also drinks his blood shed so it did till the Sacrament was instituted and so it still doth extra Sacramentum out of the Sacrament but if we apply this to the receiving of Christ in the Sacrament then drinking is as necessary both to answer the whole act of Faith and the whole purpose of the Sacrament in participating his blood shed and receiving a full Refection And therefore though eating only be expressed in that v. 57. yet he could not but see that our Saviour when he spoke in the singular number mentions and enjoyns them both v. 34 36. His instancing in the command about the Passover enjoyning to kill rost sprinkle and eat but not binding every one to perform all but some one thing some another p. 361. proves as all his former impertinent for the concernment here is in the reception or partaking of the Sacrament of the Passover by eating of the Eucharist by eating and drinking and I hope he will not deny but all and every one of the Israelites were bound to eat the Passover and to eat it as the Lord enjoyned it under pain of being cut off Exod. 12. Indeed if we take in all the actions to be done in and about the Sacrament of the Eucharist those that concern the consecration and administration as well as the reception of it every one is not bound to perform all but that which concerns the Reception belongs to all not to do all that our Saviour did but all that the Disciples then did belongs to all to do because they then represented the whole company of the faithful He closes up this point and his whole discourse with some passion against Protestants charging them with an unworthy and base esteem of the most sacred body and blood of our Saviour not thinking that either of them as they are in this Sacrament is fit to confer saving grace to such as devoutly receive them p. 363. Thus where Argument and Reason is wanting there Passion must make it out But as to the worth and power of our Saviours body and blood we acknowledge it * See N◠3. 5. above and the fitness of either to confer sufficient grace and how it does when in case of necessity the one is devoutly received but we question how they that wilfully refuse one of them the blood shed can be said devoutly to receive or can expect that sufficient grace which is given in the Sacrament to them that receive it according to our Saviours Institution It is not any derogating from the worth of our Saviours body and blood but a due regard to his Will and Command that causes us to stand upon receiving both What he adds runs still upon that Assertion that there is not any express command given in Scripture to all particular Christians to receive both pag. 365. which we shewed above to be false by our Saviours commands in his Institution of this Sacrament Drink ye all and Do this by what he severely denounced Joh. 6.53 by what S. Paul delivers as received from our Saviour 1 Cor. 11. That which this Author immediately subjoyns and the custome of the Primitive Ancient and Modern Church is evidently to the contrary will appear to be far from Truth as to the Primitive and Ancient Church when we come to the survey of Antiquity in this point To conclude I could wish that Mr. Spencer who pretends he undertook this work for no other end then to inform the misled spirits of this age as he tels us in the close of his book would have a conscionable regard to an open and apparent Truth which he contends against as in this so other points of Romish doctrine and that he would think of reducing those misled spirits which he has drawn out of the way by such deceiving assertions as he has delivered in this Treatise and bent all his wits to render them plausible to the Vulgar A Brief Survey of Antiquity for the trial of the former points Whether they can as held by the Church of Rome pass for Catholick Doctrine SECT I. Introduction VIncentius Lirinensis gives us a safe Rule for trial of Points of faith and Catholick doctrine Duplici modo munire fidem suam debet Primo divina legis authoritate deinde Ecclesiae Cath. Traditione cap. 1. If any saith he would continue safe and sound in a sound faith he ought two wayes to fortify his belief First by the Authority of Gods word or Scripture then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church bringing down from age to age the known sense of that word Then for the Tradition of the Church it must be universal to prove it Catholick Doctrine That is properly Catholick which was received or believed Quod semper ubique creditum c. 3. every where through all the Churches and alwayes through every Age. According to this Rule we ought to direct the Tryal and may justly expect that the Church of Rome imposing these and many other points upon the World for Catholick faith should give us them clearly proved by this Rule whereas we finde them in these points pittifully destitute of Scripture which is the first and main ground-work of faith Yet because Scripture is Scripture and by all Christians received for the word of God and challenges the first place in the Rule of Faith therefore they think themselves concerned to bring Scripture for every point such as their best wits have found out any way capable of being wrested to their purpose far from that clearness and force of proof which those places of Scripture have that hold out unto us matters of Faith SECT I. Of worshiping Angels and Saints HOw forsaken the Romanists are of Scripture here may appear Romanists here destitute of Scripture proof by what could be alledged by Mr. Spencer in defence of it as we saw above Cap. 1. from the reverence given to the Angels by Lot and others or to men living as to Elias and Elisha which proved impertinent and fell short of that worship which the Church of Rome allows and practises It is also confessed by some of them * Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disp 8. Sect. postremò that this business of worshiping and Invocating Saints or Angels is not expressed in the New Testament and reason given for it because it would seem hard to the Jews and give occasion to the Gentiles to think new Gods put upon them As little help have they from the Tradition of the Catholick Church or witness of Antiquity which here runs with a full stream against them And now for the Trial we will first speak to the General Religious worship as incompetent to a Creature though most excellent such as are Saints and Angels the particulars of this worship by Invocation and Image-worship we shall examine below Our first evidence of Antiquity shall be from the force of the word Religion The force of the word Religion whereby the Fathers did prove and
holy Men living and the rest may be answered by that honour which was done to the Martyrs in frequenting their Memories keeping their Festivals celebrating their Victories Vertues and Praises or by that reverend respect had to their bones or Reliques But secondly we may question the Cardinals honesty in his very first Testimony where he brings in Justin Martyr with this pomp of words Justin speaking in the Name of all Christians Bel. ibid. Loquens nomine omnium Christianorum fidem totius Ecclesiae explicans Illum Filium qui ab ilto venit docuit nos haec bonorum Angelorum exercitum Spiritum prophetiâ—um colimus adoramus and delivering the faith of the whole Church saith VVe worship and adore Him the Father and the Son that came from Him and taught us these things and the host of good Angels also the Spirit of prophesie so that Author usually stiles the Holy Ghost Now what a strange sense little less then blasphemy doth the Cardinal put upon that ancient Father for the Advancing of Angel-worship as if the Host of good Angels were set here as one of the parties to be worshipped and that before the Holy Ghost whereas the * Bel. l. 10. de Christo Cardinal in his first Book de Christo did argue well that the Holy Ghost was not a Creature because coupled with the Father and the Son This indeed was answerable to the usual argument made by the * Sic Basil l. de Spir. Sancto c. 18 19. Fathers for the Deity of the Holy Ghost but here the Cardinal can couple the Host of Angels with the Father and the Son as to be adored with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin in Apolog. 2. and that before the Holy Ghost He that looks into Justin will easily discern that the Host of Angels there is coupled with these things and both relating to the word taught not to worship or adore For he spake immediately before of the wicked Angels or Devils not to be worshipped and as the Son taught us these things so likewise concerning the Host of good Angels Another place he hath out of St. Aug. saying to Heathens that professed to worship Angels Aug. in Ps 96. Vtinam velletis colere Angelos ab ipsis disceretis non illos colere id est adds the Cardinal non ut Deos sed ut Sanctos i.e. their Daemons I wish you would Worship Angels for you would then learn of them not to worship them Here the Cardinal adds his own words in the same character that is not as Gods but as holy But St. Aug. did not intend really to commend Angel-worship to them but wisheth they would instead of their Daemons honour the good Angels and of them they might learn true worship for he had said a little before The good Angels would have God alone to be worshipped Another Testimony he pretends from Eusebius Euseb de praepar Euang. l. 13. c. 11. hath it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. at their monuments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he makes to say We approach their Monuments and make Vows unto them by whose intercession we profess our selves to be much helped Thus the Cardinal wilfully following the corrupt Translation of Trapezuntius whereas Eusebius saith we make vowes and prayers not to Them but there i. e. at their monuments but to God as the custom then was And that which followes by whose intercession we profess is added in stead of we honour their blessed souls for so it follows in Eusebius Lastly out of St. Chrysost he cites Adoremus tumulos Let us adore the Martyrs monuments whereas that Father saith not so but thus * Chrys homil de Juvent Maxime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us visit or often go thither let us touch their Coffin or Chest Embrace their Reliques This is all the Adoration he speaks of Then a little after he shews the profit of it That from the sight of the Saints Monuments and consideration of their rewards we may gather much treasure Thus hath the Cardinal acquitted himself in the Testimonies from Antiquity To conclude Bel. de beat Sanct. c. 13. In his arrgument which he makes from the objections of Jewes and Heathens we may challenge his want of Candor in concluding that it was the practice of the Ancient Church because their Enemies charged the Christians with such a Worship That which the Heathens observed in the practise or doctrine of Christians was as we have seen above their allowing of and depending on the Ministery of Angels their resort to Martyrs Tombs their offering up prayers there their keeping the daies of the Martyrs sufferings their celebrating of the Martyrs praise Now it was a gross mistake in the Heathens thence to infer the Christian Church did worship them or did set Angels and Martyrs in like place and office as they did their Daemons and Heroes So is it a false inference in the Romanists from the practise of Christians then to conclude a Romish Worship and to make the mistaken allegation of the Heathen a pretence for it when the Fathers in answering their objection so plainly discover the mistake and deny the Worship There were some excesses it is like committed at the Tombs of Martyrs by some inconsiderat Christians but not to be charged upon the Church as appears by St. Aug. his answer above to Maximus the Grammarian A Catholicis Christianis None of the Dead are worshipped by Catholick Christians what ever excesses were used by some Aug. de Civ Dei l. 8. c. 27. Sed non fieri à melioribus Christianis yet none of the Catholick Christians so worshipped also by what he saith of feasting and banqueting used by some at the Tombs of Martyrs These things are not done by the better sort of Christians I will only add what I meet with in the History of the Councel of Trent anno 1549. How the Archbishop of Mentz during the Interim held a Synod by which in the 45 Head of Doctrine it was determined according to St. Augustin That the Saints were to be honoured but with Civil worship or honour of dilection and love no otherwise then Holy Men in this Life SECT II. Of Invocation of Saints or Angels AS for Scripture proof by the Confession of Romanists little is to be expected in this point Pretence of Scripture yet because Scripture is Scripture the written Word of God as I said at * Sect. 1. in Introduct the beginning it must and is pretended to and many places alledged by them There is nothing express saith †Salm. in 1 Tim. c. 2. disp 7. Nihil hac de re expressum habetur Salmeron in the Old Testament or Gospels or Epistles of the Apostles touching this matter but in the Apocalyps where there was occasion of writing the future success of the Church it is expressed The places he
implies the mere favour and love of God yet where grace is added as here it is taken in the first respect exclusively to any thing in us more then faith to believe that Grace and favour of God towards man Hear what * Ambr. in Ro. 3. Gratis quia nihil operantes nec vicem reddentes solâ fide justificati sunt dono Dei Ambrose on the place Freely saith he because working nothing nor making any returns to God they are by faith alone justified through the gift of God also for the word Grace Gratiâ Dei in Christo quia voluntate Dei à Christo redempti sumus ibid. By his grace because we are redeemed by Christ by the will of God that will of God appointing and sending his Son for our redemption as he there explains it and thereby expresseth the favour and good will of God Oecumenius also interprets the word Freely Oecum in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exclusively Freely that is without any good deeds and again to bring nothing with us but faith and afterward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shewes by the Apostle all have sinned and therefore freely justified * Aug de verbis Apost Serm. 15. prorsus gratis qui nihil invenis unde salves multum invenis unde damnes bringing with them faith only Add St. August of this word gratis God freely gives and freely saves because he findes nothing for which he may save findes much for which he may damn A third Testimony from Scripture the Cardinal pretends Bel. ubi suprà Quo. loco ut exponunt Chrys Ambr. Theoph. Apostolus docet in baptisino purgari homines Sanctificari atque hoc ipsum est justificari is 1 Cor. 6.11 In which place as Chrysost Ambrose Theophylact expound it the Apostle teaches that in Baptism men are purged and Sanctified and that this is to be justified that all this is done in Baptism is plain by the Apostles words but that to be sanctified is to be justified the Apostle saith not nor yet those Fathers But the Cardinal has this Gift often to give us Names when their words will not serve his turn For Chrysostom and Ambrose have nothing to his purpose Theophyl indeed has a succinct expression Theoph in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Justifying he Sanctified them if he had said in sanctifying he justifies it had sounded something to the Cardinals purpose but in saying justifieans sanctificavit he speaks that which we often insinuated above the concomitancy of sanctification with and the dependence of it upon Justification The Cardinals next Testimony is from Tit. 3.5 7. where he would conclude Regeneration to be Justification The place is answerable to that above 1 Cor. 6.11 and may be accordingly answered that there is regeneration and justification mentioned and that they go together but that Regeneration is Justification is still the false assertion of the Gardinal inconsequently drawn from this as from other places He adds also Rom. 8.29 1 Cor. 15.49 which do prove especially the second place our being made like to Christ in sanctification inhaerent righteousness but what 's this to Justification by that Image or likeness It was far from the Apostles intent to say any thing in those places of Justification Now whereas the Cardinal makes this Argument as Christ was righteous so shall we but he was not righteous by imputation therefore not we is fallacious It followes affirmatively not negatively He was righteous by inhaerent righteousness therefore we shall be so this is true But he was not righteous by an imputed righteousness therefore not we this followes not for we are to be made righteous not in the same manner every way and reciprocally but so as we are capable of and stand in need of being made righteous But thus much may serve for the Cardinals Testimonies from Scripture which we have found either to be impertinently applyed or to speak against him and therefore no marvel that he could not alledge any Fathers so interpreting them as he misapplies them to Justification by inhaerent grace or righteousness Now let us take a brief View of the Testimonies of Fathers which he brings as Witnesses for him Justification by inhaerent Grace not proved by the Fathers of which we may say as we found in his allegations out of Scripture that they prove there is an inhaerent Grace or righteousness in us not that we are properly justified by it Amongst all the Fathers * Bel. l. 2. de Justif cap. 8. he cites there appears but one Greek and among his Latin Fathers St. Augustin chiefly a good witness indeed if taken as he means To the many places alledged out of him we may give this general answer they either only prove there is inhaerent righteousness or if they speak of Justification by it then is that word used according to the Latine Etymology of making a man just or righteous by a real inhaerent qualification and that St. August is so much inclined to interpret the word Grace used in Scripture of the gift of grace inhaerent in us and sometimes to say a man is justified i. e. made righteous inherently by it came to pass by reason he had so much to do against the Pelagians in asserting that grace given and inherent in us for they denied not the grace of God in the prime sense as it speaks the favour and love of God to Mankinde but made little or nothing of the other The chief and most considerable sentences cited by the Cardinal out of that Father are these Aug. Confess l. 12. c. 15. Quantum distat inter lumen quod illuminat quod illuminatur tantùm distat inter justitiam justificantem justitiam quae ex justificatione facta est As great a difference as there is between the light which doth illuminate and the light which is illuminated so great a difference is there between that righteousness which does justifie which surely is the Divine righteousness and that which ariseth from Justification which is the inhaerent for else to take it as the Cardinal must for a comparison between the inhaerent and actual righteousness there is not such a difference between them So this place proves there is inhaerent grace or righteousness as light communicated unto us doth not prove a justification by it but by the righteousness from whence that inhaerent righteousness proceeds therefore speaks against the Cardinal Another place alledged is this Which Nature Aug. l. 15. de Trinit c. 8. Quae natura cum à suo conditore justificatur à deformi forma formosam transfertur informam when it is justified of the maker is translated from a deformed form to a beautiful form Here the Cardinal thought so much noyse of the word Form would be enough to speak the inhaerent righteousnesse to be the Form of justification whereas this only proves our renewing transforming from the Image of the
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
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
Now albeit what this Doctor asserted was most false yet does it plainly follow upon the Romish Doctrine of truly meritorious which the Doctor saw plainly must be deserted or this must be maintained he saw plainly that if good works were truly meritorious they would be so whether there were promise made or no for as I noted above The promise makes not for the merit of the work but for the consecution or obtaining of the reward also he saw that if eternal life were by a gracious and free promise it could not be due to the work of Justice Lastly the Cardinal in the same place acknowledges Bel. l. 5. de Just c. 14. sect Tertia Omnes conditione servi Mancipia Dei operibus nostris alioqui debitis We are all by our Creation servants yea bond servants of God and that there cannot be justice between us God unless he had been pleased of himself by a free Convention to appoint a reward to our works which were otherwise due Due antecedently to all promise due from our being and Creation and if all the justice that can be found 'twixt God Almighty and us men be in regard of his promise only as indeed it is it cannot be in regard of any obligation the work it self casts upon God to make him our Debtor as the Cardinal above did not fear to assert Truth and the Conviction of Gods free and bountiful dealing with man extorts such Concessions from them as do sufficiently contradict their bold Assertions and might put end to the Controversie if some unjustifiable ends did not still engage them SECT VI. Of Purgatory THat Purgatory is conceived to be a Place of pain or punishment What Purgatory is that for Souls of just Persons departed out of this life is plain by the * Sess 6. Can. 30. Council of Trent and by the Reason or ground of it according to the Romish conceit because it is for those to whom the sin and the eternal punishment is forgiven but the temporal not fully satisfied by them here and therefore must be payed or born hereafter This appeared above chap. VI. nu 1.5.6 The Cardinal is bold to affirm Bel. li. 1. de Purgat c. 15. that Purgatory is an Article of the Catholick faith and may be proved all the four waies that points of Faith use to be proved by viz. by express Testimony of Scripture with the Declaration of the Church So is the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father proved or by evident deduction from that which is express in Scripture So is the Article of two Wills in Christ proved c. and so is Purgatory proved saith the Cardinal and he boasts that he has so proved it by giving us many places of Scripture mistaken as to that sense and many sayings of Fathers misapplied as to that purpose which will appear upon the Trial following It will appear that this Doctrine of Purgatory is not Catholick but the invention of later Times taking Rise from that which St. Aug. hinted as probable touching pains after death and then having an Advancement by fabulous reports of Visions and deluding apparitions in St. Gregories time and after at last receiving a Definition and establishment in the Church of Rome And for the countenancing of it They force many places of Scripture and whatever they finde in the Fathers concerning prayer for the Dead or touching a purging Fire though spoken to other purpose doing therein as those Hereticks of whom St. Hilary said that they drew Scripture to that ad id quod praesumpserunt credendum which they had of themselves presumed or before conceived to be proposed and held as matter of Belief For better proceeding We will reduce all to these Heads The Place or state of Souls after death The Prayers that were made for the Dead The Remission of sins after death The pains or punishment after death What the Romanists bring from Scripture or Fathers touching any of these we shall meet with As for the Texts of Scripture alledged by them we may say this in General They have no consent of Fathers for such a sense as they would fasten upon the Texts they cite in behalf of Purgatory First for the Place or state of souls departed Of the Place or state of Souls departed Scriptures alledged by the Romanists There are two Scriptures especially which they alledge for such a place of Souls as they phansie Purgatory to be The one is Zach. 9.11 I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the Pit where no water is which text in the first and immediate sense speaks the deliverance of that people out of the Babylonish captivity but is by many of the Ancients applied to our Saviours bringing forth the Souls of the Fathers of the old Testament out of their Receptacle or Limbus And the Cardinal acknowledges Bel. l. 1. de Purgat c. 3. Non est aqua Conâ— solationis it has been usually taken in that sense but thinks it as proper for Purgatory and the rather because in this there is not the Water of consolation as there was in the other And this is to be noted here because we shall finde the Cardinal below put to devise how prayers for the Dead made by the Ancient Church for those that rested in peace Bel. l. 2. de Purgat c. 4. admixtam cum cruciatibus incredibilem consolationem propter certam spem salutis could concern Souls in purgatory that is in Torment and cannot invent any expedient for it but by referring that rest and peace to the Comfort and satisfaction they have there together with their Torment by reason of their hope and assurance of coming out of those pains into eternal bliss That which the Cardinal for proof of his interpreting that text of Zach. in behalf of Purgatory fastens upon St. August is not that Fathers expression or intention but the Cardinals misapplication St. August in the places cited by the Cardinal Epist 49. ad Euod lib. 12. in Genes c. 33. speaks of our Saviours descending into Hell and delivering some that were there but i. e. in Purgatorio is the Cardinals addition The other Text is Mat. 5.25 where we read of a prison and a payment to be made there but what proof is there more then a strong phansie that this must signifie Purgatory The Cardinal indeed alledges some Fathers using those words of our Saviour as a Commination against Sinners but that they should thereby intend a Romish Purgatory is still the Cardinals misapplication One and the chief of those Fathers cited by him is St. Cyprian in his Epist 52. ad Antonian where He plainly as we shall see below applies that of the prison and the paying of the utmost farthing to the Severity of Ecclesiastick Pennances and Satisfactions under which the Lapsi or those that fell in time of persecution were held Now when the Fathers give any direct interpretation of that