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
avoid this danger and not to fear mens enmity for preaching Gods Truth 4. Pleasure in unrighteousness makes this Doctrine not rightly preached and not rightly believed 5. The Articles of faith not given to devour the Commandements therefore no sacrilegious or unjust person can be justified by faith in Christ 6. This gospel-Gospel-Truth to be embraced by Papists and not forsaken by Protestants though it hath been most abused of all others and was so from the first entrance of the Gospel whence the Catholick Epistles were written chiefly against the Solifidian Haereticks 7. The Doctrine of Justification delivered by St. Paul Rom 3. in two Propositions the one Negative That 't is not by works proved by 3. Arguments The other affirmative That 't is by â—…aith proved from all the causes of Justification viz. God the efficient Christ the meritorious Faith the instrumental remission of sins through the imputation of Christs obedience the formal cause And the declaration of Gods righteousness and mans glorying in God alone the two final causes thereof These 2. Propositions afterwards joyned together in one Dogmatical conclusion That a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law which is again repeated Gal. 3. and confirmed by Ten arguments 8. The best way of arguing in this heavenly Doctrine is by arguments that come from Heaven agreeing not only with the analogie of faith in the Doctrine they prove but also with the analogie of the Text in the manâ—…er of their proof 9. That Faith which is without works justifieth not gives not works a share in justifying 10. That Charity is greater then Faith gives it not a greater influence in Justification 11. This Text Not the hearers of the Law are just before God but the doers of the Law shall be justified for faith is not in hearing but in doing not in the ear but in the heart 12. St. James and St. Paul deliver one and the same doctrine concerning Justification That t is by Faith in Chtist not by works but St. Paul speaks of Faith more in relation to Christ its proper Object to teach the Jews the necessity of Faith St. James speaks of Faith more in relation to works its proper effect to teach unsanctified Christians the obedience of Faith 13. The doctrine of Justification by Faith without works is the whole scope both of the Law and of the Gospel as is particularly proved in the Epistle to the Hebrews 14. Good worke are necessary consequents of the Faith that justifieth not Causes of the Justification and are no further required of us by any of the Apostles or Prophets in the judgement of St. Austin St. Ambrose and St. Chrysostom Therefore Justification by Faith without works was then the judgement of the Catholick Church and indeed is now of the present Roman Church if we look upon her Devotions not her Disputes 15. To maintain Justification by mans righteousness is not only to forsake Christs Church but also to destroy it 16. Christs imputed righteousness blasphemously called a Fiction by Bellarmin piously acknowledged a Reality by Pererius hîs brother Jesuit But the Saints imputed righteousness is a meer fiction both in regard of the Imputation which hath no promise of Gods acceptance and in regard of the righteousness which cannot challenge it as being incompleat because of Original and Actual sin therfore not superfluous in the best of Gods Saints as 〈◊〉 proved by several Texts of Holy Scripture according to the exposition of the Catholick Church 17. All men being sinners no man can be justified by his own righteousness 18. To be justified by works is to be justified without if not against Grace Christ and Faith 19. T is madness and wickedness for man to set up his own against his Saviours righteousness yet self-Justiciaries are guilty of this madness and wickedness undervaluing both Christs death and the Redemption thereby purchased for true blievers The sixt Exception IBidem sect 3. pag. 196. Against Justification by works you alledge Being justified by Faith we have peace with God Rom. 5. 1. But what faith The same St. Paul Gal. 5. 5 6. saith thus ex fide spem Justitiae expectamus sed fides quae per Charitatem operatur Here are works required to Justification as well as faith which must proceed from charity which according to St. Paul 1 Cor. 13. 13. is greater then faith and must needs therefore have the greater influence in our justification For as he saith Rom. 2. 13. Not the hearers of the Law there is faith are just before God but the doers of the Law there are good works shall be justified The Answer 1. HE that walks on battlements had need take a special care of his footing because if he slip he must fall and if he fall he must be dashed to pieces And such is now the walk of all Orthodox Divines in the way of Gods Truth especially this of justification the main Gospel-Truth 't is as if they walked upon battlements every step is slippery and every slip threatens ruin not that God hath left his way either dangerous or slippery but that some men have made it so their debates have made it dangerous their devices have made it slippery For some men have turneth Devotion it self into Debate to make Gods way dangerous and Doctrine it self into Devices to make Gods way slippery And concerning such men it is the Apostle hath said Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses so do these also resist the Truth men of corrupt minds reprobate concerning the faith 2 Tim. 3. 8. They that use tricks and devices to elude the sense when they cannot evade the sentence of the Law Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are wâ—…itten in the book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. do like Jannes and Jambres withstand Moses by enchantments making themselves Aegyptians when God made them Israelites or making themselves Magicians when God made them Divines only they seldome cry out Digitus Dei This is the finger of God though they be shewed never so plainly his own very hand writing to convence them oÌ„f their resistance against the Truth For the same corrupt minds that make them resist the Truth do also make them reprobate or of no Judgement concerning the faith For who can be judicious in the Faith but from the Truth and therefore he that resists the Truth must needs be of no Judgement concerning the faith And since we find among all the multitudes of factious men so little Judgement concerning the Faith we cannot but feat that they have all more or less resisted the Truth I am the way and the Truth saith Christ So that if the Christian look directly and constantly on Him he shall not walk out of the right way nor erre from the saving Truth Surely then t is because we have not looked on our Saviour but on our selves on our own Interests that our strayings have been so many from this right
an Antecedent that is a meer nothing but pretending to be somthing it is no longer a meer nothing for it is a Lye which is worse then nothing I say A Consequence without the rules of Logick is a Lye and I am forced to say it as a Christian Divine That I may not betray the Truth of Christ nor bely the Church of Christ For how many Truths doth the Church of Christ teach me to believe which are Divine Truths only as they are Logical Consequences whereas it is palpable A Logical Consequence cannot be a Truth but an Unlogical Consequence must be a Lye I will instance but in one The Monothelite who said Christ had but one will is condemned for an Heretick by the sixt general Council and yet it is only a Logical Consequence That Christ had two wills from this Antecedent That two compleat rational Natures must have two wills Whence cometh this Syllogism Two compleat rational Natures must have two wills Christ had two compleat rational Natures sc. the nature of God and the nature of man Therefore Christ had two wills Here is a Truth inferred by Logical Consequence which hath a Being in it self and chargeth them for Hereticks who deny it because it is a Divine Truth whereas such inferences as are only from Prudential not Logical Consequences have no being save in the fancy of him that makes them and therefore Charges all with Heresie that believe them because they are not Divine Truths but only humane imaginations For it is an heresie to believe that for a divine Truth which God hath not taught in his Word neither explicitly nor implicitly neither as a doctrine nor as a deduction neither as a Theological Principle nor as a Logical Conclusion For such a belief doth not only set up Fancy or rather Falsity instead of Truth or man instead of God for the author of our Faith but it also disbelieveth that Truth whereof God is the undoubted Author For he which believeth that which God hath not taught concerning any Truth must needs in some respect not believe that which God hath taught concerning the same Truth as in this particular case concerning the remission of sins He that believeth remissionn of sins in the next world which God hath not taught must needs not fully believe remission of sins in this world which God hath taught For what sins are left to be remitted there cannot be remitted here so I must not believe remission of all sins here though upon never so earnest a repentance never so true a faith that I may believe the remission of some sins hereafter So dangerous a thing is it for any Divine to set up rules of prudence rather of imprudence instead of rules of Logick that is to say Phantastical additions instead of rational deductions even as dangerous as to teach men to believe a Lye instead of believing Truth For what is inferred from any Text of Scripture by Logical consequence is a Theological conclusion and may not be disbelieved without an affront to God the Author of Logick that is of Reason But what is inferred without Logick is not a Theological conclusion but a Phantastical Addition and may not be received by us either as Christians because it comes not from God nor as men because it comes not by Reason And I think such a conclusion is that of the same Cardinals lib. 3. de euch c. 7. Per divinam Potentiam posse ab homine tolli facultatem intelligendi interim ut maneat Homo That by Gods Almighty power may be taken from a man the faculty of understanding and he may still remain a man A Consequence doubtless from the first Article of our belief I believe in God the Father Almighty but inferred only by the Rules of this new prudence not by the Rules of old sound Logick and therefore to be looked upon as a meer fiction for it supposeth an Impotency in Omnipotency as if God could deny himself working contradiction and making a man not a man a reasonable creature not a reasonable creature at the same time and in the same respect But however this Consequence hath found us out a man fit to believe other such like Consequences For such Consequences are clearly without Reason and therefore the man that can believe them had need be a man without Reason 9. But it is high time to leave your Cardinal whom yet I had not traced so far had it not been to follow your footsteps and since our Countrey-man could not his own Countrey-man shall stop his mouth For Saint Thomas of Aquine as good an Italian as himself and a far better Divine seeth here no remission of sins in the next world but proveth the contrary both out of Saint Augustine and out of Saint Chrysostom in his Commentary upon this Text that is out of the two chiefest Doctors both of the Greek and of the Latine Church And he sets down Saint Chrysostoms exposition with the approbation not only of its Truth but also of its perspicuity Chrysostomus valdè planè exponit dicit c. Saint Chrysostom expounds this place very plainly and saith That we are here told of a twofold blasphemy one against the Son of God calling him a wine-bibber and for this they had some excuse because of their ignorance The other against the Spirit of God calling him Beelzebub and for this they had no excuse because they were sufficiently instructed in the Scriptures that evil spirits could not be cast out by an evil spirit but by the good Spirit that is the Spirit of God and therefore this blasphemy should not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come which saith he is spoken upon this ground Because some sins are punished in this world some in the next some both in this and that The sins punished only in this world are those of Penitents yet your Purgatory will needs punish them and only them in the next world The sins punished only in the next world are those of miscreants of whom it is said Job 21. 13. In a moment they go down into Hell But the sin which is punished in this world and in the next is the sin against the Holy Ghost Therefore it is said concerning that sin â—…t shall not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come Non quia sit remissio in futuro sed quia poena erit in futuro unde sensus est quod non remittitur quin poenam patiatur in hoc seculo in futuro Not because there is any forgiveness in the next world but because there shall be punishment in the next world wherefore the meaning is It shall not be forgiven but he shall suffer punishment for it both in this and in the next world Thus the Angelical Doctor expoundeth this Text and his Exposition stood good a long time and was generally received in the Latine Church for your own Ferus hath followed it saying
way our errours have been so many against this Soul-saving Truth How far this may concern the grand factions of Christendome I will not determine but sure I am they whose Religion is rebellion and whose faith is faction have no other Truth but their own phansies or imaginations and consequently can have no other God but their own Perverseness Yet we doubt not but as Aarons Rod swallowed up the Rods of the Magicians so will Religion at last swallow up rebellion and Faith will swallow up Faction and Truth will swallow up Phansie and Wisedome will swallow up Folly if not so as to be acknowledged of her enemies yet so as to be justified of her Children For the Apostle hath said most positively though more comfortably But they shall proceed no further for their folly shall be manifest to all And he that hath promised concerning the Preachers of his truth hath much more promised concerning the Truths they are to Preach especially those which so nearly concern the salvation of Souls They shall not be removed into a Corner any more But thine eyes shall see thy teachers and thine ears shall hear a word behind thee saying This is the way walk â—…e in it when ye turn to the right hand and when ye turn to the left Isa. 30. 20 21. 2. But if the Lovers of Gods Truth will hope to obtain this promise of a word saying This is the way they must endeavour to obey that command see that ye walk circumspectly Eph. 5. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Latine Church in the Text of Sixtus 5. See therefore how circumspectly ye walk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Greek Church in the Text of St. Chrysostome See therefore circumspectly how ye walk Men that will not wander in the by-paths of errour must have their eyes in their heads to look about them to see which is the way of Truth and they must keep their eyes open in their heads to look before them to walk in that way If they want a good circumspection to look about them they may chance never come into the right way if they want a good Prospection to look before them they may soon go out of it self-conceit is a great enemy to circumspection self-interest is a great enemy to prospection and 't is commonly one of these two if not both that makes so many Christians not walk in the way of Truth but choose faction or phansie instead of Faith This may seem to be far fetcht but it comes very neer my purpose and I pray God it may yet come neerer some mens consciences For they who licentiously abuse this Doctrine of justification by faith in Christ choose phansie instead of Faith and turn the Grace of God into wantonness They who wilfully oppose it to set up their own righteousness choose faction instead of Faith and turn the Grace of God into nothing for as mans age so his righteousness is as nothing in respect of God All my goods are nothing unto thee Psal. 16. 2. Both alike with Elymas the Sorcerer seek to turn away others from the Faith and may justly expect the hand of God upon them selves to make them so blind as not to see the Sun of Righteousness for ever God of his infinite mercy take away this mist and darkâ—…ess from before the eyes of all his servants but especially of all his Seers for if the light of the world be darkness how great will be the darkness thereof If we delight in the inner darkness here how shall we escape the outer darkness hereafter If they were a rebellious people lying children children that would not hear the law of the Lord who said to the Seers See not Isa. 30. 9 10. then what are those Seeâ—…s who say to themselves See not who shut their eyes against the light and shut their hearts against the Power of this Truth But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident for the just shall live by Faith Gal. 3. 11. See the light of this Truth for it is evident see we the Power of this Truth for even the just shall not live by his works but by his Faith The just shall live by Faith q. d. The justest must that is hath that justice whereby he shall live eternally from his Faith not from his works from his Saviours righteousness not from his own God speaking this soul-saving Truth so plainly to the understanding and pressing it so powerfully upon the Conscience bids all Christian Divines admire his goodness in shewing the great need and benefit of Christ not discover their own wickedness in seeking to undermine the very foundation of Christianity Accordingly St. Chrys. expounds that precept see ye walk circumspectly of the Ministers of the Gospel Observe saith he how the Apostle doth forewarn and forearm the Preachers of Gods Truth againg all the oppositions of their and its enemies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whole Towns and Cities waged war against them which the Canonist signally expressed after this manner Laici clericis Oppidò sunt infesti yet they are furnished with no other armour but this to defend themselves see that ye walk ciâ—…rcumspectly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Give your enemies no other occasion of their enmity but onely from your Preaching which is an occasion rather taken then given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let that alone be the ground of their enmity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no man be able to accuse you of any thing else and then your adversaries will accuse God not you An admirable gloss and seasonable for this Atheistical Age wherein men will not believe the Truth because they have pleasure in unrighteousness though St. Paul tell them plainly that they shall be damned for their unbelief That they all mâ—…ght be damned who believe not the Truth but â—…ad pleasure in unrighteousness 2 Thes. 2. 12. 4. It is the pleasure in unrighteousness which makes either the people not rightly believe Gods Truth or the Priests not rightly preach it and particularly this Truth of Justification by Faith which some of your Priests care not to preach because it will spoil their markets and some of our Priests had need preach more warily for fear it should spoil our people It is onely pleasure in unrighteousness that hath hitherto opposed this Truth in its doctrine or poisoned this Truth in its belief For why should a Truth so clearly revealed in the word of Christ so neerly concerning the glory of Christ so highly condâ—…ceing to the salvation of Christians be so violently opposed by some of your Priests in its doctrine but that it pulleth down the prices of Masses and Indulgences stopping the hands of silly and simple but yet liberal and munificent votaries Hence it is that Demetrius-like for love of gain they raise an uproar against St. Paul for it is not against us it is against him or rather Gods Spirit in him the main Preacher
of this Truth taking this for their chiefest Topicks for Maxima locus Maximae Sirs ye know that by this craft we have our wealth Acts 19. 25. For no other reason but covetousness can easily be alledged why the same men should so mainly cry up the Imputation of their own and their Saints imaginary merits and righteousness to the maintaining and filling the supposed Treasure of the Church and yet so mainly cry down the imputation of our blessed Saviour's real and allsufficient merits and righteousness to the exhausting and emptying the Treasures of the people Thus it is clear that pleasure in unrighteousness hath hitherto opposed the Truth in its doctrine making Mammons Chaplains not over zealous to serve God in searching out his Truth that they may believe it or over zealous to serve themselves in not preaching a Truth which they do believe Again why should so many other formidable Truths and reasonings concerning righteousness temperance and judgment to come in and from the mouth of the same St. Paul make a Heathen tremble and not once move so many confident Christians but that this heavenly Truth of Justification by Faith hath been hitherto amongst them not rightly believed or poisoned in its belief and what venome can poison the operations of the soul but onely that of the Serpent the venome of sin turning the grace of our God into wâ—…n onness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into petulancy insolency and unsufferable contentiousness for so the Greek Orator hath joyned these together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isocr in Panath. contending against not for the Faith once delivered to the Saints or which is all one denying the onely Lord God and our Saviour Jesus Christ Jud. 4. Such men do falsely pretend Faith in Christ who do not deny ungodliness and worldly lusts who do not live soberly righteously and godly in this present world for they cannot look for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ The Grace of God which bringeth salvation to others will bring the great damnation upon them because they resist that grace betray that Saviour and belye their own Souls For most certainly the greatest miscreants that are would break off their sins by repentance and their iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor if they did with the eye of Faith see a watcher and an Holy one coming down from heaven and saying Hew the Tree down and destroy it Dan. 4. Or if they did hear with an honest and good heart and Faith cometh by no other hearing that word of Christs forerunner in his first coming to save us which is therefore the fittest to put us in mind of his second coming to judge us O generation of Vipers who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the Tree Therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire Matth. 3. For surely that Faith cannot justifie the sinner which cannot justifie it self a Faith that hath eyes and seeth not the watcher the Holy one coming down from heaven that hath ears and heareth not the crier the voice of one crying in the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord make his paths strait A Faith that lets men profess Christâ—…ans but live and act Infidels hardning their hearts stopping their ears closing their eyes lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their eares and understand with their hearts and should be converted and their Saviour the Physitian of Souls should heal them Thus it is also clear That pleasure in unrighteousness hath hitherto poisoned this Truth in its belief making men take phansie for Faith and think themselves in Heaven by their perswasion whiles they are even in Hâ—…ll by theit affections and by their actions not regarding that word which they cannot deny dare not gainsay If ye were Abraham's children who is the Father of the faithful ye would do the works of Abraham Joh. 8. 39. 5. For God gave us not the Articles of our Faith to be like Pharaohs lean kine to eat up the rules of his Commandments the fat-fleshed and well-favoured kine such as were fit for Sacrifices for himself much less such as were offered to himself for Sacrifices Therefore those can be no Gospel Instructions which teach men to devour widows houses nay to devour Gods own house and not onely his house but also his glory and worship under pretence of Faith for of these starveliug Documents we may justly say now and others will be able to say to the worlds end what is said of the starveling kine And when they had eaten them up even all the fat Kine that came up out of the river and fed in the medow This is all the fatness of Sea and Land which their Forefathers had consecrated to the Service and Honour of God it could not be known that they had eaten them but they were still ill-favoured as at the beginning Gen. 41. 21. He that hath commanded us to sanctifie publick Persons as Mininisters publick times as Sabbaths or Festivals publick places as Churches to his own worship will not cannot justifie those who sacrilegiously rob and persecute his Ministers mock and suppress his Sabbaths revile and profane his Churches For it were very strange if such men who are angerly reproved and openly branded for sacrilegious profane blasphemous persons by the Spirit of God should if they still persist in their Sacriledge profaneness and blasphemy be acquitted and absolved for righteous and innocent persons by the Son of God The Spirit of God calleth them enemies adversaries and such as hate him Psal. 14. Therefore surely the Son of God will not make them Saints accept them as friends reward them as servants Such a devouring Gospel as this was never of Gods teaching though it hath been of mens practising to the discountenanceing of Gods Truth and to their own shame and destruction that have practised it For God will never uphold those men in his Truth who discourage others from embracing it 6. Yet as long as Gods Truths are infinitely above all mens discouragements neither are your Priests excusable if they will not embrace them nor ours if they do forsake them notwithstanding both be as much discouraged as either open enemies or false friends and brethren can discourage them What shall the Sons of God come no more to present themselves before their Father because Satan will coâ—…e also among them to present himself before the Lord Shall the the Holy Angels be out of love with their own light because the Devil himself can and doth also appear an Angel of light no more may we be out of love with this heavenly Truth of being righteous by the righteousness of our blessed Redeemer because Hypocrites and Atheists have made it an occasion of or a pretence for their
that Redemption by Christ might upon any pretence be called imputative that is imaginary for so he is pleased to make the word signifie which is the whole scope of Gods most holy word and the only support and comfort of mens sinful souls By the first assertion he did overmuch exalt our own righteousnesse and took the ready course to bring us to presumption But by the second he did much more depresse the righteousnesse of Christ and so took the readie course to bring us to despair for if our redemption be imaginary our Salvation must be desperate And betwixt these two rocks of presumption and despair it is hard for any man to sail so warily as not to make shipwrack of his soul it being equally dangerous for him to rely upon his own and not to rely upon his Saviours righteousnesse Without doubt holy David though he had served God with all his might yet prayed to his dying day Enter not into Judgement with thy servant and hath accordingly bequeathed this Prayer as a legacy to all Gods servants ever since not excepting the most diligent and the most dutifull thus to pray for their Justification and then to pray most earnestly for it when they are drawing neerest Judgement That the Justification which they have now in title or sense of the Law they may also then have in the sentence of the Judge for that the one is not compleated without the other and upon what ground can any man pray to God not to enter into Judgement with him who knoweth himself still under the Accusation and Condemnation of the Law for the Judge must proceed according to the Law and how can he be exempted from the accusation and condemnation of the Law who hath broken it himself but by the satisfaction of his surety according to that of the Apostle Who is he that condemneth it is Christ that died Rom. 8. 34. No other satifaction but the death of Christ could consist with the Justice of God for that was indispenâ—…able and required it no other could consist with the Truth of God for that was infallible and had promised it no other could consist with the Office of Christ who took upon him the nature of man that he might expiate the sins of men no other could consist with our salvation who could not be saved unless our sins had been expâ—…ated This was a â—…urthen not to be taken from off our shoulders a yoke not to be taken from off our necks but only by the hand of the Messias in the Judgement of the Jews themselves for so the Chaldee Paraphrase interprets those words Isa. 10 27. The yoke shall be destroyed because of the Anoixting A facie Messiae vel propter Messiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The yoke shall be destroyed because of the Messias or by the power of Christ Our own hands which brought it cannot remove it our own hands which made it cannot destroy it we may struggle till we break our necks nay yet more our hearts but we cannot break our yoke The Spiritual Assyrian that so easily brought us down can more easily keep us under none can break his Army but He that hath bruised his Head none can rescue us from his captivity but he that hath led captivity captive even the Captain of our salvation This is the Justification God promiseth to Israel and I hope you will not say he fails in promise by giving another or rather by giving none for what is merited or purchased by us is not given us saying O â—…srael trust in the Lord for with the Lord there is mercy and with him is 〈◊〉 redemption And he shall redeem Israel from all his sins Psal. 130. 7 8. Say not you he shall redeem Israel from some sins when God saith from All Say not you From sins before regeneration by the first but not from sins after it by the second Justification For as to such sins the plenteous redemption is not with the Lord but with Israel and so you will quite contradict the Text. 1. In its exhortation O Israel trust in the Lord For Israel may trust in the Lord to be redeemed from his sins only till his regeneration but in himself after it 2. In its assertion For with the Lord there is mercy and with him is plenteous redemption whereas t is rather to be said according to this supposition For with your selves there is merit and with him is plenteous renumeration or with your selves is plenteous redemption to redeem you from your greatest sins those committed against the greater light and with the greater unthankfulness for such are the sins after Regeneration But with the Lord is onely a â—…cantie redempâ—…ion to redeem you from sins before your Regeneration when you neither had light to know them nor power to resist them By which means you do in effect bid Israel Trust in himself all his life long and in God only some sew daies or perchance hours sc. no longer then till he is Baptzed or cleansed by the laver of Regeneration since very few sober Christians and no one National Church doth now defer the Baptism of Infants longer then their very first Infancy and most Divines do think That Infants are regenerated when they are baptized 3. You will contradict the text in its promise And he shall redeem Israel from all his sins for you in effect say That Israel shall redeem himself from the greatest part of his own sins Therefore pray let this Redemption continue till the last minute of your lives till it be perfected by Glorification that it may redeem Israel from All his sins And since it is a Redemption from all sin pray let it be called Justification unless you can teach us what else it is that redeemeth us from the guilt of sin I will conclude this point with that prayer wherewith our blessed Saviour concludes his life and hath taught us to conclude Ours Into thy hands Lord I commend my Spirit This is certainly the best the last good work you can do To commend your soul to God Will you do this in your own righteousnesse then say not For thou hast redeemed me but For I have served thee O God thou God of Truth Will you do this in your Saviours righteousnesse then be ashamed of that doctrine which doth undervalue this Redemption But do what you will and say what you can These three Truths are irresistible and should be undeniable 1. He only can absolve guiltinesse whose Justice makes us Guilty 2. He only can pronounce us Just whose will is the rule of Justice 3. He only can acquit in Judgement who only is the supreme Judge And therefore since to be absolved from guiltiness to be pronounced Just and to be acquitted in the Jugement are all three comprised in this one word Justificari To be justified we may not rely upon our selves but upon our God not upon our own works and righteousnesse but upon our Saviours merits and mercies for
must be done by Christians which Christ hath commanded and that Christ hath commanded all the moral duties that were before commanded by Moses for Be ye perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect Mat. 5. allows not a lesse but rather requires a greater perfection under the Gospel than under the Law yet we dare not take our Personal doing that is our doing by our selves for the condition of the New Covenant as if our Salvation depended upon that but only our Virtual Doing that is our Doing by our blessed Saviour whose obedience is made ours by the power of Faith or our hearty desire of Doing and sorrow for not Doing which is accepted as Obedience by the power of Repentance Bona opera per peccata mortificata reviviscunt per poenitentiam is the general Tenent of the School good works that have been buried by sin are revived by Repentance As our sins have power to bury our good works so our Repentance hath power to raise them up again which clearly shews it is not our Righteousnesse but only our Repentance that is above our sins For our Righteousnesse may be overcome and conquered by our sins but our sins cannot be overcome and conquered by our Righteousness we must go to our blessed Redeemer for that conquest but only by our Repentance 17. Wherefore I will make bold to change your definition and say Christs New Testament is a new conditional Covenant with us by which we are bound to repent for not perfectly doing all those things our selves which God hath commanded us and to believe in him that hath perfectly done them all for us that we may obtain the promised inheritance in which condition if we fail sc. of believing but not of Doing we shall never attain thereto for to put Doing properly so taken and 't is not for a Divine to speak improperly as the Condition of life or Salvation is to set up the Covenant of Works not the Covenant of Grace and that is to puzzle not to Preach true Christianity We find Adam had but one poor Commandement upon the first Covenant viz. Not to eat of the fruit of one single Tree among so many and he kept it not though he was endued with strength to keep it he was to do but one thing whiles he had his perfect strength and he did it not And how can you say that a better Covenant binds us to do many things or else to forfeit our inheritance now we have lost our strength and are not able to do rightly and perfectly so much as one Therefore pray let the Condition of life in the second Covenant not be our Doing but our Believing not our entire Obedience but our entire Repentance And let him alone have the glory of perfect Obedience who came from Heaven to purchase it and the rather because he purchased it not for himself but for us allowing the benefit of it to his Servants though he reserve the glory of it only to himself we must do the best we can to keep off and to east out the great Dragon that old Serpent called the Devil and Satan but pray let it be only the seed of the Woman that shall break this Serpents Head and let not us think we are able to break it Nor have you made the condition of Salvation any whit lighter or easier by saying we are bound to do many things our selves then if you had said we are bounâ—… to do all things For if Doing be the condition of life it must reach to All Things that are to be done else not Doing will be the Condition as well as Doing And without doubt if we can do any one thing so exactly and perfectly as fully to satisfie the Obligation of the Law we may do many and consequently All and then what need we the seed of the Woman to break the Serpents Head since we can break it our selves for if we can take away his sting we may easily break his Head Now the sting of the Serpent is sin and the strength of sin is the Law Therefore if the Law be fully kept sin can have no strength and the Serpent can have no sting I do not think there is in all Christendom so religious a Votarie but will confesse that the old Serpent hath at some time or other by his sophistry beguiled him with his venome defiled him by his power overcome him and that therefore in himself he hath been captivated under Ignorance guiltinesse and infirmity even through his actual sins and should still have been detained under that captivity if God had not mercifully given him such a Redeemer who was pleased to be his Prophet to instruct his Ignorance his Priest to expiate his guiltiness and his King to strengthen his Infirmities If he confesse this he hath great reason to mistrust his own doing If he confesse it not He hath the greater reason to instruct himself For his ignorance keeping him from the knowledge of what he is to do his guiltiness keeping him from the desire and his weaknesse keeping him from the power of doing it he cannot hope to be saved by his Obedience but by his Faith not by his Doing but by his Believing Thus St. Paul preached the Covenant of Grace saying He was an Apostle of Jesus Christ according to the Faith of Gods Elect and the acknowledgement of the Truth which is after Godlinesse there 's the Obligation to righteousness in the Covenant of Grace But this righteousnesse is not the condition of life in that Covenant for it follows In hope of eternal life which God that cannot lye promised before the world began Tit. 1. 1 2. The eternal life is not annexed to mans performance but to Gods promise not to mans duty but to Gds mercy For this promise of eternal life was made before man was created and it was made to Christ the eternal Son of God on mans behalf That all who should believe in him according to the Faith of Gods Elect and the acknowledgement of the Truth which is after Godliness should through that Faith come to eternal life Upon this Promise did God seek us when we were lost restore us when we were dead reconcile us when we were his enemies and upon this same promise will he save us now we are his Servants For though all men are lyars and fail of their Godliness yet God that cannot lye will not fail of his promise Thus again saith the same St. Paul For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life Rom. 5. 10. There was first an Atonement to be made for our reconciliation before there could be a Covenant made for our Salvation And as mans righteousness did not make the Atonement so neither doth mans righteousnesse fulfill the Covenant we are eternally obliged and should be wholy devoted to our blessed Saviour for both alike as That
precept when you spake of forbidding Priests to marry for your own Canonist calls the statute which inhibits Priests marriage Statutum Ecclesiae non ita generale Glos. in Decr. par 2. Causa 25. c. 3. Papa non potest contra generale Ecclesiae statutum dispensare sed contra statutum Ecclesiae quod non est ita generale sicut de continentia sacerdotum bene potest dispensare The Pope cannot dispense against a generall statute of the Church but he may against one that is not generall such as is that of Priests continency Pray learn hereafter to speak with your own Doctors or do not require all the world to follow their Doctrine And yet in truth even your own Church the Church of Rome or rather your own Popes the Popes of Rome did not make any such precept till Siricius his daies if you will again believe your own Gloss upon Gratian Par. 1. Dist. 84. cap. 3. descanting upon this very Canon of Carthage which you have urged for there saith the Gloss Dicunt quod olim sacerdotes poteraÌ„t contrahere ante Siricium They say that Priests might lawfully marry before Siricius his daies And again A tempore Siricii vocat Antiquitatem The Canon calleth that Antiquity which was from the time of Siricius 5. And whereas the Canon as it is alledged by him affirmeth that the Apostles taught this doctrine the same Gloss brings fresh fasting spittle to allay this quick-silver and the allay is good enough for the metall saying Apostoli docuerunt exemplo opere admonitione non institutione vel constitutione The Apostles taught it by their example deed or admonition but not by their doctrine or any constitution So far is it from truth in the judgement of your own Canonists which you averr so confidently That the Apostles themselves were the first that taught and decreed that Priests ought to abstain from wives And besides it is clear from the Apostles own writings that they neither taught it nor decreed it Else why did Saint Paul say to Timothy 1 Tim. 3. A Bishop must be blameless the husband of one wife if he were indeed to be blamed for having one And that he â—…ught to have his children in subjection if it were unlawfull for him to have any children Therefore the Apostles taught it not Again why did the same Saint Paul say to the Corinthians concerning this argument pro and con I speak this by permission and not of commandment 1 Cor. 7. 6. if the Apostles had given any command concerning it And v. 7. I would that all men were even as I my self but every man hath his proper gift of God if there had been any Apostolicall decree to force those who succeeded him in his calling to succeed him also in his continency for then sure he would not have wished but have commanded them to be as himself whereas on the contrary he only wisheth them to be as himself who have the Gift enabling them so to be therefore the Apostles decreed it not And the truth of both these was antiently attested by your own Gratians ordinary copies of this very Canon for so saith your new Glossator upon those words Apostoli docuerunt In vulgatis codicibus sequebatur Exempla quod est sublatum In the ordinary copies it was written The Apostles taught it by their Example but I have taken that away The addition of which word Example whether by Gratian himself or by any other being commonly received is a sufficient evidence that even the Church of Rome in those daies did not think that the Apostles had forbid Priests to marry by theâ—…r Doctrine and much less by their Decree 6. From the Apostles let us pass to the Church for you say for Priests to marry is contrary to the Churches precept But you do only say it and will never be able to prove it For the Greek Church in its most pure and flourshing age had a married Clergy insomuch that Gregory Nazianzene was born after his Father had officiated at the holy Altar let his own mouth witness it who brings in his Father thus speaking unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Naz. in carm de vitâ suâ Which is in plain English Thou hast not yet had thy life so long as I have had my Priesthood I hope you will not affirm that the Father because a Priest was the worse for having such a son when you cannot deny but the whole Christian Church hath ever since been the better for that he had him Again How came the first Council of Nice to be kept from determining for the forced continency of Priests by one single Paphnutius if so be the Apostles had so determined before or the Church had thought fit so to determine it after them Nay it is evident The Catholick Church determined there should be no such determination as appears from the forecited consent of the Nicene Fathers to Paphnutius his advice which is generally attested and approved by the Authors both of the Greek and Latine Church As by Socrates lib. 1. c. 11. Lat. By Gelasius Cycicenus lib. 2. de actis Concil Nic. c. 33. By Nicephorus lib. 8. cap. 19. By Cassiodorus hist. Trip. lib. 2. c. 14. By Gratian Par. 1. Dist. 31. cap. 12. And by Peter Crabbe in actis Concilii Niceni So that if you may have recourse but to one of these you shall little need to go either to Neteoricks or to Epitomists for the story as you did in your first Exception for Saint Augustines answer and in this for Siricius his words And yet I will add to these one more proof and that from the Council of Gangra whose Canons were put into the Code of the Catholick Church so often appealed to by the Fathers at Calcedon and placed together with the Holy Bible in the midâ—…t of their Council Concil Gangr can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any man make a dissention between married and unmarried Priests as if he ought not to take the Communion from the married Priest let him be accursed Now if the Church had made that distinction why should not the people make it But in truth the Church was so far from making it that she shewed it to be against her judgement to make it speaking no less reverently of the offerings of the married then of the unmarried Priests Or you may thus interpret the Canon If any man withdraw himself from a married Priest as if he ought not to communicate whiles such a Priest doth officiate let him be accursed It is plain here in the judgement of the Church for these Gangrensian Canons were admitted into the Code of the Catholick Church which yours of Carthage were not That the married Priests were as fit to serve at the Altar as the unmarried and if they were as fit to serve God why not as fit to serve the People and to content you And to shew you I
before yet was it not ratified and confirmed till then for that is an undenyable rule of her own Canonist Leges instituuntur quùm promulgantur firmantur quùm moribus utentium approbantur Grat. Par. 1. Dist. 4. cap. 3. Whence it follows That neither this Decree of Siricius nor any other of the like nature could properly be called a Prohibition till that time when it was first generally received imto Practice and that was not til the year 1074. a longtime sure after the Apostles And this same Truth is attested by Gratian in the first words of his 31. distinction Tempus quoque Quia nondum erat institutum ut sacerdotes continentiam servarent where your new Glossator is very much troubled to prove that Sacerdotâ—…s is put for Subdiaconi Priests for Subdeacons that so he may rather elude then expound the Text It doth therefore neerly concern you as a Trustee of Gods Truth not of any mans mistakes or insolencies and as a member and Minister of Christs Catholick Church to mitigate if not recall those words That the Apostles themselves were the first that taught and decreed that Priests ought to abstain from wives And those other For Priests to marry contrary to the Churches precept Siricius might well say is to be in the flâ—…sh because it is to be in a continuall state of sin and damnation unless you will say That the Apostles taught and decreed that in word which they have contradicted in writing that the whole Church wittingly and willingly sinned against their Decree for above a thousand years together by which means you may chance teach others to say and we now find many Schollars most ready to learn such a wicked lesson That for so long together Christ was without a Catholick and Apostolick Church For my part I dare not be so far an Accuser of my Brethren but sure I will never be brought to be so far an Accuser of my Mother 8. But least it may be thought that Sampsen-like you have smitten us poor Philistines hip and thigh and have carried away our Gates by the vertue and strength of the Council of Carthage I will now look after a Razor that shall very much endanger that lock wherein your great strength lyeth for I have yet only clipped it a little by Valerius his hand and must now labour to cut it off which I shall endeavour to do by cutting the Africane Church from the Catholick and that Council you have alledged from the Africane Church and that Canon you have alledged from the Africane Council I say therefore 1. That the Africane Church was but a particular Church and could not pass the sentence may not have either the repute or the authority of the Catholick Church And for this answer I have your own Cardinals precedent Bellar. lib. 2. de concil cap. 8. 9. Where that objection against the Popes being called Summus Pontifex which is brought from the 26. Canon of the Council of Carthage Ut primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps sacerdotum aut summus sacerdos aut aliquid hujusmodi sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus is by him thus answered Quùm hoc Concilium nationale fuerit non universae sed tantùm Africanae Ecclesiae leges tulisse potuit Itaque hoc Canone non prohibuit neque potuit prohibere ne Rom. Pontifex diceretur sacerdotum princeps vel summus sacerdos sed tantuÌ„ ne ita appellaretur ullus Metropolitanus Africae This Council being but nationall could not make Canons for the Catholick Church and therefore by this Canon could not prohibit the Bishop of Rome to be called an high Priest but only the Bishops of Africa to be so called Pray shew me a reason why this answer is not as good for the Priests of Europe as for the Bishop of Rome for all the world cannot make one National Church the whole Catholick Church no more then it can make a particular an universal or one corner of the South or West all the world 2. That second Council of Carthage scarce deserves to have the credit and cannot have the authority of the particular Africane Church First because for ought that can be collected out of the acts thereof there were not above seven Bishops present at it no more then were at a Collation with the Donatists v. Bin. Conc. Tom. 1. Col. p. 624. whereas Africa afforded above two hundred Bishops and they were all by their Canons strictly bound to be present at National Synods Secondly because there is a plain and a gross untruth set down in the first words of that Council as it is in the Latine Copy which only befriends your assertion for there it is said Gloriosissimo Imperatore Valentiniano Augusto 4. Theodosio viris clarissimis consulibus i. Whiles Valentinian the Emperour was Consul the fourth time and Theodosius with him these Bishops met at Carthage whereas it is evident by the Archives of Chronologie That Valentinian the Emperour never at all was Consul with Theodosius and it is as clear by the same Archives that when Valentinian the Emperour was Consul the fourth time Neotorius not Theodosius was his partner See Helvicus An. Christ. vul 390. So I shew you plainly we have a false Consul put upon the Council and I have some reason to suspect we have also a false Council put upon the Church For it is clear that this Council was not held in the year 390. when Valentinian was Consul the fourth time because Genedius who speaks first in it and was President of it was not taken by Aurelius to be his Coadjutor at Carthage till after Saint Augustine had been taken by Valerius to be his Coadjutor at Hippo as saith Binius Aurelius factum Valerii Hipponensis imitatus onus Episcopale in Genedium stranstulit And it is asserted by Helvicus That Saint Augustine was made Priest of the Church of Hippo but in the year 391. that is the year after this Consulage And sure he lived some years a Priest of that Church before he was made Bishop thereof perchance so many as to satisfie the custom of the Church but sure so many as to write full thirteen Books as appears by his Retractations lib. 1. cap. 14. notwithstanding his continual Preaching all that time For he was required and authorized by his Bishop to be a Preacher whiles he was yet a Priest which till his daies had not been known in the Africane Church and he preached both privately and publickly against the Donatists Manichaeans and Pelagians saith Possidius and sure the more time he spent in Preaching the less time he had for writing But to let pass collections and conjectures we see Genedius the President of this Council was not a Bishop till after Saint Augustine And Saint Augustine was not so much as a Priest till one year after the date of this Council so it is certain the Council hath a false date and it is possible we may have a false Council
of the Decalogue are noâ—…ess fundamentals in regard of our Charity then the twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed are fundamentals in regard of our Faith and it is as Catholick to abolish or confound an Article as to abolish or confound a Commandement and you may as well say there may be no errour of ignorance against one of the Articles as that there may be no sin of ignorance against one of the Commandements For the Decalogue is Symbolum agendorum as the Creed is Symbolum credendorum the one is a short summarie of Duties to be practised as the other of Truths to be believed and all the Decalogue is as necessary to salvation as all the Creed for as he that dis-believes any one Article is in the state of damnation so he that disobeyes any one Command And as God requires us to know and believe every particular Article at least in the purpose and preparation of our souls that we may be saved so also to know and obey every particular Command dispencing no more with our dis-obedience then with our dis-belief and exacting as much our knowledge of and obedience to his Commands as our knowledge and our belief of his Promises both Faith and Obedience must be alike as to the perfection of parts though neither is or can be as to the perfection of degrees As our faith is not a true faith able to save us unless in our desire we perfectly believe all that God hath revealed to us so our charity is not a true charity able to save us unless in our desires we perfectly fulfill all that God hath commanded us For God accepting through Christ the will for the deed both in our believing and in our obeying doth so accept us in his Son â—…s not to deny himself He takes that for a true faith which saith Lord I believe help thou my unbelief because it desires to believe whatever he hath proposed for the object of faith He takes that for a true Charity which saith We are not able of our-selves as of our-selves to think a good thought because it desires to perform whatever he hath proposed as the object of our obedience There is his gracious accepting us in his Son But he takes not that for a true faith which saith concerning the least title of his revealed Truth I will not believe for that is to question his being the first Truth nor that for a true Charity which saith concerning the least title of his imposed Commands I will not obey for that is to question his being the last or chiefest good There is his not denying himself God accepts us in his Son by taking the will for the deed both in our Faith and in our Obedience but he denyes not himself by allowing us to believe or obey according to our own wills for what we want of actual conformity to his will in our righteousness we are bound to make up by a potential conformity to his will in our repentance which is a plain demonstration that God accepts not of half-Christians either in believing or in obeying but will have us put on All Christ before he will accept us in Christ according to the Apostles exhortation Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ Rom. 13. 14. that is Put him on no less as your Lord to be ruled and governed by his commands then as your Jesus to be revived by the purchase and promise or to be anointed with the joy and gladness of his salvation For a meer speculative knowledge of the divine promises can bring no man to Christ without a practical knowledge and love of the Divine Commands and therefore the doctrine of the moral Law is as necessary to us Christians both to be known and to be practised as it was to the Jews and consequently whatsoever is propounded in the Decalogue is so really fundamental in joyning us to Christ the foundation that as it must be obeyed to keep us from refractoriness which separates the will so it must be taught to keep us from ignorance and from errour which separates the understanding from the blessed Redeemer and lover of our souls For as the Creed doth teach us to know God in Christ as he will be known so the Decalogue doth teach us to worship God in Christ as he will be worshipped The same Messias who came to teach us all things hath not only said This is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent John 17. 3. but also I know that his commandement is life everlasting John 12. 50. As his Creed is life eternal which teacheth us to know God in Christ so his commandment is life eternal which teacheth us to love and obey God in Christ I know that his commandement is life everlasting If Christ know it the Christian may not doubt it much less deny it And therefore he that denyes or eludes any Commandement in the Decalogue is in as great danger of damnation as he that denyes or eludes any Article of the Creed For a false tenent in matters of obedience against any one Commandement is an heresie in practicks and destroyes salvation if it be unrepented even as a false tenent in matters of Faith against any one Article of the Creed is an heresie in speculatives So saith the Apostle 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Be not deceived neither fornicators nor idolators nor adulterers nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God As if the Apostle had said It is no less damnable to err in the principles of practice then in those of speculation therefore he supposeth these also may be Hereticks saying unto them Be not deceived For corruption of judgement in duties of life may make an Heretick as much as in Articles of Faith especially if it be in any principle or ground of the Law as he which thinks he may be a Rebel or an Idolator and yet inherit the Kingdom of God is as much deceived as he which denyes the Communion of Saints and yet thinks to be saved For he doth impinge in as fundamental a point and consequently incurrs a most pernicious and damnable heresie For a Practical truth declared in any Commandement is a fundamental Truth and challengeth our knowledge and belief no less then a speculative truth declared in an Article of faith 6. And therefore Suarez doth justily and judiciously except against those who labouring to maintain the Infallibility of your Church do notwithstanding confess that she may err in doctrina morum but not in doctrina fidei in doctrine of life but not in doctrine of belief in matter of fact but not in matter of faith Disp. de fide sec. 7. 8. because saith he by and from any impious and ungodly decision or determination in duties of life must
storie only dislikes it excusing Epiphanius from the Imputation of Heresie because the thing at that time had not been defined by the Church And indeed this storie is to be found in all the editions of Saint Hieroms works not only in that of Basil by Erasmus who saith in the argument thereof Hanc Epistolam Hieronymus in odium Johannis Rufini Latinam fecit But also in that of Antwerp 1579. where this is the argument Epiphanius intimus D. Hieronymi à quo epistola versa est amicus excusat se Johanniquod Presbyterum ordinarat in ipsius diocaesi ipso inconsulto postremò cur velum ad Ecclesiae fores pendens in quo hominis imago depicta erat sciderit rationem reddit This Edition no more doubts that Epiphanius excused the cutting of the vail then the ordination of the Priest to John Bishop of Hierusalem Nay yet moreover The edition of Marianus Victorius at Rome which Bellarm. confesseth to be purged from Erasmus his errours ab erroribus Erasmi purgata est hath not this part of the Epistle purged out of it but Victorius in his Annotation confesseth it to be as undoubted as the rest in that he seeks to elude it by this gloss That the storie was to be understod of the image of some profane man de Imagine hominis profani He is very bold in calling that the Image of a profane man which Epiphanius said was the Image of Christ or some Saint for so Saint Hierom from him Habens imaginem quasi Christi vel Sancti cujusdam yet not so bold as to deny that Epiphanius had thus dealt with that image Nay this story is also in Epiphanius his works Printed at Paris 1622. with Petavius his notes yet he makes not the least objection against it but by his silence rather seems to allow it as unquestionable because he was so well able yet not willing to question it But t is no wonder if Petavius in this dissent from Bellarmine one Jesuit from another for in it Bellarmine dissenteth from himself For whereas lib. de Script Ecclesiasticis in his Chapter of Saint Epiphanius he said Ad finem epistolae ad Johannem Hierosolymitanum videtur aliquid additum ab Iconoclastis At the end of his Epistle to John Bishop of Hierusalem something seems to have been added by the haters of Images In his Chapter of Saint Hierom he in effect denyeth any such addition for he saith concerning the second Tome of Saint Hieroms works In hoc etiam tomo nihil est dubium vel supposititium Also in this tome nothing is doubtful or supposititious and this Epistle of Epiphanius concerning the Image at Anablatha is in that very second tome of Saint Hieroms works By all which it appears that this passage concerning the Image at Anablatha may not be excluded out of Epiphanius his Epistle nor out of Saint Hieroms translation and that alone is enough to prove that in their daies Images were excluded out of all Christian Churches 17. But some very good men are not troubled that Pictures have got into Churches for the Lutherans still keep them there the main trouble is That they have got into Religion and therefore in the last place I am to prove That though they had with much ado got into the Churches of Christians yet they were a long time after kept out of their Religion For Image-worship was not dogmatized till the second Council of Nice which was not till the year 787. after Christ nor was it practised as soon as it was dogmatized but rejected presently after in the Councils of Frankefort under Charles the great and at Paris under his son Lodowick the one saying The determinations of those at Nice smelt of dreams and dotage Penè nihil est ibi quod non somnii vanitatem aut deliramenti hebetudinem redoleat Act. Conc. Franc. in lib. Carol. 3. c. 26. The other saying That Pope Adrian the first had done very indiscretly by whose importunity they at Nice had passed those determinations Hadrianus indiscretè noscitur fecisse in eo quod superstitiosè imagines adorari jussit Concil Paris tempore Ludovici in princip And Engilbertus an Abbot Chaplain to Charles the great was so bold as to send a full confutation of the Nicene Council concerning this Image-worship unto Pope Hadrian which he endeavoured to answer but had clearly the worst of the cause as well as of the Religion And t is worth our notice That though that part of the Greek Church assembled at Nice had yielded to the Pope in this particular being over-mastered by the impetuousness of Irene their Empress and overborn by the Authority of Theranus their Patriarch yet the Latine Church did long after stoutly oppose him for the Pope at that time was not Omnipotent in his own Diocess though now he would be so in all the world For besides the fore-named oppositions Jon is Bishop of Orleans in the year 820 though he writ of purpose in defence of Images yet he writ against their Religious worship following exactly the doctrine of the Council of Frankefort which chose the middle betwixt two extreams defining against the Iconoclasts that Images should be retained and against the Idolators That they should not be worshipped So Baronius hath registred his opinion An. 825. nu 62. Jonas ita non confringendas esse praedicavit Imagines ut tamen eas non esse venerandas asseruerit Wherein he agreed with his adversarie Claudius Bishop of Turine whom he would be thought to write against for though the Title of his Book was de cultu imaginum concerning the worship of Images yer the doctrine of his Book was against it for which cause saith Bellarm. He is to be warily read because he was in the same errour with Agobardus and the rest of the French divines of that age who denyed any religious worship to be due to Images So that not only Jonas but also all the other French divines in his time though they allowed Images to be in their Churches yet they would not allow them to be in their Religion Hic auctor cautè legendus est quoniam laborateodeÌ„ errore quo Agobardus reliqui ejus aetatis Galli qui negabant Sacris Imaginibus ullum deferri cultum religiosum Bellar. de Scr. Eccl. in cap. de Jonâ Aur. which I have declared the more at large because the same Bellarm. lib. de Imag. cap. 12. reckons this very Jonas amongst those holy men who worshipped images Sanctorum virorum qui imagines coluerunt shewing to all the world that he was not so candid a Divine as he was an Historian and that he pen'd mens Lives more faithfully then Gods Truths For this Jonas was so great an opposer of Image-worship that Baronius saith plainly of him and of Walafridus Sirabâ—… That they both receded from the common opinion of the Catholick Church and did shoot their bolts both against her practice and her doctrine Eos à Communi Catholicae
add this limitation not from a Brother not from one of the family of Love and you will make it lawful to steal so it be from a stranger or from an enemy The reason is because an Universal is not capable of Addition for who can add to All and where nothing can be added nothing can be distinguished for who can distinguish upon nothing Therefore to distinguish upon an universal is to suppose it a particular to which something may be added and that is in truth to deny it to be an universal For every distinction is a kind of limitation and every limitation is a kind of negation Thus Drink ye All of this is an universal and therefore as we cannot add to All so we may not distinguish upon All and say Omnes conficientes All that consecrate for that is to suppose the Universal a particular nay to make it so by adding to it and consequently to include its contradictory in the same Precept making that to say not All instead of All and so Drink ye All of this and Drink not All of this will be the sense of one and the same Precept which being impossible we must look upon that Trent Declaration as more peremptory then true Ecclesia declarat nullo divino praecepto Laicos vel clericos non conficientes ad bibendum obligari Concil Trid. sess 21. The Church declareth that no divine Precept obligeth the Laity and not consecrating Clergy to drink of the cup For Drink ye all of this is a divine Precept and cannot but oblige all that receive the holy Sacrament because it is a Precept concerning the receiving it So in the particular case of Image-worship The Text saith Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image or likeness to worship it if you will limit this universal negative by confining the graven image to this or that kind of image then the contradictory will be true Divinity as Thou shalt not make nor worship the graven image of Venus or Bacchus or Jupiter that is any image of the Heathen Gods which are meer fictions But thou maist make and worship the Image of Christ and of the Saints and Angels which have a real being So then Thou shalt not worship an Image and Thon shalt worship an Image being contradictories will be both true divinity and both commanded in the same Precept and God must be said to Command and men must be made to Obey contradictions And yet this is the slight by which your two great Champions Baronius and Bellarmine have endeavoured to elude this very Commandement Surely I think your Catechist Laurence Vaux much more ingenuous who goes to prove by this very Commandement that it is not only lawful but also necessary to worship the Images of the Saints For so in his Catechism Printed at Antwerp 1574. in the sixt Chapter of his first seven Queries upon the first Commandement he asketh this question Who breaketh the first Commandement of God by irreverence of God you may be sure he means the first with the second joyned to it because he speaketh of outward irreverence to which himself thus answers They that do not give due reverence to God and his Saints or to their reliques and images An excellent Catechist who makes the second Commandemement say Thou shalt make thou shalt worship graven Images yet this man said no more then your two great Cardinals have in effect though more covertly said after him only he tells us He writes for the use of children and ignorant men but your Cardinals write for the use of the greater and most learned Scholars But as unsuccessfully as they of Nice before them The Scripture doth not forbid us to worship Images but to worship them as God say the one The Scripture doth not forbid us to worship true but false Images say the other Both distinguish upon Gods universal Precept the one upon the act of worship the other upon the object or the image worshipped so both deny the precept to be universal and make it particular though God made it universal and by so doing give us the contradiction of the Precept for the exposition of it For Thou shalt not worship an Image is Thou shalt worship an Image according to both their expositions But which is very remarkable As they both contradict God so they also contradict one another That t is not easie for a sensible man to discern how far this Image-worship hath been dogmatized For Thou shalt not worship Images as God say they of Nice Thou shalt worship Images as God if they be his images say your men now whereby they have in truth forsaken the Council though they still cleave to the Images and we have done no more who have forsaken the Images And indeed we have been constrained thereto out of our bounden duty to God and his truth not only for the many falsities which shew it to have been a factious Council but also for the many falsifications therein which in effect shew it to have been no Council For they bring not Scripture but Revelation and Miracle the two principles of Enthusiasts not of Divines for the establishment of their new doctrine They talk of an Image of our blessed Saviour at Berytus which being pierced by the Jews there immediately gushed out of it Blood and Water which when the Synod heard They shewed their fond belief by their sad lamentations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were much troubled and wept yet upon this and such like fabulous stories which supposed a stranger kind of Transubstantiation then you have since invented not changing the substance of bread into Christs Body but changing the substance of Christs body into Wood or Stone they were pleased to vote 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Relative worshipping of Images and so call those Jews and Atheists and enemies to the Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who were opposers of that worship But these and the like particular falsifications do chiefly cast a dis-repute upon their doctrine I now come to a general falsification which will cast a disrepute upon the Council it self For that frequently speaks of letters from the three Patriarcks of Antiech Alexandria and Hierusalem to Tharasius And of Thomas and John two Presbyters as the Legates of those Patriarcks to subscribe in their names when your own Baronius confesseth That they could not then have any entercourse either by message or letter with those three Patriarcks because they were wholly under the power of the Sarazens and that one of them namely the Patriarck of Hierusalem was at that time dead in exile So that if you cannot take off this forgerie and falsification from these grand voters of Images you may not allow them the repute of a Council and you cannot take it off from them but you must cast it upon your own Baronius For these are his words An. 785. nu 40. Non fuit facultas tribus Patriarchis Orientis ad Tharasium rescribendi neque etiam
he never so glorious yet he is as far from God as my self for betwixt finite and infinite the distance is infinite whether the finite be glorious or inglorious for be he never so glorious yet he and his glory both are nothing in comparison of him to whom Cherubins and Seraphins continually do cry Heaven and earth are full of the majesty of thy Glory 7. Having vindicated mine own allegation against praying to Saints I come to oppose your Cardinals allegations for it which though they savour much more of learning authority yet not one jot less of impertinency And yet you and all yours swallow them as glib as once you swallowed the holy league and Covenant or as still you are desirous to swallow up all other Churches into your own pretended mother Church that is as that Behemoth swalloweth waters of whom it is said Behold he drinketh up a river and hasteth not he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth Job 4. 23. A large swallow you have to let down your own Camels whiles you strain at our gnats not considering the advice of the first Bishop of Hierusalem to his Clergy My Brethren have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory with respect of persons Jam. 2. 1. If you had not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons more then of causes you would rather be exceptious against your own writers for most shamefully misapplying the holy Scriptures to set up your false worship then with ours for rightly applying them to pull it down since it is so much to the dishonour of Christ our Redeemer and to the danger of those Christian souls which he hath redeemed And yet your late writers seeing the unwritten word so unequal a match to grapple with the written word for the Protestants have opened their eyes though God alone can open their hearts and we pray him to open them do labour to prove all your false adorations and false invocations out of the holy Scriptures notwithstanding they are so plainly and so directly against the express letter of the Law of Moses and therefore cannot be according to the letter of the Prophets which are no other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…aw But I will confine my self to your moâ—…â—…ed Dogmatist and desire you with me to consider the strange impertinency and if wilful the stranger imprety of his allegations out of the Text to maintain your invocation of Saints And amongst them all two only shall serve my turn 8. The first is that of Gen. 48. 16. The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the lads Hic apertè sanctus Jacob Aâ—…gelum invocavit saith Bellarm. Here holy Jacob did manifestly invocate an Angel If he did 't is manifest he took that Angel for the God of his Fathers Abraham and Isaac for the God which fed him all his life long and redeemed him from all evil for he invocateth none other to bless the lads but only that God so saith the Text God before whom my Fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk the God which â—…ed me all my life long to this day The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the â—…ads 'T is palpable all these particulars do concern but one and him Jacob desireth to bless the children If that one were an Angel he did not pray for Gods blessing upon them so the lads were little beholding to him If that one were God he did not pray to an Angel to blesâ—… them so 〈◊〉 â—…olding to your Carâ—… Nay indeed all that are concerned in this Text for the Angel though named yet is not concerned in it are litâ—…le beholding to him for all are losers by this interpretation 1º God loseth his honour of accepting feeding redeeming and blessing his servants 2º Abraham and Isaac lose their God For it was the Almighty God not an Angel that said to Abraham Walk before me and be thou perfect Gen. 17. 1. and God before whom my Fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk saith this Text. 3º The poor infants lose their blessing for t is clear an Angel could not bless them but only ministerially from God 4º Jacob loseth his Religion for he calleth upon a false God if upon an Angel instead of God All these cannot lose by this interpretation the Interpreter himself be no loser therefore though I will not say he lost his honesty by seeking to wrest a text yet I must say he hath lost his authority by seeking to oppose it For it is not an exposition but an opposition of the Text when words are taken Grammatically in their own sense that should be taken Theologically in Gods sense The Grammatical sense of a word is according to its own signification But the Theological sense of a word is according to Gods use of it or Gods application As Genesis 18. 2. The Lord appeared unto Abraham but v 2. Lo three men stood by him And again v. 16. The men rose up from thence yet v. 17. And the Lord said and 't is evident by all Abrahams prayer that it was the Lord appeared unto him for he calleth him the Judge of all the earth v. 25. and v. 33. 't is said The Lord went his way as soon as he had left communing with Abraham If you take this word men Grammatically as 't is in its own signification you must say Abraham prayed to a man But if you take it Theologically as 't is in Gods use or application 't is no less then the Lord appearing in the likeness of a Man and you must say That Abraham prayed only to the Lord So in this Text mis-interpreted by your great Doctor if you take the word Angel Grammatically as it signifies in it self 't is plain Iacob invocated an Angel but if you take it Theologically as God useth it 't is no less then the Lord in the likeness of an Angel and so 't is plain Iacob invocated none but God And truly the one Text might as well have been urged to prove that Abraham invocated a man as the other to prove that Iacob invocated an Angel Both good proofs Grammatically but neither a good proof Theologically For Grammarians look upon words as they signifie in themselves but Divines look upon words as they signifie in their use the reason is because the work of the one is to understand the Thing but the work of the other is to understand the Truth therefore as doubtful Propositions in the New Testament are to be expounded according to the Analogie of Faith in the Apostles Creed that we may have Truth in our Belief So doubtful Propositions in the Old Testament are to be expounded according to the analogie of righteousness in Moses his Decalogue that we may have Truth in our Obedience And as that Proposition This is my body must be taken Theologically that is in the sense of the speaker because taken Grammatically that is in the bare sense of the words it
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
the worshipping of Angels Ut harum detentae culturis animae sub fiâ—… mamento obligatae teneantur ne sc tendant ad suporiores caelos ad Deum omnâ—…um adorandum That such kind of worship place it upon what creature yoâ—… will detains the Soul here below and keep it from ascending into the highest Heaven that it may there worship the ever liviâ—… God Quod operâ efficitur inimici 〈◊〉 semper animas super terram humiliaâ—… detineat Religionem simulans quùâ—… fit maximum sacrilegium which is tâ—… Divels chiefest Policy to keep mens Soâ—… still groveling on the Earth and therefoâ—… such a kind of worship though it may preteâ—… to Religion yet is it in truth no better thâ—… sacrilege Maximum sacrilegium it is sacriledge in the highest degree because 〈◊〉 robs God immediately in himself not mediately in his tithes and offerings it robs him in his Glory and not only in his Patrimony And that you may not think the Latine Church had forgotten this Truth in her doctrine when many of her members had forsaken it in their practice I will here give you the Gloss of a very late Interpreter and that is of Jacobus Faber Stapulensis who saith thus upon the same Text Vocant hujus modi superstitiosi ad Religionem Angelorum privatas preces ritus sacrificia ea adoriuntur quae ipsi non viderunt quae ipsi non cognoscunt At quae monet Paulus vidit cognoscit Haec figurae haec Prophetae haec omnes Sancti Spiritus Sanctus manifestat proinde dat Colossensibus generale documentum abstinendi ab omnibus elementis mundi sive Gentibus tradita fuerint ad cultum daemonum sive Judaeis ad antiquas ceremonias sive superstitiosis ad dementationes magicas animarum ludificamenta quae universa corruptionem operantur His general meaning is this They who call us to superstition or to any false worship of Angels or the like call us to they know not what themselves But St. Paul who calls us to the true Religion or to the worship of God in Christ calls us to what he hath seen and known For all the Types and Figures Prophets in the Old Testament and all the Saints and the Holy Spirit both in the Old New lead us to this worship Therefore St. Paul gives a general rule to the Colossians and in them to all Christians of abstaining from all the rudiments of the World in matters of Religion 〈◊〉 from so many cheats and delusions and corruptions of their Souls and since the worship of Angels is not according to the Commandement of God it must come under the rudiments of the World oâ—… as St. Paul speaketh of a fleshly mind This interpreter doth in effect agree with the rest they all agree in this interpretation That St. Pauls main drift and purpose is to dehort us from all manner oâ—… superstition and to exhort us to 〈◊〉 Religion in the worship of God Yeâ—… your great Champion enters the lists onlâ—… against Theodoret challenging him of 〈◊〉 multiplicity of errors and mistakes anâ—… that justly saith his great admirer and 〈◊〉 he were a Saint his great Idolater Biniâ—… in his notes in Conc. Rom. 2. sub Sylâ—… Justam illust Card Baronis censuram noâ—… evadit but thus Baronius proceeds Sâ—… ergo errore semel lapsus in alium graviorem impegit ut diceret Canonem 35 Concil Laod. de his haereticis esse intelligendum qui Angelos colendos esse docerent quique in eadem regione Asiae Oratoria erexissent St. Michaeli Archangelo incautè nimis quae à Catholicis essent antiquitus instituta Haereticis quorum nulla est memoria tribuens Baron An. 60. num 20. But so he passeth from one errour to another saying That the Canon of Laodicea was to be understood of those Hereticks who taught that Angels were to be worshipped and who had in that Countrey erected Oratories or Churches to St. Michael the Archangel very unadvisedly ascribing that to Hereticks whose memorial was perished with themselves which had been anciently instituted by Catholicks Alas poor Theodoret what ill luck had he to be a Protestant to protest against the worship of Angels as taught and practised by Haereticks which saith this new Doctor was anciently taught and practised by Catholicks But St. Paul had as ill luck as he who had protested against the same worship long before And as long as that Protestation stands good we may very well claim him and own our selves in this case for very good Protestants and for better Christians And because it is impossible for any to be good Catholicks who willfully contradict St. Paul for such men are rather enemies then Servanâ—…s of Christ who reject his Authority we must say not that Theodoret unadvisedly ascribed that to Hereticks which had been anciently instituted by Catholicks for what Catholick did ever take upon him to institute the Truth and much less the false Religion but that Baronius unadvisedly ascribed that to Catholicks which had been fondly instituted by Haereticks But let us see by what arguments he confutes Theodoret. Sanè quidem nullum à Cerinthianis Haereticis erectum fuisse in honorem St. Michaelis Archangeli Oratorium ex nuper dictis satis superque liquet We have already proved that the Cerinthian Haereticks did erect no Oratory to St. Michael the Archangel Had he quoted any Scripture Fathers or Council Theodorete might have stood confuted but sure his own Ipse dixit may not stand against Scripture Father and Council as a good Confutation For all his proof to which he annexeth his satis superque liquet is only his own conjectural argumentation in these words Cherinthum Haereticos qui mundi creationem Angelis tribuebant non tamen sensisse eos adorandos Nam super Angelos virtutem esse divinam omnium supremam quam Deum dicerent omnes affirmabant Chernthius and those Haereticks who did attribute the creation of the world to Augels did not think the Angels were to be worshipped for they did all affirm that there was a supreme Divine Virtue which they called God above the Angels The whole proof consisteth of these two Propositions 1º That the Cherinthian Hereticks did not erect Oratories to Saint Michael the Archangel because they did not worship him 2º That they did not worship him or any of his fellow Angels because they did acknowledge a God above him and them This Advocate pleads well for the Cherinthians most abominable Haereticks but ill for his own clients For he would perswade us that the Papists are more stupid and more impious then were the Cherinthians more impious in that they worship Angels which the others did not more stupid in that not thinking the Angels made the World as the others did they have less reason to worship them But if he â—…ath not betrayed his Clients yet sure he â—…ath betrayed his cause For what do Protestants say more but that Oratories may not
of my heart prove me and examine my thoughts look well if there be any way of wickedness in me and lead me this day and ever in the way ever lasting Ps. 139. 'T is an excellent observation of Abulenâ—…is Dicitur quod loquutus est Deus ne tantum beneficium vel tantus actus quantus est dare legem attribueretur Angelo ne crederent se Judaei obligatos Angelis Tost in Exod. 20. q. 1. It is said God spake all these words at the giving of the Law least if such a great blessing had been attributed to an Angel The Jews might think themselves obliged to the Angels The Jews might not think themselves obliged to the Angels for giving the Law and may Christians pray to them for assistance in keeping it If so how will you answer your own Baronius An. 60. n. 19. Quòd praecipuos Episcopos appellet Angelos planè significat instar hominum Angelos hominibus ministrare nec tantae esse excellentiae ut quae divina sunt iisdem tribuantur The Spirit of God in giving the Title of Angels to the chiefest Bishops doth plainly shew that as men so Angels do minister unto men and are not of so great excellency as that we should ascribe to them those things which belong to God All the world cannot say more against your daily prayer to your Guardian Angel He ministers to you no otherwise then your Bishop enlightning you Instrumentally by propounding directing applying heavenly thoughts to your understanding not efficiently by infusing or increasing them And by this reason you may no more invocate him for Illumination then you may your Bishop for he is not of so great excellency that you should ascribe to him those things which belong to God Till you can say of him that he hath opened the eyes of your body to receive the Light of nature how can you say to him Open the eyes of my Soul to rereive the light of Grace Till you can say of him he hath enlightned the darkness of the night how can you say to him Enlighten the darkness of mine understanding The Centurion had many servants under him and they all did come and go as he bade them to do any Acts of favourable assistance to the Jews should therefore the servants have the thanks and honour that was due unto their master I find that when Lazarus died he was carried by the Angels into Abrahams bosome yet I do not find that Lazarus said to his Guardian Angel who doubtless was one of them that carried him Into thy hands do I commend my spirit nor do I see how you can say so to yours unless you can also say unto him For thou hast redeemed me O Lord thou God of truth and if you cannot commend your Soul to your Guardian Angel when you die how can you commend your Soul to him whiles you live You may say with St. Stephen Lord Jesus receive my Spirit when it is to be carried to him by the Angels for they minister to this Lord But you cannot say Lord Jesus receive my Prayers when they are given or offered to his Angels for they are not fellow-sharers in his Lordship And this instance alone is enough to answer all your objections which you have gathered out of my ejaculations but if not you may take another The Psalmist saith The Angel of the Lord tarrieth round about them that fear him and delivereth them yet he saith not O Taste and see how gracious the Angel of the Lord is But O Tast and see how gracious the Lord is blessed is the man that trusteth in him Ps. 34. 7 8. My Guardian Angel is a ministring Spirit for my comfort but my God alone is an al-sufficient Spirit for my content None but he can give the Spiritual gust taste of a blessed immortality to my Soul who hath made it immortal and since my prayers are the chiefest means to procure this spiritual gust or Taste to my Soul how shall I pray to them who cannot give it I desire my Religion may be to me the beginning of my Salvation for so is Grace the inchoation of Glory and therefore cannot delight in such prayers as will not give my Soul the Antipast of eternity that is in such prayers as do not bid me say unto my self O Taste and see how gracious the Lord is because they do not ascend up so high as the Lord For prayer being a spiritual colloquy with him to whom we pray why should I pray to an Angel which probably may not be present to partake of this colloquy and indeed cannot partake of it if it be meerly spiritual that is only in the heart or if he could why should my heart leave conversing with God to converse with his Servant Is not this to undervalue that happiness which I can not deserve should not desert nay is it not to undervalue prayer to make it the depression of the Soul to the Creature which God hath appointed for the elevation of the Soul unto himself What though one Angel destroyed 185000. Assyrans may we therefore say unto him Remember not our iniquities nor the iniquities of our forefathers neither take thou vengeance of our sins And if we may not pray to Angels for the averting of Judgements then sure not for the obtaining of mercies since God useth them as his instruments for the one as well as for the other If we may as you infer humbly pray them to do those good offices for us which God hath appointed them we may also humbly pray God to give us leave to sin against Him in our Prayers for to break his Commandement is to sin against Him and he hath expresly commanded saying Call upon me in the day of trouble Psal. 50. 15. In that he hath said Call upon me he hath also in effect said Call not upon any of my Angels for that is not to call upon me Therefore dare I not pray to Angels for fear of bringing Judas his curse upon my prayers of whom it was said Let his prayer be turned into sin Ps. 109. v. 7. For if my prayer be turned into sin how will my sin be turned into Repentance or my repentance be turned into mercy and forgiveness If my prayer end in sin how will my sin not end in damnation your own Clement the 8. that corrected your Latine Translation which was of much longer standing in your Church then any of your corrupt devotions will rise up against you in Judgement if you will needs continue still in these corruptions For if he reformed your Bibles why should not you reform your Breviaries CHAP. VI. Of Justification 1. THe way of Truth in the Doctrine of Justification by Faith made dangerous by mens debates slippery by mens devices yet the truth it self never to be subverted or suppressed 2. The danger of not walking circumspectly in this way by taking either faction or phansie for faith 3. Gods Seers or Ministers above all are to
the hearers of the law there is Faith for what can any sacrilegious Enthusiast say more who robs God of mens hearts in regular and sound prayers to place all Religion in the ear sure there were many hearers of St. Pauls Sermon for it was preached on the Sabbath and in a place where prayer was wont to be made Act. 16. 13. who heard more than the law for they also heard the Gospel yet only one Lydia for ought we know was judged faithful unto the Lord and the text gives this reason of her Faith whose heart the Lord opened that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul Therefore the hearers of the law have not Faith but the doers of it at least in vote and desire i. e. those who labour to do it yet they when they have done all are taught to say we are unprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty to do Luk. 17. 10. Their doings cannot fully reach the obligation of their duty and how can they be a satisfaction for their undutifulnesse All their works of righteousnesse when they have laboured to do all those things which are commanded and as they are commanded them will leave them unprofitable and much more must their works of unrighteousnesse make them unacceptable so that you have only supposed a false Faith in the hearers of the Law not disprov'd Justification by Faith in the doers of it for he that saith not the hearers of the Law are just before God but the doers of the Law shall be justified doth not thereby suppose much less averre any men to be so compleat doers of the Law as to rely upon their good deeds for their justification 12. You might happily better have appealed to St. James than to St. Paul for justification by works and yet neither would he have befriended this your appeal much lesse have justified that your position for St. James doth not contradict the doctrine of St. Paul but doth only correct those who had misunderstood or at least misapplied it bidding them add to their Faith Vertue as St. Peter had done before 2 Pet. 3. 5. or not expect to be justified by it wherefore those two Apostles may very well be said to have delivered but one and the same doctrine concerning justification if we take their words not as we please but as they intended them for St. Paul writing against proud Justitiaries among the Jews who sought for righteousness from their own works according to the Law of Moses and rejected the righteousnesse of God by Faith in Christ strongly denyed Justification by works meaning works properly so called that is to say a perfect and perpetual observation of the whole Law because all men whatsoever Christ only excepted had many wayes transgressed the Law But St. James writing against licentious and profane Hypocrites among the Christians who pretending to Faith in Christ lived not according to the Rule of the Christian Faith but altogether neglected the study and practice of good works affirmed Justification by works meaning by works the very obedience of Faith or a working by love and obedience The one writ against the proud opposers the other against the fond Pretenders of Faith in Christ therefore the one tells the proud Jews that their works were not answerable to the Law in which they trusted that he might teach them the necessity of Faith in Christ The other tell the hypocritical Christians that their works were not answerable to the Gospel of which they boasted that he might teach them the obedience of that Faith accordingly as often as St. Paul affirmeth in sense at least if not in words That we are justified only by Faith so often he understandeth a Faith working by love Gal. 5. 6. or an unfained unhypocritical Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such a Faith as belongs not to hypocrites 1 Tim. 1. 5. And as often as St. James denieth that we are justified only by Faith so often he understandeth a Faith not working by love a Faith only in profession or in perswasion not in obedience or in affection a Faith belonging to hypocrities not to good Christians a Faith in noise and in word but not in truth and in deed as appeares from the manner of his expression ver 14. If a man say he hath Faith for the Apostle would not say it for him because he had only a dead Faith A Faith without works and therefore without life operari sequitur esse the Faith of devils from the evidence or power of truth convincing the understanding not the Faith of Abraham or Rahab from the acceptance and love of truth converting the will therefore these two positions are not contrary A man is justified before God not by the works of the Law which he cannot have but only by Faith in Christ which alwaies worketh by love and A man is justified before God not only by Faith that is an historical knowledge of the Gospel and an emptie profession of Faith but also by works that is an affectionate love of the Gospel and a sincere obedience of Faith The former position is maintained by St. Paul against those Jews who rejected the Gospel of Christ the latter position is maintained by St. James against those Christians who profaned the same Gospel Both Apostles teach one and the same Justification by Faith in Christ only St. Paul speaks of Faith more in relation to its proper object even to Christ because he went to convince gainsaying Jews and to make them Christians St. James speaks of Faith more in relation to its proper effect even good works because he went to convert revolting Christians and to make them good Christians For so himself saith concerning Abraham Seest then how Faith wrought with his works and by work was Faith made perfect ver 23. He saith not By works was his justification made perfect but only his Faith whereby he was justified requiring works only to the Faith that justifieth but not to the act of justification And after the same manner are we to understand his conclusion ver 24. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by Faith only as if he had said From this example of Abraham you may gather that 't is not the wording but the working not the professing but the performing Faith that justifies a man before God requiring works in that man which is justified but not denying to Faith the power and prerogative of justifying 13. You have well reconciled St. Paul with St. James in your question But what Faith which intimaâ—…eth that a justâ—…fying Faith is such a 〈◊〉 as workeâ—…h by love but you have ill reconciled your selfe with St. Paul in your position That works are required to Justification as well as Faith which plainly asserteth the contradictory of St. Pauls doctrine And surely 't is not safe for any Divine to differ in this Doctrine of Justification from St. Paul no more than it is safe for him
to differ from the whole scope of the Law and of the Gospel since it is undeniable that Christ with his righteousnesse is the end of the Law and the subject of the Gospel This is St. Peters Divinitie Act. 10. 43. To Him give all the Prophets witnesse that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins i. e. in one word shall be justified And indeed what were all the propitiatory and expiatory sacrifices of the Law but so many types of Christs sacrifice upon the Crosse who is the Propitiation for our sins 1 John 2. 2. so that in truth this part of the Ceremonial Law was little other than a dark representation of the Gospel foreshewing in shadows what the Gospel was to declare in substance that the Lamb of God should tâ—…ke away the sinnes of the world whence St. Paul ascribeth the Justification of the Jew and of the Gentile to one and the same sacrifice Aâ—… Christ hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour Eph. 5. 2. Their sacrifices did expiate sin only by vertue of this sacrifice And this is that which the same Apostle proves to the Jews in his Epistle which he peculiarly sent to them the sum whereof is briefly this That Jesus Christ whom he did preach to them in that Epistle being the eternal Sonne of God coessential and coequal with his Father perfect God and perfect man in one and the same person was that Messiah which God from the beginning of time had promised and in the fulnesse of time had sent into the world as the only King to Govern as the only Priest to reconcile as the only Prophet to instruct his Church according to the Covenant made before the Law to the types and figures given under the Law and all the predictions explications additions and confirmations by the Prophets so that unlesse they would reject all the documents given to them in their own Law and by their own Prophets throughout all the Old Testament they must thankfully acknowledge heartily embrace and dutifully obey Jesus Christ as the sole Author of their redemption and salvation or to speak yet neerer to our debate though not to Gods Truth as the sole author of Justification to redeem them from the guilt and of sanctification to redeem them from the bondage of their sins This is the Doctrine of the whole Epistle to the Hebrews which is briefly delivered in the first words and confirmed and enlarged in the sequele of that Epistle God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the Fathers by the Prophets hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son There 's our blessed Saviour as Prophet to instruct the Church Whom he appointed heir of all things by whom also he made the worlds There he is as King to govern the Church which is his inheritance as man his workmanship as God When he had by himself purged our sins There he is as Priest to offer himself for a Sacrifice to reconcile the Church And all the Epistle after this in the doctrinal part of it is nothing else but an enlargement upon these Three Heads shewing the necessity of Christs three Offices and the excellency of his Person according to each Office viz. according to his Kingly Office in the first and second according to his Prophetical Office in the third and fourth Chapters and according to his Priestly Office in the rest till the nineteenth Verse of the tenth Chapter After which He treateth of those Offices and Duties which belong to Christians and that in the same method or manner as he had before of the Offices belonging unto Christ first briefly summing them up together and then fully and largely explaining them For so cap. 10. v. 22. He exhorts us to Faith and a good Conscience v. 23. To a firm hope and undaunted profession v. 24. To charity and to good works v. 25. To the publike exercise of all those duties of Piety which God had appointed for the nourishment and the increase of Faith Hope and Charity and the rest of the Epistle afterwards is but an enlargement upon these Will you say because he speaks so much for good works in the latter part of his Epistle He therefore requires them to Justification as well as Faith Look on the tenth Chapter you will soon recall that saying For there it is proved That the Law Sacrifices could not take away sin that is could not justifie those who offered them by two irresistible Topicks ab absurdo ab impossibili First From the command of the Law enjoyning those Sacrifices to be repeated every year which had been needless and therefore absurd if the worshippers could have been purged by them so as to have had no more Conscience of sin vers 23. Secondly From the nature of the Sacrifices that were offered which were not of so great an efficacy as to purge sin much less of so great an excellency as to expiate it For it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and of Goats should take away sins v. 4. And surely he that makes it his work to shew the weakness of the Law-Sacrifices to take away sin could not make it his intent to set up the Gospel-Sacrifices whether of the Heart by Meditation or the Lips by Prayer or of the Hand by Alms-deeds as expiations for our sins For the same Objections still hold against the one which were made against the other The necessity of their repetion is as great the proof of their imperfection is far greater I ask the soul of the most religious Votary that now lives whether he dare say that he ever prayed so devoutly but that either for want of firmness in his attention or of zeal in his affection he needed to ask forgiveness for his Prayers There was nothing of sin in the worst of Legal there is something of sin in the best of Evangelical Sacrifices and how then can it make an atonement for another sin 14. Therefore what ever be the excellency of good works as to Gods acceptance or the efficacy of them as to mans salvation yet they cannot be so excellent as to deserve nor so efficacious as to procure the Justification of a sinner no it cost more to redeem a soul so that He even the most righteous man that is must let that alone for ever Non dabit Deo placationem suam pretium redemptionis animae suae He can give to God what may please his goodness not what may appease his anger or satisfie his Justice He can offer up the homage he cannot offer up the price of his soul Accordingly we are bound to interpret all these and the like Texts concerning good works as declaring their indispensable necessity not as declaring their meritorious efficacy to our salvation as shewing them ot be consequents of the Faith that justifieth not Causes of Justification That honour must
end But the Faith which doth not this as it proceedeth not from the grace of Christ but from the strength of our own conviction and tendeth not to the glory of Christ So it is rather the Faith of Devils than of good Christians and may well let a man go to hell for it may go thither along with him and therefore as it is not the foundation of righteousnesse so it cannot be the foundation of blessednesse Again the same Father tells us That though our blessed Saviour had at first in effect called the woman of Canaan a Dog it is not lawful to take the childrens bread and give it unto Dogs yet when he saw in her soul â—…he fruit of that reproof he changed his dialect and said not O Dog but O Woman great is thy Faith Non ait O canis sed O mulier magna est fides tua mutavit vocabulum quia mutatum vidit affectum That Faith which Christ approved in her had changed the affection and 't is not possible but the Affection should change the Action and therefore St. James feared not to call an actionless Faith or a Faith not working by love a Faith not of Christians but of Devils Fidem non Christianorum sed Daemonum For they are not Christians but Dogs and Devils who persist in ungodly affections and in unrighteous actions nay indeed they are Infidels so farre from having true Faith in Christ that they do not know what is true Faith They rightly affirme saith he that whosoever will not believe in Christ doth in some sort sin against the Holy Ghost and put himself under a necessity of damnation but they do not rightly understand what it is to believe in Christ for that is not to believe as Devils but as Christians not to have a dead Faith but a Faith living and working by love Illud sane non absurde intelligunt eum peccare in spiritum sanctum esse sine veniâ reum aeterni peccati qui usque in finem vitae noluerit credere in Christum sed si rectè intelligerent quid sit credere in Christum non enim hoc est habere Daemonum fidem quae rectè mortua perhibetur sed fidem quae per dilectionem operatur Aug. ibid. cap. 16. I have of purpose alledged many quotations out of St. Augustine indeed most of them which concerned this argument that all the world may see that his intent in confuting those mistaken brethren who thought to be saved by Faith without works was only to shew out of â—…t James and the other Catholick Epâ—…stles what Faith it is that justifieth sc. a Faith working by love but not to ascribe the glory of Justification either to works or love because they hold of mansrighteousness but only to Faith which holdeth of the righteousness of the Son of God I will now to St. Augustine further add St. Ambrose who in his Comment upon the Romans cap. 3. hath these words Justificati sunt gratis quia nihil operantes neque vicem reddentes solâ fide justificati sunt They are justified freely by his grace because working nothing sc. worth Gods acceptance and their own acquitment and making no recompence they are justified only by Faith through the gift of God And again upon those words cap. 4. Credenti autem in eum But to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly he saith thus Sic decretum dicit à Deo ut cessante lege solam fidem gratia Dei posceret ad salutem The Apostle tells us it was so decreed of God that the Law ceasing sc. as to that male diction Cursed is he that continueth not in all things to do them The grace of God should require only Faith to our salvation we find no mention of a Decree in the Text either in the Greek Original or in the Latine Translation yet St. Ambrose sets down the words thus Ei vere qui non operatur credenti autem in eum qui justificat impium reputatur fides ejus ad justitiam secundum Propositum Gratiae Dei To him that worketh not but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly his Faith is accounted for righteousness according to the Purpose of the Grace of God not intending by the addition of these words according to the Purpose of the Grace of God that any should cavil against the true reading of the Truth as of late some Criticks have taught us to do but that all should understand the true meaning of it and no more question that in justification of the ungodly Faith is accounted for righteousness then they dare question the Purpose of the Grace of God This is palbably St. Ambrose his Doctrine and therefore he asks him Is it possible the Jews should think themselves justified by the works of the Law according to the justification of Abraham when they saw that Abraham himself was justified not by the works of the Law but only by Faith Quomodo ergo Judaei per opera legis justificari se putant justificatione Abrahae quum vident Abrahamum non ex operibus legis sed solâ fide justificatum He saith moreover That our Apostle proved this from the Psalmist pronouncing them blessed unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works Beatos dicit quibus hoc sanxit Deus ut sine labore aliquâ observatione solâ fide justificentur apud Deum He calleth those blessed concerning whom the Lord hath determined that without their own labour and any observation of the Law by Faith alone they should be justified before Him which are so clear and high expressions for Justification by Faith alone that for any Divine now to say works are required to Justification as well as Faith is either to suppose the Apostles and Prophets not to have known Gods intent and meaning or to suppose St. Ambrose and St. Augustine not to have known the intent and meaning of the Apostles I must yet further add one more Testimony that in the mouth of two or three witnesses this so heavenly Word of Truth may be firmely established And that shall be the Testimony of St. Chrysostome who upon the two first Verses of the fourth Chapter to the Romans where the Apostle speaketh of Abrahams Justification giveth us this Exposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For as much as the Jews did turn this point of Divinity upside down because their Patriarch the friend of God was first circumcised sc. before he was accepted as a friend The Apostle is resolved to shew them that even Abraham himself was justified by Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For that a man should be justified by Faith who had no works were nothing strange But for one that flourished in deeds of righteousness not to be made just from them but from his Faith was very wounderful and doth exceedingly declare the power of Faith Therefore passing by all others he maketh mention only of him that is of Abraham Chrys. Aug. 11. in
have made my heart clean I am pure from my sin He that hath made the best use thereof is most concerned in it and comprehended under it therefore he cannot say I have made my heart clean I am pure from my sins but he must lye to the Holy Ghost and be so far from cleansing his heart as immediatly to let in many unclean spirits the more to defile it For those two which God hath joyned together all the wit and power of man cannot put asunder even Satans filling the heart and lying to the Holy Ghost why hath Satan filled thy heart to lye to the Holy Ghost Acts 5. 3. And if Satan filleth the heart of those who make this lye then sure he also filleth the mouth of those who tell it And therefore the Church of God which is the pillar and ground of the Truth very much abhorreth this lye making this confession of her natural corruptions But we are all as an unclean thing Facti sumus ut Immundus omnes nos so the Hebrew and Chaldee in the singular number we are all but as one unclean man to shew the Uncleanness was from nature which was as equally derived to All as if all had been but one and making this confession of her personal corruptions which proceeded from the natural and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags Isa. 64. 6. Wherefore since Protestants and Papists both agree together in the former part of this confession as a Principle of Divinity 't is irrational in the Papists to disagree from Protestants in the latter part of it which is but a conclusion proceeding from this Principle For the natural corruption is the cause of the personal and therefore all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags because we are all as an unclean thing This being the full argumentation All who are unclean have an unclean righteousnesse but we all are unclean therefore we all have an unclean righteousnesse Quia opus justitiae immundatur inquinamento as saith Aquinas because our righteousnesse is defiled by our unrighteousnesse and by this we may fully understand that other text If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us 1 Joh. 1. 8. For we are clearly guilty of a double lye one against our own souls we deceive our selves another against the Holy Ghost the Spirit of truth and the truth is not in us Both are such pernicious lyes as to bring upon us inevitable destruction for he that willingly deceives his own soul cares not for knowing the truth he that strives to deceive the Holy Ghost cannot come to know it For as he hath not the truth in him in that he deceiveth himself so he keepeth the Spirit of truth away from him that he may deceive himself for ever Nor can we possibly use any evasion upon this text as if some men might say they have no sin though others cannot for he must think himselfe better than the best of Saints the Disciple whom Jesus loved and questionlesse he had a very good reason of his love who will needs say he hath no sin though by saying so he is sure to prove himself worse than the worst of sinners for he maketh him a lyar who hath promised forgiveness of sins and he maketh his Word a lye which hath shewed our need or want of that forgiveness for in many things we offend all Jam. 3. 2. and he putteth himself out of their communion who alone obtain forgiveness even the communion of true penitents of whom it is said If we confesse our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins 1 Joh. 1. 9. he that denyes himself to be one of this number denyes himself to be one of the communion of Saints unless St. John and St. James were no Saints and consequently makes himself uncapable of the forgiveness of sins Thus doth the second Milevitane Council gloss the words of St. John that they were not spoken out of humility but out of necessity and that the greatest the necessity of Truth Satis apparet hoc non tantum humiliter sed etiam veraciter dici Poterat enim Apostolus dicere Si dixerimus quia non habemus peccatum nos ipsos extollimus humilitas in nobis non est sed quùm ait nos ipsos decipimus veritas in nobis non est satis ostendit eum qui se dixerit non habere peccatum non verum loqui sed falsum It is evident that this was spoken not only out of modesty but also out of truth for the Apostle might have said If we say that we have no sin we extol our selves and there is no humility in us But when he saith we deceive our selves and there is no truth in us he sufficiently sheweth that whosoever saith there is no sin in him doth not speak truly but falsly And thus also doth the same Council gloss the words of St. James saying The Apostle was holy and just when he said in many things we offend All for why did he add this particle All but to shew that he agreed with the Psalmist who had said Enter not into judgement with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal. 142. 2. and with Solomon who had said There is no man that sinneth not 1 King 8. 46. And with Daniel who had said We have sinned and have committed iniquity Dan. 9. 5. and afterwards added ver 20. whiles I was confessing my sins and the sins of my people he would not say Our sins but My sins and the sins of my people because he did foresee by the Spirit of Prophecy that some in after ages would be ready to put him and such as he nay indeed much worse transgressours out of the catalogue or number of sinners Quia futuros istos qui tam malè intelligerent tanquam Propheta praevidit And at last upon these and the like proofes the same Council denounceth a terrible curse against those who should dare affirme that forgive us our trespasses was said by the Saints rather humbly than truly quis enim ferat orantem non hominibus sed ipsi Domino mentientem qui labiis sibi dicit dimitti velle corde dicit quae sibi dimittantur se debita non habere For say those Fathers who can endure that a man in his prayers should tell a lye not to man but to God saying with his mouth Forgive us our trespasses and saying in his heart he had no trespasses to be forgiven him Thus we have the authority of the Scripture and the authority of the Church both agreeing together in this doctrine That all men are sinners And though this was but a particular National Council in it self yet was it Universal and Oecumenical in its authority as consisting of Catholick Bishops amongst the rest Alipius and St. Augustine as appeares by the Synodical Epistle to Innocent the first and having been approved by the Catholick
us of loving what God commands if we hope to attain what God hath promised It requireth a sincere obedience of all doth not allow a wilful disobedience of any one of Gods Commands yet for all this if we will needs say That Doing or Obedience and Righteousness is the condition upon which Salvation is pomised to Christians we must take Sorrowing for Doing Repentance for Obedience and Faith for righteousness or we must teach a new Covenant of our own not of Gods making sure I am the Holy Church hath taught us both to say Deus qui conspicis quia ex nullâ nostrâ actione confidimus Lord God which seest that we put not our trust in any thing that we do And she hath taught us to say so at that Time when we are to prepare for our strictest Doings sc. those which accompany our Lenten Fast for this is the collect of Sexagesima Sunday So far is Holy Church which is much holier then the best of her members from placing the hope of life and Salvation in her Doings wherefore in this doctrine as in most others that we reject your late Church-men have sided against holy Church and consequently our Church-men can the better justifie their siding against them CAP. VIII The Conclusion 1. THe Doctrines and Practices of Papists as such are so grosly against the known word of God as to make all those of our Communion inexcusable who out of pretence of not having a flourishing Church chooâ—…e not to have a flourishing Religion 2. Their foretelling the mischiefs now befaln us was no more from the Spirit of Prophecy then their contriving or effecting them from the spirit of Piety THus have I gone through all your exceptions as plainly as I could but much more largely then I intended For the more I enquired into them the more I found cause to dislike them and could not but fully express my dislike for their sakes who by the effrantery of your late emissaries and by the impiety of our sad times are almost if not altogether perswaded to forsake the Church wherein they were made Christians under fond hopes of bettering their Christianity They are so beguiled with the pretence of your flourishing Church as to abate though I hope not to abandon the love of their own Saving Religion not considering that the same argument of a flourishing Church which is now used to make Protestants turn Papists would once have made all Orthodox Christians turn Arrians and may at this time make Papists turn Mahumetans and ere long if the sword proceed to cut and carve out Religion may chance make Protestants and Papists both turn Atheists Sure t is not just nor safe for Christians to go to Church as Dogs no more than to go to Hell as Devils for Company since they cannot hope to be saved for the greatness of their communion but for the goodness of their Religion And since the business of Religion is the love and the honour of God How can you seek the Patronage of the Creature as if he were more friendly and loving to you than the Creator and not sin against this love How can you religiously adore or invocate the Creature as if he were equally to be honoured with the Creator and not sin against this Honour The Angels see thou do it not is in this case most justly our Negative and though your men commonly say we are all for Negatives yet is the same Angels worship God as justly and as readily our Affirmative Do not then ask me where is my Church till you can answer me where is your Religion For 't is not in the adoration of Saints and Angels much less of their Pictures Reliques and Images because that 's against the second Commandement Nor in the invocation of Saints and Angels because that if mental is against the first if Vocal is also against the third Commandement and I hope you will not call that Religion which is directly against all Gods Commandements concerning the substance of Religion i. e. against all the three first Commandements Rather consider that by setting up your Church against Gods Word you do in truth pull down your Church since that can neither have Religion nor Communion nor Jurisdiction neither Verity nor Unity nor Authority but from Gods Word unless you will allow your Church to be a Society of your Own not of your Saviours making that is to be a Combination of sinners instead of being a Communion of Saints As for our parts we cannot but think it very impious and injurious for the Trustees of Gods Truth and mens souls to seek to baffle any private mans reason by inferring to him false conclusions much more to seek to baffle his Religion by imposing on him false Principles whether in doctrine against the Creed or in works against the Decalogue And such are the Conclusions the Principles of Religion you have obtruded in your exceptions and your Zealots would obtrude upon our belief and practice By which alone though I let pass all the rest it is evident to common sense that Protestants are not so faulty in receding from Papists as Papists are faulty in receding from Gods Truth Bring you Gods Truth and your Church together and blame us if we keep our Church and your Church asunder But till you do so though you more love to make Objections yet we can better justifie the making them For whiles you object against our Church we object against your Religion and doubtless those Objections more savour of Truth and are less in danger of blasphemy which are righteously made against a false Religion than those which are unrighteously made against a true Church because the one are made for God but the other against him This is plain that whiles we object against your doctrine and worship we dispute for the Decalogue for the Creed whereas you cannot object against any doctrine that we profess or any worship that we practise by the order of our Church but you must dispute against an Article of the Creed or a Commandement of the Decalogue And though I will not undertake to justifie all our opinions much less all our practices yet for these doctrines wherein our Church dissents from yours and for this worship for which our Church separates from yours I dare boldly say God is not angry with us though you be 2. And here I cannot but add one observation which though it concern not your exceptions yet it very much concerns our defence that the world may not think us forsaken of God because we are oppressed by men And that is this Your writers indeed heretofore designed us to this very same destruction we now groan under by their Predictions but t was whiles they plotted it by their contrivances that the common rout might repute them Prophets whiles they were no other than murderers Hence as soon as we had withdrawn from you I mean as to your corruptions though not as to your Communion