Epistle to the Romans be of sufficient force for their sense of Justification Then certainly an Argument from as express words in the Epistle to the Galatians will be as concluding for mine in which Epistle he also purposely states the same questions Gal. 3.11 The words are Gal. 3.11 That no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident for the Just shall live by faith Now to live I hope does not signifie to have ones sins forgiven him but to be Saved Therefore unless S. Paul include a right unto Salvation within the compass of Justification that Text might have been spared as nothing at all serving for his purpose Besides Is not Salvation as free as gracious as undeserved an act of God as Remission of sins Is it not as much for Christs sake that we are saved as that our sins are forgiven us Thus much for what I suppose is meant by Justification I will now as briefly and as perspicuously as I can without using Allegories and Metaphorical expressions with which this point is ordinarily much obscured shew you the combination of these two words in what sense I suppose S. Paul may use this proposition We are Justified by Faith without the Works of the Law 38. In the first place therefore I will lay down this Conclusion as an infallible safe foundation That if we have respect to the proper meritorious cause of our Justification we must not take Faith in that Proposition for any virtue or Grace inherent in us but only for the proper and principal object thereof Jesus Christ and his Merits And the meaning of that Proposition must be that we are not justified for the merits of any Righteousness in our selves whether Legal or Evangelical but only for the Obedience and Death of our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ Though this be most true yet I suppose that S. Paul in that proposition had not a respect to the Meritorious Cause of our Justification but to that Formal Condition required in us before we be Justified as I think may appear by that which follows 39. I told you even now that I would in this point purposely abstain from using Metaphors and Figurative Allusions and the reason is because I suppose and not without reasonable grounds that the stating of this point of Justification by Metaphors has made this Doctrine which is set down with greater light and perspicuity in holy Scripture than almost any other to be a Doctrine of the most Scholastical subtilty the fullest of shadows and clouds of all the rest For example In that fashion and dress of Divinity as it is now worn slic'd and mangled into Theses and Distinctions we find this point of our Justification thus express'd That Faith is therefore said to Justifie us because it is that which makes Christs righteousness ours it is as it were an instrument or hand whereby we receive lay hold on and apply Christ unto our selves Here 's nought but flowers of Rhetorick Figures and Metaphors which though they are capable of a good sense yet are very improper to state a Controversie withall 40. But let us examine them a little We must not say they conceive of Faith as if it were a Vertue or Grace or any part of Righteousness inherent in us For Faith as a Grace has no influence at all into our Justification Mark the Coherence of these things Faith is considered as an hand or an instrument in our Justification and yet for all it is a Hand it is nothing in or of us for it seems Hands are not parts of mens bodies Again Faith puts on Christ receives him layes hold upon him makes his righteousness ours and yet it does nothing for all that Besides How can Faith be properly call'd an instrument of Justification An Instrument is that which the principal Cause the Efficient makes use of in his operation Now Justification in this sense is an immanent internal action of God in which there is no co-operation of any other agent nor any real alteration wrought in man the object thereof Does God then use Faith as an instrument in producing the Act of Justification No but it is Instrumentum Passivum saith one That is a thing never heard of in nature before and the meaning is sure Faith certainly is something but what a kind of thing we know not By these means it comes to pass that the Doctrine of our Justification as some men have handled it is become as deep as unsearchable a mystery as that of the Trinity 41. Without question there is nothing can be more evident to a man that shall unpartially consider S. Paul's method in his discourse of Justification then that by Faith he intends some operative working grace in us For instance The Apostle proves that we Christians are to seek for Justification the same way that Abraham attained unto it namely by Faith for saith the Scripture in his quotation Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness What was that which was accounted to him His believing That is say some Christ who was the object of his Belief This is a forc'd interpretation certainly and which a Jew would never have been perswaded to But that Christ was not at all intended in that place it is evident for Abraham's belief there had respect to Gods promise made to him of giving him a Son in his old age and by that Son a Seed as innumerable as the stars in heaven as appears Gen. 15.4 5 6. whereas the Promise of Christ Gen. 15.4 5 6. Gen. 18.18 follows three Chapters after to wit Gen. 18.18 Again the Apostle in many places useth these words We are Justified by Faith in Christ and by the Faith of Jesus Christ which speeches of his will admit of no tolerable sense unless by Faith he intends some work or obedience perform'd by us This therefore being taken for granted that by Faith is meant some condition required at our hands and yet my former conclusion of our Justification only for the merits of Christ remaining firm we will in the next place consider what kind of obedience that of Faith is and in what sense it may be said to justifie us 42. What satisfaction I conceive may be given to this Quaery I will set down in this Assertion Assertion That since Justification even as it includes Remission of sins is that Promise to perform which unto us God has oblig'd himself in the New Covenant it must necessarily presuppose in the person to be so justified such an obedience as the Gospel requires namely first Repentance from dead works a conversion to a new obedience of those holy Moral Commands which are ratifi'd in the Gospel and a relying upon Christ as the only meritorious cause of our Justification and Salvation by a particular Evangelical Faith All this I say is pre-required in the person who is made capable of Justification either in the exercise or at least in
praeparatione cordis in a full resolution of the heart and entire disposition of the mind So that though God be the sole proper Efficient Cause and Christ as Mediatour the sole proper Meritorious Cause of our Justification yet these inherent dispositions are exacted on our part as causae sine quibus non as necessary conditions to be found in us before God will perform this great work freely and graciously towards us and only for the Merits of Christ 43. This Assertion may Reas 1 I suppose be demonstrated first from the nature of a Covenant For unless there be pre-required conditions on man's part to be perform'd before God will proportion his reward the very nature of a Covenant is destroy'd And it will not boot to answer that though there be no qualifications required in a man before he obtain Remission of sins yet they are to be found in us before we be made capable of Salvation For as I have shew'd before Sol. 1 Salvation is as properly a gracious Act of Mercy as free and undeserved a gift as truly bestowed on us only for the Merits of Christ as Remission of sins and therefore may as well consist without any change in us as the former And secondly If that proposition of S. Paul We are Justified by Faith Sol. 2 without the works of the Law exclude all conditions to be perform'd by man If it exclude not only the righteousness of the Law which indeed it doth but the obedience of Faith or the Gospel likewise from being necessary dispositions in us before we receive remission of sins Then another saying of his parallel to this will exclude as well the necessity of an Evangelical Obedience to our salvation For saith S. Paul Eph. 2.8 Eph. 2.8 By Grace are ye saved through Faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God not of Works lest any man should boast Put I hope no man will be so unchristian-like as to exclude the necessity of our good works to salvation for all this saying of S. Paul therefore they may as well be pre-required to Remission of sins notwithstanding the former place 44. Secondly Reas 2 If there be no necessity of any pre-disposition in us before Remission of sins then a man may have his sins forgiven him and so become a person accepted of God whilest he is a person unregenerate unsanctified whilest he is dead in trespasses and sins Eph. 2.1 c. whilest he walks according to the course of this world according to the prince of the power of the air the Spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience whilest he has his conversation in the lusts of the flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind being notwithstanding his Justification a child of wrath as much as the profanest heathen though the veriest reprobate in the world lastly though he be no child of Abraham according to faith that is not having in him that faith which was imputed to Abraham for righteousness Now whether this Divinity be consonant to Gods Word let your own consciences be Judges 45. A third Argument to prove the Truth of the former Assertion Reas 3 shall be taken from several Texts of Scripture where Justification even as it is taken for Remission of sins is ascribed to other virtues besides Faith whether it be taken for a particular virtue or for the object thereof For example Our Saviour saith expresly Mat. 12.37 By thy words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned where we see Justification is taken in that proper sense in which we maintain it against the Papists Again If you forgive men their trespasses Mat. 6.14 45. your heavenly Father will also forgive you But if you forgive not men their trespasses neither will your Father forgive your trespasses Again our Saviour speaking concerning Mary saith Her sins are forgiven her because she loved much Luk. 7.47 If the time or your patience could suffer me Reas 4 I might add a fourth Reason to prove my former Assertion which is the clearness and evidence of agreement and reconciliation between S. Paul and S. James in this point upon these grounds without any new invented Justification before men which is a conceit taken up by some men only to shift off an Adversary's argument which otherwise would press them too hard they think for S. Paul's Faith taken for the obedience of the Gospel would easily accord with S. James his holy and undefiled Religion before God Jam. 1.27 or works which is all one And S. James would be S. Paul's expositour without any injury or detraction at all from the merits of Christ or Gods free and undeserved mercy to us in him But I must hasten 46. The full meaning then of S. Paul's Proposition We are justified by Faith and not by the works of the Law and by consequence the state of the whole controversie of Justification in brief may be this That if we consider the efficient cause of our Justification it is only God which Justifies if that for which we are justified that is the meritorious cause thereof it is not for any thing in our selves but only for the obedience and satisfaction of our Blessed Saviour that God will Justifie us But if we have respect to what kind of Conditions are to be found in us before Christ will suffer us to be made partakers of the benefit of his Merits then we must say that we are not justified by such a Righteousness so perfect absolute and complete as the Law of Works does require but by the righteousness of the Gospel by a Righteousness proportionable to that Grace which God is pleased to bestow on us not by the perfection but sincerity of our obedience to the New Covenant And the Apostle's main argument will serve to prove this to any understanding most undeniably S. Paul has demonstrated that if we consider the rigour of the Law all men both Jews and Gentiles are concluded under sin and most necessarily obnoxious to Gods wrath Which Reason of his would not be at all prevailing unless by works of the Law he intended only such a perfect obedience as the Law requires which by reason of mans weakness is become impossible unto him For it might easily be reply'd upon him thus We confess no man can fulfil the Law but the conditions of the Gospel are not only possible but by the assistance of Gods Spirit easie to be performed so that though for this reason the former Righteousness be excluded from our Justification not only quoad meritum but also quoad praesentiam yet the later Evangelical Righteousness is excluded from our Justification only quoad Meritum 47. But I perceive an Objection ready to assault me and I will impartially assist the force and strength thereof against my self with all the advantage I can It is to this purpose When men are disputing in the Schools or discoursing in the Pulpit they
it sinful and damnable yet not exclusive of all hope of Salvation but pardonable if discovered upon a particular explicite repentance if not discovered upon a general and implicite Repentance for all Sins known and unknown in which number all sinful Errors must of necessity be contained 17. Ad § 19. To the 9. wherein you are so urgent for a particular Catalogue of Fundamentals I answer almost in your own words that we also constantly urge and require to have a particular Catalogue of your Fundamentals whether they be written Verities or unwritten Traditions or Church-Definitions all which you say integrate the material Object of your Faith In a word of all such Points as are defined and sufficiently proposed so that whosoever denies or doubts of any of them is certainly in the state of damnation A Catalogue I say in particular of the Proposals and not only some general definition or description This great diversity of opinions among you touching this matter if any man doubt of it let him read Franciscus Picus Mirandula in l. Theorem in Expos Theor. quarti Th. Waldensis Tom. 3. De Sacramentalibus doct 3. fol. 5. and he shall be fully satisfied that I have done you no injury under which you lurk deceitfully of what and what only is sufficiently proposed wherein yet you do not very well agree For many of you hold the Pope's proposal Ex Cathedra to be sufficient and obliging Some a Councel without a Pope Some of neither of them severally but only both together Some not this neither in matter of manners which Bellarmine acknowledges and tell us it is all one in effect as if they denied it sufficient in matter of faith Some not in matter of faith neither think this proposal infallible without the acceptation of the Church universal Some deny the infallibility of the Present Church and only make the Tradition of all Ages the infallible Propounder Yet if you were agreed what and what only is the infallible Propounder this would not satisfie us nor yet to say that All is Fundamental which is propounded sufficiently by him For though agreeing in this yet you might still disagree whether such or such a Doctrine were propounded or not or if propounded whether sufficiently or only unsufficiently And it is so known a thing that in many Points you do so that I assure my self you will not deny it Therefore we constantly urge and require a particular and perfect Inventory of all those Divine Revelations which you say are sufficiently propounded and that such an one to which all of your Church will subscribe as neither redundant nor deficient which when you give in with one hand you shall receive a particular Catalogue of such Points as I call Fundamental with the other Neither may you think me unreasonable in this Demand seeing upon such a particular Catalogue of your sufficient Proposals as much depends as upon a particular Catalogue of our Fundamentals As for example Whether or no a man do not err in some Point defined and sufficiently proposed and whether or no those that differ among you differ in Fundamentals which if they do One Heaven by your own Rule cannot receive them All. Perhaps you will here complain that this is not to satisfie your demand but to avoid it and to put you off as the Areopagites did hard causes ad diem longissimum and bid you come again an hundred years hence To deal truly I did so intend it should be Neither can you say my dealing with you is injurious seeing I require nothing of you but that what you require of others you should shew it possible to be done and just and necessary to be required For for my part I have great reason to suspect it is neither the one nor the other For whereas the Verities which are delivered in Scripture may be very fitly divided into such as were written because they were necessary to be believed of which rank are those only which constitute and make up the Covenant between God and Man in Christ and then such as are necessary to be believed not in themselves but only by accident because they were written Of which rank are many matters of History of Prophecy of Mysterie of Policy of Oeconomy and such like which are evidently not intrinsecal to the Covenant Now to sever exactly and punctually these Verities one from the other what is necessary in it self and antecedently to the writing from what is but only profitable in it self and necessary only because written is a business of extreme great difficulty and extreme little necessity For first he that will go about to distinguish especially in the Story of our Saviour what was written because it was profitable from what was written because necessary shall find an intricate piece of business of it and almost impossible that he should be certain he hath done it when he hath done it And then it is apparently unnecessary to go about it seeing he that believes all certainly believes all that is necessary And he that doth not believe all I mean all the undoubted parts of the undoubted Books of Scripture can hardly believe any neither have we reason to believe he doth so So that that Protestants give you not a Catalogue of Fundamentals it is not from Tergiversation as you suspect who for want of Charity to them alwayes suspect the worst but from Wisdom and Necessity For they may very easily err in doing it because though all which is necessary be plain in Scripture yet all which is plain is not therefore written because it was necessary For what greater necessity was there that I should know S. Paul left his Cloak at Troas than those Worlds of Miracles which our Saviour did which were never written And when they had done it it had been to no purpose There being as matters now stand as great necessity of believing those Truths of Scripture which are not Fundamental as those that are You see then what reason we have to decline this hard labour which you a rigid Task-master have here put upon us Yet instead of giving you a Catalogue of Fundamentals with which I dare say you are resolved before it come never to be satisfied I will say that to you which if you please may do you as much service and this it is That it is sufficient for any man's Salvation that he believe the Scripture that he endeavour to believe it in the true sense of it as far as concerns his duty And that he conform his life unto it either by Obedience or Repentance He that does so and all Protestants according to the Dictamin of their Religion should do so may be secure that he cannot err Fundamentally And they that do so cannot differ in Fundamentals So that notwithstanding their differences and your presumption the same Heaven may receive them All. 28. Ad § 20. Your tenth and last request is to know distinctly what is the Doctrine of
should be the holy Scripture or whatsoever else must be indued with an Universal Infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine Truth that is as revealed spoken or testified by Almighty God whether the matter of its nature be great or small For if it were subject to Error in any one thing we could not in any other yield it infallible assent because we might with good reason doubt whether it chanced not to err in that particular 8. Thus far all must agree to what we have said unless they have a minde to reduce Faith to Opinion And even out of these grounds alone without further proceeding it undeniably follows that of two men dissenting in matters of faith great or small few or many the one cannot be saved without repentance unless Ignorance accidentally may in some particular person plead excuse For in that case of contrary belief one must of necessity be held to oppose Gods Word or Revelation sufficiently represented to his understanding by an infallible Propounder which opposition to the Testimony of God is undoubtedly a damnable sin whether otherwise the thing so testified be in it self great or small And thus we have already made good what was promised in the argument of this Chapter that amongst men of different Religions one is only capable of being saved 9. Nevertheless to the end that men may know in particular what is the said infallible means upon which we are to relie in all things concerning Faith and accordingly may be able to judge in what safety or danger more or less they live and because D. Potter descendeth to divers particulars about Scriptures and the Church c. we will go forward and prove that although Scripture be in it self most sacred infallible and divine yet it alone cannot be to us a Rule or Judge fit and able to end all doubts and debates emergent in matters of Religion but that there must be some external visible publique living Judge to whom all sorts of persons both learned and unlearned may without danger of error have recourse and in whose judgement they may rest for the interpreting and propounding of Gods Word or Revelation And this living Judge we will most evidently prove to be no other but that Holy Catholique Apostolique and Visible Church which our Saviour purchased with the effusion of his most precious bloud 10. If once therefore it be granted that the Church is that means which God hath left for deciding all Controversies in Faith it manifestly will follow that she must be infallible in all her determinations whether the matters of themselves be great or small because as we said above it must be agreed on all sides that if that means which God hath left to determine Controversies were not infallible in all things proposed by it as truths revealed by Almighty God it could not settle in our minds a firm and infallible belief of any one 11. From this Universal Infallibility of God's Church it followeth that whosoever wittingly denyeth any one Point proposed by her as revealed by God is injurious to his divine Majesty as if he could either deceive or be deceived in what he testifieth The averring whereof were not a Fundamental error but would overthrow the very foundation of all Fundamental Points and therefore without repentance could not possibly stand with salvation 12. Out of these grounds we will shew that although the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental be good and useful as it is delivered and applyed by Catholique Divines to teach what principal Articles of faith Christians are obliged explicitely to believe yet that it is impertinent to the present purpose of excusing any man from grievous sin who knowingly disbelieves that is believes the contrary of that which God's Church proposeth as Divine Truth For it is one thing not to know explicitely something testified by God and another positively to oppose what we know he hath testified The former may often be excused from sin but never the latter which only is the case in Question 13. In the same manner shall be demonstrated that to alleadge the Creed as containing all Articles of Faith necessary to be explicitely believed is not pertinent to free from sin the voluntary denial of any other Point known to be defined by God's Church And this were sufficient to overthrow all that D. Potter alleadgeth concerning the Creed though yet by way of Supererogation we will prove that there are divers important matters of Faith which are not mentioned at all in the Creed 14. From the aforesaid main Principle that God hath alwayes had and alwayes will have on earth a Church Visible within whose Communion Salvation must be hoped and infallible whose definitions we ought to believe we will prove that Luther Calvin and all other who continue the division in Communion or Faith from that Visible Church which at and before Luther's appearance was spread over the world cannot be excused from Schism and Heresie although they opposed her Faith but in one only Point whereas it is manifest they dissent from her in many and weighty matters concerning as well belief as practice 15. To these reasons drawn from the vertue of Faith we will add one other taken from Charitas propria the Vertue of Charity as it obligeth us not to expose our soul to hazard of perdition when we can put our selves in a way much more secure as we will prove that of the Roman Catholiques to be 16. We are then to prove these points First that the infallible means to determine controversies in matters of Faith is the visible Church of Christ Secondly that the distinction of Points Fundamental and not-Fundamental maketh nothing to our present Question Thirdly that to say the Creed contains all Fundamental Points of Faith is neither pertinent nor true Fourthly that both Luther and all they who after him persist in division from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church cannot be excused from Schism Fifthly nor from Heresie Sixthly and lastly that in regard of the precept of Charity towards one's self Protestants be in state of sin as long as they remain divided from the Roman Church And these six Points shall be several Arguments for so many ensuing Chapters 17. Only I will here observe that it seemeth very strange that Protestants should charge â—s so deeply with Want of Charity for only teaching that both they and we cannot be saved seeing themselves must affirm the like of whosoever opposeth any least Point delivered in Scripture which they hold to be the sole Rule of Faith Out of which ground they must be enforced to let all our former Inferences pass for Good For is it not a grievous sin to deny any one truth contained in Holy Writ Is there in such denial any distinction between Points Fundamental and not-Fundamental sufficient to excuse from Heresie Is it not impertinent to alledge the Creed containing all Fundamental Points of Faith as if believing it alone we
whosoever persist in Division from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church are guilty of Schism and Heresie That in regard of the Precept of Charity towards one's self Protestants are in state of sin while they remain divided from the Roman Church To all these Assertions I will content my self for the present to oppose this one That not one of them all is true Only I may not omit to tell you that if the first of them were as true as the Pope himself desires it should be yet the Corollary which you deduce from it would be utterly inconsequent That Whosoever denies any Point proposed by the Church is injurious to God's Divine Majesty as if He could deceive or be deceived For though your Church were indeed as Infallible a Propounder of Divine Truths as it pretends to be yet if it appeared not to me to be so I might very well believe God most true and your Church most false As though the Gospel of S. Matthew be the Word of God yet if I neither knew it to be so nor believed it I might believe in God and yet think that Gospel a Fable Hereafter therefore I must entreat you to remember that our being guilty of this impiety depends not only upon your being but upon our knowing that you are so Neither must you argue thus The Church of Rome is the Infallible Propounder of Divine Verities therefore he that opposeth Her calls God's Truth in Question But thus rather The Church of Rome is so and Protestants know it to be so therefore in opposing her they impute to God that either he deceives them or is deceived himself For as I may deny something which you upon your knowledge have affirmed and yet never disparage your honesty if I never knew that you affirmed it So I may be undoubtedly certain of God's Omniscience and Veracity and yet doubt of something which he hath revealed provided I do not know nor believe that he hath revealed it So that though your Church be the appointed witness of God's Revelations yet until you know that we know she is so you cannot without foul calumny impute to us That we charge God blasphemously with deceiving or being deceived You will say perhaps That this is directly consequent from our Doctrine That the Church may err which is directed by God in all her Proposals True if we knew it to be directed by him otherwise not much less if we believe and know the contrary But then if it were consequent from our Opinion have you so little Charity as to say that men are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their Opinions Such Consequences I mean as they do not own but disclaim and if there were a necessity of doing either would much rather forsake their Opinion than imbrace those Consequences What opinion is there that draws after it such a train of portentous blasphemies as that of the Dominicans by the judgement of the best Writers of your own Order And will you say now that the Dominicans are justly chargeable with all those Blasphemies If not seeing our case take it at the worst is but the same why should not your judgment of us be the same I appeal to all those Protestants that have gone over to your Side whether when they were most averse from it they did ever deny or doubt of God's Omniscience or Veracity whether they did ever believe or were taught that God did deceive them or was deceived himself Nay I provoke to you your self and desire you to deal truly and to tell Us whether you do in your heart believe that we do indeed not believe the eternal Veracity of the eternal Verity And if you judge so strangely of us having no better ground for it than you have or can have we shall not need any farther proof of your uncharitableness towards us this being the extremity of true uncharitableness If not then I hope having no other ground but this which sure is none at all to pronounce us damnable Heretiques you will cease to do so and hereafter as if your ground be true you may do with more Truth and Charity collect thus They only err damnably who oppose what they know God hath testified But Protestants sure do not oppose what they know God hath testified at least we cannot with Charity say they do Therefore they either do not err damnably or with Charity we cannot say they do so 13. Ad. § 17. Protestants you say according to their own grounds must hold that of persons contrary in whatsoever Point of Belief one part only can be saved therefore it is strangely done of them to charge Papists with want of Charity for holding the same The Consequence I acknowledge but wonder much what it should be that lays upon Protestants any necessity to do so You tell us it is their holding Scripture the sole Rule of Faith For this you say obligeth them to pronounce them damned that oppose any least Point delivered in Scripture This I grant If they oppose it after sufficient declaration so that either they know it to be contained in Scripture or have no just probable Reason and which may move an honest man to doubt Whether or no it be there contained For to oppose in the first case in a man that believes the Scripture to be the Word of God is to give God the lye To oppose in the second is to be obstinate against Reason and therefore a sin though not so great as the former But then this is nothing to the purpose of the necessity of damning all those that are of contrary belief and that for these Reasons First because the contrary belief may be touching a Point not at all mentioned in Scripture and such Points though indeed they be not matters of Faith yet by men in variance are often over-valued and esteemed to be so So that though it were damnable to oppose any Point contained in Scripture yet Persons of a contrary belief as Victor and Polycrates S. Cyprian and Stephen might both be saved because their contrary belief was not touching any Point contained in Scripture Secondly because the contrary belief may be about the sense of some place of Scripture which is ambiguous and with probability capable of divers senses and in such cases it is no marvel and sure no sin if several men go several ways Thirdly because the contrary belief may be concerning Points wherein Scripture may with so great probability be alledged on both sides which is a sure note of a Point not-necessary that men of honest and upright hearts true lovers of God and of Truth such as desire above all things to know God's will and to do it may without any fault at all some go one way and some another and some and those as good men as either of the former suspend their judgments and expect some Elias to solve doubts and reconcile repugnancies Now in all such Questions one side or other which
will not stand to S. Austin's judgment and therefore can with no reason or equity require us to do so in this matter 2. To S. Augustine in heat of disputation against the Donatists and ransacking all places for Arguments against them we oppose S. Austin out of this heat delivering the Doctrine of Christianity calmly and moderately where he says In iis quae apretè posita sunt in sacris Scripturis omnia ea reperiuntur quae continent fidem moresque vivendi 3. We say he speaks not of the Roman but the Catholike Church of far greater extent and therefore of far greater credit and authority than the Roman Church 4. He speaks of a point not expressed but yet not contradicted by Scripture whereas the errors we charge you with are contradicted by Scripture 5. He says not that Christ hath recommended the Church to us for an infallible definer of all emergent Controversies but for a credible witness of ancient Tradition Whosoever therefore refuseth to follow the practice of the Church understand of all places and ages though he be thought to resist our Saviour what is that to us who cast off no practices of the Church but such as are evidently post-nate to the time of the Apostles and plainly contrary to the practice of former and purer times Lastly it is evident and even to Impudence it self undeniable that upon this ground of believing all things taught by the present Church as taught by Christ Error was held for example the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants and that in S. Austin's time and that by S. Austin himself and therefore without controversie this is no certain ground for truth which may support falshood as well as truth 164. To the Argument wherewith you conclude I answer That though the Visible Church shall always without fail propose so much of God's Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometimes add to this revelation things superfluous nay hurtful nay in themselves damnable though not unpardonable and sometimes take from it things very expedient and profitable and therefore it is possible without sin to resist in some things the Visible Church of Christ But you press us farther and demand What visible Church was extant when Luther began whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church As if it must of necessity either be Protestant or Roman or Roman of necessity if it were not Protestant Yet this is the most usual fallacy of all your Disputers by some specious Arguments to perswade weak men that the Church of Protestants cannot be the true Church and thence to inferr that without doubt it must be the Roman But why may not the Roman be content to be a part of it and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greek Church as well as the Roman there being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to her as well as to your own unless it be that she is poor and oppressed by the Turk and you are in glory and splendor 165. Neither is it so easie to be determined as you pretend That Luther and other Protestants opposed the whole visible Church in matters of Faith neither is it so evident that the Visible Church may not fall into such a state wherein she may be justly opposed And lastly for calling the distinction of points into Fundamental and not Fundamental an Evasion I believe you will find it easier to call it so than to prove it so But that shall be the issue of the Controversie in the next Chapter CHAP. III. That the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental is neither pertinent nor true in our present Controversie And that the Catholique Visible Church cannot err in either kind of the said Points THis distinction is abused by Protestants to many purposes of theirs and therefore if it be either untrue or impertinent as they understand and apply it the whole edifice built thereon must be ruinous and false For if you object their bitter and continued discords in matters of Faith without any means of agreement they instantly tell you as Charity Mistaken plainly shews that they differ only in Points not Fundamental If you convince them even by their own Confessions that the Ancient Fathers taught divers Points held by the Roman Church against Protestants they reply that those Fathers may nevertheless be saved because those errors were not Fundamental If you will them to remember that Christ must alwayes have a Visible Church on earth with administration of Sacraments and succession of Pastors and that when Luther appeared there was no Church distinct from the Roman whose Communion and Doctrine Luther then forsook and for that cause must be guilty of Schism and Heresie they have an Answer such as it is that the Catholique Church cannot perish yet may err in Points not Fundamental and therefore Luther and other Protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors under pain of Damnation as if sorsooth it were Damnable to hold an error not Fundamental nor Damnable If you wonder how they can teach that both Catholiques and Protestants may be saved in their several Professions they salve this contradiction by saying that we both agree in all Fundamental Points of Faith which is enough for salvation And yet which is prodigiously strange they could never be induced to give a Catalogue what Points in particular be Fundamental but only by some general description or by referring us to the Apostles Creed without determining what Points therein be Fundamental or not Fundamental for the matter and in what sense they be or be not such And yet concerning the meaning of divers Points contained or reduced to the Creed they differ both from us and among themselves And indeed it being impossible for them to exhibit any such Catalogue the said distinction of Points although it were pertinent and true cannot serve them to any purpose but still they must remain uncertain whether or not they disagree from one another from the ancient Fathers and from the Catholique Church in Points Fundamental which is to say they have no certainty whether they enjoy the substance of Christian Faith without which they cannot hope to be saved But of this more hereafter 2. And to the end that what shall be said concerning this distinction may be better understood we are to observe that there be two precepts which concern the vertue of Faith or our obligation to believe divine Truths The one is by Divines called Affirmative whereby we are obliged to have a positive explicit belief of some chief Articles of Christian Faith The other is temed Negative which strictly binds us not to disbelieve that is not to believe the contrary of any one Point sufficiently represented to our understandings as revealed or spoken by Almighty God The said Affirmative Precept according to the nature of such commands injoyns some Act to
examination the grounds of it prove uncertain or to leave it if they prove apparently false My own experience assures me that in this imputation I do you no injury but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking doubting of any part of your Doctrin among mortal sins For from hence it followes that seeing every man must resolve that he will never commit mortal sin that he must never examin the grounds of it at all for fear he should be mov'd to doubt or if he do he must resolve that no motives be they never so strong shall move him to doubt but that with his will and resolution he will uphold himself in a firm beliefe of your Religion though his reason and his understanding fail him And seeing this is the condition of all those whom you esteem good Catholiques who can deny but you are a Company of men unwilling and afraid to understand lest you should do good That have eyes to see and will not see that have not the love of truth which is only to be known by an indifferent tryall and therefore deserve to be given over to strong delusions men that love darkness more than light in a word that you are the blind leading the blind and what prudence there can be in following such Guides our Saviour hath taught us in saying If the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch 73. There remains unspoken to in this Section some places out of S. Austin and some sayings of Luther wherein he confesses that in the Papacy are many good things But the former I have already considered and return'd the argument grounded on them As for Luther's speeches I told you not long since that we follow no private men and regard not much what he saies either against the Church of Rome or for it but what he proves He was a man of a vehement spirit and very often what he took in hand he did not do it but over-do it He that will justifie all his speeches especially such as he wrote in heat of opposition I believe will have work enough Yet in these sentences though he over-reach in the particulars yet what he saies in general we confess true and confess with him that in the Papacy are many good things which have come from them to us but withal we say there are many bad neither do we think our selves bound in prudence either to reject the good with the bad or to retain the bad with the good but rather conceive it a high point of wisdome to separate between the pretious and the vile to sever the good from the bad and to put the good in vessels to be kept and to cast the bad away to try all things and to hold that which is good 74. Ad § 32. Your next and last argument against the faith of Protestants is because wanting Certainty and Prudence it must also want the fourth condition Supernaturality For that being a humane perswasion it is not in the essence of it supernatural and being imprudent and rash it cannot proceed from Divine motion and so is not supernatural in respect of the cause from which it proceedeth Ans This little discourse stands wholly upon what went before and therefore must fall together with it I have proved the Faith of Protestants as certain and as prudent as the faith of Papists and therefore if these be certain grounds of supernaturality our faith may have it as well as yours I would here furthermore be inform'd how you can assure us that your faith is not your perswasion or opinion for you make them all one that your Churches Doctrin is true Or if you grant it your perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subject of it an humane perswasion I desire also to know what sense there is in pretending that your perswasion is not in regard of the object only and cause of it but in the nature or essence of it supernatural Lastly whereas you say that being imprudent it cannot come from divine motion certainly by this reason all they that believe your own Religion and cannot give a wise and sufficient reason for it as millions amongst you cannot must be condemn'd to have no supernatural faith or if not then without question nothing can hinder but that the imprudent faith of Protestants may proceed from divine motion as well as the imprudent faith of Papists 75. And thus having weighed your whole discourse and found it altogether lighter than vanity why should I not invert your conclusion and say Seeing you have not proved that whosoever errs against any one point of Faith loseth all divine Faith nor that any error whatsoever concerning that which by the Parties litigant may be esteem'd a matter of faith is a grievous sin it follows not at all that when two men hold different doctrins concerning Religion that but one can be saved Not that I deny but that the sentence of Saint Chrysostome with which you conclude this Chapter may in a good sense be true for oftimes by the faith is meant only that Doctrin which is necessary to Salvation and to say that salvation may be had without any the least thing wich is necessary to salvation implyes a repugnance and destroys it self Besides not to believe all necessary points and to believe none at all is for the purpose of salvation all one and therefore he that does so may justly be said to destroy the Gospel of Christ seeing he makes it uneffectual to the end for which it was intended the Salvation of mens soules But why you should conceive that all differences about Religion are concerning matters of faith in this high notion of the word for that I conceive no reason CHAP. VII In regard of the Precept of Charity towards ones self Protestants are in state of Sin as long as they remain separated from the Roman-Church THAT due Order is to be observed in the Theological Vertue of Charity whereby we are directed to preferre some Objects before others is a truth taught by all Divines and declared in these words of holy Scripture He hath ordered (a) Cant. 2 4 Charity in me The reason whereof is because the infinite Goodness of God which is the formal object or Motive of Charity and for which all other things are loved is differently participated by different Objects and therefore the love we bear to them for Gods sake must accordingly be unequal In the vertue of Faith the case is far otherwise because all the Objects or points which we believe do equally participate the divine Testimony or Revelation for which we believe alike all things propounded for such For it is as impossible for God to speak an untruth in a small as in a great matter And this is the ground for which we have so often affirmed that any least error against Faith is in jurious to God and destructive of Salvation 2. This order in
was content that all this adoe all these pompous Tragical businesses should be performed 16. But what saith the Scripture If there had been a Law which could have given life Christ should have died without cause And thereupon our Apostle in Rom. 3.25 saith Rom. 3.25 that God hath set forth his Son to be a propitiation through faith in his Bloud to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God To declare I say at this time his righteousness that he might be Just That is lest by the forbearance of God who since the foundation of the world had shewed no sufficient example of his hatred and indignation unto sin as also to shew there was a reason sufficient to move him to remit the sins of many his chosen servants before Christ He hath now at last evidently expressed unto the world his righteousness to wit his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by condemning sin and revenging himself upon it in the person of his beloved innocent Son 17. And lest all this stir should seem to have been kept only to give us satisfaction and to create in us a great opinion and conceit of his righteousness The Apostle clearly saith He did all this to declare at this time his righteousness that he might be Just Which otherwise it seems he could not have been But I am resolved to quit my self abruptly and even sullenly of those questions and betake my self more closely to the matter in hand 18. What therefore is the effect and fruit which accrews even to the elect of God by virtue of Christs satisfaction humiliation and death precisely considered and excluding the power and virtue of his Resurrection and glorious life Why Reconciliation to God Justification or remission of sins and finally Salvation both of body and soul But is there any remission of sins without Faith Shall we not only exclude Works from Justification but Faith also God forbid For so we should not only contradict the grounds of Gods holy Word but also rase and destroy the very foundations of the second Covenant 19. For answer We must consider our Reconciliation under a twofold state according to the Distinction of the Reverend and learned Dr Davenant Bishop of Salisbury 1. Either as it is Applicabilis not yet actually conferr'd Or 2. as Applicata particularly sealed and confirm'd to us by a lively Faith For the understanding of which we must know that in Christs death there was not only an abolishing of the old Covenant of Works the Hand-Writing which was against us which Christ nailed unto his Cross as S. Paul saith Col. 1. delivering us from the curse and obligation thereof But also there was a new gracious Covenant or which is a word expressing greater comfort to us a new Will or Testament made wherein Christ hath bequeathed unto us many glorious Legacies which we shall undoubtedly receive when we shall have performed the Conditions when we shall be found qualified so as he requires of us 20. Till which Conditions be performed by the power of Gods Spirit assisting us all that we obtain by the death of Christ is this That first whereas God by reason of sin was implacably angry with us would by no means accept of any reconciliation with us would hearken to no conditions Now by virtue of Christs death and satisfaction he is graciously pleased to admit of Composition the former aversation and inexorableness is taken away or to speak more significantly in S. Paul's language Eph. 2.16 Enmity is slain Secondly that whereas before we were liable to be tried before the throne of his exact severe rigorous Justice and bound to the performance of Conditions by reason of our own contracted weakness become intolerable nay impossible unto us we are released of that obligation and though not utterly free'd from all manner of conditions yet tyed to such as are not only possible but by the help of his Spirit which inwardly disposeth and co-operateth with us with ease and pleasure to be performed Besides which we have a throne of Equity and Grace to appear before Mercy is exalted above even against Justice it rejoyceth against Judgement it is become the higher Court and hath the priviledges of a Superiour Court that Appeals may be made from the Inferiour Court of Justice to that of Mercy and favour Nay more whereas before we were justly delivered into the power of Satan now being reconciled to God by the Bloud of Christ we are as it is in Col. 1.13 delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the Kingdom of his dear Son 21 All this and more if it were the business of this time to be punctual in discovering all hath Christ wrought for us being aliens and strangers yea enemies afar off without God in the world Yet for all this that Christ hath merited thus much for us and more notwithstanding take away the power of Christs Resurrection and Life take away the influence of his Holy Spirit whereby we are regenerated and made new Creatures and we are yet in the Gall of bitterness and Bond of iniquity For though as it is Heb. 10.19 we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. liberty and free leave to enter into the Holiest by the bloud of Jesus though there be a way made open yet walk we cannot we are not able to set forwards into it as long as we are bound and fettered with our sins though there be an access to the throne of Grace yet it is only for them which are sanctified 22. And therefore what dangerous consequences do attend that Doctrine which teacheth That immediately upon the death of Christ all our sins are actually forgiven us and we effectually reconciled But because another employment is required by this time I will out of many make use of two Reasons only to destroy that Doctrine whereof the one is taken from the nature of the second Covenant the other from the necessity of Christs Resurrection 23. For the first If we that is the Elect of God for I am resolved to have to do with none else at this time be effectually reconciled to God by vertue of Christs death having obtain'd a full perfect remission of all our sins why are we frighted or to say truly injured with new Covenants why are we seeing our Debts are paid to the utmost farthing the Creditor's demands exactly satisfied the Obligation cancell'd why then are we made believe that we are not quite out of danger nay that unless we our selves out of our own stock pay some charges and duties extraordinarily and by the Bye inforced upon us All the former payments how valuable soever shall become fruitless and we to remain accomptable for the whole debt 24. But it may be and that seems most likely there is no such thing indeed as a new Covenant Promises and Threatnings are only a prety kind of Rhetorical device which God is pleased to