evil it does not speak equality between the work and the reward St. Gregory speaks home to this purpose upon the 143. Greg. in 7. Psalmum poenitential v. 8. Si secundâ—un opera quomodò misericordia aestimabitur Sed aliud est secundum opera reddere aliud propter ipsa opera reddere In eo enim ipsa operum qualitas intelligiuâ— Psalm If it shall be rendred to every one saith he according to their works how shall it be accounted mercy but it is one thing to render according to works another to render it for the works themselves for in that where it 's said according to their works the very quality of the works is meant that they whose works appear good shall have a glorious retribution Another place they alledge for Merit is Heb 13.16 which in their Latine Edition has promeretur Deus as bad Latine as Divinity In the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well pleased and so by Occumenius the word is interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies as much as well pleased Indeed the Ancient Latine Fathers did some of them especially St. Cyprian according to the ancient and innocent meaning of the word Merit use to say promereri Deum i. e. to engage or obtain of God what he had promised but we do not contend about Words or Phrases Let us see what they bring for the proof of the thing it self Merit truly so called First they alledge all those Scriptures that call eternal life a Reward Their Scriptures to prove the thing From Reward and compare it to the hire or pay of Labourers We grant it is so often call'd but the Inference therefore our works or labour does truly merit such reward is inconsequent for the Apostle supposes there is a reward reckoned of Grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aug. in prafat Ps 31. as there is of Debt Rom. 4.4 Accordingly St Aug. Merces nostra vocatur Gratia Our Reward is called Grace and if so then is it freely given And St. Ambrose tels us in his Epistles there is Merces liberalitatis the Reward or Recompence of liberality where bounty is seen on the one part rather then desert on the other Between man and man there may be Merit and Reward according to debt or justly due not so between God and man yet is Gods rewarding set out by the other to shew the certainty of the recompence and that it shall be rendered according to their works not that the similitude stands good in all parts for the duty of man to God is antecedent to all covenant or promise the ability man has to perform it is from Gods free grace the reward given is infinitely beyond all that man can do Secondly Of Reward given in proportion to Works They alledge all such Scriptures as speak the reward given according to works therefore proportionably to the works and what is that else but according to Merit when as in giving there is regard had
to the worth or dignity of the work This Argument also is inconsequent for admit that the reward is given according to works and in the giving it there is regard had to the dignity of them yet does not this conclude them meritorious as we saw above Nu. 3. Good works indeed may be different in worth and dignity yet all infinitely belwo the eternal reward And in the reward there is the substance and degrees considerable the essential beatitude or eternal life and the degrees of glory All that are saved have eternal life not all the same glory The Penny was given to all Mat. 20.10 To this purpose St. Ambr. l. 7. in Luc. 15. v. 17. aqualem mercedem Vita non gloriae Ambrose Thou hirest in Labourers at the eleventh hour and dost vouchsafe them an equal reward an equal reward of life not of glory The difference of reward upon the difference of good works is in the degrees of glory and if some proportion be observed in this yet nothing of Merit where God does but crown the greater gifts he bestowed here with the greater glory there If they will plead proportion our Saviour tels them Mat. 19.29 an hundred fold is received and that 's no fit proportion to ground Merit on If they plead reward given according to dignity of the works St. Paul tels them Rom. 8.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sufferings of this life are not worthy to be compared with the glory excluding all proportion of worth between the sufferings and the glory Thirdly Such places of Scripture as speak works to be the cause or reason of giving eternal life as Mat. 25.35 For ye have fed cloathed Which places saith the Cardinal do witness eternal life so given Bel. l. 5. de Justif cap. 3. ut ipsam rationem cur detur vita aterna in operibus ponant that they put the very Reason wherefore it is given upon the works Those places do give a reason indeed why such and such obtain eternal life but not the very Reason or the chief Reason for there is a greater Reason a Reason wherefore such works are rewarded with eternal life and that destroyes the Merit of such works though not the certainty of their obtaining and that is Gods gracious bounty and liberality appointing such a reward to such small performances and therefore is it said in the 34. verse an Inheritance and Kingdom prepared for them and then dependently on that it is said Inherit the Kingdom for ye have done that which I required of you in order to inheriting the Kingdom ye are such as they for whom the Kingdom is prepared Fourthly Reward in Justice how Such places of Scripture as speak Gods Justice in giving the reward 2 Thess 1.6 2 Tim. 4.8 But this is still inconsequent as to the inferring of Works meritorious unless they can say God renders the reward to good works according to Commutative justice which gives one for one by equal proportion but such Justice is not found between God and Man for man returns nothing to God which he can call his own nothing but what he has received of God As for the destributive or remunerative justice it is true that God may be said in some sense to render the reward in justice yet not for the merit of the works but out of the bounty of his liberality and the faithfulness of his promise God was not bound in justice to prepare appoint or promise such a reward to such works but having appointed promised it it is just with him to render accordingly So the Apostle speaking of the Justifying of a sinner which the Romanists themselves say cannot be merited useth the same word that he might be just i. e. in keeping his promise to all that believe in Jesus So when the Fathers in their high language speak of Man making God his Debtor they mean it only in regard of his own promise whereby he has freely bound himself St. August Aug. in Psa 83. Debitorem Dominus ipse se fecit non accipiendo sed promittendo may answer for them all The Lord saith he made himself debtor not by receiving any thing but by promising Lastly Such places of Scripture Worthy of the Reward how as speak us worthy So Luc. 10.7 2 Thess 1.5 Rev. 3.4 This argument as the rest is inconsequent They are worthy therefore their Works are meritorious or therefore they have the reward for the worth of their works whereas this worthiness arises by divine acceptation by which they are accounted worthy Bernard may answer them once for all Bern. de dedic Eccl. ser 5. illius dignatione non nostra dignitate We are worthy saith he by his dignation not by our own dignity See also above Chap. V. nu 8 9. In the Testimonies alledged by them out of the Fathers they give us but words or bare sayings Their Testimonies out of Antiquity examined But we produce the Fathers witnessing for us against Merit and giving reason withall to overthrow it The Greek Fathers have not any word that fully answers the importance of the Latine word Merit but the Romanists usually translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which occurs frequently in these Fathers especially Chrysostome and signifies no more then recte facta Deeds rightly done or good works Merita Merits Such merits that is good works we acknowledge the Fathers do allow and the Cardinal acknowledges that St. Aug. Bel. de gra lib. arbitr l. 1. c. 14. Meritum appellat quemlibet actum bonum ratione cujus aliquid aliud accipimus in whose Books the word Merit is most frequently found uses it for every good work in regard of which we receive some other thing Well then we acknowledge holy men full of such Merits or good Deeds and that they shall obtain or be rewarded with eternal life And I dare say there is not any Father that affirms more as we may see by that Collection Bel. l. 5. de Justis c. 4. which the Cardinal has made He begins with the Greek Fathers but produces their sayings only in Latine and there he has as I noted above this gift usually to choose the worst translation so when he makes Ignatius say ut possim promereri Deum whereas the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to obtain or enjoy God although we need not be afraid of the phrase promereri Deum which we shall see St. Cyprian often using in an innocent sense according to the meaning of those ancient Times So the Cardinal makes Justin Martyr to say victuros cum eo suis meritis that they shall live with him God by their merits Justin Apolog 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas the Greek is to be accounted worthy of his conversation or of being with him In like manner that St. Basil should say speaking of the Forty Martyrs Basil in orat de 40. Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have merited promeriti sunt crowns of glory and what oration or speech can sufficiently set forth or reach their Merits where the same word is used they were accounted worthy or did obtain such Crowns and that which he renders their Merits is in the Greek their worthiness or vertue He cites Chrysostom saying in his hom on Lazarus rendred according to their Merits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek sounds according to their desert and speaks of both wicked and good and is no more then what the Scripture often saith according to their works Dispunctio utriusque meriti Tertul in Apolog c. 18. and what Tertullian cals the discrimination or severing of both merits of the one to punishment and of the other to reward as we see set forth in Mat. 25.32 and in the different end of the rich glutton and of Lazarus Luc. 16.25 they were dealt with according to their different lives and thus Clemens in his Strom. doth more then once use this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is according to their works or desert It speaks the difference of desert in the one and the other does not speak the worth or proportion of the work to the reward of eternal life To this purpose it was spoken * Nu. 3. above upon their alledging Ecclus. 16. according to their Merits for according to their Works That which he alledges out of Irenaeus and some other Fathers speaks only to this purpose that eternal life is acquired and obtained by good works which was the second thing we acknowledged to be asserted by the Ancients and by us admitted as a Truth which makes nothing to condign Merit truly so called The Latine Fathers cited by the Cardinal Bel. l. 5. de Justific c. 4. albeit they have the word Merit more frequently yet do they indeed speak no more then the former St. Cyprian we grant does often use the phrase promereri Deum but according to the innocent meaning as I said above of those Times promeneri Deum for obtaining or procuring Gods Favour by doing that which is pleasing to him or for enjoying God or his presence in bliss and glory That which the Cardinal cites out of Greg. Mor. 4. c. 42. out of Celestines Epist and out of Bernard in Cantic contributes no more to the Romish cause then the word Merit put for good Deeds only Greg. implies there that the glory will be proportionably the greater and answerable to the measure of good Deeds which we deny not but we deny that this advancement of the reward and increase of the glory which does so much more set out the divine bounty and free liberality should be made an argument for condignity of mans merit as the Romanists do and the Cardinal did above nu 3 urging those Scriptures for Merit which speak the Reward given in proportion to the works But that which the Cardinal brings out of Celestine who was also Bishop of Rome and is here cited for the Names-sake of Merit speaks indeed against them So great saith he is the goodness of God towards all men Tanta erga omnes homines est bonitas Dei ut nostra velit esse Merita quae sunt ipsius dona pro his quae largitus est aeterna praemia sit donaturus Celest in Ep. that he is pleased they should be our Merits which are his Gifts and that he will give us the eternal rewards for those things which he had bestowed freely upon us before which destroyes the very reason of their Merit properly taken That which is cited out of Ambrose de Offic. l. 1. c. 15. saith no more then according to their works whether they be good or bad as above in the Testimony drawn out of Chrysostome The sayings of Hierome and Hilary speak but the second thing we acknowledged viz that good deeds will obtain or be so rewarded Indeed St. Aug. cited by the Cardinal here may seem to speak more then the former Aug. ep 105. ad Sixtum Sicut merito peccati tanquam stipendium redditur mors ità merito justitiae tanquam stipendium vita aeterna As unto the merit of sin death is rendred as the stipend and wages so is life eternal rendred as a stipend to the merit of righteousness Where the stipend or wages is no more then Reward This is clear by what he saith in relation to the Apostles saying Rom 6. ult A stipend is rendred as due for the labour of the warfare Aug. Enchirid. c. 107. Stipendium pro opere militiae debitum redditur non donatur Id eo dixit stipendium pecsati mors gratia verò nisi gratis sit gratia non est is not freely given therefore the Apostle said The wages of sin is death and therefore eternal life cannot be thus called a stipend but grace or the gift of God except it be free is not grace and St. Aug. adds immediately as consequent to it Intelligendum est igitur ipsa hominis bona merita esse Dei munera quibus cùm vita aeterna redditur quid nisi gratia pro gratia reddi tur Aug. ibid. Therefore we must understand that the Merits or good Deeds of Man are the gifts of God to which when aeternal life is given what is there else given but grace for grace And by this we may see how St. Aug. meant what he speaks elswhere upon that of Rom. 6. ult a saying that the Romanists still oppose to the argument we make against Merit from the Text of the Apostle St. Aug. saying is this Aug. de Gra. lib. arb c. 9. Cum posset dicere recte dicere stipendium justitiae vita aeterna maluit dicere The Apostle might have said and said it truly that the wages or stipend of Righteousness is life eternal he chose rather to say the Gift of God He might have said it in a true sense taking the word stipend as above for a reward or recompence not in an equal or answerable sense to the other the wages or stipend of sin is death for then it would not have consisted with the Truth of that which the Apostle did say but the gift of God is life eternal nor with the end and purpose wherefore the Apostle did choose to say the gift rather then the stipend viz. to exclude all thought of merit of condignity as it follows there in St. Maluit dicere Gratia Dei vita aeterna ut intelligeremus non pro meritis nostris Deum nos ad vitam aeternam sed pro sua miseratione perducere Aug. He chose rather to say The gift of God is life eternal that we might understand how God brings us to eternal life not for our Merits but for his Mercy sake There is scarce any of the Ancients that has either commented on that Text of the Apostle or occasionally faln upon it but observes the apparent distinction which the
indulgentia pro Corona est St. Ambr. in his exhort to Virginity VVhence have I so great merit to whom Indulgence is in stead of a Crown and upon Ps 118. in reference to those words thy tender mercies and thy judgments in the 156. Ambr. in Ps 118. contione 20. quis enim mostrum sine divina potest miseratione subsistere vers The Lord saith he tempers his judgment with mercy for which of us can subsist without the divine mercy indulgence And a little after concludes the process of divine Judgment is made * Non ergo secundum merita mostra sed misericordiam Dei not according to our Merits but Gods Mercy St. Hilary upon the beginning of the 31. Ps or as with us the 32. where the Psalmist places righteousness in the forgiveness or not imputing of sin Hil. in Ps 31. Opera justitiae non sufficient ad beatiâ—ud nisi misericordia Dei non reputet vitia saith thus The works of righteousness will not be sufficient for a desert or Merit or obtaining of that blisse Greg. mor. 9. c. 14. ad vitam non ex meritis sed ex venia unless that the mercy of God do not impute our faults Greg. the great saith thus in his Comments on Job If I grow up to the work of vertue I come to life not by my merits but by his pardon and indulgence To these sayings of Hilary and Gregory the Cardinal answers by their needing of the remission of Venial sins as if the several acknowledgments of these and other Fathers yea of the * Ps 143.2 Psalmist too did but imply they complained only of some venial sins and stood in need only of mercy for them Experience may sufficiently convince such conceit of vanity and presumption Bern. de Annunc ser 1. Holy Bernard in one Sermon gives many reasons against the presumption of Merits and alledges the example of the Psalmist VVho saith he is better then the Prophet that is could better plead merit and righteousness yet he held it necessary to say Enter not into judgment with thy servant Our third rank or sort of Testimonies Testimonies affirming our Duty to the excluding of Merit is of such as speak our Duty in doing all we can conformably to that of our Saviour Luc. 17.10 Say unprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty to do The Romanists think to elude this Scripture by saying Though we be unprofitable to God yet we may be profitable to our selves gaining everlasting life by our good works This is true but it s one thing to gain or obtain so great profit as eternal life by good works another thing to merit it by doing them and if our being unprofitable to God will not overthrow the Romish Merit yet our duty to do all we can will do it Indeed unto Merit taken in the most strict sense according to absolute right and debt it is required that a man bring profit and advantage to the person of whom he challenges any thing by such Merit but because the Romanists will say there is not such Merit between God and Man therefore the force of the Argument rests upon the Duty which silences all plea of such Merit they contend for Merit truly so called St. Aug. thus O the great goodness of God! Aug. Serm. 3. de verb. Domini Cui cum pro conditione reddere debeamus obsequia ut mancipia redemptori to whom though we ought by reason of our Creation to return all service and obedience as servants to our Lord as bond-servants to our Redeemer he makes us promises of rewards as to friends Bernard in his Sermon of the fourfold Debt shews as the * Bel. de Justific l. 5. c. 14. sect Tertia Cardinal acknowledges that all our good works are so due to God that he might exact them although he would give no reward Bern. de quadrup debito Creator tuus est tu Creatura tu servus ille Dominus ille Figulus â—u figmenâ—um Totum ergò quod es illi debeâ— He is thy Creator saith Bernard thou his Creature thou art a servant He thy Lord He the Potter thou his workmanship therefore all that thou art thou owest to him of whom thou hast all Theophyl saith Theophyl in Luc. 17.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A servant that doth not his work is worthy of stripes but when he has done his work let him be content that he has escaped stripes that is if reward come for so doing let him account and receive it as of meer bounty for it follows in Theophyl Therefore that servant ought not to exspect honour or reward as necessarily following or as due as he might if he truly merited for it is of his Lords liberality and bounty to give him yea rather frankly to bestow any thing upon him where we may observe he did not think it enough to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give him but adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freely bestow on him the better to express the undeserved bounty of God so rewarding man for doing what was his duty to do Bernard gives a good reason against our Meriting Bern. de Annun ser 1. because all our Merits are Gods gifts that St Aug. said often but he adds and for them man is a debtor to God So far are Gods gifts of Grace from being the ground of Merit as the Romanists pretend that they take from it by encreasing our Duty and Debt Our last sort or Rank of Testimonies is of such as speak Testimonies affirming the Improportion of our works to the reward our sufferings or doings not to be compared with the Reward in any proportionable measure and herein they have the Apostle going before them Rom. 8.18 2 Cor. 4.17 St. Ambrose thus What can we do worthy of those Coelestial rewards Ambr. in Ps 118. conc 20. Quid possumus praemiis dignum facere coelestibus which has so much the more force in it if we consider what goes before and what follows after it He had said before God tempers his judgment with mercy and none of us can subsist without the divine indulgence then immediately after alledging that of the Apostle Rom. 8.18 he concludes Therefore the execution of the heavenly decrees proceeds not according to our Merits but the mercy of God Something of this we had above in the second rank of Arguments Nu. 6. Greg. the first upon the seventh penit Psalm having said God renders according to works Greg. in Psal 142. Illi namque beatae vitae in qua cum Deo de Deo vivitur nullus labor aequari potest nulla opera comparari presertim cum Apostolus not for our works which saying was made use of above he adds immediately as a reason For unto that blessed life in which we live with God and of God no labour can be equal no endeavour or doings compared with it especially
of the Cathari shews that after this life ended the condition is unalterable the receptacles sealed up the Crowns given Not so if souls truly penitent go to purgatory for of such souls he speaks there against the Novatians Thus much of the Place of Souls We come now to the second Head Prayers for the Dead infer not Purgatory that is Prayer for the Dead from which the Romanists would infer Purgatory And for Scripture proof they give us 2 Machab. 12.43 a fit foundation for such an Article of Faith the book of all the Apocryphals least considerable which will easily appear to him that layes together what the Author himself saith of his own work in his 2. chap. v. 23 24 26. and chap. 15.38 39. Evidences enough of a meer humane work done by the labour of the brain not the inspiration of the Holy Ghost St. Aug. indeed sometimes cals these books Canonical according to the large acception of the African Church but being put to answer an argument of the Donatist grounded upon the * Machab. example of Razis he much lessens the Authority of them as not to be compared with the books of the Law and Psalms Aug. contra Gauden l. 2. c 23. quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis Luc. 24 44. recepta non inutiliter si sobrie legatur and the Prophets to which saith he our Lord gives testimony as to his Witnesses But this writing of the Mach. is received of the Church not unprofitably if it be read soberly Gregory Bishop of Rome citing a place out of these Books Greg. Moral l. 19. c. 13. excuses it because he did it out of Books not Canonical in Moral l. 19. c. 13. Again he that well considers the place will easily distinguish between the Fact of Judas and the mistaken collection or misapplication of the writer of that Book Judas no doubt did piously for he seeing their Sin or Sacriledge as the cause why they were slain vers 40. fell to his devotions prayed and sent a sin-offering to Jerusalem v. 42.43 Not for the sin of them that died that 's the mistake of this Writer but upon occasion of their sin to divert the Wrath from the rest of his Army as Joshua thought himself concerned upon the sin of Achan Josh 7.10 Also it is apparent that they died in their sin the things they had stoln being found about them which argues both the incogitancy of this writer who vers 45. supposes they died godly and the impertinency of the Romanists who suppose them in Purgatory whither they send none that dye in their sins but only justified persons They also urge 2 Tim. 1.18 for praying for the Dead whereas that prayer for Onesiphorus supposing him dead at that time has but reference to the Mercy which shall be imparted at the last day to which also the prayers of the Ancient Church do much refer and make nothing for Purgatory And therefore all the Testimonies they bring out of the Ancient Fathers or Councils for praying for the Dead are impertinent as to the proving of a Purgatory there being other Reasons for such praying as we shall see A wilful perverting it is of that Ancient Practice to draw it off as the Church of Rome has done from the first intent and purpose to fasten it upon their conceit of Purgatory pains We shall see this better by the trial following The Ancients when they set themselve to give reasons of the Churches praying for the Dead Other purposes of such Prayers give not this of Purgatory which had been most obvious and most fit to stop the mouth of the Adversary had it been the Doctrine of the Church but other Reasons they alledge differing from or inconsistent with Purgatory This appears by Epiphanius who was put to it by Aerius questioning the prayers made in the Church for the Dead and by Dionysius in his Hierarchy who puts himself to answer the like Questions In both of them it appears that the intent of the Church by those Prayers was mainly this The instruction of the living and the confirming of their Hope See first what Epiphanius saith He cals this practice a seemly preaching or publishing Epiph. Har. 75. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of what of the happy estate and Rest of those that dye in Christ whereby the belief of the living was confirmed and their hope raised What more profitable saith he then that the living should believe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they that are departed are in being and do live with the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again There is hope saith he to them while they pray for their Brethren as now in their peregrination or absence Insinuating that albeit they are departed or gone from them yet they shall meet again Also to shew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is more perfect which must refer to the state of the next life for saith he while we are here in the world we offend often And lastly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because all men do offend and slip in this life more or less 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore we pray for all even for Patriarchs c. to separate Christ from all other for he being without sin altogether is not to be prayed for but to be prayed unto and worshipped These are all the Reasons he gives of their praying for the Dead which we see do respect and provide for the instruction of the Living and do not imply any such state of the Dead in pain and grief as Purgatory supposeth but the Contrary Now see we what the Romanists endeavour to pick out of words Because he saith Prayer for the Dead is profitable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. although it cuts not off sins all or wholly they infer thence therefore it doth cut off sin in part We answer As Epiphanius does not say that so neither could he mean it For first we must suppose he would not answer impertinently to Aerius who objected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the prayers of the living altogether profit the Dead then let no man live Godly c. Therefore Epiphanius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must answer to Aerius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and must be understood of the sins of such persons as Aerius spoke of such as had no care of their lives but left it to their living friends to pray for them after death Now if Epiphanius should mean that prayer did in part cut off such mens sins then must he speak according to that merciful opinion of mitigating the pains of the Damned by the prayers of the Living with which conceit some of the Ancients were tainted as we shall see below but this would be nothing to Purgatory Secondly if his meaning had been as the Romanists would have it that prayer for the Dead did not cut off such mens sins but that there was another sort of sinners
of Logick or Reason we envy it not but it was neither Prudeut nor seemly for the Cardinal to conclude that unless such Inference were good our Saviour had spoken inconsiderately or as his word sounds foolishly whereas we saw above our Saviour might speak so in many respects without reference to any such Purgatory In respect to the Age of the Messiah according to the opinion of the Jewes In respect to the General judgment of God and the sentence then to be passed In respect to the forgiveness of sins and that loosing made on earth Another respect we may add and say our Saviour might speak so in regard of the punishment of the world to come which is the necessary consequent of not forgiven shall not be forgiven i. e. shall be punished So Ferus on the place and Chrysostom And this will bring us to their Inference from these words which was the third thing they were to make good and it is directly contrary to that of St. Chrysostom III. They infer Purgatory pains from the forgiveness which they suppose to be in the world to come forgiven i. e. punished This is inconsequent and inconsistent First in regard of the Time for the forgiveness of the world to come is that final open absolution or forgiveness at the Last day but their Purgatory forgiveness and punishment is secret and before that last day But here they seem to answer that sins indeed are forgiven at the last day but to them that have first parsed the Purgatory fire and for this an obscure place of St. Aug. is alledged Even as at the resurrection there will not be wanting some Aug. de Civ Dei l. 21. c. 24. Sicut factâ resurrectione non deerunt quibus post poenas quas patiuntur spiritus mortuorum impertiatur misericordia ut in ignem non mittantur aeternum Neque enim de quibusdam veraciter directeur to whom after the pains which the souls of the departed do suffer mercy may be imparted so that they shall not be cast into eternal fire For it would not else be truly said of some it shall not be forgiven neither in this nor the world to come What these pains are and when suffered he speaks not and in the application of this Scripture he goes alone Only he is plain for the Time of this forgiveness or imparting of mercy that it is at the resurrection But this will not stand with the Purgatory forgiveness nor with the profit to be raised out of Papal Indulgences by which Souls may be loosed out of Pains every day and sent to heavenly bliss before the resurrection Secondly in regard of the Opposition between Forgiveness and punishment The former Inference which from our Saviours Negative shall not be forgiven concluded some sins shall be forgiven then the Cardinal acknowledged not to follow according to the Rules of Logick but from their supposed forgiveness to infer punishment is still more unreasonable The Scripture sets reconciliation with God against paying the utmost farthing Mat. 5.25 sets the forgiving of the dâ—bt against the paying of the debt Mat. 18. 32. 34. The Greeks after the Council of Florence set out their Apologie concerning Purgatory in reference to what they had discoursed with the Latines there where we finde this to be one point of difference between them * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What agreement say they is there between Remission and such purgation or punishment there is no need of both and a little after they shew that St. Aug. was the first that conceited this middle kinde of punishment after this life in order to forgiveness of some sins and the occasion that brought him into that conceit they also declare which we shall mention under the next Head Our fourth General Head was concerning the Pains and punishment between Death and the Resurrection Of Pains after Death The Text of 1 Cor. 3.13 misapplied to the Purgatory Fire We have already considered them in relation to Forgiveness of â—n now more specially of the Purgatory punishment to which the Romaâ—â—ists apply what they meet with touching the purgation of fire We will first examine that noted place of Scripture so often misapplied by them to their purgatory Fire It is 1 Cor. 3.13 the fire shall try every mans work and vers 15. He shall be saved yet so as by fire The Cardinal acknowledges this to be one of the most difficult places Bel. de purg l. 1. c. 5. Vnum ex difficillimis locum and that so St. Aug. thought of it and consequently he should have acknowledged it no fit place to ground an Article of Faith on as affording no more certainty of a purging fire after death then such as St. non in credibile so sitan ita est non redarguo Aug. does usually express in the several places where he fals upon this Text such a thing is not incredible It may be it is so and if any will take it so I do not reprove him Again the Cardinal giving us the several opinions of the Ancients about the meaning of Hay and Stubble there mentioned he cannot finde any before St. Gregory that understood thereby Venial sins and therefore all the Ancients were far from conceiving any such purgatory couched in this place Also in giving us the several opinions of the Ancients touching this Fire Bel. ibid. Sect. Tertio quia He tels us all the Ancients seem by the day mentioned ver 13. to understand the day of the last judgement and he gives four Reasons to prove it so and after their different opinions of the fire there also mentioned he concludes that cannot be the purgatory fire because the fire in St. Paul touches all Bel. ibid. onmes tangit at Ignis purgatorius non probat opera eorum even those that build gold and silver But the Purgatory fire does not prove their works Apostolum â—olqui de igne severt justi judicii Dei qui non est ignis purgans affligens sed probans examinâ—ns It remains therefore that we say the Apostle speaks of the fire of the severe and just judgment of God which is not a purging and afflicting fire but a proving and a trying fire and for this he gives unanswerable reasons and in asserting this the Cardinal is sound and ingenuous But what will become then of his Purgatory fire and wherefore is this Text urged for it He finds it in the 15. vers shall be saved yet so as by fire This in the Cardinals imagination is the purging fire But what consent of Fathers for this interpretation He acknowledges that some of the Ancients do here also understand the fire of Tribulation some the fire of Conflagration some the eternal fire as St. Chrysost and Theophylact taking the word * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saved catachrestically for an eternal abiding or living in the fire All these therefore are not for the Romish purgatory