never destitute of an Evasion or whether indeed it be the doctrine of the Church of Rome and the meaning of the Councils Vere merentur that good works done in grace do as truly deserve and are as condignly meritorious of eternal life as sins and evil deeds are of eternal death I will not further inquire into but out of that which has been said we may draw up the Question to this Issue That the first way set down by the Cardinal and rejected by him Good Works are condignly meritorious in regard of the Covenant and Promise only was indeed The Issue of the Question if rightly interpreted the true and ancient Doctrine of the Church asserted by the Fathers and the former Writers of the Church of Rome as may in part be seen by those Authors whom the Cardinal and Vasquez have noted and rejected We need not here be afraid of the words condignly meritorious for being joyned with those words in regard of the Covenant and promise only they must have such a sense as their consistence will allow which is by interpreting the word meritorious according to the first importance of consecution or obtaining and the word condignly according to such a deserving or worthiness as stands by divine acceptation when we do the condition which the promise requires in such a sort as God will accept unto a rewarding Even as in Scripture holy Men are said to be just and perfect through divine acceptation So it comes to this plain Truth The good Works and Life of holy Men will be accepted of God as good and faithful service and certainly obtain eternal life See Mat. 25.21 Well done thou good c. In this sense the Augustan and Wittenburg Confessions did not abhor to use the word meritorious nor Brentius and Melanchthon as Vasquez notes of them and in this sense we need not be affraid to admit it and to say that good works do merit that is do obtain or are rewarded with eternal life through the gracious acceptation bounty and promise of God and one would think this were enough for us both to encourage us to do good and to comfort and stay us in the doing of it and persevering in it without standing upon any farther title or contesting with God that we have made him our Debter or that eternal life is due to our works for the worth of them This is therefore that which we deny That good works do truly and properly merit eternal life Truly and properly I say as deserving it upon the worth of the work and good reason have we to deny it Finding all they can bring from Scripture or Fathers as I hinted above impertinent and inconsequent to the proving of Merit truly so called yea it will appear that the more ancient writers of the Church of Rome are against it yea they that asserted it are forced sometimes by Truth it self to yield so much as may overthrow it First out of Scripture they give us two places bearing the Name of Merit Scripture alledged for the Name Merit but it is only according to their Latin translation not according to the Original Greek The one place is Eccles 16.15 according to the merit of their works so their Edition but the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is according to their works as we finde it often said in the Scriptures But Bellarm. reddere ficut opera merentur and Vasquez reply what is it to render according to their works but to render to them as their works deserve or merit to which we may say Albeit such expression as their works deserve may be very well admitted yet is there much difference between Secundum opera according to works and as their works deserve or merit taking the word Merit in the Cardinals sense for to say according to their works is but to speak the quality of them that it shall be well with those that do well and on the contrary evil to those that do evil it does not speak equality between the work and the reward St. Gregory speaks home to this purpose upon the 143. Greg. in 7. Psalmum poenitential v. 8. Si secundâ—un opera quomodò misericordia aestimabitur Sed aliud est secundum opera reddere aliud propter ipsa opera reddere In eo enim ipsa operum qualitas intelligiuâ— Psalm If it shall be rendred to every one saith he according to their works how shall it be accounted mercy but it is one thing to render according to works another to render it for the works themselves for in that where it 's said according to their works the very quality of the works is meant that they whose works appear good shall have a glorious retribution Another place they alledge for Merit is Heb 13.16 which in their Latine Edition has promeretur Deus as bad Latine as Divinity In the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well pleased and so by Occumenius the word is interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies as much as well pleased Indeed the Ancient Latine Fathers did some of them especially St. Cyprian according to the ancient and innocent meaning of the word Merit use to say promereri Deum i. e. to engage or obtain of God what he had promised but we do not contend about Words or Phrases Let us see what they bring for the proof of the thing it self Merit truly so called First they alledge all those Scriptures that call eternal life a Reward Their Scriptures to prove the thing From Reward and compare it to the hire or pay of Labourers We grant it is so often call'd but the Inference therefore our works or labour does truly merit such reward is inconsequent for the Apostle supposes there is a reward reckoned of Grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aug. in prafat Ps 31. as there is of Debt Rom. 4.4 Accordingly St Aug. Merces nostra vocatur Gratia Our Reward is called Grace and if so then is it freely given And St. Ambrose tels us in his Epistles there is Merces liberalitatis the Reward or Recompence of liberality where bounty is seen on the one part rather then desert on the other Between man and man there may be Merit and Reward according to debt or justly due not so between God and man yet is Gods rewarding set out by the other to shew the certainty of the recompence and that it shall be rendered according to their works not that the similitude stands good in all parts for the duty of man to God is antecedent to all covenant or promise the ability man has to perform it is from Gods free grace the reward given is infinitely beyond all that man can do Secondly Of Reward given in proportion to Works They alledge all such Scriptures as speak the reward given according to works therefore proportionably to the works and what is that else but according to Merit when as in giving there is regard had
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have merited promeriti sunt crowns of glory and what oration or speech can sufficiently set forth or reach their Merits where the same word is used they were accounted worthy or did obtain such Crowns and that which he renders their Merits is in the Greek their worthiness or vertue He cites Chrysostom saying in his hom on Lazarus rendred according to their Merits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek sounds according to their desert and speaks of both wicked and good and is no more then what the Scripture often saith according to their works Dispunctio utriusque meriti Tertul in Apolog c. 18. and what Tertullian cals the discrimination or severing of both merits of the one to punishment and of the other to reward as we see set forth in Mat. 25.32 and in the different end of the rich glutton and of Lazarus Luc. 16.25 they were dealt with according to their different lives and thus Clemens in his Strom. doth more then once use this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is according to their works or desert It speaks the difference of desert in the one and the other does not speak the worth or proportion of the work to the reward of eternal life To this purpose it was spoken * Nu. 3. above upon their alledging Ecclus. 16. according to their Merits for according to their Works That which he alledges out of Irenaeus and some other Fathers speaks only to this purpose that eternal life is acquired and obtained by good works which was the second thing we acknowledged to be asserted by the Ancients and by us admitted as a Truth which makes nothing to condign Merit truly so called The Latine Fathers cited by the Cardinal Bel. l. 5. de Justific c. 4. albeit they have the word Merit more frequently yet do they indeed speak no more then the former St. Cyprian we grant does often use the phrase promereri Deum but according to the innocent meaning as I said above of those Times promeneri Deum for obtaining or procuring Gods Favour by doing that which is pleasing to him or for enjoying God or his presence in bliss and glory That which the Cardinal cites out of Greg. Mor. 4. c. 42. out of Celestines Epist and out of Bernard in Cantic contributes no more to the Romish cause then the word Merit put for good Deeds only Greg. implies there that the glory will be proportionably the greater and answerable to the measure of good Deeds which we deny not but we deny that this advancement of the reward and increase of the glory which does so much more set out the divine bounty and free liberality should be made an argument for condignity of mans merit as the Romanists do and the Cardinal did above nu 3 urging those Scriptures for Merit which speak the Reward given in proportion to the works But that which the Cardinal brings out of Celestine who was also Bishop of Rome and is here cited for the Names-sake of Merit speaks indeed against them So great saith he is the goodness of God towards all men Tanta erga omnes homines est bonitas Dei ut nostra velit esse Merita quae sunt ipsius dona pro his quae largitus est aeterna praemia sit donaturus Celest in Ep. that he is pleased they should be our Merits which are his Gifts and that he will give us the eternal rewards for those things which he had bestowed freely upon us before which destroyes the very reason of their Merit properly taken That which is cited out of Ambrose de Offic. l. 1. c. 15. saith no more then according to their works whether they be good or bad as above in the Testimony drawn out of Chrysostome The sayings of Hierome and Hilary speak but the second thing we acknowledged viz that good deeds will obtain or be so rewarded Indeed St. Aug. cited by the Cardinal here may seem to speak more then the former Aug. ep 105. ad Sixtum Sicut merito peccati tanquam stipendium redditur mors ità merito justitiae tanquam stipendium vita aeterna As unto the merit of sin death is rendred as the stipend and wages so is life eternal rendred as a stipend to the merit of righteousness Where the stipend or wages is no more then Reward This is clear by what he saith in relation to the Apostles saying Rom 6. ult A stipend is rendred as due for the labour of the warfare Aug. Enchirid. c. 107. Stipendium pro opere militiae debitum redditur non donatur Id eo dixit stipendium pecsati mors gratia verò nisi gratis sit gratia non est is not freely given therefore the Apostle said The wages of sin is death and therefore eternal life cannot be thus called a stipend but grace or the gift of God except it be free is not grace and St. Aug. adds immediately as consequent to it Intelligendum est igitur ipsa hominis bona merita esse Dei munera quibus cùm vita aeterna redditur quid nisi gratia pro gratia reddi tur Aug. ibid. Therefore we must understand that the Merits or good Deeds of Man are the gifts of God to which when aeternal life is given what is there else given but grace for grace And by this we may see how St. Aug. meant what he speaks elswhere upon that of Rom. 6. ult a saying that the Romanists still oppose to the argument we make against Merit from the Text of the Apostle St. Aug. saying is this Aug. de Gra. lib. arb c. 9. Cum posset dicere recte dicere stipendium justitiae vita aeterna maluit dicere The Apostle might have said and said it truly that the wages or stipend of Righteousness is life eternal he chose rather to say the Gift of God He might have said it in a true sense taking the word stipend as above for a reward or recompence not in an equal or answerable sense to the other the wages or stipend of sin is death for then it would not have consisted with the Truth of that which the Apostle did say but the gift of God is life eternal nor with the end and purpose wherefore the Apostle did choose to say the gift rather then the stipend viz. to exclude all thought of merit of condignity as it follows there in St. Maluit dicere Gratia Dei vita aeterna ut intelligeremus non pro meritis nostris Deum nos ad vitam aeternam sed pro sua miseratione perducere Aug. He chose rather to say The gift of God is life eternal that we might understand how God brings us to eternal life not for our Merits but for his Mercy sake There is scarce any of the Ancients that has either commented on that Text of the Apostle or occasionally faln upon it but observes the apparent distinction which the
incumbent on us in order to our salvation Again he replies The obligation of that precept upon particular persons That command may be answered by saying It is a precept given to the Church in general that what our Saviour here commands be done p. 346. We have heard of an implicit faith but here is an implicit receiving so it be done in the Church the command is performed as if every Christian in particular were not concerned in the purpose of this Sacrament or could live by another mans eating and drinking At length perswaded by S. Thomas his authority he would not by S Pauls alone to apply the do this both to the Host and the Cup and to admit a precept in it for the Laity to receive this Sacrament he betakes himself to the usual refuge They satisfy the precept of eating and drinking if they receive it in either p. 148 149. that is they drink the Cup if they eat the Bread His S. Thomas his Invention of concomitancy will not salve this nor can the Reader be satisfied with the fast and loose this Author so often playes in answering to the precept Do this The order he speaks of prescribed by holy Church now ordaining both to be received now but one and to some the Host to others the Calice only doth no where appear but in the late orders of the Romish Church In the ancient Church though sometimes in cases of necessity one part might be administred privately never were such Orders made nor such practice used publickly solemnly or when both could be administred To Joh. 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood he answers It is a general command given to the generality of Christians to receive his body by way of eating and his blood by way of drinking and to every particular Christian to concurr to the execution of this command not that every one in particular is obliged to do both but that some eating some drinking others doing both each particular confers to the performance of the Command p. 351. Thus the body and blood shed are with them received in either kind by virtue of their concomitance and the command of eating and drinking is satisfied and performed by vertue of Concurrence every person conferring to the performance of it This is Implicit receiving so both be done among you it is sufficient when as our Saviour layes both upon every particular person and so repeats it in the singular He that eateth and drinketh v. 54 58. and that in order to his having life in him His instancing in the precept to teach and baptize all Nations Mat. 28. not binding each of the Apostles in particular to teach and baptize the whole world 352. has the fate of all his instances to be impertinent for it runs upon the extent of the object only the whole world which implyed an impossibility not upon the exercise of the whole duty or office which did not admit a liberty of forbearing either act of preaching or baptizing For as the obligation in the Sacrament is to eating and drinking so there to a double act of their office Teaching and Baptizing That Apostle that would set down with doing one of them only should not do his duty It is objected p. 356. If it be given so to the Church in general then may the command be satisfied and performed so be it the Church provides certain persons to receive and exempt all the rest In his answers to this we may see the giddiness of mans brain when set against the apparent Truth of Gods word If we take the sense saith he according to the common strein of Doctors every particular will be obliged by the words except ye eat and especially secing that S. 1 Cor 11. Paul extends this matter of Communion to each particular This is one Truth he so much streined against above notwithstanding those Doctors and S. Paul that every particular man is obliged but how and to what to eat and drink that 's express both in 6. of Joh. and 1 Cor. 11. but disjunctively as he saith elswhere p. 350. that is to eat or drink Heer 's the giddiness and vanity of wilfull error to make alimitation or gloss clean contrary to the text for our Saviours words oblige to these acts conjunctively eat and drink thrice in Joh. 6. and the Apostle Saint Paul thrice conjunctively eat and drink 1 Cor. 11. Secondly in answer to the former objection he grants it was not in the power of the Apostles to exempt any of the Twelve from concurring to the conversion of the Nations p. 356. If he will have this pertinent he should adde but it was in their power to exempt some of the Twelve from doing the whole duty or several acts enjoyned by our Saviour that if one of them taught only another baptized onely and so all partially concurred to the performing our Saviours command it had been sufficient He will not surely say this yet dare defend it in their Churches exempting the people from the one part of duty enjoyned them by our Saviour He subjoyns It is not in the Churches power to exempt any one from this precept by having it performed of other Christians appointed by her Anthority 357. Yet their Church takes power to exempt from one part drinking his blood-shed which lyes under the command and obligation as well as the other of eating Thirdly he grants here another Truth to the acknowledgment of his Impertinency above where he instanced in the freedom of receiving Priesthood and Marriage to imply a liberty of receiving or not receiving the Cup but here he grants this Sacrament is not left free as Marriage and Priesthood are without a divine Precept that every Christian sometimes receive it p. 357. This is fair but see the obstinacy still and giddiness of wilfull error That eating only is sufficient because our Saviour when he expresses himself in the singular number attributes eternal life to it He that cateth me shall live by me Joh. 6.57 Nay that the words ye eat and drink v. 53. cannot include a necessity of both kinds to every particular person without contradiction to this Text so he p. 358 359. As if one should reason If it be true that he who is born of the spirit shall enter into the kingdome of heaven then cannot the Text Joh. 3.5 unless a man be born of water and spirit include a necessity of both nor when the Scripture requires Repent and believe Mar. 1. that cannot include a necessity of both for the kingdome of heaven without contradiction to the Text Joh. 3. ult where one only is mentioned and life attributed to it He that believeth in me hath everlasting life Again it may be said that eating is sometimes mentioned alone in that chapter as answerable to the occasion of the discourse Manna and bread from heaven and as fit to set out the reception of faith which at the same time
examination and for reasons following it will appear plainly that the worship as by them allowed and performed to Saints and Angels must be call'd Religious according to his first and stricter sense of Religion and so by his own confession undue to Creatures But before we come to our reasons let us hear how Greg. Val. in Tho. 2. 2ae disp 6. qu. 1. punct 2. de Val. expresses this matter a little more clearly He speaking of the Acts of the vertue of Religion as the School calls it tells us some of them pertain to it remotè imperativè remotely and only as commanded by it this with Mr. Spencer is religious in the larger sense some pertain to it proximè elicitive immediately and more inwardly proceeding from it and declaring a subjection due to God such acts are prayers oblations sacrifices vows c. This is religious in Mr. Spencers first and stricter sense accordingly the Schoolmen treat of those particulars as Acts or immediate exercises of the vertue of religion Now albeit Valentia and Mr. Spencer and all of them affirm that religious worship according to this sense is due only to God which is a great truth and do deny that the worship they give to any creature is to be called religious so or that it pertains to religion in that stricter sense which is also true as to many things they do to Saints and Angels being not so much as remotè and imperativè by way of command from true religion yet as used and exercised by them those acts of their worship are interpretativè acts of religion according to the first sense so to be interpreted and accounted of as to them and their performance as all undue and misapplied worship given to the Creature in way and exercise of religion yea given to a false God is to be accounted of This will appear in the reasons following The first reason shall be that which Azorius one of the same Society gives How the Romish creature-worship must be accounted religious Azor. Instit Mor. part 1. l. 9. c. 10. qu. 2. because the virtue of religion is not of two kindes one which gives God his worship and another which gives worship to Saints their Images and Reliques And they saith he that think religion is not of one kind are moved by the reason of the several kindes of dignities and excellencies in things this was Mr. Spencers reason of his several sorts of worship as above nu 3. and so it is Bellarmines reason but religion saith Azor is not a virtue which generally gives to any one worship for the excellency but which gives Divine worship and honour to God and * Non igitur religio quicquid excellit honorat colit sed â—â—icquid divinum est et quâ ratione divinum est quemadmodum ergò unus Deus est fic una quoque specie religâ—o est Azonâ— ibid. therefore the virtue of religion does not honour and worship whatsoever excels but whatsoever is Divine and as it is Divine wherefore as God is but one so religion is but one in kinde Now this is very true and rational and concludes all religious worship to be Divine and only due to God and that albeit there be an honour due to such excellencies an honour commensurate to them yet not a religious worship But what will Azorius then say to the religious worship given to Saints and their Images in the Church of Rome It is the objection immediately following and he answers not by mincing the matter as most of his fellowes do by saying it is religious in a remote or a large sense such a sense as considering what they do and allow in that Church speaks nothing to the purpose or by saying it is an act of special observance as Greg. de Val. would lessen it to no purpose as see below num 8. or by other frivolous distinctions used by them in this point of worship No. He seemed to consider what is done and allowed in their Church and that all such excuses help not therefore * Sanctos honoramus non solum co cultu quo homines virtute dignitate praestantes sed etiam divino cultu qui est actus religionis Sed divinos cultus honores non damâ—s sanctis propter seâ—psos sed propter deum qui eos sanctos effecit Azor. ibid. qu. 5. he saith down right and saith it often in this chapt that it is Divine which in Mr. Spencers strict sense is religious honour and worship which is given to Saints in erecting Altars Offering making vowes to them invoking of them c. and excuses it from Idolatry by saying it is given them not for themselves but for Gods sake that made them such But there is enough in Greg. de Val. and Bell. and other Romish writers to shew that divine honour given to the creature though with such reference to God cannot be defended which is a great truth so then between these truths the Church of Rome must be in a great strait it gives and allowes according to what Azorius proved a divine and religious worship to creatures and according to the truth that the other deliver it cannot be defended in it Second reason What does religion in Mr. Spencers strict sense sound but that virtue and devotion of the heart which sends out such expressions of subjection and worship in the exercises of religion and what is the Romish worship but the exercise of that devotion or religion which is in the heart of any Romanist so desiring to express it self and how is it expressed and performed but by their addresses to God Saints Angels by the former acts of Religion Prayers Praises Vows Offerings Look into their offices private publick observe what is done at their Altars Shrines Images what prayers offerings vows made there see their incense burned before an Image which is a consumptive oblation and as much as was done to the brazen Serpent and as for Prayer one of the Acts of religion under it * Val. disp 6. qu. 2. de oratione â—unct 10. Valentia puts their dayly recital of the office which contains prayers to Saints and Angels and therefore this worship by prayers vows to Saints in their way of religion must belong to religion in the first sense as immediate exercises thereof Thirdly they do not only use those immediate acts of religion prayers praises vows giving them to Saints in their exercise of religion but in these religious acts joyn the Saints with God Athan Orat 4. contra Arianos which Athanasius makes an Argument of the unity of the Son with the Father else he could not be joyned with him in prayers in praying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to joyn the Son to the Father which he denies to all creatures so when St. Paul prayes 1 Thess 3.11 Now God himself and our Lord Jesus direct c. Now see how in the Church of Rome they joyn the
of authority as well as excellency of grace and holiness and still there is such Authority in the Bishops and Pastors of the Church and that Authority not Civil properly but Ecclesiastical and upon that Authority a subjection due to them Heb. 13.17 in things pertaining to Religion and Conscience and the honour or worship thereupon due to them as it may in his large sense be called Religious which we every where grant without prejudice to our or advantage to his Cause so may it better be call'd the Civil Ecclesiastical worship because as in the world so in the Church there is a policy or government for the Church below as a City and society within it self and does also with that above make up the whole City of God Therefore are we call'd by the Apostle Concives fellow Citizens Eph. 2. But 2ly Albeit Saints and Angels belong to the higher part of this City the triumphant and as to the state they enjoy are of higher dignity and glory then any in the militant or part below yet being not capable of that conduct of souls as the Governours and Pastors in the lower city are they cannot challenge that subjection from us nor the worship that arises upon it Nor can they by reason of their distance receive from us those tenders of worship and honour which are applied to holy men living * Eo cultu dilectionis societatis qu in hâ—c vita Sancti homines contra Faust l. 20. l. 21. S. Aug. determins it thus We honor the Martyrs with that worship of love and fellowship wherewith Holy men in this life are worshiped Of fellowship with reference to the Apostles fellow-citizens and of holy men living with reference to supernatural gifts and graces and the honour thence arising such as we give to men upon the account of holiness and such graces though they have no authority over us and let the Saints departed have all such honour inward or outward that they are capable of Lastly If this Author will drive those places of Scripture he cited for authority of Saints and Angels so far as to prove the worship due which they give unto them as his Mr. the Cardinal endeavoured by the like places to defend the invoking of them He may take answer from S. Aug. determining what manner of worship is due unto them as above the worship of love and fellowship and * Charitatis non servitutis Aug. de vera Relig. c. 55. elswhere the worship of charity not subjection or service or from S. Paul Eph. 2. saying we are fellow-Citizens or from the Angel Rev. I am thy fellow-servant And if they will still make use of such places as this Author alleaged it will be easie to shew how inconsequent the argument is from such places of Scripture how insufficient to prove such a worship as is allowed by the Church of Rome To conclude This Author will not say we are mistaken Recapitul of the premises when we affirm that all worship properly religious and according to his first and stricter sense is due to God and not to be exhibited to any Creature Nor can he say we are mistaken in proving that truth by this Scripture Thou shalt worship the Lord c. unless he will deny this Scripture speaks of worship properly religious It remains then that our mistake if any must be in concluding by this Scripture their creature-worship to be unlawful That we are not herein mistaken appears by what has been said already First by that which is said above to shew the worship they exhibit by Oblations Incense Invocation Vows adoration of Images belongs and must be reduced to that sort of worship which is proper to Religion in the first and stricter sense Not only the effect of Religion but part of it I mean as performed and misapplyed by them and I would it were not the greater part of their Religion Secondly by the insufficiency of what this Author has said to the contrary in putting off the imputation from themselves and fastning the mistake on us As first his pretence from the immediate signification or bare importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the text which speaks a bowing or prostration of the body and is common to the religious and the civil worship to the worship of God and the Creature and accordingly all the instances and examples he brought speak no more then that outward reverence and worship shewen in bowing the body Whereas this comes not home to our charge laid upon their worship and cautioned against by this Scripture viz. their worship exhibited to creatures by the above said acts and exercises of religion and devotion Secondly his pretence of religious in his larger sense as sufficient which is as short of the purpose as the former for so all the duties of the second Table as we saw above may be called religious i. e. pertaining to and commanded by Religion but here we speak of the acts of worship proper to religion or exhibited in the way and exercises of Religion and Devotion which in their worship are such as are proper to the worship of God the same by which our religion and devotion to God is exercised as Vows Invocation c. or such as are proper to the Heathen worship in the exercise of their religion and devotion to their greater or lesser deities as adoration of their Images whom they pretend to worship All this will farther appear by the next part of this Scripture and him only shalt thou serve Him only shalt thou serve Mat. 4.10 Here he would fasten a mistake upon us Of Latria or service properly due to God by a misunderstanding of the word Serve pa. 28. why so because having examined all the places of Scripture where this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is here translated serve he findes it signifies that religious worship which is exhibited to God never used for a religious service done to a Creature as to a Creature pa. 31. Again that word is never used but for the serving either of the true or of a false God when it is referred to worship belonging to religion And he provokes any Protestant to prove the contrary pa. 32. But how did he conceive we understood the word when we affirm the same thing which to find out he bestowed as he saith some days study by examining all the places of scripture where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used we say it is very true that in all the scripture neither that word nor any other is ever used to express religious service done to a creature as to a creature that is as due to it Again we affirm that this word when it is referred to worship belonging to Religion is never used but for serving either the true or a false God and therefore it is easily seen whether the Romanists be mistaken in their Inference therefore there is another religious service which may be
as used in the Romish Church may by undue worship become prohibited But see his argument If all kind of worship of Images were forbidden by the Commandment Exod. 20. Worship towards the Ark no proof for Image-worship then David contradicted Gods command in bidding them worship his footstool Ps 99.5 so he pa. 108. By better warrant may we say the Church of Rome contradicts the Commandment of God He saith Thou shalt not bow down and worship she saith bow down and worship and commends the practice as religious and profitable But seeing he alledges Scripture to prove his Position let it be our turn now to shew his many mistakes in urging that of Psal 99.5 for worshiping of Images He begins with a complaint of our Translation for rendring it worship at his footstool when it should be worship his footstool the Ark and Cherubins upon it First we might quit him with a more just complaint of their rendring Heb. 11.21 Jacob worshiped the top of his staff which the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not bear But the Original in Ps 99. will admit ours at or towards his footstoole the same word and phrase being used in the last verse worship his holy Mount or at or in his holy Mount Pagnin and Montanus rendring both places alike to shew the indifferency of the phrase Incurvate Scabello and incurvate Monti so that by Mr. Spencers argument they were commanded to worship the Mount as well as the Ark or Cherubins and if the latter be capable of this sense worship at or in his holy Mount as the Septuagint turns it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then may the former place be also rendred worship at or toward his foot stool so the Chalde Paraphrase renders both alike Adorate in Domo Sanctuarij worship in or at the house of his Sanctuary that 's his footstool or place of presence on earth and so the last verse Adorate in Monte Sanctuarii worship in the Mount of his Sanctuary the place where his Temple stood Now as the same phrase in the last verse directs the rendring of the fifth verse worship at his footstool so does reason also perswade it for the people could not see the Cherubins which were in the holiest place how then commanded to worship them and that as Images and representations But the intent of the Psalm is to bid them frequent that place of worship where his foot-stool was and in worshipping to look that way not for the Cherubins sake but for Gods presence sake of which the Ark was a signe and witness so the Ark or place where it stood did but circumstantially determine the worship i.e. that way it did not objectively receive the worship Secondly he will have which also he repeats pa. 127. and 133. The Cherubin there no proof for Image-worship images commanded to be made and set in holy places for worship because these Cherubins were so but how many mistakes and inconsequencies are here First in drawing warrant from Gods action to their inventions Secondly in supposing them the images or representations of Angels which being set out for worship must according to his own definition of an image represent the thing or person as they are but let him say what individual Angels these did represent Or what Angel is like or did ever appear like to those Cherubins Therefore images according cording to his own notion of image are not here commanded Thirdly the truth is those Cherubs were symbolical or emblematical representations of the ministry of Angels which God as it pleaseth him useth in and about his Church and therefore is said to sit on the Cherubins and to ride upon them and this pair of Cherubs over the Ark is call'd the charet of the Cherubins 1 Chro. 28.18 Lastly his mistake in supposing them set there for worship which is a great falshood and injurious to Almighty God that set them there and I fear a wilful mistake for he cannot be ignorant how it is acknowledged that the Jews did not worship Angels themselves much less their images that the Jews had not those images of the Cherubins and Brazen Serpent Azor. par 1. Instit mor. l. 9. c. 6 qu. 7. Vasq de Adorat l. 2. disp 4. nor any images for worship this is asserted by several â—athers acknowledged by some of this Authors Society He excuses pa. 112. their leaving out these words Their maiming of the Commandment in their Catechismes thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image nor the likeness c. in their shorter Catechisms Did we saith he deliver the Commandments as Protestants do with the Preface The same which God spake we were obliged to put them word for word or else the Commandments would not be answerable to the Title pa. 114. But though you set not that preface before them yet prefixing the Title of Gods Commandments and pretending to deliver in your Catechisms the ten Commandments you are obliged to deliver all the fubstantial parts or things commanded or forbidden otherwise you make them unanswerable to the title and to your pretence Upon this occasion he makes his defence of their division of the Commandments The division of the Decalogue which reckons but three in the first Table by crowding the second commandment into the first and making seven Commandments in the second table by breaking the last into two The division of the Decalogue if it were a point of great moment might be cleared on the Protestants side as more agreeable to the greater part of Antiquity and more rational in it self For though * Aug. de decem chordis qu. â—1 in Exod St. August with some few others liked the former division into three and seven conceiting three in the first table which prescribes the worship of God suitable to the three persons in Trinity yet Romanists have another and more dangerous reason because they see it more suitable to their image-worship to make the first and second Commandment but one and forbidding only an Idol or false God and to be rendred in brief Thou shalt make to thy self no idol Therefore this Author pa. 119. and 121. where he gives the summe of the Commandment would have the strange God in our first Commandment and the graven image in our second to be all one But if we consider the Heathen Deities or strange Gods were idols and their praying or sacrificing to them * Vt supra Nu. 3. without an image was idolatry according to the first Commandment so also the worshipping of their images yea the worshipping of the true God by an image is another sort of idolatry by our second Commandment forbidding the graven image The worship also which the Turks give their Mahomet I hope our Romanists will say is forbidden by Gods Law here yet do they not worship him as a God but at his Tomb and therefore the thing forbidden must not be restrained to a false God as he would
of true internal Justification before God does but prove what we allow and what makes against himself who must acknowledge a man is truly justified before God before he does such works Seeing then this is the first Justification which S. James intends and that as both they and we say is not by works this cannot without gross mistake and impertinency be objected as it is by them against us but they and we are both of us concerned to reconcile the seeming contrariety between the two Apostles As for the distinction of Justification before God and before men albeit there may be a several consideration of Justification to that purpose and good works do declare a man Justified and as I may say do justify his faith yet we need not here make use of it but the purpose of S. Iames in writing this Epistle does direct us rather to a several consideration of Faith or believing for when he denies a man to be justified by faith alone he speaks not of a lively working faith to which S. Paul attributes justification but of a bare and seeming faith in profession only and as to good works dead and barren such as they rested in against whom he writes This is plain by S. James his subjoyning v. 23. and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed c. how could the Apostle bring this Scripture the same that S. Paul does for justifying faith Rom. 4.3 in confirmation of what he saith of works but to shew that Abrahams faith which justified him was a working faith Now if the Romanists conceive themselves less concerned for fear of the former truth to labour in the clearing of the contrariety which seems to be between the Apostles Romanists confound their First and Second Justification and think it more popular and for their advantage to cry up S. James his bare words of justification by works we cannot help it but must only note their wilfull mistake and impertinency in so eagerly urging S. Iames who speaks of the first justification Mr. Spencer indeed promises pa. 148. to reconcile the two Apostles but does it so as neither of them will be reconciled to his second justification as we shall see by examining the places of S. Paul which he insists on to shew the Protestants mistaken but first take notice of what he saith here upon occasion of the former Text of S. Iames. Iustified by good works working with faith and perfecting it informing and vivificating it as S. James describes them here p. 148. This is not only impertinent but guilty of falshood belying the Apostle for first he said not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ja. 2.22 that works wrought with faith but that his faith wrought with his works Secondly Albeit the Apostle saith by works was faith made perfect yet does he not therefore describe works as informing and vivificating it for here is no other perfection meant then what the effect brings to the Agent fruit to the tree operation to the power or virtue from which it is as every thing that is made for use ordained to practice and operation is then said to be made perfect and consummate when it comes to working but this is far from informing or vivificating it he may as well say the breath which proceeds from the life of the body its S. Iames his similitude v. 26. does inform and vivisicate it In like manner good works do not inform or give life to faith but receive from it proceeding from it as effects and fruits the whole chapter Heb. 11. shews it speaking the effects of faith even of Abrahams here mentioned And that which this Author pa. 143. gathers from his Trent Council speaks plainly as we noted above that men are freely justified and then do good works And this shews his impertinency for they require fidem formatam faith informed for the first justification how then by works that follow and his inadvertency in again crossing their own doctrine for they say Faith is informed by charity infused in the first justification how then by works that come after Now for the Places out of S. Paul which he insists on to shew the Protestants mistaken The first is Rom. 3.28 Without the works of the Law Here and in all such places which exclude the works of the Law he will have Protestants mistaken in the undestanding of the works of the Law Because by the Law is understood that which is written in the books of Moses both Moral and Ceremonial and by works of the Law Saint Paul understands such works as are done by force and knowledge of the Law before the faith of Christ is infused into the soul or that it is enlightned and assisted by his grace pa. 149 c. It is true that the Law is often so taken but when the Apostle excluds works of the Law in relation to Abrahams justification it cannot refer to Moses Law after given and written But the speech by faith and not by works comes to this issue no man can be justified by doing or working according to the Law he is under Not Abraham by the works of the Law then Not Jews by the works of the Law then the Law of Moses Not Christians by works or by doing what they are bound to do by the Law and Commandements which they are under But by reason of their many failings in those works and doings they must stand by faith apprehending Christs obedience and satisfaction to bear them out against the sentence of the Law or Gods judgment And it is true also that the Apostle sometimes takes the works of the Law for such as are done by force and knowledge of the Law before the faith of Christ c. as when he speaks of such as sought righteousness by the works of the Law without Christ but we cannot think the Apostle excludes works of the Law i. e. such as are done before grace as this Author saith from justifying to admit works done in grace into their stead for justification nor think that as Pharisees sought it by the former works and mist of it Rom. 9.31 so the Romanists may seek it by the latter sort of works and finde it for Rom. 10.3 4 5 6 9. he sets the righteousness of the Law and of faith simply one against the other neither can the righteousness of faith be imagined to be any righteousness of our working Observe farther what this Author saith pa. 150. that Rom. 3. v. 20. is added By the law is the knowledge of sin which is a reason wherefore such works as are done by the knowledge of the Law only cannot justify from whence we likewise infer If by the Law is the knowledge of sin and the Law still convinces those that are under grace of sin they cannot be justified by their works before God David and holy men in his time had the same way of justification as we notwithstanding they were under Moses Law who when they were
body and into Christs blood which were exislent before So that whereas he infers so bold are Protestants in restraining the omnipotency of God to defend their own groundless phantasies pa. 207. We may more justly say so bold are Romanists in obliging Gods omnipotency without any signification of his will to work miracles to make good their phansies yea such miracles as they can give no examples or instances for nor any indication in the story that he did or would engage his omnipotency to work such a miraculous chang The Instances he brings for like manner of speech His pretended Instances for the word This to denote a thing future wherein the word this speaks the thing not present but about to be come not home to the purpose as This is my commandment that ye love This is a circle when but part of it drawn and this is fire speaking of flax kindled as those words are pronounced p. 208 209. The first instance is of words to be spoken as the subject of this and do to any mans apprehension refer necessarily to the future or that which follows in speech but the case is quite different when there is a visible substance as bread taken and held up while the pronoun demonstrative this is pronounced and must in any mans apprehension point it out The other two instances are of successive Mutations and visible Of which after begun it is intelligible if said this is a Circle For he that hears the words and sees the thing knows what it means but the change or mutation they suppose made and signified by these words this is my body is instantaneous and invisible which is not begun when the words are begun but accomplisht in a moment when they are fully spoken and cannot have truth in proper speech till then nor that truth be understood till the supposed change become visible or be expresly affirmed to be done If they can shew this of their change they contend for by those words then we shall understand and believe it true and then we wall admit the sense he gives of the words pa. 211. This which I am to give you and which ye are presently to eate is my body but till he can shew us express declaration of such a change or evidence of sight for it he must give us leave to think the sense Saint Paul puts upon those words This is my body by saying The bread that is this bread which we break is the Communion of my body far better and sitter to rest on Whereas pa. 213. he commends the ingenuous profession Ingenuity of Protestants in this point and good disposition of the Protestant that acknowledging bread remaining yet believes it to be the body of Christ because he has said this is my body though he cannot comprehend how this may be it is the profession of all true Protestants And there would be no question made of the Presence if the Romanists would be so ingenuous as to rest satisfied in it and not so contend about the Mode their conceit of transubstantiation as I noted at the beginning of this discourse and would have the Reader note diligently that notwithstanding the former objections for the remaining of Bread in substance yet are they not brought to exclude or prove any thing against the true presence but the Romish conceited presence of Christs body The next objection or argument of the Protestants is from Do this in remembrance of me of which I must say Remembrance of Christ made in the Sacrament excludes not a real presence this argument is not to be pressed against the true presence of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament from the importance of the word remembrance which is of things past not present but first it more directy concludes against their propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass which they pretend to be the very same with that sacrifice on the Cross we say as some Fathers do that the Eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice a shewing a commemoration an application of that facrifice of our Saviours therefore not the same Secondly though by the importance of the word remembrance it conclude not against a true presence as I said yet may it against their manner of presence by Transubstantiation because that takes away the presence of substantial bread that is of the Sacramental Element which is the necessary subject upon which passes what is done in the Sacrament for the shewing of the Lords death and for the commemorating of his body broken his blood shed upon the Cross which the very body and blood of Christ put in the place of the substantial Elements cannot supply therefore he thinks himself concerned pa. 224 to 229. to shew how the same thing may in diverse respects be a remembrance of it self Therefore to omit his Cavilling or trifling pa. 220 221. that what our Saviour did could not then be a Remembrance for that is of things past and Christ himself was present and his passion was to come To which we briefly say and he cannot deny it that our Saviour in his first institution did mean and appoint this Sacrament for a Remembrance of Him and therefore said do this in Remembrance of me and for that first time it was enough to be the shewing or representation of his death and for ever after both representation and remembrance of it but both then and after the exhibition and communication of his body and blood to all purposes of the Sacrament The Paschal Lamb or blood of the Lamb sprinkled on the door-posts was a remembrance of the Angels passing over and for that called the Passover and for that purpose instituted as appears Exod. 12. Yet primâ vice at that first time it was not in proper force of the Word a Remembrance for it was done before the Angel passed over But we need not spend time about this The same body not a Remembrance or Sacrament of it self see how he endeavours to shew the same thing may be in diverse respects a Remembrance of it self viz. by doing some action bring to remembrance something he had done himself This is true and so our Saviour shall be seen of them that pierced him Zach. and therein shall be a remembrance of what was done to him but this nor any other instance brought can make it good in the Sacrament for here we affirm nothing can be a Sacramental remembrance of it self because that confounds the essential parts of a Sacrament making the same thing the Sign and the thing Sgnified Visible corporeal and invisible incorporeal The Apostle saith plainly So oft as ye eat this bread ye shew the Lords death therefore they are forced to say and use such speeches as this Author doth pa. 211. lin ult the body of Christ made a Sacrament and so the same thing must be a Sacrament of it self which comes in with the former absurdity a sacramental representation and remembrance of it self and yet altogether invisible
whether the book be forged or no and the story of Justina true or false yet Nazienzen approves the fact or practise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We answer that he tels us she betook her self to God for help and to Christ that she strengthened her self with the Examples of Susanna Daniel c. then follows having considered these things she also supplicated the Virgin Mary that she would help a Virgin now in danger and so he leaves the story neither commendig this practise nor reproving it We have seen what Testi monies the Romanists alledge out of the Fathers and how faithfully it is done especially by the Cardinal One Argument remains which all of them make from the success they found who applyed themselves to the Martyrs whereby it is evident that God did approve the practise But this is a fallacious Argument à non Causa making their invocation of the Martyr to be the Cause or motive of Gods hearing and granting success It is certain in History that many were heard who resorted to the monuments of Martyrs and prayed to God there yea many that prayed there to God with reference to the Intercession which the Martyr and all other Saints made for the Church below but if some were heard that did directly invocate or pray to the Martyr of which Examples cannot certainly be given we may say God overlooked the Excess or the voluntaries of their mouth as St. August Aug. Confess l. 9. c. 13. Voluntaria oris mei call'd his Excesses or breakings out in his praying for his mother whom he believed to be in bliss hoping that God would pardon the extravagance And as the same Father insinuates God overlooked and pardoned the infirmities of the Midwives not speaking altogether according to truth Aug. Qu. 12 in Exod. non potuit ad laudem sed ad Veniam pertinere and rewarded their good will Exod. 1.20 Their untruth could not deserve praise might obtain pardon So when the Romanists urge the miracles which Augustine sent hither by Greg. the first is said to work as Gods witness to the Truth of all the Doctrines he brought from Rome we say those Miracles supposing them to be wrought were Gods witnesses to the Catholick Faith which Austin preached and planted here not to all that he taught God in mercy overlooking those lesser errors and vanities when he was pleased and saw it fit to give testimony by those Miracles to the Faith of Christ But this may suffice for the former Argument If therefore we be asked why we do not conform in this practise to the Ancient Church it may be answered Because we see what the more Ancient Church held and practised and we find by St. Aug. conFaust l. 20. c. 21. Alind est quod docemus aliud quod sustinemusEt donec emendemus to lerare compellimur Aug. that many things were done at the Martyrs Tombs but not by the better sort of Christians as we noted above Sect. 1. nu 6. and that in his answer to Faustus about the worship or honour given to Martyrs he concludes thus It is one thing that we teach another thing which we bear with and we are compelled to tolerate it till we can amend it Therefore because we saw much deflexion in the Romish practise from the Primitive Verity when we had opportunity and power to amend it the thing St. Aug. desired we did it and with good Reason allowing in this point what may consist with Catholick Doctrine such we count the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the wish of having benefit by those prayers which the Saints above make for the members of the Church militant and labouring below yea such we may account the indirect Invocation which begs of God that benefit or effect of those Prayers but we cannot account the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or direct Invocation to consist with Catholick Doctrine when it is made to Saints and that by way of Religious address as the Church of Rome practiseth it in her offices which practise none of the Ancients knew SECT III. Of Image-worship HOw the Romanists labour in this point to stand against Scripture which so forcibly encounters them Romanists altogether forsaken here of Scripture and Antiquity we saw above Chap. III. and there was answered what they bring from Ps 99.5 to worship his footstool and the Images of the Cherubins upon the Ark This is the best and only plea they can make from Scripture yet so weak and ungrounded that their own Authors give it over as impertinent and raised upon a false supposal that the Jewish Church had any Images for worship as abovesaid Ch. 3. nu 10. Now let us see how they strive to bear up against the universal consent of Antiquity which with a strong Current for 700 years runs contrary unto them Our first evidence against this Image-worship The first Evidence Had there been any such thing amongst Christians those Ancient Apologists and Defenders of Christian Religion against Heathens Justin Clemens Tertullian Minutius Lactantius Arnobius Eusebius would have mentioned it when they give account of the worship used in their assemblies Nay they could not have declined it when they set themselves to refute the Heathen Image-worship And therefore Tertul. Tert. Apol. c. 12. Igitur si statuas imagines frigidas mortuorum suorum simillimas non adoramus quas milvi araneae intelligunt nonne laudem in his Apologetick professes and defends their not worshiping of Images If therefore saith he we do not worship Statues and cold Images like indeed to the Dead whom they represent and which Birds and Spiders understand well enough it deserves praise rather then punishment See how he not only denies the worship but vilifies them as unfit for worship cold and like the Dead and that the Birds understand them and therefore fear not to dung upon them Minutius Faelix answering Cecilius a Heathen that objected against the Christians their having no Temples no Images gives reasons wherefore they had not or not used them in worship Clemens Alexandr as he denies the Jewish Church had any Images to worship saying * Clem. strom 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses set no statue or figure in the Temple to be worshiped so is he very severe against Images among Christians insomuch that he scarce allowes the Art of painting or of making Images as we may see in his Protreptic Origen had to do with Celsus about worship and Invocation and to answer why the Christians gave it not to Angels whom they acknowledged to be ministring Spirits sent of God as they the Heathen gave it to their Daemons of which in the two former Sections But he was also put to satisfie Celsus why the Christians did not use Images and for which he compares them to Scythians Barbarians that had no Temples and Images because they knew not what the Gods or Heroes were How does Origen answer by saying as a Romanist
Trent saith nothing which contraries the Protestant Doctrine saving that it cals that Justification which is not so according either to Scripture or Fathers Of this second and improper Justification we spoke * Chap. IV. nu 2 5. above and shewed how it brings the Controversie of Justification by Works to nothing if indeed they would pretend to no more by their second Justification then their Council seems to make of it So that we might spare farther labour in calling them to shew what proof they have for this doctrine of Justification by works in Scripture and Antiquity And as for their first Justification by inhaerent habitual Righteousness it is not concerned in this question of Justification by Works that Righteousness being Gods work not ours at all as they do acknowledge yet because we were in the former Treatise chap. 4. bound up by Mr. Spencers Replies to say only what he gave occasion for it will not be amiss for a fuller clearing of that wherein they and we do differ to enter a farther consideration of Inhaerent Righteousness of Faith and of Works as to this point of Justification By which it will appear They lay too much upon the Inherent and are too much afraid of an imputed Righteousness also that they give Faith too little in this business and are needlesly affraid of the Sola Fides Faith only Lastly that they speak too confusedly when they say and give out Men are justified by VVorks 1. For inhaerent Righteousness The question being Of Iohaerent Righteousness as to Justification by what Righteousness we are Justified before God We must in the first place draw from them the acknowledgement of some Truths Such as they indeed are loath readily to profess and plainly to speak out but such as are necessary for understanding this Question as to the two Terms in it Justification and Righteousness The first Truth is this Justification sounds opposition to Condemnation That Justification speaks opposition to Condemnation as Rom. 8.33 34. and stands primarily in the acquitting of a sinner from the guilt of his sin offence and punishment the remission or not imputing of his sin the reconciling of him to the favour of God and according to this importance or sense the Apostle St. Paul continually speaks of it The definition or description which the * Decret c. 4. Justificationem Impii non esse aliud quam translationem a statu filiorum Adâ— Trent Council gives of Justification is this It is nothing else but a Translation from the state of the Sons of Adam into the Adoption of the sons of God through Jesus Christ Here is no mention of Remission of sins but elsewhere it is implied they grant it when they say Decret c. 7. Non est sola peccatorum remissio sed etiam sanctificatio In ipsa Justificatione una cum Remissione peccatorum fidem spem charitatem accipientes Justification is not only Remission of Sins but also Sanctification and a little after In Justification we receive faith hope and charity together with Remission of sins Here it is implyed that in Justification there is remission of sins but since the Jesuites prevailed it is made subsequent to the infused Righteousness which purges out the sin and that with them is Remission of sin or Deletion of it for these they confound as above noted and are loath to express Remission of sin as the Scripture doth by not imputing of sin A Second Truth Of the Grace of God taken for his Favour and Love which they are not so willing to profess is That by the Grace of God to which we finde Justification and Salvation often ascribed is meant the Favour Love or good Will of God towards Man I do not say they deny such an acception of Grace for the Trent Council condemning those that say Concil Trid. can 11. the Grace by which we are justified is only the Favour of God doth imply it to be of the Grace and favour of God that we are Justified and their Writers when put to it will acknowledge Grace so taken but decline so to interpret the word Grace where ever they can holding out for it the gift of grace inhaerent in us A third Truth Of Impuaed Righteousness they unwillingly profess and decline to speak of is that there is an imputed righteousness or that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for justification Their Council acknowledges * Decret c. 7. Christ the meritorious cause of Justification which doth closly imply this Truth viz. the application or imputation of his satisfaction or Merits to us for Justification and this imputation is mentioned when in that * Câ—non 11. Council they are Anathematiz'd that say Men are justified by the only imputation of Christs righteousness And we shall have occasion below to shew how the Cardinal admits of this Imputation in one place with a Non est absurdum It is not absurd to say Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 10. Christs righteousness and merits are imputed to us as if we our selves had satisfied It seems we are but lightly concerned in this great Truth of the Imputation of Christs righteousness for justification but deny it they cannot A fourth Truth is Inhaerent Righteousness imperfect That inhaerent Righteousness is imperfect and weak both in the habit or first infusion and also in the working This they would fain decline as prejudicial to Justification by it but they must and do acknowledge this Truth as we shall see below Indeed these Truths have not been so readily professed since the Jesuites prevailed whose study seems not to be for Truth and Peace but to set every point of doctrine farther off from agreement Yet notwithstanding aâ—l the devices and endeavours of such dissemblers of Truth and enemies of Peace we gain by the former Truths this Evidence for clearing the Doctrine of Justification of a Sinner What Justifications is and wherein properly is stands That it is a not-imputing of his sin an absolving or acquitting him from his sins and the condemnation due to them a reconciling of him or receiving him into Gods favour an accepting of him in the beloved through the imputation of Christs satisfaction and merits apprehended by Faith Also that albeit Inhaerent Righteousness be at the same time given by which the sinner is made righteous also and truly righteous according to that measure of righteousness yet is all the righteousness inhaerently in him too weak and imperfect for his justification his appearing and standing in judgment he needs the righteousness of Christ to make a supply of what is wantting and to cover what is amiss Contaremus a Cardinal of Rome and a writer against Luther was in this point clearly Protestant convinced of the former Truth and expressing it as we shall see by his words below rehearsed But now let us see what work they make in that Church Of Inherent Right Habitual and Actual