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
the authority of a particular Church to defend his Decrees notwithstanding that some others of your profession would fain perswade the world That the Popes Decrees ought to be received and embraced as the infallible rules of the whole Catholick Church 9. Having done my weak endeavour to vindicate the Church I now come to vindicate my self and to make good my decarded instances As for that of Abraham if it reach not Siricius it must content me For if my salvation shall go no further then to be in Abrahams bosom my Religion may seek no further then for Abrahams righteousness And he must be to me a bold Dogmatist who would make me more righteous then my Father who am not righteous but for being his Son And if Saint Paul hath thought fit to argue from Abrahams faith to our faith sure I am not mistaken in my Topicks for arguing from Abrahams righteousness to our righteousness And yet I will give you a better precedent then Saint Paul for I find our blessed Saviour himself so arguing This did not Abraham John 8. 40. 10. As for my instance out of Saint Paul It is better to marry then to burn I think it doth prove Siricius a false Dogmatist for he saith It is not better to marry then to burn and I am sure that both parts of the contradiction cannot be true and dare not imagine That Siricius hath taken the true Saint Paul the false part For if for Priests to marry is to be in the flesh Then clearly it is better for Priests to burn then to marry notwithstanding Saint Paul hath said generally concerning all men It is better to marry then to burn And neither good Reason nor good Religion nor good Manners will allow any man to give an exception upon Gods general Rule or to distinguish where his Law doth not distinguish or to set up an Hypothesis against his Thesis by saying That is unlawfull for some particular men which he hath declared to be lawful for All men or to say That puts a man in the state of sin which God hath said is consistent with the state of righteousness For this is to give earth a Dominion over heaven to allow men a legislative power over God for he that in this manner judgeth the Law doth indeed condemn the Law-giver according to that assertion of the irrefragable Doctor Si enim aliquis effecit aliquid quod non sit determinatum in sacra Scriptura mortaliter peccat quia se constituit supra Deum Halensis Par. 1. qu. 68. num 1. art 2. Therefore I dare not say The Church hath determined that to be unlawful in Any which God hath determined to be lawfull in All For I am in love with that Rule in the Angelical Doctor which he hath improved out of Aristotle as he hath indeed all other Ethicks In his quae arbitrio Judicis relinquuntur viri boni est ut sit Diminitivus Poenarum 22. qu. 67. art 4. ad 1. In those things which the Law hath left to the Judges arbitrement it is the part of a good man to Diminish Punishments and if so Then much more to diminish not to encrease sins What an Heathen hath allowed to be the part of a good man pray let a Christian allow to be the part of his best Mother and not suppose the Church 10 cruel as to be willing to encrease sins when he may not suppose a good man so cruel as to be willing to encrease Punishment 11. This makes me follow the Trullane Fathers who thought it fitter Can. 13. to tax the Roman Church for making a Canon to keep married Priests from cohabiting with their wives then by consenting to such a Canon to bring themselves under the suspition of disparaging or disgracing marriage which God had instituted by his Law and both honoured and blessed by his presence For the whole Gospel say they cryeth aloud What God hath joyned let not man put asunder but if Priests that are married be in the state of damnation let us say not God but the Devil hath joyned them and their wives together and therefore man ought to put them asunder and so call marriage in them not Gods but the Devils institution The same Fathers urge further that of Saint Paul Heb. 13. 3. Marriage is honourable in all to prove it honourable in Priests for that was the whole matter then in debate And I desire you to shew me How in this enuntiation marriage is honourable in All the universal particle All doth signifie All but Priests And yet in another enuntiation Drink ye All of this the same particle All doth signifie none but Priests me thinks by this extraordinary kind of subtilty All is come to signifie None For All is none of the Clergy in one place and none of the Laity in another and in my dull sense the whole company of Christians are either Clergy or Laity I will yet further add the testimony of Adrian that I may oppose a Pope against a Pope both for the credit of this Council and for the truth of this cause For I find him in Gratian speaking these words Sextam Sanctam Synodum recipio cum omnibus Canonibus suis I receive the sixt holy Synod with all her Canons Gr. de consec dist 3. c. 29. He saith I receive the sixt holy Synod so the Council is good as to you who are so zealous for the Pope whatever it be to others He saith with all her Canons so the cause is good against you for this Canon is received among the rest And he that said all this lived above 800. years after Christ so your assertion is not good That the Apostles themselves were the first that taught and decreed that Priests ought to abstain from wives For if Pope Adrian could have alledged the least particle of an Apostolical decree against Priests marriage no doubt he would not have said He received all the Canons meerly for this one Canons sake which had been made of purpose to confute his own Church and Chair of both which he was not a little zealous meerly for following Siricius in being addicted to the contrary opinion chuse you which of the two Popes to follow Siricius or Adrian for both you cannot 12. But you say To burn doth not here signifie to be tempted but to fornicate I cannot think Saint Paul was so zealous to determine that which no man was yet so impudent as to doubt viz. It is better to marry then to fornicate for that is no more in effect then this It is better to be a man then to be a beast which surely was not the doubt concerning which the Corinthians had desired to be resolved Therefore I think this cannot be Saint Pauls meaning It is better to marry then to fornicate and I suppose you will think so too when you shall consider that from this interpretation I can justly make this inference That if Priests do fornicate first they may marry afterwards
Gods but me the last Thou shalt not covet Primum est Non habebis Deos alienos coram me Ultimum Non concupisces whereas if his Church had then followed Saint Augustines division or account he must have said not ultimum but duo ultima Non concupises not the last but the two last are Thou shalt not covet For Saint Augustine takes Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house for one and Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife for another Commandement But in the first words of the following Chapter he speaks yet more plainly whereby he that runs may read he that reads must understand That in the age wherein he lived neither was the second Commandement confounded with the first nor the second Table augmented in the number of its Commandements His words at large are these speaking of the Commandements in the very beginning of his 32. Chapter Quorum primum Non habebis Deos alienos coram me Non facies tibi sculptile sequens sed ultimum est Non concupisces Quatuor ex his dilectioni Dei sex dilectioni subserviunt proximi Non habebis Deos alienos coram me Non facies tibi sculptile neque omnem similitudinem Non assumes nomen Domini Dei tui in vanum Memento ut diem sabbatorum sanctifices Quatuor ista Dei dilectioni repugnantia prohibendo locum eidem dilectioni Dei sermo Dei parare intendit The first of the Commandements is this Thou shalt have no other Gods but me The next to that is Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image and the last of all is Thou shalt not covet Four of these set forth our love towards our God and six our love towards our neighbour Thou shalt have no other Gods Thou shalt not make an image Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain and Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day by forbidding those four things which are repugnant to the love of God do intend to prepare amongst us a place for his love See here he allows four Commandements to treat of the love of God and the second to be one of those four So he admits not of Saint Augustines conjunction of the first and second into one and he allows six Commandements to treat of the love of our neighbour so he admits not of Saint Augustines division of the Tenth Commandement into two And he was of so great a repute for a true Catholick Divine that Tritenhemius saith of him in his life Vir in divinis Scripturis spiritu sancto per visionem illustrante doctissimus He was a man instructed in the knowledge of the holy Scriptures by immediate Visions and Revelations from the Holy Ghost Thus I have surveyed the chiefest Catholick Divines till full seven hundred years together after Saint Augustine not only of the Greek and Latine Church but also of Great Britane France Germany Africa and Hierusaâ—…em and not one of them follows Saint Augustines division of the Decalogue and though the master of the Sentences about the year 1145. brought the same in request and the Schoolmen after him yet Aquinas himself who is most zealous for it durst not say it was the division of the Decalogue generally received in the Church from Saint Augustines daies for it is his positive determination Quod praecepta Decalogi diversimodè à diversis distinguuntur 12 4 qu. 100. art 4. in c. The Commandements of the Decalogue have been severally distinguished by several men and he instanceth in Hesychius whom I named before Now Sir if you consider That the whole Catholick Church did speak by the mouthes of these fore-named Divines for so many Centuries after Saint Augustine I hope you will say This was an Assertion much sooner to be vented then to be verified for indeed never to be verified That All Catholick Divines after Saint Augustine did reckon the first and second but as one Commandement Having done my poor endeavour to prove de facto That all Catholick Divines after Saint Augustine have not reckoned the first and second Commandements but as one I now come to prove it de jure That they may not because indeed it is very Uncatholick so to do as being against essential Catholicism that is to say The substance of a Divine Truth taught by God himself and against Accidental Catholicism that is to say the Profession of A Divine Truth alwaies taught in the Church of God And if I prove both these I hope you will hereafter allow the Commandement an Interrogatory in your Confessions if not a distinct place in your Catechisms First I say it is against essential Catholicism that is against the substance of a divine truth taught by God himself For the Commandements are called by Gods holy Spirit Ten words Exod. 34. 28. Scripsit decem verba 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say the 70. He writ the ten words whence hath been derived the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hath ever been the usual appellation in all Christian Churches to say The Decalogue or Ten words for the Ten Commandements And Deut. 4. 13. tis expresly said that God writ these Ten Commandements upon two Tables of stone As many words as he writ with his finger we must read with our eyes hear with our ears and obey with our hearts and as many words as he writ in each Table so many must we read hear and obey in it neither more nor less if we will have our Divinity come from God or in vain shall we talk of being Catholicks with his Church whiles we are Schismaticks from himself for the reason why we may not separate from his Church is because his Church doth not separate from him Considering then That God writ these Ten distinct words in Two distinct Tables it must needs be uncatholick either to make no distinct word of Gods second word in the first Table or to make two distinct words of Gods last word in the second Table For most Catholick is that saying of our blessed Saviour Mat. 19. 6. What God hath joyned together let not man put asunder From whence by the Rule of Conversion emergeth this other What God hath put asunder let not man joyn together The first Proposition will not allow us to divide the Tenth Commandement into two because God hath made it but one so we must have but six Commandements in the second Table The second Proposition will not allow us to make the first and second Commandements into one because God hath made them two and so we must have full four Commandements in the first Table For neither fewer words then four were written by Gods own hand in the first nor more then six in the second Table And the Church of God may not be said to have power may not be thought to have will to correct Gods own Hand-writing For the same God who hath given us Ten words in both Tables hath also given us four in the one and six in the other And doubtless
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.
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
have made my heart clean I am pure from my sin He that hath made the best use thereof is most concerned in it and comprehended under it therefore he cannot say I have made my heart clean I am pure from my sins but he must lye to the Holy Ghost and be so far from cleansing his heart as immediatly to let in many unclean spirits the more to defile it For those two which God hath joyned together all the wit and power of man cannot put asunder even Satans filling the heart and lying to the Holy Ghost why hath Satan filled thy heart to lye to the Holy Ghost Acts 5. 3. And if Satan filleth the heart of those who make this lye then sure he also filleth the mouth of those who tell it And therefore the Church of God which is the pillar and ground of the Truth very much abhorreth this lye making this confession of her natural corruptions But we are all as an unclean thing Facti sumus ut Immundus omnes nos so the Hebrew and Chaldee in the singular number we are all but as one unclean man to shew the Uncleanness was from nature which was as equally derived to All as if all had been but one and making this confession of her personal corruptions which proceeded from the natural and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags Isa. 64. 6. Wherefore since Protestants and Papists both agree together in the former part of this confession as a Principle of Divinity 't is irrational in the Papists to disagree from Protestants in the latter part of it which is but a conclusion proceeding from this Principle For the natural corruption is the cause of the personal and therefore all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags because we are all as an unclean thing This being the full argumentation All who are unclean have an unclean righteousnesse but we all are unclean therefore we all have an unclean righteousnesse Quia opus justitiae immundatur inquinamento as saith Aquinas because our righteousnesse is defiled by our unrighteousnesse and by this we may fully understand that other text If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us 1 Joh. 1. 8. For we are clearly guilty of a double lye one against our own souls we deceive our selves another against the Holy Ghost the Spirit of truth and the truth is not in us Both are such pernicious lyes as to bring upon us inevitable destruction for he that willingly deceives his own soul cares not for knowing the truth he that strives to deceive the Holy Ghost cannot come to know it For as he hath not the truth in him in that he deceiveth himself so he keepeth the Spirit of truth away from him that he may deceive himself for ever Nor can we possibly use any evasion upon this text as if some men might say they have no sin though others cannot for he must think himselfe better than the best of Saints the Disciple whom Jesus loved and questionlesse he had a very good reason of his love who will needs say he hath no sin though by saying so he is sure to prove himself worse than the worst of sinners for he maketh him a lyar who hath promised forgiveness of sins and he maketh his Word a lye which hath shewed our need or want of that forgiveness for in many things we offend all Jam. 3. 2. and he putteth himself out of their communion who alone obtain forgiveness even the communion of true penitents of whom it is said If we confesse our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins 1 Joh. 1. 9. he that denyes himself to be one of this number denyes himself to be one of the communion of Saints unless St. John and St. James were no Saints and consequently makes himself uncapable of the forgiveness of sins Thus doth the second Milevitane Council gloss the words of St. John that they were not spoken out of humility but out of necessity and that the greatest the necessity of Truth Satis apparet hoc non tantum humiliter sed etiam veraciter dici Poterat enim Apostolus dicere Si dixerimus quia non habemus peccatum nos ipsos extollimus humilitas in nobis non est sed quùm ait nos ipsos decipimus veritas in nobis non est satis ostendit eum qui se dixerit non habere peccatum non verum loqui sed falsum It is evident that this was spoken not only out of modesty but also out of truth for the Apostle might have said If we say that we have no sin we extol our selves and there is no humility in us But when he saith we deceive our selves and there is no truth in us he sufficiently sheweth that whosoever saith there is no sin in him doth not speak truly but falsly And thus also doth the same Council gloss the words of St. James saying The Apostle was holy and just when he said in many things we offend All for why did he add this particle All but to shew that he agreed with the Psalmist who had said Enter not into judgement with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal. 142. 2. and with Solomon who had said There is no man that sinneth not 1 King 8. 46. And with Daniel who had said We have sinned and have committed iniquity Dan. 9. 5. and afterwards added ver 20. whiles I was confessing my sins and the sins of my people he would not say Our sins but My sins and the sins of my people because he did foresee by the Spirit of Prophecy that some in after ages would be ready to put him and such as he nay indeed much worse transgressours out of the catalogue or number of sinners Quia futuros istos qui tam malè intelligerent tanquam Propheta praevidit And at last upon these and the like proofes the same Council denounceth a terrible curse against those who should dare affirme that forgive us our trespasses was said by the Saints rather humbly than truly quis enim ferat orantem non hominibus sed ipsi Domino mentientem qui labiis sibi dicit dimitti velle corde dicit quae sibi dimittantur se debita non habere For say those Fathers who can endure that a man in his prayers should tell a lye not to man but to God saying with his mouth Forgive us our trespasses and saying in his heart he had no trespasses to be forgiven him Thus we have the authority of the Scripture and the authority of the Church both agreeing together in this doctrine That all men are sinners And though this was but a particular National Council in it self yet was it Universal and Oecumenical in its authority as consisting of Catholick Bishops amongst the rest Alipius and St. Augustine as appeares by the Synodical Epistle to Innocent the first and having been approved by the Catholick
precept when you spake of forbidding Priests to marry for your own Canonist calls the statute which inhibits Priests marriage Statutum Ecclesiae non ita generale Glos. in Decr. par 2. Causa 25. c. 3. Papa non potest contra generale Ecclesiae statutum dispensare sed contra statutum Ecclesiae quod non est ita generale sicut de continentia sacerdotum bene potest dispensare The Pope cannot dispense against a generall statute of the Church but he may against one that is not generall such as is that of Priests continency Pray learn hereafter to speak with your own Doctors or do not require all the world to follow their Doctrine And yet in truth even your own Church the Church of Rome or rather your own Popes the Popes of Rome did not make any such precept till Siricius his daies if you will again believe your own Gloss upon Gratian Par. 1. Dist. 84. cap. 3. descanting upon this very Canon of Carthage which you have urged for there saith the Gloss Dicunt quod olim sacerdotes poteraÌ„t contrahere ante Siricium They say that Priests might lawfully marry before Siricius his daies And again A tempore Siricii vocat Antiquitatem The Canon calleth that Antiquity which was from the time of Siricius 5. And whereas the Canon as it is alledged by him affirmeth that the Apostles taught this doctrine the same Gloss brings fresh fasting spittle to allay this quick-silver and the allay is good enough for the metall saying Apostoli docuerunt exemplo opere admonitione non institutione vel constitutione The Apostles taught it by their example deed or admonition but not by their doctrine or any constitution So far is it from truth in the judgement of your own Canonists which you averr so confidently That the Apostles themselves were the first that taught and decreed that Priests ought to abstain from wives And besides it is clear from the Apostles own writings that they neither taught it nor decreed it Else why did Saint Paul say to Timothy 1 Tim. 3. A Bishop must be blameless the husband of one wife if he were indeed to be blamed for having one And that he â—…ught to have his children in subjection if it were unlawfull for him to have any children Therefore the Apostles taught it not Again why did the same Saint Paul say to the Corinthians concerning this argument pro and con I speak this by permission and not of commandment 1 Cor. 7. 6. if the Apostles had given any command concerning it And v. 7. I would that all men were even as I my self but every man hath his proper gift of God if there had been any Apostolicall decree to force those who succeeded him in his calling to succeed him also in his continency for then sure he would not have wished but have commanded them to be as himself whereas on the contrary he only wisheth them to be as himself who have the Gift enabling them so to be therefore the Apostles decreed it not And the truth of both these was antiently attested by your own Gratians ordinary copies of this very Canon for so saith your new Glossator upon those words Apostoli docuerunt In vulgatis codicibus sequebatur Exempla quod est sublatum In the ordinary copies it was written The Apostles taught it by their Example but I have taken that away The addition of which word Example whether by Gratian himself or by any other being commonly received is a sufficient evidence that even the Church of Rome in those daies did not think that the Apostles had forbid Priests to marry by theâ—…r Doctrine and much less by their Decree 6. From the Apostles let us pass to the Church for you say for Priests to marry is contrary to the Churches precept But you do only say it and will never be able to prove it For the Greek Church in its most pure and flourshing age had a married Clergy insomuch that Gregory Nazianzene was born after his Father had officiated at the holy Altar let his own mouth witness it who brings in his Father thus speaking unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Naz. in carm de vitâ suâ Which is in plain English Thou hast not yet had thy life so long as I have had my Priesthood I hope you will not affirm that the Father because a Priest was the worse for having such a son when you cannot deny but the whole Christian Church hath ever since been the better for that he had him Again How came the first Council of Nice to be kept from determining for the forced continency of Priests by one single Paphnutius if so be the Apostles had so determined before or the Church had thought fit so to determine it after them Nay it is evident The Catholick Church determined there should be no such determination as appears from the forecited consent of the Nicene Fathers to Paphnutius his advice which is generally attested and approved by the Authors both of the Greek and Latine Church As by Socrates lib. 1. c. 11. Lat. By Gelasius Cycicenus lib. 2. de actis Concil Nic. c. 33. By Nicephorus lib. 8. cap. 19. By Cassiodorus hist. Trip. lib. 2. c. 14. By Gratian Par. 1. Dist. 31. cap. 12. And by Peter Crabbe in actis Concilii Niceni So that if you may have recourse but to one of these you shall little need to go either to Neteoricks or to Epitomists for the story as you did in your first Exception for Saint Augustines answer and in this for Siricius his words And yet I will add to these one more proof and that from the Council of Gangra whose Canons were put into the Code of the Catholick Church so often appealed to by the Fathers at Calcedon and placed together with the Holy Bible in the midâ—…t of their Council Concil Gangr can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any man make a dissention between married and unmarried Priests as if he ought not to take the Communion from the married Priest let him be accursed Now if the Church had made that distinction why should not the people make it But in truth the Church was so far from making it that she shewed it to be against her judgement to make it speaking no less reverently of the offerings of the married then of the unmarried Priests Or you may thus interpret the Canon If any man withdraw himself from a married Priest as if he ought not to communicate whiles such a Priest doth officiate let him be accursed It is plain here in the judgement of the Church for these Gangrensian Canons were admitted into the Code of the Catholick Church which yours of Carthage were not That the married Priests were as fit to serve at the Altar as the unmarried and if they were as fit to serve God why not as fit to serve the People and to content you And to shew you I
before yet was it not ratified and confirmed till then for that is an undenyable rule of her own Canonist Leges instituuntur quùm promulgantur firmantur quùm moribus utentium approbantur Grat. Par. 1. Dist. 4. cap. 3. Whence it follows That neither this Decree of Siricius nor any other of the like nature could properly be called a Prohibition till that time when it was first generally received imto Practice and that was not til the year 1074. a longtime sure after the Apostles And this same Truth is attested by Gratian in the first words of his 31. distinction Tempus quoque Quia nondum erat institutum ut sacerdotes continentiam servarent where your new Glossator is very much troubled to prove that Sacerdotâ—…s is put for Subdiaconi Priests for Subdeacons that so he may rather elude then expound the Text It doth therefore neerly concern you as a Trustee of Gods Truth not of any mans mistakes or insolencies and as a member and Minister of Christs Catholick Church to mitigate if not recall those words That the Apostles themselves were the first that taught and decreed that Priests ought to abstain from wives And those other For Priests to marry contrary to the Churches precept Siricius might well say is to be in the flâ—…sh because it is to be in a continuall state of sin and damnation unless you will say That the Apostles taught and decreed that in word which they have contradicted in writing that the whole Church wittingly and willingly sinned against their Decree for above a thousand years together by which means you may chance teach others to say and we now find many Schollars most ready to learn such a wicked lesson That for so long together Christ was without a Catholick and Apostolick Church For my part I dare not be so far an Accuser of my Brethren but sure I will never be brought to be so far an Accuser of my Mother 8. But least it may be thought that Sampsen-like you have smitten us poor Philistines hip and thigh and have carried away our Gates by the vertue and strength of the Council of Carthage I will now look after a Razor that shall very much endanger that lock wherein your great strength lyeth for I have yet only clipped it a little by Valerius his hand and must now labour to cut it off which I shall endeavour to do by cutting the Africane Church from the Catholick and that Council you have alledged from the Africane Church and that Canon you have alledged from the Africane Council I say therefore 1. That the Africane Church was but a particular Church and could not pass the sentence may not have either the repute or the authority of the Catholick Church And for this answer I have your own Cardinals precedent Bellar. lib. 2. de concil cap. 8. 9. Where that objection against the Popes being called Summus Pontifex which is brought from the 26. Canon of the Council of Carthage Ut primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps sacerdotum aut summus sacerdos aut aliquid hujusmodi sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus is by him thus answered Quùm hoc Concilium nationale fuerit non universae sed tantùm Africanae Ecclesiae leges tulisse potuit Itaque hoc Canone non prohibuit neque potuit prohibere ne Rom. Pontifex diceretur sacerdotum princeps vel summus sacerdos sed tantuÌ„ ne ita appellaretur ullus Metropolitanus Africae This Council being but nationall could not make Canons for the Catholick Church and therefore by this Canon could not prohibit the Bishop of Rome to be called an high Priest but only the Bishops of Africa to be so called Pray shew me a reason why this answer is not as good for the Priests of Europe as for the Bishop of Rome for all the world cannot make one National Church the whole Catholick Church no more then it can make a particular an universal or one corner of the South or West all the world 2. That second Council of Carthage scarce deserves to have the credit and cannot have the authority of the particular Africane Church First because for ought that can be collected out of the acts thereof there were not above seven Bishops present at it no more then were at a Collation with the Donatists v. Bin. Conc. Tom. 1. Col. p. 624. whereas Africa afforded above two hundred Bishops and they were all by their Canons strictly bound to be present at National Synods Secondly because there is a plain and a gross untruth set down in the first words of that Council as it is in the Latine Copy which only befriends your assertion for there it is said Gloriosissimo Imperatore Valentiniano Augusto 4. Theodosio viris clarissimis consulibus i. Whiles Valentinian the Emperour was Consul the fourth time and Theodosius with him these Bishops met at Carthage whereas it is evident by the Archives of Chronologie That Valentinian the Emperour never at all was Consul with Theodosius and it is as clear by the same Archives that when Valentinian the Emperour was Consul the fourth time Neotorius not Theodosius was his partner See Helvicus An. Christ. vul 390. So I shew you plainly we have a false Consul put upon the Council and I have some reason to suspect we have also a false Council put upon the Church For it is clear that this Council was not held in the year 390. when Valentinian was Consul the fourth time because Genedius who speaks first in it and was President of it was not taken by Aurelius to be his Coadjutor at Carthage till after Saint Augustine had been taken by Valerius to be his Coadjutor at Hippo as saith Binius Aurelius factum Valerii Hipponensis imitatus onus Episcopale in Genedium stranstulit And it is asserted by Helvicus That Saint Augustine was made Priest of the Church of Hippo but in the year 391. that is the year after this Consulage And sure he lived some years a Priest of that Church before he was made Bishop thereof perchance so many as to satisfie the custom of the Church but sure so many as to write full thirteen Books as appears by his Retractations lib. 1. cap. 14. notwithstanding his continual Preaching all that time For he was required and authorized by his Bishop to be a Preacher whiles he was yet a Priest which till his daies had not been known in the Africane Church and he preached both privately and publickly against the Donatists Manichaeans and Pelagians saith Possidius and sure the more time he spent in Preaching the less time he had for writing But to let pass collections and conjectures we see Genedius the President of this Council was not a Bishop till after Saint Augustine And Saint Augustine was not so much as a Priest till one year after the date of this Council so it is certain the Council hath a false date and it is possible we may have a false Council
Accordingly Binius is forced to confess That the second Council of Carthage though it was so in Title yet was not so in Truth but was such a second as had at least five before it Post quinque saltem anteriora hoc quod secundum appellatur habitum fuisse oportet Which he proves first from the Bishops names recited in the Acts of this Council Genedius Alypius Faustinus who were not Bishops till long after the year that Valentinian was the fourth time Consul Secondly from the very words of this very second Canon which you have alledged For that begins thus Quùm in praeterito consilio de continentiae castitatis moderamine tractaretur relating to a fore-past Council which fore-past Council saith Binius was that Africane Council celebrated the first year of Pope Coelestine which was the year 424. after Christ according to Helvicus A great distance sure from 390. And the 37. Canon of that Africane Council saith Binius is that which is here related to The like he affirms concerning Fortunatus his words in the third Canon Memini praeterito consilio fuisse statutum I remember in a fore-past Council it was ordained where saith the same Binius That fore-past Council was the forenamed Africane and Fortunatus reflected back to the tenth Canon of that Council But if this Council in which were so few Bishops and concerning which are so many uncertainties may deserve the credit and authority of the particular Africane Church yet sure it will be hard to prove That the words alledged by you deserve to have the credit or Authority of a Canon of this Council to that purpose for which and according to that sense in which you have alledged them 3. Wherefore thirdly I make bold to assert That this your Canon as you have applyed and urged it was no Canon of the Africane Council called the second of Carthage for the Fathers in Trullo Can. 13. do upon this very occasion of Priests continency cite that yery numerical Canon of Carthage with an addition of other words and in another sense saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We know that those who met at Carthage and took care of the grave and sober behaviour of Priests did say That at some proper and set times they should abstain from their wives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Propriis terminis à consortibus abstineant So that this and no other but this is the doctrine which the second Council of Carthage did say The Apostles had taught and antiquity had practised And this is no more then what we find in Saint Pauls writings Except it be with consent for a time that you may give your selves unto fasting and prayer 1 Cor. 7. 5. which though spoken generally of all married men yet may without any violence to the Text and with great zeal of and advantage to godliness be appropriated à fortiori to the married Clergy But for Priests total abstaining from wives you must find it in some other Canon or say the Trullane Fathers did either want Honesty in mis-citing this Canon or Learning in mis-understanding it or Iudgement in mis-applying it Whereas on the contrary they were so far from wanting any of these that they had moreover power and authority to have reversed it and would have used that power had they indeed found it a Canon of the Africane Church For they are so bold as plainly to reverse a Canon near of kin to it delivered in the Roman Church requiring married men if they were made Priests to promise they would after that time not co-habite with their wives And to assure us and all the world That these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning which in truth is all the controversie came not either by surreption or by mistake into their Canon The reason of this restriction is thus given in the ensuing words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oportet enim eos qui altari afsident quum sacra manibus tractant in omnibus continentes esse not bidding Priests contain from marriage at all times but only at such times as they were to administer the holy Sacrament This was certainly the sense of your second Canon of the second Council of Carthage or not only Greece did not understand carthage but also Carthage did not understand it self Whence Balsamon is so bold as to assert in plain terms That they of Rome and their accomplices were much mistaken who inferred from this or any other Canon of the Councils of carthage That Priests and Deacons might not have their own wives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But were bound to keep themselves single and unmarried vid. Bals. in Can. 3. 4. Concil 3. Carth. And he proves his assertion from the 70. Canon of the third Council of Carthage meaning the 73. as we commonly say the 70. when we mean the 72. interpreters where the injunction is plain That they ought to abstain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secundum proprios terminos At their proper or peculiar times viz. At the times of their Administration Nay yet more Aurelius who is said to have propounded this your Canon doth himself thus alledge or at least thus interpret it in the Greek Canons of the third Council of Carthage as they are entred and received in the Code of the Africane Church your own Binius being my witness For there Can. 25. he requires Priests to abstain from wives only at some proper times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Propriis terminis ab uxoribus abstineant v. Bin. Concil Tom. 1. edit Colon. p. 580. in alterâ editione quorundam Canonum Concilii tertii Carth. ex codice Africano But the Latine interpreter in Binius rendring these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secundum priora statuta priora instead of propria and Binius foâ—…lowing that reading in the 37. Canon concil Africani sub Coelestino Benifacio and preferring it as the better of the two in his notes upon Concil Carth. 5. sub Anastasio cap. 3. even contrary to the reading of that same Canon as it is in its own edition makes me suspect that the Africane Canons have not been derived to us so entire and incorrupt in the Latine copies as in the Greek wherein if I am mistaken you may well pardon my mistake because your own new Glossator upon Gratian hath presumed to correct the Latine Copy of this very Canon as he had found it in the Books then commonly received by the Greek Copy leaving out exemplo after Apostoli docuerunt as I shewed before for this one reason amongst others That he found it not in the Greek Copies I know Binius is of another mind so impossible is it there should be Unity where there is not Verity and saith concerning the carthage Canons That the Latine Edition is of a greater authority then the Greek translation But confessing two various editions of the Latine Canons Secundum propria statuta and priora statuta and not being able to shew any more then one translation
Christ himself hath said concerning them I will that they be where I am that they may beâ—…old my glory I will that they be where I am not where I have been for then they might still remain on the earth or when they go hence sooner go to Hell then to Purgatory since it is without doubt say your authors Christ was once in Hell but much doubted whether he were once in Purgatory because that is looked on as a fictitious Place and so could not receive him But in truth the words will have those who are given unto Christ to go immediately unto Heaven for that is our Saviours meaning I will they be where I am viz. in heaven for there he then was in his Divinity in which respect we are taught to say to him Our Father which art in heaven and I think you must have recourse to the Divinity of Christ to prove that the good thief enjoyed his promise to be with him that day in Paradise for his body was in the grave and his humane soul in Hell say you and for ought we can prove only his Divinity was in heaven Wherefore whiles Christ was in the state of Humiliation all those who were given him were at their deaths with him as God But now he is in the state of his Exaltation all that are given him are at their deaths with him not only as God but also as man that they may behold his glory whether given him of the Father by eternal generation as God or by temporal dispensation as man And surely if they be with him that they may behold his glory they cannot be in Purgatory for neither he nor his glory is there And how their faith can be so long suspended from Vision their hope from comprehension their charity from fruition by the interposition of some continuance in Purgatory not to be measured by time for they are past that nor by eternity for they are not yet come to that I cannot see without a great injury to their soulâ—… which may not part with these Theologicall vertues till they be fully perfected and yet a greater injury to their Saviour whose merit and satisfaction is not thought enough to perfect them 4. As for those words Bellarmine himself confesseth de Purgatorio incertum est T is clear by the context they are to be understood only of the humane soul of Christ that it is uncertain whether that were ever in Purgatory or no for I said The good Thief was without doubt to be with his Saviour and therefore was to be in Paradise not in Purgatory since it was not without doubt that Christ was in Purgatory but it was without doubt that he was in Paradise And Bellarmine himself hath said thus much in sense though not in words and I intending to meddle only with his sense thought it needless to quote either Chapter or Book since I thought his sense so known to all Papists as not to be doubted and so received by them as not to be denyed For my business was a consolation of Protestants at such a time when they wanted it very much and yet against such a time when they might want it more not a contestation with Papists and therefore I quoted only the substance of his doctrine not the words of it and not the place because not the words which is not uncouth amongst serious Divines though as you say it is amongst learned Antagonists But since you have followed this quarrelsom age which will not let Catholik Divines and honest men either live securely or die peaceably that you might be my Antagonist and have turned that into Controversie which I intended only for peaceable Divinity for I was not then in case to answer a challenge much less to send one you have made it necessary for me to quote the very place that I may not be thought to have misquoted the thing The place I pointed at in Bellarmine was lib. 4. de Christo cap. 16. the very same which after your long excursion you have alledged as you think against me but in truth for me Probabile est profecto Christi animam ad omnia loca inferni descendisse It is probable that Christs humane soul descended to all the places of Hell I knowing that he reckoned Purgatory for one of those places took this for his sense It is probable that Christs humane soul went down into Purgatory But Logick having taught me that what was asserted only as probable was acknowledged as uncertain I put his sense in such words as I thought most suitable to my purpose saying Bellarmine himself confesseth De Purgatorio incertum est that is in plain English since my Latine had so ill luck Bellarmine himself confesseth it is uncertain concerning Purgatory whether Christs humane soul went thither or no which is clearly his own doctrine by undenyable consequence For he only saith It is probable Christs humane soul went down into Purgatory which is all one as if he had said It is uncertain that Christs humane soul went down into Purgatory For if it be but probable it was so it is also probable it was not so and therefore uncertain it was so This is all Bellarmine doth say and this is more then he doth prove Nay his proofs make his assertion altogether improbable if not impossible For all the proofs he brings concerning Christs descent do speak only of Hell properly so called not of Purgatory As that of Fulgentius Ubi solebant peccatorum animae torqueri He went thither where the souls of sinners had used to be tormented Whereas Purgatory though a place of torment according to his doctrine yet is it not so for the souls of sinners but for the souls of the righteous And that other proof he brings from all the Fathers at once is like to this Et ipsi patres dum describunt terrorem gehennae daemonnm in descensu Christi aperte indicant Christum praesentiam suam illis manifestasse And the Fathers describing the frights and fears of Hell and the Devils in Christs descent do plainly shew that Christ did manifest his presence to them I think you will not allow this to be spoken of Purgatory for then you must make it all one with Hell and take it for a place of Devils not of righteous Spirits which after they have been purged in flames from the reliques of their sins not expiated by their own former penance nor their friends after payments are sure to see the face of God 5. This is all the certainty I find in Bellarmine of Christs descending into Purgatory and this I look upon as a very great uncertainty But you look upon this as a great certainty in that you give a reason for it saying it was to take possession of his whole Kingdom say then Purgatory is a part of Christs Kingdom and if Christ did not take possession of this part amongst the rest you do nòt believe He did take possession of
in doing or in suffering because there is no proportion betwixt an infinite Justice and a finite satisfaction This considered may I not be as gross an Ebionite or Cherinthian by saying there is a necessity of penal satisfaction as if I say there is a necessity of legal observations for the expiation of sin do not both alike diminish and disparage the efficacy of Christs death Or may I think that the Church of Christ by using the power of the Keyes in retaining sins intends to retain where Christ remits to wiâ—… in the true Penitent to the undervaluing of Christs merit in purchasing remission of sins and Gods free grace and mercy in granting it and Gods holy Spirit in testifying it Therefore I must let the satisfaction enjoyned by the Church die with the Penitent and not be required of him after death unless I will suppose the Church both able and willing to bind where Christ hath loosed For if Christ loose not the sinner here I do not find upon what grounds to believe That he will loose him hereafter So that we see if satisfaction is to be made by the sinner All must go to Purgatory and for ought we can prove tarry there eternally And so Purgatory will in truth be Hell If satisfaction hath been made by Christ then none at all can justly go thither And so Purgatory will in truth be Nothing certain it is no other satisfaction was given for all the offences of the good Thief though he were not a Penitent till the hour of his death and with what colour of Truth can any Divine teach that God will not take this satisfaction and this alone for all other Penitents And yet this in Bellarmines acount is one of the two supporters of Purgatory the other is Venial sins which may also be shaken in good time In a word The Place the Time the Quality of Torment the manner of tormenting the Tormentor and the cause or end for which souls are said to be tormented in Purgatory are all uncertain and how can the torment it self be taken for a certainty For it is not any mans confidence can make that certain which is invested with so many intrinsecal doubts and ambiguities nor any mans arguments can make that credible which is not certain But besides the uncertainty wâ—… meet with in this temporary Tormentâ—… which will not suffer us to believe it wâ—… find it casts an uncertainty upon that eternal Torment which we confess our selveâ—… bound to believe For as you rightly sayâ—… Nothing is more certain amongst Christiaâ—… then what is de fide of Divine Faith So crave leave to inferr from that sayinâ—… Nothing is to be affirmed de fide of diviâ—… faith among Christians which is not ceâ—…tain unless we will labour to overthroâ—… the Certainty of the Christian faith Fâ—… to require men to believe an uncertaiâ—… equally with a certainty is to invite theâ—… to disbelieve a certainty since it is not possible they should have one and the same Divine Faith for uncertainties and for certainties And therefore to teach men to believe Purgatory which is uncertain is the ready way to make them not believe Hell which is most certain Nor is it to be wondered That Bellarmines certainties concerning this doctrine should be so much enfeebled by his own uncertainties concerning the same no more then it is to be wondered that the certainty of our Christian saith should depend not upon the wit of man but upon the word of God 7. For this doctrine of Purgatory is so far from being taught in the Word of God that if you should ask those Disciples who have been most and best instructed in the Word Have ye received the doctrine of Purgatory since ye believed They must answer you We have not so much as heard whether there be any Purgatory and yet the same men will plainly tell you They have heard there is an holy Ghost and have received him though your over-bold Peltanus would perswade the world That Purgatory is as expresly taught in the holy Scriptures as the Unity of God and yet that is a little more expresly taught then the Deity of the Holy Ghost though blessed be God the Scripture is very express in both these Doctrines But in the whole Book of God there is neither in words nor in sense neither explicitly nor implicitly any such thing as your Purgatory which we cannot say concerning any Article of the Christian Faith That the thing we are bound to believe is not so much as really or virtually named in all the Holy Bible For an sit is as truly a precognition in the object of faith as in the subject of any question by that Rule of the Apostle if reason will not serve How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard and how shall they hear without a Preacher Rom. 10. 14. We cannot believe what we have heard we cannot hear any supernatural truth unless God preach it and if he hath been the Preacher we may find the doctrine in his written Word which the most zealous defenders of this your doctrine durst not assert in former times For a very eminent Schoolman of our own Couâ—…rey Iohannis Bachâ—…nus lib. 4. dist 45. quâ—…unica answers all the Texts that were in his daies commonly alledged out of the Bible to prove Purgatory which were then but three though since they have swelled into a far greater number The first Text was that of 2 Mac. 12. To which his answer is Libri Macchabaeorum non sunt de Canone Bibliae ut dicit Hieronymus The Books of the Macchabees are not of the Canon of the Bible as saith Saint Hierom Nor doth your Cardinals new subtilty invalidate this answer Dico librum Maccha non esse Canonicum apud Judaeos sed apud Christianos esse I say the Books of the Macchabees were not Canonical among the Jews but they are among the Christians For the Christian Church had the Canon of the Old Testament from the Church of the Jews who not daring to make themselves a Canon took that which God gave them and therefore left out the Macchabees because they were not in the Ark that is to say not in that Canon which God had given them Nor hath God given the Christian Church power and authority to make that or any other Book Canonical which himself hath not made so for the Text is plain which saith To them were committed the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 2. Which words only shew a Trust of keeping not a power of making the Oracles of God either in Jew or Christian. The second Text then alledged to prove Purgatory was that of 1 Cor. 3. To which his answer is That the Apostle there speaketh of that fire which shall burn the world at the day of Judgement therefore that place will not prove such a a purging by fire as the Doctors suppose before the day of Judgement Benè probatur Purgatio ista conflagrationis in
an Antecedent that is a meer nothing but pretending to be somthing it is no longer a meer nothing for it is a Lye which is worse then nothing I say A Consequence without the rules of Logick is a Lye and I am forced to say it as a Christian Divine That I may not betray the Truth of Christ nor bely the Church of Christ For how many Truths doth the Church of Christ teach me to believe which are Divine Truths only as they are Logical Consequences whereas it is palpable A Logical Consequence cannot be a Truth but an Unlogical Consequence must be a Lye I will instance but in one The Monothelite who said Christ had but one will is condemned for an Heretick by the sixt general Council and yet it is only a Logical Consequence That Christ had two wills from this Antecedent That two compleat rational Natures must have two wills Whence cometh this Syllogism Two compleat rational Natures must have two wills Christ had two compleat rational Natures sc. the nature of God and the nature of man Therefore Christ had two wills Here is a Truth inferred by Logical Consequence which hath a Being in it self and chargeth them for Hereticks who deny it because it is a Divine Truth whereas such inferences as are only from Prudential not Logical Consequences have no being save in the fancy of him that makes them and therefore Charges all with Heresie that believe them because they are not Divine Truths but only humane imaginations For it is an heresie to believe that for a divine Truth which God hath not taught in his Word neither explicitly nor implicitly neither as a doctrine nor as a deduction neither as a Theological Principle nor as a Logical Conclusion For such a belief doth not only set up Fancy or rather Falsity instead of Truth or man instead of God for the author of our Faith but it also disbelieveth that Truth whereof God is the undoubted Author For he which believeth that which God hath not taught concerning any Truth must needs in some respect not believe that which God hath taught concerning the same Truth as in this particular case concerning the remission of sins He that believeth remissionn of sins in the next world which God hath not taught must needs not fully believe remission of sins in this world which God hath taught For what sins are left to be remitted there cannot be remitted here so I must not believe remission of all sins here though upon never so earnest a repentance never so true a faith that I may believe the remission of some sins hereafter So dangerous a thing is it for any Divine to set up rules of prudence rather of imprudence instead of rules of Logick that is to say Phantastical additions instead of rational deductions even as dangerous as to teach men to believe a Lye instead of believing Truth For what is inferred from any Text of Scripture by Logical consequence is a Theological conclusion and may not be disbelieved without an affront to God the Author of Logick that is of Reason But what is inferred without Logick is not a Theological conclusion but a Phantastical Addition and may not be received by us either as Christians because it comes not from God nor as men because it comes not by Reason And I think such a conclusion is that of the same Cardinals lib. 3. de euch c. 7. Per divinam Potentiam posse ab homine tolli facultatem intelligendi interim ut maneat Homo That by Gods Almighty power may be taken from a man the faculty of understanding and he may still remain a man A Consequence doubtless from the first Article of our belief I believe in God the Father Almighty but inferred only by the Rules of this new prudence not by the Rules of old sound Logick and therefore to be looked upon as a meer fiction for it supposeth an Impotency in Omnipotency as if God could deny himself working contradiction and making a man not a man a reasonable creature not a reasonable creature at the same time and in the same respect But however this Consequence hath found us out a man fit to believe other such like Consequences For such Consequences are clearly without Reason and therefore the man that can believe them had need be a man without Reason 9. But it is high time to leave your Cardinal whom yet I had not traced so far had it not been to follow your footsteps and since our Countrey-man could not his own Countrey-man shall stop his mouth For Saint Thomas of Aquine as good an Italian as himself and a far better Divine seeth here no remission of sins in the next world but proveth the contrary both out of Saint Augustine and out of Saint Chrysostom in his Commentary upon this Text that is out of the two chiefest Doctors both of the Greek and of the Latine Church And he sets down Saint Chrysostoms exposition with the approbation not only of its Truth but also of its perspicuity Chrysostomus valdè planè exponit dicit c. Saint Chrysostom expounds this place very plainly and saith That we are here told of a twofold blasphemy one against the Son of God calling him a wine-bibber and for this they had some excuse because of their ignorance The other against the Spirit of God calling him Beelzebub and for this they had no excuse because they were sufficiently instructed in the Scriptures that evil spirits could not be cast out by an evil spirit but by the good Spirit that is the Spirit of God and therefore this blasphemy should not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come which saith he is spoken upon this ground Because some sins are punished in this world some in the next some both in this and that The sins punished only in this world are those of Penitents yet your Purgatory will needs punish them and only them in the next world The sins punished only in the next world are those of miscreants of whom it is said Job 21. 13. In a moment they go down into Hell But the sin which is punished in this world and in the next is the sin against the Holy Ghost Therefore it is said concerning that sin â—…t shall not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come Non quia sit remissio in futuro sed quia poena erit in futuro unde sensus est quod non remittitur quin poenam patiatur in hoc seculo in futuro Not because there is any forgiveness in the next world but because there shall be punishment in the next world wherefore the meaning is It shall not be forgiven but he shall suffer punishment for it both in this and in the next world Thus the Angelical Doctor expoundeth this Text and his Exposition stood good a long time and was generally received in the Latine Church for your own Ferus hath followed it saying
Minus dicit plus significat vult enim quod non solum in futuro sed etiam hic punitur tale peccatum He speaks little but he signifies much for his meaning is That such a sin is punished not only in the next world but also in this 10. Your late Jesuites tell us of a remission of the sin with a reservation of the punishment but your old Divines take remitting for not punishing without which in truth it cannot be remission For God doth not afford us a less forgiveness then he doth require us to afford one another and that is so to forgive the sin as not once to think of punishing or of revenging it For indeed to forgive sin is nothing else in its own nature but not to reserve it to be punished and because God punished our Saviour for our sins it is said He made him sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. For so Christ took our sin upon him that is to say not our Guilt but our Punishment and he took it upon himself that he might not leave it upon us For he was wounded for our transgressions Isa. 53. 5. He was bruised for our iniquities that is He was punished that we might be acquitted The chastisement of our peace was upon him that is His chastisement was our Peace and with his stripes we are healed And blessed be God we are so for sure it is we could never be healed with our own stripes it is his wounds work our cure and not our own yet I will not follow Scotus who to confute them that denyed contingency did say It is pitty but such men should be under torments till they should confess it were possible for them not to be tormented I will not say in like manner It is pitty but they who deny our souls to be healed with our Saviours stripes should themselves be beaten with many stripes till they should confess that their own stripes could not heal them for then I know they would be under the lash for ever But I must say That it were just with God to put them under such a confutation For they are under a gross denyal not of a Metaphysical but of a Theological Truth and that of such a Truth as hath joyned Gods Mercy and Justice both together in mans salvation and therefore such a Truth as may not be denyed without great uncharitableness to man and greater unthankfulness to God I think few of those men who now most stand upon this new Divinity of remission in the next world to be obtained by our own stripes and others suffrages because it brings them so good a market would be willing at their deaths to venture their souls upon it for fear it should bring them as bad a remedy And I cannot but wonder at your Cardinal who hath said concerning this Text Hinc colligunt Sancti Patres quaedam peccata remitti in futuro seculo per orationes suffragia Ecclesiae Bellar. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 4. Hence the holy Fathers do gather that some sins are forgiven in the next world by the prayers and the suff ages of the Church for he could not say this if Saint Thomas said true without putting Saint Augustine and Saint Chrysostom out of the Catalogue of the Fathers 11. I know our Country-man Backet was swayed by Saint Augustine to conclude for Purgatory but I fear either he mis-applyed or mis-understood Saint Augustine or Saint Augustine mis-understood himself For Saint Augustine hath most dogmatically determined against it lib. 13. de Civit. Dei cap. 8. In requie sunt animae piorum à corpore separatae Impiorum autem poenas luunt donec istarum ad aeternam vitam illarum vero ad aeternam mortem corpora reviviscant The souls of the righteous are in rest of the unrighteous in torment after they are separated from the flesh till the bodies of the one shall be raised again to eternal life the bodies of the other to eternal death 12. But he that will not teach Fancy instead of Faith must take God for the Author and Gods Church for the Pillar and ground of that Truth which he teacheth else he may chance rove in uncertainties to the worlds end especially if he shall take Metaphorical allusions for dogmatical conclusions and florid declâ—…mations for solid determinations as Divines now usually are on all sides in their citations out of â—…he Fathers upon any argument making some of them speak against their own doctrine to speak for new devices and in effect to write contradictions rather then not write for the great Diana of these clamorous Ephesians Therefore I will not here examine the citations of the Fathers for surely A Christian Divine is bound to teach no other Faith for Christian then such as hath been manifestly declared in the Word of Christ and generally and constantly professed by the Catholick Church of Christ And your Cardinal finds not so muth as the word Purgatory in all the Scriptures nor in any one general Council till the fourth of Laterane under nnocent the third above twelve hundred years after Christ which was as far from being Oecumenical as Rome is from being all the Christian world and if it had been so yet hath only furnished us with Consultations not with Canons or Constitutions your own Platina being my witness who saith thus in the life of Innocent the third Venere multa in consultationem nec decerni tamen quicquam apertè potuit Many things were debated but nothing was openly decreed in this Council and I hope you will not say that they passed their decrees in private or by any underhand dealing An observation that may weaken some of your other Tenents no less then Purgatory which you obtrude upon the consciences of men as established by the Canons of this Council which in truth made no Canons at all if your own Platina be worth belief 13. Next I meet with your Cardinals Reasons whereof some do rather put then prove this new Article of Faith contrary to Aquinas who allows not of Ratio ponens but only of Ratio probans radicem fidei par 1. qu. 32. art 1. ad 2. arguing not so much from the authority of Gods Word as against it As particularly that reason lib. 1. cap. 11. Intelligibile non est quomodo verbum ociosum ex naturâ suâ dignum sit perpetuo odio Dei maneat igitur quaedam esse peccata venialia solâ temporaâ—…i poenâ digna No man can understand how an idle word is in its own nature worthy of Gods eternal hatred therefore let it stand for a Truth that some sins are venial and only worthy of temporal punishment A strange way of arguing for a Divine who should not exercise his Readers curiosity but establish his conscience Christ saith That for every idle word men shall give account in the day of Judgement to make men repent before hand even of their least sins that judging themselves they may not be
judged of him Bellarmine saith It is not intelligible how a man should be judged for an idle word and therefore it must be taken for such a picro such a little sin as cannot come into Judgement An excellent Doctor sure to correct his master as if he had wanted Truth and to corrupt his Scholars as if they did not want Repentance 14. For this Text if rightly urged will rather ptove no sin venial in its own nature but only by Gods mercy For if not an idle word is venial then much less a greater sin but not an idle word is venial for that shall be accounted for at the last day if not repented of before at least virtually in the contrition if not actually in the confession Thus he first makes bold with Gods Justice proving some sins to be venial that he may find or make matter for Purgatory and afterwards he teacheth others to make as bold with Gods Mercy that he may the better follow his proof for he telleth us that a man may die a true penitent for no other hath hopes of Purgatory and yet die with a resolution of abiding in sin Potest quis dùm moritur habere voluntatem per gendi in peccato veniali igitur tale peccatum deleri in morte non potest A man when he dies may have the purpose of continuing in a venial sin therefore such a sin is not to be abolished by death He means a man in the state of grace for no other is capable of the benefit of his purging flames So he cares not to pull down repentance that he may set up Purgatory whereas sure it more suits with conscientious and sound Divinity to pull down venial sins to set up repentance For it is not possible that man should die in the state of true repentance who dyeth with a purpose of retaining any sin in his soul that displeaseth God for by that very purpose he prefers his own will and pleasure above Gods and therefore loves not God with all his heart and consequently is not a true believer because not a true lover and not a true penitent because not a true believer Surely this cannot be a doctrine of Piety which teacheth Impenitency since no man now hath hopes of being righteous by his innocency but only by his repentance Nor had Saint Augustine such a light esteem of venial sins if we may believe Gratian Par. 1. dist 25. cap. 3. For this was his doctrine Nullum peccatum est adeò veniale quod non fiat criminale dum placet No sin is so venial but it may be made mortal if it please the sinner and this it must do if he hath a will and purpose to continue in it And Consequently if he die having such a will and purpose his venial sin is become mortal and by that means is made fewel for Hell not for Purgatory And so venial sin is also in danger of falling which is the other supporter of this your new building Isto enim fundamento posito quod tollitur satisfactio descrimen peccati mortalis à veniali necessario sequitur nullum esse Purgatorium Bell. lib. 1. c. 2. This foundation being laid that there is not satisfaction for sin sc. of our own and that there is no venial sin sc. in it self it must follow there can be no Purgatory And this foundation may very safely be laid by us because it is without if not against the Text that you have laid the other foundation 15. I know your Cardinal alledgeth many more places of the Bible besides those three formerly mentioned to prove this new Article of Faith But there is so much straining of the Scripture in his allegations I will not say wresting because I hope it was not to his destruction that he comes under that condemnation of the wise man There is an exquisite subtiltâ—… and the same is unjust Eccles. 19. 25. Men may by their wit and exquisite subtilty make Gods Word seem to say any thing but it is unjust for them so to do and they must be unrighteous in so doing and had need be very penitent for that unrighteousness For if we shall give an accounâ—… for every idle word of our own much more for endeavouring to make Gods Word partake of our idleness And indeed Gods Word being to be interpreted according to the analogie of Faith Rom. 12. 6. it is fitter for Infidels then for Christians to seek after such interpretations thereof as are not agreeable with that analogie But herein your writers are partly excusable for being over-ruled by the determination of your Church to set up a new Article of Faith which is not reducible to any of those in the Apostles Creed they have been after a sort constrained to interpret the Scriptures according to that new Article lately made by your Church and not according to the Analogie of that Faith which was at first left by the Apostles For sure it will pose an ordinary understanding to shew how your Purgatory is consistent with the Communion of Saints and with the forgiveness of sins which are both in that Creed since they cannot be of the Communion of Saints who are in a separation from God and perchance under the power of the Devil nor have they obtained remission of sins who are still under torments for them Nor can I see how this doctrine doth agree with that which is the very marrow and substance of the whole Gospel to wit That we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son Rom. 5. 10. and That God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them 2 Cor. 5. 19. For if there be a punishment reserved the trespass is imputed But 〈◊〉 there be an actual reconciliation aâ—… doubtless there is for true Penitents anâ—… true Believers then surely no punishment is reserved and no future satisfaction is necessary and so we may fully believe the remission of sins according to ouâ—… Creed And no present separation is possible and so we may as fully believe thâ—… Communion of Saints The woman thaâ—… came behinde our blessed Saviour anâ—… touched but the border of his garment was healed immediately Luke 8. 43. Dâ—… not you say A soul shall come not behiâ—… but before him look him in the face naâ—… go into his bosom to dwell in him and he again dwell in that soul and yet it shaâ—… not be healed unless you will recall thâ—… of the Psalmist Bless the Lord O my soul who forgiveth all thine iniquities who heaâ—…eth all thy diseases Psalm 103. 3. For whâ—… is the disease of the soul but sin or hoâ—… is that healed but by forgiveness Hoâ—… is sin forgiven if it must be satisfied oâ—… how is the soul healed if it must be tormented for sure not healing but wounding cometh from torment He that took upon him our flesh that he might save us did thereby shew He more willed our salvation then our flesh and how
he that telleth the number of the stars will not learn of man how to number his own Commandements Wherefore if our number disagree from his we shall not only have a false piece of Arithmetick in the numerus numerans in the number numbering but we shall also have a false piece of Divinity in the numerus numeratus in the number numbered For we shall call that First which God calls Second there is the false Arithmitick and we shall make that nothing which God hath made a Commandement or make that two which God hath made but one there is the false Divinity Therefore as we may not leave Gods own hand-writing to consult with the Church about the number of the Commandements whether there be Ten or no so neither may we leave it to consult about the number of the Commandements in each Table whether three or four in the first for God hath said four whether six or seven in the second Table for God hath said six And what God hath made his Determination the Church of God may not make her Consultation It is the doctrine of your own Casuist Reginald in praxi fori Poenit. lib. 13. c. 15. Ut omnia rerum genera ad decem summa reducuntur sic omnia praecepta moralia ad decem praecipua quae Decalogum constituunt ex quorum etiam distinctione sicut res ex distinctione summorum generum inter se distinguuntur As all things which have a natural being are reduced to the Ten Predicaments So all things that have a moral being are reduced to the Ten Commandements And as natural entities are distinguished by the Ten Predicaments so moral entities are distinguished by the Ten Commandements So that the Ten Commandements are as it were the Ten Predicaments or general heads in Divinity to which all moral Duties are to be reduced by which they are to be examined from which they are to be Practised And therefore as he would shew himself no good Logician who should expunge or confound any one of the ten Predicaments because that were to disturb the order of nature so he would shew himself no good Divine who should either expunge or confound any one of the Ten Commandements because that were to disturb the order of Grace The one would bring Babel upon our natural the other upon our spiritual inheritance The one would confound us in regard of earth the other in regard of heaven The one would confound us as men the other would confound us as Christians which is infinitely the more dreadful and the more damnable confusion Therefore we must needs say and believe That there is a much greater necessity of distinct entities in morals then in naturals because there is a much greater necessity that we should exactly know our Duties then that we should exactly know our estates or habilements That we should know our God then that we should know the world And consequently any true Christian Church which teacheth us in morals must much more abhor to confound a â—…ommandement for fear she should perplex us in our Religion then the most careful Tutor that teacheth us in naturals canabhor to confound a Predicament for fear he should perplex us in our learning For there is no such desperate perplexity as that of Conscience and no such damnable confusion as that of Religion and God hath ordained and commanded his Church to prevent and to redress not to create or to continue either such perplexities or such confusions And a late faction in your Church by either expunging or abridging the second Commandement for in some Catechisms it is expunged in others it is abridged for fear if it were read out all at length it should either stagger the people by the plainness of its Prohibition or else awake and frighten them by the terribleness of its commination have brought two great absurdities upon the outward Profession of your Religion which I may not be ashamed to name whiles you are not afraid to practise First that in this point it is less certain then was the Religion of the Jews for they had no confusion in their principles concerning the outward worship of God as you have and where is confusion there must be uncertainty Secondly that in this respect it is more scandalous and offensive then was sometime the Religion of the Heathen For Numa would not allow any image to be made of God saith Plutarch in his life because he was a mind invisible and therefore neither to be represented nor worshipped by any image But you will needs both represent and worship him by images Why should any Christians do that against the Law of God which some Heathen would not do against the Law of nature For if the Gentiles which had not the Law doing by nature the things contained in the Law were a Law unto themselves and shewed the work of the Law written in their hearts by abstaining from so gross Idolatry what can be said in excuse of those Christians who have the same Law of nature as fully written in their hearts and more fully written in the Holy Scriptures yet will not do by Grace the things contained in the Law nor shew the work of the Law written in their hearts and in their Bibles but will needs be a Law unto themselves against the Law of God and nature that they may be and continue most gross Idolaters I could wish with all my soul that the question were impertinently asked because I fear it cannot be substantially answered and if it may stand good without an answer it will not only be a most harsh question but also a most heavy accusation Secondly this reckoning the First and Second but as one Commandement is also against accidental Catholicism that is to say against the Profession of a Divine Truth universally taught in the Church of God by the Jews and by the Christians both before and after Saint Augustines daies For the Jews Church we have the testimony of Josephus who lib. 3. Antiq. cap. 4. hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first Commandement teacheth us There is but one God and that we must worship him alone The second commandeth us not to worship him by any image For the Christian Church we have generally the Testimony of all the Fathers before Saint Augustine and of all the writers after him till the Schoolmen and we have his too as to the force and vertue of the second Commandement though not as to the place and order of it I will cite but some few 1. Origene in his 8. homily upon Exodus speaking of the first and second Commandements saith That some would have them both go but for one but he altogether dislikes their opinion and thus confutes it Quod si ita putetur non complebitur decem numerus mandatorum ubi jam erit Decalogi veritas If we reckon so we shall not have the full number of Ten Commandements and where then will be the truth
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
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
are there joyned in one but also to the third Commandement and we think it very unjust that a few Italian Bishops and Priests should endeavour to lay those sins upon the Catholick Church which they ought to lay to and upon their own consciences because they have not only suffered but also maintained them in their own Churches For it is not crying out Templum Domini Templum Domini the Temple of the Lord the Temple of the Lord that can acquit us from any act of sin against the Lord 'T is not the noise of Gods Church in our ears can expell the knowledge or fear of Gods Commandements out of our hearts God hath entrusted his Church with the Keeping not with the Making of Religion she is the Guide to it and in it not the Author of it That Power and Trust he communicated only to his Son and to his Holy Spirit because indeed it was incommunicable to any other For who can know the mind of God but God who can declare the council of his heart â—…ut only he that came out of his bâ—…m Shall not God have that privileâ—…e over his servants which men have ovâ—…r theirs to prescribe the way and 〈◊〉 of his own service or â—…all we alâ—…ow that disorder in Gods Family which we will not admit into our own There was no King in Israel when every man did that which was right in his own eyes Jud. 17. 6. If the Church may do what she pleaseth in matters of Religion 't is either because there is no King in Gods Israel or because Truth and Righteousness are not the establishment of his Kingdom For Truth and Righteousness come not from man but from God and therefore none can be the author of Religion but only God since that is nothing else but Truth and Righteousness Truth in Articles of Faith Righteousness in duties of life Truth in what we are bound to believe Righteousness in what we are bound to practise Therefore 't is vain to set up the Church which is only the Judge against the Law which is the Rule of Righteousness For we can go to the Church only for the Practice but we 〈◊〉 go to the Law for the Purity of Religion The question is here concerning the Purity of Religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Saints be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Law of God but the 〈◊〉 is made only concerning the Practice 〈◊〉 Religion for they tell us it was alwayes used in the Catholick Church We look upon this answer as faulty for its impertinency because the question is matter of Right but the answer is matter of Fact and much more faulty for its Calumny because the Romanists thereby so labour to excuse their own as to accuse the Catholick Church For 't is plain that Christ and his Apostles never used it and we must look upon him as the Head upon them as the chief members of the Catholick Church since we can have no Catholick Church without them that is which doth not persist in their doctrine nor continue in their Communion And 't is as plain that no particular Church since them can justify the using it and consequently t is unjust as well as untrue to ascribe the use of it to the Catholick Church although it hath of late years been used in some particular Churches For even Nicephorus himself saith expresly Hest. Eccl. lib. 15. cap. 28. ad finem That Petrus Crapheus who lived neer 500 years after Christ was the first that brought the Invocation of the blessed Virgin into the prayers of the Church and doubtless she was invocated before the other Saints who is now and hath been for some ages so much invocated above them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ut in precatione omni Dei genitrix nominaretur divinum ejus nomen invocaretur That this Invocation was not till then in any Church is a clear proof it was not of the Apostolick and therefore though it hath been since in some Churches cannot be a proof that it is of the Catholick Church For the Apostolick the Catholick are not two Churches But let us suppose which we may not grant that the Catholick Church as far as 't is visible hath of late years used it yet that is not a sufficient ground for us still to continue the use of it For we are to serve God not out of Custome but out of Conscience and therefore in vain do any pretend Custome in Gods service against Conscience in vain do any alledge the Churches usage which calls for Custome against Gods Law which calls for Conscience If an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel then what ye have received let him be accursed saith St. Paul Gal. 1. 8. The same reason is for the Law received in the Old as for the Gospel received in the New Testament Gods truth and righteousness are above the Church Triumphant in heaven much more above the Church militant on Earth not that either Church hath opposed or will oppose them for the Church of the living God is the pillar and ground of the Truth 1 Tim. 3. 15. but that they are above the Churches opposition For no creature can be to it â—…eli the rule of working no more then the cause of being and therefore its work of righteousness cannot depend upon its own but upon its makers will And Religion being the principal work of Righteousness cannot depend upon the will of the Church but upon the will of God This sublime truth is admirably delivered by the master of subtilties and sublimites Scotus in 1. lib. sent dist 44. in these words In omni liberè agente quod potest agere secundum praeter vel contra dictamen legis rectae est distinguere potentiam ordinatam absolutam Ordinata quidem conformiter agendo legi rectae absoluta verò agendo praeter illam legem vel contra eam sic dicunt Juristae aliquis potest facere de facto hoc est de poten tiâ suà tabsolutâ vel de jure hoc est de potenia ordinatâ secundum jura Quando autem lex ista secundum quam recte agendum est non est in potestate agentis tunc agendo secundum potentiam absolutam inordinaâ—…è agit non rectè Qâ—…ùm enim subsit tali legi tenetur agere 〈◊〉 legem sed quando in poteâ—…ate ageâ—…s est lex rectitudo legis poâ—…est tale agens ordinatè rectè agere aliter quà m lex illa dictat quia non subest illi legi sic ejus poâ—…entia absoluta non est inordinata In every free agent which can act according besides or against the dictate of law and righteousness we must distinguish betwixt his orderly and his absolute power his orderly power is shewed in acting conformably to the Law his absolute power inacting either besides it or against it so the Civilians tell us a man may do a thing as a matter of fact that is by his absolute power according to his will or as
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
way our errours have been so many against this Soul-saving Truth How far this may concern the grand factions of Christendome I will not determine but sure I am they whose Religion is rebellion and whose faith is faction have no other Truth but their own phansies or imaginations and consequently can have no other God but their own Perverseness Yet we doubt not but as Aarons Rod swallowed up the Rods of the Magicians so will Religion at last swallow up rebellion and Faith will swallow up Faction and Truth will swallow up Phansie and Wisedome will swallow up Folly if not so as to be acknowledged of her enemies yet so as to be justified of her Children For the Apostle hath said most positively though more comfortably But they shall proceed no further for their folly shall be manifest to all And he that hath promised concerning the Preachers of his truth hath much more promised concerning the Truths they are to Preach especially those which so nearly concern the salvation of Souls They shall not be removed into a Corner any more But thine eyes shall see thy teachers and thine ears shall hear a word behind thee saying This is the way walk â—…e in it when ye turn to the right hand and when ye turn to the left Isa. 30. 20 21. 2. But if the Lovers of Gods Truth will hope to obtain this promise of a word saying This is the way they must endeavour to obey that command see that ye walk circumspectly Eph. 5. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Latine Church in the Text of Sixtus 5. See therefore how circumspectly ye walk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Greek Church in the Text of St. Chrysostome See therefore circumspectly how ye walk Men that will not wander in the by-paths of errour must have their eyes in their heads to look about them to see which is the way of Truth and they must keep their eyes open in their heads to look before them to walk in that way If they want a good circumspection to look about them they may chance never come into the right way if they want a good Prospection to look before them they may soon go out of it self-conceit is a great enemy to circumspection self-interest is a great enemy to prospection and 't is commonly one of these two if not both that makes so many Christians not walk in the way of Truth but choose faction or phansie instead of Faith This may seem to be far fetcht but it comes very neer my purpose and I pray God it may yet come neerer some mens consciences For they who licentiously abuse this Doctrine of justification by faith in Christ choose phansie instead of Faith and turn the Grace of God into wantonness They who wilfully oppose it to set up their own righteousness choose faction instead of Faith and turn the Grace of God into nothing for as mans age so his righteousness is as nothing in respect of God All my goods are nothing unto thee Psal. 16. 2. Both alike with Elymas the Sorcerer seek to turn away others from the Faith and may justly expect the hand of God upon them selves to make them so blind as not to see the Sun of Righteousness for ever God of his infinite mercy take away this mist and darkâ—…ess from before the eyes of all his servants but especially of all his Seers for if the light of the world be darkness how great will be the darkness thereof If we delight in the inner darkness here how shall we escape the outer darkness hereafter If they were a rebellious people lying children children that would not hear the law of the Lord who said to the Seers See not Isa. 30. 9 10. then what are those Seeâ—…s who say to themselves See not who shut their eyes against the light and shut their hearts against the Power of this Truth But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident for the just shall live by Faith Gal. 3. 11. See the light of this Truth for it is evident see we the Power of this Truth for even the just shall not live by his works but by his Faith The just shall live by Faith q. d. The justest must that is hath that justice whereby he shall live eternally from his Faith not from his works from his Saviours righteousness not from his own God speaking this soul-saving Truth so plainly to the understanding and pressing it so powerfully upon the Conscience bids all Christian Divines admire his goodness in shewing the great need and benefit of Christ not discover their own wickedness in seeking to undermine the very foundation of Christianity Accordingly St. Chrys. expounds that precept see ye walk circumspectly of the Ministers of the Gospel Observe saith he how the Apostle doth forewarn and forearm the Preachers of Gods Truth againg all the oppositions of their and its enemies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whole Towns and Cities waged war against them which the Canonist signally expressed after this manner Laici clericis Oppidò sunt infesti yet they are furnished with no other armour but this to defend themselves see that ye walk ciâ—…rcumspectly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Give your enemies no other occasion of their enmity but onely from your Preaching which is an occasion rather taken then given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let that alone be the ground of their enmity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no man be able to accuse you of any thing else and then your adversaries will accuse God not you An admirable gloss and seasonable for this Atheistical Age wherein men will not believe the Truth because they have pleasure in unrighteousness though St. Paul tell them plainly that they shall be damned for their unbelief That they all mâ—…ght be damned who believe not the Truth but â—…ad pleasure in unrighteousness 2 Thes. 2. 12. 4. It is the pleasure in unrighteousness which makes either the people not rightly believe Gods Truth or the Priests not rightly preach it and particularly this Truth of Justification by Faith which some of your Priests care not to preach because it will spoil their markets and some of our Priests had need preach more warily for fear it should spoil our people It is onely pleasure in unrighteousness that hath hitherto opposed this Truth in its doctrine or poisoned this Truth in its belief For why should a Truth so clearly revealed in the word of Christ so neerly concerning the glory of Christ so highly condâ—…ceing to the salvation of Christians be so violently opposed by some of your Priests in its doctrine but that it pulleth down the prices of Masses and Indulgences stopping the hands of silly and simple but yet liberal and munificent votaries Hence it is that Demetrius-like for love of gain they raise an uproar against St. Paul for it is not against us it is against him or rather Gods Spirit in him the main Preacher
of this Truth taking this for their chiefest Topicks for Maxima locus Maximae Sirs ye know that by this craft we have our wealth Acts 19. 25. For no other reason but covetousness can easily be alledged why the same men should so mainly cry up the Imputation of their own and their Saints imaginary merits and righteousness to the maintaining and filling the supposed Treasure of the Church and yet so mainly cry down the imputation of our blessed Saviour's real and allsufficient merits and righteousness to the exhausting and emptying the Treasures of the people Thus it is clear that pleasure in unrighteousness hath hitherto opposed the Truth in its doctrine making Mammons Chaplains not over zealous to serve God in searching out his Truth that they may believe it or over zealous to serve themselves in not preaching a Truth which they do believe Again why should so many other formidable Truths and reasonings concerning righteousness temperance and judgment to come in and from the mouth of the same St. Paul make a Heathen tremble and not once move so many confident Christians but that this heavenly Truth of Justification by Faith hath been hitherto amongst them not rightly believed or poisoned in its belief and what venome can poison the operations of the soul but onely that of the Serpent the venome of sin turning the grace of our God into wâ—…n onness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into petulancy insolency and unsufferable contentiousness for so the Greek Orator hath joyned these together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isocr in Panath. contending against not for the Faith once delivered to the Saints or which is all one denying the onely Lord God and our Saviour Jesus Christ Jud. 4. Such men do falsely pretend Faith in Christ who do not deny ungodliness and worldly lusts who do not live soberly righteously and godly in this present world for they cannot look for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ The Grace of God which bringeth salvation to others will bring the great damnation upon them because they resist that grace betray that Saviour and belye their own Souls For most certainly the greatest miscreants that are would break off their sins by repentance and their iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor if they did with the eye of Faith see a watcher and an Holy one coming down from heaven and saying Hew the Tree down and destroy it Dan. 4. Or if they did hear with an honest and good heart and Faith cometh by no other hearing that word of Christs forerunner in his first coming to save us which is therefore the fittest to put us in mind of his second coming to judge us O generation of Vipers who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the Tree Therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire Matth. 3. For surely that Faith cannot justifie the sinner which cannot justifie it self a Faith that hath eyes and seeth not the watcher the Holy one coming down from heaven that hath ears and heareth not the crier the voice of one crying in the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord make his paths strait A Faith that lets men profess Christâ—…ans but live and act Infidels hardning their hearts stopping their ears closing their eyes lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their eares and understand with their hearts and should be converted and their Saviour the Physitian of Souls should heal them Thus it is also clear That pleasure in unrighteousness hath hitherto poisoned this Truth in its belief making men take phansie for Faith and think themselves in Heaven by their perswasion whiles they are even in Hâ—…ll by theit affections and by their actions not regarding that word which they cannot deny dare not gainsay If ye were Abraham's children who is the Father of the faithful ye would do the works of Abraham Joh. 8. 39. 5. For God gave us not the Articles of our Faith to be like Pharaohs lean kine to eat up the rules of his Commandments the fat-fleshed and well-favoured kine such as were fit for Sacrifices for himself much less such as were offered to himself for Sacrifices Therefore those can be no Gospel Instructions which teach men to devour widows houses nay to devour Gods own house and not onely his house but also his glory and worship under pretence of Faith for of these starveliug Documents we may justly say now and others will be able to say to the worlds end what is said of the starveling kine And when they had eaten them up even all the fat Kine that came up out of the river and fed in the medow This is all the fatness of Sea and Land which their Forefathers had consecrated to the Service and Honour of God it could not be known that they had eaten them but they were still ill-favoured as at the beginning Gen. 41. 21. He that hath commanded us to sanctifie publick Persons as Mininisters publick times as Sabbaths or Festivals publick places as Churches to his own worship will not cannot justifie those who sacrilegiously rob and persecute his Ministers mock and suppress his Sabbaths revile and profane his Churches For it were very strange if such men who are angerly reproved and openly branded for sacrilegious profane blasphemous persons by the Spirit of God should if they still persist in their Sacriledge profaneness and blasphemy be acquitted and absolved for righteous and innocent persons by the Son of God The Spirit of God calleth them enemies adversaries and such as hate him Psal. 14. Therefore surely the Son of God will not make them Saints accept them as friends reward them as servants Such a devouring Gospel as this was never of Gods teaching though it hath been of mens practising to the discountenanceing of Gods Truth and to their own shame and destruction that have practised it For God will never uphold those men in his Truth who discourage others from embracing it 6. Yet as long as Gods Truths are infinitely above all mens discouragements neither are your Priests excusable if they will not embrace them nor ours if they do forsake them notwithstanding both be as much discouraged as either open enemies or false friends and brethren can discourage them What shall the Sons of God come no more to present themselves before their Father because Satan will coâ—…e also among them to present himself before the Lord Shall the the Holy Angels be out of love with their own light because the Devil himself can and doth also appear an Angel of light no more may we be out of love with this heavenly Truth of being righteous by the righteousness of our blessed Redeemer because Hypocrites and Atheists have made it an occasion of or a pretence for their
to differ from the whole scope of the Law and of the Gospel since it is undeniable that Christ with his righteousnesse is the end of the Law and the subject of the Gospel This is St. Peters Divinitie Act. 10. 43. To Him give all the Prophets witnesse that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins i. e. in one word shall be justified And indeed what were all the propitiatory and expiatory sacrifices of the Law but so many types of Christs sacrifice upon the Crosse who is the Propitiation for our sins 1 John 2. 2. so that in truth this part of the Ceremonial Law was little other than a dark representation of the Gospel foreshewing in shadows what the Gospel was to declare in substance that the Lamb of God should tâ—…ke away the sinnes of the world whence St. Paul ascribeth the Justification of the Jew and of the Gentile to one and the same sacrifice Aâ—… Christ hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour Eph. 5. 2. Their sacrifices did expiate sin only by vertue of this sacrifice And this is that which the same Apostle proves to the Jews in his Epistle which he peculiarly sent to them the sum whereof is briefly this That Jesus Christ whom he did preach to them in that Epistle being the eternal Sonne of God coessential and coequal with his Father perfect God and perfect man in one and the same person was that Messiah which God from the beginning of time had promised and in the fulnesse of time had sent into the world as the only King to Govern as the only Priest to reconcile as the only Prophet to instruct his Church according to the Covenant made before the Law to the types and figures given under the Law and all the predictions explications additions and confirmations by the Prophets so that unlesse they would reject all the documents given to them in their own Law and by their own Prophets throughout all the Old Testament they must thankfully acknowledge heartily embrace and dutifully obey Jesus Christ as the sole Author of their redemption and salvation or to speak yet neerer to our debate though not to Gods Truth as the sole author of Justification to redeem them from the guilt and of sanctification to redeem them from the bondage of their sins This is the Doctrine of the whole Epistle to the Hebrews which is briefly delivered in the first words and confirmed and enlarged in the sequele of that Epistle God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the Fathers by the Prophets hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son There 's our blessed Saviour as Prophet to instruct the Church Whom he appointed heir of all things by whom also he made the worlds There he is as King to govern the Church which is his inheritance as man his workmanship as God When he had by himself purged our sins There he is as Priest to offer himself for a Sacrifice to reconcile the Church And all the Epistle after this in the doctrinal part of it is nothing else but an enlargement upon these Three Heads shewing the necessity of Christs three Offices and the excellency of his Person according to each Office viz. according to his Kingly Office in the first and second according to his Prophetical Office in the third and fourth Chapters and according to his Priestly Office in the rest till the nineteenth Verse of the tenth Chapter After which He treateth of those Offices and Duties which belong to Christians and that in the same method or manner as he had before of the Offices belonging unto Christ first briefly summing them up together and then fully and largely explaining them For so cap. 10. v. 22. He exhorts us to Faith and a good Conscience v. 23. To a firm hope and undaunted profession v. 24. To charity and to good works v. 25. To the publike exercise of all those duties of Piety which God had appointed for the nourishment and the increase of Faith Hope and Charity and the rest of the Epistle afterwards is but an enlargement upon these Will you say because he speaks so much for good works in the latter part of his Epistle He therefore requires them to Justification as well as Faith Look on the tenth Chapter you will soon recall that saying For there it is proved That the Law Sacrifices could not take away sin that is could not justifie those who offered them by two irresistible Topicks ab absurdo ab impossibili First From the command of the Law enjoyning those Sacrifices to be repeated every year which had been needless and therefore absurd if the worshippers could have been purged by them so as to have had no more Conscience of sin vers 23. Secondly From the nature of the Sacrifices that were offered which were not of so great an efficacy as to purge sin much less of so great an excellency as to expiate it For it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and of Goats should take away sins v. 4. And surely he that makes it his work to shew the weakness of the Law-Sacrifices to take away sin could not make it his intent to set up the Gospel-Sacrifices whether of the Heart by Meditation or the Lips by Prayer or of the Hand by Alms-deeds as expiations for our sins For the same Objections still hold against the one which were made against the other The necessity of their repetion is as great the proof of their imperfection is far greater I ask the soul of the most religious Votary that now lives whether he dare say that he ever prayed so devoutly but that either for want of firmness in his attention or of zeal in his affection he needed to ask forgiveness for his Prayers There was nothing of sin in the worst of Legal there is something of sin in the best of Evangelical Sacrifices and how then can it make an atonement for another sin 14. Therefore what ever be the excellency of good works as to Gods acceptance or the efficacy of them as to mans salvation yet they cannot be so excellent as to deserve nor so efficacious as to procure the Justification of a sinner no it cost more to redeem a soul so that He even the most righteous man that is must let that alone for ever Non dabit Deo placationem suam pretium redemptionis animae suae He can give to God what may please his goodness not what may appease his anger or satisfie his Justice He can offer up the homage he cannot offer up the price of his soul Accordingly we are bound to interpret all these and the like Texts concerning good works as declaring their indispensable necessity not as declaring their meritorious efficacy to our salvation as shewing them ot be consequents of the Faith that justifieth not Causes of Justification That honour must
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
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
Covenant is there must of necessity be the life of the Covenanter Therefore if I will have the full comfort of the death of Christ overcoming for me the sharpness of death and opening to me the gates of everlasting life and rescuing me from the guilt of sin the terrors of hell and the tyranny of the Devil I must go to the Testament which tells me of Christs death not to the Covenant which threatens mine own by shewing me the multiplyed offences of my sinful life And in truth he that will deny this to be the proper signification of the word Testament must also deny St. Pauls argument which here depends wholly upon the proper signification of that word And for this cause saith the Apostle He is the Mediator of the New Testament that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first Testament they which are called might receive the Promise of eternal inheritance For where a Testament is there must also of necessity be the death of the Testator Heb. 9. 15 16. He saith not the Mediator of the New Covenant which supposeth the life of the Covenanter but of the New Testament which supposeth the death of the Testator and accordingly he placeth all the strength of his argument in the word Testament which by vertue of Christs death gave us redemption from transgressions and admission to an eternal inheritance So that we had need go to the Testament not to the Covenant both for our Redemption and for our Inheritance For the transgressions which were under the Old Covenant that of works here called the First Testament because as it was repeated by Moses it was not dedicated without blood v. 18 19. could not be expiated but by the Redemption that was under the New Testament wherefore the Covenant puts us in fear of captivity and death and 't is only the Testament gives us hopes of liberty and life And accordingly the Apostle useth the word Testament of purpose to proclaime the abundant Grace and Goodnesse of God to mankind that after our fall he was pleased to give us not a Covenant but a Testament For a Covenant is a matter of strict Justice having mutual conditions between both parties which if either fail the agreement is of none effect But a Testament is a matter of more Grace as being the conveyance of an inheritance without any harsh conditions imposed upon the Heires and before any obliging offices performed by them And such was the Act of God to us sinful men when we had disabled our selves to performe the conditions of his Covenant It was a Testament to instate us in the right of Salvation by the death of our Redeemer and therefore the Apostle sets it forth with the adjuncts and properties not of a Covenant but of a Testament For the proper adjuncts of a Covenant are not Blood and the Death of the Covenant-Maker which two alone are here mentioned since a Covenant is rather voided than established by death but both these are the proper adjuncts of a Testament which though made before the death of the Testator yet is not established till after it wherefore since our blessed Saviour did presignifie and promise his own death and the effusion of his own blood by Typical Sacrifices till he verified that Promise by the real Sacrifice of himself upon the Cross the Spirit of God in this place thought fit to make choice of the word Testament whereby to express this Act of his free Grace and favour towards us and sure no Minister of Gods Church may justly be questioned for speaking after the dialect of Gods Spirit 5. For what should a sinful soul do but gaspe after Gods free Grace acknowledging it to be Grace because she is â—…worthy and to be free Grace that she may not be uncapable of it For as she may easily perish by opposing it so she must necessarily perish by not obtaining it And the desire of opposing Grace must needs be a great impediment in obtaining Grace for God that gives Grace above our deserts wil not give it against our desires since it is expressely said That God resisteth the proud and therefore most resisteth those that are most proud even the proud in spirit who dare capitulate with his Justice but giveth Grace to the humble and therefore most Grace to those who are most humble even to the meek and lowly in heart who rely wholly upon his mercy And this consideration alone though you see it is not alone was enough to make me say and is enough to justifie my saying I am afraid of the Covenant and fly to the Testament for by the Covenant I can look only for Justice which I am afraid to find but by the Testament I can look for mercy which I desire to find here for the Comfort hereafter for the Salvation of my soul And if any be so hardy as to venter his soul upon the terms of Justice I may allow him to have the greater confidence but I cannot allow him to have the greater Comfort and I wish he may not have the lesser Salvation 6. And whereas you tell me Nay you your self are not afraid of the Covenant but fly to it for in your ejaculation 20. using S. Pauls words Heb. 12. you say I am desirous to come to mount Sion and to Jesus the Mediatour of the New Covenant I crave leave to tell you that this objection was farre fetcht to shew you were willing to make it and may be as deare bought if I can shew you are not able to maintain it For I was bound to alledge St. Pauls words as I found them translated that none might be mistaken in my allegation and I found them thus translated To Jesus the Mediatour of the New Covenant Therefore in that I alledged them so I only shewed my self not afraid of the translation but I might still for all that be afraid of the Covenant For custome that ought to regulate speech which is established by it ought not to regulate conscience which it cannot establish The Word may be confined where the Thought is at liberty I speak for others but I Think for my self therefore I must speak according to Custome and yet may still think according to Conscience But I will not plead Custome when I may justly plead Comfort for in these words is nothing at all to terrifie my soul but very much to comfort and to settle it For it is said The Mediatour of the New Covenant which is every jot as comfortable as the Mediatour of the New Testament for it directs our hearts as immediately to our blessed Saviour since as the New Testament was confirmed so the New Covenant was signed and sealed with his Blood the only Balme to heal wounded Spirits the only Anchor to settle floating consciences Nay yet more here is Jesus expressely named To Jesus the Mediatour of the New Covenant so that if I were afraid of the New Covenant as you
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
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
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
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