also drinks his blood shed so it did till the Sacrament was instituted and so it still doth extra Sacramentum out of the Sacrament but if we apply this to the receiving of Christ in the Sacrament then drinking is as necessary both to answer the whole act of Faith and the whole purpose of the Sacrament in participating his blood shed and receiving a full Refection And therefore though eating only be expressed in that v. 57. yet he could not but see that our Saviour when he spoke in the singular number mentions and enjoyns them both v. 34 36. His instancing in the command about the Passover enjoyning to kill rost sprinkle and eat but not binding every one to perform all but some one thing some another p. 361. proves as all his former impertinent for the concernment here is in the reception or partaking of the Sacrament of the Passover by eating of the Eucharist by eating and drinking and I hope he will not deny but all and every one of the Israelites were bound to eat the Passover and to eat it as the Lord enjoyned it under pain of being cut off Exod. 12. Indeed if we take in all the actions to be done in and about the Sacrament of the Eucharist those that concern the consecration and administration as well as the reception of it every one is not bound to perform all but that which concerns the Reception belongs to all not to do all that our Saviour did but all that the Disciples then did belongs to all to do because they then represented the whole company of the faithful He closes up this point and his whole discourse with some passion against Protestants charging them with an unworthy and base esteem of the most sacred body and blood of our Saviour not thinking that either of them as they are in this Sacrament is fit to confer saving grace to such as devoutly receive them p. 363. Thus where Argument and Reason is wanting there Passion must make it out But as to the worth and power of our Saviours body and blood we acknowledge it * See N◠3. 5. above and the fitness of either to confer sufficient grace and how it does when in case of necessity the one is devoutly received but we question how they that wilfully refuse one of them the blood shed can be said devoutly to receive or can expect that sufficient grace which is given in the Sacrament to them that receive it according to our Saviours Institution It is not any derogating from the worth of our Saviours body and blood but a due regard to his Will and Command that causes us to stand upon receiving both What he adds runs still upon that Assertion that there is not any express command given in Scripture to all particular Christians to receive both pag. 365. which we shewed above to be false by our Saviours commands in his Institution of this Sacrament Drink ye all and Do this by what he severely denounced Joh. 6.53 by what S. Paul delivers as received from our Saviour 1 Cor. 11. That which this Author immediately subjoyns and the custome of the Primitive Ancient and Modern Church is evidently to the contrary will appear to be far from Truth as to the Primitive and Ancient Church when we come to the survey of Antiquity in this point To conclude I could wish that Mr. Spencer who pretends he undertook this work for no other end then to inform the misled spirits of this age as he tels us in the close of his book would have a conscionable regard to an open and apparent Truth which he contends against as in this so other points of Romish doctrine and that he would think of reducing those misled spirits which he has drawn out of the way by such deceiving assertions as he has delivered in this Treatise and bent all his wits to render them plausible to the Vulgar A Brief Survey of Antiquity for the trial of the former points Whether they can as held by the Church of Rome pass for Catholick Doctrine SECT I. Introduction VIncentius Lirinensis gives us a safe Rule for trial of Points of faith and Catholick doctrine Duplici modo munire fidem suam debet Primo divina legis authoritate deinde Ecclesiae Cath. Traditione cap. 1. If any saith he would continue safe and sound in a sound faith he ought two wayes to fortify his belief First by the Authority of Gods word or Scripture then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church bringing down from age to age the known sense of that word Then for the Tradition of the Church it must be universal to prove it Catholick Doctrine That is properly Catholick which was received or believed Quod semper ubique creditum c. 3. every where through all the Churches and alwayes through every Age. According to this Rule we ought to direct the Tryal and may justly expect that the Church of Rome imposing these and many other points upon the World for Catholick faith should give us them clearly proved by this Rule whereas we finde them in these points pittifully destitute of Scripture which is the first and main ground-work of faith Yet because Scripture is Scripture and by all Christians received for the word of God and challenges the first place in the Rule of Faith therefore they think themselves concerned to bring Scripture for every point such as their best wits have found out any way capable of being wrested to their purpose far from that clearness and force of proof which those places of Scripture have that hold out unto us matters of Faith SECT I. Of worshiping Angels and Saints HOw forsaken the Romanists are of Scripture here may appear Romanists here destitute of Scripture proof by what could be alledged by Mr. Spencer in defence of it as we saw above Cap. 1. from the reverence given to the Angels by Lot and others or to men living as to Elias and Elisha which proved impertinent and fell short of that worship which the Church of Rome allows and practises It is also confessed by some of them * Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disp 8. Sect. postremò that this business of worshiping and Invocating Saints or Angels is not expressed in the New Testament and reason given for it because it would seem hard to the Jews and give occasion to the Gentiles to think new Gods put upon them As little help have they from the Tradition of the Catholick Church or witness of Antiquity which here runs with a full stream against them And now for the Trial we will first speak to the General Religious worship as incompetent to a Creature though most excellent such as are Saints and Angels the particulars of this worship by Invocation and Image-worship we shall examine below Our first evidence of Antiquity shall be from the force of the word Religion The force of the word Religion whereby the Fathers did prove and
never destitute of an Evasion or whether indeed it be the doctrine of the Church of Rome and the meaning of the Councils Vere merentur that good works done in grace do as truly deserve and are as condignly meritorious of eternal life as sins and evil deeds are of eternal death I will not further inquire into but out of that which has been said we may draw up the Question to this Issue That the first way set down by the Cardinal and rejected by him Good Works are condignly meritorious in regard of the Covenant and Promise only was indeed The Issue of the Question if rightly interpreted the true and ancient Doctrine of the Church asserted by the Fathers and the former Writers of the Church of Rome as may in part be seen by those Authors whom the Cardinal and Vasquez have noted and rejected We need not here be afraid of the words condignly meritorious for being joyned with those words in regard of the Covenant and promise only they must have such a sense as their consistence will allow which is by interpreting the word meritorious according to the first importance of consecution or obtaining and the word condignly according to such a deserving or worthiness as stands by divine acceptation when we do the condition which the promise requires in such a sort as God will accept unto a rewarding Even as in Scripture holy Men are said to be just and perfect through divine acceptation So it comes to this plain Truth The good Works and Life of holy Men will be accepted of God as good and faithful service and certainly obtain eternal life See Mat. 25.21 Well done thou good c. In this sense the Augustan and Wittenburg Confessions did not abhor to use the word meritorious nor Brentius and Melanchthon as Vasquez notes of them and in this sense we need not be affraid to admit it and to say that good works do merit that is do obtain or are rewarded with eternal life through the gracious acceptation bounty and promise of God and one would think this were enough for us both to encourage us to do good and to comfort and stay us in the doing of it and persevering in it without standing upon any farther title or contesting with God that we have made him our Debter or that eternal life is due to our works for the worth of them This is therefore that which we deny That good works do truly and properly merit eternal life Truly and properly I say as deserving it upon the worth of the work and good reason have we to deny it Finding all they can bring from Scripture or Fathers as I hinted above impertinent and inconsequent to the proving of Merit truly so called yea it will appear that the more ancient writers of the Church of Rome are against it yea they that asserted it are forced sometimes by Truth it self to yield so much as may overthrow it First out of Scripture they give us two places bearing the Name of Merit Scripture alledged for the Name Merit but it is only according to their Latin translation not according to the Original Greek The one place is Eccles 16.15 according to the merit of their works so their Edition but the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is according to their works as we finde it often said in the Scriptures But Bellarm. reddere ficut opera merentur and Vasquez reply what is it to render according to their works but to render to them as their works deserve or merit to which we may say Albeit such expression as their works deserve may be very well admitted yet is there much difference between Secundum opera according to works and as their works deserve or merit taking the word Merit in the Cardinals sense for to say according to their works is but to speak the quality of them that it shall be well with those that do well and on the contrary evil to those that do evil it does not speak equality between the work and the reward St. Gregory speaks home to this purpose upon the 143. Greg. in 7. Psalmum poenitential v. 8. Si secundâ—un opera quomodò misericordia aestimabitur Sed aliud est secundum opera reddere aliud propter ipsa opera reddere In eo enim ipsa operum qualitas intelligiuâ— Psalm If it shall be rendred to every one saith he according to their works how shall it be accounted mercy but it is one thing to render according to works another to render it for the works themselves for in that where it 's said according to their works the very quality of the works is meant that they whose works appear good shall have a glorious retribution Another place they alledge for Merit is Heb 13.16 which in their Latine Edition has promeretur Deus as bad Latine as Divinity In the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well pleased and so by Occumenius the word is interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies as much as well pleased Indeed the Ancient Latine Fathers did some of them especially St. Cyprian according to the ancient and innocent meaning of the word Merit use to say promereri Deum i. e. to engage or obtain of God what he had promised but we do not contend about Words or Phrases Let us see what they bring for the proof of the thing it self Merit truly so called First they alledge all those Scriptures that call eternal life a Reward Their Scriptures to prove the thing From Reward and compare it to the hire or pay of Labourers We grant it is so often call'd but the Inference therefore our works or labour does truly merit such reward is inconsequent for the Apostle supposes there is a reward reckoned of Grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aug. in prafat Ps 31. as there is of Debt Rom. 4.4 Accordingly St Aug. Merces nostra vocatur Gratia Our Reward is called Grace and if so then is it freely given And St. Ambrose tels us in his Epistles there is Merces liberalitatis the Reward or Recompence of liberality where bounty is seen on the one part rather then desert on the other Between man and man there may be Merit and Reward according to debt or justly due not so between God and man yet is Gods rewarding set out by the other to shew the certainty of the recompence and that it shall be rendered according to their works not that the similitude stands good in all parts for the duty of man to God is antecedent to all covenant or promise the ability man has to perform it is from Gods free grace the reward given is infinitely beyond all that man can do Secondly Of Reward given in proportion to Works They alledge all such Scriptures as speak the reward given according to works therefore proportionably to the works and what is that else but according to Merit when as in giving there is regard had
over-rule all is in so dangerous a condition This will appear if they consider First that through the pretended infallibility of their Head they can have no certain ground-work or Reason of their belief but are in a way to lose all true Faith For let the Cardinal make the Proposition If the Pope could Erre or turn Heretick then would the Church be bound to this Absurdity or inconveniency of taking Vice for Vertue Error for Truth This he plainly laies down in his 4. Book de Pontifice and its good Doctrine in Italy and Spain Then let the Gallican Church and more Moderate Papists make the Assumption But the Pope may turn Heretick what can the Conclusion speak but the hazard of that Church which will be under such a pretended infallible Head Secondly That by being of that Communion they are taught to appropriate to themselves the Name of Catholick and thereby bound to an uncharitable condemning of all other Christians and to a necessity of proving many Novel Errors to be ancient Catholick Doctrine We do not envie them the Title of Catholicks that they should enjoy it together withall other Chrictians who are baptized into the Catholick Faith and do profess it without any destructive Heresie but the appropriating of that Title to themselves and that in regard of those special superadded Articles of Faith proper to that Church implies all other Christians to be no better then Hereticks and excludes all conditions of Peace unless they will come in as the Israelites to Naash with their right eyes put out 1 Sam. 10. Whereas upon due trial we may confidently affirm it will appear that no Church of known and ancient denomination as Greek Asian African British doth less deserve to be called Catholick or has more forfeited that Name because none so much falsified her trust whether we consider the Errors entertained or the Imposing them as Catholick and Christian Faith The three great concernments of Religion and so of the Church are the Faith professed the Worship practised the Sacraments administred all which are dangerously violated in that Church For first How have they kept the Faith undefiled which the Athanasian Creed so severely enjoyns that have mixed it with such New superadded Articles and lay the foundation of their belief upon the uncertain perswasion of a pretended Infallibility Secondly The Worship of God is there violated by the performing it in an unknown tongue for without understanding the people cannot say Amen The prayer on their parts is but a sacrifice of fools not a reasonable service Again Violated in yielding to the Creature an undue religious service as may appear by what is said in the three first Chapters of this Book Lastly Sacraments violated by addition of New ones and those properly so called A great invasion it is upon Gods property if any man or Church hold out that for the Sacramental Sign and Instrument of Grace which God who is the only Author of Grace has not appointed to be so Again upon that which our Saviour did undoubtedly institute a great invasion is made by first taking away the substance from the outward Elements and then taking away from the people half of that which remains Our Saviour said Drink ye all of it Mat. 26.27 The Church of Rome saith Ye shall not all Drink of it Nay None of you shall but the Priest only Add to this the Impossibility they put themselves upon as I said to prove all their New Articles of belief for which they will be the only Caâ—holicks to be the Ancient Faith and Catholick Doctrine of the Church They will hardly be brought to say The Church may make New Articles of Faith but rather The Church may declare what was before but implicitly believed This is true if duly explained yet will it not excuse the boldness of that Church For when the Church declares any thing as of Faith which was not expresly taught before it is such a Truth as was necessarily conteined and couched in the confessed Articles of the Creed and by immediate consequence clearly thence deduceable as the Consubstantiality of the Son declared against the Arrians the two Wills in Christ against the Monothelites the continuance of the Humanity in its own nature and substance against the Eutychians This is that which Vincentius saith in his 32. chap. What else did the Church endeavour in the Decrees of Councils but that what before was simply believed might afterward be more diligently and explicitly believed And to shew that the Articles of faith do not increase in Number but in the dilatation of more ample knowledge He aptly uses the similitude of the several parts of the Natural body which are as many in a childe as in a grown man no addition made of new parts for that would render the body monstrous but each part is dilated and augmented by degrees To this purpose he in his 29. chap. When therefore the Romanists can shew their Novel Articles by immediate and necessary consequence deduceable from the confessed Truthes of that Creed into which we are baptized then and not till then can we excuse this boldness in adding to the Christian Faith this uncharitable Pride in boasting themselves the only Catholicks III. May they consider how their Masters being engaged in such necessity of making good the pretended Catholick Doctrine of that Church are often forced to wink at the light and go on blindfold Their Masters acknowledg and so does their Trent Council that the worship of Saints and Angels Invocation of them Adoration of Images is not commanded but commended as profitable Why then should Scripture be so oft alledged to deceive the unwary why are they retained as profitable when Experience shews what a scandal is thereby given to Jews and Turks what offence to so many Christians as protest against them what a stumbling block to their own people exposed thereby to the danger of Idolatry They acknowlege that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament and administred it in both kindes and that it was so from the beginning received and practised in the whole Church yet will not the Court of Rome suffer the people so to receive it And in their defence of this half Communion they acknowledge if the Church alter any thing in or about the Sacraments yet it must be Salvâ illorum substantia saving their substance Concil Trid. ses 21. c. 2. which notwithstanding they can take away the whole substance of the Elements and defraud the people of the half of what is left and notwithstanding our Saviours Institution and the Custom of the whole Church for so many ages This custom must be held for a Law which none may contrary as that Council decrees in the same chap. They acknowledge it is fit the people communicate with the Priest in every Mass i.e. they acknowledge it is fit there should be no private Masses and they wish it were so and yet decree the contrary cap. 6. de Missa So
probable then comparing it with the latter he saith it is more probable then it yet the latter is more fit for convincing the Hereticks Where note that their best way is but probable and the Hereticks must be convinced in this point by that way which is less then probable So uncertain is this Article of their faith so unlikely to convince Hereticks however they perswade their people to it This Author saith nothing to their knowing of prayers he had indeed no reason to give himself the trouble of disputing that which their Church cannot agree on Beside all that has been said to it methinks reason should tell them how improbable it is that a finite Creature should admit and take care of ten thousand suits put up to it at once or that it should be consistent with the state of bliss for those glorified souls to be taken up or avocated by the care of earthly affairs yea such as for the most part are of a dolorous nature If God reveal unto them the conversion of a sinner as Luk. 15.7 which sometimes is made an argument by them its a matter of joy and answerable to their general votes and intercession for the accomplishing of the Church and consistent with their state of bliss Now come we to the prayers of men living one for another Prayers of men living for others no argument for praying to Saints departed often urged by this and other their Authors who having no permission or appointment from Gods word for making the Saints departed their Mediators and Advocates in the Court of Heaven seek pretence from this duty of the living Therefore to a Protestant asking how dare they admit of any other Mediator or Advocate then Christ this Author rejoynds How dare Protestants permit their children to pray them to pray to God for them for what is this but to be Mediators and Advocates pa. 61. And of Protestants usually commending themselves to the prayers of others This saith he is the very same intercession we put among the Saints and Angels pa. 62. Thus they are fain some times to mince it But a great disparity there is between the desiring of the prayers of the living and their invocating of Saints or Angels also between the prayers or interceding of men living for others and that Mediation or Advocateship they put upon Saints departed First We have warrant for the one and not for the other we therefore dare desire the prayers of the living because we are commanded to pray one for another and diverse reasons there are for it which hold not in the other case The mutual exercise of charity among those that converse together on earth and much need that bond as the Apostle calls it to hold them together Eph. 4.3 Col. 3.14 also the benefit we receive by being made sensible of others wants and sufferings Heb. c. 13 3. we our selves being also in the body as the Apostle tells us Lastly in this there is no peril of superstition as there must needs be in their religious addresses to the dead Secondly our praying others to pray for us is not Invocation or a Religious worship as theirs is to the Saints departed they placing a great part of their offices of Religion both publick and private in such Invocations Thirdly As the living when they are desired to pray for us are capable of this charitable duty knowing our necessities which Saints departed do not so their praying for us doth not make them Mediators and Advocates for us that is of a middle order between us and God Almighty as they make their Mediatours of intercession but as Comprecatores fellow-suiters of the same rank condition and distance with us from God in the mutual exercise of this charitable duty they praying for us at our intreaty and we for them at theirs St. Aug. speaks home to this purpose in two instances from Scripture Aug. contra Epist Parmen l 2. c. 8. Non se facit mediatorem inter Deum populum sed rogat pro se orent invicem si Paulus mediator esset non ei constaret ratio qua dixerat unus mediator St. Paul makes not himself a Mediator between God and the people but intreats they should pray one for the other so the living praying for one another are not therefore Mediatours nay doing it upon mutual entreaty and intimation are therefore not mediatours If St. Paul should be their Mediatour it would not consist with what he had said there is one Mediatour which proves the former consequence that the mediation they give to Saints will not stand with that one Mediatour His other instance is from St. Johns we have an advocate 1 Ep. c. 2. from which he infers the Apostle could not make himself a Mediatour and so makes it conclude against Parmenian who placed the Bishop a Mediator between God and the people we shall examine the Cardinals answer by which he would shift this off when we come to tryal of Antiquity But This Author misreports St. Aug. when he saith pa 63. The Texts admit only one Mediatour and advocate of redemption and salvation but more then one of praying to Almighty God with us and for us by way of charity and society as St. Aug. saith citing contra Faust l. 22.21 I suppose it should be l. 20. for in the place cited he speaks of no such matter but in the l. 20.21 where St. Aug. speaks of our honouring them by way of charity and society as we honour holy men living which this Author misreports as if said they pray for us which is truth but his adding with us supposes they pray for us when we pray upon knowledge of our particular necessities and requests which is false He closes up this point with the proof of pretended Scripture Their Invocation destitute of Scripture-proof If any desire to have the Invocation of Saints and Angels proved by Scripture he may please to examine Job 5.1 Gen. 48.16 1 Sam. c. 28. Pitiful proofs in the first Eliphaz tells Job if he take it thus impatiently he cannot expect relief or comfort from God or Angels whose ministry in those dayes was frequent in the second place Jacob prayes to God for his blessing upon the lads and wishes the ministry of Angels for them as it had pleased God to use it in blessing and delivering him in all his troubles or we may say as Athanasius and other Fathers do that the Angel there was Christ In the third he produces Saul worshipping and invoking Samuel which many wayes fails of proving Invocation of Saints both in the truth of the thing and the consequence Proofs these fitting for such Articles of Faith CHAP. III. Of Images THe Council of Trent as we see by the Decree touching Images Pretended care for the people would seem very careful that the people be taught how they may safely conceive of and worship Images and that all superstition and filthy lucre be
and disposed by the motion of his will It implies that which I said and that such preparatory works are not excluded by every meaning of Justification by faith alone for it condemns him that saith a wicked man to be justified by faith alone so that he means there is none of these required II. These works or workings of the soul are preparatory and dispositive to Justification for there are many acts and motions of the will that go before desire fear love sorrow purposes which may be call'd Initials upon the ministry of the word the threatnings and the promises as before child-bearing many throws so in the travail of the soul for the second birth Faith it self rises by degrees of persuasions for there are divers acts and persuasions of faith till it come to that last act that believing with the whole heart immediately requisite to Justification Now faith in all those preparatory motions has the preeminence for it gives beginning to them for by the persuasions that faith has of those threats and promises in the Gospel Preeminence of faith in them and of all the truths of Christs performances and merits arise desires and fears sorrow love the motions of the heart or will and these Initials advance and gather strength according to the advance that faith has in its apprehensions and perswasions for this the Trent Council acknowledges Faith to be the beginning of mans salvation the foundation and root of Justification Chap. 8. this is well said in regard of faith's preeminence and efficacy in the preparatory works had they but given to it its due in the act of Justification that singular efficacy and property it has above all other graces in the apprehending and receiving of the meritorious cause of our Justification Christ and his righteousness Now let not any think these preparatory acts or workings to be without grace preventing as if a man did of himself and by the proper motion of his own will dispose himself to justification the Trent Council condemns such doctrine Can. 3. III. There are other acts and works also besides faith Conditions and qualifications in Justification which according to their measure are required in Justification as conditions of receiving remission of sins so repentance and the act of charity in forgiving others But Faith here also has the preeminence no other act or work of the soul having the capacity or efficacy to apprehend the meritorious cause and so notwithstanding that other workings of the soul as those of Repentance and Charity according to their measure be required as conditions of receiving the benefit Preeminence of faith which is remission of sins or as qualifications of the subject that receives it yet not as Instrument of receiving and apprehending the meritorious cause of justification and remission as faith is for which justification is specially ascribed to Faith IIII. As for that infused inherent Righteousness Inherent Righteousness which the Church of Rome laies so much upon in the point of our Justification seeing it is the Work of God as they acknowledge it is no proof of their doctrine of justification by works and they might forbear to make it the formal cause of our justification when we acknowledge the presence of it in and with justification as a necessary qualification of the person Justified A needless dispute it is what should be the formal cause of our Justification seeing the meritorious cause is acknowledged on both sides But if they will talk of a Formal cause it can be no other then Christs righteousness as imputed Formal Cause and by faith apprehended and made ours for that phrase of the Apostle he is made unto us righteousness 1 Cor. 1.30 and we made the righteousness of God in him sounds something to a formal cause not inherent but by way of imputation and account not that God imputes his righteousness as if we had done it but that for his righteousness performed for us he not only forgives sin to them that apprehend it duly by faith but accounts of them receives them as righteous Therefore instead of asking after the formal cause in us more proper it is to enquire according to the Apostles expression Ro. 4.13 it was counted to him for righteousnes v. 23. it shall be imputed to us what is that which is imputed to us for righteousness i. e. upon which being performed on our part God receives accounts of us as righteous We finde by the Apostle it is our believing for it was so with Abraham He believed and it was imputed to him for righteousness not the Tò Credere the very act of believing but more concretely considered with that which it apprehends the receiving of what is offered in the promise Christ and his righteousness V. Lastly as for those that are commonly call'd good works which being done in the state of grace are more perfect then the former such as were preparatory and dispositive to justification or according to their measure required in Justification as Conditional to the remission of sins given in it Those good works I say are the only works concerned in their doctrine of Justification by works yet is not the first justification by these works for they follow it Our Adversaries when put to it do grant it and draw the whole dispute as we see by this Author to that which they call the second Justification of which if they will make no more then as I hinted above their Council makes of it we might here sit down having the cause yeilded up to us but that they think themselves concerned to propound the doctrine in gross to the people Justified by works and in their disputes for it to confound the first and second Justification using places of Scripture which treat of the first or true and proper Justification as we shall see in examining of them This Author begins with S. James 2.24 which he brings as a confirmation of the Romish Position that Faith only does not Justify where it is our turn now to observe his mistakes Should we therefore demand what justification is this that S. James treats of first or second he must confess his impertinency for the Apostle here treats of the first the true and proper Justification and that both he and his Trent Council acknowledge most free and not by works now this Author acknowledges it is the same Justification which S. James and S. Paul treats of and its evident by S. James citing the same Scripture for his Justification v. 23. whic S. Paul does Rom. 4.3 Abraham believed and it was imputed to him for righteousness But it is plain that S. Paul every where treats of the first and proper Justification The other example also that S. James makes use of viz. of Rahab plainly speaks the first Justification And therefore this Author spending his whole discourse against that distinction of being Justified before God and before men to prove that S. James speaks
Dust thou art because made of Dust and the serpent call'd a Rod because made of Aarons Rod and the wine call'd water Jo. 2.9 because made of water so the body of our Lord by S. Paul call'd bread because made of it yet dare not stand to it when we reply The former things are call'd so because of the same matter remaining in the thing made which was in that of which it is made but not so in this making of Christs body which was but once made and that of the seed or blood of the blessed Virgin Mr. Spencer being put to speak to this point goes backward and forward he acknowledges p. 266. by reason of the subject which remains common to both in philosophy call'd Materia prima the first matter Adam was called Dust and the Serpent a Rod and acknowledges p. 269. that our Saviours body cannot be said to be so made of bread and therefore must acknowledge those former usual instances to be impertinent This is backward Now see how he strives forward to maintain the speech made of bread The body of Christ succeeds to the substance of bread under the same Accidents and so issues from it as the day issues from the night as from the terme from which it begins to be as one may say ex nocte fit Dies the day is made of the night so ex pane fit corpus Christi Christs body is made of bread as it is mysteriously in this Sacrament and therefore might be called bread after consecration p. 269. Therefore it might be called Wherefore because forsooth it is made of it as the day of the night but he should have said as the day is called night because it succeeds end comes in place of it as the body of Christ according to their Tenet doth instead or place of the bread and he might have bethought himself whether ever any man call'd Day Night or whether this be not translocation or succession rather then Transubstantiation and whether for such a supposed translocation the body of Christ can be called bread as we see S. Paul often asserting bread after Consecration He has some streins of invention in the pages following as this That the flesh of Christ at least in some part was made of bread he means by way of nourishment from the bread our Saviour did eat but not knowing how to make use of this impertinency in this question he lets it fall But the compleat reason of Catholicks saith he why S Paul calls the Sacrament bread after the consecration Their pretended Reason why S. Paul calls it Bread so oft is because the flesh of Christ into which the bread is changed is put under the species of bread which gives occasion of giving it the same denomination it had before p. 272. What had before that denomination of bread the species or the flesh of Christ neither surely such careless expressions he every where takes hold of when they fall from his Adversary and can spend whole pages against them But this compleat reason was no reason to S. Paul neither did it give him any occasion of giving it still the same denomination of bread for then he had joyned with the report of sense against faith and had deceived them in bidding them eat that bread if nothing but species of bread remained For albeit things set out to sight only may bear the names of the things they are like yet not when proposed for use which requires the substance of the things as eating does you may say of things painted this is bread these are grapes but if you say of them take and eat this is bread these are grapes you mock those that you invite to eat Which shews also the impertinency of Bellarmines instance of the brazen serpent bearing the denomination of serpent from the outward likeness to enforce this compleat reason for that serpent was only for sight to be looked on not for stinging But this is all the reason the Romanists can give and these poor species the form colour smell appearance of bread must help them at every turn they must stand for substance when there is occasion must be the visible part or signe of the Sacrament must be broken eaten nourish what not As for those sayings I am the Vine I am the Door I need not follow him in examining the differences he seeks out between them and this is my body but thus far they be appliable to our purpose that they were figurative speeches yet was our Saviour truly so that is what a Door or Vine is in their kinde and uses such was our Saviour spiritually indeed and in truth So what the bread and wine is to the corporal effects being eaten and drunk that the body and blood of our Saviour taken by faith is spiritually Omnem essectum quem materialis cibus potus quoad vi tam agunt corporalem hoc idem quoad vitam spiritualem hoc Sacramentum operatur Concil Floren. and to the spiritual effect it is the very expression of their Council of Flerence and as the Sacramental Bread and Wine are really offered and given so is the body and blood of our Saviour in the Sacrament really and to all the purposes of the Sacrament given and communicated to them that have faith to receive it for this the Sacramental bread after consecration is called and made to us the body of Christ or as St. Paul expresses it is the communication of his body Upon occasion of shewing difference between Christs saying my flesh is bread and his saying this is my body he has something which may seem in part to make reply to that which was presently delivered Bread saith he of the first saying cannot signifie true and material bread bu in the other by my body is signified the real natural body of Christ 281. What does he infer That by bread in the Protestant doctrine is signified real material bread which cannot be his body p. 282. We grant that when our Saviour said this is my body he meant his true natural body which was broken and given for us but why cannot it be said truly of real and material bread after consecration this bread is my body It cannot indeed be properly said so but may after the use of Sacramental speeches as when said that rock was Christ by rock is meant the real and natural rock out of which the water flowed and by partaking thereof they were really made partakers of the spiritual drink much more in the Sacrament of the New Testament the Bread may be truly called the body of Christ because in the due partaking thereof we are made partakers not only of the spiritual effects of Christs death but also of his very body and blood bringing along with it those spiritual effects and graces which is that St. Paul saith the bread is the communion or communication of the body of Christ the manner we know not as we said above of
whether the book be forged or no and the story of Justina true or false yet Nazienzen approves the fact or practise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We answer that he tels us she betook her self to God for help and to Christ that she strengthened her self with the Examples of Susanna Daniel c. then follows having considered these things she also supplicated the Virgin Mary that she would help a Virgin now in danger and so he leaves the story neither commendig this practise nor reproving it We have seen what Testi monies the Romanists alledge out of the Fathers and how faithfully it is done especially by the Cardinal One Argument remains which all of them make from the success they found who applyed themselves to the Martyrs whereby it is evident that God did approve the practise But this is a fallacious Argument à non Causa making their invocation of the Martyr to be the Cause or motive of Gods hearing and granting success It is certain in History that many were heard who resorted to the monuments of Martyrs and prayed to God there yea many that prayed there to God with reference to the Intercession which the Martyr and all other Saints made for the Church below but if some were heard that did directly invocate or pray to the Martyr of which Examples cannot certainly be given we may say God overlooked the Excess or the voluntaries of their mouth as St. August Aug. Confess l. 9. c. 13. Voluntaria oris mei call'd his Excesses or breakings out in his praying for his mother whom he believed to be in bliss hoping that God would pardon the extravagance And as the same Father insinuates God overlooked and pardoned the infirmities of the Midwives not speaking altogether according to truth Aug. Qu. 12 in Exod. non potuit ad laudem sed ad Veniam pertinere and rewarded their good will Exod. 1.20 Their untruth could not deserve praise might obtain pardon So when the Romanists urge the miracles which Augustine sent hither by Greg. the first is said to work as Gods witness to the Truth of all the Doctrines he brought from Rome we say those Miracles supposing them to be wrought were Gods witnesses to the Catholick Faith which Austin preached and planted here not to all that he taught God in mercy overlooking those lesser errors and vanities when he was pleased and saw it fit to give testimony by those Miracles to the Faith of Christ But this may suffice for the former Argument If therefore we be asked why we do not conform in this practise to the Ancient Church it may be answered Because we see what the more Ancient Church held and practised and we find by St. Aug. conFaust l. 20. c. 21. Alind est quod docemus aliud quod sustinemusEt donec emendemus to lerare compellimur Aug. that many things were done at the Martyrs Tombs but not by the better sort of Christians as we noted above Sect. 1. nu 6. and that in his answer to Faustus about the worship or honour given to Martyrs he concludes thus It is one thing that we teach another thing which we bear with and we are compelled to tolerate it till we can amend it Therefore because we saw much deflexion in the Romish practise from the Primitive Verity when we had opportunity and power to amend it the thing St. Aug. desired we did it and with good Reason allowing in this point what may consist with Catholick Doctrine such we count the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the wish of having benefit by those prayers which the Saints above make for the members of the Church militant and labouring below yea such we may account the indirect Invocation which begs of God that benefit or effect of those Prayers but we cannot account the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or direct Invocation to consist with Catholick Doctrine when it is made to Saints and that by way of Religious address as the Church of Rome practiseth it in her offices which practise none of the Ancients knew SECT III. Of Image-worship HOw the Romanists labour in this point to stand against Scripture which so forcibly encounters them Romanists altogether forsaken here of Scripture and Antiquity we saw above Chap. III. and there was answered what they bring from Ps 99.5 to worship his footstool and the Images of the Cherubins upon the Ark This is the best and only plea they can make from Scripture yet so weak and ungrounded that their own Authors give it over as impertinent and raised upon a false supposal that the Jewish Church had any Images for worship as abovesaid Ch. 3. nu 10. Now let us see how they strive to bear up against the universal consent of Antiquity which with a strong Current for 700 years runs contrary unto them Our first evidence against this Image-worship The first Evidence Had there been any such thing amongst Christians those Ancient Apologists and Defenders of Christian Religion against Heathens Justin Clemens Tertullian Minutius Lactantius Arnobius Eusebius would have mentioned it when they give account of the worship used in their assemblies Nay they could not have declined it when they set themselves to refute the Heathen Image-worship And therefore Tertul. Tert. Apol. c. 12. Igitur si statuas imagines frigidas mortuorum suorum simillimas non adoramus quas milvi araneae intelligunt nonne laudem in his Apologetick professes and defends their not worshiping of Images If therefore saith he we do not worship Statues and cold Images like indeed to the Dead whom they represent and which Birds and Spiders understand well enough it deserves praise rather then punishment See how he not only denies the worship but vilifies them as unfit for worship cold and like the Dead and that the Birds understand them and therefore fear not to dung upon them Minutius Faelix answering Cecilius a Heathen that objected against the Christians their having no Temples no Images gives reasons wherefore they had not or not used them in worship Clemens Alexandr as he denies the Jewish Church had any Images to worship saying * Clem. strom 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses set no statue or figure in the Temple to be worshiped so is he very severe against Images among Christians insomuch that he scarce allowes the Art of painting or of making Images as we may see in his Protreptic Origen had to do with Celsus about worship and Invocation and to answer why the Christians gave it not to Angels whom they acknowledged to be ministring Spirits sent of God as they the Heathen gave it to their Daemons of which in the two former Sections But he was also put to satisfie Celsus why the Christians did not use Images and for which he compares them to Scythians Barbarians that had no Temples and Images because they knew not what the Gods or Heroes were How does Origen answer by saying as a Romanist
Justification will not continue I say till Faith does so engage the Soul it is not a believing with the whole heart not a Justifying Faith Chrys in Phil. c. 3. v. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As St. Chrysostom who often attributes the whole to Faith alone requires it should be a working Faith as where he saith Faith ought not to be simply by it self or alone and then shews how our willingness to suffer and in like manner our well doing is from faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our fellowship with him in sufferings is from faith for he that believes he shall reign with Christ will be willing to suffer I need not trouble the Reader here with the Particular sentences of the Fathers using that expression of Sola Fides Faith only The Cardinal has recited many Bell. de Justificat l. 1. c. 25. and undertakes to answer them Well he acknowledges the Testimonies and for his Answers they come to this That Faith only is set against the works of Moses Law It is true that it is sometimes so but we must not think that the Apostle or Fathers denying Justification to be sought or had by the works of the Law do therefore admit our works under Grace to serve in the stead of the other for our Justification but do rather imply that no men Iew or Christian can be justified by doing what they are bound to do by the Law or Commandement under which they are as * Chap. IV. p. 102 103. above was shewen more amply Another of the Cardinals Answers is That faith only excludes the outward work only as in the sentences there cited out of Origen and Chrys but not Repentance and Charity How it does not exclude Repentance and Charity we said hard above i. e. it admits them as Conditions of Remission but not to that condition or Causality rather which the Church of Rome advances Charity to in the work of our Justification which is not a little to the prejudice of the imputed Righteousness and of that singular act of Faith for which it s said we are Iustified by faith only But when the Cardinal tels us those Fathers said by faith only because the outward work was wanting not to exclude Repentance and Charity he should have told us whether he meant charity in habit only or as sending forth its elicit Acts and inwardly working I suppose he will think it as great an absurdity to attribute Justification to a bare not working Habit as to a bare and not working faith which they falsly reproach us with and then he should have remembred he made Habitual inherent Righteousness the Formal Causs of Justification excluding the Actual that is charity as it is acting inwardly or outwardly for this it must come to A third sort of Answer the Cardinal and generally they of the Church of Rome have for Testimonies of Fathers which by Faith only exclude all righteousness in our selves and cannot be shuffled off by saying they exclude thereby all righteousness of Works before Grace or done by power of our Free-wil without Grace then to say all righteousness in us is excluded and sometime denied as of our selves because so we have none but of the gift of God This is in it self a great Truth but makes no apposite answer to Faith only which we have not of our selves any more then we have other Graces and which is the gift of God as much as they When Chrysost saith upon that of the Apostle Rom. 5.2 Chrys in Ro. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we have by Faith access into this Grace of Justification reconciliation and peace with God We brought nothing with us but faith only and when Oecumenius upon Rom. 3.24 Oecumen in Rom. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith likewise bringing with us Faith only to our Justification it cannot be answered we brought nothing else of our selves for neither did we bring Faith of our selves to our Justification seeing therefore we do bring besides Faith some things else as above granted they may have their place either as preparatives and dispositions to our Justification or as requisite conditions to the Remission that is in our Justification or as fitting qualifications of the subject or person justified yet Faith we bring as that which has a singular property and efficacy for the receiving this great benefit of Justification for which it may be said Fide Sola by Faith only And this we are taught to say both by Fathers and Scripture that so we may attribute the more to Christs merit and righteousness which Faith apprehends and the more lessen or take off from any righteousness in our selves We may shut up this discourse with that saying of Theophylact which the Cardinal cites as objected by the Protestants Fides sola habet in se Iustificandi virtutem ex Theo. phyl in Ep. ad Gal. cap. 3. Faith only has the power in its self of Iustifying cannot be answered as the Cardinal would have it Faith only is said to have that power because there is nothing can justifie without Faith for so there are other things without which there can be no justification but among all those things or Graces Faith only can be said properly to Justifie And now for Iustification by works Not justification by Works in the prime sense it is in vain to put it to the trial of Antiquity For as we may observe the Cardinal though he concludes his 4. Book of Justification with this Question and pretends several places of Scripture to prove good works do Justifie yet has he nothing from Antiquity for it Indeed the Fathers did not know the Romish second Justification to which the Romanists when they are forced to speak distinctly do restrain their Justifying works acknowledging all good works follow Justification in the first and proper sense and that this second Justification is but increase in righteousness as * Chap. IV. nu 2. above shewed We grant and so will the Fathers Vide ch IV. nu 8.105 106 107. that we are of duty to encrease in righteousness and that our often actings or doing good works do augment the inhaerent Righteousness and that the more we do good works the more Favour we have with God the more acceptable are we to Him but there are two words we have cause to reject Merit Iustification That good Works cause an encrease of the habit and do obtain additional grace we grant but if they will stand upon the word Merit properly taken we shall see in the next Section Our good works cannot properly merit Also we see no reason why this should be call'd Justification to make a confusion in this Doctrine of so great concernment Mans Justification before God and to deceive people when they have the doctrine of Justification by Works barely delivered unto them If the Romanists would allow what they ought to the Application of Christs merit and righteousness and give