in doing or in suffering because there is no proportion betwixt an infinite Justice and a finite satisfaction This considered may I not be as gross an Ebionite or Cherinthian by saying there is a necessity of penal satisfaction as if I say there is a necessity of legal observations for the expiation of sin do not both alike diminish and disparage the efficacy of Christs death Or may I think that the Church of Christ by using the power of the Keyes in retaining sins intends to retain where Christ remits to wiâ—… in the true Penitent to the undervaluing of Christs merit in purchasing remission of sins and Gods free grace and mercy in granting it and Gods holy Spirit in testifying it Therefore I must let the satisfaction enjoyned by the Church die with the Penitent and not be required of him after death unless I will suppose the Church both able and willing to bind where Christ hath loosed For if Christ loose not the sinner here I do not find upon what grounds to believe That he will loose him hereafter So that we see if satisfaction is to be made by the sinner All must go to Purgatory and for ought we can prove tarry there eternally And so Purgatory will in truth be Hell If satisfaction hath been made by Christ then none at all can justly go thither And so Purgatory will in truth be Nothing certain it is no other satisfaction was given for all the offences of the good Thief though he were not a Penitent till the hour of his death and with what colour of Truth can any Divine teach that God will not take this satisfaction and this alone for all other Penitents And yet this in Bellarmines acount is one of the two supporters of Purgatory the other is Venial sins which may also be shaken in good time In a word The Place the Time the Quality of Torment the manner of tormenting the Tormentor and the cause or end for which souls are said to be tormented in Purgatory are all uncertain and how can the torment it self be taken for a certainty For it is not any mans confidence can make that certain which is invested with so many intrinsecal doubts and ambiguities nor any mans arguments can make that credible which is not certain But besides the uncertainty wâ—… meet with in this temporary Tormentâ—… which will not suffer us to believe it wâ—… find it casts an uncertainty upon that eternal Torment which we confess our selveâ—… bound to believe For as you rightly sayâ—… Nothing is more certain amongst Christiaâ—… then what is de fide of Divine Faith So crave leave to inferr from that sayinâ—… Nothing is to be affirmed de fide of diviâ—… faith among Christians which is not ceâ—…tain unless we will labour to overthroâ—… the Certainty of the Christian faith Fâ—… to require men to believe an uncertaiâ—… equally with a certainty is to invite theâ—… to disbelieve a certainty since it is not possible they should have one and the same Divine Faith for uncertainties and for certainties And therefore to teach men to believe Purgatory which is uncertain is the ready way to make them not believe Hell which is most certain Nor is it to be wondered That Bellarmines certainties concerning this doctrine should be so much enfeebled by his own uncertainties concerning the same no more then it is to be wondered that the certainty of our Christian saith should depend not upon the wit of man but upon the word of God 7. For this doctrine of Purgatory is so far from being taught in the Word of God that if you should ask those Disciples who have been most and best instructed in the Word Have ye received the doctrine of Purgatory since ye believed They must answer you We have not so much as heard whether there be any Purgatory and yet the same men will plainly tell you They have heard there is an holy Ghost and have received him though your over-bold Peltanus would perswade the world That Purgatory is as expresly taught in the holy Scriptures as the Unity of God and yet that is a little more expresly taught then the Deity of the Holy Ghost though blessed be God the Scripture is very express in both these Doctrines But in the whole Book of God there is neither in words nor in sense neither explicitly nor implicitly any such thing as your Purgatory which we cannot say concerning any Article of the Christian Faith That the thing we are bound to believe is not so much as really or virtually named in all the Holy Bible For an sit is as truly a precognition in the object of faith as in the subject of any question by that Rule of the Apostle if reason will not serve How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard and how shall they hear without a Preacher Rom. 10. 14. We cannot believe what we have heard we cannot hear any supernatural truth unless God preach it and if he hath been the Preacher we may find the doctrine in his written Word which the most zealous defenders of this your doctrine durst not assert in former times For a very eminent Schoolman of our own Couâ—…rey Iohannis Bachâ—…nus lib. 4. dist 45. quâ—…unica answers all the Texts that were in his daies commonly alledged out of the Bible to prove Purgatory which were then but three though since they have swelled into a far greater number The first Text was that of 2 Mac. 12. To which his answer is Libri Macchabaeorum non sunt de Canone Bibliae ut dicit Hieronymus The Books of the Macchabees are not of the Canon of the Bible as saith Saint Hierom Nor doth your Cardinals new subtilty invalidate this answer Dico librum Maccha non esse Canonicum apud Judaeos sed apud Christianos esse I say the Books of the Macchabees were not Canonical among the Jews but they are among the Christians For the Christian Church had the Canon of the Old Testament from the Church of the Jews who not daring to make themselves a Canon took that which God gave them and therefore left out the Macchabees because they were not in the Ark that is to say not in that Canon which God had given them Nor hath God given the Christian Church power and authority to make that or any other Book Canonical which himself hath not made so for the Text is plain which saith To them were committed the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 2. Which words only shew a Trust of keeping not a power of making the Oracles of God either in Jew or Christian. The second Text then alledged to prove Purgatory was that of 1 Cor. 3. To which his answer is That the Apostle there speaketh of that fire which shall burn the world at the day of Judgement therefore that place will not prove such a a purging by fire as the Doctors suppose before the day of Judgement Benè probatur Purgatio ista conflagrationis in
learned and picus men from the Ministry So that for the most part no other young men entred into holy orders but such as looked after a fat living and a licentious life unless it were some few who through unadvisedness and inconsideration were brought into the snare Praeter nonnulios qui imprudenter nondum sibi satis noti in laqueum inducuntur And therefore saith plainly and positively unless marriage be tolerated they should scarce be able to find out fitting Ministers to supply the Church Nisi conjugium toleretur vix idonei Ecclesiae ministri in posterum quidem inveniri poterunt Cassander in Consult Art 23. And now considering that Truth is good in it self and Virginity is good only in order to another thing sc. to righteousness let any conscientious man judge which of the two Priests is more in the state of sin and damnation whether he that is lawfully and righteously wedded to a wife or he that is unlawfully and unrighteously wedded to such a false opinion although as self-interest now steers Saint Peters ship there is little hope that the one will part or be divorced from his opinion as there is little honesty that the other should part or be divorced from his wife CAP. III. Of Purgatory 1. PUrgatory a stumbling block not to be cast in the way of men that are departing hence 2. Saint Paul desired to be dissolved that he might be with Christ. 3. All that die in the faith of Christ at their death go immediately to Christ as did Saint Paul and the good thief and to assert otherwise is to be injurious to Religious souls and to Christ their Saviour 4. Bellarmine professeth it is uncertain that Christs humane soul was in Purgatory and by his proofs makes it impossible for they all speak of the Hell of the damned 5. To say Christ went into Purgatory as into a part of his Kingdom to take possession thereof savours of blasphemy and of infidelity 6. Bellarmines uncertainties are so many and great concerning the Place the Time the Torment the Tormentors and the causes for which souls are said to be tormented in Purgatory as to enfeeble any unprejudicate mans belief though he is so confident as to say That all shall be damned who do not believe Purgatory 7. This doctrine is neither in word nor sense taught in the holy Scriptures The Texts alledged for it in Bachonus his daies answered by him The Books of the Macchabees no more Canonical to the Christians then to the Jews The fire mentioned 1 Cor. 3. no proof of Purgatory It shall not be forgiven him in the world to come spoken by way of aggravation Mat. 12. Hell taught in the Creed not so Purgatory 8. Peter Martyr vindicated Bellarmines rules of prudence against the rules of Logick meer nullities Doctrines inferred from prudential consequences are humane imaginations but from Logical consequences are Divine Truths The one by being believed the other by not being believed make a man an Heretick 9. No remission of sins in the next world proved by Aquinas out of Saint Chrysostom and Saint Augustine 10. Gods Remitting of sin is not Punishing it for Christs sake 11. Saint Augustine defines against Purgatory 12. No ground for it in the Text nor in any true general Council 13. Beilarmines reasons for it are not from but against Gods Word though seemingly deduced out of the holy Scriptures 14. His arguments for Venial sins untheological 15. His wresling of Scripture against the analogie of faith to maintain this new doctrine of his Church which agreeth not with the belief of the remission of sins or the Communion of Saints 16. The Prayers of the Church may be abused by this doctrine as well as the Word of God 17. Christ not praying for souls in Purgatory they can if any there have no benefit of others Prayers The third Exception Part. 2. Chap. 2. pag. 174. Against Purgatory you object first Desiderium habens dissolvi esse cum Christo Phil. 1. 23. But all the strength of this argument stands upon a Desiderium habens having a desire And what good Catholick man doth not desire to die so holily as he may escape Purgatory and go immediately to Christ Secondly Hodiè meâ—…um eris in paradiso Luc. 23. 43. Where you say it is evident The Convert thief upon the Cross cannot be looked upon as a priviledged person Were this evident it is evident to me that most eminently learned men would have perceived this evidence yet our Rhemes Doctors confidently call it A rare example of mercy and prerogative Maldonate handling this place Mat. 27. 44. calls it a stupidity Ex uno exemplo generalem legem colligere Bellarm. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 8. concludes his answer to this very objection Privilegia pauco rum legem non faciunt Becanus compend men contr lib. 1. c. 11. n. 7. calls it expresly Singulare privilegium so that this your evidence is to me inevident Thirdly Bellarmine himself confesseth De Purgatorio incertum est you quote neither Chapter nor Book which is very uncouth amongst learned Antagonists These words may be understood in a double sense absolutely as to Purgatoty it self or relatively as to the good thief If the first then Bellarmine confesseth it is uncertain whether there be any such thing as Purgatory or no if the second whether the good thief went to Purgatory or no As to the first there can be nothing more certain amongst Christians then what is de fide of divine faith But Bellarm. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 2. 3. affirms it is de fide And again cap. 11. Constanter asserimus dogma esse fidei Purgatorium adeò ut qui non credit Purgatorium esse ad illud nunquam sit perventurus sed in gehennâ sempiterno incendio cruciandus What can a man speak more resolutely then this As to the second He hath not any such word but all the contrary as I have shewed to your second objection Where then Bellarmine should make this Confession is beyond my skill to find Fourthly none ever durst say That the humane soul of Christ was at all in Purgatory If you mean To suffer there it were an horrible blasphemy to say so But if to go down thither in majesty as a most victorious Conquerer and triumphant King to take possession of his whole Kingdom which according to Saint Paul is tripartite Philip. 2. 10. Coelestium terrestrium infernorum So Bellarmine besides what he saith thereof lib. 4. de Christo cap. 12. in fine durst c. 16. with a probabile say that Christs humane soul went down thither not only quoad effectum but secundum substantiam realem praesentiam For having made this querie Ad quae loca inferni descenderit He answers Probabile est profectò Christi animum ad omnia loca inferni descendisse But whether so or no it neither makes nor marrs but the good thief enjoyed Christs promise to be with him that
then prohibited the Roman Clergy in the judgement of their own Authors The second Exception PArt 2. chap. 1. sect 2. pag. 128. You reprehend Pope Siricius as saying in effect that to marry is to be in the flesh I could not meet with his own words only I find in Bellarmine lib. 1. de clericis cap. 19. Siricius prohibet cum uxore commercium iis qui sunt in sacris Hitherto he is not to be blamed For the whole Africane Church in the second Council of Carthage Can. 2. thus decrees Omnibus placet ut Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi vel qui Sacrameâ—…ta contrectant pudicitiae custodes etiam ab uxoribus se abstineant ut quod Apostoli docuerunt ipsa servavit antiquitas nos quoque custodiamus So that the Apostles themselves were the first that taught and decreed that Priests ought to abstain from wives Neither doth your instance of Abraham Isaac and Jacob urge Siricius There was no precept in the Law of nature nor in the Mosaicall Law forbidding Priests to marry as there hath ever been from the very Apostles in the Evangelicall Law in which for Priests to marry contrary to the Churches precept Siricius might well say is to be in the flesh because it is to be in a continuall state of sin and damnation Neither doth your other instance 1 Cor. 7. 9. urge him viz. It is better to marry then to burn For Burn there doth not signifie to be tempted but to fornicate according to the precedent words if they cannot contain let them marry which yet is more express by the words in the second verse To avoid fornication let every man have his wife Saint Paul himself had great temptations of the flesh 2 Cor. 12. 7 8 9. for which he prayed thrice that they might be taken from him but did neither marry nor fornicate to avoid them but contented himself with this Divine Answer My grace is sufficient for thee And this hath and will be still sufficient to the worlds end for millions of good men to undertake the office of Priesthood without needing either to marry or burn especially if they will do as he did not only assiduously pray but also Castigocerpus meum in servitutem redigo 1 Cor. 9. 27. The Answer POpe Siricius his doctrine concerning marriage is plain enough in his Epistle ad Himarium Tarrac recorded by Binius Tom. 1 concil and cited by me as his first degmaticall Epistle because so I find it theâ—…e in which speaking of married Priests he expresly applyeth to them Saint 〈◊〉 words They that are in the flesh cannot please God which being applyed to them in regard of their marriage and not of their Priesthood concerns them as married men and not as married Priests even as he that saith A blaspheming Priest ought to be disdained sheweth that disdain belongeth to the man not to the Priest For in a blaspheming Priest it is the man not the Priest is the blasphemer though as a Priest he is the greater sinner by blaspheming So in a married Priest it is the man not the Priest who is married and therefore if a married Priest be said to be in the flesh his being in the flesh must be ascribed to him from his marriage not from his Priesthood for it may be ascribed to all other married men as well as to him This is the doctrine concerning marriage which I blamed in Siricius as I found it had flowed from his own pen And it is to small purpose it seems that Bellarmine hath endeavoured so long after to furnish him with a little better Ink For even from his new proposition which he puts upon Siricius That Priests may not have commerce with their wives you infer this conclusion That for Priests to marry is to be in the flesh only you annex some new propositions to make your conclusion sound the better though it is impossible to make it good and they are these That for Priests to marry is contrary to the Churches order and to the doctrine and decree of the Apostles and to be in a continuall state of sin and damnation 2. I am very sorry that your zeal to excuse Siricius hath in effect made you accuse both the Church and the Apostles of Christ For it is an high accusation against both to say that they have forbid Priests to marry since Saint Paul expresly reckons this among the doctrines of Devils Forbidding to marry 1 Tim. 4. speaking in generall of the prohibition in whomsoever it forbid marriage whether in Priests or in any other men And now by the help of this Text I have found out a fit subject for your abominable praedicate To be in a continuall state of sin and damnation For none is truly in a continuall state of damnation but only the Devil or they that are led captive by him at his will which cannot justly much less charitably be said of any sort of men meerly for using that liberty which neither Christ nor his Church hath denyed them especially if they use it as doubtless they should and I hope they do not for an occasion to the flesh but as the servants of God that they may with the lesser distraction if not with the greater devotion attend his service Wherefore though this doctrine of forbidding Priests marriage may not be disliked by you as you are a Papist because it came from a Pope yet pray let it not be approved by you as you are a Christian because it first came from the Devil And it were to be wished that those of your party who desire to be thought of a purer mould then all mankind besides would so labour from henceforth to make us poor sinners more then Angels for it is more to put off then not to put on the flesh as not to make themselves little less then Devils by calumniating Gods own holy institution and shooting such thunderbolts as may well be thought to come from the Prince of the air but sure cannot come from the God of Heaven 3. For he hath spoken in a still small voice He that is able to receive it let him receive it Mat. 19. 12. And again by his Apostle Nevertheless to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife 1 Cor. 7. 2. If God say every man for you to say the Church hath said not a Clergy-man is to accufe the Church of that which she hath taught you daily to pray against even of the contempt of Gods Word and Commandement For Christ who spake the one by himself the other by his Spirit is Head of the Church and therefore it is monstrous and prodigious to affirm that the Church which is his body hath spoken otherwise For sure the body cannot have a voice without the Head and Christs Church is such a Body as will not have a voice without and much less against her Head 4. Therefore you should not have said The Churches precept but your Churches or rather your Popes
have not strained this Canon in my interpretations I assure you they are not mine but your own Authors The first is Gratians Par. 1. Dist. 28. c. 15. Si quis discernit Presbyterum conjugatum tanquam occasione â—…ptiarum quod offerre non debeat ab ejus oblatione ideo se abstinet Anathema sit The latter is the new Glossators upon Gratian in the edition authorized by Greg. 13. Si quis secernat se à Presbytero qui uxorem duxit tanquam non oporteat illo liturgiam peragente de oblatione percipere Anathema sit And he tells us That Dionysius exiguus had in effect so interpreted it before him 7. And this one single Canon might I alledge not only as the Jugement and Decree of the Catholick Church from the Code of her Canons but also as the Judgement of your own particular Roman Church from Dionysius and as the Decree of the same Church from Gratian But that both the antient Judgement and Decree of your Church are more clearly proved by the practice of it For in your very Church of Rome have heretofore been no less then nine Popes which were the sons of married Priests and Deacons whereas if Priests and Deacons marriage had been forbid by the Apostles or by the Catholick Church I might say They were the sins of Priests not sons and you might say They were very unfit Popes because very unfit successors for Saint Peter but more unfit Vicars for his master But so saith Gratian Par. 1. Dist. 56. cap. 2. Osius Papa fuit filius Stephani subdiaconi Bonifacius Papa fuit filius Jucundi Presbyteri Felix Papa filius Felicis Presbyteri de titulo Fasciolae Agapetus Papa filius Gordiani Presbyteri Theodorus Papa filius Theodori Episcopi de civitate Hierosolymâ Silverius Papa filius Silverii Episcopi Romae Deus dedit Papa filius Stephani subdiaconi Felix etiam tertius natione Romanus ex Patre Felice Presbytero fuit Item Gelasius natione Afer ex Episcopo Valerio natus est Item Agapetus natione Romanus ex Patre Gordiano Presbytero originem duxit complures etiam alii inveniuntur qui de sacerdotibus nati Apostolicae sedi praefuerunt See here are nine Popes named which were all the sons of married Clergy-men and yet Gratian concludes this Chapter saying These were not All divers more might be found if he had a mind to look after them yet these are enough to prove the practice of the Church of Rome for having married Priests till the year of our Lord 158 when Anastasius flourished who writ the lives of the Popes saith Bellarm. de script Eccles. with this emphatical asseveration Ut notum est denying Damasus cited by Gratian to have been the author of of that Book as well he might For Damasus lived in the year 367. So that very few of these men not above three at most had been Popes before his time for it is evident That Agapetus who is reckoned fourth in this Catalogue lived in the time of Justinian that is above 500. years after Christ For by his couragious answer he kept Justinian from embracing Eutychianism saying He thought he 〈◊〉 come to a Christian Emperour but he had found a Pagan persecutor the reason was The Emperour had laboured to perswade him to be an Eutychian And that Silverius who was this Agapetus his next successor may by the way be added to Gratians list for he was the son of Hormisdae not of Silverius Bishop of Rome I have no mind nor leisure to make any special enquiry after the rest and I need not For if you will consider this testimony seriously you will find in this one Catalogue not only Priests and Bishops of Rome to have been Fathers of Popes which is enough to prove the marriage of Priests allowed in that particular Church but also Theodorus Bishop of Hierusalem in Asia and Valerius Bishop of Hippo in Africa to have been Fathers of two of your antient Popes which is enough to prove the marriage of Priests then allowed in the Catholick Church that is to say not only in Europe but also in Asia and in Africa But I do intreate you to take special notice of Valerius Bishop of Hippo for he alone may very well make you misdoubt if not the truth yet the authority of your own alledged Canon since it is incredible that such a married Bishop should live at Hippo at the very same time in which such a Canon was made at Carthage against Priests marriages and neither confute the Canon having such a Learned Priest under him as Saint Augustine nor be confuted by it having so many enemies about him as the Donatists but however in that so many Fathers of your own Church have been the sons of married Priests it will be discretion in some of your Zealots hereafter to bestow better language upon the children of married Priests for fear they be constrained to reproach not only many of their own Popes but even the whole Church of Christ For so far doth your own Gratian justifie this Truth as to assure us That the marriage of Priests was lawful at that time in every Countrey over all the Christian world Dist. 56. c. 13. Quum ergo ex sacerdotibus natiin summos Pontifices supra leguntur esse promoti non sunt intelligendi de fornicatione sed de legitimis conjugiis nati quae sacerdotibus ante Prohibitionem Ubique licita erant in orientali Ecclesia usque hodie eis licere probatur When as therefore the sons of Priests as we we read before viz. cap. 2. which I alledged have been promoted to be Popes we may not think they were born to those Priests in fornication but in lawfull marriage for it was lawfull everywhere that is in all the Christian world for Priests to marry before the Prohibition and in the Eastern Church it is at this day proved to be lawfull So we see that the Clergy both of Eastern and Western Church did plainly shew by their Practice That the marriage of Priests was not prohibited by the Apostles or the Catholick Church and therefore generally used their liberty till some after-prohibition denyed the same to the Clergy of the Western Church And the new Glossator himself who confidently saith that Gratian was mistaken as to the Latine Church sheweth little reason for his own confidence because no pretence or proof for the others mistake till this Decree of Siricius which was not made till almost 400. and not generally ratified or received in his own Diocess till above a 1000. years after Christ For so Baronius himself hath recorded that in the year 1074. this Decree of prohibiting Priests marriage was forced upon the Bishops of Italy Germany and France by Pope Gregory the seventh after they had unanimously gainsayed and most earnestly deprecated and opposed it v. Bar. An. 1074. nu 37 38 39. Now if this Decree were not generally received in the Latine Church till then though it were made
before yet was it not ratified and confirmed till then for that is an undenyable rule of her own Canonist Leges instituuntur quùm promulgantur firmantur quùm moribus utentium approbantur Grat. Par. 1. Dist. 4. cap. 3. Whence it follows That neither this Decree of Siricius nor any other of the like nature could properly be called a Prohibition till that time when it was first generally received imto Practice and that was not til the year 1074. a longtime sure after the Apostles And this same Truth is attested by Gratian in the first words of his 31. distinction Tempus quoque Quia nondum erat institutum ut sacerdotes continentiam servarent where your new Glossator is very much troubled to prove that Sacerdotâ—…s is put for Subdiaconi Priests for Subdeacons that so he may rather elude then expound the Text It doth therefore neerly concern you as a Trustee of Gods Truth not of any mans mistakes or insolencies and as a member and Minister of Christs Catholick Church to mitigate if not recall those words That the Apostles themselves were the first that taught and decreed that Priests ought to abstain from wives And those other For Priests to marry contrary to the Churches precept Siricius might well say is to be in the flâ—…sh because it is to be in a continuall state of sin and damnation unless you will say That the Apostles taught and decreed that in word which they have contradicted in writing that the whole Church wittingly and willingly sinned against their Decree for above a thousand years together by which means you may chance teach others to say and we now find many Schollars most ready to learn such a wicked lesson That for so long together Christ was without a Catholick and Apostolick Church For my part I dare not be so far an Accuser of my Brethren but sure I will never be brought to be so far an Accuser of my Mother 8. But least it may be thought that Sampsen-like you have smitten us poor Philistines hip and thigh and have carried away our Gates by the vertue and strength of the Council of Carthage I will now look after a Razor that shall very much endanger that lock wherein your great strength lyeth for I have yet only clipped it a little by Valerius his hand and must now labour to cut it off which I shall endeavour to do by cutting the Africane Church from the Catholick and that Council you have alledged from the Africane Church and that Canon you have alledged from the Africane Council I say therefore 1. That the Africane Church was but a particular Church and could not pass the sentence may not have either the repute or the authority of the Catholick Church And for this answer I have your own Cardinals precedent Bellar. lib. 2. de concil cap. 8. 9. Where that objection against the Popes being called Summus Pontifex which is brought from the 26. Canon of the Council of Carthage Ut primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps sacerdotum aut summus sacerdos aut aliquid hujusmodi sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus is by him thus answered Quùm hoc Concilium nationale fuerit non universae sed tantùm Africanae Ecclesiae leges tulisse potuit Itaque hoc Canone non prohibuit neque potuit prohibere ne Rom. Pontifex diceretur sacerdotum princeps vel summus sacerdos sed tantuÌ„ ne ita appellaretur ullus Metropolitanus Africae This Council being but nationall could not make Canons for the Catholick Church and therefore by this Canon could not prohibit the Bishop of Rome to be called an high Priest but only the Bishops of Africa to be so called Pray shew me a reason why this answer is not as good for the Priests of Europe as for the Bishop of Rome for all the world cannot make one National Church the whole Catholick Church no more then it can make a particular an universal or one corner of the South or West all the world 2. That second Council of Carthage scarce deserves to have the credit and cannot have the authority of the particular Africane Church First because for ought that can be collected out of the acts thereof there were not above seven Bishops present at it no more then were at a Collation with the Donatists v. Bin. Conc. Tom. 1. Col. p. 624. whereas Africa afforded above two hundred Bishops and they were all by their Canons strictly bound to be present at National Synods Secondly because there is a plain and a gross untruth set down in the first words of that Council as it is in the Latine Copy which only befriends your assertion for there it is said Gloriosissimo Imperatore Valentiniano Augusto 4. Theodosio viris clarissimis consulibus i. Whiles Valentinian the Emperour was Consul the fourth time and Theodosius with him these Bishops met at Carthage whereas it is evident by the Archives of Chronologie That Valentinian the Emperour never at all was Consul with Theodosius and it is as clear by the same Archives that when Valentinian the Emperour was Consul the fourth time Neotorius not Theodosius was his partner See Helvicus An. Christ. vul 390. So I shew you plainly we have a false Consul put upon the Council and I have some reason to suspect we have also a false Council put upon the Church For it is clear that this Council was not held in the year 390. when Valentinian was Consul the fourth time because Genedius who speaks first in it and was President of it was not taken by Aurelius to be his Coadjutor at Carthage till after Saint Augustine had been taken by Valerius to be his Coadjutor at Hippo as saith Binius Aurelius factum Valerii Hipponensis imitatus onus Episcopale in Genedium stranstulit And it is asserted by Helvicus That Saint Augustine was made Priest of the Church of Hippo but in the year 391. that is the year after this Consulage And sure he lived some years a Priest of that Church before he was made Bishop thereof perchance so many as to satisfie the custom of the Church but sure so many as to write full thirteen Books as appears by his Retractations lib. 1. cap. 14. notwithstanding his continual Preaching all that time For he was required and authorized by his Bishop to be a Preacher whiles he was yet a Priest which till his daies had not been known in the Africane Church and he preached both privately and publickly against the Donatists Manichaeans and Pelagians saith Possidius and sure the more time he spent in Preaching the less time he had for writing But to let pass collections and conjectures we see Genedius the President of this Council was not a Bishop till after Saint Augustine And Saint Augustine was not so much as a Priest till one year after the date of this Council so it is certain the Council hath a false date and it is possible we may have a false Council
the authority of a particular Church to defend his Decrees notwithstanding that some others of your profession would fain perswade the world That the Popes Decrees ought to be received and embraced as the infallible rules of the whole Catholick Church 9. Having done my weak endeavour to vindicate the Church I now come to vindicate my self and to make good my decarded instances As for that of Abraham if it reach not Siricius it must content me For if my salvation shall go no further then to be in Abrahams bosom my Religion may seek no further then for Abrahams righteousness And he must be to me a bold Dogmatist who would make me more righteous then my Father who am not righteous but for being his Son And if Saint Paul hath thought fit to argue from Abrahams faith to our faith sure I am not mistaken in my Topicks for arguing from Abrahams righteousness to our righteousness And yet I will give you a better precedent then Saint Paul for I find our blessed Saviour himself so arguing This did not Abraham John 8. 40. 10. As for my instance out of Saint Paul It is better to marry then to burn I think it doth prove Siricius a false Dogmatist for he saith It is not better to marry then to burn and I am sure that both parts of the contradiction cannot be true and dare not imagine That Siricius hath taken the true Saint Paul the false part For if for Priests to marry is to be in the flesh Then clearly it is better for Priests to burn then to marry notwithstanding Saint Paul hath said generally concerning all men It is better to marry then to burn And neither good Reason nor good Religion nor good Manners will allow any man to give an exception upon Gods general Rule or to distinguish where his Law doth not distinguish or to set up an Hypothesis against his Thesis by saying That is unlawfull for some particular men which he hath declared to be lawful for All men or to say That puts a man in the state of sin which God hath said is consistent with the state of righteousness For this is to give earth a Dominion over heaven to allow men a legislative power over God for he that in this manner judgeth the Law doth indeed condemn the Law-giver according to that assertion of the irrefragable Doctor Si enim aliquis effecit aliquid quod non sit determinatum in sacra Scriptura mortaliter peccat quia se constituit supra Deum Halensis Par. 1. qu. 68. num 1. art 2. Therefore I dare not say The Church hath determined that to be unlawful in Any which God hath determined to be lawfull in All For I am in love with that Rule in the Angelical Doctor which he hath improved out of Aristotle as he hath indeed all other Ethicks In his quae arbitrio Judicis relinquuntur viri boni est ut sit Diminitivus Poenarum 22. qu. 67. art 4. ad 1. In those things which the Law hath left to the Judges arbitrement it is the part of a good man to Diminish Punishments and if so Then much more to diminish not to encrease sins What an Heathen hath allowed to be the part of a good man pray let a Christian allow to be the part of his best Mother and not suppose the Church 10 cruel as to be willing to encrease sins when he may not suppose a good man so cruel as to be willing to encrease Punishment 11. This makes me follow the Trullane Fathers who thought it fitter Can. 13. to tax the Roman Church for making a Canon to keep married Priests from cohabiting with their wives then by consenting to such a Canon to bring themselves under the suspition of disparaging or disgracing marriage which God had instituted by his Law and both honoured and blessed by his presence For the whole Gospel say they cryeth aloud What God hath joyned let not man put asunder but if Priests that are married be in the state of damnation let us say not God but the Devil hath joyned them and their wives together and therefore man ought to put them asunder and so call marriage in them not Gods but the Devils institution The same Fathers urge further that of Saint Paul Heb. 13. 3. Marriage is honourable in all to prove it honourable in Priests for that was the whole matter then in debate And I desire you to shew me How in this enuntiation marriage is honourable in All the universal particle All doth signifie All but Priests And yet in another enuntiation Drink ye All of this the same particle All doth signifie none but Priests me thinks by this extraordinary kind of subtilty All is come to signifie None For All is none of the Clergy in one place and none of the Laity in another and in my dull sense the whole company of Christians are either Clergy or Laity I will yet further add the testimony of Adrian that I may oppose a Pope against a Pope both for the credit of this Council and for the truth of this cause For I find him in Gratian speaking these words Sextam Sanctam Synodum recipio cum omnibus Canonibus suis I receive the sixt holy Synod with all her Canons Gr. de consec dist 3. c. 29. He saith I receive the sixt holy Synod so the Council is good as to you who are so zealous for the Pope whatever it be to others He saith with all her Canons so the cause is good against you for this Canon is received among the rest And he that said all this lived above 800. years after Christ so your assertion is not good That the Apostles themselves were the first that taught and decreed that Priests ought to abstain from wives For if Pope Adrian could have alledged the least particle of an Apostolical decree against Priests marriage no doubt he would not have said He received all the Canons meerly for this one Canons sake which had been made of purpose to confute his own Church and Chair of both which he was not a little zealous meerly for following Siricius in being addicted to the contrary opinion chuse you which of the two Popes to follow Siricius or Adrian for both you cannot 12. But you say To burn doth not here signifie to be tempted but to fornicate I cannot think Saint Paul was so zealous to determine that which no man was yet so impudent as to doubt viz. It is better to marry then to fornicate for that is no more in effect then this It is better to be a man then to be a beast which surely was not the doubt concerning which the Corinthians had desired to be resolved Therefore I think this cannot be Saint Pauls meaning It is better to marry then to fornicate and I suppose you will think so too when you shall consider that from this interpretation I can justly make this inference That if Priests do fornicate first they may marry afterwards
and not be in the state of sin by marrying For then by your own allowance the Rule will hold and truly if the rule will not hold till then I believe the inference will hold ever after For if a mans being tempted to fornication will not yet sure his actual fornicating will put him under this indulgence of marrying because if he once fornicate he then may lawfully marry since the Apostle in saying It is better to marry then to fornicate hath allowed if not commande him to chose the better and to leave the worse And whereas you appeal to the precedent words If they cannot contain let them marry the same absurdity still follows your new gloss which is this That the Priviledge of marriage depends upon the bestiality of fornication for If they cannot contain is no more then if they burn and if they burn in your gloss is no less then if they fornicate whence it follows that according to your new gloss Saint Paul hath said If they fornicate let them marry And this is yet more palpable as the same Rule is set down in the second verse not by way of supposition but by way of Position in these words To avoid fornication let every man have his wife for if to avoid fornication do there signifie not to avoid the danger but only the guilt of fornication this concession To avoid fornication let every man have his wife will in effect be turned into this Prohibition Let no man have his wife till he hath actually fornicated and so the Laity must plunge themselves in vitiousness as well as the Clergy if they will have wives For Saint Pauls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every man comprizeth Clergy and Laity both alike neither of them more nor less then the other Wherefore since there is no man in Christendom but is either a Clergy-man or a Lay-man it will follow that no man in Christendom hath a Licence much less a Command to take a wife until he hath actually fornicated and so the ready way to avoid fornication by this remedy of marriage according to your gloss is to commit fornication To joyn all three together you in effect say That to burn is to fornicate and if they cannot contain is If they be actually guilty of Incontinency and to avoid fornication is to avoid the sin of fornication not the temptation to that sin And I say that this being supposed though it be not granted you will scarce be able to prove That any man hath the Apostles concession and much less his approbation to marry but only such a man as hath first actually fornicated which is a strange kind of Doctrine and may well make any sober man exclaim with the Canonist Nota mirabile quod plus habet hic luxuria quam castitas Gloss. in Decretal Greg. lib. 1. Tit. 21. cap. 6. See here a wonderfull case That Luxury hath a greater priviledge then chastity Therefore I conceive it fitter for a Divine to say That Saint Paul intended the remedy before the disease not after it and consequently did allow men to marry that they might avoid not only the guilt but also the danger of fornication for else he had not allowed marriage to avoid fornication till it was impossible to be avoided And consequently it is a greater sin in any Christian Church to allow one Priest to fornicate then to allow all her Priests to marry for by the one she thwarts Gods command by the other she follows his example by the one she approves and encourages a damnable sin by the other she approves and encourages a most glorious Vertue For allowing Priests to marry doth not make their marrying the more necessary but only their abstaining from marriage the more voluntary that is to say It doth only make Viâ—…ginity in Priests a Free will offering which cannot be acceptable unless it be free and the more it is free the more it is acceptable 13. You say further That Saint Paul himself had great temptations of the flesh but did neither marry nor fornicate to avoid them I answer If I had fully transcribed my Instance concerning Abraham as it is in Ignatius his Epistle to the Philadelphians I might have added not only Saint Peter but also Saint Paul to the number of married men and so perchance have prevented this part of your Objection But to let go conjectures Saint Paul himself tells us what were his Temptations Acts 20. 19. even temptations which befell him by the laying in wait of the Jews Temptations from other mens flesh not his own from other mens fleshly minds not from his own fleshly body And I wonder upon what probability of Truth you say Saint Paul was under the sinfull motions of the body when himself saith he could not tell whether he were in the body or out of the body at the time he had that revelation after which was given him a Thorn in the flesh lest he should be exalted above measure v. 3. 7. The Text saith Saint Paul had a Thorn in the flesh not Temptations of the flesh that is he had penall afflictions not sinfull motions These if they went up with him into Paradise yet surely came not with him down from thence For going to Paradise doth by your favour much more purge sin then going to Purgatory Besides datus est mihi stimulus was not so properly said of these motions as natus est in me stimulus carnis meae nor can you say That was given him at that time which you know was born in him so long before and was properly to be called a Relick not a Gift Or that God gave that concupiscence to his chiefest Apostle which by his Spirit he doth subdue in his meanest servants Nor is it probable Saint Paul did call that a Messenger of Satan which was inbred in him from his own natural corruption or ascribe that to the Devil which was rather to be ascribed to the flesh Summe all these inconveniencies together and I believe you will hereafter joyn with Saint Chrysostom Saint Pauls most faithfull interpreter in the judgement of your own Divines who gives us this interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c By the Angel of Satan he meaneth Alexander the Coppersmith those about Hymaeneus and Philetas all that opposed the word and contended or contested against him those who did cast him into prison scourge and drive him away because those did the works of Satan Therefore even as he calleth the Jews the sons of the Devil for following his example so he calleth the Messenger of Satan every man that fell foully upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this saith he was the thorne in the flesh given to buffet me And truly the world is still very full of such Messengers of Satan for no Orthodox Divine now adaies can teach men either how to live or how to die according to his duty trust and conscience but legions of factious spirits will be pecking at
an Antecedent that is a meer nothing but pretending to be somthing it is no longer a meer nothing for it is a Lye which is worse then nothing I say A Consequence without the rules of Logick is a Lye and I am forced to say it as a Christian Divine That I may not betray the Truth of Christ nor bely the Church of Christ For how many Truths doth the Church of Christ teach me to believe which are Divine Truths only as they are Logical Consequences whereas it is palpable A Logical Consequence cannot be a Truth but an Unlogical Consequence must be a Lye I will instance but in one The Monothelite who said Christ had but one will is condemned for an Heretick by the sixt general Council and yet it is only a Logical Consequence That Christ had two wills from this Antecedent That two compleat rational Natures must have two wills Whence cometh this Syllogism Two compleat rational Natures must have two wills Christ had two compleat rational Natures sc. the nature of God and the nature of man Therefore Christ had two wills Here is a Truth inferred by Logical Consequence which hath a Being in it self and chargeth them for Hereticks who deny it because it is a Divine Truth whereas such inferences as are only from Prudential not Logical Consequences have no being save in the fancy of him that makes them and therefore Charges all with Heresie that believe them because they are not Divine Truths but only humane imaginations For it is an heresie to believe that for a divine Truth which God hath not taught in his Word neither explicitly nor implicitly neither as a doctrine nor as a deduction neither as a Theological Principle nor as a Logical Conclusion For such a belief doth not only set up Fancy or rather Falsity instead of Truth or man instead of God for the author of our Faith but it also disbelieveth that Truth whereof God is the undoubted Author For he which believeth that which God hath not taught concerning any Truth must needs in some respect not believe that which God hath taught concerning the same Truth as in this particular case concerning the remission of sins He that believeth remissionn of sins in the next world which God hath not taught must needs not fully believe remission of sins in this world which God hath taught For what sins are left to be remitted there cannot be remitted here so I must not believe remission of all sins here though upon never so earnest a repentance never so true a faith that I may believe the remission of some sins hereafter So dangerous a thing is it for any Divine to set up rules of prudence rather of imprudence instead of rules of Logick that is to say Phantastical additions instead of rational deductions even as dangerous as to teach men to believe a Lye instead of believing Truth For what is inferred from any Text of Scripture by Logical consequence is a Theological conclusion and may not be disbelieved without an affront to God the Author of Logick that is of Reason But what is inferred without Logick is not a Theological conclusion but a Phantastical Addition and may not be received by us either as Christians because it comes not from God nor as men because it comes not by Reason And I think such a conclusion is that of the same Cardinals lib. 3. de euch c. 7. Per divinam Potentiam posse ab homine tolli facultatem intelligendi interim ut maneat Homo That by Gods Almighty power may be taken from a man the faculty of understanding and he may still remain a man A Consequence doubtless from the first Article of our belief I believe in God the Father Almighty but inferred only by the Rules of this new prudence not by the Rules of old sound Logick and therefore to be looked upon as a meer fiction for it supposeth an Impotency in Omnipotency as if God could deny himself working contradiction and making a man not a man a reasonable creature not a reasonable creature at the same time and in the same respect But however this Consequence hath found us out a man fit to believe other such like Consequences For such Consequences are clearly without Reason and therefore the man that can believe them had need be a man without Reason 9. But it is high time to leave your Cardinal whom yet I had not traced so far had it not been to follow your footsteps and since our Countrey-man could not his own Countrey-man shall stop his mouth For Saint Thomas of Aquine as good an Italian as himself and a far better Divine seeth here no remission of sins in the next world but proveth the contrary both out of Saint Augustine and out of Saint Chrysostom in his Commentary upon this Text that is out of the two chiefest Doctors both of the Greek and of the Latine Church And he sets down Saint Chrysostoms exposition with the approbation not only of its Truth but also of its perspicuity Chrysostomus valdè planè exponit dicit c. Saint Chrysostom expounds this place very plainly and saith That we are here told of a twofold blasphemy one against the Son of God calling him a wine-bibber and for this they had some excuse because of their ignorance The other against the Spirit of God calling him Beelzebub and for this they had no excuse because they were sufficiently instructed in the Scriptures that evil spirits could not be cast out by an evil spirit but by the good Spirit that is the Spirit of God and therefore this blasphemy should not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come which saith he is spoken upon this ground Because some sins are punished in this world some in the next some both in this and that The sins punished only in this world are those of Penitents yet your Purgatory will needs punish them and only them in the next world The sins punished only in the next world are those of miscreants of whom it is said Job 21. 13. In a moment they go down into Hell But the sin which is punished in this world and in the next is the sin against the Holy Ghost Therefore it is said concerning that sin â—…t shall not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come Non quia sit remissio in futuro sed quia poena erit in futuro unde sensus est quod non remittitur quin poenam patiatur in hoc seculo in futuro Not because there is any forgiveness in the next world but because there shall be punishment in the next world wherefore the meaning is It shall not be forgiven but he shall suffer punishment for it both in this and in the next world Thus the Angelical Doctor expoundeth this Text and his Exposition stood good a long time and was generally received in the Latine Church for your own Ferus hath followed it saying
Minus dicit plus significat vult enim quod non solum in futuro sed etiam hic punitur tale peccatum He speaks little but he signifies much for his meaning is That such a sin is punished not only in the next world but also in this 10. Your late Jesuites tell us of a remission of the sin with a reservation of the punishment but your old Divines take remitting for not punishing without which in truth it cannot be remission For God doth not afford us a less forgiveness then he doth require us to afford one another and that is so to forgive the sin as not once to think of punishing or of revenging it For indeed to forgive sin is nothing else in its own nature but not to reserve it to be punished and because God punished our Saviour for our sins it is said He made him sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. For so Christ took our sin upon him that is to say not our Guilt but our Punishment and he took it upon himself that he might not leave it upon us For he was wounded for our transgressions Isa. 53. 5. He was bruised for our iniquities that is He was punished that we might be acquitted The chastisement of our peace was upon him that is His chastisement was our Peace and with his stripes we are healed And blessed be God we are so for sure it is we could never be healed with our own stripes it is his wounds work our cure and not our own yet I will not follow Scotus who to confute them that denyed contingency did say It is pitty but such men should be under torments till they should confess it were possible for them not to be tormented I will not say in like manner It is pitty but they who deny our souls to be healed with our Saviours stripes should themselves be beaten with many stripes till they should confess that their own stripes could not heal them for then I know they would be under the lash for ever But I must say That it were just with God to put them under such a confutation For they are under a gross denyal not of a Metaphysical but of a Theological Truth and that of such a Truth as hath joyned Gods Mercy and Justice both together in mans salvation and therefore such a Truth as may not be denyed without great uncharitableness to man and greater unthankfulness to God I think few of those men who now most stand upon this new Divinity of remission in the next world to be obtained by our own stripes and others suffrages because it brings them so good a market would be willing at their deaths to venture their souls upon it for fear it should bring them as bad a remedy And I cannot but wonder at your Cardinal who hath said concerning this Text Hinc colligunt Sancti Patres quaedam peccata remitti in futuro seculo per orationes suffragia Ecclesiae Bellar. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 4. Hence the holy Fathers do gather that some sins are forgiven in the next world by the prayers and the suff ages of the Church for he could not say this if Saint Thomas said true without putting Saint Augustine and Saint Chrysostom out of the Catalogue of the Fathers 11. I know our Country-man Backet was swayed by Saint Augustine to conclude for Purgatory but I fear either he mis-applyed or mis-understood Saint Augustine or Saint Augustine mis-understood himself For Saint Augustine hath most dogmatically determined against it lib. 13. de Civit. Dei cap. 8. In requie sunt animae piorum à corpore separatae Impiorum autem poenas luunt donec istarum ad aeternam vitam illarum vero ad aeternam mortem corpora reviviscant The souls of the righteous are in rest of the unrighteous in torment after they are separated from the flesh till the bodies of the one shall be raised again to eternal life the bodies of the other to eternal death 12. But he that will not teach Fancy instead of Faith must take God for the Author and Gods Church for the Pillar and ground of that Truth which he teacheth else he may chance rove in uncertainties to the worlds end especially if he shall take Metaphorical allusions for dogmatical conclusions and florid declâ—…mations for solid determinations as Divines now usually are on all sides in their citations out of â—…he Fathers upon any argument making some of them speak against their own doctrine to speak for new devices and in effect to write contradictions rather then not write for the great Diana of these clamorous Ephesians Therefore I will not here examine the citations of the Fathers for surely A Christian Divine is bound to teach no other Faith for Christian then such as hath been manifestly declared in the Word of Christ and generally and constantly professed by the Catholick Church of Christ And your Cardinal finds not so muth as the word Purgatory in all the Scriptures nor in any one general Council till the fourth of Laterane under nnocent the third above twelve hundred years after Christ which was as far from being Oecumenical as Rome is from being all the Christian world and if it had been so yet hath only furnished us with Consultations not with Canons or Constitutions your own Platina being my witness who saith thus in the life of Innocent the third Venere multa in consultationem nec decerni tamen quicquam apertè potuit Many things were debated but nothing was openly decreed in this Council and I hope you will not say that they passed their decrees in private or by any underhand dealing An observation that may weaken some of your other Tenents no less then Purgatory which you obtrude upon the consciences of men as established by the Canons of this Council which in truth made no Canons at all if your own Platina be worth belief 13. Next I meet with your Cardinals Reasons whereof some do rather put then prove this new Article of Faith contrary to Aquinas who allows not of Ratio ponens but only of Ratio probans radicem fidei par 1. qu. 32. art 1. ad 2. arguing not so much from the authority of Gods Word as against it As particularly that reason lib. 1. cap. 11. Intelligibile non est quomodo verbum ociosum ex naturâ suâ dignum sit perpetuo odio Dei maneat igitur quaedam esse peccata venialia solâ temporaâ—…i poenâ digna No man can understand how an idle word is in its own nature worthy of Gods eternal hatred therefore let it stand for a Truth that some sins are venial and only worthy of temporal punishment A strange way of arguing for a Divine who should not exercise his Readers curiosity but establish his conscience Christ saith That for every idle word men shall give account in the day of Judgement to make men repent before hand even of their least sins that judging themselves they may not be
judged of him Bellarmine saith It is not intelligible how a man should be judged for an idle word and therefore it must be taken for such a picro such a little sin as cannot come into Judgement An excellent Doctor sure to correct his master as if he had wanted Truth and to corrupt his Scholars as if they did not want Repentance 14. For this Text if rightly urged will rather ptove no sin venial in its own nature but only by Gods mercy For if not an idle word is venial then much less a greater sin but not an idle word is venial for that shall be accounted for at the last day if not repented of before at least virtually in the contrition if not actually in the confession Thus he first makes bold with Gods Justice proving some sins to be venial that he may find or make matter for Purgatory and afterwards he teacheth others to make as bold with Gods Mercy that he may the better follow his proof for he telleth us that a man may die a true penitent for no other hath hopes of Purgatory and yet die with a resolution of abiding in sin Potest quis dùm moritur habere voluntatem per gendi in peccato veniali igitur tale peccatum deleri in morte non potest A man when he dies may have the purpose of continuing in a venial sin therefore such a sin is not to be abolished by death He means a man in the state of grace for no other is capable of the benefit of his purging flames So he cares not to pull down repentance that he may set up Purgatory whereas sure it more suits with conscientious and sound Divinity to pull down venial sins to set up repentance For it is not possible that man should die in the state of true repentance who dyeth with a purpose of retaining any sin in his soul that displeaseth God for by that very purpose he prefers his own will and pleasure above Gods and therefore loves not God with all his heart and consequently is not a true believer because not a true lover and not a true penitent because not a true believer Surely this cannot be a doctrine of Piety which teacheth Impenitency since no man now hath hopes of being righteous by his innocency but only by his repentance Nor had Saint Augustine such a light esteem of venial sins if we may believe Gratian Par. 1. dist 25. cap. 3. For this was his doctrine Nullum peccatum est adeò veniale quod non fiat criminale dum placet No sin is so venial but it may be made mortal if it please the sinner and this it must do if he hath a will and purpose to continue in it And Consequently if he die having such a will and purpose his venial sin is become mortal and by that means is made fewel for Hell not for Purgatory And so venial sin is also in danger of falling which is the other supporter of this your new building Isto enim fundamento posito quod tollitur satisfactio descrimen peccati mortalis à veniali necessario sequitur nullum esse Purgatorium Bell. lib. 1. c. 2. This foundation being laid that there is not satisfaction for sin sc. of our own and that there is no venial sin sc. in it self it must follow there can be no Purgatory And this foundation may very safely be laid by us because it is without if not against the Text that you have laid the other foundation 15. I know your Cardinal alledgeth many more places of the Bible besides those three formerly mentioned to prove this new Article of Faith But there is so much straining of the Scripture in his allegations I will not say wresting because I hope it was not to his destruction that he comes under that condemnation of the wise man There is an exquisite subtiltâ—… and the same is unjust Eccles. 19. 25. Men may by their wit and exquisite subtilty make Gods Word seem to say any thing but it is unjust for them so to do and they must be unrighteous in so doing and had need be very penitent for that unrighteousness For if we shall give an accounâ—… for every idle word of our own much more for endeavouring to make Gods Word partake of our idleness And indeed Gods Word being to be interpreted according to the analogie of Faith Rom. 12. 6. it is fitter for Infidels then for Christians to seek after such interpretations thereof as are not agreeable with that analogie But herein your writers are partly excusable for being over-ruled by the determination of your Church to set up a new Article of Faith which is not reducible to any of those in the Apostles Creed they have been after a sort constrained to interpret the Scriptures according to that new Article lately made by your Church and not according to the Analogie of that Faith which was at first left by the Apostles For sure it will pose an ordinary understanding to shew how your Purgatory is consistent with the Communion of Saints and with the forgiveness of sins which are both in that Creed since they cannot be of the Communion of Saints who are in a separation from God and perchance under the power of the Devil nor have they obtained remission of sins who are still under torments for them Nor can I see how this doctrine doth agree with that which is the very marrow and substance of the whole Gospel to wit That we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son Rom. 5. 10. and That God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them 2 Cor. 5. 19. For if there be a punishment reserved the trespass is imputed But 〈◊〉 there be an actual reconciliation aâ—… doubtless there is for true Penitents anâ—… true Believers then surely no punishment is reserved and no future satisfaction is necessary and so we may fully believe the remission of sins according to ouâ—… Creed And no present separation is possible and so we may as fully believe thâ—… Communion of Saints The woman thaâ—… came behinde our blessed Saviour anâ—… touched but the border of his garment was healed immediately Luke 8. 43. Dâ—… not you say A soul shall come not behiâ—… but before him look him in the face naâ—… go into his bosom to dwell in him and he again dwell in that soul and yet it shaâ—… not be healed unless you will recall thâ—… of the Psalmist Bless the Lord O my soul who forgiveth all thine iniquities who heaâ—…eth all thy diseases Psalm 103. 3. For whâ—… is the disease of the soul but sin or hoâ—… is that healed but by forgiveness Hoâ—… is sin forgiven if it must be satisfied oâ—… how is the soul healed if it must be tormented for sure not healing but wounding cometh from torment He that took upon him our flesh that he might save us did thereby shew He more willed our salvation then our flesh and how
shall we say He more willeth our punishment then our salvation 16. But if any will hereafter thus abuse the Word of God let him know he must likewise abuse the Prayers of his Church that so the sight of the one may bring him to the greater detestation of the other Wherefore let him say Domine non secundum peccata nostra facias nobis 1. non secundum mortalia sed facias nobis secundum venialia peccata O Lord deal not with us after our sins that is deal not with us after our mortal sins but deal with us after our venial sins Neque secundum iniquitates nostras retribuas nobis 1. non in inferno sed in Purgatorio Neither reward us after our iniquites That is reward us not after our iniquities in Hell by eternal torments but reward as after our iniquities in Purgatory by temporal punishment And if he think these too direful deprecations for his Hope let him think those other too direful interpretations for his Faith which would make repentance so take away his mortal as to leave behind his venial sins or would so take out Hell as to leâ—… in Purgatory for his bounden satisfaction For our parts we will do Gods Woâ—… and Gods Church more right then to fiâ—… such Doctrines upon his Word or such Prayers upon his Church And since thâ—… thoughts of our hearts are reputeâ—… among our venial sins we will say Thaâ—… both God and his Church have taught uâ—… how to get those thoughts purged froâ—… our souls whiles we live and not expectâ—… their purgation after our death even by heartily praying in this manner Cleansâ—… the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiratioâ—… of thy holy Spirit not by the operation of an imaginary or unholy fire which if it come not from Hell is but imaginary if it come from Hell is but unholy that wâ—… may perfectly love thee and worthily magnâ—…fie thy holy name This we can pray in faith for our heavenly Father will give his holy Spirit to them that ask him Luk. 11. 13. And that holy Spirit will purifie our heart by faith Acts 15. 8 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fide purgans corda eorum Purging their hearts by Faith This is aâ—… the Purging of sin mentioned in the Scriptures even a Purgatory by Faith not by Fire And this is all the soul needs for if we may by vertue of this Purging Spirit or Purifying Faith either in our life or at our death perfectly love God we may doubtless after our death presently enjoy him since then as our faith is to be turned into Vision and our hope into Comprehension so our Charity is to be turned into Fruition our love of Christ into the enjoyment of him we cannot enjoy him where he is not but where he is that is not in a place far from Heaven if at least it be a place at all but in Heaven sitting at the right hand of God making intercession for us 17. And we had rather trust to his intercession to keep us from Purgatory then to others intercessions to deliver us from it For we are sure their intercessions are nothing worth but by vertue of his intercession and we are not sure that he doth intercede for souls in Purgatory for we cannot believe that he doth pray to God that a fire we know not whence should purge those souls which himself that came down from heaven could not purge For whatsoever fond Christians may fancy yet sure Christ himself will not so undervalue his own most precious blood and his own most holy Spirit as to pray that fire may cleanse those souls which his Spirit and blood have not cleansed And were it possible that such prayers could be made for souls in Purgatory as Christ would please to intercede withal yet since it cannot be known how long it is fit for souls to be in Purgatory no living man can use such prayers in faith of Christs intercession to go along with him to the throne of Grace But as he may pray for them without Christs intercession if they be there so he must pray for them without it when they shall be gone from thence For God hath not let us men on earth know the time of their deliverance no more then he hath taught us the belief of their captivity And now by this time I hope you understand what is my aim in making this answer though you say you did not in making that objection and will not perswade men hereafter to go to Purgatory that you may pray for them when it is so undenyable a Truth that if they be there they can have no benefit by your Prayers CAP. IV. Of the second Commandment and against Images 1. PApists not to be called Catholicks but false Catholicks saith their own Cassander 2. Confession and Absolution in the Church of Rome both faulty 3. The Church of England not defective in the practice of Penance neither for Confession nor for Contrition 4. The Church of Rome defective in her Confessional Interrogatories and consequently in her Penance for the sins against the second Commandement 5. No Catholick Divinity either in making the second no Commandment or in making no sin of Ignorance against it for All the Decalogue is as necessary to salvation as all the Creed 6. An errour in fact against a Commandement in the Decalogue infers an errour in faith against its corresponding Article in the Creed 7. Saint Augustine made bold with the place and order but not with the power or substance of the second Commandement He writ much against Images especially those of the blessed Trinity which you now maintain and worship to the great danger of making the scoffers of this age Antitrinitarians as by denying or concealing the second Commandement you have made them Antinomians 8. All Catholick Divines after Saint Augustine have not reckoned the first and second Commandements but as One indeed very few or none at all till Peter Lombard and might not so reckon them because it is against essential and accidential Catholicism 9. Good Church-men did neither joyn the first and second Commandements together as did the School nor divide the Tenth into two Commandements the absurdities of that division 10. T is easie for Christians well instructed in the first to sin out of ignorance against the second Commandement 11. Christ is not to be worshipped by A Picture because he is the true God 12. The Religious worshipping of Saints and Angels gross Idolatry For all the elicite Acts of Religion belong only to God who alone is the object of the first as Neighbour is the object of the second Table And t is against the order of Justice to confound the offices of God and Neighbour and consequentlâ—… the greatest breach of Christian Communion which is founded upon Justice 13. The Honour of Religion due by the first Table is unproportionable to any creature and cannot be given to any but against true Faith Hope and Charity
that believes the torments of Purgatory can stick to do any Villany if he may be thus absolved for doing it And it is to be seared that some of your party still heighten their absolutions according to their designs which is little less then to make the power of God subservient to the malice of the Devil and to fill the hearts of men with impiety that they may commit sin and with impenitency when they have committed it 3. This and much more might have been said by way of condemning your Church but I desired only to acquit our own and to shew that if we would our selves we might all be sincere and true Penitents because our Church was not really but only seemingly defective in the practice of Pennance For though she wracked no mans conscience yet she so far instructed all that not the meanest of her Communicants who were not Hypocrites could be under the danger and much less under the guilt of Impenitency And I had reason to satisfie my self and others in this point for it is evident by Saint John Baptists first Sermon Mat. 3. 8 9. Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance and think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father That it is in vain for any man to boast he hath Abraham for his Father or as we Christians use to speak He hath the Church of Christ for his Mother who is not a true Penitent Nay it is in vain for any Church to boast of her being the daughter of Abraham or the Spouse of Christ if she follow not his example who first Preached Christ calling upon all that are of her Baptism and are associated in her Communion To bring forth fruits meet for Repentance And upon this ground did Lactantius determine so positively That the true Church of Christ was to be known only by the practice of Pennance Lib. 4. de vera sap cap. 30. Sed tamen quia singuli quique caetus Haereticorum se potissimum Christianos suam esse Catholicam Ecclesiam putant sciendum est illam esse veram in quâ est Confessio Poenitentia quae peccata vulnera quibus subjecta est imbecillitas carnis salubriter curat But because the several Congregations of Hereticks think themselves the best Christians and each his own Church to be the Catholick Church we must know That is the true Catholick Church in which there is Confession and Penance to take care for the healing of those sins and wounds which the infirmities of the flesh bring upon us He saith the Catholick Church is to be known by an Healing Confession and an Healing Penance the same in effect which Saint John Baptist had said before him I knowing that those words Confession and Penance made more noise in your Church then in ours was willing to examine whether we had not the same vertue of them amongst us to heal us as was amongst you to heal you because we had not the same noise of them And I found we had For besides the greater censure of Excommunication in the power of the Bishops and the lesser censure of abstention in the power of all Parochial Priests enabling and requiring them to deny the Communion to scandalous sinners till they had testified their repentance for their sins I fòund that every one of us was put under a necessity of censuring and condemning himself which was the readiest way to bring us all to an ingenuous confession of our sins and to a serious contrition for them For being bound in our daily publick prayers to hear the Ten Commandements from the mouth of the Priest as from the mouth of God kneeling upon our knees and to say at the end of every Commandement Lord have mercy upon us We could not justly be charged for want of an Healing Confession to let pass that at the beginning of our prayers because no sin but was against some one of Gods Commandements and we asking mercy for our transgression of every one did in effect confess our transgressing it And being also bound to say Encline our hearts to keep this Law we could not justly be charged for want of an healing Penance because that wholly consisted in the contrition and conversion of the Heart That Penance most healing the soul which had most broken the heart A broken and a contrite heart O God shalt thou not despise For this Contrition as it is true Penance so it is sufficient for wiping away of all sin from the soul your own Cardinal not only asserting but also assuring this for true doctrine Bellar. li. 2. de de Poenit. cap. 15. Utrum omnia peccata per veram contritionem sive Poenitentiam deleantur Resp. Illud autem affirmamus non ut probabile sed planè ut certum apud Catholicos exploratum nullam esse peccatorum multitudinem vel gravitatem quae per veram poenitentiam non expietur nam Ezech. 18. 33. Deus saepius clamat Nolo mortem Peccatoris sine ullâ exceptione veniam pollicetur omnium iniquitatum si impium serio paenituerit vitae praeteritae cum emendationis proposito Whether all sins are blotted out by true Contrition or Penance I answer we affirm this not only as probable but also as certain and unquestionable amongst Catholicks That there is no multitude or magnitud of sins which is not expiated by true Penance For God himself Ezech. 18. 33. often saies nay swears I will not the â—…eath of a sinner and promises forgiveness without exception of áll iniquities whatsoever if the wicked earnestly repent of his sinful life past and truly purpose amendment for the time to come Here you see he takes true Contrition and Penance for one and the same and saies That is true Contrition when the wicked earnestly repents of what is past and really purposeth amendment for what is to come We have this earnest Repentance professed and practised in our Church for we say Lord have mercy upon us and encline our hearts to keep this Law And we have also this real purpose of amendment for after our repenting we say And write all these thy Laws in our hearts we beseech thee So that having this true Contrition it cannot be denyed but we have also true Penance amongst us that is such a Penance as doth expiate our sins though never so many and great heal our wounds and save our soul If such an Healing Penance as this may not be had without an Healing Confession it is plain we have also an Healing Confession amongst us because we have this Healing Penance If it may t is as plain we need no other Confession then that we have I desire not to implead your Church concerning the exercise of Penance for I see our own wishes it might be restored But I crave leave to say That our Church which requireth us to lay open our consciences daily before the searcher of hearts doth not permit us to conceal any one
sin in our confession nor retain and keep back any one sin from our Penance but biddeth us follow the example of David saying Try me O God and seek the ground of my heart prove me and examine my thoughts look well if there be any way of wickedness in me and lead me in the way everlasting Psalm 139. You cannot say He concealed any one sin in his Confession though he had not the Priests Interrogatories for he desires God to examine and to interrogate him Interoga me saith your Latine Nor can you say he retained or kept back any one sin from his Penance though he had not the Priest for his Penitentiary for he had God instead of him Mark well if there be any way of wickedness in me and lead me from that perishing way into the way everlasting 4. I heartily wish I could say the same of your Church which requireth the people to say open their consciences before the Priest That she did not permit the people to conceal any one sin in their Confession nor retain and keep back any one sin from their Penance For I am so far from envying for your sakes who alone would be thought to sit in Moses his Chair that as he wished all the Lords people were Prophets so I heartily wish all the Lords people among you were Penitents for then we should have less perplexity and more piety and peace on both sides then now we have either within us or without us But as there is great reason to fear that a late faction among us by putting down the Ten Commandements as they were repeated with our Confession and Penance hath not only suppressed the practice but also banished the very thought of Repentance from some men no less then the desire of Innocency from themselves so there is great reason to believe that a late faction among you by putting no interrogatory upon the second Commandement and putting all other sins into interrogatories hath not only suppressed the practice but also banished the very thought of repentance both in themselves and others as to all the sins that are generally committed amongst you against the rule of that Commandement And surely there may be sins not only of Ignorance but also of Infirmity and of Presumption committed against the second Commandement as well as against any of the other of which sins there should be a Confession and for which sins there should be a Penance as well as of and for the sins against any of the other Commandements For the second Commandement being as moral as the rest is as capable of being transgressed as the rest and why then should your Interrogatories upon the seventh Commandement in true account though the sixt in yours be so many and gross as almost to lead even your very Priests into Temptation and yet so few or none at all upon the second as not to lead your people out of it Si cognovit faeminam in vase naturali vel extra vas is such a question as may justly come under an interdict for God plainly forbids all such ribauldry which leads men into sin Ephes. 5. 3. Let it not once be naemed among you as becometh Saints And Colos. 3. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filthy communication is to be put out of the mouth not taken into it for fear it should pass from the mouth into the heart But si adoravit imaginem if he hath falen down and worshipped an image is such a question as ought not to be omitted in your Penitential Interrogatories because God hath forbidden such a worship and hath commanded such a worshipper to repent and the goodness of God leading him to repentance Rom. 2. 4. it is the wickedness of man to keep him from it And truly the practice of your Church doth not lead such a sinner to repentance but rather doth confirm him in his impenitency For seeing so many interrogatories upon all the other Commandements not only for Commissions in thought word and deed but also for Omissions and seeing none at all upon the second Commandement he is thereby confirmed that there can be no sin against that Commandement and so no repentance needful concerning it By which means he is in danger not to repent truly of any sin This general Axiome He that offends in one point is guilty of all being as undenyably true concerning each point of repentance as concerning each point of obedience for by the witting and willing neglect of repentance no less then of obedience in any one particular Gods authority is equally contemned and Christian Charity is equally violated And though I doubt not but God graciously accepts of your Peoples unfeigned repentance because being cordial for the sins they know it is effectual for the sins they know not yet sure your Priests do not discharge their duties so conscionably as they ought who keep the people from knowing their sins against the second Commandement for by that means they do keep some from being true Penitents do not take a right course to make any one a true Penitent Do you think God will forget this his own Commandement in his last sentence because you are now willing to forget it in your examinations If not why should you thus betray the souls committed to your charge not teaching them to judge themselves that they may not be condemneded of the Lord For even your method of Confession Printed at Paris 1556. which pretends fully to shew all sins and their remedies in qua peccata eorum remedia plenissimè continentur yet quite leaves out the second Commandement for thus it summs up the Precepts of the Decalogue Unum crede Deum Believe in one God for the first Ne jures vana per ipsum Take not his name in vain for the second Commandement and more at large so sets them down in the Titles of the two ensuing Chapters that we cannot think the omission of the second Commandement the fault of your Poetry but of your Divinity So you see it was not out of any humour of quarrelsomness but meerly out of zeal to godliness that I hinted the defect of your Confessional Interrogatories 5. But it seems by you It is not only the practice but also the Doctrine of your Church That there needs no repentance for any sin against the second Commandement and you think to justifie this doctrine first by making no second Commandement and then by making no sin against it First by making no second Commandement For you say Saint Augustine and all Catholick Divines after reckon these two but as one Secondly by making no sin against the second Commandement for you say It is impossible for Christians well instructed in the first to offend through ignorance against the second I answer first in general That there is no Catholick Divinity either in the one or in the other either in making the second no Commandement or in making no sin through ignorance against it For the Ten Commandements
needs follow an errour in Faith And so Bellarmine himself professeth lib. 4. de Pont. c. 5. Si Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia prohibendo virtutes teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona virtutes esse malas proinde teneretur errare If the Pope should err so grosly as to command us to do evil and to eschew that which is good the Church would be bound to believe that Vices were lawful and Vertues unlawful and so consequently would be bound to be in errour We may yet further improve this tenent and say That no man can maintain what is false in matter of fact but he must also maintain what is false in matter of faith according to the very same particular in the Creed which corresponds to that of the Decalogue wherein he is erroneous whether the falsity concern his God or his neighbour or himself For as all practicks so all speculatives are reducible to these three heads Our God our neighbour and our selves As for example He that explicitly in fact maintains that fornication is lawful or any sin that is against his own body doth implicitly in faith deny his own resurrection and as in fact so also in faith doth sin against himself He that maintains any point of faction and disobedience against the fifth Commandement or any thing of injustice against the rest doth not only in fact explicitly sin against the Decalogue but also in faith implicitly sin against the Creed in that part of it which concerns his neighbour that is The Catholick Church and the Communion of Saints Lastly He that maintains any false external worship being rather willing to expunge or confound the second Commandement then to obey it sins not only in fact but also in faith against his God and doth in effect expunge that Article out of his Creed which immediately concerneth the Deity I believe in God So you see there is no Catholick Divinity in this doctrine which either makes the second no Commandement or makes no sin against it as it is no Catholick Divinity which supposeth our belief in God to be no Article of Faith or that there may be in Christians no errour or heresie against that Article For your seeming qualification in these words through ignorance alters not the case because the second Commandement hath as great an obligation and as distinct a morality as the first and therefore may be transgressed as many waies as the first that is to say as well by ignorance as by negligence infirmity or presumption and I suppose you cannot think it for the credit of your Confessional Interrogatories so to keep men from ignorances as to let them continue in presumptions Therefore either say there may be no sin at all against the second Commandement or do not say What Interrâ—…gatories are needful concerning it For if your Interrogatories do not discover the greater sins they must discover their own weakness if not your deceitfulness that 's my answer in general 7. Secondly I answer in particular That Saint Augustine did in the division of the Commandements reckon the first and second but as One not that he thought the second comprized in the first as you seem to intimate but that from a Trinity of precepts concerning our duty towards God we might readily acknowledge a Trinity of persons in the Unity of the Godhead For he neither expunged the second Commandement out of the practical principles of his Religion nor confounded it with the first but allowed it to prohibit an external Idolatry in worshipping the Godhead by any Image or representation For so saith he lib. de fide Symb. cap. 7. Simulachrum Dei nefas est Christiano in templo collocare It is a great sin for a Christian to set up any Image of God in the Church which is the very second Commandement changed from a legal prohibition into a doctrinal conclusion Again Epist. 119. In primo praecepto prohibetur coli aliqua in figmentis hominum Dei similitudo non quia non habet imaginem Deus sed quia nulla imago ejus coli debet nisi illa quae hoâ—… est quod ipse nec ipsa pro illo sed cum illo In the first Commandement sc. the second being joyned with it according to his new method we are forbidden to worship any Image of God according to the false inventions of men not that God hath not an Image but because no Image of his ought to be worshipped but only that one substantial Image of him his begotten Son who is the same with himself and to be worshipped as himself And in his 222. Epistle Si Trinitas sic est invisibilis ut nec mente videatur multò minus de illa hujusmodi opinionem habere debemus ut eam rebus corporalibus vel corporalium rerum imaginibus similem esse credamus If the Trinity be so invisible as that it is also incomprehensible we ought not to have so slight an opinion concerning it as if it were like any corporeal thing or to think it may be represented by any corporeal images What could Saint Augustine say more for the second Commandement and against you who are now come to represent and worship God the Father under the image of an Old man God the Son under the image of a Lamb and God the holy Ghost under the image of a Dove If I wrong you in this you may thank your own Cajetane who saith expresly Ecclesiae Romanae usus admittit hasce Trinitatis imagines eaque pinguntur non solum ut ostendantur sed ut adorentur Cajet in 3. Aqu. qu. 25. art 3. The custom of the Roman Church admitteth these images of the Trinity and they are painted not only that they may be shewed but also that they may be worshipped See the vast difference between Saint Augustines and your doctrine concerning the second Commandement He alloweth it to prohibit both the making and the worshipping any Image of God either in Trinity or in Unity you notwithstanding that prohibition say it is lawful not only to make but also to worship the images of the Trinity Doubtless were Saint Augustine now alive he would again part the second Commandement and divide it from the first meerly out of hatred to this your most abominable idolatry For rather then suffer the holy and undivided Trinity to be thus sinfully either represented or worshipped expresly against this second Commandement He would certainly restore it to its own place that it might no longer lie hid under the first but recover its own power as being much more zealous of Gods glory then of his own and therefore such a Divine as had much rather lose his argument of proving the Trinity from the number of three Commandements in the first Table then let you lose your Religion by an idolatrous representation and worship of that Trinity expresly against the letter and the end of the second Commandement Or if you think Saint Augustine a
of worship and in the manner of worshipping Iâ—… the object of worship for the Mother of God is not God there 's the breach of the first Commandement In the manner of worshipping for she is called upon with such titles and for such blessings as if she were God there 's the breach of the third Commandement Add to these the manner of Adoration which also generally accompanieth this Invocation and you will see in it likewise the breach of the second Commandement and so cannot but shew your selves strangely Religious in breaking at once all the three Commandements that concern the substance of Religion Here is a false worship materially or extrinsecally in gesture and words and a false worship formally or intrinsecally in a Religious affection to the creature which is due only to the Creator So that you see I did not aggravate bâ—…t diminish the defects of your penance when I said your Confessional Interrogatories were defective as to one for I might have said they were defective as to three Commandements And will you still boast of your uncontroled and uninterrupted exercise of this corrupt Religion Do you think that Gods Church can outweigh Gods Word in the ballance of the Sanctuary or will you avow that for the practice of Gods Church which is disavowed by the Precept of Gods Word Say then you believe the Communion of sinners instead of the Communion of Saints For that is sin which is directly against Gods Law and to communicate in sin belongs to the Communion of sinners not to the Communion of Saints Therefore pray let the Lords Psalter which was composed by the Spirit of God and not the Ladies Psalter which was impiously devised by the phansies of men be accounted the general rule and square of Devotions for Gods Church And when the Spirit of God hath said Rejoyce in the Lord O ye righteous and give thanks for a rememberance of his holiness Psal. 97. 12. setting forth 1º the Communion of Saints O ye Righteous 2º the Religion of Saints wherein they Communicate Rejoyce in the Lord and give thanks for a remembrance of his holiness where we have the object of their Religion the Lord and the internal act thereof Rejoyce and the external act thereof Give thanks and the end or intention of both for a remembrance of his hâ—…liness Do not you perswâ—…de the world that his Church truly so called hath taught the people to say Rejoyce in the Lady O ye Righteous and give thanks for a remembrance of her holiness for that were to say that the Church hath both corrupted the Religion and forsaken the Communion of Saints which is little better then to set up the Devils Chappel instead of Gods Church For these abominable kind of prayers are most unconscioâ—…able because to the abuse of Christian Religion and most uncharitable because to the breach of Christian Communion and 't is for the Devils Chappel not for Gods Church to be guilty of unconscionableness and of uncharitableness 13. Therefore let the men not the Church bear the blame of such corrupt invocations For the Church of Israel did continue and fulfill Joshua's Protestation Aâ—… for me and my house we will serve the Lord Josh. 24. 15. when the men of Israel did for sake it and served Baal and God owns those for his Church which had served him alone saying I have reserved to my self seven thousand men who have not boâ—…ed the knee to Baal Rom. 11. 4. They who had bowed the knee to Baal were not Gâ—…ds reserve they were of the men they were not of the Church of Israel God himself accounting those only for his Church who in that general defection and apostacy had reserved themselves for him and consequently who had in their hearts a secret detestation of the false worship then generally followed if not in their mouthes an open Protestation against it They were all of them either private or publick Protestants privately or publickly protesting against that Religion which served not the Lord and they had no worse a Precedent then Iâ—…shua the very type of Christ the author and finisher of our faith for that their Protestation If the true Religion did constitute Gods Church then why not now though the false made a 〈◊〉 greater noise and shew then the truâ—… the Prophets of God being driven into caves whiles the Prophets of the groves did eat at Iezabels table For an agreement in falsity and irreligion though never so great both shews and makes rather a conspiracy oâ—… sinners then a Communion of Saints Therefore since this Invocation is indeed 〈◊〉 Religion it must â—…ds be 〈◊〉 aâ—…ributed to the true Church of God for â—…hat is constituted and established by the true Religion and is no more a true Church from its falsities then the Moon is a true Moon from its spots or a man is a true man from his Diseases And the Church of Rome is not a true Church from the false Invocation of Saints or any other acts of false worship but from the true Invocation of God and other such acts of true worship which are still maintained professed and practised in that Church And we Protestants justly say That your Religion is the same with our Religion but our Religion is not the same with your susperstition As far as as you pray to God we pray with you at least in vote and desire As far as you pray to Saints we can only pray for you we dare not pray with you And though we may all justly be destroyed for our manifold and grievous offences particularly for serving our selves of God more then serving him in the prosecution of our reformation yet in this respect we may be sure God will never want a Protestant Church because he will never want a true Church If all the world should turn Papists Papists themselves should in this turn Protestants if not openly yet secretly Protesting against the worship which is against the Law of God and forsaking it either explicitly by a new obedience or at least implicitly by an earnest Repentance This kind of Protestantism hath hitherto preserved a true Church in the midst of Poperie and will preserve it to the worlds end if that should continue so long For he that is able out of stones to raise up children unto Abraham is both able and willing out of Papists to raise up children unto himself Dutiful children such as will obey their Fathers commands and therefore will not embrace such a practice of Religion as breaks no less then three of the chiefest of his Commandements or will repent that they have embraced it 14. Therefore we dare not say with your Trent Catechist That the Catholick Church alwaies invocated Saints and worshipped their Reliques Invocationem Sanctorum sanctorumque cinerum cultum quem semper Catholica Ecclesia adhibuit huic legi non repugnare cap. 3. because we cannot but say that such Invocation is repugnant not only to the first and second which
are there joyned in one but also to the third Commandement and we think it very unjust that a few Italian Bishops and Priests should endeavour to lay those sins upon the Catholick Church which they ought to lay to and upon their own consciences because they have not only suffered but also maintained them in their own Churches For it is not crying out Templum Domini Templum Domini the Temple of the Lord the Temple of the Lord that can acquit us from any act of sin against the Lord 'T is not the noise of Gods Church in our ears can expell the knowledge or fear of Gods Commandements out of our hearts God hath entrusted his Church with the Keeping not with the Making of Religion she is the Guide to it and in it not the Author of it That Power and Trust he communicated only to his Son and to his Holy Spirit because indeed it was incommunicable to any other For who can know the mind of God but God who can declare the council of his heart â—…ut only he that came out of his bâ—…m Shall not God have that privileâ—…e over his servants which men have ovâ—…r theirs to prescribe the way and 〈◊〉 of his own service or â—…all we alâ—…ow that disorder in Gods Family which we will not admit into our own There was no King in Israel when every man did that which was right in his own eyes Jud. 17. 6. If the Church may do what she pleaseth in matters of Religion 't is either because there is no King in Gods Israel or because Truth and Righteousness are not the establishment of his Kingdom For Truth and Righteousness come not from man but from God and therefore none can be the author of Religion but only God since that is nothing else but Truth and Righteousness Truth in Articles of Faith Righteousness in duties of life Truth in what we are bound to believe Righteousness in what we are bound to practise Therefore 't is vain to set up the Church which is only the Judge against the Law which is the Rule of Righteousness For we can go to the Church only for the Practice but we 〈◊〉 go to the Law for the Purity of Religion The question is here concerning the Purity of Religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Saints be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Law of God but the 〈◊〉 is made only concerning the Practice 〈◊〉 Religion for they tell us it was alwayes used in the Catholick Church We look upon this answer as faulty for its impertinency because the question is matter of Right but the answer is matter of Fact and much more faulty for its Calumny because the Romanists thereby so labour to excuse their own as to accuse the Catholick Church For 't is plain that Christ and his Apostles never used it and we must look upon him as the Head upon them as the chief members of the Catholick Church since we can have no Catholick Church without them that is which doth not persist in their doctrine nor continue in their Communion And 't is as plain that no particular Church since them can justify the using it and consequently t is unjust as well as untrue to ascribe the use of it to the Catholick Church although it hath of late years been used in some particular Churches For even Nicephorus himself saith expresly Hest. Eccl. lib. 15. cap. 28. ad finem That Petrus Crapheus who lived neer 500 years after Christ was the first that brought the Invocation of the blessed Virgin into the prayers of the Church and doubtless she was invocated before the other Saints who is now and hath been for some ages so much invocated above them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ut in precatione omni Dei genitrix nominaretur divinum ejus nomen invocaretur That this Invocation was not till then in any Church is a clear proof it was not of the Apostolick and therefore though it hath been since in some Churches cannot be a proof that it is of the Catholick Church For the Apostolick the Catholick are not two Churches But let us suppose which we may not grant that the Catholick Church as far as 't is visible hath of late years used it yet that is not a sufficient ground for us still to continue the use of it For we are to serve God not out of Custome but out of Conscience and therefore in vain do any pretend Custome in Gods service against Conscience in vain do any alledge the Churches usage which calls for Custome against Gods Law which calls for Conscience If an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel then what ye have received let him be accursed saith St. Paul Gal. 1. 8. The same reason is for the Law received in the Old as for the Gospel received in the New Testament Gods truth and righteousness are above the Church Triumphant in heaven much more above the Church militant on Earth not that either Church hath opposed or will oppose them for the Church of the living God is the pillar and ground of the Truth 1 Tim. 3. 15. but that they are above the Churches opposition For no creature can be to it â—…eli the rule of working no more then the cause of being and therefore its work of righteousness cannot depend upon its own but upon its makers will And Religion being the principal work of Righteousness cannot depend upon the will of the Church but upon the will of God This sublime truth is admirably delivered by the master of subtilties and sublimites Scotus in 1. lib. sent dist 44. in these words In omni liberè agente quod potest agere secundum praeter vel contra dictamen legis rectae est distinguere potentiam ordinatam absolutam Ordinata quidem conformiter agendo legi rectae absoluta verò agendo praeter illam legem vel contra eam sic dicunt Juristae aliquis potest facere de facto hoc est de poten tiâ suà tabsolutâ vel de jure hoc est de potenia ordinatâ secundum jura Quando autem lex ista secundum quam recte agendum est non est in potestate agentis tunc agendo secundum potentiam absolutam inordinaâ—…è agit non rectè Qâ—…ùm enim subsit tali legi tenetur agere 〈◊〉 legem sed quando in poteâ—…ate ageâ—…s est lex rectitudo legis poâ—…est tale agens ordinatè rectè agere aliter quà m lex illa dictat quia non subest illi legi sic ejus poâ—…entia absoluta non est inordinata In every free agent which can act according besides or against the dictate of law and righteousness we must distinguish betwixt his orderly and his absolute power his orderly power is shewed in acting conformably to the Law his absolute power inacting either besides it or against it so the Civilians tell us a man may do a thing as a matter of fact that is by his absolute power according to his will or as
their Apostle I will instance in St. Paul who was not a whit behind the chiefest Apostles 2 Cor. 11. 5. though you now attribute all to Saint Peter we read that certain of the Jews banded together and bound themselves under a curse saying That they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul Act. 23. 12. This banding against an Apostle was fighting against God in the judgement of a Jew Act. 15. 39. how much more should it be in the judgement of Christians For we cannot but look upon St. Paul in this case as upon Godâ—… Trustee both for the Christian Religion and for the Christian Communion anâ—… accordingly invested with authority froâ—… God for the discharge of that Trust an doubt not but He looked upon himself aâ—… one that ought to be more zealous foâ—… Christs Religion and for Christs Communion than for his own Authority And so doubtless ought the Priest-hoodâ—… all Churches after him and why not all in your Church For the Churches fouâ—…dation or being is much more excelleâ—… and glorious in regard of her Religioâ—… and of her Communion then in regardâ—… her Authority 15. This I fear comes neerer your 〈◊〉 then I am willing to urge it sure I am comes very neer my position That formaliâ—… vocation of Saints such as is now coâ—…monly used in your Devotions being pâ—…vately used is against the three first Coâ—…mandements which concern the Religioâ—… and being publickly used is against 〈◊〉 fourth Commandement which conceâ—… the Communion of Gods Church aâ—… therefore in vain do you pretend in sin do you imploy the Authority of your Church to uphold either the private or the publicke use of it And this difference I cannot but observe betwixt your Trent Catechist and your Rome dogmatist The one goes to prove that Invocation of Saints is not against the Commandement because it is according to the use of the Church The other goes to prove that t is not according to the use of the Church because it is against the Commandement For so Bellarmine proves that the Saints are not to be invocated as the Authors of any blessing appertaining either to grace or glory but only as the impetrators or procurers of it and his two proofs are one from the Command of the Holy Scriptures probatur primo ex Scriptura The other from the Custome of the Church Secundo probatur ex usu Ecclesiae Bell. l. 1. de Sanct. beat cap. 17. though to make good his second proof He maintains this Unlogical and Untheological position That t is no matter for the words so as it be the sense of our Prayers which is Unlogical because it is against the very nature and institution of speech and Untheological because it is against that very Commandement which ordereth our Speech in our Prayers and therefore ordereth our Prayers only as they are Vocal and may be spoken not as they are Mental and may be thought and that is the third Commandement whereby God hath set a watch only before the doores of our Lips not of our Hearts He had ordered our Hearts in the first Commandement and ordereth our mouths only in the third when he saith Thou shalt not take the Name of thy Lord thy God in vain And in this respect the Psalmist prayeth Accept I beseech thee the free-wil offering 〈◊〉 my mouth O Lord Psal. 119. 10. Here is then very much in the Judgement of your own Cardinal though you say Here is nothing against Praying to Saintâ—… and Angels confirmed in grace and glory For to let pass that their bless in Heaven doth not make them God for Neighbour we may not pray to them for any blessing that tends either to Grace or Glory and all good Prayers are for blessings that do tend to one of these And t is a poor shift to talk of sense not oâ—… words when the question is only oâ—… words and to say you mean the Saintâ—… but as Procurers when you speak to then as Authors of the blessings you pray for For He that hath bid his Church daily to pray And lead us not into temptation hath above all forbid his Church daily to lead his people committed to her charge into Temptation by their very Prayers Therefore in vain did some of your Zelots seek to corrupt the Hebrew Text in Montanus his interlineary Bible of 1572. putting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though by Gods special providence the Press strangly miscarried for it is printed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all that edition which word is a meer Tragelaphus in the Hebrew That since you were not contented with Gods Text you should be ashamed of your own And this discovery we owe to your own L. Bâ—…ogensis in his notations upon Genesis where he saith Gu. Fabritius Pici Mirandulani Principis autoritate nixus in Hebraicis illis Bibliis Regio operi adjunctis quibus Latina interpretatio inter contextus lineas inserta est excudi curavit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quanquam errore positum sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say in vain did some of your Zelots seek to corrupt the Hebrew Text putting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 3. 15. Ipsa for Ipse to make good your Vulgar Translation Ipsa conteret caput Tuum For if it had been said See shall bruise thy head yet you had not found a sufficient warrant to Invocate the blessed Virgin because you cannot possibly bring Her into the first Table of the Decalogue to make Her a God or the Object of Religion Let my Prayer be set forth in thy sight as the Incense saith the Prophet Psal. 141. 2. Prayer is the Incense of the Soul and must be set forth only in his sight who seeth the secret recesses and sighs of the heart When the Jews went to burn incense and to serve other Gods whom they knew not where Note Burning incense is put for serving of God the Lord said to them O do not this abominable thing which I hate Jer. 44. 3 4. And doth he not still say the same to Christians is it less hateful now then it was then for any man to perform vâ—…ws or to burn incense to the Queen of Heaven may not God as justly swear against us if we do so as he did against them That his Name shall be no more named in our mouths v. 26. Are not all but himself as well to us as to them Gods whom we know not Is not this intruding into those things which we have not seen Col. 2. 18. Surely none but God alone is to be known or seen throughout the whole Bible in all the precepts and precedents of Religious worship Therefore Invocation being an elicite and proper act of Religion cannot be applied to any that is not the proper object of Religion The Jews might as well have offered their corporal Sacrifice to Abraham as the Christians can offer this spiritual Sacrifice to
as by not running it And you most needs run out of the race if you cannot see the mark or scope to which you run This mark or scope in it self is more visible then the Sun in the Firmament for it is the Sun of righteousness why should you allow the interposition of any Body betwixt Him and you to remove him out of your sight who cannot be removed out of his own Sphaere your sins as a cloud will obscure him more then enough Oh let not even your Righteousness obscure him more If you will needs put in a solid body betwixt him and you when you pray how can the eye of your Faith look upon him in your Prayer You will here by Eclipse his light from your selves and bring darkeness upon your Souls For will you look with the Eye of your Faith upon Angels then say they were delivered for your offences and rose again for your justification and now sit at the right hand of God making intercession for you will you look with the eye of your Faith upon your blessed Saviour then let not the Angels in betwixt Him and you for they will but hinder your sight and keep you from seeing Him Or if you could with the eye of Faith look on Christ through the Angels yet were it a piece of Infidelity so to do because it is but intruding into those things which you have not seen sc. in the Law and the Gospel and so being matter of Religion cannot be Divine either in the evidence or in the assurance of Faith Your own Angelical Doctor speaks of this kind of Infidelity Infidelis non ut habens malam voluntatem circa finem sc. Christum sed ut habens malam electionem circa media quia non eligit quae sunt à Christo tradita And from thence say I such a Worshipper is an Infidel if not as having a bad will or affection towards the end of his worship which is Christ yet sure as having a bad choice or election of the means tending to that end because he choseth such means to worship Christ as Christ hath not appointed him Nay indeed St. Chrysostome in effect said so long agoe in his Comment upon this Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There were some that saidâ—… we ought not to come to God immediately by Christ but mediately by the Angels for the other address was too high for us Here 's the choice of such means in Gods worship as God hath not appointed for Saint Peter saith expresly that we are to offer up spiritual Sacrifice acceptable to God by Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 2. 5. If the Sacrifice of Prayer may be Spiritual yet it cannot be acceptable but by Christ And it follows 〈◊〉 little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why do you let go the Head to lay hold on the members that is let go Christ to lay hold on the Angels If you fall from the Head you are utterly lost Here 's the reproof of such a choice as befitting Infidels who know not Christ to be the Head nor the dangers and miseries of those men who fall from this Head rather then Christians who do know him to be the Head as well of Angels as of men and that both would alike perish were it not for the influence of life and motion derived to them by being immediatly joyned unto him The like is the Judgement of Photius as indeed he generally follows St. Chrysostome But Theodoret not only condemns the Heresy but also declares the Hereticks after this manner Those who stood for the Law stood for the worshipping of Angels saying The Law was given by them And this mistake remained a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia which made the Fathers in the Council of Laodicea the chief City of Phrygia forbid the worshipping of Angels And saith he to this day we may see amonst them and their Neighbours the Oratories of St. Michael And this they pretended to do out of Humility For that the great God of Heaven and Earth was invisible incomprehensible inaccessible by men and therefore they ought to go to Him by the mediation of Angels Thus far Theodoret and this held for unquestionable Truth above a thousand years amongst all Greek and Latine Divines till your great Annalist thought fiâ—… to question it and therefore I crave youâ—… pardon if I make bold to question him For I had much rather say with Theodoret. That they were hereticks then with Baronius That they were Catholicks who worshipped Angels since next the holiness of the Holy Ghost I believe the holiness of the Holy Catholick Church and sure I am such a grievous sin as this is inconsistent with true Holiness For it is 〈◊〉 rule of common reason approved both iâ—… the Ecclesiastical and in the Civil Law Paria esse aliquid omnino non facere non rectè facere They are both equal sinâ—… not to do a thing at all and not to do it righâ—…ly not to worship God at all and not to worship him rightly or as he hath commanded and consequently 't is in effeâ—… as great a Calumny to say the Catholicâ—… Church hath had no Religion as to say she hath had a false Religion Since therefore the worshipping of Angels is convinceâ—… to be false Religion we may safely infeâ—… it hath not been it cannot be the Religion of the Catholick Church And Sâ—… Paul here proves it to be false Religion Per omnia genera causarum in regard of all four causes that is to say 1. False originally or efficiently because it came not from God but from men presumptuously intruding into things not seen and vainly puffed up in their fleshly mind 2. False formally because it is not with God it holds not the Head and therefore withdraws us from God instead of uniting us to him whereas the very formal cause of devotion is the Union of the Soul with God 3. False materially for it is a Voluntary humility and worshipping of Angels instead of God 4. False finally because it ends not in God tends not to salvation but to damnation or to the beguiling us of our reward whereas what is formally Religion in the Union with God is of it self finally salvation in the fruition of God Yet saith Baronius Theodoretum haud foeliciter assequutum esse Pauli verborum sensum quùm in Commentariis dicit haec à Paulo esse scripta qùod tùm grassarentur Haeretici qui Angelos adorandos esse jactarent Theodoret was mistaken in St. Pauls meaning when he said that St. Paul writ this against those Hereticks who then worshipped Angels He might as well have said that St. Chrysostome and Photius were also mistaken for they agree with Theodoret in the same sense of St. Pauls words And he might moreover to these have added St. Aâ—…brose to shew that the mistake was no only in the Greek but also in the Latiâ—… Church For though his Gloss name star instead of Angels yet the reason of 〈◊〉 condemns
be erected to Angels because they may not be worshipped And what do Papists say less but that there is a God above the Angels although they worship them so that if the acknowledgement of a God above the Angels be a good proof that the Cherinthians did not 't is as good a proof that the Papists do not or at least should not worship Angels and in this particular we may all joyn hands and hearts together as fellow Protestants and our poor ejected Ministers may say to your great Triumphant Doctors We would to God that not only you but also all that hear you and us this day were both almost and altogether such as we are except these Bondâ—… For if you would turn Protestants with us in the True worship we should not need turn Papists with you in the Publick worship of Almighty God But till you have a True worship according to the three first Commandements we cannot envy your publick worship according to the fourth Thus you see Baronius his Proof is not so great as his clamor against Theodoret yet upon this proof alone doth he infer this Conclusion Angelos venerari non Haereticorum sed Catholicae Ecclesiae mos fuit The worshipping of Angels was a Custom not of Haereticks but of the Catholick Church Sure if it had been so the Greek and Latine Interpreters upon St. Paul to the Colossians would not so unanimously have condemned it For if this false worship had gotten generally into their practice it would also have gotten into their Doctrine as it hath since into yours which makes all your late writers so zealous for it and so copious in it particularly Baronius who had not the patience to stay longer then the sixtyeth year after our blessed Saviours Incarnation to find out this Custome and had the confidence as soon as he had found it to foist it upon the Catholick Church because he saw it was practised in his own And the like favour hath he shewed to all your other present corruptions whether in Doctrine or in Practice bringing them all into the first century of years after Christ that what their own grosseness diminished from their native Verity his wit and learning might add to their pretended Antiquity But concerning this your present corruption in Practice I mean the worshipping of Angels he concludes thus Id verò quà m purè Sanctè religiosè c. How purely how holily how religiously it hath been alwayes practised in the Church I have shewed in my annotations upon the Roman Martyrologie on the 8. of May I was big with expectation of some invincible arguments in his Martyrology till I had consulted it but there I found only some several Apparitions of St. Michael the Archangel no proof at all that the Church had worshipped him save only Baronius his own word authentical enough perchance with some of you as it was with Binius to bear down poor Theodorete but I hope not authentical enough with any to bear down St. Paul Therefore in vain doth your Goliah speak of Purity in that which St. Paul imputes to a fleshly mind then which nothing is more impure and of Holiness in that which St. Paul saith beguils us of our reward for unholiness it all can do â—…o more And of Religion in that of which St. Paul saith And holding not the Head for we cannot well say more of the greatest Irreligion And as vainly doth he impute that to the Catholick Church which is so full of Impurity Unholiness and Irreligion And this manner of arguing is without doubt good in it self for it makes humane reason subordinate to Divine Authority as to an Infinitly higher Reason labouring to prove what God hath commanded us to believe even that his Catholick Church is pure and Holy and because it is so admits not any such gross practice of Impurity unholiness For what is made sin in it self by Gods Word cannot by the wit oâ—… men be made holiness in Gods Church But if this manner of arguing were not good in its own nature yet it were good against Baronius who useth no other argument to confute Theodorets Authority but only his own deductions confounding those two Topicks which are so distinct in themselves even Humane Reason and Humane Authority proving the Cherinthian Haereticks did not worship Angels because he had found a reason why they should not whereas if he would indeed have acted the part of a true Historâ—…an or of a good Divine he should have conâ—…uted Theodorets Authority by some greater and better Authority But that he saw was impossible for him to do for the whole stream of Ecclesiastical writers run with a full torrent and tide against him and we may well guess he was very much put to his shifts when he was forced to put so strange a gloss as he did upon the Council of Laodicea for whereas the Fathers there said Can. 35. It becomes not Christians to leave the Church of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to name the Angels sc. in their prayers as calling upon them instead of calling upon God for that were to be guilty of a secret Idolatry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to forsake the Lord Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in St. Pauls language was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not holding the Head Baronius is pleased to say That the Canon is to be interpreted of those false Angels which the Heathen worshipped falsorum Angelorum eorum nimirum quos venerarentur idololatrae venerationem prohibuit alludens fortasse ad Genii cultuÌ„ c. Bar. an 60. nu 23. He might as well have said that the Council made Canons for Heathens and not for Christians though they expresly say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It becomes not Christians to leave the Church of God And that they had forbid such men to leave the Church who were never of the Chuch had called them secret Idolaters who were most open Idolaters had required them not to forsake Christ who had never come near Christ and in one word had called that worshipping of Angels which was indeed worshipping of Divels Such dangerous Rocks are skillfull Pilots cast upon who will not stear by the Card of Gods Word but let their own phansie fill their Sailes for that is little better then a tempestuous wind called Euroclidon which will drive them up and down either in Adria or in Tiber till they have made Shipwrack of the Truth And if you think me overlavish in thâ—…s expression pray consider its a less immodesty in me to put a fancy upon your Baronius then t was in him to put a frenzy upon the Council Is not this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be a slave to a received opinion why should that man think to overmaster anothers judgement who can be contented to enslave his own 18. I now come to your last argument for praying to Angels which is this least we should ungratefully slight them contrary to Gods command Exod.
though instancing onely in the shedding of his blood which was the chiefest act of his passive obedience whereby he merited for us the remission of sins The formal cause for Justification being an action and therefore an accident cannot properly have a material cause though you by your inherent righteousness do a little intrench upon this Rule of Logick I say the formal cause of Justification is expressed v. 25. to wit The remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God not excluding sins present and to come as if they were not also remitted but onely nameing sins past that we might not think Justification doth give us a liberty of future sininng The formal cause then of Justification is the remission of sins For God doth so far justify us or accept and account us for just and righteous as far as he doth pardon our sins and absolve and acquit us from condemnation for Christs righteousness Thus it was God be merciful to me a sinner which made the Publican go away justified St. Luke 18. 13 14. not his own merit but Gods mercy And this is that doctrine which St. Paul preacheth with a Notum sit omnibus et singulis Bâ—… it known unto you therefore men and brethren that through this man is preached unâ—…o you the forgiveness of sins And by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses Acts 13. 38 39. If forgiveness of sins and justification be not one and the same how is this a good consequence Through Christ is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins and by him all that beleeve are justified For this cannot follow if to be forgiven and to be justified be not one and the same for then one thing is preached another performed one thing promised and another granted But if they be the same then we are sure this is good Divinity that the formal justice or righteousness for which God absolves us sinners in the judgement is not in and from our selves but in and from our Saviour as it is said By him all that beleeve are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses whereas if our Justification were for any inherent righteousness whether Habitual or Actual it were not by him but by our selves nor to be gotten by believing but by doing nor could we be justified from all things at once and together but from one thing after another not in an instant but successively for so we get our inherent righteousness not by the grace and mercy of God casting all our sins upon our Saviour that he may forgive them all at once and together for active Justification which respects God absolving the sinners is a forgiveing of all sins at once and together for Christs sake though passive Justification which respects the sinner to be absolved is a forgiveing of sins so often as the sinner earnestly repenting doth by a lively Faith flee unto God the Son for his merit and to God the Father for his mercy In a word if our Justification were for any inherent righteousness whether habitual or actual we could not be justified by the grace and mercy of God casting all our sins upon our Saviour that he may forgive them all but by the Law of Moses casting us into a mould of righteousness that we may not commit any sin norstand in need of forgiveness And if this be so we may bid farewel iâ—… not 〈◊〉 to the whole Gospel of Christ which is thus briefly but fully summed up by St. Paul That God was in Christ reâ—…nciling the world unto himself so by a Potential though only true believers by an actual reconciliation not imputing their trespasses unto them 2 Cor. 5 19. No man can be reconciled to God who is not justified before God for all sinners are odious to God as his enâ—…mies not reconciled unto him as his frienâ—…s therefore God looks upon a maâ—… as no 〈◊〉 wâ—…ch canâ—…ot be as he is iâ—… himself but as he is in his Saviour when he is reconciled unto him and accordingly to be reconciled is to be justified that is to be accounted righteous for as the formal cause of our reconciliation consisteth in the remssion or not imputation of our sins not imputing their trespasseâ—… unto them so doth also the formal cause of our Justification for that is no other but an absolution from the guilt of sin For Justification is not a Physiâ—…al but a Moral action of God absolving the sinner for the merit of Christ even as Sanctification is not a Moral but a Physical Action of God cleansing and purging the sinner by the Spirit of Christ The one makes the sinner righteous but the other only accounts him righteous And therefore Justification and Sanctification are as improperly confounded as Moral and Physical or real Actions For Moral actions work a change only in regard of the mans relation as He that is adopted or acquitted is changed only in his relation that instead of being guilty he is made not guilty instead of beâ—…g a stranger he is made a Son But real or Physical actions do work a change also in regard of a mans person as He that is instructed or converted hath a real change wrought upon his understanding and his will and consequently is really changed in his person So that if to justifie be not meerly a moral action that is To account as just by acquitting from the condemnation of the Law as we say but be also a real action that is to make just by a conformity to the Law as you affirm then it must needs work a real change in the Patient making him righteous from unrighteous and from righteous more righteous and by consequent Justification will be one and the same thing with Sanctification and so it will follow that the whole Tenor of the Text hath hitherto misinformed us and doth still misguide us for therein these two are reckoned up as two several and distinct mercies of Almighty God towards our sinful souls and these wrought by several means God justifying us by the righteousness of his Son and sanctifying us by the power of his Holy Spirit And from this ill consequence will yet follow a much worse That Sanctification will be supposed to be nothing for it will have nothing left to do Justification having done its work before and if it have nothing to do it cannot be an Action and if it be not an action it must be nothing These Logical absurdities besides others that are Theological cannot well be avoided by those who make inherent righteousness the formal cause of our Justification And therefore though we separate not inherent and imputative righteousness which your insolent Dogmatist blasphemously calls Putative as if it were meerly fictâ—…tious when as in truth all our righteousness is so in respect of it I say though we separate not inherent and imputative righteousness
to differ from the whole scope of the Law and of the Gospel since it is undeniable that Christ with his righteousnesse is the end of the Law and the subject of the Gospel This is St. Peters Divinitie Act. 10. 43. To Him give all the Prophets witnesse that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins i. e. in one word shall be justified And indeed what were all the propitiatory and expiatory sacrifices of the Law but so many types of Christs sacrifice upon the Crosse who is the Propitiation for our sins 1 John 2. 2. so that in truth this part of the Ceremonial Law was little other than a dark representation of the Gospel foreshewing in shadows what the Gospel was to declare in substance that the Lamb of God should tâ—…ke away the sinnes of the world whence St. Paul ascribeth the Justification of the Jew and of the Gentile to one and the same sacrifice Aâ—… Christ hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour Eph. 5. 2. Their sacrifices did expiate sin only by vertue of this sacrifice And this is that which the same Apostle proves to the Jews in his Epistle which he peculiarly sent to them the sum whereof is briefly this That Jesus Christ whom he did preach to them in that Epistle being the eternal Sonne of God coessential and coequal with his Father perfect God and perfect man in one and the same person was that Messiah which God from the beginning of time had promised and in the fulnesse of time had sent into the world as the only King to Govern as the only Priest to reconcile as the only Prophet to instruct his Church according to the Covenant made before the Law to the types and figures given under the Law and all the predictions explications additions and confirmations by the Prophets so that unlesse they would reject all the documents given to them in their own Law and by their own Prophets throughout all the Old Testament they must thankfully acknowledge heartily embrace and dutifully obey Jesus Christ as the sole Author of their redemption and salvation or to speak yet neerer to our debate though not to Gods Truth as the sole author of Justification to redeem them from the guilt and of sanctification to redeem them from the bondage of their sins This is the Doctrine of the whole Epistle to the Hebrews which is briefly delivered in the first words and confirmed and enlarged in the sequele of that Epistle God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the Fathers by the Prophets hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son There 's our blessed Saviour as Prophet to instruct the Church Whom he appointed heir of all things by whom also he made the worlds There he is as King to govern the Church which is his inheritance as man his workmanship as God When he had by himself purged our sins There he is as Priest to offer himself for a Sacrifice to reconcile the Church And all the Epistle after this in the doctrinal part of it is nothing else but an enlargement upon these Three Heads shewing the necessity of Christs three Offices and the excellency of his Person according to each Office viz. according to his Kingly Office in the first and second according to his Prophetical Office in the third and fourth Chapters and according to his Priestly Office in the rest till the nineteenth Verse of the tenth Chapter After which He treateth of those Offices and Duties which belong to Christians and that in the same method or manner as he had before of the Offices belonging unto Christ first briefly summing them up together and then fully and largely explaining them For so cap. 10. v. 22. He exhorts us to Faith and a good Conscience v. 23. To a firm hope and undaunted profession v. 24. To charity and to good works v. 25. To the publike exercise of all those duties of Piety which God had appointed for the nourishment and the increase of Faith Hope and Charity and the rest of the Epistle afterwards is but an enlargement upon these Will you say because he speaks so much for good works in the latter part of his Epistle He therefore requires them to Justification as well as Faith Look on the tenth Chapter you will soon recall that saying For there it is proved That the Law Sacrifices could not take away sin that is could not justifie those who offered them by two irresistible Topicks ab absurdo ab impossibili First From the command of the Law enjoyning those Sacrifices to be repeated every year which had been needless and therefore absurd if the worshippers could have been purged by them so as to have had no more Conscience of sin vers 23. Secondly From the nature of the Sacrifices that were offered which were not of so great an efficacy as to purge sin much less of so great an excellency as to expiate it For it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and of Goats should take away sins v. 4. And surely he that makes it his work to shew the weakness of the Law-Sacrifices to take away sin could not make it his intent to set up the Gospel-Sacrifices whether of the Heart by Meditation or the Lips by Prayer or of the Hand by Alms-deeds as expiations for our sins For the same Objections still hold against the one which were made against the other The necessity of their repetion is as great the proof of their imperfection is far greater I ask the soul of the most religious Votary that now lives whether he dare say that he ever prayed so devoutly but that either for want of firmness in his attention or of zeal in his affection he needed to ask forgiveness for his Prayers There was nothing of sin in the worst of Legal there is something of sin in the best of Evangelical Sacrifices and how then can it make an atonement for another sin 14. Therefore what ever be the excellency of good works as to Gods acceptance or the efficacy of them as to mans salvation yet they cannot be so excellent as to deserve nor so efficacious as to procure the Justification of a sinner no it cost more to redeem a soul so that He even the most righteous man that is must let that alone for ever Non dabit Deo placationem suam pretium redemptionis animae suae He can give to God what may please his goodness not what may appease his anger or satisfie his Justice He can offer up the homage he cannot offer up the price of his soul Accordingly we are bound to interpret all these and the like Texts concerning good works as declaring their indispensable necessity not as declaring their meritorious efficacy to our salvation as shewing them ot be consequents of the Faith that justifieth not Causes of Justification That honour must
or exactly proportionable to the Justice of the Creator for it self much less for another from its own worthinesse but only from Gods acceptance And that Christ himself as man could not have merited forgivenesse of our sins at the hands of God as having satisfied his offended Justice if God had not been mercifully pleased of his own free grace and goodnesse to accept of his satisfaction Nullius creaturae neque adeò Christi apud Deum esse meritum satisfactionem simpliciter condignam sed ex acceptatione ipsius Dei qui sponte suâ eâ satisfactione merito volâ—…it esse contentus Vasques in 3. Thom. Disp. 5. c. 1. So that if the eternal Son of God did by his most condigne and compleat righteousnesse purchase for us forgivenesse of sins and eternal life merito ex compacto non autem absoluto only by compact or covenant not by absolute Justice then what a vain imagination is it to think what an unwarrantable fiction is it to say that one mans righteousness can be meritorious to make another righteous which hath no condignity to challenge acceptance for it self and much less hath any compact or covenant to be accepted for another And if it be not meritorious to exempt him from guilt how can it be satisfactory to exempt him from punishment For satisfaction is an act of Justice but Justice will have the sin expiated before it will have the punishment remitted wherefore though your great Doctor spoke without book surely without Gods book when he said That the least drop of Christs blood was a sufficient satisfaction for the sins of the whole world and consequently that all the other passions of Christ were meerly superfluous as to our redemption from eternal death Bellar. de Jndulg l. 1. c. 4. For this assertion makes God delight in Unnecessaries which even nature abhorres meerly by instinct from him nay it makes him delight in some kind cruelty if not as injustice punishing our blessed Saviour more then was needful for the satisfaction of Justice yet if we should gratify him with the allowance though not the approbation of this unwarrantable asserion it would not do his work by laying a firm foundation of his surposed Treasury of thâ—… Church built upon the superfluous merits and passions of Christ the blessed Virgin and the other Saints 1. Because the Passions of Christ though they were all infinite in value from the dignity of the sufferer yet were none of them superfluous for the cause and ground of his suffering 2. Because there it is not the same reason of merit in the Saints as was in Christ For even those actions of Christ which proceeded from his humane nature had their merit from his Divine nature as the flesh of Christ is said to give life the obedience of Christ to give righteousness the blood of Christ to have redeemed the Church not in it self but as the flesh and the obedience and the blood of the Son of God The Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood Acts 20. 28. He shed his blood as man but he purchased the Church with it as God Those doings and sufferings of Christ which had their original from his Humanity had their excellency from his Divinity not so the doings and sufferings of the Saints for though they proceeded from the spirit of God yet were they the doings and sufferings only of men not of God because the Spirit of God dwelled in them not by a Personal Union but only by a powerful Communion 3. Because there is not the same reason of the acceptance of the Saints merits as of Christs For Gods promise of accepting the sufferings of his Son for the expiation of our sins is most evident not so of accepting the sufferings of his servants were they more then enough for themselves There is not in all the written word the least contract or Covenant of Gods making That he would accept superfluous merits or sufferings or satisfaction from some when for defects and demerits and dissatisfaction from others Besides what a strange insolency is it for a Divine to deny to Christian souls the Imputation of that part of Christs sufferings which is absolutely necessary both for Gods satisfaction and for their own salvation and at the same time to avow the imputation of that Part of Christs sufferings which he professeth to be superfluous For if necessary sufferings or doings may not how should unnecessary be imputed But above all it is a most abominable insolency to deny the imputation of Christs righteousnesse which is both substantial and satisfactory and to allow the imputation of the Saints righteousnesse which is not substantial as to its supposed superfluity and cannot be satisfactory if it could be superfluous t is not sufficient to justifie them that have it much less them that have it not The blessed Virgin her self did say My soul doth magnifie the Lord and my Spirit hath rejoyced in God my Saviour Ascribing to her God not to her self the honour of her salvation Therefore though she had a vast stock of oile in her Vessel for her own lamp yet I fear if any foolish Virgin which had not so should say unto her Give me of your oyl for my lamp is gone out she would turn the parable into a history and say not so lest there be not enough for me and for you Matth. 25. 9. This answer the Text in effect gives for her as for the wisest of all Virgins and therefore 't is most probable she would give it for her self and if so To let pass other absurdities T is certain you egregiously affront the mother of God in taking away her oile without her consent if you do not egregiously delude the sons of men in saying that her oyl will serve to feed their lamps you may as well say that her good works will serve to nourish and sustain their Faith or that her Faith will serve to purge and save their souls And as for the other Saints they cannot satisfie the Justice of God for themselves and much less for others because there are two impediments of their perfection in righteousnesse and an imperfect righteousness if it could be spared would in vain be communicated The first is the impediment of their Original the second is the impediment of their Actual sin They are both affirmed together by the Holy Ghost Prov. 20 9 Who can say I have made my heart clean sc. from my original corruption I am pure from my sin sc. from my actual transgression He that cleanseth the heart knoweth best how far he hath cleansed it we cannot cleanse our hearts but by his help and assistance if we can let us say no longer Make me a clean heart O God and he owneth no such cleansing in this world but which still leaveth some uncleannesse behind it He that hath made no use of his assistance is not at all concerned in this Interrogatory Who can say I
Church as appeares in that these words which are the 6 7 8. Canons of the second Milevitane Council in Binnius for the Western are the 115 116 117. Canons of the Council of Carthage in Balsamon for the Eastern Churches 17. Wherefore this being an undoubted Principle among all Christians for who can doubt that which comes to us Originally from the Scriptures and derivatively from the Catholick Church That all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God Rom. 3. 23. we cannot reasonably but only perversely deny this conclusion That no man can be justified by his own righteousnesse For having sinned he must needs be under the condemnation of sin and coming short of the glory of God in his duty or obligation he must also come short of his own glory in his merit of justification for his sin which makes him come short of righteousness must needs also make him come short of being reputed righteous For shall not the Judge of all the earth do right how then shall he acquit that man for righteous whom he knows to be a sinner we find he hath in effect given a contrary judgment already Hag. 2. 12 13. where this is the summe of his determination concerning two questions which neerly concerne this case 1. Whether a man that is unclean may contract purity from the touch of hâ—…ly things which he denies 2. Whether Holy things do not contract impurity from the touch of a man that is unclean which he affirmes and then makes this inference ver 14. So is this People and so is this Nation before me saith the Lord and so is every work of their hands and that which they offer there is unclean The same reason holds in us as in them The Jew was unclean by the touch of a dead body and so is the Christian. O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from this body of death Rom. 7. 24. The Jew by his uncleanness did pollute the holy things so doth the Christian even those holy works that proceed from Gods Holy Spirit and Grace The holy things by their Purity did not make him pure among the Jews who was unclean in himself so is it also among the Christians The best inherent righteousness we have from Gods Grace doth not purge away the impurity of that sin which we have from our selves therefore we must confesse that because of our Original and actual uncleanness every work of our hands and that which we offer to our God is unclean and consequently our works cannot justifie themselves much less can they justifie us And we find the same judgment of God confirmed likewise in the New Testament Luk. 17. where the Lepers pray heartily Jesus Master have mercy on us there 's one good work of piety and devotion they obey readily in going to shew themselves to the Priests as they had been commanded there 's another good work better than the former for obedience is better than sacrifice And one of them when he saw that he was cleansed turned back and with a loud voyce glorified God and fell down on his face at our Saviours feet and gave him thanks there 's many good works together one of devotion he glorified God another of zeal with a loud voyce a third of reverence he fell down on his face a fourth of humility at our Saviours feet a fifth of praise and thanksgiving he gave him thanks here is soul and body and all the powers and faculties of both wholly set upon good works yet our Saviour saith Arise go thy way thy Faith hath made thee whole v. 19. So is it also in the leprosie of our souls we are bound to pray heartily Jesus Master have mercy on us and to shew our selves to the Priests that is to use all the means of salvation which God hath appointed in the communion and by the Ministers of his Church yet when all is done if we will speak with our Saviour we must say to the Leper thy Faith hath made thee whole The good works may be acknowledged as adjunctâ—… but not as causes of the cure that must be attributed only to Faith in him who is the Physician of our souls For without doubt that holy ejaculation The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God though he be not clean according to the purification of the sanctuary is a prayer as needful now as it was in the dayes of Hezekiah or it would not have been left upon record for us 2 Câ—…ron 30. 19 It is the Lords Pardon not the mans preparation that makes him clean according to the purification of the Sanctuary and so Kimchi confesseth in his gloss upon those words ver 20. And the Lord healed the people that is saith he The Lord forgave their sin according to that of the Psalmist heal my soul for I have sinned against thee The Lord pardoned their sins that he might accept them and why should not we say that pardon and forgivenesse of our sins is the best ground and means of our acceptance with God For this is the only way to be clean according to the purification of the Sanctuary that is to be clean from all sin even to be made clean of which it is said The blood of Jesus Christ his Son 〈◊〉 us from all sin 1 Joh. 1. 7. If I haâ—… but one sin left upon my soul not washed away by Faith in his blood and the tears of my own repentance I shall not be clean enough to appear before the Throne of his Grace much lesse to appear at the bar of his justice I shall not be innocent enough to serve him much lesse to be judged by him I shall not be able to stand comfortably before his mercy and much less to stand confidently against his Judgement Therefore can I not hope to be saved by the first innocency that of obedience or of righteousness but only by the second innocency that of Faith and repentance And if any other man hath a better hope I pray God he may not find a worse salvation But surely God himself in his consultation how to save the Israelites concludes to do it not by their obedience but by their Faith and repentance Jer. 3. 19. But I said How shall I put thee among the children and give thee a pleasant land a goodly heritage There 's his consultation how to save them And I said thou shalt call me My Father and shalt not turn away from me there 's his conclusion to save them by their Faith and by their repentance By their Faith Thou shalt call me My Father and by their repeâ—…tance Thou shalt noâ—… tuâ—…n away from me that is not so turn away but thou shalt return again and therefore this promise is not to be interpreted of their obedience but of their repentance he that is most obedient in some cases cannot say he doth not turn away from God in other but he that is truly penitent can
that Redemption by Christ might upon any pretence be called imputative that is imaginary for so he is pleased to make the word signifie which is the whole scope of Gods most holy word and the only support and comfort of mens sinful souls By the first assertion he did overmuch exalt our own righteousnesse and took the ready course to bring us to presumption But by the second he did much more depresse the righteousnesse of Christ and so took the readie course to bring us to despair for if our redemption be imaginary our Salvation must be desperate And betwixt these two rocks of presumption and despair it is hard for any man to sail so warily as not to make shipwrack of his soul it being equally dangerous for him to rely upon his own and not to rely upon his Saviours righteousnesse Without doubt holy David though he had served God with all his might yet prayed to his dying day Enter not into Judgement with thy servant and hath accordingly bequeathed this Prayer as a legacy to all Gods servants ever since not excepting the most diligent and the most dutifull thus to pray for their Justification and then to pray most earnestly for it when they are drawing neerest Judgement That the Justification which they have now in title or sense of the Law they may also then have in the sentence of the Judge for that the one is not compleated without the other and upon what ground can any man pray to God not to enter into Judgement with him who knoweth himself still under the Accusation and Condemnation of the Law for the Judge must proceed according to the Law and how can he be exempted from the accusation and condemnation of the Law who hath broken it himself but by the satisfaction of his surety according to that of the Apostle Who is he that condemneth it is Christ that died Rom. 8. 34. No other satifaction but the death of Christ could consist with the Justice of God for that was indispenâ—…able and required it no other could consist with the Truth of God for that was infallible and had promised it no other could consist with the Office of Christ who took upon him the nature of man that he might expiate the sins of men no other could consist with our salvation who could not be saved unless our sins had been expâ—…ated This was a â—…urthen not to be taken from off our shoulders a yoke not to be taken from off our necks but only by the hand of the Messias in the Judgement of the Jews themselves for so the Chaldee Paraphrase interprets those words Isa. 10 27. The yoke shall be destroyed because of the Anoixting A facie Messiae vel propter Messiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The yoke shall be destroyed because of the Messias or by the power of Christ Our own hands which brought it cannot remove it our own hands which made it cannot destroy it we may struggle till we break our necks nay yet more our hearts but we cannot break our yoke The Spiritual Assyrian that so easily brought us down can more easily keep us under none can break his Army but He that hath bruised his Head none can rescue us from his captivity but he that hath led captivity captive even the Captain of our salvation This is the Justification God promiseth to Israel and I hope you will not say he fails in promise by giving another or rather by giving none for what is merited or purchased by us is not given us saying O â—…srael trust in the Lord for with the Lord there is mercy and with him is 〈◊〉 redemption And he shall redeem Israel from all his sins Psal. 130. 7 8. Say not you he shall redeem Israel from some sins when God saith from All Say not you From sins before regeneration by the first but not from sins after it by the second Justification For as to such sins the plenteous redemption is not with the Lord but with Israel and so you will quite contradict the Text. 1. In its exhortation O Israel trust in the Lord For Israel may trust in the Lord to be redeemed from his sins only till his regeneration but in himself after it 2. In its assertion For with the Lord there is mercy and with him is plenteous redemption whereas t is rather to be said according to this supposition For with your selves there is merit and with him is plenteous renumeration or with your selves is plenteous redemption to redeem you from your greatest sins those committed against the greater light and with the greater unthankfulness for such are the sins after Regeneration But with the Lord is onely a â—…cantie redempâ—…ion to redeem you from sins before your Regeneration when you neither had light to know them nor power to resist them By which means you do in effect bid Israel Trust in himself all his life long and in God only some sew daies or perchance hours sc. no longer then till he is Baptzed or cleansed by the laver of Regeneration since very few sober Christians and no one National Church doth now defer the Baptism of Infants longer then their very first Infancy and most Divines do think That Infants are regenerated when they are baptized 3. You will contradict the text in its promise And he shall redeem Israel from all his sins for you in effect say That Israel shall redeem himself from the greatest part of his own sins Therefore pray let this Redemption continue till the last minute of your lives till it be perfected by Glorification that it may redeem Israel from All his sins And since it is a Redemption from all sin pray let it be called Justification unless you can teach us what else it is that redeemeth us from the guilt of sin I will conclude this point with that prayer wherewith our blessed Saviour concludes his life and hath taught us to conclude Ours Into thy hands Lord I commend my Spirit This is certainly the best the last good work you can do To commend your soul to God Will you do this in your own righteousnesse then say not For thou hast redeemed me but For I have served thee O God thou God of Truth Will you do this in your Saviours righteousnesse then be ashamed of that doctrine which doth undervalue this Redemption But do what you will and say what you can These three Truths are irresistible and should be undeniable 1. He only can absolve guiltinesse whose Justice makes us Guilty 2. He only can pronounce us Just whose will is the rule of Justice 3. He only can acquit in Judgement who only is the supreme Judge And therefore since to be absolved from guiltiness to be pronounced Just and to be acquitted in the Jugement are all three comprised in this one word Justificari To be justified we may not rely upon our selves but upon our God not upon our own works and righteousnesse but upon our Saviours merits and mercies for