a matter of right that is by his orderly power according to the Laws when the Law according to which a man is to act righteously is not in the power of the Agent then by acting according to his absolute power he acts disorderly and not righteously for being subject to a Law he is bound to act according to that Law But when the Law and the Righteousness of the Law is in the power of the Agent such an Agent may act orderly and righteously and yet act otherwise then according to the dictate of that Law because he is not subject to that Law and so his absolute power is not disorderly To apply this to our present case The Church is this free Agent in the exercise of Religion and having a Law given her to act by she may not act therein by an absolute power either besides or against that Law given her but by an orderly power according to it For being subject to the Law of Religion she is bound in the exercise of Religion to act according to that Law For there only the Agent may act orderly and righteously not according to the dictate of Law where the Law and the righteousness of the Law is in his own power So that either we must say That the Law and the righteousness of Religion is under the Power and Authority of the Church or we must confine the Church in the exercise of Religion to act according to the Law of God And therefore though your wit learning and numbers may invite you to that unsufferable insolency of seeking to domineer over other mens reasons yet pray let your own hearts and consciences deter you from that unpardonable impiety of seeking to domineer over Gods Commandements For what his Law hath made sin your practice cannot make righteousness what he hath made irreligion you cannot make Religion though you were as you say you are but shew you are not his Catholick Church For the Church is to depend upon God much more then the People are to depend upon the Church not only for the substance but also for the exercise of Religion Gods commands must be obyed for the substance of Religion according to the three first Commandements for the order and exercise of Religion according to the fourth Invocations Adorations Confessions Consecrations all must be for the honour of God for he only is named in the Commandements that require them that the Church may not make a Schism from God in the substance and in the exercise of Religion And then we must all with one heart and mouth unanimously and magnanimously joyn together in the defence and obedience of such Invocations Adorations Confessions and Consecrations That the people may not make a Schism from the Church in the outward Profession and Practice of Religion The Laws of the first Table are not only in the order of place or situation but also in the very order of nature and of Justice before the Laws of the second Table God must first have his right before the Church can lay claim to hers As in the Creed we are first taught to believe in God and after that to believe the holy Catholick Church so in the Decalogue it is first said Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve and after that Honour thy Father and thy Mother This Protestation was under Moses his hand before it was in the Apostles mouthes We ought to obey God rather then man Acts 5. 29. And this Protestation alone will justifie all Protestants to the worlds end that shall depart from your Church in those points of Religion wherein you have plainly and palpably departed from the Law of God For God first requires Verity iâ—… the Religion before he requires Unity in the Communion of his Church and after these and for these he requireth obedience to her Authority She is first holy by her Verity then Catholick by her Unity That Church that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sub 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our mother in the Lord by her Authority This we believe in believing the holy Catholick Church And according to the method of our faith must be the method of our obedience First obeying the Churches Verity then her Unity then her Authority For God founded the Religion before he founded the Communion as he founded the Communion before he founded the Authority of his Church at least according to the Priority of nature though not of time For he founded the Religion of his Church in the three first Commandements The Communion of his Church in the fourth and the Authority of his Church in the fifth Commandement So that Gods Church hath in truth a threefold foundation one in respect of her Religion another in respect of her Communion a third in respect of her Authority The first concerneth the Being the second the well-Being the third the splendid Being of the Church In regard of the first The Church is the pillar and ground of True worship in regard of the second she is the Pillar and ground of solemn or of publick worship in regard of the third she is the Pillar and ground of orderly or uniform worship First we have Truth in the service of God from her Religion Then solemnity from her Communion Then Uniformity from her Command These are the inestimable blessings God hath conveyed unto this wicked world by his Catholick Church and by every particular member thereof if we consider the goodness of God in offering these blessings rather then the wickedness of men in rejecting his offers or in abusing his goodness For by Gods holy appointment and institution his Church in every Nation is intrinsically Catholick from her Religion extrinsecally Catholick from her Communion and potentially Catholick from her Authority and 't is only by mens perversness and undutifulness That she loseth her Potential whiles she retaineth her intrinsecal and extrinsâ—…cal Catholicism For having her Religion according to the three first and having her Communion according to the fourth she ought also to have her Authority according to the fift Commandement But if she forsake her Religion or corrupt her Communion she cannot justly claim her authority if it be denied and doth unjustly use it if it be granted for she useth it against the honour and glory of Gods and for the distraction and the destruction of men whereas St. Paul saith expresly concerning his own and the Authority of all the other Apostles for he saith our authority which the Lord hath given us that it was only for edification not for destruction 2 Cor. 10. 8. and having said this for the Apostles themselves He hath much more said it for their successors Let it be granted which cannot reasonably be denied That every Christian Priest-hood or Ministry is the grand Apostle of that Nation wherein is an Apostolical Church I hope you will say the Apostle ought to be true to his God no less then the People ought to be true to
Doctrines of corruption in themselves of contestation in their Champions who contest more about these weeds for they are not so good as Mint or Comin that they might be called Herbs then about the best and choicest Flowers of Paradise As the zeal of Truth hath enlarged my answer to these Exceptions so the Power of Truth I hope will defend it How ever I have certainly done my best concerning these particular controversies between our Church and that of Rome to let the world know That those men are swayed by little Truth and less Conscience who seek to turn the unworthy suppression of the true to the more unworthy advancement of the false Religion And I have been the more Zealous and the more copious for their sakes who may be tottering to the Popish Religion because they have lately been discountenanced and discouraged if not persecuted and opposed in their own And in all these my poor endeavours I have had an eye to my last account That setting aside my infirmities and imperfections I might be able to say with the man which had the Inkhorn by his side Ezech. 9. 11. I have done as thou hast commanded me For I have not wittingly nor willingly deviated either from Gods Word or from Gods Church But have as near as I could followed in my doctrine that rule of the Holy Spirit Prov. 9. 10. Principium sapientiae timor Domini scientia sanctorum Prudentia The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom And the knowledge of the Saints is understanding which I look on as a short but a full summe of all the instructions that belong to a Christian Divine requiring him to Teach nothing else but true Religion towards God and true Communion with his Saints or with his Church And what I have laboured to follow in my doctrine I cannot but follow in my Devotion Beseeching Almighty God to keep me and all good Christians especially his Ministers in the Religion of his Word and in the Communion of his Church And with this prayer I conclude my self Your Brother and Servant in our common Saviour E. H. Errata PAge 5. line 20. r. viventes p. 10. l. 25. r. Her p. 14. l. 6. r. seasons p. 23. l. 20. r. Exemplo p. 25. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 26. l. 2. r. distinction p. 28. l. penult r. 858. p. 52. l. 1. r. Asserit p. 52. l. 25. r. Punishments p. 60. l. 25. r. Philetus p. 62. l. 14. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 66. l. 25. r. censu p. 72. l 8. r. man p. 73. l. antepenult r. Animam p 85. l. 18. r. Assert Purgatory p. 96. l. 6. r. benefit p. 100. l. 20 21. r. what we have not heard p. 102. l. 24. r. To prove either p. 104. l. ult r. inference p. 111. l. 14. r. Contradictions p. 116. l. 14. r. Bachon p. 117. l. 10. r. usually do p. 132. in 4. Exc. l. 6. r. Possibly p. 142. l. 18. r. Souls p. 149. l. ult add perfect p. 178. l. 2â—… r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 183. l. 26. r. But I answer p. 202. l. 5. r. Commoretur p. 218. l. 2. r. Anablatha p. 219 l. 1. r. Knot p. 223 l. 17. r. Tharasius p. 234. l. 17. r. greatest p. 239. l. 19. r. Three p. 242. l. 26 r. Fable p. 250 l. 3. r. Offices p. 234. l. 19. r. praise p. 265. l. 26. r. Subjects p 280. l 24. r. severe p. 283. l. 16. r. himself p. 289. l. 5. 6. dele to him p. 289. l. 18. r. commanded p. 300. l. ult r. that p. 311. l. 3. r. then p. 316. l. 19. r. Being p. 319. l. 25. r. may p. 328. l. ult r. commanded p. 331. l. 23. r. done p. 338. l. antepenult r. Baronii p. 340. l. 10. r. true p. 344. l. 24. 25. r. self p. 351. l. 14. r. At. p. 360. l. antep after shall be justified add concerns rather our condemnation then justification p. 369. l. 6. r. man p. 372. l. 6 r. this p. 372. l. ult r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 373. l. 13. r. greater p. 375. l. 23. r. that p. 386. l. 20. r. sc. by p. 399. l. 3. dele or else p. 404. l. 2. r. or a faith worâ—…ing p. 413. l. 12. r. infinitely p 414. l. 19. r. man p. 421. l. antepen r. men p 437. l. 16. r. Abrahae p. 445. l. 17. r. men p. 454. l. 8. r. or p 467. l. 18. r. Arme. p. 470. l. 11. r. absolve from p. 471. l. 1 r. work p 522. l. antepen r. mistrust p. 525. l ult r. commands CAP. I. Of Sinners Prayers SInning and Praying are not consistent together God heareth not Sinners rejected by Saint Augustine as no true Proposition yet admitted by Aquinas The one taking Sinners for those under the Infection the other for those under the Dominion of sin But it is known to be true by the Principles of Reason much more of Religion and is more fully explained in the Old then in the New Testament 2. God heareth not sinners as sinners but as Penitents is rather an Exception then an Exposition of this Generall Rule for sinners as sinners do not Pray and God heareth the Sin not the Prayer when he heareth in Anger 3. God heareth not the Prayers of naturall men as such for so they are sinners and though they may have good Desires yet not good Prayers 4. That Christians only can Pray and that their prayers are heard only through Christs intercession are Two Doctrines taught by Christ and by his Catholick Church The first Exception PArt 1. chap. 2. sect 1. p. 35. You alledge the saying of the born blind man God heareth not sinners John 9. 31. To which you say Saint Augustine makes rather an Exception then an Exposition He indeed takes exception to the man for the reason you there alledge yet me thinks he gives a full satisfactory exposition of his words I have not his works but I find in Maldonat upon this place these words cited out of his Tract 44. Si Deus peccatores â—…on audiret frustraille Publicanus oculos in terram dimittens pectus suum percutiens diceret Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori I find also in Valentia commenting upon that 16. Article of S. Tho. Aquinas which you approve of Tom. 3. disp 6. qu. 6. punct 6. these words cited out of his Tract 73. Metuendum est ne multa Deus quae possâ—…t non dare propitius detiratus Out of these very words of Saint Augustine Saint Thomas in that Art 16. resolves this question Utrum pâ—…ccatores orando impetrant aliquid à Deo In two concâ—…usions I have only his Compendium by Ludovicus Carbo Concl. 1. Orationem peccatoris ex bono naturae desiderio procedentem Deus audit ex misericordia Ita Aug. docet Publicanus alias frustra orasset Concl. 2. Quando Peccator orando petit aliquid ut peccator
nor all-sufficient Do not you think he may be worshipped through a picture which himself hath so expresly forbidden for that is in effect to deny him to be your Soveraign Lord. For if he be the Lord ascribe unto him that worship and honour which himself hath commanded not that which himself hath forbidden because you cannot ascribe unto the Lord the honour due unto his Name whiles you do not ascribe unto him the honour due unto his Nature that is the honour of being the Lord For this is to say unto him Lord Lord according to the letter of the first Commandement whiles by your breaches of the second you force him to say unto you I know you not depart from me ye workers of iniquity so far is it from Truth That Christians well instructed in the first cannot through ignotance offend against the second Commandement yet I will strive to make it true for truths sake by annexing to it this supposition if they exactly follow the instructions given them in the first Commandement for then clearly they will know God too well either to worship him by an image or to worship any image instead of him But now this your own assertion like a rebellious subject will take up arms against you for by the Rule of Logick which proceeds from the eversion of the Consequent to the eversion of the Antecedent it may be proved that notwithstanding all your great boasts of being so well instructed in the first Commandement you have not well received or not well followed those instructions because you have not rightly received and followed the prohibition of the second For if the first Commandement were in truth rightly understood and obeyed amongst you according to your own negative Thou shalt not have strange Gods before me and according to your own affirmative Thou shalt have me only for thy true God you would not be so zealous as you are to bestow religious worship upon your petty Deities for that is to have strange Gods not him only for your God nor would you be so ready to represent or worship the eternal Deitie through a picture for that is not to have him for the true God since undenyable is that of the Apostle God that made the world and all things therein seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth dwelleth not in Temples made with hands Acts 17. 24. And if not in Temples then sure not in Images made with hands yet take away this crude and carnal thought that the Creator is like the creature to be confined or comprehended in his dwelling which is against the very light of nature and much more against the light of grace and you will not easily be Idolators either in worshipping him by an Image or in worshipping an image instead of him So that from your not honoring God rightly according to the Prohibition of the second we have reason to fear you do not honour him rightly according to the instruction of the first Commandement For even Damascene himself though a great admirer of other Images yet allows not any to make the Image of God but saith lib. 4. de Orthod fide c. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who can make a representation of the invisible incorporeal God which can neither be described nor defined it is then the height of madness and of wickedness to make any form or picture of the Deity Therefore Christ as God is not to be represented much less worshipped by a picture and consequently your application of divine worship through his pictures unto him may easily be convinced of Idolatry 12. I next come to your third position which concerns the worshipping of Saints and Angels for they are to be Religiously worshipped before their pictures and if not they then not their pictures since therefore all moral duties that are performed without us are reduced by our blessed Saviour to these two Heads Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self Saint Mat. 22. I ask To which of these two you will reduce your Religious worshipping of Saints and Angels If to the first say there is more then one God and you can love more then one God with all your heart If to the second do not talk of a Religious worship for no man yet ever worshipped himself with a Religious worship and you are to love your neighbour but as your self not as your God For since God hath called All but himself your neighbour how can you call Any but himself your God whiles you worship him as your God by a Religious worship Can you think that Job did not intend that of every other creature whatsoever which he spake of the Sun Moon because the Heathen bestowed their Religious worship on them as not knowing any creature more glorious then them for they knew nothing of the Angels or glorified Saints If mine heart hath been secretly enticed or my mouth hath kissed my hand This also were an iniquity to be punished by the Judge Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iniquitas judicans vel judicialis digna quae à Judice puniatur an iniquity to be punished by the Judge of quick and dead since it is a Judged Case in his own Court since he himself hath judged it to be an iniquity For I should have denyed the God that is above Here is the Religious worship which calleth the creature the Creator for so saith Jarchi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If I have worshipped the Sun or Moon saying they are Gods And here is the iniquity that cannot escape Judgement for this calling the creature the Creator is to deny the God that is above so saith 〈◊〉 I should have denyed the 〈◊〉 â—…at is above The meaning is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The God that is above these two great lights The Hebrew words will yet bear another interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For I should have lyed against the God above Hence Idolatry is called mendacium perniciosum a pernicious lye by your own Reginaldus Scandalous to men injurious to God directly against the honour due unto him which is not communicable to any but to himself Regin lib. 16. cap. 14. sec. 3. Idolatry is therefore called a Lye in Job a pernicious lye in Reginaldus because it communicates that honour to the creature which is due only to the Creator And according to this Principle The Religious worship of Saints and Angels must be called Idolatry For to worship them Religiously is to Communicate to them the honour of God it is to say they are Gods And to say they are Gods is to lye both to God and man for it is to deny the God that is above them and to deceive the men that are amongst us For it is vam here to talk of inferiour degrees of worship since Magis minus non variat speciâ—… if it be Religious worship properly so called the least degree of it is Religious
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
us of loving what God commands if we hope to attain what God hath promised It requireth a sincere obedience of all doth not allow a wilful disobedience of any one of Gods Commands yet for all this if we will needs say That Doing or Obedience and Righteousness is the condition upon which Salvation is pomised to Christians we must take Sorrowing for Doing Repentance for Obedience and Faith for righteousness or we must teach a new Covenant of our own not of Gods making sure I am the Holy Church hath taught us both to say Deus qui conspicis quia ex nullâ nostrâ actione confidimus Lord God which seest that we put not our trust in any thing that we do And she hath taught us to say so at that Time when we are to prepare for our strictest Doings sc. those which accompany our Lenten Fast for this is the collect of Sexagesima Sunday So far is Holy Church which is much holier then the best of her members from placing the hope of life and Salvation in her Doings wherefore in this doctrine as in most others that we reject your late Church-men have sided against holy Church and consequently our Church-men can the better justifie their siding against them CAP. VIII The Conclusion 1. THe Doctrines and Practices of Papists as such are so grosly against the known word of God as to make all those of our Communion inexcusable who out of pretence of not having a flourishing Church chooâ—…e not to have a flourishing Religion 2. Their foretelling the mischiefs now befaln us was no more from the Spirit of Prophecy then their contriving or effecting them from the spirit of Piety THus have I gone through all your exceptions as plainly as I could but much more largely then I intended For the more I enquired into them the more I found cause to dislike them and could not but fully express my dislike for their sakes who by the effrantery of your late emissaries and by the impiety of our sad times are almost if not altogether perswaded to forsake the Church wherein they were made Christians under fond hopes of bettering their Christianity They are so beguiled with the pretence of your flourishing Church as to abate though I hope not to abandon the love of their own Saving Religion not considering that the same argument of a flourishing Church which is now used to make Protestants turn Papists would once have made all Orthodox Christians turn Arrians and may at this time make Papists turn Mahumetans and ere long if the sword proceed to cut and carve out Religion may chance make Protestants and Papists both turn Atheists Sure t is not just nor safe for Christians to go to Church as Dogs no more than to go to Hell as Devils for Company since they cannot hope to be saved for the greatness of their communion but for the goodness of their Religion And since the business of Religion is the love and the honour of God How can you seek the Patronage of the Creature as if he were more friendly and loving to you than the Creator and not sin against this love How can you religiously adore or invocate the Creature as if he were equally to be honoured with the Creator and not sin against this Honour The Angels see thou do it not is in this case most justly our Negative and though your men commonly say we are all for Negatives yet is the same Angels worship God as justly and as readily our Affirmative Do not then ask me where is my Church till you can answer me where is your Religion For 't is not in the adoration of Saints and Angels much less of their Pictures Reliques and Images because that 's against the second Commandement Nor in the invocation of Saints and Angels because that if mental is against the first if Vocal is also against the third Commandement and I hope you will not call that Religion which is directly against all Gods Commandements concerning the substance of Religion i. e. against all the three first Commandements Rather consider that by setting up your Church against Gods Word you do in truth pull down your Church since that can neither have Religion nor Communion nor Jurisdiction neither Verity nor Unity nor Authority but from Gods Word unless you will allow your Church to be a Society of your Own not of your Saviours making that is to be a Combination of sinners instead of being a Communion of Saints As for our parts we cannot but think it very impious and injurious for the Trustees of Gods Truth and mens souls to seek to baffle any private mans reason by inferring to him false conclusions much more to seek to baffle his Religion by imposing on him false Principles whether in doctrine against the Creed or in works against the Decalogue And such are the Conclusions the Principles of Religion you have obtruded in your exceptions and your Zealots would obtrude upon our belief and practice By which alone though I let pass all the rest it is evident to common sense that Protestants are not so faulty in receding from Papists as Papists are faulty in receding from Gods Truth Bring you Gods Truth and your Church together and blame us if we keep our Church and your Church asunder But till you do so though you more love to make Objections yet we can better justifie the making them For whiles you object against our Church we object against your Religion and doubtless those Objections more savour of Truth and are less in danger of blasphemy which are righteously made against a false Religion than those which are unrighteously made against a true Church because the one are made for God but the other against him This is plain that whiles we object against your doctrine and worship we dispute for the Decalogue for the Creed whereas you cannot object against any doctrine that we profess or any worship that we practise by the order of our Church but you must dispute against an Article of the Creed or a Commandement of the Decalogue And though I will not undertake to justifie all our opinions much less all our practices yet for these doctrines wherein our Church dissents from yours and for this worship for which our Church separates from yours I dare boldly say God is not angry with us though you be 2. And here I cannot but add one observation which though it concern not your exceptions yet it very much concerns our defence that the world may not think us forsaken of God because we are oppressed by men And that is this Your writers indeed heretofore designed us to this very same destruction we now groan under by their Predictions but t was whiles they plotted it by their contrivances that the common rout might repute them Prophets whiles they were no other than murderers Hence as soon as we had withdrawn from you I mean as to your corruptions though not as to your Communion
A Christian Vindication OF TRUTH Against ERROUR Concerning these Seven Controversies 1. Of Sinners Prayers 2. Of Priests Marriage 3. Of Purgatory 4. Of the second Commandment and Images 5. Of praying to Saints and Angels 6. Of Justification by Faith 7. Of Christs New Testament or Covenant By Edw. Hide D. D. sometimes Fellow of T. C. in Cambridge and late Rector Resident of Brightwell in Berks. Holding forth the faithful word as he hath been taught that he may be able by sound Doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers Tit. 1. 9. Idcirco doctrinam Catholicam contradicentium obsidet impugnatio ut fides nostra non torpescat otio sed multis exercitationibus elimetur Aug. Serm. 98. de Tempore London Printed by R. White for Richard Davis Bookseller in Oxford 1659. The General Contents of each Chapter CAp. 1. Of Sinners prayers p. 1. 2. Of Priests Marriage p. 13. 3. Of Purgatory p. 69. 4. Of the Second Commandement and against Images p. 129. 5. Of Praying to Saints and Angels p. 245. 6. Of Justification p. 359. 7. Of Christs New Testament or Covenant p. 471. Courteous Reader The pages above-mentioned will shew theâ—… the full Contents of all particulars handled in each Chapter TO THE Christian Reader HE that writes Devotion is like to please all good Christians and is sure to please himself because he walks with God in whose presence is joy and at whose right hand are pleasures for evermore But he that writes Controversie is sure to displease many even all that are either Unchristian as coming short of Religion or Antichristian as going beyond or against it and cannot easily please himself because he walks among briers and thorns which may entangle but must annoy and offend his footing I did little think when I took some few steps in Golgotha to teach my self and prepare others how to dye That I should have met with thorns instead of dead mens skuls though I made a publick impression of those steps in my Christian Legacie for others the more plainly to see and the more easily to follow them But such is the contentiousness of this carping and quarreling age That it turneth even Devotion it self into controversie and no wonder then if it turn controversie into contention and contention into bloodshed Let the Apostle cry never so lowd Foolish and unlearned questions avoid knowing that they do gender strifes And the servant of Christ must not strive 2 Tim. 2. yet this captious world will afford more questions concerning strife then Godliness not considering that the Spirit of God calleth them foolish and unlearned questions though they be invented with never so much wit and maintained with never so great learning And such I think are most of these ensuing questions raised by so many exceptions lately brought against the doctrine and practice of the Church of England by one G. B. neerly devoted to the Church of Rome 1. Of Gods hearing the Prayers of Heathens for what is that to Christians 2. Of Purgatory for what is that to the Christian Faith 3. Of Priests marriage for what is that to the Christian Religion 4. Of worshiping Images for they are both directly against Religion. 5. Of Praying to Saints 6. Of Justification by works for that 's against Faith in Christ. 7. Of Quarrelling about the words of Testament and Covenant for that 's at least vain if not profane or sinful babling As t is meerly upon words so t is vain as t is quarrelling upon those words so it may easily be sinful For he that saith Hold fast the form of sound words 2 Tim. 1. 13. bids us stand upon Propositions which signifie true or false not upon single Terms which are unsignificant as to the Truth whether speculative or practick for there can be neither Faith nor Love in them yet I have endeavoured to make the Answers to these Questions though grounded on such unnecessary exceptions to contain some very necessary and sound Divinity for which purpose I have put them into large Chapters and have assigned to each Chapter large Contents being resolved to answer the Cause for the satisfaction of others rather then the Objection for the vindication ofmy self And I think I had a good occasion and a better reason so to do for though our Brethren most oppress us yet our Adversaries most revile us and therefore every true Son much more Servant of this distressed Church ought to believe and observe his Church now speaking to him in the language of St. Paul Be not thou therefore ashamed of the Testimony of the Lord nor of me his Prisoner but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the Gospel according to the Power of God 2 Tim. 1. 8. He that is ashamed of his Religion is ashamed of the Testimony of the Lord He that forsakes his Church when she is the Lords Prisoner did hypocritically follow her when she was the Lords free Servant and refusing to partake in the afflictions of the Gospel shews he embraced the Gospel according to the custom of men not according to the Power of God But the Word of God is not bound 2 Tim. 2. 9. These Truths which we profess according to Gods word will alwaies be professed to the worlds end though with less visibility yet not with less constancy and if Protestants shall go from them Papists shall return to them For God that can raise Children out of Stones will never be without witness among his own children and I look upon all Christians at large as his children though only upon good Christians as his dutiful children And if they should hold their peace the very stones would speak crying Hosanna to the Son of David our blessed Saviour ascribing unto him the Truth of our Religion and the honour of our Salvation And we desire no more may obtain no less Let our adversaries shew any one Tenent or Practice wherein we of this Church leave them to be more for the honour of Christ then that which we embrace and we will acknowledge our selves the worser Christians nor be any longer in that particular Protestant against them but detestant of our selves But till they can shew that we beseech them to shew themselves good Christians in not railing and raging against us for being so because we cannot think God hath given any Church Dominion over Religion or his Servant power above his Son yet men of their perswasion then most call to be answered when they least resolve to be satisfied disiring only to hinder Orthodox Ministers from confirming Protestants because they have power by prohibiting their own Proselites the use of their Books to hinder them from converting Papists yet for my part I should not have laid open the corrupt doctrines and practices of Popery had I not been constrained to vindicate Protestancy for I had rather spend my time and zeal about doctrines of Conscience the of Contestation or of Corruption and these for the most part are both
of the Greek he hath unawares granted that the Latine Canons are not of so great certainty and should not be of so great authority as the Greek For one of Two cannot be so certain as One by it self Again profâ—…ssing that secundum priora statuta in the Latine is the better edition of the two Quaedam alia lectio melior habet secundum priora statuta he hath unawares granted it is the worse for that could not have been quaedam alia lectio if the other of propria statuta had not been before it and surely of two various readings the first must needs be the best because that was the Original according to the rules Id verum quod primum Id bonum quod verum Thirdly confessing secundum priora statuta to be the Original in that it was the better for else the Original was falfe and the variation from it was the true reading he hath as unadvisedly taxed the Greeks for mistaken Interpreters Graeci haec verba malè intelligentes vertêrunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if he mean these for the words ill translated secundum propria statuta the Greeks did not ill translate them for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth fairly and fully express those words But if he mean for the words ill translated secundum priora statuta then it is not credible the Greeks intended to translate them for they must have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they had read secundum priora statuta in the Latine copies and meaned to translate what they had read T is much more probable that the Greeks found secundum propria statuta in the Original Africane Canon which sure was penned in Latine for the Africane Fathers writ in Latine and Valerius Bishop of Hippo in Africa did therefore take Saint Augustine while he was yet but a Priest to officiate for him in the Pulpit contrary to the custom of that Church because himself being a Greek and not expert in the use of the Latine tongue could not Preach so well to the edifying of the Africane people as saith Possidius in the life of Saint Augustine And it is as probable That the Latines did at first read that same Canon secundum propria statuta as did the Greeks till some of later years sc. after the Prohibition of Priests marriage in that Church thinking priora statuta would better serve their turn then propria statuta not only because it took off the specification of time but also because it put on the face of antiquity ventured to shuffle that in for the other For it is evident that Gratian did read that very Canon secundum propria statuta concerning which Binius avoweth secundum priora statuta to be the better reading v. Grat. Dist. 84. cap. 3. But indeed Binius in this assertion is confuted not only by his own Latine interpreter in his own Councils in this very particular Canon upon which he hath passed this unwarrantable sentence but also in Balsamons Councils by Gentianus Hervetus if that marginal note be his upon the 13. Canon of Trullo Legerat interpres Graecus in Canone Carthaginensi secundum propria statuta And if that note be not his we have gotten a new author to confute Binius but we have not lost our old confutation For in the Latine translation which without doubt belongs to Hervetus we see not only that he so read but also that he so understood those words for he there thus interprets them Propriis terminis à consortibus abstineant Let them abstain from wives at proper and peculiar seasons or times that is At the times of their administration as saith Balsamon So that Binius sheweth more his animositie then his ingenuitie in his ensuing words Hac translatione nostri temporis haeretici caelibatum Clericorum impugnant quasi hujus Canonis authoritate Clerici ab uxoribus in ordine tantùm Vicis suae abstinere deberent reliquis verò temporibus iisdem maritali consortio cohabitare liceret For we say no more in this then Balsamon had said four hundred years before us your own Hervetus being his interpreter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vicis suae tempore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eo sc. tempore quo sacrificant Bals. Concil Trul. cap. 13. Nay we say no more in this then the whole Council in Trullo had said 600. years before Balsamon as hath been proved already in most express words yet in truth we have no reason to be angry with Binius for though he hath given us bad language he hath given us a good advantage for having said that secundum priora statuta was the better and therefore the antienter and truer reading of this Canon he hath not only justified our appeal to former Canons concerning this matter but hath also confuted his own new exposition of the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is this secundum proprias regulas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enim non tantùm significat terminum sed etiam regulam ac praeceptum For though we may admit that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie Regula yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have been an improper translation in Greek for secundum proprias regulas in Latine in which language the Canon was first penned because it would have been equivocal and therefore unexprâ—…ssive and uncertain But it must have been an impossible translation of these Latine words secundum priores regulas for all the world cannot make priores signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more then priority signifie property And yet he confidently avoweth that secundum priora statuta was the better reading of the two The upshot of all is this whether we look to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to the Latine secundum propria statuta for priora was a meer device I will not say a forgerie If we will look upon certainties not upon conjectures the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth import terminum temporis not terminum orationis a determination of time not of law and so likewise the Latine word statutum or the whole Greek Church did not rightly understand their own tongue and the Africane Church did not intend their Canon should be rightly understood wherefore I hope you will pardon this my Descant upon Binius because you see I have done it not to shew my self a Grammarian but a Divine not a bold Critick but an honest Church-man For I have followed that sense of the Africane Canon which I find given it not only by the Greek but also by the Latine Church And therefore this your Canon may not bear that sense which you have given it because it may not contradict all other Canons of the same Africane Church according to the judgement of all Greek and Latine Interpreters And yet this seems to me the best defence you have made for Siricius whereby you have taught us Protestants very ingenuously though very Covertly to believe That a Pope may need
him by making either frivolous objections or fond cavils or false calumnies against his Doctrine which in truth is to be the Messengers of Satan And for ought we can see Saint Pauls truest Disciples are most like to have such Messengers to buffet them to the worlds end For this is one of those requests which according to Saint Chrysostom is most like to come under that Text For we know not what we should pray for as we ought Rom. 8. 26. When men who are persecuted and troubled for Religion pray for deliverance from their persecutions or for rest and relaxation from their labours and troubles But yet the Scholars saith he need not be so much ashamed or dismayed for even the great Master of Israel was himself in the same condition Saint Paul saying of himself as well as of others For we know not what we should pray for as we ought and that not out of modesty or humility as appears in that he uncessantly made request to see Rome which was not then granted him when he requested it and that he prayed earnestly and frequently for deliverance from his thorn in the flesh that is from his manifold dangers and afflictions which was never granted him at all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. in Rom. cap. 8. v. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 14. You have here a second place out of Saint Chrysostom to confute your new interpretation take yet a third for upon those words of Saint Paul to the Galathians which are next of kin with these to the Corinthians My temptation which was in the flesh ye despised not Gal. 4. 14. the same Saint Chrysostom thus glosseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I was tumbled and tossed I was beaten with rods I was under a thousand deaths whiles I preached to you and yet though I was in that contemptible condition you contemned me not Me thinks I hear my despised and distressed mother the Church of England at this time saying the same to all that still embrace her doctrine and continue in her Communion For this he meaneth when he saith My Temptation which was in the flesh ye despised not Whereas if Saint Paul had been under such Temptations of the flesh as you imagine these supercilious pretenders who sought to be justified by their own righteousness must needs have condemned him for more then an ordinary sinner They who boasted of their own circumcision in the flesh would certainly have despised him as uncircumcised who had such temptations in the flesh For what is it in the world that to this day makes any man more despicable nor could Saint Paul well have given such proud Justiciaries a greater advantage against him or his doctrine then such an open profession as this which you have made for him That he had great Temptations of the flesh But indeed the whole context speaks with Saint Chrysostom and against you That the Thorn in Saint Pauls flesh was not his great Temptations but his great Tribulations in the flesh For they are particularly mentioned in the ensuing discourse wherein is not one word concerning any impure motions Therefore saith he I take pleasure in infirmities in reproaches in necessities in persecutions in distresses for Christs sake And he particularly asserteth the Grace or strength he had obtained by prayer as given him to encounter with these Tribulations and I ask you seriously would not these words Most gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities be very ill paraphrased after this manner Most gladly therefore will I glory in my concupiscence and I would fain know how it is possible for that which is naught in the Paraphrase to be good in the Exposition since a Paraphrase is no other but a verbal Exposition 14. Lastly you say This hath and will be still sufficient to the worlds end for millions of good men to undertake the office of Priesthood without needing either to marry or burn especially if they will do as he did not only assiduously pray but also Castigo corpus meum 1 Cor. 9. 27. Good Sir how do you know that the married Clergy with us do not so or that the unmatried Clergy with you do so Did not Saint Peter do this as well as Saint Paul and yet he was doubtless a married man But I answer I do find that men are bid abstain from marriage to fast and pray not that they are bid fast and pray to abstain from marriage nor have Priests any particular promise more then other men that they shall be enabled to live perpetual Virgins by fasting and praying that so they may fast and pray in faith of that promise nor have they any particular command more then other men to fast and pray to enable them to live perpetual Virgins that so they may fast and pray in obedience to that command And why should any man place Religion in that which neither is in faith as to Gods promise nor from obedience as to Gods command And whereas you speak of your millions of good men I heartily wish it may be more then speech but I have a fear a suspition nay a proof that hitherto it hath been no more For first your own Panormitane as I find him quoted by my late Reverend and Learned Diocesan Bishop Davenant makes me fear otherwise for he saith expreslly Credo pro bono salute esset animarum ut volentes possent contrahere I believe it would be for the good and salvation of souls if they that will might marry He means sure the Priests souls and therefore thought many of them deeply plunged in sin for want of marriage Secondly the Testimony of your own Agrippa makes me think otherwise for he saith plainly of your Priests Monks Clanculum confluunt ad lupanaria stuprant sacras virgines vitiant viduas And puts his Quod ego scio vidi to their clancular yet prodigious abominations and at last thus concludes Et quarum animas lucrari debent Deo Illarum corpora sacrificant Diabolo Agrip. de van scientiarum cap. 64. Thirdly the authority of your own Espencaeus makes me say otherwise for these are his words in his exposition upon Titus 1. Turpissimum est quod Clericos cum concubinis pellicibus meretricibus cohabitare liberosque procreare sinunt accepto ab eis atque adeo alicubi a continentibus certo quotannis cansu Habeat concubinam sive non habeat aureum solvat habeat si velit I should have been ashamed of quoting these three Testimonies had not your great boast constrained it but I am ashamed to English these quotations though by so doing I should go near to overthrow your boasting Indeed your own Cassander hath overthrown it for this is his ingenuous profession and confession in this kind That the want of able Ministers idoneorum Ministrorum inopia is one cause amongst others why the constitution which forbids the marriage of Priests in your Church should be recalled for that had kept many
the whole But take heed whiles you say so that they who are against you and deny Purgatory tax you not of blasphemy for saying that which is not in being is a part of Christs Kingdom for to make Christ a King in Utopia in a place which is not is to make him no King And that they who are with you and affect purgatory tax you not of infidelity for believing that Christ hath taken possession of his whole Kingdom upon no better grounds then upon a meer uncertainty 6. For even your own Bellarmine though in his first Book de Purgatorio he writ so confidently as if all men were bound to believe Purgatory that will be saved yet in his second Book de circumstantiis Purgatorii He writes so ambiguously as to enfeeble any unprejudicate mans belief I will give you some few instances and then leave you to judge what small reason he had for his so great confidence Cap. 6. de loco Purgatorii He saith The Church hath not defined in what place Purgatory is for that the purgation of souls may be in many places and some are purged where they sinned but after several other opinions he seems to like that best which placeth Purgatory in the bowels of the earth because of several eruptions of fire out of the earth in several parts of the world Be it so if we must needs have a Purgatory that they may have the greatest share in it and terrour from it who were once the first inventers and now are the chiefest maintainers of it even the Italian Monks and Fryers for the most notorious eruptions of fire in these parts of the world are either in Italy as at Mount Vesuvius or not far from it as at Mount Aetna in Sicily Cap. 9. De tempore quo durat Purgatorium Of the time that Purgatory lasteth which is as uncertain as the place Quando ab hoc loco in coelum avolant res est incertissima How long the souls must stay in Purgatory before they can get to heaven is a matter of the greatest uncertainty Cap. 10. 11. Qualis sit purgatorii poena The quality of the Torment in Purgatory is as uncertain as either the time or place De poenâ Purgatorii quaedam sunt certa quaedam dubia As concerning the punishment of Purgatory some things are certain some are doubtfull Certa sunt Carentia visionis poena sensus poena ignis T is certain saith he the souls in Purgatory are under the punishment of loss for want of the beatifical vision and are under the punishment of sense by torment of fire Do they want the beatificall vision say then God hath thus sentenced them at their particular Judgement Depart from me ye cursed and let them hereafter be accounted not blessed but cursed souls not in a Communion with God but in a separation from him yet in saying so remember you bid your best Champion recall even the very subject of this whole Controversie which indeed is the best if not the only way to end it De Ecclesiâ quae est in Purgatorio of the Church which is in Purgatory for that cannot be a part of Gods Church which is in a separation from God And sure I am your Cardinal is beholding to the latter part of this same sentence to prove that souls in Purgatory are under the punishment of sense by fire for he proveth it by these words Ite in ignem aeternum Go into everlasting fire Mat. 25. And why not also prove their punishment of loss in the want of the beatifical vision from the first part of the same sentence Depart from me ye cursed For the same sentence denounceth the judgement of loss and of sense of loss in Depart from me ye cursed and of sense in Go into everlasting fire And we may fancy the one to be Temporarie as well as the other and to belong to righteous souls as much as the other but surely the Text saith both are eternal and belong only to the cursed And indeed t is a strange proof which brings Hell to prove Purgatory yet this is the best he can find in all the Scripture For here he proves that material fire can punish immaterial souls because it was provided to punish the Devil and his Angels which are immaterial spirits But still the proof concerneth only Hell fire so that in plain truth He alledgeth hell to prove Purgatory All the doubt is how he can make it so This proof is yet further enlarged in the next Chapter where he answers some chief doubts concerning Purgatory as whether it be a true real fire and how it can act upon separated souls and both are answered from these words Go ye cursed into everlasting fire Ignem Purgatorii esse corporeum quia in Scripturis passim poena impiorum vocatur Ignis Et regula Theologorum est ut verba Scripturarum accipiantur propriè quando nihil absurdi sequitur The fire of Purgatory is corporeal for commonly in the Scripture the punishment of the wicked is called fire what is the punishment of the wicked to the righteous or must men turn wicked that they may go to Purgatory and it is a rule of Divines That the words of Scripture are to be taken properly if there follow no absurdity and a little after Corpora damnatorum puniuntur igne Mat. 25. Ite in ignem aeternum est autem idem ignis corporum damnatorum spirituum corpore vacantium nam ibidem dicitur qui paratus est diabolo Angelis ejus The bodies of the damned are punished with fire Go into everlasting fire Mat. 25. but it is the same fire which punisheth their bodies and other souls or spirits without bodies as it is said Which is prepared for the Devil and his Angels Pray Sir why should any Christian be taught to desire to go to that fire which was prepared for the Devil and his Angels and if he do once go thither how shall he ever return from thence And yet your Cardinal would have us believe Purgatory that we may have the happiness to go thither and saith if we do not we shall burn for ever in Hell-fire A new Apostle sure he speaks not only so resolutely but likewise so authentically yet not dropt down as the rest from Mount Sion bùt from Mount Sina as we may guess by his Thunder and Lightning Seriously it is a sad thought for all good Christians that any Divine should after Nadab and Abihu dare offer strange fire for God is not well pleased with such an offering But it is a joyful thought for us poor Protestants that this fire of Purgatory is not only a strange but also a false fire for so we are sure it cannot burn us Else it seems after it hath been your Purgatory it should be our Hell However it is palpable That your Cardinals talk only is of Purgatory but his proof is of Hell Thus himself hath brought his certainties concerning
of the Decalogue are noâ—…ess fundamentals in regard of our Charity then the twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed are fundamentals in regard of our Faith and it is as Catholick to abolish or confound an Article as to abolish or confound a Commandement and you may as well say there may be no errour of ignorance against one of the Articles as that there may be no sin of ignorance against one of the Commandements For the Decalogue is Symbolum agendorum as the Creed is Symbolum credendorum the one is a short summarie of Duties to be practised as the other of Truths to be believed and all the Decalogue is as necessary to salvation as all the Creed for as he that dis-believes any one Article is in the state of damnation so he that disobeyes any one Command And as God requires us to know and believe every particular Article at least in the purpose and preparation of our souls that we may be saved so also to know and obey every particular Command dispencing no more with our dis-obedience then with our dis-belief and exacting as much our knowledge of and obedience to his Commands as our knowledge and our belief of his Promises both Faith and Obedience must be alike as to the perfection of parts though neither is or can be as to the perfection of degrees As our faith is not a true faith able to save us unless in our desire we perfectly believe all that God hath revealed to us so our charity is not a true charity able to save us unless in our desires we perfectly fulfill all that God hath commanded us For God accepting through Christ the will for the deed both in our believing and in our obeying doth so accept us in his Son â—…s not to deny himself He takes that for a true faith which saith Lord I believe help thou my unbelief because it desires to believe whatever he hath proposed for the object of faith He takes that for a true Charity which saith We are not able of our-selves as of our-selves to think a good thought because it desires to perform whatever he hath proposed as the object of our obedience There is his gracious accepting us in his Son But he takes not that for a true faith which saith concerning the least title of his revealed Truth I will not believe for that is to question his being the first Truth nor that for a true Charity which saith concerning the least title of his imposed Commands I will not obey for that is to question his being the last or chiefest good There is his not denying himself God accepts us in his Son by taking the will for the deed both in our Faith and in our Obedience but he denyes not himself by allowing us to believe or obey according to our own wills for what we want of actual conformity to his will in our righteousness we are bound to make up by a potential conformity to his will in our repentance which is a plain demonstration that God accepts not of half-Christians either in believing or in obeying but will have us put on All Christ before he will accept us in Christ according to the Apostles exhortation Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ Rom. 13. 14. that is Put him on no less as your Lord to be ruled and governed by his commands then as your Jesus to be revived by the purchase and promise or to be anointed with the joy and gladness of his salvation For a meer speculative knowledge of the divine promises can bring no man to Christ without a practical knowledge and love of the Divine Commands and therefore the doctrine of the moral Law is as necessary to us Christians both to be known and to be practised as it was to the Jews and consequently whatsoever is propounded in the Decalogue is so really fundamental in joyning us to Christ the foundation that as it must be obeyed to keep us from refractoriness which separates the will so it must be taught to keep us from ignorance and from errour which separates the understanding from the blessed Redeemer and lover of our souls For as the Creed doth teach us to know God in Christ as he will be known so the Decalogue doth teach us to worship God in Christ as he will be worshipped The same Messias who came to teach us all things hath not only said This is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent John 17. 3. but also I know that his commandement is life everlasting John 12. 50. As his Creed is life eternal which teacheth us to know God in Christ so his commandment is life eternal which teacheth us to love and obey God in Christ I know that his commandement is life everlasting If Christ know it the Christian may not doubt it much less deny it And therefore he that denyes or eludes any Commandement in the Decalogue is in as great danger of damnation as he that denyes or eludes any Article of the Creed For a false tenent in matters of obedience against any one Commandement is an heresie in practicks and destroyes salvation if it be unrepented even as a false tenent in matters of Faith against any one Article of the Creed is an heresie in speculatives So saith the Apostle 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Be not deceived neither fornicators nor idolators nor adulterers nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God As if the Apostle had said It is no less damnable to err in the principles of practice then in those of speculation therefore he supposeth these also may be Hereticks saying unto them Be not deceived For corruption of judgement in duties of life may make an Heretick as much as in Articles of Faith especially if it be in any principle or ground of the Law as he which thinks he may be a Rebel or an Idolator and yet inherit the Kingdom of God is as much deceived as he which denyes the Communion of Saints and yet thinks to be saved For he doth impinge in as fundamental a point and consequently incurrs a most pernicious and damnable heresie For a Practical truth declared in any Commandement is a fundamental Truth and challengeth our knowledge and belief no less then a speculative truth declared in an Article of faith 6. And therefore Suarez doth justily and judiciously except against those who labouring to maintain the Infallibility of your Church do notwithstanding confess that she may err in doctrina morum but not in doctrina fidei in doctrine of life but not in doctrine of belief in matter of fact but not in matter of faith Disp. de fide sec. 7. 8. because saith he by and from any impious and ungodly decision or determination in duties of life must
worship and the gâ—…eatest degree of it is no more Therefore we say That Religious worship in what degree soever is to be given only to God because he alone is the object of Religion For Religion though it command and govern such acts as pass from man to man or from man to God yet it doth not of it self produce or excite any act but only such as hath God for its immediate object And therefore all the elicite and proper acts of Religion such as flow from its own nature are reducible to some of the four Commandements in the first Table which concern God only as appears in that his name alone is used in every one of them And therefore to bestow any act of Religion upon any other then upon God alone is to set up both a God and a Religion neither revealed nor commanded in the first Table and consequently not of Goa's but of our own making Nay it is to fetch a God out of the second Table to bestow upon him the Duties enjoined in the first It is to borrow an Object from the second Table to exercise the Acts of the first For the whole Decalogue knows no other object but only God or neighbour and these are so distinct That what is neighbour cannot be God what is God cannot be neighbour And the Acts concerning these are as distinct as the Objects for all the Acts commanded or forbidden in the first Table concern our God All the Acts commanded or forbidden in the second Table concern our neighbour and t is equally absurd to apply to neighbour the Duties belonging to God as Glory or Worship and to apply to God the Duties belonging to neighbour as relief or maintenance This is the Divinity God himself hath taught for it is the plain undoubted sense of his Commandements and this is the Divinity Gods Church hath learned and professed for thus she understood his sense as saith Lactantius lib. 6. cap. 10. Primum Justitiae officium est conjungi cum Deo secundum cum homine sed illud primum Religio dicitur Hoc secundum misericordia vel humanitas nominatur The first office of Justice is to unite man to God The second to unite man to man or to his neighbour The first office is called Religion the second is called Humanity And therefore it is against the very order of Justice to confound these offices For as Humanity cannot extend to God so Religion cannot extend to neighbour Wherefore since all Communion is founded in Justice those who most confound the offices of Justice are the greatest enemies and opposers of true Christian Communion and consequently They who worship Saints and Angels are the greatest Schismaticks because they most confound the Offices of Justice doing to neighbour those offices which belong to God and not doing to God those offices which belong to him For he that renders to Caesar Gods due doth for that cause not render to God his own due And accordingly these two are disjoyned and divided as two distinct offices of Justice by Gods own eternal Wisdom and Truth and therefore may not be confounded without mans unsufferable folly and mistake for so saith our blessed Saviour Mat. 22. 21. Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars there 's the Debt of Justice belonging to Humanity And unto God the things that are Gods there 's the Debt of Justice belonging to Religion Cesar must have his own but he may not have Gods Tribute The noblest creature that is either in Heaven or in Earth may not have the Creators due Since therefore Religion is the Creators due as Humanity is the creatures according to Lactantius Gods most glorious Servants Saints and Angels may not be sharers with their Master in his due that is to say in the offices of Religion though in never so inferiour a degree because they cannot be Gods though in never so inferiour a degree But they may only be sharers with their fellow-servants or creatures in the offices of Humanity whether double or treble or if you will centuple sharers it matters not according to their several degrees of glory and of excellency And this was so clear a Truth in our Saviours daies that it is said concerning the disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians when they heard these words they marvelled and left him and went their way v. 22. And it is still so clear notwithstanding the many sophistical distinctions whereby some of late have clouded it that if any man now will needs reply against it he must be more refractory then those Pharisees or Herodians and fall under Saint Pauls reproof Nay but O man who art thou that replyest against God Rom. 9. 20. For God the Father in his Law God the Son in his Gospel and God the Holy Ghost the Pen man both of Law and Gospel hath so determined That the offices of Justice may not be confounded but those which belong to Religion must be reserved by themselves for God alone none of them all bestowed upon our neighbour he is capable only of those offices which belong to Humanity but of none of those which belong to Religion Therefore your words And the same I say proportionably though in an infinitely inferiour degree of our Religious worship of his glorious Servants Saints and Angels are not to be justified though you should say them to the worlds end For there is no proportion betwixt the creature and the Creator and consequently you may not say the same thing or talk of the same worship proportionably concerning them 13. The Honour of Humanity or of the second Table due from the fifth Commandement though in the highest degree of proportion being infinitely below the Creator and the honour of Religion or of the first Table due from the four first Commandements though in the lowest degree being infinitely above the creature For that honour is internally in the understanding an apprehension or belief of an infinite excellency in the will a subjection or submission to it there 's the duty of the first Commandement The same honour is externally in the gesture an adoration in the speech a profession in the deed a publick and solemn Homage made to the same infinite excellency there 's the duty of the three other Commandements in the first Table Wherefore you must place your degrees of proportion not in religious worship to make an inferiour degree of that but in civil worship to make a superiour degree of that for Gods glorious servants unless you will serve them instead of God to the dishonour of their Lord and to the despight of his Commandements I would not speak so positively were this Divinity of yesterday but you see Lactantius shews it was of old in the Catholick Church And the Angelical Doctor shews the same for notwithstanding the Practice of the Church was corrupted in his daies yet this Doctrine this Divinity was not corrupted For this we find was his determination 12º qu. 100. art 5.
Ecclesiae sententiâ resiliisse atque adversus ejus usum atque doctrinam scripsisse spicula intorsisse Bar. An. 794. nu 62. So little could the second Council of Nice prevail at that time with the Latine Church for admitting images into their Religion And though of late years that Council hath been accounted the seventh Oecumenical by a faction amongst the Latines yet the Greeks themselves did not antiently so account it your own Baronius being my witness An. 863. nu 6. In reliquis omnibus Ecclesiis Patriarchalibus exceptâ Constantinopolitanâ sex tantum Oecumenicae Synodi in publicis confessionibus professionibus nominari consuêrunt In all the other Patriarchal Churches that of Constantinople only excepted The Grecians did usually make mention of no more then six General Councils in all their Confessions and Professions So it is plain they accounted not the second of Nice as the seventh General Council and if not they why should we who know that though the Bishop of Rome consented to it yet all the other Bishops of the Latine Church generally opposed it And truly it deserved to be generally opposed not only for setting up a false worship this of images but also for setting it up by egregious falsities and yet more egregious falsifications First I will give you a short view of their falsities our blessed Saviour had said Mat. 4. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve They thus qualifie the Greek Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 4. He doth put this Only to the word Serve not to the word Worship by false Logick distinguishing between two Synonomaes which signified one the same Religious worship unless we will blasphemously say That our Saviour did not fully confute the Devil who had used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his temptation saying All these things will I give thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if thou wilt fall down and worship me or unless we will add to this blasphemy yet another much more execrable saying That so as we do reserve our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Divine worship for God we may allow our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Religious worship to the Devil be not startled at the inference for if any may have Religious worship but God alone the Devil will quickly have his share of it for he can transform himself into an Angel of light 2 Cor. 11. 14. and therefore if we will give Religious worship to Angels we may soon be so deluded as to give it unto Devils and whiles we pretend to worship God may in truth be brought to worship the Devil Therefore this was so very false a device though it were intended for a distinction That no Divine can be in love with it but he that is contented to venter Gods glory and mans salvation and much more his own soul upon a piece of Sophistry Againâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 4. Those that call pictures or images Idols let them be accursed A false authority assumed to countenance a false divice taking to themselves power of cursing those whom God had blessed even the Apostles and Prophets and many holy men who have promiscuously used these two words Images and Idols However no Christian Divine can justly be condemned for disowning those who could find in their hearts to deliver men over to the Devil meerly for a Grammatical notion and that a false one too in the case for which it was alledged For though there may be a Grammatical difference betwixt an Image and an Idol yet a Theological difference there is not since he that worships an Image doth without all peradventures make that Image an Idol to himself Thirdly whereas the Council of Constantinople had made men take an Oath against images These infatuated Zealots determine it is better for a man to break then to keep that Oath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 4. T is better you should be perjured then keep your Oath for throwing down of images strange besotted Divines to make so much of an image so little of an Oath yet more strange besotted Casuists to advise a man rather to break his Oath then to break an Image for an Oath is sacred by Gods institution but an image is sacred only by mans imagination The one doth not only reach the conscience but also bind it the other though it doth reach the eye yet cannot reach the conscience Fourthly They define that Angels and separated souls are corporeal which is another falsity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 5. They are not quite without bodies though they have but thin bodies for only God is wholly without a body They were so afraid of losing their pictures that they had rather lose the Truth and not allow Angels and blessed Spirits to be incorporeal then not allow them to be pictured But Binius though not over modest yet is ashamed of this gross assertion saying Angelos Animas esse corporeas falsum est sed pingi posse judicio Ecclesiae receptum est T is false That Angels and souls are corporeal yet the judgement of the Church is That they may be pictured He hath mended the matter well by taking a falsity from a Council to put it upon the Church for the Church cannot judge that may be pictured which is not corporeal since lineaments must first be in the substance represented before they can truly be in the representation Therefore the picturing of Angels and immaterial Spirits is more fitly assigned to the practice of some men in the Church then to the Judgement of the Church and yet these men intended not an essential but an historical representation of those Spirits not to describe them in their substances but in their actions or performances or appearances Fifthly and lastly not but that more might be alledged but that I have already alledged too much of such absurdities when as a Jew had objected in his Disputation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am scandalized orgrievously offended at you Christians because you wâ—…rship Images Their answer is The Scriptures do not forbid us to worship Images but to worship 〈◊〉 as God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 5. As if they intended to be so false as to put a lye into the mouth of Truth it self making the same Commandement to speak contradictions whereof it is impossible both parts should be true For to limit an universal negative it to make it a particular affirmative and consequently so to deny or forbid in one thing as to affirm and command in another that is in truth to make it speak contradictions As for example Thou shalt do no murther limit you this universal negative by saying Murder not a Roman Catholick and it will follow that you may murder a Protestant whom you call an Heretick and so the same Precept shall forbid and allow murder that is shall speak contradictions So Thou shalt not steal
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
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
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
that Redemption by Christ might upon any pretence be called imputative that is imaginary for so he is pleased to make the word signifie which is the whole scope of Gods most holy word and the only support and comfort of mens sinful souls By the first assertion he did overmuch exalt our own righteousnesse and took the ready course to bring us to presumption But by the second he did much more depresse the righteousnesse of Christ and so took the readie course to bring us to despair for if our redemption be imaginary our Salvation must be desperate And betwixt these two rocks of presumption and despair it is hard for any man to sail so warily as not to make shipwrack of his soul it being equally dangerous for him to rely upon his own and not to rely upon his Saviours righteousnesse Without doubt holy David though he had served God with all his might yet prayed to his dying day Enter not into Judgement with thy servant and hath accordingly bequeathed this Prayer as a legacy to all Gods servants ever since not excepting the most diligent and the most dutifull thus to pray for their Justification and then to pray most earnestly for it when they are drawing neerest Judgement That the Justification which they have now in title or sense of the Law they may also then have in the sentence of the Judge for that the one is not compleated without the other and upon what ground can any man pray to God not to enter into Judgement with him who knoweth himself still under the Accusation and Condemnation of the Law for the Judge must proceed according to the Law and how can he be exempted from the accusation and condemnation of the Law who hath broken it himself but by the satisfaction of his surety according to that of the Apostle Who is he that condemneth it is Christ that died Rom. 8. 34. No other satifaction but the death of Christ could consist with the Justice of God for that was indispenâ—…able and required it no other could consist with the Truth of God for that was infallible and had promised it no other could consist with the Office of Christ who took upon him the nature of man that he might expiate the sins of men no other could consist with our salvation who could not be saved unless our sins had been expâ—…ated This was a â—…urthen not to be taken from off our shoulders a yoke not to be taken from off our necks but only by the hand of the Messias in the Judgement of the Jews themselves for so the Chaldee Paraphrase interprets those words Isa. 10 27. The yoke shall be destroyed because of the Anoixting A facie Messiae vel propter Messiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The yoke shall be destroyed because of the Messias or by the power of Christ Our own hands which brought it cannot remove it our own hands which made it cannot destroy it we may struggle till we break our necks nay yet more our hearts but we cannot break our yoke The Spiritual Assyrian that so easily brought us down can more easily keep us under none can break his Army but He that hath bruised his Head none can rescue us from his captivity but he that hath led captivity captive even the Captain of our salvation This is the Justification God promiseth to Israel and I hope you will not say he fails in promise by giving another or rather by giving none for what is merited or purchased by us is not given us saying O â—…srael trust in the Lord for with the Lord there is mercy and with him is 〈◊〉 redemption And he shall redeem Israel from all his sins Psal. 130. 7 8. Say not you he shall redeem Israel from some sins when God saith from All Say not you From sins before regeneration by the first but not from sins after it by the second Justification For as to such sins the plenteous redemption is not with the Lord but with Israel and so you will quite contradict the Text. 1. In its exhortation O Israel trust in the Lord For Israel may trust in the Lord to be redeemed from his sins only till his regeneration but in himself after it 2. In its assertion For with the Lord there is mercy and with him is plenteous redemption whereas t is rather to be said according to this supposition For with your selves there is merit and with him is plenteous renumeration or with your selves is plenteous redemption to redeem you from your greatest sins those committed against the greater light and with the greater unthankfulness for such are the sins after Regeneration But with the Lord is onely a â—…cantie redempâ—…ion to redeem you from sins before your Regeneration when you neither had light to know them nor power to resist them By which means you do in effect bid Israel Trust in himself all his life long and in God only some sew daies or perchance hours sc. no longer then till he is Baptzed or cleansed by the laver of Regeneration since very few sober Christians and no one National Church doth now defer the Baptism of Infants longer then their very first Infancy and most Divines do think That Infants are regenerated when they are baptized 3. You will contradict the text in its promise And he shall redeem Israel from all his sins for you in effect say That Israel shall redeem himself from the greatest part of his own sins Therefore pray let this Redemption continue till the last minute of your lives till it be perfected by Glorification that it may redeem Israel from All his sins And since it is a Redemption from all sin pray let it be called Justification unless you can teach us what else it is that redeemeth us from the guilt of sin I will conclude this point with that prayer wherewith our blessed Saviour concludes his life and hath taught us to conclude Ours Into thy hands Lord I commend my Spirit This is certainly the best the last good work you can do To commend your soul to God Will you do this in your own righteousnesse then say not For thou hast redeemed me but For I have served thee O God thou God of Truth Will you do this in your Saviours righteousnesse then be ashamed of that doctrine which doth undervalue this Redemption But do what you will and say what you can These three Truths are irresistible and should be undeniable 1. He only can absolve guiltinesse whose Justice makes us Guilty 2. He only can pronounce us Just whose will is the rule of Justice 3. He only can acquit in Judgement who only is the supreme Judge And therefore since to be absolved from guiltiness to be pronounced Just and to be acquitted in the Jugement are all three comprised in this one word Justificari To be justified we may not rely upon our selves but upon our God not upon our own works and righteousnesse but upon our Saviours merits and mercies for
may justly be who seem to make it all one with the Old yet I ought not to be afraid of Jesus the only Author Preserver and Redeemer of my life the only joy and blessing and comfort of my death You say I am not afraid of the Covenant I know I am not afraid of Jesus nor do I say I am desirous to come to Mount Sinai where the Covenant properly so called was repeated but to Mount Sion where the Testament properly so called is really fulfilled and the inheritance conveyed thereby is actually possessed And the words that I quoted import no lesse I am desirous to come to Jesus the Mediatour of the New Covenant For the reason of my desire is because He is the Mediatour of the New Covenant the Covenant of Grace not of the Old Covenant the Covenant of Justice or of works for Moses was the Mediatour of that at least as it was renewed on Mount Sinai but of the New Covenant the Covenant of Grace whereof Jesus was the Maker to put Mercy in it and is the Mediatour to put me into that Mercy Thus you see it is a threefold Cord twisted with Custome Conscience and Truth as with three twists which labours to pull down this your Objection the Custome of speech the Comfort of conscience and the Truth of the Gospel all three concurring together to make me say I am desirous to come to Jesus the Mediatour of the New Covenant and seeing this I suppose you will no longer seek to maintain such an Objection for 't is not ingenuous to stand against Custome not Religious to stand against Conscience not Honest to stand against Truth 7. And thus much in answer to the Verbal part of your exception whereby you have made me some new Work I now come to the real part of it whereby you seem very willing to make some new Divinity for if it be not True it must be called New by that infallible Rule Id verum quod primum That is Trust which is Oldest as coming immediately from the Ancient of dayes or from the first Truth For in very deed say you Christs New Testament is no other than a new conditional Covenant with us by which we are bound cooperating with his Grace to do very many things our selves for the obtaining of the promised inheritance wherein if we fail we shall never attain thereto which seems to me a very strange Assertion for so you have vented it and yet a more strange definition for so you seem to intend it The Assertion is strange because it is Authentical and yet withal Ambiguous such as may be much admired but little approved For he that will speak positively ought not to speak doubtfully as you are positive in denouncing the irrecoverable losse of Heaven but doubtful in declaring by what means we may prevent that losse you speak with authority enough to terrifie us but not with perspicuity enough to instruct us You say plainly We are bound to do very many things for the obtaining of the promised inheritance wherein if we fail we shall never attain thereto But you say not one word concerning any of those things wherein we are bound not to faile So you put our Salvation upon unknown conditions which is the way to fill our souls with perplexity instead of piety and since what is not known cannot be done you may also put our Salvation upon impossible conditions which is the way to turne our perplexity into desperation our desperation into damnation 8. And I think this is enough to prove it a strange Assertion for it doth not explaine but rather obscure the thing defined as agreeing more with the Old than with the New Covenant For put Moses his Old Testament instead of Christs New Testament and you shall not need change any one particle of the whole definition but it will all agree with the one as well as with the other and so it may go after this manner For in very deed Moses his Old Testament is no other than an old conditional Covenant with us by which we are bound cooperating with Gods Grace to do very many things our selves for the obtaining of the promised inheritance wherein if we fail we shall never attain thereto So that you have given us a Definition that will fit the Old Covenant as well as the New and therefore truly fit neither since it cannot fit both which must needs be a very strange definition confounding that Covenant it should explaine for which cause it is Unlogical very strange to reason and making that one Covenant which God hath made two Covenants for which cause it is Untheological very strange to Religion For he which hath said Those things which God hath joyned together let not man put asunder Mat. 19. 6. hath thereby said according to the rule of Contraries Those things which God hath put a sunder let not man joyne together And God hath put the Old and the New Covenant as farre asunder as he hath put Heaven and Hell as he hath put Salvation and Damnation For by the Old Covenant Do this and live all mankind after the Fall must have perished there 's the Damnation But by the new Covenant Believe and thou shalt live none that lay hold on Christ and keep with him and stick to him shall perish there 's the salvation For S. Paul hath told us expressely that God will judge the World not by the Law which will condemn the most innocent and the most righteous since the losse of our first innocen'cy and righteousness but by the Gospel which will condemn only the unrepenting and unbelieving sinner In the day that God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel Rom. 2. 16. never any yet though he had a most innocent hand had so innocent an heart that he durst say his secret thoughts were innocent wherefore he must needs be condemned in the Judgement if God should Judge him according to the Law and not according to the Gospel Nor yet will the Gospel acquit him if he be not innocent any more than the Law will acquit him because it hath the same precepts of innocency with the Moral Law according to which precepts the last Judgement will be given and pronounced only it will accept of his innocency by Faith and Repentance whereas the Law will accept only of his innocency by perfect Obedience The Judgement is not like to be the lesse righteous for being according to the Gospel but the more merciful because though Jesus Christ in Judging us will proceed according to the Rule of the Law which is the same with the Rule of the Gospel yet he will not proceed according to the Covenant of the Law Do this and live but according to the Covenant of the Gospel Believe and thou shalt be saved 10. For the Moral Law is to be considered as a Rule of Righteousness Do this and as a Covenant of Life Do this and live as
must be done by Christians which Christ hath commanded and that Christ hath commanded all the moral duties that were before commanded by Moses for Be ye perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect Mat. 5. allows not a lesse but rather requires a greater perfection under the Gospel than under the Law yet we dare not take our Personal doing that is our doing by our selves for the condition of the New Covenant as if our Salvation depended upon that but only our Virtual Doing that is our Doing by our blessed Saviour whose obedience is made ours by the power of Faith or our hearty desire of Doing and sorrow for not Doing which is accepted as Obedience by the power of Repentance Bona opera per peccata mortificata reviviscunt per poenitentiam is the general Tenent of the School good works that have been buried by sin are revived by Repentance As our sins have power to bury our good works so our Repentance hath power to raise them up again which clearly shews it is not our Righteousnesse but only our Repentance that is above our sins For our Righteousnesse may be overcome and conquered by our sins but our sins cannot be overcome and conquered by our Righteousness we must go to our blessed Redeemer for that conquest but only by our Repentance 17. Wherefore I will make bold to change your definition and say Christs New Testament is a new conditional Covenant with us by which we are bound to repent for not perfectly doing all those things our selves which God hath commanded us and to believe in him that hath perfectly done them all for us that we may obtain the promised inheritance in which condition if we fail sc. of believing but not of Doing we shall never attain thereto for to put Doing properly so taken and 't is not for a Divine to speak improperly as the Condition of life or Salvation is to set up the Covenant of Works not the Covenant of Grace and that is to puzzle not to Preach true Christianity We find Adam had but one poor Commandement upon the first Covenant viz. Not to eat of the fruit of one single Tree among so many and he kept it not though he was endued with strength to keep it he was to do but one thing whiles he had his perfect strength and he did it not And how can you say that a better Covenant binds us to do many things or else to forfeit our inheritance now we have lost our strength and are not able to do rightly and perfectly so much as one Therefore pray let the Condition of life in the second Covenant not be our Doing but our Believing not our entire Obedience but our entire Repentance And let him alone have the glory of perfect Obedience who came from Heaven to purchase it and the rather because he purchased it not for himself but for us allowing the benefit of it to his Servants though he reserve the glory of it only to himself we must do the best we can to keep off and to east out the great Dragon that old Serpent called the Devil and Satan but pray let it be only the seed of the Woman that shall break this Serpents Head and let not us think we are able to break it Nor have you made the condition of Salvation any whit lighter or easier by saying we are bound to do many things our selves then if you had said we are bounâ—… to do all things For if Doing be the condition of life it must reach to All Things that are to be done else not Doing will be the Condition as well as Doing And without doubt if we can do any one thing so exactly and perfectly as fully to satisfie the Obligation of the Law we may do many and consequently All and then what need we the seed of the Woman to break the Serpents Head since we can break it our selves for if we can take away his sting we may easily break his Head Now the sting of the Serpent is sin and the strength of sin is the Law Therefore if the Law be fully kept sin can have no strength and the Serpent can have no sting I do not think there is in all Christendom so religious a Votarie but will confesse that the old Serpent hath at some time or other by his sophistry beguiled him with his venome defiled him by his power overcome him and that therefore in himself he hath been captivated under Ignorance guiltinesse and infirmity even through his actual sins and should still have been detained under that captivity if God had not mercifully given him such a Redeemer who was pleased to be his Prophet to instruct his Ignorance his Priest to expiate his guiltiness and his King to strengthen his Infirmities If he confesse this he hath great reason to mistrust his own doing If he confesse it not He hath the greater reason to instruct himself For his ignorance keeping him from the knowledge of what he is to do his guiltiness keeping him from the desire and his weaknesse keeping him from the power of doing it he cannot hope to be saved by his Obedience but by his Faith not by his Doing but by his Believing Thus St. Paul preached the Covenant of Grace saying He was an Apostle of Jesus Christ according to the Faith of Gods Elect and the acknowledgement of the Truth which is after Godlinesse there 's the Obligation to righteousness in the Covenant of Grace But this righteousnesse is not the condition of life in that Covenant for it follows In hope of eternal life which God that cannot lye promised before the world began Tit. 1. 1 2. The eternal life is not annexed to mans performance but to Gods promise not to mans duty but to Gds mercy For this promise of eternal life was made before man was created and it was made to Christ the eternal Son of God on mans behalf That all who should believe in him according to the Faith of Gods Elect and the acknowledgement of the Truth which is after Godliness should through that Faith come to eternal life Upon this Promise did God seek us when we were lost restore us when we were dead reconcile us when we were his enemies and upon this same promise will he save us now we are his Servants For though all men are lyars and fail of their Godliness yet God that cannot lye will not fail of his promise Thus again saith the same St. Paul For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life Rom. 5. 10. There was first an Atonement to be made for our reconciliation before there could be a Covenant made for our Salvation And as mans righteousness did not make the Atonement so neither doth mans righteousnesse fulfill the Covenant we are eternally obliged and should be wholy devoted to our blessed Saviour for both alike as That
and not be in the state of sin by marrying For then by your own allowance the Rule will hold and truly if the rule will not hold till then I believe the inference will hold ever after For if a mans being tempted to fornication will not yet sure his actual fornicating will put him under this indulgence of marrying because if he once fornicate he then may lawfully marry since the Apostle in saying It is better to marry then to fornicate hath allowed if not commande him to chose the better and to leave the worse And whereas you appeal to the precedent words If they cannot contain let them marry the same absurdity still follows your new gloss which is this That the Priviledge of marriage depends upon the bestiality of fornication for If they cannot contain is no more then if they burn and if they burn in your gloss is no less then if they fornicate whence it follows that according to your new gloss Saint Paul hath said If they fornicate let them marry And this is yet more palpable as the same Rule is set down in the second verse not by way of supposition but by way of Position in these words To avoid fornication let every man have his wife for if to avoid fornication do there signifie not to avoid the danger but only the guilt of fornication this concession To avoid fornication let every man have his wife will in effect be turned into this Prohibition Let no man have his wife till he hath actually fornicated and so the Laity must plunge themselves in vitiousness as well as the Clergy if they will have wives For Saint Pauls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every man comprizeth Clergy and Laity both alike neither of them more nor less then the other Wherefore since there is no man in Christendom but is either a Clergy-man or a Lay-man it will follow that no man in Christendom hath a Licence much less a Command to take a wife until he hath actually fornicated and so the ready way to avoid fornication by this remedy of marriage according to your gloss is to commit fornication To joyn all three together you in effect say That to burn is to fornicate and if they cannot contain is If they be actually guilty of Incontinency and to avoid fornication is to avoid the sin of fornication not the temptation to that sin And I say that this being supposed though it be not granted you will scarce be able to prove That any man hath the Apostles concession and much less his approbation to marry but only such a man as hath first actually fornicated which is a strange kind of Doctrine and may well make any sober man exclaim with the Canonist Nota mirabile quod plus habet hic luxuria quam castitas Gloss. in Decretal Greg. lib. 1. Tit. 21. cap. 6. See here a wonderfull case That Luxury hath a greater priviledge then chastity Therefore I conceive it fitter for a Divine to say That Saint Paul intended the remedy before the disease not after it and consequently did allow men to marry that they might avoid not only the guilt but also the danger of fornication for else he had not allowed marriage to avoid fornication till it was impossible to be avoided And consequently it is a greater sin in any Christian Church to allow one Priest to fornicate then to allow all her Priests to marry for by the one she thwarts Gods command by the other she follows his example by the one she approves and encourages a damnable sin by the other she approves and encourages a most glorious Vertue For allowing Priests to marry doth not make their marrying the more necessary but only their abstaining from marriage the more voluntary that is to say It doth only make Viâ—…ginity in Priests a Free will offering which cannot be acceptable unless it be free and the more it is free the more it is acceptable 13. You say further That Saint Paul himself had great temptations of the flesh but did neither marry nor fornicate to avoid them I answer If I had fully transcribed my Instance concerning Abraham as it is in Ignatius his Epistle to the Philadelphians I might have added not only Saint Peter but also Saint Paul to the number of married men and so perchance have prevented this part of your Objection But to let go conjectures Saint Paul himself tells us what were his Temptations Acts 20. 19. even temptations which befell him by the laying in wait of the Jews Temptations from other mens flesh not his own from other mens fleshly minds not from his own fleshly body And I wonder upon what probability of Truth you say Saint Paul was under the sinfull motions of the body when himself saith he could not tell whether he were in the body or out of the body at the time he had that revelation after which was given him a Thorn in the flesh lest he should be exalted above measure v. 3. 7. The Text saith Saint Paul had a Thorn in the flesh not Temptations of the flesh that is he had penall afflictions not sinfull motions These if they went up with him into Paradise yet surely came not with him down from thence For going to Paradise doth by your favour much more purge sin then going to Purgatory Besides datus est mihi stimulus was not so properly said of these motions as natus est in me stimulus carnis meae nor can you say That was given him at that time which you know was born in him so long before and was properly to be called a Relick not a Gift Or that God gave that concupiscence to his chiefest Apostle which by his Spirit he doth subdue in his meanest servants Nor is it probable Saint Paul did call that a Messenger of Satan which was inbred in him from his own natural corruption or ascribe that to the Devil which was rather to be ascribed to the flesh Summe all these inconveniencies together and I believe you will hereafter joyn with Saint Chrysostom Saint Pauls most faithfull interpreter in the judgement of your own Divines who gives us this interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c By the Angel of Satan he meaneth Alexander the Coppersmith those about Hymaeneus and Philetas all that opposed the word and contended or contested against him those who did cast him into prison scourge and drive him away because those did the works of Satan Therefore even as he calleth the Jews the sons of the Devil for following his example so he calleth the Messenger of Satan every man that fell foully upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this saith he was the thorne in the flesh given to buffet me And truly the world is still very full of such Messengers of Satan for no Orthodox Divine now adaies can teach men either how to live or how to die according to his duty trust and conscience but legions of factious spirits will be pecking at
though instancing onely in the shedding of his blood which was the chiefest act of his passive obedience whereby he merited for us the remission of sins The formal cause for Justification being an action and therefore an accident cannot properly have a material cause though you by your inherent righteousness do a little intrench upon this Rule of Logick I say the formal cause of Justification is expressed v. 25. to wit The remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God not excluding sins present and to come as if they were not also remitted but onely nameing sins past that we might not think Justification doth give us a liberty of future sininng The formal cause then of Justification is the remission of sins For God doth so far justify us or accept and account us for just and righteous as far as he doth pardon our sins and absolve and acquit us from condemnation for Christs righteousness Thus it was God be merciful to me a sinner which made the Publican go away justified St. Luke 18. 13 14. not his own merit but Gods mercy And this is that doctrine which St. Paul preacheth with a Notum sit omnibus et singulis Bâ—… it known unto you therefore men and brethren that through this man is preached unâ—…o you the forgiveness of sins And by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses Acts 13. 38 39. If forgiveness of sins and justification be not one and the same how is this a good consequence Through Christ is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins and by him all that beleeve are justified For this cannot follow if to be forgiven and to be justified be not one and the same for then one thing is preached another performed one thing promised and another granted But if they be the same then we are sure this is good Divinity that the formal justice or righteousness for which God absolves us sinners in the judgement is not in and from our selves but in and from our Saviour as it is said By him all that beleeve are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses whereas if our Justification were for any inherent righteousness whether Habitual or Actual it were not by him but by our selves nor to be gotten by believing but by doing nor could we be justified from all things at once and together but from one thing after another not in an instant but successively for so we get our inherent righteousness not by the grace and mercy of God casting all our sins upon our Saviour that he may forgive them all at once and together for active Justification which respects God absolving the sinners is a forgiveing of all sins at once and together for Christs sake though passive Justification which respects the sinner to be absolved is a forgiveing of sins so often as the sinner earnestly repenting doth by a lively Faith flee unto God the Son for his merit and to God the Father for his mercy In a word if our Justification were for any inherent righteousness whether habitual or actual we could not be justified by the grace and mercy of God casting all our sins upon our Saviour that he may forgive them all but by the Law of Moses casting us into a mould of righteousness that we may not commit any sin norstand in need of forgiveness And if this be so we may bid farewel iâ—… not 〈◊〉 to the whole Gospel of Christ which is thus briefly but fully summed up by St. Paul That God was in Christ reâ—…nciling the world unto himself so by a Potential though only true believers by an actual reconciliation not imputing their trespasses unto them 2 Cor. 5 19. No man can be reconciled to God who is not justified before God for all sinners are odious to God as his enâ—…mies not reconciled unto him as his frienâ—…s therefore God looks upon a maâ—… as no 〈◊〉 wâ—…ch canâ—…ot be as he is iâ—… himself but as he is in his Saviour when he is reconciled unto him and accordingly to be reconciled is to be justified that is to be accounted righteous for as the formal cause of our reconciliation consisteth in the remssion or not imputation of our sins not imputing their trespasseâ—… unto them so doth also the formal cause of our Justification for that is no other but an absolution from the guilt of sin For Justification is not a Physiâ—…al but a Moral action of God absolving the sinner for the merit of Christ even as Sanctification is not a Moral but a Physical Action of God cleansing and purging the sinner by the Spirit of Christ The one makes the sinner righteous but the other only accounts him righteous And therefore Justification and Sanctification are as improperly confounded as Moral and Physical or real Actions For Moral actions work a change only in regard of the mans relation as He that is adopted or acquitted is changed only in his relation that instead of being guilty he is made not guilty instead of beâ—…g a stranger he is made a Son But real or Physical actions do work a change also in regard of a mans person as He that is instructed or converted hath a real change wrought upon his understanding and his will and consequently is really changed in his person So that if to justifie be not meerly a moral action that is To account as just by acquitting from the condemnation of the Law as we say but be also a real action that is to make just by a conformity to the Law as you affirm then it must needs work a real change in the Patient making him righteous from unrighteous and from righteous more righteous and by consequent Justification will be one and the same thing with Sanctification and so it will follow that the whole Tenor of the Text hath hitherto misinformed us and doth still misguide us for therein these two are reckoned up as two several and distinct mercies of Almighty God towards our sinful souls and these wrought by several means God justifying us by the righteousness of his Son and sanctifying us by the power of his Holy Spirit And from this ill consequence will yet follow a much worse That Sanctification will be supposed to be nothing for it will have nothing left to do Justification having done its work before and if it have nothing to do it cannot be an Action and if it be not an action it must be nothing These Logical absurdities besides others that are Theological cannot well be avoided by those who make inherent righteousness the formal cause of our Justification And therefore though we separate not inherent and imputative righteousness which your insolent Dogmatist blasphemously calls Putative as if it were meerly fictâ—…tious when as in truth all our righteousness is so in respect of it I say though we separate not inherent and imputative righteousness
from one another in the man that is justified for true Faith alwaies worketh obedience and God will not cannot justifie the disobedient yet we must separate them from one another in the doctrine of Justification For 't is only the Imputative righteousness which we have from our Saviour not the Inherent righteousness which we have in our selves which can acquit us at God's Judgement seat or absolve us as righteous and consequently which may be accounted the formal cause of our Justification Lastly the final cause of our Justification is set down first explicitly that it is the declaration of Gods Righteousness vers 25 26. To declare his righteousness not onely that this way of justifying a sinner is according to Gods Promise both in words and Types in all the Old Testament but also that this promise was according to the rule of righteousness because it acquitteth not a sinner without a due satisfaction for his sin nor without a true and serious aversion from himself and conversion to his Saviour Secondly the final cause of our justification is set down implicitly That it is our glorying or boasting in God alone For whereas v. 27. he excludeth all other boasting t is necessary he must include this as himself saith more largely 1 Cor. 1. 30 31. Christ Jesus is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption There is our Justification set forth in it self in its antecedents and in its consequents In it self for Châ—…st Jesus is our righteousness to deliver us from the guilt of sin by acquitting and discharging us In its antecedents for he is our wisdom to free us from the blindness and darkness of sin by enlighting and instructing us In its consequents for he is our Sanctification in this life to free us from the pollution of sin by renewing and cleansing us and our Redemption in the life everlasting to free us from the miseries of sin by receiving and by glorifying us That according as it is written he that glorieth let him glory in the Lord There is the final cause of our Justification Christ Jesus doth therefore instruct us by his most holy Word justifie us by his allsufficient merit sanctifie us by his most holy Spirit glorifie us by his all saving Mercy that we may not glory in our selves but onely in our Saviour from whom we have both the Knowledg and the Purchase and the Procurement and the Enjoyment of our salvation The Apostle having thus severally proved first his negative conclusion which is against justification by works and after that his affirmative conclusion which is for justification by Faith he at length joyns them both together in one Dogmatical determination Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith wâ—…thout the deeds of the Law v. 28. And this conclusion he again repeateth Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Jesus Christ which he immediately confirms with no less then Ten several arguments in the next Chapter all alledged to confute their foolishness in falling from Christ to the Law from Faith to works in the doctrine of Justification And being alledged by the Apostle to confute their foolishness they will either the more easily prevent or the more acceptably reform and redress Ours The first Argument is this You have received the gift of the Holy Spirit not by the works of the Law but by the hearing of Faith v. 2. but the gift of the Holy Spirit is the best pledge of your Justification or Reconciliation with God for he giveth not his Spirit to his enemies Therefore you are justified not by the Law but by the Gospel or by the Hearing of Faith The second Argument is this The same way that Abraham was justified who is the â—…ather of the faithful and to whom the Promise was made The same way must you be justified But He was justified onely by Faith v. 6 7 8 9. The Third this As many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse ver 10. but none that are under the curse are justified The fourth this The just shall live by Faith but the Law is not of Faith ver 11. 12. that is The just obtaineth life and salvation by the free grace of God apprehended by Faith in Christ but the Law alloweth no such free grace for that promiseth life only upon the now impossible condition of perfect obedience The man that doth them shall live in them The fifth this Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us ver 13. Therefore the Law could not justifie us for it did curse us and if it could in vaine was Christ made a curse for us in vaine did he do and suffer so much for our Redemption The sixth this To whom the Promises were made to him they were performed but the Promises of spiritual blessings and consequently of justification were made to Abrahams seed not seeds that is to Christ and his members not to them that should be under the Law but only to them that should be in Christ. The seventh is this The Promise of spiritual blessednesse was made to Abraham long before the giving of the Law therefore neither to be accomplished from the observation nor to be abolished by the obligation of the Law ver 17. which is further argued ver 18. If the inheritance be of the Law 't is no more of Promise but God gave it to Abraham by Promise therefore 't is not of the Law The eighth this That which was a sign of enmitie cannot be a means of reconciliation but the Law was a sign of enmitie betwixt God and man as appears in that it was ordained by Angels not immediately by God himself who being offended had withdrawn his presence which shews that men were at a distance from and at enmitie with God ver 19 20. Therefore the Law cannot be the means of our accesse to or of our reconciliation with God The ninth is this The Law cannot give life to any man by exempting him from the punishment of sin nor give righteousnesse by exempting him from the guilt of sin ver 21. 22. Therefore both righteousnesse and life are given only by Faith in Christ. The tenth and last argument is this The office of the Law was to be our School-master to bring us unto Christ to shew us the imperfection of our own and to make us desire the imputation of his righteousnesse that we might be justified by Faith ver 24. but the Law cannot go beyond its own office therefore no man can be justified either in whole or in part by the works of the Law 8. Thus have I mustred up S. Pauls Artillery to batter down our own but to keep up our Saviours righteousness in the doctrine of Justification which being a doctrine that came down from Heaven is best maintained by arguments from Heaven For as humane reason could not