way our errours have been so many against this Soul-saving Truth How far this may concern the grand factions of Christendome I will not determine but sure I am they whose Religion is rebellion and whose faith is faction have no other Truth but their own phansies or imaginations and consequently can have no other God but their own Perverseness Yet we doubt not but as Aarons Rod swallowed up the Rods of the Magicians so will Religion at last swallow up rebellion and Faith will swallow up Faction and Truth will swallow up Phansie and Wisedome will swallow up Folly if not so as to be acknowledged of her enemies yet so as to be justified of her Children For the Apostle hath said most positively though more comfortably But they shall proceed no further for their folly shall be manifest to all And he that hath promised concerning the Preachers of his truth hath much more promised concerning the Truths they are to Preach especially those which so nearly concern the salvation of Souls They shall not be removed into a Corner any more But thine eyes shall see thy teachers and thine ears shall hear a word behind thee saying This is the way walk â—…e in it when ye turn to the right hand and when ye turn to the left Isa. 30. 20 21. 2. But if the Lovers of Gods Truth will hope to obtain this promise of a word saying This is the way they must endeavour to obey that command see that ye walk circumspectly Eph. 5. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Latine Church in the Text of Sixtus 5. See therefore how circumspectly ye walk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Greek Church in the Text of St. Chrysostome See therefore circumspectly how ye walk Men that will not wander in the by-paths of errour must have their eyes in their heads to look about them to see which is the way of Truth and they must keep their eyes open in their heads to look before them to walk in that way If they want a good circumspection to look about them they may chance never come into the right way if they want a good Prospection to look before them they may soon go out of it self-conceit is a great enemy to circumspection self-interest is a great enemy to prospection and 't is commonly one of these two if not both that makes so many Christians not walk in the way of Truth but choose faction or phansie instead of Faith This may seem to be far fetcht but it comes very neer my purpose and I pray God it may yet come neerer some mens consciences For they who licentiously abuse this Doctrine of justification by faith in Christ choose phansie instead of Faith and turn the Grace of God into wantonness They who wilfully oppose it to set up their own righteousness choose faction instead of Faith and turn the Grace of God into nothing for as mans age so his righteousness is as nothing in respect of God All my goods are nothing unto thee Psal. 16. 2. Both alike with Elymas the Sorcerer seek to turn away others from the Faith and may justly expect the hand of God upon them selves to make them so blind as not to see the Sun of Righteousness for ever God of his infinite mercy take away this mist and darkâ—…ess from before the eyes of all his servants but especially of all his Seers for if the light of the world be darkness how great will be the darkness thereof If we delight in the inner darkness here how shall we escape the outer darkness hereafter If they were a rebellious people lying children children that would not hear the law of the Lord who said to the Seers See not Isa. 30. 9 10. then what are those Seeâ—…s who say to themselves See not who shut their eyes against the light and shut their hearts against the Power of this Truth But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident for the just shall live by Faith Gal. 3. 11. See the light of this Truth for it is evident see we the Power of this Truth for even the just shall not live by his works but by his Faith The just shall live by Faith q. d. The justest must that is hath that justice whereby he shall live eternally from his Faith not from his works from his Saviours righteousness not from his own God speaking this soul-saving Truth so plainly to the understanding and pressing it so powerfully upon the Conscience bids all Christian Divines admire his goodness in shewing the great need and benefit of Christ not discover their own wickedness in seeking to undermine the very foundation of Christianity Accordingly St. Chrys. expounds that precept see ye walk circumspectly of the Ministers of the Gospel Observe saith he how the Apostle doth forewarn and forearm the Preachers of Gods Truth againg all the oppositions of their and its enemies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whole Towns and Cities waged war against them which the Canonist signally expressed after this manner Laici clericis Oppidò sunt infesti yet they are furnished with no other armour but this to defend themselves see that ye walk ciâ—…rcumspectly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Give your enemies no other occasion of their enmity but onely from your Preaching which is an occasion rather taken then given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let that alone be the ground of their enmity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no man be able to accuse you of any thing else and then your adversaries will accuse God not you An admirable gloss and seasonable for this Atheistical Age wherein men will not believe the Truth because they have pleasure in unrighteousness though St. Paul tell them plainly that they shall be damned for their unbelief That they all mâ—…ght be damned who believe not the Truth but â—…ad pleasure in unrighteousness 2 Thes. 2. 12. 4. It is the pleasure in unrighteousness which makes either the people not rightly believe Gods Truth or the Priests not rightly preach it and particularly this Truth of Justification by Faith which some of your Priests care not to preach because it will spoil their markets and some of our Priests had need preach more warily for fear it should spoil our people It is onely pleasure in unrighteousness that hath hitherto opposed this Truth in its doctrine or poisoned this Truth in its belief For why should a Truth so clearly revealed in the word of Christ so neerly concerning the glory of Christ so highly condâ—…ceing to the salvation of Christians be so violently opposed by some of your Priests in its doctrine but that it pulleth down the prices of Masses and Indulgences stopping the hands of silly and simple but yet liberal and munificent votaries Hence it is that Demetrius-like for love of gain they raise an uproar against St. Paul for it is not against us it is against him or rather Gods Spirit in him the main Preacher
precept when you spake of forbidding Priests to marry for your own Canonist calls the statute which inhibits Priests marriage Statutum Ecclesiae non ita generale Glos. in Decr. par 2. Causa 25. c. 3. Papa non potest contra generale Ecclesiae statutum dispensare sed contra statutum Ecclesiae quod non est ita generale sicut de continentia sacerdotum bene potest dispensare The Pope cannot dispense against a generall statute of the Church but he may against one that is not generall such as is that of Priests continency Pray learn hereafter to speak with your own Doctors or do not require all the world to follow their Doctrine And yet in truth even your own Church the Church of Rome or rather your own Popes the Popes of Rome did not make any such precept till Siricius his daies if you will again believe your own Gloss upon Gratian Par. 1. Dist. 84. cap. 3. descanting upon this very Canon of Carthage which you have urged for there saith the Gloss Dicunt quod olim sacerdotes poteraÌ„t contrahere ante Siricium They say that Priests might lawfully marry before Siricius his daies And again A tempore Siricii vocat Antiquitatem The Canon calleth that Antiquity which was from the time of Siricius 5. And whereas the Canon as it is alledged by him affirmeth that the Apostles taught this doctrine the same Gloss brings fresh fasting spittle to allay this quick-silver and the allay is good enough for the metall saying Apostoli docuerunt exemplo opere admonitione non institutione vel constitutione The Apostles taught it by their example deed or admonition but not by their doctrine or any constitution So far is it from truth in the judgement of your own Canonists which you averr so confidently That the Apostles themselves were the first that taught and decreed that Priests ought to abstain from wives And besides it is clear from the Apostles own writings that they neither taught it nor decreed it Else why did Saint Paul say to Timothy 1 Tim. 3. A Bishop must be blameless the husband of one wife if he were indeed to be blamed for having one And that he â—…ught to have his children in subjection if it were unlawfull for him to have any children Therefore the Apostles taught it not Again why did the same Saint Paul say to the Corinthians concerning this argument pro and con I speak this by permission and not of commandment 1 Cor. 7. 6. if the Apostles had given any command concerning it And v. 7. I would that all men were even as I my self but every man hath his proper gift of God if there had been any Apostolicall decree to force those who succeeded him in his calling to succeed him also in his continency for then sure he would not have wished but have commanded them to be as himself whereas on the contrary he only wisheth them to be as himself who have the Gift enabling them so to be therefore the Apostles decreed it not And the truth of both these was antiently attested by your own Gratians ordinary copies of this very Canon for so saith your new Glossator upon those words Apostoli docuerunt In vulgatis codicibus sequebatur Exempla quod est sublatum In the ordinary copies it was written The Apostles taught it by their Example but I have taken that away The addition of which word Example whether by Gratian himself or by any other being commonly received is a sufficient evidence that even the Church of Rome in those daies did not think that the Apostles had forbid Priests to marry by theâ—…r Doctrine and much less by their Decree 6. From the Apostles let us pass to the Church for you say for Priests to marry is contrary to the Churches precept But you do only say it and will never be able to prove it For the Greek Church in its most pure and flourshing age had a married Clergy insomuch that Gregory Nazianzene was born after his Father had officiated at the holy Altar let his own mouth witness it who brings in his Father thus speaking unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Naz. in carm de vitâ suâ Which is in plain English Thou hast not yet had thy life so long as I have had my Priesthood I hope you will not affirm that the Father because a Priest was the worse for having such a son when you cannot deny but the whole Christian Church hath ever since been the better for that he had him Again How came the first Council of Nice to be kept from determining for the forced continency of Priests by one single Paphnutius if so be the Apostles had so determined before or the Church had thought fit so to determine it after them Nay it is evident The Catholick Church determined there should be no such determination as appears from the forecited consent of the Nicene Fathers to Paphnutius his advice which is generally attested and approved by the Authors both of the Greek and Latine Church As by Socrates lib. 1. c. 11. Lat. By Gelasius Cycicenus lib. 2. de actis Concil Nic. c. 33. By Nicephorus lib. 8. cap. 19. By Cassiodorus hist. Trip. lib. 2. c. 14. By Gratian Par. 1. Dist. 31. cap. 12. And by Peter Crabbe in actis Concilii Niceni So that if you may have recourse but to one of these you shall little need to go either to Neteoricks or to Epitomists for the story as you did in your first Exception for Saint Augustines answer and in this for Siricius his words And yet I will add to these one more proof and that from the Council of Gangra whose Canons were put into the Code of the Catholick Church so often appealed to by the Fathers at Calcedon and placed together with the Holy Bible in the midâ—…t of their Council Concil Gangr can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any man make a dissention between married and unmarried Priests as if he ought not to take the Communion from the married Priest let him be accursed Now if the Church had made that distinction why should not the people make it But in truth the Church was so far from making it that she shewed it to be against her judgement to make it speaking no less reverently of the offerings of the married then of the unmarried Priests Or you may thus interpret the Canon If any man withdraw himself from a married Priest as if he ought not to communicate whiles such a Priest doth officiate let him be accursed It is plain here in the judgement of the Church for these Gangrensian Canons were admitted into the Code of the Catholick Church which yours of Carthage were not That the married Priests were as fit to serve at the Altar as the unmarried and if they were as fit to serve God why not as fit to serve the People and to content you And to shew you I
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
he never so glorious yet he is as far from God as my self for betwixt finite and infinite the distance is infinite whether the finite be glorious or inglorious for be he never so glorious yet he and his glory both are nothing in comparison of him to whom Cherubins and Seraphins continually do cry Heaven and earth are full of the majesty of thy Glory 7. Having vindicated mine own allegation against praying to Saints I come to oppose your Cardinals allegations for it which though they savour much more of learning authority yet not one jot less of impertinency And yet you and all yours swallow them as glib as once you swallowed the holy league and Covenant or as still you are desirous to swallow up all other Churches into your own pretended mother Church that is as that Behemoth swalloweth waters of whom it is said Behold he drinketh up a river and hasteth not he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth Job 4. 23. A large swallow you have to let down your own Camels whiles you strain at our gnats not considering the advice of the first Bishop of Hierusalem to his Clergy My Brethren have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory with respect of persons Jam. 2. 1. If you had not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons more then of causes you would rather be exceptious against your own writers for most shamefully misapplying the holy Scriptures to set up your false worship then with ours for rightly applying them to pull it down since it is so much to the dishonour of Christ our Redeemer and to the danger of those Christian souls which he hath redeemed And yet your late writers seeing the unwritten word so unequal a match to grapple with the written word for the Protestants have opened their eyes though God alone can open their hearts and we pray him to open them do labour to prove all your false adorations and false invocations out of the holy Scriptures notwithstanding they are so plainly and so directly against the express letter of the Law of Moses and therefore cannot be according to the letter of the Prophets which are no other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…aw But I will confine my self to your moâ—…â—…ed Dogmatist and desire you with me to consider the strange impertinency and if wilful the stranger imprety of his allegations out of the Text to maintain your invocation of Saints And amongst them all two only shall serve my turn 8. The first is that of Gen. 48. 16. The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the lads Hic apertè sanctus Jacob Aâ—…gelum invocavit saith Bellarm. Here holy Jacob did manifestly invocate an Angel If he did 't is manifest he took that Angel for the God of his Fathers Abraham and Isaac for the God which fed him all his life long and redeemed him from all evil for he invocateth none other to bless the lads but only that God so saith the Text God before whom my Fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk the God which â—…ed me all my life long to this day The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the â—…ads 'T is palpable all these particulars do concern but one and him Jacob desireth to bless the children If that one were an Angel he did not pray for Gods blessing upon them so the lads were little beholding to him If that one were God he did not pray to an Angel to blesâ—… them so 〈◊〉 â—…olding to your Carâ—… Nay indeed all that are concerned in this Text for the Angel though named yet is not concerned in it are litâ—…le beholding to him for all are losers by this interpretation 1º God loseth his honour of accepting feeding redeeming and blessing his servants 2º Abraham and Isaac lose their God For it was the Almighty God not an Angel that said to Abraham Walk before me and be thou perfect Gen. 17. 1. and God before whom my Fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk saith this Text. 3º The poor infants lose their blessing for t is clear an Angel could not bless them but only ministerially from God 4º Jacob loseth his Religion for he calleth upon a false God if upon an Angel instead of God All these cannot lose by this interpretation the Interpreter himself be no loser therefore though I will not say he lost his honesty by seeking to wrest a text yet I must say he hath lost his authority by seeking to oppose it For it is not an exposition but an opposition of the Text when words are taken Grammatically in their own sense that should be taken Theologically in Gods sense The Grammatical sense of a word is according to its own signification But the Theological sense of a word is according to Gods use of it or Gods application As Genesis 18. 2. The Lord appeared unto Abraham but v 2. Lo three men stood by him And again v. 16. The men rose up from thence yet v. 17. And the Lord said and 't is evident by all Abrahams prayer that it was the Lord appeared unto him for he calleth him the Judge of all the earth v. 25. and v. 33. 't is said The Lord went his way as soon as he had left communing with Abraham If you take this word men Grammatically as 't is in its own signification you must say Abraham prayed to a man But if you take it Theologically as 't is in Gods use or application 't is no less then the Lord appearing in the likeness of a Man and you must say That Abraham prayed only to the Lord So in this Text mis-interpreted by your great Doctor if you take the word Angel Grammatically as it signifies in it self 't is plain Iacob invocated an Angel but if you take it Theologically as God useth it 't is no less then the Lord in the likeness of an Angel and so 't is plain Iacob invocated none but God And truly the one Text might as well have been urged to prove that Abraham invocated a man as the other to prove that Iacob invocated an Angel Both good proofs Grammatically but neither a good proof Theologically For Grammarians look upon words as they signifie in themselves but Divines look upon words as they signifie in their use the reason is because the work of the one is to understand the Thing but the work of the other is to understand the Truth therefore as doubtful Propositions in the New Testament are to be expounded according to the Analogie of Faith in the Apostles Creed that we may have Truth in our Belief So doubtful Propositions in the Old Testament are to be expounded according to the analogie of righteousness in Moses his Decalogue that we may have Truth in our Obedience And as that Proposition This is my body must be taken Theologically that is in the sense of the speaker because taken Grammatically that is in the bare sense of the words it
Aquinas his exposition of them which was for praying to Saints He falls into this absurdity to say that at that time this Invocation was both in the custome and in the faith of the Church Tum in consuetudine tum in fide fuisse receptam which though Bellarmine be zealous to affirm concerning the Invocation of Angels yet he is not so hardy as to affirm concerning the Invocation of Saints A Tenent that creates their contradictions cannot invite our assent may not have our belief And the rather because Hieronymus Osorius a Bishop but not a Jesuit of their own Religion if at least the Religion of Jesuits may be called the same with the Religion of the Bishops in the Church of Rome in his Paraphrase upon Job gives us a quite contrary exposition of these words saying Denuntia quaeso alicui praestanti viro testimonium animadverte an sit aliquis qui tecum sentiat Ad quem enim ex Sanctis hominibus adibis qui tuae sententiae suffragari audeat Declare now to some excellent men your testimony and observe if there be any that hath the same thoughts with you For unto whom amongst all the Holy men can you go that will dare to be of your opinion This man was trained up in the Invocation of Saints as well as Bellarmine yet could not see how to ground it upon this Text For he expounds it not of Saints in Heaven but of Saints on Earth as Abenezra had expounded it before him Ex cujus ore sanctorum qui in terrâ sunt talia unquam audisti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Saints which are on earth out of whose mouth among all the Saints which are on the Earth did you ever hear such things But we may very well grant the words are rather to be understood of Holy Angels then of Holy men because he had spoken of the Angels a little before yet even so Bellarmines inference will not be made good that it was then the custome to call upon the Holy Angels for their Patronage tunc fuisse consuetudinem invocandi patrocinium Sanctorum Angelorum For the context will then require this sense as it is delivered by the most judicious and learned Mercerus Voca Angelorum aliquem eum inclama an vero eorum vel minimus tibi respondebit te suo sermone alloquio dignabitur Nullum sanè reperies Vides quantum à Deo distes quum ne Angeli quidem longè Deo inferiores te sint allocuturi si ad eos clames ob distantiam quae inter te est illos Call any one of the Angels and cry unto him and see if the meanest of them will answer thee or vouchsafe thee one word of discourse Thou will find none Thou seest then how far thou art distant from God when not so much as his Angels who are so far below him will answer thee if thou call to them because of the distance which is betwixt them and thee This is most probably the meaning of the words from the context for Eliphaz had a little before debased the excellencies of the Angels in regard of God and now comes to debase the excellencies of men in regard of the Angels all the scope and intent of his discourse tending to shew the emptiness and vanity of the Creature that so he might make Job humble himself before his Creator as hath been shewed a little before sc. Paragraph 3. 4 5 6. out of your own Pineda 11. But we must take to us the whole Armour of God that we may be able to withstand the assaults of men so furiously assaulting us and so watchfully besetting us To the Law and to the Testimony if others speak not according to that word 't is because there is no light no truth in them I ask then Doth this Invocation of Saints agree with the analogie of Faith in the Apostles Creed or with the analogie of righteousness in Moses his Decalogue I trow not For the one teacheth me to believe in one God the other not to call upon him in whom I have not believed and cannot believe And 't is clear that Invocation of Saints is against the whole current of devotions derived to us by the Spirit of God through the channel either of the Old or of the New Testament For there is scarce any prayer in either which our Saviour Christ who hath taught it us doth not pray with us for if he do not 't is in vain for us to pray since God heareth not our prayers but for his Intercession And therefore the Invocations that are used in the Psalms a peculiar Book of Prayers and Praises made by Gods own Holy Spirit for the use of his Church and constantly used by it in all ages are generally first spoken in the Person of Christ as appears in that he applied to himself very many of them as my God my God why hast thou for saken me Psal. 22. 1. and Into thy hands I commit my spirit Psal. 31. 6. and being first spoken in the Person of Christ are the more strongly recommended to all good Christians as composed by his Spirit sanctified by his lips and impowered and strengthned by his Intercession For Christus realis and Christus mysticus Christ personally and Christ mystically considered do constitute but one Communion of Saints He is the Head they are his Body and therefore they must pray in sin for in Schisme if they pray not to him as their Head for that is not to pray in Christs Communion as also in vain because in sin if they pray without their Head for that is not to pray in Christs Intercession Wherefore it being an undoubted truth that Christ was made obedient to the whole Law for man it necessarily follows that praying to Saints cannot be a duty of the Law but we must say That Christ the eternal Son of God prayd to Saints that is the Creator to the Creature And if it be not a duty of the Law how can it be command in the Prophets since they are but expounders not enlargers of the Law How in this Prophet Job whose book was penned in Hebrew by the Law-giver himself and only in Arabick by Job as saith your own Bellarmine de Script Eccl. cap. de Job because it is the judgement of the Catholick Church that Moses was the first Ecclesiastical Writer or the first Amanuensis and penneman of the Holy Ghost which by the way is another argument to prove that Bellarmine did not could not believe this Text of Holy Job was to be interpreted as a command Ad aliquem Sanctorū respice Look to one of the Saints but as a question or expostulation Ad quem sanctorum respicies To which of the Saints wilt thou look for without doubt so great a Scholar could not believe That Moses did bid us to do that in Job which he did forbid us to do in Exodus For the Commandement which saith Thou shall have no other Gods
the hearers of the law there is Faith for what can any sacrilegious Enthusiast say more who robs God of mens hearts in regular and sound prayers to place all Religion in the ear sure there were many hearers of St. Pauls Sermon for it was preached on the Sabbath and in a place where prayer was wont to be made Act. 16. 13. who heard more than the law for they also heard the Gospel yet only one Lydia for ought we know was judged faithful unto the Lord and the text gives this reason of her Faith whose heart the Lord opened that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul Therefore the hearers of the law have not Faith but the doers of it at least in vote and desire i. e. those who labour to do it yet they when they have done all are taught to say we are unprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty to do Luk. 17. 10. Their doings cannot fully reach the obligation of their duty and how can they be a satisfaction for their undutifulnesse All their works of righteousnesse when they have laboured to do all those things which are commanded and as they are commanded them will leave them unprofitable and much more must their works of unrighteousnesse make them unacceptable so that you have only supposed a false Faith in the hearers of the Law not disprov'd Justification by Faith in the doers of it for he that saith not the hearers of the Law are just before God but the doers of the Law shall be justified doth not thereby suppose much less averre any men to be so compleat doers of the Law as to rely upon their good deeds for their justification 12. You might happily better have appealed to St. James than to St. Paul for justification by works and yet neither would he have befriended this your appeal much lesse have justified that your position for St. James doth not contradict the doctrine of St. Paul but doth only correct those who had misunderstood or at least misapplied it bidding them add to their Faith Vertue as St. Peter had done before 2 Pet. 3. 5. or not expect to be justified by it wherefore those two Apostles may very well be said to have delivered but one and the same doctrine concerning justification if we take their words not as we please but as they intended them for St. Paul writing against proud Justitiaries among the Jews who sought for righteousness from their own works according to the Law of Moses and rejected the righteousnesse of God by Faith in Christ strongly denyed Justification by works meaning works properly so called that is to say a perfect and perpetual observation of the whole Law because all men whatsoever Christ only excepted had many wayes transgressed the Law But St. James writing against licentious and profane Hypocrites among the Christians who pretending to Faith in Christ lived not according to the Rule of the Christian Faith but altogether neglected the study and practice of good works affirmed Justification by works meaning by works the very obedience of Faith or a working by love and obedience The one writ against the proud opposers the other against the fond Pretenders of Faith in Christ therefore the one tells the proud Jews that their works were not answerable to the Law in which they trusted that he might teach them the necessity of Faith in Christ The other tell the hypocritical Christians that their works were not answerable to the Gospel of which they boasted that he might teach them the obedience of that Faith accordingly as often as St. Paul affirmeth in sense at least if not in words That we are justified only by Faith so often he understandeth a Faith working by love Gal. 5. 6. or an unfained unhypocritical Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such a Faith as belongs not to hypocrites 1 Tim. 1. 5. And as often as St. James denieth that we are justified only by Faith so often he understandeth a Faith not working by love a Faith only in profession or in perswasion not in obedience or in affection a Faith belonging to hypocrities not to good Christians a Faith in noise and in word but not in truth and in deed as appeares from the manner of his expression ver 14. If a man say he hath Faith for the Apostle would not say it for him because he had only a dead Faith A Faith without works and therefore without life operari sequitur esse the Faith of devils from the evidence or power of truth convincing the understanding not the Faith of Abraham or Rahab from the acceptance and love of truth converting the will therefore these two positions are not contrary A man is justified before God not by the works of the Law which he cannot have but only by Faith in Christ which alwaies worketh by love and A man is justified before God not only by Faith that is an historical knowledge of the Gospel and an emptie profession of Faith but also by works that is an affectionate love of the Gospel and a sincere obedience of Faith The former position is maintained by St. Paul against those Jews who rejected the Gospel of Christ the latter position is maintained by St. James against those Christians who profaned the same Gospel Both Apostles teach one and the same Justification by Faith in Christ only St. Paul speaks of Faith more in relation to its proper object even to Christ because he went to convince gainsaying Jews and to make them Christians St. James speaks of Faith more in relation to its proper effect even good works because he went to convert revolting Christians and to make them good Christians For so himself saith concerning Abraham Seest then how Faith wrought with his works and by work was Faith made perfect ver 23. He saith not By works was his justification made perfect but only his Faith whereby he was justified requiring works only to the Faith that justifieth but not to the act of justification And after the same manner are we to understand his conclusion ver 24. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by Faith only as if he had said From this example of Abraham you may gather that 't is not the wording but the working not the professing but the performing Faith that justifies a man before God requiring works in that man which is justified but not denying to Faith the power and prerogative of justifying 13. You have well reconciled St. Paul with St. James in your question But what Faith which intimaâ—…eth that a justâ—…fying Faith is such a 〈◊〉 as workeâ—…h by love but you have ill reconciled your selfe with St. Paul in your position That works are required to Justification as well as Faith which plainly asserteth the contradictory of St. Pauls doctrine And surely 't is not safe for any Divine to differ in this Doctrine of Justification from St. Paul no more than it is safe for him
end But the Faith which doth not this as it proceedeth not from the grace of Christ but from the strength of our own conviction and tendeth not to the glory of Christ So it is rather the Faith of Devils than of good Christians and may well let a man go to hell for it may go thither along with him and therefore as it is not the foundation of righteousnesse so it cannot be the foundation of blessednesse Again the same Father tells us That though our blessed Saviour had at first in effect called the woman of Canaan a Dog it is not lawful to take the childrens bread and give it unto Dogs yet when he saw in her soul â—…he fruit of that reproof he changed his dialect and said not O Dog but O Woman great is thy Faith Non ait O canis sed O mulier magna est fides tua mutavit vocabulum quia mutatum vidit affectum That Faith which Christ approved in her had changed the affection and 't is not possible but the Affection should change the Action and therefore St. James feared not to call an actionless Faith or a Faith not working by love a Faith not of Christians but of Devils Fidem non Christianorum sed Daemonum For they are not Christians but Dogs and Devils who persist in ungodly affections and in unrighteous actions nay indeed they are Infidels so farre from having true Faith in Christ that they do not know what is true Faith They rightly affirme saith he that whosoever will not believe in Christ doth in some sort sin against the Holy Ghost and put himself under a necessity of damnation but they do not rightly understand what it is to believe in Christ for that is not to believe as Devils but as Christians not to have a dead Faith but a Faith living and working by love Illud sane non absurde intelligunt eum peccare in spiritum sanctum esse sine veniâ reum aeterni peccati qui usque in finem vitae noluerit credere in Christum sed si rectè intelligerent quid sit credere in Christum non enim hoc est habere Daemonum fidem quae rectè mortua perhibetur sed fidem quae per dilectionem operatur Aug. ibid. cap. 16. I have of purpose alledged many quotations out of St. Augustine indeed most of them which concerned this argument that all the world may see that his intent in confuting those mistaken brethren who thought to be saved by Faith without works was only to shew out of â—…t James and the other Catholick Epâ—…stles what Faith it is that justifieth sc. a Faith working by love but not to ascribe the glory of Justification either to works or love because they hold of mansrighteousness but only to Faith which holdeth of the righteousness of the Son of God I will now to St. Augustine further add St. Ambrose who in his Comment upon the Romans cap. 3. hath these words Justificati sunt gratis quia nihil operantes neque vicem reddentes solâ fide justificati sunt They are justified freely by his grace because working nothing sc. worth Gods acceptance and their own acquitment and making no recompence they are justified only by Faith through the gift of God And again upon those words cap. 4. Credenti autem in eum But to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly he saith thus Sic decretum dicit à Deo ut cessante lege solam fidem gratia Dei posceret ad salutem The Apostle tells us it was so decreed of God that the Law ceasing sc. as to that male diction Cursed is he that continueth not in all things to do them The grace of God should require only Faith to our salvation we find no mention of a Decree in the Text either in the Greek Original or in the Latine Translation yet St. Ambrose sets down the words thus Ei vere qui non operatur credenti autem in eum qui justificat impium reputatur fides ejus ad justitiam secundum Propositum Gratiae Dei To him that worketh not but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly his Faith is accounted for righteousness according to the Purpose of the Grace of God not intending by the addition of these words according to the Purpose of the Grace of God that any should cavil against the true reading of the Truth as of late some Criticks have taught us to do but that all should understand the true meaning of it and no more question that in justification of the ungodly Faith is accounted for righteousness then they dare question the Purpose of the Grace of God This is palbably St. Ambrose his Doctrine and therefore he asks him Is it possible the Jews should think themselves justified by the works of the Law according to the justification of Abraham when they saw that Abraham himself was justified not by the works of the Law but only by Faith Quomodo ergo Judaei per opera legis justificari se putant justificatione Abrahae quum vident Abrahamum non ex operibus legis sed solâ fide justificatum He saith moreover That our Apostle proved this from the Psalmist pronouncing them blessed unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works Beatos dicit quibus hoc sanxit Deus ut sine labore aliquâ observatione solâ fide justificentur apud Deum He calleth those blessed concerning whom the Lord hath determined that without their own labour and any observation of the Law by Faith alone they should be justified before Him which are so clear and high expressions for Justification by Faith alone that for any Divine now to say works are required to Justification as well as Faith is either to suppose the Apostles and Prophets not to have known Gods intent and meaning or to suppose St. Ambrose and St. Augustine not to have known the intent and meaning of the Apostles I must yet further add one more Testimony that in the mouth of two or three witnesses this so heavenly Word of Truth may be firmely established And that shall be the Testimony of St. Chrysostome who upon the two first Verses of the fourth Chapter to the Romans where the Apostle speaketh of Abrahams Justification giveth us this Exposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For as much as the Jews did turn this point of Divinity upside down because their Patriarch the friend of God was first circumcised sc. before he was accepted as a friend The Apostle is resolved to shew them that even Abraham himself was justified by Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For that a man should be justified by Faith who had no works were nothing strange But for one that flourished in deeds of righteousness not to be made just from them but from his Faith was very wounderful and doth exceedingly declare the power of Faith Therefore passing by all others he maketh mention only of him that is of Abraham Chrys. Aug. 11. in
have made my heart clean I am pure from my sin He that hath made the best use thereof is most concerned in it and comprehended under it therefore he cannot say I have made my heart clean I am pure from my sins but he must lye to the Holy Ghost and be so far from cleansing his heart as immediatly to let in many unclean spirits the more to defile it For those two which God hath joyned together all the wit and power of man cannot put asunder even Satans filling the heart and lying to the Holy Ghost why hath Satan filled thy heart to lye to the Holy Ghost Acts 5. 3. And if Satan filleth the heart of those who make this lye then sure he also filleth the mouth of those who tell it And therefore the Church of God which is the pillar and ground of the Truth very much abhorreth this lye making this confession of her natural corruptions But we are all as an unclean thing Facti sumus ut Immundus omnes nos so the Hebrew and Chaldee in the singular number we are all but as one unclean man to shew the Uncleanness was from nature which was as equally derived to All as if all had been but one and making this confession of her personal corruptions which proceeded from the natural and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags Isa. 64. 6. Wherefore since Protestants and Papists both agree together in the former part of this confession as a Principle of Divinity 't is irrational in the Papists to disagree from Protestants in the latter part of it which is but a conclusion proceeding from this Principle For the natural corruption is the cause of the personal and therefore all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags because we are all as an unclean thing This being the full argumentation All who are unclean have an unclean righteousnesse but we all are unclean therefore we all have an unclean righteousnesse Quia opus justitiae immundatur inquinamento as saith Aquinas because our righteousnesse is defiled by our unrighteousnesse and by this we may fully understand that other text If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us 1 Joh. 1. 8. For we are clearly guilty of a double lye one against our own souls we deceive our selves another against the Holy Ghost the Spirit of truth and the truth is not in us Both are such pernicious lyes as to bring upon us inevitable destruction for he that willingly deceives his own soul cares not for knowing the truth he that strives to deceive the Holy Ghost cannot come to know it For as he hath not the truth in him in that he deceiveth himself so he keepeth the Spirit of truth away from him that he may deceive himself for ever Nor can we possibly use any evasion upon this text as if some men might say they have no sin though others cannot for he must think himselfe better than the best of Saints the Disciple whom Jesus loved and questionlesse he had a very good reason of his love who will needs say he hath no sin though by saying so he is sure to prove himself worse than the worst of sinners for he maketh him a lyar who hath promised forgiveness of sins and he maketh his Word a lye which hath shewed our need or want of that forgiveness for in many things we offend all Jam. 3. 2. and he putteth himself out of their communion who alone obtain forgiveness even the communion of true penitents of whom it is said If we confesse our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins 1 Joh. 1. 9. he that denyes himself to be one of this number denyes himself to be one of the communion of Saints unless St. John and St. James were no Saints and consequently makes himself uncapable of the forgiveness of sins Thus doth the second Milevitane Council gloss the words of St. John that they were not spoken out of humility but out of necessity and that the greatest the necessity of Truth Satis apparet hoc non tantum humiliter sed etiam veraciter dici Poterat enim Apostolus dicere Si dixerimus quia non habemus peccatum nos ipsos extollimus humilitas in nobis non est sed quùm ait nos ipsos decipimus veritas in nobis non est satis ostendit eum qui se dixerit non habere peccatum non verum loqui sed falsum It is evident that this was spoken not only out of modesty but also out of truth for the Apostle might have said If we say that we have no sin we extol our selves and there is no humility in us But when he saith we deceive our selves and there is no truth in us he sufficiently sheweth that whosoever saith there is no sin in him doth not speak truly but falsly And thus also doth the same Council gloss the words of St. James saying The Apostle was holy and just when he said in many things we offend All for why did he add this particle All but to shew that he agreed with the Psalmist who had said Enter not into judgement with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal. 142. 2. and with Solomon who had said There is no man that sinneth not 1 King 8. 46. And with Daniel who had said We have sinned and have committed iniquity Dan. 9. 5. and afterwards added ver 20. whiles I was confessing my sins and the sins of my people he would not say Our sins but My sins and the sins of my people because he did foresee by the Spirit of Prophecy that some in after ages would be ready to put him and such as he nay indeed much worse transgressours out of the catalogue or number of sinners Quia futuros istos qui tam malè intelligerent tanquam Propheta praevidit And at last upon these and the like proofes the same Council denounceth a terrible curse against those who should dare affirme that forgive us our trespasses was said by the Saints rather humbly than truly quis enim ferat orantem non hominibus sed ipsi Domino mentientem qui labiis sibi dicit dimitti velle corde dicit quae sibi dimittantur se debita non habere For say those Fathers who can endure that a man in his prayers should tell a lye not to man but to God saying with his mouth Forgive us our trespasses and saying in his heart he had no trespasses to be forgiven him Thus we have the authority of the Scripture and the authority of the Church both agreeing together in this doctrine That all men are sinners And though this was but a particular National Council in it self yet was it Universal and Oecumenical in its authority as consisting of Catholick Bishops amongst the rest Alipius and St. Augustine as appeares by the Synodical Epistle to Innocent the first and having been approved by the Catholick
say it for he is cordially turning to him in all Thus was it with St. Peter look upon the course of his obedience you find him after his greatest undertakings grievously turning away from our blessed Saviour but look upon his repentance you find him earnestly turning to him Christ assured him his Faith should not fail and yet he should deny him thrice But we are sure his works failed and may be as sure our own works will fail so we must trust to our faith not to our works if we desire not to fail of our Justification 18. And I would gladly know how your doctrine of justification by works can agree with these three Scripture expressions justified by his free grace Rom. 3. 24. justified by Faith Rom. 5. 1. and justified by his blood Rom. 5. 9. For grace and works are set down as contraries mutually expelling one the other in the matter of Justification Rom. 11. 6. If by Grace then is it no more of works otherwise Grace is no more Grace But if it be of Works then is it no more Grace otherwise Work is no more Work So also Christ and Works Gal. 2. 21. If righteousnessâ—… come by the Law then Christ is dead in vaine So also Faith and Works Rom. 3. 28. A man is justified by Faith without the deeds of the Law so that to be justified by Works is to be justified without Grace without Christ without Faith unless we will make contraries not only abide but also agree one with another whereas in the doctrine of Justification by Faith all these expressions are as admirably reconciled among themselves as they are powerfully and plainly used to set forth our reconciliation with God For to be justified by Grace and by Christ and by Faith are so far from being contraries that they all speak one and the same truth namely this That we are justified through the free grace of Goâ—… for the mâ—…rit and bâ—…ood of Christ by a lively Faith applying that blood unto our souls and our souls unâ—… our God 〈◊〉 a lively Faith is not wiâ—…out works in the man 〈◊〉 justâ—…fieth though it be in the act of jusâ—…ification And therein it must be without â—…ks that it may be with Christ for if righteousnesse come by works it cannot come by Christ. 19. And what a madnesse is it for frail and weak flesh what a wickednesse is it for corrupt and sinful flesh to set up its own instead of its Saviours righteousnesse For though this doctrine may pretend to be most zealous for obedience yet is it in truth most averse from it nay most opposite against it so saith the Apostle Rom. 103. For they being ignorant of Gods righteousnesse and going about to establish their own righteousnesse have not submitted themselves to the righteousnesse of God This was a great disobedience in the Jews but a greater in the Christians for they might be ignorant of the righteousnesse of God who knew not Christ not so we who know him Therefore if they in going about to establish their own righteousness did not submit unto the righteousness of God then we by going about to establish our righteousness must needs moreover wilfully resist and disobey Gods righteousness And in vaine do we talk of any other obedience whiles we are guilty of this resistance Yet I fear he came very near this guilt who said that justification by Faith alone was a most pestilent doctrine pestilentissimum dogma Stapâ—…eton qu. quodl 3. c. 9. cum itaque forgetting sure that St. Paul had fi st taught it And they who denounced Anathema against those who maintain this doctrine si quis dixerit solâ fide impium justificari Anathema sit Concil Trid. ses 6. can 9. forgetting sure that St. Paul still maintained it for their expurgatory Criticks durst not expunge this Position out of his Epistles though they durst out of the Index made upon them And this guilt must needs be very dangerous if not fully damnable because it labours to establish our own instead of our Saviours righteousness for so the same Council can 11. si quis dixerit justificari homines solâ imputatione justitiae Christi Anathema â—…it If any say that men are justified only by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse let him be accursed Jesu God didst thou give us thy righteousness to be imputed to us to bless us by taking away the guilt of our sins that in thee all the Nations of the earth might be blessed Gen. 22. 18. and shall any Ministers of thy Gospel dare to curse us for relying upon the imputation of thy righteousness was not our sin made thine that thy righteousness might be made ours and how can it be made ours but by imputation or why is it made ours by imputation but only for our Justification so saith the Text expressely 2 Cor. 5. 21. For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him As Christ was made sin for us so we are made righteousnesse in Christ neither the one nor the other by inherence therefore both alike by imputation for a third way is unimaginable Therefore St. Augustine thus glosses the forecited text Ipse peccatum nos justitia nec nostra sed Dei nec in nobis sed in ipso sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis He was made sin and we were made righteousnesse not our own but Gods righteousnesse nor in our selves but in our Saviour as he was made sin not his own but our sin nor in himself but in us That is in one word we are so made the righteousnesse of God in him as he was made sin for us to wit by imputation Therefore neither St. Paul nor St. Augustine neither Scripture nor Church were much regarded by him who made a meer scoffe of this imputation as if it were a phansied Chimera of mans invention and not a real mercy of Gods Donation And what else doth that argumentation import urged by your great Doctor si concupiscentia est verum peccatum tum Christus non verè sed imputativè redemit nos a peccatis Bellar. de am gr lib. 5. c. 9. If concupiscence be a sin then Christ hath not tâ—…uely buâ—… imputatively redeemed us from our sins why did he say imputativè for putativè imputatively for putatively but only to perswade the world that imputation is but a meer imagination This seems to be the drift of his argument to make good mans righteousnesse as that which is not at all infected by original and therefore may not be at all impaired by actual sin and this is little lesse in the business of Justification than to make void the righteousnesse of Christ. It was a wretchednesse to say Concupiscence is no sin in the regenerate which St. Paul called a sin in himself above ten times together Rom. 7. But it was moreover a wickednesse to say
Covenant is there must of necessity be the life of the Covenanter Therefore if I will have the full comfort of the death of Christ overcoming for me the sharpness of death and opening to me the gates of everlasting life and rescuing me from the guilt of sin the terrors of hell and the tyranny of the Devil I must go to the Testament which tells me of Christs death not to the Covenant which threatens mine own by shewing me the multiplyed offences of my sinful life And in truth he that will deny this to be the proper signification of the word Testament must also deny St. Pauls argument which here depends wholly upon the proper signification of that word And for this cause saith the Apostle He is the Mediator of the New Testament that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first Testament they which are called might receive the Promise of eternal inheritance For where a Testament is there must also of necessity be the death of the Testator Heb. 9. 15 16. He saith not the Mediator of the New Covenant which supposeth the life of the Covenanter but of the New Testament which supposeth the death of the Testator and accordingly he placeth all the strength of his argument in the word Testament which by vertue of Christs death gave us redemption from transgressions and admission to an eternal inheritance So that we had need go to the Testament not to the Covenant both for our Redemption and for our Inheritance For the transgressions which were under the Old Covenant that of works here called the First Testament because as it was repeated by Moses it was not dedicated without blood v. 18 19. could not be expiated but by the Redemption that was under the New Testament wherefore the Covenant puts us in fear of captivity and death and 't is only the Testament gives us hopes of liberty and life And accordingly the Apostle useth the word Testament of purpose to proclaime the abundant Grace and Goodnesse of God to mankind that after our fall he was pleased to give us not a Covenant but a Testament For a Covenant is a matter of strict Justice having mutual conditions between both parties which if either fail the agreement is of none effect But a Testament is a matter of more Grace as being the conveyance of an inheritance without any harsh conditions imposed upon the Heires and before any obliging offices performed by them And such was the Act of God to us sinful men when we had disabled our selves to performe the conditions of his Covenant It was a Testament to instate us in the right of Salvation by the death of our Redeemer and therefore the Apostle sets it forth with the adjuncts and properties not of a Covenant but of a Testament For the proper adjuncts of a Covenant are not Blood and the Death of the Covenant-Maker which two alone are here mentioned since a Covenant is rather voided than established by death but both these are the proper adjuncts of a Testament which though made before the death of the Testator yet is not established till after it wherefore since our blessed Saviour did presignifie and promise his own death and the effusion of his own blood by Typical Sacrifices till he verified that Promise by the real Sacrifice of himself upon the Cross the Spirit of God in this place thought fit to make choice of the word Testament whereby to express this Act of his free Grace and favour towards us and sure no Minister of Gods Church may justly be questioned for speaking after the dialect of Gods Spirit 5. For what should a sinful soul do but gaspe after Gods free Grace acknowledging it to be Grace because she is â—…worthy and to be free Grace that she may not be uncapable of it For as she may easily perish by opposing it so she must necessarily perish by not obtaining it And the desire of opposing Grace must needs be a great impediment in obtaining Grace for God that gives Grace above our deserts wil not give it against our desires since it is expressely said That God resisteth the proud and therefore most resisteth those that are most proud even the proud in spirit who dare capitulate with his Justice but giveth Grace to the humble and therefore most Grace to those who are most humble even to the meek and lowly in heart who rely wholly upon his mercy And this consideration alone though you see it is not alone was enough to make me say and is enough to justifie my saying I am afraid of the Covenant and fly to the Testament for by the Covenant I can look only for Justice which I am afraid to find but by the Testament I can look for mercy which I desire to find here for the Comfort hereafter for the Salvation of my soul And if any be so hardy as to venter his soul upon the terms of Justice I may allow him to have the greater confidence but I cannot allow him to have the greater Comfort and I wish he may not have the lesser Salvation 6. And whereas you tell me Nay you your self are not afraid of the Covenant but fly to it for in your ejaculation 20. using S. Pauls words Heb. 12. you say I am desirous to come to mount Sion and to Jesus the Mediatour of the New Covenant I crave leave to tell you that this objection was farre fetcht to shew you were willing to make it and may be as deare bought if I can shew you are not able to maintain it For I was bound to alledge St. Pauls words as I found them translated that none might be mistaken in my allegation and I found them thus translated To Jesus the Mediatour of the New Covenant Therefore in that I alledged them so I only shewed my self not afraid of the translation but I might still for all that be afraid of the Covenant For custome that ought to regulate speech which is established by it ought not to regulate conscience which it cannot establish The Word may be confined where the Thought is at liberty I speak for others but I Think for my self therefore I must speak according to Custome and yet may still think according to Conscience But I will not plead Custome when I may justly plead Comfort for in these words is nothing at all to terrifie my soul but very much to comfort and to settle it For it is said The Mediatour of the New Covenant which is every jot as comfortable as the Mediatour of the New Testament for it directs our hearts as immediately to our blessed Saviour since as the New Testament was confirmed so the New Covenant was signed and sealed with his Blood the only Balme to heal wounded Spirits the only Anchor to settle floating consciences Nay yet more here is Jesus expressely named To Jesus the Mediatour of the New Covenant so that if I were afraid of the New Covenant as you
overthrows the analogie of Faith in the Apostles Creed concerning Christs natural body for that was conceived by the holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucified dead and buried ascended into heaven and now sitteth on the right hand of God which cannot be truly said of Christs Sacramental Body in the blessed Eucharist So this Proposition The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the lads must be taken Theologically that is in the sense of the speaker because taken Grammatically that is in the bare sense of the words it overthrows the analogy of righteousness in Mâ—…ses his Decalogue ascribing that to an Angel which is proper and peculiar to God alone by vertue of the first Commandement as to be the God before whom Abraham and Isaac did walk the God which had fed Jacob all his life and had redeemed him from all evil and could bless the lads by his own authority both with temporal and with spiritual blessings â—…or he that saith Thou shalt have no other Gods but me saith Thou shalt not have an Angel instead of me as if thy Fathers had walked before him thou wert to be fed from him to be redeemed by him to 〈◊〉 blessed through him The analogie o Righteousness or of Religion in the first Commandement admits not this interpretation therefore though it be Grammatically true in the sense of the words yet 't is Theologically false in the sense of the speaker for Gods Spirit speaketh not contradictorily to himself And being proved to be Theologically false because it is against the analogy of righteousness or of Religion it is easie to prove it Logically false because it is against the analogy of reason And truly so it is in three respects 1. In respect of the Proposition The Predicate not agreeing with the Subject and therefore though an Angel be named yet he is not intended because he is named with such a property or attribute as belongs only to God viz Redeeeming from all evil and Blessing with all good 2. This interpretation is Logically false in respect of the connexion the Proposition not agreeing with the Antecedents and Consequents For an Angel cannot be the God before whom Iacobs Fathers walked by whom Iacob himself was fed and redeemed from whom Iacobs children could be blessed 3. This interpretation is Logically false in respect of the deduction because if an Angel be here meant as he is named it will follow that an Angel hath the Kingdome and Power may have the Glory and worship of God And now pray Sir consider how distant are your proceedings from that love of truth that candor of Ingenuity that care of conscience which should be among Christian Divines both in rejecting those interpretations of the holy Scriptures against praying to Saints whether Angels or Men which are undoubtedly true not only Grammatically but also Theologically and Logically and in embracing those interpretations for praying to Saints which are undoubtily false if not Grammatically yet at least both Thelogically and Logically in all these respects And such will be found all the interpretations of the Text alledged by your late Divines in this argument if they be diligently examined either according to the analogy of Religion or according to the analogy of Reason But I return to this which cannot be made true in the judgement of the most eminent Divines both of Greek and Latine Church I will name you two St. Chrysostome for the Greek and St. Thomas of Aquine for the Latine Church 1. St. Chryst. for the Greek Church who upon these words The Angel which redeemed me from all evils bless the lads gives us this gloss 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 66. in Genesin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O thankful resolution O Soul loving of God how doth the remembrance of his benefit dwell and lodge in his heart That God saith he whom my Fathers pleased who sed me from my youth until now who from the beginning delivered me from all evil He who hath shewed such signal providence towards me He bless these Children See here in St. Chrysostomes gloss Jacob prayed to God not to the Angel to bless his grand Children And He was the mouth of the Greek Church 2. St. Thomas of Aquine saith the same but much more perspicuously as to the Confutation of Bellarmines errour though not as to the confirmation of Gods truth For whereas Bellarmine saith Jacob invocated an Angel The Angelical Dr. saith he did not but that he called the God of his Fathers His Angel for these are his words upon the place Videtur quod Deum Patrum suorum suum vocat Angelum sui protectorem salvatorem unde postea in singulari dicit Benedicat pueris istis It seems that he calleth the God of his Fathers his Angel and his Protector and saviour whence it is that afterward he saith in the singular number though he had named two sc. God and the Angel He bless the lads nisi forte Angelicam benedictionem divinae benedictioni tanquam comministram sive subministraÌ„ adjungat sed modus loquendi quem tenet si benè advertatur magis sapit primum modum Unless you will say that He annexeth the Angelical benediction as ministerial to the Divine But the manner of his speech if it be well observed rather calleth for the first interpretation This was Aquinas his judgement after his most serious deliberation upon the words and we may well look upon it as the judgement of the Latine Church the rather because He was the chief Captain of the Schoolemen and though he laboured to prove the same conclusion with Bellarmine yet not by the same praemisses but he leaves out this as not thinking it a fit proof and is contented only with that of Job 5. 1. Voca si est qui tibi respondeat ad aliquem sanctorum convertere which is another of your Cardinals allegations out of the Text to prove the Invocation of Saints 9. And He is so over zealous for this proof lib. 2. de Verbo Dei cap. 12. That when Chemnitius had said the Text was corruptly interpreted in the Vulgar translation His answer is Fortè fuisse ebrium quum hoc scripsit Chemnitium Perchance Chemnitius was drunk when he writ this Bad words are seldom signs of a good cause but often more then signs they are proofs of a bad temper And we know that there is a sort of men which are drunken but not with wine that stagger but not with strong drink Isa. 29. 9. Those upon whom the Lord hath poured out the spirit of deep sleep and hath closed their eyes v. 10. and that this judgement is chiefly denounced against them who teach the fear of God by the precept of men v. 13. or who teach for Doctrines the Commandements of men as our blessed Saviour hath explained those words Mat. 15. 9. for concerning those it is said The wisedome of their wise men shall perish and the understanding of