over-rule all is in so dangerous a condition This will appear if they consider First that through the pretended infallibility of their Head they can have no certain ground-work or Reason of their belief but are in a way to lose all true Faith For let the Cardinal make the Proposition If the Pope could Erre or turn Heretick then would the Church be bound to this Absurdity or inconveniency of taking Vice for Vertue Error for Truth This he plainly laies down in his 4. Book de Pontifice and its good Doctrine in Italy and Spain Then let the Gallican Church and more Moderate Papists make the Assumption But the Pope may turn Heretick what can the Conclusion speak but the hazard of that Church which will be under such a pretended infallible Head Secondly That by being of that Communion they are taught to appropriate to themselves the Name of Catholick and thereby bound to an uncharitable condemning of all other Christians and to a necessity of proving many Novel Errors to be ancient Catholick Doctrine We do not envie them the Title of Catholicks that they should enjoy it together withall other Chrictians who are baptized into the Catholick Faith and do profess it without any destructive Heresie but the appropriating of that Title to themselves and that in regard of those special superadded Articles of Faith proper to that Church implies all other Christians to be no better then Hereticks and excludes all conditions of Peace unless they will come in as the Israelites to Naash with their right eyes put out 1 Sam. 10. Whereas upon due trial we may confidently affirm it will appear that no Church of known and ancient denomination as Greek Asian African British doth less deserve to be called Catholick or has more forfeited that Name because none so much falsified her trust whether we consider the Errors entertained or the Imposing them as Catholick and Christian Faith The three great concernments of Religion and so of the Church are the Faith professed the Worship practised the Sacraments administred all which are dangerously violated in that Church For first How have they kept the Faith undefiled which the Athanasian Creed so severely enjoyns that have mixed it with such New superadded Articles and lay the foundation of their belief upon the uncertain perswasion of a pretended Infallibility Secondly The Worship of God is there violated by the performing it in an unknown tongue for without understanding the people cannot say Amen The prayer on their parts is but a sacrifice of fools not a reasonable service Again Violated in yielding to the Creature an undue religious service as may appear by what is said in the three first Chapters of this Book Lastly Sacraments violated by addition of New ones and those properly so called A great invasion it is upon Gods property if any man or Church hold out that for the Sacramental Sign and Instrument of Grace which God who is the only Author of Grace has not appointed to be so Again upon that which our Saviour did undoubtedly institute a great invasion is made by first taking away the substance from the outward Elements and then taking away from the people half of that which remains Our Saviour said Drink ye all of it Mat. 26.27 The Church of Rome saith Ye shall not all Drink of it Nay None of you shall but the Priest only Add to this the Impossibility they put themselves upon as I said to prove all their New Articles of belief for which they will be the only Caâ—holicks to be the Ancient Faith and Catholick Doctrine of the Church They will hardly be brought to say The Church may make New Articles of Faith but rather The Church may declare what was before but implicitly believed This is true if duly explained yet will it not excuse the boldness of that Church For when the Church declares any thing as of Faith which was not expresly taught before it is such a Truth as was necessarily conteined and couched in the confessed Articles of the Creed and by immediate consequence clearly thence deduceable as the Consubstantiality of the Son declared against the Arrians the two Wills in Christ against the Monothelites the continuance of the Humanity in its own nature and substance against the Eutychians This is that which Vincentius saith in his 32. chap. What else did the Church endeavour in the Decrees of Councils but that what before was simply believed might afterward be more diligently and explicitly believed And to shew that the Articles of faith do not increase in Number but in the dilatation of more ample knowledge He aptly uses the similitude of the several parts of the Natural body which are as many in a childe as in a grown man no addition made of new parts for that would render the body monstrous but each part is dilated and augmented by degrees To this purpose he in his 29. chap. When therefore the Romanists can shew their Novel Articles by immediate and necessary consequence deduceable from the confessed Truthes of that Creed into which we are baptized then and not till then can we excuse this boldness in adding to the Christian Faith this uncharitable Pride in boasting themselves the only Catholicks III. May they consider how their Masters being engaged in such necessity of making good the pretended Catholick Doctrine of that Church are often forced to wink at the light and go on blindfold Their Masters acknowledg and so does their Trent Council that the worship of Saints and Angels Invocation of them Adoration of Images is not commanded but commended as profitable Why then should Scripture be so oft alledged to deceive the unwary why are they retained as profitable when Experience shews what a scandal is thereby given to Jews and Turks what offence to so many Christians as protest against them what a stumbling block to their own people exposed thereby to the danger of Idolatry They acknowlege that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament and administred it in both kindes and that it was so from the beginning received and practised in the whole Church yet will not the Court of Rome suffer the people so to receive it And in their defence of this half Communion they acknowledge if the Church alter any thing in or about the Sacraments yet it must be Salvâ illorum substantia saving their substance Concil Trid. ses 21. c. 2. which notwithstanding they can take away the whole substance of the Elements and defraud the people of the half of what is left and notwithstanding our Saviours Institution and the Custom of the whole Church for so many ages This custom must be held for a Law which none may contrary as that Council decrees in the same chap. They acknowledge it is fit the people communicate with the Priest in every Mass i.e. they acknowledge it is fit there should be no private Masses and they wish it were so and yet decree the contrary cap. 6. de Missa So
AN APPEAL TO Scripture Antiquity In the Questions of 1. The Worship and Invocation of Saints and Angels 2. The Worship of Images 3. Justification by and Merit of good Works 4. Purgatory 5. Real presence and Half-Communion Against the ROMANISTS By H. FERNE D.D. late Bishop of CHESTER LONDON Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to His most Sacred MAJESTY 1665. THE PREFACE BEing both provoked and invited to make some Answer to Mr. Spencer's Book of Scriptures Mistaken I assayed to do it as briefly as I could and it was needful I should confine my self to the Order he observed and to the places of Scripture he examined as urged by Protestants against the Romish Doctrine and Practise and to those he alledges as witnessing for it But seeing he boasts in his Preface that he will deal with the Protestants and beat them at their own Weapon Scripture and so comes not to the trial of Antiquity which he pretends and with too much confidence presumes to be their own therefore I shall add A Brief Survey of the Ancient Doctrine and Practise of the Catholick Church as to the points here Controverted that it may appear how they are worsted there what brags soever they make of Antiquity But it may be said There are Bocks enough and too many which do but continue the Controversie and keep the breach open More need there is to endeavour some closing and to make offers of Agreement True if we could conceive any hope of condescention on their parts or perceive any intent of Peace in them whom we still finde lying at the catch and laying hold upon all advantages which may promote their cause with all sorts of people into whose hands they thrust such Books as may render it more plausible and into whose ears they are continually whispering what may represent the Protestant as guilty of Schism and Heresie thereby enforcing us to break silence and to inform our People if we will not have them seduced of the cunning of our Adversaries to discover their Dawbings and vain Pretences such as Mr. Spencer and others sent over to the same purpose do use for deceiving of the Unwary Peace among Christians surely is the most beseeming the most desirable Thing in the world and would be considering how it now stands with the too much divided Catholick Church the greatest blessing and we have been sufficiently taught how to value it by the past and present distractions and differences amongst us But when we talk of Peace to them of Rome they are ready to reproach us with Physician heal thy self make up your own breaches and Divisions before you speak of being received into the Unity of the Catholick Church Let them alone a while with their so much pretended unity our first care certainly is to make peace at home and in the mean time as we see it the care and prudence of all States to guard the Borders against the Forrein and Common Enemy to fortifie those Doctrines wherein the Parties dissenting do agree and are as within common bounds enclosed And blessed be God we have a great expedient for the restoring of our Peace by the return of our gracious Soveraign unto us who is the true Defender of the Faith the great Example of Constancy in Religion and of Clemency in fogiving and forgetting injuries And when we his Subjects being assured of the Truth and Religion which he defends have also learned to obey by His Example and with mutual condescentions and endeavours of peace to entertain and embrace one another then shall our hearts be better prepared with a charitable compliance for the Adversary abroad when soever he shall think it convenient to admit thoughts of Peace and shall seriously consider how we are all bound to profess and believe One not Roman but Christian Catholick Church We cannot but be sensible what hand they that stile themselves Catholicks have had in kindling this fire among us and bringing fuel to it and we would have them being so oft convinced and told of it sensible how unchristian uncatholick a part it is how contrary to the Peace of the Church But could they that are sent over amongst us to blow the coals forget their Instructions and Vow of Obedience and they that send them learn to value the Peace of Christendome yet what hope may some ask could there be of an Accord in Doctrine If we consider what passed in the Germain Colloquies during the Time of the Trent Council and observe what condescention and moderation appeared then notwithstanding the intervention of so many Nuncio's from Rome and the so much boasted pretence of Infallibility in that Church If also we carefully look into their Controversie-Writers and note what concessions they sometimes make in the point what mincings of the Romish doctrine when they are put to it there may appear a possibility in the thing it self if peaceable men had the handling of it But when we consider on the other hand how all those endeavours for Peace became Fruitless and all the offers made at Truth by moderate Men in that Council were silenced and rejected and notwithstanding all their mincings and concessions in those points the Doctrine and Practise of that Church goes as high as ever We may imagine there are some over-ruling points of State-doctrine of the Court rather then Church of Rome which command the Rest and forbid all condescention and moderation such at least as may give us any hope of a tolerable agreement And thus it will be what ever we endeavour till order be taken with him that pretends to the Infallibility and exorbitant Power of whom we may say in this particular as the Apostle doth of that lawless person 2 Thess 2.7 He who now letteth will let until he be taken out of the way that is until he be reduced within the bounds of the Canons of the Catholick Church A glorious work for Christian Princes a work of greatest concernment to the Peace of Christendome But till that be done I would commend those considerations following to All that delight or are inclined to be in the Communion of that Church and in subjection to that pretended infallible and all-powerful Head I. Why should they desire to be under a lawless boundless Power under a Head so notoriously perjured If this seem harsh let them seriously consider what they in reason and conscience finde to excuse him from that charge who bindes himself by Oath in the Conclave and then in the Papal Chair holds himself loose from what he sware to observe who also swears to observe the Canons of the Ancient General Councils yet will not keep within the bounds they have set Him but challenges and exercises an Universal Jurisdiction to the overthrow of that Government which those Canons have fixed in the Way of the Church II. Why they should so much desire to be of the Communion of that Church which while the Court of Rome is suffered to desine all to
free promise and liberality Seeing then the matter stands clean otherwise between God and man as appears by the former concessions of free grace for the performance of free acceptation of it unto reward of free and liberal promise in appointing the reward the service or work cannot be truly meritorious And certainly these considerations did and still do cause diverse in the Church of Rome to decline this truly meritorious Against merit of condignity in goodworks or merit of Condignity as we may gather by the * Bel. l. 5. de justific c. 16. sect quod attinet Cardinal acknowledging it of Tho. Waldens And of P. Brugens who would have them call'd meritorious not ex condigno of condignity but ex gratia Dei tantum only of the grace of God which is the ancient notion of the word meriting as it signifies the obtaining of the reward through the grace and liberal promise of God and speaking of Durand he saith that the same arguments that fight against the Hereticks fought against his judgment in this point Bel. de Just l. 5. c. 17. sect Alâ—j contra Also of Scotus and other Schoolmen and of Viega that they held good works meritorious only ratione pacti in regard of Gods compact and promise not ratione operis for the worthof the work which falls in with the former so that the Cardinal finds only this difference between the Lutheran doctrine and theirs They hold good works verè bona non peccata truly good and not sins which the Lutherans did not That we grant them truly good and not sins was said above But this satisfies not the Cardinal and therefore chap. 18. endeavours to prove them meritorious ex condigno not only ratione promissionis because of the promise assuring the reward but ratione operis because of the worth of the work it self and fears not to affirm that God is made our Debtor Non sola pro missione sed etiam ex opere nostro Deus efficitur Debitor Bel. ibid cap. 18. not only by virtue of his promise but also by reasonof our work This I note to shew how the reason of verè mereri truly to merit does force from the Cardinal who strives to defend it such affirmations and from others who did not see how merit could be properly between God and man such concessions and yeilding up of the Cause For this being agreed according to former Concessions First What is required to make a work truly meritorious and then what man receives of Gods free grace to enable him for working and how man stands indebted to God the controversy is at an end all their proofs fall short as not ad idem to the point all our proofs from Scripture stand good against merit properly taken and the mistakes Mr. Spencer would fasten on us appear frivolous as we shall now see The first place he sets down as alledged by us is Rom. 8.18 The sufferings of t his present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory Nothing here saith he against merit Why so because Goodworks produce eternal life but not ex condigno as a grain of mustard-seed is not to be compared with the great bulk it bears yet it produces it so do sufferings the fair tree of life as Saint Paul 2 Cor. 4.17 This flourish of a similitude in transferring things Physical to Moral neither proves nor answers any thing Controversal Again it comes not home speaking only to the word Compared whereas the force is in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not worthy which in comparing things Moral as the work and the reward is mainly considerable so is here a great deal of difference between Physical or Natural productions and Moral For we grant that the small sufferings of this life may produce or work as S. Paul saith there in their way and measure a more exceeding and eternal weight of glory but if this Author will have it any thing to the reason of merit he must affirm that sufferings and good works do produce it veritate insitâ by their own virtue and worth as that seed doth the bulk which comes of it by its own inbred vertue The next place is Luc. 17.10 When ye have done all say Vnprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty The mistake here he imputes to us is because we will have merit excluded here Unprofitable servants in respect of God by this acknowledgment of doing but our duty and being unprofitable Why then saith he deserves a servant his Wages by doing his duty and nothing else pa. 169. Because duty of a servant does not exclude merit or desert for the servant is not bound to that duty antecedently or before his voluntary compact or Covenant with his Master as man stands bound to God Neither does the Master supply the Servant with life health ability these the servant brings with him and therefore may be said to merit or deserve his wages though his service was duty after covenant with his Master It is not so between God and Man For the acknowledgment of being Vnprofitable servants Who saith he can bring profit to God hence is only proved that God is no way beholden to us but we owe to him for all our good works this is good Catholick doctrine but contrary to what his Master the Cardinal saith as * Num. 2. above cited and directly overthrowing the vâ—re mereri the merit of works in any proper sense for if we owe to him for all our good works as we do because he enables us to do them by his grace how can we merit properly by those works at his hands therefore we are all to humble our selves before him and to acknowledge that all our merits are his gifts and the reward bestowed on them grounded on his free promise and acceptation of them for the merits of Christ so he pa. 169. This is good doctrine again but still contradictory to merit for if his gifts then not our merits if reward upon free promise and divine acceptation then are not our works truly meritorious of such reward Nor will such concessions which Truth and shame forces from you salve the matter whilst your doctrine delivered in Gross teaches to plead merit and to place confidence in it that is to be proud of your own works and to excuse it by saying Thou O Lord hast given me to be confident and think thus well of my doings Thou O Christ hast merited that I should merit That saying Our Merits are his Gifts though it be S. Augustines yet as used by you together with your other sayings do no more witness you humble in this point then the Pharisee was who said God I thank thee c. yet all the while was proud and conceited of what he had done and so returned unjustified nay he did not as we can gather adde the conceit of merit to his doings and therefore more justifiable then a Romanist
the presence but believe the communication of it to all the purposes of the Sacrament But hear a great subtilty that bread should be a Sacrament of his body cannot saith he stand with the Protestant doctrine Bread how Sacrament of his body which in the little Catechisme defines a Sacrament to be an outward visible signe of an inward spiritual grace but our Saviours body in the first institution was as visible as the bread and though after Ascention his body became invisible by reason of the distance yet that makes it not an inward spiritual grace his conclusion is therefore bread could not be the Sacrament of his body 283. Mr. Spencer surely thought he was dealing with children that had newly learnt their Catechisme for see him presently afraid this should be returned upon themselves He knows first that albeit our Saviours body was in the first institution visible and so it is still visible in it self and knows also that no men make more use of his invisibilitie in the Sacrament then the Romanists do His body is broken eaten blood shed drunk in the Sacrament invisibly yea all this really done but invisibly when he was visible himself to the Apostles in the first institution and before his body was indeed broken or his blood shed on the Cross Thus can they make all good by the virtue of this word invisible yet will not allow Protestants to make Christs body and blood the inward spiritual part of the Sacrament because he was visible Nay but though he be now invisible yet is not his body the inward spiritual grace this is Mr. Spencers subtiltie but he that makes the blood go along with the body that who receives the one has the other too might allow us here a concomitancy of Christs body and the spiritual grace which as I said goes alwayes along with it so that as in the general definition of a Sacrament it is said signe of an inward spiritual grace so in respect of this particular Sacrament it may be said signe of Christs body and blood which is here by the outward visible part of the Sacrament represented conveyed with all the spiritual effects and graces Well we are to thank him for venting that subtiltie Mr. Spencers several confessions of truth in this point of the Sacrament for it brings him presently to plain confession of truth he did see that by his former precious argument against the Protestants any man might think if he were in earnest it would follow there is no Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ and therefore he subjoyns pa. 283. line ult yet we are not constrained to acknowledge there is not a Sacrament why For iâ— signifies that heavenly and divine grace which by vertue of it is given to nourish our souls which is truly inward and spiritual this is well but if the spiritual grace be given by vertue of it i. e. the Sacrament does not the Sacrament give that grace by vertue of Christs body given in it Yea we hear him presently acknowledging also that our Saviours body invisibly existent in this Sacrament and nourishing our souls may be truly called a spiritual grace and inward too when it is Sacramentally received very good all this But is there no sign of this body Hear him also saying that which sensibly appears and is called Sacramentum tantum the Sacrament only is a Sacramental sign of our Saviours body p. 284. All this acknowledged to the defiance of his former subtiltie and what could a Protestant desire more Only when he said nourishing our souls he adds and our bodies which I take to be a slip for it is not the doctrine of his Church to say Christs body nourishes our bodies And now in the name of God why should he not acknowledge the advantage of truth to be on the Protestants side for thus far we agree that there is divine grace by vertue of the Sacrament given to nourish our souls that that which appears in the Sacrament is the Sarramental signe of our Saviours body that our Saviours body is truly existent or given in the Sacrament that our Saviours body nourishes our souls Now in the difference between us see which has the advantage 1. Transubstantiation a wrong to the Sacrament several wayes That which sensibly appears saith he and is called Sacramentum tantum is the Sacramental signe of our Saviours body but what is that which appears he tells you presently those shews and species under which he will have Christs body to exist but are these fit to bear the name of a Sacrament Of the Sacramental signe of a body What advantage would this have given to Marcion in his conceit of our Saviours body as phantastical and in shew and appearance only Can these shews and appearances of bread serve to the uses of the Sacrament the corporal breaking the eating the nourishing Whereas Protestants retaining the substance of the Sacramental element Bread preserve the outward part of the Sacrament and all the uses of it without which the Sacrament is mairned if not destroyed preserve I say the outward part without prejudice to the inward which is Christs body and blood for we hold of it as above existent really given and nourishing the soul which is the full purpose of the Sacrament as to the inward spiritual part But 2. they prejudice the inward spiritual part by making it existent under those shews or species as he saith here for how would this have confirmed Eutychians if it had been really the doctrine of the Church then who upon the mistake of the Churches doctrine as Theodoret in his Dialogues shews made semblance for their heresie saying the humanity of Christ is swallowed up into the divinity shape and figure remaining as the Bread is in the Sacrament shape only and appearance remaining Again they binde our Saviours body so to these shews and species of bread that Christs body and they make unum quid but one thing so that Christs body goes along with them wheresoever they go or are cast into the mouthes and stomacks of wicked men and stayes wheresoever the species are till putrefaction of the species if they without the body of Bread be capable of it drive the body of Christ away This and hundred prejudices and inconveniences follow upon this unnecessary phansie of putting Christs body under the species in the place of substantial bread we as was said preserve the Sacrament intire acknowledging the very body and blood really given in the Sacrament to every one that comes duly to receive given I say to all the purposes of the Sacrament What he sayes p. 285. The words of Institution This is my body are properly and literally to be understood when there is nothing that constrains us to the contrary might pass for a truth if he did not suppose there is nothing constrains All the former inconveniences inconsistencies with many more tending to contradiction do constrain to the contrary To
whether the book be forged or no and the story of Justina true or false yet Nazienzen approves the fact or practise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We answer that he tels us she betook her self to God for help and to Christ that she strengthened her self with the Examples of Susanna Daniel c. then follows having considered these things she also supplicated the Virgin Mary that she would help a Virgin now in danger and so he leaves the story neither commendig this practise nor reproving it We have seen what Testi monies the Romanists alledge out of the Fathers and how faithfully it is done especially by the Cardinal One Argument remains which all of them make from the success they found who applyed themselves to the Martyrs whereby it is evident that God did approve the practise But this is a fallacious Argument à non Causa making their invocation of the Martyr to be the Cause or motive of Gods hearing and granting success It is certain in History that many were heard who resorted to the monuments of Martyrs and prayed to God there yea many that prayed there to God with reference to the Intercession which the Martyr and all other Saints made for the Church below but if some were heard that did directly invocate or pray to the Martyr of which Examples cannot certainly be given we may say God overlooked the Excess or the voluntaries of their mouth as St. August Aug. Confess l. 9. c. 13. Voluntaria oris mei call'd his Excesses or breakings out in his praying for his mother whom he believed to be in bliss hoping that God would pardon the extravagance And as the same Father insinuates God overlooked and pardoned the infirmities of the Midwives not speaking altogether according to truth Aug. Qu. 12 in Exod. non potuit ad laudem sed ad Veniam pertinere and rewarded their good will Exod. 1.20 Their untruth could not deserve praise might obtain pardon So when the Romanists urge the miracles which Augustine sent hither by Greg. the first is said to work as Gods witness to the Truth of all the Doctrines he brought from Rome we say those Miracles supposing them to be wrought were Gods witnesses to the Catholick Faith which Austin preached and planted here not to all that he taught God in mercy overlooking those lesser errors and vanities when he was pleased and saw it fit to give testimony by those Miracles to the Faith of Christ But this may suffice for the former Argument If therefore we be asked why we do not conform in this practise to the Ancient Church it may be answered Because we see what the more Ancient Church held and practised and we find by St. Aug. conFaust l. 20. c. 21. Alind est quod docemus aliud quod sustinemusEt donec emendemus to lerare compellimur Aug. that many things were done at the Martyrs Tombs but not by the better sort of Christians as we noted above Sect. 1. nu 6. and that in his answer to Faustus about the worship or honour given to Martyrs he concludes thus It is one thing that we teach another thing which we bear with and we are compelled to tolerate it till we can amend it Therefore because we saw much deflexion in the Romish practise from the Primitive Verity when we had opportunity and power to amend it the thing St. Aug. desired we did it and with good Reason allowing in this point what may consist with Catholick Doctrine such we count the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the wish of having benefit by those prayers which the Saints above make for the members of the Church militant and labouring below yea such we may account the indirect Invocation which begs of God that benefit or effect of those Prayers but we cannot account the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or direct Invocation to consist with Catholick Doctrine when it is made to Saints and that by way of Religious address as the Church of Rome practiseth it in her offices which practise none of the Ancients knew SECT III. Of Image-worship HOw the Romanists labour in this point to stand against Scripture which so forcibly encounters them Romanists altogether forsaken here of Scripture and Antiquity we saw above Chap. III. and there was answered what they bring from Ps 99.5 to worship his footstool and the Images of the Cherubins upon the Ark This is the best and only plea they can make from Scripture yet so weak and ungrounded that their own Authors give it over as impertinent and raised upon a false supposal that the Jewish Church had any Images for worship as abovesaid Ch. 3. nu 10. Now let us see how they strive to bear up against the universal consent of Antiquity which with a strong Current for 700 years runs contrary unto them Our first evidence against this Image-worship The first Evidence Had there been any such thing amongst Christians those Ancient Apologists and Defenders of Christian Religion against Heathens Justin Clemens Tertullian Minutius Lactantius Arnobius Eusebius would have mentioned it when they give account of the worship used in their assemblies Nay they could not have declined it when they set themselves to refute the Heathen Image-worship And therefore Tertul. Tert. Apol. c. 12. Igitur si statuas imagines frigidas mortuorum suorum simillimas non adoramus quas milvi araneae intelligunt nonne laudem in his Apologetick professes and defends their not worshiping of Images If therefore saith he we do not worship Statues and cold Images like indeed to the Dead whom they represent and which Birds and Spiders understand well enough it deserves praise rather then punishment See how he not only denies the worship but vilifies them as unfit for worship cold and like the Dead and that the Birds understand them and therefore fear not to dung upon them Minutius Faelix answering Cecilius a Heathen that objected against the Christians their having no Temples no Images gives reasons wherefore they had not or not used them in worship Clemens Alexandr as he denies the Jewish Church had any Images to worship saying * Clem. strom 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses set no statue or figure in the Temple to be worshiped so is he very severe against Images among Christians insomuch that he scarce allowes the Art of painting or of making Images as we may see in his Protreptic Origen had to do with Celsus about worship and Invocation and to answer why the Christians gave it not to Angels whom they acknowledged to be ministring Spirits sent of God as they the Heathen gave it to their Daemons of which in the two former Sections But he was also put to satisfie Celsus why the Christians did not use Images and for which he compares them to Scythians Barbarians that had no Temples and Images because they knew not what the Gods or Heroes were How does Origen answer by saying as a Romanist
though he applies it to souls in Purgatory will fit all faithful Souls going immediately to bliss Again he answers The Church useth the same manner of speech in praying yearly for the Dead as if their Souls were then going out of their bodies or in their passage So then prayers anciently made for the Dead year by year need not suppose their Souâ—s were in Purgatory for such prayers may have as the Cardiâ—al yields â—o other meaning then they had at the Obit or Funeral of such persons which was to accompany them as it were to Gods Tribunal and to instruct the Living by shewing them what they that dye in Christ have forgiveness light rest joy Thus much for Epiphanius and Dionysius who on set purpose give us an account of this practise in the Church by which we see Their Prayers as they might be Petitions for what the Departed were yet to receive so were they Câ—lebrations and Congratulations in regard of what they had received and in both instruction to the living for confirming their saith and Hope as to the happy state of those that dy in Christ And by this also is apparent what was intended by Offering the sacrifice of the Altar for the Dead as they used to speak No more then the remembering of them in their prayers there and then offered up But more to this purpose in the next point Again The Prayers of the Church for the Dead must in all reason refer to such a state of the Dead as was then known and taught which as we saw above was inconsistent with Purgatory First It was held by many that the souls of the faithful were kept in a secret Receptacle till the Resurrection and it is probable that this opinion being so ancient gave the first beginning to these prayers for the Dead the most ancient forms of which begin with a Memento Domine Remember them Lord because they held such souls not yet admitted to Gods presence and did beg that God would give them Refreshment Refrigerium because of that burning desire they have to the time of their Resurrection and Light Lucem because they had not yet the heavenly light of the beatifical Vision This is that stay or expectation of the resurrection Mora resurrectionis Tertul. which Tertullian speaks of sometimes Secondly It was held by most as above also was shewen that the Souls of Just and godly persons dying in Christ went to bliss heavenly happiness who at the last day should rise first and receive their publick and final acquittance and consummation And certainly the Ancient Church in her prayers for the Dead had special relation to the Day of Judgement and Resurrection finding how much it is referred to in Scripture 2 Tim. 1.12.18 and cap. 4.8 and elsewhere And to this did also refer the offering of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist for them The Sacrifice of the Altar or offering of the Eucharist which implyed first praise and thanksgiving for all that were departed in the true Faith of Christ Patriarchs Prophets Apostles Martyrs and all other that were at rest in Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quiescentibus in Christo This is that offering pro dormitione for the sleeping of such which we meet with in St. Cyprian that God had taken such a one out of the worlds troubles and given him rest in Christ Secondly Supplication by vertue of that once offered All-sufficient Sacrifice to beg all the mercies and good things promised Chrys in fine Hom. 24. in Act. That they and we may attain to the good things promised saith St. Chrysost and so Dionysius spake of the prayers made with respect to the good things promised as we saw above such was a joyful resurrection a final acquittance a Consummation in bliss the mercy to be found in that day 2 Tim. 1.18 and so it was pro dormitione for their sleeping too by way of supplication For that phrase of St. Cyprian cannot imply prayer and supplication properly for who can be said properly to pray for the sleeping of such a one when he is dead but only in regard of the good things which he that sleeps in Christ shall receive at his awaking In the Liturgy going under the the Name of St. James thus Memento Domine omnium ab Abel justo facito eos requiescere c. Remember Lord all the faithful from Abel the Just Make them to rest in the Region of the living in the delights of Paradise in thy Kingdom This cannot suppose these souls to be in Purgatory for the Romanists cannot suppose Abel and the other Patriarchs to be in such a place So in St. Mark 's Liturgy for Apostles Martyrs Confessors it is thus prayed Give them O Lord Dona iis requiem in regno tuo Memento fa. mulorum qui dormi unt in somnâ— pacis rest in thy Kingdome So in the ancient Canon of the Masse Remember Lord thy servants which sleep in the rest of peace Now as some of the Ancient prayers mentioned Patriarchs Apostles Martyrs so all of them were made for those that were at rest in Christ and could not imply them to be in Purgatory Nor is it here implied that they wholly wanted these things that are prayed for but that they might fully and consummately receive and enjoy what already they had in part and in some measure The Reason of this remembring of the Faithful Reason of remembring the Dead in the offering of the Altar or Eucharist that are departed is because all the Faithful Dead and Alive belong to the same body and do therefore wish and desire mutually the good which each other are capable of they in bliss interceding for the Church below and we below glorifying God for their reception into bliss and intreating for their consummation and the compleating of Christs Kingdom and this most especially in the participation of his body and bloud in which all the members of the Church have their Interest and by which they receive what they have or shall have St. August speaking of the Kingdom of Christ above and below saith to this purpose Aug de Civit. Dei l. 20. c. 9. Nâ—que enim animae Piorum mortuorum separantur ab Ecclesia quae nunc est â—egnum Christi Alioqui nec ad Altare Dâ—i sieret eorum memoria in communicatione corporis Christi For neither are the Souls of the godly which are dead separated from the Church which now is the Kingdom of Christ Otherwise there would be no remembrance made of them at the Altar of God in the communication of the body of Christ Thirdly it was a known Truth held and taught in the Church that Souls after departure from the body do appear before Gods tribunal and receive their first and particular judgment therefore prayers were made for Mercy and Remission at or in reference to their passage thither the Living as it were accompanying them with their prayers
they acknowledge the Mass conteins magnam populi eruditionem great edification and instruction for the people yet decree it not expedient to have it or the Liturgy in the popular or vulgar tongue cap. 8. But if the Court of Rome had seen it equally to their advantage they could have held the people to that which they ought viz. the Communion as well as keep all their Priests from that which they ought not viz. Marriage They acknowledge that Justification precedes good Works Sos 6. c. 8. yet deliver this doctrine Justified by Works grosly to the People They know how it is to their advantage And in the 16. chap. of that Session They acknowledge the grace of God for performance of the work and his gracious promise of the reward yet decree that good Works do truly Merit Add to this their mincing of points of doctrine when they are put to it As when the enquiry is driven home what worship is due to Saints and Angels What Invocation to be used VVhat worship or adoration to be given to Images We see how they lessen it and seem to be contented with very little as we observe in Mr. Spencers concessions upon those points yet do they keep up the practise in the height and full extent suffering if not encouraging the people to perform it grosly and superstitiously as they must needs do being uncapable of such nice distinctions as are used to excuse that worship So when they are put to it in the points of Satisfactions Purgatory Indulgences to shew what is satisfied for what is remitted and consequently what is granted in the Indulgence and to what sort of Persons they are forced to bring it to such an uncertainty and to so small a scantling that the people if they knew it would consider well what they laid out that way before they parted with it but these points are so in gross propounded to the people that they have cause to think as generally they do they are by these satisfactions and indulgences freed from any sin and do escape thereby Hell fire it self This which has been said speaks concessions and yieldings on their part and shewes a possibility of agreement and that some fair way might be found for some tolerable accord did not filthy lucre gotten by those points and the exorbitant greatness of Papal power obstruct it the Court of Rome as we see in all the offers made for reformation being alwaies more sollicitous of upholding it self then of reforming the Church of advancing its own greatness then of promoting the peace of Christendom To conclude The peace of Christians the agreement of the Roman and other Churches is possible if 〈◊〉 e possible for the Pope to do his duty or Christian Princes theirs that is if he would do the duty of a Bishop of Rome or prime Patriarch the duty he is bound to sworn to in taking oath to observe the Canons of the Ancient General Councils which prescribe the bounds of the Roman and other Patriarchal Jurisdictions But if he make light of this and all other bonds of duty why should it not be possible for Christian Princes to do their duty in reducing him within those known and confessed bounds fixed by the Ancient Church In the mean time let them cease to reproach us with Schism till he return to his station where he may receive the obedience due to him by those Ancient Canons let them rather consider whom they follow in all his transgressions and extravagances thereby engaging themselves in his Schism against the whole Catholick Church And let them not please themselves with the specious Name of Catholicks for holding such points of Difference from other Christians as will upon trial appear to be far from the Truth and soundness of Catholick Doctrine And to make this appear by the undeniable Rules of Christian verity Scripture and Catholick Tradition as they are solidly set down by Vincentius is the scope and purpose of this ensuing Treatise If any of their Masters shall think fit to make any Reply let him do it not as one carping at small things and catching at seeming advantages but as one really intending the Manifestations of Truth and the Expedients of Peace the restoring of which throughout the Catholick Church is the Prayer of H. Ferne. The Points of Doctrine here Examined I. OF the worship of Saints and Angels II. Of the Invocation of Saints and Angels III. Of the worship of Images IV. Of Justification by Works V. Of the Merit of Good Works VI. Of Purgatory VII Of Real Presence VIII Of Communion under one kinde An Answer to Mr. Spencers Book INTITULED SCRIPTURE MISTAKEN By the Protestants CHAP. I. The first Point Of the Worship of Saints and Angels THis Author first tells us Introduction what the Council of Trent delivers touching the Worship and invocation of Saints and Angels not as Gods or Saviours but as Creatures dependent on God and Christ and that it is not commanded as necessary but commended as profitable and this to disabuse vulgar Protestants who think the Roman Church teaches it is as necessary to salvation to invoke and worship the Saints as to invoke and worship Christ himself Pag. 3.4 The Council indeed touches this point warily and in general which circumspection and cunning we finde used in most of the decrees they best know wherefore But Vulgar Protestants are not abused when they are told that according to the practice of that Church if we look into the applications made to Saints and their shrines both for the forms and the frequency there appears not much of that dependency on Christ but very much of an opinion connived at if not rather cherished among the Vulgar Papists that it is as necessary and profitable if not more to invoke and worship them then Christ himself But if they will commend this as profitable why did not the Council for the disabusing their own people condemn those unprofitable poisonous forms of invocation yet extant in their books and used in their Churches why has it not yet anathematiz'd that blasphemous Lady Psalter and that horrid doctrine broached by Aquinas and still maintained by most of this Authors soâ—iety that the Image is to be worshipped * Greg. de Val. in Thâ—disput vi Qu. xi puncâ—o 6. Azor. Instit Mor. To. 1. li. 9. c. 6. qu. 5. with the same worship with which he is whose Image it is So that if it be the Image of Christ it is to be worshiped with divine worship The †Bel. de Imaginib l. 2. c. 22 Cardinal acknowledges they which speak so are forced to use distinctions which they themselves scarce understand much less the people So that Mr. Spencer had need look home to disabuse his own people The first place of Scripture Matth. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Numb I Here he needlesly spends time in shewing that worship and service may be given
examination and for reasons following it will appear plainly that the worship as by them allowed and performed to Saints and Angels must be call'd Religious according to his first and stricter sense of Religion and so by his own confession undue to Creatures But before we come to our reasons let us hear how Greg. Val. in Tho. 2. 2ae disp 6. qu. 1. punct 2. de Val. expresses this matter a little more clearly He speaking of the Acts of the vertue of Religion as the School calls it tells us some of them pertain to it remotè imperativè remotely and only as commanded by it this with Mr. Spencer is religious in the larger sense some pertain to it proximè elicitive immediately and more inwardly proceeding from it and declaring a subjection due to God such acts are prayers oblations sacrifices vows c. This is religious in Mr. Spencers first and stricter sense accordingly the Schoolmen treat of those particulars as Acts or immediate exercises of the vertue of religion Now albeit Valentia and Mr. Spencer and all of them affirm that religious worship according to this sense is due only to God which is a great truth and do deny that the worship they give to any creature is to be called religious so or that it pertains to religion in that stricter sense which is also true as to many things they do to Saints and Angels being not so much as remotè and imperativè by way of command from true religion yet as used and exercised by them those acts of their worship are interpretativè acts of religion according to the first sense so to be interpreted and accounted of as to them and their performance as all undue and misapplied worship given to the Creature in way and exercise of religion yea given to a false God is to be accounted of This will appear in the reasons following The first reason shall be that which Azorius one of the same Society gives How the Romish creature-worship must be accounted religious Azor. Instit Mor. part 1. l. 9. c. 10. qu. 2. because the virtue of religion is not of two kindes one which gives God his worship and another which gives worship to Saints their Images and Reliques And they saith he that think religion is not of one kind are moved by the reason of the several kindes of dignities and excellencies in things this was Mr. Spencers reason of his several sorts of worship as above nu 3. and so it is Bellarmines reason but religion saith Azor is not a virtue which generally gives to any one worship for the excellency but which gives Divine worship and honour to God and * Non igitur religio quicquid excellit honorat colit sed â—â—icquid divinum est et quâ ratione divinum est quemadmodum ergò unus Deus est fic una quoque specie religâ—o est Azonâ— ibid. therefore the virtue of religion does not honour and worship whatsoever excels but whatsoever is Divine and as it is Divine wherefore as God is but one so religion is but one in kinde Now this is very true and rational and concludes all religious worship to be Divine and only due to God and that albeit there be an honour due to such excellencies an honour commensurate to them yet not a religious worship But what will Azorius then say to the religious worship given to Saints and their Images in the Church of Rome It is the objection immediately following and he answers not by mincing the matter as most of his fellowes do by saying it is religious in a remote or a large sense such a sense as considering what they do and allow in that Church speaks nothing to the purpose or by saying it is an act of special observance as Greg. de Val. would lessen it to no purpose as see below num 8. or by other frivolous distinctions used by them in this point of worship No. He seemed to consider what is done and allowed in their Church and that all such excuses help not therefore * Sanctos honoramus non solum co cultu quo homines virtute dignitate praestantes sed etiam divino cultu qui est actus religionis Sed divinos cultus honores non damâ—s sanctis propter seâ—psos sed propter deum qui eos sanctos effecit Azor. ibid. qu. 5. he saith down right and saith it often in this chapt that it is Divine which in Mr. Spencers strict sense is religious honour and worship which is given to Saints in erecting Altars Offering making vowes to them invoking of them c. and excuses it from Idolatry by saying it is given them not for themselves but for Gods sake that made them such But there is enough in Greg. de Val. and Bell. and other Romish writers to shew that divine honour given to the creature though with such reference to God cannot be defended which is a great truth so then between these truths the Church of Rome must be in a great strait it gives and allowes according to what Azorius proved a divine and religious worship to creatures and according to the truth that the other deliver it cannot be defended in it Second reason What does religion in Mr. Spencers strict sense sound but that virtue and devotion of the heart which sends out such expressions of subjection and worship in the exercises of religion and what is the Romish worship but the exercise of that devotion or religion which is in the heart of any Romanist so desiring to express it self and how is it expressed and performed but by their addresses to God Saints Angels by the former acts of Religion Prayers Praises Vows Offerings Look into their offices private publick observe what is done at their Altars Shrines Images what prayers offerings vows made there see their incense burned before an Image which is a consumptive oblation and as much as was done to the brazen Serpent and as for Prayer one of the Acts of religion under it * Val. disp 6. qu. 2. de oratione â—unct 10. Valentia puts their dayly recital of the office which contains prayers to Saints and Angels and therefore this worship by prayers vows to Saints in their way of religion must belong to religion in the first sense as immediate exercises thereof Thirdly they do not only use those immediate acts of religion prayers praises vows giving them to Saints in their exercise of religion but in these religious acts joyn the Saints with God Athan Orat 4. contra Arianos which Athanasius makes an Argument of the unity of the Son with the Father else he could not be joyned with him in prayers in praying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to joyn the Son to the Father which he denies to all creatures so when St. Paul prayes 1 Thess 3.11 Now God himself and our Lord Jesus direct c. Now see how in the Church of Rome they joyn the
against those that joyned the observation of legal ordinances with the profession of Christ and therefore it is very probable he condemns such worshipers of Angels as did it upon that account because the law was given by the disposition of Angels * In Colos c. 2. Theodoret who is shuffed in among the rest of the Fathers cited by this Author speaks directly to this purpose that these worshippers of Angels were such Christians as joyned the observation of the law with the Gospel and therefore used them as mediatours because the law was given by their ministry The other Fathers cited by him speak of strange phansies of some Hereticks about Angels but without such reference to this place of the Apostle as Theodoret doth who comments upon the Text and cites the canon of the Synod of Laodicea a place not far from Coloss forbidding any to pray to Angels Oecumenius also upon the text agrees with Theodoret touching these Angel-worshippers and out of Chrysostome for he borrows it from him shews the pretence they made of humility in this their going to God by Angels saying * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chryst Oecum in locum It was more then belonged to us to go to God by Christ which excludes Mr. Spencers pretence above that these were such as made Angels equal or superiour to Christ when its plain they in humility applyed to them as of inferiour rank As for his reason from the Apostles adding not holding the head that proves not that they placed the Angels in Christs stead or destroyed his soveraign headship directly as the phansie of those Hereticks he would have here to be meant did for he may be said not to hold the head that holds it not in that manner he ought or because this worshipping of Angels was the way to let go the head as in the Church of Rome their worshipping of Angels and Saints and their Images draws off the people much from Christ And albeit the Church of Rome does not retain the observation of the law as these did and so has not the same cause of their worshipping Angels as they had yet let the cause or motive be what it will for the same deslexion from truth and duty has not alwayes the same motive they of the Church of Rome have the same pretence of humility in their coming to God by the mediation of Angels and do place the Angels where they should not intruding into things they have not seen and not holding the head the one mediatour between God and man as they ought Again he will have us mistaken * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Religion of Angels in rendring the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a worshipping when it should be translated a religion of Angels and thereupon declaims against Protestants as having a design in it pa. 45.46 But this is needless for the word religion had been more advantageous to us in as much as we yield a worship to creatures but when religion is added to it we mean it a worship due to God as St. Aug. also said above Indeed if we look into the Church of Rome and well consider their exercises of devotion how they are directed how frequented there will appear a very religion of Saints and Angels And as in this point the Romanists are too like these half Christians whom the Apostle blames for their worship or religion of Angels so will they appear not much unlike to the Heathen Platonicks in their worship or religion of their Daemons and Hero's whom they placed and worshipped as celestial messengers and mediatours between men and the supream God Of which below * in the consent of Antiquity But to make up his number of mistakes he must needs repeat here also pa. 49. how worship was given to Angels by Lot and Joshua and that it may be call'd religious by Ja. 1.26 27. not remembring how much he is mistaken in giving us still for the worship we blame in them examples only of the worship we allow the bowing of the body to Angels when they appeared whereas we charge them with the worship which the Laodic Synod forbad which the Apostle here blames the praying to them and making them mediators nor will he remember how he is mistaken in telling us still St. James calls a work of mercy religion as if this were any thing to the religious worship they give to Saints and Angels which is the exercise or performance of their religion and devotion as religion belongs to the first table in a stricter sense whereas that work of mercy as all duties of the second table because commanded and proceeding from religion may in that general sense be call'd religious works not religious worship But indeed this Romish worship cannot truly be call'd religion in the larger sense or in any sense for it is not commanded it proceeds not from religion not dictated by that devotion and religion we owe to God it pertains not therefore to religion unless it be to the Romish Of all this more largely above CHAP. II. Of Prayer and Invocation NOw we are come to a special act of worship given to Saints and Angels the places of Scripture here examined are Come unto me Mat. 11.28 Ask the Father in my name Jo. 16.21 When ye pray say Our Father One mediatour 1 Tim. 2.5 We have an advocate 1 Jo. 2.1 The Protestants inference therefore we must come to God by no other Name Mediatour Advocate he will have inconsequent Indeed such arguments from the affirming of one to the denying all others are not for the most part concluding and valid yet in the point of Gods worship they are of good force if we allow the truth of the rule which S. Aug. de consensu Evang. l. 1. c. 18. Aug. saith that Socrates allowed God is so to be worshiped as he has commanded himself to be worshiped A general Rule for worship So that it must be a bold presumption in man when the Lord has in so many places prescribed the way to add thereunto by admitting and using other Mediators though inferiour to Christ What he saith to the Lords Prayer comes to this The form of the Lords prayer that Protestants by like argument might prove We are only to pray to God the Father and that one Christian living may not pray for another pa. 57. But this is not alike for we have command and direction to come and pray unto the other persons of the Trinity and also for one another living And we may call any of the Persons Father for all the works of the Trinity ad extra towards the Creature as giving life and being nourishing and preserving Fatherly acts toward us are as the School saith undivided common to all the persons but because we can also call God the Father our Father upon special relation by and through his only Son therefore this forme implies we ought to come in prayer to God the Father only
probable then comparing it with the latter he saith it is more probable then it yet the latter is more fit for convincing the Hereticks Where note that their best way is but probable and the Hereticks must be convinced in this point by that way which is less then probable So uncertain is this Article of their faith so unlikely to convince Hereticks however they perswade their people to it This Author saith nothing to their knowing of prayers he had indeed no reason to give himself the trouble of disputing that which their Church cannot agree on Beside all that has been said to it methinks reason should tell them how improbable it is that a finite Creature should admit and take care of ten thousand suits put up to it at once or that it should be consistent with the state of bliss for those glorified souls to be taken up or avocated by the care of earthly affairs yea such as for the most part are of a dolorous nature If God reveal unto them the conversion of a sinner as Luk. 15.7 which sometimes is made an argument by them its a matter of joy and answerable to their general votes and intercession for the accomplishing of the Church and consistent with their state of bliss Now come we to the prayers of men living one for another Prayers of men living for others no argument for praying to Saints departed often urged by this and other their Authors who having no permission or appointment from Gods word for making the Saints departed their Mediators and Advocates in the Court of Heaven seek pretence from this duty of the living Therefore to a Protestant asking how dare they admit of any other Mediator or Advocate then Christ this Author rejoynds How dare Protestants permit their children to pray them to pray to God for them for what is this but to be Mediators and Advocates pa. 61. And of Protestants usually commending themselves to the prayers of others This saith he is the very same intercession we put among the Saints and Angels pa. 62. Thus they are fain some times to mince it But a great disparity there is between the desiring of the prayers of the living and their invocating of Saints or Angels also between the prayers or interceding of men living for others and that Mediation or Advocateship they put upon Saints departed First We have warrant for the one and not for the other we therefore dare desire the prayers of the living because we are commanded to pray one for another and diverse reasons there are for it which hold not in the other case The mutual exercise of charity among those that converse together on earth and much need that bond as the Apostle calls it to hold them together Eph. 4.3 Col. 3.14 also the benefit we receive by being made sensible of others wants and sufferings Heb. c. 13 3. we our selves being also in the body as the Apostle tells us Lastly in this there is no peril of superstition as there must needs be in their religious addresses to the dead Secondly our praying others to pray for us is not Invocation or a Religious worship as theirs is to the Saints departed they placing a great part of their offices of Religion both publick and private in such Invocations Thirdly As the living when they are desired to pray for us are capable of this charitable duty knowing our necessities which Saints departed do not so their praying for us doth not make them Mediators and Advocates for us that is of a middle order between us and God Almighty as they make their Mediatours of intercession but as Comprecatores fellow-suiters of the same rank condition and distance with us from God in the mutual exercise of this charitable duty they praying for us at our intreaty and we for them at theirs St. Aug. speaks home to this purpose in two instances from Scripture Aug. contra Epist Parmen l 2. c. 8. Non se facit mediatorem inter Deum populum sed rogat pro se orent invicem si Paulus mediator esset non ei constaret ratio qua dixerat unus mediator St. Paul makes not himself a Mediator between God and the people but intreats they should pray one for the other so the living praying for one another are not therefore Mediatours nay doing it upon mutual entreaty and intimation are therefore not mediatours If St. Paul should be their Mediatour it would not consist with what he had said there is one Mediatour which proves the former consequence that the mediation they give to Saints will not stand with that one Mediatour His other instance is from St. Johns we have an advocate 1 Ep. c. 2. from which he infers the Apostle could not make himself a Mediatour and so makes it conclude against Parmenian who placed the Bishop a Mediator between God and the people we shall examine the Cardinals answer by which he would shift this off when we come to tryal of Antiquity But This Author misreports St. Aug. when he saith pa 63. The Texts admit only one Mediatour and advocate of redemption and salvation but more then one of praying to Almighty God with us and for us by way of charity and society as St. Aug. saith citing contra Faust l. 22.21 I suppose it should be l. 20. for in the place cited he speaks of no such matter but in the l. 20.21 where St. Aug. speaks of our honouring them by way of charity and society as we honour holy men living which this Author misreports as if said they pray for us which is truth but his adding with us supposes they pray for us when we pray upon knowledge of our particular necessities and requests which is false He closes up this point with the proof of pretended Scripture Their Invocation destitute of Scripture-proof If any desire to have the Invocation of Saints and Angels proved by Scripture he may please to examine Job 5.1 Gen. 48.16 1 Sam. c. 28. Pitiful proofs in the first Eliphaz tells Job if he take it thus impatiently he cannot expect relief or comfort from God or Angels whose ministry in those dayes was frequent in the second place Jacob prayes to God for his blessing upon the lads and wishes the ministry of Angels for them as it had pleased God to use it in blessing and delivering him in all his troubles or we may say as Athanasius and other Fathers do that the Angel there was Christ In the third he produces Saul worshipping and invoking Samuel which many wayes fails of proving Invocation of Saints both in the truth of the thing and the consequence Proofs these fitting for such Articles of Faith CHAP. III. Of Images THe Council of Trent as we see by the Decree touching Images Pretended care for the people would seem very careful that the people be taught how they may safely conceive of and worship Images and that all superstition and filthy lucre be
the first beast or Heathen Rome and I know not wherein one can be like the other more then in erecting a new kind of Idolatry or image-worship and in persecuting the gainsayers that will not receive the mark or worship the beast So that this Author and those of his communion may be concerned in this prophesie more then they are aware of I am sure they can have no advantage from hence for their image-worship I will but adde this one thing had this image-worship been used in Irenaeus his dayes and thought tending to Christs honour then would those Hereticks he speaks of who held our Saviour not to be the Son of the God of the Old Testament that made the world and gave the Law have had a fair plea for how should they think him his Son if allowing and taking it for honour what was so cautioned against and abominated by God in the old Testament and for which the Jews still do abominate Christian Religion viz. the use of images in religious worship It is a great piece of cunning in the Dragon or Devil to induce men to believe that this service of images and creatures so strictly forbidden by Moses Law is authorized by the Gospel allowed by Christ CHAP. IV. Of Justification by Works HAving set down the Trent decree against Justification by works before grace Merit of congruity and against the merit of them he challenges the 13. Article of our Church for charging the School-Authors with the merit of congruity in such works which he denies any of them to have held and is something passionate against the composers of the Articles pa. 138. and 139. But what need such anger here Seeing the Article determines the same truth as to this doctrine that the Trent decree doth it might have so far pacified him as to allow that parenthesis in the Article as the School-Authors say such a candid interpretation as it is capable of for it may refer to their expressing of the doctrine by that phrase of their invention deserve grace of congruity not to their holding of that doctrine for thus the words stand in the Article neither do they works done before grace make men meet to receive grace or as the School-Authors say deserve grace of congruity do but for say put in express or phrase it and you have that sense plainly But suppose the Article had directly said the School-Authors held that doctrine will Mr. Spencer hazard his credit and call it a great untruth and say none can be produced that held it It seems He is acquainted only with Thomists for though their Angelical Doctor did not approve it yet their Seraphical Bonaventure does not account it such an honour no more does Scotus and they were not without their followers Yea since the Council of Trent the two * Trigosius and Fr. Longus à Coriolano Commentators or Epitomizers of Bonaventure acknowledge it may be defended and do answer the objections from the Trent Decrees And as they say it may be defended and do defend it so I think to defend it is as little or less to Gods dishonour then their merit of condignity in works after grace which besides its own untruth is attended in that Church by more corruptions both of Error and Practice then the other is possibly capable of Of the seven Particulars which he draws out of the Trent Definitions pa. State of the question 142 143. he should have told us which he opposes to Protestant doctrine for not any one of them can be framed into a just Controversie Only he tells us that in the last chiefly consists the Roman doctrine of Justification by works pa. 143. See then what that last particular is and mark what this great noise they make of Justification by works comes to His last particular or collection out of the Trent decrees stands thus Being freely justified we may do good works and by them accepted through Christs merits become more and more just in the sight of God To fix it upon the second Justification is to yeild the Gause Wherein chiefly consists the Roman doctrine of Justification by works He might have added wherein we yeild up the cause to the Protestants for this is the second Justification as they call it and he knows unless he will grosly mistake that when we say justified by faith and not by works we mean their first Justification which indeed and properly is Justification and from which they themselves exclude works as the words above also do imply Being Justified we may do good works they follow Justification As for that which they make the second justification and is thus described by the Council of Trent Being therefore thus justified and made the friends of God there 's the first or true and proper justification going on from virtue to virtue they are renewed from day to day and using those armes of justice to sanctification you have Mr. Spencers words by the observance of the Commandments of God and the Church their faith co-operating with their good works they increase in the justice they have received and are justified more and more as it is written he who is just let him be justified still Revel 22. Now if this be their second Justification and they intend no more by it then is here expressed in the Trent decree viz. renovation day by day and yeilding up our members as weapons of righteousness to sanctification and increase in righteousness We have no cause to quarrel at the thing but only that they will call that Justification which indeed is Sanctification But if under this their Justification they intend also a meriting of remission by good works or a redeeming of sins done after grace by the merit of good works which neither the Council nor Mr. Spencer mentions but their earnest contending for Justification by works and some arguments their writers use for it too plainly shews they are concerned in it I say if they intend so and would speak it we would think our selves more concerned in the cause Now as Mr. Spencer thought good to premise seven collections he made out of their Council the better as he conceived to shew wherein the Roman doctrine of Justification by works did consist so I shall take leave before I come to examine his confused labour and impertinencies in the defence of that pretended doctrine to set down some particulars the better to shew wherein the true Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith doth consist I. Albeit good works do not justify but follow Justification Preparatory works to justification yet are there many works or workings of the soul required in and to justification what the Council of Trent saith Can. 9. pronouncing Anathema to him that shall say a wicked man to be justified by faith alone so that he mean there is nothing else required which may co-operate to the obtaining of the grace of Justification nor that it is necessary he be prepared
incumbent on us in order to our salvation Again he replies The obligation of that precept upon particular persons That command may be answered by saying It is a precept given to the Church in general that what our Saviour here commands be done p. 346. We have heard of an implicit faith but here is an implicit receiving so it be done in the Church the command is performed as if every Christian in particular were not concerned in the purpose of this Sacrament or could live by another mans eating and drinking At length perswaded by S. Thomas his authority he would not by S Pauls alone to apply the do this both to the Host and the Cup and to admit a precept in it for the Laity to receive this Sacrament he betakes himself to the usual refuge They satisfy the precept of eating and drinking if they receive it in either p. 148 149. that is they drink the Cup if they eat the Bread His S. Thomas his Invention of concomitancy will not salve this nor can the Reader be satisfied with the fast and loose this Author so often playes in answering to the precept Do this The order he speaks of prescribed by holy Church now ordaining both to be received now but one and to some the Host to others the Calice only doth no where appear but in the late orders of the Romish Church In the ancient Church though sometimes in cases of necessity one part might be administred privately never were such Orders made nor such practice used publickly solemnly or when both could be administred To Joh. 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood he answers It is a general command given to the generality of Christians to receive his body by way of eating and his blood by way of drinking and to every particular Christian to concurr to the execution of this command not that every one in particular is obliged to do both but that some eating some drinking others doing both each particular confers to the performance of the Command p. 351. Thus the body and blood shed are with them received in either kind by virtue of their concomitance and the command of eating and drinking is satisfied and performed by vertue of Concurrence every person conferring to the performance of it This is Implicit receiving so both be done among you it is sufficient when as our Saviour layes both upon every particular person and so repeats it in the singular He that eateth and drinketh v. 54 58. and that in order to his having life in him His instancing in the precept to teach and baptize all Nations Mat. 28. not binding each of the Apostles in particular to teach and baptize the whole world 352. has the fate of all his instances to be impertinent for it runs upon the extent of the object only the whole world which implyed an impossibility not upon the exercise of the whole duty or office which did not admit a liberty of forbearing either act of preaching or baptizing For as the obligation in the Sacrament is to eating and drinking so there to a double act of their office Teaching and Baptizing That Apostle that would set down with doing one of them only should not do his duty It is objected p. 356. If it be given so to the Church in general then may the command be satisfied and performed so be it the Church provides certain persons to receive and exempt all the rest In his answers to this we may see the giddiness of mans brain when set against the apparent Truth of Gods word If we take the sense saith he according to the common strein of Doctors every particular will be obliged by the words except ye eat and especially secing that S. 1 Cor 11. Paul extends this matter of Communion to each particular This is one Truth he so much streined against above notwithstanding those Doctors and S. Paul that every particular man is obliged but how and to what to eat and drink that 's express both in 6. of Joh. and 1 Cor. 11. but disjunctively as he saith elswhere p. 350. that is to eat or drink Heer 's the giddiness and vanity of wilfull error to make alimitation or gloss clean contrary to the text for our Saviours words oblige to these acts conjunctively eat and drink thrice in Joh. 6. and the Apostle Saint Paul thrice conjunctively eat and drink 1 Cor. 11. Secondly in answer to the former objection he grants it was not in the power of the Apostles to exempt any of the Twelve from concurring to the conversion of the Nations p. 356. If he will have this pertinent he should adde but it was in their power to exempt some of the Twelve from doing the whole duty or several acts enjoyned by our Saviour that if one of them taught only another baptized onely and so all partially concurred to the performing our Saviours command it had been sufficient He will not surely say this yet dare defend it in their Churches exempting the people from the one part of duty enjoyned them by our Saviour He subjoyns It is not in the Churches power to exempt any one from this precept by having it performed of other Christians appointed by her Anthority 357. Yet their Church takes power to exempt from one part drinking his blood-shed which lyes under the command and obligation as well as the other of eating Thirdly he grants here another Truth to the acknowledgment of his Impertinency above where he instanced in the freedom of receiving Priesthood and Marriage to imply a liberty of receiving or not receiving the Cup but here he grants this Sacrament is not left free as Marriage and Priesthood are without a divine Precept that every Christian sometimes receive it p. 357. This is fair but see the obstinacy still and giddiness of wilfull error That eating only is sufficient because our Saviour when he expresses himself in the singular number attributes eternal life to it He that cateth me shall live by me Joh. 6.57 Nay that the words ye eat and drink v. 53. cannot include a necessity of both kinds to every particular person without contradiction to this Text so he p. 358 359. As if one should reason If it be true that he who is born of the spirit shall enter into the kingdome of heaven then cannot the Text Joh. 3.5 unless a man be born of water and spirit include a necessity of both nor when the Scripture requires Repent and believe Mar. 1. that cannot include a necessity of both for the kingdome of heaven without contradiction to the Text Joh. 3. ult where one only is mentioned and life attributed to it He that believeth in me hath everlasting life Again it may be said that eating is sometimes mentioned alone in that chapter as answerable to the occasion of the discourse Manna and bread from heaven and as fit to set out the reception of faith which at the same time
also drinks his blood shed so it did till the Sacrament was instituted and so it still doth extra Sacramentum out of the Sacrament but if we apply this to the receiving of Christ in the Sacrament then drinking is as necessary both to answer the whole act of Faith and the whole purpose of the Sacrament in participating his blood shed and receiving a full Refection And therefore though eating only be expressed in that v. 57. yet he could not but see that our Saviour when he spoke in the singular number mentions and enjoyns them both v. 34 36. His instancing in the command about the Passover enjoyning to kill rost sprinkle and eat but not binding every one to perform all but some one thing some another p. 361. proves as all his former impertinent for the concernment here is in the reception or partaking of the Sacrament of the Passover by eating of the Eucharist by eating and drinking and I hope he will not deny but all and every one of the Israelites were bound to eat the Passover and to eat it as the Lord enjoyned it under pain of being cut off Exod. 12. Indeed if we take in all the actions to be done in and about the Sacrament of the Eucharist those that concern the consecration and administration as well as the reception of it every one is not bound to perform all but that which concerns the Reception belongs to all not to do all that our Saviour did but all that the Disciples then did belongs to all to do because they then represented the whole company of the faithful He closes up this point and his whole discourse with some passion against Protestants charging them with an unworthy and base esteem of the most sacred body and blood of our Saviour not thinking that either of them as they are in this Sacrament is fit to confer saving grace to such as devoutly receive them p. 363. Thus where Argument and Reason is wanting there Passion must make it out But as to the worth and power of our Saviours body and blood we acknowledge it * See N◠3. 5. above and the fitness of either to confer sufficient grace and how it does when in case of necessity the one is devoutly received but we question how they that wilfully refuse one of them the blood shed can be said devoutly to receive or can expect that sufficient grace which is given in the Sacrament to them that receive it according to our Saviours Institution It is not any derogating from the worth of our Saviours body and blood but a due regard to his Will and Command that causes us to stand upon receiving both What he adds runs still upon that Assertion that there is not any express command given in Scripture to all particular Christians to receive both pag. 365. which we shewed above to be false by our Saviours commands in his Institution of this Sacrament Drink ye all and Do this by what he severely denounced Joh. 6.53 by what S. Paul delivers as received from our Saviour 1 Cor. 11. That which this Author immediately subjoyns and the custome of the Primitive Ancient and Modern Church is evidently to the contrary will appear to be far from Truth as to the Primitive and Ancient Church when we come to the survey of Antiquity in this point To conclude I could wish that Mr. Spencer who pretends he undertook this work for no other end then to inform the misled spirits of this age as he tels us in the close of his book would have a conscionable regard to an open and apparent Truth which he contends against as in this so other points of Romish doctrine and that he would think of reducing those misled spirits which he has drawn out of the way by such deceiving assertions as he has delivered in this Treatise and bent all his wits to render them plausible to the Vulgar A Brief Survey of Antiquity for the trial of the former points Whether they can as held by the Church of Rome pass for Catholick Doctrine SECT I. Introduction VIncentius Lirinensis gives us a safe Rule for trial of Points of faith and Catholick doctrine Duplici modo munire fidem suam debet Primo divina legis authoritate deinde Ecclesiae Cath. Traditione cap. 1. If any saith he would continue safe and sound in a sound faith he ought two wayes to fortify his belief First by the Authority of Gods word or Scripture then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church bringing down from age to age the known sense of that word Then for the Tradition of the Church it must be universal to prove it Catholick Doctrine That is properly Catholick which was received or believed Quod semper ubique creditum c. 3. every where through all the Churches and alwayes through every Age. According to this Rule we ought to direct the Tryal and may justly expect that the Church of Rome imposing these and many other points upon the World for Catholick faith should give us them clearly proved by this Rule whereas we finde them in these points pittifully destitute of Scripture which is the first and main ground-work of faith Yet because Scripture is Scripture and by all Christians received for the word of God and challenges the first place in the Rule of Faith therefore they think themselves concerned to bring Scripture for every point such as their best wits have found out any way capable of being wrested to their purpose far from that clearness and force of proof which those places of Scripture have that hold out unto us matters of Faith SECT I. Of worshiping Angels and Saints HOw forsaken the Romanists are of Scripture here may appear Romanists here destitute of Scripture proof by what could be alledged by Mr. Spencer in defence of it as we saw above Cap. 1. from the reverence given to the Angels by Lot and others or to men living as to Elias and Elisha which proved impertinent and fell short of that worship which the Church of Rome allows and practises It is also confessed by some of them * Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disp 8. Sect. postremò that this business of worshiping and Invocating Saints or Angels is not expressed in the New Testament and reason given for it because it would seem hard to the Jews and give occasion to the Gentiles to think new Gods put upon them As little help have they from the Tradition of the Catholick Church or witness of Antiquity which here runs with a full stream against them And now for the Trial we will first speak to the General Religious worship as incompetent to a Creature though most excellent such as are Saints and Angels the particulars of this worship by Invocation and Image-worship we shall examine below Our first evidence of Antiquity shall be from the force of the word Religion The force of the word Religion whereby the Fathers did prove and
never destitute of an Evasion or whether indeed it be the doctrine of the Church of Rome and the meaning of the Councils Vere merentur that good works done in grace do as truly deserve and are as condignly meritorious of eternal life as sins and evil deeds are of eternal death I will not further inquire into but out of that which has been said we may draw up the Question to this Issue That the first way set down by the Cardinal and rejected by him Good Works are condignly meritorious in regard of the Covenant and Promise only was indeed The Issue of the Question if rightly interpreted the true and ancient Doctrine of the Church asserted by the Fathers and the former Writers of the Church of Rome as may in part be seen by those Authors whom the Cardinal and Vasquez have noted and rejected We need not here be afraid of the words condignly meritorious for being joyned with those words in regard of the Covenant and promise only they must have such a sense as their consistence will allow which is by interpreting the word meritorious according to the first importance of consecution or obtaining and the word condignly according to such a deserving or worthiness as stands by divine acceptation when we do the condition which the promise requires in such a sort as God will accept unto a rewarding Even as in Scripture holy Men are said to be just and perfect through divine acceptation So it comes to this plain Truth The good Works and Life of holy Men will be accepted of God as good and faithful service and certainly obtain eternal life See Mat. 25.21 Well done thou good c. In this sense the Augustan and Wittenburg Confessions did not abhor to use the word meritorious nor Brentius and Melanchthon as Vasquez notes of them and in this sense we need not be affraid to admit it and to say that good works do merit that is do obtain or are rewarded with eternal life through the gracious acceptation bounty and promise of God and one would think this were enough for us both to encourage us to do good and to comfort and stay us in the doing of it and persevering in it without standing upon any farther title or contesting with God that we have made him our Debter or that eternal life is due to our works for the worth of them This is therefore that which we deny That good works do truly and properly merit eternal life Truly and properly I say as deserving it upon the worth of the work and good reason have we to deny it Finding all they can bring from Scripture or Fathers as I hinted above impertinent and inconsequent to the proving of Merit truly so called yea it will appear that the more ancient writers of the Church of Rome are against it yea they that asserted it are forced sometimes by Truth it self to yield so much as may overthrow it First out of Scripture they give us two places bearing the Name of Merit Scripture alledged for the Name Merit but it is only according to their Latin translation not according to the Original Greek The one place is Eccles 16.15 according to the merit of their works so their Edition but the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is according to their works as we finde it often said in the Scriptures But Bellarm. reddere ficut opera merentur and Vasquez reply what is it to render according to their works but to render to them as their works deserve or merit to which we may say Albeit such expression as their works deserve may be very well admitted yet is there much difference between Secundum opera according to works and as their works deserve or merit taking the word Merit in the Cardinals sense for to say according to their works is but to speak the quality of them that it shall be well with those that do well and on the contrary evil to those that do evil it does not speak equality between the work and the reward St. Gregory speaks home to this purpose upon the 143. Greg. in 7. Psalmum poenitential v. 8. Si secundâ—un opera quomodò misericordia aestimabitur Sed aliud est secundum opera reddere aliud propter ipsa opera reddere In eo enim ipsa operum qualitas intelligiuâ— Psalm If it shall be rendred to every one saith he according to their works how shall it be accounted mercy but it is one thing to render according to works another to render it for the works themselves for in that where it 's said according to their works the very quality of the works is meant that they whose works appear good shall have a glorious retribution Another place they alledge for Merit is Heb 13.16 which in their Latine Edition has promeretur Deus as bad Latine as Divinity In the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well pleased and so by Occumenius the word is interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies as much as well pleased Indeed the Ancient Latine Fathers did some of them especially St. Cyprian according to the ancient and innocent meaning of the word Merit use to say promereri Deum i. e. to engage or obtain of God what he had promised but we do not contend about Words or Phrases Let us see what they bring for the proof of the thing it self Merit truly so called First they alledge all those Scriptures that call eternal life a Reward Their Scriptures to prove the thing From Reward and compare it to the hire or pay of Labourers We grant it is so often call'd but the Inference therefore our works or labour does truly merit such reward is inconsequent for the Apostle supposes there is a reward reckoned of Grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aug. in prafat Ps 31. as there is of Debt Rom. 4.4 Accordingly St Aug. Merces nostra vocatur Gratia Our Reward is called Grace and if so then is it freely given And St. Ambrose tels us in his Epistles there is Merces liberalitatis the Reward or Recompence of liberality where bounty is seen on the one part rather then desert on the other Between man and man there may be Merit and Reward according to debt or justly due not so between God and man yet is Gods rewarding set out by the other to shew the certainty of the recompence and that it shall be rendered according to their works not that the similitude stands good in all parts for the duty of man to God is antecedent to all covenant or promise the ability man has to perform it is from Gods free grace the reward given is infinitely beyond all that man can do Secondly Of Reward given in proportion to Works They alledge all such Scriptures as speak the reward given according to works therefore proportionably to the works and what is that else but according to Merit when as in giving there is regard had