Laodicea Council of Trent Sess 4. under Paul the Third ratified in full Council Sess ult under Pius and accepted by all the Western Churches save the Reformed Or according to St. Austine's Rule De Doctrina Christiana 2. l. 8. c. In Canonicis autem Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quam plurimum authoritatem sequatur Inter quas sane illae sunt quae Apostolicas sedes habent Epistolas i. e. communicatorias ab illis Ecclesus Apostolicis accipere meruerunt or the more and more dignified Churches Catholick have received and used for such 5. There is no more assent or belief required upon Anathema by any Council concerning those Books of the Canon which the Reformed call in question than this Ut pro Sacris Canonicis suscipiantur So Council Trid. Sess 4. Si quis libros ipsos c. pro Sacris Canonicis non susceperit Anathema sit But these words by some imposed upon that Council See Bishop Consin § 81. p. 103. Si quis omnes libros pari Pietatis affectu reverentia veneratione pro Canonicis non susceperit Anathema sit are not found there Next Concerning the Sufficiency of this Canon of Scripture as a Rule or that which contains in it the matter of the Christian Faith Concerning the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for the Rule of Faith 1. Catholicks concede the holy Scriptures to contain all those Points of Faith that are simply necessary by all persons to be believed for attaining Salvation α to contain them either in the conclusion it self or in the Principles from which it is necessarily deduced And contend that out of the Revelations made in the Scriptures as expounded by former Tradition the Church from time to time defines all such points except it be such Practicals wherein the question is only whether they be lawful for the deciding of which lawfulness it is enough if it can be shewed that nothing in Scripture as understood by Antiquity is repugnant to them 2. But 2dly The sense rather then the letter being God's word they affirm that all such Points are not so clearly contained in the words of Scripture as that none can mistake or wrest the true sense of those words 3. And therefore 3dly They affirm the Church's Tradition or traditive Exposition of these words of Scripture necessary for several Points to be made use of for the discerning and retaining the true sense which under those words is intended by the Holy Ghost and was in their teaching delivered by the Apostles to their Successors wherein yet they make not the Tradition or delivering of this Sense but the Sense delivered that is the Scripture still for these Points their Rule or that which contains the matter of their Faith the oral expression or exposition thereof being only the same thing with its meaning or sense and why are the Scriptures quoted by them but because the matter is there contained 4. They contend that there are many things especially in the governing of the Church in the Administration of the Sacraments and other sacred Ceremonies which ought to be believed and practised or conformed to that are not expresly set down in the Holy Scriptures but left in the Church by Apostolical Tradition and preserved in the Records of Antiquity and constant Church-custome in several of which Protestants also agree with them in the same Belief and Practice β And amongst these Credends extra Scripturas is to be numbred the Article concerning the Canon of Scripture γ α S. Thom. 22.1 q. art 9. primus ad primum Art 10. ad primum In Doctrina Christi Apostolorum he means scripta veritas fidei est sufficienter explicata Sed quia perversi homines Scripturas pervertunt ideo necessaria fuit temporibus procedentibus explicatio fidei contra insurgentes errores Bellarm. de verbo Dei non scripto 4. l. 11. c. Illa omnia scripta sunt ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus simpliciter necessaria ad salutem The main and substantial points of our Faith saith F. Fisher in Bishop White p. 12. are believed to be Apostolical because they are written in Scripture γ See Dr. Feild 4. l. 20. c. Dr. Taylor Episcopacy asserted § 19. Reasons of the University of Oxford against the Covenant published 1647. p. 9. Where they speak on this manner Without the consentient judgment and practice of the Universal Church the best Interpreter of Scripture in things not clearly expressed for Lex currit cum Praxi We should be at a loss in sundry Points both of Faith and Manners at this day firmly believed and securely practised by us when by the Socinians Anabaptists and other Sectaries we should be called upon for our Proofs As namely sundry Orthodoxal Explications concerning the Trinity and Co-equality of the Persons in the God-head against the Arians and other Hereticks the number use and efficacy of Sacraments the Baptizing of Infants National Churches the Observation of the Lord's Day and even the Canon of Scripture it self γ Dr. Field 4. l. 20. c. We reject not all Tradition for first we receive the number and names of the Authors of Books Divine and Canonical as delivered by Tradition Mr. Chillingworth 1. l. 8. c. When Protestants affirm against Papists that Scripture is A Perfect Rule of Faith their meaning is not that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to a Gain-sayer That the Book called Scripture is the word of God HEAD V. Concerning the perpetual use and necessity in all Ages of New Determinations and Definitions in matter of Faith to be made by the Church Concerning the necessity of the Church in several Ages her making new Definitions in matter Faith 1. IT is granted by Catholicks That all Points of Faith necessary to be known explicitly by every one for attaining Salvation are delivered in the Scriptures or other evident Tradition Apostolical or also all those of speculative Faith so necessary delivered in the Apostles Creed 2. Granted also That the Church Governours since the time of our Saviour and his Apostles have no power to Decree or impose any new Doctrine as of Faith or to be believed as a Divine Truth which was not a Divine Truth formerly revealed either explicitly in the like terms as they propose it or implicitly at least in its necessary principles and premises out of which they collect it Nor have power to decree or impose any new thing as of necessary Faith or necessary to be believed to Salvation that is necessary absolutely to be by all persons whatever some of whom may be blamelesly ignorant of what the Church hath defined after such Decree known or believed explicitely with reference to attaining salvation which was not so necessarily formerly 3. Yet notwithstanding this Catholicks affirm that there are many divine truths which are not explicitely and in terminis delivered in the Scriptures Apostles Creed
follow and do according to his own Judgment who judgeth it meet to follow Authority against his private Reason then he who judgeth it meet and so doth the contrary i. e. follow his own Reason and reject Authority or which is the same follow Authority meerly for the Reasons it giveth evidencing to him such a Truth Thus we without difficulty believe the Books of Scripture that are proposed us for such by sufficient Authority to be God's word when we find in them some seeming contradictions which perhaps our private Reason cannot reconcile And every one who believes that God hath commanded him an assent and submission of Judgment in Spiritual matters to his Ecclesiastical Superiors doth in yielding it follow his own Judgment even when in yielding it he goeth contrary to his own private Reason 4. It is freely conceded That supposing that one hath infallible certainty of a thing from private Reason or any other way whatever such person cannot possibly yield obedience of assent to any Authority whatever proposing the contrary to be believed by him 5. But notwithstanding 5ly It is affirmed by Catholicks That every one ought to yield assent and submit his Judgment even when by plausible arguments of private Reason otherways biass'd and sway'd in all Spiritual matters wherein such assent is required to the Authority of the Church and those Spiritual Superiors who are by Christ appointed in these matters the Guides of his Faith And also That none can ever have from private Reason an infallible certainty of the contrary of that which the Church enjoins him to believe 6. But supposing that such a certainty in some Points by some persons could be had yet 6ly If no more may plead freedome from obedience of assent to the Church's Authority than only those who pretend infallible certainty as nothing less than this seems sufficient to reject so great an Authority and so divinely assisted then the most part of Christians I mean all the unlearned at least unfit to read Fathers compare Texts of Scripture c. in matters controverted will always be obliged to follow this Authority tho against their private Reason And for the other since one may think himself infallibly certain who is not so for men of contrary opinions not unfrequently both plead it these seem to have as little humility so little security in relying thereon especially when so many others having the same Evidences and as these men ought to think better Judgments and having larger promises of Divine assistance and lastly appointed for their Guides shall apprehend so much certainty of as to decree the contrary 7. To one who as yet doubteth whether there be any Authority or amongst many pretending to it which of them it is to which God hath subjected him for the guidance of his Judgment in Spiritual matters to such a one the use of his private Reason in the Quest thereof is not denyed by Catholicks But 1st they affirm that such Guide being found here the use of his private Reason against such Authority ceaseth for those things wherein he is enjoined obedience to it which indeed are but few in comparison of those vast Volumes of Theological Controversies wherein private Judgment still enjoys its liberty 2ly That if by reason of a faulty search such Guide is not discovered by him none is therefore held excused from obedience to such Guide or licensed to use his liberty in both which he is culpably mistaken 3ly That as it is left to our reason to seek so that it is much easier for us by it to find out this Guide that is appointed to direct us than to find out the Truth of all those things wherein she is ready to direct us more easy to find out the Church than to understand all the Scriptures and that from the use of private Reason in some things none may therefore rationally claim it in all HEAD XIII Concerning the necessary Means or Motive of attaining Faith Divine and Salvifical Concerning the necessary means of attaining faith Divine and Salvifical 1. IT is certain that all Faith Divine or wrought in us by God's Spirit is infallible or that the Proposition which is so believed never is or can be false 2. Again Catholicks affirm that the Authority or proposal of the Church is a sufficiently infallible ground of the Christians belief for all necessary Points of Faith From which Infallibility in the Church which is clearly revealed in Scripture and by Tradition Apostolical delivering such Points unto them they also maintain a firm Faith is had among Catholicks of all those necessary Points which are not in Scripture or Tradition as to all men so clearly revealed Whilst others denying this Infallibility in the Church either miscarry in their Faith concerning some of these Points or can have no external firm ground of their believing them 3. Catholicks affirm also that a right Belief of some Articles of Faith profiteth not as to Salvation persons Heretical in some other But 4ly many learned Catholicks deny That a known Infallibility of the external Proponent or Motive of ones Faith or a certainty not from a firm adhesion of mind wrought by the Spirit whereby a man is without all doubt but from the Infallibility of the external means of his Faith that he cannot err is necessary that Faith may be truly Divine or Salvifical See Card. Lugo De Virtute fidei Dis 1. § 12. n. 247.251 252. Estius 3. Sent. 23. d. 13. § Layman Theol. Moral 2. l. 1. Tract 5. c. or consequently That such external motive or means for producing Divine Faith needeth to be to every man one and the same Or lastly That one cannot have Divine Faith in any one Article of Faith who culpably erreth in any other Next Concerning the necessity of an explicite or sufficiency of an implicite Faith Concerning explicit and implicite Faith 1. It is freely acknowledged by Catholicks that to some Articles of the Christian Faith an explicite or express Faith wherein the Article in its terms is particularly known and professed is necessary to all Christians that have the use of reason of what condition or calling soever But to how many Articles such Faith is necessary it is not easy punctually to determine 2. Catholicks teach that all Christians are obliged by what means soever afforded them to acquire an explicite Faith of all other Articles of Faith or Precepts of good Life which are any way either necessary or profitable to their Salvation so far as their capacities or callings do permit or also require them 3. That all Christians ought in general or implicitely to believe that whatever God hath revealed or the Church in her Definitions or Expositions of the Divine Revelations delivereth as matter of Faith and to be believed is to be believed and ought also to be ready explicitely to hold and profess whatever is at any time sufficiently proposed to them to be such And other implicite Faith than the
must needs be also the most supreme Guide of Christians 5. That therefore no inferior or subordinate Person or Synod when they are known to oppose this Supreme may be taken by particular Persons for their Guide in Spiritual matters 6. Nor yet a minor part of the Fathers in these supreme Councils differing from the rest or out of these Councils a minor part of Christian Churches opposing the rest may be followed as our Guide For so notwithstanding these Guides appointed us we are left in the same uncertainty for our way as if we had none except only when all of them unanimously agree and if of two parties opposite it is left to us to choose which we will to guide us it is all one for those points wherein these differ as if we were left to guide our selves HEAD II. Concerning the Church Catholick of several Ages her being equally this Guide Concerning the Church Catholick of several Ages her being equally this Guide 1. IT is affirmed That the Church Catholick of every Age since the Apostles and consequently the Church Catholick of this present Age hath the same indefectibility in Truth and authority in Goverment as that of any other Both these Indefectibility and Authority being as necessary for the preserving of Christianity in one Age as in another and that our Saviour's Promise of Indefectibility is made good to the Church Catholick of every Age taken distinctly Else his Promise that the Church of all Ages should not fail would sufficiently be verified if that of any one Age hath not failed 2. From hence it is gathered That the present Catholick Church of any Age can never deliver any thing contrary to the Church of former Ages in necessary matters of Faith or Manners 3. Supposing that in matters not so necessary the Catholick Church of several Ages should differ yet that the former having no more Promise of not erring herein then the later therefore a Christian hath no greater security of the not erring of the one then of the other and therefore ought to acquiesce in the Judgment of the present under whose regency and guidance God hath actually placed him 4. If for the performance of Christian Obedience there be any necessity to have such Points as these first decided viz. What former Councils have been lawful and obliging and what unlawful What are fundamental and necessary Points of Faith and what not necessary What is the Doctrine of the Ancient Church in such and such Controversies And what is the true sense of the Fathers Writings or of a Councils Decree If these I say or so far as these are necessary to be known by him it follows that in these a Christian ought also to submit to the Resolutions of the present Church Catholick so far as it hath or shall decide them unto him i. e. to the Resolution of the supremest Authority thereof that he can arrive to and herein to acquiesce For thus far he is secure that in things necessary she cannot misguide him And it seems unreasonable That when she is appointed his unfailable Guide in all Points necessary See Num. 1. Head 1. He not she should undertake to judge what Points are necessary and what not for this is in effect to choose himself in what particular Points she shall guide him and in what not Unreasonable when he is obliged to obey her Councils that He not she should decide of those Councils which are lawful and ought to be owned by her for this is in effect to choose what Councils he pleaseth to command his obedience and exclude the rest Unreasonable when he is to learn of her what is the Doctrine and true Sense of the Holy Scriptures that He not she should judge what is the Doctrine of Antiquity or the true sense of former Fathers or Councils and wherein the present Church accords with or departs from them i. e. that she that is his Judge in greater Matters may not be so in the less HEAD III. Concerning the necessary Tradition of the former Ages of the Church for all the Points of Faith that are taught in the present Concerning the necessary Tradition of the former Ages of the Church for all the points of Faith that are taught in the present 1. CAtholicks grant That every Article of Faith is to all later Ages derived either in express terms or in its necessary Principles from the times of the Apostles 2. And consequently That no Article of Faith can be justly received in any later Age which was not acknowledged as such in all the former i. e. either in express terms or in its Principles 3. But 3 it is not hence necessary that every Article of Faith professed in a later Age be professed also in express Terms in the former 4. Nor 4 that all those Articles that are professed by a former Age must needs be found in those Writers we have of the same Age For all their Writings are not now extant nor all that they professed necessarily written but only such things of which the Suppression of Sects instruction of the times or the Author 's particular design ministred occasion 5. As that Rule of Vincentius Lerinensis is allowed most true Illud tenendum quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est So this Nihil tenendum nisi quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est especially as it is restrained to and required to be shewed and verified in the Writers of former Ages and in these not in respect of Principles of Faith but all the deductions too is affirmed most erroneous and such as if the omnibus and semper be not confined to the Members only of the Catholick Communion one particular Church or Person in any Age Heretical will void the Catholick Faith HEAD IV. So also concerning the Canonical Scriptures Concerning the Canon of Scripture 1. CAtholicks do profess That as the Church Governors or General Councils can make no new Article of Faith See H. 5. Num. 2. So neither new Canon of Holy Scripture and that no Book can be part of these Holy Scriptures now which hath not been so always since the Apostles days But notwithstanding this 2. It must be granted 1 That in some former Ages and Churches fewer Books have been acknowledged and received as the Canon of Scripture than in some other later Churches and Ages and some Books by some in some Ages doubted of which now all accept 3. That where any such doubt ariseth the Governours of the Church have Power and Authority and that not more in one Age than in another to decide and declare what particular Books are to be esteemed and received as Canonical and descending to Posterity as such from the Apostles times and what not 4. All those Books are received by Catholicks as Canonical which the most or more General Councils See the Council in Trullo Can. 2. accepting the Council of Carthage as well as of
Rights and Estates That the Clergy pass nothing prejudicial to these Rights for which there is all good reason Again The Emperors saith he in making use of their Authority in Councils took not upon them to be infallible Judges of Doctrine but only that they might see and judge whether Bishops did propound nothing in their Convocations and Consultations but most of all in their Determinations to undermine the Emperors Authority to disturb the tranquility of the Common-wealth i. e. in their medling in civil affairs and to cross the Determinations of precedent Councils Thus King James § 26 King Charles in his last Paper in the Isle of Wight p. 3. Speaking of the several Branches of Episcopal Authority practised under Heathen Princes Tho the Bishops saith he in the times of Pagan Princes had no outward coercive Power over mens Persons or Estates as also no more have they now except from and during the Princes pleasure yet in as much as every Christian man when he became a Member of the Church did ipso facto and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Government So Christian men do still Princes and all They then exercised a very large Power of Jurisdiction in Spiritualibus In making Ecclesiastical Canons receiving Accusations conventing the accused examining Witnesses judging of Crimes against the Evangelical Law excluding such men as they found guilty of scandalous offences from the Lord's Supper enjoining Penances upon them casting them out of the Church receiving them again upon their Repentance c. I subsume the same making of Ecclesiastical Laws and Canons the same Examinations Excommunications and casting out of the Church c. are and must be allowed still in Christian States also being things which as Bishop Carleton Princes can neither give to nor take from the Church And therefore they must also be allowed all those means absolutely without which no such things can be done As convening keeping intelligence one with another Promulgation of their Acts and Decrees c. And when the Christian Prince or State becomes to them such as the Heathen were in his with-holding or prohibiting these necessary things then may they resume that behaviour as was practised formerly in Heathenisme i. e. do these things without the States leave or against its Prohibitions § 27 After this copious Account given you of learned and judicious Protestants touching so weighty a matter let us now look back upon them and see in what Posture things are left The Ecclesiastical Supremacy that is commonly attributed to the Civil Power seems to consist chiefly in all or in some one of these three 1. His strengthning and promoting the Acts of the Church and its Governors with the assistance of the Secular Sword and his making their laws the Laws also of the State One Branch of which power consequently is The opposing and suppressing by the hand of Civil Justice any such Ecclsiastical Acts of Inferior and Uncanonical and illegal Persons or Synods as go against the Superior and legal the Church being always the Judge in this matter what Acts are against and disowned by her which is indeed the Princes not opposing but defending the Church § 28 2. Or 2dly His opposing and abrogating some of the Churches Canons and Laws of Government in purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Affairs for in Civil all Princes Heathen also and Heretical may rescind any such Ecclesiastical Acts as do any prejudice to the temporal Power which God hath committed immediately into their hands as pretended contrary to the Law of Christ or to Christian liberty c. 3. Or 3dly His declaring and reforming against their Decrees in matters of Faith and Manners as some way contrary to God's Truth and the Doctrine of the Scriptures § 29 For the first of these It is an Ecclesiastical Supremacy or a Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters which the Church hath never denied to belong to Secular Princes but as obliged to them for it and many Acts thereof may be and sometimes have been performed even by Princes Heathen or Heretical Many Instances thereof are collected by Mason De Ministerio Anglicano p. 313. in Nabuchadonosor Cyrus Darius under the Old Testament Tiberius Adrian Antoninus Pius c. And afterward of several of the Gothick Kings under the New For the other two These Protestant Authors forecited grant That so often as any Prince falls into Heresy or in general opposeth the Christian Faith the exercise of such Supremacy concerning matters of Faith and Church Government returns to the Church alone as it was in the Church alone before Constantine Again the judgment of Heresy and consequently when Princes are Heretical and so fallen from the exercise of any such Supremacy is by several of the former quotations See before § 21 22. c. granted to belong to the Church But suppose the Christian Prince to be also Catholick yet the limitations of several of the forecited Authors seem hardly to allow him any such Branches of Supremacy For touching Errors of Faith or Aberrations in the performance of God's worship and service Dr. Field before § 20. saith That ordinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgment thereof to the Bishops and Pastors of the Church and in these things to judge according to their former resolutions or in any new matter whereof no former Definition hath been made the Prince saith Dr. Heylin before § 20. is to follow the new Resolutions that shall be made not of some few tho never so learned but of the whole body of his Clergy and by consequence to follow also not that but the Resolution of a higher Body of Clergy if this oppose that of his Clergy the one being necessarily subordinate to and conclusive by the other for preservation of the Unity and Peace of the Catholick Church So Bishop Bramhal grants That the Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons i. e. such as related only to Ecclesiastical not Civil matters both for the composing and executing of them Only to make these Canons Laws i. e. accompanied with a politick and coactive Power the Prince's Confirmation was required And Mr. Thorndike saith before § 15. That should the Prince forbid it yet the Church still ought to use that Ecclesiastical Power therein that shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church of which necessity also they not the Prince are by our Lord constituted the Judges The like saith Dr. Taylor of the Subordination of inferior Clergy to their Superiors and Bishop Bishop Carleton before § 14. of the Ordinations of the Clergy and Institution and Collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures that they are proper Laws and Rights of the Church not to be changed or taken away by Princes § 30 It seems too late therefore now or in Henry the Eighth's days to project a Repeal of any of those forementioned ancient Ecclesiastical Customes and Canons which we find made or practiced by the Church under the
paenitentiae dilectionis in Deum quae opera sunt interna Denique quinto omnem inanem fiduciam operum nostrorum Sive interne sive externe factorum Cap. 5. § 14. Proinde censemus omnem rigidorum Protestantium sententiam a veritate a charitate Christiana alienam esse qui assertionem de sola fide non justificante communiter a Romanensibus defensam citra omnem vel fidei ipsius vel meriti opinionem etiam improprie dicti vel aliorum operum seu actuum cum fide ad justificationem concurrentium non solùm cum sancta Scriptura piis Patribus e diametro pugnare contendunt sed etiam praeter alia innumera justam Protestantibus a Romana Ecclesia secedendi causam praebuisse praebere Dr. Hammond Pract. Catech. 1. l. § 4. p. 75. The necessary qualifications conditions or moral instruments of our Justification are Faith Repentance firm purpose of a new life and the rest of those Graces upon which in the Gospel pardon is promised the Christian And afterwards This kind of Sanctification so he calls the dispositions to Justification wrought in us by God's Grace is precedent in order of nature to Justification i.e. I must first believe repent and return before God will pardon 6. They affirm also that one may have a true faith or belief of all the Articles of our Creed and particularly of this man's Redemption through Christ's Merits or if we take Faith for fiducia may have also a fiducial confidence that he in particular shall obtain or if you will hath already obtained remission of his Sins through the same redemption and merits and yet not by this Faith or fiducia attain Justification if these be not accompanied with Repentance and the other necessary preparations thereto For there are many wicked and irregenerate men who yet do truly believe all the Articles of the Creed and are thereby fully convinced of their duty yet led away with lusts do contrary to what they know they ought and some of them who are also fully tho groundlesly for want of Repentance and the other requisites perswaded that themselves are of the number of the justified ξ ξ. Thorndike Epilog 2. l. p. 28. It is manifest to all Christians that there are too many in the world whom we cannot imagine to have any due title to those promises and yet do really and verily believe the Faith of Christ to be true and him and his Apostles sent from God to preach it And from their belief stand convict that they ought to proceed accordingly yet We see men not always to do that which reasonably from their belief they ought to do c. Again on the other side q Trust and confidence in God through Christ obtains the promises of the Gospel who denies it But is this trust always well grounded and true Is it not possible for a man to imagine his title to the promises of the Gospel to be good when it is not I would we had no cause to believe how oft it comes to pass All which argues these other Acts are necessary concurrents to Justification as well as such Faith For it seems very unreasonable that such Faith when without the other as many times it is is effectless as to attaining Justification and yet when it is with them they effectless and it doing the whole especially if the former Scriptures be reviewed using the same expressions of their concurrence to this effect as they do of Faith 7. Our Justification i. e. remission of Sin and infusion of habitual Grace which Infants also when baptized receive as well as others whereby we are made new creatures and by the infusion of his Holy Spirit born of God and his Seed remaining in us and so made his Sons and Heirs being thus attained upon our Faith and the other forementioned dispositions required in us Next Catholicks grant That the thus justified not only have a right to but may also attain the possession of eternal life before and without external good works issuing from such habitual or inherent Grace or before any justification or merit by them And that their works are not necessary to justification the producing or continuing of it or to the obtaining the reward of it eternal life when either power as in those who as yet have not the use of reason or who are prevented by suddain death or an occasion of such good works is wanting or also when occasion being offered yet the omission of such good works amount not to a mortal Sin by which Sins only man falls from his former Justification ξ. But 8ly They affirm which is also allowed by Learned Protestants π. pgr Dr. Field Append. to 3. l. 11. c. In Answer to Dr. Stapleton's Words That Actions of Virtue and careful endeavour to walk in the Commandments of God are not necessary to our second Justification or the augmentation progress and dayly perfecting of the same more and more is a Calumniation for they the Protestants make the second Justification to consist in two parts 1st The dayly well doing whereby the righteousness inherent is more and more perfected And 2ly the dayly remission of such sinful defects as are found in their actions Dr. Fern Answer to Scripture Mistaken p. 92. If they intend no more by second Justification than is here expressed in the Trent Decree viz. Renovation day by day and yielding up our Members as Weapons of Righteousness to Sanctification and increase in Righteousness we have no cause to quarrel at the thing but only that they will call that Justification which indeed is Sanctification Bishop Forbes de Justificat 4. l. 6. c. Perperam a Protestantibus rigidioribus rejicitur distinctio usitatissima justificationis in primam secundam Nam praeter Justificationem primam necessario etiam agnoscenda admittenda est justificatio secunda quae consistit in progressu augmento complemento pro statis vitae justitiae primum donatae in remissione illorum delictorum in quae quotidie justi incidunt Confirming it there with several Protestant Authorities That this first Justification thus attained before these good Works is in case of longer-life both necessarily continued by good Works or acts of inherent Grace either external or only internal where is some impediment of the external so that he who commits a mortal Sin in omission of such works falls from his former Justification and also is increased or further degrees of Justification or inhabitant Grace or as the Protestants had rather call it Sanctification received or added by the same good works for such acts external or internal do still increase the habit or render the person more holy whereby the already just is still made more just so Abraham tho just before yet was more highly justified by that Heroick act of the Oblation of his only Son Jam. 2. And the future reward also becomes greater to these good Works according to our greater Justification by
fundatur Antidiagma Coloniense de Sac. Paenitent De hac satisfactione Canonica Disciplinari semper docuerunt Patres quod virtute sanguinis merito passionis Christi auferat aut saltem minuat paenam temporalem peccatis nostris debitam Christo Reconciliatori nostro cui Pater omne judicium dedit prorsus relinquenda est paenae remissio a quo petere oportet at obedientiam nostram in our Penal Works velit per meritum suum patri celesti facere acceptam paenam promeritam misericorditer avertere Dr Holden in Resolut Fidei where he endeavors to separate matters of Faith from disputable Question 2. l. 5. c. Nulla prorsus est satisfactio ab homine quovis etiam justissimo peracta quae Deo sit grata vel quae sit alicujus omnino valoris nisi per meritum Domini nostri Jesu Christi Patimur quidem satisfariendo pro peccatis sed nunquam satis patimur Christus est qui solum vere plene pro peccatis nostris satisfecit ex quo est omnis nostra sufficientia Nostra namque Satisfactio qualis qualis est quo modo nostra est potius est quaedam meritorum Christi nobis applicatio quam propria aliqua Satisfactio And see Mr. Hooker in his Discourse of Justification p. 62. quoting Panigarola Lett. 11. And the Rhemish Annotations to this purpose We put saith the one all Satisfaction in the Blood of Jesus Christ But we hold that the means which Christ hath appointed for us in this case to apply it are our Penal Works And thus the other on 1 Joh. 1.7 The Blood of Jesus cleanseth us from all Sin Whether Sins be remitted by Prayers by Fasting by Alms by Faith by Charity by Sacrifice by Sacraments and by the Priests for the Holy Scriptures do plainly attribute Remission to every of these yet none of all these do otherwise remit but in the force by the merit and virtue of Christ's Blood these being only the means and instruments by which Christ will have his Holy Blood to work effectually in us Which Point let the Protestants mark and cease to beguile their Followers perswading them that the Catholicks derogate from Christ's Blood or seek Remission either of Sin or its Punishments otherwise then by it because they use humbly the means appointed by Christ to apply the Benefit of his Holy Blood unto them And from Generation to Generation let this be repeated unto them In Testimonium Illis 10. Lastly they affirm such Penances beside the former ends very effectual also for the full cure and eradication of the stains of Sin left in the Soul and for the subduing of vicious habits and preventing the like sinful Acts for the future by removing the occasions of them practising acts of Virtue contrary to them inflicting Pains equalling the Pleasures of them c. HEAD XX. Concerning one Person his Meriting or Satisfying for another Concerning one Person 's Meriting or Satisfying for another COncerning one Person 's Meriting or Satisfying for another as to remission of Sin or Punishment 1st It is granted by all that one Man's Prayers may impetrate i. e. from God's Mercy by application of Christ's Merits to this purpose Grace Repentance Contrition and so Remission of Sin of any eternal or temporal Punishment Salvation for another α. α. Daille De Paenis Satisfact 7. l. 17. c. Caeteros i. e. Martyres vult Origenes peccata dimittere non ulla pro peccata satisfactione sed precibus quas Domino pro hominibus morientes obtulerunt quibus scilicet effectum est ut clementissimus Dominus multos ad se conversos peccatis liberaret Jam vero aliud est prece aliquod beneficium hominibus a Deo impetrare quod Sanctis vere fidelibus convenire satemur aliud ultrici Dei justitiae pro aliorum peccatis ex condigno satisfacere quod sanctis adversarii tribuunt nos negamus Spalatensis De. Rep. Eccl. 5. l. 8. c. § 18. Dispositio unjus non est neque esse potest alterius dispositio meritoria fortasse improprie potest esse impetratoria ut justi suis orationibus humiliationibus impetrent peccatori paenitentiam dispositionem ut tamen ipsorum satisfactiones humiliationes suppleant pro alterius satisfactionibus humiliationibus sic ille alter dispositus ad remissionem dicatur per alienam dispositionem humiliatus per alienam humiliationem est impossibile 2ly That one Man's Penances Humiliations Mortifications may have the same or a stronger effect for impetration of these things for others as his Prayers have Psal 34. or 35. 12 13 14. 2. Sam. 12.16 3ly It cannot rationally be denied but that whetever worth or value such Penal Works have as to removing any one 's own temporal Punishment the smae they have as to removing another's If his Divine Majesty please to accept of them to this purpose and that one man's Satisfactions are applicable also to another is clear in Christ's so applied β. β. Lugo De Penitent Disp 26. § 1. Hic modus solvendi patiendo pro aliis non repugnat ex se cum Christus Dominus utroque modo nobis profuerit nempe merendo rursus satisfaciendo etiam pro nobis ut constat ex satisfactione ipsius quae pro debito paenae nobis applicatur per Sacramenta aliqua Indulgentias poterit ergo satisfactio unius justi alteri applicari But whether such Works are prevalent with God for others by this way of Satisfaction or only of Impetration and whether the Satisfaction excepting only that of Jesus Christ for Sin or its Punishments is not made by God personal and cannot be vicarious or supplied by another is disputed in the Schools nor on any side a matter of Faith γ.