but me doth likewise say Thou shall invocate no other but me because invocation is the most proper and the most publick acknowledgement and worship of God For Invocation is required by the first though it is regulated by the third commandement That enjoyns the object and internal affection this only enjoyns the manner and the external expression Therefore Call upon me in the day of trouble Psal. 50. 15. belonging to the affirmative Call not upon any besides me doth belong to the negative precept in the first Commandement since these two are contraries and contraria sunt sub eodem genere posita contraries must be ranked or reckoned under one and the same Head For in vain doth your Cardinal seek to excuse bad words in prayers from the good sense or meaning of him that prays non agitur de verbis sed de sensu verborum Bell. l. 1. de sanct Beat. c. 17. because as a right intention in our prayers is required by the first so also a right expression in our prayers is required by the third Commandement God requirlng us no less to honour his Name by right words and professions in the One then to honour his Nature by right intentions and affections in the other For as we may not honour God with our lips whiles our hearts are far from him So neither may we dishonour him with our lips whiles our hearts are near him For as the one makes us Hypocritical so the other makes us blasphemous worshippers As the one is directly against the internal so the other is directly against the external Act of Religion as the one is against the morality of the first so the other is against the morality of the third Commandement But of this I have spoken elsewhere of purpose to justifie the Religion established and professed amongst us for which so many Orthodox Divines have lately lost their livelyhoods by Protestants and pray they may not come to lose their lives by Papists because I was there bound to shew the irreligion that I found not only in Faction which hath no Liturgie but also in superstition which hath corrupt Liturgie Justif. of the Church of England cap. 3. sec. 3. there you might have seen more work made for you upon the grounds of conscience then you have here made for me only upon the grounds of contention Thither if you please you may go for more of this argument but before you go take this Question along with you not Where was this your Religion of praying to Saints before Luther but where is it now For it is not in any of Gods Commandements concerning Religion nay 't is plainly against them all 'T is against the first in having a false Object and false internal acts of Religion against the second in having a false external act or manner of Religion by way of adoration against the third in having a false external act or manner of Religion by way of invocation or of Praise and Profession As it is not according to Gods Commandements so it cannot be Piety or Religion as 't is against Gods Commandements so 't is moreover impiety and irreligion Therefore boast not any longer of the general profession and practice of this or any other corrupt part of your Religion which you cannot justifie in its substance For 't is a miserable Religion which is to be found only in its exercise according to the purport of the fourth and not also in its substance according to the purport of the three first Commandements A Religion in its Name not in its Nature in its solemnity not in its purity in its followers not in it self That is in one word A Religion not of Gods but of mans making 12. To such a Religion belongs â—…hat Prayer Maria mater gratiae mater misericordiae Tu nos ab hoste protege horâ mortis suscipe which yet your Cardinal boldly imputeth to the universal Church sic loquitur ecclesia universa lib. 1. de Sanct. Beat. cap. 19. though its language speak only the Church of Rome and its rythme speaks only the late and corrupt ages of that Church and its irreligion doth in truth speak no Church For that is no Church whereof Christ is not the Head And he is not the Head of that Church which prayeth to such as he did not pray And he did never pray to his Mother but only to his Father teaching us o say Our Father not Our Mother whâ—…ch art in Heaven We cannot say the words of this Prayer in his Communion we cannot obtain the blessing oâ—… it by his intercession therefore if we wâ—…l â—…e his Church we must put this prayer oâ—… of our meutâ—…es because we dare not put it into His We have no pattern 〈◊〉 sâ—…ch prayers in all the Book of God and 〈◊〉 we can find better Patterns then God hath given we are bound to â—…ollow those of his giving or we shall leave his 〈◊〉 â—…oly Communion and lose his Soâ—…s blessed â—…ntercession in our prayers â—…or as we are sure the eternal Son of God hath â—…ot taught us thus to pray so we may be assured he will not he cannot 〈◊〉 us in this Prayer Esto mihi in Deum Protectorem Psal. 31. 4. will not agree with this Tu nos ab hoste protegeâ—… In maÌ„us tuas coÌ„mendo spirituÌ„ meuÌ„ will not agree with this Et horâ mortis suscipe why should I leave the Communion of Gods eternal Son either in not saying the one or in saying the other For I may no more now venter to have Religion then I may hereafter hope to have a salvation out of his Communion And though it be more like a Heathen then a Christian to say If it be a question of words and of names and of your Law Acts 18. 15. for words are to be regulated in the exercise of Religion according to Gods Law by vertue of the third Commandement no less then thoughts by vertue of the first Gestures by vertue of the second and Deeds by vertue of the fourth yet is that saying very unfitly applyed in the defence of this Prayer For this is as formal an Invocation of the Blessed Virgin as if she were God Calling her the Mother of Grace and Mercy and praying her to protect us in our life and to receâ—…ve us at our death And who can say more then this to God putting but Father instead of Mother who can ask more then this of God This is in effect to say Mater de coels Dea instead of Pater de coelis Deus miserere nobis miseris peccatoribus O blessed Mother of God instead of O God the Father of Heaven have mercy upon us miserable sinners And we ought to say Libera nos Domine Good Lord deliver us not so much in regard of any other evil and mischief as in regard of such Letanies Therefore this Invocation of the Mother of God is faulty in Objecto cultus in modo colendi both in the object
have not strained this Canon in my interpretations I assure you they are not mine but your own Authors The first is Gratians Par. 1. Dist. 28. c. 15. Si quis discernit Presbyterum conjugatum tanquam occasione â—…ptiarum quod offerre non debeat ab ejus oblatione ideo se abstinet Anathema sit The latter is the new Glossators upon Gratian in the edition authorized by Greg. 13. Si quis secernat se à Presbytero qui uxorem duxit tanquam non oporteat illo liturgiam peragente de oblatione percipere Anathema sit And he tells us That Dionysius exiguus had in effect so interpreted it before him 7. And this one single Canon might I alledge not only as the Jugement and Decree of the Catholick Church from the Code of her Canons but also as the Judgement of your own particular Roman Church from Dionysius and as the Decree of the same Church from Gratian But that both the antient Judgement and Decree of your Church are more clearly proved by the practice of it For in your very Church of Rome have heretofore been no less then nine Popes which were the sons of married Priests and Deacons whereas if Priests and Deacons marriage had been forbid by the Apostles or by the Catholick Church I might say They were the sins of Priests not sons and you might say They were very unfit Popes because very unfit successors for Saint Peter but more unfit Vicars for his master But so saith Gratian Par. 1. Dist. 56. cap. 2. Osius Papa fuit filius Stephani subdiaconi Bonifacius Papa fuit filius Jucundi Presbyteri Felix Papa filius Felicis Presbyteri de titulo Fasciolae Agapetus Papa filius Gordiani Presbyteri Theodorus Papa filius Theodori Episcopi de civitate Hierosolymâ Silverius Papa filius Silverii Episcopi Romae Deus dedit Papa filius Stephani subdiaconi Felix etiam tertius natione Romanus ex Patre Felice Presbytero fuit Item Gelasius natione Afer ex Episcopo Valerio natus est Item Agapetus natione Romanus ex Patre Gordiano Presbytero originem duxit complures etiam alii inveniuntur qui de sacerdotibus nati Apostolicae sedi praefuerunt See here are nine Popes named which were all the sons of married Clergy-men and yet Gratian concludes this Chapter saying These were not All divers more might be found if he had a mind to look after them yet these are enough to prove the practice of the Church of Rome for having married Priests till the year of our Lord 158 when Anastasius flourished who writ the lives of the Popes saith Bellarm. de script Eccles. with this emphatical asseveration Ut notum est denying Damasus cited by Gratian to have been the author of of that Book as well he might For Damasus lived in the year 367. So that very few of these men not above three at most had been Popes before his time for it is evident That Agapetus who is reckoned fourth in this Catalogue lived in the time of Justinian that is above 500. years after Christ For by his couragious answer he kept Justinian from embracing Eutychianism saying He thought he 〈◊〉 come to a Christian Emperour but he had found a Pagan persecutor the reason was The Emperour had laboured to perswade him to be an Eutychian And that Silverius who was this Agapetus his next successor may by the way be added to Gratians list for he was the son of Hormisdae not of Silverius Bishop of Rome I have no mind nor leisure to make any special enquiry after the rest and I need not For if you will consider this testimony seriously you will find in this one Catalogue not only Priests and Bishops of Rome to have been Fathers of Popes which is enough to prove the marriage of Priests allowed in that particular Church but also Theodorus Bishop of Hierusalem in Asia and Valerius Bishop of Hippo in Africa to have been Fathers of two of your antient Popes which is enough to prove the marriage of Priests then allowed in the Catholick Church that is to say not only in Europe but also in Asia and in Africa But I do intreate you to take special notice of Valerius Bishop of Hippo for he alone may very well make you misdoubt if not the truth yet the authority of your own alledged Canon since it is incredible that such a married Bishop should live at Hippo at the very same time in which such a Canon was made at Carthage against Priests marriages and neither confute the Canon having such a Learned Priest under him as Saint Augustine nor be confuted by it having so many enemies about him as the Donatists but however in that so many Fathers of your own Church have been the sons of married Priests it will be discretion in some of your Zealots hereafter to bestow better language upon the children of married Priests for fear they be constrained to reproach not only many of their own Popes but even the whole Church of Christ For so far doth your own Gratian justifie this Truth as to assure us That the marriage of Priests was lawful at that time in every Countrey over all the Christian world Dist. 56. c. 13. Quum ergo ex sacerdotibus natiin summos Pontifices supra leguntur esse promoti non sunt intelligendi de fornicatione sed de legitimis conjugiis nati quae sacerdotibus ante Prohibitionem Ubique licita erant in orientali Ecclesia usque hodie eis licere probatur When as therefore the sons of Priests as we we read before viz. cap. 2. which I alledged have been promoted to be Popes we may not think they were born to those Priests in fornication but in lawfull marriage for it was lawfull everywhere that is in all the Christian world for Priests to marry before the Prohibition and in the Eastern Church it is at this day proved to be lawfull So we see that the Clergy both of Eastern and Western Church did plainly shew by their Practice That the marriage of Priests was not prohibited by the Apostles or the Catholick Church and therefore generally used their liberty till some after-prohibition denyed the same to the Clergy of the Western Church And the new Glossator himself who confidently saith that Gratian was mistaken as to the Latine Church sheweth little reason for his own confidence because no pretence or proof for the others mistake till this Decree of Siricius which was not made till almost 400. and not generally ratified or received in his own Diocess till above a 1000. years after Christ For so Baronius himself hath recorded that in the year 1074. this Decree of prohibiting Priests marriage was forced upon the Bishops of Italy Germany and France by Pope Gregory the seventh after they had unanimously gainsayed and most earnestly deprecated and opposed it v. Bar. An. 1074. nu 37 38 39. Now if this Decree were not generally received in the Latine Church till then though it were made
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
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
give am acquitted by your own Doctor from asking in vain But you asking from them that help which God alone doth give are not so easily acquitted by our blessed Saviour from asking in sin 3. If then there be no stedfastness in the Saints to stand before God how can they make me so stedfast as to stand before him Or If God put no trust in his servants to save themselves why should I put my trust in them to save me Both interpretations agree in sense though they differ in words He found no stedfastness in his servants or He put no trust in his servants The Hebrew word will bear both as Saint Hierom hath rendered it Ecce qui serviunt eâ—… non sunt stabiles so Pagnin hath rendered it Servis suis non credet The one saith He found no stedfastness in his servants The other saith He put no trust in his servants Nay more He will put no trust in his servants He hath he doth he will put no trust in his servants The Proposition is of eternal Truth not to be made 〈◊〉 in any Tence because not subject to Time Take it then of the Angels his first and best servants you must take this for the meaning of it He did put no truâ—…t in them whâ—…n he first made them he doth put no trust in them since he hath confirmed them he will put no trust in them when he shall glorifie them that of themselves or through their own stedfastness they should be able to stand either in nature or in grace or in glory For these words He put no trust in his servants are not to be understood in regard of other things as you strangely imagine but in regard of themselves God doth trust one creature with another the inferiour creature with the superiour Non propter defectum virtutis sed propter abundantiam bonitatis as Aquinas speaks not for the defect of his vertue but for the abundance of his goodness Ut dignitatem causalitatis creaturae communicet that he may communicate to the creature the honour of causality making one creature the instrumental or subordinate cause of good unto another whiles himself alone is the efficient and supreme cause of good to All But this partial or respective Trust is not here meant which is only in regard of some particular effects or operations but that absolute and universal Trust which no less concerns the very Being of the creature then its working In this sense God puts no trust in his servants that is he trusts them not with themselves he leaves them not to themselves for it he did they would soon lose themselves according to that of Saint Augustine Solus Deus immutabilis est quae autem fecit quia ex nihilo sunt mutabilia sunt God only is unchangeable but all things that he hath made are changeable because he hath made them out of nothing q. d. There was a change in their very making a change from nothing to what they are and therefore they must needs still be subject to change now they are made For whatsoever is made out of nothing would soon return to its first nothing did not the same hand which first made it still preserve and uphold it But because you have lately made your selves new Fathers from whom you had rather take your Divinity then from the Old I will alledge unto you one of those new Fathers and that is your Father Pineda who gives us this Paraphrase upon the Place Ecce qui serviunt ei non sunt stabiles Certè supremi ipsi spiritus Dei ministri quorum praestans atque praeclara natura constitutio est nihil ex se boni habent nullam vivendi nullam consistendi stabilitatem neque firmitatem nisi à Deo creatore bonorum omnium authore fulciantur confirmentur Surely those very supream spirits and Ministers of God who have a most excellent nature and constitution have no good of themselves no stedfastness of living or of subsisting from themselves but as they are upheld and confiâ—…med from God their maker the fountain of all goodness So in that other parallel place to this Job 15. 15. Iterum videtur repetere illam propositionem capitis quarti ecce qui serviunt ei non sunt stabiles argumento à majori probat hominem carneum luteum non posse merito Sanctitatis constantiam firmitatem sibi arrogare He again repeats the Proposition saith Pineda â—…rged in the fourth Chapter v. 18. and by an argument from the greater to the less proveth that man cannot arrogate to himself any stedfâ—…stness or constancy in righteousness You here divert me from Divinity and make me turn Grammarian for you say here our old repeaâ—…s He found no stedfastness in his Saints though our new He putteth no trust in his Saints If you are angry with our old translation for being constant to it self you are angry with it for a vertue for constancy is so If with our new for dissenting from our old you are angry with your own Pagnine for our new follows him as our old followed your old in its sense though not in its inconstancy For that saith Ecce qui serviunt ei non sunt stabiles cap. 4. v. 18. But Ecce inter Sanctos ejus nemo immutabilis cap. 15. v. 15. And yet the Hebrew Text is exactly the same in every point and Tittle in both places save that in the fourth Chapter t is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his servants in the 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Saints but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same in both places Though your old or Vulgar say Non sunt stabiles He found not stedfastness in the fourth Chapter and Nemo immutabilis none is unchangeable in the fifteenth But your new that is Pagnines translation saith in both places alike Non credet He put no trust whom our new had reason to follow not only because he more agreed with the Hebrew but also because he disagreed not from himself So that for your own translations sake you should have spared this fond cavil more then for ours 4. But I return to your Pineda who like a judicious Divine looks upon words as they are in their sense not in their sound and takes that for their sense which is not only positively true by Grammatical construction but also comparatively true by real connexion and illatively true by rational deduction which is the only way not to be mistaken in a Text that like this is liable to so many divers and different interpretations as himself asserteth Admodum varie hoc ab aliis vertitur Pagninus In Angelis suis ponet lumen Tygurina Angelis suis in did it vesaniam Vatablus nec in Angelis suis posuit lucem exactissimam Regia In Angelis suis ponet gloriationem Symmachus In Angelis suis reperit Vanitatem Sept. cum nostra Adversus Angelos suos pravum quid advertit quae
their prudent shall be hid v. 14. There is a spiritual as well as a carnal drunkenness and God keep all Christians especially the Ministers of Christ from them both for either is enough to make them scandalous Ministers in Gods if not in mans account But of the two the spiritual drunkenness is the more sinful though the carnal drunkenness be the more shameful The carnal drunkard is a beast but the spiritual drunkard is a Devil Noah repented and recovered of his carnal but Ham that mocked his Father never repented nor recovered of his spiritual drunkenness I would to God our proud malitious self-justitiaries but others Censors would seriously consider this undeniable though perhaps unwelcome Truth who in this particular follow the example as in other the doctrine of the Jesuites and deal with sober grave learned Religious Divines their Brethren at least if not their Fathers as Bellarmine did with Chemnitius reproaching their persons instead of answering their Arguments or reverencing their Functions That by perswading the common rout they are scandalons Ministers they may deprive Gods Church of the office Gods people of the benefit and God himself of the glory of their ministry This is such a kind of spiritual intoxication as besotteth not only the Head but also the Heart destroying all true temperance and sobriety which is therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it guards and preserves and keeps entire the very mind the Heart and the Soul For I pray was that Synagogue of the Libertins to be reputed a company of sober Ecclesiasticks who not being able to resist the wisedome and the Spirit by which St. Stephen spake suborned men stirred up the people and set up false witnessess which said This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words Act. 7. as if they had said in our new stile for it is sharp and cuts deep He is a common swearer Or were not those Jews worse then drunk who because St. John Baptist observed a secure course of life said He had a Divil and because our blessed Saviour came eating and drinking said He was a man gluttonous and a wine-bibber a friend of publicans and sinners l. Matt. 11. That is say our new Merchants for they maâ—… sale of Gods glory mens innocency and their own consciences He is a Papist or He is a common drunkard They who thus unjustly and unconscionably asperse Orthodox Ministers that by taking away their Innocency they may also take away not only their Patrimony but also their Authority and their Ministry are spiritual drunkards besotted either with pride or with malice or with coveteousness And the Holy Ghost speaks against them as drunkards saying of them Behold they Belch out with their mouth Swords are in their lips for who say they doth hear Psal. 59. 7. Behold they Belch out with their mouth what can drunkards do more and they say Who doth hear what do such arrant sots say less But thou O Lord shall laugh at them though they laugh at all the World besides Thou shall have all the Heathen in derision thou accountest them no better them Heathen though they account themselves the only good Christians or if you please the only true Jesuites as if no other but themselves did truly know or love or Preach Jesus Christ he that is of this proud perswasion or rather of this perverse and poysonsome disposition may be called a Jesuite whether he pretend to be a Papist or a Protestant But 't is not bad language can make any man a bad Divine save him that speaks it Bene facere malè audire Regium est To do well and to hear ill is the part of a good King And by the same reason To say well that is boldly to rebuke vice and constantly to preach the truth and to hear ill is the part of a good Divine Black-mouthed calumnies stick a very little while upon their names that patiently bear them but a long time nay for ever unless they be washed away by the tears of repentance upon their souls that malitiously use them such arguments suddenly confute themselves but eternally condemne their Authors 10. Therefore Bellarmine relyes not upon this argument but findeth out another saying Nam apertissimè Hebraea sic se habent Voca nunc si est respondens tibi ad aliquem de sanctis respice sanè si quaeritur verbum expressum hic expressissimum est Bell. lib. 2. de Verbo Dei cap. 12. The sense of the Hebrew is plainly this Call now if any will answer thee and look to some one among the Saints If we would have an express Text to prove the Invocation of Saints this is most express There 's no calumny in this assertion concerning the Person but sure there is concerning the cause For if this Text in the Hebrew be so express for the Invocation of Saints how comes it to pass that 〈◊〉 of the Hebrew Doctors did so understand it for Ezra and Jarchi explain it of Holy men here on earth and none of the Hebrew nation did so practise it For all the world cannot prove that the Jews did Invocate Saints or Angels so that either the Jews were inexcusable for not performing this express duty of the Text or Bellarmine is inexcusable for calling it so And indeed himselves gives us two strong presumptions to say that though he did call yet he did not believe it to be an express duty of the Text The one is taken from him as a Critick for in his Hebrew Grammar Par. 2. cap. 4. He reckons the pronoune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in this place among the Interrogatives and consequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot here be rightly interpreted ad aliquem by way of command or concession but ad quem by way of question or of Interrogation not to one of the Saints but to which of the Saints The other is taken from him as a Divine For in his first book de Beat. Sanct. c. 19. v. 2. he saith plainly there was no invocation of Saints before Christs ascension into Heaven Quia ante id tempus sancti non videbant Deum non fuit consuetum in veteri Testamento ut diceretuâ—… 〈◊〉 Abraham ora pro me Because before that time the Saints did not see God it was not usual under the Old Testament for any to say O Saint Abraham pray for me As a Critick he tells us the Hebrew words were properly to be interpreted by way of Interrogation As a Divine he tells us the Jews did not take them for a command or injunction for then whether the Saints did see God or not they must have been invocated Therefore 't is only as a Disputant that he tells This was a most express Text for the Invocation of Saints sure Pineda his fellow-Jesuit thought it not so for he saith these words had as many several interpretations as thy had several interpreters Tot interpretationes quot interpretum capita and by cleaving 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